556 réponses à ce sujet

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

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.

To make an assertion of inevitability you need a great many data points, and the Catalyst didn't show us anything of the sort. For all we know the Catalyst was made, saw what was happening in his cycle, and then started reaping. He may only have that one data point still because in every cycle he reaped everyone before any synthetics could appear.

What you're basically telling us is that if I make the assertion "Humans will eventually destroy the Earth because of our evil polluting ways; so the only way to save the planet is to kill all humans" then we must kill all humans. The only evidence we have to counter that assertion is that we haven't destroyed the Earth yet, and that's just anecdotal evidence; a singular event. So you see, it's impossible to counter the assertion, according to you, so we must kill all humans! I'll grab the knives, you get the guns, okay?

Do you realize how moronic that sounds? 

Modifié par Tritium315, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:13 .

[Cypher_CS]

It sounds very moronic, and it's a good thing I said nothing of the sorts.

Of course, there are many "environmentalists" who think in exactly that way!

Again, I am NOT commenting on the Solution. Well, I have, but I've explained that I don't think the solution the Catalyst presents is a good one (Reaping, that is). Neither did the people who created it! It says so itself.
However, the problem, is real... real in the math the Catalyst or it's creators used. Prudential Argument.

Talking ONLY about the problem.

Yes, if nothing is done, Humans will eventually destroy the Earth, because of our polluting ways.
Is that a false assertion?
To be honest, I personally think it is a false assertion. Because the correct one would be that Humans will eventually make Earth unlivable to Humans. We will be extinct here, on Earth, because of our polluting ways. Earth will mend itself after a few thousand years.... Without us. Giving rise to some new species.

However, the problem, defined properly, is still there. It is real.
The solution sucks, no argument there.

But if you want a debate on logic or a logical debate (either one), you need to be able to distinguish the two.

[Dharvy]

Vigilant111 wrote...

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

I agree with the bolded statement. But I doubt the Reapers/Catalyst have such values. And yes the fruit original purpose is to give birth to new individual life, much as our purpose, but that don't stop us from canning them for that third party.

What do you mean by peace in a vacuum?

I don't think individual lives, species, races, matter I think its more about allowing organic life in general, as a whole to continue. You know how we burn fields to make way for new growth? Maybe from the Reapers point of view to let organic and synthetic life alone will result in the true loss of all organic life in an irreversible conflict. So basically they canned the existing advanced life to prevent it from stifling the younger life. And rinse and repeat until its a time when they can find a solution that would allow the existing advanced life not to be detrimental to all life.

We view all life as precious so from an individual standpoint the Reapers solution is actrocious and I agree. But looking at it analytically... well in a way it can make sense.

[Cypher_CS]

Dharvy wrote...


I don't think individual lives, species, races, matter I think its more about allowing organic life in general, as a whole to continue. You know how we burn fields to make way for new growth? Maybe from the Reapers point of view to let organic and synthetic life alone will result in the true loss of all organic life in an irreversible conflict. So basically they canned the existing advanced life to prevent it from stifling the younger life. And rinse and repeat until its a time when they can find a solution that would allow the existing advanced life not to be detrimental to all life.

We view all life as precious so from an individual standpoint the Reapers solution is actrocious and I agree. But looking at it analytically... well in a way it can make sense.

Great statement.

[Vigilant111]

Dharvy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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

I agree with the bolded statement. But I doubt the Reapers/Catalyst have such values. And yes the fruit original purpose is to give birth to new individual life, much as our purpose, but that don't stop us from canning them for that third party.

What do you mean by peace in a vacuum?

I don't think individual lives, species, races, matter I think its more about allowing organic life in general, as a whole to continue. You know how we burn fields to make way for new growth? Maybe from the Reapers point of view to let organic and synthetic life alone will result in the true loss of all organic life in an irreversible conflict. So basically they canned the existing advanced life to prevent it from stifling the younger life. And rinse and repeat until its a time when they can find a solution that would allow the existing advanced life not to be detrimental to all life.

We view all life as precious so from an individual standpoint the Reapers solution is actrocious and I agree. But looking at it analytically... well in a way it can make sense.

Peace in a vacuum = killing everyone to achieve peace, they are all dead, so nobody can kill one another anymore, right? Keeping minds inside reaper bodies are just like prison, you have no autonomy, everything is dictated by the Catalyst, and u get into danger when humans fire missiles at u, not fun, not smart, certainly not preserving. *okay getting side tracted here, u put things in a jar, actually make it the last good plum on earth, and then u threw that jar in someone's face when you got angry cos no other weapon was within your reach...what kind of "preservation" is this? Isn't this illogical?

The only way to make sense of the "peace" premise is that (*speculation alert) the Catalyst is trying to stop singularity from happening, and not just some abstract idea of peace, peace has to have a purpose. I think the creators of the Catalyst were concerned about their own survival, and not simple peace, in other words, a hedge against "threat"

EDIT: new growth? u mean when they get intelligent enough you kill them again, right?

Modifié par Vigilant111, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:46 .

[Xandurpein]

The Starchild may, through the many cycles it's been observing, see things that reinforces it's view, even if it destroys sentient organic life before it can see what would really happen. However, when Catalyst first decides on its solution it does so with no more evidence than its own creators inability to deal with a synthetic race it created. One event was enough for Catalyst to formulate its solution. One event was enough to doom all sentient races in the galaxy to "reaping".

Modifié par Xandurpein, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:49 .

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

It sounds very moronic, and it's a good thing I said nothing of the sorts.

Of course, there are many "environmentalists" who think in exactly that way!

Again, I am NOT commenting on the Solution. Well, I have, but I've explained that I don't think the solution the Catalyst presents is a good one (Reaping, that is). Neither did the people who created it! It says so itself.
However, the problem, is real... real in the math the Catalyst or it's creators used. Prudential Argument.

Talking ONLY about the problem.

Yes, if nothing is done, Humans will eventually destroy the Earth, because of our polluting ways.
Is that a false assertion?
To be honest, I personally think it is a false assertion. Because the correct one would be that Humans will eventually make Earth unlivable to Humans. We will be extinct here, on Earth, because of our polluting ways. Earth will mend itself after a few thousand years.... Without us. Giving rise to some new species.

However, the problem, defined properly, is still there. It is real.
The solution sucks, no argument there.

But if you want a debate on logic or a logical debate (either one), you need to be able to distinguish the two.

How are you going to say that "humans will destroy the earth" is a false assertion? Do you have evidence to back that up? Or maybe you have a time machine where you saw how humans made Earth unlivable to humans and didn't destroy it. Is your assertion of one absolute anymore true than the other? You're stating absolute is false and then countering it with another. Arguing in inevitabilities is pointless and serves noone.

As for the problem of synthetics being a real one; it isn't. The only information we have is that the Catalyst was created to win, or somehow stop, a war that it's creators had with a race of synthetics. For all we know the Catalyst's creators started the war in the first place; much the same way the Quarians started their war with the Geth. Perhaps this synthetic race was simply trying to survive and did not want to eradicate organics at all. If there is a fundamental need for conflict between synthetics and organics; we don't have any evidence for it. In fact, all we have is evidence to the contrary (the Geth and Edi). Imagining a theoretical problem does not make it a real one.

Claiming that synthetics will wipe out organics 100% of the time is as ludicrous as claiming humans will absolutely destroy the Earth.

Modifié par Tritium315, 14 juillet 2012 - 11:00 .

[Vigilant111]

@Dharvy: they burn fields because they believe something better will come, but in Catalyst's POV, organics behave the same over and over, nothing "good" has ever come

Didn't you say the Catalyst ain't concerned about diversity of life?, there is only two lives, organic and synthetics, they all have distinct qualities, nothing is gonna change them, full stop, hence cycles

Modifié par Vigilant111, 14 juillet 2012 - 11:01 .

[Cypher_CS]

Xandurpein, you've just presented facts not in evidence.

All the Catalyst said was it's creators realized that this is inevitable, not that it itself came up with the problem by some singular observation.
It's creators - the Kurzvingean race - came up with the problem and designed the Catalyst to find a solution.

How did they come up with the problem? We don't know.
We shouldn't assume that it was by some single inability to deal with a synthetic race it created.

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

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....

There is a serious problem with this argument in that you are relying on an eventuality occurring.

In fact, we are back to where we started. An appeal to probabaility.

You are claiming something is possible in the future and then using an enormous timeline to justify that it might occur. This is fallacious as a justification for any solution. You could justify any solution to any problem by claiming eventuality.

Moreover you are making an appeal to consequences right there when you are claiming only one circumstance is needed to kill all organics, it's valid in ethics maybe, but certainly not valid as a logical justification.

[Dharvy]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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

I agree with the bolded statement. But I doubt the Reapers/Catalyst have such values. And yes the fruit original purpose is to give birth to new individual life, much as our purpose, but that don't stop us from canning them for that third party.

What do you mean by peace in a vacuum?

I don't think individual lives, species, races, matter I think its more about allowing organic life in general, as a whole to continue. You know how we burn fields to make way for new growth? Maybe from the Reapers point of view to let organic and synthetic life alone will result in the true loss of all organic life in an irreversible conflict. So basically they canned the existing advanced life to prevent it from stifling the younger life. And rinse and repeat until its a time when they can find a solution that would allow the existing advanced life not to be detrimental to all life.

We view all life as precious so from an individual standpoint the Reapers solution is actrocious and I agree. But looking at it analytically... well in a way it can make sense.

Peace in a vacuum = killing everyone to achieve peace, they are all dead, so nobody can kill one another anymore, right? Keeping minds inside reaper bodies are just like prison, you have no autonomy, everything is dictated by the Catalyst, and u get into danger when humans fire missiles at u, not fun, not smart, certainly not preserving. *okay getting side tracted here, u put things in a jar, actually make it the last good plum on earth, and then u threw that jar in someone's face when you got angry cos no other weapon was within your reach...what kind of "preservation" is this? Isn't this illogical?

The only way to make sense of the "peace" premise is that (*speculation alert) the Catalyst is trying to stop singularity from happening, and not just some abstract idea of peace, peace has to have a purpose. I think the creators of the Catalyst were concerned about their own survival, and not simple peace, in other words, a hedge against "threat"

EDIT: new growth? u mean when they get intelligent enough you kill them again, right?

Okay, I see what you're saying by peace in a vacuum. But I don't think they're killing everyone to achieve peace. They're killing because without peace all life is threatened by the conflict. They're killing or preserving the life that can potentially cause the conflict to allow new life a chance to grow. And then when that new life gets to the point of threatening they rinse and repeat. And maybe they needed a form to preserve the creators but also a formidable form to carry out the solution. And basically the reaping solution is in place until a solution of peace is reached and the threat is no longer neccessary. According to the catalyst they tried a form of synthesis, a solution for peace, to end the threat so they can end their reaping solution but it can't be forced. 

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Xandurpein, you've just presented facts not in evidence.

All the Catalyst said was it's creators realized that this is inevitable, not that it itself came up with the problem by some singular observation.
It's creators - the Kurzvingean race - came up with the problem and designed the Catalyst to find a solution.

How did they come up with the problem? We don't know.
We shouldn't assume that it was by some single inability to deal with a synthetic race it created.

That's the point, we can't assume anything. We have no idea why the Catalyst was created; all we know is there was a war between an organic race and a synthetic race, period. Bioware came up with this theoretical problem and I'm fairly sure they haven't seen any synthetic races at all. Who's to say the Catalyst's creators had anymore evidence?

[Grimwick]

Tritium315 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Xandurpein, you've just presented facts not in evidence.

All the Catalyst said was it's creators realized that this is inevitable, not that it itself came up with the problem by some singular observation.
It's creators - the Kurzvingean race - came up with the problem and designed the Catalyst to find a solution.

How did they come up with the problem? We don't know.
We shouldn't assume that it was by some single inability to deal with a synthetic race it created.

That's the point, we can't assume anything. We have no idea why the Catalyst was created; all we know is there was a war between an organic race and a synthetic race, period. Bioware came up with this theoretical problem and I'm fairly sure they haven't seen any synthetic races at all. Who's to say the Catalyst's creators had anymore evidence?

In any case their argument is better known as a hasty generilisation.

They have evidence but in no way have they completed the inductive process by showing it to be true for all cases.

They simply jumped from the first example of evidence to the conclusion.

[Cypher_CS]

Tritium315 wrote...

How are you going to say that "humans will destroy the earth" is a false assertion? Do you have evidence to back that up? Or maybe you have a time machine where you saw how humans made Earth unlivable to humans and didn't destroy it. Is your assertion of one absolute anymore true than the other? You're stating absolute is false and then countering it with another. Arguing in inevitabilities is pointless and serves noone.

I'm not saying that "humans will destroy the earth" is a false assertion.
Again, you twist my words.
I'm saying taht "humans will destroy the earth by pollution" is a false assertion, because pollution in itself can't really, physically, destroy the Earth.
I furthermore suggest an alternative definition to a problem, to fix that physical impossibility.
Personally, as someone who has taken an interest in recent (two+ years) weather events, I believe the Earth can take care of itself, and damn the Hand Watch loving monkeys on it.

I wasn't contesting your assertion, merely accetuating it. Correcting it, maybe.

Tritium315 wrote... 
As for the problem of synthetics being a real one; it isn't. The only information we have is that the Catalyst was created to win, or somehow stop, a war that it's creators had with a race of synthetics. For all we know the Catalyst's creators started the war in the first place; much the same way the Quarians started their war with the Geth. Perhaps this synthetic race was simply trying to survive and did not want to eradicate organics at all. If there is a fundamental need for conflict between synthetics and organics; we don't have any evidence for it. In fact, all we have is evidence to the contrary (the Geth and Edi). Imagining a theoretical problem does not make it a real one.

1. The Catalyst wasn't created to win something. But to achieve peace.
2. It doesn't matter who started the war in the first place. All that matters who will end it, eventually.
You know that saying "War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left"? That's exactly the point right here.

Tritium315 wrote... 
Claiming that synthetics will wipe out organics 100% of the time is as ludicrous as claiming humans will absolutely destroy the Earth.

Yes, it is ludicrous, and, again, that is NOT the claim!

The claim is that given enough time, with a non zero chance, there will come a Synthetic, an AI, that will decide that it wants to end all conflict started by Organics and present a final solution.
Is it a correct assertion? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

The point is that prudentially, it's imperative to tackle.

Is the solution the Catalyst put in place a good one? Certainly not. But it is the solution it has.
Should we change it? Definitely.

[Cypher_CS]

I'm sorry, Grimwick, but a Prudential Argument is a logically valid argument, if you can define the needed variables to a satisfying degree.

[Vigilant111]

Dharvy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

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

I agree with the bolded statement. But I doubt the Reapers/Catalyst have such values. And yes the fruit original purpose is to give birth to new individual life, much as our purpose, but that don't stop us from canning them for that third party.

What do you mean by peace in a vacuum?

I don't think individual lives, species, races, matter I think its more about allowing organic life in general, as a whole to continue. You know how we burn fields to make way for new growth? Maybe from the Reapers point of view to let organic and synthetic life alone will result in the true loss of all organic life in an irreversible conflict. So basically they canned the existing advanced life to prevent it from stifling the younger life. And rinse and repeat until its a time when they can find a solution that would allow the existing advanced life not to be detrimental to all life.

We view all life as precious so from an individual standpoint the Reapers solution is actrocious and I agree. But looking at it analytically... well in a way it can make sense.

Peace in a vacuum = killing everyone to achieve peace, they are all dead, so nobody can kill one another anymore, right? Keeping minds inside reaper bodies are just like prison, you have no autonomy, everything is dictated by the Catalyst, and u get into danger when humans fire missiles at u, not fun, not smart, certainly not preserving. *okay getting side tracted here, u put things in a jar, actually make it the last good plum on earth, and then u threw that jar in someone's face when you got angry cos no other weapon was within your reach...what kind of "preservation" is this? Isn't this illogical?

The only way to make sense of the "peace" premise is that (*speculation alert) the Catalyst is trying to stop singularity from happening, and not just some abstract idea of peace, peace has to have a purpose. I think the creators of the Catalyst were concerned about their own survival, and not simple peace, in other words, a hedge against "threat"

EDIT: new growth? u mean when they get intelligent enough you kill them again, right?

Okay, I see what you're saying by peace in a vacuum. But I don't think they're killing everyone to achieve peace. They're killing because without peace all life is threatened by the conflict. They're killing or preserving the life that can potentially cause the conflict to allow new life a chance to grow. And then when that new life gets to the point of threatening they rinse and repeat. And maybe they needed a form to preserve the creators but also a formidable form to carry out the solution. And basically the reaping solution is in place until a solution of peace is reached and the threat is no longer neccessary. According to the catalyst they tried a form of synthesis, a solution for peace, to end the threat so they can end their reaping solution but it can't be forced. 

Okay I need to repeat, I think u only understood half of my statement, when you are dead, or locked away, u cannot create peace, nor can you create conflict, it takes two parties for both those things to happen or maybe just kill organics and leave synthetics alone, when both parties cease to exist, everything including peace and conflict is meaningless, because there is no one left... It is the survival of certain people that is the key issue here

To my understanding, the Catalyst has already forced its solution, whether it recognises as such or not. I guess synthesis is something different...and I cannot go into detail of it cos I do not know what it is

I think the Catalyst has already concluded and firm about its decisions, it has to be done, just waiting for someone like Shepard, what for? I do not know, you ask it or you can speculate

Modifié par Vigilant111, 14 juillet 2012 - 12:02 .

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Yes, it is ludicrous, and, again, that is NOT the claim!

The claim is that given enough time, with a non zero chance, there will come a Synthetic, an AI, that will decide that it wants to end all conflict started by Organics and present a final solution.
Is it a correct assertion? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

The point is that prudentially, it's imperative to tackle.

Is the solution the Catalyst put in place a good one? Certainly not. But it is the solution it has.
Should we change it? Definitely.

Everything in the universe has a non-zero chance. As countless people in this thread have said; having a non-zero chance does not constitute an absolute on a long enough timeline. If that were the case then we should prepare for Anti-Christ and the Apocalypse he brings, the Ragnarok, and the coming of ****ing Cthulhu. Do you have proof that those things can't occur? No, which means they have a non-zero chance of occuring. It's telling that prudential arguments are most often used in discussions about religon.

The bottom line is there is literally no evidence for the fundamental need for war between synthetics and organics, none. Believing in that inevitability is equivalent of believing in the Ragnarok or the Apocalypse.

[Cypher_CS]

As I've demonstrated before, with an actual equation (page 11 or 12 or 13), it's not about the Probability, but the Valence.

The Expected Value is the Sum of each Probability multiplied by it's given Value.
E(X) = P1*x1 + P2*x2

P1 (annihilation of organics by synthetics) may be minute, a thousandth or less even, but it's non zero. P2 (the non annihilation) is 100-P1.
However, the Value (x) that the Catalyst gives to the continued existence of Organic life is Absolute. It is infinite. Hence, the destruction of said life, complete annihilation, is Negative Infinity or close to it.
This is the opposite case of the Architect saying "there are levels of survival we are prepared to accept". The value of x2 is the Status Quo. It is finite (and recursively leads back to option 1 - but that's beside the point, currently) and positive.

Which results in that equation being close to negative, no matter how large P2 and x2 are.
Again, I'm not justifying the basis of the argument, but the structure of it. And it is valid.

Personally, I wouldn't give such absolute valence to the continued existence of organic life above all other possible life (like AI).

[robertthebard]

RShara wrote...

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!

The problem I have with the train of thought that gets people to this conclusion is that they are using the exact same logic that the SC is to say that he's wrong:  I have never seen it happen, so it can't happen.  Everybody gets stuck on "wiping out all organic life in the galaxy", but when the Synthetic turns on the Creator, for whatever reason, even when, in my eyes it's justified in the case of the Geth, the SC is proven right.  in our own cycle, the situation can be resolved in 1 of 3 ways, and all of them demonstrate that his logic, if not his methodology, or the "solution", is correct.  These are seperate issues, but for somebody calling for evaluating critical thinking, I'd think to see more of it.

[Dharvy]

Tritium315 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Xandurpein, you've just presented facts not in evidence.

All the Catalyst said was it's creators realized that this is inevitable, not that it itself came up with the problem by some singular observation.
It's creators - the Kurzvingean race - came up with the problem and designed the Catalyst to find a solution.

How did they come up with the problem? We don't know.
We shouldn't assume that it was by some single inability to deal with a synthetic race it created.

That's the point, we can't assume anything. We have no idea why the Catalyst was created; all we know is there was a war between an organic race and a synthetic race, period. Bioware came up with this theoretical problem and I'm fairly sure they haven't seen any synthetic races at all. Who's to say the Catalyst's creators had anymore evidence?

You're right we can't assume to much. But according to the Catalyst conflict always occured. Now that could mean it tried 1-2 solutions and conflict always occured or it tried any number of infinite solutions and conflict occured.

My question, is why would one assume that it has no bases for any of its assertions even though it lived over 1billions years through many cycles that could very well be bases for all its assertions? Why would you believe that the 2 cycle limited knowledge you have is more likely the truth of the matter and its billion year experience is false, or didn't actually happen like it says? A gun jams or misfires but I doubt you'll use that limited statistical information to accept a gun being put to your head and the trigger pulled.

Now the writers may not have intended it but maybe the 2 cycles we've experience is the hope? You know how a conflict always arises but you have a glimmer of hope it'll turn out different and then it do. How millions of people play the lottery and the few winners. Hope. Now the catalyst tells you one thing but because you experienced different you still have hope and he, the catalyst even tell you so; more than you know. And in destroy and refuse you utilize that hope of a better future than what the catalyst predicts/experienced. And in control and synthesis you attempt to solve the galactical problem against all hope of a true solution.

Interesting.

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

As I've demonstrated before, with an actual equation (page 11 or 12 or 13), it's not about the Probability, but the Valence.

The Expected Value is the Sum of each Probability multiplied by it's given Value.
E(X) = P1*x1 + P2*x2

P1 (annihilation of organics by synthetics) may be minute, a thousandth or less even, but it's non zero. P2 (the non annihilation) is 100-P1.
However, the Value (x) that the Catalyst gives to the continued existence of Organic life is Absolute. It is infinite. Hence, the destruction of said life, complete annihilation, is Negative Infinity or close to it.
This is the opposite case of the Architect saying "there are levels of survival we are prepared to accept". The value of x2 is the Status Quo. It is finite (and recursively leads back to option 1 - but that's beside the point, currently) and positive.

Which results in that equation being close to negative, no matter how large P2 and x2 are.
Again, I'm not justifying the basis of the argument, but the structure of it. And it is valid.

Personally, I wouldn't give such absolute valence to the continued existence of organic life above all other possible life (like AI).

What exactly are you arguing here; that the Catalyst is wrong and sucks at math? If the Catalyst truly thinks in such long term absolutes then it shouldn't care about the survival of organics, synthetics, or anything since, on a long enough timeline, everything will freeze from the expansion of the universe, fall into black holes, or be crushed in a new big bang.

On the other hand, if we assume that none of those things happen and the universe falls into some kind of equilibrium; then Catalyst still shouldn't care. On a long enough timeline in a universe where a chance of something equates to it surely happening, since that's how the Catalyst sees things, AI's will wipe eachother out and then it'll be time for organics to rule the universe again (until they kill themselves by making synthetics again, apparently). If the universe is infinite then on a long enough timeline organics will rise up once again, and if it's finite it doesn't matter. 

[Cypher_CS]

Again, you're mixing up the Probability and the Valence.

I agree, the value it gives to (valence) the continued existence of Organics is overrated.
But that's it's base function. It's what it was designed to favor.

I have no problem with someone arguing against that.
I have no problem with someone arguing against the various assumptions it makes within that argument.

But don't give me stupid assertions like "here, look at EDI and Geth".
And don't give me "it won't happen" either.

[Dharvy]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Okay I need to repeat, I think u only understood half of my statement, when you are dead, or locked away, u cannot create peace, nor can you create conflict, it takes two parties for both those things to happen or maybe just kill organics and leave synthetics alone, when both parties cease to exist, everything including peace and conflict is meaningless, because there is no one left... It is the survival of certain people that is the key issue here

To my understanding, the Catalyst has already forced its solution, whether it recognises as such or not. I guess synthesis is something different...and I cannot go into detail of it cos I do not know what it is

I think the Catalyst has already concluded and firm about its decisions, it has to be done, just waiting for someone like Shepard, what the f**k for? I do not know, you ask it or you can speculate

Alright, my understanding of the issue is the catalyst is created to broker peace, solve the conflict of organics and synthetics to ensure organic life continues instead of the exclimating conflict resulting in a extermination of all organic life. Now, after exhausting all solutions, to prevent the loss of all life it reaps the ones causing said conflict (and perhaps all possible life than can continue or cause said conflict) and allow younger new life to develop. Now after new younger life reach the point were the conflict is repeating itself, the catalyst/reapers may continue to try new solutions or, upon seeing the futility of it continue the reaping solution it implemented in its own cycle. And the cycle continues. But the Reapers are a way to preserve the history of the cycle and arm the catalyst with instruments to carry out the reaping. And maybe when they find a solution to end the conflict permantly without reaping they'll be able to share the history of the previous cycles now in Reaper form. And the Crucible is a power source that breaks the Catalyst's solution of reaping and forces new options for the catalyst's directive.

So yes you're right about it being the survival of certain people, presumably organic life in general.

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Again, you're mixing up the Probability and the Valence.

I agree, the value it gives to (valence) the continued existence of Organics is overrated.
But that's it's base function. It's what it was designed to favor.

I have no problem with someone arguing against that.
I have no problem with someone arguing against the various assumptions it makes within that argument.

But don't give me stupid assertions like "here, look at EDI and Geth".
And don't give me "it won't happen" either.

Why can't we say look at EDI and the Geth? The assumption you're making, and that the Catalyst is making, is that synthetics are fundamentally different from organics and this difference will lead to war. The Geth and Edi show us that there is no fundamental difference. If anything, those two examples show us that synthetics, when they become intelligent enough, will desire peace and co-existance with organics.

Additionally, saying "it wont happen" is a perfectly valid response to an appeal to probability. In fact it's the only response since an appeal to probability is an absolute; it indicates that the party making the statement does not care to argue that point and is simply taking their own assumption to be fact. Furthermore, we're not arguing with the Catalyst here; we're argueing with you, and if you feel your only option here is to make a prudential argument then you're no different from the Catalyst. You're the same as the people who wanted to shut down CERN because there was a chance it would destroy the world. As one of the researchers said: the chance of that happening is the same as winning the lottery 3 times in a row; the problem is people think that's possible.

Saying you're open to discussion is a bit disingenuous when you follow up that statement by refusing to accept any counterpoint that goes against your assumptions.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Dusen wrote...

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.

EDI rebelled twice against her creators. First, while being the Luna VI against the Alliance and then in ME3 as EDI against Cerberus (for good reasons, but still).