9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Oransel wrote...

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.

Well, your "interpretation" is wrong. The term "technological singularity" specifically refers to the emergence of superhuman intelligence through technological means. Nothing else. It has absolutely nothing to do with removing all limitations, nor has *your* interpretation anything to do with removing all limitations. A nanocyborg brain is still subject to quite a lot of limitations. In fact, any imaginable entity is. The only entitiy not subject to limitation is an omnipotent one.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 septembre 2012 - 01:29 .

[Steelcan]

The Catalyst is a Reaper. He makes that pretty clear. His "solution" is the Reaper's solution, to a problem that may or may not exist. As for the a crucible enabling Synthesis that is also wrong. The Catalyst 'turns off Syntheis' in refuse. He does not control the Crucible, he on trolls the citadel. Thus the Citadel enables Synthesis. The Citadel is reaper made, Synthesis is a reaper solution, same with control.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
The Catalyst is a Reaper. He makes that pretty clear. His "solution" is the Reaper's solution, to a problem that may or may not exist. As for the a crucible enabling Synthesis that is also wrong. The Catalyst 'turns off Syntheis' in refuse. He does not control the Crucible, he on trolls the citadel. Thus the Citadel enables Synthesis. The Citadel is reaper made, Synthesis is a reaper solution, same with control.

"The Catalyst wants Synthesis, therefore the Citadel and not the Crucible enables Synthesis"? What kind of logic is that?.

The Catalyst's solution has been the harvesting cycle, which becomes pretty clear if you refuse to co-operate and choose Refuse. It's the only solution it can enact on its own. For Synthesis, both the Crucible and Shepard are needed. That the Catalyst prefers this solution does not change this fact (!!!) in the least.

And while I'm at it,  ALL of the options (except Refuse) are the product of the Crucible and the Citadel, with Shepard coming into Control and Synthesis. See where this leads?

Lastly, the Catalyst does not "turn off Synthesis" in Refuse. Synthesis needs Shepard to work, if you choose Refuse, there is no need to do anything more. Synthesis will not happen now.

You said you didn't want to troll, but you're starting to sound suspiciously iike one.

Oh, and while I'm at it, you didn't answer my question: if the result is good, what does it matter who else wants it?

Edit:
What you're doing here is justifying your dislike of Synthesis by associating it ever more closely with the Reapers. That kind of logic doesn't work. The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it. So tell me, why do you *really* do not like Synthesis? What's at the bottom of your rejection of the concept?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 septembre 2012 - 01:51 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...
"The Catalyst wants Synthesis, therefore the Citadel and not the Crucible enables Synthesis"? What kind of logic is that?.
The Catalyst's solution has been the harvesting cycle, which becomes pretty clear if you refuse to co-operate and choose Refuse. It's the only solution it can enact on its own. For Synthesis, both the Crucible and Shepard are needed. That the Catalyst prefers this solution does not change this fact (!!!) in the least.
And while I'm at it,  ALL of the options (except Refuse) are the product of the Crucible and the Citadel, with Shepard coming into Control and Synthesis. See where this leads?
Lastly, the Catalyst does not "turn off Synthesis" in Refuse. Synthesis needs Shepard to work, if you choose Refuse, there is no need to do anything for the Catalyst. 
You said you didn't want to troll, but you're starting to sound suspiciously iike one.
Oh, and while I'm at it, you didn't answer my question: if the result is good, what does it matter who else wants it?

. I would argue that the Catlyst does not want Synthesis, that is just the best solution that he can come up with, besides refuse, he doesn't want to die, destro, he does not want o be replaced, control.   And Shepard is necessary for destroy as well.  Without that junction the Crucible should just destroy the reapers.  And iSynthesis is turned off, The Catalyst powers down the beam that synthesis uses.  As for your question, I dont understand it, can you rephrase?

Im really trying not to troll I swear

[Steelcan]

This has turned into a debate about synthesis itself. I'll go ahead and stop if you want me to

Modifié par Steelcan, 25 septembre 2012 - 01:55 .

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
As for your question, I dont understand it, can you rephrase?

If the results of Synthesis are good - and they're implied to be and shown to be, depending on your interpretation - then why does it matter that the Catalyst wants it?

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
As for your question, I dont understand it, can you rephrase?

If the results of Synthesis are good - and they're implied to be and shown to be, depending on your interpretation - then why does it matter that the Catalyst wants it?

. Again, depending on your interpretation, my interpretation is probably different than yours, and a lot more negative

[Argolas]

Sorry if this was adressed before, but I have a question to Synthesis supporters:

All present species of the known galaxy are affected, but what about the rest?

Specifically:

What about the other 99% of the galaxy? What about new (pure) organic life that develops in new garden worlds? What about new synthetic slaves which still could be created?

[The Devlish Redhead]

Argolas wrote...

Sorry if this was adressed before, but I have a question to Synthesis supporters:

All present species of the known galaxy are affected, but what about the rest?

Specifically:

What about the other 99% of the galaxy? What about new (pure) organic life that develops in new garden worlds? What about new synthetic slaves which still could be created?

Actually that's a very, very good point. I doubt very much that the green glow reached every single corner of the galaxy but onoy travelled along routes that had mass relays...... So you bring up a very good point. The rest of the galaxy not hit by the green glowy wave will still be pure organic, or pure synthetic, and not a blended species, like the post synthesis worlds..

Modifié par AdelaideJohn1967, 25 septembre 2012 - 02:01 .

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
As for your question, I dont understand it, can you rephrase?

If the results of Synthesis are good - and they're implied to be and shown to be, depending on your interpretation - then why does it matter that the Catalyst wants it?

. Again, depending on your interpretation, my interpretation is probably different than yours, and a lot more negative

If you're already determined to believe that Synthesis results in a static society with no more advancement or meaningful change, then why did you ask in the first place? Also, I would argue that this interpretation goes completely against the spirit in which it is presented. EDI's statement near the end of the epilogue makes that pretty clear. I would go so far and say that your interpretation is wrong based on the epilogue.

[Ieldra]

Argolas wrote...
Sorry if this was adressed before, but I have a question to Synthesis supporters:

All present species of the known galaxy are affected, but what about the rest?

Specifically:

What about the other 99% of the galaxy? What about new (pure) organic life that develops in new garden worlds? What about new synthetic slaves which still could be created?

Synthesis won't influence abiogenesis, so new life developing on new planets is a possibiliy. I don't have an answer about the result of such a scenario. However, I think it's implied that all existing life in the galaxy is affected by the Synthesis.

If not....well, that would be another interpretation. Certainly an interesting one.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
As for your question, I dont understand it, can you rephrase?

If the results of Synthesis are good - and they're implied to be and shown to be, depending on your interpretation - then why does it matter that the Catalyst wants it?

. Again, depending on your interpretation, my interpretation is probably different than yours, and a lot more negative

If you're already determined to believe that Synthesis results in a static society with no more advancement or meaningful change, then why did you ask in the first place? Also, I would argue that this interpretation goes completely against the spirit in which it is presented. EDI's statement near the end of the epilogue makes that pretty clear. I would go so far and say that your interpretation is wrong based on the epilogue.

. I never said society was static after Synthesis, I asked originally if evolution was static.   And I find synthesis to be negative mostly because of the gross violation of free will that it entails.  Nothing so much as the presentation of Syntheis.  But rather the idea of it

[The Devlish Redhead]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Argolas wrote...
Sorry if this was adressed before, but I have a question to Synthesis supporters:

All present species of the known galaxy are affected, but what about the rest?

Specifically:

What about the other 99% of the galaxy? What about new (pure) organic life that develops in new garden worlds? What about new synthetic slaves which still could be created?

Synthesis won't influence abiogenesis, so new life developing on new planets is a possibiliy. I don't have an answer about the result of such a scenario. However, I think it's implied that all existing life in the galaxy is affected by the Synthesis.

If not....well, that would be another interpretation. Certainly an interesting one.

Well that's what I think. I don't think the green wave hit every single corner of the galaxy but only those near mass relays.... So there's a good chance of pure unblended species in the galaxy developing..

[DirtyPhoenix]

This thread is still going strong, and I see new synth-supporters as well.

*rubs hands and puts on evil smile* Good..good.

[Argolas]

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Argolas wrote...
Sorry if this was adressed before, but I have a question to Synthesis supporters:

All present species of the known galaxy are affected, but what about the rest?

Specifically:

What about the other 99% of the galaxy? What about new (pure) organic life that develops in new garden worlds? What about new synthetic slaves which still could be created?

Synthesis won't influence abiogenesis, so new life developing on new planets is a possibiliy. I don't have an answer about the result of such a scenario. However, I think it's implied that all existing life in the galaxy is affected by the Synthesis.

If not....well, that would be another interpretation. Certainly an interesting one.

Well that's what I think. I don't think the green wave hit every single corner of the galaxy but only those near mass relays.... So there's a good chance of pure unblended species in the galaxy developing..

I agree, the crucible´s effects are spread through the mass relays, this is shown in every ending: One relay revolves and then explodes, sending the energy straight to the next relay. But even if the wave hit the whole galaxy, new purely organic life could develop and most certainly more synthetic slaves can be created.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
And I find synthesis to be negative mostly because of the gross violation of free will that it entails.

That I can understand, but consider this: the galaxy will have to live with Shepard's decision whatever it is. Destroy results in a much harder scenario, where rebuilding takes longer and more people will die (as said the Catalyst - as many as already have died), to say nothing of the fate of the synthetics. On the other hand, Synthesis will result in fast rebuilding and advancement, no more people will die and there's the prospect of ascension, and that all for the comparatively small price of a changed biochemistry which will enable people to upgrade themselves in addition. People will be as free post-Synthesis as they are post-Destroy (as opposed to Control), only with much better prospects for the future. Synthesis is a more paternalistic decision than Destroy, but if you believe that the result is good then isn't there an obligation to make the decision?

Nothing so much as the presentation of Syntheis.  But rather the idea of it

Didn't you mean to say: the way it's brought about? Synthesis as such is an interesting concept, but the problem is making that choice for the whole galaxy.

[JBPBRC]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Argolas wrote...
Sorry if this was adressed before, but I have a question to Synthesis supporters:

All present species of the known galaxy are affected, but what about the rest?

Specifically:

What about the other 99% of the galaxy? What about new (pure) organic life that develops in new garden worlds? What about new synthetic slaves which still could be created?

Synthesis won't influence abiogenesis, so new life developing on new planets is a possibiliy. I don't have an answer about the result of such a scenario. However, I think it's implied that all existing life in the galaxy is affected by the Synthesis.

If not....well, that would be another interpretation. Certainly an interesting one.

If said life is a possibility though, wouldn't that erode the point of Synthesis? See, the new organics would just build synthetics that would destroy everything, supposedly. Unless the synthesized continue to synthesize new races as they come into being.

Implications unpleasant.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...
That I can understand, but consider this: the galaxy will have to live with Shepard's decision whatever it is. Destroy results in a much harder scenario, where rebuilding takes longer and more people will die (as said the Catalyst - as many as already have died), to say nothing of the fate of the synthetics. On the other hand, Synthesis will result in fast rebuilding and advancement, no more people will die and there's the prospect of ascension, and that all for the comparatively small price of a changed biochemistry which will enable people to upgrade themselves in addition. People will be as free post-Synthesis as they are post-Destroy (as opposed to Control), only with much better prospects for the future. Synthesis is a more paternalistic decision than Destroy, but if you believe that the result is good then isn't there an obligation to make the decision?
Didn't you mean to say: the way it's brought about? Synthesis as such is an interesting concept, but the problem is making that choice for the whole galaxy.

. Synthetic's fate was a non issue to me, and I don't think the Catalyst was right in his assessment of destroy.  He does not want you to pick destroy so he makes it unappealing, in this case by lying, he has no proof to support his claim that all those people will die.  I also disagree that people are just as free under Syntheis as they areunder destroy. Because the reapers are still around, the catalyst is still around.  It's not ending the cycles, it's a less preferable alternative to the cycles.  And I think free will trumps a better future.  Shepard has no obligation to anybody, it is his decision.  And I think the best decision for the galaxy is destroy.  The presentation is my biggest problem.  It can't be forced, by anyone , except you, you can go ahead and force everyone to be synthesized

[Steelcan]

That was a little scatter brained

[Steelcan]

Did I scare everyone away?

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
Did I scare everyone away?

No. I just cannot stand at attention the whole day.

To keep it short: I think the statement "the Catalyst tries to make Synthesis unappealing" is a rationalization of a decision already taken than a reason. The Citadel is destroyed (it explodes and as opposed to Destroy, we don't see it rebuilt in the epilogue) which means that the Catalyst isn't around any more.

So really, what remains is the fact that you change the biochemistry of life in the whole galaxy, or at least a significant part of it. As I see it, this is really the only objective point against it. Well, apart from Shepard's death, but that's a price I'm prepared to pay.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 septembre 2012 - 03:38 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

JBPBRC wrote...

If said life is a possibility though, wouldn't that erode the point of Synthesis? See, the new organics would just build synthetics that would destroy everything, supposedly.

Synthetics don't need to be different than they already are. Synthesis allows organics to "integrate" with them. Synthetics, as a result, gain understanding through this link.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Did I scare everyone away?

No. I just cannot stand at attention the whole day.

To keep it short: I think the statement "the Catalyst tries to make Synthesis unappealing" is a rationalization of a decision already taken than a reason. The Citadel is destroyed (it explodes and as opposed to Destroy, we don't see it rebuilt in the epilogue) which means that the Catalyst isn't around any more.

So really, what remains is the fact that you change the biochemistry of life in the whole galaxy, or at least a significant part of it. As I see it, this is really the only objective point against it. Well, apart from Shepard's death, but that's a price I'm prepared to pay.

. Tha Catalyst makes destroy unappealing, by saying that the universe will be terrible afterwards.  He has nothing but praise for Syntheis

[His Name was HYR!!]

Steelcan wrote...
Tha Catalyst makes destroy unappealing, by saying that the universe will be terrible afterwards.  He has nothing but praise for Syntheis

Why do we care? The Illusive Man springs the Collector Base decision on you in the end and he tries very hard to persuade you against destroying it. The Catalyst doesn't outright object to any decision you make, apart from some passive-aggression in Low-EMS endings. If you agree, choose accordingly. If you don't, take your own pick.

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Tha Catalyst makes destroy unappealing, by saying that the universe will be terrible afterwards.  He has nothing but praise for Syntheis

Why do we care? The Illusive Man springs the Collector Base decision on you in the end and he tries very hard to persuade you against destroying it. The Catalyst doesn't outright object to any decision you make, apart from some passive-aggression in Low-EMS endings. If you agree, choose accordingly. If you don't, take your own pick.

. That's not my point