9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

He doesn't relay any data. At all. He either does not have it or is not willing to share.

He presents a fallacy. It doesn't matter. You cannot take anything he says at face value. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

He could have just have easily been created by someone who in turn allowed themselves to be harvested in the first Reapers. See how this works? It would explain the origins and give you some basis for programming.

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
I've made several topics on the matter. Are you familiar with Lovecraft at all?

Take a look at this here.

With the introduction of the Catalyst, I always felt that they lost this...power.

I have referenced Lovecraft in the OP on this thread I am familiar with Lovecraftian horror and the strength of the relief I feel about ME3 having subverted it you cannot imagine. For me, it is easily the best feature of the trilogy. Had they stuck to the  Lovecraftian theme, the trilogy would ultimately not have been a story I care for at all. From the first encounter with Sovereign I wanted nothing more than to understand what it's all about, and I don't care for the message that something can't be understood.  

Unfortunately, I can see them clarifying the Destroy ending more. Given some business experience, the only way to get people to calm down IS to give Miranda a better ending. Or Tali. Or Liara.

I see the danger of that. Even though Destroy doesn't need much clarification IMO.

But, if you're going to explain something like the Reapers, you need to embed that in the narrative and not just dump it in the last 5 minutes. And you especially don't need that information to come from a brand new character that's the power behind the throne as it were. I understand that it works in Japanese games, but I'm tired of it, and even in those games that characters has always been sort of evident to some degree.

Not only that but if the Catalyst has always been the Citadel, what the heck was he playing at in ME1? We just made that entire plot kind of meaningless.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I had another bad thought about synthesis. Since Joker and company are stranded on that planet, and all the food is now crunchy, and eventually they're going to have to go potty.... OUCH!!!!

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

He doesn't relay any data. At all. He either does not have it or is not willing to share.

He presents a fallacy. It doesn't matter. You cannot take anything he says at face value. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

He could have just have easily been created by someone who in turn
allowed themselves to be harvested in the first Reapers. See how this
works? It would explain the origins and give you some basis for
programming.

He presents his belief, one he holds strongly enough to enact the whole cycle. You can't dismiss it as a fallacy just because you have no idea how he came by it.

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

He presents his belief, one he holds strongly enough to enact the whole cycle. You can't dismiss it as a fallacy just because you have no idea how he came by it.

This is a fallacy.

A is possible/probable therefore A is absolute

Probability is not a fallacy, but an absolute in this case is.

He does not give a probability. It's a fallacy known as Appeal to Probability.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 07 juin 2012 - 09:19 .

[Ieldra]

Heeden is correct, and your assertion doesn't make it more true, Taboo. Shall I now re-post my counter to your claim again, and then you repeat it again and so on ad infinitum?

There is no fallacy. The Catalyst doesn't state an absolute because in normal language, "it will happen" usually means "it will almost certainly happen", because everyone knows there is no absolute about the future. Outside of formal debate discourse, given high enough probabilities, phrasing any "it will almost certainly happen" as "it will happen" is justified, and you don't have the data to say it isn't justified in the Catalyst's case. So can we PLEASE let this rest? It's starting to derail the thread.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 09:29 .

[Heeden]

Edited for derailment, sorry Iedra.

Modifié par Heeden, 07 juin 2012 - 09:37 .

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Heeden is correct, and your assertion doesn't make it more true, Taboo. Shall I now re-post my counter to your claim again, and then you repeat it again and so on ad infinitum?

There is no fallacy. The Catalyst doesn't state an absolute because in normal language, "it will happen" usually means "it will almost certainly happen", because everyone knows there is no absolute about the future. Outside of formal debate discourse, given high enough probabilities, phrasing any "it will almost certainly happen" as "it will happen" is justified, and you don't have the data to say it isn't justified in the Catalyst's case. So can we PLEASE let this rest? It's starting to derail the thread.

There are some very crazy people in the world. Jim jones believed in what he believed so strongly that he killed all his followers because of it. But I would very much have called his beliefs wrong and time has proven that to be true.

Just because someone asserts something with absolute conviction doesn't make it so. You would just like to believe that it's so because you want desparately to believe that the Catalyst is an all-knowing god-like being.

[Taboo]

He relays less information than a Tweet does. Assume some critical introspection about this for God's sake. Are you honestly telling me that you're willing to think this much about Synthesis but not about a being that is introduced in the last five minutes?

The only reason I can possibly see you ignoring the fact without further information is that you aren't going to accept any direct possibility that he is flawed. You are no more inclined to your set of beliefs than I am.

"It will happen" is an absolute.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

He relays less information than a Tweet does. Assume some critical introspection about this for God's sake. Are you honestly telling me that you're willing to think this much about Synthesis but not about a being that is introduced in the last five minutes?

The only reason I can possibly see you ignoring the fact without further information is that you aren't going to accept any direct possibility that he is flawed. You are no more inclined to your set of beliefs than I am.

I don't understand the problem, so the Catalyst might be a VI representing his creators rather than an AI representing himself. I don't see how it makes a difference.

"It will happen" is an absolute.

Yes it is, it is the absolute belief of a being who created the Reaper cycle to prevent it. What is your problem with this?

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo:
You make assumptions about the internal workings of the Catalyst with almost no data at all. You have no idea about the data it may or may not have obtained, thus you cannot draw conclusions about how it uses those data.

Also, I repeat, you're applying impossible standards to this. Would you do this for any other element of the the ME universe, it would long have collapsed under the weight of the rationalizations necessary to function. You don't have enough information to prove the Catalyst wrong and to say *anything* about its internal workings, and that's that. So can we please let this rest? There is nothing that violates "basic logic" in the Catalyst because you don't have the data to draw such a conclusion.

If you keep this up, I'll counter with a demand to explain ME's FTL. Or inter-species sex. Or biotics. In hard science terms!

Edit:
There's also this: if you are absolutely determined to find problems, you will find them. I say there are enough obvious problems with the ending to add another which needs rather convoluted reasoning to find.

Well then the Starchild should have done a better job convincing us. If he's holding back data, then that's his fault.

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Night Mammoth:
A singularity is a place where the scientific and mathematical tools *WE KNOW* fail to work, denying us understanding. For now. We cannot predict the effects of a singularity because we lack the mental tools, for no other reason. Well ok, *perhaps* it is intrinsically unpredictable, but we cannot know that either. The Catalyst may have the tools to understand. Well, it may also not have them and lie to us, but I've dealt with that objection in the OP. We cannot know, but for the same reason that we cannot predict the effects of a singularity, it is also impossible for us to conclusively disprove the possibility of an intellect which can understand it, and conclusively disprove that the Catalyst is such an entity.

Thus, if I want to use the singularity as a premise, I can do so without inconsistency. All I need to assume is that the Catalyst is an entity with the necessary mental tools and the necessary knowledge to predict the effects of a technological singularity. This is sound science fictional thinking, actually.

Actually we typically use delta functions for singularities. The problem with black holes (apart from the fact we can't even prove they exist) is that they're both very massive and very small, and therefore you need both general relativity  and quantum mechanics to explain them. Problem is, the two theories contradict each other and so currently cannot be used together. 

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
You know, I'm getting really tired of replying to this again, again, again, again making the same points. It's like running against a rubber wall.

You are using flawed logic. You cannot conclude that the Catalyst's logic is flawed with the available data. I cannot conclude that it is not flawed from the available data. In-world, WE DO NOT KNOW! That's all! I have said that, you said it yourself, so why the hell are you acting now as if you could know? OUt of world, though, the picture is different (see below).

"It will happen", in everyday language, is NOT meant as an absolute. Everyone implicitly knows that there is no absolute about the future. The "almost certainly" doesn't need to be said. The only alternative is if it's a statement made with emphasis based not on logic alone, a statement of belief.

You are also forgetting that this is a story, so don't treat this as a situation like when you're meeting a random stranger in RL. If we're supposed to distrust an information source, and the information we need is as critical as here, this is usually shown, and since this is Bioware, it would be very, very obvious. Unless you assume that the writers are deceiving you. Now the Catalyst is obviously the writers' exposition fairy, and I see no evidence whatsoever to think that we shouldn't take it seriously. At the same time, the logic cannot be 100% compelling because then choosing Destroy would be insane.

This is all a waste of time and effort, really. In-world, we do not know. Using an out-of-world perspective, we know we should take it seriously in-world but if we want, there is a loophole to reject it. That's all. That's really all. There is neither a need nor a way to dissect this further without more information.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 10:35 .

[Ieldra]

KingZayd wrote...
Well then the Starchild should have done a better job convincing us. If he's holding back data, then that's his fault.

Indeed. As if that hasn't been said 100000000 times here and elsewhere. On the other hand, if you want to find flaws, you will find them. Unless you're dealing with a scientific treatise ten pages long, most of which most players wouldn't understand a bit of.

More information is needed. But that's for the benefit of those who are ready to believe the Catalyst but just can't at the moment. Don't think that it will convince anyone predisposed to disbelieve it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 10:44 .

[Taboo]

 That's my point. We don't know. I use the tools I was educated with. I am using what I was given. You are no different. Bioware explicitly violated basic storytelling rules and I use that as basis for critique as whatever your eduction does for you.

This is the question they asked me time and time again in art school. It perfectly summarizes what art is.

" I have seven identical squares, so how can they be in different styles?"

The point is is that you cannot see what I see, nor can I see your experience. You can only bring you life experience to it. There is no wrong answer but there is ALWAYS such a things as a similar experience. This is why no one has a consensus on Synthesis, because it can't be understood, you can only reach similar consensus' about things.

The consensus on the BSN is that Synthesis is dead in the water. Whether or not it makes sense doesn't mean much, because it will sink under the weight of the user's here. You have a tremendous uphill battle if you wish to continue with this.

I'm not expecting an explanation of Synthesis, because you can't really do it. All I expect is an epilouge in which we learn that people haven't gone ape over being Synthesized.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 07 juin 2012 - 10:54 .

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
Well then the Starchild should have done a better job convincing us. If he's holding back data, then that's his fault.

Indeed. As if that hasn't been said 100000000 times here and elsewhere. On the other hand, if you want to find flaws, you will find them. Unless you're dealing with a scientific treatise ten pages long, most of which most players wouldn't understand a bit of.

More information is needed. But that's for the benefit of those who are ready to believe the Catalyst but just can't at the moment. Don't think that it will convince anyone predisposed to disbelieve it.

It's not our fault that the reapers have a reputation for being great manipulators.

[o Ventus]

Heeden wrote...

Yes it is, it is the absolute belief of a being who created the Reaper cycle to prevent it. What is your problem with this?

His passing it as a fact (When we can clearly see that it isn't is the problem.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

Heeden wrote...

Yes it is, it is the absolute belief of a being who created the Reaper cycle to prevent it. What is your problem with this?

His passing it as a fact (When we can clearly see that it isn't is the problem.

The Church of Scientology has the absolute belief that people came here on Space Ships shaped like Seven Forty Sevens.

I see no proof.

It's irrelevant.

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
There is no such consensus. There may be a great majority, and they're certainly yelling the most, but all they're doing is drowning the minority under their volume. I find this dishonest, and I won't stand for it.

And as I said in another thread: at some point, suspension of disbelief has to kick in. Only people are less and less willing to suspend their disbelief as time goes on and positions become more entrenched. People *want* to find flaw. People don't want to be constructive, all they want is to destroy (pun intended). I find this regrettable. This "no-compromise" attitude and the impossible standards demanded won't help anyone. Not the writers, not the fans.

As for the Synthesis, you can explain it with the same level of detail as any other game ending people didn't reject. That should satisfy everyone not looking for an excuse to be angry.

Edit:
And please don't start to derail this thread. The other was enough!

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juin 2012 - 11:25 .

[o Ventus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And as I said in another thread: at some point, suspension of disbelief has to kick in. Only people are less and less willing to suspend their disbelief as time goes on and positions become more entrenched. People *want* to find flaw. People don't want to be constructive, all they want is to destroy (pun intended). I find this regrettable. This "no-compromise" attitude and the impossible standards demanded won't help anyone. Not the writers, not the fans.

As for the Synthesis, you can explain it with the same level of detail as any other game ending people didn't reject. That should satisfy everyone not looking for an excuse to be angry.

I almost want to call you a hypocrite, because you got into an incredibly stupid argument with me over what constitutes as space magic and the extent something can go without breaking the meaning of science fiction.

[M Hedonist]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 That's my point. We don't know.

Care to gamble? I'll wager the very principles of life.

For all I care, don't explain Synthesis in EC. Don't bother. There's no way it won't come out wrong. Leave it as the one vague ending open for interpretation.

[Ieldra]

o Ventus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

And as I said in another thread: at some point, suspension of disbelief has to kick in. Only people are less and less willing to suspend their disbelief as time goes on and positions become more entrenched. People *want* to find flaw. People don't want to be constructive, all they want is to destroy (pun intended). I find this regrettable. This "no-compromise" attitude and the impossible standards demanded won't help anyone. Not the writers, not the fans.

As for the Synthesis, you can explain it with the same level of detail as any other game ending people didn't reject. That should satisfy everyone not looking for an excuse to be angry.

I almost want to call you a hypocrite, because you got into an incredibly stupid argument with me over what constitutes as space magic and the extent something can go without breaking the meaning of science fiction.

You might notice that I have not attempted any defense of the *process* by which the Synthesis is effected. Because that's indefensible under the standards I would set. I can live with it for the sake of the story, but I don't like it one bit.

For the Catalyst's logic, I expect something that doesn't fall apart at first glance. What we got doesn't fulfil that condition, but I can extend it so that it makes sense. That's what I've done for Synthesis. Taboo and others have been saying it can't be extended to make sense because there's a flaw in basic logic. Now they admit we don't have the information to make that conclusion but they're moving the milestone and now they demand proof. Which is yet another unreasonable expectation. Stories almost never provide irrefutable proof of anything, SF or not.

Apart from the process effecting it (see above), my Synthesis scenario follows basic scientific principles more closely than most of ME. For the rest of the way, suspension of disbelief is required, just as in any SF story. Even the hard science stories require that, for they go to the limit of what is not proven to be impossible according to current knowledge.  

[Taboo]

I have stated time and time again that Mr. Gamble has alluded to more dialogue being put in for the Catalyst. People have no idea what's going on. They can certainly patch things up. As it stands right now, his logic is flawed and that is a direct result of Bioware's presentation.

You cannot extend something he hasn't given you. He has no data, no charts and we aren't even sure what he is. All you have is speculation.

That's what an Extended Cut IS. It supplies more scenes or dialogue to makes things CLEARER.

[frylock23]

Look, it boils down to this:

The Catalyst tells us that he's been wiping out all advanced life to protect organic life from a TS. However, the very fact that your PC is standing there in front of him is proof that the dreaded TS has never occurred. If it had, you would not be there.

He speaks as though this is an inevitability. If that is so, since it patently has not happened in anyone's experience, then it is incumbent upon him to provide some proof of his assertion or else it is no more than that, an empty assertion of faith requiring an equal leap of faith on your part to believe.

Clearly, you have no trouble making that leap. That's fine. But, I and others would like some proof to back up his assertions before we launch into a rewrite of all organic life.

So, it is not moving the goal posts to both point to the logical flaws in his argument and to ask him to provide proof to attempt to fix his logic.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I have stated time and time again that Mr. Gamble has alluded to more dialogue being put in for the Catalyst. People have no idea what's going on. They can certainly patch things up. As it stands right now, his logic is flawed and that is a direct result of Bioware's presentation.

You cannot extend something he hasn't given you. He has no data, no charts and we aren't even sure what he is. All you have is speculation.

That's what an Extended Cut IS. It supplies more scenes or dialogue to makes things CLEARER.

I have used the leaked script as basis for my extension. I have admitted that from day one. I have also explained why I feel justified in doing that. You may disagree with my reasons, but there is no flawed logic involved.

BTW, you keep moving the signposts. First you attack using the singularity as a premise as faulty which it isn't, then you attack the Catalyst dialogue as written as flawed, which it is. I never said otherwise. The evidence suggests that the classic "robot war" scenario it alludes to has a good chance of not resulting in extinction. This is the reason why I'm using the singularity instead. 

@frylock:
I believe there was a misunderstanding. I understood "proof" as irrefutable proof, something that cannot be reasonably denied. We won't get that. First, because that would make Destroy an insane decision, and second, because that level of certainty is unreasonable to expect within the context of a story. What I hope we will get is a well constructed hypothesis with some good evidence, something we can suspend our disbelief for without feeling like idiots.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juin 2012 - 12:40 .