9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
ANYWAY.

I see no bearing on realistic moral endeavors with Synthesis. Yes, the potential benefits are there but all beings have the right to consent, this is what gives us our humanity.

People have the right to choose, Synthesis is the ultimate.......dismissal of that. One man/woman has no right to make said choice.

Have you heard those stories about how they would chop off inoculated arms or refuse vaccination entirely? People don't like being subjected to such things. Yes, a potential polio inoculation would be great, but people have the right to choose.

You loose that right if your refusal endangers others. As it would in your example. At some point, the needs of the community take precedence over the needs of the individual. You can't set that right absolutely. No individual can exist in isolation, that's part of our nature.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You loose that right if your refusal endangers others. As it would in your example. At some point, the needs of the community take precedence over the needs of the individual. You can't set that right absolutely. No individual can exist in isolation, that's part of our nature.

"Revolution from above"

[psrz]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
ANYWAY.

I see no bearing on realistic moral endeavors with Synthesis. Yes, the potential benefits are there but all beings have the right to consent, this is what gives us our humanity.

People have the right to choose, Synthesis is the ultimate.......dismissal of that. One man/woman has no right to make said choice.

Have you heard those stories about how they would chop off inoculated arms or refuse vaccination entirely? People don't like being subjected to such things. Yes, a potential polio inoculation would be great, but people have the right to choose.

You loose that right if your refusal endangers others. As it would in your example. At some point, the needs of the community take precedence over the needs of the individual. You can't set that right absolutely. No individual can exist in isolation, that's part of our nature.

And who has the right to decide what's best for everybody ? Who has the right to impose such solution to everybody. ?
And let's not forget that that decision is made only with the information StarBrat gives, who implements a solution to a problem he only sees.

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You loose that right if your refusal endangers others. As it would in your example. At some point, the needs of the community take precedence over the needs of the individual. You can't set that right absolutely. No individual can exist in isolation, that's part of our nature.

"Revolution from above"

Yeah. And why not? Some current global problems would be rather less severe if more of that was happening.

@Nyoka:
This does not obliterate freedom. You're still free to do what you want.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 04:50 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You loose that right if your refusal endangers others. As it would in your example. At some point, the needs of the community take precedence over the needs of the individual. You can't set that right absolutely. No individual can exist in isolation, that's part of our nature.

"Revolution from above"

Yeah. And why not? Some current global problems would be rather less severe if more of that was happening.

How's this for a Godwin alternative?

Padme: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
Anakin / Ieldra2: Well, if it works...

Modifié par antares_sublight, 22 mai 2012 - 04:58 .

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You loose that right if your refusal endangers others. As it would in your example. At some point, the needs of the community take precedence over the needs of the individual. You can't set that right absolutely. No individual can exist in isolation, that's part of our nature.

"Revolution from above"

Yeah. And why not? Some current global problems would be rather less severe if more of that was happening.

How's this for a Godwin alternative?

Padme: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
Anakin / Ieldra2: Well, if it works...

Think of the quarians' admiralty board. They can, if they work together, overrule any decision made by the conclave. Then they must step down. I think something like this is a good way to enact necessary but unpopular policies. It makes sure that this will only be used with really important things, and it won't cement power in the hands of the few.
Many government systems have provisions to enact necessary but unpopular policies. It's a tacit acceptance that the public can be stupid at times. If the governments of Rakhana had enforced strict population control it wouldn't be uninhabitable, and much violent conflict could've been avoided. 

I suggest studying the phenomenon called The Tragedy of the Commons. A scenario where every individual of a group acts out of rational self-interest can lead to a global disaster. It's just a fact.

You can't set the rights of individuals absolute. It will end in disaster.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 05:23 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Think of the quarians' admiralty board. They can, if they work together, overrule any decision made by the conclave. Then they must step down. I think something like this is a good way to enact necessary but unpopular policies. It makes sure that this will only be used with really important things, and it won't cement power in the hands of the few.
Many government systems have provisions to enact necessary but unpopular policies. It's a tacit acceptance that the public can be stupid at times. If the governments of Rakhana had enforced strict population control it wouldn't be uninhabitable, and much violent conflict could've been avoided. 

I suggest studying the phenomenon called The Tragedy of the Commons. A scenario where every individual of a group acts out of rational self-interest can lead to a global disaster. It's just a fact.

You can't set the rights of individuals absolute. It will end in disaster.

I highlighted 3 points in your response. I ask you, how do those apply to Shepard, a single individual, making a decision for ALL ORGANIC LIFE IN THE GALAXY? He was not sent there to fundamentally modify all life, that was nowhere in his mandate.

[Ieldra]

@Nyoka:
I don't deal in absolutes, Nyoka. Just because Synthesis forces one change on people it doesn't "destroy freedom". Democratic governments make decisions all the time which many people don't like. That doesn't mean people aren't free in everything else. I am not saying freedom is bad, I am saying that setting it as the absolute, only value that trumps all others has disastrous consequences. Just as setting anything else as the absolute value.

And I can't stand if people interpret absolutes into anything I say. I hate absolutes. I hate dogma. I hate the mental inflexibility that comes with it, as if people are unable to see that things have different meanings depending on context, that what might be good in one context may be disastrous in another, that a course of action might be unjustifiable in one situation but obligatory in another. Unfortunately, people who cry "It destroys freedom" at every opportunity can be just as dogmatic about it as people who say "It's against God's will".

@antares:
The point I was making was one of principle. That whatever decision you make, ignoring individual freedom is not a catch-all argument to make a course olf action unjustifiable. How that applies to Shepard's decision is something every player must devide for themselves. As I see it, *every* option Shepard takes changes the galaxy. Destroy the Reapers? Perhaps you'll trigger another synthetic/organic war with billions of deaths 2000 years later. Control the Reapers? Well, synthetics are now the guardians of the galaxy, hopefully for good. Whatever you do, some people will say "we didn't ask for that". Or rather they won't because they won't know there were alternatives. Shepard has the right to make the decision because he - and no other - is standing at the fulcrum of events and he can't do nothing.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 06:44 .

[antares_sublight]

Nyoka wrote...
We can protest decisions governments make. We can vote against them and throw them off power. We can do strikes. We can refuse to follow orders if they go against our interests. We can run for office ourselves. We can disagree.

Your transformation denies everybody the ability to disagree, because otherwise the risk of someone creating synthetics would still exist. You make sure nobody ever again will think of making synthetics. Thus, you become the owner of everybody's thoughts. Because allowing people to have their own ideas will end in disaster.

Actually, and even more confusing, he states that synthetics can still be created. It's just that Synthesis makes it so the nanite parasites everyone has will ensure that the hybrids change as needed to they can keep up with the pure synthetics.

[antares_sublight]

Nyoka wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
We can protest decisions governments make. We can vote against them and throw them off power. We can do strikes. We can refuse to follow orders if they go against our interests. We can run for office ourselves. We can disagree.

Your transformation denies everybody the ability to disagree, because otherwise the risk of someone creating synthetics would still exist. You make sure nobody ever again will think of making synthetics. Thus, you become the owner of everybody's thoughts. Because allowing people to have their own ideas will end in disaster.

Actually, and even more confusing, he states that synthetics can still be created. It's just that Synthesis makes it so the nanite parasites everyone has will ensure that the hybrids change as needed to they can keep up with the pure synthetics.

...wat

It's in the OP.

IV.1(3):

(3) Invoking a different singularity
Third,
It is impossible to prevent a singularity because any intelligent life
form can build a self-improving synthetic, even after Synthesis.
Assumptions that there will not be any pure synthetics any more because
there will be no need for them are unsustainable: all that often, humans
have built something for no better reason than they could. Thus,
Synthesis will have to upgrade life sufficiently that it can, if it
needs to, act on the same level as a post-singularity synthetic. This
means that Synthesis will have to invoke a singularity-like event on
organic life.

[Ieldra]

Nyoka wrote...
The point of synthesis in Mass Effect is that all life is united so the conflict organic/synthetic disappears. I'm only interested in discussing Mass Effect, not some dude's fanfic, so I think I'll stick to the games, please consider my messages objections only to the synthesis presented in Mass Effect.

The point is that "the organic/synthetic distinction disappears" is logically impossible. Whoever you transform yourselves into, you can still build "intelligent machines". It is the metaphor overriding logic. Thus, I feel justified in saying that the solution must lie in something else, and fortunately, the leaked script provides me with an alternative:

C: You may combine the synthetic and the organic.
C: Add your energy, your essence, with that of Crucible. The resulting chain reaction will transform both of our kind.
C: We synthetics will become more like you, and organic life will become like us.
S: So we'll just... go on living, together?
C: It is a very elegant solution. And a path you have already started down. [Note how this points towards a symbiosis instead of a genetic rewrite-analogue]
C: The harvesting will cease. It will be a new ascension, for synthetic and organic life. [no utopian aspect]

I have no idea why they replaced sense with nonsense, but I don't have to accept nonsense if I have something better from the same writers, even if didn't intend that I see it after some point.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 07:40 .

[Taboo]

I had a very interesting chat with a psychologist today.

There was a discussion regarding isolation and basic human structure. Most people require some sort of human contact to remain healthy. We came to the conclusion however, that there are exceptions to this rule. Some people truly do not like contact with others. They choose to live in isolation.

Can you imagine the effects of Synthesis on such an individual? I'd be pretty frightened. Unless Synthesis provides some direct awareness of what has happened to said being I'd say we'd have a ****load of terrified people. What about tribes in isolated areas? What the hell happens to them?

[antares_sublight]

These nanites being discussed are parasites with unprecedented control over their organic hosts. What happens when they malfunction or revolt if intelligent enough?

[Ieldra]

@taboo:
Depends on the immediate effect I'd say. Odd. Perhaps a little creepy. But given the Normandy scene, the effects aren't that drastic. It's not like you'd suddenly grow tentacles or something. Perhaps people will be frightened, but if time goes by and nothing bad happens they'll adapt. The ability to mindlink would be much more frightening to some. Or not. There's really no way to say. No precedence. And it depends on culture.

@antares:
No idea if that can happen, but then you'd have a new kind of disease. Rather frightening I admit. Interesting story material. Possibly dangerous enough to remove the symbiont. To people used to them that would be like amputation. Temporary though, you can put a new one in.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 07:51 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
@antares:
No idea if that can happen, but then you'd have a new kind of disease. Rather frightening I admit. Interesting story material. Possibly dangerous enough to remove the symbiont. To people used to them that would be like amputation. Temporary though, you can put a new one in.

A new one from where? Recycled from dead hybrids? Production from other nanites? Injected? How does the nanite know where to go and what to do?

Do these nanites die with the host? Do they decay?

Ever seen those insect parasites that take over the minds of their hosts and drive them to do crazy things?

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
ANYWAY.

I see no bearing on realistic moral endeavors with Synthesis. Yes, the potential benefits are there but all beings have the right to consent, this is what gives us our humanity.

People have the right to choose, Synthesis is the ultimate.......dismissal of that. One man/woman has no right to make said choice.

Have you heard those stories about how they would chop off inoculated arms or refuse vaccination entirely? People don't like being subjected to such things. Yes, a potential polio inoculation would be great, but people have the right to choose.

You loose that right if your refusal endangers others. As it would in your example. At some point, the needs of the community take precedence over the needs of the individual. You can't set that right absolutely. No individual can exist in isolation, that's part of our nature.

My refusal doesn't endanger others...I still have destroy. And even EDI and the geth already stated to me that they would do anything to stop the Reapers,even die.

[Taboo]

I would think that people would have some idea of what's going on, as we can clearly see that no one panics.

If Synthesis doesn't force people into a Utopia and merely upgrades them to.....whatever we get I'm unsure what the benefits would be. We'd still have some pretty brutish Krogans running about and some very pissed off Salarians.

You'd have to force an understanding between all races but Synthesis doesn't do that. People will still hate one another or at least still have the capacity.

We have peace between Organics and Synthetics but what does it resolve besides that?

[dreman9999]

antares_sublight wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Nyoka wrote...
We can protest decisions governments make. We can vote against them and throw them off power. We can do strikes. We can refuse to follow orders if they go against our interests. We can run for office ourselves. We can disagree.

Your transformation denies everybody the ability to disagree, because otherwise the risk of someone creating synthetics would still exist. You make sure nobody ever again will think of making synthetics. Thus, you become the owner of everybody's thoughts. Because allowing people to have their own ideas will end in disaster.

Actually, and even more confusing, he states that synthetics can still be created. It's just that Synthesis makes it so the nanite parasites everyone has will ensure that the hybrids change as needed to they can keep up with the pure synthetics.

...wat

It's in the OP.

IV.1(3):

(3) Invoking a different singularity
Third,
It is impossible to prevent a singularity because any intelligent life
form can build a self-improving synthetic, even after Synthesis.
Assumptions that there will not be any pure synthetics any more because
there will be no need for them are unsustainable: all that often, humans
have built something for no better reason than they could. Thus,
Synthesis will have to upgrade life sufficiently that it can, if it
needs to, act on the same level as a post-singularity synthetic. This
means that Synthesis will have to invoke a singularity-like event on
organic life.

But that doen't solve the problem.
How do synthetic reaching technolgicl sungularity mean the death of all organics?

[antares_sublight]

Taboo-XX wrote...
We have peace between Organics and Synthetics but what does it resolve besides that?

The only apparent benefit of Synthesis is a promised peace between non-synthetics and a theoretical future synthetic race that is assumed to arrive at some point, but is never actually confirmed.