410 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

AtlasMickey wrote...
There comes a point where this dichotomy does not exist. WIth enough intelligence, there is only will and freedom, and no reason for force.

I'm probably giving BioWare too much credit for thinking that with the ending, but there is some precedent in the game for it. When you decide to rewrite the Geth heretics, Legion explains that it wasn't really force as we understand it, but the Geth's version of persuasion, arguing that after all aren't organics persuaded by inserting new information? However I don't think that Synthesis is as simple as rewriting the Geth heretics.

Here's some more food for thought about free will, from Sam Harris. He recently released a rather provocative book, but ultimately non-controversial from a neuroscientific perspective.

It does exist, always.

Moral reletavism doesn't factor in one thing, ever.

What is good life and what is bad. It just puts things one way.

If I can't evolve and better myself I don't want to live.

Repugnant.

[The Night Mammoth]

Dendio1 wrote...

Catalyst would be the one stopping them from acquiring a computer.

No, it's giving everyone a comupter, with the Relays.

[The Angry One]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Reign Tsumiraki wrote...

I love the idea of WILLING Synthesis. 

It means that the species arrived at it with it's own technology and ideals.

Not have the unknown technology of others forced on them.



Willing Synthesis=/= Forced Synthesis

Willing synthesis >>>>>>>>>Forced synthesis

There comes a point where this dichotomy does not exist. WIth enough intelligence, there is only will and freedom, and no reason for force.

I'm probably giving BioWare too much credit for thinking that with the ending, but there is some precedent in the game for it. When you decide to rewrite the Geth heretics, Legion explains that it wasn't really force as we understand it, but the Geth's version of persuasion, arguing that after all aren't organics persuaded by inserting new information? However I don't think that Synthesis is as simple as rewriting the Geth heretics.

Here's some more food for thought about free will, from Sam Harris. He recently released a rather provocative book, but ultimately non-controversial from a neuroscientific perspective.

.....

You do realise that Legion is arguing the exact opposite with the rewriting scenario?
It is stating that while synthetics can be overwritten with new data, organics require time and effort.

Synthesis violates free will and it violates self-determination. Even if it didn't follow a racist philosophy, which it does, it'd still be wrong, because no one, NO ONE has the right to impose this change on the trillions of beings of the galaxy without their consent.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 08:47 .

[Taboo]

I saw someone compare Synthesis to the Ubermensh.

Jesus. Christ.

Does anyone here know who used that philosophy to further their goals? Anyone? One guess each!

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I saw someone compare Synthesis to the Ubermensh.

Jesus. Christ.

Does anyone here know who used that philosophy to further their goals? Anyone? One guess each!

Robert Carlyle!

[Grimwick]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I saw someone compare Synthesis to the Ubermensh.

Jesus. Christ.

Does anyone here know who used that philosophy to further their goals? Anyone? One guess each!

Robert Carlyle!

Yes. He did that a lot.

[Dendio1]

The Angry One wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

Catalyst would be the one stopping them from learning to create their own computer.

What's the difference? The Reapers continually give organics the means to rapidly create AI, then as a bonus it usurps those AIs and forces them to exterminate organics.
The Catalyst causes all the problems it claims to prevent.

Legion points out that technological advancement is possible without adhering to reaper tech. The relays are there as a form of control. Allowing organic technological progress to develop itself through reaper tech makes the time frame predictable. The order that the reapers impose is that it takes 50,000 years for organic life to develop technology that can lead to its destruction.

The chaos is that without the predictable reaper tech laden path of advancement, there is no way to predict when organics will pass the threshold where they develop tech with the ability/potential to wipe out organic life

Modifié par Dendio1, 31 mai 2012 - 11:46 .

[The Angry One]

Dendio1 wrote...

Legion points out that technological advancement is possible without adhering to reaper tech. The relays are there as a form of control. Allowing organic technological progress to develop itself through reaper tech makes the time frame predicatable. The order that the reapers impose is that it takes 50,000 years for organic life to develop technology that can lead to its destruction.

And maybe those other forms of advancement won't lead to such powerful computers leading to AI. Ever think of that?
The fact is, the Catalyst continually gives organics the tools to create AI then complains when they create AI.
It's a cycle started and maintained by the Catalyst.

The chaos is that without the predictable reaper tech laden path of advancement, there is no way to predict when organics will pass the threshold where they develop tech with the ability/potential to wipe out organic life

So, here's an idea. Guide them away from such things with that technology.
Oh wait, that would actually make sense!

[Grimwick]

Dendio1 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

Catalyst would be the one stopping them from learning to create their own computer.

What's the difference? The Reapers continually give organics the means to rapidly create AI, then as a bonus it usurps those AIs and forces them to exterminate organics.
The Catalyst causes all the problems it claims to prevent.

Legion points out that technological advancement is possible without adhering to reaper tech. The relays are there as a form of control. Allowing organic technological progress to develop itself through reaper tech makes the time frame predicatable. The order that the reapers impose is that it takes 50,000 years for organic life to develop technology that can lead to its destruction.

The chaos is that without the predictable reaper tech laden path of advancement, there is no way to predict when organics will pass the threshold where they develop tech with the ability/potential to wipe out organic life

What you just said did not counter The Angry One's point in any way. I have no idea what point you are trying to make at all.

NB - This whole 'order and chaos' thing... it's ridicuous. No theory of the reaper's motivations or machinations should be created from 1/2 lines of dialogue.

[AtlasMickey]

Taboo-XX wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...
There comes a point where this dichotomy does not exist. WIth enough intelligence, there is only will and freedom, and no reason for force.

I'm probably giving BioWare too much credit for thinking that with the ending, but there is some precedent in the game for it. When you decide to rewrite the Geth heretics, Legion explains that it wasn't really force as we understand it, but the Geth's version of persuasion, arguing that after all aren't organics persuaded by inserting new information? However I don't think that Synthesis is as simple as rewriting the Geth heretics.

Here's some more food for thought about free will, from Sam Harris. He recently released a rather provocative book, but ultimately non-controversial from a neuroscientific perspective.

It does exist, always.

Moral reletavism doesn't factor in one thing, ever.

What is good life and what is bad. It just puts things one way.

If I can't evolve and better myself I don't want to live.

Repugnant.

I am not a moral relativist. Actually the same author I recommended wrote a book called "The Moral Landscape" which is one of my favorite non-fiction books, perhaps my favorite, arguing that objective science can inform our moral values.

I have no idea where you got the notion that Synthesis means you can't better yourself. Evolution is blind and frankly a poor method of self-improvement, as long as you're talking about Darwinian evolution through natural selection. Better to improve yourself through intelligence.

Modifié par AtlasMickey, 31 mai 2012 - 09:06 .

[Grimwick]

AtlasMickey wrote...
I have no idea where you got the notion that Synthesis means you can't better yourself. Evolution is blind and frankly a poor method of self-improvement, as long as you're talking about Darwinian evolution through natural selection. Better to improve yourself through intelligence.

What. You surely don't mean that do you?

Do you?

[The Angry One]

Grimwick wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...
I have no idea where you got the notion that Synthesis means you can't better yourself. Evolution is blind and frankly a poor method of self-improvement, as long as you're talking about Darwinian evolution through natural selection. Better to improve yourself through intelligence.

What. You surely don't mean that do you?

Do you?

The things some ending supporters have been saying today have made me facepalm more than once.

[AtlasMickey]

The Angry One wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...

Reign Tsumiraki wrote...

I love the idea of WILLING Synthesis. 

It means that the species arrived at it with it's own technology and ideals.

Not have the unknown technology of others forced on them.



Willing Synthesis=/= Forced Synthesis

Willing synthesis >>>>>>>>>Forced synthesis

There comes a point where this dichotomy does not exist. WIth enough intelligence, there is only will and freedom, and no reason for force.

I'm probably giving BioWare too much credit for thinking that with the ending, but there is some precedent in the game for it. When you decide to rewrite the Geth heretics, Legion explains that it wasn't really force as we understand it, but the Geth's version of persuasion, arguing that after all aren't organics persuaded by inserting new information? However I don't think that Synthesis is as simple as rewriting the Geth heretics.

Here's some more food for thought about free will, from Sam Harris. He recently released a rather provocative book, but ultimately non-controversial from a neuroscientific perspective.

.....

You do realise that Legion is arguing the exact opposite with the rewriting scenario?
It is stating that while synthetics can be overwritten with new data, organics require time and effort.

Synthesis violates free will and it violates self-determination. Even if it didn't follow a racist philosophy, which it does, it'd still be wrong, because no one, NO ONE has the right to impose this change on the trillions of beings of the galaxy without their consent.

And the Crucible took a great deal of time and effort to design and construct, "countless generations," the game says.

If I thought Synthesis violated consent, I wouldn't advocate it. You're obstinate in asserting it does and I think this is to some philosophical confusion. For example, when some intellectuals are asked if they have freel will, they often reply, "of course I think I have free will–– I have no choice!" Although counterinuitive, they are really arguing that they don't have free will and are presenting as evidence the fact that they have no choice but to believe that they do. If they had a choice to believe that they don't have free will, then paradoxically that would be evidence against it, or at least not evidence confirming it. 

The fact that you have no choice but to believe you have it means you don't have it. That's really not such a bad thing. It doesn't justify rape, torture, and moral relativism. It just means we have to understand why they're wrong from a new more stable perspective.

[ReXspec]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

You know what solves the Organic/Synthetic conflict?

The entire Rannoch arc and talking to EDI. You prove that they can co-exist. There is no need for Synthesis. It is like solving the Catholic/Protestant conflict only to force them to worship a combination of the two anyway.

Genius.

Also, it's been said a million times before, but whatever.

The only thing that Synthesis could accomplish, is the theoretical prevention of technological singularity.

Forcing organic and synthetic beings to merge and calling it, "The final stage of evolution" is not transhumanism, it's stagnation.

Forcing stagnation of a galaxies worth of species is not progressive.  We do not grow, we do not add, we do not progress.  We stop.  If what the star brat says is true, we will stop at synthesis.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I saw someone compare Synthesis to the Ubermensh.

Jesus. Christ.

Does anyone here know who used that philosophy to further their goals? Anyone? One guess each!

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO USED WHICH PHILOSOPHY FOR WHICH PURPOSE; DAMN IT!!!!!!

Philosophies and ideas stand on their own. They don't carry a taint caused by those who misused them.

There are two components to Nietzsche's philosophy:

(1) The thought that "man is a bridge", that we are fated to grow beyond ourselves. I support this part.
(2) The actual image of what his "Übermensch" would be - hard and without compassion. I don't support that part. Unfortunately, the latter is what most people associate.

The idea of Synthesis has similarities with (1). Which is why I said results matter - *how* Synthesis will change things, that's what matters, not *that* it does.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 mai 2012 - 09:21 .

[Taboo]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...
There comes a point where this dichotomy does not exist. WIth enough intelligence, there is only will and freedom, and no reason for force.

I'm probably giving BioWare too much credit for thinking that with the ending, but there is some precedent in the game for it. When you decide to rewrite the Geth heretics, Legion explains that it wasn't really force as we understand it, but the Geth's version of persuasion, arguing that after all aren't organics persuaded by inserting new information? However I don't think that Synthesis is as simple as rewriting the Geth heretics.

Here's some more food for thought about free will, from Sam Harris. He recently released a rather provocative book, but ultimately non-controversial from a neuroscientific perspective.

It does exist, always.

Moral reletavism doesn't factor in one thing, ever.

What is good life and what is bad. It just puts things one way.

If I can't evolve and better myself I don't want to live.

Repugnant.

I am not a moral relativist. Actually the same author I recommended wrote a book called "The Moral Landscape" which is one of my favorite non-fiction books, perhaps my favorite, arguing that objective science can inform our moral values.

I have no idea where you got the notion that Synthesis means you can't better yourself. Evolution is blind and frankly a poor method of self-improvement, as long as you're talking about Darwinian evolution through natural selection. Better to improve yourself through intelligence.

I am a moral universalist, not to be confused with an absolutist. I believe that to a certain degree all beings are capable of doing things that are right and wrong. Opressing with violence and genocide for example, is always unacceptable.

Intervening to stop it however, is not. To prevent further damage, you stop the the conflict but do nothing past it.

For this reason I believe that the United States intervention in World War II was justified, as we would probably be looking at a very different Europe if we had not.

The Atom bomb however, I found to be unacceptable, as it killed those who were not directly responsible. It could have just as easily been dropped on a fleet of ships or a base.

War is never ethical.

There is nothing good about war but there is good in WHY you fight them. At least when you are intervening.

[The Angry One]

AtlasMickey wrote...

And the Crucible took a great deal of time and effort to design and construct, "countless generations," the game says.

This has nothing to do with anything.

If I thought Synthesis violated consent, I wouldn't advocate it. You're obstinate in asserting it does and I think this is to some philosophical confusion. For example, when some intellectuals are asked if they have freel will, they often reply, "of course I think I have free will–– I have no choice!" Although counterinuitive, they are really arguing that they don't have free will and are presenting as evidence the fact that they have no choice but to believe that they do. If they had a choice to believe that they don't have free will, then paradoxically that would be evidence against it, or at least not evidence confirming it. 

The fact that you have no choice but to believe you have it means you don't have it. That's really not such a bad thing. It doesn't justify rape, torture, and moral relativism. It just means we have to understand why they're wrong from a new more stable perspective.

How the hell does synthesis not violate consent?
It imposes a new paradigm on all beings without their knowledge and without their consent.

There are people who would rather die than be part synthetic. Do you think Javik would like to be part synthetic, given his dialogue? No. No he wouldn't.
So, knowing that Javik wouldn't want this, we choose synthesis... and violate his free will, because he is now part synthetic whether he likes it or not.

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

(1) The thought that "man is a bridge", that we are fated to grow beyond ourselves. I support this part.

By what right do you force this "growth", instead of letting individuals choose for themselves?

If you support this imposition, then you are supporting the philosophies of the worst among us. Period.

[AtlasMickey]

The Angry One wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...
I have no idea where you got the notion that Synthesis means you can't better yourself. Evolution is blind and frankly a poor method of self-improvement, as long as you're talking about Darwinian evolution through natural selection. Better to improve yourself through intelligence.

What. You surely don't mean that do you?

Do you?

The things some ending supporters have been saying today have made me facepalm more than once.

Yikes. It doesn't seem like you guys have ever even read a book about evolution. 

Evolution can't be a method of self-improvement because it's not something individuals do. It's a species-level process that results from the differential selection of genes. Did you think "The Origin of Species" was a self-help book?

[Taboo]

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(1) The thought that "man is a bridge", that we are fated to grow beyond ourselves. I support this part.

By what right do you force this "growth", instead of letting individuals choose for themselves?

If you support this imposition, then you are supporting the philosophies of the worst among us. Period.

Nietczhe...was an intersting man.

The ones who ran with his philosophy are the ones we remember most. They used it. It will forever be tainted. Picking and choosing what you wan't isn't an excuse. You run the the gauntlet with ALL his bull****.

He's also a petty excuse to justify things. I hate nothing more than college graduates who think they're high top ****** because they read Nietzche.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 31 mai 2012 - 09:26 .

[Grimwick]

AtlasMickey wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...
I have no idea where you got the notion that Synthesis means you can't better yourself. Evolution is blind and frankly a poor method of self-improvement, as long as you're talking about Darwinian evolution through natural selection. Better to improve yourself through intelligence.

What. You surely don't mean that do you?

Do you?

The things some ending supporters have been saying today have made me facepalm more than once.

Yikes. It doesn't seem like you guys have ever even read a book about evolution. 

Evolution can't be a method of self-improvement because it's not something individuals do. It's a species-level process that results from the differential selection of genes. Did you think "The Origin of Species" was a self-help book?

You do realise that 1) We know, what you said was just ridiculous. And 2) You just contradicted your own point:
i.e.
- Evolution is a poor method of self-improvement...
- Evolution isn't actually a method of self-improvement.

[ReXspec]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...
There comes a point where this dichotomy does not exist. WIth enough intelligence, there is only will and freedom, and no reason for force.

I'm probably giving BioWare too much credit for thinking that with the ending, but there is some precedent in the game for it. When you decide to rewrite the Geth heretics, Legion explains that it wasn't really force as we understand it, but the Geth's version of persuasion, arguing that after all aren't organics persuaded by inserting new information? However I don't think that Synthesis is as simple as rewriting the Geth heretics.

Here's some more food for thought about free will, from Sam Harris. He recently released a rather provocative book, but ultimately non-controversial from a neuroscientific perspective.

It does exist, always.

Moral reletavism doesn't factor in one thing, ever.

What is good life and what is bad. It just puts things one way.

If I can't evolve and better myself I don't want to live.

Repugnant.

I am not a moral relativist. Actually the same author I recommended wrote a book called "The Moral Landscape" which is one of my favorite non-fiction books, perhaps my favorite, arguing that objective science can inform our moral values.

I have no idea where you got the notion that Synthesis means you can't better yourself. Evolution is blind and frankly a poor method of self-improvement, as long as you're talking about Darwinian evolution through natural selection. Better to improve yourself through intelligence.

Inb4 someone brings up the crucial human factor of choice.

Evolution as Darwin explained it was never meant for human beings because of a human's sentient ability to make choices regarding his development and the environment around him.  Synthesis abruptly curtails this notion.  "The Moral Landscape" (while makes a good point that a positive mental state can lead to a positive lifestyle) also dismisses the notion of a human's ability to make a choice.  I do not agree with this.  Everyone has agency and curiosity--it is what defines us as human beings and not animals.

So yes, in essence, Taboo is correct.  You are a moral relativist with the caveat that we can somehow bring our minds to a positive or negative mentality (you are still not quite clear on that).

Modifié par ReXspec, 31 mai 2012 - 09:31 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

So synthesis ... will I be stuck calculating pi for the overlord? ... is the only solution?

I disagree.

[AtlasMickey]

The Angry One wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...

And the Crucible took a great deal of time and effort to design and construct, "countless generations," the game says.

This has nothing to do with anything.

TAO, no need to belabor under the illusion that I'm having a dialogue with you because we long ago discovered that to be impossible. Or at least I did.