9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Veneke]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Veneke wrote...

Eh... not worth it.

Say something or nothing at all.

You have no idea what they're doing. It could be anything. You are trying to explain something that you cannot.

The situation reminds me of the ******/defecation artists in New York and Los Angeles.

There is no explanation. It's just **** that is slapped on a canvas.

With pancakes. 

 
Yet again with the 'trying to explain something you cannot' - read OP mate. He gives a valid explanation. It might not be canon but saying that it can't be explained is simply incorrect.

Seeing as how you're pressing me into supplying an answer, I'll oblige.

Taboo-XX wrote...

Understand this, because I will only explain it so many times.

You have no idea in what capacity those examples are going to be explored.

You assume that means you are going to have a better implementation of Synthesis.

It doesn't mean anything until you have a product.

You grasp at as many straws as I do.

"It's a matter of what's in the frame and what's not" - Martin Scorsese

This is just backwards, on so many levels. You appear to be saying that you can never tell or accept anything at face value. You must know definitively yourself before it becomes fact. This is not only wrong, it's also idiotic.
 
How precisely do you think marketing works? If we follow your logic, it would never exist - because nobody would ever believe that when they set out to do X that they'll do X. That's your argument. You want us to believe that they won't do what they told us they were going to do. In other words, when they said they were going to provide additional clarity and closure (which they say they're going to do) your immediate response is 'Nope. There's no way to tell if that's the case or not.'
 
It's scepticism and suspicion taken to extreme levels, borderline paranoi frankly.
 

 
Alternatively, you might be saying that they're going to do X but we don't know how X will work. That's fair enough if it weren't for the fact that you seem to be linking this with the fact that all explanations are somehow invalidated because of this. There are a wide variety of reasonable theories out there that go towards possible explanations for the ME 3 ending. This is one of them. It is not something that cannot be explained, it can be explained quite reasonably and in context and with evidence from the rest of the series.

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Do you understand that sounds dangerously like indoctrination, right?

Luckilly I've never been anywhere near a Reaper or Reaper tech.

<_<...Be serious. My point is that in the game, this forced  change of perspective, feelings and ideals is what indoctrination does. That's one of the problems people point out. Are you saying it ok to go into being minds and change how they think and feel?

[PsyrenY]

Thank you, Veneke.

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

Ahh, there's your problem, you believe that the creation of a technological singularity equals an Ultimate Intelligence which is virtually omniscient.  This is not true, all it needs is surpass the species which created it.  EDI far surpasses Shepherd/The Normandy Crew in intelligence and sheer processing power.  She represents a tech singularity created by Humanity.  Just because EDI does not know how to "hook up" with Joker does not mean she is not intelligent.  Intelligence is not based on your ability to "hook up" and nobody bases intelligence off of that.  Next, Traynor suggesting upgrades just means EDI can get smarter, which is fine becasue singularities are not the end of technological evolution. 

The singularity does not just have to surpass their creators, it has to advance beyond a level where the results can be predicted. It could be perfectly benign or aggresively malign. The Reapers seem to actually value organic life - why else would they spend so long preserving the advanced civilisations after preventing them from reaching (what they deem to be) a tech-level that endangers all organics? An aggressively hegemonising nano-swarm would not be so caring.

UI have a question...Why do we need to fear synthetic getting to a state of technological singularity? Wounld the leave them is a state with out need? Isn't comflit in it's self based on need?

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...

<_<...Be serious. My point is that in the game, this forced  change of perspective, feelings and ideals is what indoctrination does. That's one of the problems people point out. Are you saying it ok to go into being minds and change how they think and feel?

No, I'm saying Synthesis wouldn't change how people think and feel - it would give them more information to process including a greater understanding of their place in the scheme of things.

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...

Heeden wrote...

Ahh, there's your problem, you believe that the creation of a technological singularity equals an Ultimate Intelligence which is virtually omniscient.  This is not true, all it needs is surpass the species which created it.  EDI far surpasses Shepherd/The Normandy Crew in intelligence and sheer processing power.  She represents a tech singularity created by Humanity.  Just because EDI does not know how to "hook up" with Joker does not mean she is not intelligent.  Intelligence is not based on your ability to "hook up" and nobody bases intelligence off of that.  Next, Traynor suggesting upgrades just means EDI can get smarter, which is fine becasue singularities are not the end of technological evolution. 

The singularity does not just have to surpass their creators, it has to advance beyond a level where the results can be predicted. It could be perfectly benign or aggresively malign. The Reapers seem to actually value organic life - why else would they spend so long preserving the advanced civilisations after preventing them from reaching (what they deem to be) a tech-level that endangers all organics? An aggressively hegemonising nano-swarm would not be so caring.

UI have a question...Why do we need to fear synthetic getting to a state of technological singularity? Wounld the leave them is a state with out need? Isn't comflit in it's self based on need?

The fear comes from the unpredictability, beyond the singularity the Synthetics may decide the best thing to do is convert all matter in the galaxy in to versions of themselves. Clearly it is the Catalyst who fears this the most and his only solution is the Reaper cycle.

[dreman9999]

Veneke wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Veneke wrote...

Eh... not worth it.

Say something or nothing at all.

You have no idea what they're doing. It could be anything. You are trying to explain something that you cannot.

The situation reminds me of the ******/defecation artists in New York and Los Angeles.

There is no explanation. It's just **** that is slapped on a canvas.

With pancakes. 

 
Yet again with the 'trying to explain something you cannot' - read OP mate. He gives a valid explanation. It might not be canon but saying that it can't be explained is simply incorrect.

Seeing as how you're pressing me into supplying an answer, I'll oblige.

Taboo-XX wrote...

Understand this, because I will only explain it so many times.

You have no idea in what capacity those examples are going to be explored.

You assume that means you are going to have a better implementation of Synthesis.

It doesn't mean anything until you have a product.

You grasp at as many straws as I do.

"It's a matter of what's in the frame and what's not" - Martin Scorsese

This is just backwards, on so many levels. You appear to be saying that you can never tell or accept anything at face value. You must know definitively yourself before it becomes fact. This is not only wrong, it's also idiotic.
 
How precisely do you think marketing works? If we follow your logic, it would never exist - because nobody would ever believe that when they set out to do X that they'll do X. That's your argument. You want us to believe that they won't do what they told us they were going to do. In other words, when they said they were going to provide additional clarity and closure (which they say they're going to do) your immediate response is 'Nope. There's no way to tell if that's the case or not.'
 
It's scepticism and suspicion taken to extreme levels, borderline paranoi frankly.
 

 
Alternatively, you might be saying that they're going to do X but we don't know how X will work. That's fair enough if it weren't for the fact that you seem to be linking this with the fact that all explanations are somehow invalidated because of this. There are a wide variety of reasonable theories out there that go towards possible explanations for the ME 3 ending. This is one of them. It is not something that cannot be explained, it can be explained quite reasonably and in context and with evidence from the rest of the series.

What you not understanding is why trust the starchild and if your even understanding what the starchild means by his vague explinations? He is the one that offers synthesis, he's the one that understand how it works...You don't. The vague explination leaves the understanding of it open to interpretation but what ever you think it means is irrelivent....What is is what the starchild know what it means because what he knows what it mean is how it is going to be applied. Can you trust the star child with his past actions and vague explinations?

[Bill Casey]

It's okay when the hero does it...

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Heeden wrote...

Ahh, there's your problem, you believe that the creation of a technological singularity equals an Ultimate Intelligence which is virtually omniscient.  This is not true, all it needs is surpass the species which created it.  EDI far surpasses Shepherd/The Normandy Crew in intelligence and sheer processing power.  She represents a tech singularity created by Humanity.  Just because EDI does not know how to "hook up" with Joker does not mean she is not intelligent.  Intelligence is not based on your ability to "hook up" and nobody bases intelligence off of that.  Next, Traynor suggesting upgrades just means EDI can get smarter, which is fine becasue singularities are not the end of technological evolution. 

The singularity does not just have to surpass their creators, it has to advance beyond a level where the results can be predicted. It could be perfectly benign or aggresively malign. The Reapers seem to actually value organic life - why else would they spend so long preserving the advanced civilisations after preventing them from reaching (what they deem to be) a tech-level that endangers all organics? An aggressively hegemonising nano-swarm would not be so caring.

UI have a question...Why do we need to fear synthetic getting to a state of technological singularity? Wounld the leave them is a state with out need? Isn't comflit in it's self based on need?

The fear comes from the unpredictability, beyond the singularity the Synthetics may decide the best thing to do is convert all matter in the galaxy in to versions of themselves. Clearly it is the Catalyst who fears this the most and his only solution is the Reaper cycle.

But whats to fear from something that does not need? The concept of it attacking is something based on organic nature...Synthetics are not organics.

[Heeden]

What you not understanding is why trust the starchild and if your even understanding what the starchild means by his vague explinations? He is the one that offers synthesis, he's the one that understand how it works...You don't. The vague explination leaves the understanding of it open to interpretation but what ever you think it means is irrelivent....What is is what the starchild know what it means because what he knows what it mean is how it is going to be applied. Can you trust the star child with his past actions and vague explinations?

Why would the Catalyst lie when he could just kill everyone with lasers and engineer the next cycle to meet his new goals?

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

<_<...Be serious. My point is that in the game, this forced  change of perspective, feelings and ideals is what indoctrination does. That's one of the problems people point out. Are you saying it ok to go into being minds and change how they think and feel?

No, I'm saying Synthesis wouldn't change how people think and feel - it would give them more information to process including a greater understanding of their place in the scheme of things.

Technology never opens up understanding. It's always show to do the opposite. We seen shepard understand nearly every being by simply taking with them and finding a way to comunicate...That's all that needed.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mai 2012 - 05:25 .

[PsyrenY]

dreman9999 wrote...

What you not understanding is why trust the starchild and if your even understanding what the starchild means by his vague explinations? He is the one that offers synthesis, he's the one that understand how it works...You don't. The vague explination leaves the understanding of it open to interpretation but what ever you think it means is irrelivent....What is is what the starchild know what it means because what he knows what it mean is how it is going to be applied. Can you trust the star child with his past actions and vague explinations?

Why shouldn't you trust him? He has no reason at all to talk to you, and especially no reason to tell you how to Destroy or Control his creation. The fact is that the Crucible changes him and requires him to explain its functions.

[PsyrenY]

dreman9999 wrote...

Technology never opens up understanding.

lolwut

[dreman9999]

Optimystic_X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

What you not understanding is why trust the starchild and if your even understanding what the starchild means by his vague explinations? He is the one that offers synthesis, he's the one that understand how it works...You don't. The vague explination leaves the understanding of it open to interpretation but what ever you think it means is irrelivent....What is is what the starchild know what it means because what he knows what it mean is how it is going to be applied. Can you trust the star child with his past actions and vague explinations?

Why shouldn't you trust him? He has no reason at all to talk to you, and especially no reason to tell you how to Destroy or Control his creation. The fact is that the Crucible changes him and requires him to explain its functions.

" I control the reaper."  "They  are my salution"..."To Chaos.":whistle:

Also....Machines with a history of great deception.

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...

Heeden wrote...

The fear comes from the unpredictability, beyond the singularity the Synthetics may decide the best thing to do is convert all matter in the galaxy in to versions of themselves. Clearly it is the Catalyst who fears this the most and his only solution is the Reaper cycle.

But whats to fear from something that does not need? The concept of it attacking is something based on organic nature...Synthetics are not organics.

Synthetics still need - if they desire to replicate they need materials, if they desire to learn they need knowledge, if their genesis was fraught with conflict with their creators they may desire revenge which could mean they need to kill everything. Apparently the dangers are real enough for the Catalyst to go through an awful lot of bother preventing them.

[dreman9999]

Optimystic_X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Technology never opens up understanding.

lolwut

Point to me a time in history that technolgy alone did?
I can point you to the fall of the mayans and the rise of the british empire...

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Heeden wrote...

The fear comes from the unpredictability, beyond the singularity the Synthetics may decide the best thing to do is convert all matter in the galaxy in to versions of themselves. Clearly it is the Catalyst who fears this the most and his only solution is the Reaper cycle.

But whats to fear from something that does not need? The concept of it attacking is something based on organic nature...Synthetics are not organics.

Synthetics still need - if they desire to replicate they need materials, if they desire to learn they need knowledge, if their genesis was fraught with conflict with their creators they may desire revenge which could mean they need to kill everything. Apparently the dangers are real enough for the Catalyst to go through an awful lot of bother preventing them.

But this is an infinate universe. The don't need the same sources of materials or even need the same matrials as we do. And base on what the geth were building, they don't even need bodies...

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

What you not understanding is why trust the starchild and if your even understanding what the starchild means by his vague explinations? He is the one that offers synthesis, he's the one that understand how it works...You don't. The vague explination leaves the understanding of it open to interpretation but what ever you think it means is irrelivent....What is is what the starchild know what it means because what he knows what it mean is how it is going to be applied. Can you trust the star child with his past actions and vague explinations?

Why would the Catalyst lie when he could just kill everyone with lasers and engineer the next cycle to meet his new goals?

Well, Synthesis is a much faster way to control organics then havesting them every 50000 years.

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...
" I control the reaper."  "They  are my salution"..."To Chaos.":whistle:

Also....Machines with a history of great deception.

Also machines who could kill everyone with a lot less fuss and bother if they were truly evil and dispassionate.

Again - why not just finish killing everyone with lasers and arrange the next cycle to end in synthesis if that's what they really want.

[TheCrazyHobo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

Ahh, there's your problem, you believe that the creation of a technological singularity equals an Ultimate Intelligence which is virtually omniscient.  This is not true, all it needs is surpass the species which created it.

I know that. EDI did not (yet) surpass our intelligence. She has more capability/potential than any given organic, but less knowledge as she was still learning.

TheCrazyHobo wrote... |
Is a Dog smarter than a human when it rips out his juggular.

A very poor example. Going for the throat is a dog's instinct, which they use on all prey (human or not.) Intelligence is the capacity to move beyond instinct, which dogs can only do in very rudimentary ways. 

Xen's attack on the Geth was, by contrast, truly intelligent. She learned from Rael's experiments and developed a way to disrupt Geth communications, a technique to which they could not adapt without Reaper assistance. Not at all the same thing. But Legion tells you himself that, had they completed their megastructure, turning to the Reapers for protection would not have been necessary at all. This implies that they would have achieved singularity on their own.

TheCrazyHobo wrote... 
By the way, do you have any response to the Reapers and Virtual Aliens already reaching Singularity?

Reapers are not purely synthetic - they are hybrids. Furthermore, they are constrained by the Catalyst's directive to carry out the cycle. They are not an example of the true threat that the Catalyst is designed to prevent.

Not sure what you mean by "Virtual Aliens."

First:  Just because something is willing to learn does not mean it less intelligent, it actually an indicator that it is more intelligent.  What evidence do you have that she is less intelligent than the "average human," or quite frankly any human.    

Second:  The illustration of the Dog just shows that an inferior being can take advantage of an advanced one due to PHYSICAL WEAKNESS.  Intelligence does not mean you have overcome all your physical problems.  We are more intelligent than dogs, yet they rip our throats out.  It regrets me that you did not pick that up.  

Third: No, the Geth were already smarter than most in large numbers, which was the point of the Dyson Sphere.  It was created to give INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM to each geth software progam.  They would no logner need to have each other around to be functional.  They would be as individual as Legion or, depending on choices, Post-Rannoch Geth.  

Fourth:  A tech singularity's definition fits the Reapers, read it. 

Fifth: Go to the Mass Effect Wiki about questions regarding the Virtual Aliens.  They are about as Cannnon as Emily Wong's death.  

[Heeden]

dreman9999 wrote...
But this is an infinate universe. The don't need the same sources of materials or even need the same matrials as we do. And base on what the geth were building, they don't even need bodies...

It may be an infinite universe but most of it is really far away, and why should they bother about a few ants getting crushed when they want to build a galactic-scale Dyson-sphere. The key comes down to what they desire - what's at the base of their program. Reapers are bad enough from our perspective, imagine ones that didn't have the same restraint and sense of fair-play.

[Veneke]

dreman9999 wrote...

What you not understanding is why trust the starchild and if your even understanding what the starchild means by his vague explinations? He is the one that offers synthesis, he's the one that understand how it works...You don't. The vague explination leaves the understanding of it open to interpretation but what ever you think it means is irrelivent....What is is what the starchild know what it means because what he knows what it mean is how it is going to be applied. Can you trust the star child with his past actions and vague explinations?

 
That's a valid objection. The honest answer is I don't know why you would trust the starchild from an ingame point of view. It makes no sense to trust him. It only makes sense if you think about it from the player's (and not Shep's) point of view.
 
The fact is that the starchild must be telling the truth because of the narrative issues that arise if he is not. If he is lying then the endings collapse under their own weight - see Indoc. Theory. If he's lying then there are bigger questions than those that already exist, such as why lie to Shep/player? Lying would also call into question everything about starchild and considering his late entry and the fact that he's the only interaction you have with the endings it'd be stupidity on a collosal scale to have him lie to the player without it being very clear that he's lying.
 
Ask yourself this though: At any point in the ME series has any character ever lied to you where it didn't become apparent that he was lying?

Well, Synthesis is a much faster way to control organics then havesting them every 50000 years.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

It could be. A conversation point you'd have thought might have been included in the ending if it were true. OTOH, if that was the case - why not just have the Reapers build the Crucible themselves and toss some random sod in there?

Modifié par Veneke, 21 mai 2012 - 05:46 .

[PsyrenY]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
[/quote]" I control the reaper."  "They  are my salution"..."To Chaos.":whistle:[/quote]

Yeah, all that was before you installed the Crucible. You know, that giant machine the army was protecting? The one that changed him?

[quote]dreman9999 wrote... 
Also....Machines with a history of great deception.
[/quote]

Was he deceiving you about Destroy and Control? They did exactly what he said they would do. Unless the Reapers fell over in the red explosion, then got right back up again when the cameras turned off, is that what you're claiming?

[dreman9999]

Heeden wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But this is an infinate universe. The don't need the same sources of materials or even need the same matrials as we do. And base on what the geth were building, they don't even need bodies...

It may be an infinite universe but most of it is really far away, and why should they bother about a few ants getting crushed when they want to build a galactic-scale Dyson-sphere. The key comes down to what they desire - what's at the base of their program. Reapers are bad enough from our perspective, imagine ones that didn't have the same restraint and sense of fair-play.

Base on to what the geth were building....The geth don't even need or want too move. Why synthetics want the things I eat when they can get it anywhere? Say they weill attack just because is saying they have logic of a child...They don't.

[dreman9999]

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
[/quote]" I control the reaper."  "They  are my salution"..."To Chaos.":whistle:[/quote]

Yeah, all that was before you installed the Crucible. You know, that giant machine the army was protecting? The one that changed him?

[quote]dreman9999 wrote... 
Also....Machines with a history of great deception.
[/quote]

Was he deceiving you about Destroy and Control? They did exactly what he said they would do. Unless the Reapers fell over in the red explosion, then got right back up again when the cameras turned off, is that what you're claiming?

[/quote]1. That doesn't mean he lost control the reapers as soon as the crucible was parked and it's not like he is not trying the control the situation any way.

2. Based on synthesis they ae not need because they already did what they want but faster...Control organic life.
Also,in control....What I see is them leaving the one army the had any way traped in the sol system as they harvest the rest of the galexy...