556 réponses à ce sujet

[RShara]

RShara wrote...

HangedBIgD wrote...

RShara wrote...

The Catalyst ALSO has no proof of his claims. The fact that organics still exist proves that synthetics have never wiped out organics, as he claims is inevitable. How does he know that his cycle isn't the one with the "exception" and/when he's never given any other cycle the chance to show otherwise?

It also doesnt help when we get examples like the Zha'til where they rebelled due to direct reaper intervention.. that would be like me saying dogs are all crazy and feral then beatin a dog till it went crazed and attacked someone then using that as my proof.

Exactly.  A LOT of people try using the Metacon war as an example of inevitable destruction, and conveniently forget that the Reapers were behind that one too.

Conflict is inevitable, but mutual destruction evidently is not.  And conflict is inevitable between all sentients, organic or synthetic or some creepy mismatch of both, because individuals will always have their own opinions, as this is the essence of individuality.  Conflict does not lead inevitably to violence, or destruction.  Merely to debate and discussion, for all rational beings.

Repeating for posterity

[Cypher_CS]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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

NO!
It's NOT about the Probabilities.
The Probabilities don't matter, or, rather, the only thing about them that matters is that they are non Zero.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
Okay so now its downgraded to synthetics will "probably" win right?

Okay, time to go at it one sentence at a time.
What, on God's rather smog filled Earth led you to the understanding that I wrote anything resembling "probably win"???

Vigilant111 wrote...  
and the Catalyst simply just misused the word "always"...okay, so eventually everyone concludes so, what of it?

Same question....

Vigilant111 wrote...  
So we look past the words and SPECULATE the "true" meaning, which is what we have been doing all along

No, we look up the meaning of "the house ALWAYS wins" and we look up the dictionary meaning of the word Always....

Here, read this to understand the Casino's edge and then understand the meaning of the House ALWAYS Wins:
http://casinogamblin...a/houseedge.htm 

Okay so you are a believer of singularity! that is totally cool, a virus will kill you in one shot, which is true, but probably not every one, so why did you reply to me about statistics cos I don't think singularity has anything to do with statistics

Dude!
The whole text you quoted and wrote has only two occurances of the word "singularity".
Both by you!

How does your one long and complex sentence answer any of the questions YOU quoted of ME asking YOU? At all, like?

[Memnon]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Although I'm a Psych major, I am NOT talking about THE Expectancy Theory, I'm talking about the calculationf Expectancy in Statistics.

Read the above linked article on the House Edge and you'll understand.

Okay, expected value is something I get. You are talking E(X) = Sum P(X = x)

E(X) is the value, X is a discrete random variable, which is the sum of each possible outcome vs. the probability of the outcome occurring. The outcomes of a 6 sided die is the classic example ...

I read the House wins article, and it is something I understand as well - I'm an electrical engineer, so probability and statistics is not foreign to me (though my current field is mainly controls). I'm also an avid card player, so the house odds are pretty well known to me - and I even understand the concept of counting cards. I'm not getting how this relates to the Catalyst's logic (though I confess I haven't read the full thread)

I'm also not sure how Valence fits into this equation, though?

[robertthebard]

Baronesa wrote...

bgroberts wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

His entire premise is based on a logical fallacy. He is, by definition, wrong.

The Catalyst makes an infinite claim, "the created will ALWAYS rebel against their creators." To support an infinite claim you need infinite evidence.

All you're saying is that "he's not God". That's your whole argument. Because he is capable of committing a falacy then he is necesarily wrong. However, that doesn't make his evidence any less true or pressing.

Oh PLEASE

His evidence is just his word... that is ZERO... nothing... NADA


But if you want to play that game... then Zeus, Osiris, Mithras, Vishnu, Odin existed and are very real since there are testimony for it.

I like this game:  The same can be said for Christ, Buddha, Mohammed.  If you don't have a polaroid, your arguement is invalid.

OT:  If you have the Prothean in your squad, you know that they were in a war with their own synthetics when the Reapers came.  If you don't, you don't know that, but that does not invalidate it.  This is the end of the last cycle, and the Catalyst was correct.  As to previous cycles, we have no real idea, however, since we do have two cycles to use for empirical evidence, despite the fact that we can have indeed reduced the Geth to scrap metal, it does mean that the probability exists.  Therefore, the Catalyst cannot be emphatically wrong, although that's not to say that he's absolutely correct.  Of course, the OP covered this margin of error in the initial post.

[Grimwick]

[quote]Cypher_CS wrote...

[quote]Grimwick wrote...

[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]

Huh?
ROFL
You don't get it, do you?
It would be rather hard for Germany to invade Europe since it resides SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF YUROPE!!!!!

Invade other European countries, sure...
As I said, never mind, it was a joke.[/quote]

An awful joke at that.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote... 

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.
[/quote]
1. No pretending anything. And I wasn't talking about the Timeline either.
2. It's not about the combined values of Lives. It's not about a number between One and 7 Billion. Or One and a few Trillions or Gazzilions or whatever. It's the Value of Life continuing in the larger scale (in your case) or Extinguishing all Organic Life from existence (in the Catalyst's case).
These are two incomparable issues. Your analogy is wrong. It's incomparable.[/quote]

My analogy is perfectly reasonable as a method to show why the appeal to probability (of the same order made by the SC) is wrong. You appear to not want to accept the fact that his logic is simply that flawed.

The SC's premises and his entire reasoning is made without adhering to the values he set. his fallacy is not made in saying 'we need to save x amount of lives'. The fallacy is made when he says 'the created will always rebel... therefore we should'. That's where he makes his fallacy and you are seriously trying to straw man or red herring (I can't decide which) here.

The analogy is nothing to do with 'justification' other than logical justification and no value is necessary. It is to do with 'making an assertion that x will occur because it can'.

[quote]Just a note, I am not remarking on whether the continuation of Organic Life is imperatively Good vs. Continuation of Life in General, even in the form of artificial life.
However, the Catalyst has made that decision for itself (values Organic life above Synthetic). Which is fine within that logic.[/quote]

I understand that. It's just a shame it has nothing to do with the logical fallacy he makes. 

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote... 
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]
Stop quoting out of context sentences from Wikipedia.[/quote]

Out of context? Why don't you go look at the article itself? THAT'S THE ONLY THING IT SAYS.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...  

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

Be clearer next time you have a problem with expanding on your points.
[/quote]
What?
Sorry, but I can't be clearer than I already am....[/quote]

The point was that amorasl is comparable to immoral which indicates that it is 'evil'. You should elaborate whether it is 'without any link to morals' or whether it is 'evil'.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...   

[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, wrong.
And I'll just be repeating myself.

But I will say this - stupid Wikipedia - the explanation they give leaves SO MANY THINGS OUT!
The problem is not just a Psychological one. It's not just about Gambling being an Urge.
It's about how much money you have to keep gambling before you get cut off. Then what?
Even if you do win, will the winnings cover the debt acrued over so many tries? Then what?

That's the part you are failing to understand.[/quote]

They don't leave much out because frankly they have defined and explained what an appeal to proabability is right there.

And no, your attempts to discredit the example are flawed. It is not based on the addiction whatsoever - none was implied in the actual quotation - but simply based on the suggestion of doing something with the expectation that you will profit simply because it is possible.

[quote][quote]Grimwick wrote... 
Yeah, I understand how expectancy works - but it's completely irrelevant to an appeal to probability. 
[/quote]
Go back a few pages and see a cool image of Thane's.
[/quote]

Yeah nice answer there. Not once in your reply have you actually countered this fact.

[Cypher_CS]

Jayleia wrote...

Because for an inevitable cycle that results in the permanent destruction of organic life, the Catalyst would have to have evidence of this observing.  If it had observed this occuring we wouldn't exist, because only synthetics would exist.

This ENTIRE topic, ENTIRE post, deals with validity of the logical, prudentially correct, argument that the Catalyst throws at us.
You just go "it has no evidence" and think you just prove it wrong?

It has evidence to support the Prudential argument.
Yes, there is a problem in the fact that you can't actually prove this Prudential argument wrong with actually occurances that you've witnessed. But that fact doesn't make it wrong. It is, structurally, logically and prudentially sound.
It can be outdone by debunking it's various components, NOT by any occuring evidence or lack there of.

[Cypher_CS]

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jayleia wrote...

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

Morality!

I answered your question from the Reaper's POV (not my own).
In their POV, THEY are saving you.

Irrelevant. the point of view doesn't justify poor logic.

Logic is a universal concept.

And what's the poor logic in this case?

[Grimwick]

robertthebard wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

bgroberts wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

His entire premise is based on a logical fallacy. He is, by definition, wrong.

The Catalyst makes an infinite claim, "the created will ALWAYS rebel against their creators." To support an infinite claim you need infinite evidence.

All you're saying is that "he's not God". That's your whole argument. Because he is capable of committing a falacy then he is necesarily wrong. However, that doesn't make his evidence any less true or pressing.

Oh PLEASE

His evidence is just his word... that is ZERO... nothing... NADA


But if you want to play that game... then Zeus, Osiris, Mithras, Vishnu, Odin existed and are very real since there are testimony for it.

I like this game:  The same can be said for Christ, Buddha, Mohammed.  If you don't have a polaroid, your arguement is invalid.

OT:  If you have the Prothean in your squad, you know that they were in a war with their own synthetics when the Reapers came.  If you don't, you don't know that, but that does not invalidate it.  This is the end of the last cycle, and the Catalyst was correct.  As to previous cycles, we have no real idea, however, since we do have two cycles to use for empirical evidence, despite the fact that we can have indeed reduced the Geth to scrap metal, it does mean that the probability exists.  Therefore, the Catalyst cannot be emphatically wrong, although that's not to say that he's absolutely correct.  Of course, the OP covered this margin of error in the initial post.

Um no, the point was he doesn't have infinite evidence. Not whether he has a small amount of evidence, but whether he has infinite evidence.

Please, show me this infinite evidence.

[DistantUtopia]

robertthebard wrote...

OT:  If you have the Prothean in your squad, you know that they were in a war with their own synthetics when the Reapers came.  If you don't, you don't know that, but that does not invalidate it.  This is the end of the last cycle, and the Catalyst was correct.  As to previous cycles, we have no real idea, however, since we do have two cycles to use for empirical evidence, despite the fact that we can have indeed reduced the Geth to scrap metal, it does mean that the probability exists.  Therefore, the Catalyst cannot be emphatically wrong, although that's not to say that he's absolutely correct.  Of course, the OP covered this margin of error in the initial post.

But it's also implied the Reapers started that conflict through the Synthetics, not the Synthetics themselves.

[RShara]

He has no evidence at all.

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jayleia wrote...

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

Morality!

I answered your question from the Reaper's POV (not my own).
In their POV, THEY are saving you.

Irrelevant. the point of view doesn't justify poor logic.

Logic is a universal concept.

And what's the poor logic in this case?

In the end they are killing people, not saving everyone. Even they know this.

To justify that you are saving everyone when you aren't is pretty poor logic.

[Baronesa]

The whole point is that the Catalyst starts with a false premise -.-

There is no way to assert that synthetics will destroy ALL organic life.

[Vigilant111]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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

NO!
It's NOT about the Probabilities.
The Probabilities don't matter, or, rather, the only thing about them that matters is that they are non Zero.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
Okay so now its downgraded to synthetics will "probably" win right?

Okay, time to go at it one sentence at a time.
What, on God's rather smog filled Earth led you to the understanding that I wrote anything resembling "probably win"???

Vigilant111 wrote...  
and the Catalyst simply just misused the word "always"...okay, so eventually everyone concludes so, what of it?

Same question....

Vigilant111 wrote...  
So we look past the words and SPECULATE the "true" meaning, which is what we have been doing all along

No, we look up the meaning of "the house ALWAYS wins" and we look up the dictionary meaning of the word Always....

Here, read this to understand the Casino's edge and then understand the meaning of the House ALWAYS Wins:
http://casinogamblin...a/houseedge.htm 

Okay so you are a believer of singularity! that is totally cool, a virus will kill you in one shot, which is true, but probably not every one, so why did you reply to me about statistics cos I don't think singularity has anything to do with statistics

Dude!
The whole text you quoted and wrote has only two occurances of the word "singularity".
Both by you!

How does your one long and complex sentence answer any of the questions YOU quoted of ME asking YOU? At all, like?

Dude!

If that is not what your said then WTH were you saying?!

Isn't all this can be traced back to your firm beliefs about singularity? That synthetics can (may) kill organics once for all? Then why do you need statistics for??? Just choose synthesis and all your problems will be solved. Statistics are only for those who did not choose synthesis, we are predicting what are the likelihood of the synthetics will wipe out organics (note the Catalyst did not say "wiped out", only "rebel", which is redundent), and we use this prediction to compare to that of the Catalyst's...what is the matter? The Catalyst has its own opinion, we have our own

[Cypher_CS]

Stornskar wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Although I'm a Psych major, I am NOT talking about THE Expectancy Theory, I'm talking about the calculationf Expectancy in Statistics.

Read the above linked article on the House Edge and you'll understand.

Okay, expected value is something I get. You are talking E(X) = Sum P(X = x)

E(X) is the value, X is a discrete random variable, which is the sum of each possible outcome vs. the probability of the outcome occurring. The outcomes of a 6 sided die is the classic example ...

I read the House wins article, and it is something I understand as well - I'm an electrical engineer, so probability and statistics is not foreign to me (though my current field is mainly controls). I'm also an avid card player, so the house odds are pretty well known to me - and I even understand the concept of counting cards. I'm not getting how this relates to the Catalyst's logic (though I confess I haven't read the full thread)

I'm also not sure how Valence fits into this equation, though?

Right.
It's not just the outcome of the six sided die. It's the Winnings!

The roulette game consists of a small ball and a wheel with 38 numbered pockets around the edge. As the wheel is spun, the ball bounces around randomly until it settles down in one of the pockets. Suppose random variable X represents the (monetary) outcome of a $1 bet on a single number ("straight up" bet). If the bet wins (which happens with probability  138), the payoff is $35; otherwise the player loses the bet. The expected profit from such a bet will be 


Right?
The Odds are NOT in your favor. Correct?
Now, in the case of the Prudential (from the word Prudence) argument, or the Catalyst's argument, you replace the Outcome Values with something along the lines of Minus Infinity (or something close - to mean that Synths won't create new Organics) to Probability (minute as it may be) of Synthetics wiping out all Organics and something Finite, positive (to mean that we live another day, continue as we are) to the near 100% that Synths will NOT wipe out all Organics.
What would be the Expected Value then? It would still remain in the Minus

[The Angry One]

RShara wrote...

RShara wrote...

HangedBIgD wrote...

RShara wrote...

The Catalyst ALSO has no proof of his claims. The fact that organics still exist proves that synthetics have never wiped out organics, as he claims is inevitable. How does he know that his cycle isn't the one with the "exception" and/when he's never given any other cycle the chance to show otherwise?

It also doesnt help when we get examples like the Zha'til where they rebelled due to direct reaper intervention.. that would be like me saying dogs are all crazy and feral then beatin a dog till it went crazed and attacked someone then using that as my proof.

Exactly.  A LOT of people try using the Metacon war as an example of inevitable destruction, and conveniently forget that the Reapers were behind that one too.

Conflict is inevitable, but mutual destruction evidently is not.  And conflict is inevitable between all sentients, organic or synthetic or some creepy mismatch of both, because individuals will always have their own opinions, as this is the essence of individuality.  Conflict does not lead inevitably to violence, or destruction.  Merely to debate and discussion, for all rational beings.

Repeating for posterity

And that is why the Catalyst's logic is complete idiocy, and why the EC actually made the whole thing worse.

[AngryFrozenWater]

The only synthetics that I have seen or know of have not been hostile. Either the reapers or the quarians caused an otherwise peaceful synthetics race to fight. The cycles are like clockwork, though. The reapers' atrocity count boggles the mind.

The reapers never wanted to reveal what they were actually doing. The brat only talks when you twists its arm with the Crucible. Even then we hear an unfounded "inevitable" without proof of some kind. It appears that the whole threat is merely an excuse for their "ascension through destruction" spree, which also happens to be the reaper reproduction method. The brat had about 1 billion years to dream up a better plan than that. Given their reproduction method that is not in their interest. And if this threat was really inevitable then it would happen no matter what - reapers or no reapers.

The only threat that is close to the brat's description are the reapers themselves. And they are doing unimaginable atrocities right now. Given their history of deceit and intrigue there is no reason trust them on their word alone. That was never worth anything. *red ending*

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[bgroberts]

Baronesa wrote...

The whole point is that the Catalyst starts with a false premise -.-

There is no way to assert that synthetics will destroy ALL organic life.

There is no way for you to say that it won't! It is a calculated assertion. The same way that we calculate climate change is occuring and may destroy our ecosystem and that there is a significant chance we're contributing to it. We haven't been around for 5 Billlion years to observe the Earth directly in its climatic cycles, but we can make reasonable conclusions based on the available evidence. The Catalyst did the same exact thing. And, as I said before, its conclusions are based on a superior quantity of information and experience compared to your own. Even if his experiences were much more limited than 1 Billion + years would suggest, it still has more than any other sentient alive at any single time.

[robertthebard]

DistantUtopia wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

OT:  If you have the Prothean in your squad, you know that they were in a war with their own synthetics when the Reapers came.  If you don't, you don't know that, but that does not invalidate it.  This is the end of the last cycle, and the Catalyst was correct.  As to previous cycles, we have no real idea, however, since we do have two cycles to use for empirical evidence, despite the fact that we can have indeed reduced the Geth to scrap metal, it does mean that the probability exists.  Therefore, the Catalyst cannot be emphatically wrong, although that's not to say that he's absolutely correct.  Of course, the OP covered this margin of error in the initial post.

But it's also implied the Reapers started that conflict through the Synthetics, not the Synthetics themselves.

I missed that implication, but I'll be replaying that section this afternoon, so I'll look for it.  The way I remember the conversation though, was that they were just about to win that war when the Reapers hit.  Of course, even if it's not mentioned, it doesn't mean that they didn't have a similar situation to Sovereign and the Geth.  After all, if the VI from Thessia is correct, and patterns repeat in every cycle, it would be logical to assume that that also repeated itself.  I'll pay attention though, I find this discussion interesting.

[Cypher_CS]

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jayleia wrote...

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

Morality!

I answered your question from the Reaper's POV (not my own).
In their POV, THEY are saving you.

Irrelevant. the point of view doesn't justify poor logic.

Logic is a universal concept.

And what's the poor logic in this case?

In the end they are killing people, not saving everyone. Even they know this.

To justify that you are saving everyone when you aren't is pretty poor logic.

It never said everyone....
It saves races by storing their essence. According to it's logic. Nothing more.

Logically it is sound.

[Grimwick]

bgroberts wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

The whole point is that the Catalyst starts with a false premise -.-

There is no way to assert that synthetics will destroy ALL organic life.

There is no way for you to say that it won't! It is a calculated assertion.

1) Burden of evidence.
2) The Catalyst would not have had this evidence to begin with.

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jayleia wrote...

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

Morality!

I answered your question from the Reaper's POV (not my own).
In their POV, THEY are saving you.

Irrelevant. the point of view doesn't justify poor logic.

Logic is a universal concept.

And what's the poor logic in this case?

In the end they are killing people, not saving everyone. Even they know this.

To justify that you are saving everyone when you aren't is pretty poor logic.

It never said everyone....
It saves races by storing their essence. According to it's logic. Nothing more.

Logically it is sound.

No that makes less sense. This is again falling into the trap of saving people by killing them. 

Let's save everyone by not saving them.

[CronoDragoon]

bgroberts wrote...

Did you miss the part where I said no evidence absolutely proves anything? I make no claims of the Catalyst's existence as an infallible entity. I make the claim that he is coming from a position with access to an enormously greater quantity of data. His argument, making some assumptions (primarily that he isn't actually lying), has much more backing than could Shephard's.

We really have no idea whether or not he does have a great quantity of data. We do know that it took less than one civilization's lifespan for him to be created and start Reaping, so he doesn't have a great quantity of first-hand data to be sure.

[Cypher_CS]

No!
It's not about saving People!
It's never about saving People.

It's about saving Organic Life as a whole.
It doesn't care for individual people.
Again, I'm not judging it. Obviously, to morally judge that, we end up with the one and only conclusion that it is wrong and evil and what not.
The problem, however, is NOT with that.

[Grimwick]

CronoDragoon wrote...

bgroberts wrote...

Did you miss the part where I said no evidence absolutely proves anything? I make no claims of the Catalyst's existence as an infallible entity. I make the claim that he is coming from a position with access to an enormously greater quantity of data. His argument, making some assumptions (primarily that he isn't actually lying), has much more backing than could Shephard's.

We really have no idea whether or not he does have a great quantity of data. We do know that it took less than one civilization's lifespan for him to be created and start Reaping, so he doesn't have a great quantity of first-hand data to be sure.

Not to mention it is an argument from authority which is also a fallacy.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No!
It's not about saving People!
It's never about saving People.

That's why it needs to go.