9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@antares:
Take this:

"How much more energy do organisms require now?"

This is completely irrelevant. Because I can invent something - say, "an infinitesimal amount more than before" - but what does that prove? The number doesn't follow from my concept. There could be 10000 different answers.

We are shown that it works. Period. We are shown that ecosystems are intact. So any details you add must be based on the assumption that it works. And the concept would only be invalidated if it was not possible to come up with an answer that works. But there are thousands of possible answers, and for each one you'd come up with more questions in order to use lesser and lesser details to make the house crash. Where does it end? Do you expect me to invent a complete ecosystem at the drop of hat?

I'm sorry, but questions like that ARE irrelevant.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 09:52 .

[Heeden]

[quote]antares_sublight wrote...

How many species will be extinct because of Synthesis? (due to total upheaval of established ecosystems)[/QUOTE]
None.
[quote]How many ecosystems and biosystems will be eliminated or become irrelevant?[/quote]
None.
[quote]What do the reapers do after Synthesis? Are they docile now? Their purpose is somehow waved away, so what do they do now? Participate in galactic civilization and politics? Colonize some place? Go back to sleep? Watch jeopardy reruns? [/quote]
All of the above.
[quote]If the reapers are supposedly the pinacle of evolution, but now Synthesis is the "end of evolution" and yet it has made the reapers more like organics somehow, was Harbinger just wrong? What does Harbinger have to say about it?[/quote]
Harbinger did not have all the information, the Crucible opened new possibilities, go ask him about it.
[quote]How much more energy do organisms require now?[/quote]
However much it takes to enable the mechanisms of synthesis.
[quote]How has Synthesis affected the edibility of foods?[/quote]
It hasn't.
[quote]Does wood still burn in the same way?[/quote]
Yes. (Edited - originally wrote No by accident)
[quote]Does hybridized fungus consume synthetic material now?[/quote]
Hybridisation of fungus is not an effect of Synthesis.
[quote]How has Synthesis affected venus fly traps?[/quote]
They have, to the best of their capabilities, gained a greater perspective of their place in the universe.
[quote]Joker's (maybe cotton?) hat is glowing, does all previously-organic material glow now?[/quote]
No, the green circuitry patterns are a stylistic effect showing everything is now connected.
[quote]Is pollination unnecessary now?[/quote]
Only in plants that reproduce asexually, as it was before.
[quote]Is cotton still soft?[/quote]
Depends on the manufacturing process, as it did before.
[quote]What happens to the Levo/Dextro difference?[/quote]
It still exists.
[quote]Does cork still work the way it did before?[/quote]
Yes,
[quote]-- assuming Synthesis is done via symbiotic parasitic "nanites":[/quote]
I don't think it does, but anyway...
[quote]What do nanites taste like?[/quote]
Depends on how they interact with your taste-buds and olfactory senses, if they're intelligent enough and able to manipulate matter on a quantum level then whatever they want to taste like.
[quote]Do nanites die with their host?[/quote]
Depends on what they are programmed to do.
[quote]Do nanites decay? How does this affect the ecology of where they lie?[/quote]
Depends on the make-up of the nanites and the ecology in question.
[quote]If nanites are inert in non-sentient organic life: where do they lie and why? Are they just waiting, monitoring their hosts until they see some spark of sentience and then they go to work manipulating the life form?[/quote]
No idea, you'll have to more fully explain your idea of what nanites are and what their function is for me to form an opinion.
[quote]How do nanites reach all life in the galaxy, including forms deep within planetary crust, bottom of the ocean, etc?[/quote]
Well if you believe in nanites, you'll have to believe that the energy burst from the Mass Relays has a degree of intelligence that can recognise living beings and replicate parts of matter in to the desired form. This energy will have to dissipate to every part of the galaxy.
[quote]How much control do these parasitic nanites have over their hosts?[/quote]
None I would assume, complete if you have a technophobic view.
[quote]Would an EMP destroy all the nanites and devastate hybrid life forms?[/quote]
Only if the nanites worked on electromagnetic principle, unlikely at that sort of scale.

[quote]-- assuming Synthesis means all life is networked and "working together"
Why would an organism deliberately arrange for itself to be overcome or harvested for food if it was not self-beneficial?[/quote]

An organism would not deliberately arrange this, organisms would still be individual and have their own interest at heart. Next would be the interests of their "platform" (herd, species, ecosphere, planet, system, cluster, galaxy etc). However predators may be more likely to hunt in ways that promote a balanced ecology and prey species less likely to overpopulate if no predators are around to control numbers.

Modifié par Heeden, 23 mai 2012 - 09:56 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@antares:
Take this:

"How much more energy do organisms require now?"

This is completely irrelevant. Because I can invent something - say, "an infinitesimal amount more than before" - but what does that prove? The number doesn't follow from my concept.

It's a valid question about the implementation and therefore logically defensibility of the ending. (spoilers: indefensible)

Ieldra2 wrote...
We are shown that it works. Period. We are shown that ecosystems are intact.

We are most definitely not shown that, we're shown a few-second glimpse of how things are immediately after the change, and then some shadowy view of something sometime somewhere. Saying "ecosystems are intact" is headcanon.

Ieldra2 wrote...
So any details you add must be based on the assumption that it works. And the concept would only be invalidated if it was not possible to come up with an answer that works. But there are thousands of possible answers, and for each one you'd come up with more questions in order to use lesser and lesser details to make the house crash. Where does it end? Do you expect me to invent a complete ecosystem at the drop of hat?

Exactly, it's not possible to logically defend this.

Ieldra2 wrote...
I'm sorry, but questions like that ARE irrelevant.

Your attempt at logically defending something that is totally illogical and contradictory is admirable but laughable. They're perfectly valid questions on what is actually happening and what the after-effects are.
You only want them to be irrelevant.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 10:06 .

[antares_sublight]

[quote]Heeden wrote...

[quote]antares_sublight wrote...

How many species will be extinct because of Synthesis? (due to total upheaval of established ecosystems)[/QUOTE]
None.
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]How many ecosystems and biosystems will be eliminated or become irrelevant?[/quote]
None.
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]

[quote]What do the reapers do after Synthesis? Are they docile now? Their purpose is somehow waved away, so what do they do now? Participate in galactic civilization and politics? Colonize some place? Go back to sleep? Watch jeopardy reruns? [/quote]
All of the above.
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]If the reapers are supposedly the pinacle of evolution, but now Synthesis is the "end of evolution" and yet it has made the reapers more like organics somehow, was Harbinger just wrong? What does Harbinger have to say about it?[/quote]
Harbinger did not have all the information, the Crucible opened new possibilities, go ask him about it.
[quote]How much more energy do organisms require now?[/quote]
However much it takes to enable the mechanisms of synthesis.
[/quote]
And how much disruption of the galaxy does that cause then?

[quote]
[quote]How has Synthesis affected the edibility of foods?[/quote]
It hasn't.
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]Does wood still burn in the same way?[/quote]
Yes. (Edited - originally wrote No by accident)
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]Does hybridized fungus consume synthetic material now?[/quote]
Hybridisation of fungus is not an effect of Synthesis.
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]How has Synthesis affected venus fly traps?[/quote]
They have, to the best of their capabilities, gained a greater perspective of their place in the universe.
[/quote]
Wonderful, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]Joker's (maybe cotton?) hat is glowing, does all previously-organic material glow now?[/quote]
No, the green circuitry patterns are a stylistic effect showing everything is now connected.
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]Is pollination unnecessary now?[/quote]
Only in plants that reproduce asexually, as it was before.
[/quote]
But... synthetic components!

[quote]
[quote]Is cotton still soft?[/quote]
Depends on the manufacturing process, as it did before.
[/quote]
But... synthetic components!

[quote]
[quote]What happens to the Levo/Dextro difference?[/quote]
It still exists.
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]Does cork still work the way it did before?[/quote]
Yes,
[/quote]
But... synthetic components!

[quote]
[quote]-- assuming Synthesis is done via symbiotic parasitic "nanites":[/quote]
I don't think it does, but anyway...
[quote]What do nanites taste like?[/quote]
Depends on how they interact with your taste-buds and olfactory senses, if they're intelligent enough and able to manipulate matter on a quantum level then whatever they want to taste like.
[/quote]
No thanks.

[quote]
[quote]Do nanites die with their host?[/quote]
Depends on what they are programmed to do.
[/quote]
Who programs them?

[quote]
[quote]Do nanites decay? How does this affect the ecology of where they lie?[/quote]
Depends on the make-up of the nanites and the ecology in question.
[/quote]
And this is decided how?

[quote]
[quote]If nanites are inert in non-sentient organic life: where do they lie and why? Are they just waiting, monitoring their hosts until they see some spark of sentience and then they go to work manipulating the life form?[/quote]
No idea, you'll have to more fully explain your idea of what nanites are and what their function is for me to form an opinion.
[/quote]
Just referring to pro-synthite "canon".

[quote]
[quote]How do nanites reach all life in the galaxy, including forms deep within planetary crust, bottom of the ocean, etc?[/quote]
Well if you believe in nanites, you'll have to believe that the energy burst from the Mass Relays has a degree of intelligence that can recognise living beings and replicate parts of matter in to the desired form. This energy will have to dissipate to every part of the galaxy.
[/quote]
Headcanon, thanks.

[quote]
[quote]How much control do these parasitic nanites have over their hosts?[/quote]
None I would assume, complete if you have a technophobic view.
[/quote]
(a) then what's the point of synthesis. ( all life is now puppet husks?

[quote]
[quote]Would an EMP destroy all the nanites and devastate hybrid life forms?[/quote]
Only if the nanites worked on electromagnetic principle, unlikely at that sort of scale.
[/quote]
Fair enough.

[quote]

[quote]-- assuming Synthesis means all life is networked and "working together"
Why would an organism deliberately arrange for itself to be overcome or harvested for food if it was not self-beneficial?[/quote]

An organism would not deliberately arrange this, organisms would still be individual and have their own interest at heart. Next would be the interests of their "platform" (herd, species, ecosphere, planet, system, cluster, galaxy etc). However predators may be more likely to hunt in ways that promote a balanced ecology and prey species less likely to overpopulate if no predators are around to control numbers.
[/quote]
Galactic Avatar? Seemy first question about extinction of species.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...


It's a never-ending list.

You have to understand, and accept, that the majority of these simply aren't meant to be answered in the game. Good sci-fi rarely answers every single question from its audience - a lot is left up to personal interpretation. (ME3 certainly left too much up to personal interpretation, but the desire to not bury themselves in minutiae is an understandable one.)

For instance, the response to a very basic question - "do we still need to eat" - potentially invalidates a number of your other listed concerns. So do "do we still age" or "do we still get sick." And even if the answers to those are all yes, they might operate in totally different ways than they do now.


There's so many variables that leaving a number of these open can be better than trying to close every seam (especially with unpleasable nerds like us looking to pick at every single thread that's been set.)


My preferred answers to your questions:

How many species will be extinct because of Synthesis? (due to total upheaval of established ecosystems). None, with nanotech to facilitate cohesion/regulation quickly. Individuals may die, but species? I see no reason why.
How many ecosystems and biosystems will be eliminated or become irrelevant?
Again, why would they?
What do the reapers do after Synthesis? Are they docile now? Their purpose is somehow waved away, so what do they do now? Participate in galactic civilization and politics? Colonize some place? Go back to sleep? Watch jeopardy reruns? Their gestalt individuality restored, I would imagine each would find its own reason to exist like the Geth did. Reparations might be a good place to start for the contrite ones.
If the reapers are supposedly the pinacle of evolution, but now Synthesis is the "end of evolution" and yet it has made the reapers more like organics somehow, was Harbinger just wrong? What does Harbinger have to say about it? I subscribe to the "explaining thins to the dumb organic" point of view which means not taking the Catalyst quite so literally. 
How has Synthesis affected the edibility of foods? It hasn't? And would you need to eat?
Does wood still burn in the same way? Why wouldn't it? And would you need to burn wood?
Does hybridized fungus consume synthetic material now? Maybe. Who knows?
How has Synthesis affected venus fly traps? Who knows?
Joker's (maybe cotton?) hat is glowing, does all previously-organic material glow now? Without knowing how Bioware's engine treats clothing different from skin, I would need t o
Is pollination unnecessary now? Maybe. Who knows?
Is cotton still soft? Compared to what? Wool? Bark? Silk?
What happens to the Levo/Dextro difference? Good question, this is actually one I hope they address.
(many others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming Synthesis is done via symbiotic parasitic "nanites":
What do nanites taste like? Like cells.
Do nanites die with their host? I would imagine this would depend on how the host died; a conflagration for instance would probably take out any nanites too.
Do nanites decay? How does this affect the ecology of where they lie? Maybe. Given that the ecology would itself have nanites, probably not much.
If nanites are inert in non-sentient organic life: where do they lie and why? Are they just waiting, monitoring their hosts until they see some spark of sentience and then they go to work manipulating the life form? Sentience would depend on complexity just like it does now. You wouldn't expect a potato to suddenly spark with sentience, would you? 
How do nanites reach all life in the galaxy, including forms deep within planetary crust, bottom of the ocean, etc?
How much control do these parasitic nanites have over their hosts? Parasitic, or symbiotic? You're still applying negative interpretations without cause.
Would an EMP destroy all the nanites and devastate hybrid life forms? Depends on how powerful it was. The Geth were resilient to quite a few EM attacks for instance. I'd envision the kind of EMP that could damage a synthesized life form being just as fatal to organics as well, just like it was on Legion's loyalty mission/.
(many others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming Synthesis means all life is networked and "working together"
Why would an organism deliberately arrange for itself to be overcome or harvested for food if it was not self-beneficial? Why do fruits and vegetables do that now?
(others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming this synthesis is reversible
So if pure synthetics are still creatable and there can still be pure organics... what exactly was accomplished? Are those things possible? I personally don't think so. The very building blocks that comprise both forms of life have been altered.
If Synthesis imposes a singularity on hybrid life forms in order to keep up with potential pure synthetic singularities, then what does that mean for pure organics, Extinction? So what was the point? There is no inherent value to being "purely organic." Shepard is not purely organic, and it resulted in no loss of effectiveness, memory or drive.
...

EDIT: If "headcanon" is not an acceptable answer for you, why ask us? Do you see "Bioware" tags on our names?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 23 mai 2012 - 10:06 .

[antares_sublight]

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...

You have to understand, and accept, that the majority of these simply aren't meant to be answered in the game. Good sci-fi rarely answers every single question from its audience [/quote]
Let's stop right there. This is not good sci-fi.

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...

My preferred answers to your questions:

[QUOTE]

How many species will be extinct because of Synthesis? (due to total upheaval of established ecosystems). None, with nanotech to facilitate cohesion/regulation quickly. Individuals may die, but species? I see no reason why.
[/quote]
Transformers? Everything instantly modifies itself to become a totally different life form to fit into a self-organized harmonious galaxy-wide utopia?

[quote]
How many ecosystems and biosystems will be eliminated or become irrelevant?
Again, why would they?
[/quote]
Because everything is totally different now. Synthesis has fundamentally modified all life. Question prompted by subsequent questions...

[quote]
What do the reapers do after Synthesis? Are they docile now? Their purpose is somehow waved away, so what do they do now? Participate in galactic civilization and politics? Colonize some place? Go back to sleep? Watch jeopardy reruns? Their gestalt individuality restored, I would imagine each would find its own reason to exist like the Geth did. Reparations might be a good place to start for the contrite ones.
[/quote]
Jail time, maybe, for the unrepentant ones? Paid speeches for others?

[quote]
If the reapers are supposedly the pinacle of evolution, but now Synthesis is the "end of evolution" and yet it has made the reapers more like organics somehow, was Harbinger just wrong? What does Harbinger have to say about it? I subscribe to the "explaining thins to the dumb organic" point of view which means not taking the Catalyst quite so literally. 
[/quote]
Who was wrong then, is the Catalyst lying or was Harby misinformed?

[quote]
How has Synthesis affected the edibility of foods? It hasn't? And would you need to eat?
[/quote]
Photosynthesis for all? All life needs energy intake. If you don't need to eat, see first question. aka. Synthesis = total unknown chaos.

[quote]
Does wood still burn in the same way? Why wouldn't it? And would you need to burn wood?
[/quote]
Synthetic components. Some plant species require fire for reproduction, for example.

[quote]
Does hybridized fungus consume synthetic material now? Maybe. Who knows?
How has Synthesis affected venus fly traps? Who knows?
Joker's (maybe cotton?) hat is glowing, does all previously-organic material glow now? Without knowing how Bioware's engine treats clothing different from skin, I would need t o
Is pollination unnecessary now? Maybe. Who knows?
[/quote]


[quote]
Is cotton still soft? Compared to what? Wool? Bark? Silk?
[/quote]
Question prompted because of synthetic components.

[quote]
What happens to the Levo/Dextro difference? Good question, this is actually one I hope they address.
[/quote]


[quote]
(many others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming Synthesis is done via symbiotic parasitic "nanites":
What do nanites taste like? Like cells.
[/quote]


[quote]
Do nanites die with their host? I would imagine this would depend on how the host died; a conflagration for instance would probably take out any nanites too.
Do nanites decay? How does this affect the ecology of where they lie? Maybe. Given that the ecology would itself have nanites, probably not much.
[/quote]
Are all nanites the same? Ecologies have to handle tons of new synthetic material being recycled through now. More chaos.

[quote]
If nanites are inert in non-sentient organic life: where do they lie and why? Are they just waiting, monitoring their hosts until they see some spark of sentience and then they go to work manipulating the life form? Sentience would depend on complexity just like it does now. You wouldn't expect a potato to suddenly spark with sentience, would you? 
[/quote]
(Insert Portal reference)
This was an actual question in reference to the OP. Still no answer.

[quote]
How do nanites reach all life in the galaxy, including forms deep within planetary crust, bottom of the ocean, etc?
How much control do these parasitic nanites have over their hosts? Parasitic, or symbiotic? You're still applying negative interpretations without cause.
[/quote]
If these nanites have control over the evolution and development of an organism, if they are lying dormant in non-sentient organisms waiting to take over control at a certain point of development... parasites with too much control. Organics are puppets for networked nanites now.

[quote]
Would an EMP destroy all the nanites and devastate hybrid life forms? Depends on how powerful it was. The Geth were resilient to quite a few EM attacks for instance. I'd envision the kind of EMP that could damage a synthesized life form being just as fatal to organics as well, just like it was on Legion's loyalty mission/.
[/quote]
The Geth had shielding. Nanites hiding in fleshly bodies will not.

[quote]
(many others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming Synthesis means all life is networked and "working together"
Why would an organism deliberately arrange for itself to be overcome or harvested for food if it was not self-beneficial? Why do fruits and vegetables do that now?
[/quote]
I said "if it was not self-beneficial", not referring to obviously beneficial forms we are familiar with. This was a question in a conversation with a pro-synthite who postured that forests of networked trees would deliberately control their growth patterns for the benefit of non-beneficial consumers.

[quote]
(others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming this synthesis is reversible
So if pure synthetics are still creatable and there can still be pure organics... what exactly was accomplished? Are those things possible? I personally don't think so. The very building blocks that comprise both forms of life have been altered.
[/quote]
OP states it clearly. Pure synthetics must still be creatable, and the process is reversible.

[quote]
If Synthesis imposes a singularity on hybrid life forms in order to keep up with potential pure synthetic singularities, then what does that mean for pure organics, Extinction? So what was the point? There is no inherent value to being "purely organic." Shepard is not purely organic, and it resulted in no loss of effectiveness, memory or drive.
...
[/quote]


EDIT: If "headcanon" is not an acceptable answer for you, why ask us? Do you see "Bioware" tags on our names?

[/quote]
Exactly, attempts to defend these endings are logical or defensible is simply defending fanfiction.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 10:20 .

[Heeden]

@Antares

Of course anything not shown on-screen will be head-canon, but most of your questions are either irrelevant or nonsensical. If you want to assume the worst of something fine, but don't make up attributes then point to the fact nothing in-game denies them as proof.

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...

@Antares

Of course anything not shown on-screen will be head-canon, but most of your questions are either irrelevant or nonsensical. If you want to assume the worst of something fine, but don't make up attributes then point to the fact nothing in-game denies them as proof.

Irrelevant to those who want them to be irrelevant, but certainly not nonsensical.

[D24O]

So much speculation.

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

Let's stop right there. This is not good sci-fi.

Actually this is bloody brilliant sci-fi. I've found it took aspects of my favourite space operas, combined them in ways that made the ME universe feel unique in it's own right then hid a few obvious pointers to confirm I was thinking on the right track...then it created situations where my perceptions were needed to make sense of the more complicated matters to give a satisfactory conclusion. From what others say, it seems they've picked up on different answers according to their perceptions which makes it a work of art - a collaborative effort between the creator and the viewer where you get more out if you put more in.

Modifié par Heeden, 23 mai 2012 - 10:25 .

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

Heeden wrote...

@Antares

Of course anything not shown on-screen will be head-canon, but most of your questions are either irrelevant or nonsensical. If you want to assume the worst of something fine, but don't make up attributes then point to the fact nothing in-game denies them as proof.

Irrelevant to those who want them to be irrelevant, but certainly not nonsensical.

Irrelevant because there is no reason to see them as an issue, nonsensical when, well, it seems like nonsense ("Does wood burn?" of course it does - that's what wood does unless it's too wet).

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Let's stop right there. This is not good sci-fi.

Actually this is bloody brilliant sci-fi. I've found it took aspects of my favourite space operas, combined them in ways that made the ME universe feel unique in it's own right then hid a few obvious pointers to confirm I was thinking on the right track...then it created situations where my perceptions were needed to make sense of the more complicated matters to give a satisfactory conclusion. From what others say, it seems they've picked up on different answers according to their perceptions which makes it a work of art - a collaborative effort between the creator and the viewer where you get more out if you put more in.

You mean, nothing was explained well and there are enough contradictions and illogical content to fuel endless discussions of "what it all means"?

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Heeden wrote...

@Antares

Of course anything not shown on-screen will be head-canon, but most of your questions are either irrelevant or nonsensical. If you want to assume the worst of something fine, but don't make up attributes then point to the fact nothing in-game denies them as proof.

Irrelevant to those who want them to be irrelevant, but certainly not nonsensical.

Irrelevant because there is no reason to see them as an issue, nonsensical when, well, it seems like nonsense ("Does wood burn?" of course it does - that's what wood does unless it's too wet).

Actually, it's not nonsensical.
If you believe DNA was changed to be part synthetic and there is now this nebulous "hybridization", that greatly affects the makeup of the material. If you believe nanites are inhabiting the organic organism now, they will affect how wood will burn.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 10:30 .

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

You mean, nothing was explained well and there are enough contradictions and illogical content to fuel endless discussions of "what it all means"?

A lot of things are speculative (i.e. it's sci-fi) or subjective (moral choices) so there is no definite answers. Bioware have shown they understand a lot of the elements that go in to a good space opera, they've built an amazing series of games around it and yes, at the end they gave a lot of room for discussion and interpretation (which is also good),

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

@Antares

Actually, it's not nonsensical.
If you believe DNA was changed to be part synthetic and there is now this nebulous "hybridization", that greatly affects the makeup of the material. If you believe nanites are inhabiting the organic organism now, they will affect how wood will burn.

But only if you believe the nanites are also going to change the cellular structure of the wood so it no longer burns, if you can think of a good reason for the nanites to do that (preferably one with logic, in-game references or a combination of the two) feel free to fit it in to you "after the games end" story. I don't see either the genetic or the nanite theories as satisfactory (as I'm sure many people feel about my galactic life-force idea) but even taking them as granted, I'd need a good reason to assume the structures of plants were affected to a degree that would make them more or less flammable.

[Thornne]

So, based on a 'leaked script' and your guesses about the writers' intent, you've made up a way to justify something that has little to no evidence in the actual game. In essence, you're telling us 'What they showed us in game was wrong. Ignore that. Here is what they really meant to do.'

This may be fine for the hypothetical ending you've invented, but it isn't really a sound basis for an argument about the actual ending.

Whatever the 'leaked script' did or did not say, the writers made a deliberate choice to show us what they did. They chose not to use the 'leaked script'. Are you saying they did this by accident? Because otherwise it seems like this is what they intended to do.

Also, please provide a link to this 'leaked script' that is the basis for your argument. I'd be interested to read it.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Let's stop right there. This is not good sci-fi.

Agreed - but due to execution, not concept.

antares_sublight wrote... 
Transformers? Everything instantly modifies itself to become a totally different life form to fit into a self-organized harmonious galaxy-wide utopia?
If it helps, think of it as evolution - just much faster.
...
Because everything is totally different now. Synthesis has fundamentally modified all life. Don't see how this necessarily = extinction. Evolution modifies all life too - just slowly.
...
Jail time, maybe, for the unrepentant ones? Paid speeches for others? That's more a concern for the post-war galaxy to figure out, it has no bearings on the endings.
...
Who was wrong then, is the Catalyst lying or was Harby misinformed? This is a false dilemma. Harbinger's claim was likely true at the time that he made it, when there was no Crucible and thus no hope of organics or synthetics surpassing the Reapers before they came around to reset the galaxy again. Since we do not speak with him after finishing or installing the Crucible, we have no way of knowing if he holds the same belief. And the Catalyst I already explained.
...
Photosynthesis for all? Sure, why not? All life needs energy intake. If you don't need to eat, see first question. aka. Synthesis = total unknown chaos. So if we don't need to eat, throw out the endings! There's no way I can process this information!
...
Synthetic components. Some plant species require fire for reproduction, for example. You're assuming they would reproduce the same way, if at all. Think bigger.
...
This was an actual question in reference to the OP. Still no answer.
I did answer you. Why would a cell, or even a more complex structure like a potato, need sentience? 
...
If these nanites have control over the evolution and development of an organism, if they are lying dormant in non-sentient organisms waiting to take over control at a certain point of development... parasites with too much control. Organics are puppets for networked nanites now. Your hormones are "lying in wait to take control at a certain point in development" too. Are your hormones parasites?
...
The Geth had shielding. Nanites hiding in fleshly bodies will not. Won't they? What is the physical makeup of synthesized beings? What is the physical makeup of these nanites?
...
I said "if it was not self-beneficial", not referring to obviously beneficial forms we are familiar with. This was a question in a conversation with a pro-synthite who postured that forests of networked trees would deliberately control their growth patterns for the benefit of non-beneficial consumers. Consumers do provide a benefit - propagation. So either this would still be needed and the syntesized organisms would react accordingly - or it wouldn't, and the point is moot.
...
OP states it clearly. Pure synthetics must still be creatable, and the process is reversible. The OP addresses this very concern. "Thus, Synthesis will have to upgrade life sufficiently that it can, if it needs to, act on the same level as a post-singularity synthetic. This means that Synthesis will have to invoke a singularity-like event on organic life."

See above.

Exactly, attempts to defend these endings are logical or defensible is simply defending fanfiction.

Fanfiction that actually happened is not fanfiction at all, merely interpretation.

[Heeden]

Thornne wrote...

So, based on a 'leaked script' and your guesses about the writers' intent, you've made up a way to justify something that has little to no evidence in the actual game. In essence, you're telling us 'What they showed us in game was wrong. Ignore that. Here is what they really meant to do.'

This may be fine for the hypothetical ending you've invented, but it isn't really a sound basis for an argument about the actual ending.

Except all the support I need for my theory on synthesis can be found in game.

Whatever the 'leaked script' did or did not say, the writers made a deliberate choice to show us what they did. They chose not to use the 'leaked script'. Are you saying they did this by accident? Because otherwise it seems like this is what they intended to do.

Also, please provide a link to this 'leaked script' that is the basis for your argument. I'd be interested to read it.

I think someone quotes the leaked script somewhere in this thread but it's not something I was aware of whilst playing through the game.

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...



I don't. There's no reason to. The problem is baseless, illogical, flawed at the very basics. I ignore the problem, synthetics wont try to annihilate organic life, no proof exists except the word of the Catalyst, the word of that f*cking glowing serpent.

The Catalyst is himself an example of a synthetic gone beyond the singularity, sure he only chooses to destroy most organic life every 50,000 years but I'm sure his original creators didn't anticipate that.

No, I choose to use the Reapers for good. Build this galaxy again, let everyone choose their own paths, free of tyranny and despair, of war and sacrifice for their basic survival. 

Stagnation it is then.

The Catalyst is not a singularity. He is an AI that has hit a feedback loop. This is why he is incapable of doing anything other than "harvest". If he was as powerful as everyone thought he would have chosen Synthesis by now. There are hundreds of other organic beings that just as easily fit the bill where Shepard did.

And as for stagnation, you do realize that Synthesis does this as well if it does what the Star Child says? That if we reach said state there is no reason to improve, worse yet we all become some super organism in your version, which removes indivduality because all minds are linked.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 mai 2012 - 12:08 .

[PsyrenY]

I agree that the Catalyst is not a singularity. If he was, he could have hit upon the Crucible himself, as anything within our capability to build would have been within his own (and surely he has the technology, even if he had to cannibalize a couple of his capital ships to do it.) The fact that he could not even see another way out beyond his existing solution, and that he can't even deviate from it until you pick a new solution, says to me that he is instead a shackled AI or even a VI.

But I don't think Synthesis results in stagnation, either. We would have a lot of work to do to achieve Type 2 and especially Type 3, at which point other galaxies would then become open to us (just as they would have to a singularity AI.) That gives us quite a bit to strive for.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...



I don't. There's no reason to. The problem is baseless, illogical, flawed at the very basics. I ignore the problem, synthetics wont try to annihilate organic life, no proof exists except the word of the Catalyst, the word of that f*cking glowing serpent.

The Catalyst is himself an example of a synthetic gone beyond the singularity, sure he only chooses to destroy most organic life every 50,000 years but I'm sure his original creators didn't anticipate that.

No, I choose to use the Reapers for good. Build this galaxy again, let everyone choose their own paths, free of tyranny and despair, of war and sacrifice for their basic survival. 

Stagnation it is then.

The Catalyst is not a singularity. He is an AI that has hit a feedback loop. This is why he is incapable of doing anything other than "harvest". If he was as powerful as everyone thought he would have chosen Synthesis by now. There are hundreds of other organic beings that just as easily fit the bill where Shepard did.

The idea of the singularity isn't that it is all-powerful or all-knowing, the singularity is the point where we can not predict what it will be like. The danger of a singularity is an AI that would wipe out all organic life, at the moment we have a slightly more benign version that only wipes out most life every 50,000 years but even that is a good argument to try to stop any more arising.

And as for stagnation, you do realize that Synthesis does this as well if it does what the Star Child says? That if we reach said state there is no reason to improve, worse yet we all become some super organism in your version, which removes indivduality because all minds are linked.

I don't see why synthesis has to remove individuality, it is simply a better form of communication between beings. Do we lose our individuality because we can talk verbally, or digitally?

You're right about Synthesis leading to stagnation as surely as Control guided by a beneveolent Shepard would, but I feel it is a less risky and more rewarding method of getting there. 

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I agree that the Catalyst is not a singularity. If he was, he could have hit upon the Crucible himself, as anything within our capability to build would have been within his own (and surely he has the technology, even if he had to cannibalize a couple of his capital ships to do it.) The fact that he could not even see another way out beyond his existing solution, and that he can't even deviate from it until you pick a new solution, says to me that he is instead a shackled AI or even a VI.

But I don't think Synthesis results in stagnation, either. We would have a lot of work to do to achieve Type 2 and especially Type 3, at which point other galaxies would then become open to us (just as they would have to a singularity AI.) That gives us quite a bit to strive for.

But your goal is type four or five yes?

To be a bloody Time Lord? Because that's where you're heading.

Do you understand that the Kardenshev scale requires certain things?

The Geth achieved a type two civilization in three hundred years. We have an estimate that it would take one thousand years for humans.

And upwards of a million for type III?

You want to violate everyones rights to achieve a more advanced civilization? Are you serious? That's your justification for Synthesis?



We're also going to have a problem with resources, because, you know, we don't have enough resources in the Sol System. You need energy to do that.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

But your goal is type four or five yes?

To be a bloody Time Lord? Because that's where you're heading.

Why not? No Reapers means we can advance as far as we want. Weren't you the one worried about stagnating?

Taboo-XX wrote... 
Do you understand that the Kardenshev scale requires certain things?

Time and energy. Gee, that was hard.

Taboo-XX wrote...  
The Geth achieved a type two civilization in three hundred years. We have an estimate that it would take one thousand years for humans.

One thousand? When we couldn't get there in 50,000 despite having Mass Effect? What are you basing this on?

Taboo-XX wrote...  
And upwards of a million for type III?

Good, gives us something to do.

Taboo-XX wrote...  
You want to violate everyones rights to achieve a more advanced civilization? Are you serious? That's your justification for Synthesis?

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sick.png[/smilie] 

You want to commit genocide to feel safe for a few centuries? Are you serious? That's your justification for Destroy?

Taboo-XX wrote...  

We're also going to have a problem with resources, because, you know, we don't have enough resources in the Sol System. You need energy to do that.

There are other stars besides Sol. Quite a few of them, I hear.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 24 mai 2012 - 12:27 .

[Taboo]

 Carl Sagan. I assume you know who he is?

You have to have energy to do this. You understand that the amount needed would be immense. Have you factored in the energy output as well? The amount of energy exhuded could potentially cause harm to a planet. We call that heat waste. You raise the temperatures of the Ocean and the planet. Sound familiar? Are we going to waste planets in the name of the upwards goal of what ever vision you have?

You have to send the waste somewhere, you simply don't blast it into space.

What about the Malthusian Catastrophe? If we are such perfect beings, we will breed and breed and breed. What happens when we become so numerous that we outpace argriculture?

There are so many unknowns in Synthesis it's not even funny.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 mai 2012 - 12:37 .

[Uncle Jo]

Optimystic_X wrote...


What do the reapers do after Synthesis? Are they docile now? Their purpose is somehow waved away, so what do they do now? Participate in galactic civilization and politics? Colonize some place? Go back to sleep? Watch jeopardy reruns? Their gestalt individuality restored, I would imagine each would find its own reason to exist like the Geth did. Reparations might be a good place to start for the CONTRITE ones.

Wow man, wow. I really laughed my *ss off. I know, I'm unfair and I sincerely admire the thoughts you put to make a nonsense sounds plausible (don't argue against this please. You have your opinion, I respect it but I have mine). So apologies in advance.

But I just imagined a Reaper-Trial with the Catalyst, Harbinger and the others Reapers in the dock, and tried to list their crimes:

The indictments:

-conspiracy against galactic peace, crimes against peace
-war of agression
-war crimes
-crimes against countless species

Yet the "small" charges (non exhaustive):
-genocide
-mass murder
-torture
-enslavement
-forced genetical experiment
-mutilations

Estimation of the deaths during 20,000 cycles: unknown (probably more than several trillions)
Estimation of the missing people: unknown
Estimation of the worlds destroyed: unknown (more than hundred thousand)
Estimation of the financial reparations: unknown

All of this based on a simple assumption: a probable technological singularity.


Yet you're willing to let them hang around in the universe just because they regret what they've done (as if they would) ? That the "contrite" ones are going to take their place in the Galaxy in exchange of reparation? That they'll be forgiven for what they've done? All the races will see them as new homies and everybody will be happy forever?

Thanks man, you've made my day.

Hold the Wine !

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 24 mai 2012 - 01:30 .