Aller au contenu

Photo

Synthesis - An intergalactic threat?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
982 réponses à ce sujet

#151
Vigilant111

Vigilant111
  • Members
  • 2 433 messages

HYR 2.0 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Or does the utopia of synthesis prevents aggression? The reapers' extremely violent behavior didn't prevent it in the past. If the hypothetical synthetics threat is true wouldn't that cause one intergalactic war after another in the future? Soon the reapers fill the universe. All because it is "inevitable"?


LOL what an awful thread.

1.) Preventing individual aggression was never the goal. It's technological advancement for organics, understanding for synthetics.
2.) Reapers were not seeking to prevent organics' aggression with the cycles. Good lord, do you pay no attention?
3.) The synthetics threat is neutralized completely. Future conflict or not, they will not be able to surpass the overall synthesis galaxy.
4/5.) LMAO! Where did you get that idea, your ass?


OP, you haven't a single clue. Then again, that can be said for just about everyone here who bashes green anyway.


I am sorry what clue did u get?

How does understanding help synthetics to not kill organics? in fact, it makes killing more efficient

Bolded text is ********

Modifié par Vigilant111, 04 juillet 2012 - 01:59 .


#152
Wayning_Star

Wayning_Star
  • Members
  • 8 016 messages

The Angry One wrote...

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

What yorue doing is denying ME3 the whole conceptual foundation of its endings.


The "conceptual foundation" of these endings are a joke.

Why not just say that you think the endings a **** and out of character and all ( i would wholeheartedly agree) and be done with it?


Because synthesis is, as I've said, repugnant and wrong and yet advertised as the best ending to the point that BioWare actively sabotaged the other endings, especially destroy, to force it's appeal.


I wonderedImage IPB why it was the center choice in the end game, the others were right and left of it..lol

#153
teh DRUMPf!!

teh DRUMPf!!
  • Members
  • 9 142 messages

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Heaven forbid someone has a different interpretation of Synthesis that isn't negative. We can't allow that, can we?



No. We unfortunately live under the tyranny of anti-ender nazis who approve of nothing past destroy/refuse. :(

#154
Helios969

Helios969
  • Members
  • 2 748 messages

The Angry One wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

I completely reject the notion that a technological singularity results in genocidal AI's preceiving organic life as a threat that must be eradicated. A super intelligent race would preceive us as a threat about as much as we'd perceive chimpanzees to be threats to our existence. More than likely such a race would go off to continue to work on their perfection.


Indeed and again, the whole point is that it's an unknown.
They may kill us or they may provide every human with flowers to make us happy. We just don't know. That's the point.


I think they'd just go away and ignore us.  But yeah, I know, plot device.

#155
tettenjager

tettenjager
  • Members
  • 183 messages

Baronesa wrote...

tettenjager wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Ok...

for those mentioning the Technological singularity...

Prove that it is indeed a bad thing as the Catalyst assume.

My contention is... IT IS AN UNKNOWN.

You don't know if it will have positive, neutral or positive effects. The Catalyst solution, motives, everything is based only on the POSSIBILITY that it MAY be bad.

This undermines the foundation of everything else the Catalyst tells you


Because this is a STORY and in this STORY TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY is BAAAAD! 

ç

Only because the MAIN ANTAGONIST SAY SO!!!

Why the hell am I supposed to AGREE WITH THE MAIN ANTAGONIST , if all evidence presented to me ON THIS CYCLE contradicts it's stance???


Unless there is a mass effect 4 or post ending DLC (not likely) there is no reason to presume that the catalyst lies

#156
OnlyHazeRemains

OnlyHazeRemains
  • Members
  • 124 messages

Vigilant111 wrote...
What? What is the difference between pre-synthesis understanding and post-synthesis understanding?

I thought both organics and synthetics are now capable of being irrational, nothing has really changed, in fact the situation has gotten worse since now organics share the same rate of technological advancement in terms of developing weapons


Thats a good question. The ending doesnt answer it.
I can only state my opinion on it:

I agree, "both organics and synthetics being capable of irrationality" kinda means the situation got worse.
As in the playing field is equal now and post-synthetics dont view us as inferior anymore, but they might have lost their abilities to be completely rational. Really i dont know cause its stated nowhere.

#157
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

Wayning_Star wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

What yorue doing is denying ME3 the whole conceptual foundation of its endings.


The "conceptual foundation" of these endings are a joke.

Why not just say that you think the endings a **** and out of character and all ( i would wholeheartedly agree) and be done with it?


Because synthesis is, as I've said, repugnant and wrong and yet advertised as the best ending to the point that BioWare actively sabotaged the other endings, especially destroy, to force it's appeal.


I wonderedImage IPB why it was the center choice in the end game, the others were right and left of it..lol


So people accidentally stumble into it and experience the best ending. Artistic integrity!
No, seriously, I know a lot of people who didn't have a clue what just happened after that convo and randomly activated synthesis by walking around.

#158
lx_theo

lx_theo
  • Members
  • 1 182 messages

The Angry One wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

lol, thats a big yes to the first point


Seriously everyone, don't waste your time with this guy, he's clearly trying to turn this topic into a flame war.


Yep, all these posts were definitely meant to start a flame war

Nowhere does it say that it makes them intolerant to organic or synthetic life. It only says that it opens up untold floodgates in potential advantages.There are a huge range of possibilities it can create.

Worst its borg like, like you said.

Best they become a police force to stop the threat of any species that choose not to become the hybrid in the synthetic organic conflicts.

In the middle, they could just not care.

You can't assume one way will come. You're "in game facts" are huge assumptions in themselves.


No, I'm just suggesting a force that eliminates the need for a cycle. If a situation gets to the point that either side might be wiped out (the problem the cycle was supposed to fix), they could step in and stop that. I'm speeching more a minimalist police force that only enters when absolutely needed, not something that changes how they live their life anything more than that one thing.



Honestly, I was flipflopping which was best and which was middle when I was posting it. In the end, I decided I thought a minimalist police (like I described above in a different post) that would be powerful enough to ensure stopping such conflicts when they threatened wiping anyone out would be more effective than their own police force.

In the end, I can see it going either ways in which is better.

Doesn't matter if they don't have the choice in making it the end all be all philosophy.


No, it wasn't. The point was to give each side more in common so they never felt so little empathy for the other that they'd be willing to wipe them out. Free will still exists (and not getting the say in one choice doesn't mean it dissappears).

Given how much the society shows to advance in the course of the epilogue, its pretty much a given that the other species are powerful enough to keep the Reapers in line IF they chose to act so arrogantly on their philosophy.

No, it blends Synthetics and Organics into one group. All species are still that species, albeit the technology now apart of them. They are still definitively them. So, physically they still have a very good amount of the ones they had before.

It also doesn't change how they think. Proof? The Catalyst said that the solution failed in the past because people were ready for it. It means that it doesn't just imbed the reaper logic into their heads.


That stinks of lacking logic. A society MAY be all for it if the actually governing bodies were the ones making that decisions and were the ones continuing to govern it. But this decision and change has nothing to do with how the people will go forward and make their society. They could embrace any policy in regards to pure organics and synthetics.

They do not think like the Reapers. There is zero proof of this whatsoever. It has no effect on any of these subjects.


Might I mention that' just one page? Maybe, ol' angry one, its just you?

#159
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

tettenjager wrote...

Unless there is a mass effect 4 or post ending DLC (not likely) there is no reason to presume that the catalyst lies


"But you killed the rest."

"We helped them ascend."

...

"The Crucible has changed me. Given me new possibilities."

"The Crucible is little more than a power source."

Virtually everything it says is a lie.

#160
mauro2222

mauro2222
  • Members
  • 4 236 messages

Vigilant111 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

"You [organics] are different, but we accept you."


Key words.

Accept.

A big difference with understanding, wich is not the same. You can understand someone but not accept it. That's why Synthesis is BS.


U can also understand and not trust, or perhaps that trust is no longer required when u understand everything


Trust requires confidence in actions. You require a hive mind to see every thought in order to be confident of others actions and decisions.

#161
savionen

savionen
  • Members
  • 1 317 messages

The Angry One wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

What yorue doing is denying ME3 the whole conceptual foundation of its endings.


The "conceptual foundation" of these endings are a joke.

Why not just say that you think the endings a **** and out of character and all ( i would wholeheartedly agree) and be done with it?


Because synthesis is, as I've said, repugnant and wrong and yet advertised as the best ending to the point that BioWare actively sabotaged the other endings, especially destroy, to force it's appeal.


I wonderedImage IPB why it was the center choice in the end game, the others were right and left of it..lol


So people accidentally stumble into it and experience the best ending. Artistic integrity!
No, seriously, I know a lot of people who didn't have a clue what just happened after that convo and randomly activated synthesis by walking around.


During that moment of absolute shock of playing the ending the first time, your brain just freezes.

#162
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

lx_theo wrote...

Might I mention that' just one page? Maybe, ol' angry one, its just you?



Your outright attempts to mislead, evade and lie about what others have said along with your insults say otherwise.

#163
tettenjager

tettenjager
  • Members
  • 183 messages

lx_theo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

lol, thats a big yes to the first point


Seriously everyone, don't waste your time with this guy, he's clearly trying to turn this topic into a flame war.


Yep, all these posts were definitely meant to start a flame war

Nowhere does it say that it makes them intolerant to organic or synthetic life. It only says that it opens up untold floodgates in potential advantages.There are a huge range of possibilities it can create.

Worst its borg like, like you said.

Best they become a police force to stop the threat of any species that choose not to become the hybrid in the synthetic organic conflicts.

In the middle, they could just not care.

You can't assume one way will come. You're "in game facts" are huge assumptions in themselves.


No, I'm just suggesting a force that eliminates the need for a cycle. If a situation gets to the point that either side might be wiped out (the problem the cycle was supposed to fix), they could step in and stop that. I'm speeching more a minimalist police force that only enters when absolutely needed, not something that changes how they live their life anything more than that one thing.


Honestly, I was flipflopping which was best and which was middle when I was posting it. In the end, I decided I thought a minimalist police (like I described above in a different post) that would be powerful enough to ensure stopping such conflicts when they threatened wiping anyone out would be more effective than their own police force.

In the end, I can see it going either ways in which is better.

Doesn't matter if they don't have the choice in making it the end all be all philosophy.


No, it wasn't. The point was to give each side more in common so they never felt so little empathy for the other that they'd be willing to wipe them out. Free will still exists (and not getting the say in one choice doesn't mean it dissappears).

Given how much the society shows to advance in the course of the epilogue, its pretty much a given that the other species are powerful enough to keep the Reapers in line IF they chose to act so arrogantly on their philosophy.

No, it blends Synthetics and Organics into one group. All species are still that species, albeit the technology now apart of them. They are still definitively them. So, physically they still have a very good amount of the ones they had before.

It also doesn't change how they think. Proof? The Catalyst said that the solution failed in the past because people were ready for it. It means that it doesn't just imbed the reaper logic into their heads.


That stinks of lacking logic. A society MAY be all for it if the actually governing bodies were the ones making that decisions and were the ones continuing to govern it. But this decision and change has nothing to do with how the people will go forward and make their society. They could embrace any policy in regards to pure organics and synthetics.

They do not think like the Reapers. There is zero proof of this whatsoever. It has no effect on any of these subjects.


Might I mention that' just one page? Maybe, ol' angry one, its just you?



Zing!

#164
Pacifien

Pacifien
  • Members
  • 11 527 messages

Baronesa wrote...
for those mentioning the Technological singularity...

Prove that it is indeed a bad thing as the Catalyst assume.

My contention is... IT IS AN UNKNOWN.

Technological singularity is by its definition an event that is beyond the understanding of those that have no progressed past it. That does not mean it is necessarily desirable to reach technological singularity.

Not that it's the same thing, but there are people in today's society who reject the technological advancements available because they simply don't want to live in that sort of society. They feel it's sacrificing too much in the name of security and comfort.

It's also a valid reason to reject Synthesis by assuming the worst. That is why I reject rewriting the Heretics in Mass Effect 2: because I assumed the worst case scenario that it could potentially backfire for various reasons that I won't go into in this thread.

You don't have to assume the worst about Synthesis, but I can't really tell someone to stop once they do.

#165
Baronesa

Baronesa
  • Members
  • 1 934 messages

tettenjager wrote...

Unless there is a mass effect 4 or post ending DLC (not likely) there is no reason to presume that the catalyst lies


Even if he is not lying...

He is acitng on an assumption that has no basis on reality... Synthetics HAVE NEVER WIPED OUT ALL ORGANICS!!

Again, the key here is ALL organics.

The Catalyst rpesumes this outcome and creates it's solution... and even if it is not a crazy AI, even if it is sincere and telling you the truth about it's motives... it does not change the fact that you can still DISAGREE with it. Because from the information I got on the 3 games, I arrive to the conclusion that the premise the Catalyst use is FALSE (does not mean the catalyst does not tihnk it is the absolute truth)

#166
OnlyHazeRemains

OnlyHazeRemains
  • Members
  • 124 messages

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Nitpicking or not, it doesn't make the point made invalid. The addional "clarification" that the EC brought us is responsible for that.


I have to agree to this.:unsure:

#167
Vigilant111

Vigilant111
  • Members
  • 2 433 messages

mauro2222 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

"You [organics] are different, but we accept you."


Key words.

Accept.

A big difference with understanding, wich is not the same. You can understand someone but not accept it. That's why Synthesis is BS.


U can also understand and not trust, or perhaps that trust is no longer required when u understand everything


Trust requires confidence in actions. You require a hive mind to see every thought in order to be confident of others actions and decisions.


Agreed, I would summarise as follows: trust stems from things being unknown, can't say the same about Catalyst though

#168
Pacifien

Pacifien
  • Members
  • 11 527 messages
For crying out loud, some of you people need to take it to PM or take a deep breath and walk away from the computer for 30 minutes. And if you don't think I'm talking about you, I am.

#169
lx_theo

lx_theo
  • Members
  • 1 182 messages

The Angry One wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Might I mention that' just one page? Maybe, ol' angry one, its just you?



Your outright attempts to mislead, evade and lie about what others have said along with your insults say otherwise.


I haven't lied once. I've seen you commonly in Synthesis thread spreading your trivial and contrived excuses for why you hate synthesis. If some dares like it, you turn these illogical tool against them. For example, saying they're evading questions they answered to you just recently?

Its all too common for you, really.

#170
tettenjager

tettenjager
  • Members
  • 183 messages

The Angry One wrote...

tettenjager wrote...

Unless there is a mass effect 4 or post ending DLC (not likely) there is no reason to presume that the catalyst lies


"But you killed the rest."

"We helped them ascend."

...

"The Crucible has changed me. Given me new possibilities."

"The Crucible is little more than a power source."

Virtually everything it says is a lie.


But WHY whould it? If it is that evil why does it let you replace or destroy him without a fight? And lets look at your claims.
"But you killed the rest."

"We helped them ascend."  => into reaper form, pinnacle of evolution. check

"The Crucible has changed me. Given me new possibilities."  
"The Crucible is little more than a power source." => more power gives morepossibilities, what is wrong with this?

#171
savionen

savionen
  • Members
  • 1 317 messages

Baronesa wrote...

tettenjager wrote...

Unless there is a mass effect 4 or post ending DLC (not likely) there is no reason to presume that the catalyst lies


Even if he is not lying...

He is acitng on an assumption that has no basis on reality... Synthetics HAVE NEVER WIPED OUT ALL ORGANICS!!

Again, the key here is ALL organics.

The Catalyst rpesumes this outcome and creates it's solution... and even if it is not a crazy AI, even if it is sincere and telling you the truth about it's motives... it does not change the fact that you can still DISAGREE with it. Because from the information I got on the 3 games, I arrive to the conclusion that the premise the Catalyst use is FALSE (does not mean the catalyst does not tihnk it is the absolute truth)


Basically this. Tech Singularity is a crackpot theory, and it's just a theory. Even to the Catalyst it can only really be just a theory. Synthetics have never completely wiped out organics, so the entire basis of changing the galaxy is based upon an assumption of what may happen in the future. And if you want to cite Mass Effect by itself, and no outside sources there's no real proof Synthetics want to kill Organics anyway. Not to mention the actual concept of Synthetics destroying all Organic life is literally impossible and kind of insane.

#172
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

lx_theo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Might I mention that' just one page? Maybe, ol' angry one, its just you?



Your outright attempts to mislead, evade and lie about what others have said along with your insults say otherwise.


I haven't lied once. I've seen you commonly in Synthesis thread spreading your trivial and contrived excuses for why you hate synthesis. If some dares like it, you turn these illogical tool against them. For example, saying they're evading questions they answered to you just recently?

Its all too common for you, really.


And he continues with the posturing! Right, you're officially ignored. You have spent about 5 posts now continually ranting about how I don't anything while evading every point I made.
I appreciate debate, but you refuse to do anything other than make attacks because you dislike what I say, probably because deep down, like all synthesis supporters, you know I'm right.

Good day.

#173
mauro2222

mauro2222
  • Members
  • 4 236 messages

Pacifien wrote...

For crying out loud, some of you people need to take it to PM or take a deep breath and walk away from the computer for 30 minutes. And if you don't think I'm talking about you, I am.


Ok...:crying:

#174
Vigilant111

Vigilant111
  • Members
  • 2 433 messages

Pacifien wrote...

Baronesa wrote...
for those mentioning the Technological singularity...

Prove that it is indeed a bad thing as the Catalyst assume.

My contention is... IT IS AN UNKNOWN.

Technological singularity is by its definition an event that is beyond the understanding of those that have no progressed past it. That does not mean it is necessarily desirable to reach technological singularity.

Not that it's the same thing, but there are people in today's society who reject the technological advancements available because they simply don't want to live in that sort of society. They feel it's sacrificing too much in the name of security and comfort.

It's also a valid reason to reject Synthesis by assuming the worst. That is why I reject rewriting the Heretics in Mass Effect 2: because I assumed the worst case scenario that it could potentially backfire for various reasons that I won't go into in this thread.

You don't have to assume the worst about Synthesis, but I can't really tell someone to stop once they do.


Then why do u assume the worse about singularity? It could be a good thing for organics, no?

#175
teh DRUMPf!!

teh DRUMPf!!
  • Members
  • 9 142 messages

The Angry One wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

1.) Preventing individual aggression was never the goal. It's technological advancement for organics, understanding for synthetics.


And stopping conflict.


No, only preventing the specific scenario where hostile synthetics would wipe out all organics. Other conflict is up to us to prevent.


2.) Reapers were not seeking to prevent organics' aggression with the cycles. Good lord, do you pay no attention?


"You represent chaos. We represent order."


Sorry but the Bill Casey method doesn't work. You can regurgitate quotes all you want but it means nothing if you don't prove it fits the interpretation you're trying to suggest.

They are only bringing order insofar as they are preventing the chaos of conflict with synthetics and the potential technological singularity.


3.) The synthetics threat is neutralized completely. Future conflict or not, they will not be able to surpass the overall synthesis galaxy.


How is it neutralised? What will stop the rise or new synthetics? Why will those new synthetics now surpass hybrids? How will hybrid synthetics never be a problem?


New synthetics won't surpass hybrids. Hybrids have acquired their capabilities, they're no longer bound by hardware limitations that makes synthetics superior.


4/5.) LMAO! Where did you get that idea, your ass?

OP, you haven't a single clue. Then again, that can be said for just about everyone here who bashes green anyway.


And people ask me why I regard pro-synthesizers the way I do..



Yeah, yeah. We get it - it's not trolling if YOU do it because you're so cute and angry! :blush: