9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

The ending options differ in the extent of being dictatorial, if people do decide they want this "gift" they would find a way, such as in a control scenario where reaper tech is intact, with us, we just not that interested

What u call "gifts" are subjective, I think love is a gift but I don't see synthesis handing that out

Please scrap the bolded text, u went too far, Shepard has earned the right to make a decision, but not enforcing profound changes without consensus, I think epic heros remain humble for his / her actions, and I think so should Shepard...if consensus is impossible, Shepard must base the decision on actual knowledge about peoples' reactions and views about the reapers

Modifié par Vigilant111, 19 juin 2012 - 02:42 .

[Taboo]

The Dictorial Choice is clear, but the long lastings effects are different.

I was not given permission to enact Synthesis, nor do I find enslaving the Reapers to be ethical.

I am left with Destroy which most closely resembles what I was told to do. The authoritarian nature comes from the genocide of the Reapers and possibly the Geth.

As I've said before, I'd feel better about Synthesis if Shepard could take responsibility for it or even survive, but I still wouldn't do it. No amount of promotion by others will give me the authority to change life.

Heeden quipped yesterday, that if the other races wanted an opinion, they should have stepped up and been the Avatar of their cycle. That alone tells me that some of the Synthesis people care nothing for the opinions of others.

The Geth are the same in my eyes as the Turians and Krogans, etc. etc. All are equal. All wish the Reapers to be stopped. I make the choice that they wanted. The consequences are on my shoulders, but the vote was clear.

I cannot interfere past that.

[Heeden]

@Ieldra, there's no point arguing with people who equate Synthesis with eating circuit-boards and cybernetic lettuce, there's a completely different interpretation of what magic does (presumably they also think using biotics results in massive electrical burns) and it's fundamentally irreconcilable. If I had that kind of attitude to sci-fi I'd have stopped playing as soon as I found out how FTL was supposed to work, Mass Effect is pretty much unique in the way it invents a system that wouldn't even work following its own rules.

@Taboo, I disagree that choosing one of the options makes you morally repugnant. If anything it is the universe that is morally repugnant for contriving a situation where you have to choose (or do nothing, which is still a choice) but that doesn't work either. The universe is indifferent, you may choose something with horrendous results but you can't be found wanting morally unless you had engineered that situation yourself or chose to twist it to your own advantage at the cost of others.

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

@Taboo, I disagree that choosing one of the options makes you morally repugnant. If anything it is the universe that is morally repugnant for contriving a situation where you have to choose (or do nothing, which is still a choice) but that doesn't work either. The universe is indifferent, you may choose something with horrendous results but you can't be found wanting morally unless you had engineered that situation yourself or chose to twist it to your own advantage at the cost of others.

No, can't blame universe for that, just because the universe is indifferent does not mean people also are

But the Crucible is not made by the universe, it was made by people

[Heeden]

Vigilant111 wrote...

No, can't blame universe for that, just because the universe is indifferent does not mean people also are

But the Crucible is not made by the universe, it was made by people

Aha, so we blame the people who designed the Crucible for whatever choice we made. Last I checked that was pretty much everybody, consensus achieved the galaxy wants you to choose!

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

No, can't blame universe for that, just because the universe is indifferent does not mean people also are

But the Crucible is not made by the universe, it was made by people

Aha, so we blame the people who designed the Crucible for whatever choice we made. Last I checked that was pretty much everybody, consensus achieved the galaxy wants you to choose!

Well, its better than blaming the universe

So are you saying that just cos the galaxy gave you permission then you can just do whatever you want?

[Heeden]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Well, its better than blaming the universe

Personally I think the idea of blame is moot anyway (hence I mentioned in the bit you originally quoted that the universe is indifferent).

Also you mentioned the Crucible was made by people, not the universe. Technically those people are part of the universe and the Crucible is just as much a product of the universe as everything else.

So are you saying that just cos the galaxy gave you permission then you can just do whatever you want?

If I was able to do whatever I want I'd be on Rannoch with Tali building a house. The universe isn't working out that way. My argument is you can not make a moral judgement on yourself for being forced in to a situation to choose from several options which all inhabit a grey-area.

You're the one who suggested responsibility lay with the designers of the Crucible, so it took a huge effort to give you those options. As you're thinking that way why not conclude that the three options represent different opinions amongst the disparate factions who created the macguffin, and you get the deciding vote?

Modifié par Heeden, 19 juin 2012 - 03:07 .

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Well, its better than blaming the universe

Personally I think the idea of blame is moot anyway (hence I mentioned in the bit you originally quoted that the universe is indifferent).

Also you mentioned the Crucible was made by people, not the universe. Technically those people are part of the universe and the Crucible is just as much a product of the universe as everything else.

So are you saying that just cos the galaxy gave you permission then you can just do whatever you want?

If I was able to do whatever I want I'd be on Rannoch with Tali building a house. The universe isn't working out that way. My argument is you can not make a moral judgement on yourself for being forced in to a situation to choose from several options which all inhabit a grey-area.

You're the one who suggested responsibility lay with the designers of the Crucible, so it took a huge effort to give you those options. As you're thinking that way why not conclude that the three options represent different opinions amongst the disparate factions who created the macguffin, and you get the deciding vote?

Um, may I ask why not on myself? and I wasn't thinking about myself, I was thinking about Anderson, I was thinking about my Squadmates, I was thinking about OTHER people and what they had been through

Awww are u asking me to respect your opinion cos the designers of the Crucible thought it worth it to put synthesis in the mix? hahaha, well I guess I don't really have a choice do I, but I think I am alright if u tell me that u chose synthesis cos you like green or that you just think Adam and Eve is cute...but to lay credence to an overly optimistic fan fiction, sorry mate can't do that

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

It is not an option at all when forced upon them. You can package it anyway you want, but it is not a gift. That gift cannot be refused. Nor can it be thrown away when the races don't like it.

It is not about the similarities. But of course you knew that already.

The nature of the situation is that you have been asked to destroy the reapers. Your allies have all agreed upon that and that was the main condition in the pacts you made with them. By letting the reapers go and violating their right of self-determination for your own elitists views you have betrayed every single one of them. There is no reason nor empathy found in any of that.

Sarcasm? It is not about what I think of relays, nor about my choice. It is about the decision you advocate, not mine. You wanted to know why it is bad and I gave you an answer. I am sorry that you didn't like to be confronted by it. You shouldn't have asked.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

@Ieldra, there's no point arguing with people who equate Synthesis with eating circuit-boards and cybernetic lettuce,

Please to explain circuits on foliage in cinematic. Also, I’m curious to hear how you explain how the synthesis differentiates between those cells that are to be hybridized from those that aren’t.

And please explain how the ‘opting out’ happens.

And please also explain how, exactly, the opt-outs actually DO survive?

…

Here’s the thing, once again. I don’t care what you headcanon says about Synthesis. Whatever works for you is fine. What is not fine is comparing your headcanon Synthesis to non-headcanoned Destroy and Control.

…

Edit: I’m personally not also keen on the idea that you’re making the most important decision in the history of the galaxy based on an explanation of “Well, you jump here and then some nonsensical magical s— happens”, in contrast to the far more plausible scenarios. But YMMV, husk-boy.

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 juin 2012 - 04:13 .

[Ieldra]

@AngryFrozenWater:
I asked? For what? To be told that Synthesis is bad? I needn't ask for that, people appear to be determined to ram it into my brain with a spike. Well, that won't work. Synthesis is no worse than the other decisions. Here's another example:

Miranda. In the Miranda thread, we've often discussed how she became a biotic, since the first eezo accident happened after she was born and nobody knew it would trigger biotics for years to come after that. Most of us now support the hypothesis that her father had eezo nodules implanted in her at about an age of eight in order to make her a biotic.

Did he have the right to do that? Perhaps not, but Miranda was never forced to use her biotics. She could've ignored the eezo implants and lived her life as a non-biotic as if it had never happened. So....supposing the procedure was quick and painless (which it probably wasn't but you get the point), there was actually no harm done. Instead, she just had a few more options to live her life based on her biotics.

In an even more striking parallel, Shepard can tell Miranda that she's not defined by the gifts her father gave her, but by what she did with them. I have never blamed Henry Lawson for genetically engineering his daughter. What he gave her was good. In fact, had he not tried to control her life, I would have praised him.

I apply the same logic to Synthesis. And I will tell you that you're not defined by what it gives you, but by what you do with it. Some will take it up, some will reject it. That's as it should be. And if my decision will make the salarians dominant (I'm sure they'll take it up), then that's a consequence I'm willing to live with.

Edit:
I might be a little more receptive to the morality argument if people weren't determined to compare Synthesis to Destroy. Control avoids the relay destruction, and that is a tangible benefit much harder to argue against than the admittedly speculative benefits of Synthesis, a benefit Synthesis also denies the galaxy. The "enslaving the Reapers" argument doesn't count because if you accept that, you'll land at Synthesis again because you must also accept that setting them free is preferable from a moral viewpoint.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 04:10 .

[Vigilant111]

*

Modifié par Vigilant111, 19 juin 2012 - 04:06 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I asked? For what? To be told that Synthesis is bad? I needn't ask for that, people appear to be determined to ram it into my brain with a spike. Well, that won't work. Synthesis is no worse than the other decisions. Here's another example:

Miranda. In the Miranda thread, we've often discussed how she became a biotic, since the first eezo accident happened after she was born and nobody knew it would trigger biotics for years to come after that. Most of us now support the hypothesis that her father had eezo nodules implanted in her at about an age of eight in order to make her a biotic.

Did he have the right to do that? Perhaps not, but Miranda was never forced to use her biotics. She could've ignored the eezo implants and lived her life as a non-biotic as if it had never happened. So....supposing the procedure was quick and painless (which it probably wasn't but you get the point), there was actually no harm done. Instead, she just had a few more options to live her life based on her biotics.

In an even more striking parallel, Shepard can tell Miranda that she's not defined by the gifts her father gave her, but by what she did with them. I have never blamed Henry Lawson for genetically engineering his daughter. What he gave her was good. In fact, had he not tried to control her life, I would have praised him.

I apply the same logic to Synthesis. And I will tell you that you're not defined by what it gives you, but by what you do with it. Some will take it up, some will reject it. That's as it should be. And if my decision will make the salarians dominant (I'm sure they'll take it up), then that's a consequence I'm willing to live with.

Biotics are different, Miranda has not changed

You said that what Henry Lawson gave her was good, how come she makes fun about her own perfect genes? She did not have control over these things, like we can't choose our parents

Modifié par Vigilant111, 19 juin 2012 - 04:07 .

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I asked? For what? To be told that Synthesis is bad? I needn't ask for that, people appear to be determined to ram it into my brain with a spike. Well, that won't work. Synthesis is no worse than the other decisions. Here's another example:

Miranda. In the Miranda thread, we've often discussed how she became a biotic, since the first eezo accident happened after she was born and nobody knew it would trigger biotics for years to come after that. Most of us now support the hypothesis that her father had eezo nodules implanted in her at about an age of eight in order to make her a biotic.

Did he have the right to do that? Perhaps not, but Miranda was never forced to use her biotics. She could've ignored the eezo implants and lived her life as a non-biotic as if it had never happened. So....supposing the procedure was quick and painless (which it probably wasn't but you get the point), there was actually no harm done. Instead, she just had a few more options to live her life based on her biotics.

In an even more striking parallel, Shepard can tell Miranda that she's not defined by the gifts her father gave her, but by what she did with them. I have never blamed Henry Lawson for genetically engineering his daughter. What he gave her was good. In fact, had he not tried to control her life, I would have praised him.

I apply the same logic to Synthesis. And I will tell you that you're not defined by what it gives you, but by what you do with it. Some will take it up, some will reject it. That's as it should be. And if my decision will make the salarians dominant (I'm sure they'll take it up), then that's a consequence I'm willing to live with.

Biotics are different, Miranda has not changed

Using that logic, adding synthetic symbionts also doesn't change anyone. Unless you take the "genetic change" literally - which you know I don't - nobody is changed by Synthesis.

You said that what Henry Lawson gave her was good, how come she makes fun about her own perfect genes? She did not have control over these things, like we can't choose our parents

She uses what she has and achieves great things with it. Without it, it's likely Shepard wouldn't have been brought back from the dead and the galaxy would've fallen to the Reapers. The story vindicates Henry Lawson in this if not in anything else. At first, Miranda feels she can't take pride in her achievements but Shepard teaches her that she can. Problem solved.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 04:25 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I asked? For what? To be told that Synthesis is bad? I needn't ask for that, people appear to be determined to ram it into my brain with a spike. Well, that won't work. Synthesis is no worse than the other decisions. Here's another example:

Miranda. In the Miranda thread, we've often discussed how she became a biotic, since the first eezo accident happened after she was born and nobody knew it would trigger biotics for years to come after that. Most of us now support the hypothesis that her father had eezo nodules implanted in her at about an age of eight in order to make her a biotic.

Did he have the right to do that? Perhaps not, but Miranda was never forced to use her biotics. She could've ignored the eezo implants and lived her life as a non-biotic as if it had never happened. So....supposing the procedure was quick and painless (which it probably wasn't but you get the point), there was actually no harm done. Instead, she just had a few more options to live her life based on her biotics.

In an even more striking parallel, Shepard can tell Miranda that she's not defined by the gifts her father gave her, but by what she did with them. I have never blamed Henry Lawson for genetically engineering his daughter. What he gave her was good. In fact, had he not tried to control her life, I would have praised him.

I apply the same logic to Synthesis. And I will tell you that you're not defined by what it gives you, but by what you do with it. Some will take it up, some will reject it. That's as it should be. And if my decision will make the salarians dominant (I'm sure they'll take it up), then that's a consequence I'm willing to live with.

Biotics are different, Miranda has not changed

Using that logic, adding synthetic symbionts also doesn't change anyone. Unless you take the "genetic change" literally - which you know I don't - nobody is changed by Synthesis.

You said that what Henry Lawson gave her was good, how come she makes fun about her own perfect genes? She did not have control over these things, like we can't choose our parents

She uses what she has and achieves great things with it. Without it, it's likely Shepard wouldn't have been brought back from the dead and the galaxy would've fallen to the Reapers. The story vindicates Henry Lawson in this if not in anything else. At first, Miranda feels she can't take pride in her achievements but Shepard teaches her that she can. Problem solved.

No, then synthesis will have no effect if it doesn't change things, synthesis was intended to assimulate the two groups, or to make sure that organics progress at a rate in parallel to synthetics, and to do that, profound changes must be made

Her gift was unintended, she was lucky, and no, he is not vindicated, his actions were still wrong and he probably didn't intend those effects, I mean why would u give your daughter these powers if you know she was gonna kill you later?

Miranda is only one person, not billions of lives, also her powers were only good for some people, and bad for her enemies which can always turn into friends, these unintended benefits are all subjective

Shepard told her to take pride is the right thing to do, her doubts, guilts or whatever are solved, but not the "problem"

What exactly did you intend synthesis to achieve again? to me, all the options are there to stop the reapers, or synthetics and then you bought all these imaginary"benefits" along, just to make synthesis all nice and good looking

[lillitheris]

“Synthesis is a fundamental reimagining of all life into one unified whole! Except it’s not really fundamental, and nothing is really changed, and it’s not really unified. But apart from that, it’s exactly as described!”

[Ieldra]

My challenge is still open, lillitheris: create a scenario that works, makes sense, is closer to the description as written and still follows the premise that Bioware intended this as a reasonably good ending. You'll have to make sense of the "new...DNA" of course. And of Mike Gambles' "There is no more synthetic or organic, just life". Or....perhaps you agree that this makes no sense? Then why do you insist that I use it?

Here's a tidbit about the hybrid plants: assume that synthetic symbionts stay inert in non-sapient species. How they distinguish between sapient and non-sapient species? No idea. It is irrelevant anyway, and if you insist it's not then *I* insist you answer how FTL works in the ME universe - as Heeden has pointed out, it's really unique for not even working under the universe's own premises. And that's all I have to say about this. I hope the EC clarifies things.

Also, may I remind you that I didn't say nothing was changed by Synthesis. I said that if you define implanting eezo nodules as "no change", then adding synthetic symbionts are also "no change".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 05:26 .

[Creston918]

Nice thread, OP. Mac Walters you.

*LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE!* :wizard:

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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".

It just seems quite ridiculous that the synthesis option is able to do all the sophisticated things you say it can, and yet the same device is incapable of distinguishing between Reapers and the Geth. Never mind the fact, that some cycle decided an anti-Reaper weapon really needed a synthesis option.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

My challenge is still open, lillitheris: create a scenario that works, makes sense, is closer to the description as written and still follows the premise that Bioware intended this as a reasonably good ending. You'll have to make sense of the "new...DNA" of course. And of Mike Gambles' "There is no more synthetic or organic, just life". Or....perhaps you agree that this makes no sense? Then why do you insist that I use it?

Because you’re advocating for the option. Or you claim to be, to be accurate. Like I keep saying: as soon as you stop calling your headcanon “Synthesis”, I’ll be happy.

Here's a tidbit about the hybrid plants: assume that synthetic symbionts stay inert in non-sapient species. How they distinguish between sapient and non-sapient species? No idea. It is irrelevant anyway,

It’s very much relevant, especially the question of what happens when the threshold is crossed. It’s integral, really, given the entire premise – organic vs. synthetic — of the ‘solution’ to begin with. I don’t need technical details, I just want to understand how the whole thing works conceptually.

It’s quite worrisome, in fact, that you’d be willing to accept “some magic stuff happens, screw the details and results” as rationale for making the choice of Fantasy Synthesis instead of the two known quantities. It’s worrisome that you’d accept that it was even a possibility if the Catalyst could give you no information about what actually would happen. I certainly wouldn’t wager the future of the galaxy on something that the Catalyst clearly has no idea about, and you even less.

It’s like a slot machine with three buttons: Win, Win, and Some Space Magic S— Nobody Knows What It Does, and you select the latter.

It’s always scary to see someone obviously smart deluding themselves to the point where all their energies are going to twisting facts to fit their theory than actually taking a step back and seeing the fundamental error.

and if you insist it's not then *I* insist you answer how FTL works in the ME universe

Novel sidestep tactic.

[Ieldra]

To summarize for everyone:

Nimrodell wrote...
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.

*Jaron Lanier talks about Alan Turing's death, shedding some light on perspectives on AI as minds we can't know from the outside.
*Ray Kurzweil proposes nanobots creating virtual reality without our nervous system - within 20 years (somewhat optimistic I'd say) and about brain science driving AI research.
*...and about how to live in an accelerated world.

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

*An interesting video about the limits of current computer technology and how to overcome them. It won't be that easy.

The Dark Side of Technology

*Michio Kaku talks about how superviruses may be created in basement labs and how uranium enrichment may be made incredibly easy with laser technology. And global warming causing nuclear wars.

Could We Transport Our Consciousness Into Robots?

*Michio Kaku explains inroads made into duplicating memory processes with chips. That *may* result in consciousness transfer technology but there are too many unanswered questions to make a prediction yet. 

How to Stop Robots From Killing Us .

*Michio Kaku proposes control chips for future AI with at least monkey-level intelligence.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I asked? For what? To be told that Synthesis is bad? I needn't ask for that, people appear to be determined to ram it into my brain with a spike. Well, that won't work. Synthesis is no worse than the other decisions. Here's another example:

Miranda. In the Miranda thread, we've often discussed how she became a biotic, since the first eezo accident happened after she was born and nobody knew it would trigger biotics for years to come after that. Most of us now support the hypothesis that her father had eezo nodules implanted in her at about an age of eight in order to make her a biotic.

Did he have the right to do that? Perhaps not, but Miranda was never forced to use her biotics. She could've ignored the eezo implants and lived her life as a non-biotic as if it had never happened. So....supposing the procedure was quick and painless (which it probably wasn't but you get the point), there was actually no harm done. Instead, she just had a few more options to live her life based on her biotics.

In an even more striking parallel, Shepard can tell Miranda that she's not defined by the gifts her father gave her, but by what she did with them. I have never blamed Henry Lawson for genetically engineering his daughter. What he gave her was good. In fact, had he not tried to control her life, I would have praised him.

I apply the same logic to Synthesis. And I will tell you that you're not defined by what it gives you, but by what you do with it. Some will take it up, some will reject it. That's as it should be. And if my decision will make the salarians dominant (I'm sure they'll take it up), then that's a consequence I'm willing to live with.

Edit:
I might be a little more receptive to the morality argument if people weren't determined to compare Synthesis to Destroy. Control avoids the relay destruction, and that is a tangible benefit much harder to argue against than the admittedly speculative benefits of Synthesis, a benefit Synthesis also denies the galaxy. The "enslaving the Reapers" argument doesn't count because if you accept that, you'll land at Synthesis again because you must also accept that setting them free is preferable from a moral viewpoint.

You asked: "Why is that bad? Why is giving people these new options bad?"

Those are the questions I answer. Why deny those questions?

So, yes. You wanted to know why giving these "options" is bad. You have a real odd way of interpreting simple concepts. Options imply that these can be refused. And guess what? Synthesis cannot be refused by anyone but you. Giving also implies a gift. But it is not given. It is forced. Once you have forced synthesis on the races, obviously without their consent, then it is irreversible. So, yes, you are a dictator, and yes, it is elitist, because you think it is better than their current life, which they seem to enjoy, if it wasn't for the brat and the reapers.

Miranda and her genetic background was something that Shepard was not able to get involved in. Synthesis is. And that is what we are discussing.

Every time you are confronted with the implications and consequences of what you do, you are dodging the arguments. You are focusing on what might happen after synthesis is invoked. We have no information about that, other than cinematics. And even those you don't like, because these do not conform to your belief system. You have created a large array of hypothetical outcomes which you view as truth. However, none of those are important, because of that dictatorial and elitist decision you've made to get there in the first place.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[Nimrodell]

I just hope you enjoyed those Bigthink short lectures/answers . It's also good that in most of those lecturers present the opposite ways of thinking, opposite attitudes, preconceptions. The last two are my favorite ones, especially the one about mind-uploading, because questions posed there are valid ones - is it really me or a copy (especially if the original brain is still alive and functioning). Morgan Freeman had two awesome episodes about death itself - and there you can see the experiment which Michio Kaku mentions - the small robot guided with mouse brain, well cultivated mouse brain in petri dish - also, again there are Kurzweil and Kaku and some others talking about actual merge between organic and synthetic in order to beat death itself.

[lillitheris]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

So, yes. You wanted to know why giving these "options" is bad. You have a real odd way of interpreting simple concepts. Options imply that these can be refused. And guess what? Synthesis cannot be refused by anyone but you. Giving also implies a gift. But it is not given. It is forced. Once you have forced synthesis on the races, obviously without their consent, then it is irreversible. So, yes, you are a dictator, and yes, it is elitist, because you think it is better than their current life, which they seem to enjoy, if it wasn't for the brat and the reapers.

To be fair, Ieldra2 says that there is an option to decline it — by some means that are ‘irrelevant’. So we know that the whole thing is totally optional (and that somehow that doesn‘t completely invalidate it) but not why this is the case.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
My challenge is still open, lillitheris: create a scenario that works, makes sense, is closer to the description as written and still follows the premise that Bioware intended this as a reasonably good ending. You'll have to make sense of the "new...DNA" of course. And of Mike Gambles' "There is no more synthetic or organic, just life". Or....perhaps you agree that this makes no sense? Then why do you insist that I use it?

Because you’re advocating for the option.

So...suppose someone else made the same scenario I did but didn't advocate it - this person could get away with selectively discarding things that make no sense while I can't? That's using double standards.

BTW, I'm advocating for the option because I'm attracted to the themes I see lurking underneath the technical details. I think I've touched on that several times in this thread, starting with the OP. The description is a load of crap but it still tells us something. I'm taking that something and try to construct a scenario that works from it.

And you've still not taken up my challenge.

Here's a tidbit about the hybrid plants: assume that synthetic symbionts stay inert in non-sapient species. How they distinguish between sapient and non-sapient species? No idea. It is irrelevant anyway,

It’s very much relevant, especially the question of what happens when the threshold is crossed. It’s integral, really, given the entire premise – organic vs. synthetic — of the ‘solution’ to begin with. I don’t need technical details, I just want to understand how the whole thing works conceptually.

You say you don't need technical details. And it's those I see as irrelevant, nothing else. To make a guess how things could work conceptually, I'd need to make a lot of assumptions about things we don't know - for instance, where the dividing line is between sapient and non-sapient and what causes it. If there is a dividing line at all or if there's a gradual increase with no sharp line. What I am actually assuming is that there is some arbitrary threshold of complexity beyond which life was regarded as sapient by the people who built the Crucible, and that the synthetic symbionts can detect it. What more do you need to know?
 
And now you've brought me to talk about things I'd rather relegate to post-EC times. I'll stop.