9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

They aren't dead because the organic material exists.

But it's more akin to a synthetic being implanted with memories that don't belong to it.

The Reaper is a new being, comprised of many others.

I can't thing of a term that doesn't sound crude but it is one being comprised of many others.

Frankenstein is far too grotesque. I'm thinking of Sean Young in Blade Runner. She has memories, but they are not hers. They belong to...Tyrell's niece if I remember correctly.

That's a bad comparison but I can really think of something concrete at the moment.

[Ieldra]

The organic material has the least to do with it. The Reapers have absorbed the minds of the Reaperized species' individuals. In some way. Deconstructed or not. Also, it's a transformation, a forced metamorphosis from many forms into one, so it's not at all unusual that memories and other traits are partly retained. They're as much the Reaper's as of the species it was created from. That the process was enforced from without does not matter for the result.

[Taboo]

The issue with that is that a memory isn't an individual.

My memory of hitting my head after my father pushed me has no meaning unless you have context.

The Catalyst preserves genetic material, not beings.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
The issue with that is that a memory isn't an individual.

My memory of hitting my head after my father pushed me has no meaning unless you have context.

The Catalyst preserves genetic material, not beings.

Yet again: it is not limited to that. "Uploaded and conjoined minds", remember? And "Civilizations preserved in their form". There is such a thing as metamorphosis. How exactly this one works we don't know, but it's pretty clear that the Reapers are more than animated flying museums.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 juillet 2012 - 08:31 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
The issue with that is that a memory isn't an individual.

My memory of hitting my head after my father pushed me has no meaning unless you have context.

The Catalyst preserves genetic material, not beings.

Yet again: it is not limited to that. "Uploaded and conjoined minds", remember? And "Civilizations preserved in their form".

Whatever it is lost context long ago.

Those minds form one being.

Civilization is a lot more than just beings.

It's art and culture and buildings and everything in between. The Reapers destroy all of that.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
The issue with that is that a memory isn't an individual.

My memory of hitting my head after my father pushed me has no meaning unless you have context.

The Catalyst preserves genetic material, not beings.

Yet again: it is not limited to that. "Uploaded and conjoined minds", remember? And "Civilizations preserved in their form".

Whatever it is lost context long ago.

Those minds form one being.

Civilization is a lot more than just beings.

It's art and culture and buildings and everything in between. The Reapers destroy all of that.

They destroy the material culture, but the knowledge about it and the effect it had on the species, that still exists. To the point that it could be recreated. In fact, I'd speculate that the material culture could be recreated more easily than the beings themselves, which may be irreversibly conjoined into one.   

[Taboo]

In theory they could be cloned.

You need DNA for that. An amalgamation of it would be great.

Destroy doesn't cause damage to organic compounds.

We could harvest the goo.

But I don't think you can do that in Synthesis. I have an image of a lobotomized Reaper in my head now...

[Xamufam]

Ieldra2

Ever heard of advancement before being culturally ready in ME
causing any problems?  Heard of the krogan?  Ever talk to Mordin about
what happened to the protheans/collectors?

Add to it just what Synthesis is (the unnatural advancement of all
life beyond its state of readiness in order to achieve some warped
notion of perfection-knowledge without it being earned) and how it is
accomplished (through forced molestation of autonomous individuals
without their consent).

Modifié par Troxa, 20 juillet 2012 - 08:51 .

[3DandBeyond]

All I need to know is that it is done without permission. All the rest provides excuses for committing and permitting an unwarranted assault on another person's body. No one ever said that was ok. And others do not want any kind of implant so it can never be said to be ok. It is also said to lead to immortality. Can you see any problems with that at all especially if the krogan and rachni breed to full capacity?

And knowledge is lacking if it is not earned but merely given? It's like giving a 2 year old the keys to your Porshe. Learning and evolution are not end points, they are not final goals. No one says, well I hope some day I will have learned enough and stop learning. True learning is about the character it can help build along the way. It's about dealing with adversity. New thinking seeks out a problem and overcomes it. Evolution is like that. And the kid wants to have it 2 ways-it's the end of evolution but people will still evolve. That's convenient.

[Taboo]

I'm having a debate here.

A discussion.

It's not really my intention to convince Ieldra of anything. He knows the same applies to me.

But he's the one who rips hair out so I have a leg up on him.

[Ieldra]

@Troxa:
(a) I don't believe in dogmatic application of Mordin's reasoning. He makes some interesting points, some of which I respect, but after all it's just his opinion. With regard to the Collectors: Synthesis adds, it does not replace. Unless the individual decides that it does more, anyway.
( For the merit of an advancement it doesn't matter if it's "earned" or not. Being earned is a totally subjective notion. Being ready, maybe, is not. But the Catalyst says we are ready. And I believe so, too, and the results vindicate that opinion.
© I do not believe in normative notions of what is natural. Natural is what is, by definition of existing.

I accept that the decision is morally problematic. I am making the choice anyway. Whether Synthesis is more problematic in that regard than the other endings is a matter of personal philosophy. Shepard is standing at the fulcrum of events, he has the right to make the decision by the virtue of being the one standing there, and by the virtue of sacrificing his life for the future of the galaxy.

Edit:
The immortality is a possibility for the future, not a fact. Of course I can see practical problems arising from that, but the post-Synthesis galaxy will deal with that in time. It also depends on how it's achieved.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 juillet 2012 - 09:00 .

[Taboo]

I really only consider something to be a sacrifice to a sacrifice if I know what the results are going to be.

Synthesis really, truly is leap into the unknown. Literally. You leap into a freaking beam of light with no guarantee that it will work. I be as suspicious as **** going in. Synthesis is also inevitable, so all you've done is enact it without consent.

You grab the reigns of Control.

And walk towards danger in Destroy.

But you go full retard in Refuse.

[Ieldra]

LOL, at least we agree about Refuse. BTW, Shepard knows what will happen to some degree in Synthesis, post-EC. It's still a jump into the unknown, but the unknown - that's more where that future will lead than what Synthesis will do. You can do a good extrapolation of the mid-term future of the galaxy in the other endings, but not so in Synthesis. That's what makes it so attractive.

[Taboo]

Have you thought about people rebuilding the Crucible in Destroy? To enact Synthesis at a later date.

We do still have the plans.

Whoa. That's an interesting idea.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 20 juillet 2012 - 09:03 .

[Xamufam]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Troxa:
(a) I don't believe in dogmatic application of Mordin's reasoning. He makes some interesting points, some of which I respect, but after all it's just his opinion.
( For the merit of an advancement it doesn't matter if it's "earned" or not. Being earned is a totally subjective notion. Being ready, maybe, is not. But the Catalyst says we are ready. And I believe so, too, and the results vindicate that opinion.
© I do not believe in normative notions of what is natural. Natural is what is, by definition of existing.

I accept that the decision is morally problematic. I am making the choice anyway. Whether Synthesis is more problematic in that regard than the other endings is a matter of personal philosophy. Shepard is standing at the fulcrum of events, he has the right to make the decision by the virtue of being the one standing there, and by the virtue of sacrificing his life for the future of the galaxy.

Edit:
The immortality is a possibility for the future, not a fact. Of course I can see practical problems arising from that, but the post-Synthesis galaxy will deal with that in time. It also depends on how it's achieved.

He would say youre ready becuese the catalyst wants it doesn't matter to him if you are ready or not.
Natural happens naturaly not messing with things to achieve things

[JeffZero]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LOL, at least we agree about Refuse. BTW, Shepard knows what will happen to some degree in Synthesis, post-EC. It's still a jump into the unknown, but the unknown - that's more where that future will lead than what Synthesis will do. You can do a good extrapolation of the mid-term future of the galaxy in the other endings, but not so in Synthesis. That's what makes it so attractive.

To boldly go, etc.

In some ways it's the pinnacle of science fiction.

[Taboo]

JeffZero wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

LOL, at least we agree about Refuse. BTW, Shepard knows what will happen to some degree in Synthesis, post-EC. It's still a jump into the unknown, but the unknown - that's more where that future will lead than what Synthesis will do. You can do a good extrapolation of the mid-term future of the galaxy in the other endings, but not so in Synthesis. That's what makes it so attractive.

To boldly go, etc.

In some ways it's the pinnacle of science fiction.

The Doctor wouldn't do it.

Picard wouldn't do it.

Kirk wouldn't do it.

[Shaigunjoe]

Troxa wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Troxa:
(a) I don't believe in dogmatic application of Mordin's reasoning. He makes some interesting points, some of which I respect, but after all it's just his opinion.
( For the merit of an advancement it doesn't matter if it's "earned" or not. Being earned is a totally subjective notion. Being ready, maybe, is not. But the Catalyst says we are ready. And I believe so, too, and the results vindicate that opinion.
© I do not believe in normative notions of what is natural. Natural is what is, by definition of existing.

I accept that the decision is morally problematic. I am making the choice anyway. Whether Synthesis is more problematic in that regard than the other endings is a matter of personal philosophy. Shepard is standing at the fulcrum of events, he has the right to make the decision by the virtue of being the one standing there, and by the virtue of sacrificing his life for the future of the galaxy.

Edit:
The immortality is a possibility for the future, not a fact. Of course I can see practical problems arising from that, but the post-Synthesis galaxy will deal with that in time. It also depends on how it's achieved.

He would say youre ready becuese the catalyst wants it doesn't matter to him if you are ready or not.
Natural happens naturaly not messing with things to achieve things

I think you may need to refine your definition, because it sounds like, ever since humanity messed with wood to achieve fire, we have been unnaturally progressing, according to you.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

LOL, at least we agree about Refuse. BTW, Shepard knows what will happen to some degree in Synthesis, post-EC. It's still a jump into the unknown, but the unknown - that's more where that future will lead than what Synthesis will do. You can do a good extrapolation of the mid-term future of the galaxy in the other endings, but not so in Synthesis. That's what makes it so attractive.

To boldly go, etc.

In some ways it's the pinnacle of science fiction.

The Doctor wouldn't do it.

Picard wouldn't do it.

Kirk wouldn't do it.

I get what JZ is saying, in some ways, not in every way!

Though, I think Kirk would do it, if it ensured him some bedtime with a girl.

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I think you may need to refine your definition, because it sounds like, ever since humanity messed with wood to achieve fire, we have been unnaturally progressing, according to you.

That sounds a bit like a non sequitir there...

I believe Mordins words were "limitations".

And something about not giving an atomic weapon to a cave man.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I think you may need to refine your definition, because it sounds like, ever since humanity messed with wood to achieve fire, we have been unnaturally progressing, according to you.

That sounds a bit like a non sequitir there...

I believe Mordins words were "limitations".

And something about not giving an atomic weapon to a cave man.

Overcome one limitation, and the next challenge presents itself. Imagine a scenario where our basic material needs are taken care of by technology. Do you think we'd all become decadent? Well, some would, no doubt. Others would not, and those would be the people who shape the future. It's a form of evolution.

Also, is Synthesis the equivalent of a nuke, and are the civilizations of the galaxy the equivalent of cavemen? Of course if you believe that, you won't choose Synthesis. If you don't believe it and you're wrong, you'll end up with Aurora's conflict scenario. The EC epilogue looks pretty good though. I don't believe for a moment there won't be any conflict, but it will not have a significant impact on the big picture.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 juillet 2012 - 09:39 .

[Taboo]

I would have no issue with Synthesis if it was enacted by a majority vote.

One person does not have the right to dictate how life evolves for every single being in the galaxy. I'm talking about the undiscovered races as well.

A newly constructed Crucible could be made and Synthesis enacted then, but only with a consensus.

[Ieldra]

Yeah, and people would have no issue with Destroy if it didn't kill the geth, and no issue with Control if Control!Shep and his Reaper force was elected for government for the next ten thousand years. It's very much the point of the ending scenario that you are determining the future of the galaxy with no input from anyone.

I'm rather surprised that people insist to use the same standards they use for everyday situations here. It's as if people are immune to the changed circumstances and the desperate situation. Compared to the scale of the decision you're making, and their merits and objective downsides, the existing moral downsides of every decision are almost irrelevant. Consensus decisions are a luxury you can't afford here. If you disagree, you might as well go and choose Refuse.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 juillet 2012 - 10:00 .

[Taboo]

We're not talking about Destroy or Control.

The issue is how much you wish to interfere past stopping the Reapers.

Some people do not believe it is ethical past stopping the opposing force. Any interference past that is an over stepping of bounds. The United States has this issue.

The destruction of the Geth falls solely on Shepard, and he can take responsibility for it. It isn't justifiable and never will be. However, given the risks of the other two choices, the Geth are sidelined in favor of all life.

I make the same type of decision you do, I just survive.

[Nimrodell]

Dammit, even JeffZero popped into this party and I missed it, being lost in Skyrim and enjoying it. Bah, gonna kill few more dragons, think if I should marry Vilkas or Farkas lol, and then I'll read new shenanigans... I lie, I'll do that tomorrow, bloody time difference. One thing do, yes, refusal ending is utterly, nah, not going to use Taboo's words, gonna sugar-coat it, refusal is the choice for my elder daughter. Wish Admiral Cheez shows her face on on these boards and this topic... and now off to kill some bad people in Skyrim, after all, I am lawful high elf .