556 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

Uncle Jo wrote...

There is no absolute, unless the brat could read in the future (which he obviously can't). Possibility yes, but in no way a certainty. That makes the difference.

Not really.  I'd say a 99% chance of all organic life getting wiped would be worth drastic measures.  Even 50/50.

[robertthebard]

memorysquid wrote...

P.S. In Legion's speech in ME2 they equate 1<2<3 with 1.33382 = 1.33383.  These guys weren't logic or math majors.

Actually, his speech runs along the lines of how the Reaper code has changed basic functions in their software to get 1.33382 instead of 1.33383 in an equation, thereby hacking the affected Geth in such a way as the system does not read it as a hack.  This is the virus that you destroy in his loyalty mission.  He closes out with the 1 <2, and 2 < 3 as an analogy to the same equation, for all of us non math majors.

[Uncle Jo]

memorysquid wrote...

Not really.  I'd say a 99% chance of all organic life getting wiped would be worth drastic measures.  Even 50/50.

That's your opinion. If you think that organics and synthetics are beyond salvation and will always very likely end up destroying each others, then feel free to act as you see fit.

What kind of drastic measures btw ? Something like wiping out every advanced civilization so that it won't be annhilated by synthetics ? Or turning everyone into an updated version of the Reapers ? Great.

With the informations that we have, it's impossible to give any correct prediction about the odds of survival/win in a war against a synthetic race, nor that ALL the synthetics are and will be fundamentally hostile.

What we saw and learned in-game quite tends to prove the contrary of what the Brat claims. It's all I need to dismiss the brat's nonsensical rant about the inevitable destruction of all organic races and the purpose of his preemptive genocides ascension. Naturally it's just my opinion.

He's the only one who wiped out his own creators (or "ascended" them into a Reaper form). He and his pals achieved during the last 20,000 cycles what the most malevolent and powerful synthetic race could only dream of. All of this for the sake of preserving us being killed by synthetics... No thanks, I'd rather try to walk my own path.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:58 .

[knightnblu]

You should have included a formal logic course in your studies. If you had, you wouldn't have written this tripe.

[memorysquid]

robertthebard wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

P.S. In Legion's speech in ME2 they equate 1<2<3 with 1.33382 = 1.33383.  These guys weren't logic or math majors.

Actually, his speech runs along the lines of how the Reaper code has changed basic functions in their software to get 1.33382 instead of 1.33383 in an equation, thereby hacking the affected Geth in such a way as the system does not read it as a hack.  This is the virus that you destroy in his loyalty mission.  He closes out with the 1 <2, and 2 < 3 as an analogy to the same equation, for all of us non math majors.

He closes out with that by way of saying neither side is necessarily right or wrong.  Being off by 1/100000 is simply wrong, however.  There's no conflict in different but correct inequalities; there is in being wrong vs. not.  I guess you could read this as evidence the Geth are trying to confuse the issue and, incidentally, Shepard.  I just read it as an example of the writers not knowing what the hell they were talking about.

[memorysquid]

knightnblu wrote...

You should have included a formal logic course in your studies. If you had, you wouldn't have written this tripe.

?

[memorysquid]

Uncle Jo wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Not really.  I'd say a 99% chance of all organic life getting wiped would be worth drastic measures.  Even 50/50.

That's your opinion. If you think that organics and synthetics are beyond salvation and will always very likely end up destroying each others, then feel free to act as you see fit.

What kind of drastic measures btw ? Something like wiping out every advanced civilization so that it won't be annhilated by synthetics ? Or turning everyone into an updated version of the Reapers ? Great.

With the informations that we have, it's impossible to give any correct prediction about the odds of survival/win in a war against a synthetic race, nor that ALL the synthetics are and will be fundamentally hostile.

What we saw and learned in-game quite tends to prove the contrary of what the Brat claims. It's all I need to dismiss the brat's nonsensical rant about the inevitable destruction of all organic races and the purpose of his preemptive genocides ascension. Naturally it's just my opinion.

He's the only one who wiped out his own creators (or "ascended" them into a Reaper form). He and his pals achieved during the last 20,000 cycles what the most malevolent and powerful synthetic race could only dream of. All of this for the sake of preserving us being killed by synthetics... No thanks, I'd rather try to walk my own path.

Are you talking about what I personally think or what I personally might think as written by Hudson/Walters?  Because only the second is really relevant.  You can assume that the Catalyst, as some badass super AI that has successfully wiped out billions of years worth of quadrillions of sentients, makes a basic error in confusing possibility and certainty.  It just seems kind of silly absent some further evidence from the authors.  In fact, the authors already have another AI make a prediction with, as it states: 100% certainty, so evidence weighs against your interpretation.  But until they pipe up, we won't know for certain. 

As it stands, I think they already said they didn't expect the objections they got and felt they were detracting from the point they were offering, thus the EC.

[Dharvy]

What if the catalyst just gave us backstory? They tried other solutions, all failed. Conflict always arose, and organic extinction was imminent. Simple backstory. And saying its logic is flawed because it tells us what happens over 1 billions years of repeating the cycle is ludicrous. True his creators became the first reapers but were they enough to destroy the next cycle efficiently, before they witness the repeat events that their cycle fail pray to? Or did they become efficient as the cycles progress and prevent the inevitable time and time again? How many cycles did they go through were organic extinction was an imminent threat and the Reapers influence allowed for a recycle instead of an erase?

We don't have none of this extended information yet so many want to claim that the backstory is wrong and not altogether possible? Why? Don't like the solution so trying to find flaws in the story?

The catalyst never say I have no physical proof of my assertions just statistical information so why do most assume that it did not experience conflict always arising and some, if not many, near extinction cycles?

[Hydralysk]

Dharvy wrote...

What if the catalyst just gave us backstory? They tried other solutions, all failed. Conflict always arose, and organic extinction was imminent. Simple backstory. And saying its logic is flawed because it tells us what happens over 1 billions years of repeating the cycle is ludicrous. True his creators became the first reapers but were they enough to destroy the next cycle efficiently, before they witness the repeat events that their cycle fail pray to? Or did they become efficient as the cycles progress and prevent the inevitable time and time again? How many cycles did they go through were organic extinction was an imminent threat and the Reapers influence allowed for a recycle instead of an erase?

We don't have none of this extended information yet so many want to claim that the backstory is wrong and not altogether possible? Why? Don't like the solution so trying to find flaws in the story?

The catalyst never say I have no physical proof of my assertions just statistical information so why do most assume that it did not experience conflict always arising and some, if not many, near extinction cycles?

The catalyst is making the claim here not us. It says the cycle will always repeat, but we haven't seen that happen, and in fact the synthetics we met so far are usually open to discussion. True we can't go out and prove the catalyst is false, but he's the one who's proposing the problem in the first place. By this logic I can propose that we nuke mexico to get rid of chupacabras because they are building WMDs, it's up to me to provide evidence that the threat is real, it's not the entire world's responsability to prove that I'm wrong.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 14 juillet 2012 - 03:29 .

[memorysquid]

Dharvy wrote...
We don't have none of this extended information yet so many want to claim that the backstory is wrong and not altogether possible? Why? Don't like the solution so trying to find flaws in the story?

The catalyst never say I have no physical proof of my assertions just statistical information so why do most assume that it did not experience conflict always arising and some, if not many, near extinction cycles?

Exactly.  The authors didn't feel this issue was central to their dilemma so they didn't play it up.  They didn't count on a bunch of riled fans deprived of a traditional bad guy questioning the foundations of epistemology so they could get an ending where they blow up the baddies with no repercussions.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

I believe he's right. It's indeed an inevitable conflict. The possibility of synthetic life surpassing organic life causes fear, which creates conflict. He's wrong when he says "the created will always rebel against the creators". The classic example is the contrary. Quarians attacked and the geth protected themselves. He created cycle based on the possibility that synthetic life would wipe out all organic life, the worst case scenario.

[Psychlonus]

Based on the worst case scenario, we need a mini-reaper cycle by grey aliens here on earth to destroy all civilization before it gets to nuclear annihilation. Advanced civiliation on earth should've been reaped prior to World War II and reset to the days of Mesopotamia...Where are those blasted greys...

Modifié par Psychlonus, 14 juillet 2012 - 03:56 .

[RShara]

Again, without proof to backup his story (which is impossible), it's simply anecdotal evidence on his part vs personal experience on Shepard's part. Whichever one of those calls to you most is the one that will make sense to you.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Psychlonus wrote...

Based on the worst case scenario, we need a mini-reaper cycle by grey aliens here on earth to destroy all civilization before it gets to nuclear annihilation. Advanced civiliation on earth should've been reaped prior to World War II and reset to the days of Mesopotamia...Where are those blasted greys...

No one said that its solution was right, nor that he should do it. It was just the one it found. It was he was created to do, his programing.

Your analogy is interesting, correct and funny.

[Dharvy]

Hydralysk wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

What if the catalyst just gave us backstory? They tried other solutions, all failed. Conflict always arose, and organic extinction was imminent. Simple backstory. And saying its logic is flawed because it tells us what happens over 1 billions years of repeating the cycle is ludicrous. True his creators became the first reapers but were they enough to destroy the next cycle efficiently, before they witness the repeat events that their cycle fail pray to? Or did they become efficient as the cycles progress and prevent the inevitable time and time again? How many cycles did they go through were organic extinction was an imminent threat and the Reapers influence allowed for a recycle instead of an erase?

We don't have none of this extended information yet so many want to claim that the backstory is wrong and not altogether possible? Why? Don't like the solution so trying to find flaws in the story?

The catalyst never say I have no physical proof of my assertions just statistical information so why do most assume that it did not experience conflict always arising and some, if not many, near extinction cycles?

The catalyst is making the claim here not us. It says the cycle will always repeat, but we haven't seen that happen, and in fact the synthetics we met so far are usually open to discussion. True we can't go out and prove the catalyst is false, but he's the one who's proposing the problem in the first place. By this logic I can propose that we nuke mexico to get rid of chupacabras because they are building WMDs, it's up to me to provide evidence that the threat is real, it's not the entire world's responsability to prove that I'm wrong.

What if its making the claim from near infinite repeat experiences? What if the cycle ALWAYS did repeat? Just because you have 2 cycles where things may not have reached climatic extermination don't mean that it did not experience such in countless other previous cycles. Why do you assume that its making a claim with no proof versus actually experiencing what it claims?

And the Quarian and Geth is a good example of the rebellion and a reasonable example of how it can lead to extinction. The creators (Quarians) wanted to deactivate there creations and they (Geth) rebelled. Quarians have legitimate fear that the tools they created that is stronger than them is no longer obeying direct commands. The resulting war which leads to Quarians near extinction. All the Geth have to now do is come to the logical consensus that organic fear have a high probability of ending their existence and take the intiative to insure their survival, hence possible organic extinction. The few Quarians that stood up for the Geth is probably the only thing that stayed their hands in the consensus and allowed the Quarians to flee at the end of the Morning War.

I know this is all speculation but all we have is hope versus what the catalyst have is near infinite repeat cycles of probable analyst as evidence.

[Dusen]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Appeal to Probability

A is possible/ therefore A is absolute

He is invalidated the moments he says "new variables".

So true, not to mention by OP's logic we would still think the earth is the center of solar system because no one would believe Copernicus and his heliocentric concept. I mean, it was just one example, shouldn't have let that break the contemporary cosmological ideals.

[memorysquid]

RShara wrote...

Again, without proof to backup his story (which is impossible), it's simply anecdotal evidence on his part vs personal experience on Shepard's part. Whichever one of those calls to you most is the one that will make sense to you.

Or he saw it happen 2 billion times and did a regression analysis and proved it somehow.  I just don't get the resistance to what the writers of a piece of fiction have written.  So they don't know or care about falsifiability theory; big deal.  What they intended is plain enough.  Yeah pick according to your aesthetics, but why are we ignoring the obvious?

[Dusen]

ISAWRIT wrote...

^ Well to be fair, he wasn't wrong (cough geth cough).

That's not even proof for the catalyst's assurtions anyways. ME3 itself makes a point (3 and half hours worth) to show us that the geth were only acting in self defence. Heck, even back in ME1 it was stated that the Geth had never left their own space to attack anyone until, guess who, the reapers intervened.

[RShara]

Dusen wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Appeal to Probability

A is possible/ therefore A is absolute

He is invalidated the moments he says "new variables".

So true, not to mention by OP's logic we would still think the earth is the center of solar system because no one would believe Copernicus and his heliocentric concept. I mean, it was just one example, shouldn't have let that break the contemporary cosmological ideals.

Yep.  I made a post a while back (that was ignored) about how the Starchild is like Aristotle in stating that something is true with no empirical proof, vs Shepard like Galileo who actually tested to see whether heavy objects actually fall faster than light objects.

[Dharvy]

RShara wrote...

Again, without proof to backup his story (which is impossible), it's simply anecdotal evidence on his part vs personal experience on Shepard's part. Whichever one of those calls to you most is the one that will make sense to you.

Why is the catalyst evidence anecdotal and shepard's experience is personal? Do the catalyst have to wait till organics is exterminated completely before it have experience of it happening? Could it nearly happen? Why do you assume it never got that bad in any of the cycles that the catalyst experienced? Do you assume they were perfectly effecient each cycle even from the early ones? Or were things perfected over many cycles? After all they didn't have as many Reapers in the beginning versus how many they have now. It is very much likely that organics have came to near extinction in many of catalyst's cycles giving credence to its "anecdotal" evidence.

[RShara]

Anecdotal because he comes up to you, tells you a story, and expects you to believe it.

I could tell you that the sky is green. Would you simply believe me, or look outside and tell me I'm full of crap?

[Dharvy]

RShara wrote...

Dusen wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Appeal to Probability

A is possible/ therefore A is absolute

He is invalidated the moments he says "new variables".

So true, not to mention by OP's logic we would still think the earth is the center of solar system because no one would believe Copernicus and his heliocentric concept. I mean, it was just one example, shouldn't have let that break the contemporary cosmological ideals.

Yep.  I made a post a while back (that was ignored) about how the Starchild is like Aristotle in stating that something is true with no empirical proof, vs Shepard like Galileo who actually tested to see whether heavy objects actually fall faster than light objects.

If Synthetics systematically at one (or many) point(s) in time tried and nearly accomplished said goal of exterminating all organics and only failed due to Reapers stepping whose you to say "no, it never happened"?

[Dharvy]

RShara wrote...

Anecdotal because he comes up to you, tells you a story, and expects you to believe it.

I could tell you that the sky is green. Would you simply believe me, or look outside and tell me I'm full of crap?

He's not telling you the sky is green, he's telling you that the sky turns green at some point and time. And he's not just telling you a story, he's telling you back story. You know the same like Javik telling you things that happened in his cycle? Just because you choose not to believe it don't mean his points are illogical.

[Heavensrun]

It doesn't matter if the catalyst was right. Assuming for a moment that we discount the fact that the catalyst's "data" was a manufactured assumption on the part of the writers, which is where much more of the legitimate criticism comes in to play, IMPO and ignoring the huge selection bias going on (Species that had been subsumed by synthetics before the reapers got there are evidence that the reapers are right. Species that have not....well, they'll probably get there at some point, I'm sure.) And we'll even ignore the fact that even if we have established that synthetics taking over is likely to happen, there's still no reason to assume that this is automatically a bad thing, or to assume that it will necessarily be a violent process.

The fact remains that the reapers do not have the right to commit genocide. Particularly since they -claim- to be doing it to prevent genocide. Even if everything the catalyst said about organics falling to synthetics is true, the optimal course of action is not then to create a race of synthetics to kill and catalogue organic species.

Personally, I think the writing on this issue is bull**** to begin with. Not to attack the writers themselves, but I just think they've watched Terminator 2 a few too many times. Species, synthetic or non, go into conflict because they have a conflict of interests. The catalyst makes this weird nebulous claim that synthetics "must overcome" and thereby destroy, organics. Well, sorry, but since when does "achieving superiority" mean "exterminate from existence"? We are in all likelihood the most intelligent species that is currently living on the surface of this planet. We have surpassed -every other existing species- in intellect. But killing animals? Generally, we only do -that- when we have something specific to gain from the act, like food, or a life with less risk of disease. And when a species is in serious danger of going extinct? Even if it's through no fault but it's own? We go out of our way to preserve it, because we see value in the diversity of life.

Why assume that synthetic life won't have the same capacity for moral thinking that humans have?

[memorysquid]

RShara wrote...

Anecdotal because he comes up to you, tells you a story, and expects you to believe it.

I could tell you that the sky is green. Would you simply believe me, or look outside and tell me I'm full of crap?

Or I could write "The sky was a lovely shade of green.  Rshara accepted that fact as uncritically as a Shepard being told that leaping into a green light would upgrade all sentients."  And lo!  It would be true!