9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Very well, prove to me that a single species (not sub-species) has ever been created through mutation.

 

Remember to show your work.

 

 

Why?  I'm not the one saying all life in the galaxy must change on a fundamental level because"trust me, I'm right"

[Iakus]

Oh NO!

 

That took too long and now the Reapers have destroyed all of your hard work on the Crucible.

 

Too bad I didn't just TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

 

See, in the end it all boils down to what you believe.

 

No, it all boils down to what the Catalyst is willing to LET you do.

[NeroonWilliams]

No, it all boils down to what the Catalyst is willing to LET you do.

So now you trust that there are more choices floating around out there that the AI is withholding from you.

 

Which is it, trust or not?  But remember you only have a fleeting couple of minutes to decide.

[Ryriena]

So now you trust that there are more choices floating around out there that the AI is withholding from you.
 
Which is it, trust or not?  But remember you only have a fleeting couple of minutes to decide.

He's saying this what they want us too do to win. Which goes against the theme of freewill within the game. This doesn't break the cycle it brings forth another and forces you down a path that fits them. Learn to read man.

[Iakus]

So now you trust that there are more choices floating around out there that the AI is withholding from you.

 

Which is it, trust or not?  But remember you only have a fleeting couple of minutes to decide.

 

No, I have all the time in the world to decide.

 

This is a game, remember.

 

And I have decided that Bioware screwed things up really, really badly.

[NeroonWilliams]

What? Every single species in the history of species has been created through mutation. 

For example, I'll give you Darwin's Finches. On the Galapagos, following a hurricane, there are new birds that have been pushed there from mainland South America. The ones with the best suited beaks to eat the food, manage to eat the food and pass along their genes that created their superior beak shape.Overtime, on the different islands, that one species that had been flown over has become many different species. 

Of course, this is oversimplified, and I should mention the specific role genetics play and the population frequency of certain traits, but I'm laxy. 

You have given an example of one species becoming a set of sub-species (which I distictly said NOT to do BTW).  This happens all the time, but those sub-species can still interbreed, whereas distinct species cannot.  Variation within species is documented.  Speciation from one to another is not.

 

This is why the entire idea is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution.  It is not something that can be proved OR disproved with the facts currently available to us (neither is the Theory of Intelligent Design).  15,000 years (the relative amount of time that DNA has been successfully (and reliably) recovered from the fossil record) is an insignificant amount of time in which to prove it.  Natural Selection (proven observable FACT) =/= Evolution (scientifically probable THEORY).

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Well this is a hard mockery of science from Neroon.

[NeroonWilliams]

No, I have all the time in the world to decide.

 

This is a game, remember.

 

And I have decided that Bioware screwed things up really, really badly.

Except that it IS documented that if you wait too long to decide, you forfeit your decision to the next cycle.

 

Unless you subscribe to the validity of a Theory that has been banished from these forums for its very recalcitrance.  In which case we are at an impasse and there is NOTHING to be said.

[NeroonWilliams]

Well this is a hard mockery of science from Neroon.

Hardly.  It's just a statement of the difference between fact and theory.  You can choose to believe either of two mutually exclusive theories until one is PROVEN or one is FALSIFIED.  The demonizing of one side's suppositions without proof does not invalidate the theory.  E.g. "God wouldn't create a world and just let it spin off willy-nilly at random" doesn't disprove Evolution just as "there is no God" doesn't disprove Intelligent Design.

 

I bring the Theory of Evolution into these discussions because almost everyone here "thinks" they know that it is a fact when very few could make a truly credible argument in its favor past "everybody knows that".  It is the equivalent of the AI's statement that "the created will always rise against the creators".  In this case the AI knows more than you do, and you can either choose to believe it or not.  Otherwise you are just as arrogant as Al Gore (definitely NOT a scientist) claiming in 2001 that the polar ice caps would be gone and all the coasts of the world flooded by 2010 if we don't stop global warming RIGHT NOW!

 

Meanwhile, in 2014. . .oops.

 

I think I need to step off this soapbox before the mob comes to lynch me now.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

You have given an example of one species becoming a set of sub-species (which I distictly said NOT to do BTW).  This happens all the time, but those sub-species can still interbreed, whereas distinct species cannot.  Variation within species is documented.  Speciation from one to another is not.

 

This is why the entire idea is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution.  It is not something that can be proved OR disproved with the facts currently available to us (neither is the Theory of Intelligent Design).  15,000 years (the relative amount of time that DNA has been successfully (and reliably) recovered from the fossil record) is an insignificant amount of time in which to prove it.  Natural Selection (proven observable FACT) =/= Evolution (scientifically probable THEORY).

No, a sub-species is a german shepard compared to a labrador. Both are part of the same species. 
Much of this is more easily explained in modern humans stemming from ****** erectus. They are in the same genus, but different species. And speciation is documented, in bacteria. 

In scientific circles, a Theory is something that has widely accepted by the consensus, as nothing except for a mathematical constant can ever be "proved." There is no Theory of Intelligent Design. 

But you said that species don't come from mutation. They do. New species come from genetic variation with a population. Which is caused by mutation. 

Edit: Really? They censor guddamn H*mo erectus?

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

NeroonWilliams does have a point. The Starbrat probably would know more about the issue than us. 

But the problem is, we have absolutely no reason to trust it, neither does Shepard. It is the self-proclaimed leader and creator of the Reapers. For millions of years, it has overseen the destruction of countless civilizations. Why wouldn't it lie to convince Shepard to jump into an energy beam?

[Iakus]

Except that it IS documented that if you wait too long to decide, you forfeit your decision to the next cycle.

 

Unless you subscribe to the validity of a Theory that has been banished from these forums for its very recalcitrance.  In which case we are at an impasse and there is NOTHING to be said.

No Narrative Legitimacy Theory?  

[JasonShepard]

But the problem is, we have absolutely no reason to trust it, neither does Shepard. It is the self-proclaimed leader and creator of the Reapers. For millions of years, it has overseen the destruction of countless civilizations. Why wouldn't it lie to convince Shepard to jump into an energy beam?

 

Because if we don't trust it, we lose. This is a choice between trust and MAYBE win, or distrust and die.

 

And lets examine the case that the Catalyst is trying to trick us. To what end?!

 

If it wanted Shepard dead, it could have left the Commander lying next to Anderson and maybe directed a couple of Marauders to that location.

If it wanted Shepard indoctrinated - same again, just have the Marauders drag the body off to sit inside Harbinger for a couple of days.

If it wants Shepard for something else... what? Why? If the Catalyst wants the cycle to continue it does not need Shepard for ANYTHING.

 

The Catalyst's actions do not - to me - match with the idea that it is attempting to trick us. True, I don't like trusting it, but I can't make a deception scenario make sense.

[Ymladdych]

Because if we don't trust it, we lose. This is a choice between trust and MAYBE win, or distrust and die.
 
And lets examine the case that the Catalyst is trying to trick us. To what end?!
 
If it wanted Shepard dead, it could have left the Commander lying next to Anderson and maybe directed a couple of Marauders to that location.
If it wanted Shepard indoctrinated - same again, just have the Marauders drag the body off to sit inside Harbinger for a couple of days.
If it wants Shepard for something else... what? Why? If the Catalyst wants the cycle to continue it does not need Shepard for ANYTHING.
 
The Catalyst's actions do not - to me - match with the idea that it is attempting to trick us. True, I don't like trusting it, but I can't make a deception scenario make sense.

Two words: Liara's capsules.
 
Having access to Shepard's mind (as is evident by its Starbrat form), the Catalyst would know that its days were numbered, even if it left Shepard to die. The next cycle would simply rebuild the Crucible and destroy the Reapers while they slumbered in darkspace.
 
So, from the Catalyst's point of view, leaving Shepard to die == certain defeat and death, albeit slightly delayed. Bringing Shepard to the decision chamber == cutting to the chase and accepting the inevitable, with a possible chance of directing the outcome to something it finds more...favorable - provided the Crucible is powerful enough, of course.
 
(And yes, Liara's capsules are canon, even if Shepard doesn't consult on them.)
 
Not to mention, it's a dubious proposition to trust something as cunning and alien in its perspective as the Catalyst - all for the simple reason that YOU can't think of a good reason for its deception.

[JasonShepard]

Two words: Liara's capsules.

 

Having access to Shepard's mind (as is evident by its Starbrat form), the Catalyst would know that its days were numbered, even if it left Shepard to die. The next cycle would simply rebuild the Crucible and destroy the Reapers while they slumbered in darkspace.

 

So, from the Catalyst's point of view, leaving Shepard to die == certain defeat and death, albeit slightly delayed. Bringing Shepard to the decision chamber == cutting to the chase and accepting the inevitable, with a possible chance of directing the outcome to something it finds more...favorable - provided the Crucible is powerful enough, of course.

 

(And yes, Liara's capsules are canon, even Shepard doesn't consult on them.)

 

So? That means that my intentions and the Catalysts intentions actually align - I want the current cycle to survive, it wants some influence over its synthetic-organic problem. Hence the Crucible is a compromise. There's no deception in your theory, even if the Catalyst isn't fully explaining its motivation.

 

Also, if the Catalyst considers Liara's capsules to be a genuine threat (and knows about them) it has no reason not to shorten the next few cycles and just prevent anyone from reaching the technological level capable of using the Crucible until it's confident that the plans really have been eradicated this time (which is what it really should have done last time).

 

 

Not to mention, it's a dubious proposition to trust something as cunning and alien in its perspective as the Catalyst - all for the simple reason that YOU can't think of a good reason for its deception.

 

I make decisions based on the evidence at hand. I have to make them based on what I can think of. And I can find no evidence that the Catalyst actually is deceiving me (as explained). So I act based on the assumption that it isn't. And because to distrust it means we all die. Which is the outcome that I'll do anything to avoid.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Hardly.  It's just a statement of the difference between fact and theory.  You can choose to believe either of two mutually exclusive theories until one is PROVEN or one is FALSIFIED.  The demonizing of one side's suppositions without proof does not invalidate the theory.  E.g. "God wouldn't create a world and just let it spin off willy-nilly at random" doesn't disprove Evolution just as "there is no God" doesn't disprove Intelligent Design.

 

I bring the Theory of Evolution into these discussions because almost everyone here "thinks" they know that it is a fact when very few could make a truly credible argument in its favor past "everybody knows that".  It is the equivalent of the AI's statement that "the created will always rise against the creators".  In this case the AI knows more than you do, and you can either choose to believe it or not.  Otherwise you are just as arrogant as Al Gore (definitely NOT a scientist) claiming in 2001 that the polar ice caps would be gone and all the coasts of the world flooded by 2010 if we don't stop global warming RIGHT NOW!

 

Meanwhile, in 2014. . .oops.

 

I think I need to step off this soapbox before the mob comes to lynch me now.

 

You probably should step down. As I said, you're coming as very scientifically illiterate.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Because if we don't trust it, we lose. This is a choice between trust and MAYBE win, or distrust and die.

 

And lets examine the case that the Catalyst is trying to trick us. To what end?!

 

If it wanted Shepard dead, it could have left the Commander lying next to Anderson and maybe directed a couple of Marauders to that location.

If it wanted Shepard indoctrinated - same again, just have the Marauders drag the body off to sit inside Harbinger for a couple of days.

If it wants Shepard for something else... what? Why? If the Catalyst wants the cycle to continue it does not need Shepard for ANYTHING.

 

The Catalyst's actions do not - to me - match with the idea that it is attempting to trick us. True, I don't like trusting it, but I can't make a deception scenario make sense.

 

Considering the options are for Shepard to shoot at a fuel line, touch high two high current electrical knobs, or jump into a giant energy beam of energy all the choices presented by the Catalyst are pretty suspicious (isn't there a simple button we can push?). I don't think they're tricky for the player (meta-knowledge and such) but imagining myself from Shepard's point of view I think I would ask a few more questions or for a more precise explanation from the Catalyst.

[JasonShepard]

Considering the options are for Shepard to shoot at a fuel line, touch high two high current electrical knobs, or jump into a giant energy beam of energy all the choices presented by the Catalyst are pretty suspicious (isn't there a simple button we can push?). I don't think they're tricky for the player (meta-knowledge and such) but imagining myself from Shepard's point of view I think I would ask a few more questions or for a more precise explanation from the Catalyst.

 

Likewise. You can headcanon that there isn't enough time (Why?!), but the explanations from the Catalyst do leave something to be desired. In that circumstance, I'd be directly asking more questions. I'd never pick refuse, since it's pretty obvious how that'll turn out, but I'd be looking to get as much info as possible before making a choice.

[Ymladdych]

@JasonShepard

You're not thinking like an AI, though. The Catalyst doesn't care whether it's this cycle or the next. It doesn't care whether it lives another 20,000 years (which is nothing from its perspective). It only cares about fulfilling its purpose.

Liara's capsules == check and mate. It has failed its purpose. Period. The Catalyst bringing Shepard up top is the equivalent of knocking your king over in chess - you see every permutation of future moves and know that they all lead to the same outcome: your defeat.

There's no deception in your theory, even if the Catalyst isn't fully explaining its motivation.

My point wasn't to "prove" deception, but merely show how your assumption of NO reason for deception was based on a false sense of security.

Also, if the Catalyst considers Liara's capsules to be a genuine threat (and knows about them) it has no reason not to shorten the next few cycles and just prevent anyone from reaching the technological level capable of using the Crucible until it's confident that the plans really have been eradicated this time (which is what it really should have done last time).

Okay, but using that line of thinking, why would the Catalyst allow civilizations to advance at all? Why not harvest pre-spaceflight species from the get-go and make things easy for itself? Furthermore, if it could just shorten the cycles at will, why would it bother building the Citadel and relay network to "expedite" the process?

Implied answer: the Catalyst was restricted from harvesting species before they reached a certain technological threshold. (Maybe harvesting species before they were able to create life-threatening AI was a violation of its core programming.)

I make decisions based on the evidence at hand. I have to make them based on what I can think of. And I can find no evidence that the Catalyst actually is deceiving me (as explained). So I act based on the assumption that it isn't. And because to distrust it means we all die. Which is the outcome that I'll do anything to avoid.

Let me be clear - I'm not a Refuser, so I'm with you when you say that SOME chance is better than NO chance. (And yes, I agree that there was NO chance of conventional victory.)

But to say that people shouldn't mistrust the Catalyst, or trust all of its options equally, because there's "no evidence" of deception...well...that's faulty. For one thing, the Catalyst has a long, long, LONG history of manipulating and misleading organic "tools" by using their desires and fears against them.

What's the number one fear it uses? The annihilation of you and everything you care about. It's only human that Shepard *would* care more about his/her own cycle than some anonymous population in the future, but that doesn't mean that making a "compromise" with the Catalyst isn't a raw deal for organics on a larger scale.

For another, what evidence do you have that the Catalyst is feeding you 100% unadulterated truth? When you're talking about the scope of the consequences, especially with something like galactic-wide Reaper tech implantation, why would you default to trust in the absence of evidence?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I need to post somewhere. I can't believe this. I got an error on the board.

 

"An error occurred. You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day."

 

I can't give anymore thumbs up votes. I wanted this to be a happy place, and look what they did to me.

 

[JasonShepard]

@JasonShepard

You're not thinking like an AI, though. The Catalyst doesn't care whether it's this cycle or the next. It doesn't care whether it lives another 20,000 years (which is nothing from its perspective). It only cares about fulfilling its purpose.

 

Well, I'm not actually an AI, so thinking like one is hard   But I agree with everything here (and I don't think anything in my post contradicted this - apologies if I implied otherwise).

 

Liara's capsules == check and mate. It has failed its purpose. Period. The Catalyst bringing Shepard up top is the equivalent of knocking your king over in chess - you see every permutation of future moves and know that they all lead to the same outcome: your defeat.

 

Interesting. We're actually in agreement here. Though I don't phrase it around Liara's capsules.

 

Consider the Crucible. It's been in development over multiple cycles. That's a fairly major thing to have slipped through the cracks. The Catalyst directly acknowledges that the Crucible is evidence that it has underestimated organics. Notice how it only acts once the Crucible attaches to the Citadel. I'm of the opinion that it is 'resigning' because it realises that the Crucible is proof that the cycle can never be perfect and will someday break.

 

Thus it's trying to break the cycle in a way that still contributes towards solving its problem. This is also why, in refuse, it is content to let things roll onto the next cycle - maybe they'll be more willing to agree to its compromise. (If you want, I can explain why all three Crucible options can be considered as solutions to its problem.)

 

My point wasn't to "prove" deception, but merely show how your assumption of NO reason for deception was based on a false sense of security.

 

Let me rephrase - I believe the Catalyst's actions indicate that it does not intend to continue the cycle. If that is its intention, it doesn't need Shepard. It may be deceiving me - I can't prove that it's not - but it's not going to be tricking me into continuing the cycle. It can do that anyway. Worst case scenario? The Catalyst is playing with its food, but even then, playing along can't actually make things any worse.

 

Thus I don't care about the possibility of deception, since it doesn't help me.

 

Okay, but using that line of thinking, why would the Catalyst allow civilizations to advance at all? Why not harvest pre-spaceflight species from the get-go and make things easy for itself? Furthermore, if it could just shorten the cycles at will, why would it bother building the Citadel and relay network to "expedite" the process?

Implied answer: the Catalyst was restricted from harvesting species before they reached a certain technological threshold. (Maybe harvesting species before they were able to create life-threatening AI was a violation of its core programming.)

 

Alternative answer - from the Leviathan DLC - it is treating the galaxy as an experiment in an attempt to find a permanent solution to its problem. There's nothing stopping it from putting said experiment on hold for a short while so that it can lock various things down.

 

But my suggestion wouldn't work forever. An entire galaxy is simply to big to completely control.

 

(I realise that I'm arguing minor details here, since we're in agreement that the Catalyst believes itself to ultimately be beaten.)

 

 

Let me be clear - I'm not a Refuser, so I'm with you when you say that SOME chance is better than NO chance. (And yes, I agree that there was NO chance of conventional victory.)

But to say that people shouldn't mistrust the Catalyst, or trust all of its options equally, because there's "no evidence" of deception...well...that's faulty. For one thing, the Catalyst has a long, long, LONG history of manipulating and misleading organic "tools" by using their desires and fears against them.

What's the number one fear it uses? The annihilation of you and everything you care about. It's only human that Shepard *would* care more about his/her own cycle than some anonymous population in the future, but that doesn't mean that making a "compromise" with the Catalyst isn't a raw deal for organics on a larger scale.

For another, what evidence do you have that the Catalyst is feeding you 100% unadulterated truth? When you're talking about the scope of the consequences, especially with something like galactic-wide Reaper tech implantation, why would you default to trust in the absence of evidence?

 

Making a compromise with the Catalyst might be a raw deal for organics on a large scale. But I don't care. I'm not sacrificing the cycle over a maybe. Also, the Catalyst's logic seems to be based on prioritising the 'big picture' of organic survival over the small picture meaning of organic life. Since that big picture is its priority, on the large scale a compromise with the Catalyst should actually work out for organics. But that's just my read on the Catalyst's intentions.

 

You seem to imply that we shouldn't trust all of the presented options equally. Why not? If the Catalyst didn't want us to pick something, why would it tell us about it? The fact that it presents all three options implies that it is happy with all of them. If it wants (say) Synthesis and only Synthesis, why even mention Control and Destroy?

 

Though, regarding the "galactic-wide Reaper tech implantation" that you refer to... that is pretty much why I never pick Synthesis. That's a compromise that I'm not willing to accept, compared to Control or Destroy. (Though I would pick Synthesis compared to Refuse.)

 

NB: I'm not arguing that people shouldn't mistrust the Catalyst just because there's no evidence of deception. I'm arguing to trust the Catalyst because the alternative is death, because its actions don't line up with an interest in perpetuating the cycle, and finally because there's no direct evidence of deception. That's actually my weakest reason - and I recognise it as such - the other two are the main reasons why I choose to trust it.

 

And to be specific: I trust that the Catalyst is working towards its own motivations - this long term Synthetic-Organic conflict that it keeps referring to. That's fine. I'm working towards my motivation of saving the galaxy. The compromise is in marrying those two motivations.

[JasonShepard]

I need to post somewhere. I can't believe this. I got an error on the board.

 

"An error occurred. You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day."

 

I can't give anymore thumbs up votes. I wanted this to be a happy place, and look what they did to me.

 

That's presumably in place to stop bots of some kind. Though I don't see why EA/Bioware would be that worried about bots that are just liking posts...

[teh DRUMPf!!]

NeroonWilliams does have a point. The Starbrat probably would know more about the issue than us.

But the problem is, we have absolutely no reason to trust it, neither does Shepard.

 

Trust means nothing. Belief is all that matters. And Leviathan DLC confirmed the existence of this AI and its mandate.

 

It is the self-proclaimed leader and creator of the Reapers.

 

... which is not exactly the kind of information one would disclose in hopes of gaining (and later violating) your trust.
 

Why wouldn't it lie to convince Shepard to jump into an energy beam?

 

You've already assumed that jumping into the beam yields what it wants (Sync), and is not really the trigger for Destroy, with him perhaps knowingly selling it as something repulsive to you. That's the problem with "Trust"-nonsense: you can always suspect something to be a lie.

 

Unless you have sound reason to suspect something entirely else, it doesn't make much sense to me to get hung up on trust. IT has been trying to come up with an alternative story for some time, but has yet to explain why what we see and can know generally matches with what we were told, beyond telling us to just wait for the grand reveal with every next BioWare publication (as if the truth of a story ought to be rely on a retcon coming long, lonnnnnng after the fact). There's no rhyme or reason behind the activation of any given Crucible function, so anyone claiming to know which one triggers Destroy (or any other option) without the Catalyst telling us is full of ****.

[Hadeedak]

Hardly.  It's just a statement of the difference between fact and theory.  You can choose to believe either of two mutually exclusive theories until one is PROVEN or one is FALSIFIED.  The demonizing of one side's suppositions without proof does not invalidate the theory.  E.g. "God wouldn't create a world and just let it spin off willy-nilly at random" doesn't disprove Evolution just as "there is no God" doesn't disprove Intelligent Design.

 

I bring the Theory of Evolution into these discussions because almost everyone here "thinks" they know that it is a fact when very few could make a truly credible argument in its favor past "everybody knows that".  It is the equivalent of the AI's statement that "the created will always rise against the creators".  In this case the AI knows more than you do, and you can either choose to believe it or not.  Otherwise you are just as arrogant as Al Gore (definitely NOT a scientist) claiming in 2001 that the polar ice caps would be gone and all the coasts of the world flooded by 2010 if we don't stop global warming RIGHT NOW!

 

Meanwhile, in 2014. . .oops.

 

I think I need to step off this soapbox before the mob comes to lynch me now.

Cichlids.

 

*drops mike*

 

Alllllso, speaking as someone who lives in an arctic community that is currently having to relocate substantial parts of the village because of rising water and climate change.... >> <<

[Ryriena]

Cichlids.

*drops mike*

Alllllso, speaking as someone who lives in an arctic community that is currently having to relocate substantial parts of the village because of rising water and climate change.... >> <<

And never give Neo any form to talk. He hardly understand real science. Just saying