9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You have permission to do one thing. Stop the Reapers. Destroy serves that function.

Believing what you want above others is oppressive. You shouldn't be suprised I use the words I do to critique you. It's absolutely abhorrent.

You see people as a means to an end.

I'm asked to make a decision based on information only I am privy too, you recommend commiting genocide because it's morally justified by "only following orders", and you call me morally abhorent?

Dammit, I didn't want to be dragged back down to this level, oh well.

The Geth are dead remember? The destruction of the Reapers is unethical, as was the Collectors, but it's a disgusting side effect.

I am morally repugant for choosing Destory. I'll never deny that. The difference is that my Shepard will be able to take responsibility for my actions. You throw that out the window the moment you jump.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...
The Geth are dead remember? The destruction of the Reapers is unethical, as was the Collectors, but it's a disgusting side effect.

I am morally repugant for choosing Destory. I'll never deny that. The difference is that my Shepard will be able to take responsibility for my actions. You throw that out the window the moment you jump.

So you're willing to commit genocide on the Reapers just to follow your own moral code of accountability?

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
The Geth are dead remember? The destruction of the Reapers is unethical, as was the Collectors, but it's a disgusting side effect.

I am morally repugant for choosing Destory. I'll never deny that. The difference is that my Shepard will be able to take responsibility for my actions. You throw that out the window the moment you jump.

So you're willing to commit genocide on the Reapers just to follow your own moral code of accountability?

I must take responsibility for my actions. I will not compromise and choose the other decisions because they affect all races. When taken into account, I either violate everyone, enslave incredibly powerful beings or destroy them.

The consensus was to stop the Reapers. Nothing else was asked of me.

I can't justify it, and I'm not going to, becasue I can't. But I will take responsibility for it's action.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...


I am morally repugant for choosing Destory. I'll never deny that. The difference is that my Shepard will be able to take responsibility for my actions. You throw that out the window the moment you jump.

You're saying this to people who openly advocate for an unpopular opinion on a wild-west style internet forum. Our Shepards may be dead, but we ourselves have shown ability to take accountability for our action just fine.

Defending synthesis on this board is practically a gluttony of punishment.

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...


I am morally repugant for choosing Destory. I'll never deny that. The difference is that my Shepard will be able to take responsibility for my actions. You throw that out the window the moment you jump.

You're saying this to people who openly advocate for an unpopular opinion on a wild-west style internet forum. Our Shepards may be dead, but we ourselves have shown ability to take accountability for our action just fine.

Defending synthesis on this board is practically a gluttony of punishment.

No you don't. He/She is dead.

You won't be speaking at all.

People will want to know what happened, and no one will have ANY idea what happened in the Crucible.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

No you don't. He/She is dead.

You won't be speaking at all.

People will want to know what happened, and no one will have ANY idea what happened in the Crucible.

I disagree. I think people will be able to connect the dots with whatever information comes out. Hackett knows Shepard was there, and I should doubt he was alone in the room when he had him over the comms. And some people may have seen Shepard limp toward the beam.

Word will get out about just enough details for people to figure out. It happens all the time. They won't know for certain, but I think plenty of people will reach that conclusion all the same.

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No you don't. He/She is dead.

You won't be speaking at all.

People will want to know what happened, and no one will have ANY idea what happened in the Crucible.

I disagree. I think people will be able to connect the dots with whatever information comes out. Hackett knows Shepard was there, and I should doubt he was alone in the room when he had him over the comms. And some people may have seen Shepard limp toward the beam.

Word will get out about just enough details for people to figure out. It happens all the time. They won't know for certain, but I think plenty of people will reach that conclusion all the same.

That isn't what I mean. People who are unhappy with Synthesis are going to be stuck like that. People will be able to piece things together, but won't understand the steps that lead to it.

That is irresponsible. It's stupid to mention, but it's irresponsible, especially when Shepard knows he had two other choices.

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
No, you are irresponsible if you reject Synthesis for that reason only. *If* you believe that Synthesis gives the best future for the great majority of all intelligent life in the galaxy, then you're sacrificing the future on the altar of a principle if you don't take it.

[Nimrodell]

If you have some spare time, look at these three video-interviews on tech singularity on the YouTube channel of Bigthink website - Jaron Lanier and Ray Kurzweil.

Also, I also sincerely recommend next video answers from professor Michio Kaku on the same YouTube channel:

Tweaking Moore's Law and the Computers of the Post-Silicon Era

The Dark Side of Technology

Could We Transport Our Consciousness Into Robots?

and

How to Stop Robots From Killing Us .

All his video naswers on Bigthink channel are wonderful, but these can help us understand what we're actually discussing.

[Nimrodell]

Ah I forgot to mention (this is especially for Taboo because Kurzweil gives one side and I need to provide both sides, both points of view so the objectivity is closer). Dan Simmons actually describes what Taboo was referring to when he mentioned Fassbinder's film 'World on a Wire' - in Simmon's tetralogy Hyperion Cantos we actually encounter those parts of society that are wired to their computers, unable to function in the real world, with degenerated bodies and their minds constantly linked - it's horrifying picture, but also it actually doesn't resemble anything in Synthesis, its game presentation. There is also famous Shrike and its Tree of Pain (I assume that Shrike Abyssal, its naming actually originates from Simmons' Shrike, a menacing half-mechanical, half-organic creature, that sometimes acts on its own and sometimes it seems it's been controlled by some other higher power or law).

[Ieldra]

@Nimrodell:
Thanks. I'll be unable to watch videos for most of the day and thus unable to comment on them but I'll certainly have a look.

@all:
I'd like to comment on the statements about transhumanism on the previous two pages:

Suppose this hypothetical scenario really gives people all those options DrZann has mentioned: overcoming death, independence from morphology, conjoining minds etc.. (note that the geth have all this, so it's totally on-topic in a discussion about what Synthesis might or might not do)...

Why is that bad? Why is giving people these new options bad?

People are saying it would make us other than human. Well, read the first line of the OP - that's sort of the point. We're trying to remove fundamental limitations of the human condition. But there's no particular virtue in having these limitations, they are something to be overcome. All this is based on the idea that to become other than we are now is our fate anyway and we're just speeding up the process. If you don't think so, then, well, you are free to not use any of the offered options. You've given the tools. What you do with them is your choice.

If you reply that - with Mordin - removing these limitations at this point is dangerous because we're not ready for it, that *appears* to be a different argument, basically saying that removing them is desirable but not now. But it's the same in disguise. For if not now, then when? There is no way to adapt to a life without those limitations than to live without them. The only valid point of criticism is that the change would come too sudden and leave people not enough time to familiarize themselves with the new situation. That's why, in my original proposal, I limited the immediate effect to one new option, based on the idea that whoever built that stuff into the Crucible knew what they were doing. But that doesn't change the basic desirability of others.

Also, to those who say any scenario that doesn't outright force people into these things wouldn't be a solution: not so. It's only necessary that enough people pick them up, not nearly all. We know salarians embrace their equivalent of transhumanism (an EDI/Shepard conversation on the Normandy)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 09:43 .

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

(I assume that Shrike Abyssal, its naming actually originates from Simmons' Shrike, a menacing half-mechanical, half-organic creature, that sometimes acts on its own and sometimes it seems it's been controlled by some other higher power or law).

I think that‘s probably where the name comes from, although without any more connotation than ‘it sounds cool’ especially as there are no references to anything weird going on over there*. I don’t see why they would have named it after the bird, at least.


* Actually, now I’m going to have to go back to read the books to see if the location of Hyperion is referred to…maybe it’s supposedly somewhere in that area.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, to those who say any scenario that doesn't outright force people into these things wouldn't be a solution: not so. It's only necessary that enough people pick them up, not nearly all. We know salarians embrace their equivalent of transhumanism (an EDI/Shepard conversation on the Normandy)

I say it doesn’t work by definition, if it doesn’t apply to everyone…it seems that you operate from the basis that so long as one being that you refer to as an organic (but actually isn’t), but that’s not really the point. You also don’t address those flora and fauna who are incapable of making the determination of opting in or out for themselves. Also, how is someone who opts out supposed to survive if the lettuce is cybernetic now, too?

It just doesn’t make any sense. For the entire idea of synthesis to work, it must be universal.

[Haargel]

http://preview.image...s&text2=&text3=

Synthesis: mass rape of the universe.

Modifié par Haargel, 19 juin 2012 - 11:20 .

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

(I assume that Shrike Abyssal, its naming actually originates from Simmons' Shrike, a menacing half-mechanical, half-organic creature, that sometimes acts on its own and sometimes it seems it's been controlled by some other higher power or law).

I think that‘s probably where the name comes from, although without any more connotation than ‘it sounds cool’ especially as there are no references to anything weird going on over there*. I don’t see why they would have named it after the bird, at least.


* Actually, now I’m going to have to go back to read the books to see if the location of Hyperion is referred to…maybe it’s supposedly somewhere in that area.

The only thing unusual going on there were those assignments from Mass Effect 2 as I recall. Blood Pack and that sort of a weapon development facility... and then those relays (uh hated that one, the fog and those horrible huge bugs, still nothing beats the mission in Minos Wasteland with that mine filled with those husks - ugh - you won't believe me when I tell you, but I was actually afraid in Mass Effect 3 when Minos Wasteland appeared on the galactic map, it all came back to me lol, that assignment, then the Mass Effect 1 assignment with that ship filled with husks, then The Reaper IFF and irrational fears I have because it all remind me on Event Horizon movie - I know, it's stupid, but I am afraid of those missions, honestly lol). But still, I find it strange coincidence that they actually named it Shrike Abyssal - I thought, maybe they are paying hommage to Simmon's Shrike.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, to those who say any scenario that doesn't outright force people into these things wouldn't be a solution: not so. It's only necessary that enough people pick them up, not nearly all. We know salarians embrace their equivalent of transhumanism (an EDI/Shepard conversation on the Normandy)

I say it doesn’t work by definition, if it doesn’t apply to everyone…it seems that you operate from the basis that so long as one being that you refer to as an organic (but actually isn’t), but that’s not really the point. You also don’t address those flora and fauna who are incapable of making the determination of opting in or out for themselves. Also, how is someone who opts out supposed to survive if the lettuce is cybernetic now, too?

It just doesn’t make any sense. For the entire idea of synthesis to work, it must be universal.

Leaving the matter of hybrid plants aside for the moment - yes, everyone gets the tools. But not everyone needs to use them in order for this to work as a solution. As for food, do you know how many things there are in our food that pass the digestive system without ever chemically interacting with our bodies? That's a non-problem.

BTW, self-determination for plants and animals? Don't tell me you're serious...

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 12:12 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Leaving the matter of hybrid plants aside for the moment - yes, everyone gets the tools. But not everyone needs to use them in order for this to work as a solution. As for food, do you know how many things there are in our food that pass the digestive system without ever chemically interacting with our bodies? That's a non-problem.

Get back to me when you’ve eaten a circuit board full of nanobots that are purposed to perpetuate themselves in the life forms they exist in. Or just a circuit board is fine for starters, really.

It’s not a hand-wavey issue. Nor are hybrid plants.

BTW, self-determination for plants and animals? Don't tell me you're serious...

I’m totally serious, in that you tout the ability to opt out. It doesn’t really make sense, as I said, but leaving that aside for the moment: how exactly does this happen? Let’s say I don’t want to become a hybrid. What do I do to avoid it?

Can dolphins opt out? Bonobos? Where’s that line?

Come to that, will dolphins be able to evolve further capabilities in the future, becoming truly sapient? If so, how? Can bonobos? What about dogs? If not, why not? What is the difference?

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 juin 2012 - 12:20 .

[Ieldra]

You insist that Synthesis only works if it also changes plants and animals? May I ask why?

For the food: Eating a circuit board is an inappropriate analogy. You could eat food with a 10% nanobot content and not even realize it. I could say that eaten nanobots pass the digestive system without interacting with the body. I could say all sorts of other reasonable things, but I shouldn't have to. Not on this level anyway. At some point with any SF concept, you just have to assume that things work. Like you do with FTL which reallly should NOT work. Even hard SF is centered around the concept that anything that doesn't violate some fundamental principle of physics is considered possible - it doesn't matter how! And ME is anything but hard SF.

Here's an example: If you see traversable wormholes in an SF story I can almost guarantee that you will NOT ask how the people who built them got the exotic matter with negative mass that's needed to build such things. If you bother to do any research at all, you'll just accept that physicists can't rule the existence of such stuff out.
So why go to this level of detail here? 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 01:25 .

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, to those who say any scenario that doesn't outright force people into these things wouldn't be a solution: not so. It's only necessary that enough people pick them up, not nearly all. We know salarians embrace their equivalent of transhumanism (an EDI/Shepard conversation on the Normandy)

I say it doesn’t work by definition, if it doesn’t apply to everyone…it seems that you operate from the basis that so long as one being that you refer to as an organic (but actually isn’t), but that’s not really the point. You also don’t address those flora and fauna who are incapable of making the determination of opting in or out for themselves. Also, how is someone who opts out supposed to survive if the lettuce is cybernetic now, too?

It just doesn’t make any sense. For the entire idea of synthesis to work, it must be universal.

Leaving the matter of hybrid plants aside for the moment - yes, everyone gets the tools. But not everyone needs to use them in order for this to work as a solution. As for food, do you know how many things there are in our food that pass the digestive system without ever chemically interacting with our bodies? That's a non-problem.

BTW, self-determination for plants and animals? Don't tell me you're serious...

Do you know how many things there are that if we tried to eat them wouldn't pass the digestive system without ever chemically interacting with our bodies? How many of these things are in the hybrid plants and animals?

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You insist that Synthesis only works if it also changes plants and animals? May I ask why?

For the food: Eating a circuit board is an inappropriate analogy. You could eat food with a 10% nanobot content and not even realize it. I could say that eaten nanobots pass the digestive system without interacting with the body. I could say all sorts of other reasonable things, but I shouldn't have to. Not on this level anyway. At some point with any SF concept, you just have to assume that things work. Like you do with FTL which reallly should NOT work. Even hard SF is centered around the concept that anything that doesn't violate some fundamental principle of physics is considered possible - it doesn't matter how! And ME is anything but hard SF.

Here's an example: If you see traversable wormholes in an SF story I can almost guarantee that you will NOT ask how the people who built them got the exotic matter with negative mass that's needed to build such things. If you bother to do any research at all, you'll just accept that physicists can't rule the existence of such stuff out.
So why go to this level of detail here? 

But we've seen the plants change in the scene.

[Ieldra]

KingZayd wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You insist that Synthesis only works if it also changes plants and animals? May I ask why?

For the food: Eating a circuit board is an inappropriate analogy. You could eat food with a 10% nanobot content and not even realize it. I could say that eaten nanobots pass the digestive system without interacting with the body. I could say all sorts of other reasonable things, but I shouldn't have to. Not on this level anyway. At some point with any SF concept, you just have to assume that things work. Like you do with FTL which reallly should NOT work. Even hard SF is centered around the concept that anything that doesn't violate some fundamental principle of physics is considered possible - it doesn't matter how! And ME is anything but hard SF.

Here's an example: If you see traversable wormholes in an SF story I can almost guarantee that you will NOT ask how the people who built them got the exotic matter with negative mass that's needed to build such things. If you bother to do any research at all, you'll just accept that physicists can't rule the existence of such stuff out.
So why go to this level of detail here? 

But we've seen the plants change in the scene.

We have also seen Joker's hat change. Until I know whether I'm supposed to lump the plants with Joker's hat as an artistic f*ckup or take them seriously, I'll let the matter lie. There's so much bad writing in this ending. Who's to say there isn't an equal amount of bad visual presentation?

Do you know how many things there are that if we tried to eat them
wouldn't pass the digestive system without ever chemically interacting
with our bodies? How many of these things are in the hybrid plants and
animals?

It is irrelevant damn it! If there are such substances - and I'm no expert, but I'd bet there are hundreds of thousands of them or there wouldn't be so much literal crap - then I can assume that those nanobots are made of others like them.

Now can we please stop this insane level of nitpicking? This is getting ridiculous. As if you'd never reacted to an SF concept with "Hmm...don't know exactly how they do it, but let's go with the story".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 01:40 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You insist that Synthesis only works if it also changes plants and animals? May I ask why?

Because we clearly see that it does, and I don’t see how it’d differentiate anyway. We can just ignore what the Catalyst says and what we see, of course, but in that case the responsibility of explanation falls on you since you’re removing things.

…

I’m really more interested in the question about dolphins, bonobos, and dogs, though. It sort of ties into this regardless of whether synthesis affects animals initially.

So in addition to the questions I posed above, let’s imagine that for some reason it didn’t affect animals at all. What is the difference between an animal and an ‘advanced animal’ like a human? How does synthesis decide which one gets changed and which one doesn’t? And if a dolphin doesn’t initially get affected, but they start evolving toward fuller sapience, when do they become hybridized, and why? This part isn’t nitpicking, it’s pretty damn important.

Conversely, what is an advanced-enough synthetic device that it’ll be hybridized? A toaster? A computer? A VI? What is the determinant? What if I have some hardware that doesn‘t get hybridized, but I later upload an AI onto it. Does it get hybridized then? How?

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 juin 2012 - 01:42 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Suppose this hypothetical scenario really gives people all those options DrZann has mentioned: overcoming death, independence from morphology, conjoining minds etc.. (note that the geth have all this, so it's totally on-topic in a discussion about what Synthesis might or might not do)...

Why is that bad? Why is giving people these new options bad?

People are saying it would make us other than human. Well, read the first line of the OP - that's sort of the point. We're trying to remove fundamental limitations of the human condition. But there's no particular virtue in having these limitations, they are something to be overcome. All this is based on the idea that to become other than we are now is our fate anyway and we're just speeding up the process. If you don't think so, then, well, you are free to not use any of the offered options. You've given the tools. What you do with them is your choice.

It's dictatorship. It is violating the right of self-determination. It is elitism, because you feel that it is somehow better for organics and synthetics. It is changing the racial identity of organics and synthetics. You cannot force all that on the races without their consent.

"An interesting choice, Shepard-commander. Your species was offered everything geth aspire to. True unity. Understanding. Transcendence. You rejected it. You even refused the possibility of using the Old Machines' gifts to achieve it on your species' own terms. You are more like us than we thought." - Legion.

If you cannot see the similarities between your proposal and the following then it is clear why you see nothing wrong with synthesis:

"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." - Sovereign.

This time the reapers do not force ascension or force to use their technology, but you force synthesis. These are different concepts, but the point is that no one desires synthesis to be forced upon them, but you. Forcing synthesis is the same kind of dictatorial decision.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 juin 2012 - 02:04 .

[Taboo]

I hate Destroy Ieldra. With a passion. But I refuse to enact Synthesis for the simple fact that it changes all life in a fundamental way. Control enslaves.

I am a morally repugnant being for choosing Destroy. I will not romaticize it. I destroy the Reapers, The Geth. That alone has my least favorite type of aesthetic in it.

I see it as a final act. One last temporary blow and the Galaxy will reset it's doomsday clock to zero. We will have to help one another if we wish to survive. If we wish to not help, then I assume responsibility. If people starve, that is my responsibility.

I can take responsibility for my actions, but I cannot justify them. I merely have more faith in people than you seem to.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Suppose this hypothetical scenario really gives people all those options DrZann has mentioned: overcoming death, independence from morphology, conjoining minds etc.. (note that the geth have all this, so it's totally on-topic in a discussion about what Synthesis might or might not do)...

Why is that bad? Why is giving people these new options bad?

People are saying it would make us other than human. Well, read the first line of the OP - that's sort of the point. We're trying to remove fundamental limitations of the human condition. But there's no particular virtue in having these limitations, they are something to be overcome. All this is based on the idea that to become other than we are now is our fate anyway and we're just speeding up the process. If you don't think so, then, well, you are free to not use any of the offered options. You've given the tools. What you do with them is your choice.

It's dictatorship. It is violating the right of self-determination. It is elitism, because you feel that it is somehow better for organics and synthetics. It is changing the racial identity of organics and synthetics. You cannot force all that on the races without their consent.

"An interesting choice, Shepard-commander. Your species was offered everything geth aspire to. True unity. Understanding. Transcendence. You rejected it. You even refused the possibility of using the Old Machines' gifts to achieve it on your species' own terms. You are more like us than we thought." - Legion.

If you cannot see the similarities between your proposal and the following then it is clear why you see nothing wrong with synthesis:

"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." - Sovereign.

This time the reapers do not force ascension or force to use their technology, but you force synthesis. These are different concepts, but the point is that no one desires synthesis, but you. Forcing synthesis is the same kind of dictatorial decision.

Well, no, I really cannot see the similarities between forcing a species into an ascended state like the Reapers do and giving it the option to achieve another kind of ascension now instead of in 100k years or so. That's like saying you'll resent being gifted a car along with everyone else because you prefer other means of transportation. I'd rather give it all only to those who want it, but unfortunately I don't have that option. Just as if I choose Control, everyone will live under the guardianship of ascended-Shepard instead of only those who want it, and what about the countless billions who'd resent being dumped into a dark age if you choose Destroy with no other benefits to make up for it?

Every choice is a dictatorial decision. That's the nature of the situation you find yourself in. And by the very fact that it's Shepard who's standing at the fulcrum of events, who's put his life on the line again and again for the good of the galaxy like nobody else, who was right again and again where others were wrong, and who is going to give up his life to end the Reaper threat, Shepard has earned the right to make that choice. If you don't agree with that, then you shouldn't read, watch or play stories featuring epic heroes.

As for the relays, by your logic destroying the relays is right. Not just a bad side effect, but right. Because you know, they bind us to the Reapers' path, and of course anything even remotely associated with the Reapers isn't just a tool but tainted by definition and must be avoided at all costs, even if it costs galactic civilization and brings about the 10k year dark age. /sarcasm.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 02:27 .