685 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

scott1118 wrote...

I like your theory on the geth i've never actually heard that one before, but i guess in truth they are still synthetic as they are not made from organic material and still work on code and logic etc they may "feel" but it may not be the same as human emotion, even EDI being an unshackled AI explains what she means when she "feels"

So that means that synthesis did precisely nothing then. After all, in evert scenario of the geth surviving the endgame, they were already granted true intelligence and sapience by Legion. Giving them the ability to "feel" a second time does... nothing.

[azerSheppard]

Random Jerkface wrote...

I came in here expecting a scientific explanation.

I am disappoint.

A scientific explanation i cannot give, but here is the philosophical one:

Synthesis is the nihilistic mans ending, the ending that requires one to give up on the false notion of morale or ethics that we have develloped in order to cope with the idea of existance.

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all. And it makes sense in the scale of the problem and said philosophical doctrine.
I doubt anyone who is not a nihilist will go that way.

The fact of the matter is that none can make an educated guess as to what synthesis does, lets hope the EC fills us up on the actual changes.

If you are a complete pessimist like the angry one, you might see it as the pinacle of all evil, on the other hand you could see it as a utopia. It's PERSPECTIVE, and without any further data that's all we can say.

[o Ventus]

azerSheppard wrote...

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all.

Devoid of moral is what amoral means. The prefix a-- means not, no, or non-. Just pointing that out, it was bothering me.

Oh, and in regards to your final point, when has utopia EVER been a good thing? When has it not led to a big brother type of government?

Modifié par o Ventus, 03 juin 2012 - 04:36 .

[Vigilant111]

azerSheppard wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

I came in here expecting a scientific explanation.

I am disappoint.

A scientific explanation i cannot give, but here is the philosophical one:

Synthesis is the nihilistic mans ending, the ending that requires one to give up on the false notion of morale or ethics that we have develloped in order to cope with the idea of existance.

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all. And it makes sense in the scale of the problem and said philosophical doctrine.
I doubt anyone who is not a nihilist will go that way.

The fact of the matter is that none can make an educated guess as to what synthesis does, lets hope the EC fills us up on the actual changes.

If you are a complete pessimist like the angry one, you might see it as the pinacle of all evil, on the other hand you could see it as a utopia. It's PERSPECTIVE, and without any further data that's all we can say.

hmm, a post-apocalyptic world with no morals...where one is not worthy of surviving

[Pride Demon]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Hey man u are cool, I apologize for my oversight of non native English speakers, I should have thought of a better way to correct you, so I apologize again

No need, thanks for pointing out the mistake. Of course, with all the mistakes I make, it would probably take forever to correct them all, so... well... Just don't expect me to always manage to correct everything... XD

Vigilant111 wrote...

With regards to your view of the endings, I think it reinforces the idea that synthesis is no better than any other options even if its valid, hmm I don't think synthesis people would like that if the seemingly most optimistic way to end organic/synthetic conflicts turns out to be a gimmick with all the extra work with fruitless results... so yea

I still advocate destroy option though, even though it is badly done, it gives the galaxy a fresh start without reaper interference

I always was of the opinion most endings appear to be more or less... uhm... equal to one another on that respect: they all sacrifice something, unfortunatey none of them leaves you a clear win, no matter what you do...
Also, I believe most synthesis people (at least those whose comments I read) don't what others to recognize their choice as inherently superior, rather they wish not to be constantly ostracized for their decision (namecalling and all that).

Granted, this happens to every choice, but so far Synthesis seems to have it worse, probably because it's the one introducing the most difficult concepts and the greatest changes and it still has little to no explanation...

Motherlander wrote...
The problem Shep has is that, she/he doesn't know what these changes are
because of the lack of information. So if you were to choose between
control or synthesis on the basis that they were only temporary
solutions, control would be the most prudent and risk-averse option.

I'm inclined to agree somewhat, after you think about it Control seems to be compelling if you are unwilling to chose Destroy, the reason for picking Synthesis instead are probably deeply personal, but I don't think it's out of a simple desire to remove diversity or racism...
Unfortunately, anything one could come up would be personal interpretation due to lack of info...

IMHO due to the magnitude of its implication, synthesis should have been explained more thoroughly...
Perhaps they'll do it in EC...

Modifié par Pride Demon, 03 juin 2012 - 04:43 .

[MisterJB]

zovoes wrote...

MisterJB...

the most commonly used form of genocide; that is the slaughter of the entire population of a certain group; has never been practiced by the Reapers as far as we know.

what world do you live in? that is ALL they do. they sat bombed a group of cave men one time even and you don't call that genocide? and don't come bake with the "well it's not to them" argument. to invoke godwin's law on my self the ****'s didn't think they were killing people as well, BUT THEY STILL WERE. saving what is left of a culture as the goo you use in making a new reaper is not the same as saving a culture or the people in it, and you ca't use moral relativism to get over that fact.

The National Socialists were simply killing people they considered to be sub-human and getting rid of the corpses. The Reapers give the population of the civilizations they destroy a second opportunity at life as a Reaper; a life the Reapers seem to consider superior to the life they had before; with their culture surviving in the memory of that Reaper.
I, of course, can not agree with the Catalyst because its methods are horrendous but I am capable of taking a step back and looking at the situation from its perspective. Due to one reason or another, it has reached the conclusion the construction of synthetics is inevitable and so is the destruction of all organic life by these synthetics. Faced with this and wishing to preserve organic life, it concludes that any semblance of existence is preferrable to extinction. Thus, we have the Cycle.

Everything is, ultimately, a matter of perspective.

[Ieldra]

The Angry One wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
Even so, they still think it is a good thing because somehow they become eternal and invincible, I mean I would be horrified of becoming one of those, unless I am indoctrinated

Because they want to headcanon all these wonderful benefits while ignoring that, even if true, nobody has the right to impose this change on every living thing.
Hell doing it to the population of Earth alone would be wrong, and even the freaking Deus Ex games recognise the impact of making sociological and physical choices for billions of people.

I wouldn't mind so much that Walters copied the endings to Deus Ex if he actually understood them.

I am not ignoring the moral problem. But consider this: if there was a button in front of you that would make everyone immune to most diseases (and no nothing else), I could make a case for a moral obligation to press it. Things are a bit different for the Synthesis, that's why I made a scenario where the changes are reversible on an individual basis, but I do claim that there are situations where the benefit for the many outweighs the autonomy of the individual.

@AngryFrozenWater:
I'll reply to your long post eventually, right now I'm a little burned out on forum debates.

@MisterJB:
Subscribed.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juin 2012 - 04:42 .

[Subguy614]

o Ventus wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all.

Devoid of moral is what amoral means. The prefix a-- means not, no, or non-. Just pointing that out, it was bothering me.

Oh, and in regards to your final point, when has utopia EVER been a good thing? When has it not led to a big brother type of government?

A fine argument AGAINST synthesis, Thanks I2

[o Ventus]

Subguy614 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all.

Devoid of moral is what amoral means. The prefix a-- means not, no, or non-. Just pointing that out, it was bothering me.

Oh, and in regards to your final point, when has utopia EVER been a good thing? When has it not led to a big brother type of government?

A fine argument AGAINST synthesis, Thanks I2

I'm not I2.

Or were you saying something else?

[Subguy614]

oops wasn't wearing my glasses, sorry.

[Vigilant111]

Pride Demon wrote...

I always was of the opinion most endings appear to be more or less... uhm... equal to one another on that respect: they all sacrifice something, unfortunatey none of them leaves you a clear win, no matter what you do...
Also, I believe most synthesis people (at least those whose comments I read) don't what others to recognize their choice as inherently superior, rather they wish not to be constantly ostracized for their decision (namecalling and all that).

Granted, this happens to every choice, but so far Synthesis seems to have it worse, probably bcause it's the one introducing the most difficult concepts and the greatest changes and it still has little to no explanation...

Agreed, and that more explanation is required for all options

I noticed many of the synthesis supporters tend to assume that as long as you are technologically advanced then you must be worthy of surviving... to me, art, music, mathematical formulas and morals are what make organics worthy of surviving, in comparison, synthetics tend to live quite..well, bland and tasteless lifes, they do not seem to appreciate nature and have very little understanding of what beauty is

Well, it probably doesn't matter anyway, synthesis supporters pretty much will say that just cos organics live meaningful lives does not mean synthetics will have mercy and decide not to kill them

Modifié par Vigilant111, 03 juin 2012 - 04:55 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I'll reply to your long post eventually, right now I'm a little burned out on forum debates.

@MisterJB:
Subscribed.

I feel the same, *pat on shoulder

Never met such a formidable opponent like u, seeing there are so little support to u

So hats off to u

I am being genuine, no sarcasm here

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all.

Devoid of moral is what amoral means. The prefix a-- means not, no, or non-. Just pointing that out, it was bothering me.

Oh, and in regards to your final point, when has utopia EVER been a good thing? When has it not led to a big brother type of government?

Hey, hey, did you know that the inspiration for Synthesis was Brave New World? It says so on a page in the final hours app.

[Jenonax]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I am not ignoring the moral problem. But consider this: if there was a button in front of you that would make everyone immune to most diseases (and no nothing else), I could make a case for a moral obligation to press it. Things are a bit different for the Synthesis, that's why I made a scenario where the changes are reversible on an individual basis, but I do claim that there are situations where the benefit for the many outweighs the autonomy of the individual.

@AngryFrozenWater:
I'll reply to your long post eventually, right now I'm a little burned out on forum debates.

@MisterJB:
Subscribed.

That's an unfair comparison.  To cure a disease has definite consequences of which we are all aware.  No one would argue much with you about curing disease because there are definite benefits and definite side effects.  But the point is we are all aware of the general consequences of such a descision.  We strive to cure diseases every day even though we know that eventually nature will develop a new one to kill us all off.

Synthesis is a complete unknown.  Your theory is just that, a theory one that you can't prove and I can't disprove.  We can speculate all we want on what we think the consequences will be but we simply don't know and will never know. To press that button and leap into the unknown is fine if the consequences affect only you but they don't they affect everything and you have no right to make such a dangerous decision with no facts.  I don't think I need to say that that applies to all three endings as my views are known in this thread.

The comparison between disease eradication and synthesis is unfair.  We are already curing diseases.  We know nothing of synthesis.

[o Ventus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all.

Devoid of moral is what amoral means. The prefix a-- means not, no, or non-. Just pointing that out, it was bothering me.

Oh, and in regards to your final point, when has utopia EVER been a good thing? When has it not led to a big brother type of government?

Hey, hey, did you know that the inspiration for Synthesis was Brave New World? It says so on a page in the final hours app.

I have no idea what that book is about.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I'll reply to your long post eventually, right now I'm a little burned out on forum debates.

Nah. Don't worry about it. Nobody is forcing you. Gaming is supposed to be fun, remember?

[dreman9999]

azerSheppard wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

I came in here expecting a scientific explanation.

I am disappoint.

A scientific explanation i cannot give, but here is the philosophical one:

Synthesis is the nihilistic mans ending, the ending that requires one to give up on the false notion of morale or ethics that we have develloped in order to cope with the idea of existance.

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all. And it makes sense in the scale of the problem and said philosophical doctrine.
I doubt anyone who is not a nihilist will go that way.

The fact of the matter is that none can make an educated guess as to what synthesis does, lets hope the EC fills us up on the actual changes.

If you are a complete pessimist like the angry one, you might see it as the pinacle of all evil, on the other hand you could see it as a utopia. It's PERSPECTIVE, and without any further data that's all we can say.

The veiw is a realist view... What you not getting is that it's an issue of trust. Note who is the only one that knows how to apply synthesis....The star child. This being controls the reapers and killed and reporsessed trillion of organics in the name of forcing evolution. Who also is showned controling organics with implants...What do you thing combining synthetics and organic mean?
Noe, of you pro-synthesis are using any logic in you assumtion that it a benifit for all...Your too blinded by the benifits of it to even consider to cons....You even justify it...Just like TIM in the end of the game.
You people are blind.
Do you really trust the star child that much?

[dreman9999]

MisterJB wrote...

zovoes wrote...

MisterJB...

the most commonly used form of genocide; that is the slaughter of the entire population of a certain group; has never been practiced by the Reapers as far as we know.

what world do you live in? that is ALL they do. they sat bombed a group of cave men one time even and you don't call that genocide? and don't come bake with the "well it's not to them" argument. to invoke godwin's law on my self the ****'s didn't think they were killing people as well, BUT THEY STILL WERE. saving what is left of a culture as the goo you use in making a new reaper is not the same as saving a culture or the people in it, and you ca't use moral relativism to get over that fact.

The National Socialists were simply killing people they considered to be sub-human and getting rid of the corpses. The Reapers give the population of the civilizations they destroy a second opportunity at life as a Reaper; a life the Reapers seem to consider superior to the life they had before; with their culture surviving in the memory of that Reaper.
I, of course, can not agree with the Catalyst because its methods are horrendous but I am capable of taking a step back and looking at the situation from its perspective. Due to one reason or another, it has reached the conclusion the construction of synthetics is inevitable and so is the destruction of all organic life by these synthetics. Faced with this and wishing to preserve organic life, it concludes that any semblance of existence is preferrable to extinction. Thus, we have the Cycle.

Everything is, ultimately, a matter of perspective.

Ok.... Cleary the reapers form of indoctrination really  exsist.
You don't understand that still is moraly wrong anyway because they areimposing this on organics?

[Ieldra]

Pride Demon wrote...
I always was of the opinion most endings appear to be more or less... uhm... equal to one another on that respect: they all sacrifice something, unfortunatey none of them leaves you a clear win, no matter what you do...
Also, I believe most synthesis people (at least those whose comments I read) don't what others to recognize their choice as inherently superior, rather they wish not to be constantly ostracized for their decision (namecalling and all that).

Exactly. I've never been subject to so much constant harassment as about this, and on such shaky grounds that I can only suspect that people's emotions ran away with their reason. 

Vigilant111 wrote...
I noticed many of the synthesis supporters tend to assume that as long as you are technologically advanced then you must be worthy of surviving... to me, art, music, mathematical formulas and morals are what make organics worthy of surviving, in comparison, synthetics tend to live quite..well, bland and tasteless lifes, they do not seem to appreciate nature and have very little understanding of what beauty is

No. The point is that technological advancement make you *able* to survive in the face of the overwhelming advantage of synthetics in that regard. All those things - appreciation for beauty, art, music etc.. - will be meaningless if you're dead. Also if you appreciate these things, you might like that through Synthesis, synthetics may learn to appreciate them as well. 

Well, it probably doesn't matter anyway, synthesis supporters pretty much will say that just cos organics live meaningful lives does not mean synthetics will have mercy and decide not to kill them

Indeed I would say that. But the more important point is that (1) Legion and EDI didn't impress me has having bland, and tasteless lives, and (2) that there is no reason to assume that Synthesis will take that "meaningful" life away. It's supposed to add, not to subtract.

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all.

Devoid of moral is what amoral means. The prefix a-- means not, no, or non-. Just pointing that out, it was bothering me.

Oh, and in regards to your final point, when has utopia EVER been a good thing? When has it not led to a big brother type of government?

Hey, hey, did you know that the inspiration for Synthesis was Brave New World? It says so on a page in the final hours app.

I have no idea what that book is about.

It's about a utopia created by a big brother state...[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png[/smilie]

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 juin 2012 - 06:11 .

[frylock23]

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all.

Devoid of moral is what amoral means. The prefix a-- means not, no, or non-. Just pointing that out, it was bothering me.

Oh, and in regards to your final point, when has utopia EVER been a good thing? When has it not led to a big brother type of government?

Hey, hey, did you know that the inspiration for Synthesis was Brave New World? It says so on a page in the final hours app.

I have no idea what that book is about.

You should. It's a bit like 1984 swallowed a happy veneer pill.

[MisterJB]

dreman9999 wrote...
Ok.... Cleary the reapers form of indoctrination really  exsist.
You don't understand that still is moraly wrong anyway because they areimposing this on organics?

Ah Indocrination, how quickly those who have no arguments use that word.
Morality is not objective.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Ok.... Cleary the reapers form of indoctrination really  exsist.
You don't understand that still is moraly wrong anyway because they areimposing this on organics?

Ah Indocrination, how quickly those who have no arguments use that word.
Morality is not objective.

To a moral relivist like yourself.

Some of us are moral universalists.

Relitivism doesn't factor in one VERY important thing.

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...
I always was of the opinion most endings appear to be more or less... uhm... equal to one another on that respect: they all sacrifice something, unfortunatey none of them leaves you a clear win, no matter what you do...
Also, I believe most synthesis people (at least those whose comments I read) don't what others to recognize their choice as inherently superior, rather they wish not to be constantly ostracized for their decision (namecalling and all that).

Exactly. I've never been subject to so much constant harassment as about this, and on such shaky grounds that I can only suspect that people's emotions ran away with their reason. 

No, I have no issue with your decision to choose synthesis in your game. Where I draw the line is where you expect me to validate your choice when it comes to making that choice for everyone and everything.

That you can't see how wrong that would be boggles the mind.

There is no point at which the so-called Greater Good can justify tampering at that level.

Speaking as someone who has already been sacrificed once to the Greater Good of the state and is watching the state prepare to gleefully sacrifice me again ... it ain't fun, nor is it noble. It just plain sucks.