406 réponses à ce sujet

[AnImpossibleGirl]

Hackulator wrote...

Ok so, it seems so far people are voting no, because they feel that Synthesis changes them intrinsically in some way, which it does. However, while making you more intelligent and more competent might change you, its true, why is that a bad thing.

Or, to put it in way that makes you take another look at things, would it be morally wrong to find a treatment or cure for a person who was mentally handicapped? Doing so would inherently change who they are, wouldn't it?

Hitler had a plan like that...to build a superior race through eugenics.

Think about it. 

[Hackulator]

Mezantine wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

I was under the impression that the Geth could literally alter their entire code. Just any time they wanted. Taking that into account, a pinnacle of evolution post-synthesis cannot exist. It can't.

I don't believe the Catalyst is wrong. I know he is wrong. When he refers to "pinnacle of evolution", I assume he means possessing both organic and synthetic traits.

I believe everyone remains unique. They can alter their code at will, therefore society will never stagnate.

pinnacle definition - the highest or culminating point, as of success, power, fame, etc.: the pinnacle of one's career.

You do not go beyond your pinnacle. I honestly don't understand why you won't accept what the star kid told you at face value, nor accept the reality of EDI's statement that 'the lines between synthetics and organics will be blurred'. Once you accept synthesis you will reach a pinnacle of evolotion. Unless you are planning on devolving then there is nowhere else for you to go. You will simply stagnate and remain the same for eternity. Remember that EDI states in the ending that immortality will be achieved, you're going to live forever never changing in a never changing universe. 

All the evidence provided by the star kid and EDI points towards you  reaching a stagnate pinnacle of evolution. You can try and convince yourself that what they are saying is wrong but what evidence are you providing for such an argument other than your assumptions?

Basically everything you say is a false conclusion based on your misquoting of EDI. Her exact words are "we may transcend mortality itslef, to reach a level of existence I cannot even imagine." This statement directly contradicts any suggestion that life cannot contine to progress towards a more perfect form. The possibility that the Catalyst AI could not conceive of this is immaterial.

Modifié par Hackulator, 29 juin 2012 - 05:23 .

[Kia Purity]

Hackulator wrote...

Kia Purity wrote...

I'm not very comfortable with synthesis ending so I say no.

And keep in mind, if I was Shepard and pretty much made /everyone/ deaf via synthesis, I'm pretty sure everyone would have a damn problem with that. (Bad example, but closest I can think of.)

So I have to ask, are you one of the people among the deaf community who are against things like cochlear implants?

Those deaf people are the ones who I want to kick in the ass the most. Cochelar implants are serious business and I believe it's entirely up to people if they want them or not.

(It also equally pisses me off that there's some deaf people who will HATE hearing people for just wanting to communicate via sign language -- WTH? DUDES?! Be glad they're not running away from you all "AHHH IT'S A DISEASE!")

In other words, I don't consider myself a part of the deaf community >_< I don't want to be identified by my disability (but it kind of sucks that I have to **** about it in order to get the accessiblity I need )

[Reikilea]

No way. Whole idea of synthesis is just stupid. Forcing something like that. If something like this should come, let evolution do it. Naturally, not by a magic beam.

Plus if I take destroy, I can get rid of the Edi stupid fembot body.

Gonna miss the geth, but you know you cant win a war without sacrificing someting. You just cant have everything.And geth were equipped bay a reaper code. And you were about to destroy everything that had something to do with reapers. They brought it by themselves.

Modifié par Reikilea, 29 juin 2012 - 05:28 .

[Bomma72]

Hackulator wrote...

Kia Purity wrote...

I'm not very comfortable with synthesis ending so I say no.

And keep in mind, if I was Shepard and pretty much made /everyone/ deaf via synthesis, I'm pretty sure everyone would have a damn problem with that. (Bad example, but closest I can think of.)

So I have to ask, are you one of the people among the deaf community who are against things like cochlear implants?

I am sure as hell againsts forcing everyone to have them.  There in lies the problem, it is not in the solution, though I find that detestable it is in the execution.

Modifié par Bomma72, 29 juin 2012 - 05:25 .

[Jamie9]

Hackulator wrote...

Mezantine wrote...

pinnacle definition - the highest or culminating point, as of success, power, fame, etc.: the pinnacle of one's career.

You do not go beyond your pinnacle. I honestly don't understand why you won't accept what the star kid told you at face value, nor accept the reality of EDI's statement that 'the lines between synthetics and organics will be blurred'. Once you accept synthesis you will reach a pinnacle of evolotion. Unless you are planning on devolving then there is nowhere else for you to go. You will simply stagnate and remain the same for eternity. Remember that EDI states in the ending that immortality will be achieved, you're going to live forever never changing in a never changing universe. 

All the evidence provided by the star kid and EDI points towards you  reaching a stagnate pinnacle of evolution. You can try and convince yourself that what they are saying is wrong but what evidence are you providing for such an argument other than your assumptions?

Basically everything you say is a false conclusion based on your misquoting of EDI. Her exact words are "we may transcend mortality itslef, to reach a level of existence I cannot even imagine." This statement directly contradicts any suggestion that life cannot contine to progress towards a more perfect form. The possibility that the Catalyst AI could not conceive of this is immaterial.

Exactly. The fact that they aim to still improve proves that they have not reached a pinnacle of evolution... because there is no such thing.

Why is the non-stagnation of society the focal point for you? Surely self-appreciation and happiness are much more important to achieve in life? You don't need technological improvements to do that.

[Sisterofshane]

Hackulator wrote...

Ok so, it seems so far people are voting no, because they feel that Synthesis changes them intrinsically in some way, which it does. However, while making you more intelligent and more competent might change you, its true, why is that a bad thing.

Or, to put it in way that makes you take another look at things, would it be morally wrong to find a treatment or cure for a person who was mentally handicapped? Doing so would inherently change who they are, wouldn't it?

What we're saying is that we're not against helping people seek their own improvement, but that it's not up to anyone person to force a PHYSICAL change on the whole of the population, even with the permission of the a majority.

There would be no doubt that, when given a choice for just themselves, some people would say yes - they would see it as an improvement.  But that is not what Synthesis is - it does not involve the singular individual.  It noticeably effects everyone, without their consent, based upon the decision of one person.  Even if I could say YES for myself, I would HAVE to tell Shepard no for the sake of all of those that DO NOT WANT IT.

[Hackulator]

Kia Purity wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Kia Purity wrote...

I'm not very comfortable with synthesis ending so I say no.

And keep in mind, if I was Shepard and pretty much made /everyone/ deaf via synthesis, I'm pretty sure everyone would have a damn problem with that. (Bad example, but closest I can think of.)

So I have to ask, are you one of the people among the deaf community who are against things like cochlear implants?

Those deaf people are the ones who I want to kick in the ass the most. Cochelar implants are serious business and I believe it's entirely up to people if they want them or not.

(It also equally pisses me off that there's some deaf people who will HATE hearing people for just wanting to communicate via sign language -- WTH? DUDES?! Be glad they're not running away from you all "AHHH IT'S A DISEASE!")

In other words, I don't consider myself a part of the deaf community >_< I don't want to be identified by my disability (but it kind of sucks that I have to **** about it in order to get the accessiblity I need )

Ok, the following questions are going to be somewhat personal, and if you don't want to even read them i will totally understand, but I am interested im your opinion on these issues for which you obviously have a valuable viewpoint.

Setting aside the specifics of a cochlear implant and the drawbacks one might have, would you accept a "cure" for you deafness? Are you a candidate for an implant who has chosen not to get one, or are you not a candidate? I ask you these things both because I find them interesting as real world ideas AND because I feel that they are very related to the Synthesis question. Many (probably most) people would consider something that gave you the ability to hear to be an improvement, but it would unquestionable change the way you sensed the world around you and therefore would have some major effect ont he person that you are. I see Synthesis in the same way, and I see those who would deny Synthesis as similar to deaf people who are against cochlear implants.

I apologize again if anything I said offended you, it was not my intention, however I understnad that such frank discusssions of certain topics can be hirtful.

[Hackulator]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Ok so, it seems so far people are voting no, because they feel that Synthesis changes them intrinsically in some way, which it does. However, while making you more intelligent and more competent might change you, its true, why is that a bad thing.

Or, to put it in way that makes you take another look at things, would it be morally wrong to find a treatment or cure for a person who was mentally handicapped? Doing so would inherently change who they are, wouldn't it?

What we're saying is that we're not against helping people seek their own improvement, but that it's not up to anyone person to force a PHYSICAL change on the whole of the population, even with the permission of the a majority.

There would be no doubt that, when given a choice for just themselves, some people would say yes - they would see it as an improvement.  But that is not what Synthesis is - it does not involve the singular individual.  It noticeably effects everyone, without their consent, based upon the decision of one person.  Even if I could say YES for myself, I would HAVE to tell Shepard no for the sake of all of those that DO NOT WANT IT.

If the majority want it, why is should the minority get to make that choice for the majority?

[Mezantine]

Hackulator wrote...

Basically everything you say is a false conclusion based on your misquoting of EDI. Her exact words are "we may transcend mortality itslef, to reach a level of existence I cannot even imagine." This statement directly contradicts any suggestion that life cannot contine to progress towards a more perfect form. The possibility that the Catalyst AI could not conceive of this is immaterial.

If you can reach immortality then you have stagnated. Evolution is a process where species evolve and adapt to survive. The moment you transcend this need for survival then your need for evolution has of course ended. The reality that EDI believes that because of synthesis synthetics and organics will achieve immortatlity and thus transcend a need to evolve anymore simply confirms my point. You will become one uniform species unable to die, unable to evolve. 

[Sisterofshane]

Hackulator wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Ok so, it seems so far people are voting no, because they feel that Synthesis changes them intrinsically in some way, which it does. However, while making you more intelligent and more competent might change you, its true, why is that a bad thing.

Or, to put it in way that makes you take another look at things, would it be morally wrong to find a treatment or cure for a person who was mentally handicapped? Doing so would inherently change who they are, wouldn't it?

What we're saying is that we're not against helping people seek their own improvement, but that it's not up to anyone person to force a PHYSICAL change on the whole of the population, even with the permission of the a majority.

There would be no doubt that, when given a choice for just themselves, some people would say yes - they would see it as an improvement.  But that is not what Synthesis is - it does not involve the singular individual.  It noticeably effects everyone, without their consent, based upon the decision of one person.  Even if I could say YES for myself, I would HAVE to tell Shepard no for the sake of all of those that DO NOT WANT IT.

If the majority want it, why is should the minority get to make that choice for the majority?

Okay, so the majority of people want to have plastic surgery to make everyone look like the same.  Should we force it on you?  Everyone would get along so much better if we all just LOOKED THE SAME!

[Hackulator]

The fact that you are incapable of comprehending a life that has transcended immortality does not make it stagnant. You are literally restating beliefs without ever offering a shred of backing other than saying "because I said so." Your statement is that life is all about survival DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS one of the mains themes of mass effect, that being that there are more important aspects of existence than pure survival. A race of beings that hand transcended mortality would simply have the ability to focus on those more important issues and evolve in that manner, as opposed to simply evolving into a form a life that was more likely to win the biological rat race.

[Kia Purity]

Hackulator wrote...

Ok, the following questions are going to be somewhat personal, and if you don't want to even read them i will totally understand, but I am interested im your opinion on these issues for which you obviously have a valuable viewpoint.

Setting aside the specifics of a cochlear implant and the drawbacks one might have, would you accept a "cure" for you deafness? Are you a candidate for an implant who has chosen not to get one, or are you not a candidate? I ask you these things both because I find them interesting as real world ideas AND because I feel that they are very related to the Synthesis question. Many (probably most) people would consider something that gave you the ability to hear to be an improvement, but it would unquestionable change the way you sensed the world around you and therefore would have some major effect ont he person that you are. I see Synthesis in the same way, and I see those who would deny Synthesis as similar to deaf people who are against cochlear implants.

I apologize again if anything I said offended you, it was not my intention, however I understnad that such frank discusssions of certain topics can be hirtful.

Eh, no biggie. I don't mind answering the questions.

1) I couldn't really accept the cure because it's not a true cure. My brain still can't translate sounds into language due to my hearing loss at 9 months old (before language was established) -- all it would really do for me is constantly amplify the sounds around me all the time and it would drive me crazy.

**My hearing loss has to do with the fact that I have defective cochelar hair **

2) Technically I could be a candiate ... but the problem is that I never bothered wearing my hearing aids all that often like my best friend did before she got her implant (she could only afford one, they are hella expensive with health insurance! )

3) I am actually terrified of the surgery. I just don't like the idea of someone cutting my skin loose from my skull and ... sawing into it.

Personally, I feel that I'm able to do alright without implants and hearing aids, but I wouldn't begrude those who really wants them. I'm all about "Choose what YOU want, not what PEOPLE want for you."

[Hackulator]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Ok so, it seems so far people are voting no, because they feel that Synthesis changes them intrinsically in some way, which it does. However, while making you more intelligent and more competent might change you, its true, why is that a bad thing.

Or, to put it in way that makes you take another look at things, would it be morally wrong to find a treatment or cure for a person who was mentally handicapped? Doing so would inherently change who they are, wouldn't it?

What we're saying is that we're not against helping people seek their own improvement, but that it's not up to anyone person to force a PHYSICAL change on the whole of the population, even with the permission of the a majority.

There would be no doubt that, when given a choice for just themselves, some people would say yes - they would see it as an improvement.  But that is not what Synthesis is - it does not involve the singular individual.  It noticeably effects everyone, without their consent, based upon the decision of one person.  Even if I could say YES for myself, I would HAVE to tell Shepard no for the sake of all of those that DO NOT WANT IT.

If the majority want it, why is should the minority get to make that choice for the majority?

Okay, so the majority of people want to have plastic surgery to make everyone look like the same.  Should we force it on you?  Everyone would get along so much better if we all just LOOKED THE SAME!

All Democracy in the end works this way. Because of the opinions of others there are thousands of laws you must follow, ways you must live your life. You will be forced to do many things in this life, would it be so bad if one of the things you were forced to do was to be better? People on this board talk about Eugenics without understanding what the problem with it is. The problem is NOT the desire to improve humanity. The problem is using methodology that degrades and leaves behind most of humanity so that some elite group can advance. Synthesis does not have this problem.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Poshible wrote...

Hitler had a plan like that...to build a superior race through eugenics.

Think about it.

inb4 Godwin's Law... f***.

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 29 juin 2012 - 05:42 .

[Hackulator]

Kia Purity wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Ok, the following questions are going to be somewhat personal, and if you don't want to even read them i will totally understand, but I am interested im your opinion on these issues for which you obviously have a valuable viewpoint.

Setting aside the specifics of a cochlear implant and the drawbacks one might have, would you accept a "cure" for you deafness? Are you a candidate for an implant who has chosen not to get one, or are you not a candidate? I ask you these things both because I find them interesting as real world ideas AND because I feel that they are very related to the Synthesis question. Many (probably most) people would consider something that gave you the ability to hear to be an improvement, but it would unquestionable change the way you sensed the world around you and therefore would have some major effect ont he person that you are. I see Synthesis in the same way, and I see those who would deny Synthesis as similar to deaf people who are against cochlear implants.

I apologize again if anything I said offended you, it was not my intention, however I understnad that such frank discusssions of certain topics can be hirtful.

Eh, no biggie. I don't mind answering the questions.

1) I couldn't really accept the cure because it's not a true cure. My brain still can't translate sounds into language due to my hearing loss at 9 months old (before language was established) -- all it would really do for me is constantly amplify the sounds around me all the time and it would drive me crazy.

**My hearing loss has to do with the fact that I have defective cochelar hair **

2) Technically I could be a candiate ... but the problem is that I never bothered wearing my hearing aids all that often like my best friend did before she got her implant (she could only afford one, they are hella expensive with health insurance! )

3) I am actually terrified of the surgery. I just don't like the idea of someone cutting my skin loose from my skull and ... sawing into it.

Personally, I feel that I'm able to do alright without implants and hearing aids, but I wouldn't begrude those who really wants them. I'm all about "Choose what YOU want, not what PEOPLE want for you."

As to the first question, I meant what if there was a hypothetical true "cure"? Not a cochlear implant, but some new technique (SPACE MAGIC!) that could truly give you your hearing and the ability to use it. Would you want it?

I appreaciate your openness on the subject.

[Hackulator]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Hitler had a plan like that...to build a superior race through eugenics.

Think about it.

inb4 Godwin's Law... f***.

Yeah I try to just ignore unbacked Hitler comments on the internet these days.

[McD1330]

To everyone thinking destroy is the best option, you do realize this ensures the extinction of all organic life for eternity based on the information we are given right?  Synthetics will always surpass organics and eliminate them. The reapers have observed this in every cycle as an inevitability. The reapers are not "evil" per say, just a solution to a problem albeit perhaps not an ideal solution and their methods are gruesome by our standards, but their goal is preservation of organic life.

The only real choices are refusal or synthesis the way I see it. Keep things the way they are with the reapers or save everyone in the current cycle and with synthesis and ensure gallactic peace. Also I don't understand why people think synthesis takes away individuality. Everyone maintains personality and cultural difference just receives upgrades although we don't fully understand all of the effects of synthesis. Seems like a better option then death though.

[Kia Purity]

Hackulator wrote...

As to the first question, I meant what if there was a hypothetical true "cure"? Not a cochlear implant, but some new technique (SPACE MAGIC!) that could truly give you your hearing and the ability to use it. Would you want it?

I appreaciate your openness on the subject.

Oho. I suppose I couldn't take the cure because I'm not sure how I'd be able to deal with a sudden change like that. As much as I hate being limited by my disablity, it is ... odd to think that I couldn't take the cure. It's just that I've been this way for almost 30 years now x_x

[HellbirdIV]

Hackulator wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Hitler had a plan like that...to build a superior race through eugenics.

Think about it.

inb4 Godwin's Law... f***.

Yeah I try to just ignore unbacked Hitler comments on the internet these days.

It's hardly unbacked, the idea that Synthesis is good because it "makes everyone better" is definately a case of eugenics-inspired philosophy.

[dreamgazer]

As it's presented, verbatim from the catalyst's mouth? Hell no.

[Mezantine]

Hackulator wrote...

The fact that you are incapable of comprehending a life that has transcended immortality does not make it stagnant. You are literally restating beliefs without ever offering a shred of backing other than saying "because I said so." Your statement is that life is all about survival DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS one of the mains themes of mass effect, that being that there are more important aspects of existence than pure survival. A race of beings that hand transcended mortality would simply have the ability to focus on those more important issues and evolve in that manner, as opposed to simply evolving into a form a life that was more likely to win the biological rat race.

Of course i can't understand a life that transcends mortatlity because the entire cultural / societal. and bilogical makeup of my society is one based around the reality of death and survival. Once the threat of death is removed from our species our cultural identity will be removed with it. Will people still have the desire to create monumental works of art, songs or books to record events they believe are important for everyone to know if people can live forever? Why would people even bother noting the significance of something like a sunrise if they know they will witness them for eternity, and everyone else will? What will become remarkable to a people who can't die and will always experience such things, without the threat of ever missing out on them? Once you reach immortalilty you will stagnate.

[Hackulator]

Kia Purity wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

As to the first question, I meant what if there was a hypothetical true "cure"? Not a cochlear implant, but some new technique (SPACE MAGIC!) that could truly give you your hearing and the ability to use it. Would you want it?

I appreaciate your openness on the subject.

Oho. I suppose I couldn't take the cure because I'm not sure how I'd be able to deal with a sudden change like that. As much as I hate being limited by my disablity, it is ... odd to think that I couldn't take the cure. It's just that I've been this way for almost 30 years now x_x

I don't think it's really that odd, it would be a terrifying decision. Also, having been deaf for so long you can't really have a true conception of what you are missing.....dammit I just teared up thinking about the fact that you can't listen to "An End, Once and For All". Sorry.

[Jamie9]

Mezantine wrote...

Of course i can't understand a life that transcends mortatlity because the entire cultural / societal. and bilogical makeup of my society is one based around the reality of death and survival. Once the threat of death is removed from our species our cultural identity will be removed with it. Will people still have the desire to create monumental works of art, songs or books to record events they believe are important for everyone to know if people can live forever? Why would people even bother noting the significance of something like a sunrise if they know they will witness them for eternity, and everyone else will? What will become remarkable to a people who can't die and will always experience such things, without the threat of ever missing out on them? Once you reach immortalilty you will stagnate.

If I was immortal, I'd certainly want periods of "hibernation". A chance to rest. Come back with my passions and goals rejuvinated.

I don't think becoming immortal would result in you going, "Well, what's the point?".

I generally enjoy things because I enjoy them, not because I fear my coming death.

[LiarasShield]

well I'd only choose synthesis if not everyone really does become the same and that the reapers may have their own free will this time and actually not want to kill anybody anymore