9088 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the threshold: that would be the point where (a) technology does not feel foreign any more and ( meshing with it results in improvements that balance out against the advantages of purely synthetic entities. The story does not provide a hard answer, and RL parallels won't work because we don't have synthetic life.  

(a) has clearly been met. I have no doubt countless people no longer consider their implants as anything but part of their body. And it's a rather silly standard anyway, since you have no idea how Shepard's implants feel to her and whether they require any maitenance or whatnot.

As for (, if Synthesis is only a concept that exists in relation to Synthetics, then that means there's no distinction between a 'Synthesis' and 'Non-Synthesis' human so long as they have implants. The only difference is whether Synthetics are present or not. in which case it's clearly quite foolish to proclaim Shepard as the 'avatar' of Synthesis based on his or her implants.

Modifié par David7204, 30 décembre 2013 - 09:54 .

[David7204]

Hell, my two front teeth are fake. They're made of some sort of special ceramic that had to be outsourced to a lab - certainly high technology. But they look and feel exactly like my other teeth, certainly no longer foreign. I eat with them, floss them, and brush them just like my other teeth.

Perhaps I'm the 'avatar of Synthesis.'

Modifié par David7204, 30 décembre 2013 - 10:01 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Avatar of Anus, more like.

[SwobyJ]

Never leave this forum David.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Avatar of Anus, more like.

****ing Win.

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yet again: understanding is not the point of Synthesis on the organic side. Conflict resolution or prevention is not its point either. The point is affecting the outcome, balancing some of the disadvantages of organics so that conflicts don't result in extinction. Then there's the Cipher which gives Shepard a unique *mental* perspective as well, though that isn't exactly a result of technology and it doesn't bring them closer to synthetics so it may not count for this argument exactly. It still counts for Shepard as a transhuman.

Not on the organic side, no, but on the synthetic side, yes.  It as still fully half the equation.

And the Cipher was 100% organic in nature.  It was one organic race's perspective given to another organic race through a third organic being.

And EDI outright states that Shepard is not transhuman, but merely a human with extensive cybernetic augmentation.  

That's a sideshow though. What I wanted to illustrate is that Shepard is an example of a perfectly functional partly synthetic, partly organic individual where the aspects mesh at a level low enough that you don't see the lines where they meet, and that thus - we don't need the Synthesis' space magic to achieve it, which means that this adds one more inconsistency to ME3's story. In principle, ME3's Synthesis achieves nothing for organics beyond what Shepard already has. The debate how this provides a solution for the organic/synthetic conflict is a separate one.

There are humans and other races with cybernetics already.  Not to mention genetic modifications (which is another form of transhumanism and synthetic life at the molecular level, but one that's prety much glossed over in the game) 

I agree Synthesis's space magic was never needed, that the galaxy would figure it out on its own when the time was right.  What I don't get is why Shepard was this perfect blend when Shepard never identified as anything other than human.  By this logic, Cerberus was sitting on the next step of organic evolution and used it to...indoctrinate refugees?

[ruggly]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Avatar of Anus, more like.

ooooooOOOOOOOOOH!

[ImaginaryMatter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Avatar of Anus, more like.

This is awesome.

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...
And EDI outright states that Shepard is not transhuman, but merely a human with extensive cybernetic augmentation.

If you have to redefine the term to make Shepard not fit it, then there's something seriously wrong with your argument.

iakus wrote...

That's a sideshow though. What I wanted to illustrate is that Shepard is an example of a perfectly functional partly synthetic, partly organic individual where the aspects mesh at a level low enough that you don't see the lines where they meet, and that thus - we don't need the Synthesis' space magic to achieve it, which means that this adds one more inconsistency to ME3's story. In principle, ME3's Synthesis achieves nothing for organics beyond what Shepard already has. The debate how this provides a solution for the organic/synthetic conflict is a separate one.

There are humans and other races with cybernetics already.  Not to mention genetic modifications (which is another form of transhumanism and synthetic life at the molecular level, but one that's prety much glossed over in the game) 

I agree Synthesis's space magic was never needed, that the galaxy would figure it out on its own when the time was right.  What I don't get is why Shepard was this perfect blend when Shepard never identified as anything other than human.  By this logic, Cerberus was sitting on the next step of organic evolution and used it to...indoctrinate refugees?

Shepard implicitly identified as human - by omission. Didn't we all complain that the deeper implications of Shepard's coming back, and coming back with a body created through biosynthetic fusion, were never explored by the story? That would've been a flaw in any case, but with the possibility of Synthesis it's become a critical flaw.

Of course in a more general sense Shepard may not be "the perfect blend", but the biosynthetic fusion made them come back from the dead *and* acquire some superhuman abilities. You'd be hard pressed to find a more fitting representative.

What I mean when I say Shepard can be seen as the avatar of a human-made Synthesis' is this: Shepard represents a unity of man and machine which doesn't go as deep as the Synthesis, but which doesn't need much further development to serve the Catalyst's purpose in the same way Synthesis does, and which could be developed to that point by galactic civilization alone, without any space god's magic.

We already have an indication of the same with the start-up of a geth/quarian symbiosis in the aftermath of Rannoch, but attached to the protagonist it gains much more narrative weight.

Hmph....it all comes back to the Catalyst. I wish I could cut that would-be space god from the story but keep the direction of the outcomes.

[Mangalores]

Ieldra2 wrote...
...

What I mean when I say Shepard can be seen as the avatar of a human-made Synthesis' is this: Shepard represents a unity of man and machine which doesn't go as deep as the Synthesis, but which doesn't need much further development to serve the Catalyst's purpose in the same way Synthesis does, and which could be developed to that point by galactic civilization alone, without any space god's magic.

We already have an indication of the same with the start-up of a geth/quarian symbiosis in the aftermath of Rannoch, but attached to the protagonist it gains much more narrative weight.

...

There is a vast qualitative difference of having the essence of Shepard spread all over the galaxy or having individual Quarians and Geth join in symbiotic relationships though it's not clear if the Geth/Quarian thing are more than temporary things since it's not clear what Geth are supposed to do in those environment suits

Anyway the Quarian/Geth relationship sounded healthy because it is a choice by individuals or cognitive collectives to do so and stay that way as long as they want, none gets assimilated against their will by a singular driving force.

Modifié par Mangalores, 31 décembre 2013 - 08:57 .

[Ieldra]

Since there is no plausible causal connection between the thing with "Shepard's essence" (whatever that's supposed to be) and an organic/synthetic synthesis or symbiosis, and since this implementation defies all rationalization in terms of in-world logic, I feel free to ignore the implementation and focus on the outcome and what it's supposed to achieve, and there, the similarities are striking.

Note, though, that while changing a whole galaxy is indeed problematic, nothing in Synthesis hints at "assimilation".

[Mangalores]

Ieldra2 wrote...

...

Note, though, that while changing a whole galaxy is indeed problematic, nothing in Synthesis hints at "assimilation".

Was mainly referring to the green skin situation everyone has and that everyone was transformed into a cyborg. A lot of the revelation / transformation however sounds like you'd have to mess around in people's brains as well... heck you would if you change the DNA so I would say assimilation in making people think favorably based on your presumptions even if they would have resisted if asked is heavily implied as well.

[Ieldra]

I guess it can be seen that way, though IMO the term "A new...DNA" can only be meant figuratively since synthetics don't have a DNA analogue. The imagery in the EC appears to indicate that in organics, DNA is replaced by something more versatile without necessarily changing the information already encoded. I don't think Synthesis is meant to change who you are, only what you are.

[Obadiah]

I'm kind of curious as what modifications beings will make to themselves or their offspring in Synthesis now that they are fully integrated with technology.

We're already modifying people to make us more robust with medicine and implants like pacemakers, changing our appearance temporarily with makeup, or "permanently" with tattoos and plastic surgery. As beings spread to new planets with higher or lower gravity, or slightly different atmospheric compositions, it may be advantageous to change their physical makeup to deal the new environments (more or less muscle mass or bone density, bigger lung capacity etc...) rather than terraform or live in enclosed habitats.

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...
And EDI outright states that Shepard is not transhuman, but merely a human with extensive cybernetic augmentation.

If you have to redefine the term to make Shepard not fit it, then there's something seriously wrong with your argument.

I'm just repeating what EDI (and thus the writers) said 

Shepard implicitly identified as human - by omission. Didn't we all complain that the deeper implications of Shepard's coming back, and coming back with a body created through biosynthetic fusion, were never explored by the story? That would've been a flaw in any case, but with the possibility of Synthesis it's become a critical flaw.

I think the complaint was on how Shepoard's death never seemed to affect him/her or anyone close to Shepard, more than Shep being a cyborg.

[jtav]

I think what Ieldra is getting at, iakus, is that Shepard is transhuman by real world definitions, whatever idiosyncratic definition the writers are using. He is the exemplar of the seemless integration of tech and biology, and that came about through human effort and ingenuity.

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

I think what Ieldra is getting at, iakus, is that Shepard is transhuman by real world definitions, whatever idiosyncratic definition the writers are using. He is the exemplar of the seemless integration of tech and biology, and that came about through human effort and ingenuity.

But then what is the difference between transhuman and augmented? Shepard's cybernetics are not visible (barring having the renegade scars) and enhance Shepard's physical abilities.  But by that definition Kai Leng is transhuman. 

Is Miranda transhuman, as a genetically perfect human with abilities that go beyond human norm?

Grunt is "pure krogan" the epitome of krogan genetics brought about using Collector technology.

Do they not count because their abilities, while derived from advanced technology, are purely organic in nature?

[ATiBotka]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Avatar of Anus, more like.

Epic win.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

iakus wrote...

Is Miranda transhuman, as a genetically perfect human with abilities that go beyond human norm?

Grunt is "pure krogan" the epitome of krogan genetics brought about using Collector technology.

Do they not count because their abilities, while derived from advanced technology, are purely organic in nature?

I would say they don't count. Miranda is more of a literal synthetic organic: She's fully organic, but she has been completely made synthetically. She's an artificial organic.

Grunt is again much the same.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
I'm kind of curious as what modifications beings will make to themselves or their offspring in Synthesis now that they are fully integrated with technology.

We're already modifying people to make us more robust with medicine and implants like pacemakers, changing our appearance temporarily with makeup, or "permanently" with tattoos and plastic surgery. As beings spread to new planets with higher or lower gravity, or slightly different atmospheric compositions, it may be advantageous to change their physical makeup to deal the new environments (more or less muscle mass or bone density, bigger lung capacity etc...) rather than terraform or live in enclosed habitats.

For long-term settlement on planets, it may be more advantageous to make genetic modifications so that children inherit the new traits. Technology will likely be used more for short-term morphological changes in order to make certain kinds of work easier. I can see adaptations for working in space, for instance, or in any of the conditions you mentioned. People will also do it for fun, no doubt. And for sex, of course.

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

jtav wrote...

I think what Ieldra is getting at, iakus, is that Shepard is transhuman by real world definitions, whatever idiosyncratic definition the writers are using. He is the exemplar of the seemless integration of tech and biology, and that came about through human effort and ingenuity.

But then what is the difference between transhuman and augmented? Shepard's cybernetics are not visible (barring having the renegade scars) and enhance Shepard's physical abilities.  But by that definition Kai Leng is transhuman.

Yes, Kai Leng qualifies as well. There is no fixed agreed-upon borderline, but the term "transhuman" is meant to mean "transitional human", located somewhere beyond normal human parameters but not yet so enhanced that you could call them "posthuman". The "posthuman" state, that's actually where brain augmentations will take you, implying that the way you think and your increased cognitive abilities will make you appear more and more alien to normal humans. Shepard is transhuman but not posthuman. I think whoever wrote EDI's dialogue was unaware of the distinction. 

Is Miranda transhuman, as a genetically perfect human with abilities that go beyond human norm?

Grunt is "pure krogan" the epitome of krogan genetics brought about using Collector technology.

Do they not count because their abilities, while derived from advanced technology, are purely organic in nature?

There we have another contentious issue. Transhumanists disagree about this, but the philosophy doesn't really differentiate between different means to overcome the limitations of the human condition. The problem is more an ethical one: if you make genetic modifications of Miranda's and Grunt's kind, you change not only yourself but also your not-yet-born children, and people disagree about whether or not that should be done since transhumanism is a very individualistic philosophy and says everyone should have the liberty to change their minds and bodies as they see fit, but never have them changed against their will (so ME's Synthesis really does actuate a transhumanist future by betraying its spirit). However, none of us have control of the place where we start, so some justify germline engineering if the modifications can reasonably be seen as beneficial, and if technology can reverse the effect of any such changes and reverse the change itself for future generations, the issue becomes irrelevant. That, btw, is why in my view, the "permissibility" of something like Synthesis hinges on the question whether or not it is possible for a person in a Synthesized future to live as if no changes had been made. Since nothing is said about this, I am free to imagine that it is so.

According to the most widely-used definitions, Miranda would not count as transhuman. I disagree. For instance, I think that one of the main goals of transhumanism - making death avoidable - can be reached easier by genetic modification. Cybernetic immortality, I think, will elude us for far longer. Anyway, I'm comfortable with using the more limited definition in this debate.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 décembre 2013 - 04:12 .

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, Kai Leng qualifies as well. There is no fixed agreed-upon borderline, but the term "transhuman" is meant to mean "transitional human", located somewhere beyond normal human parameters but not yet so enhanced that you could call them "posthuman". The "posthuman" state, that's actually where brain augmentations will take you, implying that the way you think and your increased cognitive abilities will make you appear more and more alien to normal humans. Shepard is transhuman but not posthuman. I think whoever wrote EDI's dialogue was unaware of the distinction. 

but by that definition, anyone with an implanted omnitool, biotic amps, or even a pacemaker is 'transhuman". 

There we have another contentious issue. Transhumanists disagree about this, but the philosophy doesn't really differentiate between different means to overcome the limitations of the human condition. The problem is more an ethical one: if you make genetic modifications of Miranda's and Grunt's kind, you change not only yourself but also your not-yet-born children, and people disagree about whether or not that should be done since transhumanism is a very individualistic philosophy and says everyone should have the liberty to change their minds and bodies as they see fit, but never have them changed against their will (so ME's Synthesis really does actuate a transhumanist future by betraying its spirit). However, none of us have control of the place where we start, so some justify germline engineering if the modifications can reasonably be seen as beneficial, and if technology can reverse the effect of any such changes and reverse the change itself for future generations, the issue becomes irrelevant. That, btw, is why in my view, the "permissibility" of something like Synthesis hinges on the question whether or not it is possible for a person in a Synthesized future to live as if no changes had been made. Since nothing is said about this, I am free to imagine that it is so.

Well, I do agree that forcing Synthesis on the entire galaxy is by far the worse crime than the space magical way it's brought about.

Although it appears that much less extensive genetic modifications have been going on for many years.

http://masseffect.bi...hley_part1.html

shows us Ashley Williams has received these genetic enhancements

-In-utero vision correction (maternal predisposition for nearsightedness)
-Class-B Alliance Infantry Upgrade Package

The latter of which sounds like something she received as an adult

[Eryri]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I guess it can be seen that way, though IMO the term "A new...DNA" can only be meant figuratively since synthetics don't have a DNA analogue. The imagery in the EC appears to indicate that in organics, DNA is replaced by something more versatile without necessarily changing the information already encoded. I don't think Synthesis is meant to change who you are, only what you are.

With organics that may be the case, but the extended epilogue does seem to suggest that it changes "who" synthetics are. EDI's narration has an emotional content that seems very out of character.