9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Murder is wrong. I do not view this as a justified killing, such as a mother defending her children.

I cannot compromise my ideals here. To do so would lesson what I've done.

[Vigilant111]

ghost9191 wrote...

well idk about that, i agree about accepting what you did , but not about them being alive, still sucks to destroy them but they do not have a soul. they were created as tools, they believe they are alive and mimic it, emulate if you will lol, but aren't actually alive. my opinion though, still hate destroying them

feel like a complete douche for making that fictional choice either way

Oh please like organics have souls themselves, how arrogant

[ghost9191]

Vigilant111 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

well idk about that, i agree about accepting what you did , but not about them being alive, still sucks to destroy them but they do not have a soul. they were created as tools, they believe they are alive and mimic it, emulate if you will lol, but aren't actually alive. my opinion though, still hate destroying them

feel like a complete douche for making that fictional choice either way

Oh please like organics have souls themselves, how arrogant

don't recall saying they did, was just answering legions question.  that is a whole nother topic that i don't feel like getting into.  souls usually come up in religion , which religion is used to make sense of why we are here and where we go, which machines do not need to do because they know why they are created. humans may have souls or not but we have a better chance then some fictional characters:P

and if taboo is talking to me, i think you might be missing my point, my fault i know. I am not trying to justify it i was only getting other peoples opinion on the geth, not sure if to think of them as alive or not, like i said might need to accept it.

Modifié par ghost9191, 19 juin 2012 - 09:53 .

[Heeden]

Nimrodell wrote...

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.

"Surface Detail" by Iain M. Banks has a character who's mind-state is transmitted to the data-core of a Culture Mind (like an A.I. but much, much more). She asks if she is still the same person, to which the Mind replies there has been a tiny fraction of a percent variation, and likened it to the difference between the person who goes to sleep, and the person who wakes up. Ultimately it came down to "do you feel like the same person?" and apparently she did. Questions like that tend to be treated the same as any other basic existential conundrum, they're considered interesting points but there's little practical point in winding yourself up with them.

Another Iain M. book, "Feersum Endjinn" has characters regularly uploading a mind-state of themselves in to the cryptosphere (like the internet if the internet spanned the entire planet and was made of nano-circcuitry) to interact with the data systems on their behalf, to be later integrated back in to the original mind (although more complex constructs have a chance to become incompatible given enough time).

[Taboo]

Yes, I just spoke to a psychologist about that today Heeden. Such a society would be stagnate. No need to improve.

I'd rather die than live in such a state.

[Nimrodell]

Heeden wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

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.

"Surface Detail" by Iain M. Banks has a character who's mind-state is transmitted to the data-core of a Culture Mind (like an A.I. but much, much more). She asks if she is still the same person, to which the Mind replies there has been a tiny fraction of a percent variation, and likened it to the difference between the person who goes to sleep, and the person who wakes up. Ultimately it came down to "do you feel like the same person?" and apparently she did. Questions like that tend to be treated the same as any other basic existential conundrum, they're considered interesting points but there's little practical point in winding yourself up with them.

Another Iain M. book, "Feersum Endjinn" has characters regularly uploading a mind-state of themselves in to the cryptosphere (like the internet if the internet spanned the entire planet and was made of nano-circcuitry) to interact with the data systems on their behalf, to be later integrated back in to the original mind (although more complex constructs have a chance to become incompatible given enough time).

Thanks for the information - I'll see if I can get those books from abroad since he hasn't been translated into my language yet nor he is known here... perhaps there's electronic version of those flying around the internet. Anyway, thanks .

[ghost9191]

well hmm, machines emulate life , but i feel geth are alive in the game, which is why i save them too, just felt like having a conversation about it, but that is for another thread sorry for bringing the topic into synthesis thread. i've been looking for a good thread on that topic but can't find one, just seems like a interesting thing to discuss.

anywho collectors are a good example of synthesis, anyway you look at it i think that shows what would happen in time with synthesis, but that is just me/. No limitations no advancement

[Shaigunjoe]

:innocent:

Vigilant111 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 I take responsibility because that's who I am. My Shepard is an extension of myself. I do not fear repercussions from people for the destruction of the Reapers, but I do, if, say the Geth are alive in one playhrough.

I see all sapient life as equal here. If the Geth are a blowback to a choice consensus that they were involved in, I am morally repugnant. I have destroyed life. I may not be responsible in your eyes, but I am very difficult on myself, as my Shepard is. I feel that death. I bear that weight on mu shoulders. I plan on taking responsibility for that in my head, as I know I would in real life.

My hope is that in this destruction, people will rise up and help one another to create a better place to live. Without the overbearance of Control, and the violation of Synthesis.

I will not glamorize it, as doing so would diminish the sadness I have caused. I can never justify that, but I can take responsibility.

Its not the immediate repurcussions to Shepard I would fear, its the message that Shep sends out throughout the preceding centuries that machines are bad and need to be destroyed.  Though willingly retreating into a dark age would be the perfect lovecraftian response to the reaper threat.

No, that is not the message

The message is that organics should have never created synthetics in the first place, it is the organics that are bad, and I agree with Taboo, the responsibility in destroy exceeds all other options

Don't say that what I said isn't the message then just reiterate what I said the message was.  The problem is the responsibility for each decision excedes a single human lifetime.  If you want to be able to fully take responsibility for your actions why don't you take control?  (For this discussion, lets just say Shep remains in control and it isn't some reaper trap)

[Heeden]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@Ieldra2: all we are asking is that you recognize that there are imperfections in synthesis, so far u only said something like "yeah that needs more clarification" or oh I think BW can take care of that when the EC comes out, neither here or there no biggie... I think it is quite rigid in your mind the idea that synthesis is the better out of the three cos BW said so, and THAT counts as official and now it is up to your imagination to legitimize this implication, and you cannot possibly say anything bad about synthesis

There is an element of the high EMS needed for Synthesis makes it automatically a good thing, but similarly Destroy is (symbolically in the ending) only a good thing with high EMS. Without a decent level of Galactic Readiness, it is very possible (I would say the intended outcome) that Destroy would lead to a galactic dark-age (possibly one just recovered from in the Stargazer scene).

However with a well prepared galaxy, a more finely constructed Crucible that doesn't blow up London, there's a better chance of the galaxy pulling through to become a stronger, more unified society. Both Synthesis and high-level Destroy have very compelling reasons for and against them, which is what makes them interesting. Pro-synthites are head-canoning because we like the potential implications of closer relationships between synthetics and organics and that's the route Bioware have given us to expand the galaxy that way.

There's no reason to put a doom-and-gloom, ecological terrorism, hive-mind, indoctrinated negative spin on Synthesis for the same reason there's no reason to put an everyone-starves-and-dies spin on high-level Destroy. We have an I-lose situation when we have crappy EMS, there's no reason to invent more for when we put in the work to actually win.

[Vigilant111]

ghost9191 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

well idk about that, i agree about accepting what you did , but not about them being alive, still sucks to destroy them but they do not have a soul. they were created as tools, they believe they are alive and mimic it, emulate if you will lol, but aren't actually alive. my opinion though, still hate destroying them

feel like a complete douche for making that fictional choice either way

Oh please like organics have souls themselves, how arrogant

don't recall saying they did, was just answering legions question.  that is a whole nother topic that i don't feel like getting into.  souls usually come up in religion , which religion is used to make sense of why we are here and where we go, which machines do not need to do because they know why they are created. humans may have souls or not but we have a better chance then some fictional characters:P

and if taboo is talking to me, i think you might be missing my point, my fault i know. I am not trying to justify it i was only getting other peoples opinion on the geth, not sure if to think of them as alive or not, like i said might need to accept it.

Sorry for the harsh tone, wasn't directed at you, everyone has different opinions about saving the Geth, and I am thinking you are only saying what you were saying to Taboo to make him feel better
Personally I would not use "soul" to justify one's right to survival;), it is a romantic idea, something that someone who is grieving takes solace in

The thing is, I think both the Geth and the Quarians have done stupid things, that makes the Geth more alive than one would think, and being created by the Quarians, one could say that the Geth is the "children" of the Quarians, and I think that is one of the reason why I don't like synthesis, as it interferes the natural evolutionary process of kids replacing parents

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Don't say that what I said isn't the message then just reiterate what I said the message was.  The problem is the responsibility for each decision excedes a single human lifetime.  If you want to be able to fully take responsibility for your actions why don't you take control?  (For this discussion, lets just say Shep remains in control and it isn't some reaper trap)

You and I both know the answer to that. It's a choice that has roots in hubris. You assume Control of beings of immense power. You enslave them. For all time.

Shepard is something new, something foreign. He/She is no longer corporeal. 

The function of Control is to use the Reapers. People seem to assign it to the Paragon route because it doesn't kill anyone. It instead enslaves them for all time. It doesn't matter if Shepard retains Control (he/she does). I cannot justify an action with such immense implications. That isn't Paragon. None of the choices are.

None are justifiable, but the only one I can take responsibility for in is Destroy, and that was reached by conensus.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 19 juin 2012 - 10:12 .

[Vigilant111]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

:innocent:

Vigilant111 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 I take responsibility because that's who I am. My Shepard is an extension of myself. I do not fear repercussions from people for the destruction of the Reapers, but I do, if, say the Geth are alive in one playhrough.

I see all sapient life as equal here. If the Geth are a blowback to a choice consensus that they were involved in, I am morally repugnant. I have destroyed life. I may not be responsible in your eyes, but I am very difficult on myself, as my Shepard is. I feel that death. I bear that weight on mu shoulders. I plan on taking responsibility for that in my head, as I know I would in real life.

My hope is that in this destruction, people will rise up and help one another to create a better place to live. Without the overbearance of Control, and the violation of Synthesis.

I will not glamorize it, as doing so would diminish the sadness I have caused. I can never justify that, but I can take responsibility.

Its not the immediate repurcussions to Shepard I would fear, its the message that Shep sends out throughout the preceding centuries that machines are bad and need to be destroyed.  Though willingly retreating into a dark age would be the perfect lovecraftian response to the reaper threat.

No, that is not the message

The message is that organics should have never created synthetics in the first place, it is the organics that are bad, and I agree with Taboo, the responsibility in destroy exceeds all other options

Don't say that what I said isn't the message then just reiterate what I said the message was.  The problem is the responsibility for each decision excedes a single human lifetime.  If you want to be able to fully take responsibility for your actions why don't you take control?  (For this discussion, lets just say Shep remains in control and it isn't some reaper trap)

No, WE organics are the bad ones, you said that synthetics were "bad" which I disagree

How is controlling the reapers taking responsibility for creating synthetics in the past?

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, I just spoke to a psychologist about that today Heeden. Such a society would be stagnate. No need to improve.

I'd rather die than live in such a state.

So you are currently living in a society that is improving.  What is the end result of this?  Either a society that doesn't need to improve anymore or one that doesn't want to improve?  Which would you rather be a part of?

Personally, I don't think those Banks books represent socity that no longer needs to improve, those would be some boring books otherwise.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, I just spoke to a psychologist about that today Heeden. Such a society would be stagnate. No need to improve.

I'd rather die than live in such a state.

Indeed the society in Feersum Endjinn is quite stagnant, although the people there mostly find it nice enough. Without giving away too much, at some point in the future humanity becomes a true space-faring race, eschewing planetary existence for much more practical and pleasant habitats of their own construction. A faction remained on earth in a comfy sort of retirement-home with technology to furnish them with a placid, comfortable and not too uninteresting existence. Eventually though elements of chaos do start to impinge themselves and [spoilers].

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, I just spoke to a psychologist about that today Heeden. Such a society would be stagnate. No need to improve.

I'd rather die than live in such a state.

So you are currently living in a society that is improving.  What is the end result of this?  Either a society that doesn't need to improve anymore or one that doesn't want to improve?  Which would you rather be a part of?

Personally, I don't think those Banks books represent socity that no longer needs to improve, those would be some boring books otherwise.

Please do not strawman.

The issue is forcing it on people. If people wish to be a part of a society, they can choose to remain. If not, they may leave. But you have zero right to force it upon them. Society should work to that goal in it's own time, with the participation of the people.

Synthesis people have a tendency to forget that ALL life is being Synthesized. Chimps. Goats. Bears. Yahg.

I don't care if you want to live with Heeden's self titled "super space communism". That choice is yours, but I wouldn't allow it to happen to ALL things.

Communism is faulty anyway. The only way to make it work is to oppress people or force them into something like Brave New World.

[Shaigunjoe]

Vigilant111 wrote...


No, WE organics are the bad ones, you said that synthetics were "bad" which I disagree

How is controlling the reapers taking responsibility for creating synthetics in the past?

It sounds like you are confused, I didn't say synthetics were bad, I said the message in destroying all synthetics would be interpreted in that machines are bad.  Shepard is a mesiah figure, and people will follow his/her example.

Also, Shep did not create synthetics in the past.  Besides, that was a question for Taboo, I think its best you don't answer it because it looks like you have missed the context.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 19 juin 2012 - 10:23 .

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...


No, WE organics are the bad ones, you said that synthetics were "bad" which I disagree

How is controlling the reapers taking responsibility for creating synthetics in the past?

It sounds like you are confused, I didn't say synthetics were bad, I said the message in destroying all synthetics would be interpreted in that machines are bad.  Shepard is a mesiah figure, and people will follow his/her example.

Also, Shep did not create synthetics in the past.  Besides, that was a question for Taboo, I think its best you don't answer it because it looks like you have missed the context.

Not if I choose to be honest. Remember, these people will blindy follow Shepard in your example.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Please do not strawman.

The issue is forcing it on people. If people wish to be a part of a society, they can choose to remain. If not, they may leave. But you have zero right to force it upon them. Society should work to that goal in it's own time, with the participation of the people.

Synthesis people have a tendency to forget that ALL life is being Synthesized. Chimps. Goats. Bears. Yahg.

But with no hints as to what Synthesis achieves, so what? It may well be that Synthesis has no bearing whatsoever on Chimps, Goats Bears and Yahgs. Like dropping the ability to read in to the minds of those animals, they may never see a written word, and if they did they would only know the sound it makes without a concept of the meaning (except Chimps maybe, but I for one welcome our Chimp cousins).

I don't care if you want to live with Heeden's self titled "super space communism". That choice is yours, but I wouldn't allow it to happen to ALL things.

People are free to ignore Synthesis. I think the benefits are great enough that most would not, and the rest are free to carry on with their existence.

Communism is faulty anyway. The only way to make it work is to oppress people or force them into something like Brave New World.

Or to create an economy that allows people to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm another sentient.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, I just spoke to a psychologist about that today Heeden. Such a society would be stagnate. No need to improve.

I'd rather die than live in such a state.

So you are currently living in a society that is improving.  What is the end result of this?  Either a society that doesn't need to improve anymore or one that doesn't want to improve?  Which would you rather be a part of?

Personally, I don't think those Banks books represent socity that no longer needs to improve, those would be some boring books otherwise.

Please do not strawman.

The issue is forcing it on people. If people wish to be a part of a society, they can choose to remain. If not, they may leave. But you have zero right to force it upon them. Society should work to that goal in it's own time, with the participation of the people.

Synthesis people have a tendency to forget that ALL life is being Synthesized. Chimps. Goats. Bears. Yahg.

I don't care if you want to live with Heeden's self titled "super space communism". That choice is yours, but I wouldn't allow it to happen to ALL things.

Communism is faulty anyway. The only way to make it work is to oppress people or force them into something like Brave New World.

Don't accuse me of strawmanning if you insist on leaving out important quotations they may be useful to contextualize your argument.  I wasn't trying to replace your position with a similiar one, you gave a statement, I asked a simple direct question about it.  If you want to not answer it thats up to you.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...


No, WE organics are the bad ones, you said that synthetics were "bad" which I disagree

How is controlling the reapers taking responsibility for creating synthetics in the past?

It sounds like you are confused, I didn't say synthetics were bad, I said the message in destroying all synthetics would be interpreted in that machines are bad.  Shepard is a mesiah figure, and people will follow his/her example.

Also, Shep did not create synthetics in the past.  Besides, that was a question for Taboo, I think its best you don't answer it because it looks like you have missed the context.

Not if I choose to be honest. Remember, these people will blindy follow Shepard in your example.

Sheep blindly follow their shepards.

[webhead921]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


What we know is what the brat tells us and what the crispy chip cinematics show us. Nothing there is optional and everything there is forced once you invoke synthesis. Right up to the vegetation.

You really should ask the moderators to move threads like these to the fan fiction forum. Before we know it, people start to believe your fantasy. It is fine that you want to role play, that's what the franchise is for, but do not present that as fact with a large web of threads scattered around this forum.

The OP's theory is just his interpretation.  It's his headcannon.  I don't think he's ever said otherwise.  His interpretation seems reasonable based on what were given, but there are lots of different interpretations for the three endings that are reasonable.  The endings are so scant that we are forced to fill in the blanks with our imagination.  Almost any interpretation of the ending whatsoever is going to include enough headcannon to be like fan fiction because we have so little to work with.  I don't think the OP has suggested otherwise.  His interpretation seems a lot more well thought out and reasonable than most of the other interpretations that I've seen here.  

For my headcannon version of synthesis, I pretty much go with the unofficial epilogue slides.

[Taboo]

This is not a libertarian wet dream Heeden. Unless you remove things, peace will never be possible. Nor is this anarcho-communism.

Plants are affected in the cut scenes. It's not far to think that Bubbles the Chimp now has nanites flowing through him.

You can't ignore Synthesis anymore than you can ignore you have skin. Your dermis is affected. Your retinas are affected. You can't ignore it.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
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.

I can think of 4 possible explanations

1. Bionic parts and "macro-chips" (like micro-chips but much, much bigger) magicked out of thin air and integrated with all living organisms, glowing brightly enough to be visible through skin, but only at certain angles.

2. Bioluminescence that follows the patterns of circuitry, greatly magnified.

3. A reflection or projection from something happening off-screen.

4. Artistic rendering of space-magic, like biotic lightning.

And the winner of the Occam award, given that the Catalyst says that everything is transformed? They’re hybrids.

Although some of those ideas are pretty funny, good work.

And please explain how the ‘opting out’ happens.

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

Like somebody given biotic abilities against their will, you either choose to utilise them or you don't.

No, that person is still a biotic. They have not opted out. They have still changed. If there is, say, a poison that works on biotics, they’re affected.

Unless you’re saying that ‘opting out’ is just starving or jumping off a cliff? Because I’m fairly certain that’s not what Ieldra2 is talking about.

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.

The end results of Destroy and Control are also head-canoned. Any of them could end in a golden age or a dark age - it's your Shepard, your galaxy and your story.

Incorrect.

Results, reprecussions? Ultimately yes. Mechanics? No. Destroy, as stated by the game, will destroy the Reapers, and some assortment of synthetics. Control places Shepard or some Shepard-like program in charge of the Reapers. Both are very clear-cut.

You can’t even tell me who Synthesis affects.

Handwavey pseudointellectualism may work on some audiences. It doesn’t work on me.

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 juin 2012 - 10:33 .

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Sheep blindly follow their shepards.

They are not sheep. They are people. If told the truth, more people will assume my viewpoint on the matter.

I have no issue with my Shepard saying that my actions caused this and through our negligence, we have caused our own issues.

It is not my job to dictate others lives. People will rebuild machines. That much I know, but there will be no singularity for ten thousand years.

It is NOT my responsibility to judge how the galaxy functions for all time.

As I've stated, I am morally repugnant for making this choice, but I will always assume responsibility.

[lillitheris]

webhead921 wrote...


The OP's theory is just his interpretation.  It's his headcannon.  I don't think he's ever said otherwise. 

Keeps insisting that this is what ‘Synthesis’ actually is… as evidenced by the thread title, for example.