9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Kreid]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Wrong. 

I don't think it's evil. 

I don't think its goal if true is neccessarily evil.

I dismiss its problem on account of being baseless nonsense with no proof that runs counter to the obvious intentions of everything about synthetic life up until that point. I reject your reality bladdy bla.

But you said it was naive to believe what the Catalyst said, and then you said that you won't believe an entity that has caused repeted genocide based on what you perceive as a baseless assumption, so your mistrust radicates in Catalyst's previous actions which you don't agree with from a moral standpoint, you are implying it is evil and he can't be trusted because of it.

Wrong again, I don't actually talk about the Geth as a specifc example. 

You'll notice that I never once said the serpent was flat-out incorrect.

You said that the idea of "murderous synthetics" negated the narrative of the game prior the ending, and that, as such you rejected it, but aside from EDI and the Geth there's no other element of the game that encourages the possible coexistance between organics and synthetics, in fact I presented you examples about escalating conflict between them, that you gracefully dismissed (not to mention Javik's point of view).

Point is, you must use the Geth to sustain your argument that the game's narrative supports org-synth coexistence. 

Complicated? 
That's hilarious. Nothing the serpent says is complicated, it just doesn't make sense. 

That's right, it doesn't make sense as presented, that's why we are trying to fill the gaps using what we've got. If we introduce the tech singularity and super intelligence elements, it becomes complicated for the average gamer not interested in such matters, that's why I think BioWare pretty much dumbed dow the Catalyst conversation to the point of nosense.

I'd accuse you of grasping as straws to try and valid a conlusion, but I wont.  

And yet you did.

You didn't, however, give me an actual explanation of why I should dismiss the old script as something else even thought it's almost 100% the same as what we've got. There are obviously subyacent ideas connected to the actual ending that are presented in a clearer fashion.

Except that's what the serpent talks about. Is your conclusion then a complete fabrication? Are you changing the actual premise to suit your theory?

The Catalyst says he's trying to prevent synthetics to kill all organics. Something like the Geth can't threaten all organic life, that's common sense, so we have to think that there is an ulterior motive, of course if you want to take everything literally it's going to come off as nosensical, I respect that viewpoint too.

What I'm saying is that by analyzing cerating plot elements along with out-of- game sources (like the last days documentary that says that organics vs syntherics was in fact the premise of the whole series, along with the old script) we can extrapolate a plausible theory about the real motivation of the Catalyst, it IS speculation but that's the point of the forums, to discuss.

I'm not holding it on the line. You might, but not me.

But that's the point of the ending. You are fighting to destroy the Reapers, but in the end you discover that their existence is the result of a general conflict between organic and synthetics life with organic extinction being a probable result if synthetics are allowed to go rampant on the Galaxy, you are part of the conflict want it or not, since you get to decide the future of everyone in the Galaxy.

Modifié par Creid-X, 30 mai 2012 - 01:02 .

[Xellith]

If there is life in other ME galaxies.. then synthesis is pointless.

[Ieldra]

Xellith wrote...
If there is life in other ME galaxies.. then synthesis is pointless.

Why?

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...


Fair enough, but I'd rather stick with what I know about the Geth in general, and synthetic life in general, rather than decide upon a far-flung possibility.

What I know about them makes me more uneasy, not less. Cheerful gems like "Even we cannot predict what the effects will be" and "The minds of all species can be changed; organics require time and effort, with synthetics, chaning a datafile is the only requirement" and "The Heretics' conclusion is valid for them, our conclusion is valid for us; neither result is an error." That's right, murdering millions of organics is not an error, and that's prior to singularity.

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

I'm not saying the explanation doesn't neccessarilymake sense, it just relies on a lot of speculation and application of real world theories on a work of fiction that doesn't support it.

I guess that really is the demarcation between a pro-ender and an anti-ender then... we have a broader notion of what the fiction can support than you do.

Regardless, I think anything foreshadowed in ME2 is fair game, even if getting the full grasp of it requires a conversation that most have never heard (since it requires basically allowing the crew, and possibly Chakwas, to die.)

The Night Mammoth wrote... 
That still doesn't stop it being a hastily added, poorly executed and unsupported shift in narrative focus that never should have existed. 

It's amusing how I agreed with you strongly at the beginning of that sentence yet disagreed just as strongly by the time I got to the end of it.  Maybe that's just me.

[The Night Mammoth]

[quote]Creid-X wrote...

But you said it was naive to believe what the Catalyst said, [/quote]

You said something similar about the opposite. 


[quote]and then you said that you won't believe an entity that has caused repeted genocide based on what you perceive as a baseless assumption, so your mistrust radicates in Catalyst's previous actions which you don't agree with from a moral standpoint, you are implying it is evil and he can't be trusted because of it.[/quote]

I have different reasons not to trust it. 

Concerning this though, I'm not using this a basis not to trust it. 

I'm using the distrust I already have and the lack of evidence to avoid having to deal with the problem at all. 

In simple terms, the entire problem is not something I see as part of my view of Mass Effect. 

[quote][quote]Wrong again, I don't actually talk about the Geth as a specifc example. 

You'll notice that I never once said the serpent was flat-out incorrect.[/quote]
You said that the idea of "murderous synthetics" negated the narrative of the game prior the ending, and that, as such you rejected it, but aside from EDI and the Geth there's no other element of the game that encourages the possible coexistance between organics and synthetics,[/quote]

The Geth and EDI are pretty big examples, the Zha'til are a small one. 

[quote]in fact I presented you examples about escalating conflict between them, that you gracefully dismissed [/quote]

You talked about two VI's, machines that malfunctioned, ignored motives and the other specfics, and I believe you talked about the Heretic Geth, again ignoring motives and other pieces of information.

If the point was that conflict between organics and synthetics is prevalent, you'd be right. 

That's not the point though. 

How does the 'proof' you provide of the former point lead to something more important than organics fighting each other, as the major conflict in the series? 

[quote](not to mention Javik's point of view).[/quote]

Javik has two further examples. 

The Metacon War is one, but other than that there was fighting we know pretty much nothing about it. 

The other is the Zha'til. Organics and synthetics living in harmony, until the Reapers subjugated the synthetics and made them attack. 

So you don't really have anything at all that supports synthetics wanting to wipe out all organic life. 

[quote]Point is, you must use the Geth to sustain your argument that the game's narrative supports org-synth coexistence. [/quote]

I don't have to. 

I would though, since the Geth are far more important that some random AI on the Citadel during the first game that you could very easily miss. 


[quote][quote]Complicated? 
That's hilarious. Nothing the serpent says is complicated, it just doesn't make sense. 
[/quote]
That's right, it doesn't make sense as presented, that's why we are trying to fill the gaps using what we've got. If we introduce the tech singularity and super intelligence elements, it becomes complicated for the average gamer not interested in such matters, that's why I think BioWare pretty much dumbed dow the Catalyst conversation to the point of nosense.[/quote]

Then they shouldn't have tried at all, hence my point about it being unsupported nonsense. 


[quote]

[quote]Except that's what the serpent talks about. Is your conclusion then a complete fabrication? Are you changing the actual premise to suit your theory?[/quote]
The Catalyst says he's trying to prevent synthetics to kill all organics. Something like the Geth can't threaten all organic life, that's common sense, so we have to think that there is an ulterior motive, of course if you want to take everything literally it's going to come off as nosensical, I respect that viewpoint too.

What I'm saying is that by analyzing cerating plot elements along with out-of- game sources (like the last days documentary that says that organics vs syntherics was in fact the premise of the whole series, along with the old script) we can extrapolate a plausible theory about the real motivation of the Catalyst, it IS speculation but that's the point of the forums, to discuss.[/quote]

Yeah okay, I got all that before. 

What I'm saying is that the serpent's original point isn't as it seem isn't what you're trying to speculate on, you've changed the original premise to suit the conclusion.  


[quote][quote]
I'm not holding it on the line. You might, but not me. [/quote]
But that's the point of the ending. You are fighting to destroy the Reapers, but in the end you discover that their existence is the result of a general conflict between organic and synthetics life with organic extinction being a probable result if synthetics are allowed to go rampant on the Galaxy, you are part of the conflict want it or not, since you get to decide the future of everyone in the Galaxy.
[/quote]

I'm not part of that conflict. I choose to ignore it for various afore mentioned reasons. Of course that's the point of the ending, I just think the point is stupid. Introducing something entirely new that's as big and important as this is supposed to be is stupid. 

As it turns out, organic life is fine 10,000 years later thanks to the stargazer scene. The odds were good. 

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...
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.

Still don't know why you think the conservation of mass is untouchable.  It seems to me your argument is shifting to the implementation of it as opposed to just the blanket Sean Bean statment of 'one simply does not mess with classical physic principals'.

[Kreid]

@Night Mammoth
Let's leave it at that, I rally don't feel like writing another big wall of text going back and forth about this, it's clear you have a certain view of the ending and I respect it, there's not much more than that to say, I consider there's enough evidence to extrapolate the Catalyst's goals in a fashion that makes sense, and that's enough for me, that's my own view of the ending.

I don't really think we should be derailing this thread with (yet another) debate about the ending itself, being about Synthetis, so let's agree to disagree and call it a day.

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

As it turns out, organic life is fine 10,000 years later thanks to the stargazer scene. The odds were good. 

How do we know that scene is 10,000 years in the future again? Not saying you're wrong but I don't remember any indicators placed on it.

And note that you're only fine AFTER using the Crucible, which has you either hit the reset button on all synthetics, have pocket Reapers to help keep the peace, or avert the Singularity entirely, the first two of which could delay SK's prediction while the third nullifies it. So that's not necessarily proving him wrong.

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

As it turns out, organic life is fine 10,000 years later thanks to the stargazer scene. The odds were good. 

How do we know that scene is 10,000 years in the future again? Not saying you're wrong but I don't remember any indicators placed on it.

The game files have it down as taking place 10,000 years later, although it doesn't say where. 

And note that you're only fine AFTER using the Crucible, which has you either hit the reset button on all synthetics, have pocket Reapers to help keep the peace, or avert the Singularity entirely, the first two of which could delay SK's prediction while the third nullifies it. So that's not necessarily proving him wrong.

Not about proving him wrong, just that the emergence of genocidal AI's was not a certainty, but a possibility, and it at that point hasn't happened. 

[Ieldra]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
The way I see this synthesis working is that everyone and everything will be able to network. So I guess we're being offered what the Geth were offered, a chance to achieve true unity, but on their terms, not our own. See the difference? It is why the Geth refused before interference from the reapers.

Indeed I see the networking ability as one important result of Synthesis. But the "on our term" argument is a fallacy:
(1) Used like this, it would mean that every culture which ever integrated technology or even ideas developed by another would damage itself, compromise its nature or whatever. There are ideologies like this, but they're usually racist ideologies. I don't put much credence in it.
(2) It's the Crucible which enables Synthesis, not the Catalyst, not the Reapers. If anything, we are accepting a solution developed by......whichever species put the option into the Crucible.
(3) The source of a solution does not matter. It is good or bad on its own merits. That's why Legion's argument is flawed.

Also, I see the networking ability as a tool. A means to achieve "unity" if and when you want or need it. It creates new options but you are not forced to use them. In fact, I would suppose that most people would initially be wary of something like this. People's attitude to this new ability would create new subcultures, too. Rather interesting as a worldbuilding premise. There will be no uniformity if it works like this, you can be sure of that. 

That's not the point, the Catalyst/Reapers operate in the span of millions of years, their objective is not stopping wars with synthetics like the geth but stop civilizations that would create a superintelligence that might overcome the reapers themselves and then destroy all life in the Galaxy, It is hypothetical but higly likely, you can see the Geth were already at a point in which the could potentially reach singularity, if they do it then all bets are off.

It's ignoring Chaos Theory. One cannot predict that far out. It is essentially ass pulling and justifying genocide with that. Any superintelligence as you describe is billions of years out.

You misunderstand chaos theory. It's deterministic on the low level, it just says that small changes can have big effects down the road. Also, predicting a chain of events, predicting exactly what will happen and how, that's not necessary. The Catalyst's predictions are based on probabilities. Chaos theory can tell you that a small change in the starting conditions of a civilization's development path will lead to drastically different results, but it won't be able to tell you how likely the different starting conditions are. Having observed countless civilizations, the Catalyst will have those data. It will know which ones will even out in the long term and which ones will create major branches in the development paths. But it's quite possible that all development paths lead to the creation of self-improving AIs. In fact, if self-improving AIs are possible at all - and they are in the ME universe - I think that's extremely likely.

There's also a misconception in the understanding of the singularity event. The thing is: from this side of the singularity, we cannot predict its effects. That's because we are not intelligent and knowledgeable enough. Nothing says that the effects of a singularity are intrinsically unpredictable. We don't have the tools to understand a  black hole either, but no physisict has ever claimed that black holes are intrinsically incomprehensible. A billion-year-old super-intelligent AI may have the mathematical tools to make predictions about post-singularity developments.

In other words: you cannot prove that the Catalyst's logic is wrong because you don't have the understanding and the knowledge that went into its predictions. All we can do is to say "The way the writers chose to present its logic is self-contradictory and stupid". Which it is. As the leaked script shows, it could have been better. But if you used the singularity as a premise, there are no logic holes.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 mai 2012 - 07:29 .

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
As it turns out, organic life is fine 10,000 years later thanks to the stargazer scene. The odds were good. 

10000 years is just a fifth of a cycle. It proves nothing. Show me a scene a million years after and we might be going somewhere. Also, it's just one planet. It says nothing about organic life in the galaxy fares. Could be the last one the synthetics haven't found.

Or do you think that extinction scenario would come in the form of one big war after which organics are gone? Much more likely to be a creeping extinction, just like the ones we are causing on Earth.

[Ieldra]

Updated the OP again with a thread link to HYR 2.0's Synthesis/Control... not a "betrayal.", which makes some interesting observations about how things Reaper made our victory possible in the first place. Pertinent quote:

HYR 2.0 wrote...
My point here is that while YES, we have been fighting to destroy the Reapers up this point in the series, we’ve mostly been accomplishing that through methods of control/adaptation of the Reapers’ own tech. So why is it so far-fetched to think that if given the option, Commander Shepard would choose Control or Synthesis? To me, it really isn’t. So let’s get off our “all things Reaper/Reaper tech is t3h eeeevviiiilllzz!” shall we?

I also added a quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri to the OP. I believe this is, approximately, the spirit of Synthesis as it was meant to be taken. Just substitute organics and synthetics for the two sides:

"No longer mere Earth-beings and Planet-beings are we, but bright children of the stars. And together we shall dance in and out of ten billion years, celebrating the gift of consciousness, until the stars themselves grow cold and weary, and our thoughts turn again to the beginning" -- Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, The Ascent to Transcendence, 1999

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 mai 2012 - 07:29 .

[Ieldra]

I've found this article by Vernor Vinge about the singularity. It summarizes some arguments very well.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
As it turns out, organic life is fine 10,000 years later thanks to the stargazer scene. The odds were good. 

10000 years is just a fifth of a cycle. It proves nothing. Show me a scene a million years after and we might be going somewhere. Also, it's just one planet. It says nothing about organic life in the galaxy fares. Could be the last one the synthetics haven't found.

It shows organic life exists in some capacity long after the Crucible is used.

So I choose, say, destroy, that won't solve the proposed problem in any way, shape or form.

Yet the scene plays anyway. 

I like the odds. 

Or do you think that extinction scenario would come in the form of one big war after which organics are gone? Much more likely to be a creeping extinction, just like the ones we are causing on Earth.

I don't believe that an extinction of organic life at the hands of synthetic life is more probable than any other possible scenario. 

So it's not something I'm going to worry about. I'll make my choice and ignore everything the serpent has to say on the matter. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 01 juin 2012 - 10:52 .

[RavenEyry]

Wouldn't having glowy green eyes and veins make creatures more susceptible to predators because they can't hide easily? But I suppose the predators will glow in the dark as well, making it harder to sneak up on prey. Synthesis is really going to cause havoc among ecosystems.

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
I don't believe that an extinction of organic life at the hands of synthetic life is more probable than any other possible scenario.

In other words, you don't believe the Catalyst. It all comes down to that again, doesn't it? I think it's pretty clear that we're supposed to believe it at least to the point where we accept that "this is a problem". Which means that all too likely, most people who don't believe the Catalyst don't believe it because they don't like the options it offers, not the other way round.

It's easy to use that as an excuse though - the exposition is so bad that it hurts.

[RavenEyry]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In other words, you don't believe the Catalyst. It all comes down to that again, doesn't it? I think it's pretty clear that we're supposed to believe it at least to the point where we accept that "this is a problem". Which means that all too likely, most people who don't believe the Catalyst don't believe it because they don't like the options it offers, not the other way round.

I don't believe the catalyst because it uses 'me' and 'us' interchangeably, it's in Shep's head, and it vaguely implies most things rather than speaking in solid facts. One of its implications is also seen to be not true.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
I don't believe that an extinction of organic life at the hands of synthetic life is more probable than any other possible scenario.

In other words, you don't believe the Catalyst. It all comes down to that again, doesn't it? I think it's pretty clear that we're supposed to believe it at least to the point where we accept that "this is a problem". Which means that all too likely, most people who don't believe the Catalyst don't believe it because they don't like the options it offers, not the other way round.

It's easy to use that as an excuse though - the exposition is so bad that it hurts.

Pretty much. 

Although I simply don't care for the entire plot point, being contrived, rushed, unsupported, and frankly stupid. 

No amount of exposition is going to change that. You don't introduce new and important things that are supposed to replace far more important things, in the last five minutes. 

[Ieldra]

No amount of exposition? What about linking the geth superstructure more explicitly to the singularity and restoring the cut Codex entry about it? The problem is not that all this isn't present in the game. The problem is that it's hidden under other themes so much that we can only see it in hindsight, and even then only if we look closely.

But it's there nonetheless. Better exposition *can* save the whole thing. The "problem", and the Synthesis option most of all.

Not that I necessarily disagree with *your* preferred choice.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 juin 2012 - 11:16 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No amount of exposition? What about linking the geth superstructure more explicitly to the singularity and restoring the cut Codex entry about it? The problem is not that all this isn't present in the game. The problem is that it's hidden under other themes so much that we can only see it in hindsight, and even then only if we look closely.

It's a tiny, ugly and irrelevant rock buried under the metaphorical Sahara. 

Support for genocidal AI's, since the singularity is a fan implementation to the whole thing, does not exist. 

Especially after the dyson sphere is destroyed and never talked about again after those three lines of dialogue from Legion. 

Which makes it more evident that the dilemma proposed to us was never intended as the main conflict and was some insane last minute attempt to add depth to something that didn't need it. 

But it's there nonetheless. Better exposition *can* save the whole thing. The "problem", and the Synthesis option most of all.

They can do whatever they want with synthesis, I don't care about that. I don't even really care about destroy or control either, the entire 'final choice' is stupid in my opinion, because to have one you require something else to justify why you have to make it, hence the gem that is synthetics life inevitably being genocidal racists. 

The problem will never have credibility. Never. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 01 juin 2012 - 11:21 .

[lillitheris]

RavenEyry wrote...

Wouldn't having glowy green eyes and veins make creatures more susceptible to predators because they can't hide easily? But I suppose the predators will glow in the dark as well, making it harder to sneak up on prey. Synthesis is really going to cause havoc among ecosystems.

Oh, don’t worry, I’m sure BioWare spent tons of time mapping out all these consequences. Obviously all the animals and plants will benefit from synthesis exactly like sapient beings and modify their behaviour accordingly.

Modifié par lillitheris, 01 juin 2012 - 11:25 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 is doing a wonderful job trying to explain the whole thing in some sane manner, but the simple truth is that if Walters & Hudson had actually come to any of us in September and presented this ‘idea’, they’d have been laughed out of the room.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
Ieldra2 is doing a wonderful job trying to explain the whole thing in some sane manner, but the simple truth is that if Walters & Hudson had actually come to any of us in September and presented this ‘idea’, they’d have been laughed out of the room.

The idea of "melding man and machine"? Not laughable if you ask me but rather interesting. SF has used it in different ways, so originally I'd have been curious to see how ME deals with it. It's also easy to overlook that the phrasing in the leaked script made sense.

Or were you thinking of the fact they used the organic/synthetic divide to give the Reapers a motivation? That's certainly an odd decision to make, but had I known in advance, I'd have said: "If you can make it so that it doesn't come out of nowhere, then by all means go for it".

I maintain it's mostly a problem of execution, not of concept.
 
Though.....the idea of making all life part-synthetic? Yeah.....ridiculous and worth any ridicule. But that was a late addition after the script was leaked. I'm still wondering about this sudden attack of stupidity apparently suffered by the writers.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 juin 2012 - 11:59 .

[Heeden]

Ieldra2 wrote...

 Though.....the idea of making all life part-synthetic? Yeah.....ridiculous and worth any ridicule. But that was a late addition after the script was leaked. I'm still wondering about this sudden attack of stupidity apparently suffered by the writers.

I still don't see where people get the idea Synthesis includes making biologicals part-synthetic. Nothing the Catalyst says even implies that.

Add your energy to the crucibles.
Everything you are will be absorbed and then sent out.
The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life in to a new framework. A new,,,DNA,
Synthetics are already part of you, can you imagine your life without them?
The cycle will end, synthesis is the final evolution of life but we need each other to make it happen.

We know life energy in mass effect can be used to share information,  there's no mention (I've come across) of it being used to manufacture tiny robots.

Modifié par Heeden, 01 juin 2012 - 03:14 .

[Taboo]

They really need to clear this up. It's just so goofy. I can only hope the Synthesis people get what they want. I just hope someone doesn't get goofy again and decide it WILL make a new DNA.