222 réponses à ce sujet

[Manton-X2]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Then I am sorry to say, and I mean no offense, but you do not get what Syntesis is.

You do not loose free will... you reach a mutual uunderstanding with all things in the galaxy. This is why EDI finally knwos what it means to be more human, she finally has al lthe informations she was lacking before. PErhaps she would ahve achieved this result by herself, but not everyone woudl reach the same conclusions, that is why individuals are always in conflict.

You would not hate Shepard for forcing this on you, because you would understand the reasons why he did it.

There
is no point trying to explain a concept so abstract anyhow, none of us is in such situation to comment on this from a realistic point of view, we can only express our personal opinions.

I can accept you mean no offense, but your idea is offensive to me on a level I can't properly articulate.

I understand exactly what you are trying to say and I am saying, if *I* am in the situation and this happens, I will not be sitting there thinking "Well, I know why he did it and I'm ok with it."   *I* would be thinking, why didn't he destroy the Repears like we all planned?  Why didn't he take the control option?  They were both better than this and completely available to him ... how could he have fundamentally changed me against my will?  I would be pissed and I would want out and back to what I was.  There are no if, ands or butts about it.  I would not understand that this was the only way because in my mind I know there were what I feel were better options to end Reaper threat.

If, as you say, I would not be and I'd be happy and content; then there is no other option than I have lost my free thought and free will.

And as for conflict ... evolution is conflict.  Growth is conflict.  Conflict is not always bad. 

[Costin_Razvan]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

priestess of blood wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Because in the world
we live in, people will never accept one another, they will forever be
divided by religion, colour and country. Synthesis gets rid of that for
you. And before you say "How do you know?" Well.. have you seen things changing for us in the past 2 millions years we have been here apart the ability of using sharper sticks? No... we are still all a bunch of hateful, conflict seeking brutes.

Exactly what makes conflicts of ideas, religion, ideology etc bad and diversity bad as well? Explain that.

Let's just assume for the sake of discussion, that you're right, it removes all those things, which yes there are alot of horrible things that happen in the world, but isn't it peoples right to make those choices for themselves, for people to be wrong and be punished for those mistakes and (hopefully) learn from the experience of being wrong.

Who gives someone the right to come in, and removes what allows us to develop as children into and throughout adulthood.

Conflicts do not have to mean violence, let's be clear on that and conflicts have advanced the human race by a lot.

Yes, I agree when I say "conflicts" I do not mean jsut violence, I mean when 2 indiduals cannot reach an understanding.

And although conflicts have advanced us, that is only from a point of view in warfare technology.

WW1 happened, we all lost, and you'd think that an intelligent race would think "Wait, let's not make this happen again"

WW2 same thing.... and you stil lbeleive wars advance us? I personally doubt this. I am a firm believer that we will end up destroying one another sooner rather than later. Most of the positive changes we have experienced throguh evolution have come because a strong majority voices their opinion, so this either starts a revolution for equal rights, or whatever, but this works both ways: If the majority is all evil people with power bent on abusing weaker people, our world would change toward that, and we woudl think "This is how things should be, big guys on the top, small ones on the bottom,  Isee nothing wrong with it" there are some countries that lives liek this to this day....

The World Wars led to great advancements in aircraft, ending with the Jets, improvements on medicine, rockets, nuclear psyhics, the basics of computers ( yes those basics were created during WW2 ), comunications etc.

The Cold War led to the creation of spacecraft, computers, internet, satelites, vast improvements in techonolog and the cold war occured as a direct result of the Allied victory in WW2. Many advances were made to help win the wars but they DID benefit humanity in the long run outside of it.

It's an ignorant way to view the World Wars as merely a loss of life when they were so much more then that.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 29 juin 2012 - 01:03 .

[Yigorse]

TaradosGon wrote...

Would not care. Doesn't really seem to be any kind of downside. The worst part would be the god awful moving green glow everytime I look at myself in the mirror. If I got into a horrible accident and woke up in the hospital with a prosthesis, I'm not going to flip out over the fact that I wasn't consulted. Particularly given the alternatives, I don't see what happened as being morally wrong. I can either: die; live normally at the cost of Shepard becoming Reaper-God and trusting that he will stay good; live normally at the cost of the extinction of a people; or deal with genetic enhancement.

Even the trees underwent synthesis.

I wonder what eating a cyborg salad would be like.

Crunchy, or maybe chewy if it's some sort of polymer.

That said, I quite like the idea of a nice juicy cuircitboard steak.

[MadRabbit999]

Aiyie wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Honestly, if you woke up tomorrow and someone had given you superpowers while you slept without telling you, would you really be mad? 

yep.

because being human is about being flawed.

its only by being imperfect that we recognize and appreciate what is good about us.

a perfect being cannot appreciate itself.

perfection is stagnation, and stagnation is the antithesis of our humanity.

sorta like how without a night there can be no day.

Humanity seeks perfection, so why do we? We want ot improve our life to the point were we do no suffer, and no one else suffers, this is what I call perfection, and you say peopel want to be flawed?

If you were perfect you would have no flaws that would make you a narcisist, or disregard life beacuse just you are perfect, that is the point of perfection, no problems at all.

A perfect being does not need to appreciate itself, he has no need for pride.

Humanity will stop evolving wether you like it or not, our kind has broken the "Survival of the fittest" idea... weak people live, sick people can still survive and procreate because we have evolved ourself to cure or treat lots of these problems, meaning everyone will survive, not jsut the best anymore. so yes, humanity has already almsot reached a point of stagnation on that front.

Well to be frank, if there was only night, you would not care there wasn't a day since you did not know what a "day" was...

[Manton-X2]

MadRabbit999 wrote...
This would happen if this person is about to do something you do not agree on, however this person would not do it in the first palce because he'd already knew you would not like it, so instead he would find an alternative solution. This is the same way Geth build consensus (I think).

I think there is a major flaw in your logic here.  You are assuming that people do horrible things to one another because they don't understand how the other person will feel, what they think, etc.  That is fantasy.   When some guy kicks in your front door, ties up your family and steals your possessions I am pretty certain he understands that you won't like it, that you and your family will be terrified and traumatized ... he doesn't care.  When a gang member walks up behind someone and puts a bullet in the back of their head, I'm pretty certain they know that's not what that person would have liked.
If you want to remove violence and conflict from humanity, you're going to have to dig a little deeper than "understanding" in order to do it 100% across the entire species.

Modifié par Manton-X2, 29 juin 2012 - 01:12 .

[Aiyie]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

You would not hate Shepard for forcing this on you, because you would understand the reasons why he did it.

There is no point trying to explain a concept so abstract anyhow, none of us is in such situation to comment on this from a realistic point of view, we can only express our personal opinions.

i see little difference between this and the Reaper's indoctrination.

in both cases, you lose your free will by having your perception of reality, and as a result your thoughts and opinions and beliefs, altered without your input or consensus.

you're correct in that we wouldn't hate Shepard for this, once its imposed on us, but the reason behind our agreement would not be something we chose for ourselves, it would be something forced upon us by Shepard's action.

synthesis subverts our free will by preventing us from having the option, or even the notion, to disagree in the first place.

this reminds me alot about Orwell's concept of Newspeak in 1984.  in particular the concept that by eliminating words from our vocabulary, Big Brother can eliminate entire abstract concepts from our perception of reality, and thus ultimately limit our free will by limiting the scope of our ability to dissent.

if you're only presented with a limited number of paths to travel (like say, control, destroy or synthesis and nothing else)... how much free will do you really possess?  what if instead of 3 paths to travel, you only have 2?

how about if you only have a single path to travel, such as you'd be given if synthesis is forced on you?  does compliance with the only option presented equate to free will?  how about if you aren't even able to refuse to comply, and disagree, with the path that's been chosen for you?

Modifié par Aiyie, 29 juin 2012 - 01:20 .

[priestess of blood]

Well it's getting late here in my neck of the woods, so I'm going to bow out, but thank you MadRabbit99 and everyone else for the discussion

[Eluril]

Belisarius09 wrote...

they should have asked me first

Probably should've asked synthetics "Is it ok for me to wipe you out to save us?" Probably should've also asked "Is it ok for me to become a god emperor?" "Is it ok that I sacrifice all of you so that someday, maybe somebody somewhere can beat the Reapers?"

Anti-synthesis people pretend there are no drawbacks to the other choices. They're also reading assumptions in such as "Everyone's the same, there's no evolution, no morality, etc." This is totally false. The whole idea of synthesis is the idea of true technological singularity as explained in Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near. He explains that it's the point where machines reach the same evolutionary level as humans including all of our individuality, morality, artistic appreciations, love, emotions, etc. Is it utopian and super optimistic? Yes it is, but that's a different criticism from the one most people have of synthesis.

Modifié par Eluril, 29 juin 2012 - 01:28 .

[Manton-X2]

Same here ... early in the morning and I need some sleep. Interesting debate/discussion. I may not agree with some of the positions held here, but I wouldn't dream of taking away the ability to have these kinds of discussions or conflict. Difference is what makes life interesting.

[Aiyie]

Manton-X2 wrote...

Same here ... early in the morning and I need some sleep. Interesting debate/discussion. I may not agree with some of the positions held here, but I wouldn't dream of taking away the ability to have these kinds of discussions or conflict. Difference is what makes life interesting.

and that's the core of what i hate about synthesis.

it removes your ability to have these kinds of discussions by changing your core beliefs, by imposing someone else's perception of reality on you... it alters you on a fundamental level without your consent.

you wouldn't hate Shepard because your ability to disagree with her decision to go with synthesis would be eliminated.

as for the person saying that the other options have drawbacks... they do.  i suppose the morality comes down to which you value more highly, personal freedom or life.  is death preferable to losing your free will?  is the sacrifice of one person worth it in order to preserve the freedom of another?

Modifié par Aiyie, 29 juin 2012 - 01:45 .

[memorysquid]

Aiyie wrote...

Manton-X2 wrote...

Same here ... early in the morning and I need some sleep. Interesting debate/discussion. I may not agree with some of the positions held here, but I wouldn't dream of taking away the ability to have these kinds of discussions or conflict. Difference is what makes life interesting.

and that's the core of what i hate about synthesis.

it removes your ability to have these kinds of discussions by changing your core beliefs, by imposing someone else's perception of reality on you... it alters you on a fundamental level without your consent.

you wouldn't hate Shepard because your ability to disagree with her decision to go with synthesis would be eliminated.

as for the person saying that the other options have drawbacks... they do.  i suppose the morality comes down to which you value more highly, personal freedom or life.  is death preferable to losing your free will?  is the sacrifice of one person worth it in order to preserve the freedom of another?

There is nothing in the game to suggest synthesis eliminates free will.  EDI's narration is ample demonstration of that. 

The entire video game, in fact almost every meaningful work of art - especially dialogic works - are an imposition of the creator's value system onto your own.  It's called communication.  You can maintain your core beliefs, you simply have to recognize that the author is communicating an idea.  It can be an idea you reject, to be sure, but then you reject the work of art.  It is BW's story to tell; they've told it.  Rather than trying to warp the work to make it fit your wishes, why not discuss the ideas informing the work?

[Darman]

I would really be mad about glowing green eyes or shiny implants below my skin. But, wait, I wouldnn't - because Synthesis forces everybody to not wonder and just accept it!

Btw, its not a superpower anymore if EVERYBODY has got it.

[Bomma72]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Honestly, if you woke up tomorrow and someone had given you superpowers while you slept without telling you, would you really be mad? 

Something which will work in you favor can´t be called a violation, because you would become nice liar if you said that you hate your new advandage.

What is violation in Synthesis is :
1. bringing back peoples dead long ago 
2. bringing back Husks to their old personality - abomination
3. killing nature cycle of life (evolution of livings)
4. changing DNA for every living being
5. Reapers stayed unpunished for their crimes - even more now they become friends of society ?
6. with synthesis in fact you are destroying all diferences

May I add, 7. forcing your decision on everyone without there permission and taking away free will. 

[Aiyie]

memorysquid wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Manton-X2 wrote...

Same here ... early in the morning and I need some sleep. Interesting debate/discussion. I may not agree with some of the positions held here, but I wouldn't dream of taking away the ability to have these kinds of discussions or conflict. Difference is what makes life interesting.

and that's the core of what i hate about synthesis.

it removes your ability to have these kinds of discussions by changing your core beliefs, by imposing someone else's perception of reality on you... it alters you on a fundamental level without your consent.

you wouldn't hate Shepard because your ability to disagree with her decision to go with synthesis would be eliminated.

as for the person saying that the other options have drawbacks... they do.  i suppose the morality comes down to which you value more highly, personal freedom or life.  is death preferable to losing your free will?  is the sacrifice of one person worth it in order to preserve the freedom of another?

There is nothing in the game to suggest synthesis eliminates free will.  EDI's narration is ample demonstration of that. 

The entire video game, in fact almost every meaningful work of art - especially dialogic works - are an imposition of the creator's value system onto your own.  It's called communication.  You can maintain your core beliefs, you simply have to recognize that the author is communicating an idea.  It can be an idea you reject, to be sure, but then you reject the work of art.  It is BW's story to tell; they've told it.  Rather than trying to warp the work to make it fit your wishes, why not discuss the ideas informing the work?

well actually... there is.

take Javik for example.

pick synthesis and he can be seen standing, all green and glowy, at the memorial wall, when Shepard's name goes on it.

how fundamentally changed must he have been (without his consensus), his core beliefs subverted, and as a result, his free will as well, to make him ok with being part synthetic?

edit: and if he's not ok with it... then the primary agrument in favor of synthesis, that it eliminates dissent and makes everyone happy with this new utoptian future, is inherently false.

Modifié par Aiyie, 29 juin 2012 - 02:09 .

[kevchy]

I'd be annoyed that I glow in the dark now.

Modifié par kevchy, 29 juin 2012 - 02:26 .

[OnlyHazeRemains]

It eliminates dissent regarding the technological Singularity. Its also rather one sided i think, the main emphasis is put on EDI as a synthetic gaining an understanding of organics. The main problem of the singularity was the lack of said understanding on the side of the Snythetics, or at least that how i view it.

And i think the most misunderstanding comes from the way Synthesis is displayed, with the "weird glowy stuff". I think this should not be taken at face value its just the most placative way the artists could show us that "something has changed". Think about it, how else would you get the effects from synthesis across (within the narrow limits of the EC sequence) if not showing it visually changing everything?

So i conclude most people dont understand / dont want to understand the concepts behind snythesis because even with EC it is still incredibly blurry and badly explained .

Funny thing is, and it might be racist and all, but i believe many people revolting against Snythesis because it violates their arbitary "free will" are US citizens. Youre so afraid of synthesis because even public health care is a violation of your personal freedom. Thats so incredibly pathetic.
Just my totally biased subjective view on this.

Modifié par Samurai_Smartie, 29 juin 2012 - 02:37 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

It eliminates dissent regarding the technological Singularity.

I have no idea what that means, although it's nice to see people still headcanoning the singularity into the ending. 

Its also rather one sided i think, the main emphasis is put on EDI as a synthetic gaining an understanding of organics.

Which she more or less achieved perhaps two hours before ever reaching the Citadel. 

The main problem of the singularity was the lack of said understanding on the side of the Snythetics, or at least that how i view it.

Headcanon again. 

Funny thing is, and it might be racist and all,

It is, thanks to calling it 'pathetic'. A totally irrelevant point regardless. 

[BatmanPWNS]

Everything green would be annoying anyway. How would you go to sleep? Or go to a party where everyone is freaking lighting up the room? It would be a pretty awkward world.

[WYLDMAXX]

What superpowers?

[Aylyese]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Now with Synthesis, I do not even have to ask you anything, you already know what I believe in, and why  Iam so convincend about a 20 headed moneky existing, you can dig deep into my mind and understand this, so I will have no reason to force you to believe in what I believe, and you have no reason to disagree with me. We both have a mutual understanding.


You do not loose free will... 

No, but apparently you lose all privacy. 

Warden130 wrote...

Really? I'd say that they were close enough.

 

The $6m Man is not the same as the Mass Effect Universe. 

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

Funny thing is, and it might be racist and all, but i believe many people revolting against Snythesis because it violates their arbitary "free will" are US citizens. Youre so afraid of synthesis because even public health care is a violation of your personal freedom. Thats so incredibly pathetic.
Just my totally biased subjective view on this.

 

Australian actually. 

Having ones free will subverted by synthesis makes it even more abhorrent than it already was by creating the bigoted ideal that everyone would be fine and war would stop if we were all the same.

See, you can have public health and think Synthesis is morally objectional.

Modifié par Aylyese, 29 juin 2012 - 03:30 .

[memorysquid]

Aiyie wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Manton-X2 wrote...

Same here ... early in the morning and I need some sleep. Interesting debate/discussion. I may not agree with some of the positions held here, but I wouldn't dream of taking away the ability to have these kinds of discussions or conflict. Difference is what makes life interesting.

and that's the core of what i hate about synthesis.

it removes your ability to have these kinds of discussions by changing your core beliefs, by imposing someone else's perception of reality on you... it alters you on a fundamental level without your consent.

you wouldn't hate Shepard because your ability to disagree with her decision to go with synthesis would be eliminated.

as for the person saying that the other options have drawbacks... they do.  i suppose the morality comes down to which you value more highly, personal freedom or life.  is death preferable to losing your free will?  is the sacrifice of one person worth it in order to preserve the freedom of another?

There is nothing in the game to suggest synthesis eliminates free will.  EDI's narration is ample demonstration of that. 

The entire video game, in fact almost every meaningful work of art - especially dialogic works - are an imposition of the creator's value system onto your own.  It's called communication.  You can maintain your core beliefs, you simply have to recognize that the author is communicating an idea.  It can be an idea you reject, to be sure, but then you reject the work of art.  It is BW's story to tell; they've told it.  Rather than trying to warp the work to make it fit your wishes, why not discuss the ideas informing the work?

well actually... there is.

take Javik for example.

pick synthesis and he can be seen standing, all green and glowy, at the memorial wall, when Shepard's name goes on it.

how fundamentally changed must he have been (without his consensus), his core beliefs subverted, and as a result, his free will as well, to make him ok with being part synthetic?

edit: and if he's not ok with it... then the primary agrument in favor of synthesis, that it eliminates dissent and makes everyone happy with this new utoptian future, is inherently false.

Peoples' viewpoint evolves with time.  Navigator Pressley started out a speciesist dork; he ended up realizing he'd been a fool.  Javik is in a similar position; he's been born into a desperate galaxy wide war, and his people decimated, of course he hates synthetics.  Is he right to?  Nah; he's bigoted; it's just understandable.  And of course he would have objected prior to synthesis.  The point is: who cares?  He would be wrong to prefer destroy and wrong to prefer to retain his lack of knowledge.  I don't care if some people are in love with their own ignorance - the synthesis ending is REALLY clear about what it provides; increased access to knowledge and increased perspective.  Those are fantastic things, not bad things.

No one made the argument that synthesis eliminates dissent, in the game.  It's never made tantamount to galactic brainwashing or making everyone a hive mind or whatever.  It argues that by broadening perspectives it removes the causes of conflict.  Insofar as it goes, a limited perspective ignoring all the practical issues with the idea, the writers have it completely correct.  The more I understand your point of view, the more likely I am to be considerate of your wishes and compromise rather than try to nuke you.  The resistance to this simple fact is incredible, especially when you have both the source of the reasoning and the outcome dictated for you by EDI.

[memorysquid]

Aylyese wrote...

Having ones free will subverted by synthesis makes it even more abhorrent than it already was by creating the bigoted ideal that everyone would be fine and war would stop if we were all the same.

See, you can have public health and think Synthesis is morally objectional.

Where does the game imply synthesis makes everyone the same?  War would stop if people had more empathy and a broader base of knowledge, sure; which is what the game says synthesis entails.  Not the same things at all though.

You could also think synthesis is morally permissible and that socialism isn't.

[Reorte]

memorysquid wrote...

There is nothing in the game to suggest synthesis eliminates free will.  EDI's narration is ample demonstration of that.

It doesn't eliminate free will but it does fundamentally change your perceptions and that's a change to your personality - the core of who you are, and probably more significant than any purely physical change. No-one is the same person afterwards.

The entire video game, in fact almost every meaningful work of art - especially dialogic works - are an imposition of the creator's value system onto your own.  It's called communication.  You can maintain your core beliefs, you simply have to recognize that the author is communicating an idea.  It can be an idea you reject, to be sure, but then you reject the work of art.  It is BW's story to tell; they've told it.  Rather than trying to warp the work to make it fit your wishes, why not discuss the ideas informing the work?

They've communicated a bad idea badly. They've not looked at all sides of the issue, presenting no negatives whatsoever beyond no more Shepard, and that's hardly significant  in the overall discussion about the morality of Synthesis.

[Uncle Jo]

Hackulator wrote...

Honestly, if you woke up tomorrow and someone had given you superpowers while you slept without telling you, would you really be mad? 

I'd kill him with my new superpowers.

[memorysquid]

Reorte wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

There is nothing in the game to suggest synthesis eliminates free will.  EDI's narration is ample demonstration of that.

It doesn't eliminate free will but it does fundamentally change your perceptions and that's a change to your personality - the core of who you are, and probably more significant than any purely physical change. No-one is the same person afterwards.

Pretty much anything can lift the scales from your eyes.  Yeah it gives you new perceptions which changes you.  Hopefully so will my post.  Should I have given you an informed consent form before I began posting?  It's a non-trivial change you are blasting out over the galaxy, sure.  It's also a far better choice than the alternatives.

The entire video game, in fact almost every meaningful work of art - especially dialogic works - are an imposition of the creator's value system onto your own.  It's called communication.  You can maintain your core beliefs, you simply have to recognize that the author is communicating an idea.  It can be an idea you reject, to be sure, but then you reject the work of art.  It is BW's story to tell; they've told it.  Rather than trying to warp the work to make it fit your wishes, why not discuss the ideas informing the work?

They've communicated a bad idea badly. They've not looked at all sides of the issue, presenting no negatives whatsoever beyond no more Shepard, and that's hardly significant  in the overall discussion about the morality of Synthesis.

OK, well that is a fine critique of ME3.  Personally the idea that advanced races would be likely to conflict with organic races is nonsense.  I think advancement lessens the likelihood of violent conflict; not ensures it.  My beef is that rather than critiquing the writing, people keep trying to change the story into something else to fit their narrative.  It's easier for them to change an easily and commonly referenced work of art into something different than to examine the ideas it presents.