9089 réponses à ce sujet

[The Devlish Redhead]

Here is an explanation I pinched from another place...... Now to me this makes sense..

I can't say whether it's exactly what the writers intended, but my
interpretation is that all biological life was given a cybernetic
architecture so that sentient organics became 'wireless telepaths' able
to communicate thoughts and feelings with each other (and with
synthetics) with perfect clarity and fidelity. So how does that equal
'peace?' Well think about it-- if someone means to do you harm and you
can make them feel how that makes you feel, you create the
conditions for compassion. You can argue that it's 'forced,' but it's
empathy nonetheless, and when people are empathizing it's really
difficult for them to do violence against each other. You don't want to
hurt people when you feel their pain. And that same cyber-telepathic
capacity would give synthetics the "understanding" of organics that the
Catalyst described, and bind them by the same sort of covenant of
empathy. As a sorta-Buddhist, synthesis appealed to me as soon as it
was presented because it lends itself to an enlightened society founded
on a universal sense of connection. But I believe we'd have free will
and individuality-- our experiences would still shape us into unique
people-- but we just could no longer ignore the suffering of others, and
so we wouldn't feel alright while causing suffering.
==========================================


My own headcannon says that everyone retains their freedom and individuality in Synthesis which is my favourite outcome.

It says in the slides that we are now free to pursue the life that
we always wanted to. Does that sound bad to anyone? Surely not?

I do agree now though that everyone can interact on a much deeper
level with each other both human and non human we can now feel how the
other party might feel and this would hopefully put an end to larger
conflicts.

But I still wonder, with the retaining of free will how do the
reapers actually feel about their new place in the world? They are onlly
machines programmed to do a job but now that job is redundant they have
new roles, but if they do have feelings I wonder what they feel,
Especially Harbinger?

Modifié par AdelaideJohn1967, 23 septembre 2012 - 03:58 .

[Baldrick67]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

So I just decided what Javik's fate will be in Synthesis.


He becomes one with the rest of his people... inside their Reaper.

With a couple of thanix warheads strapped to him. Die reaper die.

[Seival]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

So I just decided what Javik's fate will be in Synthesis.


He becomes one with the rest of his people... inside their Reaper.

What if not all other Protheans died? Javick could devote the rest of his life trying to find the other survivors.

[Ieldra]

atheelogos wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here's a question for everyone. It came to me when reading the "canon ending" debates:

How long do you think the Reapers will stick around after Synthesis? They're hyper-advanced beings, so I think it's possible they'll eventually want to leave the post-Synthesis civilization behind to do whatever such beings find worthwhile doing.

Will some stick around for a very long time?
Will some of the conjoined minds want to be re-incarnated?
Will most of them leave?
Will some of them want to kill themselves?

As I see it, the Reapers aren't a unified force anymore, so things will differ. All of the possibilities above will be taken by some. Are there any more?

Why would they want to kill themselves?

Perhaps some of them don't care for this form they have been transformed ino?

Oh and I'd imagine some of them would want to leave. I mean they've been confined to this one galaxy for over a billion years. If I were one of them I would want to see the rest of the universe. And multiverse if we do indeed live in one.

So yeah I think some will stay and some will leave, but we will be forever connected with them regardless of where they go

Hmm...not so sure about the latter. I don't think that link the Catalyst spoke of is meant to be permanently active. That would drive most people insane. 

[Ieldra]

[quote]AdelaideJohn1967 wrote...
I can't say whether it's exactly what the writers intended, but my interpretation is that all biological life was given a cybernetic architecture so that sentient organics became 'wireless telepaths' able to communicate thoughts and feelings with each other (and with synthetics) with perfect clarity and fidelity. So how does that equal 'peace?' Well think about it-- if someone means to do you harm and you can make them feel how that makes you feel, you create the conditions for compassion. You can argue that it's 'forced,' but it's empathy nonetheless, and when people are empathizing it's really difficult for them to do violence against each other. You don't want to hurt people when you feel their pain. And that same cyber-telepathic capacity would give synthetics the "understanding" of organics that the Catalyst described, and bind them by the same sort of covenant of empathy. As a sorta-Buddhist, synthesis appealed to me as soon as it was presented because it lends itself to an enlightened society founded on a universal sense of connection. But I believe we'd have free will and individuality-- our experiences would still shape us into unique people-- but we just could no longer ignore the suffering of others, and so we wouldn't feel alright while causing suffering[/quote]
Unfortunately, that logic doesn't hold up - read "The Cyberiad" by Stanislaw Lem to see why. In short, people have to want peace in the first place, and for some the price in temporary mental pain of what they want to attain by violence will be worth it. Apart from that, an existence where you're permanently linked to everyone else does not strike me as desirable.


[quote]My own headcannon says that everyone retains their freedom and individuality in Synthesis which is my favourite outcome.

It says in the slides that we are now free to pursue the life that we always wanted to. Does that sound bad to anyone? Surely not?[/quote]
Indeed not. But the detractors will tell you that people have simply been brainwashed to like a certain life.

[quote]But I still wonder, with the retaining of free will how do the reapers actually feel about their new place in the world? They are onlly machines programmed to do a job but now that job is redundant they have new roles, but if they do have feelings I wonder what they feel,  Especially Harbinger?[/quote]
They are intelligent life forms, regardless of construction. As soon as a lifeform becomes self-aware, it ceases to be "only a machine": At least, you're unlikely to choose Synthesis if you don't believe that.

Regarding their feelings, I do not think they feel in any way we would understand. I'm quite convinced they will not have the same immediacy of emotion we have. We know they'll help rebuild, but whether their motivation for doing that is comprehensible to us in any way, that we don't know. I've been trying to come up with a dialogue between a Reaper and a human post-Synthesis, but couldn't come up with something convincing so far.


[/quote]

[Steelcan]

I'm not trying to troll, honestly. I just have a question for synthesis supporters. I know that you do not view a future with Synthesis as a utopia but rather a dynamic society of progress. My question is with synthesis does natural organic evolution cease? My main reason for picking destroy is that it enables galactic society to continue to continue to evolve, but on its own terms, not by using reaper technology or influences. Without struggle, natural selection ceases to function. My argument is that life without evolution is not really life at all it is static, not changing, synthesis seems to imply that evolution ceases. My question do you think that is n accurate assessment of synthesis? If this question has already been raised and answered, sorry for bringing it back up.

[mass perfection]

Does Synthesis involve Dinosaurs?

[The Devlish Redhead]

Steelcan wrote...

I'm not trying to troll, honestly. I just have a question for synthesis supporters. I know that you do not view a future with Synthesis as a utopia but rather a dynamic society of progress. My question is with synthesis does natural organic evolution cease? My main reason for picking destroy is that it enables galactic society to continue to continue to evolve, but on its own terms, not by using reaper technology or influences. Without struggle, natural selection ceases to function. My argument is that life without evolution is not really life at all it is static, not changing, synthesis seems to imply that evolution ceases. My question do you think that is n accurate assessment of synthesis? If this question has already been raised and answered, sorry for bringing it back up.

I think it would. People would still have children the regular way, regardless of species.... Societies will still grow and such. Life will go on and evolve. Only the structure and building blocks of that life is forever changed everywhere.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
I'm not trying to troll, honestly. I just have a question for synthesis supporters. I know that you do not view a future with Synthesis as a utopia but rather a dynamic society of progress. My question is with synthesis does natural organic evolution cease? My main reason for picking destroy is that it enables galactic society to continue to continue to evolve, but on its own terms, not by using reaper technology or influences. Without struggle, natural selection ceases to function. My argument is that life without evolution is not really life at all it is static, not changing, synthesis seems to imply that evolution ceases. My question do you think that is n accurate assessment of synthesis? If this question has already been raised and answered, sorry for bringing it back up.

Hmm....I guess I have to clear up a common misconception about biological evolution. You link evolution with struggle, however that's the Social Darwinists' fallacy. A link between those will only exist in cases where success or failure decides about survival or the number of children who survive into adulthood to have children of their own. In modern societies, most forms of struggle are not of that kind. Rather, the evolutionary stress factors which influence modern societies are likely to be changes in the chemical composition of things we eat, climate change, pollution etc.. Also, success in modern societies depends on upbringing and culture to a much greater degree that on genes - as a rule, only the top 1% in any given field run against their genetic limits. Thus, competition in modern societes will not be evolutionary relevant 99% of the time, even less so in a post-Synthesis civilization, which we can expect to be reasonably prosperous. 

You state that life without evolution would not really be life because it would be static and would not change. I agree insofar that static life that does not change is undesirable, but there is no reason to assume that our lives, our societies, would become static just because biological (!!) evolution has ceased. Social, cultural and technological evolution can occur independently from biological evolution. Also, biological changes can be made intentionally as soon as we know how things work.

In short, a technological society can thrive even after biological evolution has ceased. A case could be made that biological evolution already has significantly slowed down even today, though there is no consensus on that hypothesis, and even if it's true it can restart again should our technological society crumble.

However, it is not a good idea to make evolution cease across the board, since for all species except those who have developed advanced technology, there will still be a need to adapt to changed environments and they wouldn't have the means to adapt themselves by intention. Also, no new life forms would emerge without biological evolution, and life unable to change will eventually die out as the environments change too much to support it. Making evolution cease across the board would result in the eventual extinction of all life.

Thus, I find the statement of the Catalyst that Synthesis is the "final evolution of all life" impossible to apply to biological evolution in general in any meaningful sense. Rather, I interpret it like this: "all life" isn't strictly all life, but refers to both synthetic species and organic species which have developed advanced technology, and "final evolution" means that those species will not, from now on, be subject to the random changes that lie at the root of biological evolution unless they choose to remain subject to it.

All other life forms will gain the added functionality that will enable integration of technology, once such technology becomes available, but will otherwise remain the same as before.

That's the only way things make sense to me.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:31 .

[Steelcan]

I agree struggle was a poor word choice to describe natural selection, competition is more accurate. But intentionally "evolving" yourself is not evolution it is an upgrade. Evolution occurs when an organism is not suited to its environment. When all organisms are similar where does competition come from? If every one understands each other and existence is perfected, what's the point to life? As for natural selection on human populations, it is still occurring just in different ways, ie humans are losing genetic diversity and becoming more homogenous, we have largely removed our selves from natural selection by placing our selves above nature. We at no longer subject to the chance that rules nature

[Jackal13th]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Aurora313:
I don't think post-Synthesis civilization will have a big problem with the leviathans. There are few of them left, and pretty much everyone will take part in keeping them down.

 i disagree  the levistans  are now stronger than the reapers thay won't leave there planet  . so the thing told shepard .

Modifié par Jackal13th, 25 septembre 2012 - 11:56 .

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
I agree struggle was a poor word choice to describe natural selection, competition is more accurate. But intentionally "evolving" yourself is not evolution it is an upgrade. Evolution occurs when an organism is not suited to its environment.

Can you tell me what is so desirable about random chance being the basis for adapting ourselves to changing environments, rather than deliberate change? Why is natural evolution better than artificial evolution? Or is it just that you apply notions of the sacred to the supposedly natural, while ignoring that there actually doesn't exist anything that is not natural?

Note that I do not subscribe to normative concepts of what is "natural" and not. If you want to argue that point, you need to define your dividing line and show that it's more than an arbitrary distinction.

When all organisms are similar where does competition come from?

There are several flaws with this statement:

(1) All organisms are not similar. Where did you get that from? People are as different from each other as before, they just have an upgrade added that lets them integrate technology. They may be closer to synthetics as a group, but with regard to each other they're as diverse as ever.

(2) Even if organisms *were* the same: competition happens where individuals or groups want to be better in some way than other individuals or groups. Do you really think competition is less fierce between identical twins? I'd rather think the opposite would be the case.

(3) We do not compete for our genetic legacy. That's just a byproduct. In fact, if competitiveness is a genetic trait, then it's much more likely we'd evolve out of it if we create a post-scarcity society but leave evolution to work its way as usual. However, competition does not end when we acquire what we need, it exists because we want to better than the next person. You can see why it's quite impossible to make that go away, unless you modify everyone to be happy with what they've got. Needless to say, Synthesis doesn't do that. 

(4) Advancement comes from overcoming limitations. This will only end if there are no more limitations to overcome. Synthesis does not create a future without limitations, and I cannot see that happening after either, even if people get to live for ten thousand years. 

If every one understands each other and existence is perfected, what's the point to life?

There is no absolute measure of perfection. Synthesis gives a common ground and a headstart to removing fundamental limitations of the human condition, but people want to be different and that's why they develop different preferences. For every individual, "perfect" will mean something different, and limitations still exist.

As for understanding, it is not implied that everyone understands each other. It is said that synthetics now understand organics, nothing more.

All in all, I see a lot of sweeping generalizations in interpretations of Synthesis. I don't know where they come from, but "everyone is the same" and "everyone will understand each other" is neither said nor implied in the Synthesis description or epilogue.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 septembre 2012 - 12:29 .

[Oransel]

Synthesis is not ideal, unlike many would say. It's the same problem with communism or any utopia - it won't work. Impossible, both culturally and technologically. Can't happen and the closest you get turns into nightmare (project Overlord style or final mission of Deus Ex: HR if you played it) just as closest thing we got to communism are either GULAG or dysfunctional nation.

[Steelcan]

That is just my interpretation of synthesis. If you disagree with it you are welcome to argue with it. There is a difference between similar and the same. Synthesis , to me, implies a more homogenous civilization, I'm not saying that all individuals are now the same. But the Catalyst does state that ynthesis is both the apex of evolution(an impossibility). And it will result in synthetics understanding organics, and organics perfecting their lives by integrating with synthetics.

Your argument for limitations I do not nderstand. The catalyst makes it clear that synthesis is the apex of evolution. If you are at the apex there is no more limitation.

[Steelcan]

And what is appealing about random chance over artificial improvement? Its not that it is more natural than anything else. I think that is better because it is the law of the universe, change or die. Taking your self out of this equation seems to be wrong. Improving ourselves with technology is different from changing what we fundamentally are made of.

Modifié par Steelcan, 25 septembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[Ieldra]

Oransel wrote...
Synthesis is not ideal, unlike many would say. It's the same problem with communism or any utopia - it won't work. Impossible, both culturally and technologically. Can't happen and the closest you get turns into nightmare (project Overlord style or final mission of Deus Ex: HR if you played it) just as closest thing we got to communism are either GULAG or dysfunctional nation.

As I've always said: it's not a "perfect utopia" nor is it intended as such. if you expect that of course it won't work. But it is an improvement on the conditions of before, an advancement, a way to an ascension, whatever you call it.

[Taboo]

I see the government actually developing into a state of Anarcho-Communism at some point. I don't know if you see it that way Ieldra but I do.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
And what is appealing about random chance over artificial improvement? Its not that it is more natural than anything else. I think that is better because it is the law of the universe, change or die. Taking your self out of this equation seems to be wrong. Improving ourselves with technology is different from changing what we fundamentally are made of.

If "change or die" is a law of the universe - the way things work and which we won't be able to change - why does it make a difference as to how we change? At which point does a description of how the universe works turn into a prescription about what we should or should not do? Where lies the virtue in succumbing to a limitation if you can overcome it? Why exactly is it better not to change what we're fundamentally made of?

@Taboo:
That depends more on the socio-economic conditions of the post-Synthesis civilization, rather than the changes wrought by the Synthesis itself. It's possible.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 septembre 2012 - 12:47 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
And what is appealing about random chance over artificial improvement? Its not that it is more natural than anything else. I think that is better because it is the law of the universe, change or die. Taking your self out of this equation seems to be wrong. Improving ourselves with technology is different from changing what we fundamentally are made of.

If "change or die" is a law of the universe - the way things work and which we won't be able to change - why does it make a difference as to how we change? At which point does a description of how the universe works turn into a prescription about what we should or should not do? Where lies the virtue in succumbing to a limitation if you can overcome it? Why exactly is it better not to change what we're fundamentally made of?

. For me the issue is that we are using the Reaper's technology to change what we are made of.  There is nothing wrong with using technology to improve ourselves, but to me using reaper technology is accepting their logic and changing to suit the Reaper's desires, not changing because we must or should, changing because the reapers want us to

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
That is just my interpretation of synthesis. If you disagree with it you are welcome to argue with it. There is a difference between similar and the same. Synthesis , to me, implies a more homogenous civilization, I'm not saying that all individuals are now the same. But the Catalyst does state that ynthesis is both the apex of evolution(an impossibility). And it will result in synthetics understanding organics, and organics perfecting their lives by integrating with synthetics.

Your argument for limitations I do not nderstand. The catalyst makes it clear that synthesis is the apex of evolution. If you are at the apex there is no more limitation.

I've given you my interpretation of the "final evolution of life" in one of my earlier responses. It differs from yours exactly because taking it literally results in an impossibility.

Also your last statement is wrong. It presumes that life can evolve to omnipotence. If it can't, then any presumed final stage of evolution will still limitations. But we don't need to continue this line because we both know it's impossible. Thus, a different interpretation is required. 

[Oransel]

Ieldra2 wrote...
As I've always said: it's not a "perfect utopia" nor is it intended as such. if you expect that of course it won't work. But it is an improvement on the conditions of before, an advancement, a way to an ascension, whatever you call it.

There is a big difference between technological progress which includes augmentations and Singularity. I agree on tech advancement and progress, actually, most of the species in Mass Effect are already augmenting themselves, and that's not a problem in a slightest.
Synthesis is presenting itself as "good" Singularity (impossible as I stated previously, since full Singularity is beyond physical limitations of the world we live in and partial Singularity is a monstrocity and can't be good because of the same limitations).
Massive technological update (another interpretation of Synthesis) is just as bad as endless cycles of Reaper-induced harvest. This is immoral, unhuman and very dangerous. Since we already figured it is not about mentality change (Singularity), imagine krogans and yahgs as well as animals, whatever, being unable to cope with responsibility.

Modifié par Oransel, 25 septembre 2012 - 12:56 .

[Vigilant111]

The Catalyst says it is there to solve the problem, but then it starts talking (and making generalizations) about what organics and synthetics want in life, as if the problem arose from "synthetics seek perfection through understanding" and "organics seek perfection through technology" and synthesis magically comes in handy and ready to solve the problem

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
And what is appealing about random chance over artificial improvement? Its not that it is more natural than anything else. I think that is better because it is the law of the universe, change or die. Taking your self out of this equation seems to be wrong. Improving ourselves with technology is different from changing what we fundamentally are made of.

If "change or die" is a law of the universe - the way things work and which we won't be able to change - why does it make a difference as to how we change? At which point does a description of how the universe works turn into a prescription about what we should or should not do? Where lies the virtue in succumbing to a limitation if you can overcome it? Why exactly is it better not to change what we're fundamentally made of?

. For me the issue is that we are using the Reaper's technology to change what we are made of.  There is nothing wrong with using technology to improve ourselves, but to me using reaper technology is accepting their logic and changing to suit the Reaper's desires, not changing because we must or should, changing because the reapers want us to

It's the Catalyst who wants it, not the Reapers. But more importantly, if the result of the change is good, does it matter whether anyone else wants it?

Also, it is the Crucible that makes the change possible, together with Shepard. The Citadel may play a role in it, too, but the assumption that Synthesis is an application of Reaper technology is uncertain at best, if not outright wrong. I have written something about that in the OP.

[Ieldra]

Oransel wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
As I've always said: it's not a "perfect utopia" nor is it intended as such. if you expect that of course it won't work. But it is an improvement on the conditions of before, an advancement, a way to an ascension, whatever you call it.

There is a big difference between technological progress which includes augmentations and Singularity. I agree on tech advancement and progress, actually, most of the species in Mass Effect are already augmenting themselves, and that's not a problem in a slightest.
Synthesis is presenting itself as "good" Singularity (impossible as I stated previously, since full Singularity is beyond physical limitations of the world we live in and partial Singularity is a monstrocity and can't be good because of the same limitations).

I recommend you read up on the singularity because your statements make no sense at all. I agree that Synthesis has something of invoking a singularity on organic life, but the concept does not involve going "beyond what's physically possible" (also, no, you did not say that).

Massive technological update (another interpretation of Synthesis) is just as bad as endless cycles of Reaper-induced harvest. This is immoral, unhuman and very dangerous. Since we already figured it is not about mentality change (Singularity), imagine krogans and yahgs as well as animals, whatever, being unable to cope with responsibility.

Mentality change and technological singularity are only marginally related concepts. Your assertion that post-Synthesis civilization is just as a bad as the Reaper cycles is - sorry to say - ridiculous and has no evidence at all going for it, a mere assertion. I agree that Synthesis is a risky decision, maybe the most risky of the the three. It's the ultimate high-risk, high-gain scenario. Fortunately, the EC tells us that it turned out well...

[Oransel]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I recommend you read up on the singularity because your statements make no sense at all. I agree that Synthesis has something of invoking a singularity on organic life, but the concept does not involve going "beyond what's physically possible" (also, no, you did not say that).

That's just another interpretation of the term. When I used it, I meant mental merging of organic brain and synthetic programming. In this case, it is going beyond limitations.

Fortunately, the EC tells us that it turned out well...

EC is a fantasy of a finally degraded authors. That's not a proof. For me at least.

Modifié par Oransel, 25 septembre 2012 - 01:13 .