685 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
If you keep reaping before the singularity occurs how can you assume it is a certain conclusion that created will destory creators?

For the same reason the salarians knew that curing the genophage would always result in war. Simulations. Simulations are a very powerful tool for prediction, if set up correctly and fed with correct data. Of course, simulations can also be incorrect if fed with incorrect information. The results of simulations have a "confidence", defined as the probability that the predictions are true, assuming that the unknown factors of the simulation are random. So it's possible to say something like "With a probability of 98%, organics in the galaxy will be extinct ten million years after a singularity has occurred" based on a simulation.

This has, for instance, been used in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, where the development of whole civilizations was predicted. Asimov later went back on his premise because he thought it sent a message of fatalism to the people who read his stories, but the principle nonetheless holds. If you know the laws that govern the behaviour of an entity, you can make valid predictions.

Problem with simulations is they are open to bias. Need proof to show that you have entered correct variables. Reapers never let it get to that stage they interrupt the experiment before it has run its course. Their simulations are biased imo.

So, are you expecting the Catalyst to present all the data that went into its conclusions in-.game? Over a billion years or so? Even assuming you could comprehend the math (an unlikely proposition if you ask me), before you've analysed that, the Reapers have won.

You hold this story to unreasonable standards because you don't like the outcome. I'd be content with a coherent exposition of the problem, which admittedly we haven't got. We need unpublished material and external sources to make sense of things, and that's bad. But for you, apparently a coherent exposition wouldn't be enough. You need....proof? As in 100% mathematical proof? Sorry, you don't even have that in real science.

[o Ventus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
If you keep reaping before the singularity occurs how can you assume it is a certain conclusion that created will destory creators?

For the same reason the salarians knew that curing the genophage would always result in war. Simulations. Simulations are a very powerful tool for prediction, if set up correctly and fed with correct data. Of course, simulations can also be incorrect if fed with incorrect information. The results of simulations have a "confidence", defined as the probability that the predictions are true, assuming that the unknown factors of the simulation are random. So it's possible to say something like "With a probability of 98%, organics in the galaxy will be extinct ten million years after a singularity has occurred" based on a simulation.

This has, for instance, been used in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, where the development of whole civilizations was predicted. Asimov later went back on his premise because he thought it sent a message of fatalism to the people who read his stories, but the principle nonetheless holds. If you know the laws that govern the behaviour of an entity, you can make valid predictions.

Problem with simulations is they are open to bias. Need proof to show that you have entered correct variables. Reapers never let it get to that stage they interrupt the experiment before it has run its course. Their simulations are biased imo.

So, are you expecting the Catalyst to present all the data that went into its conclusions in-.game? Over a billion years or so? Even assuming you could comprehend the math (an unlikely proposition if you ask me), before you've analysed that, the Reapers have won.

You hold this story to unreasonable standards because you don't like the outcome. I'd be content with a coherent exposition of the problem, which admittedly we haven't got. We need unpublished material and external sources to make sense of things, and that's bad. But for you, apparently a coherent exposition wouldn't be enough. You need....proof? As in 100% mathematical proof? Sorry, you don't even have that in real science.

So basically, what you're saying is "It might happen, therefore I am correct." and "what, you need proof? what's that? Can you eat it? Why do you need proof to justify your stance on interstellar genocide based on a theory?"

Modifié par o Ventus, 02 juin 2012 - 07:55 .

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
*sigh* We're talking in circles. If a super-intelligent AI tells me that something will happen based on simulations it's been running, then I'm well-advised to take this seriously. Yes, I will ask how the apparent counter-evidence fits into that scheme, and that I can't is a major writing failure, but what happened in this cycle and the last is not conclusive, since these synthetics had not experienced a singularity yet.

Also, there's the worst-case scenario: what happens if I don't take it seriously and I'm wrong? Yeah, I've doomed organics to extinction. What happens if I take it seriously but the Catalyst was wrong? Yeah, I've leveled the galaxy up without a pressing need. Sorry if I prefer the latter scenario.

What makes you think it is super intelligent. If Shep chooses control is he suddenly super intelligent. Shep can be an idiot and yet control doesn't reject him because his IQ isn't high enough.  so why assume starbrat is a genius and not a murderous insane madman utilising a tecnology to exact his prejudiced will on the galacy.

I see no evidence it has been querying the validity of its conclusions.

[jtav]

I think what we need is some kind of in game event showing us that synthetics are dangerous to organics. Post-ME1, all the synthetics we actually interact with are fairly nice "people" who, as they advance, become more comprehensible to humans. Not less. The ME1 portrayal of synthetics actually meshes better with the Catalyst's logic then the subsequent games. Legion, the geth, and EDI are just too fundamentally decent for me to regard them as a greater threat then say the krogan.

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

I think what we need is some kind of in game event showing us that synthetics are dangerous to organics. Post-ME1, all the synthetics we actually interact with are fairly nice "people" who, as they advance, become more comprehensible to humans. Not less. The ME1 portrayal of synthetics actually meshes better with the Catalyst's logic then the subsequent games. Legion, the geth, and EDI are just too fundamentally decent for me to regard them as a greater threat then say the krogan.

This.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, there's the worst-case scenario: what happens if I don't take it seriously and I'm wrong? Yeah, I've doomed organics to extinction. What happens if I take it seriously but the Catalyst was wrong? Yeah, I've leveled the galaxy up without a pressing need. Sorry if I prefer the latter scenario.

False dilemma, it’s extinction at some point in the future.

That doesn't invalidate it, provided you you give a timeframe in your prediction, such as "with a probability of 98%, extinction of organics will occur within a timeframe of ten million years after a singularity occurs". Of course we don't see that in the story because most players wouldn't comprehend a statement phrased in a scientifically correct manner. Yet again *sigh*, you hold a story to RL standards it can't possibly match without degenerating into a math and statistics lesson. 

Also, this presupposes that said extinction isn’t exactly the same as whatever Synthesis is supposed to be (since there won’t be any organics left after it, either).

No pure organics. Apparently, organics with synthetic aspects are organic enough to fit the goal. I don't have a problem with that.

Also, it could be that the guys in the next galaxy think that Synthesisics are the worst abomination in the ever, and nuke the whole Milky Way.

Extraneous "could be" factors. Irrelevant. If you go that way, you might as well claim a god-like AI can pop out from the neighbouring universe and kill everything and everyone. Irrelevant.

The thing about unknowable future is just that.

Unknowable with absolute certainty. But if absolute certainly was needed to make a decision, nobody would ever make decisions based on projections about the future. Nonetheless, such decisions are often necessary.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
If you keep reaping before the singularity occurs how can you assume it is a certain conclusion that created will destory creators?

For the same reason the salarians knew that curing the genophage would always result in war. Simulations. Simulations are a very powerful tool for prediction, if set up correctly and fed with correct data. Of course, simulations can also be incorrect if fed with incorrect information. The results of simulations have a "confidence", defined as the probability that the predictions are true, assuming that the unknown factors of the simulation are random. So it's possible to say something like "With a probability of 98%, organics in the galaxy will be extinct ten million years after a singularity has occurred" based on a simulation.

This has, for instance, been used in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, where the development of whole civilizations was predicted. Asimov later went back on his premise because he thought it sent a message of fatalism to the people who read his stories, but the principle nonetheless holds. If you know the laws that govern the behaviour of an entity, you can make valid predictions.

Problem with simulations is they are open to bias. Need proof to show that you have entered correct variables. Reapers never let it get to that stage they interrupt the experiment before it has run its course. Their simulations are biased imo.

So, are you expecting the Catalyst to present all the data that went into its conclusions in-.game? Over a billion years or so? Even assuming you could comprehend the math (an unlikely proposition if you ask me), before you've analysed that, the Reapers have won.

You hold this story to unreasonable standards because you don't like the outcome. I'd be content with a coherent exposition of the problem, which admittedly we haven't got. We need unpublished material and external sources to make sense of things, and that's bad. But for you, apparently a coherent exposition wouldn't be enough. You need....proof? As in 100% mathematical proof? Sorry, you don't even have that in real science.

I expect a reasoning behind the reapers that has at least been proved by repeated occurence. He's a genocidal maniac of suspect intellect. He hasn't a billion years of data because he keeps interrupting the experiment part way through to wipe slate clean. That doesn't smell of science that smells of religion. Scientists test and query their methodology. Currently Cern scientists are querying why results dispute the supposedly hard held theories of Einstein. Mordin is sure of himself in ME2, doesn't seem so sure of himself in ME3.

[o Ventus]

o Ventus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Then what does he mean by "you bring this on your selves"?

Organics build synthetics....who will eventually surpass and destroy them. Thus, they're bringing the chaos on themselves.

Which, of course, is not true. Rannoch, when the quarians and geth unite, prove the reapers wrong. Javik explains that the protheans dealt with synthetics in their own way by exterminating them. So, two cycles in succession have dealt with that inevitability in their own way. Still, the reapers continued their genocides. They have to. Not because synthetics are a threat, but because harvesting civilizations and technology is their way of reproduction and their method to stay on top of the food chain.

Two cycles among how many? Also, those synthetics hadn't experienced a singularity. If the geth continue to exist, they'll get there soon. What happens after that may be what the Catalyst is trying to prevent.

Of course, you are free to think the Reapers are doing that just for reproduction and choose accordingly. I happen to think otherwise....and choose accordingly.

You are assuming such a singularity has already happened in-universe, when all the evidence points to it NOT having happened yet. If such a super powerful AI construct that has wiped out all organic life really existed, where is it? Why are there no traces of it? Why does organic life still exist? Surely, the AI wouldn't only kill some organics, but not the others (Nevermind that mass genocide is the least practical route the AI could possibly take, but that's a different matter itself).

Are you going to answer this, or just keep avoiding it?

[Jenonax]

jtav wrote...

I think what we need is some kind of in game event showing us that synthetics are dangerous to organics. Post-ME1, all the synthetics we actually interact with are fairly nice "people" who, as they advance, become more comprehensible to humans. Not less. The ME1 portrayal of synthetics actually meshes better with the Catalyst's logic then the subsequent games. Legion, the geth, and EDI are just too fundamentally decent for me to regard them as a greater threat then say the krogan.

Absolutely.

That we do not meet a non-sympathetic synthetic only serves to weaken the case for Catalyst.  This is a story, we have to go on the examples we are given.  The synthetic/Organic debate sub-plot was wrapped up on Rannoch.  I will never accept that outright them vs us was ever the main plot.  It was a sub-plot that was completed, it never should have shown up in the finale.

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

I think what we need is some kind of in game event showing us that synthetics are dangerous to organics. Post-ME1, all the synthetics we actually interact with are fairly nice "people" who, as they advance, become more comprehensible to humans. Not less. The ME1 portrayal of synthetics actually meshes better with the Catalyst's logic then the subsequent games. Legion, the geth, and EDI are just too fundamentally decent for me to regard them as a greater threat then say the krogan.

Worse still ME2 tells us ME1 Geth's hostility is down to reapers.

[o Ventus]

wright1978 wrote...

jtav wrote...

I think what we need is some kind of in game event showing us that synthetics are dangerous to organics. Post-ME1, all the synthetics we actually interact with are fairly nice "people" who, as they advance, become more comprehensible to humans. Not less. The ME1 portrayal of synthetics actually meshes better with the Catalyst's logic then the subsequent games. Legion, the geth, and EDI are just too fundamentally decent for me to regard them as a greater threat then say the krogan.

Worse still ME2 tells us ME1 Geth's hostility is down to reapers.

I've always been of the idea that the Reapers are the source of the problem they were created to stop. Synthetics that eradicate organic life. With some exposition, it sounds (To me, at least) like it could have been a good idea to incorporate.

[Ieldra]

o Ventus wrote...
So basically, what you're saying is "It might happen, therefore I am correct." and "what, you need proof? what's that? Can you eat it? Why do you need proof to justify your stance on interstellar genocide based on a theory?"

No, I am not saying I am correct. I am saying that the story is set up in a way that I can reasonably assume the Catalyst has a point and doesn't act out of malice or deception. The problem we all have is that its actual arguments are stupid. But do you really believe the Catalyst actually *is* as stupid as its arguments are written? Or do you rather believe there is supposed to be some point in its actions and the writers have failed utterly to present it coherently to us?

You can take the writing at face value. Then, nothing makes any sense. We all know that and I don't pretend otherwise. But in that case - if the Catalyst really is as stupid as its written arguments - I might as well roll 1d3 for my ending. I'd rather try to make sense of things.

[Untold]

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Angry One:
None of the choices take anyone's opinion into account. The only real argument you and your faction have is to yell "Don't believe the Catalyst" at every opportunity, because for those who do believe it, the question they'd have to ask is: "Would you rather that your descendants be killed by synthetics, live under the overlordship of an ascended human, or that you'll get synthetic symbionts that upgrade your capabilities in several ways"?

But of course, *that's* different. /sarcasm

I've never said any of the options are viable. Stop confusing me with a pro-Destroy because it convenes you.
I say destroy is the lesser of the 3 evils, but it is still bad.

Synthesis however not only affects the outcome of the war, but all beings of the galaxy, even those who wouldn't have been affected by the war. FOREVER. Without their knowledge or consent. That is what makes synthesis truly the worst and most vile choice.

Stop talking about upgrades as if that will convince me. Once again, I am a transhumanist. I fully believe in and endorse the benefits of cybernetic upgrades. I do not however believe that forced upgrades are justifiable by any meeans.
You simply don't have that right. Nobody does. Ever.

I guess the easiest comparison I can make to synthesis is if a person strapped you down to a table and proceeded to cut off all of your limbs and replaced them with mechanical ones, would you be ok with that? If so, would you then be ok with it being done to every man woman and child in the galaxy? That's about what you're in for except on a more intrusive level.

Now don't get me wrong, the other two are no bastions of sunshine and hope either. Control equates to slavery with a side order of personal disintigration (which still confuses me on how you can control anything after being vaporized) while destroy could result in genocide of a sentient race, assuming all that crucible tweaking and upgrading didn't provide a more focused blast like the war asset list indicated. In total,and without flaming, I agree with Angry that none of them are really shiny endings of hope and good things.

They all have their dark points assuming that they are as intended, and by that I mean if the devs don't have a sneaky swirve planned somewhere down the road with EC. And in truth, I might have believed that was the case more if it hadn't already been so long since launch.

Modifié par Untold, 02 juin 2012 - 08:17 .

[Ieldra]

@o Ventus:
*Sigh* Why must I repeat everything I have written about this? Read my Synthesis thread and you'll know my reasoning about the singularity. There are any number of scenarios which may have brought the Catalyst to its conclusion.

For instance, imagine it had been built by an organic species at war with post-singularity synthetics. This organic species was every advanced in other areas before it ever started to build synthetics, and it could hold its own for a while while it built the Catalyst, which is not a seed AI and cannot self-improve, so it doesn't fall under the same category of synthetics which will eventually destroy organics. Eventually, the Catalyst was finished, and shortly thereafter the post-singularity synthetics and the organic species that build them destroyed each other. The Catalyst was left with a lot of data about the behaviour of both parts.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
So basically, what you're saying is "It might happen, therefore I am correct." and "what, you need proof? what's that? Can you eat it? Why do you need proof to justify your stance on interstellar genocide based on a theory?"

No, I am not saying I am correct. I am saying that the story is set up in a way that I can reasonably assume the Catalyst has a point and doesn't act out of malice or deception. The problem we all have is that its actual arguments are stupid. But do you really believe the Catalyst actually *is* as stupid as its arguments are written? Or do you rather believe there is supposed to be some point in its actions and the writers have failed utterly to present it coherently to us?

You can take the writing at face value. Then, nothing makes any sense. We all know that and I don't pretend otherwise. But in that case - if the Catalyst really is as stupid as its written arguments - I might as well roll 1d3 for my ending. I'd rather try to make sense of things.

Genocide is malice. And the reapers reproduce using genocide. Star Child has to use deception, because no one in his or her right mind can defend genocide of non-hostile races.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 02 juin 2012 - 08:21 .

[cbutz]

Good freaking lord people why are we arguing about this. People from both sides dialike the endings. All three endings are terrible, face value or not. The catalyst logic sucks...all three endings suck, why are we legitamizing these endings by debating which pile of crap tastes better. Synthesis sucks, its not a bout the idea of transhumanism that's the problem but what synthesis does, how it does it, and how involuntary it does which sucks. Destroy and control sucks. These endjngs are unacceptible.

[o Ventus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
So basically, what you're saying is "It might happen, therefore I am correct." and "what, you need proof? what's that? Can you eat it? Why do you need proof to justify your stance on interstellar genocide based on a theory?"

No, I am not saying I am correct. I am saying that the story is set up in a way that I can reasonably assume the Catalyst has a point and doesn't act out of malice or deception. The problem we all have is that its actual arguments are stupid. But do you really believe the Catalyst actually *is* as stupid as its arguments are written? Or do you rather believe there is supposed to be some point in its actions and the writers have failed utterly to present it coherently to us?

More or less a mix of both. The catalyst is incredibly stupid. Mentally retarded levels of stupid. The ****** terrible writing he was given didn't help its case at all.

You can take the writing at face value. Then, nothing makes any sense. We all know that and I don't pretend otherwise. But in that case - if the Catalyst really is as stupid as its written arguments - I might as well roll 1d3 for my ending. I'd rather try to make sense of things.

So you're indirectly admitting that the ending failed its literary purpose then. I believe it was a writer for Star Wars that said this, but "By the end, you shouldn't need to think about things to get an idea of the story and the direction it's taking. Things should be laid out for your mind to feast on, not waste time prattling on about trying to make sense of the situation." (Para)

[Grimwick]

OP, arguing that synthesis makes sense because the other two options make less sense is fallacious.

I would also like to see the part of your argument which actually explains what part of synthesis actually does make sense.

The narrative? No. The sci-fi? Definitely not. The logical justification behind it? No, no and no.

[Lord Goose]

That we do not meet a non-sympathetic synthetic only serves to weaken the case for Catalyst. This is a story, we have to go on the examples we are given. The synthetic/Organic debate sub-plot was wrapped up on Rannoch. I will never accept that outright them vs us was ever the main plot. It was a sub-plot that was completed, it never should have shown up in the finale.

I think that they already completed Rannoch quest, and didn't have any time to change it, because Drew Carphyshyn left. So they have to choose new idea behind the harvest, which could make a tiny bit amount of sense. So they used organics vs synthetics because it was sort of hinted in ME1 (Klencory description), even though geth and quarians contradict that idea.

[jtav]

@ Ieldra

Except we don't see any of that, so it doesn't really count. I believe the Catalyst is telling the truth so far is it understands it, but I choose to believe that there's a programming error in there somewhere. The game has completely failed to convince me that singularity is anything like a credible threat. So the question becomes "what's the best solution to the Reaper problem?" and how do I best minimize the suffering of galactic society as a whole without ripping my personal morals into tiny pieces?

Modifié par jtav, 02 juin 2012 - 08:24 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I think what we need is some kind of in game event showing us that synthetics are dangerous to organics. Post-ME1, all the synthetics we actually interact with are fairly nice "people" who, as they advance, become more comprehensible to humans. Not less. The ME1 portrayal of synthetics actually meshes better with the Catalyst's logic then the subsequent games. Legion, the geth, and EDI are just too fundamentally decent for me to regard them as a greater threat then say the krogan.

That would certainly help but wouldn't be evidence. We have proven that we can defuse "normal" conflicts. What we need is a singularity event that has been contained by desperate measures after it happened. Or evidence of that. You could, for instance, find a dead Jupiter brain orbiting a neutron star, plus historical records telling you that this structure grew itself in a matter of months, destroyed the civilizations on the neighboring terrestrial planets in a matter of days, and could only be contained by making the star explode in a supernova.

[Jenonax]

Lord Goose wrote...

That we do not meet a non-sympathetic synthetic only serves to weaken the case for Catalyst. This is a story, we have to go on the examples we are given. The synthetic/Organic debate sub-plot was wrapped up on Rannoch. I will never accept that outright them vs us was ever the main plot. It was a sub-plot that was completed, it never should have shown up in the finale.

I think that they already completed Rannoch quest, and didn't have any time to change it, because Drew Carphyshyn left. So they have to choose new idea behind the harvest, which could make a tiny bit amount of sense. So they used organics vs synthetics because it was sort of hinted in ME1 (Klencory description), even though geth and quarians contradict that idea.

And what was wrong with the harvest simply being for reproduction.  We definitely wouldn't be having this argument it the motivations were kept simple and primal.

[wright1978]

Lord Goose wrote...

That we do not meet a non-sympathetic synthetic only serves to weaken the case for Catalyst. This is a story, we have to go on the examples we are given. The synthetic/Organic debate sub-plot was wrapped up on Rannoch. I will never accept that outright them vs us was ever the main plot. It was a sub-plot that was completed, it never should have shown up in the finale.

I think that they already completed Rannoch quest, and didn't have any time to change it, because Drew Carphyshyn left. So they have to choose new idea behind the harvest, which could make a tiny bit amount of sense. So they used organics vs synthetics because it was sort of hinted in ME1 (Klencory description), even though geth and quarians contradict that idea.

Abandoning dark energy which was foreshadowed and had scientific data and threat with something which sounds like idealogical zealotry. Not saying dark energywas perfect but in comparison....

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Genocide is malice. And the reapers reproduce using genocide. Star Child has to use deception, because no one in his or her right mind can defend genocide of non-hostile races.

No. The Catalyst's moral standards are not human. No *human* in their right mind could defend that, but the Catalyst is not human. ME2 actually makes that argument when you talk about rewriting the heretics. Also, please not that for the Catalyst, it's not genocide since the minds of the Reaperized species still exist.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Genocide is malice. And the reapers reproduce using genocide. Star Child has to use deception, because no one in his or her right mind can defend genocide of non-hostile races.

No. The Catalyst's moral standards are not human. No *human* in their right mind could defend that, but the Catalyst is not human. ME2 actually makes that argument when you talk about rewriting the heretics. Also, please not that for the Catalyst, it's not genocide since the minds of the Reaperized species still exist.

So it's not genocide to wipe out races incompatible with reaperisation, or indocrinating others or murdering countless others you decide not worthy of being preserved.