9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

The only reason I bring up Clarke is that people are using that law to justify Synthesis.

And it's directly opposed by TIM in canon lore. By the same lead writer.

It's just something to think about.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Can you guys answer an objection to Synthesis?

Doesn't it invalidate the worth of the geth and EDI in their previous states? EDI says "I am alive" implying that she wasn't before. Doesn't that negate her and Legion's arcs by denying their personhood? For that matter, doesn't it negate Legion's sacrifice since the Reaper code was insufficient?

Read SilentMobius' Synthesis interpretation, which I quoted in the lower part of the OP. He postulates that EDI gained sapience (the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment) when she awoke and sentience (the ability to relate to other intellects with empathy) with the Synthesis. I'll quote the relevant part:

SilentMobius wrote...
*"Sapience Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment".

The bit I find the most important: "Sapience describes an essential human property that bestows 'personhood' onto a non-human"

Compare to:
*Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences"

and IMHO the most important bit:  "Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience")"

EDI starts on Luna in ME1 as an experimental VI, complex enough to blossom into an AI where she gains sapience. in ME2 and ME3 she tries to understand human emotion, but it's all based of self modification of code, she decides a given thing should be true and thus modifies her programming to make it true,she never feels any of it.

Hence a new AI is sapient and thus doesn't understand organics however should still be considered a full "person" whereas the whole organics vs synthetics thing was seemingly a quest for synthetic sentience, the ability to "feel" (have implicit emotion) hence EDI's comment during the synthesis ending, there she smiles, almost cries and really feels "alive"

The story of the geth is slightly different. They are already sapient, their story in ME3 is abouot individuality vs. gestalt. They gain individivuality in ME3 and they, too, gain sentience (as described above) with the Synthesis.

As I see it. nothing is lost and much is gained. The geth still have the ability to enter their consensus, which will be enriched by more individual experiences now. EDI still has everything she had before - and more.

Still, you could ask: Isn't there a unique perspective being lost by giving the geth individuality? Isn't there a unique perspective lost by giving all synthetics empathy, by making the human mode of existence into the measuring stick for intelligent life as a whole? I'll leave this here as a question to be discussed...

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I'm having a discussion offsite with a friend, and we're in conflict over how large of an influence fear of conflict with Synthetics is for those who choose synthesis. I figured the only way to settle this argument was to make a poll, and ask you nice folks to answer it.

Synthesis and fear as motivation.

Thanks in advance.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 août 2012 - 02:06 .

[Taboo]

Yes I've argued that some people might choose Synthesis out of an existential fear. I'm sure some do. However this interpretation makes it sounds like racism. I'm not so sure it fits but the underlying theme bothers me.

But I think most people do it her because they support transhumanist ideals, and believe it's the right thing to do.

From a narrative standpoint it's incredibly risky, unless you're meta-gaming.

Then again all of the choices are.

Looking at Mac Walter's notes again he sites both The Matrix and Brave New World as influences on these endings.

Occam's Razor tells me which Brave New World I'm looking at. Thankfully Weekes salvaged that for the Synthesis people in the EC.

[His Name was HYR!!]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm having a discussion offsite with a friend, and we're in conflict over how large of an influence fear of conflict with Synthetics is for those who choose synthesis. I figured the only way to settle this argument was to make a poll, and ask you nice folks to answer it.

http://social.biowar...31/polls/37990/

Thanks in advance.

I voted. #3 for me.

The technological-singularity thing is something worth thinking about. Afterall, you haven't really won a war if you've planted the seeds for another in the aftermath of it.

In the end, though, it's not what I came to do there.

[zambot]

I have two play through, both paragon. (In my head I imagine a renegade playthrough where I choose control, but that's a tangent).

Control is never an option for my paragon. Even before EC, I imagined it turning into a repeat of the cycle, only with Shepard being corrupted by it and becoming the Catalyst.

Destroy was my first choice, because I did not understand Synthesis. I was never comfortable with it though because of sacrificing the Geth. That never felt right.

After EC was released, I choose synthesis, largely because I had ruled out Destroy because I refused to kill the Geth while alternatives remained. Control, as I mentioned, was never an option because I believed it wouldn't solve the problem. I didn't know refusal was actually a choice (I might have picked it). So, I viewed Synthesis as the least of the 3 evils, tried to surpress my disbelief of "synthetic dna" "essence" and "understanding for machines", and went with it. I'm ok with it I guess.

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The technological-singularity thing is something worth thinking about. Afterall, you haven't really won a war if you've planted the seeds for another in the aftermath of it.

That's going to happen anyway. Unless you wish to belive that you're creating a Utopia. All you really do is prevent a hypothetical issue whilst mandating how you wish live to evolve.

You can either choose Synthesis to prevent the possibility of the technological singularity or you can do it for your own reasons.

I would think that a balance between the two is preferable for someone who chooses Synthesis.

I don't think it's realistic, so I don't choose it.

[His Name was HYR!!]

@Taboo... I don't mean it in the sense that there should be no conflict after the war. What I'm saying is, it should be handled in a way that doesn't allow for a threat like the Reapers to come back.

I'd liken it to the rachni wars, and how it lead to the krogan rebellions.

Or the aftermath of WWI largely leading to WWII.

It's not a huge concern, hence why I voted for 3. But it is worth thinking about, since there have been issues such as Overlord. Even Legion's description of a Dyson Sphere kinda sounded like a Reaper, of sorts (they no longer need to build it though after the Rannoch arc).

[Taboo]

Of course. The idea is just that, to provide a more permanent solution to the Catalyst's issue. Only Synthesis truly does that.

However, given the new dialogue I've been reading from him, he's beginning to look more and more like one the enchanted brooms from Fantasia. Not malicious, only dedicated at finishing his set task that he was programmed to do, even at the expense of his creator.

A stupid analogy, but it resembles the mechanical thought process. He's simply doing what he's been told. He couldn't solve it ideally, so he made a work around.

[Ieldra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I'm having a discussion offsite with a friend, and we're in conflict over how large of an influence fear of conflict with Synthetics is for those who choose synthesis. I figured the only way to settle this argument was to make a poll, and ask you nice folks to answer it.

Synthesis and fear as motivation.

Thanks in advance.

Voted #3. It's a minor consideration. As for my reason(s), may I quote a post I made far upthread:

I've talked about the "spirit" of the endings a great deal. Perhaps it's time I said what I think that is. Looking at the ending options in a general sense, without taking the details of their implementation into account, this is what I believe the "message" of each ending is:

(1) Destroy: Karma - Organic life will live or die on its own merits. We believe in our ability to fix this ourselves. And if we're wrong, then so be it. Keywords: freedom, chaos, opportunity, fate.

(2) Control: Conservation - Survival is more important than freedom. Organic life will be guided along a path that ensures survival, until a time when the guardian judges it is no longer needed. Keywords: order, maturation, survival, continuity.

(3) Synthesis: Revolution - Transcend the old order to bring about a new age where the old conflicts between organics and synthetics are meaningless. Keywords: ascension, change, expansion

This lies at the core of why I'm attracted to Synthesis. It brings about something new and unknown, transcending the conflicts that have defined the past. It looks forward to what we can be instead of sticking to what we are.

I choose Synthesis primarily because it topples the old order of things and brings something radically new into the world. As I see it, Destroy and Control are both variants of "the same old things" on a galactic scale. Synthesis tries something new, and among other things, it transcends the conflicts which defined the past.

There's also the transhumanist and ascension aspects: Synthesis lets organics overcome the limitations of their hardware to eventually "reach a level of existence we cannot even imagine". Here, too, Synthesis tries something new.

And last but not least, the Reapers. I think they're avatars of civilizations of past cycles, and as such they are worth preserving if that's possible without endangering ourselves.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 août 2012 - 07:28 .

[inko1nsiderate]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm having a discussion offsite with a friend, and we're in conflict over how large of an influence fear of conflict with Synthetics is for those who choose synthesis. I figured the only way to settle this argument was to make a poll, and ask you nice folks to answer it.

Synthesis and fear as motivation.

Thanks in advance.

What do you mean fear of conflict? Do you mean in game, or in real life? In the real world, I am highly skeptical that AI is possible (true, living, AI), and that even if it is that it would ever care about conflict (why would it?), and even if a singularity is possible I also don't see how that is inherently threatening to human life.  But in the Mass Effect universe, AI conflict is clearly a thing, so I'd say it is something some of my Shepards are concerned about and that it influences the choice of my Synthesis-Shepard.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 09 août 2012 - 07:34 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm having a discussion offsite with a friend, and we're in conflict over how large of an influence fear of conflict with Synthetics is for those who choose synthesis. I figured the only way to settle this argument was to make a poll, and ask you nice folks to answer it.

Synthesis and fear as motivation.

Thanks in advance.

Like others have said, I too choose option 3. Its something that may happen in the distant future, but nothing major that shaped my decision. Its a just a footnote. The other factors are far more important to me; Reapers are saved and freed, and their help in rebuilding, technological evolution/ascendence, benefits for both organics and synthetics. No one is killed etc etc..

And lol at such despo people, coming on a poll meant exclusively for synthesizers annd wanting an "I don't like" option. *facedesk*

[saracen16]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm having a discussion offsite with a friend, and we're in conflict over how large of an influence fear of conflict with Synthetics is for those who choose synthesis. I figured the only way to settle this argument was to make a poll, and ask you nice folks to answer it.

Synthesis and fear as motivation.

Thanks in advance.

I think you already saw my answer: minor consideration. What I meant to put was "secondary consideration". The understanding between synthetics and organics as well as the benefits gained by both is what drew me to synthesis. By extension, the conflict between the two would vanish as the line between them disappears.

[Ieldra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
It's not a huge concern, hence why I voted for 3. But it is worth thinking about, since there have been issues such as Overlord. Even Legion's description of a Dyson Sphere kinda sounded like a Reaper, of sorts (they no longer need to build it though after the Rannoch arc).

I think they will continue to build it. That geth are now individuals doesn't mean they lose their ability to conjoin their minds for greater intelligence. And before you object: yes, it's speculation but I choose to believe that because I find that ability of the geth cool. I'd hate to see them lose their uniqueness and become standard robots.

It's not like a Reaper btw.. No destruction of the old form. No enforced conjoining of minds. Just to get things into perspective.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
It's not a huge concern, hence why I voted for 3. But it is worth thinking about, since there have been issues such as Overlord. Even Legion's description of a Dyson Sphere kinda sounded like a Reaper, of sorts (they no longer need to build it though after the Rannoch arc).

I think they will continue to build it. That geth are now individuals doesn't mean they lose their ability to conjoin their minds for greater intelligence. And before you object: yes, it's speculation but I choose to believe that because I find that ability of the geth cool. I'd hate to see them lose their uniqueness and become standard robots.

It's not like a Reaper btw.. No destruction of the old form. No enforced conjoining of minds. Just to get things into perspective.

They have achieved sentience. A mini Synthesis. The Dyson sphere was another path, that could have led to a singularity, which the Reapers were afraid of.

The Geth have no reason to put their new organic allies at risk.

[Endorlf]

After seeing that many people want to believe that Synthesis indoctrinates everyone, I was really compelled to test the soundness and quality of the claim by using in-game facts as evidence. Please review these discussions and I would like to hear your thoughts.

If indoctrination happens in Synthesis, how can you sustain an indoctrinated population for over 200 years (this is stated during Comic Con 2012)? According to the Codex, even slow, patient indoctrination can't be sustained for more than "months or years" before the victims are reduced to "gibbering animals."
http://social.biowar.../index/13561852

If the Catalyst is the collective embodiment and intelligence of the Reapers, then why does Synthesis show the Citadel exploding like in Destroy (although the exploding scene was shorter) instead of remaining intact like in Control? What would be the point of the indoctrination then?
http://social.biowar.../index/13605019

Modifié par Endorlf, 10 août 2012 - 09:09 .

[Taboo]

^ I think of Synthesis as a fertilizer, albeit one that is applied to the Garden forcefully.

By applying said layer, you allow new things to blossom.

However it does not happen right away. Eventually you will no longer have Organics or Synthetics, nor a line between man or machine.

All it really does immediately is solve the Catalyst's fears of Synthetics wiping out Organics. That's only real immediate benefit.

As for the newly Synthesized Husks, I see them becoming an embodiment of whatever they were in some capacity. If not, they will become projections of nearby Reapers. Or something.

It's not so much brainwashing as it is a rehabilitation of unused structures in the body. You now have full access to your brains capabilities.

That's a change to me.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 10 août 2012 - 09:05 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

What was stated at Comic Con? What 200 years? Can anyone illuminate me?

[Endorlf]

pirate1802 wrote...

What was stated at Comic Con? What 200 years? Can anyone illuminate me?

The transcript is here.
http://www.newsarama...ent-future.html  

 

[DirtyPhoenix]

Also, Protip: A lot of the things Catalyst says is crap and self-contradictory. Like "final evolution of life", "altering the matrix of organics" vs "combining all life", "I control the reapers" vs "I am the collective embodiment of the reapers".. etc.

[Ieldra]

Endorlf wrote...
If the Catalyst is the collective embodiment and intelligence of the Reapers, then why does Synthesis show the Citadel exploding like in Destroy (although the exploding scene was shorter) instead of remaining intact like in Control? What would be the point of the indoctrination then?
http://social.biowar.../index/13605019

Here's the in-world reasoning:
Destroy and Synthesis need a lot of energy, Control does not because it's more of a control signal to the Reapers. That's why the Citadel is damaged or destroyed in Destroy or Synthesis, but not in Control.

Here's the thematic underpinning:
In Control, the system for guiding civilizations along certain lines remains intact. In Destroy and Synthesis, it is destroyed. The Citadel symbolizes that system. There's that incongruity that it's repaired in Destroy, but I guess people would've found the post-Destroy world too depressing otherwise, so the ME3 team compromised the symbolism in favor of the pro-Destroy majority.
In Synthesis, it is not by accident that we never see the Citadel in the epilogue. Synthesis brings about a new era so the Citadel is gone for good and people will find a different way to reclaim the stars. Of course people can headcanon it differently but that's how I see it.

As for the indoctrination, nobody here believes it anyway. That's a hypothesis caused by denial. Those who hate Synthesis want to force bad consequences on the "morally objectionable" choice so that their rejection of it appears objective and rational. It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 août 2012 - 06:16 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Well I was speculating (lol) on what actually causes the reapers to be non-hostile in synthesis.
The green beam hits the too, and their lights turn green so they are definitely affected by the beam as we are. Here is what I thought:

1. Their (the catalyst's?) directive is complete. They don't have any reason to harvest now.
2. The synthesis beam affects them as it did any other synthetic. So they were "humanized" so to speak, and freed from the catalyst's control.
3. The combination of both? Their original objective was complete and they were synthesized by the beam?

Personally I go with 2, or maybe 3. What do you think?

Also, I have seen a lot of people here demanding cutscenes of Krogan fighting alongside the Rachni. They find reapers helping the galaxy rebuild wrong and signs of indoctrination, yet they find nothing wrong with krogan allied to the rachni...

Modifié par pirate1802, 11 août 2012 - 02:25 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

I believe that people are generally good, no matter the race, and I think letting the Reapers go from control sort of re-affirms that trust I have for folks to do the right thing. The Reapers being what they are, I'm basically freeing all those harvested civilizations.

Sure, there may be some species that are warlike or imperialistic. But I think if you have the majority of them wanting to cooperate, those other species will have to fall in line.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I was watching that London beam run again and it seemed to e Harbinger says "save us". It maybe just a case of hearing what you want to (ITers hear serve us). But if I heard correctly, then that's another sad reminder of their future state in control. Better put them out of their misery or free them!

[Endorlf]

pirate1802 wrote...

I was watching that London beam run again and it seemed to e Harbinger says "save us". It maybe just a case of hearing what you want to (ITers hear serve us). But if I heard correctly, then that's another sad reminder of their future state in control. Better put them out of their misery or free them!

It has been confirmed somewhere that it's nothing but a generic Reaper sound and not any kind of voice. I'll try to look for the link.

Modifié par Endorlf, 11 août 2012 - 04:56 .