235 réponses à ce sujet

[Funkdrspot]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

We have one giant case of synthetics not being peaceful, it happens to be tied in the main plot. Or have I been playing a game where there are some type of organics inside these huge reapers flying them around? So we have one hostile machine race and one machine race (in the infancy of it's infinite life span).

Reapers are synthesis...
A hybrid of organic and inorganic material...
A billion organic minds uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies...
The self purported pinnacle of evolution and existence...

Are they synthetic? If I'm 50% Italian and 50% Mongolian, am I Italian?

I believe you're a ****** sapien. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe I asked a yes or no question, correct me if I'm wrong.

Countries are an abstraction created to sepearate people with borders. You are no more Italian than you are Mongolian. You are human.

It can be a little of both, depending on social, geological and resource conditions.

[Taboo]

Venomous Snake wrote...

I'm also no more human than I am a mammal. I'm also no more a mammal than an animal. Can we stop with semantics or are you a philosophy major?

You are an advanced ape. At one time you were ****** erectus. You will, and always will be that.

As for philosophy I would love nothing MORE than to bring it into this discussion.

Did you know that if you speak Yiddish you're a semantic semitic? 

[Alien1099]

Venomous Snake wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

Just because something occurs once does not mean that it's a constant. The sample size your using would not be sufficient in any type of statistics. So your conclusion is a bit biased because of one instant you want to point out. So yea geth and EDI proved this concept wrong in one situation at one small point in time but you can't make any type of intelligent guess about what will happen in the future.

 Being proven wrong two cycles in a row out of thousands (which we don't know about) isn't encouraging from a statistical standpoint. Sorta like how we don't know how many planets are out there orbiting stars, but we are finding more and more all the time now. What does that tell you? Planets are pretty common despite the fact that we don't know for sure about other star systems we aren't able to observe accurately yet or haven't gotten to.

Modifié par Alien1099, 31 mai 2012 - 04:41 .

[chemiclord]

I dunno if it would really make "sense", but there was a lot that could have been done to make the Catalyst's claims sound... logical, at the very least.

[Taboo]

Funkdrspot wrote...
It can be a little of both, depending on social, geological and resource conditions.

You are because of an abstraction. Without borders you'd just be human.

Which you are.

Such nonsense!

[TeffexPope]

Venomous Snake wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

We have one giant case of synthetics not being peaceful, it happens to be tied in the main plot. Or have I been playing a game where there are some type of organics inside these huge reapers flying them around? So we have one hostile machine race and one machine race (in the infancy of it's infinite life span).

Reapers are synthesis...
A hybrid of organic and inorganic material...
A billion organic minds uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies...
The self purported pinnacle of evolution and existence...

Are they synthetic? If I'm 50% Italian and 50% Mongolian, am I Italian?

Synthetics are created. Organics evolve. The reapers could not have evolved naturally. I would say they're much more synthetic than organic. It's not fifty fifty, as if we could even quantify what those two percentages are anyway.

[Funkdrspot]

Venomous Snake wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

We have one giant case of synthetics not being peaceful, it happens to be tied in the main plot. Or have I been playing a game where there are some type of organics inside these huge reapers flying them around? So we have one hostile machine race and one machine race (in the infancy of it's infinite life span).

Reapers are synthesis...
A hybrid of organic and inorganic material...
A billion organic minds uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies...
The self purported pinnacle of evolution and existence...

Are they synthetic? If I'm 50% Italian and 50% Mongolian, am I Italian?

I believe you're a ****** sapien. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe I asked a yes or no question, correct me if I'm wrong.

Countries are an abstraction created to sepearate people with borders. You are no more Italian than you are Mongolian. You are human.

I'm also no more human than I am a mammal. I'm also no more a mammal than an animal. Can we stop with semantics or are you a philosophy major?

Uh, for the most part that's actually a genetics issue too. The differences between perceived races are virtually nothing.

[Funkdrspot]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...
It can be a little of both, depending on social, geological and resource conditions.

You are because of an abstraction. Without borders you'd just be human.

Which you are.

Such nonsense!

Without political borders, slight genetic variances would still exist due to populations congregating and birthing withing those same populations.

I'm not saying that there is any real genetic differences between all of our races but there are at LEAST cosmetic differences that we know, if nothing else.

[Funkdrspot]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

As it currently stands, yes the catalyst sounds stupid, but lets be real here, the Geth and EDI are in their infancy.

The Catalyst has been around for a few hundred million years at least. All he had to do was add like 30 seconds of dialogue about how they've allowed peaceful AI-organic cycles to continue longer, only to have it always devolve to organic extinction when the AI 's achieve a level of processing comparable to the Reapers.

If they even wanted to go for the gusto, they could add in a detailed part about how the catalyst ran 400 separate experiments in a separate galaxy and every last one ended with organic extinction.

So again, it sounds stupid currently, but there's PLENTLY they could add to make it make perfect sense.

The Catalyst is an AI caught in a feedback loop. He can't take in anymore variables on his own. He needs intervention to create a new option remember?

He's a loop that won't take in anything new.

That's your interpretation but i would argue that his line doesn't substantiate your interpretation. He doesn't NEED intervention to create a new option, he views his plan as fine already but you have forced him to change the plan.

It's an extremely advanced AI that has been around a billion years so I'm going to guess that there's some truth to his argument. Some.

[2papercuts]

Venomous Snake wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

Just because something occurs once does not mean that it's a constant. The sample size your using would not be sufficient in any type of statistics. So your conclusion is a bit biased because of one instant you want to point out. So yea geth and EDI proved this concept wrong in one situation at one small point in time but you can't make any type of intelligent guess about what will happen in the future.

First off, this cuts both ways. 

And second, we only have one instance to base everything. There aren't really that many synthetics conflicts in the series, at least no more than any other. So yeah, were going have to make our arguements based on that, using unknown events as evidence is ludicrous. 

[unoriginalname1133]

Venomous Snake wrote...

unoriginalname1133 wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

Just because something occurs once does not mean that it's a constant. The sample size your using would not be sufficient in any type of statistics. So your conclusion is a bit biased because of one instant you want to point out. So yea geth and EDI proved this concept wrong in one situation at one small point in time but you can't make any type of intelligent guess about what will happen in the future.

Well, considering that organic life is still around, the assumption that the Catalyst is working from has obviously NEVER happened. So we still have more known cases of synthetics being peaceful.

We have one giant case of synthetics not being peaceful, it happens to be tied in the main plot. Or have I been playing a game where there are some type of organics inside these huge reapers flying them around? So we have one hostile machine race and one machine race (in the infancy of it's infinite life span).

You mean the Reapers, the race of organic/sythetic hybrids (quoting EDI) that were created for the sole purpose of preventing synthetics from killing everyone? They hardly make for compelling evidence for your side. They were created after the assumption of synthetics wiping out organics had already been made. Unless you're suggesting that they were created to solve a problem that arose in the first place by them being created. That makes absolutely no sense.

[Cypher_CS]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's not my ****ing problem then.

Yes, I've noticed that theme in your posts.

But then it's a whole other issue. You are now talking about Altruism and relevance of actions to an abstract future.
That's a whole other discussion.

[Cypher_CS]

Alien1099 wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

Just because something occurs once does not mean that it's a constant. The sample size your using would not be sufficient in any type of statistics. So your conclusion is a bit biased because of one instant you want to point out. So yea geth and EDI proved this concept wrong in one situation at one small point in time but you can't make any type of intelligent guess about what will happen in the future.

 Being proven wrong two cycles in a row out of thousands (which we don't know about) isn't encouraging from a statistical standpoint. Sorta like how we don't know how many planets are out there orbiting stars, but we are finding more and more all the time now. What does that tell you? Planets are pretty common despite the fact that we don't know for sure about other star systems we aren't able to observe accurately yet or haven't gotten to.

It wasn't proven wrong two cycles in a row.
It wasn't even proven wrong once.

Catalyst's Assertion means that had the Prothean cycle was allowed to continue, eventually, invariably, they would have created, or their offspring or even the offspring of some ther AI down the line, a post Technological Singularity AI. They didn't allow the cycle to continue to an Invariability, because doing so means allowing an indefinite continuation.

Catalyst's Assertion means that had our cycle was allowed to continue, eventually, invariably, we would have created, or our offpsring or even offspring of some AI down the line, a post Technological Singularity AI. They intent not to allow the Cycle to continue to an invaraiability, because doing so means allowing an indefinite continuation.

Nothing was proven wrong.
Because, again, you can prove wrong an assertion of Invariability by a single instance.

[Thornne]

Cypher_CS wrote...
Nothing was proven wrong.
Because, again, you can prove wrong an assertion of Invariability by a single instance.

I don't see the need to prove anything wrong, since there's nothing provably correct about the Star Kid's assertion in the first place.  He theorizes this thing will invariably happen, then acts to prevent it.  It  doesn't happen.  Was this because he prevented it, or because he was wrong in the first place?  No way to know.

[Cypher_CS]

That's fine.

Point is, you can either go with that stance - We Can't Know - or go with Taboo's stance - We Can't Know and we Don't Give a Damn Cause it Will Be Beyond Our Lifespans - or with that other stance that claims that EDI and Geth prove it wrong.
You can't go with all those Stances together.

[HellbirdIV]

It seems to me that, if a technological singularity occurs and synthetic life is superior in all aspects to organic life, then... Nothing at all would happen.

Synthetics are not malicious - the geth are evidence of this, the only malicious geth who wanted to exterminate organics did so because the Reapers corrupted their programming, and allegedly the Reapers aren't exterminating organics, just "saving" them (for later?).

Assuming that synthetics operate on strict logic, there would be no reason for them to eradicate organics, because organics are far too inferior to pose any kind of threat to synthetics. The synthetics won't need to wipe them out for resources, they'll be so advanced they can fart supernova levels of energy and build spaceships out of their own waste, assuming they even need to build spaceships because at that point they could just use their personal Mass Relays to jump anywhere in the galaxy they feel like.

Basically, if synthetics are going to reach a technological singularity, they won't need organics, and they also won't need to kill them because that's an illogical waste of time.

[Optimus J]

ohiocat110 wrote...

It's statistically impossible for synthetic life to fully eradicate organic life in the galaxy. The Milky Way contains 200-400 billion stars, with an estimated 10 billion planets in the habitable zone. (Numbers that seem to increase every time there's an advance in astrophysics) A 50,000 year Reaper cycle wouldn't even be long enough to survey all habitable planets for signs of life, unless the Reapers number in the billions.

Anitomical humans supposedly evolved 200,000 years ago on Earth. For synthetics to fully eradicate all advanced organic life, they would have to have the capability of surveying and potentially waging war with 50,000 worlds per year, every year, forever. And that's assuming they never encounter setbacks like a system failure or war from a civilization that's more powerful. It also assumes synthetic life will never factionalize, never experience a civil war, and will constantly work toward the goal of destroying all organics. It's assumed synthetics will turn on their creators, but never explaines why they would view all organic life as automatically hostile. It's also assumed they will act as Von Neumann machines and replicate an expand indefinitely.

It may take longer, but organic life is always going to come back unless synthetics utterly sterilize the entire galaxy, and sterilize every newly formed star system before organics can evolve. I suppose it's possible that the galaxy would one day be packed wall to wall with hostile killer robots, but exceedingly improbable. Hardly the certainty that the Catalyst makes it out to be.

Pretty much every topic covered by the game BEFORE the horrible ending...
Makes me wonder how Mac Walters got the leading writing after Drew left.

[Hey]

HellbirdIV wrote...

 They can fart supernova levels of energy and build spaceships out of their own waste, .

LOL.  ME 4 should delve into this

Modifié par Festae9, 31 mai 2012 - 07:26 .

[Hudathan]

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

He does NOT assume this. His statement was that synthetics will always rebel against their organic creators because of the inherent differences between the two forms of life, not that synthetics are somehow inherently hateful when it comes to organics. That the Quarians pushed the Geth to rebel in self defense is not an argument against the Catalyst's premise.

If anything, the Quarian/Geth conflict is an ironic example of why synthetics and organics cannot coexist peacefully. The Quarians were a perfect example of how technological advancement inevitably leads to the creation of advanced synthetics that will be feared by their creators. That the Quarians caused the conflict adds nuance to the Catalyst's premise, it does not prove said premise wrong.

Modifié par Hudathan, 31 mai 2012 - 07:41 .

[Venomous Snake]

unoriginalname1133 wrote...

You mean the Reapers, the race of organic/sythetic hybrids (quoting EDI) that were created for the sole purpose of preventing synthetics from killing everyone? They hardly make for compelling evidence for your side. They were created after the assumption of synthetics wiping out organics had already been made. Unless you're suggesting that they were created to solve a problem that arose in the first place by them being created. That makes absolutely no sense.

You assume I sit on one side of the fence or the other, which in this case is incorrect. If the tone of my rebuttals make you think I'm picking sides I did not intend it to.I could also suggest they were the first AI to rebel. But I guess you would consider that to be a stupid assumption as well.... There are many assumptions one could make about the Reapers origins and I'm sure you find most of them non-sensical.

2papercuts wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

Just
because something occurs once does not mean that it's a constant. The
sample size your using would not be sufficient in any type of statistics.
So your conclusion is a bit biased because of one instant you want to
point out. So yea geth and EDI proved this concept wrong in one
situation at one small point in time but you can't make any type of
intelligent guess about what will happen in the future.

First off, this cuts both ways. 

And
second, we only have one instance to base everything. There aren't
really that many synthetics conflicts in the series, at least no more
than any other. So yeah, were going have to make our arguements based on
that, using unknown events as evidence is ludicrous. 

I'm aware this cuts both ways....... Therefore I'm not drawing any conclusions. Who is saying to use unknown events to draw conclusions? We can use our knowledge outside the game as well. Humans can't stop fighting each other, war is inevitable as far as we know, it's existed for a longgggg time. What makes you think if humans can't stop killing each other over nonsense that synthetics and organics won't fight over the same silly nonsense. 

Modifié par Venomous Snake, 31 mai 2012 - 07:59 .

[Cypher_CS]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Synthetics are not malicious - the geth are evidence of this,

Again, a problem with that statement.
It's false.
The Geth are NOT evidence of Synthetics NOT being malicious.
They are only evidence against Syntehtics being INHERENTLY malicious.

It's a huge difference.

HellbirdIV wrote... 
Assuming that synthetics operate on strict logic, there would be no reason for them to eradicate organics, because organics are far too inferior to pose any kind of threat to synthetics.

Again, you leave out so many variables here.

Here, read the first post here:
http://social.biowar.../index/10761785

HellbirdIV wrote...  
The synthetics won't need to wipe them out for resources, they'll be so advanced they can fart supernova levels of energy and build spaceships out of their own waste, assuming they even need to build spaceships because at that point they could just use their personal Mass Relays to jump anywhere in the galaxy they feel like.

I have a slight problem with this statement.
See, you first talk about how so far advanced the synthetics would be, and then you go and base the rest of your argument on quite petty needs that, if we take your first premise of advancement, synthetics will not even have. Ever.

Which it is to say, they would have other needs.
One such example would be an Entity which spans the entire galaxy, powered by the galactic engine itself (i.e. the energy of the stars and all interconnectedness of the stars). In which case, it would no longer be a matter of Organics hurting such an AI, but rather something more akin to parasites or cancer cells inside the body.

Even a war between Organics - a war that would go Nuclear, for example, and scorch an entire planet or a system. For such an AI it would mean... what? Chopping off a limb, methaphorically speaking?

And, if this is nothing for such an AI, then surely the probability of this continuing to happen at other sites, other planets, would eventually, calculably, mean more and more limbs and organs being cut off till it's... actually hurt. No?

[Cypher_CS]

Hudathan wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

He does NOT assume this. His statement was that synthetics will always rebel against their organic creators because of the inherent differences between the two forms of life, not that synthetics are somehow inherently hateful when it comes to organics. That the Quarians pushed the Geth to rebel in self defense is not an argument against the Catalyst's premise.

If anything, the Quarian/Geth conflict is an ironic example of why synthetics and organics cannot coexist peacefully. The Quarians were a perfect example of how technological advancement inevitably leads to the creation of advanced synthetics that will be feared by their creators. That the Quarians caused the conflict adds nuance to the Catalyst's premise, it does not prove said premise wrong.

Quite.

[HellbirdIV]

Cypher_CS wrote...

HellbirdIV wrote...

Synthetics are not malicious - the geth are evidence of this,

Again, a problem with that statement.
It's false.
The Geth are NOT evidence of Synthetics NOT being malicious.
They are only evidence against Syntehtics being INHERENTLY malicious.

It's a huge difference.

So your argument is, "Even though it hasn't happened in 100% of observed cases, that doesn't mean it won't happen!"

The Catalyst's argument relies on synthetics being inherently malicious and always violently revolting against their creators, ultimately exterminating not only them, but all organic life. That's exactly what the Catalyst says and the whole basis for his stupid "salvation through destruction" idea.

You are saying that we should disregard observable evidence in favor of theoretical concepts that do, in fact, contradict the observed facts.

Cypher_CS wrote...

Which it is to say, they would have other needs.
One such example would be an Entity which spans the entire galaxy, powered by the galactic engine itself (i.e. the energy of the stars and all interconnectedness of the stars). In which case, it would no longer be a matter of Organics hurting such an AI, but rather something more akin to parasites or cancer cells inside the body.

Even a war between Organics - a war that would go Nuclear, for example, and scorch an entire planet or a system. For such an AI it would mean... what? Chopping off a limb, methaphorically speaking?

And, if this is nothing for such an AI, then surely the probability of this continuing to happen at other sites, other planets, would eventually, calculably, mean more and more limbs and organs being cut off till it's... actually hurt. No?

Well no. Even a full-scale nuclear bombardment turning a garden world into a radioactive ball of slag wouldn't affect a "galactic engine" (a ridiculous concept, the energy and material requirements to build such a thing would far surpass the need for such a thing to exist) in the slightest because it does not in fact impact anything beyond its own atmosphere.

Even grand scale interstellar war with spaceships and laser cannons won't have any noticable impact because your theoretical silliness is powered by the stars themselves. It's not cancer, it is more similar to the billions of internal bacteria in our bodies that have no noticable impact on our daily existence.

[Vigilant111]

@Cypher CS: OP only posted a theory that MIGHT disapprove the "created blah blah creators", just a theory as a means to attempt to justify the fact there are something larger than the Catalyst itself

At the end of the day, the Catalyst cannot prove the statement it made right or wrong, not even the likelihood of it, I am not sure if u share the same view

[zyntifox]

I think the green ending is crap aswell, but i don't see any statistical proofs in the text, and im saying this as a statistician.