9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Please refrain from telling me what I'm doing, Fandango, because until now you've got it wrong 100% of the time. Also, science fiction does most emphatically not mean "anything goes", or that we need to accept nonsense as literal just because it was written. SF can extend things into the unknown, but should not treat what is known with contempt. If it retcons what is known, it must give a plausible explanation.

Also, please acquire some competence in story analysis and debate. So far all I've seen is baseless assertions with no attempt to support them with actual arguments.

I suspect it's pointless, but perhaps I can make you understand by asking more simple questions. Let's start with this: what is the defining difference between an organic and a synthetic intelligent being? What makes one "organic" and the other "synthetic"? Hint: it can't be simple biochemistry (or whatever counts for that in synthetics), because the stories make it a major theme that differences rooted in biochemistry alone (as in between various non-human species) can be overcome without making fundamental changes to the life forms in question.What is different in sythetics?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 août 2013 - 01:31 .

[Wayning_Star]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

For everyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of biology it's completely clear that something like "bio-synthetic DNA" can't exist because the distinction between "synthetic" and "organic" doesn't exist on a molecular level. There, it's all physics and chemistry for both. To say nothing of the fact that giving synthetics a DNA-analogue would make them functionally identical to organics. So if (1) the delivery of the line suggests it's not to be taken literally, and (2) if taken literally it doesn't make sense, I feel justified to summarily dismiss any claim that I should take it literally.

That doesn't mean that Synthesis can't include a molecular change in the chemistry of their genes in order to bring organics closer to synthetics. It just means that "A new DNA" can't literally be what unifies synthetics and organics in the end. 

And again, all Ieldra is saying here is that the presentation of Synthesis in Mass Effect is a little too sci-fi for her fancy. Because she cant reconcile the videogame fiction of Mass Effect with contemporary science, she attempts to reinvent that fiction as something more appealing her. I wonder if she's doing it so she doesn't have to face up to the moral and ethical implications of making her fav choice, as presented in game?

the moral choice is already made, Shepard has little to do but carry out what is already set in motion. Sure the other choices are there, but the end game is reality of synthetic life forms and organic life forms competing. The DNA ideal is merely a reflection, we don't really understand that an idea can be as real as any matter, depending on the ones with that idea. Apparently the catalyst has had billions of years to commit. But in the end game, the crucible and it's designers are the ones holding the keys to the new and improved MEU, not Humanity/Shepard/Alliance/Council. Shepard is merely another tool in the long line of evolution, of the mind/intellect. Advanced cultures often 'uplift' less advanced cultures, why would/couldn't a purely synthetic culture do so? Why would that be immoral/unethical?  In the end tho, it doesn't matter in the MEU, they control, apparently, who ever designed the Crucible. Way ahead of the curve.
Probably the Leviathan...

[dorktainian]

science fiction isn't science fiction without the science. just saying. Deal with it.

[JonathonPR]

 Synthesis is a poor attempt at executing transhumanism ideas. I am a fan of transhumanism in games and books but it requires the right setting/universe and story. I also dislike how it is portrayed as an instant utopia but I think it has to do that to be part of the catalyst's problem. A larger problem is that ME3 treated technology as magic. They lifted scientific terms and explanation in a few places to make things feel cool but in the story it felt more like fantasy than scifi. The ending tried to cram in an interesting concept to make up for the rushed feeling of the ending. Not knowing how to end it they tacked on some inappropriate thing like a girl with too much makeup.


If you want a table top transhumanism game I recommend GURPS Transhuman Space or Eclipse Phase. For crpg I recommend the original Deus Ex with texture mods. 


There is a wide range of scifi and near scifi flavors. Many stories will lean toward one of the big three categories with a little dabbling of the other two.  The basics of scifi is a Socratic exercise with a scientific idea as the center of the story. What if x. 


Hard scifi is limited to accepted contemporary science and technology. What if technology x had been used a different way earlier on, had been invented earlier, or how might society change in the future because of the technology that is just coming out now.


Soft scifi is much more lenient. It accepts possible but not confirmed scientific principles to be used. A rough explanation for how it might work can be made based on modern science. It does not require imaginary materials or bending the laws of physics to work. It might contain small doses of science fantasy but they are in the background.


Science fantasy can just make stuff up. There are only the thinnest of connection between modern proven science and what is presented in the story. It allows for FTL, biotics/Force/psionics, Extraterrestrials that look, act, and talk like humans in some way, and what Asimov referred to as "eye scifi". It looks cool and futuristic but does not have any meaningful focus on exploring scientific concepts or how society would react to a technology.


How Bioware uses science outside of the codex in the first Mass Effect

Modifié par JonathonPR, 06 août 2013 - 02:32 .

[CronoDragoon]

Ieldra,

The reason I said that it sounds like cognitive dissonance is that Destroy has this same problem. You are told that the Crucible targets all synthetics - what? What does that mean? How can it do that? How can it target sentience? It really doesn't make sense. Meanwhile, BioWare could have just used an alternative explanation that the Crucible targets Reaper code. It would have the same output on the surface (the epilogue would be exactly the same), just with a more sensible explanation.

So is that what happened in Destroy? Does the Crucible target all Reaper code and not all synthetics, despite the Catalyst's exact words being the opposite? If you say yes, then I suppose we at least have a consistent rejection of nonsensical elements in favor of more sensible explanations across all endings, but I still don't feel that we're discussing BioWare's endings, but rather our own, modified versions.

Which is fine, because they may in fact be better explanations, but if we're discussing things like "what Synthesis does" I think making this clear from the outset is important.

[JasonShepard]

@CronoDragoon:

Destroy is much easier to deal with. All the Catalyst says is that all Synthetics will be targeted, and all technology will be affected. That sounds suspiciously like an EMP to me. A bit like a human brain that had no blood going to it for a few minutes, I'd expect an AI's quantum blue-box to be non-functional if it got switched off for a while. More so, since quantum wave-functions destabilise very easily...

The only issue is that I'd expect the synthetics to have invented EMP-shielding by now. All you need to do is use alternating conductive and insulating layers of material. But a sufficiently powerful EMP could still punch through shielding. Alternatively, Destroy is something similar enough to an EMP that it has similar effects, without actually  being an electro-magnetic pulse. (Since EMPs usually aren't red...)

The advantage of this explanation is that it doesn't contradict anything that the Catalyst says.

Just asking, but would you consider what I've written above to be a fanon version of Destroy, or a viable interpretation of what the game offers us?

Modifié par JasonShepard, 06 août 2013 - 03:16 .

[JasonShepard]

@Fandango9641:

For the purposes of this conversation, I'm going to work with your definition of Eugenics such that it includes Synthesis. I disagree with said definition, but hey, we've been down that road and arguing definitions doesn't get us anywhere.

So. Synthesis is Eugenics... but without the selective breeding. Without the racial profiling. You could even say that it's without discrimination, since it affects everyone equally.

The argument could be made that this is 'good' Eugenics.

So I'm asking you - what do you consider bad about Eugenics in this context?

[CronoDragoon]

JasonShepard wrote...

@CronoDragoon:

Destroy is much easier to deal with. All the Catalyst says is that all Synthetics will be targeted, and all technology will be affected. That sounds suspiciously like an EMP to me. A bit like a human brain that had no blood going to it for a few minutes, I'd expect an AI's quantum blue-box to be non-functional if it got switched off for a while. More so, since quantum wave-functions destabilise very easily...

The only issue is that I'd expect the synthetics to have invented EMP-shielding by now. All you need to do is use alternating conductive and insulating layers of material. But a sufficiently powerful EMP could still punch through shielding. Alternatively, Destroy is something similar enough to an EMP that it has similar effects, without actually  being an electro-magnetic pulse. (Since EMPs usually aren't red...)

The advantage of this explanation is that it doesn't contradict anything that the Catalyst says.

Just asking, but would you consider what I've written above to be a fanon version of Destroy, or a viable interpretation of what the game offers us?

Since we don't actually see any damage to electronic equipment I never really considered that the Catalyst meant all technology (he says technology you rely on, which I interpreted as mass relays). But I suppose it's possible, and has the advantage of making more sense than a synthetic-destroying beam. One problem is that if it's an EMP it's not actually targeting synthetics or Reapers at all, whereas the Catalyst says that all synthetics will be targeted. Perhaps this is just a semantic error on the writers' part, but the Destroy beam sounded more active in its selection to me.

Regardless, I wouldn't call this Destroy headcanon. Destroy headcanon would be the people who assert that the geth/EDI don't get destroyed. This sounds like an attempt to make sense out of intentionally vague language, and I don't see any reason to dismiss it outright.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Would it not be enough to simply say, read my posts? Here:

You know, one really only need talk about the human beings in the Mass Effect universe to demonstrate categorically that Synthesis is Eugenics. For the sake of clarity, let’s remove all synthetic and alien species from the table for the moment and focus on the humans. Mass Effect. Human beings. With me so far? Now, when Shep jumps into the green beam, what happens to the human beings in the Mass Effect universe HYR? They are changed aren’t they? They are changed as a matter of body (and possibly mind) - and at the genetic level. New DNA. New genetic composition. New species. That's eugenics HYR - what is it you’re having trouble understanding?

I read your post. Let me repeat my response: there's a hole in your argument -- you're begging the question.

See the bolded. You're not demonstrating, definitively, what the genetic change at hand is. As I said before, it's ridiculous to call any old change to one's genetic composition "eugenics." I brought up the hypothetical of a group of people maliciously poisoning a villaige to mutate their DNA as eugenics and even you said that was ridiculous. So it is here, when you use the same argument that "Well, their DNA is being changed isn't it? New DNA. Eugenics. There you go!"

^ 'Reminds me of the dad from My Big Fat Greek Wedding who is convinced every english word comes from Greek.

So the Catalyats assertion that Synthesis will 'Combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new DNA.' is a little too ambiguous for you is it eh? Well, it seems clear enough to me HYR - what’s not to understand?

What's not to understand:

If the solution is "eugenics," from where does he get the genes that brings organic life closer to synthetic life?

You seem to have all the answers on this. You tell me.

In any case, what say you about the Catalysts claim that Synthesis represents 'the final evolution of all life? How would you headcannon your way out of that one?

Oh, sure. But if you want an answer, you have to accept my rules on valid literary interpretation.

Rules are simple: he whose interpretation makes most sense and does not contradict canon is the most valid, and not just headcanon. You don't have to accept that anywhere else, but when you're dealing with me, you do have to.

Deal?

So Eugenics can never be understood to mean 'improving human genetic qualities', because it’s 'about improving the human condition by promoting and/or reducing certain traits in the gene-pool'? Erm, you do realise that both definitions are analogous don’t you HYR?

For the fourth time now, no, eugenics can not be called "improving human genetic qualities" -- you're leaving out what makes eugenics... eugenics: selectively filtering certain traits within the gene pool to get the desired effects.

That's no small detail to leave out, and this is what you don't get. If I use gene-therapy (see bottom of post) or augment DNA with an outside device/machine, it would possibly improve human genetic qualities, but would not be "eugenics."

Without clarifying how, exactly, eugenics seeks to make improvements, your definition remains invalid.

Bottom line: ways to improve human life through genetics includes but is not limited to eugenics.

Hence, I reject "A new... DNA" to mean "Sync = eugenics."

And frankly, even if you could prove it was eugenics, I would struggle to see it as worse than the other options. Destroy is still worse, IMO. Control? ... maybe that would become the better option here. Refuse is still a joke. But I digress.

But we're not talking about augmentation HYR, we're talking about the genetic purging of every single life form in the galaxy. New DNA! Final evolution of all life and all that! Do you not see the difference?

No, I distinctly remember discussing augmentation, which you tried to pass as one-in-the-same with eugenics.

As a refresher:

Fandango9641 wrote...

Besides, if one acknowledges that the term eugenics can be understood to mean improving human genetic qualities, we have something that fits your ‘forced genetic augmentation’ definition very well, don't we?

I only brought it up to show that improvements to human life through genetics are not limited to eugenics.


As far as "seeing and not seeing"-nonsense goes, do you not see how you're argument rests on continually parroting "New DNA! Final evolution of life!" over and over again? If you interpreted it that way, good for you, but I dispute your interpretation and repeating the same lines ad nauseum will not help you convince anyone that doesn't agree with that.

I leave it to the good people reading this thread to decide for themselves whether that 'comparison' is, in any way, relevant to my claiming that Synthesis is eugenics and leave it there. And, if your parting question was designed to be some kind of 'gotcha', I’d invite you to try again (the consensual fixing of an eye and the forced, galaxy wide, eugenic purging of every living thing is really very different you see)?!

I knew you wouldn't give me a straight-answer after that question was replied to by others.

Nonetheless, thank you for agreeing with me.

[JasonShepard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

According to the game? Well the EC goes to great lengths to present the consequences of each solution as being largely positive, right? And that's part of my problem. That Bioware would use Mass Effect to celebrate the virtue of picking between, what I perceive to be, three horrific acts of violence is a real issue for me. Moreover - and more to the point - that the game would reward those who would gladly violate the basic, inalienable rights of others - and on such a scale - in pursuit of victory is really difficult for me. I'll revisit your question with something a little more substantial after the footie. Thanks for asking.

Okay. I can follow that. It does bug me as well that the EC doesn't really pay attention to the downsides of each choice. Renegade Control is the one that comes closest to acknowledging the dark-side of the choice, whereas Destroy's epilogue completely the dead-synthetics issue aside from EDI's name on the wall... And yes, the Synthesis epilogue quietly side-steps the lack-of-consent issue, whilst otherwise presenting the most hopeful picture.
(For what it's worth, most members of this thread do fully recognise the issue of consent with Synthesis.)

I'll look forward to the more substantial answer.

EDIT: In the meantime, perhaps you might summarise for me the problem(s) you have with my claim that Synthesis is tantamount to eugenics?

By and large I interpret Synthesis as having nothing to do with DNA, for various reasons already stated in this thread. That's the biggest hurdle. Is it similar to Eugenics? Yes, in some ways, but I don't think that they are the same thing.

The Catalyst makes statements about using Shepard as a blueprint and integrating organics with technology. As I've said, I interpret "A new... DNA" as an analogy made by the Catalyst rather than as a direct statement. You can call that headcanon in you like, but a literal interpretation doesn't make one lick of sense to me and I genuinely believe that the scriptwriter intended it as an analogy.

So overall, to me, Synthesis involves giving everybody cybernetic implants. Cybernetics and Eugenics are two completely different fields, though they do share some of the same ethical questions and they are both based around the idea of making people 'better'.

[dorktainian]

synthesis is the final evolution of life.....

oh hang on a minute

thats what sovereign said the reapers were....

oh oh....

[.50CalBrainSurgeon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Please refrain from telling me what I'm doing, Fandango, because until now you've got it wrong 100% of the time. Also, science fiction does most emphatically not mean "anything goes", or that we need to accept nonsense just because it was written. SF can extend things into the unknown, but should not treat what is known with contempt. If it retcons what is known, it must give a plausible explanation.

I suspect it's pointless, but perhaps I can make you understand by asking more simple questions. Let's start with this: what is the defining difference between an organic and a synthetic intelligent being? What makes one "organic" and the other "synthetic"? Hint: it can't be simple biochemistry (or whatever counts for that in synthetics), because the stories make it a major theme that differences rooted in biochemistry can be overcome without making fundamental changes to the life forms in question.

And let me help you understand a little something Ieldra. The fiction of Mass Effect trumps your - frankly pointless - scientific considerations with gusto. As such, you simply have no authority when you say ‘bio-synthetic DNA can't exist’, or claim that the Catalyst cannot do what it is actually shown to do in game. Do you understand? Trying to use your scientific objections as some kind of currency in attempting to rewrite the game as something more appealing to you is completely meaningless to me. What Bioware says does indeed go Ieldra. Deal with it.

I think the situation here is one regarding suspension of disbelief rather than the pseudo-scientific qualifications of the ME universe. For any type of fiction especially sci-fi or fantasy, the writers implicitly expect the audience to suspend disbelief for the elements that we know are impossible in real life. e.g. magic, FTL, mass effect technology etc. The degree to which the audience is willing to suspend disbelief is typically established early on as canon during the expostion act of the story arc. For example, the Force is introduced early on in Star Wars and audiences accept the presence of the force throughout the rest of the trilogy and any tangentially related fiction. In a similar sense, we suspend our disbelief so that we can accept the existence of Mass Effect technology, biotics, indoctrination, Protheans, etc. in the ME universe. However, it is important to note there is a limit to how much the audience will suspend its disbelief, and that limit depends on what the writers establish as "plausible phenomenon" in the fictional canon. The reason why people find synthesis so repulsive from a literary standpoint is that brings in an over the top phenomenon that does not seem plausible according to the audience's perception of the prior established "plausible phenomenon. To put it simply, the audience has already decided how much they are willing to suspend their disbelief, and synthesis is so over the top bad that they audience refuses to suspend its disbelief any higher. They do not take it seriously because it does not make much sense in the "plausible phenomenon" of the ME universe. And worse still was that it was introduced by a last minute deus ex machina figure. Just some context. 

[.50CalBrainSurgeon]

JonathonPR wrote...

 Synthesis is a poor attempt at executing transhumanism ideas. I am a fan of transhumanism in games and books but it requires the right setting/universe and story. I also dislike how it is portrayed as an instant utopia but I think it has to do that to be part of the catalyst's problem. A larger problem is that ME3 treated technology as magic. They lifted scientific terms and explanation in a few places to make things feel cool but in the story it felt more like fantasy than scifi. The ending tried to cram in an interesting concept to make up for the rushed feeling of the ending. Not knowing how to end it they tacked on some inappropriate thing like a girl with too much makeup.


If you want a table top transhumanism game I recommend GURPS Transhuman Space or Eclipse Phase. For crpg I recommend the original Deus Ex with texture mods. 


There is a wide range of scifi and near scifi flavors. Many stories will lean toward one of the big three categories with a little dabbling of the other two.  The basics of scifi is a Socratic exercise with a scientific idea as the center of the story. What if x. 


Hard scifi is limited to accepted contemporary science and technology. What if technology x had been used a different way earlier on, had been invented earlier, or how might society change in the future because of the technology that is just coming out now.


Soft scifi is much more lenient. It accepts possible but not confirmed scientific principles to be used. A rough explanation for how it might work can be made based on modern science. It does not require imaginary materials or bending the laws of physics to work. It might contain small doses of science fantasy but they are in the background.


Science fantasy can just make stuff up. There are only the thinnest of connection between modern proven science and what is presented in the story. It allows for FTL, biotics/Force/psionics, Extraterrestrials that look, act, and talk like humans in some way, and what Asimov referred to as "eye scifi". It looks cool and futuristic but does not have any meaningful focus on exploring scientific concepts or how society would react to a technology.


How Bioware uses science outside of the codex in the first Mass Effect

A most proper explanation! 

[shingara]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Here is how synthesis works, you belive the catalyst and walk straight into the laser. You melt and the catalyst laughs its nuts off that you were stupid enough to walk into a laser cos it said you would save everyone. Game over you died and the catalyst has completed what it has been trying todo for 3 games.

"Deception"-nonsense theories are broken, kid.

O really, so prove it. Lets see its mentioned how many times how the reapers used this tactic to co opt the races to not kill the reapers. Hmm ye cant wait for you to prove to me that the catalyst isnt lying.

[ruggly]

.50CalBrainSurgeon wrote...
I think the situation here is one regarding suspension of disbelief rather than the pseudo-scientific qualifications of the ME universe. For any type of fiction especially sci-fi or fantasy, the writers implicitly expect the audience to suspend disbelief for the elements that we know are impossible in real life. e.g. magic, FTL, mass effect technology etc. The degree to which the audience is willing to suspend disbelief is typically established early on as canon during the expostion act of the story arc. For example, the Force is introduced early on in Star Wars and audiences accept the presence of the force throughout the rest of the trilogy and any tangentially related fiction. In a similar sense, we suspend our disbelief so that we can accept the existence of Mass Effect technology, biotics, indoctrination, Protheans, etc. in the ME universe. However, it is important to note there is a limit to how much the audience will suspend its disbelief, and that limit depends on what the writers establish as "plausible phenomenon" in the fictional canon. The reason why people find synthesis so repulsive from a literary standpoint is that brings in an over the top phenomenon that does not seem plausible according to the audience's perception of the prior established "plausible phenomenon. To put it simply, the audience has already decided how much they are willing to suspend their disbelief, and synthesis is so over the top bad that they audience refuses to suspend its disbelief any higher. They do not take it seriously because it does not make much sense in the "plausible phenomenon" of the ME universe. And worse still was that it was introduced by a last minute deus ex machina figure. Just some context. 

I can agree with that.  I don't mind really that synthesis is there as a choice, but the explanation and execution (other endings included in execution) is just so perposterous that I cannot bring myself to take it seriously.  Some people find the whole pseudo-scientific mythical space Jesus sacrifice to be beautiful.  I find it over-the-top bad.

[Ieldra]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Please refrain from telling me what I'm doing, Fandango, because until now you've got it wrong 100% of the time. Also, science fiction does most emphatically not mean "anything goes", or that we need to accept nonsense just because it was written. SF can extend things into the unknown, but should not treat what is known with contempt. If it retcons what is known, it must give a plausible explanation.

I suspect it's pointless, but perhaps I can make you understand by asking more simple questions. Let's start with this: what is the defining difference between an organic and a synthetic intelligent being? What makes one "organic" and the other "synthetic"? Hint: it can't be simple biochemistry (or whatever counts for that in synthetics), because the stories make it a major theme that differences rooted in biochemistry can be overcome without making fundamental changes to the life forms in question.

And let me help you understand a little something Ieldra. The fiction of Mass Effect trumps your - frankly pointless - scientific considerations with gusto. As such, you simply have no authority when you say ‘bio-synthetic DNA can't exist’, or claim that the Catalyst cannot do what it is actually shown to do in game. Do you understand? Trying to use your scientific objections as some kind of currency in attempting to rewrite the game as something more appealing to you is completely meaningless to me. What Bioware says does indeed go Ieldra. Deal with it.

No.

"Anything goes just because it's written" is complete nonsense. The ground rules for a fictional universe need to be established in advance, and once established, the writers break them at their peril. The standard assumption in SF is wherever fantastic elements aren't established as part of the ground rules early in the story, real-world science applies. Things can be discovered during the story but those can only build on what's already established, not negate it. Entities like the Catalyst can introduce completely new elements but even they need to be consistent.

Also, *especially* in SF stories the principles, if not necessarily the facts, of real-world science apply. Any fantastic element is supposed to be explainable using the established ground rules of the fictional universe and logical reasoning, even if often no actual explanation is given but it's left for the reader/viewer/player to decipher. Then, if you use such reasoning and run into contradictions, any artistic license to include fantastic elements ceases to matter because a contradiction is a contradiction and no amount of space magic can make 1 be equal to 0.

Lastly, if the story uses known terms and doesn't redefine them we can assume that the known definition applies, and that means that synthetics are robots, the difference between organic and synthetic does not apply on the molecular level because there are no "synthetic molecules" and thus a literal "bio-synthetic DNA" is nonsense. I don't understand why "it's an analogy" even needs explaining - it's so utterly obvious from the delivery of the line.

What you are demanding is

(1) "Stop thinking about things and accept everything at face value." Well, that may be how you experience your stories, but I will not stop thinking.
(2) "Everything is literal", there are no analogies. Apart from that being a rather narrow-minded approach to experiencing fiction, or art in general, this is contradicted by the Bioware writers themselves who said there are elements in the ending which aren't meant to be taken literally. 

Do you really believe that? If you do, then we can stop talking because we're clearly living in different realities. If no, then you have no basis to demand from me that I accept those principles.

Edit:
In response to your last post above: no, I am definitely not saying that ME3's endings "wrap up things nicely", Synthesis least of all. What I have been doing since the inception of this thread is trying to find an interpretation that works and keeps the story and the world reasonably intact. Synthesis presents an interesting future for the civilizations of the MEU, one with radical advancement overcoming significant limitations of the human condition. Not an utopian future but one I have often described as featuring new wonders as well as new horrors. The epilogue shows us a hint of that that. The exposition of how it works, however, is utter nonsense. I do not blame people for rejecting this option because of the nonsensical exposition. I only prefer to be a little more constructive. If the writers can't be bothered to be consistent and present an exposition which respects the universe they have built, fobbing me off with pseudomystical crap, then I will try to correct that and interpret the presented material in order to find such exposition.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 août 2013 - 10:51 .

[JasonShepard]

shingara wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Here is how synthesis works, you belive the catalyst and walk straight into the laser. You melt and the catalyst laughs its nuts off that you were stupid enough to walk into a laser cos it said you would save everyone. Game over you died and the catalyst has completed what it has been trying todo for 3 games.

"Deception"-nonsense theories are broken, kid.

O really, so prove it. Lets see its mentioned how many times how the reapers used this tactic to co opt the races to not kill the reapers. Hmm ye cant wait for you to prove to me that the catalyst isnt lying.

I'm not going to prove that the Catalyst isn't lying. However, I do consider it to be irrelevant whether or not it actually is lying.

Yeah, I know. That statement sounds wierd to me, and I'm the one that wrote it...

Allow me to explain:
If the Crucible doesn't activate, we've lost. Admiral Hackett has already told us that the Crucible isn't doing anything. So if we just stand around and do nothing, we've lost.

Now, either the Catalyst is lying to us, or it isn't.

If the Catalyst isn't lying to us, we've got a chance to win.

If the Catalyst is lying to us, then our choices are Death (Refuse), Death (disguised as Destroy), Death (disguised as Control) or Death (disguised as Synthesis). If the Catalyst is deceiving to us, we've already lost so we've got nothing left to lose by trusting the Catalyst.

And that's why I'm willing to accept that none of the choices is a trick. Because if they are tricks, nothing matters anymore - we've already lost. Might as well take the chance that they aren't tricks.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 06 août 2013 - 11:02 .

[shingara]

JasonShepard wrote...

shingara wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Here is how synthesis works, you belive the catalyst and walk straight into the laser. You melt and the catalyst laughs its nuts off that you were stupid enough to walk into a laser cos it said you would save everyone. Game over you died and the catalyst has completed what it has been trying todo for 3 games.

"Deception"-nonsense theories are broken, kid.

O really, so prove it. Lets see its mentioned how many times how the reapers used this tactic to co opt the races to not kill the reapers. Hmm ye cant wait for you to prove to me that the catalyst isnt lying.

I'm not going to prove that the Catalyst isn't lying. However, I do consider it to be irrelevant whether or not it actually is lying.

Yeah, I know. That statement sounds strange to me, and I'm the one that wrote it...

Put it this way: If the Crucible doesn't activate, we've lost. Admiral Hackett has already told us that the Crucible isn't doing anything. So if we just stand around and do nothing, we've lost.

Either the Catalyst is lying to us, or it isn't.

If the Catalyst isn't lying to us, we've got chance to win.

If the Catalyst is lying to us, then our choices are Death (Refuse), Death (disguised as Destroy), Death (disguised as Control) or Death (disguised as Synthesis). If the Catalyst is deceiving to us, we've already lost so we've got nothing left to lose by trusting the Catalyst.

And that's why I'm willing to accept that none of the choices is a trick. Because if they are tricks, nothing matters anymore - we've already lost. Might as well take the chance that they aren't tricks.

 Or and hold with me here it doesnt matter what we do because the choice isnt ours to take, the thing fires off anyhows and it was biowares way of showing us what could have happened and anderson was the one who fired it all along.


 The fact that astounds people when talking about this is thinking that an AI cant lie. We know thats not true because EDI can do it at will, to think an AI a millenia more advanced and evolved then edi is going to lie through its teeth to save itself is a little more then believable.

 The catalyst is in essence a bodyless entity, its soul survival is the citidels survival, firing off that weapon no matter which way you look at it is the catalyst commiting suicide so what better way to stop it from being destroyed is to try and convince someone else who it belives has the power to take that choice that all things will be all smiles and sunshine if the catalyst can survive and the end to everything if they decide to destroy it.

Modifié par shingara, 06 août 2013 - 11:20 .

[Ieldra]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Ieldra,

The reason I said that it sounds like cognitive dissonance is that Destroy has this same problem. You are told that the Crucible targets all synthetics - what? What does that mean? How can it do that? How can it target sentience? It really doesn't make sense. Meanwhile, BioWare could have just used an alternative explanation that the Crucible targets Reaper code. It would have the same output on the surface (the epilogue would be exactly the same), just with a more sensible explanation.

So is that what happened in Destroy? Does the Crucible target all Reaper code and not all synthetics, despite the Catalyst's exact words being the opposite? If you say yes, then I suppose we at least have a consistent rejection of nonsensical elements in favor of more sensible explanations across all endings, but I still don't feel that we're discussing BioWare's endings, but rather our own, modified versions.

I think the interpretation "The Crucible targets Reaper code" makes sense and even explains why EDI and the geth are killed nicely. IIRC there aren't any synthetics in the story who don't have Reaper code in the end, so the interpretation doesn't run into contradictions. 

However, both interpretations require intelligence from the weapon. Reaper code running on regular synthetic hardware is nothing more but a bit pattern after all. Recognizing that requires intelligence, recognizing synthetic sapience in general requires just a more sophisticated algorithm. Not that such intelligence isn't possible, but the way things are presented is not in the least suggestive of it.

Gah, if you start thinking about it, Destroy's exposition isn't any better than that of Synthesis. Both don't make any sense, but Destroy has the advantage of being free of pseudo-religious crap.

Which is fine, because they may in fact be better explanations, but if we're discussing things like "what Synthesis does" I think making this clear from the outset is important.

I'll make it clear: if Bioware's explanation doesn't make any sense, I feel free to ignore specific aspects of the exposition in order to make things make sense. In the case of Synthesis, it's the "final evolution" rather than the "new...DNA", which I'm completely convinced was intended as an analogy. I've said so right from the start, and I really don't get that people don't get this.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Ieldra,

The reason I said that it sounds like cognitive dissonance is that Destroy has this same problem. You are told that the Crucible targets all synthetics - what? What does that mean? How can it do that? How can it target sentience? It really doesn't make sense. Meanwhile, BioWare could have just used an alternative explanation that the Crucible targets Reaper code. It would have the same output on the surface (the epilogue would be exactly the same), just with a more sensible explanation.

So is that what happened in Destroy? Does the Crucible target all Reaper code and not all synthetics, despite the Catalyst's exact words being the opposite? If you say yes, then I suppose we at least have a consistent rejection of nonsensical elements in favor of more sensible explanations across all endings, but I still don't feel that we're discussing BioWare's endings, but rather our own, modified versions.

I think the interpretation "The Crucible targets Reaper code" makes sense and even explains why EDI and the geth are killed nicely. IIRC there aren't any synthetics in the story who don't have Reaper code in the end, so the interpretation doesn't run into contradictions. 

However, both interpretations require intelligence from the weapon. Reaper code running on regular synthetic hardware is nothing more but a bit pattern after all. Recognizing that requires intelligence, recognizing synthetic sapience in general requires just a more sophisticated algorithm. Not that such intelligence isn't possible, but the way things are presented is not in the least suggestive of it.

Gah, if you start thinking about it, Destroy's exposition isn't any better than that of Synthesis. Both don't make any sense, but Destroy has the advantage of being free of pseudo-religious crap.

Which is fine, because they may in fact be better explanations, but if we're discussing things like "what Synthesis does" I think making this clear from the outset is important.

I'll make it clear: if Bioware's explanation doesn't make any sense, I feel free to ignore specific aspects of the exposition in order to make things make sense. In the case of Synthesis, it's the "final evolution" rather than the "new...DNA", which I'm completely convinced was intended as an analogy. I've said so right from the start, and I really don't get that people don't get this.

many of these are sake of argument. Synthesis is simple, just explaining it is difficult..lol I figure the gist of it is more about time. How long would evolution take to interface completely technology with organic life. Why is synthetic organism so depended upon by organic organism?  What makes a synthetic life form superior to an organic life form? These are the things we need to know. The only life form folks seem to balk is the catalyst as it has complete control over the given Sheps who are out to destroy/control/refuse/or synthesis with.  The grand evolution is for all concerned, not just organics. Apparently.

DNA is really just a form of comjmunication with nature by nature. It's a code. Why couldn't advanced technology emulate that code, call it their own. Infuse it with basic chemical structures within natures matrix. Stuff so advanced, it'd be hard to imagine. But then the protheans basically invented the Asari, according to the history lesson about their 'uplifting' skill set. Humanity found it on mars.. didn't even bat an eye about just how dangerous advanced tech can be for less civilized cultures. The prime directive only counts when it comes to 'other' folks, but not those that found 'stuff' on Mars..lol Humanity deserved to advance quickly, it's in their genetic make up, their evolutionary ladder, DNA... heheh

I bet the catalyst chuckled over that one...