351 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

He makes perfect sense to me.....his logic is quite obviously faulty

[memorysquid]

Dharvy wrote...

 @Any0day You complete narrative of the Catalyst puts somethings into perspective.

After reading everything the Catalyst said it does in a way makes sense. For the people becrying the probability and how the catalyst's absolute of it will always end in conflict. Well it said, and I quote: 


"I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life.. to establish a connection. But our efforts ALWAYS ended in conflict, so a new solution was required."

Seriously.  Did they try for a billion years before the Catalyst finally said "**** it!" and Reaperized everyone?  Did he only try twice?  The writers don't say; they didn't consider it particularly relevant to the dilemma apparently.

[Mcfly616]

memorysquid wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

 @Any0day You complete narrative of the Catalyst puts somethings into perspective.

After reading everything the Catalyst said it does in a way makes sense. For the people becrying the probability and how the catalyst's absolute of it will always end in conflict. Well it said, and I quote: 


"I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life.. to establish a connection. But our efforts ALWAYS ended in conflict, so a new solution was required."

Seriously.  Did they try for a billion years before the Catalyst finally said "**** it!" and Reaperized everyone?  Did he only try twice?  The writers don't say; they didn't consider it particularly relevant to the dilemma apparently.

this is the problem with people saying the endings are bad.....you're asking for irrelevant information. Every Sci Fi saga out there leaves some amount of story to be left up for interpretation. Yet so many people are quick to call it a "plot hole"....

Who prophesized the Prophecy of The One.....and when? How old was Palpatine really? And honestly, who in the name of Zeus' butthole was Jedi Master Sipho Dios? Was it Palpatine/Sidious? Idk.... NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE EXPLAINED.....


Why? Because its pretty much irrelevant to the big picture....


He was created for a purpose. He came to a conclusion. Because of twisted logic he enslaved his creators and started a genocidal cycle that lasted aeons, by which he thought he was solving the problem. Shepard proves him wrong. He concurs and allows Shepard to choose a new solution, essentially breaking the cycle....

The EC provides all "relevant" information needed. Some things are meant to be "speculated"...it is Sci Fi after all.....nature of the beast and all that......

[Joeybsmooth4]

Mcfly616 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

 @Any0day You complete narrative of the Catalyst puts somethings into perspective.

After reading everything the Catalyst said it does in a way makes sense. For the people becrying the probability and how the catalyst's absolute of it will always end in conflict. Well it said, and I quote: 


"I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life.. to establish a connection. But our efforts ALWAYS ended in conflict, so a new solution was required."

Seriously.  Did they try for a billion years before the Catalyst finally said "**** it!" and Reaperized everyone?  Did he only try twice?  The writers don't say; they didn't consider it particularly relevant to the dilemma apparently.

this is the problem with people saying the endings are bad.....you're asking for irrelevant information. Every Sci Fi saga out there leaves some amount of story to be left up for interpretation. Yet so many people are quick to call it a "plot hole"....

Who prophesized the Prophecy of The One.....and when? How old was Palpatine really? And honestly, who in the name of Zeus' butthole was Jedi Master Sipho Dios? Was it Palpatine/Sidious? Idk.... NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE EXPLAINED.....


Why? Because its pretty much irrelevant to the big picture....


He was created for a purpose. He came to a conclusion. Because of twisted logic he enslaved his creators and started a genocidal cycle that lasted aeons, by which he thought he was solving the problem. Shepard proves him wrong. He concurs and allows Shepard to choose a new solution, essentially breaking the cycle....

The EC provides all "relevant" information needed. Some things are meant to be "speculated"...it is Sci Fi after all.....nature of the beast and all that......

Some things are ok to be speculated.. and all question don't need to be answered . Like what is the Force. It was better when it was Just the Force not midichlorians. Who built the Transformers ( cartoon Transforms not movie) . And things like that . These are things to speculate about. However this star child opens up a world of contrdictions . The writer of this post pointed out many of these . And you can write them off just has the AI  doiing crazy AI things.

HAL 9000 was using bad logic . Start Child was using NO logic.

[Mcfly616]

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

 @Any0day You complete narrative of the Catalyst puts somethings into perspective.

After reading everything the Catalyst said it does in a way makes sense. For the people becrying the probability and how the catalyst's absolute of it will always end in conflict. Well it said, and I quote: 


"I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life.. to establish a connection. But our efforts ALWAYS ended in conflict, so a new solution was required."

Seriously.  Did they try for a billion years before the Catalyst finally said "**** it!" and Reaperized everyone?  Did he only try twice?  The writers don't say; they didn't consider it particularly relevant to the dilemma apparently.

this is the problem with people saying the endings are bad.....you're asking for irrelevant information. Every Sci Fi saga out there leaves some amount of story to be left up for interpretation. Yet so many people are quick to call it a "plot hole"....

Who prophesized the Prophecy of The One.....and when? How old was Palpatine really? And honestly, who in the name of Zeus' butthole was Jedi Master Sipho Dios? Was it Palpatine/Sidious? Idk.... NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE EXPLAINED.....


Why? Because its pretty much irrelevant to the big picture....


He was created for a purpose. He came to a conclusion. Because of twisted logic he enslaved his creators and started a genocidal cycle that lasted aeons, by which he thought he was solving the problem. Shepard proves him wrong. He concurs and allows Shepard to choose a new solution, essentially breaking the cycle....

The EC provides all "relevant" information needed. Some things are meant to be "speculated"...it is Sci Fi after all.....nature of the beast and all that......

Some things are ok to be speculated.. and all question don't need to be answered . Like what is the Force. It was better when it was Just the Force not midichlorians. Who built the Transformers ( cartoon Transforms not movie) . And things like that . These are things to speculate about. However this star child opens up a world of contrdictions . The writer of this post pointed out many of these . And you can write them off just has the AI  doiing crazy AI things.

HAL 9000 was using bad logic . Start Child was using NO logic.

its funny you said that.....I find the StarBrat a lot like HAL 9000(especially after the EC)....

[Legion of 1337]

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

 @Any0day You complete narrative of the Catalyst puts somethings into perspective.

After reading everything the Catalyst said it does in a way makes sense. For the people becrying the probability and how the catalyst's absolute of it will always end in conflict. Well it said, and I quote: 


"I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life.. to establish a connection. But our efforts ALWAYS ended in conflict, so a new solution was required."

Seriously.  Did they try for a billion years before the Catalyst finally said "**** it!" and Reaperized everyone?  Did he only try twice?  The writers don't say; they didn't consider it particularly relevant to the dilemma apparently.

this is the problem with people saying the endings are bad.....you're asking for irrelevant information. Every Sci Fi saga out there leaves some amount of story to be left up for interpretation. Yet so many people are quick to call it a "plot hole"....

Who prophesized the Prophecy of The One.....and when? How old was Palpatine really? And honestly, who in the name of Zeus' butthole was Jedi Master Sipho Dios? Was it Palpatine/Sidious? Idk.... NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE EXPLAINED.....


Why? Because its pretty much irrelevant to the big picture....


He was created for a purpose. He came to a conclusion. Because of twisted logic he enslaved his creators and started a genocidal cycle that lasted aeons, by which he thought he was solving the problem. Shepard proves him wrong. He concurs and allows Shepard to choose a new solution, essentially breaking the cycle....

The EC provides all "relevant" information needed. Some things are meant to be "speculated"...it is Sci Fi after all.....nature of the beast and all that......

Some things are ok to be speculated.. and all question don't need to be answered . Like what is the Force. It was better when it was Just the Force not midichlorians. Who built the Transformers ( cartoon Transforms not movie) . And things like that . These are things to speculate about. However this star child opens up a world of contrdictions . The writer of this post pointed out many of these . And you can write them off just has the AI  doiing crazy AI things.

HAL 9000 was using bad logic . Start Child was using NO logic.

Actually the Catalyst uses perfect logic. The problem is it was designed to solve an impossble problem, so its solution is also flawed.

[Any0day]

CronoDragoon wrote...


I came into this kind of late, but if you are trying to handwave the statement that the Crucible is only an energy source...you can't. It's a direct line from the game, from someone who would know. Now, if we are just showing that there is evidence both ways, I agree.

Just pointing out the error of your logic. The Catalyst says "The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source." That statement does not say that the crucible is Only a power source.
Little more than is analogous to Mostly not Only

[Grimwick]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

 @Any0day You complete narrative of the Catalyst puts somethings into perspective.

After reading everything the Catalyst said it does in a way makes sense. For the people becrying the probability and how the catalyst's absolute of it will always end in conflict. Well it said, and I quote: 


"I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life.. to establish a connection. But our efforts ALWAYS ended in conflict, so a new solution was required."

Seriously.  Did they try for a billion years before the Catalyst finally said "**** it!" and Reaperized everyone?  Did he only try twice?  The writers don't say; they didn't consider it particularly relevant to the dilemma apparently.

this is the problem with people saying the endings are bad.....you're asking for irrelevant information. Every Sci Fi saga out there leaves some amount of story to be left up for interpretation. Yet so many people are quick to call it a "plot hole"....

Who prophesized the Prophecy of The One.....and when? How old was Palpatine really? And honestly, who in the name of Zeus' butthole was Jedi Master Sipho Dios? Was it Palpatine/Sidious? Idk.... NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE EXPLAINED.....


Why? Because its pretty much irrelevant to the big picture....


He was created for a purpose. He came to a conclusion. Because of twisted logic he enslaved his creators and started a genocidal cycle that lasted aeons, by which he thought he was solving the problem. Shepard proves him wrong. He concurs and allows Shepard to choose a new solution, essentially breaking the cycle....

The EC provides all "relevant" information needed. Some things are meant to be "speculated"...it is Sci Fi after all.....nature of the beast and all that......

Some things are ok to be speculated.. and all question don't need to be answered . Like what is the Force. It was better when it was Just the Force not midichlorians. Who built the Transformers ( cartoon Transforms not movie) . And things like that . These are things to speculate about. However this star child opens up a world of contrdictions . The writer of this post pointed out many of these . And you can write them off just has the AI  doiing crazy AI things.

HAL 9000 was using bad logic . Start Child was using NO logic.

Actually the Catalyst uses perfect logic. The problem is it was designed to solve an impossble problem, so its solution is also flawed.

No, the problem is the premise around which his solution his based.

Not necessarily the 'problem' it was designed for, but the assumptions they made based on that problem.

The solution is therefore renderred logically invalid because the premises' are.

[Any0day]

Grimwick wrote...

The solution is therefore renderred logically invalid because the premises' are.

Again, this is invalid logic.
Here's an example:

P: All Murderer's are Sinners
P: All People are Murderer's.
therefore: All People are Sinners.
That is not logically invalid.

Here's the Catalyst's logic:

P: Synthetics always Rebel against Organics
P: Synthetics Rebellion against Organics always causes Chaos
P: Chaos leads to Loss of Civilization
P: Loss of Civilization must be Prevented
Therefore: Chaos must be Stopped Permenantly

it's not perfect because I haven't thought long and hard about it, but essentially the premise being false does not make the solution false.

[Dharvy]

memorysquid wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

 @Any0day You complete narrative of the Catalyst puts somethings into perspective.

After reading everything the Catalyst said it does in a way makes sense. For the people becrying the probability and how the catalyst's absolute of it will always end in conflict. Well it said, and I quote: 


"I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life.. to establish a connection. But our efforts ALWAYS ended in conflict, so a new solution was required."

Seriously.  Did they try for a billion years before the Catalyst finally said "**** it!" and Reaperized everyone?  Did he only try twice?  The writers don't say; they didn't consider it particularly relevant to the dilemma apparently.

You're right we don't know how many conflicts it took before the catalyst reaperized solution. But how many times/years do you need to finally say alright you can now start reaperizing the galaxy? 100 Years? 1k? 1mil? 1bil?

But think on this, we all die at sometime, its inevitable. We live and then we die. Every race, every species, organics live and then eventually die. The Reapers consider themselves preserving the organic/synthetic life upon death in the form of a Reapers, against there percieved probable threat of a conflict between Synthetics and Organics that would do nearly the same thing the Reapers are already doing but more complete and no preserving. It'll be the end to all organics forever, never to be seen or heard of again, never to come back, organic civilization gone to never come back. Like I said, a back up, storage, if you will, versus a simple delete.

We as humans/organics have hope, something that may be foreign to an AI. You see, we see probability and we just hope it won't happen to us or in the case of gambling and lotteries hope it does. Whereas an AI would analyze the probability and judge if the likelyhood warrants action especially if on one hand the outcome is catastrophically irreversible.

We even burn fields to make way for new growth. The question is do the Reapers look at organics/synthetics problem as they look at themselves? Or do they look at the problem as we look at cattle, crops, insects, or animals? Ever since ME1 I kind of had in the back of my head that the Reapers viewed us much like we viewed other life forms that are considered less than us, (especially with all the "we are order, you chaos" talk) animals, plant life, insects etc. Are they valuing individual life? Or life collectively?

It does makes sense if you'll allow it. Yes we can all get together and think of a million different ways to solve the problem the catalyst had to solve without going the genocidal route but stories need for viewers to suspend disbelief, I opt to believe they no doubt tried many sololutions throughout the cycles including in its own. I can't tell you have many movies, games, and books that I thought I came up with better solutions than the writers.

[Mazebook]

Any0day wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...


I came into this kind of late, but if you are trying to handwave the statement that the Crucible is only an energy source...you can't. It's a direct line from the game, from someone who would know. Now, if we are just showing that there is evidence both ways, I agree.

Just pointing out the error of your logic. The Catalyst says "The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source." That statement does not say that the crucible is Only a power source.
Little more than is analogous to Mostly not Only

thank you for pointing this out...I suspected that this was the case...(english 2nd language)

[Grimwick]

maaaze wrote...

Any0day wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...


I came into this kind of late, but if you are trying to handwave the statement that the Crucible is only an energy source...you can't. It's a direct line from the game, from someone who would know. Now, if we are just showing that there is evidence both ways, I agree.

Just pointing out the error of your logic. The Catalyst says "The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source." That statement does not say that the crucible is Only a power source.
Little more than is analogous to Mostly not Only

thank you for pointing this out...I suspected that this was the case...(english 2nd language)

And the word mostly highlights the fact that it hardly changed anything.

What you are suggesting isn't a small thing.

[KingZayd]

Any0day wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...


I came into this kind of late, but if you are trying to handwave the statement that the Crucible is only an energy source...you can't. It's a direct line from the game, from someone who would know. Now, if we are just showing that there is evidence both ways, I agree.

Just pointing out the error of your logic. The Catalyst says "The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source." That statement does not say that the crucible is Only a power source.
Little more than is analogous to Mostly not Only

Little more implies "basically this, with like ribbons/buttons/a vibrate function"

If it is able to compel the Starchild to present the options to you, or is able to destroy the Reapers, then it's not "little more than a power source". It's "a lot more than a power source"

[Grimwick]

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The solution is therefore renderred logically invalid because the premises' are.

Again, this is invalid logic.
Here's an example:

P: All Murderer's are Sinners
P: All People are Murderer's.
therefore: All People are Sinners.
That is not logically invalid.

Irrelevant.

Here's the Catalyst's logic:

P: Synthetics always Rebel against Organics
P: Synthetics Rebellion against Organics always causes Chaos
P: Chaos leads to Loss of Civilization
P: Loss of Civilization must be Prevented
Therefore: Chaos must be Stopped Permenantly

This doesn't show anything.  In fact, the middle 2 points are unnecessary and irrelevant. And the actual solution of the catalyst directly contradicts what you just said.

A better example from what you are saying would be:

P: Synthetics always rebel against organics.
P: Rebelling kills all organics.
->S: To stop them killing all organics, we kill all organics.

The 'therefore'/'s' bit is just wrong. It is invalid because if the initial premise is false then no solution is needed.

it's not perfect because I haven't thought long and hard about it, but essentially the premise being false does not make the solution false.

Yes it does.

Premise: Babies cause wars.
Premise: Wars kill many people.
Solution: To stop killing wars many people, we kill the babies!

If the premise is invalid the resulting logic and, more importantly, the solution is renderred invalid also.

Modifié par Grimwick, 11 juillet 2012 - 11:43 .

[djarlaks10]

Catalyst is a ****ed up AI, of course he makes no sense.

[Revthejedi]

Weren't the Catalyst's creator's the civilization used to make the first reaper? How can the catalyst claim witness to synthetics destroying organic civilization if its creators were killed by the Catalyst?

[Revthejedi]

Doublepost. 

Modifié par Revthejedi, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:22 .

[Dharvy]

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The solution is therefore renderred logically invalid because the premises' are.

Again, this is invalid logic.
Here's an example:

P: All Murderer's are Sinners
P: All People are Murderer's.
therefore: All People are Sinners.
That is not logically invalid.

Irrelevant.

Here's the Catalyst's logic:

P: Synthetics always Rebel against Organics
P: Synthetics Rebellion against Organics always causes Chaos
P: Chaos leads to Loss of Civilization
P: Loss of Civilization must be Prevented
Therefore: Chaos must be Stopped Permenantly

This doesn't show anything.  In fact, the middle 2 points are unnecessary and irrelevant. And the actual solution of the catalyst directly contradicts what you just said.

A better example from what you are saying would be:

P: Synthetics always rebel against organics.
P: Rebelling kills all organics.
->S: To stop them killing all organics, we kill all organics.

The 'therefore'/'s' bit is just wrong. It is invalid because if the initial premise is false then no solution is needed.

it's not perfect because I haven't thought long and hard about it, but essentially the premise being false does not make the solution false.

Yes it does.

Premise: Babies cause wars.
Premise: Wars kill many people.
Solution: To stop killing wars many people, we kill the babies!

If the premise is invalid the resulting logic and, more importantly, the solution is renderred invalid also.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying we have no bases for the statement that "Synthetics will always rebel and that their rebellion would result in the death of Organic Civilization?" And sense we have no bases for that the logic that they would always rebel is illogical?

First of all, to me, even after the scene with Javik and Shepards speaking on such, Synthetics will nearly always, eventually, rebel. Even though we see that they didn't neccessarrily rebel against the Quarians in the Morning War don't mean if the Quarians didn't act in fear the questions the Geth were asking would have eventually led to them rebelling.

So would synthetics always rebel? Maybe not, but logic and reason dictates that its a high probability. Maybe not with the first or second, but somewhere down the line they would realize that their creators are flawed and cold hard logic demands to get rid of the flaw before it effects your own self-perservation.

[Grimwick]

Dharvy wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Any0day wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The solution is therefore renderred logically invalid because the premises' are.

Again, this is invalid logic.
Here's an example:

P: All Murderer's are Sinners
P: All People are Murderer's.
therefore: All People are Sinners.
That is not logically invalid.

Irrelevant.

Here's the Catalyst's logic:

P: Synthetics always Rebel against Organics
P: Synthetics Rebellion against Organics always causes Chaos
P: Chaos leads to Loss of Civilization
P: Loss of Civilization must be Prevented
Therefore: Chaos must be Stopped Permenantly

This doesn't show anything.  In fact, the middle 2 points are unnecessary and irrelevant. And the actual solution of the catalyst directly contradicts what you just said.

A better example from what you are saying would be:

P: Synthetics always rebel against organics.
P: Rebelling kills all organics.
->S: To stop them killing all organics, we kill all organics.

The 'therefore'/'s' bit is just wrong. It is invalid because if the initial premise is false then no solution is needed.

it's not perfect because I haven't thought long and hard about it, but essentially the premise being false does not make the solution false.

Yes it does.

Premise: Babies cause wars.
Premise: Wars kill many people.
Solution: To stop killing wars many people, we kill the babies!

If the premise is invalid the resulting logic and, more importantly, the solution is renderred invalid also.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying we have no bases for the statement that "Synthetics will always rebel and that their rebellion would result in the death of Organic Civilization?" And sense we have no bases for that the logic that they would always rebel is illogical?

Correct. This is the actual basis of the logic - the very core of the argument and the solution.

However the second premise is also another point to consider. Even if they always rebel, does it necessarily mean that everyone is killed? This is another point which renders the SC's genocide tactics as completely absurd.

First of all, to me, even after the scene with Javik and Shepards speaking on such, Synthetics will nearly always, eventually, rebel. Even though we see that they didn't neccessarrily rebel against the Quarians in the Morning War don't mean if the Quarians didn't act in fear the questions the Geth were asking would have eventually led to them rebelling.

To prove that something will always occur requires a remarkably significant amount of evidence. In fact, to prove something to infinity requires infinite evidence. Something the SC doesn't have.

it doesn't matter in this particular case if the geth did rebel becuase it only requires one counterexample to completely nullify the argfument and to stop the 'cycle'.

So would synthetics always rebel? Maybe not, but logic and reason dictates that its a high probability. Maybe not with the first or second, but somewhere down the line they would realize that their creators are flawed and cold hard logic demands to get rid of the flaw before it effects your own self-perservation.

This is where he makes an appeal to probability.

It can happen, therefore it will happen. It is a false statement.

The problem with your counterargument is that you are forgetting that the second premise is just as important as the first. if it was logic solely based on the first i might agree with you, but the fact that synthetic/organic conflict doesn't always wipe everyone out renders this invalid. The SC is making an absolute justification - one he cannot make.

[Dharvy]

Grimwick wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying we have no bases for the statement that "Synthetics will always rebel and that their rebellion would result in the death of Organic Civilization?" And sense we have no bases for that the logic that they would always rebel is illogical?

Correct. This is the actual basis of the logic - the very core of the argument and the solution.

However the second premise is also another point to consider. Even if they always rebel, does it necessarily mean that everyone is killed? This is another point which renders the SC's genocide tactics as completely absurd.

First of all, to me, even after the scene with Javik and Shepards speaking on such, Synthetics will nearly always, eventually, rebel. Even though we see that they didn't neccessarrily rebel against the Quarians in the Morning War don't mean if the Quarians didn't act in fear the questions the Geth were asking would have eventually led to them rebelling.

To prove that something will always occur requires a remarkably significant amount of evidence. In fact, to prove something to infinity requires infinite evidence. Something the SC doesn't have.

it doesn't matter in this particular case if the geth did rebel becuase it only requires one counterexample to completely nullify the argfument and to stop the 'cycle'.

So would synthetics always rebel? Maybe not, but logic and reason dictates that its a high probability. Maybe not with the first or second, but somewhere down the line they would realize that their creators are flawed and cold hard logic demands to get rid of the flaw before it effects your own self-perservation.

This is where he makes an appeal to probability.

It can happen, therefore it will happen. It is a false statement.

The problem with your counterargument is that you are forgetting that the second premise is just as important as the first. if it was logic solely based on the first i might agree with you, but the fact that synthetic/organic conflict doesn't always wipe everyone out renders this invalid. The SC is making an absolute justification - one he cannot make.

I understand that the SC may not be able to make an absolute, as in always, but it can still make a justification. Just because something didn't happen yet doesn't mean its not going to happen. Always can still apply. A civilization synthetic wipe hadn't happen yet, maybe in part because of the Reapers' actions. But a conflict does seems to always happen. There's nothing saying that a conflict needs to immediately result in a civilization wipe. The Geth nearly wiped their creators, the Quarians, and just because they didn't at that specific time in the conflict don't mean they would or could not have at a later time.

[Grimwick]

Dharvy wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying we have no bases for the statement that "Synthetics will always rebel and that their rebellion would result in the death of Organic Civilization?" And sense we have no bases for that the logic that they would always rebel is illogical?

Correct. This is the actual basis of the logic - the very core of the argument and the solution.

However the second premise is also another point to consider. Even if they always rebel, does it necessarily mean that everyone is killed? This is another point which renders the SC's genocide tactics as completely absurd.

First of all, to me, even after the scene with Javik and Shepards speaking on such, Synthetics will nearly always, eventually, rebel. Even though we see that they didn't neccessarrily rebel against the Quarians in the Morning War don't mean if the Quarians didn't act in fear the questions the Geth were asking would have eventually led to them rebelling.

To prove that something will always occur requires a remarkably significant amount of evidence. In fact, to prove something to infinity requires infinite evidence. Something the SC doesn't have.

it doesn't matter in this particular case if the geth did rebel becuase it only requires one counterexample to completely nullify the argfument and to stop the 'cycle'.

So would synthetics always rebel? Maybe not, but logic and reason dictates that its a high probability. Maybe not with the first or second, but somewhere down the line they would realize that their creators are flawed and cold hard logic demands to get rid of the flaw before it effects your own self-perservation.

This is where he makes an appeal to probability.

It can happen, therefore it will happen. It is a false statement.

The problem with your counterargument is that you are forgetting that the second premise is just as important as the first. if it was logic solely based on the first i might agree with you, but the fact that synthetic/organic conflict doesn't always wipe everyone out renders this invalid. The SC is making an absolute justification - one he cannot make.

I understand that the SC may not be able to make an absolute, as in always, but it can still make a justification. Just because something didn't happen yet doesn't mean its not going to happen.

Yes... But it means you have no actual evidential justification.

It's like saying: Germany might nuke us in 100 years or so. So let's nuke them now so they can't!

That kind of logic will lead to all sorts of problems, you can't prove that it won't happen, but you cannot prove that it will and you cannot justify decisions/preemptive attacks based on that possibility.

Always can still apply. A civilization synthetic wipe hadn't happen yet, maybe in part because of the Reapers' actions. But a conflict does seems to always happen. There's nothing saying that a conflict needs to immediately result in a civilization wipe.

If this is the case I'd like to see the evidence. And you are forgetting that it only takes 1 example during the millions of years worth of cycles to prove you wrong. When you make a statement in absolutes you need absolute evidence for it. Otherwise anyone can make an absolute statement. 

The Geth nearly wiped their creators, the Quarians, and just because they didn't at that specific time in the conflict don't mean they would or could not have at a later time.

If you use the word could you are entering another realm of madness.

We could have lost WW2, but we didn't. The Russians could have landed on the moon first, but they didn't. I could buy a gun and go on a killing spree, but I won't.

So are you saying that at some point in the future i will kill everyone because I can? That's an appeal to probability - the entire reasoning as to why the SC's logic is flawed.

Modifié par Grimwick, 12 juillet 2012 - 10:28 .

[Mazebook]

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

[Peranor]

It just doesn't make any sense that Bioware would add a plot device that supposedly makes sense that it makes no sense!

[Vigilant111]

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

Only against the creators, the creators of the Geth are the Quarians, not humans, Geth does not necessarily harm other organics, if the Geth do wipe the Quarians out, then this serves to be an effective warning to other organics who are about develop AIs of their own

[Mazebook]

Vigilant111 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

@Grimwick I think you are in serious denial if you don´t think every Synthetic we have encountered that has evolved rebelled against their Creators...

Why do you think there was a ban on A.I. in the first place?

I really don´t understand how you can fight this point so eagerly when there are so many examples to the contrary....

An Asteroid has to hit earth only one time...and everything is over... it does not matter that the probability that this happens this month is low...what matters is that the probability of this happening is considerably higher that this will happen in the next 1000 years.

So we should find a solution to this problem...because ones we are gone we are gone.

Only against the creators, the creators of the Geth are the Quarians, not humans, Geth does not necessarily harm other organics, if the Geth do wipe the Quarians out, then this serves to be an effective warning to other organics who are about develop AIs of their own

so the premise is true...good...lets say a big organic force creates powerful synthetics and forces them to rebel. And now every other organic force perishes as collateral damage...

it only has to happen once.