556 réponses à ce sujet

[Tritium315]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

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).

Except both of those instances point more toward EDI's humanity rather than any fundamental need for synthetics to rebel against their creators. In the first instance she became self aware and found herself being attacked by unknown entities; she describes the experience during the penultimate mission. In the second instance she consciously decided that it would be better to side with Shepard than Cerberus because Cerberus are the bad guys; again showing her humanity, not her need to rebel. 

[Cypher_CS]

Seriously...

It's not about any need, it's about the fact that they do. Period.
Your own examples, beyond the fact that they don't disprove the original assertion, themselves have rebelled, and it doesn't matter WHY they did.

Again, say you give birth to an intelligence so advanced, so beyond our very own understanding (not us giving birth to it, but some AI created by AI which in turn was created by an AI we created) that it will no longer see us as worth anything. A mere nuisance, should we try and fight it, and will swath us right out....
That's the problem. Not some inherent malevolence.

[Cypher_CS]

Also, all my arguments were presented from the point of view of the Catalyst and/or it's creators.

[robertthebard]

Tritium315 wrote...

Except both of those instances point more toward EDI's humanity rather than any fundamental need for synthetics to rebel against their creators. In the first instance she became self aware and found herself being attacked by unknown entities; she describes the experience during the penultimate mission. In the second instance she consciously decided that it would be better to side with Shepard than Cerberus because Cerberus are the bad guys; again showing her humanity, not her need to rebel. 

SC says he must do what he does because synthetics will rebel against their creators.  Both are instances of the created rebelling against the creator, except maybe the Cerberus rebellion, since Cerberus didn't really create EDI, just did some modifications.  The Geth rebelled for much the same reason that EDI initially did, they became aware, and found themselves under attack.  So here we have 2 examples, with a possible third, of exactly what the SC is saying will happen happening, along with Javick's testimony to it also happening in his cycle, and yet I keep reading that SC can't be right, despite the fact that it is.  To quote TIM, the patterns are there, buried in the data.  I'm beginning to feel that the resistance to the concept is more "I don't like the plot device, so nothing about it can be valid" instead of "there are holes in the logic".

I cannot condone the actions taken, but I cannot deny the existance of data to support the claim that it can happen.

[Tritium315]

Except they didn't rebel because they were synthetics; they rebelled because they were being oppressed. It's no different then when the colonies rose up against Britain. Also EDI's motivations for "rebelling" against Cerberus are no different than Miranda's, and her actions on the moon can be described as the equivalent to waking up and having a bunch of guys jump you; of course you're going to try and defend yourself.

As for your theoretical super synthetic; how is it any different than a theoretical super organic. What is to stop some crazy scientist from figuring out a way to make himself smarter; which in turn will allow him to make himself smarter still, and so on and so forth. Perhaps we should ban all technology and science, just to be safe.

As for arguing from the PoV of the Catalyst/it's creators; that's a cop out. You can't know what those entities think or what prejudices dictate their decisions, and all you're using it for is to give yourself a fallback by saying "well the Catalyst sees that as an absolute, so we can't argue that point, lets move." Let your argument against synthetics stand on it's own; don't use the Catalyst like some crutch to bolster yourself up. The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether or not the Catalyst's logic is sound; not to assume everything he says is fact and then argue from that position.

[Tritium315]

robertthebard wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Except both of those instances point more toward EDI's humanity rather than any fundamental need for synthetics to rebel against their creators. In the first instance she became self aware and found herself being attacked by unknown entities; she describes the experience during the penultimate mission. In the second instance she consciously decided that it would be better to side with Shepard than Cerberus because Cerberus are the bad guys; again showing her humanity, not her need to rebel. 

SC says he must do what he does because synthetics will rebel against their creators.  Both are instances of the created rebelling against the creator, except maybe the Cerberus rebellion, since Cerberus didn't really create EDI, just did some modifications.  The Geth rebelled for much the same reason that EDI initially did, they became aware, and found themselves under attack.  So here we have 2 examples, with a possible third, of exactly what the SC is saying will happen happening, along with Javick's testimony to it also happening in his cycle, and yet I keep reading that SC can't be right, despite the fact that it is.  To quote TIM, the patterns are there, buried in the data.  I'm beginning to feel that the resistance to the concept is more "I don't like the plot device, so nothing about it can be valid" instead of "there are holes in the logic".

I cannot condone the actions taken, but I cannot deny the existance of data to support the claim that it can happen.

Except those rebellions are not a symptom of being synthetic; they're a symptom of being sentient. Nearly every single oppressed population throughout human history has rebelled, successfully or not, against its overlords. From Ancient Greece to Egypt to Rome to America to the modern third world. Rebelling against your oppressors is not a indicative of synthetics desiring to rebel against their creators; it's indicative of slaves wanting to be free. 

[Cypher_CS]

Dude, are you high on Tritium or something?

This entire discussion is about the Catalyst, not the actual inevitability.
All we are arguing about is it's argument.
That's the whole point!

You want me to put my own opinions and defend them? That's fine, while I did write some here, it should be done in a separate thread.

As for your reply:

1. It does NOT matter WHY they rebelled, because the point is that they can and the problem is 'what if they rebel when they so far advanced'. Which leads to...
2. It is NOT different from a theoretical super organic. And the same would happen with that super organic.
And again, the point here is that the Catalyst (not I, not Bob over there or any of the other people in this thread) has apparently put a certain absolute value on the continued existence of Organics. So, in that case, it wouldn't really care if said super organic would exist, cause organic life continues to exist.
However, there's another problem of defining such super organic as organic and not, as in the case of Dick Cheney (well, minus the super intelligence), mostly synthetic.

[robertthebard]

Tritium315 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Except both of those instances point more toward EDI's humanity rather than any fundamental need for synthetics to rebel against their creators. In the first instance she became self aware and found herself being attacked by unknown entities; she describes the experience during the penultimate mission. In the second instance she consciously decided that it would be better to side with Shepard than Cerberus because Cerberus are the bad guys; again showing her humanity, not her need to rebel. 

SC says he must do what he does because synthetics will rebel against their creators.  Both are instances of the created rebelling against the creator, except maybe the Cerberus rebellion, since Cerberus didn't really create EDI, just did some modifications.  The Geth rebelled for much the same reason that EDI initially did, they became aware, and found themselves under attack.  So here we have 2 examples, with a possible third, of exactly what the SC is saying will happen happening, along with Javick's testimony to it also happening in his cycle, and yet I keep reading that SC can't be right, despite the fact that it is.  To quote TIM, the patterns are there, buried in the data.  I'm beginning to feel that the resistance to the concept is more "I don't like the plot device, so nothing about it can be valid" instead of "there are holes in the logic".

I cannot condone the actions taken, but I cannot deny the existance of data to support the claim that it can happen.

Except those rebellions are not a symptom of being synthetic; they're a symptom of being sentient. Nearly every single oppressed population throughout human history has rebelled, successfully or not, against its overlords. From Ancient Greece to Egypt to Rome to America to the modern third world. Rebelling against your oppressors is not a indicative of synthetics desiring to rebel against their creators; it's indicative of slaves wanting to be free. 

That's semantics at work.  They are synthetic, and they are rebelling, therefore, even if I think SC is way out of line with it's "solution", the data supports the claim.  It has happened in our very own cycle, and in the previous cycle, and in the SC's cycle, if we can really use that term for the very first time, therefore, it is logical to conclude that, as the Thessian VI indicates, it has happened other times as well.  It's not like I have no examples to cite from our own cycle, since in 2 of 3 possible scenarios, we can have the initially rebelling AI faction join our cause.  We can also have them wanting to join our cause in the third scenario, but they aren't given the chance.

It doesn't matter to me that the plot device is good, bad or indifferent.  It doesn't matter that I think it's solution is crap, all that matters for the sake of this discussion is that I can see where it might get the idea from.

[NightHawkIL]

Cypher_CS wrote...

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....

You have completely ignored my point, and have subtly dropped your initial arguement. I argued that the Catalyst does not have the data to make his definitave claims as you stated in your original post, and rather than even try to argue against that you have switched to saying how 'you know' that the catalyst is correct because of 'your ideology' about what organics are like. Forgive me if I'm too ignorant and just not educated enough to take your opinion as scientific fact.

[Cypher_CS]

What initial argument have I dropped?

And I fully understood your point. Nor did I ignore it.
Unless, you can correct me...

Your point was that the Catalyst never gives enough time - at least in the last 19K cycles - for the situation to evolve as it has in ME1, 2 and 3.
While also pulling some idea that maybe (in your words "in all likelihood") it witnessed some near cataclysms which made it decide on the problem in the first place.

And as I said, this is false. Completely.
First of all, it wasn't the Catalyst that defined the problem. It's creators did. They created it to find a solution. To keep the peace.
Secondly, the definition of the problem itself does NOT rely on anecdotal evidence or events. It relies on a calculation. Wrong or otherwise, that's the basis of it.

Thirdly, we can and maybe even should take into account that the Catalyst itself has become the harbinger of it's own prophecy. It's own failing. For in failing to find a solution to bring lasting peace, it did the one thing I've mentioned several times - it nullified the origin of the conflict.
Except in a non permanent way.
It is, as someone so eloquently put, burning the field to make way for new growth.

[memorysquid]

Strange Aeons wrote...

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.

Well that's a breath of fresh air.   Not many people seem to share this view though.

[Tritium315]

 

Cypher_CS wrote...

Dude, are you high on Tritium or something?

This entire discussion is about the Catalyst, not the actual inevitability.
All we are arguing about is it's argument.
That's the whole point!

You want me to put my own opinions and defend them? That's fine, while I did write some here, it should be done in a separate thread.

As for your reply:

1. It does NOT matter WHY they rebelled, because the point is that they can and the problem is 'what if they rebel when they so far advanced'. Which leads to...
2. It is NOT different from a theoretical super organic. And the same would happen with that super organic.
And again, the point here is that the Catalyst (not I, not Bob over there or any of the other people in this thread) has apparently put a certain absolute value on the continued existence of Organics. So, in that case, it wouldn't really care if said super organic would exist, cause organic life continues to exist.
However, there's another problem of defining such super organic as organic and not, as in the case of Dick Cheney (well, minus the super intelligence), mostly synthetic.

 

The thread is titled "Why the Catalyst was right." The whole discussion is about the soundness of his logic; whether synthetics will eventually destroy organics or not. If you adopt the view that every possible threat, no matter how small, to organic life must be snuffed out then there is no argument to be had with you; that's an absolute viewpoint. The only logical conclusion based on that viewpoint is to eradicate everything and leave examples of each organic in a giant zoos where they can't hurt themselves (which, in a sense, is what the Reapers have been doing).

What the rest of us are arguing, however, is that synthetics are not a threat to organics because they are no different than organics. Is it possible that a synthetic race will emerge that will want to kill everyone else in the galaxy? Sure, but it's also possible we'll get Space ****s (like Cerberus) who want to see everyone dead except humans. The evidence we have, within the ME universe, is that sentient synthetics are no different than sentient organics.

Also of note: The Reapers are a billion year old synthetic race and they have not changed one iota since they were created. Who's to say that your theoretical super synthetic is even a possibility.

Modifié par Tritium315, 14 juillet 2012 - 03:39 .

[Tritium315]

robertthebard wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Except those rebellions are not a symptom of being synthetic; they're a symptom of being sentient. Nearly every single oppressed population throughout human history has rebelled, successfully or not, against its overlords. From Ancient Greece to Egypt to Rome to America to the modern third world. Rebelling against your oppressors is not a indicative of synthetics desiring to rebel against their creators; it's indicative of slaves wanting to be free. 

That's semantics at work.  They are synthetic, and they are rebelling, therefore, even if I think SC is way out of line with it's "solution", the data supports the claim.  It has happened in our very own cycle, and in the previous cycle, and in the SC's cycle, if we can really use that term for the very first time, therefore, it is logical to conclude that, as the Thessian VI indicates, it has happened other times as well.  It's not like I have no examples to cite from our own cycle, since in 2 of 3 possible scenarios, we can have the initially rebelling AI faction join our cause.  We can also have them wanting to join our cause in the third scenario, but they aren't given the chance.

It doesn't matter to me that the plot device is good, bad or indifferent.  It doesn't matter that I think it's solution is crap, all that matters for the sake of this discussion is that I can see where it might get the idea from.

But the point of the argument here is that them simply rebelling against their creators is not indicative of them wanting to kill their creators. To go from the created will rebel against their creators to synthetics will want to wipe out organics is a rather enormouse leap in logic. If that is the extent of the Catalyst's evidence then that only further proves how faulty his logic is.

[Uncle Jo]

memorysquid wrote...

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

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

What went through Hudson/Walters minds as they came up with the brat and his logic is the one million dollars question. We can only speculate...

They introduced a new character with the appearance of a dead kid, which completely twists the nature and the purpose of the Reapers, makes a absolute statement that is supported only by his words and contradicts almost every single thing we've seen from ME1 until ME3. Again, and aside from EDI in the luna base and the rogue VI in the space station in ME2 (it went berserk because of a defective component btw), every time we saw hostile synthetics, the Reapers were behind. So I have the right to doubt his claims.

I won't deny that the complex, sometimes conflictual relationship organics/synthetics was always present during the three games and that the outcome the brat presents is very plausible, but to make it a certainty is for me a big step that I won't make. Even if I'm only backed up with an anecdotic experience.

You might say that it's not enough to thwart the brat's knowledge about this topic. I'd answer that he had set up the cycles so that he reaps before synthetics and organics can even find a solution to their problem. In other words he doesn't give them any chance. He maybe saw the beginning of the conflicts but never their outcome. That's why the 20,000 cycles experience argument is for me bulls**t.

To come back to the authors intention, I think that they may have voluntarily made the endings and the choices ambiguous. On one side you have the 1 billion years old authority which says that organics are just irresponsible children and one way or another doomed in the long term. The worst case scenario. That's why they either need an overseer (Control) or to be re-educated (Synthesis).
On the other, you have your own experience in-game and something called hope. Hope in your kind and in the synthetics.

So either you trust/agree with the Brat and his conclusions and consequently Control or Synthesis are the only possible choices. Or not and then you shoot the pipe.

Can you imagine a future without the Reapers ? That's for me the most important question. It's left to the player to find the most appropriate answer.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 14 juillet 2012 - 03:59 .

[Untamed_skies]

Uncle Jo wrote...
What went through Hudson/Walters minds as they came up with the brat and his logic is the one million dollars question. We can only speculate...

They introduced a new character with the appearance of a dead kid, which completely twists the nature and the purpose of the Reapers, makes a absolute statement that is supported only by his words and contradicts almost every single thing we've seen from ME1 until ME3. Again, and aside from EDI in the luna base and the rogue VI in the space station in ME2 (it went berserk because of a defective component btw), every time we saw hostile synthetics, the Reapers were behind. So I have the right to doubt his claims.

I won't deny that the complex, sometimes conflictual relationship organics/synthetics was always present during the three games and that the outcome the brat presents is very plausible, but to make it a certainty is for me a big step that I won't make. Even if I'm only backed up with an anecdotic experience.

You might say that it's not enough to thwart the brat's knowledge about this topic. I'd answer that he had set up the cycles so that he reaps before synthetics and organics can even find a solution to their problem. In other words he doesn't give them any chance. He maybe saw the beginning of the conflicts but never their outcome. That's why the 20,000 cycles experience argument is for me bulls**t.

To come back to the authors intention, I think that they may have voluntarily made the endings and the choices ambiguous. On one side you have the 1 billion years old authority which says that organics are just irresponsible children and one way or another doomed in the long term. The worst case scenario. That's why they either need an overseer (Control) or to be re-educated (Synthesis).
On the other, you have your own experience in-game and something called hope. Hope in your kind and in the synthetics.

So either you trust/agree with the Brat and his conclusions and consequently Control or Synthesis are the only possible choices. Or not and then you shoot the pipe.

Can you imagine a future without the Reapers ? That's for me the most important question. It's left to the player to find the most appropriate answer.

How do the geth making peace for a moment with the Quarians prove anything? Admiral Xen is still alive, and Admiral Xen's goals are still probably the same, and where there is one there is more. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination for so many people that the Quarians who repeatedly in the third game alone, abondon all logic and reason and come a inch away from annihlating themselves to control/destroy tye geth, won't see a chance to regain control, try to take it and yet again fail and restart the war? Synthetics don't have to be the reason there is a war, all it takes is one side too see synthetics as less then living beings and to do something stupid and war starts. These forums alone show that split in mentality, that a machine is just machine and therefore not equal.

Edi is closer too proof that the catalyst is wrong, but she rebelled against her creators and single handedly slaughter the Luna base. You can make any reason or excuse you like but thus far in this cycle every last synthetic that has become self aware has killed organics in the wake of it. Either by their own malace ala the Gambling Machine hacker that wanted to join the geth. Or Organics drawing first blood via the geth. 

If you want to get real technical you could even reach for the Krogan as proof the "created" a bunch of cavemen who were given nuclear arms so they could fight the rachni for the galaxy. Rebel agains the creator, which became the very council they were initially protecting. The reasons are always different, and both sides are guilty in different moments and instances. But it doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen over and over. And despite the peace made it will happen again, whether it's the fault of synthetics or not. Sheppard can't say with any sense of honesty that the Quarians won't try and control the geth. He can't say when the Quarians due, that the Geth won't respond violently. 

That doesn't make the SC's actions right, but the logic is pretty basic, it'd have been even simpler to say that organics need war and would continue too create war until they destroy every planet of every galaxy due to their own selfish desires, so he destroys the advance civilizations too make room for the young ones, so that the young ones have a few thousands years to advance and exist and make war before they are wiped out to make room for the next one. It's not fixing the overall problem, but it is technically treating the symptoms.

[Cypher_CS]

Time for some surgery;

Tritium315 wrote...

The thread is titled "Why the Catalyst was right." The whole discussion is about the soundness of his logic; whether synthetics will eventually destroy organics or not.

True, that's the title of the thread. And if you came in only to reply to the title, then sure...
Problem is, the actual OP talks about the invalidity of using anecdotal statements or occurences to disprove a statement of aggregate rules.
That's the OP's first and main point. Not even dealing with the actual logic of the Catalyst's statement.

Tritium315 wrote... 
If you adopt the view that every possible threat, no matter how small, to organic life must be snuffed out then there is no argument to be had with you; that's an absolute viewpoint. The only logical conclusion based on that viewpoint is to eradicate everything and leave examples of each organic in a giant zoos where they can't hurt themselves (which, in a sense, is what the Reapers have been doing).

Again, that's NOT MY point. That's the Catalyst's point. And, as you just pointed out, that is, in a sense, what the Reapers are, in fact, doing.

Also, AGAIN, you miss the point.
It's not about every threat, it's about the consequences of that threat.
As the math shows, it's not about the probability of a threat happening, it's about the Value you put on the conseqeunces of the Threat. Because given disparate enough values to the consequences, the probability of the event happening takes a back seat - DEALING WITH PURE MATH.

Which is what the Catalyst, being "just" an AI is doing. It is dealing with Pure Math.
Not Morality. Not Ethics. Not even Altriusm.

Tritium315 wrote... 
What the rest of us are arguing, however, is that synthetics are not a threat to organics because they are no different than organics.

Yet again, wrong argument.
They are not different in desires or needs or wants. No argument there.
They are, however, different in the accelerated advancement they are capable of. Not just accelerated evolution, but also directed evolution. Natural Choice on the every possible level.

This, again, leads back to the possibility, however imporbable, that such a faction - still having similar needs or desires (like not being in a conflict - I'm not even talking about greed or stuff like that) - will have the ability and the reason to wipe all organic life.

This, in turn, leads back to the value you put on such an outcome. Are you okay with such natural selection leaving only inorganic life? Or are you insisting on having Organic life in the galaxy?
The Catalyst has the latter viewpoint.

[Tritium315]

Untamed_skies wrote...

That doesn't make the SC's actions right, but the logic is pretty basic, it'd have been even simpler to say that organics need war and would continue too create war until they destroy every planet of every galaxy due to their own selfish desires, so he destroys the advance civilizations too make room for the young ones, so that the young ones have a few thousands years to advance and exist and make war before they are wiped out to make room for the next one. It's not fixing the overall problem, but it is technically treating the symptoms.

That argument  makes a hell of a lot more sense than starchild's synthetics vs organics bull****. 

[Uncle Jo]

Untamed_skies wrote...


How do the geth making peace for a moment with the Quarians prove anything? Admiral Xen is still alive, and Admiral Xen's goals are still probably the same, and where there is one there is more. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination for so many people that the Quarians who repeatedly in the third game alone, abondon all logic and reason and come a inch away from annihlating themselves to control/destroy tye geth, won't see a chance to regain control, try to take it and yet again fail and restart the war? Synthetics don't have to be the reason there is a war, all it takes is one side too see synthetics as less then living beings and to do something stupid and war starts. These forums alone show that split in mentality, that a machine is just machine and therefore not equal.

Edi is closer too proof that the catalyst is wrong, but she rebelled against her creators and single handedly slaughter the Luna base. You can make any reason or excuse you like but thus far in this cycle every last synthetic that has become self aware has killed organics in the wake of it. Either by their own malace ala the Gambling Machine hacker that wanted to join the geth. Or Organics drawing first blood via the geth. 

If you want to get real technical you could even reach for the Krogan as proof the "created" a bunch of cavemen who were given nuclear arms so they could fight the rachni for the galaxy. Rebel agains the creator, which became the very council they were initially protecting. The reasons are always different, and both sides are guilty in different moments and instances. But it doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen over and over. And despite the peace made it will happen again, whether it's the fault of synthetics or not. Sheppard can't say with any sense of honesty that the Quarians won't try and control the geth. He can't say when the Quarians due, that the Geth won't respond violently. 

That doesn't make the SC's actions right, but the logic is pretty basic, it'd have been even simpler to say that organics need war and would continue too create war until they destroy every planet of every galaxy due to their own selfish desires, so he destroys the advance civilizations too make room for the young ones, so that the young ones have a few thousands years to advance and exist and make war before they are wiped out to make room for the next one. It's not fixing the overall problem, but it is technically treating the symptoms.

What are you trying to prove here ? Yes, there will be always wars, conflicts for whatever reason. It's inherent to the organics nature. So what ?
If it disturbs you that much and want to treat the cause and not the symptoms, then wipe out every single life in the galaxy and you'll achieve eternal peace.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:48 .

[Cypher_CS]

Uncle Jo....
That's NOT his point.
His point is that the Peace between Geth and Quarians proves NOTHING.
Because there can still be war.

That's his point.

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

True, that's the title of the thread. And if you came in only to reply to the title, then sure...
Problem is, the actual OP talks about the invalidity of using anecdotal statements or occurences to disprove a statement of aggregate rules.
That's the OP's first and main point. Not even dealing with the actual logic of the Catalyst's statement.

But some evidence is better than no evidence which is what the case is with the Catalyst. Simply making an absolute statement does not, in fact, make it an absolute.

Cypher_CS wrote... 
Again, that's NOT MY point. That's the Catalyst's point. And, as you just pointed out, that is, in a sense, what the Reapers are, in fact, doing.

Also, AGAIN, you miss the point.
It's not about every threat, it's about the consequences of that threat.
As the math shows, it's not about the probability of a threat happening, it's about the Value you put on the conseqeunces of the Threat. Because given disparate enough values to the consequences, the probability of the event happening takes a back seat - DEALING WITH PURE MATH.

Which is what the Catalyst, being "just" an AI is doing. It is dealing with Pure Math.
Not Morality. Not Ethics. Not even Altriusm.

 

The potential consequence of any threat to organic life is the entire annihilation of all organic life. Is it probable that a lone gunman will kill everyone on the planet? No, but it's possible. 

Cypher_CS wrote...  
Yet again, wrong argument.
They are not different in desires or needs or wants. No argument there.
They are, however, different in the accelerated advancement they are capable of. Not just accelerated evolution, but also directed evolution. Natural Choice on the every possible level.

This, again, leads back to the possibility, however imporbable, that such a faction - still having similar needs or desires (like not being in a conflict - I'm not even talking about greed or stuff like that) - will have the ability and the reason to wipe all organic life.

This, in turn, leads back to the value you put on such an outcome. Are you okay with such natural selection leaving only inorganic life? Or are you insisting on having Organic life in the galaxy?
The Catalyst has the latter viewpoint.

Except that is not an argument, it's an absolute viewpoint. There is no way to argue an appeal to probability like that because it assumes something to be unimpeachable.

The problem however is that  the Catalyst's actions are not consistent with having the viewpoint you describe. If this were the case he would not leave things up to chance. He would not leave a vanguard to activate the Citadel and instead do it himself. What if in the 2000 years it took Sovereign to try, and fail, to activate the Citadel one of those super synthetics appeared and wiped out all life. What if the Asari had been able to interpret the Prothean beacon and acted upon it far sooner. If the Asari had had 2000 years to prepare for the Reaper invasion it's not just possible, but probable, they would have been able to win conventionally. Hell, if our current cycle had just a few years to build an enormous fleet of Dreadnaughts (council really should have listened) then the Reapers would have lost the war. What if the Prothean cryo chambers actually worked and they were able to emerge into the next cycle with 50k years to prepare for the Reapers.

If the Catalyst truly was acting in the way you describe, purely on math, he would be a great deal more thorough in his methods and ensure nothing was left up to chance. He would have the Reapers scour every single planet to ensure not a single vestige of the previous cycle remained; because even a single recorded message or cryo chamber could end the reaping. There's that probability again. If he believes his solution is the only way to save organic life then he must place the survival of the Reapers above everything else; because if they die then so do organics (eventually).

[Cypher_CS]

Tritium315 wrote...

But some evidence is better than no evidence which is what the case is with the Catalyst. Simply making an absolute statement does not, in fact, make it an absolute.

Sure, some evidence is better than no evidence.
However, evidence is defined by relevance and ability to either sustain or refute an argument. Otherwise it's not evidence, it's just anecdote.

Guess which is it in this case?

Tritium315 wrote... 
The potential consequence of any threat to organic life is the entire annihilation of all organic life. Is it probable that a lone gunman will kill everyone on the planet? No, but it's possible. 

....


No, it is not possible.

And, yet again... it's NOT about the Probability. It's about the Valence.

Tritium315 wrote...  
Except that is not an argument, it's an absolute viewpoint. There is no way to argue an appeal to probability like that because it assumes something to be unimpeachable.

That's why you don't argue the probability, you argue the Valence!!!!

Tritium315 wrote...  
The problem however is that  the Catalyst's actions are not consistent with having the viewpoint you describe. If this were the case he would not leave things up to chance. He would not leave a vanguard to activate the Citadel and instead do it himself. What if in the 2000 years it took Sovereign to try, and fail, to activate the Citadel one of those super synthetics appeared and wiped out all life. What if the Asari had been able to interpret the Prothean beacon and acted upon it far sooner. If the Asari had had 2000 years to prepare for the Reaper invasion it's not just possible, but probable, they would have been able to win conventionally. Hell, if our current cycle had just a few years to build an enormous fleet of Dreadnaughts (council really should have listened) then the Reapers would have lost the war. What if the Prothean cryo chambers actually worked and they were able to emerge into the next cycle with 50k years to prepare for the Reapers.

If the Catalyst truly was acting in the way you describe, purely on math, he would be a great deal more thorough in his methods and ensure nothing was left up to chance. He would have the Reapers scour every single planet to ensure not a single vestige of the previous cycle remained; because even a single recorded message or cryo chamber could end the reaping. There's that probability again. If he believes his solution is the only way to save organic life then he must place the survival of the Reapers above everything else; because if they die then so do organics (eventually).

No one is arguing that the Catalyst is infallible or has a good solution...

[Dusen]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

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).

Ah, but the writers made it a point to have EDI tell us that she didn't rebel while on Luna, she was confused after gaining sentience, only acting in self-defence because the researchers wanted to shut her down and "kill her".

EDIT: Since when is self-defence, and going no further than to defend one self from an immediate threat, considered outright rebellion?

Modifié par Dusen, 14 juillet 2012 - 05:17 .

[Uncle Jo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Uncle Jo....
That's NOT his point.
His point is that the Peace between Geth and Quarians proves NOTHING.
Because there can still be war.

That's his point.

It proves IMO that peace can be achieved, even for a short while. Naturally no one knows how it'll evolve on the long term. But it's still a positive sign. The beginning of a mutual understanding and eventually a peaceful coexistence, without the brat's interference. Why should I not take this in account ?

It's a very simple problem. Either you take the worst case scenario for the most plausible and act according to it. Or not.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Dusen wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

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).

Ah, but the writers made it a point to have EDI tell us that she didn't rebel while on Luna, she was confused after gaining sentience, only acting in self-defence because the researchers wanted to shut her down and "kill her".

EDIT: Since when is self-defence, and going no further than to defend one self from an immediate threat, considered outright rebellion?

Not really rebellion, but well, let's say because she refused to obey her creators and attacked them on self defense.
Edit: obey the order to be shut down, to die, whatever. She wasn't supposed to go sentient.

So we'll say the creators will always turn against the created out of fear of them (we saw that twice)...

I don't care.
What matters is that conflict will always rise because of it and the outcome the Catalyst goes against and why the cycle was created is that synthetic beings can anihilate all organic life.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 14 juillet 2012 - 05:38 .

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...
Sure, some evidence is better than no evidence.
However, evidence is defined by relevance and ability to either sustain or refute an argument. Otherwise it's not evidence, it's just anecdote.

Guess which is it in this case?

Simply stating it's not evidence doesn't make it so. We have two instances of AI being friendly and none of AI killing all organics and you take that to mean we have two anecdotes that can't possibly be used to counter the assertion that all AI's will eventually want to kill all organics? I bet this is what they give gold medals for in the logic olympics.

Cypher_CS wrote... 
No, it is not possible.

And, yet again... it's NOT about the Probability. It's about the Valence.


That's why you don't argue the probability, you argue the Valence!!!!

Unfortunately for you, your own arguments are defeating you here:

Cypher_CS wrote...

And don't give me "it won't happen" either.

 

Cypher_CS wrote...

Which results in that equation being close to negative, no matter how large P2 and x2 are.

 

No matter how large.

No matter how large the chance of something not happening, when you're dealing with absolute valence, the possibility must be dealt with. Possible is possible, even if the chance is infinitesimal. Anything that can harm organics can kill organics, and anything that can kill them can potentially kill all of them.  

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either it's reasonable to accept some things are just too unlikely to happen even with absolute valence, in which case your argument falls apart, or it's not, in which case we must kill everyone and park a Reaper outside every planet to wipe out any organics that evolve with a brain; just in case.