364 réponses à ce sujet

[The Revolut]

maaaze wrote...

No, logic is is the study of valid reasoning.

Reason is transcendent of ethics. You cannot have ethics without first having reason.

The reasoning of the Catalyst is sound... beeing more powerfull ensures higher chances of survival...

So, basically at this point, you're only reason for living is survival? I guess that throws the whole "meaningful sacrifice" theory out the window, right?

Oh, and EDI stating she'd risk nonfunctionality for Joker. Oh, and Synthesis and Control--since you die in those endings, too. If this were simply about survival, ethics wouldn't be necessary.

If this were simply about survival, we wouldn't be reasonable creatures, sapient creatures.

The question is : Hive mind against individuality...which is better for survival..
you can make a valid arguement for both.

You're not even trying at this point, are you?

The Catalyst's logic is not sound. It is inherently flawed. Not only was it proven narratively false--making it a non sequitur argument--the logic is based off of an assumption of probability which is wholly unknowable in the context given.

It is wrong and you are wrong.

[Udalango]

So I got this new girlfriend. My last two cheated on me. So its reasonable for me to be wary she might cheat on me. My "Logical" conclusion is to cheat on here before she cheats on me. Wait you mean that isnt logical at all? Blimey

[SokarPtolemy]

brummyuk19 wrote...

v0rt3x22 wrote...

I'd start to talk about "IT" - but I don't feel like being flammed today.

If the IT is true, I applaud bioware. If it is not, I still think the logic is sound, it just needs to be put across better and more things need to be explained. ie. when did it all start, what race created the reapers etc.

Not that I disagree with you, but the awesome thing about logic is it isn't subjective. Only people who doesn't understand logical claims otherwise. Therefore when you say "I think" and "logic" in the same sentence, it makes you appear very unintelligent. Not the best thing when you are trying to establish an argument based on it.

Udalango wrote...

So I got this new girlfriend. My last two cheated on me. So its reasonable for me to be wary she might cheat on me. My "Logical" conclusion is to cheat on here before she cheats on me. Wait you mean that isnt logical at all? Blimey

 

I would love to go into detail on why it would very reasonable to assume the next would (not that it'd be logical to cheat on her first.. thats just stupid). But the complexity of human behavior and the fact that you picked this "example" tells me it would take faaar more then wall of text to convince you otherwise

Modifié par SokarPtolemy, 24 juin 2012 - 09:23 .

[brummyuk19]

Barict78 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

maaaze wrote...

So you ask why are the reapers not like humans, with human ethics and understanding of life???

From the Reapers perspective it is a greater...definitly a more powerful way of being.

To prove them wrong is the whole point of ME 3. Thats why the Catalyst lets you choose how to proceed.

No, logic is transcendent of ethics and helps us discern a greater universal understanding of life.

The Reapers have no logic corresponding to "transcendence" or "ascendence." Power =/= logic. It'd be like me saying, "Your logic is bad," and then punching you in the face repeatedly until you relented and joined my cause.

The abomination of an ending is quite another argument to be had.

No, logic is is the study of valid reasoning. The reasoning of the Catalyst is sound... beeing more powerfull ensures higher chances of survival...

The question is : Hive mind against individuality...which is better for survival..
you can make a valid arguement for both.

One cannot base a "logical" argument on what "Might" happen so no his argument is not logical sorry

It is not based on what might happen though. You have to think, the reapers have done this cycle many times and have witnessed machines rise and machines rebel time and time again, just because it might not happen with the geth it does not mean that someone will not create synthetic life that evolves faster than organics can, meaning they will rebel and wipe us out. That is why they do what they do, to stop a singularity they have witnessed again and again. We don't know when or how but we know that star child must be basing his logic off of some evidence. He would not kill/preserve everything for nothing.

[brummyuk19]

SokarPtolemy wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

v0rt3x22 wrote...

I'd start to talk about "IT" - but I don't feel like being flammed today.

If the IT is true, I applaud bioware. If it is not, I still think the logic is sound, it just needs to be put across better and more things need to be explained. ie. when did it all start, what race created the reapers etc.

Not that I disagree with you, but th awesome thing about logic is isn't subjective. Only people who doesn't understand logical claims otherwise. Therefore when you say "I think" and "logic" in the same sentence, it makes you appear very unintelligent. Not the best thing when you are trying to establish an argument based on it.

I get what you mean, to tired to say much else but I get where you are coming from.

[The Revolut]

brummyuk19 wrote...

It is not based on what might happen though.

It must have been a while since you've seen the ending sequence, because the StarBrat pretty much states that the reason civilizations are harvested is protection from a possible technological singularity.

You have to think, the reapers have done this cycle many times and have witnessed machines rise and machines rebel time and time again, just because it might not happen with the geth it does not mean that someone will not create synthetic life that evolves faster than organics can, meaning they will rebel and wipe us out.

You have to think that you'd eventually see that they can and have been proven wrong. Oh, and that this argument, quoted, is completely based on what might happen.

That is why they do what they do, to stop a singularity they have witnessed again and again. We don't know when or how but we know that star child must be basing his logic off of some evidence. He would not kill/preserve everything for nothing.

They've never witnessed it, though. They stop it before they perceive it will happen.

Modifié par The Revolut, 24 juin 2012 - 09:25 .

[Udalango]

I have a dog I love the dog and play with it always. My wife comes in and says were expecting a child. Ive read that sometimes Dogs dont get along with children and can harm/kill infants. My "Logical" decision is to kill the baby before the dog does.

[brummyuk19]

The Revolut wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Terminator is on her way through.

Terminator is actually a good example for this. Kill Miles Dyson so that he does not create the AI that leads to Skynet, essentially killing in order to prevent killing. Now do this with every scientist that steps up and try to finish his work. That's what the Catalyst is trying to do and like it or not it's a perfectly logical way to prevent something it believes will inevitably happen.

Despite the fact that we proved his belief inherently wrong within the narrative.

We proved nothing. The geth will eventually over take organics technologically and we will not be able to keep up. They will probably see no need for us and wipe us out, or someone else will create an AI that goes rogue and tries the same thing. Either way, it is logical to assume that the pattern would repeat it's self again and again. We just proved that there can be peace for a while.

[Erixxxx]

Barict78 wrote...

Erixxxx wrote...

Barict78 wrote...

So Basically cause we dont understand it and its different we must kill it??  WEll by that "Logic" we should kill all things that are different from us or whos thoughts we dont know or dont fully understand... what happened to letting events just play out and trying out best to show Compassion to th AIs and maybe just maybe they wont go frakkin genocidal on us and "wipe us out"

Did I state anywhere that we should wipe out everything we don't understand?

OMFG yes yes u did ... if u AGREE with the star brat then you are saying that so YES

Did I state anywhere that I agree with the Catalyst? No. I shedding light on the side of the argument that very few people are willing to touch. However, to fully understand something and decide where to go from there, you need to see it from both sides of the argument.

[Mazebook]

Barict78 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

maaaze wrote...

So you ask why are the reapers not like humans, with human ethics and understanding of life???

From the Reapers perspective it is a greater...definitly a more powerful way of being.

To prove them wrong is the whole point of ME 3. Thats why the Catalyst lets you choose how to proceed.

No, logic is transcendent of ethics and helps us discern a greater universal understanding of life.

The Reapers have no logic corresponding to "transcendence" or "ascendence." Power =/= logic. It'd be like me saying, "Your logic is bad," and then punching you in the face repeatedly until you relented and joined my cause.

The abomination of an ending is quite another argument to be had.

No, logic is is the study of valid reasoning. The reasoning of the Catalyst is sound... beeing more powerfull ensures higher chances of survival...

The question is : Hive mind against individuality...which is better for survival..
you can make a valid arguement for both.

One cannot base a "logical" argument on what "Might" happen so no his argument is not logical sorry

Mathematics and Probability would like to have a word with you

[brummyuk19]

The Revolut wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

It is not based on what might happen though.

It must have been a while since you've seen the ending sequence, because the StarBrat pretty much states that the reason civilizations are harvested is protection from a possible technological singularity.

You have to think, the reapers have done this cycle many times and have witnessed machines rise and machines rebel time and time again, just because it might not happen with the geth it does not mean that someone will not create synthetic life that evolves faster than organics can, meaning they will rebel and wipe us out.

You have to think that you'd eventually see that they can and have been proven wrong. Oh, and that this argument, quoted, is completely based on what might happen.

That is why they do what they do, to stop a singularity they have witnessed again and again. We don't know when or how but we know that star child must be basing his logic off of some evidence. He would not kill/preserve everything for nothing.

They've never witnessed it, though. They stop it before they perceive it will happen.

What are you basing this off? How can you answer questions that bioware have not yet answered. You do not even know where the reapers come from, how can you say they have never witnessed it before. The creators could of witnessed it time and time again and before they were wiped out set the cycle in place, killing themselves along with the AI to prevent it from taking over and leaving the catalyst behind to do the job they programmed it for.

Who knows... to much speculation.

[The Revolut]

brummyuk19 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Terminator is on her way through.

Terminator is actually a good example for this. Kill Miles Dyson so that he does not create the AI that leads to Skynet, essentially killing in order to prevent killing. Now do this with every scientist that steps up and try to finish his work. That's what the Catalyst is trying to do and like it or not it's a perfectly logical way to prevent something it believes will inevitably happen.

Despite the fact that we proved his belief inherently wrong within the narrative.

We proved nothing. The geth will eventually over take organics technologically and we will not be able to keep up. They will probably see no need for us and wipe us out, or someone else will create an AI that goes rogue and tries the same thing. Either way, it is logical to assume that the pattern would repeat it's self again and again. We just proved that there can be peace for a while.

Jesus, do you not see how logically incoherent that notion is?

Basing the genocide of trillions--if not quadrillions--over billions of years over an assumption that maybe, just maybe, AI will kill us all because they don't like us anymore?

It is illogical at best.

[Erixxxx]

Udalango wrote...

So I got this new girlfriend. My last two cheated on me. So its reasonable for me to be wary she might cheat on me. My "Logical" conclusion is to cheat on here before she cheats on me. Wait you mean that isnt logical at all? Blimey

For that specific example, you have more background information. If you only had known those two girls and had never spoken to or heard of anyone else, then yes. You would assume she was gonna cheat on you eventually. It's all about the information. In some cases you do have it, and in some cases you don't. You make a decision based on what you know.

[The Revolut]

maaaze wrote...

Mathematics and Probability would like to have a word with you

Appealing to probability as absolute fact is not what mathematics and probability dictate.

[The Revolut]

brummyuk19 wrote...

What are you basing this off? How can you answer questions that bioware have not yet answered. You do not even know where the reapers come from, how can you say they have never witnessed it before. The creators could of witnessed it time and time again and before they were wiped out set the cycle in place, killing themselves along with the AI to prevent it from taking over and leaving the catalyst behind to do the job they programmed it for.

Who knows... to much speculation.

Umm, the Catalyst's own words reinforce what I've been arguing.

You really should watch the end sequence again.

"Could have" is not a rational defense for the senseless murder of, liberally estimated, quadrillions.

[Erixxxx]

The Revolut wrote...

Jesus, do you not see how logically incoherent that notion is?

Basing the genocide of trillions--if not quadrillions--over billions of years over an assumption that maybe, just maybe, AI will kill us all because they don't like us anymore?

It is illogical at best.

In their eyes they're preserving us. They make sure our culture and histry lives on in nigh-immortal machine shells. We see it as genocide, they see it as salvation. We might find that as stupid, but do we really understand machines?

[Cpl_Facehugger]

brummyuk19 wrote...
The star childs logic is sound, it was just the WAY it was presented to the player that was bad.

No it isn't. The Starchild's logic is inherently flawed because it can't be disproven. Citing EDI or the Geth would be a great counter, except the Starchild's logic can always say "well just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen some time in the distant future!" 

Which is logically bankrupt. It's basically an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And that's not even getting into the contradictory logic of its solution. "I want to stop synthetics from destroying life, so I will make synthetics to destroy life! Brilliant!" 

Modifié par Cpl_Facehugger, 24 juin 2012 - 09:35 .

[The Revolut]

Erixxxx wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Jesus, do you not see how logically incoherent that notion is?

Basing the genocide of trillions--if not quadrillions--over billions of years over an assumption that maybe, just maybe, AI will kill us all because they don't like us anymore?

It is illogical at best.

In their eyes they're preserving us. They make sure our culture and histry lives on in nigh-immortal machine shells. We see it as genocide, they see it as salvation. We might find that as stupid, but do we really understand machines?

How in God's name are they preserving history in our grey goo?

[brummyuk19]

The Revolut wrote...

brummyuk19 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Terminator is on her way through.

Terminator is actually a good example for this. Kill Miles Dyson so that he does not create the AI that leads to Skynet, essentially killing in order to prevent killing. Now do this with every scientist that steps up and try to finish his work. That's what the Catalyst is trying to do and like it or not it's a perfectly logical way to prevent something it believes will inevitably happen.

Despite the fact that we proved his belief inherently wrong within the narrative.

We proved nothing. The geth will eventually over take organics technologically and we will not be able to keep up. They will probably see no need for us and wipe us out, or someone else will create an AI that goes rogue and tries the same thing. Either way, it is logical to assume that the pattern would repeat it's self again and again. We just proved that there can be peace for a while.

Jesus, do you not see how logically incoherent that notion is?

Basing the genocide of trillions--if not quadrillions--over billions of years over an assumption that maybe, just maybe, AI will kill us all because they don't like us anymore?

It is illogical at best.

AI do not think along the same lines we do. They do not like or dislike, love or hate. If AI see no need for us, see us as violent and brutal, what's not to say they will not try and bring order to chaos by wiping us out? Seeing us as primitive.

The only solution to this problem is synthisis, so that synthetic life cannot over take organic life and vice versa. There will be understanding.

But to do that the catalyst needed the crucible.

[The Revolut]

brummyuk19 wrote...

AI do not think along the same lines we do. They do not like or dislike, love or hate.

Did you fall asleep making those choices with EDI?

If AI see no need for us, see us as violent and brutal, what's not to say they will not try and bring order to chaos by wiping us out? Seeing us as primitive.

Who is to say they will? Appealing to the probability that they will wipe us out as absolute fact is logically fallacious. There is no debating this.

The only solution to this problem is synthisis, so that synthetic life cannot over take organic life and vice versa. There will be understanding.

But to do that the catalyst needed the crucible.

Glad to see you support eugenics.

[LucasShark]

brummyuk19 wrote...

The star childs logic is sound, it was just the WAY it was presented to the player that was bad.

... No... a thousand times no: circular self-confirming logic is not sound, no matter how you present it.

[Hudathan]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Terminator is on her way through.

Terminator is actually a good example for this. Kill Miles Dyson so that he does not create the AI that leads to Skynet, essentially killing in order to prevent killing. Now do this with every scientist that steps up and try to finish his work. That's what the Catalyst is trying to do and like it or not it's a perfectly logical way to prevent something it believes will inevitably happen.

Which is a fallacy known as appeal to probability. Look it up. It isn't logical.

According to what, the text book definition of logic as defined by humans? I thought this was science fiction and the subject in discussion is an ancient AI?

The Revolut wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Terminator is on her way through.

Terminator is actually a good example for this. Kill Miles Dyson so that he does not create the AI that leads to Skynet, essentially killing in order to prevent killing. Now do this with every scientist that steps up and try to finish his work. That's what the Catalyst is trying to do and like it or not it's a perfectly logical way to prevent something it believes will inevitably happen.

Despite the fact that we proved his belief inherently wrong within the narrative.

How was it proven wrong? Making peace with one particular race of synthetic beings in no way diminishes the rift that exists between synthetic and organic life. It does not eliminate the inherent fear organics have regarding synthetics who do not share their weakness and possess strengths they could only dream of.

The fear that we organics may be potentially supplanted and replaced by these superior synthetic beings is exactly what leads to the synthetic vs organic conflict as we know it in the Mass Effect series and is no mere theory on the part of the Catalyst. In fact it introduces a layer of irony as it is often organics who force the hand of synthetics out of fear in the case of the Quarians.

The fact that the Quarian/Geth conflict had been taking place for hundreds of years and was only resolved in the face of impending doom at the hands of a common enemy only goes to prove how real this conflict is. And even if a player succeeded in making peace which is only one of three possible outcomes of that particular scenario, there is no guarantee that the same peace would last or that another conflict won't simply arise elsewhere at another time.

Modifié par Hudathan, 24 juin 2012 - 09:41 .

[Barict78]

The Revolut wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Mathematics and Probability would like to have a word with you

Appealing to probability as absolute fact is not what mathematics and probability dictate.

Exactly ur too quik for me lol u have voiced every argument i want to make before i can even type it LOL TYVM

[Erixxxx]

The Revolut wrote...

Did you fall asleep making those choices with EDI?

Just as much as humans can be devoid of feelings, so can AIs if feelings were never programmed into them.