450 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabraxal]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I don't need to study every organic entity. This (the organic part at least) is a basic fact of developmental biology, from the simplest multi-celled organisms to humans, the principle is the same. Your ignorance doesn't change that.

So you've seen on planet and only the organisms of that planet and suddenly the biology of that one itty bitty sample size lets humanity know what organic life is all about?  I'm not the ignorant one here... you keep proving this human centric perceptual bias that is the real problem and your ignorant feelings of intellectual superiority over any that disagrees is getting in the way.  But then that's nothing new.  

Maybe when you actually start applying some actual honest intellectual thought to your argument, your premises wouldn't be founded on simple assumptions that aren't actually proven fact.  At least "organic life as we currently understand it".  But if you wish, continue assuming that we have an actual competent understanding of all organic life despite not even understanding how it all works on one planet among trillions and trillions of worlds.  Hell, who even knows if we are even percieving even the tiniest part of the grand picture of the universe.    But o right, realising that basing all knowledge of a simple, badly narrow perceptual bias that might not even be viewing the universe in any proper context is just ignorant... yep.  I'm the ignorant here... totally :innocent:

[Endurium]

The over-arching problem with this subject is that the whole thing was cooked up by humans (Bioware), and thus follows general human thinking. Most humans are rebellious so of course anything they imagine tends to be rebellious as well, or is viewed as being weak and therefore unworthy of surviving (or only worthy of being enslaved).

I prefer a solution similar to that of the original Day the Earth Stood Still, where a race of machines is given absolute power (as Galactic Police) to stamp out any being or group attempting to spread violence to other peoples. It's too bad the Reapers didn't serve this function (order) and instead were used to destroy (chaos) all developed species every 50,000 years.

Frankly I don't think the Leviathans/Reapers/Catalyst are too bright, despite their constant claims that we couldn't comprehend their existence/function.

Modifié par Endurium, 01 janvier 2013 - 12:04 .

[Ieldra]

Kabraxal wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I don't need to study every organic entity. This (the organic part at least) is a basic fact of developmental biology, from the simplest multi-celled organisms to humans, the principle is the same. Your ignorance doesn't change that.

So you've seen on planet and only the organisms of that planet and suddenly the biology of that one itty bitty sample size lets humanity know what organic life is all about?  I'm not the ignorant one here... you keep proving this human centric perceptual bias that is the real problem and your ignorant feelings of intellectual superiority over any that disagrees is getting in the way.  But then that's nothing new.  

Maybe when you actually start applying some actual honest intellectual thought to your argument, your premises wouldn't be founded on simple assumptions that aren't actually proven fact.  At least "organic life as we currently understand it".  But if you wish, continue assuming that we have an actual competent understanding of all organic life despite not even understanding how it all works on one planet among trillions and trillions of worlds.  Hell, who even knows if we are even percieving even the tiniest part of the grand picture of the universe.    But o right, realising that basing all knowledge of a simple, badly narrow perceptual bias that might not even be viewing the universe in any proper context is just ignorant... yep.  I'm the ignorant here... totally :innocent:

Yet again, your claim of "honest intellectual thought" is misplaced. Our science works on the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, and for that reason it is completely reasonable to apply the principles of chemistry we find on Earth to other planets. Note that this does NOT mean that all life in the universe must have more or less the same chemistry as life on Earth. It's just based on the same underlying principles, as long as it's the result of a process of evolution from simpler organized matter and not constructed.

Let's get back to the ME universe: tell me, what *is* an organic? What's its defining characteristic as opposed to a synthetic? It *must* be something else than simply "one is made from carbon and hydrogen and the other from silicon and steel", for simple chemical differences have been proven - within the narrative of the ME universe - to be not of the kind that would result in the extinction of either side. Else no intelligent species as different like the rachni or the volus would exist. As long as you simply say "organic vs synthetic" is a matter of which elements entities are made of, the Catalyst's claim is *obviously* false. But it can be made sense of if we define "organic" as a "grown" entity as opposed to a "constructed" one. Yet again, I'm not saying Bioware's writers meant anything like that - they probably didn't think this through much at all - but it's a way I can make sense of the Catalyst's claim.

If you have a better idea, let me hear it.

Edit:
It seems I'm going at this differently than most: I want things to make sense, and if they don't appear to at first glance, I don't throw away the story but I look for ways to make sense of things. I'm not looking for "truth" and I'm not "defending" the Catalyst, I'm looking for things that could reasonably be true, under the assumption that the Catalyst is a highly-advanced synthetic intelligence and not stupid. I want a story I can believe in, and I'm looking for ways to interpret the existing evidence in a way that I can believe in the result.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 janvier 2013 - 12:35 .

[Kabraxal]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I don't need to study every organic entity. This (the organic part at least) is a basic fact of developmental biology, from the simplest multi-celled organisms to humans, the principle is the same. Your ignorance doesn't change that.

So you've seen on planet and only the organisms of that planet and suddenly the biology of that one itty bitty sample size lets humanity know what organic life is all about?  I'm not the ignorant one here... you keep proving this human centric perceptual bias that is the real problem and your ignorant feelings of intellectual superiority over any that disagrees is getting in the way.  But then that's nothing new.  

Maybe when you actually start applying some actual honest intellectual thought to your argument, your premises wouldn't be founded on simple assumptions that aren't actually proven fact.  At least "organic life as we currently understand it".  But if you wish, continue assuming that we have an actual competent understanding of all organic life despite not even understanding how it all works on one planet among trillions and trillions of worlds.  Hell, who even knows if we are even percieving even the tiniest part of the grand picture of the universe.    But o right, realising that basing all knowledge of a simple, badly narrow perceptual bias that might not even be viewing the universe in any proper context is just ignorant... yep.  I'm the ignorant here... totally :innocent:

Yet again, your claim of "honest intellectual thought" is misplaced. Our science works on the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, and for that reason it is completely reasonable to apply the principles of chemistry we find on Earth to other planets. Note that this does NOT mean that all life in the universe must have more or less the same chemistry as life on Earth. It's just based on the same underlying principles, as long as it's the result of a process of evolution from simpler organized matter and not constructed.

Let's get back to the ME universe: tell me, what *is* an organic? What's its defining characteristic as opposed to a synthetic? It *must* be something else than simply "one is made from carbon and hydrogen and the other from silicon and steel", for simple chemical differences have been proven - within the narrative of the ME universe - to be not of the kind that would result in the extinction of either side. Else no intelligent species as different like the rachni or the volus would exist. As long as you simply say "organic vs synthetic" is a matter of which elements entities are made of, the Catalyst's claim is *obviously* false. But it can be made sense of if we define "organic" as a "grown" entity as opposed to a "constructed" one. Yet again, I'm not saying Bioware's writers meant anything like that - they probably didn't think this through much at all - but it's a way I can make sense of the Catalyst's claim.

If you have a better idea, let me hear it.

Edit:
It seems I'm going at this differently than most: I want things to make sense, and if they don't appear to at first glance, I don't throw away the story but I look for ways to make sense of things. I'm not looking for "truth" and I'm not "defending" the Catalyst, I'm looking for things that could reasonably be true, under the assumption that the Catalyst is a highly-advanced synthetic intelligence and not stupid. I want a story I can believe in, and I'm looking for ways to interpret the existing evidence in a way that I can believe in the result.

And I don't operate under that assumption.  It suffers from the problem of induction.  It might be helpful, but it is not infallible.  As for chemistry and physics... we are operating under assumptions of things we have observed.  Key word observed... there might be laws and chemistry we have yet to observe (more than likely true given we've not even left the solar system) and even then, we are observing through a demonstratably subjective perceptual veil that changes with EACH individual let alone species.  Can you seriously stand there and say with certainty human perception has unerringly witnessed reality through an objective lens? 

We do not have sufficient knowledge to proclaim how our world fully works yet.  We are still figuring it all out.  To try and say we have sufficient knowledge to proclaim anything about all organic life or any synthetic life, especially when everything we experience about much of that is through our imagination and conjecture, is pure folly.  Hell... I'm willing to toy with the idea that planet is actually a singular organic entity that exists in a different cognitive state from our own.  It only seems foolish to us because we are coming at everything through a pre-existing bias that can so easily colour our philosophical ideas.  

To bring this full circle to ME... look at the Thorian and Rachni.  They operate in a different cognitive manner than most bipedal organics.  The way they think and interact is completely different from humans or Asari.  They are complex, they have distinct advantages over many of the organic races we are comfortable with, and they have proven themselves to be great threats to others.  Yet if someone called for their extinction just becasue of that, there would be far more resistance from people becuase they are organic and thus not as alien as the alien mind of a synthetic.  Synthetics are different and they can have a distinct advantage over several organic races.  There is no questioning that.  But in so many ways, it is just another form of evolution.  We percieve it as controlled and created only because we are consciously aware of the input into that evolution.  They have every right to exist and to evolve and grow as any organic.  We are no more special or entitled to life than they are.  

Hell.. thinking of that... who's to say some mysterious and completely alien entity didn't create all organic life and have a hand in the evolution.  We are very much biological machines... Again, it's all about making assumptions based on the human centric bias that one has to actively combat to truly come even remotely close to intellectual honesty.  Realise it, accept it, then try to actually use that mind to think beyond the narrow limiations of thought you've constrained yourself to.  

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Let's get back to the ME universe: tell me, what *is* an organic?

A BS phrase that Bioware never defined, and certainly not with refernece to any serious scientific principle.

What's its defining characteristic as opposed to a synthetic? It *must* be something else than simply "one is made from carbon and hydrogen and the other from silicon and steel", for simple chemical differences have been proven - within the narrative of the ME universe - to be not of the kind that would result in the extinction of either side.

Except when they did, like when the Krogans exterminated the Rachni from existence (or themselves).

Else no intelligent species as different like the rachni or the volus would exist.

The rachni don't exist. Well, unless Shepard is a sucker.

As long as you simply say "organic vs synthetic" is a matter of which elements entities are made of, the Catalyst's claim is *obviously* false. But it can be made sense of if we define "organic" as a "grown" entity as opposed to a "constructed" one.

No, it can't. Or at least it can't without magic, because it flies in the face of pretty much everything we know about social development and cognitive science.

I'm looking for things that could reasonably be true, under the assumption that the Catalyst is a highly-advanced synthetic intelligence and not stupid. I want a story I can believe in, and I'm looking for ways to interpret the existing evidence in a way that I can believe in the result.

It doesn't work without self-contradicting assumptions, because Bioware used a jumble of reasons that aren't themselves consistent (both thematically and scientifically) in coming up with this mess.

The problem is that Bioware has no understanding of AI. Or machines. Or what transhumanism might mean. And all of ME is pretty borderline about every talking about this subject. But suddenly it's made the big endgame plot. And the plot can't support it, becuase it just lacks the intellectual infrastructure.

Modifié par In Exile, 01 janvier 2013 - 01:37 .

[Ieldra]

@Kabraxal:
I'm making an effort here to ignore your insulting condescension because you raise a few interesting points, but I would appreciate if you stopped making assumptions about how my mind works. I'm quite willing to switch to different frameworks - the thing is that the ME universe doesn't, and I'm arguing within its constraints.

And I don't operate under that assumption.  It suffers from the problem of induction.  It might be helpful, but it is not infallible.  As for chemistry and physics... we are operating under assumptions of things we have observed.  Key word observed... there might be laws and chemistry we have yet to observe (more than likely true given we've not even left the solar system) and even then, we are observing through a demonstratably subjective perceptual veil that changes with EACH individual let alone species.  Can you seriously stand there and say with certainty human perception has unerringly witnessed reality through an objective lens?

Of course I cannot say that. The thing is, the Catalyst is presented as an entity which knows more than I do, with much greater cognitive power than I have. What I'm seeing is people pitting their narrow human perspective against the Catalyst's greater one and insisting theirs must be dominant. I'm not saying we should absolutely believe it, but if we say "I don't believe you", we should damn well have a better line of arguments than "I don't like what you say". Oh, and also a better line of arguments than "There are things you [the Catalyst] might not know". As long as we cannot provide such a thing the Catalyst does not know, we don't have a point there. The way the Catalyst is presented, yes, it's fallible, but it's presented as being less fallible than we are.

We do not have sufficient knowledge to proclaim how our world fully works yet.  We are still figuring it all out.  To try and say we have sufficient knowledge to proclaim anything about all organic life or any synthetic life, especially when everything we experience about much of that is through our imagination and conjecture, is pure folly.  Hell... I'm willing to toy with the idea that planet is actually a singular organic entity that exists in a different cognitive state from our own.  It only seems foolish to us because we are coming at everything through a pre-existing bias that can so easily colour our philosophical ideas.

While you are completely correct - different cognitive states may exist - that's not the point. The Catalyst proclaims it knows enough about the nature of organics and synthetics to assert that conflict is inevitable. and as long as we cannot demonstrate that it doesn't we have no point in refuting its rationale. Your other perspectives are mere conjecture. They may or may not exist. As long as you cannot demonstrate that they do exist, you don't have a point. Would you really pit those imaginary perspectives against a rationale that makes sense considering the part of the universe we know something about? Well, I guess you'd find that valid if you're coming from a viewpoint of philosophical idealism, but then we may as well stop debating this, because there are fundamentals we will never agree on. 

To bring this full circle to ME... look at the Thorian and Rachni.  They operate in a different cognitive manner than most bipedal organics.  The way they think and interact is completely different from humans or Asari.  They are complex, they have distinct advantages over many of the organic races we are comfortable with, and they have proven themselves to be great threats to others.  Yet if someone called for their extinction just becasue of that, there would be far more resistance from people becuase they are organic and thus not as alien as the alien mind of a synthetic.  Synthetics are different and they can have a distinct advantage over several organic races.  There is no questioning that.  But in so many ways, it is just another form of evolution.  We percieve it as controlled and created only because we are consciously aware of the input into that evolution.  They have every right to exist and to evolve and grow as any organic.  We are no more special or entitled to life than they are.

Yet again I do not disagree. If you knew my posting history you'd know much I detest the story's assumption that life is only valid if it's human-like (see the geth's Reaper upgrades giving them human-like individuality, or EDI getting human emotions in Synthesis). But yet again, that's not the point in question here. The Catalyst asserts that the differences between organics and synthetics will cause conflict, eventually resulting in the extinction of one side. While it doesn't give us enough data to make an informed judgment, it is not an impossible scenario, and given that the Catalyst's cognitive perspective can reasonably be said to be wider than mine, I feel justified in giving it the benefit of the doubt.

My perfect ending, that would be one in which all those perspectives could continue to exist: the pre-Reaper geth collective consciousness, the post-Reaper geth individuality for a faction of geth who want it, the "Synthesized organic" one for those who want it, the unchanged organic one etc. etc.. In other words, I have a problem with some of the thematic implications of the final choice options, but I don't have a problem with the rationale for the conflict. This thread is about how the latter can make sense, and that's why I support it.

Hell.. thinking of that... who's to say some mysterious and completely alien entity didn't create all organic life and have a hand in the evolution.

Unsurprisingly, that has been explored in literature as well, and without any religious implications (not posting spoilers here, PM me if you want them). The thing is yet again, if there is such an alien perspective, for it to count within the context of a story it needs to be present in the story, at least as a possibility. Not every perspective we can think of does actually exist somewhere.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 janvier 2013 - 11:35 .

[Kabraxal]

So basically it's all because the Catalyst says so? Let's just ignore that he could be lying out his ass to save his own hide or that his programming further restricts his ability to find an actual solution. If you believe Leviathan, he was constructed to deal with the mere POSSIBILITY of synthetics wiping out the enslaved organics. It's entire programming is based off an assumption and not an actual known truth.

Hell, in game we have far more proof that synthetics are no different from any organic and that peace can be had if the effort is made. So if you take him at face value, his assumption is already proven to be questionable.

However, if you actually doubt his word and think of what he is (Leviathan or no) then you should be questioning anything he has to say. He's the reason the Reaper's exist at the very least and he is a Reaper at the worst. His entire being is devoted to the cycle. He would do his best to twist reality and logic to get Shepard to do what it wants and save the Reapers if it really percieves a threat to its existence. So why would you believe anything it has to say?

Of the two, it is far more likely the Catalyst is lying in order to advance it's real agenda. All the actual in game evidence tends to contradict everything it says: the synthetics in the Geth have sought peace when not hacked by the Reapers. EDI has not only been accepted, but can be loved by an organic. The organic races have done far more the threaten their own existence than any synthetic that is not the Reapers. Honestly, the in game mantra supports those against the Catalyst far more than anyone desperately trying to make sense out of a poorly designed Deus Ex Machina whose logic is so faulty the very game you play has already contradicted him numerous times for many players.

The only way the Catalyst works is if there is NO WAY for peace with the Geth to be achieved, EDI to be treated as a welcome member to the crew, and that every single instance of synthetic life is a bane on the player's existence. But that isn't the case. So we are left with a plot device that might fit a scant percentage of the player base if taken at face value. Simply put, the Catalyst is an utter failure of this game and no matter how much Bioware tries to legitamise his existence at face value. The only way to redeem him is to reveal that he is simply a Reaper seeking to stop Shepard from winning the war. Without that, he is simply a faulty program limited by ****** poor assumptive premises that are not even close to being factually true. That is why very few people have accepted the Catalyst... they see the inherent glaring flaws that destroy the character's integrity. Making an argument appealing to the Catalyst's authority is never going to work... his authority has already been proven to be faulty at best and thus the very foundation of your entire argument is practically obliterated before you even began.

Long story short... his logic is broken. The assumptions necessary for it to work are not only too great, but they are easily contradicted by several in game points.

[kal_reegar]

Kabraxal wrote...

So basically it's all because the Catalyst says so? Let's just ignore that he could be lying out his ass to save his own hide or that his programming further restricts his ability to find an actual solution. If you believe Leviathan, he was constructed to deal with the mere POSSIBILITY of synthetics wiping out the enslaved organics. It's entire programming is based off an assumption and not an actual known truth.

Hell, in game we have far more proof that synthetics are no different from any organic and that peace can be had if the effort is made. So if you take him at face value, his assumption is already proven to be questionable.

However, if you actually doubt his word and think of what he is (Leviathan or no) then you should be questioning anything he has to say. He's the reason the Reaper's exist at the very least and he is a Reaper at the worst. His entire being is devoted to the cycle. He would do his best to twist reality and logic to get Shepard to do what it wants and save the Reapers if it really percieves a threat to its existence. So why would you believe anything it has to say?

Of the two, it is far more likely the Catalyst is lying in order to advance it's real agenda. All the actual in game evidence tends to contradict everything it says: the synthetics in the Geth have sought peace when not hacked by the Reapers. EDI has not only been accepted, but can be loved by an organic. The organic races have done far more the threaten their own existence than any synthetic that is not the Reapers. Honestly, the in game mantra supports those against the Catalyst far more than anyone desperately trying to make sense out of a poorly designed Deus Ex Machina whose logic is so faulty the very game you play has already contradicted him numerous times for many players.

The only way the Catalyst works is if there is NO WAY for peace with the Geth to be achieved, EDI to be treated as a welcome member to the crew, and that every single instance of synthetic life is a bane on the player's existence. But that isn't the case. So we are left with a plot device that might fit a scant percentage of the player base if taken at face value. Simply put, the Catalyst is an utter failure of this game and no matter how much Bioware tries to legitamise his existence at face value. The only way to redeem him is to reveal that he is simply a Reaper seeking to stop Shepard from winning the war. Without that, he is simply a faulty program limited by ****** poor assumptive premises that are not even close to being factually true. That is why very few people have accepted the Catalyst... they see the inherent glaring flaws that destroy the character's integrity. Making an argument appealing to the Catalyst's authority is never going to work... his authority has already been proven to be faulty at best and thus the very foundation of your entire argument is practically obliterated before you even began.

Long story short... his logic is broken. The assumptions necessary for it to work are not only too great, but they are easily contradicted by several in game points.

his assumptions might be wrong, they might be contradicted by the lore, but this doesn't mean that his logic is broken.
the two things are very different.

for example, if I believe that "Earth is flat" (axiom) and therefore I logically conclude that "if I travel in the same direction for too long I will fall in the dark space" (conclusion) -> my assumption is wrong and contradicted by empirical evidences, but there aren't logical fallacies in my reasoning.

Logic is just the set of rules we use to deduce consistent conclusions from arbitrary assumptions.
But Logic (or the abscence of it) is not a warranty that the premises and/or the conclusion are intrinsically "true" (or wrong)

[Kabraxal]

kal_reegar wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

So basically it's all because the Catalyst says so? Let's just ignore that he could be lying out his ass to save his own hide or that his programming further restricts his ability to find an actual solution. If you believe Leviathan, he was constructed to deal with the mere POSSIBILITY of synthetics wiping out the enslaved organics. It's entire programming is based off an assumption and not an actual known truth.

Hell, in game we have far more proof that synthetics are no different from any organic and that peace can be had if the effort is made. So if you take him at face value, his assumption is already proven to be questionable.

However, if you actually doubt his word and think of what he is (Leviathan or no) then you should be questioning anything he has to say. He's the reason the Reaper's exist at the very least and he is a Reaper at the worst. His entire being is devoted to the cycle. He would do his best to twist reality and logic to get Shepard to do what it wants and save the Reapers if it really percieves a threat to its existence. So why would you believe anything it has to say?

Of the two, it is far more likely the Catalyst is lying in order to advance it's real agenda. All the actual in game evidence tends to contradict everything it says: the synthetics in the Geth have sought peace when not hacked by the Reapers. EDI has not only been accepted, but can be loved by an organic. The organic races have done far more the threaten their own existence than any synthetic that is not the Reapers. Honestly, the in game mantra supports those against the Catalyst far more than anyone desperately trying to make sense out of a poorly designed Deus Ex Machina whose logic is so faulty the very game you play has already contradicted him numerous times for many players.

The only way the Catalyst works is if there is NO WAY for peace with the Geth to be achieved, EDI to be treated as a welcome member to the crew, and that every single instance of synthetic life is a bane on the player's existence. But that isn't the case. So we are left with a plot device that might fit a scant percentage of the player base if taken at face value. Simply put, the Catalyst is an utter failure of this game and no matter how much Bioware tries to legitamise his existence at face value. The only way to redeem him is to reveal that he is simply a Reaper seeking to stop Shepard from winning the war. Without that, he is simply a faulty program limited by ****** poor assumptive premises that are not even close to being factually true. That is why very few people have accepted the Catalyst... they see the inherent glaring flaws that destroy the character's integrity. Making an argument appealing to the Catalyst's authority is never going to work... his authority has already been proven to be faulty at best and thus the very foundation of your entire argument is practically obliterated before you even began.

Long story short... his logic is broken. The assumptions necessary for it to work are not only too great, but they are easily contradicted by several in game points.

his assumptions might be wrong, they might be contradicted by the lore, but this doesn't mean that his logic is broken.
the two things are very different.

for example, if I believe that "Earth is flat" (axiom) and therefore I logically conclude that "if I travel in the same direction for too long I will fall in the dark space" (conclusion) -> my assumption is wrong and contradicted by empirical evidences, but there aren't logical fallacies in my reasoning.

Logic is just the set of rules we use to deduce consistent conclusions from arbitrary assumptions.
But Logic (or the abscence of it) is not a warranty that the premises and/or the conclusion are intrinsically "true" (or wrong)

I said broken because, technically, his argument is sound... which is the correct term in use with logic.  IF his premises are true, then his conclusion would be true.  Though, you could make an arugment that some of his implied premises do not actually lead his concluion, but that is another argument  .So we'lll simply leave it at the argument being sound.  However, it is broken logic because almost all of his implied or stated premises are either not proven to be true or outright proven to be false. There is no solid ground for the catalyst to stand on, or anyone defending him, in making this argument.  We have in game proof that synthetics and organics can coexist just as any organic can coexist with an organic.  We have proof that organics can love a synthetic.  We have proof that synthetics pose no more a threat than the Rachni or Krogan or any other organic.  

Quite simply, the catalyst's argument is just flat out wrong.  His premises do not hold up to any real scrutiny.

[kal_reegar]

Kabraxal wrote...
I said broken because, technically, his argument is sound... which is the correct term in use with logic.  IF his premises are true, then his conclusion would be true.  Though, you could make an arugment that some of his implied premises do not actually lead his concluion, but that is another argument  .So we'lll simply leave it at the argument being sound.  However, it is broken logic because almost all of his implied or stated premises are either not proven to be true or outright proven to be false. There is no solid ground for the catalyst to stand on, or anyone defending him, in making this argument.  We have in game proof that synthetics and organics can coexist just as any organic can coexist with an organic.  We have proof that organics can love a synthetic.  We have proof that synthetics pose no more a threat than the Rachni or Krogan or any other organic.  

Quite simply, the catalyst's argument is just flat out wrong.  His premises do not hold up to any real scrutiny.

nothing we have seen in the game disproves singularity. And nothing proves it either.
it's just an assumption that can't be falsified. Like "God do/don't exist" or "there's life after death". You can choose to believe in these assumption or not. It's a simple matter of faith.

But given this (opinable) assumption, the catalyst conclusions are logically valid.

[redBadger14]

I'm going to jump in and, I might be stating the obvious to some here, but if Shepard had not existed at all, I don't think anything would have been accomplished. Geth would still fight and likely drive Quarians extinct, Krogan would likely exact revenge on Salarians and Turians (if Wrex died in ME1), EDI would not have had an advanced understanding of organics, etc. Essentially, the Catalyst was right about everything he argued; Shepard was the only variable that changed the whole equation starting with the events of ME1.

That's something that just crossed my mind.

[Kabraxal]

kal_reegar wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...
I said broken because, technically, his argument is sound... which is the correct term in use with logic.  IF his premises are true, then his conclusion would be true.  Though, you could make an arugment that some of his implied premises do not actually lead his concluion, but that is another argument  .So we'lll simply leave it at the argument being sound.  However, it is broken logic because almost all of his implied or stated premises are either not proven to be true or outright proven to be false. There is no solid ground for the catalyst to stand on, or anyone defending him, in making this argument.  We have in game proof that synthetics and organics can coexist just as any organic can coexist with an organic.  We have proof that organics can love a synthetic.  We have proof that synthetics pose no more a threat than the Rachni or Krogan or any other organic.  

Quite simply, the catalyst's argument is just flat out wrong.  His premises do not hold up to any real scrutiny.

nothing we have seen in the game disproves singularity. And nothing proves it either.
it's just an assumption that can't be falsified. Like "God do/don't exist" or "there's life after death". You can choose to believe in these assumption or not. It's a simple matter of faith.

But given this (opinable) assumption, the catalyst conclusions are logically valid.

The whole basis of his argument is that organics and synthetics are too different to coexist and that it will inevitably lead to organic extinction.  This is blatantly contradicted within the third and second games.   Shepard and the crew easily work with both Legion and EDI, then in 3 most players manage to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians (or side with the Geth completely over the Quarians) and EDI can be so accepted that an organic willingly embraces the chance to love her.  

Is the possibility that a synthetic threat arises to threaten that?  Sure... but there's the possibility that something akin to the Leviathans rise up and desire only the destruction of all life as well.  The threat from synthetics is inherently no different or more troublesome than the threat of other organics.  The Catalyst's whole arguments is based on the fallacious premise that synthetic life is inherently different than organic... given all the in game evidence, that simply isn't true.  Their method of coming into being is superficially different, but everything else about them falls is still under the same definitive banner: sentient or sapient life.  

Organic life is no more precious than "synthetic" life.  It's only the irrational fear of something superficially different that clouds people's minds and makes them believe that synthetic life is somehow less worthy.  But that's been the sad lesson of our own history.  We fear difference and we proclaim it less worthy and thus perfectly reasonable to obliterate that differnce from existence.  Just another prejudice that we humans wrestle with sadly.  I shouldn't really expect a world that still can't come to grips with people of differing skin colour, spiritual beliefs, and sexuality to come to terms with synthetic life as equal to organic life.  We're still in the cultural dark ages.

[kal_reegar]

Kabraxal wrote...
The whole basis of his argument is that organics and synthetics are too different to coexist and that it will inevitably lead to organic extinction.  This is blatantly contradicted within the third and second games.   Shepard and the crew easily work with both Legion and EDI, then in 3 most players manage to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians (or side with the Geth completely over the Quarians) and EDI can be so accepted that an organic willingly embraces the chance to love her.  

the fact that in this historical moment geth and organics are allies, and the fact that some humans can be friend/lover with some synthetics... proves nothing.

allies can became enemies. Friendship and love can turn into hate.

Time can change things.

If I say "As long as they exist, Germany and French will always try to conquer each other" the fact that in the last 70 years they've been allies and that a lot of french and german are friends doesn't mean that my assumption is wrong.
Equally, the fact that in the last thousand years every single century has witnessed at least one conflict between germany and french doesn't mean that my assumption is right.

Is the possibility that a synthetic threat arises to threaten that?  Sure... but there's the possibility that something akin to the Leviathans rise up and desire only the destruction of all life as well.  The threat from synthetics is inherently no different or more troublesome than the threat of other organics.  The Catalyst's whole arguments is based on the fallacious premise that synthetic life is inherently different than organic... given all the in game evidence, that simply isn't true.  Their method of coming into being is superficially different, but everything else about them falls is still under the same definitive banner: sentient or sapient life.  

I don't agree. You can see inherenlty evenness where I see substantial diversity and vice versa .
Deciding how many things we must have in common or not to be classified as equal or different is such a subjective activity...

there are differences betwenn organics and synthetics, you can't deny it. And there are also a lot of similarities.
but deciding if these differences must be considered relevant or not... well it's a of matter prospective. A choiche.

there's no true or false.

Organic life is no more precious than "synthetic" life.  It's only the irrational fear of something superficially different that clouds people's minds and makes them believe that synthetic life is somehow less worthy.  But that's been the sad lesson of our own history.  We fear difference and we proclaim it less worthy and thus perfectly reasonable to obliterate that differnce from existence.  Just another prejudice that we humans wrestle with sadly.  I shouldn't really expect a world that still can't come to grips with people of differing skin colour, spiritual beliefs, and sexuality to come to terms with synthetic life as equal to organic life.  We're still in the cultural dark ages.

again, the concept of what must be considered "preciuos" is a just a subjective activity.


the leviathan decided one way, and established the catalyst's axioms.
The catalyst conclusion are logically deduced from these (opinable) axioms.

the axioms might be wrong, but the catalyst's logic is right.

[Kabraxal]

kal_reegar wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...
The whole basis of his argument is that organics and synthetics are too different to coexist and that it will inevitably lead to organic extinction.  This is blatantly contradicted within the third and second games.   Shepard and the crew easily work with both Legion and EDI, then in 3 most players manage to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians (or side with the Geth completely over the Quarians) and EDI can be so accepted that an organic willingly embraces the chance to love her.  

the fact that in this historical moment geth and organics are allies, and the fact that some humans can be friend/lover with some synthetics... proves nothing.

allies can became enemies. Friendship and love can turn into hate.

Time can change things.

If I say "As long as they exist, Germany and French will always try to conquer each other" the fact that in the last 70 years they've been allies and that a lot of french and german are friends doesn't mean that my assumption is wrong.
Equally, the fact that in the last thousand years every single century has witnessed at least one conflict between germany and french doesn't mean that my assumption is right.

Is the possibility that a synthetic threat arises to threaten that?  Sure... but there's the possibility that something akin to the Leviathans rise up and desire only the destruction of all life as well.  The threat from synthetics is inherently no different or more troublesome than the threat of other organics.  The Catalyst's whole arguments is based on the fallacious premise that synthetic life is inherently different than organic... given all the in game evidence, that simply isn't true.  Their method of coming into being is superficially different, but everything else about them falls is still under the same definitive banner: sentient or sapient life.  

I don't agree. You can see inherenlty evenness where I see substantial diversity and vice versa .
Deciding how many things we must have in common or not to be classified as equal or different is such a subjective activity...

there are differences betwenn organics and synthetics, you can't deny it. And there are also a lot of similarities.
but deciding if these differences must be considered relevant or not... well it's a of matter prospective. A choiche.

there's no true or false.

Organic life is no more precious than "synthetic" life.  It's only the irrational fear of something superficially different that clouds people's minds and makes them believe that synthetic life is somehow less worthy.  But that's been the sad lesson of our own history.  We fear difference and we proclaim it less worthy and thus perfectly reasonable to obliterate that differnce from existence.  Just another prejudice that we humans wrestle with sadly.  I shouldn't really expect a world that still can't come to grips with people of differing skin colour, spiritual beliefs, and sexuality to come to terms with synthetic life as equal to organic life.  We're still in the cultural dark ages.

again, the concept of what must be considered "preciuos" is a just a subjective activity.


the leviathan decided one way, and established the catalyst's axioms.
The catalyst conclusion are logically deduced from these (opinable) axioms.

the axioms might be wrong, but the catalyst's logic is right.

It is sound... that is different from right.  

And I'm not saying there are not differences between synthetics and organics, but that they are no different or greater of a threat than differences between different organic lifeforms.  This whole argument is based on a flawed belief that synthetic life is not equal to organic life and thus has a value less to that of organic life.  That is the exact same logic many atrocities committed on earth use... "they are different!  Their lives aren't as valuable!  It's okay to kill them!  It's not murder see!".  

Modifié par Kabraxal, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:44 .

[kal_reegar]

Kabraxal wrote...
It is sound... that is different from right.  

no, it's right (or valid), because the premises have not and cannot be proven false

And I'm not saying there are not differences between synthetics and organics, but that they are no different or greater of a threat than differences between different organic lifeforms.  This whole argument is based on a flawed belief that synthetic life is not equal to organic life and thus has a value less to that of organic life.  That is the exact same logic many atrocities committed on earth use... "they are different!  Their lives aren't as valuable!  It's okay to kill them!  It's not murder see!"

there is at least one relevant difference. As Legion said, synthetics know that they are created and by whom. Organics don't.
can this (and other differences), soon or later, lead to irreconcilable conflit? We don't know. Maybe.


concering the moral issue... I don't undestand why people believe that "if it's is logic/rational, is must be good/true".
True premises and valid logic can lead to horrible conclusions.

[Kabraxal]

kal_reegar wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...
It is sound... that is different from right.  

no, it's right (or valid), because the premises have not and cannot be proven false

And I'm not saying there are not differences between synthetics and organics, but that they are no different or greater of a threat than differences between different organic lifeforms.  This whole argument is based on a flawed belief that synthetic life is not equal to organic life and thus has a value less to that of organic life.  That is the exact same logic many atrocities committed on earth use... "they are different!  Their lives aren't as valuable!  It's okay to kill them!  It's not murder see!"

there is at least one relevant difference. As Legion said, synthetics know that they are created and by whom. Organics don't.
can this (and other differences), soon or later, lead to irreconcilable conflit? We don't know. Maybe.


concering the moral issue... I don't undestand why people believe that "if it's is logic/rational, is must be good/true".
True premises and valid logic can lead to horrible conclusions.

By that very logic than it can't be right either if I cede that his premise hasn't been proven false.  So either his premise is false and thus his logic is broken or his premise needs to be verified and thus you cannot say anything but his argument is sound.  But since this topic started with a claim about his logic being right and all the evidence we have supporting the opposite conclusion, then the simple claim his logic was sound is really pointless.  That was never the intent of the discussion.  It was about the logic being right... and the burden of proof is clearly not on the side of it being right.  You try to hand wave things away, but all the evidence that an inevitable extinction is unavoidable is just not there.  The evidence we do have clearly shows it isn't as dire or certain as the little Deus Ex Machina would have us believe.

[Enthalpy]

Excellent OP. And also kal_reegar's analysis a few pages back. Which really should be included in the OP, somehow.

[kal_reegar]

By that very logic than it can't be right either if I cede that his premise hasn't been proven false.  So either his premise is false and thus his logic is broken or his premise needs to be verified and thus you cannot say anything but his argument is sound.  But since this topic started with a claim about his logic being right and all the evidence we have supporting the opposite conclusion, then the simple claim his logic was sound is really pointless.  That was never the intent of the discussion.  It was about the logic being right... and the burden of proof is clearly not on the side of it being right.  You try to hand wave things away, but all the evidence that an inevitable extinction is unavoidable is just not there.  The evidence we do have clearly shows it isn't as dire or certain as the little Deus Ex Machina would have us believe.

You have a strange concept of logic.

The axioms, by definition, can't be proven. Or, if the can, they are proven by evidences which are based on unprovable axioms. You will reach a point where only faith anc conventions matter. You can't prove 'true' the axioms of math, of science, of logic itself, of how we agree empirical experience works.
They are useful, they 'works'.. nothing more.

Every opinion and belief is, at last, a matter of faith. The very fact that you are a thinking being with free will cannot be 'prove'

Logic is just how we elaborate consistent conclusions from opinable premises/axioms.

Tech singularity is the axiom of the catalyst. You can believe in it, or you can reject it. I personally don't believe in it and I ALWAYS choose destroy.
But the catalyst's actions and conclusions are perfectly rational, given the opinable premises.

[CosmicGnosis]

JShepppp wrote...

So overall, control was basically a cautious choice. I know you have been posting about different endings - what is your canon?

I don't have one. I've chosen all three at different points throughout the year, and I'm back to undecided. I think I'm just going to wait for all the DLC to be released. I'm hoping that by the time BioWare is finished with ME3, I will have a clear choice that fits me. That is, new information will allow me to feel more confident in committing to a particular choice.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 05 janvier 2013 - 04:45 .

[Sheepie Crusher]

Sorry, did I just read "catalyst" and "logic" in the same sentanse?

[CosmicGnosis]

Sheepie Crusher wrote...

Sorry, did I just read "catalyst" and "logic" in the same sentanse?

Yep. And maybe you'll be enlightened if you read the entire post.

[Mcfly616]

I wish everybody would read this thread before posting on BSN.

[JShepppp]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

So overall, control was basically a cautious choice. I know you have been posting about different endings - what is your canon?

I don't have one. I've chosen all three at different points throughout the year, and I'm back to undecided. I think I'm just going to wait for all the DLC to be released. I'm hoping that by the time BioWare is finished with ME3, I will have a clear choice that fits me. That is, new information will allow me to feel more confident in committing to a particular choice.

That sounds fair. At least one positive thing that can be said about the endings is that the moral dilemmas are relatively the same weight in each.

[JShepppp]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I wish everybody would read this thread before posting on BSN.

This is humbling. I wonder how threads get stickied - like if there is a process you go through to submit it for verification by Bioware employees. I have no idea how the forum works.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Kabraxal wrote...

The whole basis of his argument is that organics and synthetics are too different to coexist and that it will inevitably lead to organic extinction.  This is blatantly contradicted within the third and second games.   Shepard and the crew easily work with both Legion and EDI, then in 3 most players manage to broker peace between the Geth and Quarians (or side with the Geth completely over the Quarians) and EDI can be so accepted that an organic willingly embraces the chance to love her. 

I agree, this is a problem of how the game presents most of the AI. Namely, it shows the Geth and EDI as much too friendly than they should have been. They are further humanized by how the look - Legion gets "brows" and EDI gets a girly body. This conscious attempt at make them more likeable clashes with the idea of technological singularity producing an AI who doesn't like us at all.

Still, I believe the technological singularity remains a threat, as reinforced by Leviathans. It's just that Bioware hurt this view in their quest for creating likable characters.