9089 réponses à ce sujet

[His Name was HYR!!]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Let me give an example of what is presented as fact from the headcanon-police which is actually nothing more than headcanon that needs a lot of assumptions to make it work:

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Agreed. After all "we need each other to make it happen". But before we make [synthesis] happen we violate every right you have, decimate your species in the most horrific way imaginable, destroy your infrastructure and make sure the fleet dies from starvation.

That's all fine and dandy, but what does that have to do with my origin of synthesis post? If I am wrong in the quote you dug up, which I assume you believe, then that does not invalidate the origin post.

It has to do with the fact that you tell others to do that you yourself do not do.

So why should I, or anyone else, give two ****s about what you think is valid when you clearly don't have any grasp of what is and what isn't?

[AngryFrozenWater]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

Here is one idea. The brat claimed that earlier attempts failed because the organics were not ready, but now Shepard is ready. Or isn't that what you mean? The platforms and the Crucible were designed at the same time.

So tell me now,

... is it true that you use your headcanon as fact while endlessly pointing the finger at others for doing it?

Then debate where that version of the origin has gone wrong. It sure doesn't prove synthesis is invalid.

[Shaigunjoe]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

Here is one idea. The brat claimed that earlier attempts failed because the organics were not ready, but now Shepard is ready. Or isn't that what you mean? The platforms and the Crucible were designed at the same time.

I would say that the interface is designed at the same time, but you can attach different objects to the same interface.  The catalyst does say he discovered the plans for the crucible a few cycles ago.

The catalyst says similiar, not the exact thing that happens this time.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 24 juillet 2012 - 06:37 .

[Ieldra]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

I don't know how AngryFrozenWater would explain it, but here's what I think:

The Catalyst says "A similar solution has been tried before". "Similar" can mean anything between "almost identical" and "having something in common". It doesn't really say much.

Also, this is one of those places where there is a problem with contradictions. We have:

"The Crucible changed me, created new....possibilities". That sounds like a lot more than a power source. It suggests that the Crucible has reprogrammed the Catalyst. On the other hand, we have "The Crucible is not much more than a power source." That suggests it plays almost no role in what happens. However, it also suggests that the Crucible *is* more than a power source, though the Catalyst considers that as "little" more. Trying to resolve the contradiction, I would postulate that the reprogramming is indeed insignificant in comparison to the energy output, in the same way the "math error" of the geth Heretics is insignificant on its own compared to the whole intelligence of the geth. Still, it has drastic effects down the line. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juillet 2012 - 06:38 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It has to do with the fact that you tell others to do that you yourself do not do.

So why should I, or anyone else, give two ****s about what you think is valid when you clearly don't have any grasp of what is and what isn't?

Then don't.

[Taboo]

The point is that it happens within the context of the narrative. It just does. It's no more heinous than Shepard surviving an explosion at close range.

What you see before you with Husks and Cannibals is Synthesis gone wrong. To be perfected, to make the perfect...whatever, the Crucible must be used.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The point is that it happens within the context of the narrative. It just does. It's no more heinous than Shepard surviving an explosion at close range.

What you see before you with Husks and Cannibals is Synthesis gone wrong. To be perfected, to make the perfect...whatever, the Crucible must be used.

You know, I wouldn't have minded an easter egg ending where you had your EMS at some exact value and turned everyone into 16 bit game versions of themselves.  Probably be a good idea to make sure that can only happen on the second playthrough though.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I don't think thats the same thing, you said yourself a 'version', I specifically stated inacted at the end of the game, meaning a galaxy wide effect.

A "version" is better than nothing, which is what I'd like to stress.

The point is that Synthesis is inevitable.

I would prefer that people remain free of my influence and be allowed to grow as they see fit. Synthesis will occur eventually, but I'm certain my Shepard will be long dead by then.

The right of all life is to self determinate. They will determine their own future, not my Shepard.

As for the now dead Geth, they serve as the final act of destruction that lays at the feet of one person, my Shepard. It is no one elses responsibility. 

A terrible predicament but that's the one Shepard faces in Destroy.

I read the article. Fascinating. Yeah, plastic will be incorporated eventually in evolution. It won't be our doing, though, in all cases. Nature will play a part in it.

Regarding this particular story. The "catalyst" said it tried synthesis once before but that it failed because it cannot be forced. Yet isn't it being forced again? One organic is making the decision for everyone and every living thing is forcing it. So isn't this experiment also doomed to failure?

I despise all of the endings equally.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

I don't know how AngryFrozenWater would explain it, but here's what I think:

The Catalyst says "A similar solution has been tried before". "Similar" can mean anything between "almost identical" and "having something in common". It doesn't really say much.

Also, this is one of those places where there is a problem with contradictions. We have:

"The Crucible changed me, created new....possibilities". That sounds like a lot more than a power source. It suggests that the Crucible has reprogrammed the Catalyst. On the other hand, we have "The Crucible is not much more than a power source." That suggests it plays almost no role in what happens. However, it also suggests that the Crucible *is* more than a power source, though the Catalyst considers that as "little" more. Trying to resolve the contradiction, I would postulate that the reprogramming is indeed insignificant in comparison to the energy output, in the same way the "math error" of the geth Heretics is insignificant on its own compared to the whole intelligence of the geth. Still, it has drastic effects down the line.

Shepard: Why couldn't you do it sooner?

Child: We have tried... a similar solution in the past. But it has always failed.

Shepard: Why?

Child: Because the organics were not ready. It is not something that can be... forced. You are ready and you may choose it.

The brat notes that similar attempts have failed. That doesn't mean that these were radically different. This time the brat reassures that Shepard "is ready", so this one succeeds.

As you have noticed there was a switch in the EC about the Crucible's function, which now is a flexible power source. That does not surprise me, because of the three platforms on the Citadel. And thus it notes:

Child: The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source. However, in combination with the Citadel and the relays, it is cable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy. It is crude but effective and adaptive in its design.

So if the device is merely a power source then the Citadel plus the mass relays must do whatever it is supposed to do. And the brat must have something to do with the design of the whole thing, otherwise the three platforms on the Citadel do not make sense. After all, the Citadel is home of the brat and it claims that the Citadel is part of the brat.

Shepard: What? Where am I?

Child: The Citadel. It's my home.

Shepard: Who are you?

Child: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Child: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Again, this is how I can make sense of it.

[Ieldra]

As I see it, the platforms are nothing more than a gameplay convention, plus symbolism overriding in-world logic. Shooting a tube triggers a function of the Crucible? Pfft. Conveniently human-sized control elements for enacting Control? Pfft. Jumping into the beam to enact Synthesis, instead of, for instance, entering some chamber where Shepard will be analyzed and deconstructed? Pfft. Even "Pull the lever" would make more sense than this.

There are, as Bioware has admitted, elements in the ending that are not meant to be taken literally. It is very plausible to assume that those elements are those that make no sense using in-world logic.

The description of the Crucible is open to the interpretation that most agency lies with the Catalyst. But I don't think the platforms give this interpretation any weight. It is also open to the interpretation that most agency lies with the designers and builders of the Crucible, and if that's the case, why would you prefer a different one?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juillet 2012 - 07:55 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As I see it, the platforms are nothing more than a gameplay convention, plus symbolism overriding in-world logic. Shooting a tube triggers a function of the Crucible? Pfft. Conveniently human-sized control elements for enacting Control? Pfft. Jumping into the beam to enact Synthesis, instead of, for instance, entering some chamber where Shepard will be analyzed and deconstructed? Pfft. Even "Pull the lever" would make more sense than this.

There are, as Bioware has admitted, elements in the ending that are not meant to be taken literally. It is very plausible to assume that those elements are those that make no sense using in-world logic.

The description of the Crucible is open to the interpretation that most agency lies with the Catalyst. But I don't think the platforms give this interpretation any weight. But it is also open to the interpretation that most agency lies with the designers and builders of the Crucible, and if that's the case, why would you prefer a different one?

Is that an attempt to wave my version of the origin of synthesis away? That would be cheap. Ghehe. This time there is even physical evidence in the form of the Citadel itself. Anyway, I think I have made my point.

[His Name was HYR!!]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It has to do with the fact that you tell others to do that you yourself do not do.

So why should I, or anyone else, give two ****s about what you think is valid when you clearly don't have any grasp of what is and what isn't?

Then don't.

Never did, 'just felt it would be useful to others if I could illuminate your hypocrisy for a moment, so that they don't make the mistake of giving you credibility.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 juillet 2012 - 08:17 .

[TMA LIVE]

Considering the form of the Catalyst is taken from Shepard's mind, and the voice of the Catalyst is made by it speaking through Shepard, I think a lot of what you see in that ending is in Shepard head, created by the Catalyst to help him make the choices. Which is why they're abstract, with a view of the battle, and an environment that looks similar to the beam area on Earth.

[Ieldra]

@AngryFrozenWater:
Of course I want to reduce the weight of your interpretation.

But I have also changed the section of the OP you quoted to reflect the uncertainty about the origin of the Synthesis option.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juillet 2012 - 08:23 .

[Shaigunjoe]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

I don't know how AngryFrozenWater would explain it, but here's what I think:

The Catalyst says "A similar solution has been tried before". "Similar" can mean anything between "almost identical" and "having something in common". It doesn't really say much.

Also, this is one of those places where there is a problem with contradictions. We have:

"The Crucible changed me, created new....possibilities". That sounds like a lot more than a power source. It suggests that the Crucible has reprogrammed the Catalyst. On the other hand, we have "The Crucible is not much more than a power source." That suggests it plays almost no role in what happens. However, it also suggests that the Crucible *is* more than a power source, though the Catalyst considers that as "little" more. Trying to resolve the contradiction, I would postulate that the reprogramming is indeed insignificant in comparison to the energy output, in the same way the "math error" of the geth Heretics is insignificant on its own compared to the whole intelligence of the geth. Still, it has drastic effects down the line.

Shepard: Why couldn't you do it sooner?

Child: We have tried... a similar solution in the past. But it has always failed.

Shepard: Why?

Child: Because the organics were not ready. It is not something that can be... forced. You are ready and you may choose it.

The brat notes that similar attempts have failed. That doesn't mean that these were radically different. This time the brat reassures that Shepard "is ready", so this one succeeds.

As you have noticed there was a switch in the EC about the Crucible's function, which now is a flexible power source. That does not surprise me, because of the three platforms on the Citadel. And thus it notes:

Child: The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source. However, in combination with the Citadel and the relays, it is cable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy. It is crude but effective and adaptive in its design.

So if the device is merely a power source then the Citadel plus the mass relays must do whatever it is supposed to do. And the brat must have something to do with the design of the whole thing, otherwise the three platforms on the Citadel do not make sense. After all, the Citadel is home of the brat and it claims that the Citadel is part of the brat.

Shepard: What? Where am I?

Child: The Citadel. It's my home.

Shepard: Who are you?

Child: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Child: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Again, this is how I can make sense of it.

Lets use a different device to make sure I understand what you are saying. Is it possible for a comm satellite to beam a signal without a power source?  The answer is no, it is impossible.  It sounds to me (it may not be the case, but this is what I am taking away from your post)  that, yes, it is possible for a satellite to transmit without a power source.

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
So you see, the position "no one is really guilty, and the cycle was a cosmic accident", is neither an ad-hoc rationalization nor "fan fiction".

I think that's true in the sense that, from a purely rational point of view, the information we have about the cycle can be understood that way.

Having said that, I think it's a horrible idea from the point of view of the story. The reason being that fiction should have meaning. If all you can really say about the Reapers, one of the core elements of the Mass Effect fictional universe is: "they mean nothing, it was an accident," then there is a problem.

Unless the point of the story is to establish the essential nullity of existence, in which case the Reapers are a comically convulated way of doing that (and nothing about the rest of the story suggests that nihilism is supposed to be the core idea of the story). Even the endings (and synthesis in particular) do not support that idea: the integration of organic and synthetic life is presented as desirable.

The notion that synthesis represents a sort of evolutionary perfection in particular suggests this (basically that is almost the same thing as saying that attaining this state of perfection is the point of existence), though that idea has been undercut a bit by the EC, justifiably.

Ieldra2 wrote...
BTW, just to be totally clear about it: I think the proposition that any free-willed intelligent life form has a sense of morality is false, and that arguments based on it are null and void.  

Reasoning? What supports this idea?

Modifié par flemm, 24 juillet 2012 - 08:49 .

[Ieldra]

@flemm:
The story can still have meaning even if nobody is really "guilty". What I'm saying is that with slightly different parameters programmed into the Catalyst, the desirable state of Synthesis could have been achieved with fewer atrocities. Given the parameters, the cycle was inevitable but never necessary. It's a tragic irony of a kind I highly appreciate, that's a part of why I like this interpretation.

Also, I do support a purely rational point of view. As I see it, it's the only way to deal with scenarios human emotions are not made to deal with.

As for morality: morality originates in our nature as a co-operative species. It is a system of behavioral guidelines following somewhat variable, but not arbitrary principles established by culture, which exist because our high level of social co-operation is our primary evolutionary advantage. A part of it has deeper roots in the need to protect our young but it's still tied to our nature as a species (r-selecting species would not need it and are in fact sometimes known to consume their young). It would follow that an entity with no need for co-operation or procreation does not need morality.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juillet 2012 - 09:08 .

[Taboo]

Some morality has to do with culture Ieldra.

The entire south east section of the United States would like to have a word with you. The Bible Belt is a cesspool of cultural ignorance and hate, all driven by mandates that have no bearing on reality.

Even my name is a joke on such matters. Societal taboos shape morality.

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
My post does not contradict yours. I'll try to explain the evolutionary rationale for societal taboos and crazy-seeming ignorance in some detail if you want, but I'd rather take that to PM. Or you can try to read "In Gods We Trust" by Scott Atran and "The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology" (in Science, 2007) by Jonathan Haidt. Once it comes out, I think Joshua Greene's "For The Greater Good: How the Moral Brain Works and How it Can Work Better" might also give some insight. I've read his thesis but I can't find it at the moment.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juillet 2012 - 09:17 .

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@flemm:
The story can still have meaning even if nobody is really "guilty". What I'm saying is that with slightly different parameters programmed into the Catalyst, the desirable state of Synthesis could have been achieved with fewer atrocities. Given the parameters, the cycle was inevitable but never necessary. It's a tragic irony of a kind I highly appreciate, that's a part of why I like this interpretation.

Agreed on the question of guilt: no one needs to necessarily be guilty for the story to have meaning.

Regarding your idea that the meaning of the story is the tragic irony of it all, I'm not sure it really works. After all, the catalyst asserts that organics were not ready for synthesis previously.

So, has the cycle contributed to organics becoming ready for synthesis? Maybe, I guess. But... I'm not sure that there's really much evidence for that idea.

Ieldra2 wrote...
As for morality: morality originates in our nature as a co-operative species. It is a system of behavioral guidelines following somewhat variable, but not arbitrary principles established by culture, which exist because our high-level of social co-operation is our primary evolutionary advantage. A part of it has deeper roots in the need to protect our young but it's still tied to our nature as a species (r-selecting species would not need it and are in fact sometimes known to consume their young). It would follow that an entity with no need for co-operation or procreation does not need morality.

Understood, but a lot of current understanding of intelligence is that it is largely a social phenomenon. For the moment, I think it's unclear whether or not intelligence can actually evolve or exist independent of some type of society or culture.

One reason for this would be that sentience is not just a function of computational power, but implies consciousness, a sense of self and therefore of the other (i.e. society).

Until we have some stronger evidence that this is not true, then I think it's impossible to assert that a non-human intelligent entity would have no sense of morality.

Modifié par flemm, 24 juillet 2012 - 09:23 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo:
My post does not contradict yours. I'll try to explain the evolutionary rationale for societal taboos and crazy-seeming ignorance in some detail if you want, but I'd rather take that to PM.

I was making a point.

Some morality is shaped by society, that's all.

I had a huge "WTF" moment when I started talking to Europeons for the first time in a legitimate manner years ago.

But that's kind of what makes the world so interesting.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 juillet 2012 - 09:15 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

I don't know how AngryFrozenWater would explain it, but here's what I think:

The Catalyst says "A similar solution has been tried before". "Similar" can mean anything between "almost identical" and "having something in common". It doesn't really say much.

Also, this is one of those places where there is a problem with contradictions. We have:

"The Crucible changed me, created new....possibilities". That sounds like a lot more than a power source. It suggests that the Crucible has reprogrammed the Catalyst. On the other hand, we have "The Crucible is not much more than a power source." That suggests it plays almost no role in what happens. However, it also suggests that the Crucible *is* more than a power source, though the Catalyst considers that as "little" more. Trying to resolve the contradiction, I would postulate that the reprogramming is indeed insignificant in comparison to the energy output, in the same way the "math error" of the geth Heretics is insignificant on its own compared to the whole intelligence of the geth. Still, it has drastic effects down the line.

Shepard: Why couldn't you do it sooner?

Child: We have tried... a similar solution in the past. But it has always failed.

Shepard: Why?

Child: Because the organics were not ready. It is not something that can be... forced. You are ready and you may choose it.

The brat notes that similar attempts have failed. That doesn't mean that these were radically different. This time the brat reassures that Shepard "is ready", so this one succeeds.

As you have noticed there was a switch in the EC about the Crucible's function, which now is a flexible power source. That does not surprise me, because of the three platforms on the Citadel. And thus it notes:

Child: The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source. However, in combination with the Citadel and the relays, it is cable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy. It is crude but effective and adaptive in its design.

So if the device is merely a power source then the Citadel plus the mass relays must do whatever it is supposed to do. And the brat must have something to do with the design of the whole thing, otherwise the three platforms on the Citadel do not make sense. After all, the Citadel is home of the brat and it claims that the Citadel is part of the brat.

Shepard: What? Where am I?

Child: The Citadel. It's my home.

Shepard: Who are you?

Child: I am the Catalyst.

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.

Child: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Again, this is how I can make sense of it.

Lets use a different device to make sure I understand what you are saying. Is it possible for a comm satellite to beam a signal without a power source?  The answer is no, it is impossible.  It sounds to me (it may not be the case, but this is what I am taking away from your post)  that, yes, it is possible for a satellite to transmit without a power source.

The three platforms are still required and are still part of the Citadel and the brat still claims the Crucible is merely a power source that needs the Citadel and the mass relays to become functional.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo:
My post does not contradict yours. I'll try to explain the evolutionary rationale for societal taboos and crazy-seeming ignorance in some detail if you want, but I'd rather take that to PM.

I was making a point.

Some morality is shaped by society, that's all.

I had a huge "WTF" moment when I started talking to Europeons for the first time in a legitimate manner years ago.

But that's kind of what makes the world so interesting.

I specifically referred to "somewhat variable but not arbitrary principles established by culture" in my post. The non-arbitrariness comes from the fact that the principles must have resulted in an overall evolutionary advantage over most of the lifespan of that culture, even if they do not serve such a purpose in the present.

But we're getting somewhat OT here.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
The three platforms are still required and are still part of the Citadel and the brat still claims the Crucible is merely a power source that needs the Citadel and the mass relays to become functional.

It also claims "The Crucible changed me, created new....possibilities".

[Taboo]

Not entirely. Incest is a societal taboo in most cultures and prevents evolutionary issues because of it.

If you notice, most sexual taboos no longer exist in Mass Effect. Culture is all the better for it.

But other things are still inherent, such as racism. No amount of Synthesized bodies will fix that unless we are all one species.