556 réponses à ce sujet

[Dusen]

Dharvy wrote...

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"?

No one's stating that it never happened, but the point is that you can't take either example as justification for an absolute. You can't take the Quarian-Geth Peace as proof that all synthetics will be peaceful, and just the same you can't look at a previous cycle and say that all synthetics will rebel. It's a fallacy to state either as an eternal absolute. Every instance (EDI and Cerberus is debatable, since she was an Alliance AI before that) with synthetics in the game actually goes against the catalyst's claims by presenting them as generally peaceful, only resorting to violence for self defence and when under the influence of, ironically enough, a Reaper.

As far as we know, the ONLY instance of synthetics ever rebelling is from the Catalyst's original creator's cycle. Even if it did happen during every cycle you still can't accept it as an absolute, the probabilities do not rule out the chance of a peaceful race . . and nearly every instance in the series supports the idea that synthetics are for the most part, peaceful.

[Dharvy]

Heavensrun wrote...

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?

Quick question, if there was an animal that contained a virus that was causing or nearly causing our extinction would we, as humans extinct or nearly extinct said animal and only have a small sample alive to combat said virus via experimentation?

[memorysquid]

Heavensrun wrote...

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

Why assume it won't have more?  The Geth are light years more ethically concerned than the Quarians, than some versions of Shepard, and than most of the galaxy.

Wait.  I know one reason.  Because it isn't my assumptions that govern the universe of ME.

[RShara]

Dharvy wrote...

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.

When he states as a fact that something is inevitable, and any proof that he could possibly present would be incomplete, then yes, I would call it illogical.

[Bill Casey]

The Catalyst then says now that he knows it is possible, it is inevitable we will achieve synthesis...
Not sure how that works with synthetics inevitably killing all organic life...

But he is still killing you anyway, despite his assertion we don't even need the Reapers...
Because he is ****ing with you...


Did I mention synthetic life is a very real ehtical issue we will have to deal with in the future, and this whole ending comes off as extremely racist?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:15 .

[Dusen]

Bill Casey wrote...

The Catalyst then says now that he knows it is possible, it is inevitable we will achieve synthesis...
Not sure how that works with synthetics inevitably killing all organic life...

But he is still killing you anyway, despite his assertion we don't even need the Reapers...
Because he is ****ing with you...


Did I mention synthetic life is a very real ehtical issue we will have to deal with in the future, and this whole ending comes off as extremely racist?

What's funny is that starbrat wants you to choose synthesis, but that choice would cause him to fail at his sole purpose: to sustain organic life. Once synthesis occurs organic life will cease to exist, because it will be replaced by an organic-synthetic hybrid.

[Dharvy]

RShara wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

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.

When he states as a fact that something is inevitable, and any proof that he could possibly present would be incomplete, then yes, I would call it illogical.

Sure it may be incomplete on an astronomical scale. 

Quick question, guns statistically jam and misfire, would you want said loaded gun pointed at your head, knowing that it misfiring or jaming is a probability and it killing you is not a complete guarantee? After all the inevitable evidence that pointing a gun at your head would kill you is incomplete. So is it illogical to think you would not live if said trigger is pulled?

And i want to add maybe the statistal probability is not on the same level. And while I don't agree with the catalyst solutions of genocide, I can understand the problem it was created for.

[Dharvy]

Dusen wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

The Catalyst then says now that he knows it is possible, it is inevitable we will achieve synthesis...
Not sure how that works with synthetics inevitably killing all organic life...

But he is still killing you anyway, despite his assertion we don't even need the Reapers...
Because he is ****ing with you...


Did I mention synthetic life is a very real ehtical issue we will have to deal with in the future, and this whole ending comes off as extremely racist?

What's funny is that starbrat wants you to choose synthesis, but that choice would cause him to fail at his sole purpose: to sustain organic life. Once synthesis occurs organic life will cease to exist, because it will be replaced by an organic-synthetic hybrid.

I thinks its goal is just not to sustain organic life but to end the conflict and the preserving of organic life it Reaper form is maybe just to preserve until a time when said conflict is over. Hence the synthesis choice and previous cycles preserved information/essence or whatever being shared.

[RShara]

Dharvy wrote...

RShara wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

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.

When he states as a fact that something is inevitable, and any proof that he could possibly present would be incomplete, then yes, I would call it illogical.

Sure it may be incomplete on an astronomical scale. 

Quick question, guns statistically jam and misfire, would you want said loaded gun pointed at your head, knowing that it misfiring or jaming is a probability and it killing you is not a complete guarantee? After all the inevitable evidence that pointing a gun at your head would kill you is incomplete. So is it illogical to think you would not live if said trigger is pulled?

And i want to add maybe the statistal probability is not on the same level. And while I don't agree with the catalyst solutions of genocide, I can understand the problem it was created for.

Invalid analogy because you have seen guns in action.

More like, I aim this red, green, blue light machine at you.  I say that it will kill you unless you use this gun to kill all those people over there.

[Vigilant111]

Dharvy wrote...

Dusen wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

The Catalyst then says now that he knows it is possible, it is inevitable we will achieve synthesis...
Not sure how that works with synthetics inevitably killing all organic life...

But he is still killing you anyway, despite his assertion we don't even need the Reapers...
Because he is ****ing with you...


Did I mention synthetic life is a very real ehtical issue we will have to deal with in the future, and this whole ending comes off as extremely racist?

What's funny is that starbrat wants you to choose synthesis, but that choice would cause him to fail at his sole purpose: to sustain organic life. Once synthesis occurs organic life will cease to exist, because it will be replaced by an organic-synthetic hybrid.

I thinks its goal is just not to sustain organic life but to end the conflict and the preserving of organic life it Reaper form is maybe just to preserve until a time when said conflict is over. Hence the synthesis choice and previous cycles preserved information/essence or whatever being shared.

Yes, end the conflict with all costs including all intellectual lives, appearantly the Catalyst or its creators forgot that peace was supposed to ensure the survival of species, so that offsprings can go on living as themselves. Survival is not the same as "preservation", u only "preserve" things that are endangered, u round these things up in a national park and leave it alone, not trying to change it fundamentally.

When u chopped beans into tofu, yes, traces of beans are preserved, but the traces can no longer germinate

[Strange Aeons]

bgroberts wrote...

...And why those who claim he's wrong forgot to pay attention in their university classes.

Wow, this is an awful lot of arguing over a point that is purely the result of incompetent storytelling.

I'm a little embarrassed to point out the obvious to so eminent a grad student, but Mass Effect doesn't take place in the hard-bitten real world of academia. Wait, what? Anyway, "proving" that the Catalyst is wrong is an exercise in futility because the writers clearly can dictate whatever truth they want in their made-up world. You might as well try to argue that the Mass Relay technology couldn't possibly work; it works because they say it does. The Catalyst is "right," I guess, because Casey Hudson says so; but that's also beside the point.

I mean, let's imagine something like this did happen in the real world. Suppose a guy in a robe knocks on my door and says, "I am a prophet sent by God. You may find this hard to believe, but your wife will one day cause the end of the world. You're just going to have to take my word for it. The only way to save the world is for you to take this gun and shoot her. You must decide now!"

Hey, who knows? Maybe, unbeknownst to me, he really is a prophet sent by God! Maybe he has read the threads of fate (probably not the threads of this forum) and determined to a high level of probability that this is true. Perhaps he has composed a totally awesome thesis backed up by years of research, dozens of sources, and statistical studies that would satisfy even the most puffed up of grad students. I have no reason to believe this,  but I can't prove he's wrong.

All I know, though, is that I've been married to my wife for 5 years, and I'm not about to shoot her just because some jackass in a robe came out of nowhere and told me to. In fact, I'd imagine most people would consider me the crazy one if I simply took his story at face value under those circumstances.

Now before everyone decides to get lost in analogy-land arguing about the details of my stupid story, I guess what I'm trying to get across is that the failure of the Catalyst is a failure of storytelling above all else. That's really where the most relevant criticisms tend to be directed, and your argument misses that point. The failure, in this case, revolves around the player having no way to know what the Catalyst really is and having no good reason to trust him.  On the contrary, the player has every reason to distrust him after witnessing three games' worth of very specific evidence that does not support his claims. No, evidence is not the same as proof, but what else is the player in an interactive story supposed to go by?  This writers clearly expect players to accept the authority of the Catalyst, but they have made no effort to legitimize him in our eyes at the moment we must make this momentous decision.  Everything else pales in comparison to the egregious clumsiness of this scenario.

Look, if you really want to read my whole screed on this topic, it's in my sig. To make a long story short, this  choice is delivered to the player by some mysterious apparition who literally appeared out of nowhere under highly suspicious circumstances. It tells us a story that contradicts the message that the trilogy has spent considerable time impressing on us. The writers put the effort into letting us experience the stories of EDI and Legion and the Geth and the Quarians, Saren and TIM and the Krogan, presumably, because they wanted us to learn their lessons.

It's a big problem for the story when the lessons they spent 100+ hours teaching us completely undermine the reasoning of the antagonist (at least, if they expect you to go along with him). It's not even left ambiguous: by the time we reach the Catalyst, there is no tension whatsoever on this point so far as the narrative we experienced is concerned.  That's why players who actually paid attention to what they were doing for three games keep bringing these things up: because the ending is totally incongrous with what preceded it.  In fact, the only significant organic/synthetic conflict we witness that supports the Catalyst's position is the conflict that he himself provoked, which rather begs the question. It doesn't "prove" that he's wrong, but it does mean that it makes no sense in the context of the story to believe anything he says.

So was the Catalyst actually "right?" Who knows. More to the point: with writing that bad, who the f*** cares?

[Dharvy]

RShara wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

RShara wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

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.

When he states as a fact that something is inevitable, and any proof that he could possibly present would be incomplete, then yes, I would call it illogical.

Sure it may be incomplete on an astronomical scale. 

Quick question, guns statistically jam and misfire, would you want said loaded gun pointed at your head, knowing that it misfiring or jaming is a probability and it killing you is not a complete guarantee? After all the inevitable evidence that pointing a gun at your head would kill you is incomplete. So is it illogical to think you would not live if said trigger is pulled?

And i want to add maybe the statistal probability is not on the same level. And while I don't agree with the catalyst solutions of genocide, I can understand the problem it was created for.

Invalid analogy because you have seen guns in action.

More like, I aim this red, green, blue light machine at you.  I say that it will kill you unless you use this gun to kill all those people over there.

No you misunderstand the point of my analogy. I'm not saying that shepard have absolutely no reason to doubt the catalyst, there's always reason for doubt somewhere. My point is in game shepard knows as much as I know and probably more in the technologically advanced world of ME and I can understand the SC logic and also the SC is implying that he actually seen these events because its literally its back story. Now knowing full well the possibility and even the conversation shep had with javik it makes sense that synthetics would more than likely come to the conclusion to wipe organics before their irrational, flawed fears hinders their self preservation. So its not altogether unfathomable. And basically as an organic with limited life span a catastrophic event 1k years or 10k, 100k or 1mil years in the future is not really in out perview to solve at this moment with anything drastic. Whereas a synthetic which is literally immortal will view it differently.

But my true point being from the POV of the Catalyst experiencing the conflict through numerous cycles do you pull the trigger (aka let the cycles continue unhindered,) knowing good well that there just a chance the gun would misfire (synthetics would never ever extinct organics) and everything would be okay? Or do you put the gun down (input a solution) because the end result is catastrophically irreversible?

And the thread is about the catalyst being right, according to its experiences, not shepards limited knowledge or understanding or experiences.

[Dharvy]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

Dusen wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

The Catalyst then says now that he knows it is possible, it is inevitable we will achieve synthesis...
Not sure how that works with synthetics inevitably killing all organic life...

But he is still killing you anyway, despite his assertion we don't even need the Reapers...
Because he is ****ing with you...


Did I mention synthetic life is a very real ehtical issue we will have to deal with in the future, and this whole ending comes off as extremely racist?

What's funny is that starbrat wants you to choose synthesis, but that choice would cause him to fail at his sole purpose: to sustain organic life. Once synthesis occurs organic life will cease to exist, because it will be replaced by an organic-synthetic hybrid.

I thinks its goal is just not to sustain organic life but to end the conflict and the preserving of organic life it Reaper form is maybe just to preserve until a time when said conflict is over. Hence the synthesis choice and previous cycles preserved information/essence or whatever being shared.

Yes, end the conflict with all costs including all intellectual lives, appearantly the Catalyst or its creators forgot that peace was supposed to ensure the survival of species, so that offsprings can go on living as themselves. Survival is not the same as "preservation", u only "preserve" things that are endangered, u round these things up in a national park and leave it alone, not trying to change it fundamentally.

When u chopped beans into tofu, yes, traces of beans are preserved, but the traces can no longer germinate

Everyone in history is dead or about to die because everyone eventually dies. The only preservation we have is the knowledge, culture, art, information that is passed down through the ages. Organics, being mortal and on a limited life span would see things differently than something nearly immortal like the Reapers. Death of organics may not matter to the Reapers because its a given inevitability, they may be more concern with keeping the continuity of it and preserving said knowledge, information to pass down, in the event their genocidal solution is not longer needed or viable and organic extermination by synthetic conflict is not a probability. This is where synthesis may come in where the history of the pass cycles is shared, much the same way we now share the history of the dead.

Edit: The fact that you brought up food gave me a thought. It don't seem like the preserving the Reapers are doing have anything to do with germinating. What if its more like how we can fruits and vegatables, aka harvesting? When they're on the vine they can be considered alive and the moment you cut them off they are in a state of spoiling/dying. We take them and preserve them by putting them in an artificial construct aka canned, essentially saving what we feel is important about them, their edible value, until a time where it can be put to use and shared. Interesting.

I strive to understand certain things so I pick it up and look at it from different angles until it start to make sense. I personally saw enough movies, played enough games, and read enough books to appreciate an enemy that may have its own sense of logic and reasonings. To get and enemy that is just purely evil and want to nonsensically kill everything is rather boring. I was quite interested in what motivated the Reapers all through ME1 and kinda figured they treated organics pretty much the same way we treat some of the lesser "life forms" ie. plants, insects, animals etc.

Modifié par Dharvy, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:27 .

[robertthebard]

There's a flaw with the logic of calling SC's experiences ancedotal, especially if we want to apply that to anything historical. Raise your hand if you can personally verify everything that happened during the Revolutionary War. That's only going back a couple of centuries, and yet that evidence should be considered ancedotal, since none of us sitting here actually experienced it. Hell, I'm too young to remember personally WW II, even though my grandfather fought in it. However, by the SC's story is purely ancedotal theory, everything I know about WW II is ancedotal, and therefore dismissable as fiction.

The point being, we don't know what happened in earlier cycles, and we only know a very brief example of the last cycle, a mere drop in the bucket of time, compared to what the SC has seen. The funny thing is, everybody keeps pointing at the Geth to say "see, it doesn't happen", and yet, it's not that hard at all to have exactly what the SC says happen, and the Geth wipe out their creators. Play out something in 2 wrong, and try to get both factions in your war, and presto, death to the Quarians.

[DirtyPhoenix]

The SC says the reapers reap both organics and synthetics to "preserve" them. And his job was to ensure no side is wiped out in the conflict. Neither organics nor synthetics, which in his twisted logic, he is doing.

[Jeb231]

The catalyst was created to resolve an issue and to create a bridge between organics and synthetics.

You shouldn't question his directives but the reasoning and programming of the creators.

[ElementL09]

The Catalyst has been at this for 20,000+ cycles for at or above 1 billions years. His sample size and sources are so enormously vast beyond any cycle's experience that Shepard's indication of the Geth or EDI are of no consequence. You are holding up an exception to the aggregate, and also an exception with no guarantees of continuity.

The Catalyst is a synthetic Ai who was designed to "solve" the chaos between organics and synthetics (synthetics wiping out or nearly wiping out organics of his time).  He was created to find a solution to the chaos, a solution which failed since he decided, against his creators, to kill/assimlate them into Reaper form, and thus used the Reapers to wipe out organics and synthetics and letting lesser organics evolve so the cycle repeats.  His solution was to fight fire with fire and it failed the start, and after 1 billion years of countless resources from various organics and synthetics, Shepard and his cycle come along with the Crucible and suddenly new unknown options are available?  The Catalyst and its logic is horribly wrong and so are his creators for creating such a dumb ai.

Modifié par ElementL09, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .

[Tritium315]

bgroberts wrote...

As a graduate student...

I'm a political and social historian...

I wonder if that makes you a doubly pretenious douchebag? People like you just love starting arguments by droping your credentials.

As to your point: The Catalyst came up with his solution right after he was made which means at that point he had a sample size of 1. Additionally, as evidenced by our current cycle, he obviously doesn't care if a cycle has synthetics and organics that are friendly, or even in love with eachother, before he starts reaping. So as far as we know more cycles than not could have had organics and synthetics that were friends as opposed to enemies, and the Catalyst simply assumed that on a long enough timeline the chance of war would become an absolute; which isn't how it works. Hell, if the Reapers had started the cycle back when they originally planned (2000+ years before the start of the games) then there wouldn't have even been ANY synthetics around.

So, unless the Catalyst showed you his "research," your little write up should "get you an “R” from any self-respecting professor or instructor." Maybe you should work less on your research skills and more on your critical thinking. Just a thought.

Modifié par Tritium315, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:42 .

[Cypher_CS]

The Twilight God wrote...
And why do you think said manson synthetics will systematically scoure the galxy planet by planet to wipe out all life? Of course you don;t have to think. You just imagine something and act on the assumption that anything you can imagine will happen. It's absurd.

Oh, cool. Well, as long as you're fine having a conversation with your self, have fun...

Stornskar wrote...

While I understand your math and the concept behind it, I agree that the exercise is more philosophical than anything else ... and possibly more complex than you suggest. For example, each cycle may have its own number of pre-condition Xs, maybe:

X1 = synthetics will evolve below the level of organics within a certain time frame
X2 = synthetics will evolve equal to the level of organics within a certain time frame
X3 = synthetics will evolve beyond the level of organics within a certain time frame

Then you have a dependent event (or events), which can change those numbers drastically and where the singularity affects only one of those cases. 

 

Well, of course it's much more complex.
But the complexity comes from the recursion, I believe.

As for your example - the time frame given is not limited. Eventually, X3 always happens. That's the point.

Jayleia wrote...

No, I'm not saying "you have shown no evidence, THEREFORE you are wrong", I'm saying "no valid evidence has been presented at any point in time, therefore your claim is unproven".  He has to prove that he's right, not just tell me he's right, and then us prove him wrong.

Otherwise we're back to Homer's Tiger Repellent Rock.

 

There's a difference between UNproven and DISproven.
You've used DISproven before.

UNproven, you are right about that.
But, then again, we go back to the Prudential Argument. The "What If" question.
What if there's the slightest chance....

Mind you, however, that one of the things we might use to actually disprove that prudential argument, or, rather, change the values in that equation (similar to how the Crucible does by changing variables) is use God Twilight's argument, that basically they won't be able to wipe out all organic life and, sooner or later, it will develop again.
But... If and Only If, this inability is proven beyond the shadow of any doubt, otherwise it only lowers the Probability that the wiping might still happen, which, in turn, doesn't actually change the result from the negative infinity.

Sion1138 wrote...

He didn't just believe it without any proof.

The math was the proof, or rather a good indication, it fit with everything that has long since been conclusively proven and it was the best explanation for the issue of mass that we had, so we went and set up an experiment to try and see if it sticks.   

Higgs did not really pull this thing out of his butt, it fits the standard model. He didn't believe anything, he figured it could be true and CERN did the research to find out. Again, it was the best explanation we had. 

Exactly!
The math supports it.
So does the math here. The Prudential math, at least.

I'll rephrase. It does not support the inevitability, only the Prudence that should be taken into consideration when deciding.

Sion1138 wrote... 

If you don't have or haven't been presented sufficient evidence to even weigh the options, then just say "I don't know." (as Shepard did [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]).

The title of this thread is "Why the Catalyst was right.". It was neither right nor wrong, but the game itself, prior to the encounter, leads us to lean towards the latter, so we go with that. We've got experiences that say it's wrong and we've only got the Catalyst itself claiming the contrary. Hence, wrong. 

Now as for the wager, that's a whole nother issue.

No, I'm not saying that the Catalyst is right about the assertion. I'm only saying that it is Predentially correct.

From my own personal experience and knowledge, working with AI and on AI, I tend to agree that a Technological Singularity is inevitable.
However, I do not necessarily - or at all - subscribe to any notions that such Post TS AI would be malevolent or even uncaring.

That said, it is a possibility. Or, rather, not malevolence, but some sort of use for trampling. Trampling may be the way of total annihilation or subjugation - be it on a conscious (to us) level or otherwise.

Just a Note: Already today we see increase in subjugation to technology. Google's Glass being the latest such travesty (I'm not anti tech, but I find some of those newly created tech will be a detriment to our own development and ability to adapt, further relying on technologies).

Now, if we again turn the Prudential Argument - something should be done. There's no argument here.
The question is, what?
Synthesis? Control (I Know Best)? Three Laws of Robotics? Shrike? Duracell?

I can't answer that.
To me, within the game, the presented options are only two, taking the Prudential argument into consideration.
While I am damn arrogant, I am not as arrogant as to believe that I'm beyond the corruption of power, thus, to me, Control is not the best of options.

RShara wrote...

It's not a given, because it has never happened, therefore it is an unproven assertion in the context of the game.  If it were a proven assertion, then there would be no organics at all to confront him.  It has never happened so he cannot say that it WILL happen nor that it is INEVITABLE.  

Why do you insist on ignoring the Prudential Calculation?

"Simple" math?

RShara wrote...

NightHawkIL wrote...

No. You can have access to all the data in the world, but if you are looking at it with a preconceived purpose any result can be read entirely wrong.

In this case, the Catalyst has been around for perhaps hundreds of thousands of cycles, but only in the cycle started in ME1 has it been delayed after the initial launch. At that time, the Geth were hostile, as was Edi. If the Reapers had arrived as intended the Catalyst would have been able to sit back in his space chair and say to himself, "Looks like I was right again".

All it took was two additional years of peace between when the Reapers were supposed to arrive and when they actually did for a majority of synthetics to resolve their conflict with organics.

In all likelihood the Catalyst has only witnessed a small number of cases where synthetics have destroyed a large number of organics, and ever since then he has stepped in before it has gotten that far. Even in the cases where that struggle has occurred, he has obviously never let it play out to completion or there would be no organics in the universe today. So, it is obvious that the Catalyst, even after thousands of cycles, has absolutely no data on what would occur if organics and synthetics were permitted to battle to completion. It is a huge assumption that the conflict could never be resolved, based on thousands of studies that were shut down before they were even half way completed.

If you home brewed beer and tossed it after two days because it didn't taste like beer, you could repeat the process thousands of times and never have any idea that the same brew would be great if it was allowed to sit for the proper amount of time.

Been trying to get that through people's heads for pages now

No, you are both wrong.
You two are, AGAIN, relying on some notion (wrong notion) that Geth or EDI are ANY SORT of evidence against the Probabilistically driven argument.
They are NOT.
The two years are NOT proof of anything. We haven't resolved THE conflict, we resolved a skirmish. Nothing more.
Given enough time, more wars will arise. How do I know that for certain? Because more wars will arise between organics themselves.
Synthetics or Organics, it doesn't frakking matter. At all.

Doesn't even matter who starts it.
Hell, if anything, that fact that it will more than likely always (or most of the time) be started by Organics is even more damning.
Why? Becase, eventually, some ultra smart AI will decided that enough is enough and the source of all Evil int he Galaxy are Organics and decide on a final solution (sorry, I'm Jewish, I'm allowed ).

The point being, the Geth conflict, or it's resolution, is not proof against the inevitability.

All it would take, is ONE such AI.
Not more. Only one. One to decide that Organics are the root of conflict.
One, post TS AI (giving it certain victory), to decided that it knows best. Just like so many other, Organics, in our history, have decided so.
Only difference was that they were not post TS. They were on par with us. So, they lost.
Imagine something so far beyond our capability deciding the same thing as tiny dimunitie Adolf....

[DirtyPhoenix]

ElementL09 wrote...

The Catalyst has been at this for 20,000+ cycles for at or above 1 billions years. His sample size and sources are so enormously vast beyond any cycle's experience that Shepard's indication of the Geth or EDI are of no consequence. You are holding up an exception to the aggregate, and also an exception with no guarantees of continuity.

The Catalyst is a synthetic Ai who was designed to "solve" the chaos between organics and synthetics (synthetics wiping out or nearly wiping out organics of his time).  He was created to find a solution to the chaos, a solution which failed since he decided, against his creators, to kill/assimlate them into Reaper form, and thus used the Reapers to wipe out organics and synthetics and letting lesser organics evolve so the cycle repeats.  His solution was to fight fire with fire and it failed the start, and after 1 billion years of countless resources from various organics and synthetics, Shepard and his cycle come along with the Crucible and suddenly new unknown options are available?  The Catalyst and its logic is horribly wrong and so are his creators for creating such a dumb ai.

Not since. Only after his efforts to negotiate failed did he decide reaping was the only solution left. To us it seems they are wiping out all organic life but to it, it is only preserving them. Its an AI gone rogue, and ofcourse its logic is frakked up. Compare it to V.I.K.I in I' Robot.. an AI who comes to the conclusion that the only way to save humanity from self destructing is to dominate and control it.

[RShara]

Tritium315 wrote...

As to your point: The Catalyst came up with his solution right after he was made which means at that point he had a sample size of 1. Additionally, as evidenced by our current cycle, he obviously doesn't care if a cycle has synthetics and organics that are friendly, or even in love with eachother, before he starts reaping. So as far as we know more cycles than not could have had organics and synthetics that were friends as opposed to enemies, and the Catalyst simply assumed that on a long enough timeline the chance of war would become an absolute; which isn't how it works. Hell, if the Reapers had started the cycle back when they originally planned (2000+ years before the start of the games) then there wouldn't have even been ANY synthetics around.

So, unless the Catalyst showed you his "research," your little write up should "get you an “R” from any self-respecting professor or instructor." Maybe you should work less on your research skills and more on your critical thinking. Just a thought.

Thank you!

[Dharvy]

ElementL09 wrote...

The Catalyst has been at this for 20,000+ cycles for at or above 1 billions years. His sample size and sources are so enormously vast beyond any cycle's experience that Shepard's indication of the Geth or EDI are of no consequence. You are holding up an exception to the aggregate, and also an exception with no guarantees of continuity.

The Catalyst is a synthetic Ai who was designed to "solve" the chaos between organics and synthetics (synthetics wiping out or nearly wiping out organics of his time).  He was created to find a solution to the chaos, a solution which failed since he decided, against his creators, to kill/assimlate them into Reaper form, and thus used the Reapers to wipe out organics and synthetics and letting lesser organics evolve so the cycle repeats.  His solution was to fight fire with fire and it failed the start, and after 1 billion years of countless resources from various organics and synthetics, Shepard and his cycle come along with the Crucible and suddenly new unknown options are available?  The Catalyst and its logic is horribly wrong and so are his creators for creating such a dumb ai.

What if you had 2 countries fighting continually and you exhausted all your options for peace. Now they have the means, and on the verge or are attempting to escalate there conflict until the whole earth become its collateral damage. What do you do?

A) Do you continue fruitless options for peace until doomsday has already passed and everything is extinct?
Wipe them off the face of the earth so they don't do that to the rest of civilization?

The catalyst seemed to have chosen option B. You're an organic so maybe with hope you'll have chosen option A and would no longer exist. Well there's a chance right? We sure don't wanna genocide no one.

Think a little outside the box and things may just start to make sense.

Also the Crucible was designed to stop the Reapers so the new options, whether the Catalyst like them or not, they are the variable of the power source that is the Crucible.

Modifié par Dharvy, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:00 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Doesn't even matter who starts it.
Hell, if anything, that fact that it will more than likely always (or most of the time) be started by Organics is even more damning.
Why? Becase, eventually, some ultra smart AI will decided that enough is enough and the source of all Evil int he Galaxy are Organics and decide on a final solution (sorry, I'm Jewish, I'm allowed ).

The point being, the Geth conflict, or it's resolution, is not proof against the inevitability.

All it would take, is ONE such AI.
Not more. Only one. One to decide that Organics are the root of conflict.
One, post TS AI (giving it certain victory), to decided that it knows best. Just like so many other, Organics, in our history, have decided so.
Only difference was that they were not post TS. They were on par with us. So, they lost.
Imagine something so far beyond our capability deciding the same thing as tiny dimunitie Adolf....

And also the fact the it were the Reapers who were the reasons behind a peaceful resolution of the conflict TWICE. First when they used the reaper signals to save the Geth from anihilation and second when the threat of reaper-upgraded geth was the only thing that stopped the Quarians from shooting itself on the foot. The Geth-Quarian peace is no guarantee that something like this won't happen in the future. Bothe EDI and Geth started out as VIs, their creators didn't intend them to be self-aware AIs, and neither did they predict. Yet when they did gain sentience, the first reaction of organics was it "kill" them. Such mistakes leading to birth of AIs can happen in future, with other races.

[Cypher_CS]

I find it hilarious, that "Thank you"
The OP begins by pointing out the Error of using anecdotal self experience as a counter to an overarching rule.
In this case singular occurrences to negate an assertion of Eventually, of Inevitably.

You can NOT negate the assertion of Eventually or Inevitable by a singular event.
It's impossible. It doesn't work.

It doesn't matter if the Catalyst is right or wrong or just spewing BS.
Your counter argument CANNOT be a singular occurrence, RShara and Tritium.


Also, the Catalyst came up with the solution, but as we learn from the EC, it did NOT define the problem. It's creators did.

[Vigilant111]

Dharvy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

Dusen wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

The Catalyst then says now that he knows it is possible, it is inevitable we will achieve synthesis...
Not sure how that works with synthetics inevitably killing all organic life...

But he is still killing you anyway, despite his assertion we don't even need the Reapers...
Because he is ****ing with you...


Did I mention synthetic life is a very real ehtical issue we will have to deal with in the future, and this whole ending comes off as extremely racist?

What's funny is that starbrat wants you to choose synthesis, but that choice would cause him to fail at his sole purpose: to sustain organic life. Once synthesis occurs organic life will cease to exist, because it will be replaced by an organic-synthetic hybrid.

I thinks its goal is just not to sustain organic life but to end the conflict and the preserving of organic life it Reaper form is maybe just to preserve until a time when said conflict is over. Hence the synthesis choice and previous cycles preserved information/essence or whatever being shared.

Yes, end the conflict with all costs including all intellectual lives, appearantly the Catalyst or its creators forgot that peace was supposed to ensure the survival of species, so that offsprings can go on living as themselves. Survival is not the same as "preservation", u only "preserve" things that are endangered, u round these things up in a national park and leave it alone, not trying to change it fundamentally.

When u chopped beans into tofu, yes, traces of beans are preserved, but the traces can no longer germinate

Everyone in history is dead or about to die because everyone eventually dies. The only preservation we have is the knowledge, culture, art, information that is passed down through the ages. Organics, being mortal and on a limited life span would see things differently than something nearly immortal like the Reapers. Death of organics may not matter to the Reapers because its a given inevitability, they may be more concern with keeping the continuity of it and preserving said knowledge, information to pass down, in the event their genocidal solution is not longer needed or viable and organic extermination by synthetic conflict is not a probability. This is where synthesis may come in where the history of the pass cycles is shared, much the same way we now share the history of the dead.

Edit: The fact that you brought up food gave me a thought. It don't seem like the preserving the Reapers are doing have anything to do with germinating. What if its more like how we can fruits and vegatables, aka harvesting? When they're on the vine they can be considered alive and the moment you cut them off they are in a state of spoiling/dying. We take them and preserve them by putting them in an artificial construct aka canned, essentially saving what we feel is important about them, their edible value, until a time where it can be put to use and shared. Interesting.

I strive to understand certain things so I pick it up and look at it from different angles until it start to make sense. I personally saw enough movies, played enough games, and read enough books to appreciate an enemy that may have its own sense of logic and reasonings. To get and enemy that is just purely evil and want to nonsensically kill everything is rather boring. I was quite interested in what motivated the Reapers all through ME1 and kinda figured they treated organics pretty much the same way we treat some of the lesser "life forms" ie. plants, insects, animals etc.

True that organics eventually die, but aren't organics allowed to continue to find new knowledge? by killing them and storing them into a memory bank, their freedoms are robbed

Yes yes they die, but new offsprings will come, refined offsprings will come, but reapers = arrested development, u cannot keep something from dying by killing. The fruit is canned because they are delicious to a third party, the fruit's original purpose was to give birth to a new individual, and u will retort that reapers aren't concerned with that, that reapers only concerned about "peace" in a vaccum, effectively locking everyone up

Yes, the essense of a species is culture, but you only ascend certain people, what are your selection criterias? Aren't you (reapers) arrogant in assuming subjectively some are better than others? You cannot preserve a couple of people and think oh that is enough culture for this species, you have to preserve all to show a comprehensive image  otherwise you are no different in taking a couple of photos which is meaningless, we can dig up relics, we have time capsules, why not use them? when you preserve things, u don't embody them into weapons like harbingers, u are putting knowledge and culture in danger when you harvest

Okay, yes s**t happens I know, it is the nature of things, and the more power u have, the more likely you become a bully