685 réponses à ce sujet

[Motherlander]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Helios et al:
(1) There is no indication that Synthesis replaces anything with tech. If anything, Synthesis *adds* tech.

In fact, it may not even do that. It may just make organics more compatible with tech. Or make organic structures capable of acting like sythetic constructs.

Extra tech may not be required at all.

I once read a sci-fi book where humans could hold their consciousness outside the body and could upload into difficrent bodies at will. In the book the protagonist had several bodies.

In fact, as long as a certain part of the skull was not destroyed, the individual could be recovered and uploaded into a new body.  So even if the body does, the personalty and knowledge of the person can be recovered.

This is the sort of thing that I believe Synethesis may allow organics to do. Whether it is a good thing or not is another matter.

With regard to Mordin, I think his argument MAY be valid. It depends on how responsibly the organics can use and adapt to their new condition. But assuming organics are not fundamentally changed, then there wall always be some who will try to use it to their own advantage at the expense of others.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Helios et al:
(1) There is no indication that Synthesis replaces anything with tech. If anything, Synthesis *adds* tech.
(2) Mordin's argument is flawed. It assumes that it was the purpose of the Collectors' tech upgrades to remove limitations. That argument defeats itself when we meet the Collectors. They are rather unimpressive. It's rather that the tech replacements kept them going after indoctrination destroyed their normal functions.
(3) There are always limitations unless you're omnipotent. Gaining greater capabilities is desirable because it enables you to accept greater challenges and gain greater understanding.
(4) This is just the opinion of one character in the game. A pretty smart one, yeah, but one whose arguments I can easily pick apart nonetheless.

Note that I explicitly reject the utopian interpretation of Synthesis. I've said as much in the EC threads where I said it was necessary to give us a description that avoids utopian imagery, nonsensical concepts and metaphors easily misunderstood. I want a bright future, not a stagnating one.

(2) can also be argued that adding tech is not as great as we think it is, actually we don't exactly know what adding tech in such a scale actually does
(3) through learning and exploring not by adding, such things can be easily achieved by planting a chip, no need for profound change, compatibility of combination must be considered

EDIT: I don't think synthetics fit the meaning of BIOchemistry

Modifié par Vigilant111, 04 juin 2012 - 02:23 .

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

We did prove that people of different biochemistries can get along. Basically, a big part of our success was only possible because of that. I don't believe it was the writers' intention to throw all that away. Thus, I went back to the unpublished singularity scenario, where the problem was that synthetics are designed and can understand themselves fully on a physical level, with the result that they can self-improve much faster than organics.

You keep saying that the synthetics can self-improve, but I've seen no ral evidence that they can.

The Geth have remained pretty much unchanged for their entire history.

Look at the Reapers. Even though they spend an unknown number of 50,000 year spans naval gazing in Dark Space, they have remained pretty much unchanged, too. They excuse it by claiming themselves to be the pinnacle of evolution, but you and I both know that's not true.

The truth is that synthetics are confined to mental structures of cold logic, and logic can only think and extrapolate in terms of if/then and the like. Logic cannot create something entirely new. Look how uncomfortable EDI is when you ask her to predict. It isn't her habit. So, it's entirely likely that the Reapers and the Geth both have refined and improved their existing technologies to make them as efficient as possible, but as for creating new upgrades? They can't do that.

The Geth can and do take the new technologies the Quarians create to combat them and learn how to use them remarkably quickly (much like the Borg adapt). They also do this with the Reaper tachnology. But neither of those are uniquely Geth creations. They are merely ideas borrowed from other places that will likely be refined and made more efficient/improved by Geth logic.

This is why I think the tech singularity is unlikely. If it occurs at all, it will be because we create the technologies that AI will be able to use against us, but it won't be because the AI creates its own weapons from scratch. We will still be our own worst enemies.

Modifié par frylock23, 04 juin 2012 - 02:16 .

[dreman9999]

azerSheppard 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?

Amorality is an absence of, indifference towards, or disregard for moral beliefs. 

from wikipedia/ i was obviously referring to the latter meanings.

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?

This is a moot argument, as all three endings are proposed the the star child. By that logic you should just turn of your game as soon as you get to that point.

It's implied that the reapers are following something or someones directives, and later the Catalyst says the Reapers are his solution to the problem. Not that he is directing every move of each Reaper.
Synthesis does not implant people with reaper tech,(otherwise joker would have TIM eyes) but implants all things with something it calls DNA. Obviously it's not actual DNA, the term is used so we can understand the act of synthesis, which is to change the fabric of living things, organic or otherwise.
Notice how it also changes the Reapers. We don't become Reaper, both us and the Reapers become something new.

The presence of the green matrix tatto is simply for the cinematic feel. As long as synthesis does not alter thought patterns, its a more viable option than, Destroy (which can be argued as genocide), or Control (which can be argued as "too much power"). 

I'd rather induce a change to all, and in this way ensure a form of equality. And the thing about trust is, you don't know wht is going to be the longterm cause of ANY of the endings. Except that the catalyst states that all life will eventually evolve into synthesis.

And he's right. Both the catalyst and the Protheans have figured out that time is cyclical. Therefore if left alone someone will produce dangerous AI, and as a reaction someone will produce a Catalyst/reapers.
So we end up the same way.

sTAR CHILD:....Will combine all syntetic and organic life.....

...
So, isn't that combining part simular to implantation?

And after Shepard jumps into the burning beam and turn t ash...Isn't the starchild the only one left to trigger the crucible?

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
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.

1. well, I admit it was wrong for me to assume synthetic life is bland and tasteless on a subjective level, since I am not a synthetic, as long as they are happy I am happy

2. going back to synthesis, if u said that synthetics are already living meaningful lives, then I don't see that it is necessary for synthesis to happen to give synthesis an extra edge in feeling and appreciating nature, I think they are fine where they are at without artificial addition to them ... and now u will say:" yes, BUT I chose synthesis to end organic/synthetic conflicts and various other reasons..."

LOL.....we have debated this so long and often that this seems like yet another round of fighting, no?

Actually, I think what Synthesis must add to synthetics is some kind of empathy. Anything more is an optional self-modification. Just like organics must have the capacity for mental networking to keep up with post-Singularity synthetics should the need arise, but anything more is an optional self-modification. Other scenarios are possible of course, but apart from Heeden, Siduri and me nobody seems interested in making one.

Wow....Did you even play the geth fighter mission or talk to legion in ME2?  Synthetics clearly already have that. EDI is a main example of synthetics having empathy.

And you still don't understand that being in the techological peck does not mean peace. In fact war is more able  to happen.

[dreman9999]

frylock23 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

We did prove that people of different biochemistries can get along. Basically, a big part of our success was only possible because of that. I don't believe it was the writers' intention to throw all that away. Thus, I went back to the unpublished singularity scenario, where the problem was that synthetics are designed and can understand themselves fully on a physical level, with the result that they can self-improve much faster than organics.

You keep saying that the synthetics can self-improve, but I've seen no ral evidence that they can.

The Geth have remained pretty much unchanged for their entire history.

Look at the Reapers. Even though they spend an unknown number of 50,000 year spans naval gazing in Dark Space, they have remained pretty much unchanged, too. They excuse it by claiming themselves to be the pinnacle of evolution, but you and I both know that's not true.

The truth is that synthetics are confined to mental structures of cold logic, and logic can only think and extrapolate in terms of if/then and the like. Logic cannot create something entirely new. Look how uncomfortable EDI is when you ask her to predict. It isn't her habit. So, it's entirely likely that the Reapers and the Geth both have refined and improved their existing technologies to make them as efficient as possible, but as for creating new upgrades? They can't do that.

The Geth can and do take the new technologies the Quarians create to combat them and learn how to use them remarkably quickly (much like the Borg adapt). They also do this with the Reaper tachnology. But neither of those are uniquely Geth creations. They are merely ideas borrowed from other places that will likely be refined and made more efficient/improved by Geth logic.

This is why I think the tech singularity is unlikely. If it occurs at all, it will be because we create the technologies that AI will be able to use against us, but it won't be because the AI creates its own weapons from scratch. We will still be our own worst enemies.

Synthetics can self impove...Look at EDI. And the geth did show this when they switch their amory to switchable ammo clips.
The thing 
Ieldra2 is missing is the need of these impovements....All forms of advancement is made because of need. That also part of the reason why organics seek conflict. If your going to say synthetic are going to eventully go to war with organics, you have to point to a why. What happen to rennoch is that why.

Synthetics only attack when they are ether...

1. Acting in self defence
2. Commaded to by there controler.

...Also, about the reapers...The are in a state of lake of need. because of that they don't advance.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Helios et al:
(1) There is no indication that Synthesis replaces anything with tech. If anything, Synthesis *adds* tech.
(2) Mordin's argument is flawed. It assumes that it was the purpose of the Collectors' tech upgrades to remove limitations. That argument defeats itself when we meet the Collectors. They are rather unimpressive. It's rather that the tech replacements kept them going after indoctrination destroyed their normal functions.
(3) There are always limitations unless you're omnipotent. Gaining greater capabilities is desirable because it enables you to accept greater challenges and gain greater understanding.
(4) This is just the opinion of one character in the game. A pretty smart one, yeah, but one whose arguments I can easily pick apart nonetheless.

Note that I explicitly reject the utopian interpretation of Synthesis. I've said as much in the EC threads where I said it was necessary to give us a description that avoids utopian imagery, nonsensical concepts and metaphors easily misunderstood. I want a bright future, not a stagnating one.

1. That still is a problem....Wha does the "added tech "do?
Also, you and I know that an organics body just can't have anything added into there bodies with out any ill effects.

2.That wes Mordins point....It just kept them going but limited their advancement. What you said is still the same thing he is refering to.
3.But the star child becaomes omnipotent when you choose synthesis...

[Ieldra]

frylock23 wrote...
The truth is that synthetics are confined to mental structures of cold logic, and logic can only think and extrapolate in terms of if/then and the like. Logic cannot create something entirely new. Look how uncomfortable EDI is when you ask her to predict. It isn't her habit. So, it's entirely likely that the Reapers and the Geth both have refined and improved their existing technologies to make them as efficient as possible, but as for creating new upgrades? They can't do that.

(1) You are basically saying that creating true AI is impossible. There are people who make such a claim in the real world, but in the ME universe, EDI clearly shows that this is not the case. Also, we are just "organic machines". That we don't yet understand the roots of our self-awareness and creativity doesn't mean it's intrinsically mysterious. Once we do understand it, we can recreate it in AIs.
(2) Our intuitions are really hardwired reactive processes acting so fast that we remain unaware of the flow. I see no reason why such things can't be programmed into AIs as well.

The Geth can and do take the new technologies the Quarians create to combat them and learn how to use them remarkably quickly (much like the Borg adapt). They also do this with the Reaper tachnology. But neither of those are uniquely Geth creations. They are merely ideas borrowed from other places that will likely be refined and made more efficient/improved by Geth logic.

They were in the process of creating their superstructure... also you have no idea what they may or may not have created in the 300 years of their existence. This is an empty claim. Also, it is repeately said that the geth are more technologically advanced than Citadel space. And third, all technology works that way. Uniquely new creations are rare. Basically, the internet is based on the same technology used by the telegraph over 100 years ago, only made more efficient. Almost all vehicles on Earth - planes, ships and cars - move based on a principle invented 120 years ago. Etc..

@dreman:
I am not saying synthetics will go to war with organics. I am saying organics will be superseded by them. That may or may not involve violence and open conflict. Also, those synthetics won't be like EDI and Legion. They'll be Jupiter brains and Matrioshka brains, as gods compared to organics. They'll supersede organics just by expanding, barely noticing the organics inhabiting the surface of planets like bacteria on their skin.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juin 2012 - 03:13 .

[Uncle Jo]

JakeJynx wrote...
The problem is lack of resolution. With both Paragon and Renegade, nothing is resolved [...].
In Destroy, chaos remains, and life will eventually succumb to synthetics [...]. 
I don't take the Geth and Quarians getting along, and EDI helping your cause, as being an argument against this inevitable conclusion.

Aside from the controversial means used to achieve Synthesis and its unknown long-term consequences. you resolve also nothing. Just because you created new hybrids doesn't mean that there won't be wars. Furthermore nothing tells you that the Reapers won't go on rampage again, since they're still there.
The Quarians and the Geth getting along and EDI prove that there is a possibility to coexist peacefully with the synthetics. That alone is enough to induce a reasonable doubt and prove that the twisted logic of the Catalyst is flawed. You're thinking exactly like the Reapers.

Further, the Geth cannot really be used as an example of how "organics and synthetics can get along." Why? Because they're no longer true synthetics after Legion uploads the Reaper code fragments. They synthesize. They are given the equivalent of a human brain. It's only after this occurs, only after this synthesis, that the Geth and the Quarians are able to cooperate as equals. I see this as foreshadowing--that a change must be made to life before there can be peace.

- You seem to don't understand what's about synthesis. "Combine organics and synthetics (with kamikaze-jumping into a beam and a lot of space magic) to create a new framework, a new DNA" . None of this happens with the Geth. They're still synthetics. You already brokered peace between the Quarians and the Geth, the Turians and Krogan without synthesis. Again you're thinking like the Reapers.

I can't recall ever seeing it mentioned by someone who subscribes to the Indoctrination Theory that the synthesis option is only available with the highest GR and EMS scores.

- To see Shep survive in only possible with the Highest EMS and only avalaible by destroy  (can also be considered as the "best" ending). There is no extra-cutscene for either Synthesis or Control even at highest EMS.

The Destroy option means destroying all synthetic life (including the Geth and EDI, whom you spent so much time befriending and defending), and the cycle continues. Control means that you do exactly what you just said to TIM shouldn't be done, because "we're not ready," and the cycle continues as well

There is never another fight between organic and synthetic, and the cycle finally ends. 

- The Cycle is about the Reapers. They are the ones who started their pre-emptive wars/genocides for billions of years. No reapers, no cycle anymore. The story about "the Synthetics will always wipe out the organics" is a pure assumption at best, or a lie.
- Simple hypothesis with absolutely no proof.

I believe that the Catalyst is called the Catalyst because it brings about change. It may not be the change you wanted, but it is the only option where a change occurs, and the cycle is broken. In the end of the game, you see the scene after the Normandy crashes, and Joker and EDI both step out of the ship and embrace, seeming to imply that synthetics and organics merge and are now equals. To me, that sort of says "happily ever after."

- "The Crucible changed me... creating new possibilities" (Starbrat). Or was it a lie?
- Headcanon. They only have the same new framework or "DNA" thanks to your forced galactic genetic experiment.

As a sort of aside, I want to mention the Relays exploding, and how I initially felt that with the explosions, all of the choices you made and all of the work you did to save humanity was in vain, because the explosions no doubt took out all of the advanced life you were trying to protect. But the Normandy survived. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that it plays back to the theme of "you can't save everyone." In the end, the goal was not to save everyone, or even every species. The goal was to stop the Reaper threat forever and break the cycle. Only with Synthesis does this happen. Shepard knew the relays would explode, but he also knew he had no other option. The Crucible had to be used. What was the term used in the game? "Ruthless calculus?" Trillions died so that future species would be forever spared. Luckily, the Normandy crew was able to escape, and humanity itself was able to survive the destruction and pass down the legend of The Shepard. Let us not ignore the iconography depicted by our character's name. The shepherd icon exists to lead people to enlightenment and salvation. Maybe Synthesis, and the ending of the cycle of destruction, is that enlightenment.

I don't think so. If the relays explosion were to be like the one in "Arrival" then Earth would have been vaporized no matter what. Furthermore the ending cutscenes don't show exactly what happens to the concerned system.
You're advocating the cause of destroy. Destroy wipe out the Reapers, at the cost of the Geth (which can be killed already on Rannoch BTW) and EDI, without forcibly rewrite the DNA of every single living being in the Galaxy.
Again with Synthesis you allow the Reapers to survive, aside from achieving what they've always wanted, without any control. Nothing tells us that they won't meddle with the Galaxys matters again, if they feel like it.

About the Normandy... No comment.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 04 juin 2012 - 04:00 .

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...
The truth is that synthetics are confined to mental structures of cold logic, and logic can only think and extrapolate in terms of if/then and the like. Logic cannot create something entirely new. Look how uncomfortable EDI is when you ask her to predict. It isn't her habit. So, it's entirely likely that the Reapers and the Geth both have refined and improved their existing technologies to make them as efficient as possible, but as for creating new upgrades? They can't do that.

(1) You are basically saying that creating true AI is impossible. There are people who make such a claim in the real world, but in the ME universe, EDI clearly shows that this is not the case. Also, we are just "organic machines". That we don't yet understand the roots of our self-awareness and creativity doesn't mean it's intrinsically mysterious. Once we do understand it, we can recreate it in AIs.
(2) Our intuitions are really hardwired reactive processes acting so fast that we remain unaware of the flow. I see no reason why such things can't be programmed into AIs as well.

The Geth can and do take the new technologies the Quarians create to combat them and learn how to use them remarkably quickly (much like the Borg adapt). They also do this with the Reaper tachnology. But neither of those are uniquely Geth creations. They are merely ideas borrowed from other places that will likely be refined and made more efficient/improved by Geth logic.

They were in the process of creating their superstructure... also you have no idea what they may or may not have created in the 300 years of their existence. This is an empty claim. Also, it is repeately said that the geth are more technologically advanced than Citadel space. And third, all technology works that way. Uniquely new creations are rare. Basically, the internet is based on the same technology used by the telegraph over 100 years ago, only made more efficient. Almost all vehicles on Earth - planes, ships and cars - move based on a principle invented 120 years ago. Etc..

@dreman:
I am not saying synthetics will go to war with organics. I am saying organics will be superseded by them. That may or may not involve violence and open conflict. Also, those synthetics won't be like EDI and Legion. They'll be Jupiter brains and Matrioshka brains, as gods compared to organics. They'll supersede organics just by expanding, barely noticing the organics inhabiting the surface of planets like bacteria on their skin.

For one you don't know want they will be like nor there wants or needs. You also, have given a reason why synthetic  superseding us is a bad thing. There's is to even a reason why the synthetic will even want to move once they reach a techological singularty...Example: the dyson sphere the Geth were building. Your not evengiving a reason why  that form of synthetic would even want to come to our planet or need anything.

[Peranor]

Motherlander wrote...

anorling wrote...


Can't we all just agree that the words 'synthesis' and 'sense' should not be used in the same sentence ever again? Please?

No.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(2) The scenario solves the problem the Catalyst posits

According to the reapers all is well and they are not the problem. It is those nasty synthetics who are the problem. But don't be alarmed. Your kind will be killed to take care of them. So they say.

That's a bit puzzling, you know. As you may have noticed that your #2 statement is the core of my problem with all 3 options that Star Child offered me once. Maybe the kid offered these to you too? None of them can be a solution because the problem does not exists. In the only two cycles I have info from it looks like the organics have dealt with synthetics one way or another. In Javik's cycle the protheans exterminated all the synthetics during in the Metacom war. Bold move. But, hey, the protheans seem to like it. You know the geth? The ones created by the quarians? You must have seen those AIs before. Nice chaps. In Shepard's cycle the geth needed some help when the quarians attacked them several times and the reapers faked the geth's evilness by infecting some of them with the Pentium's FDIV bug. A nerdy joke, but still. These were later called heretics. I wish I really knew whether the synthetics pose a real threat, though. But it is hard to prove synthetics are the real problem when the reapers exterminate advanced civilizations and try to hide the traces of the event. As far as I can tell it never happened. To take their word for it is not something I am likely to do. I don't trust them. That's because several things make me very uneasy:

"The problem does not exist" was actually my first reaction to the Catalyst. I thought "Hey, I just made peace between the geth and the quarians. It was my finest moment bar none, really sublime. And you are telling me that doesn't count? *indignant spluttering*"

I could have let it stand at that, and chosen Control. Hey, I'm doing that with my second Shep. But I also thought "Hmm.....I can't believe the writers are *that* stupid....so what the hell did they mean when they gave the Catalyst those lines?" Then I found the singularity references in the leaked script - I knew the script and the general outlines of the endings, but had avoided details. And....if you use the singularity as the event that will push synthetics so far beyond organics that the latter will never be able to keep up, *then* the Catalyst makes sense. Of course, singularity theorists in real life say anything between "It might not even happen" and "It will be mostly beneficial", but the extinction scenario is not off the table. So, I could accept the premise that in this fictional universe, that post-singularity extinction scenario had an extremely high probability, and it was what the Catalyst was trying to prevent. It had helped that I had read an SF trilogy where it was one of the goals of an evil cybernetic god (aptly named "The Silicon God") to assimilate all matter in the galaxy into itself ("A Requiem for ****** Sapiens" by David Zindell).

As a result, what I was now seeing was not a setup that made no sense from the ground up, but a setup that had been simplified by the writers so far that it had ceased to make sense. By using the leaked script, a backstory had emerged I could believe in. And I simply prefer that to having to reject it altogether.  

One would expect that the reapers would post clear warnings for those races instead. But, no... It seems that they rather make sure advanced civilizations come to fruition every 50,000 years or so and then harvest their organics and technology. It may be coincidence, but they use that to create new reapers. Funny, right? That's not all, I have seen it at work. They smashed living humans to pulp and pumped that through tubes to create a giant humanoid reaper. It was a bit silly, though. Even though all powerful reapers can fly they forgot to give this one wings. Luckily I was able to blow up it easily. I just went for the eyes. That worked.

It's like they do not have any other means of reproduction. It wouldn't surprise me when they stay on top of the food chain that way, though. It seems effective. Well, except for that one giant humanoid reaper, of course. That one must have been a booboo on their part. I've encountered one reaper who said that they are doing that for nearly forever. Phew. If that's true then it would explain why these creeps are so hard to kill. The non-humanoid ones, I mean.

In ME2, Legion says this about the nature of the Reapers "Transcended flesh. Billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined in an immortal machine body". I had actually come to the same conclusion long before I ever heard Legion say this (that conversation is extremely hard to get), for if it was just physical matter, DNA and stuff what the Reapers needed, then why the hell not clone it? It's cheaper and poses no danger to existing species. So, if they *really* need existing organic individuals, it must be what made each of them unique - their minds. Of course, then the question arose: Why all the unnecessary destruction? Which is answered in ME3 - the destruction is as much as the point, to "clear the way for new life", as the preservation of minds.

As a result, I did believe in the Catalyst's claim of preserving organic species in some way. I outlined that in my thread On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers. I believe that those organic minds still exist, as a gestalt mind whose will is subverted by the Catalyst. And thus it became almost a moral obligation to find a way to free them, as long as it can be done without compromising my primary goal of removing the Reapers as a threat to the galaxy. There are possible scenarios for that in Control and Synthesis, but not in Destroy.

Thus, the reproduction theme speculated on by EDI was pushed into the background, which was fortunate because it didn't make sense (see above) that reproduction was the Reapers' primary purpose. They could have had that much easier without killing millions of organics and risk some of them being destroyed every cycle in a war.

What also so surprises me is that they use scare tactics during the genocide. It's like they are dreaming up the most efficient ways to horrify their victims. One very popular method is to turn members of a population into zombie-like husks. It's like they think humans have never seen "Plan 9 from Outer Space". If it wasn't real, it would be funny.

The thing is, those images don't work on me. I've always seen them as artificial rather than accepting them as in-world reality. When ME2 started to push the horror up to eleven, my reaction was like this: "So, you're trying to manipulate me into hating the Reapers more, suspending my reason, by adding imagery that evokes disgust? What are you taking me for? A moron?" In matters like this, I'm used to detach myself from my emotions and refuse to make a judgment until I know everything of the background, and I'm extremely wary of, and often very annoyed by attempts at emotional manipulation. As a result, I always approached that aspect as artificial, I saw the hands of the creators too much to be really touched by it, especially since from the Reapers' point of view, as you correctly pointed out, there was absolutely no need of that. It was even counterproductive. A "clean" approach to the harvesting would have been much more efficient on several levels. For me, it was the creators trying to manipulate me into unreasonable hatred. I reacted by suspending all feelings of antagonism towards the Reapers until I knew their purpose, the necessity to end them as a threat notwithstanding. The horror was never the Reapers', but the writers'.

I can imagine that if synthetics were the real problem that these saviors of humanity would help fight synthetics when they become too strong. The contrary seems to be true. The case of the earlier mentioned heretics speaks for itself. That doesn't make me very comfortable with those reapers. Above all, it appears very counterproductive to me.

Another disadvantage of those genocides is that the victims are the ones the reapers are supposed to protect. I am not confident that this is a good idea when I hear that. Sounds like a reaper dreamed that up on an off-day. They also leave us organics little choice. It's not like they say: "Hello guys, we are the reapers. You have a problem. And we can help. Care if we sit down and talk about it?" Instead they are a bit pushy, you known. I think we better solve our own problems.

In other words, you think it would have been better if the Reapers had tried to take an active hand in galactic politics and convince, cajole or force organics not to build synthetics, and to help contain those already existing? I've thought the same, and it's a valid complaint. However, what would've happened had they done that? Inevitably, organics would have resented their Reaper overlords who were always trying to enforce "unreasonable" laws and prevent them from making their lives better by building machine servants. Eventually, organics would've tried to fight the Reapers. Organics are stubborn that way With no reset of civilization, eventually they'd have succeeded, then proceeded to build synthetics - and they would've been wiped out by them eventually. The reset of civilization is thus a necessity from the Reapers' perspective, and since organics would never willingly agree to that, they weren't asked in the first place. At least that's a rationalization I can go with.

Given all the above, it seems a bit far fetched to me that everything is for our own good. But I am strange that way.

I think this is a prime example of how different the things can be that different people take away from the story of Mass Effect. To me, that the Reapers were an enemy was an unfortunate side effect, that I had to fight them an unfortunate necessity. To me, they were primarily a fascinating mystery I wanted to decipher. An ending where I can end the threat, but can also imagine that meaningful communication is possible, perhaps even that some of the organic minds caught in the Reapers might be reincarnated, *plus* the possibility of a transhumanist future - that's a dream ending for me.

It might be possible to achieve the same through Control, though..... takes a little more headcanon, but avoids the moral quandary of Synthesis. I'll see what the EC has to offer before I choose my ultimate personal canon ending.

Your idea of the "Silicon God" also crossed my mind, but this time as an idea proposed by David Deutsch, a theoretical scientist known for his work on quantum computing, in his book The Fabric of Reality. He describes a method to become god-like by engulfing the universe with an all knowing computer and when the technological singularity approaches "the Omega Point" transcendence has been reached. At first it appeared to me that this was the case, given various Sovereign en Legion quotes that back it up. Also there are various references to the word "Omega" in the game. Instead of a computer, the reapers were used, to keep it more in line to the space opera look and feel of the franchise. However, I abandoned the idea, because it went too far and looked like it was way too complex for the average gamer.

The whole idea resurfaced once again when I saw the synthesis option. However, it is not inline with how the trilogy plays out. Shepard stands for diversity, co-operation, self-determination, individuality, friendship, etc. Shepard is more concerned with down to Earth matters than transcendence and becoming god-like. Three titles in the franchise, up until Marauder Shields, were evidence of that.

I do not think that Shepard favors a "your current existence ends, but no worries your minds will still exist". He can't. That was not the deal he made with those races. The deal was to destroy the reapers, not to join them. The various pacts he made already included what would happen after the reapers were dealt with.

At the worst Shepard was a renegade, but not truly evil. He never followed Saren and working with the Illusive Man was more a means to an end. According to Shepard the reapers were truly evil and every sacrifice made was made to try to defeat the reapers one way or another.

I also think there was a problem with how the writers painted all this, but in the end those were experiments to get rid of the biggest problem with the reapers: They were too strong. The way Shepard behaved and final ending are the only things that remain.

To me "the problem does not exist" is the core. Whatever good intentions the reapers had are lost by the methods they have chosen to get there. Assume that their goal is to let organics develop into "the pinnacle of evolution" then cyclical genocide is not the way to do it, because the methods used show little to no respect for organics. Their harvesting method speaks for itself. And they are not interested in helping the organics, until it is evident that the reapers lost. And that is at the very end.

However, did they really lose? I have a hard time believing that. Shepard is nearly dead when she has his/her talk with Star Child. Sneeze and Shepard dies. Problem solved. Destroy the fleet around the citadel and Earth and the reapers might have called it a day.

The reapers are known for being innovative in their approach to the harvesting process. Javik described in detail how the reapers solved the tactics of the protheans. In the case of Shepard's cycle they tried to adapt to diversity. Yet, they used the same scare tactics that were used against the protheans. That must be an universal approach.

It appears to me that the three options given represent the goals of 3 individuals. Control looks like an option the Illusive Man advocates. Synthesis is something Saren stands for. Destruction looks like Shepard's goal.

Control and synthesis look like traps. In both the reapers continue to exist. Control allows Shepard to take over the position of Star Child. Synthesis forces everyone to become reaper-like, with Shepard's mindset in the background. But both guarantee the survival of the reapers. Destroy allows Shepard to get rid of the reapers once and for all, but has the high price of yet another genocide: The extermination of the geth. It also throws the races back to the dark ages, because reaper tech and the relays will be destroyed. That means that all these options have one big disadvantage: The violation of the right of self-determination. You see, the races gave Shepard the green light to destroy the reapers. None of the races involved allowed Shepard to lose their free will, their autonomy, nor their existence.

The reapers already see themselves as the pinnacle of evolution. Sovereign tells you so. They have reached this by conquering the galaxy by using the most aggressive means imaginable. They are devoid of anything that smells like freedom, ethics, emotion or morale. They have committed their crimes over and over again against an unimaginable number of organics. So, the only way to prevent that they won't repeat that again is to destroy them. But by doing that Shepard is going to use the same method he or she tries to avoid: Genocide. That means that my Shepard cannot choose.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 04 juin 2012 - 09:09 .

[Ieldra]

@AngryFrozenWater:
I've heard all those arguments before. The thing is: some of that is completely alien to the way I approach stories. Examples:

(1) The association of the choices with certain characters. That never matters one whit for me. That Saren supported some kind of Synthesis is totally irrelevant, because an idea always stands on its own. It's good or bad regardless of who supports it. It may be an intellectual, emotionally detached way to approach this, but that's how I do it.

(2) I am convinced that human morality is not the measure of all things in the universe. The Reapers are not human. Since they threaten my and my civilizations' existence, they are enemies and must be stopped, but to call them "abominations" or "incarnations of evil" makes no sense. Human notions of good and evil are not applicable to them. As a consequence, the notion that they must be punished never occurred to me. They must be stopped. That's it. And as incomprehensible as that may be to some, there are no hard feelings. I cannot stress that enough: the Reapers are not human and human morality does not apply to them, thus I make no moral judgment and I do note hate them, even though I fight to stop them with everything I have.
Which means, your statement "According to Shepard, the Reapers are truly evil" is wrong in my timeline.

(3) For the same reason, I've always seen the Reapers as superpowered, but otherwise normal enemies. Wars don't usually end with the destruction of one side, and if I have the option to make peace, I see no reason why I should go for destruction.

(4) The "search for knowledge" aspect of a story is always extremely important to me. You could say I'm steeped neck-deep in Enlightenment values. Vigil's statement "It is not important that you understand them, it is important that you stop them" is anathema to me. I've made it an explicit character trait of my main Shepard that he never destroys information if he can at all avoid it. As a result, I actually do not want to kill the Reapers if I can avoid it without sacrificing my civilization. I am thinking of everything those billions of minds could tell me if I could only free them from the Catalyst's control.

(5) Since the endings don't tell me what happens, it's up to me to continue the story. With this ending, the writers have left the continuation of the universe to me, apart from the things told in the ending sequence. Will the Reapers remain controlled in Control, will they remain reasonably peaceful after Synthesis? I have sovereignty over what happens in my ME universe, other players have sovereignty over their timelines. It's not for me to say that Shepard won't fly the Reapers into black hole after Control in another players' game, and it's not for others' to say that Synthesis means that everyone is turned into something Reaper-like in my games. Neither is shown in the endings nor can either reasonably be inferred from them. Perhaps, if you chose Synthesis that would be the result, but it's not when I choose it.

You see, it all comes down to the mindset with which you approach the story, and to what you take away from it. I can understand that you feel you can't make a choice based on the things you've written, but at the same time I can't empathize with the mindset "the Reapers cannot be allowed to continue to exist". I simply do not feel that way. The nearest to that would be a pragmatic "Maybe it's too much of a risk to let them live" in the mind of my Renegade Shepard. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juin 2012 - 10:12 .

[Taboo]

Moral Universalism applies to all things.

ALL. THINGS.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Moral Universalism applies to all things.

ALL. THINGS.

No. It only applies to human actions, or to actions of beings enough like humans.

Now what?

Making a statement in an emphatic way does not make it true. Rather, it makes it suspect.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juin 2012 - 10:18 .

[General User]

@Ieldra2

You're point #2 is more than a little off-base. What you refer to as "human" notions of good and evil, right and wrong, etc., became very much applicable to the Reapers and the being or beings that created them the moment they chose to involve themselves in our affairs.  All the moreso since their chossen manner of "involving" was to attempt to exterminate our kind.

Had it/they been content to keep to themselves and allow us to do the same you might have a point. But it/they didn't. So anyone who finds himself in a position to pass judgement on them and their motives (ie Shepard) is perfectly justified in using whatever standards they feel happen to be appropriate.

By happenstance I also hold no ill-will towards the Reapers but for a somewhat different reason. You see, the Reapers are simply machines, and as such they do or do not do as they are told. Blaming the Reapers themselves for the war would be like catching Jack the Ripper and putting his knife on trial.

Modifié par General User, 04 juin 2012 - 10:22 .

[Ieldra]

@General User:
The Reapers involve themselves in my affairs threatening to destroy me and my civilization, and thus I feel that I have the absolute right to defend myself against them. Nonetheless, I do not pass moral judgment on them or their master. The conflict was inevitable given the different natures, priorities and agendas. It has gone out of fashion to believe that such a thing is possible, but I think the situation with the Reapers qualifies.

[General User]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@General User:
The Reapers involve themselves in my affairs threatening to destroy me and my civilization, and thus I feel that I have the absolute right to defend myself against them. Nonetheless, I do not pass moral judgment on them or their master. The conflict was inevitable given the different natures, priorities and agendas. It has gone out of fashion to believe that such a thing is possible, but I think the situation with the Reapers qualifies.

Moral judgement or not, it is precisely those natures, priorities and agendas that you must weigh when passing judgement on the Catalyst itself.  And if you've nothing on the other end of the scale against which to balance the Catalyst's "natures, priorities and agendas" than your judgement is bound to be... lopsided.

Modifié par General User, 04 juin 2012 - 11:04 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Moral Universalism applies to all things.

ALL. THINGS.

No. It only applies to human actions, or to actions of beings enough like humans.

Now what?

Making a statement in an emphatic way does not make it true. Rather, it makes it suspect.

No being is above being called out for something. A Batarian shooting a Quarian in cold blood is not different from a Human shooting a Turian in cold blood.

The Reapers have been systematically been wiping things out for millions of years. The rules to not change becaue they are more powerful.

You reject liberal democracy with some sort of benign authoritarianism. You make the choice for EVERY single being in the galaxy, including the Reapers. You subject them to the authority of one being for ALL time. The amount of hubris required for such an act would be enormous.

One of the key ideas in Fascist idealogy is a use of romantic symbolism and the support of genetic superiority en masse. You enact the latter with Synthesis and defend it with the former.

That's what it is.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I've heard all those arguments before. The thing is: some of that is completely alien to the way I approach stories. Examples:

(1) The association of the choices with certain characters. That never matters one whit for me. That Saren supported some kind of Synthesis is totally irrelevant, because an idea always stands on its own. It's good or bad regardless of who supports it. It may be an intellectual, emotionally detached way to approach this, but that's how I do it.

(2) I am convinced that human morality is not the measure of all things in the universe. The Reapers are not human. Since they threaten my and my civilizations' existence, they are enemies and must be stopped, but to call them "abominations" or "incarnations of evil" makes no sense. Human notions of good and evil are not applicable to them. As a consequence, the notion that they must be punished never occurred to me. They must be stopped. That's it. And as incomprehensible as that may be to some, there are no hard feelings. I cannot stress that enough: the Reapers are not human and human morality does not apply to them, thus I make no moral judgment and I do note hate them, even though I fight to stop them with everything I have.
Which means, your statement "According to Shepard, the Reapers are truly evil" is wrong in my timeline.

(3) For the same reason, I've always seen the Reapers as superpowered, but otherwise normal enemies. Wars don't usually end with the destruction of one side, and if I have the option to make peace, I see no reason why I should go for destruction.

(4) The "search for knowledge" aspect of a story is always extremely important to me. You could say I'm steeped neck-deep in Enlightenment values. Vigil's statement "It is not important that you understand them, it is important that you stop them" is anathema to me. I've made it an explicit character trait of my main Shepard that he never destroys information if he can at all avoid it. As a result, I actually do not want to kill the Reapers if I can avoid it without sacrificing my civilization. I am thinking of everything those billions of minds could tell me if I could only free them from the Catalyst's control.

(5) Since the endings don't tell me what happens, it's up to me to continue the story. With this ending, the writers have left the continuation of the universe to me, apart from the things told in the ending sequence. Will the Reapers remain controlled in Control, will they remain reasonably peaceful after Synthesis? I have sovereignty over what happens in my ME universe, other players have sovereignty over their timelines. It's not for me to say that Shepard won't fly the Reapers into black hole after Control in another players' game, and it's not for others' to say that Synthesis means that everyone is turned into something Reaper-like in my games. Neither is shown in the endings nor can either reasonably be inferred from them. Perhaps, if you chose Synthesis that would be the result, but it's not when I choose it.

You see, it all comes down to the mindset with which you approach the story, and to what you take away from it. I can understand that you feel you can't make a choice based on the things you've written, but at the same time I can't empathize with the mindset "the Reapers cannot be allowed to continue to exist". I simply do not feel that way. The nearest to that would be a pragmatic "Maybe it's too much of a risk to let them live" in the mind of my Renegade Shepard.

#2: You may be convinced that human morality is not the measure of all things in the universe because the reapers are not human. For my Shepard it is the morality of humanity and in this case Shepard's allies what matters. Whatever the morality of the reapers is, it is threatening their right of self-determination, their autonomy and/or their existence. Therefore I could not care less, what the reapers believe.

#3: Because of the above, the reapers leave me no other option than to destroy them. The game then adds another problem: It once more destroys one of Shepard's allies. That is unacceptable. The game does not provide valid options which take that into account.

#4: The "search for knowledge" is always interesting. I agree. However, the reapers used that as a trap resulting in the destruction of countless races. It looks like they cannot be trusted in that regard. I rather have that "we" do it ourselves, at our own pace and on our own terms and set our own goals.

#5: No matter what clarification or closure the EC gives me, I certainly do not want to end, in the case of control, as an undead dictator of a cyclical maniacal genocidal race, or, in the case of synthesis, have that same race survive and become part of them. In the case of destruction Shepard needs to resort to genocide again; this time the geth.

No thanks. If there is something like "the pinnacle of evolution" and if it turns out that "we" want that then we will get there eventually. Unlike the reapers, my Shepard does not want to violate the right of self-determination of those involved, nor wants my Shepard to limit their freedom or betray them by genocide.

Edit: Oops. Corrected an odd typo in #5.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 juin 2012 - 12:13 .

[Ieldra]

So, let me get that straight: you are unwilling to adapt to a situation where there is no decision without a downside? You'd let yourself be paralyzed by indecision, which would result in a scenario worse than any of the others - a Reapers Win scenario - because there's no option without a significant cost?

And you won't take a decision that saves galactic civilization and doesn't kill any of your allies (Control) because it requires you to let go of the past?

I am making a decision for the future, not for the past. If a decision has, as I see it, the best results for the future, but requires me to forgive the Reapers, then I'm bloody well going to do it.

As for #5, that's what *you* put into the scenario. If I choose Control, my Shepard will definitely not feel like "an undead dictator...." and if I choose Synthesis, that definitely doesn't mean "becoming part of them". Actually, I have no idea where that particular myth originates. The number of sweeping generalizations in the ending debates is astonishing. Are people unable to see that *one* common element (DNA, being a organic/synthetic hybrid) does not make everyone the same.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Do not cling to straws. I am just saying that there are no valid options to choose from. The implications you make from that are yours, not mine.

Control? Be the undead dictator of the cyclical maniacal genocidal reapers? Nah. Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

You are free to choose whatever you want. To me it doesn't cut wood for reasons mentioned earlier. Hint: Solutions to a non-existent problem. You rather believe the reapers, because you think they smarter than you. The way reapers behave make me cringe. If they are really that smart then they could have found another way to reproduce. Like setting up a plant somewhere and produce a random DNA generator or ask for samples or be creative in some other way. Instead they have chosen to deliberately use an artificial method to reproduce by genocide and stay on top of the food chain in the most horrific way imaginable.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 juin 2012 - 08:39 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

So, let me get that straight: you are unwilling to adapt to a situation where there is no decision without a downside? You'd let yourself be paralyzed by indecision, which would result in a scenario worse than any of the others - a Reapers Win scenario - because there's no option without a significant cost?

And you won't take a decision that saves galactic civilization and doesn't kill any of your allies (Control) because it requires you to let go of the past?

I am making a decision for the future, not for the past. If a decision has, as I see it, the best results for the future, but requires me to forgive the Reapers, then I'm bloody well going to do it.

As for #5, that's what *you* put into the scenario. If I choose Control, my Shepard will definitely not feel like "an undead dictator...." and if I choose Synthesis, that definitely doesn't mean "becoming part of them". Actually, I have no idea where that particular myth originates. The number of sweeping generalizations in the ending debates is astonishing. Are people unable to see that *one* common element (DNA, being a organic/synthetic hybrid) does not make everyone the same.

I don't think there is indecision with destroy, it is quite clear to the gamer what the consequences are, it is synthesis/control supporters that are being indecisive because they are influenced by Catalyst's warning, that synthetics will indeed come back and haunt organics, it is this fear that drove some gamers to believe that more stern measures, more safe-keeping measures should be taken

Destroy is not about the past, it is also about future if not more, it teaches organics a painful lesson: don't create something u cannot control

Modifié par Vigilant111, 05 juin 2012 - 08:57 .

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant111:
I still see no convincing reason to reject the Catalyst's claims out of hand, though admittedly that's mostly grounded in an out-of-universe perspective. Also, indecision because of conflicting information is one thing, indecision because of the unwillingness to let go of moral absolutes another. In the former, the problem is the situation, in the latter, the problem is you.

Also, I didn't say Destroy is a backward-looking decision (I do think that, but that's a topic for another time), but that regardless of what you decide, the statement "The Reapers cannot get away with this", shouldn't be a factor in your decision-making because you choose for the future, not the past. If you think a decision other than Destroy is the best for the future of the galaxy, you shouldn't let thoughts of vengeance prevent you from taking it, nor should you color the other decisions darker than they are just to justify the decision that satisfies your desire for vengeance.

I am seeing far too much "reasoning" of the kind: "This feels morally bad, thus its consequences must absolutely be bad" in these debates, and the corollary: "This feels like the right thing, so why the hell does it have a downside?" That's not how things works, though, and I'd rather have ME acknowledge it than to turn into yet another SF fairly tale.

@AngryFrozenWater:
I think all we can do is to agree to disagree at this point. You take different things away from the story than I do. You interpret certain things in a vastly different way, using thought processes and associations alien to me. I guess it's similar from your point of view.

I would like to draw your attention to one point though: There is a difference between accepting that someone is an enemy you must fight and moral condemnation of that enemy. I don't need the latter to do the former, and I most emphatically believe that it is more fruitful for the future to seek for communication and explanation instead of cutting off all possibility of that with the apodictic statement "They're evil". If there is no common cultural framework between the sides of a conflict, moral condemnation leads only to entrenched antagonism. Nothing is explained, nothing solved by the statement "The Catalyst is a genocidal monster". It offers no solutions, only new conflicts. It closes your mind to new possibilities. It paints a simplistic picture of a complex reality. The bigger the stakes are in your decision, the more actual results trump moral concerns. And here we have the biggest stakes of all: the future of the galaxy.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juin 2012 - 11:24 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Vigilant111:
I still see no convincing reason to reject the Catalyst's claims out of hand, though admittedly that's mostly grounded in an out-of-universe perspective. Also, indecision because of conflicting information is one thing, indecision because of the unwillingness to let go of moral absolutes another. In the former, the problem is the situation, in the latter, the problem is you.

Also, I didn't say Destroy is a backward-looking decision (I do think that, but that's a topic for another time), but that regardless of what you decide, the statement "The Reapers cannot get away with this", shouldn't be a factor in your decision-making because you choose for the future, not the past. If you think a decision other than Destroy is the best for the future of the galaxy, you shouldn't let thoughts of vengeance prevent you from taking it, nor should you color the other decisions darker than they are just to justify the decision that satisfies your desire for vengeance.

I am seeing far too much "reasoning" of the kind: "This feels morally bad, thus its consequences must absolutely be bad" in these debates, and the corollary: "This feels like the right thing, so why the hell does it have a downside?" That's not how things works, though, and I'd rather have ME acknowledge it than to turn into yet another SF fairly tale.

Dear Ieldra2, you are like the chaotic organics that I am trying to destroy but could not

I clearly remember u said something about destroy option reverting the galaxy back to the past

My view of destroy is not about vengence, and I have stressed this point time after time that I believe strongly that destroy is a paragon choice by getting rid of the reapers in absolute terms, I view them simply as the deadliest third party interference that needs to be rid of, and no, I did not let vengence to cloud my judgement, actually I hate Cerberus cos they are humans and they betrayed the galaxy, u cannot just assume I based my decision on a petty human emotion where billions of lives are at stake

No, synthesis IS a fairtale, hence Adam and Eve, all your problems go away after jumping into a beam... it is lazy, it is poorly done, and it is insulting after so many hours of gameplay

Regards
Harbinger