9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's gorgeous, but Cameron needs some help in the...originality department when it comes to actual stories.

Very ambitious though, and I respect that.

[JShepppp]

 Dunno if it's been answered or discussed within this huge number of pages, but about the Catalyst not doing synthesis - another way to show that it wasn't in its power is to apply the Kardashev Scale and see that the Crucible is Type III and the Catalyst/Reapers are Type II. I know it's a bit abritrary to include the Kardashev Scale, but it might help put things in perspective for those willing to use it.

I made a thread about the Kardashev Scale long ago here (can read the OP, but the rest of the thread is pretty much dead). 

[Taboo]

The Reapers are type two. If they were type three they would be able to travel between galaxies.

I don't know what the Crucible is though.

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Reapers are type two. If they were type three they would be able to travel between galaxies.

I don't know what the Crucible is though.

Crucible I think is Type 3 because it affects the entire galaxy at once, which is a level of energy far beyond that of Type II. It's almost the definition of type 3, being able to control an entire galaxy at once or affect it.

[Taboo]

JShepppp wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Reapers are type two. If they were type three they would be able to travel between galaxies.

I don't know what the Crucible is though.

Crucible I think is Type 3 because it affects the entire galaxy at once, which is a level of energy far beyond that of Type II. It's almost the definition of type 3, being able to control an entire galaxy at once or affect it.

That makes sense. It's also something I would have thought the Reapers would have been looking our for.

That actually lends me to believe that the Catalyst believed that he would never have to deal with something more powerful than his creations.

Those organics are so tricky sometimes.

[DrZann]

MisterJB wrote...

DrZann wrote...
Being able to interface with a world of living technology has interesting possibilities.

Indeed. Would this be similar to what the Na'vi do in "Avatar"?

Don't laugh, but I have not yet seen Avatar. It is on my to-do list though.

Piers Anthony's novel Shade of the Tree definitely comes to mind as a place to start though.

[Taboo]

Go watch Solaris. Or Stalker.

Your time will be better used there.

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo:
Well, I think we're nearing the point where we've exhausted the fruitful subtopics, but you're right in one thing: speculation about this and constructing scenarios that may or may not work are much more fun than endlessly ****ing about something. Tbh, one of the things that fascinates me about Synthesis is that the post-Synthesis galaxy appears so much more interesting than post-Destroy or post-Control. Lots of new stuff, new lifestyles, new cultures. The others appear rather pedestrian in comparison. Yeah, must be my radical tendency coming through.

Btw...I hope you don't mind me saying it, but there are times when you appear to go off the rails...

I don't think you've actually reached that point yet . Wait day or two and someone else will open this page or even start the next one and begin to sing the same old tune about immorality of your choice and perhaps calling you names - people don't usually bother to go even through the previous pages. You should take pride in one major thing - you stayed true to your own beliefs, offered plausible points of views, explanations and kept your calm for the most of the part and that is something rarely seen on these boards in past few months. And (I know that English teachers would not agree on my starting of sentence with the conjuction 'and', but right now, I don't give a fig for it), there is one more moral issue that appears in Destroy option apart from killing the geth and EDI, but somehow I haven't seen it mentioned yet. I want to share it with you:

As we know, Mass Effect universe is consisted of many organic species - some of them are space born and some of them are primitive. 'Til start of Shepard's cycle reaping, all technological advanced species used relays and thus progressed further (along the reaper familiar lines). But, all those species have one thing in common - it's their own way of thinking, understanding of morality, their unique percpetion of the world (as we saw in all parts of Mass Effect - they don't share human point of view on many things and what's moral and immoral for them is very often different from our understanding of the very same categories). If we are to say that there was no consent on widespread species change in Synthesis, that Shepard can't feel self-entitled to impose the change without agreement with others, then we have to take into account the same reasoning for Destroy.

All these Shepards keep forgetting that they're acting as humans, not as salarians or quarians or asari or yagh even - and who's to say that they would approve of Shepard's decision if they knew about all three choices? They are loosing the ability to travel faster than FTL and those sapient but not space-born species are loosing the ability or they are being delayed for long time to actually meet others as it was the case with humans, technological further evolution from contact with advanced species is denied to them for the time being, even though they will become space-born - none of them gets to be asked either and who's to say they'd have the same reasoning? We've already seen they are more prone to dismiss human claims and see those as enforcing human agenda - it's just we don't share common views because we are different, with some species literally, we are different in sui generis. I can bet that many of them would percieve choices differently as well as what should've been chosen.

No Shepard on this world can get consensus on his/hers choice whatever they choose - but as pro-Destroy folks keep pulling out the right to self-determination, they keep forgetting, it's only theirs self-determination and denying of the same to other species that are different from humans and their understanding of what's right or wrong. I really don't think that salarian or even asari would have such condescending attitude toward Destroy as it's presented  - but they are not in Shepard's shoes, nor is anyone else - and somehow s/he has to ensure survival. As I said, from the game itself we saw all three outcomes stop the reaper threat, each choice is a valid one - and Synthesis and Destroy should be measured by the same measurements - there is no morality in Destroy ending either because one human is making a decision, not salarian or asari or railoi. Democracy is not democracy when one tells and enforces his understanding of it.

Anyway, I just wished to tell you this - maybe it'll help you a bit with stubborn heads around here to understand what are you saying this whole time. Now, it's way past my bed time, I bid you all good night .

[DrZann]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Go watch Solaris. Or Stalker.

Your time will be better used there.

Seen them, prefer the books. Raodside Picnic has more action and I've always had a fondness for hairy babies.

Modifié par DrZann, 17 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[iHorizons]

Synthesis is complete garbage, it's Space Magic and makes no sense

[Ieldra]

I've been asked about the details of the organic/synthetic distinction I make. Here is it again, rephrasing and expanding from the OP:

First, I think the writers didn't really think about this, but wrote the Synthesis like a parallel to "mixing two species with different biochemistry". But that doesn't work, at least not for most Shepards, because if we play reasonably Paragon, then it was an important theme in all three games that such differences can be overcome without something as drastic as Synthesis. The organic/synthetic problem would be a non-problem.

Thus, *if* the Catalyst's point has anything worthwhile thinking about, then the organic/synthetic distinction that makes the destruction of organics inevitable inevitable must be something different.

Now consider the singularity: synthetics can self-improve fast in both hardware and software, that's what makes the singularity possible. Why can't organics do that? It is because organics' design doesn't facilitate easy self-improvement. If you want to improve an organic, you must always consider the whole organism. DNA is not a blueprint, but a growth manual (this is really, really important and most people unfamiliar with the basics of molecular genetics tend to overlook it). You can't just "add an extra X" to an organic like you can to a synthetic, but you must design an "organism with the extra X" from ground up. The same on the mental level. Synthetics are fully aware of their thought processes if they want, they can analyze and change their own programming. The design of the human brain makes that impossible, at least without significantly more effort at analysis than would ever be needed for a synthetic.

So, the difference between organics and synthetics lies in the design principles they're based on. Organics are like the result of turning a calculator program into an AI by applying a billion tiny patches (that's how evolution works). The result is an absolute mess from a design viewpoint, but the whole works. Synthetics are well-designed because they *were* designed, and are not the result of a blind process of random changes and selection. Order and chaos.

Because of this difference in design, the singularity is possible. Because of the singularity, there is the danger that organics will eventually be surpassed and destroyed by synthetics, in the same thoughtless manner we are destroying other species on Earth. At least that's the only rationalization I've found so far that works. Others may be possible.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I've been asked about the details of the organic/synthetic distinction I make. Here is it again, rephrasing and expanding from the OP:

First, I think the writers didn't really think about this, but wrote the Synthesis like a parallel to "mixing two species with different biochemistry". But that doesn't work, at least not for most Shepards, because if we play reasonably Paragon, then it was an important theme in all three games that such differences can be overcome without something as drastic as Synthesis. The organic/synthetic problem would be a non-problem.

Thus, *if* the Catalyst's point has anything worthwhile thinking about, then the organic/synthetic distinction that makes the destruction of organics inevitable inevitable must be something different.

Now consider the singularity: synthetics can self-improve fast in both hardware and software, that's what makes the singularity possible. Why can't organics do that? It is because organics' design doesn't facilitate easy self-improvement. If you want to improve an organic, you must always consider the whole organism. DNA is not a blueprint, but a growth manual (this is really, really important and most people unfamiliar with the basics of molecular genetics tend to overlook it). You can't just "add an extra X" to an organic like you can to a synthetic, but you must design an "organism with the extra X" from ground up. The same on the mental level. Synthetics are fully aware of their thought processes if they want, they can analyze and change their own programming. The design of the human brain makes that impossible, at least without significantly more effort at analysis than would ever be needed for a synthetic.

So, the difference between organics and synthetics lies in the design principles they're based on. Organics are like the result of turning a calculator program into an AI by applying a billion tiny patches (that's how evolution works). The result is an absolute mess from a design viewpoint, but the whole works. Synthetics are well-designed because they *were* designed, and are not the result of a blind process of random changes and selection. Order and chaos.

Because of this difference in design, the singularity is possible. Because of the singularity, there is the danger that organics will eventually be surpassed and destroyed by synthetics, in the same thoughtless manner we are destroying other species on Earth. At least that's the only rationalization I've found so far that works. Others may be possible.

Yes, synthetics can add x, y, z parts, but they
are also subjected to increasing risk of being corrupted, the more intricated they are, the more vulnerable

Singularity, like evolution is limited by the universe within its constants, technological change happens due to stimulus, no stimulus, no change, you don't get smart for nothing

Modifié par Vigilant111, 17 juin 2012 - 08:08 .

[Ieldra]

Follow-up from the previous post (hmph...now two above, didn't expect intervention in this short time at this time of the day):

The main result of that - of the fact that the defining difference between organics and synthetics is nothing biochemical (in the broadest possible sense) but the design principle they're based on - is that you can't make a hybrid synthetics/organics based on their defining difference. You can take any functional part out of a life form and it's either created on one principle or the other, or it consists of smaller parts, each of which is either created from one principle or the other. Nothing can be "halfway between 'designed like synthetics' and 'self-grown like organics'". The idea of a hybrid between the two is as nonsensical as the idea that a lamp can be somewhere between on and off. But any complex life form can be, rather obviously, a "mix of aspects designed and grown".

That's the reason why I make the following two claims:
(1) There is no literal new DNA-analogue.
(2) The Synthesis would be more appropriately described as a symbiosis.

@Vigilant:
The "corruption" would be synthetics' equivalent for aging. I can see no reason why that should be a necessary part of any life form, organic or synthetic.

And the singularity is a premise frequently used in SF. If you are unwillling to suspend your disbelief for it, that's not my problem. There is certainly nothing in the idea that it prevents it from working. In fact, it's a very sound science-fictional idea, extending known tendencies into the unknown, a much harder (on the scale of SF hardness) idea than eezo, FTL, biotics, inter-species mental sex, Javik's psychometry etc. etc.. It's incomprehensible that you can accept all that stuff but balk at the singularity. Really, come on. That's just stupid.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2012 - 08:22 .

[Vigilant111]

In response to my post, you would now argue that the more intricate synthetics are, the more checkpoints and security measures against corruption will be put in place, and I would argue that, the more checkpoints there are, the less efficient the synthetics operate

Modifié par Vigilant111, 17 juin 2012 - 08:15 .

[Ieldra]

No, I would argue that this point is completely irrelevant because we have no idea how synthetics operate in detail. It's not important for the story, as opposed to the defining difference to organics, and thus it does not need to be addressed by the story. It works, somehow, and unless you can show that there can't possibly any way that it could work (for instance by running into an irrefutable contradiction), it is irrelevant.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2012 - 08:28 .

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

All these Shepards keep forgetting that they're acting as humans, not as salarians or quarians or asari or yagh even - and who's to say that they would approve of Shepard's decision if they knew about all three choices?

Hi, Cerberus.

No Shepard on this world can get consensus on his/hers choice whatever they choose - but as pro-Destroy folks keep pulling out the right to self-determination, they keep forgetting, it's only theirs self-determination and denying of the same to other species that are different from humans and their understanding of what's right or wrong.

Uh, I don’t know what you’re arguing about. Are you under the impression that when I say that Shepard shouldn‘t be making such a decision without consulting the beings victimized by it, that I’m somehow talking about only asking the humans and not anyone else?

‘Cause, you know, you’d be incorrect.

You’re also creating a false dilemma between ‘don’t tell anybody’ and ‘everybody must agree’. Those are not the only options.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And you keep sidestepping the issue. Are you denying that Shepard's death and the relay destruction are objective downsides? Are you denying that from the players' perspective, the non-immediate results of any of the choices are subjective? Really? That's just stupid. We wouldn't have all these violent debates about what the endings mean if they weren't subjective.

You’ll notice — or, apparently not — that I explicitly included Shepard’s death in my question about choosing the objectively better result. Relay destruction is ± 0 (see below), but I’ll add it for you.

I’m absolutely denying that the results are subjective. Your argument — let me reiterate that, YOUR ARGUMENT — is that organic life will be destroyed by synthetics at some point in the future. This is an objective component of the end.

What you do about it is subjective. If you don’t even understand this, it’s really hard to have a rational conversation — but that’s no particular surprise given how adamantly you believe that your headcanon is actually in the game.

And to claim that I’m sidestepping? I’ve asked you the same very simple question 3 times now, without an answer. I’ll ask again (reformulated for your pleasure):

1. You can die and stop the inevitable extinction of organics (relays may or may not be destroyed, but will be operational again with little work); or

2. You can live and not stop the inevitable extinction of organics (relays may or may not be destroyed wholly or in part).

You appear to me as someone who wants to force that thrice-damned dark age on an option you don't like and remove it from the option you do like. Thank you very much.

Ah, this is a case of you ignoring facts once again. It’s very convenient to argue when you construct your own strawmen. I quote myself:

“Synthesis: Shepard dies so that the loved ones and the entire galaxy can
live free from fear. Relay destruction TBDetermined, but even if
destroyed, presumably combined with reaper knowledge, it'll be
reasonably easy to get things running again.”

Besides, I find the current balance acceptable. It's *your* scenario which is shamelessly weighted in favor of Destroy I have an issue with.

You only like the artificial balance because it removes the sacrifice from Synthesis. You can’t handle it.

It’s obvious, I don’t need to read minds. When the choice is between you surviving and leaving the galaxy in trouble, and you dying but helping the galaxy,  you want to choose surviving. It’s perfectly OK. That’s what most people would do.

Don’t punish everyone just because you’re disappointed in yourself for not having the fortitude to make the hard choice.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, I would argue that this point is completely irrelevant because we have no idea how synthetics operate in detail. It's not important for the story, as opposed to the defining difference to organics, and thus it does not need to be addressed by the story. It works, somehow, and unless you can show that there can't possibly any way that it could work (for instance by running into an irrefutable contradiction), it is irrelevant.

YOU have no idea how synthetics operate? but the people in the ME universe do, if singularity is such a bad thing, why would they build AI in the first place?

It works, "SOMEHOW"? way to avoid the question, u r the most forefront proponent of sigularity yet u don't know how it works or how it comes about, how do you expect others to know??? Singularity may not even have crossed their minds

Nothing can be irrefutable contradiction to your fan fiction, nothing is good enough

[Vigilant111]

It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...
It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

It’s great how you just accept it as a premise like that based on something you have no capability to judge, you just assume it’s superintelligent, or an AI, or even a million years old. It makes sense, right?


But I agree, we can accept that there’s a non-negligible chance of a hostile singularity.

Oh, except when you’re talking about my approach. Then you seem to be unable to accept your own premise. Which makes sense. Right?

Furthermore, we can reject the idea that it matters whether there is such a chance or not. Either way, Synthesis is one of the options you get.

This doesn’t solve the problems with the ‘solution’ to the problem, of course, like the one that it doesn’t actually solve the problem, as well as its general implausibility, but we’ll just go with the flow.

[Ieldra]

@lilittheris:
Oops....It seems I must concede the point (eh...the one in your second-but-previous post, things are moving fast). I didn't read your thread for some time and remembered wrongly. Which means, that the only objective downside of Synthesis in your scenario is Shepard's death. That's acceptable. As it should be, even.

I still maintain that the non-immediate effects of any of the choices are subjective. Do you really think many people choose Destroy for survival, accepting that organics will be destroyed by synthetics some time in the future? Not if this forum is any indication. Perhaps that's as it was intended, and I agree it would be a good sacrifice setup, but in that case the Catalyst needs to make a stronger case. Bioware made it too easy to dismiss the Catalyst.

BTW, I would highly appreciate you leaving off the presumption of telling me what I supposedly think. If you keep that up, we have nothing more to talk about, regardless of the merit of the arguments.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2012 - 09:42 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

It is an issue, because there is no evidence of a synthetic threat ANYWHERE in the game.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

It is an issue, because there is no evidence of a synthetic threat ANYWHERE in the game.

I agree, but that's not a singularity-specific problem. The whole Catalyst dialogue as written makes no sense, and all I'm doing is trying to twist and tweak the meaning so I can make it make sense. Independently of what exactly we use to make things make sense, the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics shoud've been foreshadowed in a much more drastic way. The Zha'til would have been a good example, except that ultimately the Reapers were responsible and if they hadn't been, the Zha'til example would invalidate Synthesis as an option.

What a mess.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2012 - 09:53 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

It is an issue, because there is no evidence of a synthetic threat ANYWHERE in the game.

I agree, but that's not a singularity-specific problem. The whole Catalyst dialogue as written makes no sense, and all I'm doing is trying to twist and tweak the meaning so I can make it make sense. Independently of what exactly we use to make things make sense, the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics shoud've been foreshadowed in a much more drastic way. The Zha'til would have been a good example, except that ultimately the Reapers were responsible and if they hadn't been, the Zha'til example would invalidate Synthesis as an option.

What a mess.

You are asking us to based our decision on the INTENTIONS of the game (of which u PROPOSED) rather than actual evidence, okay...I will accept that, but only as your OPINION