9088 réponses à ce sujet

[LixiLane]

I would have been all for the Synthesis ending had Javik been the epilogue narrator rather than EDI. I know that poses problems because he's only available in DLC but I just feel it would have been rather more poignant.

[Ieldra]

LixiLane wrote...
I would have been all for the Synthesis ending had Javik been the epilogue narrator rather than EDI. I know that poses problems because he's only available in DLC but I just feel it would have been rather more poignant.

Javik wouldn't be very appreciative of Synthesis. Why would you want him as a narrator? He'd probably be the opposite of EDI, ignoring the good and only seeing the bad.

[Seival]

I think that Javik will not want Synthesis to be applied. But once synthesized, he will change his opinion and enjoy Synthesis advantages. Seeing the Reapers, the synthetics, the AIs, and all organic life in completely different, positive perspective will be life changing event for him. He would even change his mind about suicide eventually, I'm sure.

[Seival]

...And, by the way. I've just finished new picture about Synthesis

Used the same concept as for previous picture, but made it closer to the theme (I hope):

[AlexMBrennan]

But once synthesized, he will change his opinion and enjoy Synthesis advantages.

Is that the same "It's not rape if they enjoyed it" logic?

[RZIBARA]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

But once synthesized, he will change his opinion and enjoy Synthesis advantages.

Is that the same "It's not rape if they enjoyed it" logic?

lolololol

[Br3admax]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

But once synthesized, he will change his opinion and enjoy Synthesis advantages.

Is that the same "It's not rape if they enjoyed it" logic?

Indubitably. But look at who you're quoting. 

[TurianRebel212]

First off, it ain't rape if she enjoyed it. Duh.


And second, Synthesis is green and dumb.


And lastly.







I just saved 10 percent on my car insurance.





And BTW Half Life 3's confirmed. BSN told me so.

[Seival]

Obadiah wrote...

Question got raised in another thread: do you think any forms of life, including the Reapers, are able to resist Synthesis or escape the Synthesis wave, and if so, what kind of existence would they have in the new galactic community and how would they be treated?

I really doubt anyone or anything could escape or shield themselves from the Synthesis even if they had a time for this. The entire galaxy was covered by the explosions (see the epilogue), and even unstoppable Reaper dreadnoughts were affected.

Modifié par Seival, 16 septembre 2013 - 07:49 .

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I think people place a little more concern over the logistical aspect of the choice than is necessary.

At least, the way I understand Sync, I do not believe its relative successfulness hinges on a 100% conversion rate. It's my belief that organics are simply endowed with just a few (yet very impactful) new abilities, but they can choose not to utilize these abilities at all and -- if so -- they'll live life no differently than they had before. I do not believe those who utilize them and those who don't (whether by choice, or if they were somehow "missed" by the initial wave) will face serious problems between each other, though.

I also don't think it far-fetched to believe they'll come up with ways to apply it (if anyone was missed, somehow) or to remove it (for those that don't want so much as a trace of it).

While I agree with you that too much importance shouldn't be placed on this, I think that the failure to present us with *any* convincing logistics of the implementation is a valid complaint about Synthesis. I still maintain that literally transforming all life is nonsensical, and here is why:

As established in the OP, the main defining characteristic of synthetic life is that it is built instead of grown. Which means that it is necessary for synthetic life to understand itself fully - at least its own construction process - in order to reproduce. I can construct some highly artificial scenarios were this isn't needed, but in general, were it not so, there wouldn't be any trait left that differentiates synthetic life from organic life. That, in turn, means that there can be no meaningful distinction between the two domains of life on a level where life is intrinsically unable to understand itself. On that level, any distinction is nothing more than biochemistry, and the story makes it a point again and again that differences in biochemistry alone do not necessarily lead to conflict.

To illustrate the point: we can speculate about synthetic nanomachines playing a role in the typical post-Synthesis individual. The thing is: there is no functional difference between such nanomachines and organelles which have evolved to be a natural part of every human cell. We can also speculate on "DNA wrapping" synthetic elements, but the problem is the same: it's nothing more than biochemistry.

I don't agree with Javik's conclusions, but he raises the point that the defining difference between the two domains of life is perspective, arisen out of certain knowledge - or lack thereof - about their own nature. Which means: there can be no defining difference between the two domains of life which can exist without the potential to reflect on one's own existence.

Synthesis is only meaningful for intelligent life. Add the problems with the logistics, and I feel confident to conclude: Synthesis does only apply to intelligent life. The Catalyst's "all life" implicitly excludes non-intelligent life because that was never part of the problem.

Disagree.

Organic and synthetic life forms are very different even on their basic levels. Even some primitive reactions on the environment have too little in common. Pain for example. What does the pain means for an organic being? Till some level it's just an indication of damage done. But the more intense it becomes, the less it works "as intended" - it becomes torment, that can affect organic's behavior. And that's not the limit, because at some point very intense pain can cause lethal shock... Pain is the same for all organic beings, no matter intelligent or not. This is a part of our physiology.

And what is the pain for synthetic being? Only and always indication of damage done. Indication, that cannot cause change in behaviour or shock. Indication that can be easily ignored. Machines do not understand what does the pain means for organics. They can't experience torment, shock, fear, despair or anything like that. They just have preferences. No matter if they are intelligent or non-intelligent synthetic beings.

Such differences are inherent for both intelligent and non-intelligent synthetics and organics. And such differences exist because of the mechanics that are inherent for both intelligent and non-intelligent beings. So, Synthesis affects and changes everyone and everything, not just intelligent life forms. Which means the Catalyst was correct.

[Arcian]

Seival wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I think people place a little more concern over the logistical aspect of the choice than is necessary.

At least, the way I understand Sync, I do not believe its relative successfulness hinges on a 100% conversion rate. It's my belief that organics are simply endowed with just a few (yet very impactful) new abilities, but they can choose not to utilize these abilities at all and -- if so -- they'll live life no differently than they had before. I do not believe those who utilize them and those who don't (whether by choice, or if they were somehow "missed" by the initial wave) will face serious problems between each other, though.

I also don't think it far-fetched to believe they'll come up with ways to apply it (if anyone was missed, somehow) or to remove it (for those that don't want so much as a trace of it).

While I agree with you that too much importance shouldn't be placed on this, I think that the failure to present us with *any* convincing logistics of the implementation is a valid complaint about Synthesis. I still maintain that literally transforming all life is nonsensical, and here is why:

As established in the OP, the main defining characteristic of synthetic life is that it is built instead of grown. Which means that it is necessary for synthetic life to understand itself fully - at least its own construction process - in order to reproduce. I can construct some highly artificial scenarios were this isn't needed, but in general, were it not so, there wouldn't be any trait left that differentiates synthetic life from organic life. That, in turn, means that there can be no meaningful distinction between the two domains of life on a level where life is intrinsically unable to understand itself. On that level, any distinction is nothing more than biochemistry, and the story makes it a point again and again that differences in biochemistry alone do not necessarily lead to conflict.

To illustrate the point: we can speculate about synthetic nanomachines playing a role in the typical post-Synthesis individual. The thing is: there is no functional difference between such nanomachines and organelles which have evolved to be a natural part of every human cell. We can also speculate on "DNA wrapping" synthetic elements, but the problem is the same: it's nothing more than biochemistry.

I don't agree with Javik's conclusions, but he raises the point that the defining difference between the two domains of life is perspective, arisen out of certain knowledge - or lack thereof - about their own nature. Which means: there can be no defining difference between the two domains of life which can exist without the potential to reflect on one's own existence.

Synthesis is only meaningful for intelligent life. Add the problems with the logistics, and I feel confident to conclude: Synthesis does only apply to intelligent life. The Catalyst's "all life" implicitly excludes non-intelligent life because that was never part of the problem.

Disagree.

Organic and synthetic life forms are very different even on their basic levels. Even some primitive reactions on the environment have too little in common. Pain for example. What does the pain means for an organic being? Till some level it's just an indication of damage done. But the more intense it becomes, the less it works "as intended" - it becomes torment, that can affect organic's behavior. And that's not the limit, because at some point very intense pain can cause lethal shock... Pain is the same for all organic beings, no matter intelligent or not. This is a part of our physiology.

And what is the pain for synthetic being? Only and always indication of damage done. Indication, that cannot cause change in behaviour or shock. Indication that can be easily ignored. Machines do not understand what does the pain means for organics. They can't experience torment, shock, fear, despair or anything like that. They just have preferences. No matter if they are intelligent or non-intelligent synthetic beings.

Synthetics do not feel pain. They register physical damage to their structures in vastly different ways.

Seival wrote...

Such differences are inherent for both intelligent and non-intelligent synthetics and organics. And such differences exist because of the mechanics that are inherent for both intelligent and non-intelligent beings. So, Synthesis affects and changes everyone and everything, not just intelligent life forms. Which means the Catalyst was correct.

Nothing of what you just said even remotely indicated that the Catalyst is correct. As usual, you're spouting nonsensical crap and presenting flimsy and, as seen above, completely baseless and unrelated conclusions to support your opinion.

[Ieldra]

@Seival, Arcian:
You are both incorrect. There is nothing that is necessarily different in a synthetic compared to an organic, except for the fact that it is built rather than grown. For instance, there is no reason why our pleasure/pain circuits couldn't be modeled in a synthetic. The chemistry would be different, but the function the same. Even more to the point, it is rather possible that synthetics could evolve towards automatic self-building similar to organics, which would reduce that difference. The only knowledge a scientifically advanced synthetic civilization would necessarily have is that their origins were in the minds of organics, because just by looking at the universe, they'd see that synthetic life processes, as opposed to organic ones, do not naturally evolve from non-life. There is no synthetic abiogenesis.

Which means, yet again, that for that difference to be a significant factor in the relationships between organics and synthetics, there needs to be awareness of it. The conflict is meaningless on the level of bacteria and self-replicating nanomachines.

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Seival, Arcian:
You are both incorrect. There is nothing that is necessarily different in a synthetic compared to an organic, except for the fact that it is built rather than grown. For instance, there is no reason why our pleasure/pain circuits couldn't be modeled in a synthetic. The chemistry would be different, but the function the same. Even more to the point, it is rather possible that synthetics could evolve towards automatic self-building similar to organics, which would reduce that difference. The only knowledge a scientifically advanced synthetic civilization would necessarily have is that their origins were in the minds of organics, because just by looking at the universe, they'd see that synthetic life processes, as opposed to organic ones, do not naturally evolve from non-life. There is no synthetic abiogenesis.

Which means, yet again, that for that difference to be a significant factor in the relationships between organics and synthetics, there needs to be awareness of it. The conflict is meaningless on the level of bacteria and self-replicating nanomachines.

Pain "side effects" like shock or torment are clearly disadvantages of organic living beings. There is no reason to simulate the same processes in synthetics. No creator will ever want to build an AI with real pain simulations, because these simulations have no other purpose but to torment or kill the intelligent living being. Absolutely excess function.

When you build combat robot, you don't want it to feel real pain.
When you build worker robot, you don't want it to feel real pain too.
What other robots would you want to build? Is there any reason to give real pain simulations to them? For what?
And synthetics themselves are smart enough to avoid developing disadvantages within themselves.

The conflict is meaningless on the level of bacteria, but even bacteria consist of the organic material. Bacteria have to co-exist with larger living beings as before, so they have to remain compatible with their carriers. Organics were changed on very deep level in Synthesis, so the change has to affect even bacteria.

Modifié par Seival, 17 septembre 2013 - 08:51 .

[Br3admax]

Pain is not a disadvantage. Pain is an evolved response to increase survival and longevity. Anyone who wants a robot to last will want to build them with some type of negative stimuli detector. Otherwise you would have robots walking into volcanos.

[Seival]

Br3ad wrote...

Pain is not a disadvantage. Pain is an evolved response to increase survival and longevity. Anyone who wants a robot to last will want to build them with some type of negative stimuli detector. Otherwise you would have robots walking into volcanos.

Like I said, pain itself is just an indicator of damage - very useful thing. But pain "side effects" like torment or shock are our curse. Torment corrupts your behavior and ability to think clearly. Shock can disable, or even kill you. There are no reasons to simulate torment and shock in AIs. It's like implanting a bomb into a human, and placing self destruction button in an easily accessible place, where anyone can use it. Who will ever want to do that?

[Br3admax]

Seival wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Pain is not a disadvantage. Pain is an evolved response to increase survival and longevity. Anyone who wants a robot to last will want to build them with some type of negative stimuli detector. Otherwise you would have robots walking into volcanos.

Like I said, pain itself is just an indicator of damage - very useful thing. But pain "side effects" like torment or shock are our curse. Torment corrupts your behavior and ability to think clearly. Shock can disable, or even kill you. There are no reasons to simulate torment and shock in AIs. It's like implanting a bomb into a human, and placing self destruction button in an easily accessible place, where anyone can use it. Who will ever want to do that?

Pain=/=torture. And an AI can probably feel shock and the like, it is an artificial intelligence after all. It must at least be able to think. 

[Seival]

Br3ad wrote...

Seival wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Pain is not a disadvantage. Pain is an evolved response to increase survival and longevity. Anyone who wants a robot to last will want to build them with some type of negative stimuli detector. Otherwise you would have robots walking into volcanos.

Like I said, pain itself is just an indicator of damage - very useful thing. But pain "side effects" like torment or shock are our curse. Torment corrupts your behavior and ability to think clearly. Shock can disable, or even kill you. There are no reasons to simulate torment and shock in AIs. It's like implanting a bomb into a human, and placing self destruction button in an easily accessible place, where anyone can use it. Who will ever want to do that?

Pain=/=torture. And an AI can probably feel shock and the like, it is an artificial intelligence after all. It must at least be able to think. 

For us, organics, pain becomes torture when it becomes strong enough. And when that happens, pain becomes an abuse rather than advantage.

Synthetics feel pain only as an indicator of damage taken no matter how strong it is... Unless the AI programming contains real pain simulations, which is pointless.

Do you want robot to sense damage taken and so be able to apply countermeasures in time? Yes.
Do you want robot to feel real pain and so become less effective and unpredictably dangerous to itself? No.
No one will ever want to create robots which can feel torment or die from a pain shock.

Modifié par Seival, 17 septembre 2013 - 10:06 .

[Ieldra]

Crossposting this here so that it doesn't get lost:

Here's my explanation of how Synthesis works, which hasn't been part of the OP since I needed some time to find it and now there's no more space left in the OP (reached the 64k size limit). The goal of this was to purge the Synthesis of the mysticism and make a scenario which is believable in the terms of the MEU's fictional science:

(1) What happens to Shepard when he jumps into the beam is actually a destructive upload to the Crucible. We've seen destructive uploads before, it's what the Reapers do to those who will make up a new Reaper, as confirmed by the cut dialogue at the end of ME2 and implicitly by Legion's post-SM dialogue, so there is precedent. Shepard will then continue to exist as a non-conjoined mind within the Crucible structure.

(2) The Crucible analyses what it finds in Shepard's mind about how he envisions the Synthesis and implements it
that way. Shepard's DNA plays no role and neither does his physical composition, since that is only symbolically similar to what the Synthesis may entail, it doesn't go deep enough. However, Shepard's attitude towards his existence as a result of the Lazarus Project's "biosynthetic fusion" (Miranda in ME2), that goes into into it.

(3) The information about how to change life is distributed through FTL-capable containers with clusters of nano-machines which will self-replicate there as needed when they reach their destinations.

(4) What exactly it changes depends, as I said, on the information taken from Shepard's mind. My current scenario for my main Shepard affects all intelligent life by giving individuals synthetic symbiotes which will or will not effect further changes at the behest of the individual. There will be a built-in option to purge the symbiote at start-up.

(5) As for Shepard himself, he exists for a time as a disembodied mind within the Crucible structure. To make him come back, I only need to postulate that the information is sent somewhere before the Crucible is destroyed in the process of dissemination the Synthesis information. Shepard can then be rebuilt using that information and a sample of Shepard DNA.

There's one thing I need to overwrite, though, since there is absolutely no way to encompass it within a reasonable rationale in terms of the MEU's fictional science: the change is not instant throughout the galaxy. The Synthesis agents (that's what I call the nanomachines that create the symbiotes) will need time to travel to their destinations, more time to self-replicate, and even more time to effect their changes.I see the EC cutscene as compressing events for brevity.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 octobre 2013 - 04:38 .

[gundam seed]

"Rape:1,[i]forcible seizing and violation; ravishing. 2, carrying off by force. 3, a plant grown for fodder and oil. -v.t. 1, force to have sexual intercourse. 2, carry off violently."
 
I got this off the new American Webster handy college dictionary, fourth edition. Unless you can find it anywhere on the dictionary that Synthesis is rape. I suggest you shut up ;because, you are just making a fool out of  yourself.

[Ieldra]

Repeating this ad nauseam doesn't make it any more true. I suggest *you* shut up if you don't have anything constructive to contribute. And no, adding the smiley does not make you funny.

[Eckswhyzed]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Repeating this ad nauseam doesn't make it any more true. I suggest *you* shut up if you don't have anything constructive to contribute. And no, adding the smiley does not make you funny.

I think you might be in agreement with gundam seed here.

This tiresome 'Synthesis is like X' line of argument is really just another example of the worst argument in the world. The archetypical rape is someone violently forcing someone else into sexual intercourse. I think it suffices to say that synthesis is nothing like this at all. So anyone using this argument is really trying to say something about 'right to my own body' or whatever and is making themselves out to be an idiot. There's no need to say 'Synthesis is rape, rape is bad therefore synthesis is bad' when they could just get to the point and say why they don't like it.

I could define rape to mean anything I want to to be, and someone else could define it their way, but there's really no point to that when we could just discuss what the actual consequences of synthesis are without wading through some stupid definitional scuffle.

[Obadiah]

@Ieldra2
Good try on describing the mechanics of Synthesis; but honestly, until Bioware or a dev explains what "Your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are" means, I'm sorta stuck just accepting that there is some scientific explanation.

[666Bratwurst]

I'm most likely going to regret posting here but my curiosity is over riding my brain.
Synthesis in a different presentation and style of implementation would be somewhat acceptable despite me choosing to destroy the reapers ever single time.(Which I will do till the end of my desire to play Mass Effect or when I want to troll Harbinger...)

I admire or shall I say accept the possibility of the overall concept of ascending and all that stuff Synthesis is supposed to represent (as most synthesizers see it) but really ... changing all life in the galaxy based on a faulty and ancient Artificial Intelligence's parameters or ideals and having a single man/woman press the button is a mega turn off. Personally I don't like the idea of waking up to a Banshee or husk servant in the morning as it asks me in a disgustingly zombie-like way, "Would you like some coffee with your waffles sir?"

So it says that synthesis is inevitable ? So what?
In my eyes that means that no matter which ending you pick you'll just end up in the exact same place as everything or everyone else. Only the path to it is a tiny bit slower when you chose the other endings.In control it can be pretty much implemented when-ever the Shepalyst chooses (at least I think so...) In the Destroy ending after all the cleanup and scraping husk guts off -pretty much everywhere- it could happen whenever the people of the galaxy chooses and let's not forget
they the people would have the *CHOICE* of when to Synthesize themselves.(Rambling F.T.W)

Therefore well...I'm not really trying to make a statement I'm just giving my opinion...

Anyways that's just my piece.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

I think you might be in agreement with gundam seed here.

Yeah, it wasn't *that* kind of post, it only looked like it.

This tiresome 'Synthesis is like X' line of argument is really just another example of the worst argument in the world. The archetypical rape is someone violently forcing someone else into sexual intercourse. I think it suffices to say that synthesis is nothing like this at all. So anyone using this argument is really trying to say something about 'right to my own body' or whatever and is making themselves out to be an idiot. There's no need to say 'Synthesis is rape, rape is bad therefore synthesis is bad' when they could just get to the point and say why they don't like it.

I could define rape to mean anything I want to to be, and someone else could define it their way, but there's really no point to that when we could just discuss what the actual consequences of synthesis are without wading through some stupid definitional scuffle.

Lots of people around here seem to favor using silly buzzwords in place of thoughtful arguments and reason. This kind of nonsense is not limited to hate for the endings. Eloquence is just not the strong-suit of many of this 'board's posters.

That said, Sync ending is so open for interpretation that it kind of *is* whatever you want it to be -- good or bad.

IMO, the only "invalid" interpretation of it is that it is some kind of façade hiding a horrible reality underneath.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
@Ieldra2
Good try on describing the mechanics of Synthesis; but honestly, until Bioware or a dev explains what "Your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are" means, I'm sorta stuck just accepting that there is some scientific explanation.

They won't do that, and I think I know why: all that mysticism is clearly intentional, they won't do anything to mitigate the impression that the "soul cannon" thing is what they were going for, and even if it's not meant literally, any explanation would lessen its impact. What I'm not getting is why they replaced perfectly good explanations with that mystical stuff late in development, as in EDI's statement at the human Reaper in ME2. It's like they deliberately moved away from science fiction into mythology and blundered straight over the border of where both might remain compatible.

I'll continue to interpret the "organic energy" line as nonsense the Catalyst cooked up for the benefit of the stupid human. There is science fiction which successfully used the idea that there is an extradimensional aspect to any intelligent individual, but such things need to be anchored in the world much better and much earlier if they don't want to come across as mystical nonsense and damage the genre identity of the story. Also, "organic energy" is an astoundingly dumb term, invoking vitalism as it does. I can't be the only one who was reminded of Wilhelm Reich's theories.

@gundam seed:
Should I have misinterpreted your post, I apologize.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 octobre 2013 - 06:45 .