9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

 

JedTed wrote...

I just want to add that the tech used in Synthesis is not Reaper tech, it comes from the Crucible. Which was build by organics. At least that's my theory, feel free to as many holes in it as you like.

As for the evolution debate. Has anybody actually given thought to where the galaxy MIGHT be in a thousand years post-Synthesis? As our knowledge of the galaxy grows we could eventually shed our physical bodies(Beings of Light from Klencoy anyone?).

 

That's another reason I don't like Synthesis. There's no point in living if you can't improve. All you've done is speed up the process.

There is a limit. Eventually you will stop. You can't violate basic laws.

What do you do then? There is no point in being alive.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 août 2012 - 05:00 .

[webhead921]

I think there will always be room for improvement. It's just that the improvements in a post synthesis world will be different that what has come before. There are limits, but synthesis pushes those limits even farther.

[Taboo]

That's just the issue. You can't keep going. There WILL be a peak. All you've done is speed up the process.

This is a great idea in the wrong story, I truly believe that.

They will be ready when they can achieve it on their own. It WILL happen or so the Catalyst states.

But what will come first? The hypothetical synthetic wiping out of organics or the hypothetical Synthesis?

Speculate.

[MacNasty]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That's just the issue. You can't keep going. There WILL be a peak. All you've done is speed up the process.

This is a great idea in the wrong story, I truly believe that.

They will be ready when they can achieve it on their own. It WILL happen or so the Catalyst states.

But what will come first? The hypothetical synthetic wiping out of organics or the hypothetical Synthesis?

Speculate.

If you're speaking of evolution? There's really no peak, because of migrations of people things will always be in a constant flux. You move, then you need to start adjusting all over again, which only slowly happens through each generation...
Technologically? I suppose there is some limit, and once that is reached... Well that would just be weird.

[Taboo]

What happens if they transcend their bodies? What would be the point be? What of the Guardians of Light? What if they upload their minds to a computer?

There is a limit to advancement through technology. But once you hit that limit you'll be... inperceivable.

It' so silly in this time frame. It's a huge jump. Enormous.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 août 2012 - 06:30 .

[Reptilian Rob]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That picture isn't going to help your cause mate. What you're suggesting there is...uh...not good.

You mean like Brave New World sterilization?

[MacNasty]

People are already researching the ability to upload their minds into computers, to achieve immortality. Is it possible to transcend one's body? That would be interesting. And while there is undoubtedly a limit, will anyone ever reach it? That's something I've wondered. And I agree, once (if) you hit the limit, you'll be imperceivable.

[Taboo]

MacNasty wrote...

People are already researching the ability to upload their minds into computers, to achieve immortality. Is it possible to transcend one's body? That would be interesting. And while there is undoubtedly a limit, will anyone ever reach it? That's something I've wondered. And I agree, once (if) you hit the limit, you'll be imperceivable.

I see no point in doing so unless I was going to die.

There's a root fear in transhumanism that involves dying. It's a fear of it. That is an admirable thing to avoid however you have to consider what said person would do once their mind was uploaded.

No more smelling. No more eating. No more sex. No more sleep.

That is preservation not living.

[HiddenInWar]

MacNasty wrote...

People are already researching the ability to upload their minds into computers, to achieve immortality. Is it possible to transcend one's body? That would be interesting. And while there is undoubtedly a limit, will anyone ever reach it? That's something I've wondered. And I agree, once (if) you hit the limit, you'll be imperceivable.

 

That reminds me of what happened to Paul Grayson but less....icky and complicated.

If I had that oppurtunity, I would take it. I know that might never happen but its interesting enough to find out. Transcending humanity into something more sophisticated sounds undoubtedly interesting. Thats why I like synthesis. 

Modifié par HiddenInWar, 24 août 2012 - 06:39 .

[MacNasty]

Taboo-XX wrote...

MacNasty wrote...

People are already researching the ability to upload their minds into computers, to achieve immortality. Is it possible to transcend one's body? That would be interesting. And while there is undoubtedly a limit, will anyone ever reach it? That's something I've wondered. And I agree, once (if) you hit the limit, you'll be imperceivable.

I see no point in doing so unless I was going to die.

There's a root fear in transhumanism that involves dying. It's a fear of it. That is an admirable thing to avoid however you have to consider what said person would do once their mind was uploaded.

No more smelling. No more eating. No more sex. No more sleep.

That is preservation not living.

Yeah it seemed pretty freaky. I mean I was interested at first, but then I thought about it for a bit and that line of thought wasn't pleasant.

[Taboo]

I fully support this idea it's just the pace.

Look at Deus Ex. We could improve so many lives with implants like that. Adam Jenson was saved due to them and his life is better for it.

But I believe that should be a choice. He didn't get one and you can express distaste at it in the game.

There is no reason to not improve but each improvement should be applied consensually. I will get a Synthetic limb because I choose to.

That choice is what makes me human. I don't want nanites in my body. I don't want to interface with technology right now.

I want to be the organic Obsessive Compulsive, depressed laden ***hole that torments Ieldra.

[MacNasty]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I fully support this idea it's just the pace.

Look at Deus Ex. We could improve so many lives with implants like that. Adam Jenson was saved due to them and his life is better for it.

But I believe that should be a choice. He didn't get one and you can express distaste at it in the game.

There is no reason to not improve but each improvement should be applied consensually. I will get a Synthetic limb because I choose to.

That choice is what makes me human. I don't want nanites in my body. I don't want to interface with technology right now.

I want to be the organic Obsessive Compulsive, depressed laden ***hole that torments Ieldra.

I was speaking more of the transplanting of a human conciousness into a synthetic body that people are reasearching even now... Choice is important, I agree, and it's one I'm not sure I would make.

[Ieldra]

I'd like to address a few points of criticism that appears to come up regularly:

Physical perfection and diversity:
Some people appear to think that the drive to perfection will result in the loss of diversity and ultimately in the loss of adaptability and stagnation. As I see it, the main flaw in that kind of thinking is that there is no absolute measure of perfection. Ask ten different people what they'd consider physical perfection and you're likely to get ten different answers. Synthesis gives people the ability to easily improve their hardware by integrating technology. Given how different people are, there is no reason to assume that they'll all end up the same.

The same applies to genetic change. Note that the Synthesis doesn't appear to change anyone's genetic makeup apart from adding the ability to integrate technology, probably by replacing DNA with something more versatile. The talk about the "final evolution of life" is not to be taken literally since here, too, the principle applies that there is no absolute measure of perfection. Assuming that this "final evolution" means the option to end natural evolution (the kind that depends on random chance) and replace it with deliberate design, individuals' preferences will likely result in increased diversity. Also it cannot be anything else but optional, since everyone can decide to let random chance have its say.

The limits of advancement:
Is there such a limit? We do not know. Synthesis assumes that if there is such a limit, it lies considerably beyond what we can imagine, and I think this is a very reasonable assumption. The criticism "We are on the fast-track to an unimprovable situation and thus on the fast-track to stagnation" is a belief with no evidence. The plain fact is, we don't even know what 95% of the physical universe consists of, and that's not even taking the possibility of parallel universes into account, what lies in black holes and other thigns our theories can't grasp at present. The ME universe may be a bit further along but we don't know if any other mysteries have been discovered. At the end of the 19th century, people believed there would soon be an end to physics because everything had been discovered and analyzed, and see where we are now!

The belief that the limit of advancement is near is itself based on a limitation in our perspective. We cannot imagine the unimaginable. We cannot imagine how the minds of transapients work because we are unable to grasp their perspective unless we become like them. We cannot imagine anything that hasn't yet been conceptualized by science or philosophy. If you choose Synthesis, you tacitly accept that we are significantly limited by our hardware in our cognitive abilities, and that overcoming those limits will make us see a universe far bigger than we've previously imagined, that the limit of advancement lies considerably beyond what we can imagine in our present state of being. Else, what would be the point, right?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 août 2012 - 12:16 .

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

JedTed wrote...
I'm sorry but i don't believe in the "10-15 years to rebuild" in every ending. When Shepard talked to Vega about rebuilding i thought, this is gonna take a couple decades if not a century at least. How would you restore an entire planet like Earth to it's former glory in only 15 years(unless you have help from the Reapers)?

Just because one of the devs mentions it on a panel doesn't always make it canon. Personally i think Destroy creates the real dark age(even with High EMS), maybe the Relays can be repaired quickly(we built the Crucible so Relays should child's play) but it would take a lot longer to repair all of the damage done by the Reapers.

Anderson said in the beginning of ME2 that they still hadn't fully repaired the damage to Citadel after the geth attack. It would be 10 years before the Citadel was totally restored.

They said the epilogues spanned different timeframes, with the first images being set 10-15 years after the war and the last up to 200 years. But I agree it's not canon. Most of the time, Bioware's writers have no sense of scale and haven't since ME1. The only thing we can say for sure is that there'll be a functioning infrastructure on most of the worlds within the lifetime of the characters shown. Worlds mostly rebuilt could take anything between 10 and 50 years.  

Also, major aspects are still very open to interpretation even with the EC. Both Destroy and Synthesis are open to the interpretation that the relays won't be rebuilt since we never see them rebuilt. We only see the Citadel used as a space elevator in Destroy. It may be that just as I sugggested in my old thread Out of the dark age: ... , post-Destroy civilization will rely on non-relay FTL for an extended period of time and post-Synthesis civilization will find a new and exotic way to travel between the stars. Control is the only ending where the relays are canonically rebuilt at all.
If they're rebuilt, it will take a few centuries after Destroy and 10-15 years after Control and Synthesis.

Synthesis to me is the black hole of problems.  First off, no matter how you look at it it is truly inexplicable.  If you only take the one part of it-that synthetics will gain full understanding of organics, it is inexplicable and not explained.  How can the kid and Shepard give synthetics full understanding of organics?  Of course, there is also the argument that this is forced upon people.  I know that people say Shepard had permission to solve the conflict.  Well, no that's not true.  Did every single person say that Shepard had the right to do anything necessary?  Was anything other than destroying the reapers ever seriously considered?  Is it possible that there were people that never even knew of Shepard?  How many people knew and took it for granted that Shepard was going to use the conduit, go into the citadel, and use the crucible to kill the reapers?  How many of Shepard's superiors said that leaving the reapers alive was ok?  How many said it might be a good idea to do what Saren said the reapers wanted all along?

Unfortunately, in saying the relays will take a long time to repair, you are ignoring the point in destroy where they said everything damaged would be fairly easily repaired and they show just that.  They show the future with the Citadel repaired.  In destroy, tech was just damaged and not destroyed.  I didn't write this stuff and I don't believe much of it makes sense, but you can't go back and say they didn't mean that.  As crazy as it is, that's what they said and what they show.  Destroy is the only choice that allows people to at last be free of reaper interference.

There's no interpretation that can possibly say the relays won't be rebuilt.  They don't show it, but it's definitely implied they will be.  They are just damaged-the citadel was heavily damaged and repaired as Hackett sees it. 

Apparently you see synthesized people as superior in every way because they will just easily find new ways to do things, but I see it in a vastly different light.  The tech they've been given all but assures they will follow a certain path they have always followed, this time directed internally by reaper tech.  Destroy allows people to self-determine and is the best chance for independent and new thought.

We cannot be sure working tech will not happen in their lifetimes.  They easily created the crucible in months, so they could decide to work together to fix the relays which is exactly the implication of Hackett's narration.  You may think they created the crucible quickly because it was easy according to Hackett, and if so, that means repairing things won't be that hard.

That's precisely what's wrong with all endings-there aren't any real consequences for any of them.  Repairs should be difficult.  There should be scenes of people still wanting to fight reapers in control and to show individuality, the same thing should happen in synthesis-synthetics with newfound full understanding of organics (wherever that came from) that don't like what they now see.  Organics have always mistrusted synthetics and have tried to control them, so what will synthetics do with this new understanding of organics?  And why would it be necessary for synthetics to understand organics if they no longer exist?  And how would they react to some who might not be happy that they had been changed by tech-some of whom may already mistrust synthetics and never wanted augmentation of any kind?  What about those that maybe irrationally lump all synthetics in with reapers-the ones that, along with Shepard did this to them?  What might they do with newfound knowledge-and what about those that want reapers and all synthetics destroyed?  Synthesis does not equal peace.  I actually think there could be less of a willingness to feel the need to work together since there would perhaps be no perceived need to try and unite everyone.  In destroy, people would have to work together and it would take leadership to get that to happen, but in synthesis we have no clue how this new breed thinks or operates.  And again, they may feel that things come easily now and not have the same motivation to work together.

The new hybrid organic/synthetic beings should be different from when they were merely organics, which also means people will have personailty changes in response to this.  I don't see that as being always good.  If you have any organ transplanted, you may feel certain things as you did before, but you are in many ways a different person from what you were.  Part of that is in that physically you may feel better, but even that means you will be different.  The same would happen with everyone irrevocably changed internally, and not all of it would be good.  There are many that would attempt to do evil things, if indeed they retain individuality for some period of time.

Basically, none of the endings deal with any real issues that will and must occur-only control attempts to paint things in a somewhat questionable way since even with a full paragon Shepard the music is ominous and the whole tone points to a darker future.  Everything Shreaper says superficially sounds ok, but if torn apart is fairly ominous so it implies the "truest" possible consequences will occur.  I think destroy gives organics the greatest chance to forge a new future that they will create, control implies future consequences, and synthesis reveals absolutely nothing, but implies that at least some that supposedly think logically (EDI) believe that if it leads to immortality that would be great. 

Even if immortality never happened, the idea that EDI would think it would be wonderful if it did is ridiculous.  As an at least partly logic based being (and even less logical human people think this), she would see a problem with immortality that could lead to conflict, but might ultimately be a problem with no solution.  And if you do take the kid at his word, immortality of all would fit with what he "believes" should happen.  He thinks he's saving organics for all time by ascending them, so that synthetics can never truly destroy them and he now also ascends synthetics as well.  Immortality is a part of what he has also tried to achieve.  So, it is natural to believe that synthesis is supposedly meant to work toward that as well.  And someone, anyone should see that as a problem.  It doesn't mean you get to decide to grow old and die or that they necessarily could die from trauma.  They might die from trauma, but that sounds like a fun future-no one dying from old age, lots of Krogan and Rachni overrunning everything.  People would not suffer biological death-however, they are no longer completely biological beings.  With intergrated tech, people might actually self-heal, thus reversing physical trauma.  The idea that this would lead to total true immortality is truly conceivable and more than likely, inevitable.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'd like to address a few points of criticism that appears to come up regularly:

Physical perfection and diversity:
Some people appear to think that the drive to perfection will result in the loss of diversity and ultimately in the loss of adaptability and stagnation. As I see it, the main flaw in that kind of thinking is that there is no absolute measure of perfection. Ask ten different people what they'd consider physical perfection and you're likely to get ten different answers. Synthesis gives people the ability to easily improve their hardware by integrating technology. Given how different people are, there is no reason to assume that they'll all end up the same.

The same applies to genetic change. Note that the Synthesis doesn't appear to change anyone's genetic makeup apart from adding the ability to integrate technology, probably by replacing DNA with something more versatile. The talk about the "final evolution of life" is not to be taken literally since here, too, the principle applies that there is no absolute measure of perfection. Assuming that this "final evolution" means the option to end natural evolution (the kind that depends on random chance) and replace it with deliberate design, individuals' preferences will likely result in increased diversity. Also it cannot be anything else but optional, since everyone can decide to let random chance have its say.

Snipped

This is contradictory.  It doesn't change genetic makeup but replaces DNA?  If people are fully integrated with tech and tech is either in and on or off state, logic based, and from the reapers, it will lead eventually to stagnation.  It inserts an error within people that will help determine the direction that all life will take.  If not, what is it for?  In what ways would it make people better?  If it is not introduced to augment people and to impart a certain knowledge, then what's it for?  We already have tinkered with evolution and are reducing the obstacles that make it necessary.  Tech integration would do that in one leap.

You can't use the precise problem with the kid's logic as a defense of it by twisting what he says.  The use of his idea of "perfection" is part of the problem and part of all future problems.  He is a messed up program who sees people as wanting perfection through tech.  I've said that that is one main part of the problem-perfection does not exist, but he thinks it does.  Perfection is not universally sought, but he thinks it is.  Perfection is not universally sought through tech, but he thinks it is for organics.  You can't use the problem as some argument as to why people are wrong in thinking what could happen. 

The kid clearly wants to use his reaper tech to direct "evolution" to its final state, after which no more change could possibly take place-once you reach the pinnacle, you can go no further.  His idea of what this means, is at the heart of the problem.  His idea of perfection if such a thing were real would be vastly different from what others think, but they aren't being consulted.  Perfection and the pinnacle of evolution as some people might see it, might be their view of what it means to be beautiful, healthy, young, and cool.  Someone else might see the pinnacle as being wise and smart, healthy, virile, tall, and dominant.  The problem is how does the kid see it?  Since he sees that as the goal, then integrated tech would be programmed to direct evolution towards that.  It wouldn't and couldn't instantly make all Turians look like Humans if that's what the kid thinks perfection is.  But evolution would direct things toward that.  If Humanity is his idea of perfection (I'm not saying it is), then it would take generations, but the tech would make it happen sooner. 

And you could make the argument that the kid isn't directing the tech, that perhaps whoever created the synthesis choice or the crucible is, but that's irrelevant.  Someone, somewhere programmed this tech with their idea of perfection and the pinnacle of evolution.  Or they believed that tech would at least lead to this one final stage of evolution upon which all life would eventually converge.  Tech may actively or passively help direct people to that point, but it is certainly what it's meant to do.

No, there's no measure of perfection, but the kid thinks there is and basically it just means a point where evolution is finished.  You can only get to that with absolutely identical genetic coding.  The sexes will disappear (already happened prior with the Asari), genetic similarity will begin to be prominant (likely to already exist with the Krogan due to reduced birth rates-as well as the Rachni with one parent of all).  Reduced populations in the near future also mean less diversity (billions if not trillions dead).  And all races are already working toward genetic similarity.  The Asari are very similar to one another and yet can easily reproduce with other species (with no apparent change in their offspring).  Most races are bipeds.  Most have forward facing eyes, mouths in front, hearing orifices on the side of their heads.  They've already repeatedly been directed through seeded reaper tech toward genetic similarity.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 août 2012 - 02:06 .

[3DandBeyond]

MacNasty wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MacNasty wrote...

People are already researching the ability to upload their minds into computers, to achieve immortality. Is it possible to transcend one's body? That would be interesting. And while there is undoubtedly a limit, will anyone ever reach it? That's something I've wondered. And I agree, once (if) you hit the limit, you'll be imperceivable.

I see no point in doing so unless I was going to die.

There's a root fear in transhumanism that involves dying. It's a fear of it. That is an admirable thing to avoid however you have to consider what said person would do once their mind was uploaded.

No more smelling. No more eating. No more sex. No more sleep.

That is preservation not living.

Yeah it seemed pretty freaky. I mean I was interested at first, but then I thought about it for a bit and that line of thought wasn't pleasant.

That's precisely one of the arguments as to why I don't think even a renegade Shepard would want to control the reapers.  It also leads to the question of what makes a person a person.  It's what the whole Legion/soul thing was about.  It might have been more appropriate, but less awesome sounding for Legion to ask, "does this unit have a heart".  Soul was appropriate as he was about to die.  We shouted that he had a soul, but along with that he showed his heart, which is not the physical beating organ but the intangible mental relationship we form with the external world.

If you upload your consciousness to a blue box, will you be you?  Will your feelings remain?  Since so much of our being is formed by our emotions and the way we interact with the world around us, I believe that no matter what they would at least change.  You might have memories of things you felt, but you would be perceived differently and so you would perceive things differently.  Ever watch Caprica (the series that could have been)?  It's the prequel to BSG, where you learn or start to learn how the Cylons came to be-with the uploaded consciousness of a scientist's daughter into a memory core inserted into a Cylon.  The girl had saved her essence in a VR game and her father retrieved it.  The Cylon she becomes thinks it understands what she wanted to do, but it begins immediately to have problems with how the world sees it.  The girl inside still sees herself as a girl, but the world sees this hulking awkward, kind of threatening thing.  She gets made at being restrained and carted around like freight.  Only her best friend initially realizes the girl's memories are in the Cylon body.  It's obvious that at some point the girl inside will start to become more like people see her.

A real life test of this is how people react to how they are treated by others.  Leave the house looking like a mess, dirty, unshaved, whatever, and see how you feel at how you are treated and even try to see how you change based on this.  Then, go home, get cleaned up, dress nicely, and see how different everything is.  Then imagine all of this over time.  If you noticed some minor changes to your feelings and reactions, imagine it happening again and again.  Then, imagine how you might react based on how others treat you if you are uploaded to some eternal synthetic body, even one that maybe just always looks good.  Part of what we are is our interaction with the world and other people and the feelings we form from that and vice versa.  Uploading might actually create a disconnect, where we might feel that our body is not our body.

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

 If you've read the tie-in comic series of the same title, you'd know that Mass Effect has always had a horrible track record with the concept of evolution. So I take the Catalyst with a grain of salt.

(For the record, there is speculation that human evolution has already begun to grind to a halt -- and plenty of criticism of said speculation. Bottom line is that evolution isn't going to stop as long as mutations keep happening. There is nothing to indicate that synthesis tech prevents this.)

Edit: links failed on me, sigh.

Well considering that evolution is a response to a need and mutations are spontaneous leaps in evolution, it can be postulated that as needs are lessened, evolution slows.  With evolution being directed through reaper tech to the kid's idea of perfection or merely the pinnacle of evolution, it means that at least certain obstacles will have been removed.  One benefit would be in knowledge and then others would be physical enhancements.  This would create a slowdown of evolution.  As it slows, the ability to adapt would lessen and would then further slow evolution.  

Please do read the second article (the criticism of the slowing of modern human evolution). In a nutshell, research has tentatively shown that well-off Western humans are still evolving despite modern comforts. I don't see how this cannot be extrapolated in a post-synthesis world. 

  
 Why else would there even be any reason for synthesis?  What would it do if not impart unearned knowledge and if it would not augment physical capabilities?  Even if it just gave people a huge leap in knowledge, it could do irreparable harm.  Part of learning is learning how to learn-it's exploration and adversity.  It's being able to see things from a different POV from someone else and to discuss and learn from what others think.  That helps you learn how to adapt to new situations and to weigh your options.  

  

Hm, this is interesting. What do you all think about how knowledge is shared after synthesis? I've never believed that it's a matter of "suddenly, everyone knew everything about everyone and everything else." Well, not for organics. Synthetics do gain a huge amount of (understanding? Knowledge? Those are different things) at once but they process ideas much faster than we can. I imagine that the changes could be something as subtle as being able to communicate with Reapers without fear of indoctrination, extrapolated from the fact that canonically, synthetics cannot be indoctrinated. Even something small like that would have enormous consequences!

  
If you are given knowledge, you lose a crucial part of what attaining knowledge gives you-not only does learning something change your brain, and change many things-your personality, it also aids in your ability to deal with setbacks and learn from errors.  It causes evolution.

 

Wait, knowledge and biology are related? Wow, I didn't know that! If I learned to touch-type or speak Hindi, the genes I pass on will be different? Wicked! This should be published!

Wait, Lamarck did it first and was proven (mostly) wrong? Aw. Darn it.

[3DandBeyond]

alleyd wrote...

One of the things I can't process with synthesis is how it manages to deal with the things like memories, the experiences that make up an individual. How can it measure these? They aren't in your dna but are a product of the life you've lived.

This is one of the things that would have to change.  That's what I alluded to with an organ transplant-you do kind of change your perspective.

If tomorrow, I am suddenly different from what I've always seen as being me, then how would I deal with it?  Self-perception determines in part how you react with others which then determines how they react to you, creating a circle.

If even something maybe not so subtle about me is suddenly changed-say my hair color-I'm blonde and tomorrow I'm a redhead.  Those around me will act differently and I will feel different.  And it will create a circle.  I may look awful as a redhead and they and I will react to what each other feels about it and I might learn a lot subconsciously about how others view me.

If I'm changed internally, I will subconsciously act differently and others will react to me based on how I'm acting.  I will not be the same person and we will not relate to each other as we once did.

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

If you are given knowledge, you lose a crucial part of what attaining knowledge gives you-not only does learning something change your brain, and change many things-your personality, it also aids in your ability to deal with setbacks and learn from errors.  It causes evolution.

 

Wait, knowledge and biology are related? Wow, I didn't know that! If I learned to touch-type or speak Hindi, the genes I pass on will be different? Wicked! This should be published!

Wait, Lamarck did it first and was proven (mostly) wrong? Aw. Darn it.

Ok, nice try.  I never said that such a thing as what you have learned will be passed down (but who knows with integrated tech used at least partly for knowledge).  I said learning changes your brain, the act of learning causes evolution in small increments to take place.  The act of learning a thing-especially if you are met with obstacles that you overcome, changes chemicals in your brain, changes the biology within your brain, and that is something you could pass on to offspring.  But thanks for the implied insult here.  I mean you like to use a lot of citations and all to appear intellectual, but then you can't even understand a simple concept.  I know you understood what I meant, so you are being argumentative.

[DirtyPhoenix]

webhead921 wrote...

I also really like synthesis because it is a major shift in the status quo. I sort of expected the trilogy to end with a fundamental shift in the ME universe. That's one of the reasons why I'm more hesitant to choose destroy post-EC. The fact that the ME universe just goes back to the status quo (minus synthetic life) in about 10-15 years sort of feels underwhelming. I like fundamental change that is brought about in synthesis, and the fact that the galaxy can advance in a new and exciting direction.

I was expecting the same. Something told me I won't just defeat the reapers and go one living liek nothing happened.  Maybe that's why I can accept control and Synthesis more readily than others.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That's just the issue. You can't keep going. There WILL be a peak. All you've done is speed up the process.

This is a great idea in the wrong story, I truly believe that.

They will be ready when they can achieve it on their own. It WILL happen or so the Catalyst states.

But what will come first? The hypothetical synthetic wiping out of organics or the hypothetical Synthesis?

Speculate.

I was speculating on this last night lol. So you believe synthesis will eventually happen. I too hold a similar idea. If that is true, what do you think is happening in other galaxies, I suppose they will move towards synthesis too. Have they already reached the synthesis point? Have they done so ages ago while we were busy fighting the reapers? Did the Reapers actually delay synthesis in our galaxy? Speculations..

Modifié par pirate1802, 24 août 2012 - 02:52 .

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
The act of learning a thing-especially if you are met with obstacles that you overcome, changes chemicals in your brain, changes the biology within your brain, and that is something you could pass on to offspring.  But thanks for the implied insult here.  I mean you like to use a lot of citations and all to appear intellectual, but then you can't even understand a simple concept.  I know you understood what I meant, so you are being argumentative.

1. According to the article, this has only been demonstrated once by training rats to run mazes -- in an experiment that was later shown to be incorrect due to poor setup. Therefore, science hasn't yet shown that "the act of learning...changes the biology within your brain...you could pass on to offspring."

2. I'm just pointing to current research related to your ideas...as opposed to making things up off the top of my head 

[Enthalpy]

pirate1802 wrote...

I was speculating on this last night lol. So you believe synthesis will eventually happen. I too hold a similar idea. If that is true, what do you think is happening in other galaxies, I suppose they will move towards synthesis too. Have they already reached the synthesis point? Have they done so ages ago while we were busy fighting the reapers? Did the Reapers actually delay synthesis in our galaxy? Speculations..

What if synthetics completely dominated in other galaxies and we have a giant face-off in the distant future? 

[Shaigunjoe]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

If you are given knowledge, you lose a crucial part of what attaining knowledge gives you-not only does learning something change your brain, and change many things-your personality, it also aids in your ability to deal with setbacks and learn from errors.  It causes evolution.

 

Wait, knowledge and biology are related? Wow, I didn't know that! If I learned to touch-type or speak Hindi, the genes I pass on will be different? Wicked! This should be published!

Wait, Lamarck did it first and was proven (mostly) wrong? Aw. Darn it.

Ok, nice try.  I never said that such a thing as what you have learned will be passed down (but who knows with integrated tech used at least partly for knowledge).  I said learning changes your brain, the act of learning causes evolution in small increments to take place.  The act of learning a thing-especially if you are met with obstacles that you overcome, changes chemicals in your brain, changes the biology within your brain, and that is something you could pass on to offspring.  But thanks for the implied insult here.  I mean you like to use a lot of citations and all to appear intellectual, but then you can't even understand a simple concept.  I know you understood what I meant, so you are being argumentative.

You mean a simple concept like biological evolution?  As defined by dictionary.com: 

Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

So you are saying that learning causes evolution to take place, so learning must cause either natural selection, genetic drift or mutation to take place, which is it?

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 24 août 2012 - 02:57 .