450 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@OP:
Thanks for the update which I only just now noticed. Will do an extensive re-read later. This is a really good explanation for what's going on. Should be required reading for everyone.

[JShepppp]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@OP:
Thanks for the update which I only just now noticed. Will do an extensive re-read later. This is a really good explanation for what's going on. Should be required reading for everyone.

Thanks. Looking forward to your comments.

[Fixers0]

Faulty logic is faulty.

[saracen16]

Fixers0 wrote...

Faulty logic is faulty.

What does it matter?

Edit: good add-ons, OP. The Leviathan DLC definitely gave us more perspective on the Catalyst.

Modifié par saracen16, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:26 .

[Sheridan31]

The core point is that
snthetics always destroy the organics.
Henche a solution must be found.

I see that both EDI and the Geth develope a free mind.

However there where excepted as companions and EDI fits in nicely.

The Geth turned out to fight a defence war.

What is the:
inedability that syntethics
a) aways
start offensive wars (not just have their own mind)
c) that inediably destroys the organics

To me both organics against each other is just - at least - the same level of problem.

Why does the organic / synthetic problem justify what the reaper did while organic vs. organic fights do not?

[Baa Baa]

This thread hurts my penis.

[JShepppp]

[quote]Sheridan31 wrote...

The core point is that
snthetics always destroy the organics.
Henche a solution must be found.

I see that both EDI and the Geth develope a free mind.

However there where excepted as companions and EDI fits in nicely.

The Geth turned out to fight a defence war.

What is the:
inedability that syntethics[/quote]

I'm assuming you meant inevitability here for the following. By the way, Geth and EDI support the Catalyst because they rebelled and there was some initial conflict against their creators. It does not matter who starts the conflict - that's irrelevant.

[quote]
a) always[/quote]

I showed how synthetics can always rebel using deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning combined with what we see in Mass Effect in the OP, Section II.

[quoteb) start offensive wars (not just have their own mind)[/quote]

Nobody said who starts the conflict, only that it will occur.

[quote]c) that inediably destroys the organics[/quote]

This happened all the time under the Leviathans. Who are we to say that our under-1-year-observed-peace (depending on the game) is an exemplar when the Leviathans saw conflict and extinction happen over several, possibly thousands/millions, of years?

[quote]To me both organics against each other is just - at least - the same level of problem.

Why does the organic / synthetic problem justify what the reaper did while organic vs. organic fights do not?[/quote]

Nobody is justifying what the Reapers did. Obviously nobody likes what the Reapers did. The point of this post was to understand where the Catalyst is coming from and how it made the best of its impossible problem/programming.

[JShepppp]

saracen16 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Faulty logic is faulty.

What does it matter?

Edit: good add-ons, OP. The Leviathan DLC definitely gave us more perspective on the Catalyst.

Thanks. 

As for the faulty logic - it's kind of within the confines the Leviathans gave it, the Catalyst's conclusions aren't that far-fetched. Blame lies with the Leviathan.

[Sheridan31]

First off, thx for your answer.

c) that inediably destroys the organics

This happened all the time under the Leviathans. Who are we to say that our under-1-year-observed-peace (depending on the game) is an exemplar when the Leviathans saw conflict and extinction happen over several, possibly thousands/millions, of years?

I admit that it is *possible* that AI / synthetics always destroy organics.

To me we neither have a prove for or against the point that synthetics are different then organics in that aspect.

Grandet: Leviathan did told us from his experience that this is the case.

After the original ending. After the extended cut to give starchild a reason.

Let me assume for a moment Leviathan was first. Grandet we have a complete reason for starchild.

The motivation goes to Leviathan now. What made alle the synthetics in his age destroy the organics?

a) rebell. Granted.

What causes rebells to destruct? Teens rebell, they do not inediably kill their parents.... They come to an new relationship. Autonom and Peacefully. Like the Geth or EDI.


Point being:
leviathans experience ("They where all violant in our age") is not a logical explantion of WHY they are all violant in his age.  And thus no solid ground for the assumption that they are violent in our age.

In the experience i had in ME1-3 they where pretty much equally to organics when it comes to peace and violance.

In the end i feel like i should believe leviathan - with no rational explantion of why this happend in his age - and do a 3 way choice about the synthethic problem i have neither experienced nor rationaly be explained.

Leaves me with: ohh... i don´t know, destroy the reaper.

Of course i can come up with my own reasons why synthethics want to destroy everything, but it´s not a discussed moral conflict by the antagonist (former Starchild) now Leviathan.

[TK EL_]

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much evidence you can gather toward the catalyst making sense, it is still glaringly obvious that the writers did not give it anywhere as much thought as you're doing now (there is actual evidence to this) hence all you are doing is speculating; grabbing puzzle pieces from the series to match a picture that was drawn independent of regard to those pieces.

[Ieldra]

@JShepppp:
Here a few comments:

All in all, a really thorough attempt at making sense of the whole thing. It's basically what I use to link my decisions to the larger problem, even though in the end I think that in order to make a decision, making sense of the Catalyst is not very relevant.

Reading this, btw., makes it just more annoying to realize that the writers didn't think this through. Not until making the EC, but by then I think fan input like your first Catalyst Logic thread saved their asses. To some degree. In places, the phrasing still appears as if they don't understand what they're writing.

Having read to Section VI so far. I have no major issues with anything you've said. For nitpicks see below. I like the section about morality. It echoes what I've always thought: that the cycle is a cosmic accident and that nobody was acting from malice. Even the leviathans can only be blamed for being stupid with the Catalyst's programming. There is responsibility, yes, but there is no villain.

Nitpicks:

Section II:
You are quoting the Catalyst incorrectly. It goes: "Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. But those improvements have limits....." I don't recall the rest but there's something wrong about it either. I think it's important that you quote the exact phrasing.

Section V:
I'd rephrase it somewhat like this: "Synthesis is a necessary condition for a lasting peace, but not a sufficient one because in the end, peace can only come about if everyone wants it. In addition, any conflicts that will arise after Synthesis will not inevitably result in the extinction of organics since they now have the means to upgrade themselves by seamlessly integrating technology."
I think the latter sentence is important because conflicts can still arise after-Synthesis as you rightly conclude, but if that's the case and nothing else has changed, what does it do to prevent the extinction scenario.

Section VI:
Note that only Paragon Shepard says the line implying that killing a Reaper is an act of mercy. If you choose the left option, you're asking for an explanation instead of making an assertion.

[JShepppp]

Got it, Ieldra. Yeah I really should quote the Catalyst correctly there (whoops), I'll clarify the morality part (I know the renegade version kills it with another blast), and I'll quote you for the synthesis part. I'll update it in a bit.

[JShepppp]

Sheridan31 wrote...

First off, thx for your answer.

c) that inediably destroys the organics

This happened all the time under the Leviathans. Who are we to say that our under-1-year-observed-peace (depending on the game) is an exemplar when the Leviathans saw conflict and extinction happen over several, possibly thousands/millions, of years?

I admit that it is *possible* that AI / synthetics always destroy organics.

To me we neither have a prove for or against the point that synthetics are different then organics in that aspect.

Grandet: Leviathan did told us from his experience that this is the case.

After the original ending. After the extended cut to give starchild a reason.

Let me assume for a moment Leviathan was first. Grandet we have a complete reason for starchild.

The motivation goes to Leviathan now. What made alle the synthetics in his age destroy the organics?

a) rebell. Granted.

What causes rebells to destruct? Teens rebell, they do not inediably kill their parents.... They come to an new relationship. Autonom and Peacefully. Like the Geth or EDI.


Point being:
leviathans experience ("They where all violant in our age") is not a logical explantion of WHY they are all violant in his age.  And thus no solid ground for the assumption that they are violent in our age.

In the experience i had in ME1-3 they where pretty much equally to organics when it comes to peace and violance.

In the end i feel like i should believe leviathan - with no rational explantion of why this happend in his age - and do a 3 way choice about the synthethic problem i have neither experienced nor rationaly be explained.

Leaves me with: ohh... i don´t know, destroy the reaper.

Of course i can come up with my own reasons why synthethics want to destroy everything, but it´s not a discussed moral conflict by the antagonist (former Starchild) now Leviathan.

That is an interesting point in particular (the one I underlined). I would guess it would be because of stuff like a tech singularity, slavery/freedom conflicts, etc., but you are correct that Leviathan does not give us a reason why and just gives evidence that it happened. 

The Catalyst was made to solve that problem regardless, though. 

But I wonder why it kept happening. Perhaps the thralls developed a superiority complex over their synthetics like Leviathan and thus never regarded them as equals, always trying to subjugate them. Eventually their synthetics realized they'd never get equal freedom and just wiped out their creators. Just speculation, of course.

[JasonShepard]

Not to wake up an old thread, but, well, like the EC I was late to Leviathan as well...

In any case, I agree that Leviathan largely confirms and supports your ideas in this thread, JShepppp. In fact, I half-suspect that the writers... if not took your ideas, used this thread to crystallise their own ideas (since this thread started life as reading between the lines of evidence from ME3...)

At this point, I think we can say that if anyone is to blame for this Reaper-cycle mess, then the Leviathans are. However, going back to the idea that I aired in my last post - that something was responsible for keeping the Crucible designs around - I do believe that this was the Leviathans. I don't think they designed it - both they and the Catalyst say otherwise - but their indoctrination-esque artefacts would be more than sufficient for both watching the Crucible design evolve, and ensuring its continued existence. While I'm heading into headcanon (again) here, I think that was the reason for the Leviathan's slight 'shifty-eyes': they didn't make it, but they did keep it going.

On my latest playthrough, I did notice something... interesting about the Control option. The Catalyst says something to the effect of "I am not looking forward to being replaced by you." if you pick the Renegade option of dialogue when Control is presented. In other words, the Catalyst has preferences and doesn't like Control. I just found that worth mentioning, since it implies the Catalyst is not a purely logical being.
Logically, it seems to consider control (and, of course, Destroy) as better options than the Reapers, since the Reaper solution has been demonstrated to be flawed. That doesn't mean that it likes either of these options.  (The Renegade, dislike-Control dialogue pretty much has Shepard and the Catalyst agreeing that they neither of them like that choice!)

Anyway, JasonShepard out. Until the next crazy idea strikes me, or until the next DLC sheds more light on all of this... (I'm personally waiting for a Crucible designers DLC, but Bioware may be planning a whole other game for that...)

Modifié par JasonShepard, 30 septembre 2012 - 11:22 .

[WhiteKnyght]

masster blaster wrote...

Sorry for the post JShepppp, but the Catalyst is dead wrong about everything it is telling us, even though it's using pure logic that is the basic question of life.

The Leviathans didn't program the Catalyst to take morals into account. They wanted it to solve the problem, by any means.

If you think with cold logic, the Catalyst is right.

If you think with ethics, the Catalyst is always wrong. Because ethically speaking "killing people is wrong," "controlling people is wrong," etc.

The Catalyst is another case of  "someone having to make the hard/difficult decisions for the greater good" which Donovan Hock, Warden Kuril, and Gavin Archer all reference.

Simply put, the Catalyst is programmed to be pragmatic.

_______________________________________________

Another somewhat reasonable argument for the Reapers is that exterminating advanced civilizations, which only have a few thousand years in space before being wiped out, slows the consumption of resources.

1. A planet that has been harvested of all plantlife or had all plantlife wiped out by "progress" will have time to grow and flourish again. Example: Eden Prime in from Ashes. It's a slummy metropolis in the vids of the last cycle, and Javik is surprised to see it green and full of vegetation.

2. Mineral resources, like Element Zero, Platinum, and other elements that are used for construction, fuel, etc don't replenish themselves. And advanced civlizations would consume it all. Expansionism would delay their downfall, but once the galaxy runs out, that's it. And unless they can set up gigantic relays between galaxies, they're screwed. And even that would be a temporary solution because the number of galaxies in the universe is arguably limited and they arguably have their own races consuming resources.

So in a way, the Reapers are protecting organics as a whole from themselves as well.

[StarcloudSWG]

Actually, they do replenish themselves. It just takes a damn long time for a supernova to coalesce back into planets and stars.

[StarcloudSWG]

 I never doubted that, by the Catalyst AI's own limited framework, it was logically correct. Just that it was acting from a badly flawed premise.

Nothing you have said has changed that, or that ultimately, the only long-term solution to the immediate crisis is to eliminate the Reapers and the Catalyst AI.

I do appreciate the clarification and the thought you've put into this. It does explain why the Destroy choice is offered instead of Shepard being guided away from it, and with a little extension, I could see why the Destroy choice is always offered even in low EMS saves.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 01 octobre 2012 - 06:59 .

[Davik Kang]

Yo just came across this thread. I don't agree with everything in the OP but wanted to say it is a really thorough and well-expressed piece, with a whole bunch of very clever points. I am really impressed, enjoyed the read, and learned a lot. Thanks.

[CosmicGnosis]

Great thread. This deserves to be read.

[Cutter10]

You have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this, and at this point this board is almost exclusively populated by the fans who still have a soft spot for this game. Because of that, part of me feels like I am wasting my time. Still - there's enough resentment inside me towards the sloppy job Bioware did to bang a drum here. Nothing good will come from any of you retroactively justifying their dreck just to assuage your cognitive dissonance. The more of that we let happen - the less respect Bioware will have for their fans.

So, a few holes to shoot in your conclusions:

1) Proclaiming conflict between organics and synthetics as inevitable requires some sort of blindly fatalistic worldview, and not a clear analysis of possibilities. While I saw that your reasoning was good enough to demonstrate the possibility of such conflict - the fact that it might occur does not make it inevitable. There is just no good logical basis for ever predicting the future with 100% certainty - and when your only other solution to that conflict involves eradication of sentient organics, that starts to look like an awfully faulty conclusion based on all too limited data.

2) Your piece uses the word "conflict" as a kind of synonym for "complete extermination." But conflict isn't actually a negative, immoral or frightful thing - as far as the development of life is concerned, "conflict" is a great thing. The fact that, logically speaking, organics and synthetics will possibly come to blows is just one part of complex system of testing and growing and straining and adapting that is life evolving. Not only will organics and synthetics fight, they will also cooperate, and ignore one another, and fracture and develop yet further into even more complex and differentiated populations. In fact, the absolute worst response to this environment is to kill every thinking creature in it.

Thanks for trying, and yes - you can pick up the pieces of Bioware's trash and make a kind of impressionistic picture with it. I would even name you a kind of artist, for seeing so much in the little they gave us. You shouldn't have to work so hard, let Bioware do it next time.

[trickyz173]

“The Catalyst is likely technically shackled, but practically unshackled; that is, it is still following its programming, but its programming parameters are so wide ("at any cost") that it can do pretty much anything. This is largely irrelevant to the line of reasoning that follows, but it is an interesting discussion point.”

“The Catalyst can change its methods, as it reveals it has done other “solutions” besides the Reapers, so its inability to activate the Crucible is not an indicator of a shackled AI; it’s more likely an indicator of how the Crucible was designed – the Catalyst can only allow it to fire (or stop it from firing), but it cannot actually fire it. Consider the Catalyst to be the lock on the door - it can stop the door from opening or closing, but it cannot actually open the door. “

“Overall, the Catalyst is basically a “higher form of AI” that exists purely to fulfill its purpose.”
“The Catalyst does not care about morals because it was not made to care about morals. It was made to find the answer to an impossible problem”
“I think it actually displays a certain rigidity on the Catalyst's character by portraying it as unwavering in solving its impossible problem, as it has been doing for almost a billion years. It does not have any moral sentiments”
“The Catalyst is DIFFERENT. It is not better, nicer, crueler, or any of the combination; just does not care. Its moral codes and actions are not fueled by power. They are fueled by its programming and the impossible task its creators put upon it. It does not care at all about its own survival. It is a machine trapped in an impossible loop that its creators, unknowingly, forced it into.”

Great post! Wish I had read it and responded to it when you wrote it…but I have a different opinion about the Catalyst and I am going to use the above quotes to support my theory. I believe that the Catalyst is not an AI at all, you state that because of its massive computing power and ability to control reapers and Mass Relays across an entire galaxy makes it close to god. I would argue that a VI could do the same and that computing power does not give the Catalyst any traits associated with an AI. The Catalyst as you say has one rigid goal and it appears to be shackled and it can never deviate from that goal. This is because it can’t it is a VI and not an AI. Notice how EDI asks you deep moral questions and even wants to reprogram her own logic chips. EDI was not designed to have morals just like the Catalyst. However the Catalyst never asked these or any moral questions and never was able to adjust its logic because it is a VI. It needs Shepard to make the choice because it is (IMO) unable to chose.

Modifié par trickyz173, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:55 .

[Eckswhyzed]

Cutter10 wrote...

You have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this, and at this point this board is almost exclusively populated by the fans who still have a soft spot for this game. Because of that, part of me feels like I am wasting my time. Still - there's enough resentment inside me towards the sloppy job Bioware did to bang a drum here. Nothing good will come from any of you retroactively justifying their dreck just to assuage your cognitive dissonance. The more of that we let happen - the less respect Bioware will have for their fans.

So, a few holes to shoot in your conclusions:

1) Proclaiming conflict between organics and synthetics as inevitable requires some sort of blindly fatalistic worldview, and not a clear analysis of possibilities. While I saw that your reasoning was good enough to demonstrate the possibility of such conflict - the fact that it might occur does not make it inevitable. There is just no good logical basis for ever predicting the future with 100% certainty - and when your only other solution to that conflict involves eradication of sentient organics, that starts to look like an awfully faulty conclusion based on all too limited data.

2) Your piece uses the word "conflict" as a kind of synonym for "complete extermination." But conflict isn't actually a negative, immoral or frightful thing - as far as the development of life is concerned, "conflict" is a great thing. The fact that, logically speaking, organics and synthetics will possibly come to blows is just one part of complex system of testing and growing and straining and adapting that is life evolving. Not only will organics and synthetics fight, they will also cooperate, and ignore one another, and fracture and develop yet further into even more complex and differentiated populations. In fact, the absolute worst response to this environment is to kill every thinking creature in it.

Thanks for trying, and yes - you can pick up the pieces of Bioware's trash and make a kind of impressionistic picture with it. I would even name you a kind of artist, for seeing so much in the little they gave us. You shouldn't have to work so hard, let Bioware do it next time.

"You have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this, and at
this point this board is almost exclusively populated by the fans who
still have a soft spot for this game."

Oh, how I wish that were true. The Original Ending fan club is a small and lonely one.

"1. Proclaiming conflict between organics and synthetics as inevitable
requires some sort of blindly fatalistic worldview, and not a clear
analysis of possibilities"

It doesn't need to be 100% certain that organic-synthetic conflict will occur, just that it is sufficiently likely enough to occur that something needs to be done about it. The Catalyst has data on organic-synthetic conflicts occurring for at least 37 million years/740 cycles (age of derelict reaper), and likely more than that (going back to the age of the Leviathans and presumably any information the Leviathans had.

"Not only will organics and synthetics fight, they will also cooperate,
and ignore one another, and fracture and develop yet further into even
more complex and differentiated populations."

I refer you to this part:

"The other part is that such a conflict is a problem. Again, we have
evidence from Leviathan that the lesser races would pretty much get
wiped out by their creations. Deductively, every time the Catalyst has
NOT been there, it has happened. The Catalyst gathered a bunch of data,
as we know from Leviathan, to arrive at its conclusion about this being
inevitable. "

Sorry, but billions of years of historical data aren't on your side here.
Might I also add how good it is to have an intelligent, resonable discussion in the Story forums for once?

[kal_reegar]

JShepppp wrote...

Thus Shepard "changed the variables". Naturally, if Shepard refuses, the Catalyst will take the "least worst" or "next best" solution, the Reapers, again. Only Shepard can choose the Crucible's options, and as they are all better than the Catalyst's own solution, the Catalyst brings Shepard up even to choose Destroy if need be.

I've one question...

why "only Shepard can choose"? It makes sense with synthesis, and maybe with control too. He's special etc.
but what about destroy (if we assume that this option is now better than harvest)? 

if shepard does nothing or choose refusal ending, it appears that the catalyst/reapers destroy the crucible.
but why didn't the catalyst wait for another human (I'm sure Hackett would have send someone), and let him choose at least destroy? Nothing "special" is required, only to have a gun and a few bullets.


my hypothesis is that the crucible would explode anyway (the catalyst says "we have no time" if I'm not wrong), causing the catalyst "death"... is there any evidence that the crucible is destroyed by the reapers? Couldn't it simply be overloaded (or something like that)?

So maybe the catalyst is "helping" Shepard not because he changed so deeply the variable -> harvest is still the better option, abstraclty (and destroy/control the worst), but harvest is no longer succesfully practicable (the crucible and so the citadel/catalyst will blow up anyway, leaving the reapers without a guide -> next cycle will win in any case)




 

[PsyrenY]

How did I miss this thread? *Inserts into sig*

[Laforgus]

I like this Thread!!! It have the same content that i have been talking about all this week.

I was about to make a "Understanding the Catalyst" tread myself, but thanks to JShepppp for saving me of making this.

*Adds to sig as well* 

Modifié par Laforgus, 07 décembre 2012 - 07:17 .