9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

I'd like to stress (maybe that's the wrong word) some points. You can address them I'm sure. These are just some thoughts.

I would assume that the Synthesis is a smooth transition? That is to say we won't have some very upset immune systems due to the influx of nanites? I recall people needing some sort of drug in Deus Ex because the body wasn't too fond of having a synthetic arm attached.

Also, how are the nanites going to function, they must have some sort of power source. They are not Synthetic are they? Are they machine? I suppose the body would have enough power yes? They would simply be replaced like blood cells, albeit in a manner fitting nanites?

Also, I'm not worried about the singularity anymore, at least in the Destroy ending.

[lillitheris]

I haven’t really had the energy to pursue ending improvements any further, but I should mention that given the framework we have to work within, your explanation is reasonable.

Still, I think it’s rather obvious that Synthesis – even in the ‘original’ form – was not thought out at all. Maybe it was to encourage SPECULATION, but be that as it may, it’s not. It’s a good logical excercise to try to skirt around the constraints to create some sanity, but it doesn’t validate the ‘solution’.

Anyway, you make two categorically false statements regarding the matter of the choice:

calling the Synthesis "horrific" or "evil" is grounded in false assumptions which are usually the result of association fallacies. We are shown results. I can see nothing evil in those images, only something that has been called "a strange, alien beauty" (jtav in her fanfic "Brave New World).

Firstly, once again, when considering a moral choice, you cannot use the ultimate result as an argument. The morality of a choice is determined only by the information available at the time of making the decision.

So, the issue of consent is an extremely important one. Regardless of the result or the ultimate benefit, you are imposing that on everyone, and it’s irreversible.

Whether the transformed beings think Synthesis is awesome or horrible after the fact is somewhat incidental, although I think that in nearly all scenarios there would be widespread panic and unrest even if ultimately everyone agreed that it was, in fact, a good thing.

Consider this analogue: you are implanted with a chip in your brain that makes you a slave, and makes you think it‘s great and love your new master. Is this evil or not? After all, the new you thinks it’s a pretty sweet deal.

V.1 "You cannot trust the Catalyst. Synthesis is a trap".

1. Read my answer in section II.2
2 "From Shepard's POV, there is one reason to trust him - he has nothing to gain from lying, or indeed talking to you at all. He could have left you on the floor and won the war. The fact that he pulled you up there means that the Crucible worked - it made him willing to talk. And if the Crucible did that much, the options he is presenting are also logically coming from the Crucible, and can thus be believed.

This is false. There are any number of reasons why the Catalyst could be lying to Shepard. And again, you can’t justify trust with post hoc facts. Shepard doesn’t know any of this beforehand. You also can’t use gameplay fact that you were only given these choices to accept – although agree, at the meta level they do tell us that the developers intended this to mean the Catalyst was being truthful.

Just one very reasonable scenario is that the Catalyst itself does not think all the choices are equally beneficial to whatever its agenda is, and therefore tries to steer you in a certain direction with rhetoric.

[Taboo]

Thank you for addressing the ethical implications lilitheris, I'm glad I'm not the only one who raises issues with the ethics BEFORE the choice.

I saw a bear yesterday on my drive home. If Synthesis makes all organics equal to Synthetics, does this mean that Billy the Bear is my evolutionary equal?

That's a terrifying bear.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Thank you for addressing the ethical implications lilitheris, I'm glad I'm not the only one who raises issues with the ethics BEFORE the choice.

I saw a bear yesterday on my drive home. If Synthesis makes all organics equal to Synthetics, does this mean that Billy the Bear is my evolutionary equal?

That's a terrifying bear.

Bears are already your evolutionary equal, just adapted to different environments and situations. The mistake of seeing evolution as an ascendsion is something you share with the Reapers.

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Thank you for addressing the ethical implications lilitheris, I'm glad I'm not the only one who raises issues with the ethics BEFORE the choice.

I saw a bear yesterday on my drive home. If Synthesis makes all organics equal to Synthetics, does this mean that Billy the Bear is my evolutionary equal?

That's a terrifying bear.

Bears are already your evolutionary equal, just adapted to different environments and situations. The mistake of seeing evolution as an ascendsion is something you share with the Reapers.

I do not see evolution as an ascension, I see it as a fact of life. 

This means that Billy the Bear is equal to a synthetic then. Billy is a different bear now.

[JShepppp]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I think Shepard living in Destroy was originally intended as a balancing element, but they threw that out of the window when they added the relay destruction to Synthesis. Now Synthesis has the relays destroyed *and* Shepard dead. It has to be pretty good to balance that out.

Agreed.

As I said elsewhere - it's impossible to prevent the creation of synthetics or re-emerging organics. It's rather likely the galaxy has organic species left in areas far away from the relays anyway. In my interpretation, post-Synthesis intelligent life will not be surpassed by synthetics, and pure organics are obsolete anyway to their existence doesn't pose a problem. That's how Synthesis can be a solution. Almost every other reasoning I've seen fails.

So basically are you saying that the hybrid form will be "sensitive" to both synthetics and organics and that this will stem future synthetic/organic conflict as well? Interesting.

[JShepppp]

lillitheris wrote...

Anyway, you make two categorically false statements regarding the matter of the choice:

calling the Synthesis "horrific" or "evil" is grounded in false assumptions which are usually the result of association fallacies. We are shown results. I can see nothing evil in those images, only something that has been called "a strange, alien beauty" (jtav in her fanfic "Brave New World).

Firstly, once again, when considering a moral choice, you cannot use the ultimate result as an argument. The morality of a choice is determined only by the information available at the time of making the decision.

So, the issue of consent is an extremely important one. Regardless of the result or the ultimate benefit, you are imposing that on everyone, and it’s irreversible.

I understand how in-universe, synthesis is (a) ambiguous and ( forces your decision on everyone. But one thing I've personally thought is that these are things that the galaxy is moving towards, both with and without the crucible, and Shepard is merely an agent of that change. I think that may be part of the idea behind the "synthesis is good" camp. We see how Legion/EDI are very similar to organics. We see a kind of convergence as they fight together. Synthesis doesn't take away diversity just as organics still consider themselve diverse (human, krogan, turian, etc) but they're part of the overall group of "organics". Now, the umbrella expands to "synthesis hybrid whatevers" and the diversity in that group is the same (human, krogan, turian, asari, etc) plus any synthetics (e.g. geth, EDI). 

But of course if the forcing-it-on-everyone nature is something you see manifested in it, then by all means don't pick it. Seems like it's different for everyone. I would personally view it as something that Shepard isn't bringing about but that Shepard is merely an agent for the forces of change that have already shaped the world of ME and brought synthetics and organics together since the beginning. The fact that the Catalyst tells us this is immaterial to me because the Crucible is the one that really makes it possible. If I can't trust the Catalyst, I can't trust it about anything, including Destroy, and then I'm lost because I don't know how to fire the Crucible. That's a part of bad game writing though I think.

Not saying anyone is right or wrong here. Just wanted to bring part of what the other side may think.

Whether the transformed beings think Synthesis is awesome or horrible after the fact is somewhat incidental, although I think that in nearly all scenarios there would be widespread panic and unrest even if ultimately everyone agreed that it was, in fact, a good thing.

Consider this analogue: you are implanted with a chip in your brain that makes you a slave, and makes you think it‘s great and love your new master. Is this evil or not? After all, the new you thinks it’s a pretty sweet deal.

 

If you think it's going to be something like massive indoctrination, then yeah, by all means don't pick it lol. I certainly wouldn't then.

V.1 "You cannot trust the Catalyst. Synthesis is a trap".

1. Read my answer in section II.2
2 "From Shepard's POV, there is one reason to trust him - he has nothing to gain from lying, or indeed talking to you at all. He could have left you on the floor and won the war. The fact that he pulled you up there means that the Crucible worked - it made him willing to talk. And if the Crucible did that much, the options he is presenting are also logically coming from the Crucible, and can thus be believed.

This is false. There are any number of reasons why the Catalyst could be lying to Shepard. And again, you can’t justify trust with post hoc facts. Shepard doesn’t know any of this beforehand. You also can’t use gameplay fact that you were only given these choices to accept – although agree, at the meta level they do tell us that the developers intended this to mean the Catalyst was being truthful.

You and I have talked about this before some time back lol in a thread where I talked about the Catalyst's truthfulness being irrelevant. I said that basically I've always thought it's in Shep's best interest to listen to it. You disagreed, as did several others. I respect your choice here and I know we will disagree anyways lol. 

I remember you posted something where you said a small change such as the Catalyst sending things to Hackett/EDI showing the reality of the Crucible's functions as it describes them would go a long ways to giving it credibility. I agree. If someone feels they can't trust the Catalyst, in-universe, then the ending becomes entirely questionable indeed.

Just one very reasonable scenario is that the Catalyst itself does not think all the choices are equally beneficial to whatever its agenda is, and therefore tries to steer you in a certain direction with rhetoric.

Agreed. Basing off the technological singularity, the best choices are, in order, synthesis, control, then destroy. I believe like the OP that the Catalyst was trying to stop a tech singularity and this is why it "considers" the "best" ending to be synthesis.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

So we're excusing things like this now?

With Special relativity?

You assume that Hudson and Walters know about such things.

I seriously doubt they had any intention of such things being discussed.

The theory of relativity is being tested right now, with that particle that supposedly went faster than light.

What happens if it does?

Why does something have to exist in the real world for it to be put in science fiction?  Your argument is that they CAN NOT do this.  I just want to know why.  If you want to argue they SHOULD NOT, well, that is a different beast.

Anyway, what does the the generation of mass effect fields say about the conservation of mass that you are holding on to so dearly as an unalterable absolute?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But come on people. Look at what this thing has done for what? over a billion years? MURDERED trillions of intelligent and sentient beings, and destroyed the habitats of any wildlife that existed on those worlds in the process. It didn't just mess with advanced civilizations. It took wildlife and corrupted that too. That AI and the Reapers are abominations, and now the AI wants you to join with it? "Become one with synthetics (e.g. them)." And by doing so you impose this on every single living creature in the galaxy, and make this little AI and its minions happy.

Just say "No."

[Kreid]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But come on people. Look at what this thing has done for what? over a billion years? MURDERED trillions of intelligent and sentient beings, and destroyed the habitats of any wildlife that existed on those worlds in the process. It didn't just mess with advanced civilizations. It took wildlife and corrupted that too. That AI and the Reapers are abominations, and now the AI wants you to join with it? "Become one with synthetics (e.g. them)." And by doing so you impose this on every single living creature in the galaxy, and make this little AI and its minions happy.

Just say "No."

Your actions are changing the Galaxy forever, and you are going to just write a possible solution off because "the Reapers are evil?" you have to look past all that if you are to strive for the greater good, the Reapers serve a purpose which is protecting the very principle of life and intergalactic peace, their methods are horrendous but that doesn't invalidate the goal, which is in last instance the same one Shepard and everyone had been fighting for.

Modifié par Creid-X, 29 mai 2012 - 07:53 .

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

So we're excusing things like this now?

With Special relativity?

You assume that Hudson and Walters know about such things.

I seriously doubt they had any intention of such things being discussed.

The theory of relativity is being tested right now, with that particle that supposedly went faster than light.

What happens if it does?

Why does something have to exist in the real world for it to be put in science fiction?  Your argument is that they CAN NOT do this.  I just want to know why.  If you want to argue they SHOULD NOT, well, that is a different beast.

Anyway, what does the the generation of mass effect fields say about the conservation of mass that you are holding on to so dearly as an unalterable absolute?

Why? I can't even find the appropriate word. The closest I can find is hapax legomena. That's a Greek term meaning "things said once". Synthesis is mentioned in one area of the game and once only. That's not even a twist. That's an introduction of a major thematic shift in the last five minutes.

****** poor implementation is why. I'm unsure how people seem to think anything other than that. Not only is it a theory in our world it's introduced right at the very end.

AT THE END.

And the Mass Effect fields? I've already discussed that, pages back.

There is a difference between suspension of disbelief and poor writing. Everything else is explained in detail in canon lore. Everything else is muddled in lampshade hanging with Synthesis. I mean, REALLY?

It buckles under the weight of it's own implementation.

[Taboo]

Creid-X wrote...
Your actions are changing the Galaxy forever, and you are going to just write a possible solution off because "the Reapers are evil?" you have to look past all that if you are to strive for the greater good, the Reapers serve a purpose which is protecting the very principle of life and intergalactic peace, their methods are horrendous but that doesn't invalidate the goal, which is in last instance the same one Shepard and everyone had been fighting for.

No, I'm passing it by because of it's narrative implementation.

Take the Star Gazer scene, it takes place ten thousand years in the future, in all the endings. There is no singularity bull**** in this timeframe.

I'd say that a ten thousand year grace period is nice.

Sure, it could still appear but that isn't my problem ten thousand years down the road. I will NOT change the way the Universe functions for something as asnine as this.

Synthesis will never be clarified in the capacity that you want. You will more than likely have a scenario play out were no one turns into a mass of flesh and machine.

Everything in the OP is NOT fact yet. It is nothing more than a fan theory.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 mai 2012 - 08:04 .

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I'd like to stress (maybe that's the wrong word) some points. You can address them I'm sure. These are just some thoughts.

I would assume that the Synthesis is a smooth transition? That is to say we won't have some very upset immune systems due to the influx of nanites? I recall people needing some sort of drug in Deus Ex because the body wasn't too fond of having a synthetic arm attached.

Also, how are the nanites going to function, they must have some sort of power source. They are not Synthetic are they? Are they machine? I suppose the body would have enough power yes? They would simply be replaced like blood cells, albeit in a manner fitting nanites?

Also, I'm not worried about the singularity anymore, at least in the Destroy ending.

I'd like to post a caveat first: these details are an elaboration on my scenario. They don't need to be proven for it to work, and that I made these details up does not influence the plausibility of my scenario.

Yes, I would assume that it's a smooth transition. There are several different way how that could be implemented. The eezo nodules in biotic also don't pose any problem, so I can't see why this should.

And the collective of nanites comprises a synthetic symbiont. They're using the body's energy as power source, which means it's possible that people will need a small amount of energy more than before, and while they're more active, considerably more. Works in a way similar to biotics. If necessary, they can replicate themselves.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Sure, it could still appear but that isn't my problem ten thousand years down the road. I will NOT change the way the Universe functions for something as asnine as this.

I think you're too determined to dismiss the singularity. Of course that's your prerogative, but saying it should be dismissed is another thing, when it's the only way the whole setup makes sense.

Synthesis will never be clarified in the capacity that you want. You will more than likely have a scenario play out were no one turns into a mass of flesh and machine.

Everything in the OP is NOT fact yet. It is nothing more than a fan theory.

They'll ever get into that much detail, that's for sure. But I think they'll go with the singularity scenario and they'll make clear that Synthesis isn't in any way a genetic rewrite. I don't they actually need to clarify that neither individuality, the ability to make choices and the human/turian/etc.. form is lost, because that's already shown in the Normandy scene. The description by the Catalyst needs to be rephrased though, and I hope they don't insist on synthetic plants, or I'm going to post another rant about the disctinction of synthetic and organic life not being a question of design and not being reduceable to chemistry. 

[Ieldra]

Creid-X wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But come on people. Look at what this thing has done for what? over a billion years? MURDERED trillions of intelligent and sentient beings, and destroyed the habitats of any wildlife that existed on those worlds in the process. It didn't just mess with advanced civilizations. It took wildlife and corrupted that too. That AI and the Reapers are abominations, and now the AI wants you to join with it? "Become one with synthetics (e.g. them)." And by doing so you impose this on every single living creature in the galaxy, and make this little AI and its minions happy.

Just say "No."

Your actions are changing the Galaxy forever, and you are going to just write a possible solution off because "the Reapers are evil?" you have to look past all that if you are to strive for the greater good, the Reapers serve a purpose which is protecting the very principle of life and intergalactic peace, their methods are horrendous but that doesn't invalidate the goal, which is in last instance the same one Shepard and everyone had been fighting for.

I would like to add that "The Reapers are evil" is a meaningless statement. What's "good" and "evil" is determined by biology and culture. The Reapers use different standards, nonhuman standards. To insist on a common standard for morality means claiming that human standards of morality are universal. But humans are not the centre of the universe. ME2 actuallly makes a statement that every moral decision should be judged in its own context (Legion about the Heretic decision).

[Taboo]

I can no longer dismiss it because it's there. I can choose to invalidate it as a choice for myself though just as you can validate it.

The singularity won't happen for at least ten thousand years, as the Star Gazer scene suggests. Ten thousand years is a fine grace period for me. The only thing that matters is how you stop the Reaper conflict and Bioware has given us three options.

The Geth are dead in my playthrough, I'm shooting the pipe. That ten thousand year period is more than enough for me. The entire purpose of the scene was to canonize everyone's Shepard, that being said because it's an open ending I can certainly choose to believe that it won't happen, or at least in the degree that Daisy Bell says it will.

Needless to say that I don't think Bioware planned any of this to happen. Sure is fun discussing it though.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Sure, it could still appear but that isn't my problem ten thousand years down the road. I will NOT change the way the Universe functions for something as asnine as this.

I think you're too determined to dismiss the singularity. Of course that's your prerogative, but saying it should be dismissed is another thing, when it's the only way the whole setup makes sense.

Or you could erm......... ignore the problem completely. 

As in, choose not to implement the idea of genocidal synthetics into your view of the fiction, I reject your reality all all that. 

Makes everything seem that little bit less disjointed. 

[Taboo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Sure, it could still appear but that isn't my problem ten thousand years down the road. I will NOT change the way the Universe functions for something as asnine as this.

I think you're too determined to dismiss the singularity. Of course that's your prerogative, but saying it should be dismissed is another thing, when it's the only way the whole setup makes sense.

Or you could erm......... ignore the problem completely. 

As in, choose not to implement the idea of genocidal synthetics into your view of the fiction, I reject your reality all all that. 

Makes everything seem that little bit less disjointed. 

Problem?

Daisy Bell doesn't provide much for evidence that the singularity will be malicious. It's unpredictable. They could just as easily sit in their Dyson sphere and do nothing but progress.

[Kreid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

No, I'm passing it by because of it's narrative implementation.

Take the Star Gazer scene, it takes place ten thousand years in the future, in all the endings. There is no singularity bull**** in this timeframe.

I'd say that a ten thousand year grace period is nice.

Sure, it could still appear but that isn't my problem ten thousand years down the road. I will NOT change the way the Universe functions for something as asnine as this.

That's a perfectly reaspectable stance, in the end it's just a matter of viewpoint, if you say ten thousand years is a long timespan for humans I'm going to agree with you, but, it's really just a blink compared to the lifetime of the Galaxy, the point is: We are betting on the very existence of organic life here throughout a timespan of millions of years, that is the Catalyst viewpoint, the viewpoint of a near immortal sentient being.

As I said in the end it's a matter of opinion, you can either believe in organic life and put your faith in that they will avoid the singularity or adopt a more cold viewpoint and aim for the greater good disregarding the moral consequences.

Synthesis will never be clarified in the capacity that you want. You will more than likely have a scenario play out were no one turns into a mass of flesh and machine.

Everything in the OP is NOT fact yet. It is nothing more than a fan theory.

You already see that it doesn't turn people in anything of the sort, if you are talking from an in-game perspective i agree that it's quite irresponsible to take that choice given the information Shepard's got but there you have it.

Modifié par Creid-X, 29 mai 2012 - 08:33 .

[Taboo]

I have faith in this instance, only because I believe so strongly in the power of the indivual in a group. We learn from past mistakes. With the knowledge of past happenings, I would believe that people would make wiser descisions.

As for the flesh and machine bit, I know that doesn't happen but a great deal of other people don't. They are hyperbolic in their reactions because Synthesis was so poorly implemented. They really think it's what Saren wanted.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Problem?

Daisy Bell doesn't provide much for evidence that the singularity will be malicious. It's unpredictable. They could just as easily sit in their Dyson sphere and do nothing but progress.

I know all that, I'm in agreement with everything you say on the matter. 

All I'm saying that instead of coming up for arguments about why the serpent is wrong, its point flawed etc. you could just selectively ignore that it says anything about genocidal synthetics, and leave the narrative slightly more intact. 

Not to say that the arguments aren't admirable of logical, but I'd rather choose a simpler solution. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 29 mai 2012 - 08:34 .

[Taboo]

Daisy Bell is an AI caught in a feedback loop. He is not as smart as everyone thinks. He is much like a computer that can't move past ninety nine percent.

He needs a variable to change things up, and that variable is Shepard.

Why the hell should I believe a machine that has been around for millions of years in such a state?

At some point I'm not taking anymore bull**** from the narrative.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

At some point I'm not taking anymore bull**** from the narrative.

I stopped taking sh*t long before this little gem. 

My suspension must have broken about the time I saw water flowing up-hill during the end-run.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 29 mai 2012 - 08:43 .

[Taboo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

At some point I'm not taking anymore bull**** from the narrative.

I stopped taking sh*t long before this little gem. 

My suspension must have broken about the time I saw water flowing up-hill during the end-tun.

I'm a far more forgiving individual than you are it seems.

Don't ever watch a film with me.

I'm a terrible movie partner.

At some point you're being insulted as a member of the audience.

That is one thing art must NEVER do.

[Ieldra]

JShepppp wrote...
So basically are you saying that the hybrid form will be "sensitive" to both synthetics and organics and that this will stem future synthetic/organic conflict as well? Interesting.

It doesn't matter if the hybrids are "sensitive" (not exactly sure what you mean). They will be able to keep up with synthetics, which means that they and any future synthetics can communication on the same level. That means that there are two ways to deal with them: either destroy them when they reach singularity-capacity, or try to achieve coexistence, which possible since they now communicate as equals. As for pure organics, they won't matter one way or the other.