9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Rhapsody]

Seival wrote...

My next picture will also be about Synthesis, and I'll try to do it better.

Your avatar is still creepy as all hell, but that piece of art might be the first portrayal I've seen of Synthesis that doesn't trigger my Uncanny Valley OHGODWHY response.  And it's very well done, quite beautiful in fact.

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
Does Synthesis make a global biochemical change to all organics? Yes, it does. It may even be genetic (the EC contradicts itself here, or it may be meant metaphorically), but whether or not it is doesn't matter because it's clearly meant to be fundamental - and thus highly morally significant - in some way.
...
Any anti-Synthesis argument that goes beyond the objection "You're making a global change to people without their consent" is irrelevant. You think that objection trumps all other considerations? Fine. I understand that Synthesis is not for you.
...

The fundamental change in Synthesis seems to undermine the whole idea of choice. It is not just the Shepard made a choice (or was forced to choose) to impose Synthesis, the Synthesis change itself may also cause those affected to more readily accept it.

For example, I would expect that the increased logical capabilities provided by the synthetic integration in our thought processes would allow easier acceptance by subverting the "normal" ick-factor organics might have to the change. Of course my specific example could be wrong, but you can see how fundamentally changing organics may undermine (or enhance or change) their ability to make a choice of accepting Synthesis.

Food for thought; guessing it was already mentioned somewhere in this 200+ page thread. :innocent:

[His Name was HYR!!]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Harvard creates "cyborg" human tissue...

http://www.extremete...an-half-machine

Reposting, just because it might have gotten lost in the thick of other things.

[Restrider]

Just here to promote the BSN Consensus about the endings. Synthesis right now has little support in the polls, might vote for your favourite ending.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
Does Synthesis make a global biochemical change to all organics? Yes, it does. It may even be genetic (the EC contradicts itself here, or it may be meant metaphorically), but whether or not it is doesn't matter because it's clearly meant to be fundamental - and thus highly morally significant - in some way.
...
Any anti-Synthesis argument that goes beyond the objection "You're making a global change to people without their consent" is irrelevant. You think that objection trumps all other considerations? Fine. I understand that Synthesis is not for you.
...

The fundamental change in Synthesis seems to undermine the whole idea of choice. It is not just the Shepard made a choice (or was forced to choose) to impose Synthesis, the Synthesis change itself may also cause those affected to more readily accept it.

For example, I would expect that the increased logical capabilities provided by the synthetic integration in our thought processes would allow easier acceptance by subverting the "normal" ick-factor organics might have to the change. Of course my specific example could be wrong, but you can see how fundamentally changing organics may undermine (or enhance or change) their ability to make a choice of accepting Synthesis.

Food for thought; guessing it was already mentioned somewhere in this 200+ page thread. :innocent:

No, it doesn't undermine anything. With Synthesis, you're making ONE choice for everyone. There is no reason to assume any other decision-making processes will be affected, except maybe by the fact that you can now do different things than before. Also, having better built-in logic processing doesn't make your emotions go away. That should be rather obvious from everyday experience.

I'm not saying your scenario isn't possible. There are, after all, no guarantees of anything, but it's on the same level as "Control!Shepard will go insane and restart the cycle". It doesn't fit, thematically. Just as Control is the ending for those who don't believe that power will inevitably corrupt, Synthesis is for those who don't believe that adding synthetic aspects to ourselves will make us less than human.

As for the "ick" factor, that's based on the intuition that Synthesis will put "foreign stuff" into your body. If afterwards, you feel like before, with everything feeling like the natural part of you it now is, it won't last a day. Perhaps not for everyone, but for most. People are adaptable that way. I have a Titanium screw in my radius, but I never feel it, my arm feels normal, I just know, and most of the time I don't even think about it. Also, like every other human, I have two kilograms of bacteria in my body, some of which inevitably mutate and are killed subsequently by my immune system. We already are symbiotic life forms and it doesn't bother us. 

[Obadiah]

Let me try to explain what I'm talking about with respect to "choice".

The specific decision I was referring to was accepting or embracing Synthesis versus rejecting it. By "rejecting" I don't mean committing suicide or anything self-destructive, I mean something along the lines of supporting research to have Synthesis removed or to have completely organic children.

Organic decision making process is affected by emotions. Emotions are a mostly uncontrolled biological reaction to stimuli. We try to discount emotions when they are counter-productive, but they're still there as part of our initial baseline reaction to a decision, and in some way affect the final decision made.

With Synthesis, organics have been fundamentally changed, therefore their emotional reactions have been fundamentally changed, and by extension organics' decision making process has been changed. It doesn't matter if the decisions organics make after Synthesis are "better" or "worse"; the point is that post-Synthesis organics, by virtue of having been fundamentally changed, do not have the opportunity to make the same acceptance/rejection decision of Synthesis that they could have made pre-Synthesis.

The fundamental change to organics means they don't make the same decisions they made previously.

Because the Synthesis change affects how organics make a decision to accept or reject Synthesis, it undermines the choice.

Which is not to say that this is a terribly compelling reason to not pick Synthesis. It is just one more factor to consider.

Modifié par Obadiah, 16 novembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
With Synthesis, organics have been fundamentally changed, therefore their emotional reactions have been fundamentally changed, and by extension organics' decision making process has been changed.

I'm picking this statement out of your post because that does not follow, and without it your argument collapses. Suppose, for instance, your DNA has been changed to something else that does the same thing only with more options, such as creating proteins to interface with technology. That's fundamental, right? But it wouldn't necessarily affect any emotions or thinking processes. The "new DNA" can produce the same proteins, which in turn control the same processes and electrochemical reactions. This is the reason why I'm saying Synthesis may change what you are, but not who you are. It's like the move from 7-bit ASCII to UTF8. There may be some conversion problems, but the information encoded is the same. And *then* you add the stuff to interface with technology.

[Obadiah]

You're right, it would fall apart - I just don't see how you could fundamentally change an organic without necessarily changing their emotional reactions.

Emotions can extremely counterproductive in a given situation, and people wrestle and train to ignore them. A simple example is a soldier being too scared to move when in cover and under suppressing fire with the enemy closing in. If you don't find that thought experiment compelling, just think of another one where emotions are counterproductive. People seek to change those with technology, ie. pharmaceuticals, now (ex: overcoming depression).

I would expect that the perfection achieved through Synthesis would at least allow organics to reduce the intensity of distracting emotions, if not outright ignore them, when making a decision. That would either involve reducing the biological/biochemical reaction that created the emotion, or changing how the brain processes the emotion (maybe by just speeding the whole experience up, similar to Salarians, so it is less distracting).

If you don't think emotions will change, consider memory. This is something that technology has always attempted to augment and improve (diaries, day-planners, photographs, hard drives full of endless baby pictures, etc...). This would be the most obvious benefit of full technological integration and perfection. Simply having better memory would allow people to better recall past experiences and lessons-learned, and would affect how they make a decision. Here again, post-Synthesis organics would be making different decisions than pre-Synthesis organics.

Modifié par Obadiah, 16 novembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
I would expect that the perfection achieved through Synthesis would at least allow organics to reduce the intensity of distracting emotions, if not outright ignore them, when making a decision. That would either involve reducing the biological/biochemical reaction that created the emotion, or changing how the brain to processes the emotion (maybe by just speeding the whole experience up, similar to Salarians, so it is less distracting). That would be part of the perfection organics have been striving for and would have achieved.

If you don't think emotions will change, consider memory. This is something that technology has always attempted to augment and improve (diaries, day-planners, photographs, hard drives full of endless baby pictures, etc...). This would be the most obvious benefit of full technological integration and perfection. Simply having better memory would allow people to better recall past experiences and lessons-learned, and would affect how they make a decision. Here again, post-Synthesis organics would be making different decisions than pre-Synthesis organics.

There's a subtle difference here. One one hand, you have the possibility of having your emotional reactions changed, and on the other, they remain the same as before but you might get the ability to override them by reason more easily than before. The former would be limiting the range of your emotional experiences, while the latter would be empowering you by giving you new ways to react that you can, but need not use. Limiting the intensity of emotion would be as undesirable in certain contexts as their unfettered expression is in others.

Anything associated with the term "improvement" would, from my point of view, give the individual more control over their own reactions. For instance, I can envision being able to reduce the intensity of your emotional reactions at will depending on the circumstances. The following snippet is a part of a post-Synthesis scene I wrote way back in early March, when my image of the Synthesis was as yet crude and unrefined, but its main point still stands:

Miranda’s identity now rests as much in circuits as in brain cells, but unlike the electronic brains of the old AIs, these circuits can process emotions as well. She has shut hers partly off while working, as she was wont to do even when she was still fully organic. It is easier now to shut them off, but passion for anything recedes when she does, it is not a desirable state of being. And as she refuses to let go of the hope that something of Shepard has survived the Synthesis, she holds on to the pain that hope inevitably brings with it.

There are now decisions you can make you could not make earlier. How free you are to make any decision within the set of the ones you could possibly make, that will remain as mysterious as before. Or perhaps you'll be able to rewrite your own "master programs" like EDI does.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 novembre 2012 - 03:33 .

[atheelogos]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Harvard creates "cyborg" human tissue...

http://www.extremete...an-half-machine

Reposting, just because it might have gotten lost in the thick of other things.

Very interesting! Thanks for posting : )

[atheelogos]

@ Ieldra2's

If you could had to make the choice between control or synthesis in real life, which would you choose and why?

For the record I love Synthesis ingame, but would never choose it in real life. That's actually what most Transhumanist would do. We won't make others undergo a process they want no part of. We would only change ourselves because we don't want to violate the freewill of others.

I'm wondering what you guys think about that, so I'd love to hear everyone else's response to this as well.

[atheelogos]

Obadiah wrote...

Let me try to explain what I'm talking about with respect to "choice".

The specific decision I was referring to was accepting or embracing Synthesis versus rejecting it. By "rejecting" I don't mean committing suicide or anything self-destructive, I mean something along the lines of supporting research to have Synthesis removed or to have completely organic children.

Organic decision making process is affected by emotions. Emotions are a mostly uncontrolled biological reaction to stimuli. We try to discount emotions when they are counter-productive, but they're still there as part of our initial baseline reaction to a decision, and in some way affect the final decision made.

With Synthesis, organics have been fundamentally changed, therefore their emotional reactions have been fundamentally changed, and by extension organics' decision making process has been changed. It doesn't matter if the decisions organics make after Synthesis are "better" or "worse"; the point is that post-Synthesis organics, by virtue of having been fundamentally changed, do not have the opportunity to make the same acceptance/rejection decision of Synthesis that they could have made pre-Synthesis.

The fundamental change to organics means they don't make the same decisions they made previously.

Because the Synthesis change affects how organics make a decision to accept or reject Synthesis, it undermines the choice.

Which is not to say that this is a terribly compelling reason to not pick Synthesis. It is just one more factor to consider.

"With Synthesis, organics have been fundamentally changed, therefore their emotional reactions have been fundamentally changed" You can't know that. It's far too early to tell how Synthesis will effect the mindset of people, if at all

Modifié par atheelogos, 19 novembre 2012 - 04:19 .

[KingZayd]

The epilogue slides show the "nation" within Sovereign's (EDI's) new body. It's a new Reaper with multiple species contained within!

[CosmicGnosis]

atheelogos wrote...

@ Ieldra2's

If you could had to make the choice between control or synthesis in real life, which would you choose and why?

For the record I love Synthesis ingame, but would never choose it in real life. That's actually what most Transhumanist would do. We won't make others undergo a process they want no part of. We would only change ourselves because we don't want to violate the freewill of others.

I'm wondering what you guys think about that, so I'd love to hear everyone else's response to this as well.

I don't think I could ever choose Synthesis in real life. It's just too much.

And that's my problem. I want my canon choice to be the one that I would really choose.

[atheelogos]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

@ Ieldra2's

If you could had to make the choice between control or synthesis in real life, which would you choose and why?

For the record I love Synthesis ingame, but would never choose it in real life. That's actually what most Transhumanist would do. We won't make others undergo a process they want no part of. We would only change ourselves because we don't want to violate the freewill of others.

I'm wondering what you guys think about that, so I'd love to hear everyone else's response to this as well.

I don't think I could ever choose Synthesis in real life. It's just too much.

And that's my problem. I want my canon choice to be the one that I would really choose.

So control then?

[Ieldra]

atheelogos wrote...
@ Ieldra2's
If you could had to make the choice between control or synthesis in real life, which would you choose and why?

For the record I love Synthesis ingame, but would never choose it in real life. That's actually what most Transhumanist would do. We won't make others undergo a process they want no part of. We would only change ourselves because we don't want to violate the freewill of others.

I'm wondering what you guys think about that, so I'd love to hear everyone else's response to this as well.

Yep, I agree. I choose Synthesis in-game for thematic reasons, basically for the outcome, but roleplaying as myself, I'd choose Control and try to steer civilization towards a similar future without changing everyone's biochemistry. That's why I find the Synthesis-after-Control headcanon so interesting.

Since I'm one of the most well-known defenders of Synthesis, most people here probably don't realize just how uncomfortable this idea of changing everyone makes me - as a transhumanist. My problem with Control is that it has thematic implications I dislike even more, while roleplaying-wise it is rather attractive, and Destroy has thematic implications I hate beyond all measure. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 novembre 2012 - 03:03 .

[Taboo]

Destroy has thematic relevance though. Even you must admit the lulz factor of the thematic relevance of Synthesis. You're picking it now because you like it (not that that's an issue).

Not only that Super MAC ADDED exposition in the falling action to bring it in. You'd be laughed out of a script writing class for such nonsense.

Control is also relevant. Synthesis is just there. A third wheel so to speak.

[Applepie_Svk]

Taboo-XX wrote...
 Synthesis is just there. A third wheel so to speak.

Does it prove  IT ? 

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 19 novembre 2012 - 03:20 .

[Taboo]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
 Synthesis is just there. A third wheel so to speak.

Does it prove  IT ? 

No but it proves I was right about the rolling stone. And we'll find out just how far it's gone when Omega is released.

[dorktainian]

yay another excuse to bring up some more B5 sayings.

''Understanding is a Three Edged Sword. Your side, Their side & the Truth''

Your Side (Synthesis. In an ideal world you would want all to survive)
Their Side (Control. Indoctrination)
The Truth. (Destroy. You have to destroy the reapers. it is the only way to guarantee stopping them. yes there will be no more edi or geth (i killed em anyway))

Just look at the big picture.. and here we go again with another B5 quote

''some must be sacrificed if all are to be saved''

yeehaw.

[Ieldra]

dorktainian wrote...
yay another excuse to bring up some more B5 sayings.

''Understanding is a Three Edged Sword. Your side, Their side & the Truth''

Your Side (Synthesis. In an ideal world you would want all to survive)
Their Side (Control. Indoctrination)
The Truth. (Destroy. You have to destroy the reapers. it is the only way to guarantee stopping them. yes there will be no more edi or geth (i killed em anyway))

Just look at the big picture.. and here we go again with another B5 quote

''some must be sacrificed if all are to be saved''

yeehaw.

Posts like this are why I dislike Destroy not just for its thematic implications, but also on the meta level. Pro-Destroy people appear to be more likely to trumpet their ending about as The Truth. I'd hate to be associated with these people.

[dorktainian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...
yay another excuse to bring up some more B5 sayings.

''Understanding is a Three Edged Sword. Your side, Their side & the Truth''

Your Side (Synthesis. In an ideal world you would want all to survive)
Their Side (Control. Indoctrination)
The Truth. (Destroy. You have to destroy the reapers. it is the only way to guarantee stopping them. yes there will be no more edi or geth (i killed em anyway))

Just look at the big picture.. and here we go again with another B5 quote

''some must be sacrificed if all are to be saved''

yeehaw.

Posts like this are why I dislike Destroy not just for its thematic implications, but also on the meta level. Pro-Destroy people appear to be more likely to trumpet their ending about as The Truth. I'd hate to be associated with these people.

yeah cos it makes sense..... Yeehaw.  changing organic DNA into some metaphysical rubbish however makes no sense whatsoever at all.  You cannot change biology.  Altering DNA causes mutation.  Not nice eh?

also as shepard clearly states  ''we fight or we die''. 

[Laforgus]

Took me a while to read (OP's post) now my opinion.

I like this Theory very interesting (In game Wise) but you know it does have a flaw, even if you synthesize every organic life you cant change the base nature of Organics, who is to Evolve.

Sooner or later being without synthesis will start to be born and change and the time it happens they will see like mutants, because they will be fully organic, then my friends there will be conflict for general differences.

I wont say the next millennial, but in couple of million of years Organic life will be reborn on the Milky Way, it can start with something as simple as a asteroid coming from another Galaxy into a planed of the Milky way.

That's basic Biology, and you know that Synthesis wont last forever. I suppose that your perfect Synthetic people will monitor and try to prevent this.

Destroying new-coming asteroids?
Killing Newborn Children who lack a full Synthesis?
Preventing new start and planets to be created?

Yeaa suree! Enjoy your Synthesis party while it last!

[Steelcan]

What thematic implications do not like about destroy?

[jtav]

Not Ieldra but Destroy affirms the status quo. We shouldn't try for ascension. There are things man is really not meant to know. Normal is good.