9087 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

antares_sublight wrote...

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

A bodies cells nature is to be part of the order of the body...That alone negates your arguement.

But it was once the nature of cells to be individual, at some point a change came where multi-cellular organisms came about. The only reason it is in a body cell's nature to be part of the body is because they share a common DNA - Synthesis will allow life in the galaxy to share a common "DNA" (Shepard's life-force).

Aside from your point still being a false comparison (cells are created based on a single DNA, built to function as a part of a whole, never at any time being individual)... are we changing the understanding of Synthesis now to mean not only is existing life modified to be hybridized, but it's modified such that all life shares the same DNA (or "DNA-analog")? How far out is this going?

The star child says everyone has the same dna...

Modifié par dreman9999, 23 mai 2012 - 07:42 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Lugaidster wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

That's not how I beleive it. Shepard is pure of motivation, selfless. The Illusive Man wanted the power for his own selfish reasons. The Reapers will be subjugated, turned into a force of good in this universe before being incinerated in the heart of the nearest sun.

Shepard is also a human being, flawed just like the rest. I wouldn't trust him that kind of power as I wouldn't trust it to anyone. No single entity should hold the fate of the galaxy at the palm of their hands, the posibilities for imposition and limit of free will are endless.

So I should commit mass murder or impose a similar action on the entire galaxy instead? No thanks, I'd rather place a bet, the odds are good. 

I never said it wasn't a gamble. I never said it was good, or right. It's a liberal interpretation.

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

No, this is not what exclusively what happens with control, it's the liberal interpretation I choose to believe, on account of the others being more unethical than it.

 
Throughout history, many dictators started as selfless individuals, which is how they got the masses to approve them. South-america's short history (and Africa's) is filled with examples. Trust me, I know, I'm from South America.

Does that mean everyone given power will become an unethical dictator? Nope. 

Then your subjective interpretation that control is better is just that, your subjective interpretation. So, again, what are you trying to prove?

Nothing, you're arguing against me. 

Problem?

[Uncle Jo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...


Doesn't it? 

On what grounds? 

That's also a fallacy of association. He proved control was possible, his motivations and means to aquire the knowledge was questionable, no, downright wrong. Just because he wanted to doesn't mean it's wrong. 

I also question why Shepard is being referred to as 'a mere human'. Since when has Shepard been anything but normal?

Oh yes, I completely agree, Shep has achieved quite the impossible, something that no one before (and maybe after) him has done. He has been even resurrected with cool synthetic upgrades and all...

But control the REAPERS...  That's"a significant hurdle" as our friend TIM said (btw he ended up indoctrinated at the end)

There is something I really don't understand : on side you say (rightly) that you don't believe that "f***ing glowing serpent" about the technolgical singularity. I'm totally with you on this point.

On the other side, you're ready to buy his c**p when he said to you that you can control them ? He even asked you before, remember ? "...Or do you think you can control us?"

You do really think, that this damn liar is going to let you gently take his place and bend over his will (and his playmobils) to you ? Why ? Because the Crucible changed him... the Catalyst?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 23 mai 2012 - 07:46 .

[Lugaidster]

dreman9999 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

A bodies cells nature is to be part of the order of the body...That alone negates your arguement.

But it was once the nature of cells to be individual, at some point a change came where multi-cellular organisms came about. The only reason it is in a body cell's nature to be part of the body is because they share a common DNA - Synthesis will allow life in the galaxy to share a common "DNA" (Shepard's life-force).

Aside from your point still being a false comparison (cells are created based on a single DNA, built to function as a part of a whole, never at any time being individual)... are we changing the understanding of Synthesis now to mean not only is existing life modified to be hybridized, but it's modified such that all life shares the same DNA (or "DNA-analog")? How far out is this going?

The star child says everyone has the same dna...

That's an oversimplification. If that were true, then everyone would be the same species. The kid's phrase implies that everyone will share a common framework, not the same code.

[Lugaidster]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Oh yes, I completely agree, Shep has achieved quite the impossible, something that no one before (and maybe after) him has done. He has been even resurrected with cool synthetic upgrades and all...

Pff... Like the resurrection was his choice or in his control. If Shepard was indeed superhuman, he should've been able to meld with Morinth and live.

[The Night Mammoth]

Lugaidster wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You need to prove it for me to care or base a decision on it. 

[...]

Which is flawed reasoning. The notion of 'anything is possible given infinite time' proves nothing.

Apparently your logic is failing or you are suffering a mild case of stubbornness. Singularity is a posibility, that's a given, it's not a certainty, but is a possibility at any time. With enough time, then, every possibility becomes a certainty.

It's also a possibility that these synthetics will be defeated by organics. Should I prioritize one over the other? 

Given that it's called an event horizion and a singularity for a reason, the fact that the Catalyst is portraying it as a certainty depsite not providing a shred of proof should be reason enough for me to dismiss it. 

That's a corollary, if you can't see it then you have bigger issues. People that are much more knowledgeable than both of us give it a serious thought in the field of Artificial Inteligence. I don't it's so easy to dismiss that possibility.

In real life, yes. Those scientists acknowledge that they have no real idea what will happen on the other side, but most postulate the effects on humanity will not be negative. 

This is fiction though, where synthetic organisms that are our equals already exist, where the concept of a singularity is not mentioned once, let alone presented as something I should be worried about. 

The narrative shift in focus astounds me. One minute I'm talking to EDI about how she has found her humanity, the next the serpent is telling me synthetics are going to try and eradicate everyone. 

No, BioWare, if you don't mind I'll ignore this little irrelevant plot point, since the story loses nothing of worth. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 23 mai 2012 - 07:53 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Uncle Jo wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...


Doesn't it? 

On what grounds? 

That's also a fallacy of association. He proved control was possible, his motivations and means to aquire the knowledge was questionable, no, downright wrong. Just because he wanted to doesn't mean it's wrong. 

I also question why Shepard is being referred to as 'a mere human'. Since when has Shepard been anything but normal?

Oh yes, I completely agree, Shep has achieved quite the impossible, something that no one before (and maybe after) him has done. He has been even resurrected with cool synthetic upgrades and all...

But control the REAPERS...  That's"a significant hurdle" as our friend TIM said (btw he ended up indoctrinated at the end)

Indeed, one overcome by the Crucible. 

There is something I really don't understand : on side you say (rightly) that you don't believe that "f***ing glowing serpent" about the technolgical singularity. I'm totally with you on this point.

On the other side, you're ready to buy his c**p when he said to you that you can control them ? He even asked you before, remember ? "...Or do you think you can control us?"

You do really think, that this damn liar is going to let you gently take his place and bend over his will (and his playmobils) to you ? Why ? Because the Crucible changed him... the Catalyst?

It's a leap of faith, a gamble, a role of the dice. This interpretation is liberal, the full story is often grasping, and become nonsensical at the end. 

I see control as more of a 'imagine whatever you want' choice, where I choose to see it as a defiance rather than an acceptance of the Illusive Man's motives. 

[Uncle Jo]

Lugaidster wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Oh yes, I completely agree, Shep has achieved quite the impossible, something that no one before (and maybe after) him has done. He has been even resurrected with cool synthetic upgrades and all...

Pff... Like the resurrection was his choice or in his control. If Shepard was indeed superhuman, he should've been able to meld with Morinth and live.

I already told you to hold your horses, as well as I told you to read my posts, before jumping at me. BTW do you know what sarcasm means?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 23 mai 2012 - 08:00 .

[Lugaidster]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I see control as more of a 'imagine whatever you want' choice, where I choose to see it as a defiance rather than an acceptance of the Illusive Man's motives. 

They all are. Just that in my ending (destroy) no single entity has the fate of the galaxy in his grasp.

[Lugaidster]

Uncle Jo wrote...

I already told you to hold your horses, as well as I told you to read my posts, before jumping at me. BTW do you know what sacarsm means?

Dude who's jumping? Do you have an issue with people messing around? I thought that was the tone of your post... Whatever....

PS: Your comment didn't have a sarcastic connotation.

Modifié par Lugaidster, 23 mai 2012 - 08:02 .

[Ieldra]

Control is a perfectly viable choice. As I said, Shepard just continuing the Cycle is just as against the spirit of the ending as saying that the relays all go supernova. It doesn't happen. All endings end the Reaper threat. Standard interpretation should be "Shepard becomes the Catalyst and controls the Reapers." What happens after is for the one who chooses Control to say, for no one else. Unless Bioware comes forth with a canonical outcome. Which won't happen.

Having said that, Synthesis is still my preferred choice for various reasons.

[The Night Mammoth]

Lugaidster wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I see control as more of a 'imagine whatever you want' choice, where I choose to see it as a defiance rather than an acceptance of the Illusive Man's motives. 

They all are. Just that in my ending (destroy) no single entity has the fate of the galaxy in his grasp.

Neither does mine. Shepard builds the Relays, solves other minor problems, starts the rebuilding process to get the galaxy back on track, then flies the Reapers into the sun. 

I'm deciding no one's fate. 

[Lugaidster]

[quote]The Night Mammoth wrote...

They all are. Just that in my ending (destroy) no single entity has the fate of the galaxy in his grasp.

[/quote]

Neither does mine. 
[/quote]

We're talking about control, right? How is controlling sentient death machines not having the fate of the galaxy in your grasp? You may want to think he won't do anything with that power, but he still has it...

[The Night Mammoth]

Lugaidster wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Neither does mine. 

We're talking about control, right? How is controlling sentient death machines not having the fate of the galaxy in your grasp? You may want to think he won't do anything with that power, but he still has it...

She won't. She builds the Relays, helps construct some infrastructure, then flies the Reapers into the sun. 

Whose fate am I deciding? 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 23 mai 2012 - 08:08 .

[Uncle Jo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...


Indeed, one overcome by the Crucible. 


It's a leap of faith, a gamble, a role of the dice. This interpretation is liberal, the full story is often grasping, and become nonsensical at the end. 

I see control as more of a 'imagine whatever you want' choice, where I choose to see it as a defiance rather than an acceptance of the Illusive Man's motives. 

I just want to remember you of the definition of Catalyst: "someone who precipitate the events (or a reaction) without being involved or changed in the process"

IMO BW didn't choose this term just randomly...

Remember the discussion with TIM and the last question of Shep (parangon) : "Do you really want to bet the sake of humanity on it " ?
Anyway that's your point of view and I respect it even if I absolutely disagree....

The ending taken at face value is nonsensical. I personally think the space troll lies, so I chose the solution that he described as the less appealing...

[antares_sublight]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

She won't. She builds the Relays, helps construct some infrastructure, then flies the Reapers into the sun. 

Who is "she", since the Catalyst says that Shepard will die and lose everything? Certain it's the same person with the same motivations, convictions and strength?

[Ieldra]

You already have the fate of the galaxy in your hands when you're making your decision about how the Crucible is to be used. You're deciding everyone's fate. All sapient life including the Reapers is affected by your decision. Pretending humility is hypocritical. You have the responsibility. Control may actually be the least drastic choice if you look at the consequences.

I won't argue for Synthesis being "objectively" better than Control. I have my reasons why I prefer it, which includes that it sets the Reapers free from the Catalyst's control and gives the species of the galaxy an upgrade, but I can see the arguments for Control.

My preferring Synthesis is not based on morality. As I said, (deontological) morality isn't everything.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 08:17 .

[Uncle Jo]

Lugaidster wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

I already told you to hold your horses, as well as I told you to read my posts, before jumping at me. BTW do you know what sacarsm means?

Dude who's jumping? Do you have an issue with people messing around? I thought that was the tone of your post... Whatever....

PS: Your comment didn't have a sarcastic connotation.

Yes I do. Problem bro?

P:S: 'cause you suck at reading...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 23 mai 2012 - 08:14 .

[The Night Mammoth]

antares_sublight wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

She won't. She builds the Relays, helps construct some infrastructure, then flies the Reapers into the sun. 

Who is "she", since the Catalyst says that Shepard will die and lose everything? Certain it's the same person with the same motivations, convictions and strength?

Pretty sure. 

The option wouldn't work otherwise. 

And I don't put credence into anything the glowing serpent says anyway. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 23 mai 2012 - 08:22 .

[Heeden]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

She won't. She builds the Relays, helps construct some infrastructure, then flies the Reapers into the sun. 

Whose fate am I deciding? 

I was too quick to dismiss Control as leading to stagnation earlier. What I should have said is my Shepard would find it hard to self-destruct that way (a near-compulsive meddler and born survivor mean he's sure to stick around) and even if he always does things for the best that would ultimately lead to nannying and stagnation.

[Heeden]

Uncle Jo wrote...

P:S: 'cause you suck at reading...

I read your supposedly sarcastic post but couldn't see where the sarcasm was meant to be, perhaps you could explain?

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

She won't. She builds the Relays, helps construct some infrastructure, then flies the Reapers into the sun. 

Whose fate am I deciding? 

I was too quick to dismiss Control as leading to stagnation earlier. What I should have said is my Shepard would find it hard to self-destruct that way (a near-compulsive meddler and born survivor mean he's sure to stick around) and even if he always does things for the best that would ultimately lead to nannying and stagnation.

There's no self-destructing here. Shepard lives on the Citadel, and then in a magically grown long-lived organic super-body created by the Reapers. 

[Uncle Jo]

Heeden wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

P:S: 'cause you suck at reading...

I read your supposedly sarcastic post but couldn't see where the sarcasm was meant to be, perhaps you could explain?

Nope.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

She won't. She builds the Relays, helps construct some infrastructure, then flies the Reapers into the sun. 

Who is "she", since the Catalyst says that Shepard will die and lose everything? Certain it's the same person with the same motivations, convictions and strength?

"But the Reapers will obey me?"
"Yes."

Cut and dried.

[Heeden]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

There's no self-destructing here. Shepard lives on the Citadel, and then in a magically grown long-lived organic super-body created by the Reapers. 

Doesn't the Citadel fall apart in the control ending too? I figured control to be a copy of Shepard being transmitted to every Reaper to overwrite whatever controls the Catalyst put in place (which would make rebuilding and reintegrating the varied personalities interesting but not impossible).