556 réponses à ce sujet

[Mazebook]

Stornskar wrote...

maaaze wrote...

which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

Conflict does not equal singularity. Conflict does not equal "synthetics overtaking organics at an evolutionary level." This is the entire point. And for all we know his attempted SOLUTIONS are what spurned the conflicts

Keep you things straight...synthetics are by default overtaking organics at an evolutionary level otherwise there would be no need for Synthetics at all...

There would be no need for his creators to create him if his premise was not true.

[Cypher_CS]

Vigilant111 wrote...

NO VALUES ASSIGNED? THEN HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT?!

Either make sense or stop replying. Come on.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
Last time I checked life decisions or matters are not a machine that is rigged, life is arbitrary. Oh so now the synthetics always win, great, thanks for killing all hope

Why can't they "create" new organics? they could simply just leave evolution alone and let life run its course

They don't always win. That's NOT what I wrote.
Please, read AGAIN and try to actually understand the meaning.

Again, we've been over this, the word "Always" has a definition of Eventually.
It doesn't have to mean "Every single time". It only has to mean Eventually, at least once.
And in this case, that one lethal time - in the case we're talking about - means no more organics to evolve. Certainly not to create.

[Memnon]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Excuse me?

You don't predict possibility, you assign probability.
You don't need to say this or that will happen, you only need to give probabilities of different eventualities or possibilities.

Can math not predict how many dead people would be in the radius of a 50kiloton atomic explosion?
Do we really need to first see it happen?

Or hell, can we not predict durabilities of cars, ships or plains "simply" by calculating physical strengths and running Monte Carlo simulations and optimizations on how many spare parts we will need to sustain a desired life expectancy?

You have real data to predict the casualties based on a nuclear explosion over a city - e.g. the city's population, time of day, blast radius, etc. You have real data regarding the material strengths for vehicles regarding collisions - in fact, most of those are observed in a lab with crash simulations, blast testing, etc. What real data do we have for a technical singularity? That there were a few attempts at a solution which ended in conflict ... that's it.

[Mazebook]

Grimwick wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. What is the probability of the LHC destroying the universe? The singularity has not happened, and is therefore impossible to predict - the only way you can predict it is philosophically, not mathematically. There are no known 'variables' to that equation. What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level

The Catalyst was wrong because he was built by creators who didn't understand probability very well ...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. 


which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

So think to yourself what evidence the SC has. He has evidence which shows that within the time period he recorded there is a 100% certainty of conflict. Now also think what evidence he has about what will happen next.

He has some evidence that conflict may occur, but he has no evidence to claim a 100% chance of it occuring.

That alone renders your argument invalid.

What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level 

That analogy makes no sense at all...the analogie would be...because Humans are always in conflict with each other we have to creat a human hive mind that bundeles all thoughts and motivation.

thats the analogy.

The 'analogy' is not an anaolgy of the situation but of the logical reasoning behind the SC.

Please think before you speak.

Also it's funny becuase your 'analogy' completely misses the point and isn't an 'analogy' of the SC.

You don´t even know what an anology is ..do you?

here ...read and learn...

the reasoning of what the catalyst did and what he did are the same.

Modifié par maaaze, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:26 .

[iSousek]

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

maaaze wrote...

which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

Conflict does not equal singularity. Conflict does not equal "synthetics overtaking organics at an evolutionary level." This is the entire point. And for all we know his attempted SOLUTIONS are what spurned the conflicts

Keep you things straight...synthetics are by default overtaking organics at an evolutionary level otherwise there would be no need for Synthetics at all...

There would be no need for his creators to create him if his premise was not true.

Not really, evolutionary speaking, they are behind organics. Do you even know where need for building synthetics comes from?

Can you elaborate how are his premises and his creation connected, I can't understand that one 

On a side note, nothing happens ˝by default˝.

[riesenwiesel]

doublepost

Modifié par riesenwiesel, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .

[Memnon]

maaaze wrote...
Keep you things straight...synthetics are by default overtaking organics at an evolutionary level otherwise there would be no need for Synthetics at all...

There would be no need for his creators to create him if his premise was not true.

Another false premise. Again, these are the Catalyst's words:

starbrat wrote...
Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence, but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must, by definition, surpass their creators. The result is chaos, destruction, conflict.

I reject this as a fact ...

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

I have a question for all of you...
Did Openheimer or Einstein or any of those guys really needed the Enola Gay to predict how many casualties would be or what the outcome of the explosion would be?
Or was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki intended, by design, to be a once and for all warning?
Would the Cold War actually remain Cold without Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or would no one be MAD enough not to fire those nuclear missiles?

Ok your questions really don't appear to have a point to them. But let me answer them anyway.

1) Of course not.
2) Yes. it was a warning to put Japan out of the war. Some argue that the second bomb was pointless lives wasted.
3) No. There was an arms race for many years. The scientists had already theorised that it could ignite the atmosphere and nobody was without any doubt that these were extremely powerful weapons. during the arms race there were many weapons tests. Try looking up the detonation of the Tsar bomb in the arctic. Allegedly it could be heard for hundreds of miles.

People knew exactly what they were getting themselves into.

So anyway, how is this relevant?

[Mazebook]

Stornskar wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Excuse me?

You don't predict possibility, you assign probability.
You don't need to say this or that will happen, you only need to give probabilities of different eventualities or possibilities.

Can math not predict how many dead people would be in the radius of a 50kiloton atomic explosion?
Do we really need to first see it happen?

Or hell, can we not predict durabilities of cars, ships or plains "simply" by calculating physical strengths and running Monte Carlo simulations and optimizations on how many spare parts we will need to sustain a desired life expectancy?

You have real data to predict the casualties based on a nuclear explosion over a city - e.g. the city's population, time of day, blast radius, etc. You have real data regarding the material strengths for vehicles regarding collisions - in fact, most of those are observed in a lab with crash simulations, blast testing, etc. What real data do we have for a technical singularity? That there were a few attempts at a solution which ended in conflict ... that's it.

why do you assume a few attempts...for all we know it could be a million attemps

[Grimwick]

maaaze wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. What is the probability of the LHC destroying the universe? The singularity has not happened, and is therefore impossible to predict - the only way you can predict it is philosophically, not mathematically. There are no known 'variables' to that equation. What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level

The Catalyst was wrong because he was built by creators who didn't understand probability very well ...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. 


which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

So think to yourself what evidence the SC has. He has evidence which shows that within the time period he recorded there is a 100% certainty of conflict. Now also think what evidence he has about what will happen next.

He has some evidence that conflict may occur, but he has no evidence to claim a 100% chance of it occuring.

That alone renders your argument invalid.

What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level 

That analogy makes no sense at all...the analogie would be...because Humans are always in conflict with each other we have to creat a human hive mind that bundeles all thoughts and motivation.

thats the analogy.

The 'analogy' is not an anaolgy of the situation but of the logical reasoning behind the SC.

Please think before you speak.

Also it's funny becuase your 'analogy' completely misses the point and isn't an 'analogy' of the SC.

You don´t even know what an anology is ..do you?

here ...read and learn...

the reasoning of what the catalyst did and what he did are the same.

It appears you have no idea what you are talking about.

This article you linked only proves that mine was an analogy. Your analogy is flawed because the SC doesn't create a hive mind as it's solution.

Modifié par Grimwick, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:30 .

[Mazebook]

iSousek wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

maaaze wrote...

which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

Conflict does not equal singularity. Conflict does not equal "synthetics overtaking organics at an evolutionary level." This is the entire point. And for all we know his attempted SOLUTIONS are what spurned the conflicts

Keep you things straight...synthetics are by default overtaking organics at an evolutionary level otherwise there would be no need for Synthetics at all...

There would be no need for his creators to create him if his premise was not true.

Not really, evolutionary speaking, they are behind organics. Do you even know where need for building synthetics comes from?

Can you elaborate how are his premises and his creation connected, I can't understand that one 

On a side note, nothing happens ˝by default˝.

Why would you build something that can do less than you can? why build an A.I. that is dumber than you?

[Mazebook]

Grimwick wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. What is the probability of the LHC destroying the universe? The singularity has not happened, and is therefore impossible to predict - the only way you can predict it is philosophically, not mathematically. There are no known 'variables' to that equation. What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level

The Catalyst was wrong because he was built by creators who didn't understand probability very well ...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. 


which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

So think to yourself what evidence the SC has. He has evidence which shows that within the time period he recorded there is a 100% certainty of conflict. Now also think what evidence he has about what will happen next.

He has some evidence that conflict may occur, but he has no evidence to claim a 100% chance of it occuring.

That alone renders your argument invalid.

What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level 

That analogy makes no sense at all...the analogie would be...because Humans are always in conflict with each other we have to creat a human hive mind that bundeles all thoughts and motivation.

thats the analogy.

The 'analogy' is not an anaolgy of the situation but of the logical reasoning behind the SC.

Please think before you speak.

Also it's funny becuase your 'analogy' completely misses the point and isn't an 'analogy' of the SC.

You don´t even know what an anology is ..do you?

here ...read and learn...

the reasoning of what the catalyst did and what he did are the same.

It appears you have no idea what you are talking about.

the feeling is mutual.

Reapers are exactly that...a hive mind to preserve the civilization.

Modifié par maaaze, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:32 .

[Cypher_CS]

Grimwick wrote...

What are you harping on about.

The fact that Germany would have difficulties invading Europe....
Never mind.

 

Grimwick wrote... 
Two things:

1) Make that disinction the first time. You didn't imply that.
2) Ok so what if we make the premise that the invasion of Europe kills everyone in Europe? Still a valid premise according to the SC's logic.

1. Sorry, but I didn't see it as necessary. It wasn't difficult to understand.
Actually, no. I'll go as far as to say that it needs no explanation because, as I've, ironically, explained, Probability cannot be infinite. Valence can.
2. So what? How do you Value the people of Europe? Are the people of Europe the salvation and only continuation of mankind? What's your tipping point?
It's not about how many people you kill, it's about the value you assign to those deaths. To that eventuality.

Grimwick wrote...  
You actually said that 'there was a distinction'. If morals are irrelevant to you then why make a 'distinction'.

A distinction between a Morally driven choice and an Amorally driven choice.
Do you need help in understanding the major difference between the two?

Grimwick wrote...   
It is NOT morally driven but it is driven because the justifying logic is fallacious.

An appeal to probability is saying that if something is possible, it will happen in the future. If you try to justify something this way you will find that you can justify anything with a non-zero probability. That simply doesn't make sense and is a pure and simple fallacy. Seriously, look it up.

No...
I think you should look it up.
Reading two paragraphs on a Wiki page doesn't actually teach you anything.

Again, it is NOT JUST about the probability. That's not how Expectancy works.
It's about the Valence. It's about the Value you put on each outcome.
It's not an equation of Number of Variables == Number of Options , it's an equation of Number of Variables == 2 * Number of Options.
Because Each Option has both an Assigned Probability (A finite number between 0 and 100, not including, for obvious reasons) and an Assigned Valuation of that Option.

Grimwick wrote...   
Germany could equally turn around and say Europe will invade Germany... But that's fallacious too.

Yes, it could, and if the probability is non-zero, it will.
Again, the question is of the Values, NOT the probabilities.

[iSousek]

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Excuse me?

You don't predict possibility, you assign probability.
You don't need to say this or that will happen, you only need to give probabilities of different eventualities or possibilities.

Can math not predict how many dead people would be in the radius of a 50kiloton atomic explosion?
Do we really need to first see it happen?

Or hell, can we not predict durabilities of cars, ships or plains "simply" by calculating physical strengths and running Monte Carlo simulations and optimizations on how many spare parts we will need to sustain a desired life expectancy?

You have real data to predict the casualties based on a nuclear explosion over a city - e.g. the city's population, time of day, blast radius, etc. You have real data regarding the material strengths for vehicles regarding collisions - in fact, most of those are observed in a lab with crash simulations, blast testing, etc. What real data do we have for a technical singularity? That there were a few attempts at a solution which ended in conflict ... that's it.

why do you assume a few attempts...for all we know it could be a million attemps

You are saying that catalyst witnessed million times how sythetics wiped out organics? I somehow doubt it because there would be no one left to harvest if that was true? He is being inductive and is creating a general scientific theory. One that fell apart not only in our cycle but also in the previous one.

On the topic of AI. My question was 'why do organics create AI at all?' . It has nothing to do with it being better or worse that organics.


On a side note, this whole debate reminds of what Karl Popper once said that some scientist will upon discovery of black swan simply say 'oh God, look at that huge raven'.

Modifié par iSousek, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:40 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Hey mister ellipsis is back! Hooray!

Catalyst: Created always rebel yadda yadda yadda!

*Starts shooting tube*

Catalyst: NO! You must pick Synthesis it's the most awesomesauce thing ever!!!!!

*tube explodes killing all Reapers *sorry Geth/EDI*


Killing the star brat is the only satisfying part of ME3's endgame.

Does it have a logical reason for doing what it did? No idea and it doesn't matter because it's dead now.

[Baronesa]

Do you know why this is becoming more and more pointless?

maaaze tries to move the interpretations in such a way that the starbrat's explanation is unfalsifiable.

[Cypher_CS]

Stornskar wrote...

You have real data to predict the casualties based on a nuclear explosion over a city - e.g. the city's population, time of day, blast radius, etc. You have real data regarding the material strengths for vehicles regarding collisions - in fact, most of those are observed in a lab with crash simulations, blast testing, etc. What real data do we have for a technical singularity? That there were a few attempts at a solution which ended in conflict ... that's it.

Do you not see that you're comparing Apples and Oranges here?

Tech Singularity is an outcome, in this case.
Just like the Deaths in a Nuclear blast or the Durability of vehicles.
Yet, you compare the various datas (pop, blast rad, mat strength etc') to the TS happening?

The data you should be comparing to is the rate of evolution, rate of improvement, cognitive function and... hell, the "easiest of all" programmed rules and safeguards.
You know what, in this case I'd even suggest looking into software security. The rate or expectancy of software hacking from day of Release till worldwide hack proliferation or virus infection or anything of the sorts.
Not to mention such things happening BEFORE release.

There's plenty of data to predict a Tech Singularity.
And there's some data to speculate on Tech Singularity "corruption" in relation to us.

But, again, we go back to assigning Probabilities to the Corruption or Non Corruption of the TS.
And then assign Values to what this Corruption entails and means for us.
If it's negligible, then fine, no need to worry. If it's not. If it's malicious to us, or just parasitic to us... we might worry. 

[Vigilant111]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

NO VALUES ASSIGNED? THEN HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT?!

Either make sense or stop replying. Come on.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
Last time I checked life decisions or matters are not a machine that is rigged, life is arbitrary. Oh so now the synthetics always win, great, thanks for killing all hope

Why can't they "create" new organics? they could simply just leave evolution alone and let life run its course

They don't always win. That's NOT what I wrote.
Please, read AGAIN and try to actually understand the meaning.

Again, we've been over this, the word "Always" has a definition of Eventually.
It doesn't have to mean "Every single time". It only has to mean Eventually, at least once.
And in this case, that one lethal time - in the case we're talking about - means no more organics to evolve. Certainly not to create.

Oh I understand perfectly, u gave me a formula, shown me the working, yet there is so much uncertainties about the probabilities, so the end results are neither here or there, only that organics are against massive odds, guess what, we also faced the reapers against those massive odds with the price of countless of lives, but now we are free, synthetics are no more fearful than the reapers

Okay so now its downgraded to synthetics will "probably" win right? and the Catalyst simply just misused the word "always"...okay, so eventually everyone concludes so, what of it? So we look past the words and SPECULATE the "true" meaning, which is what we have been doing all along

Also, you are saying that the organics eventually will defeat the synthetics now? cos you know, there is "always" a possbility to happen once, right? U meant rebel? that has already happened, no need for the Catalyst to repeat

No, YOU were talking about that case, I imagined a different scenario cos I am not yet convinced about singularity

Modifié par Vigilant111, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:43 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Baronesa wrote...

Do you know why this is becoming more and more pointless?

maaaze tries to move the interpretations in such a way that the starbrat's explanation is unfalsifiable.

No! I get it now. It simply kills all advanced races because it cares!

Instead of warning them not to build killbots or killing said killbots when they rebel it wipes everything out to be absolutely sure that no evil evil killbots can kill everything.


It does this by killing everything with it's powerful killbots....


Wait what?

[Mazebook]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Hey mister ellipsis is back! Hooray!

Catalyst: Created always rebel yadda yadda yadda!

*Starts shooting tube*

Catalyst: NO! You must pick Synthesis it's the most awesomesauce thing ever!!!!!

*tube explodes killing all Reapers *sorry Geth/EDI*


Killing the star brat is the only satisfying part of ME3's endgame.

Does it have a logical reason for doing what it did? No idea and it doesn't matter because it's dead now.

Oh Hi there...welcome back...as i see you are missing the point of the discussion again.

ehm yeah...keep having fun with that.

[Memnon]

Cypher_CS wrote...


Tech Singularity is an outcome, in this case.
Just like the Deaths in a Nuclear blast or the Durability of vehicles.
Yet, you compare the various datas (pop, blast rad, mat strength etc') to the TS happening?

The data you should be comparing to is the rate of evolution, rate of improvement, cognitive function and... hell, the "easiest of all" programmed rules and safeguards.
You know what, in this case I'd even suggest looking into software security. The rate or expectancy of software hacking from day of Release till worldwide hack proliferation or virus infection or anything of the sorts.
Not to mention such things happening BEFORE release.

There's plenty of data to predict a Tech Singularity.
And there's some data to speculate on Tech Singularity "corruption" in relation to us.

But, again, we go back to assigning Probabilities to the Corruption or Non Corruption of the TS.
And then assign Values to what this Corruption entails and means for us.
If it's negligible, then fine, no need to worry. If it's not. If it's malicious to us, or just parasitic to us... we might worry. 

I agree with you to an extent - the end results, deaths and durability are knowns. We don't even know exactly
what a technological singularity is. It's a philosophical construct more than anything else. I would argue that we don't even fully know what is on either side of the equation. More importantly, I would argue that we shouldn't be making galaxy-wide decisions based on those unknowns

You talk of Expectancy (theory I assume?), which I admit am not well versed in - Expectancy is related to behavioral predictions, yes? Are you talking the expectancy of synthetics (how does that work?) organics, or both?

Modifié par Stornskar, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:48 .

[Jayleia]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jayleia wrote...

If rebellion is ethically justifiable in some cases, why not zip through the galaxy every 50k years, find the rebellions that are NOT ethically justified, then zap THOSE synthetics?  Why zap the people that might possibly someday maybe create synthetics that may, possibly fight their creators and might eventually overwhelm all life?

This question has been asked and answered so many times already...

Because organics or even synthetics that would be so scared of such an entity that just swoops in every once in a while would eventually create a synthetics that would outright pulverize the Reapers into oblivion, essentially nullifying that "solution".

Then, who would save those organics?

Who's saving them NOW?  I don't see Reapers saving anything!

Jayleia wrote... 
And the ONLY evidence we have of actively malicious AIs are the Zha'til (who were hacked), and the Geth Heretics, (who had a program error).  I repeat, the only malicious AIs that we have any knowledge of were CAUSED by the Reapers.

Irrelevant.

It's the only potential examples that we've seen.  These two examples are invalid, due to outside interference.

Jayleia wrote... 

Can you cite proof that it had occurred previously?  Catalyst asserted that it would, but it presented no proof of that.  And how do you know they won't create new organics, or copy/modify organics?  Or that new organics won't arise on other worlds naturally?

However, we have seen no evidence that these probable events cannot be prevented.  Shepard can prevent the Geth/Migrant genocide and usher in an era of cooperation, whether its permanent or temporary, that's something for future generations to decide.  But to announce that it certainly WILL happen, and that there's no way to avoid it, heck, apparently not even the omniscient, omnipresent God knew that Eve would eat the forbidden fruit.  How would a mere AI be able to predict all possible futures?

It's not about predicting. It's about cold uncaring math.
It doesn't have to be true - but for an AI it is the only reality. Hence it must be truth to it.

It doesn't have to be true, its a prediction based on math that's DISPROVEN by the existence of the setting itself.  Then its operating from a false premise, therefore the options presented to us spring from a false premise, any choice other telling the Catalyst that his plan is so flawed that its not even wrong

[Grimwick]

[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...

[quote]Grimwick wrote...

What are you harping on about.
[/quote]
The fact that Germany would have difficulties invading Europe....
Never mind.[/quote]

The 'in the future' part of the premise indicates it's possible for Germany to develop. Also irrelevant because it's still a non-zero probability.

[quote] [quote]Grimwick wrote... 
Two things:

1) Make that disinction the first time. You didn't imply that.
2) Ok so what if we make the premise that the invasion of Europe kills everyone in Europe? Still a valid premise according to the SC's logic.
[/quote]
1. Sorry, but I didn't see it as necessary. It wasn't difficult to understand.
Actually, no. I'll go as far as to say that it needs no explanation because, as I've, ironically, explained, Probability cannot be infinite. Valence can.
2. So what? How do you Value the people of Europe? Are the people of Europe the salvation and only continuation of mankind? What's your tipping point?
It's not about how many people you kill, it's about the value you assign to those deaths. To that eventuality.[/quote]

1) Haha. Very good, pretending it was my fault that you weren't clear enough. Btw I wasn't arguing the probability was infinite. Read my post again, I was arguing that whether that the timeline was infinite was irrelevant.
2) What the hell are you talking about? So suddenly the SC can giev the value of organic life when the value of life in Europe cannot be given? The value of the lives is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO MY ANALOGY. The underlying premise for the people of Europe is that they don't want to die. The analogy is used as an example of flawed argumentative appeals to probability. Not anything to do with expected results.

Do you know why that is? That's because an appeal to probability is fallacious independent of the outcome. Seriosuly, you need to read up on it.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...  
You actually said that 'there was a distinction'. If morals are irrelevant to you then why make a 'distinction'.
[/quote]

A distinction between a Morally driven choice and an Amorally driven choice.
Do you need help in understanding the major difference between the two?[/quote]

Amoral - lacking a moral sense. Synonymous to: Immoral.

Be clearer next time you have a problem with expanding on your points.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...   
It is NOT morally driven but it is driven because the justifying logic is fallacious.

An appeal to probability is saying that if something is possible, it will happen in the future. If you try to justify something this way you will find that you can justify anything with a non-zero probability. That simply doesn't make sense and is a pure and simple fallacy. Seriously, look it up.
[/quote]
No...
I think you should look it up.
Reading two paragraphs on a Wiki page doesn't actually teach you anything.[/quote]

Wow. 

[quote] Wikipedia wrote...
An appeal to probability is a justification based on probability, sometimes regarded as a logical fallacy, when an unwarranted assumption that something will happen, because it can happen, or when the odds of an occurrence are unrealistically played down in lieu of appropriate precaution.[/quote]

That's pretty much what I said. Also, have a look at the example they give:

[quote] Wikiepedia wrote...
"It doesn't matter if I get myself into debt. If I play the lottery enough, I will win the jackpot, and then I can pay off all my debts."

This argument assumes a best-case scenario, however problem gambling is an urge to gamble despite negative consequences or the desire to stop and is often defined by the harm suffered as opposed to the gambling.[/quote]

Substitute the example with an anaolgy of the SC and we have a fallacy! Bravo. His argument assumes worst case scenario when it would be beneficial for there not to be genocide.

[quote]Again, it is NOT JUST about the probability. That's not how Expectancy works.
It's about the Valence. It's about the Value you put on each outcome.
It's not an equation of Number of Variables == Number of Options , it's an equation of Number of Variables == 2 * Number of Options.
Because Each Option has both an Assigned Probability (A finite number between 0 and 100, not including, for obvious reasons) and an Assigned Valuation of that Option.[/quote]

Yeah, I understand how expectancy works - but it's completely irrelevant to an appeal to probability. 

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...   
Germany could equally turn around and say Europe will invade Germany... But that's fallacious too.
[/quote]
Yes, it could, and if the probability is non-zero, it will.
Again, the question is of the Values, NOT the probabilities.

[/quote]

I think you'll find it's quite the opposite. 

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

maaaze wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Hey mister ellipsis is back! Hooray!

Catalyst: Created always rebel yadda yadda yadda!

*Starts shooting tube*

Catalyst: NO! You must pick Synthesis it's the most awesomesauce thing ever!!!!!

*tube explodes killing all Reapers *sorry Geth/EDI*


Killing the star brat is the only satisfying part of ME3's endgame.

Does it have a logical reason for doing what it did? No idea and it doesn't matter because it's dead now.

Oh Hi there...welcome back...as i see you are missing the point of the discussion again.

ehm yeah...keep having fun with that.

I'm having a great deal of fun.

Why do you keep over using ellipses?

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:50 .

[Mazebook]

iSousek wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Excuse me?

You don't predict possibility, you assign probability.
You don't need to say this or that will happen, you only need to give probabilities of different eventualities or possibilities.

Can math not predict how many dead people would be in the radius of a 50kiloton atomic explosion?
Do we really need to first see it happen?

Or hell, can we not predict durabilities of cars, ships or plains "simply" by calculating physical strengths and running Monte Carlo simulations and optimizations on how many spare parts we will need to sustain a desired life expectancy?

You have real data to predict the casualties based on a nuclear explosion over a city - e.g. the city's population, time of day, blast radius, etc. You have real data regarding the material strengths for vehicles regarding collisions - in fact, most of those are observed in a lab with crash simulations, blast testing, etc. What real data do we have for a technical singularity? That there were a few attempts at a solution which ended in conflict ... that's it.

why do you assume a few attempts...for all we know it could be a million attemps

You are saying that catalyst witnessed million times how sythetics wiped out organics? I somehow doubt it because there would be no one left to harvest if that was true? He is being inductive and is creating a general scientific theory. One that fell apart not only in our cycle but also in the previous one.

On the topic of AI. My question was 'why do organics create AI at all?' . It has nothing to do with it being better or worse that organics.


On a side note, this whole debate reminds of what Karl Popper once said that some scientist will upon discovery of black swan simply say 'oh God, look at that huge raven'.

I say he witnessed conflict countless times...where the possibility of total annhilation rises to such a dangerous level...that the point of no return can be touched with your fingertipps.

So he had to act and so he did.