9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

This is essentially what you propose:

*pic snip*

Complexity is self-limiting. It WILL stop.

Synthesis proposes that point.

What is the point in existing if I cannot improve?

You CANNOT violate basic laws of the Universe.

I agree with your points about the narrative, but seeing as how that will be changed (expanded upon, clarified, whatever) is it not still possible that they will explain that perhaps now organics are allowed to reach the same levels of complexity as synthetics at a much more comparable rate?

Do you understand what that proposes?

You force a change on billions of beings to make them equal to the ones you fear and in the process remove any disntinction between the two.

You enact a forcd change based upon an existential fear. You are no differant than the God fearing people in the Middle Ages. You essentially want to come toe to toe with a being that may or may not exist. You essentially enact a change that is not necessary. Forcing that change upon people based upon the assumptions of one person?

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX, please present your argument in a form where their logic - if any - is recognizable. At this point I'm not even sure at which point you are trying to attack me. I cannot judge your generic statements because they lack context, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.

[Sisterofshane]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

This is essentially what you propose:

*pic snip*

Complexity is self-limiting. It WILL stop.

Synthesis proposes that point.

What is the point in existing if I cannot improve?

You CANNOT violate basic laws of the Universe.

I agree with your points about the narrative, but seeing as how that will be changed (expanded upon, clarified, whatever) is it not still possible that they will explain that perhaps now organics are allowed to reach the same levels of complexity as synthetics at a much more comparable rate?

Do you understand what that proposes?

You force a change on billions of beings to make them equal to the ones you fear and in the process remove any disntinction between the two.

You enact a forcd change based upon an existential fear. You are no differant than the God fearing people in the Middle Ages. You essentially want to come toe to toe with a being that may or may not exist. You essentially enact a change that is not necessary. Forcing that change upon people based upon the assumptions of one person?

It would be the extent of the change that would be the deciding factor to me.

An example of this would be vaccinations - when you choose to get your child vaccinated, are you not in fact changing their ability to contract viruses for their own good?  Would you decide not to vaccinate your child because you believe that the vaccine stems from the fear of something that may never happen (as your child may never contract said virus, and even if they do it does not mean that they will necessarily die from it)?

What makes vaccines acceptable to me is that there is really nothing inherently changed about the child, except for improving the chance that the child will survive into adulthood.  If synthesis was explained to be along the same lines as this, would it not be acceptable?

[Ieldra]

Sisterofshane wrote...
I would find the choice of synthesis more agreeable if all it did was allow organics a "jump start" what is already an inevitable future (for we already know that implants are already in widespread use).  Essentially what would happen would be that it would just become easier for organics to implement such changes to themselves, without fear of things like rejection or having to heal for lengthy periods of time, etc.  No body is FORCED to change in this scenario.

That's a valid objection. And the reason why I have proposed that Synthesis just provides the tools for self-improvement, a minimum change that people would be able to ignore if they really wanted to. I believe that this is within the parameters of the scenario. Explanations in the OP.

[Sisterofshane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

I would find the choice of synthesis more agreeable if all it did was allow organics a "jump start" what is already an inevitable future (for we already know that implants are already in widespread use).  Essentially what would happen would be that it would just become easier for organics to implement such changes to themselves, without fear of things like rejection or having to heal for lengthy periods of time, etc.  No body is FORCED to change in this scenario.

That's a valid objection. And the reason why I have proposed that Synthesis just provides the tools for self-improvement, a minimum change that people would be able to ignore if they really wanted to. I believe that this is within the parameters of the scenario. Explanations in the OP.

I kind of like it - it certainly debunks a few of the problems with the synthesis ending, such a Joker still having a limp.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX, please present your argument in a form where their logic - if any - is recognizable. At this point I'm not even sure at which point you are trying to attack me. I cannot judge your generic statements because they lack context, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.

I'm not attacking you.

You present a solution to a hypothetical problem.

I'm merely stating that BASIC scientific laws are present that prevent a singularity from happening.

It has no basis in anything. It's a cool idea but it would never happen. The Star Child's opinion is irrelevant. He cannot make such grandiose claims without any evidence. He is NOT a omnipotent being. He is mrealy an advanced AI that has reached his limit. If he could have achieved a singularity he would have done something to the effect of Synthesis already. He needed the interference from a lesser being to do that. His current solution is to bruatally remove any organic life to preven it from being killed by a hyopthetical problem. We have estimated he has killed over two quintillion beings. Do you understand why he hasn't though of a better solution after a million years? Because he cannot improve past a certain point. His very existence tells me that his "fear" of a singularity is unfounded.

Synthesis is an incredibly poor story implementation. Nothing more.

Furthermore, we have to look at the idea of mathmatical probability involving the Reapers. Eventually, Organic life would gain the upper hand anyway. The Reapers are more than capable of being destroyed with technology that pales in comparison to the Protheans. They will be wiped out eventually. Life finds a way.

The Protheans almost succeeded. It was only a matter of time before another being gained the upper hand and successfully used the Crucible.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 20 mai 2012 - 06:50 .

[balance5050]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX, please present your argument in a form where their logic - if any - is recognizable. At this point I'm not even sure at which point you are trying to attack me. I cannot judge your generic statements because they lack context, and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.

I'm not attacking you.

You present a solution to a hypothetical problem.

I'm merely stating that BASIC scientific laws are present that prevent a singularity from happening.

It has no basis in anything. It's a cool idea but it would never happen. The Star Child's opinion is irrelevant. He cannot make such grandiose claims without any evidence. He is NOT a omnipotent being. He is mrealy an advanced AI that has reached his limit. If he could have achieved a singularity he would have done something to the effect of Synthesis already. He needed the interference from a lesser being to do that. His current solution is to bruatally remove any organic life to preven it from being killed by a hyopthetical problem. We have estimated he has killed over two quintillion beings. Do you understand why he hasn't though of a better solution after a million years? Because he cannot improve past a certain point. His very existence tells me that his "fear" of a singularity is unfounded.

Synthesis is an incredibly poor story implementation. Nothing more.

Furthermore, we have to look at the idea of mathmatical probability involving the Reapers. Eventually, Organic life would gain the upper hand anyway. The Reapers are more than capable of being destroyed with technology that pales in comparison to the Protheans. They will be wiped out eventually. Life finds a way.

The Protheans almost succeeded. It was only a matter of time before another being gained the upper hand and successfully used the Crucible.

AAAND over on this thread... you are right. Singularity is an abstract threat that can't happen. And the synthesis option would break some basic laws pertaining to thermodynamics, specifically that there is not enough energy present in the Galaxy to scan every atom, let alone change every atom.

[Taboo]

balance5050 wrote...
AAAND over on this thread... you are right. Singularity is an abstract threat that can't happen. And the synthesis option would break some basic laws pertaining to thermodynamics, specifically that there is not enough energy present in the Galaxy to scan every atom, let alone change every atom.

My point.

It's a crock of horse poo.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Life finds a way.

Yes indeed, Mr. Goldblum, yes indeed. 

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
I would find the choice of synthesis more agreeable if all it did was allow organics a "jump start" what is already an inevitable future (for we already know that implants are already in widespread use).  Essentially what would happen would be that it would just become easier for organics to implement such changes to themselves, without fear of things like rejection or having to heal for lengthy periods of time, etc.  No body is FORCED to change in this scenario.

That's a valid objection. And the reason why I have proposed that Synthesis just provides the tools for self-improvement, a minimum change that people would be able to ignore if they really wanted to. I believe that this is within the parameters of the scenario. Explanations in the OP.

I'd find the idea of having my DNA changed a pretty significant thing to overlook. You know why they glow green? Why there eyes are that way? They've changed. Fundamentally.

This isn't something like breast implants. The change is NOT aesthetic.

[Sisterofshane]

balance5050 wrote...

AAAND over on this thread... you are right. Singularity is an abstract threat that can't happen. And the synthesis option would break some basic laws pertaining to thermodynamics, specifically that there is not enough energy present in the Galaxy to scan every atom, let alone change every atom.

Only  I have never interpreted the singularity to mean that AI's will advance in ways that are contradictory to the laws of nature - just at this point that they will expand in ways so fast that Organics will never be able to keep up.

In Mass Effect, I think the Reapers (perhaps the catalyst himself) are the perfect example of this.  Here is an AI that has gone beyond the point of singularity, and what has it decided to do?  Cull the organic civilizations and force them to adhere to it's pre-determined cycle.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I'm merely stating that BASIC scientific laws are present that prevent a singularity from happening.

That has yet to be demonstrated. All I have seen at this point it the claim and one piece of flawed logic.

It has no basis in anything. It's a cool idea but it would never happen. The Star Child's opinion is irrelevant. He cannot make such grandiose claims without any evidence.

As if other impossible things don't happen in the ME universe on a daily basis. Non-relay FTL for instance. That would break causality, apart from other things. But like FTL, so the singularity is a staple of SF literature, and people much smarter than you and me think it's worth considering. You don't even have conclusive evidence that this is impossible in the real world, even less in the context of the ME universe.

Why the hell can you suspend your disbelief for FTL but not for singularity events? The distinction is silly. The concepts are even within the SF "genre contract". Arguments based on "the singularity is impossible" are as invalid for judging the Catalyst as saying "FTL is impossible" is invalid for judging the ME universe as a fictional setting.

[Taboo]

Sisterofshane wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

AAAND over on this thread... you are right. Singularity is an abstract threat that can't happen. And the synthesis option would break some basic laws pertaining to thermodynamics, specifically that there is not enough energy present in the Galaxy to scan every atom, let alone change every atom.

Only  I have never interpreted the singularity to mean that AI's will advance in ways that are contradictory to the laws of nature - just at this point that they will expand in ways so fast that Organics will never be able to keep up.

In Mass Effect, I think the Reapers (perhaps the catalyst himself) are the perfect example of this.  Here is an AI that has gone beyond the point of singularity, and what has it decided to do?  Cull the organic civilizations and force them to adhere to it's pre-determined cycle.

No. You do not go past a singularity.....

If the Reapers were a singularity we would not have the ability to destroy them.

It has hit the self-limitations I have spoken about. He is merely an advanced AI. If he had reached a singularity he would have no reason to do anything. His solution is a cold, calculated way to prevent a HYPOTHETICAL problem.

Do you understand that a computer can play chess so well because it doesn't factor in mistakes? Did you know that it will always lose to a good blackjack player? Do you know why? Because a blackjack player can bluff. A computer cannot.

They are limited by BASIC functions.

[balance5050]

Sisterofshane wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

AAAND over on this thread... you are right. Singularity is an abstract threat that can't happen. And the synthesis option would break some basic laws pertaining to thermodynamics, specifically that there is not enough energy present in the Galaxy to scan every atom, let alone change every atom.

Only  I have never interpreted the singularity to mean that AI's will advance in ways that are contradictory to the laws of nature - just at this point that they will expand in ways so fast that Organics will never be able to keep up.

In Mass Effect, I think the Reapers (perhaps the catalyst himself) are the perfect example of this.  Here is an AI that has gone beyond the point of singularity, and what has it decided to do?  Cull the organic civilizations and force them to adhere to it's pre-determined cycle.

You're right, the singularity can happen, I meant the threat that it will purge the Galaxy of all organic life is an imaginary threat. Besides, even the machines in Javics cycle went evil BECAUSE of the reapers. there is no proof any where that synthetics will turn on organics besides the reapers themselves.

[Sisterofshane]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
I would find the choice of synthesis more agreeable if all it did was allow organics a "jump start" what is already an inevitable future (for we already know that implants are already in widespread use).  Essentially what would happen would be that it would just become easier for organics to implement such changes to themselves, without fear of things like rejection or having to heal for lengthy periods of time, etc.  No body is FORCED to change in this scenario.

That's a valid objection. And the reason why I have proposed that Synthesis just provides the tools for self-improvement, a minimum change that people would be able to ignore if they really wanted to. I believe that this is within the parameters of the scenario. Explanations in the OP.

I'd find the idea of having my DNA changed a pretty significant thing to overlook. You know why they glow green? Why there eyes are that way? They've changed. Fundamentally.

This isn't something like breast implants. The change is NOT aesthetic.

A lot of this feeling stems from the poor writing and explanation.  I would say that Synthesis as it is NOW is completely unacceptable, but it is still possible for them to change this.

As for the glowing green skin and eyes, I would say that it is a narrative clue, meant to indicate that a change did indeed happen.  How confusing would it have been to see Joker and EDI exit the Normandy and look exactly the same?  People then would have challenged the Synthesis ending on the theory that it never actually happened.

And as for your "fundamentally", go to tthe top of this page and read my vaccination argument.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
I'm merely stating that BASIC scientific laws are present that prevent a singularity from happening.

That has yet to be demonstrated. All I have seen at this point it the claim and one piece of flawed logic.

It has no basis in anything. It's a cool idea but it would never happen. The Star Child's opinion is irrelevant. He cannot make such grandiose claims without any evidence.

As if other impossible things don't happen in the ME universe on a daily basis. Non-relay FTL for instance. That would break causality, apart from other things. But like FTL, so the singularity is a staple of SF literature, and people much smarter than you and me think it's worth considering. You don't even have conclusive evidence that this is impossible in the real world, even less in the context of the ME universe.

Why the hell can you suspend your disbelief for FTL but not for singularity events? The distinction is silly. The concepts are even within the SF "genre contract". Arguments based on "the singularity is impossible" are as invalid for judging the Catalyst as saying "FTL is impossible" is invalid for judging the ME universe as a fictional setting.

To affect every atom of every organic being in the Universe? Do you have any idea how much energy that would require? This isn't a Mass Relay jump.

I am willing to suspend my disbelief if it can be explained in Universe. That is why I can accept FTL travel. Furthermore we have studies going on RIGHT NOW that are working to show that intial results showed that certian particles moved faster than light. Do you understand that if the results are replicated again and peer reviewed that the Theory of Relativity will no londer have ANY basis for us?

Synthesis is neither explainded NOR is it ever foreshadowed in the way it should be. At some point it is not about susopending belief. You merely insult yourself.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
If the Reapers were a singularity we would not have the ability to destroy them.

That does not follow.

It has hit the self-limitations I have spoken about. He is merely an advanced AI. If he had reached a singularity he would have no reason to do anything. His solution is a cold, calculated way to prevent a HYPOTHETICAL problem.

You have misunderstood what a technological singularity is about. It is not conceived of as an endpoint to anything or a state of being that cannot be surpassed. The technological singularity is an event which may be triggered by the emergence of greater-than-human intelligence in an AI. The hypothesis is that there will be an intelligence explosion with inherently unpredictable consequences. One of the possible scenarios is an exponential growth of synthetic life that would destroy organic life. This has not been proven to be impossible.
 

Do you understand that a computer can play chess so well because it doesn't factor in mistakes? Did you know that it will always lose to a good blackjack player? Do you know why? Because a blackjack player can bluff. A computer cannot.

A computer can learn to read human body language. There is nothing basic about that limitation.

[Taboo]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
I would find the choice of synthesis more agreeable if all it did was allow organics a "jump start" what is already an inevitable future (for we already know that implants are already in widespread use).  Essentially what would happen would be that it would just become easier for organics to implement such changes to themselves, without fear of things like rejection or having to heal for lengthy periods of time, etc.  No body is FORCED to change in this scenario.

That's a valid objection. And the reason why I have proposed that Synthesis just provides the tools for self-improvement, a minimum change that people would be able to ignore if they really wanted to. I believe that this is within the parameters of the scenario. Explanations in the OP.

I'd find the idea of having my DNA changed a pretty significant thing to overlook. You know why they glow green? Why there eyes are that way? They've changed. Fundamentally.

This isn't something like breast implants. The change is NOT aesthetic.

A lot of this feeling stems from the poor writing and explanation.  I would say that Synthesis as it is NOW is completely unacceptable, but it is still possible for them to change this.

As for the glowing green skin and eyes, I would say that it is a narrative clue, meant to indicate that a change did indeed happen.  How confusing would it have been to see Joker and EDI exit the Normandy and look exactly the same?  People then would have challenged the Synthesis ending on the theory that it never actually happened.

And as for your "fundamentally", go to tthe top of this page and read my vaccination argument.

It is not my right to enact that upon people.

Have you seen Apocalypse Now? Do you recall the conversation with Colonel Kurtz and Willard?

I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that.

People have the right to choose. That ability is what gives us dignity as a species. Who the hell is Shepard to affect EVERY being in the galaxy at once?

[Sisterofshane]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

AAAND over on this thread... you are right. Singularity is an abstract threat that can't happen. And the synthesis option would break some basic laws pertaining to thermodynamics, specifically that there is not enough energy present in the Galaxy to scan every atom, let alone change every atom.

Only  I have never interpreted the singularity to mean that AI's will advance in ways that are contradictory to the laws of nature - just at this point that they will expand in ways so fast that Organics will never be able to keep up.

In Mass Effect, I think the Reapers (perhaps the catalyst himself) are the perfect example of this.  Here is an AI that has gone beyond the point of singularity, and what has it decided to do?  Cull the organic civilizations and force them to adhere to it's pre-determined cycle.

No. You do not go past a singularity.....

If the Reapers were a singularity we would not have the ability to destroy them.

It has hit the self-limitations I have spoken about. He is merely an advanced AI. If he had reached a singularity he would have no reason to do anything. His solution is a cold, calculated way to prevent a HYPOTHETICAL problem.

Do you understand that a computer can play chess so well because it doesn't factor in mistakes? Did you know that it will always lose to a good blackjack player? Do you know why? Because a blackjack player can bluff. A computer cannot.

They are limited by BASIC functions.

And you would argue that we HAVE the ability to destroy them completely?  I would argue that luck and chance have been the only things that have delayed the cycle from continuing, at which point the Catalyst then decides to involve you with it's course correction.  And there is no way of telling if the limitations you speak of are self-imposed (such as EDI CHOOSING to be "good") or not.


Besides, your last paragraph holds no wieght in this argument because in the Mass Effect universe, we are shown that AI is capable of lying and with-holding truth.  If we can accept that we are capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, then we can surely suspend disbelief when it comes to an AI's basic capabilities.

[mango smoothie]

Even though Synthesis is a choice I personally wouldn't choose I always find your posts on supporting it very informative and interesting, well done Ieldra2.

[Ieldra]

@Taboo-XX:
(1) Vacuum energy exists in amounts several orders of magnitude greater than the total energy output of the galaxy.
(2) There is no indication of every atom of every organic being being affected. My scenario is more akin to one action per organic being. But I grant that the *process* of Synthesis, if not the result, stretches credibility. That's why this is in the realm of "sufficiently advanced technology".

For things that are still possible with hard science, I suggest studying the Orion's Arm Universe Project. Even things that cannot be explained by any technology you can imagine still may be physically possible, and as long as they aren't proven physically impossible, they can be used in hard SF. And ME isn't even hard.

So just forget about this line of reasoning. It is not valid.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You have misunderstood what a technological singularity is about. It is not conceived of as an endpoint to anything or a state of being that cannot be surpassed. The technological singularity is an event which may be triggered by the emergence of greater-than-human intelligence in an AI. The hypothesis is that there will be an intelligence explosion with inherently unpredictable consequences. One of the possible scenarios is an exponential growth of synthetic life that would destroy organic life. This has not been proven to be impossible.
 

Nor has it been proven to be possible. This is a fallacious argument. You can neither confirm or deny anything. In that regard it is no different from the God debate. It is similar to the Catalyst Synthesis argument. It is irrelevant to me unless you can prove to me and others than you have factual evidence to back up your claims.

For this reason alone I choose not to be an atheist or religious.

To achieve a singularity you need a straight line growth curve. A hyperbolic growth curve has limits. It WILL stop. That's my point. It will reach a point where it can longer progress. Evolution is not substrate dependant for AI or Synthetics. They will adapt until their processing power reaches an end point.

As organics we will continue to adapt and survie to threats becuase are bodies do so.

[Ieldra]

mango smoothie wrote...
Even though Synthesis is a choice I personally wouldn't choose I always find your posts on supporting it very informative and interesting, well done Ieldra2.

Thank you. I'm certainly not out to make Synthesis everyone's choice. All I want to show is that it is a valid choice. All endings are good endings in a sense.

[Taboo]

Sisterofshane wrote...



And you would argue that we HAVE the ability to destroy them completely?  I would argue that luck and chance have been the only things that have delayed the cycle from continuing, at which point the Catalyst then decides to involve you with it's course correction.  And there is no way of telling if the limitations you speak of are self-imposed (such as EDI CHOOSING to be "good") or not.

Besides, your last paragraph holds no wieght in this argument because in the Mass Effect universe, we are shown that AI is capable of lying and with-holding truth.  If we can accept that we are capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, then we can surely suspend disbelief when it comes to an AI's basic capabilities.

I don't! I thought I had stressed ad nauseum that none of the choices are ethical. None of them are good options. I see detroy as a way to reset the doomsday clock to zero. It Destroys the Reapers.

The limitations of complexity are not self imposed. At some point you simply cannot progress further. That is what I am saying.

The Catalyst is more than capable of withholding information. My point is is that he has no bearing on anything because he doesn't provide evidence. He simply states something. It doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. His opinion is irrelevant.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 20 mai 2012 - 07:33 .

[Sisterofshane]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It is not my right to enact that upon people.

Have you seen Apocalypse Now? Do you recall the conversation with Colonel Kurtz and Willard?

I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that.

People have the right to choose. That ability is what gives us dignity as a species. Who the hell is Shepard to affect EVERY being in the galaxy at once?

This is the point that Ieldra is trying to make - when done right, the act of Sythesis would seem as if nothing had happened at all.  What makes this so confusing is that, from what we were shown and told, this cannot be so, especially if you believe that this act stopped conflict in the immediate sense (which is exactly what we were shown).

It is still up to you to decide that such a change is not within your right, however with a few narrative changes and the right implementation, it wouldn't necessarily be the apocolyptic scenario that was previously implied.