982 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Thinking about the cycles some more, that also means that each cycle will have a diminished return. That has to do with that their harvesting method limits all civilizations to evolve along roughly the same lines and 50,000 years later they end. There is only so much that can evolve or be developed in that time. Does that make sense?

There you have it, synthesis in a nuts shell program..lol A brilliant broken machine in a endless logic loop. How end it seems to be a prothiean organic upgrade.

(slightly off topic, but relative I think)

In the cut scene, we see different charactors working each choice,

Ilusive man: control
 
Anderson: Destroy

Sheppard: All four (if we so choose, heck, some human like memory might even BE the reaperkid

Over and over again through time different people try different choices as the head charactor. It' like a room with mirrors on two walls, seen to go on for ever. So who knows how long this loop had gone on, Even Javick said their were others who attempted to undermine during his 'time' in the cycle. Now you take that info, consider how many organic civilizations the reapers absorbed. That would be quite the cache, heck it may even include some more "actual" space magic. Nobody liked that cyborg until Edi gave it better, er, humane priorities. With synthesis, apparently she can now stop and smell the flowers as well as do a thurough biomechanical analysis.

Saren for synthesis:

http://social.biowar...990043#12994205



Ah, yes. Synthesis has to mess with people's mind, otherwise synthesis cannot do what it is supposed to do.

Peace-wise, I mean. Because it cannot be the end of a threat that doesn't exist. Unless the reapers' logic is still faulty, but synthesis also messes with their mind to disable the error.

It's getting complicated now.

Well, the Reapers themselves represent synthesis.

Reapers are organo-synthetic hybrids.
Their husks are hybridised too, as are the Keepers.

Modifié par KingZayd, 06 juillet 2012 - 03:59 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am OK with the theme, but it annoys me that you need to commit war crimes to end a game for fun. But I too select destroy, because it is the only way to get rid of the problem.

If the Geth and EDI survived destroy, nobody would pick Hudsons favourite ending. Unless there was something seriously wrong with their heads of course.

All endings already mess with Rannoch's and/or Tuchanka's outcomes in one way or another, so I rather not discuss those heads.

[Vigilant111]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am OK with the theme, but it annoys me that you need to commit war crimes to end a game for fun. But I too select destroy, because it is the only way to get rid of the problem.

If the Geth and EDI survived destroy, nobody would pick Hudsons favourite ending. Unless there was something seriously wrong with their heads of course.

Touche

[NM_Che56]

Synthesis = Monkey with 4 asses.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I can undertand that position, but that makes talking to you very tiresome. I had a conversation in another thread and the same happened. Space magic here and there, end justifies the means, and what a beautiful world. Then I don't have much to say anymore. You know what I mean? The same goes in trying to make it work like BW intended. If they really want to know what is wrong then it doesn't help if synthesis fans stay quiet about it and are unwilling to discuss it.

I also noted that when you talk to a synthesis fan about free will and the inevitable threat then suddenly you talk to a brick wall. Same goes for ethics. They want to stay untouchable.

Because there's nothing to talk about any more. Synthesis doesn't destroy free will, I find it utterly incomprehensible how people get that from anything we're presented with. It does not compute. What more could I say than "There's no evidence for that anywhere". At some point, there's just no point in repeating it for the 500th time.

As for the ethics, there's no more to talk about either. Yes, I am changing people without asking them. No, I do am not taking away their individuality or making everyone the same. You think it's unjustifiable, I say that the future of the galaxy is considerably more important than sticking to a moral principle. Nothing either of us can say will make the other side soften its stance. So tell me, what is left to talk about?

Edit:
And as for *possible* bad consequences like your intergalactic threat scenario, I have no interest in talking about such things unless it's *probable* that such things happen. Many bad things can happen in any of the scenarios, and to single one out is methodically dishonest unless you can show there is a high probability that it actually will happen. "There is no guarantee that X won't happen" is no argument at all, because there never is a guarantee about anything happening in the future.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:14 .

[Memnon]

If the Reapers have freewill following Synthesis, what's to prevent them from going rogue, or banding against the galaxy, or warring with each other. I reject that a higher "understanding" will prevent conflict for eternity. In Synthesis I view the Reapers as potential time bombs

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I can undertand that position, but that makes talking to you very tiresome. I had a conversation in another thread and the same happened. Space magic here and there, end justifies the means, and what a beautiful world. Then I don't have much to say anymore. You know what I mean? The same goes in trying to make it work like BW intended. If they really want to know what is wrong then it doesn't help if synthesis fans stay quiet about it and are unwilling to discuss it.

I also noted that when you talk to a synthesis fan about free will and the inevitable threat then suddenly you talk to a brick wall. Same goes for ethics. They want to stay untouchable.

Because there's nothing to talk about any more. Synthesis doesn't destroy free will, I find it utterly incomprehensible how people get that from anything we're presented with. It does not compute. What more could I say than "There's no evidence for that anywhere". At some point, there's just no point in repeating it for the 500th time.

As for the ethics, there's no more to talk about either. Yes, I am changing people without asking them. No, I do am not taking away their individuality or making everyone the same. You think it's unjustifiable, I say that the future of the galaxy is considerably more important than sticking to a moral principle. Nothing either of us can say will make the other side soften its stance. So tell me, what is left to talk about?

No, u gave people uniforms, and the same damned uniform for EVERYONE, and that sucks

[Vigilant111]

The Catalyst should have warned Shepard about synthesis's potential repercussions, right? Nothing is perfect

[Ieldra]

(this is in response to the "uniform" post)

A baseless assertion, Vigilant. As I see it, because of the ability to integrate technology, people will have more means for individual self-expression than ever before. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that you'll be any less you post-Synthesis.

And that's the problem I have with the anti-Synthesis faction: I accept that you reject Synthesis for its ethics, I disagree but I do understand the stance, but pulling bad consequences out of your ass to justify your rejection in a more "objective" way is methodically dishonest.

Edit:
In response to your last post: all endings paint a generally good picture of the future. Why would you single out Synthesis for having more risks explicitly mentioned? As if the double edge of letting the Reapers be part of civilization isn't obvious enough. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:29 .

[jtav]

Here's what I think is the best argument for Destroy and against Synthesis.

The Catalyst and the Reapers have been manipulating the technological evolution of life for eons. They are wrong to do so. We have the right and duty to self-determinate. And we will never ever do that as long as the machine gods are around, even in benevolent form.

No canards about homogeneity or brainwashing required.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

A baseless assertion, Vigilant. As I see it, because of the ability to integrate technology, people will have more means for individual self-expression than ever before. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that you'll be any less you post-Synthesis.

And that's the problem I have with the anti-Synthesis faction: I accept that you reject Synthesis for its ethics, I disagree but I do understand the stance, but pulling bad consequences out of your ass to justify your rejection in a more "objective" way is methodically dishonest.

Baseless? what do you think the word "uniform" means?, unity, at the expense of individualism

Both synthetics and organics now march at the same pace right? so to stop conflicts in thoery, there is no more disparity in growths, everyone advance at the same rate, hence inherent differences are minimised. The physical appearances are cosmetic, technology will now play an even larger part in life than ever before, technology can now interfere with thoughts or certainly place greater influence on judgment in a fundamental way , having organic physicality is quite meaningless, hollow, it is still life, but not authentic anymore

EDIT: why? cos it didn't mention ANY, and that is a very perculiar thing, much like synthesis itself

Modifié par Vigilant111, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:44 .

[Vigilant111]

Survival is now fully dependent on technology, not principles and wisdom anymore

Modifié par Vigilant111, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:43 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

jtav wrote...

Here's what I think is the best argument for Destroy and against Synthesis.

The Catalyst and the Reapers have been manipulating the technological evolution of life for eons. They are wrong to do so. We have the right and duty to self-determinate. And we will never ever do that as long as the machine gods are around, even in benevolent form.

No canards about homogeneity or brainwashing required.

It is also a logical one, as we have seen in this thread. Keeping the reapers alive leads to more problems than it solves.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Here's what I think is the best argument for Destroy and against Synthesis.

The Catalyst and the Reapers have been manipulating the technological evolution of life for eons. They are wrong to do so. We have the right and duty to self-determinate. And we will never ever do that as long as the machine gods are around, even in benevolent form.

No canards about homogeneity or brainwashing required.

That argument may work for some. It's certainly a better one than most. I would argue, though, that self-determination is not necessarily incompatible with integrating the Reapers into galactic civilization, nor do we have a duty to leave everything behind we might come to depend on. Synthesis may open a path for everyone by making those changes, but I don't think it prescribes a path into the future for everyone. I can see different cultures emerging which differ by their attitude to the new technologies. Some may seek immortality and ascension, some may not. The galaxy is big enough to contain them all.   

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:44 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
Here's what I think is the best argument for Destroy and against Synthesis.

The Catalyst and the Reapers have been manipulating the technological evolution of life for eons. They are wrong to do so. We have the right and duty to self-determinate. And we will never ever do that as long as the machine gods are around, even in benevolent form.

No canards about homogeneity or brainwashing required.

That argument may work for some. I would argue, though, that self-determination is not necessarily incompatible with integrating the Reapers into galactic civilization, nor do we have a duty to leave everything behind we might come to depend on. Synthesis may open a path for everyone by making those changes, but I don't think it prescribes a path into the future for everyone. I can see different cultures emerging which differ by their attitude to the new technologies. Some may seek immortality and ascension, some may not. The galaxy is big enough to contain them all.

But it is not a solution to the problem. This thread investigates what would happen after invoking synthesis when the brat's threat was real or not and what influence mind control has, if any. There is a simple thought experiment which would hopefully give an answer to that.

Read the OP.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:55 .

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant:
I'll accept your argument about not telling us about the risks as soon as the other endings tell us about the risks inherent to them. Only Destroy does that with "the chaos will come back", but avoiding that is the point of Synthesis.

"Removing individualism" and "uniformity" is still a baseless assertion. Synthetics and organics are treated differently by the EC ending and retain their basic characteristics. The various species have very different cultures, you can see it in the slides. You'd have to treat everything in the epilogue as a lie or irrelevant if you want to uphold that stance.

[AngryFrozenWater]

In general: All this is great, but it seems hard to get back on topic here.

[Memnon]

I'll ask again- what is to prevent the Reapers, who now have freewill, from declaring war on the galaxy? These are immensely powerful war machines capable of razing planets and eradicating all life in the galaxy... and now they're off gallivanting around the galaxy unchecked

[Ieldra]

@AngryFrozenWater:
I maintain you have no way to reliably predict what will happen after Synthesis beyond what the epilogue tells us. The same about the other endings, btw.. Unless you can show that a specific scenario is *likely* to occur, there is no point in invoking it. The most unpredictable factor are the Reapers of course. The epilogue tells us they're friendly for now, and yes, probably not all of them will stay friendly, but there are "no data available" to predict any large-scale scenario.

All endings have their own inherent risks: Destroy, synthetics may yet destroy all organics, Control, the machine god might develop unpleasant priorities, Synthesis, the Reapers might not stay as friendly as they are immediately after the Event. Sure, we cannot say it won't happen, but as I see it, the epilogue tells us that any possible large-scale disaster will lie so far in the future that it doesn't have a causal connection to present events. It will be a challenge for the new civilization to overcome, it is not our responsibility to guarantee a long-term disaster-free future because regardless of our choice, we cannot do that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:08 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Ieldra2 wrote...


All endings have their own inherent risks: Destroy, synthetics may yet destroy all organics, Control, the machine god might develop unpleasant priorities, Synthesis, the Reapers might not stay as friendly as they are immediately after the Event. Sure, we cannot say it won't happen, but as I see it, the epilogue tells us that any possible large-scale disaster will lie so far in the future that it doesn't have a causal connection to present events. It will be a challenge for the new civilization to overcome, it is not our responsibility to guarantee a long-term disaster-free future because regardless of our choice, we cannot do that.

No, if Synthetics wiping out organics is inevitable, it will happen, there is nothing to prevent it. If it can be prevented then it isn't inevitable in the first place. Starbrat failed at basic logic. If it is inevitable, it can't be prevented, and nothing anybody or anything can do will prevent it.

Example of why Synthesis will fail if it's inevitable Synthetics will wipe out Organics: Organics and Synthetics from other Galaxies don't have this Reaper interference in their advancement, there is no 50,000 year cycle. There is no question that they will advance far beyond the Reapers, it's a certainty. There is then nothing to stop them arriving in the Milkyway and running amuck later, even after Synthesis, since they won't have been affected by it. So Synthesis will also fail. This is why Starbrats plan was unworkable, even if it tried to harvest other Galaxies, there are simply too many of them and the distances too great. It is trying to achieve the unachievable. Like I said, a logical being would have realised this in the beginning and abandoned this "solution."

This is why Starbrat needs to be destroyed, there is nothing more dangerous than an idiot with too much power. It's acting out of fear, not logic or necessity. Yes it may happen, but if we live in fear just because of what may happen, we won't have lived at all. None of the endings remove this perceived threat, but that's all it is, a perceived threat. So the real problem is Starbrat and the Reapers.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:19 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I maintain you have no way to reliably predict what will happen after Synthesis beyond what the epilogue tells us. The same about the other endings, btw.. Unless you can show that a specific scenario is *likely* to occur, there is no point in invoking it. The most unpredictable factor are the Reapers of course. The epilogue tells us they're friendly for now, and yes, probably not all of them will stay friendly, but there are "no data available" to predict any large-scale scenario.

All endings have their own inherent risks: Destroy, synthetics may yet destroy all organics, Control, the machine god might develop unpleasant priorities, Synthesis, the Reapers might not stay as friendly as they are immediately after the Event. Sure, we cannot say it won't happen, but as I see it, the epilogue tells us that any possible large-scale disaster will lie so far in the future that it doesn't have a causal connection to present events. It will be a challenge for the new civilization to overcome, it is not our responsibility to guarantee a long-term disaster-free future because regardless of our choice, we cannot do that.

OK. Let's try this...

So far, I think the link below leads to one of the best replies in this thread. It tries to be analytical without being judgemental. Can you shoot a hole in that logic?

http://social.biowar...323/31#12994829

And some posts below it which discuss that one.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:32 .

[Wayning_Star]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...


All endings have their own inherent risks: Destroy, synthetics may yet destroy all organics, Control, the machine god might develop unpleasant priorities, Synthesis, the Reapers might not stay as friendly as they are immediately after the Event. Sure, we cannot say it won't happen, but as I see it, the epilogue tells us that any possible large-scale disaster will lie so far in the future that it doesn't have a causal connection to present events. It will be a challenge for the new civilization to overcome, it is not our responsibility to guarantee a long-term disaster-free future because regardless of our choice, we cannot do that.

No, if Synthetics wiping out organics is inevitable, it will happen, there is nothing to prevent it. If it can be prevented then it isn't inevitable in the first place. Starbrat failed at basic logic. If it is inevitable, it can't be prevented, and nothing anybody or anything can do will prevent it.

Example of why Synthesis will fail if it's inevitable Synthetics will wipe out Organics: Organics and Synthetics from other Galaxies don't have this Reaper interference in their advancement, there is no 50,000 year cycle. There is no question that they will advance far beyond the Reapers, it's a certainty. There is then nothing to stop them arriving in the Milkyway and running amuck later, even after Synthesis, since they won't have been affected by it. So Synthesis will also fail. This is why Starbrats plan was unworkable, even if it tried to harvest other Galaxies, there are simply too many of them and the distances too great. It is trying to achieve the unachievable. Like I said, a logical being would have realised this in the beginning and abandoned this "solution."

This is why Starbrat needs to be destroyed, there is nothing more dangerous than an idiot with too much power. It's acting out of fear, not logic or necessity. Yes it may happen, but if we live in fear just because of what may happen, we won't have lived at all. None of the endings remove this perceived threat, but that's all it is, a perceived threat. So the real problem is Starbrat and the Reapers.

You've missed the boat here Boss. With synthesis, the cycle is stopped "because" the threat of synthetics is nullified by the interaction of  synthetics with organics. They 'evolve' into another species and everyone gets a slice of that pie, with the knowlege of countless generations stored within the reaperships as a bonus. Destroying the reapers only delays the recurrance of the dreaded "cycle". We build more robot, they become sentient, build bigger better AI's who are NOT sentient, program them to kill off organic sentient life. Later decide not to kill them off, but harvest them for there inherent ability to "create" new technology cause they just NEEEED it...and here we are, again, building a bigger and better Sheppard to..the record keeps skipping after this tho...cause someone isn't reading the posts'er somthing.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I maintain you have no way to reliably predict what will happen after Synthesis beyond what the epilogue tells us. The same about the other endings, btw.. Unless you can show that a specific scenario is *likely* to occur, there is no point in invoking it. The most unpredictable factor are the Reapers of course. The epilogue tells us they're friendly for now, and yes, probably not all of them will stay friendly, but there are "no data available" to predict any large-scale scenario.

All endings have their own inherent risks: Destroy, synthetics may yet destroy all organics, Control, the machine god might develop unpleasant priorities, Synthesis, the Reapers might not stay as friendly as they are immediately after the Event. Sure, we cannot say it won't happen, but as I see it, the epilogue tells us that any possible large-scale disaster will lie so far in the future that it doesn't have a causal connection to present events. It will be a challenge for the new civilization to overcome, it is not our responsibility to guarantee a long-term disaster-free future because regardless of our choice, we cannot do that.

OK. Let's try this...

So far, I think the link below leads to one of the best replies in this thread. It tries to be analytical without being judgemental. Can you shoot a hole in that logic?

http://social.biowar...323/31#12994829

And some posts below it which discuss that one.

If I may summarize this in one sentence (correct me if I got it wrong): Synthesis is no solution because if there are un-Synthesized ultra-advanced synthetics in other galaxies - and there likely will be - they'll still stamp all life out in our galaxy once they get here.

You know, that's actually an excellent argument for galactic civilization to advance as fast as it can. And which choice provides the fastest advancement? Synthesis. It's implied that it takes organics to the same level synthetics have in terms of capabilities, and hints at further advancement beyond anything imaginable at present, making up as much as possible for the advancement potential lost through the harvesting cycle. If that isn't enough, nothing will be enough, but at least we'll have tried. None of the other choices provides a better chance. Also, I think this is clearly a scenario of the kind I've described above: a long-term threat beyond our responsibility to account for, something post-Event civilization will have to take up as a challenge. We don't even know if intergalactic travel is feasible. I certainly wouldn't urge anyone to choose Synthesis because it provides the best chance of avoiding being wiped out by extra-galactic un-Synthesized synthetics.

Edit:
As for the point: if that scenario is avoidable, there was no point in the harvesting cycle in the first place: Not so. The point of the harvesting cycle - if you follow the Catalyst - was to preserve un-Synthesized life from the conflict. The inevitability of extinction is circumvented by Synthesis because the conditions that made it inevitable don't exist any more, and it explicitly says they tried this solution before - which of course they would have - but failed. Until Synthesis became possible, it *was* inevitable, and since the Catalyst failed at implementing Synthesis earlier it continued to be inevitable. New information - the possibility for Synthesis - creates a new scenario.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:41 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Wayning_Star wrote...


You've missed the boat here Boss. With synthesis, the cycle is stopped "because" the threat of synthetics is nullified by the interaction of  synthetics with organics. They 'evolve' into another species and everyone gets a slice of that pie, with the knowlege of countless generations stored within the reaperships as a bonus. Destroying the reapers only delays the recurrance of the dreaded "cycle". We build more robot, they become sentient, build bigger better AI's who are NOT sentient, program them to kill off organic sentient life. Later decide not to kill them off, but harvest them for there inherent ability to "create" new technology cause they just NEEEED it...and here we are, again, building a bigger and better Sheppard to..the record keeps skipping after this tho...cause someone isn't reading the posts'er somthing.

No, the only reason the Reapers don't attack organics in Synthesis is they also underwent the affect of it. Synthetics from outside the Milkyway won't have been effected by this, so they will feel exactly the same as before. It is you who's not reading an understanding.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:43 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Ieldra2 wrote...


And some posts below it which discuss that one.
If I may summarize this in one sentence (correct me if I got it wrong): Synthesis is no solution because if there are un-Synthesized ultra-advanced synthetics in other galaxies - and there likely will be - they'll still stamp all life out in our galaxy once they get here.

You know, that's actually an excellent argument for galactic civilization to advance as fast as it can. And which choice provides the fastest advancement? Synthesis. It's implied that it takes organics to the same level synthetics have in terms of capabilities, and hints at further advancement beyond anything imaginable at present. If that isn't enough, nothing will be enough, but at least we'll have tried. None of the other choices provides a better chance. Also, I think this is clearly a scenario of the kind I've described above: a long-term threat beyond our responsibility to account for, something post-Event civilization will have to take up as a challenge. We don't even know if intergalactic travel is feasible. I certainly wouldn't urge anyone to choose Synthesis because it provides the best chance of avoiding being wiped out by extra-galactic un-Synthesized synthetics.

No it's not. The cycles all advanced along the lines the Reapers chose. So there was little difference between their tech. The "benefits" will be minimal. A Species for outside hasn't had this handicap, they will likely be more advanced by hundreds of millions of years. Good luck catching up.


Even at that you're still acting like it's inevitable, the peace between the Geth and Quarians prove it isn't. Like the Starbrat you are acting out of fear, not logic or necessity.


Ah...... under standard FTL, a Ship could reach Andromeda in 571 years. Just think what a race that's hundreds of millions of years more advanced could do.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:49 .