556 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

Dusen wrote...

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?

When your creators expect unquestioning obedience because you are a tool and not self-aware.  The Quarians are simply horrible; I don't get how their viewpoint is supposed to be questionable even - they're outright fiends.

[Tritium315]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Dusen wrote...

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.

And organics can wipe out all organic life too. A desire for freedom and the fear of death are not things that are unique to synthetics; they are signs of humanity. What matters is that as soon as the synthetics were safe they stopped the conflict, even when it would have been in their best interest to continue it. The Geth could have chased down the Quarians and eradicated them ensuring their own safety, but they let them live because they valued sentient life; the same can not be said of organics. In fact, the Turians own war doctrine calls for the indiscriminate slaughter of the opposing side until it is impossible for them ever rise up against the Turians again. Who sounds like the bigger threat to organic life now?

Modifié par Tritium315, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:34 .

[bgroberts]

I like your arguments Cypher, Roberthebard, and Dharvy. And man is there some hate for me in these pages.

Modifié par bgroberts, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:35 .

[Cypher_CS]

Uncle Jo wrote...

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.

Yes, it does prove that peace can be achieved for a short while, at least. Maybe even a long while.
But, again, that is not the problem.

Tritium315 wrote...


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.

The assertion is NOT all AI will eventually want to kill all organics....

Tritium315 wrote... 
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.

I'm not even going to reply to this, because of how convoluted and outright twisted this response is....

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Tritium315 wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Dusen wrote...

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.

And organics can wipe out all organic life too. A desire for freedom and the fear of death are not things that are unique to synthetics; they are signs of humanity. What matters is that as soon as the synthetics were safe they stopped the conflict, even when it would have been in their best interest to continue it. The Geth could have chased down the Quarians and eradicated them ensuring their own safety, but they let them live because they valued sentient life; the same can not be said of organics. In fact, the Turians own war doctrine calls for the indiscriminate slaughter of the opposing side until it is impossible for them ever rise up against the Turians again. Who sounds like the bigger threat to organic life now?

But that's going where the Catalyst doesn't interfere, that was not a problem it was supposed to solve. It goes against one kind of conflct where others don't negate them.
Geth stopped the conflict but it doesn't mean that all other synthetic life would ever have stopped and don't negate the Catalyst's assertion.

One or two cases don't make evidence for all possibilities.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:50 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Uncle Jo wrote...

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.

But the brat did interfere. It was the brat's reaper signal being broadcasted from the dreadnought that saved the geth, and again, the threat of reaper-upgraded geth that prevented the quarians from shooting thyemselves in the feet.

[DirtyPhoenix]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But that's going where the Catalyst doesn't interfere, that was not a problem it was supposed to solve. It goes against one kind of conflct where others don't negate them.
Geth stopped the conflict but it doesn't mean that all other synthetic life would ever have stopped and don't negate the Catalyst's assertion.

One or two cases don't make evidence for all possibilities.

Agreed 100%

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Tritium315 wrote... 
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.

I'm not even going to reply to this, because of how convoluted and outright twisted this response is....

So we're back to...

Cypher_CS wrote...

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

 

...you refusing to address points that you can't argue?

Or is this you arguing from the pov of the Catalyst again?

[Cypher_CS]

Do I really need to explain that there is absolutely ZERO chance of some single gunmen shooting killing all 7+ Billion people on Earth?

The Prudential argument here says simply... shoot the bastard.

[Tritium315]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But that's going where the Catalyst doesn't interfere, that was not a problem it was supposed to solve. It goes against one kind of conflct where others don't negate them.
Geth stopped the conflict but it doesn't mean that all other synthetic life would ever have stopped and don't negate the Catalyst's assertion.

One or two cases don't make evidence for all possibilities.

Yes, one or two cases does not, but that's one or two more cases than the Catalyst has. The Catalyst gives us an absolute and provides no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Not only that but the Catalyst came to his conclusion based on a test case of one, and we don't even know who started that war. For all we know the Catalyst creator was the original cycle's version of Admiral Xen who dreamed of re-enslaving that cycle's version of the Geth. It's also not outside the realm of possibility that that is the most advanced synthetic race the Reapers ever went up against because every cycle was reaped before any synthetics could emerge to disprove the Catalyst's assertion (we know our cycle was meant to be reaped 2000 years ago).

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Do I really need to explain that there is absolutely ZERO chance of some single gunmen shooting killing all 7+ Billion people on Earth?

The Prudential argument here says simply... shoot the bastard.

You can't use math to argue that something that has an incredibally small chance of happening should still be taken into consideration when dealing with absolute valence and then turn around and say "well that's just unlikely, so we can discount that."

Apply whatever probability you have in your mind for that lone gunman's success to the probability of synthetics wiping out organics, and you're set. Apparently absolute valence is not absolute and infinity is not infinite.

As the saying goes: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Cypher_CS]

Thing is, your example is NOT improbable, it's impossible.

What makes it impossible? Cause we have a solution. Period.

Do we have a solution to that other improbable option? No.
As long as we don't have a solution, it shall remain only improbable.

[Uncle Jo]

pirate1802 wrote...

But the brat did interfere. It was the brat's reaper signal being broadcasted from the dreadnought that saved the geth, and again, the threat of reaper-upgraded geth that prevented the quarians from shooting thyemselves in the feet.

Oh yes. I suppose it was a compensation for using them as cannonfodder during the Citadel's attack by Sovereign. Or to weaken the allied forces by taking one of the most powerful fleets in the Galaxy out of the game and/or turning them against Shep.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Tritium315 wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But that's going where the Catalyst doesn't interfere, that was not a problem it was supposed to solve. It goes against one kind of conflct where others don't negate them.
Geth stopped the conflict but it doesn't mean that all other synthetic life would ever have stopped and don't negate the Catalyst's assertion.

One or two cases don't make evidence for all possibilities.

Yes, one or two cases does not, but that's one or two more cases than the Catalyst has. The Catalyst gives us an absolute and provides no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Not only that but the Catalyst came to his conclusion based on a test case of one, and we don't even know who started that war. For all we know the Catalyst creator was the original cycle's version of Admiral Xen who dreamed of re-enslaving that cycle's version of the Geth. It's also not outside the realm of possibility that that is the most advanced synthetic race the Reapers ever went up against because every cycle was reaped before any synthetics could emerge to disprove the Catalyst's assertion (we know our cycle was meant to be reaped 2000 years ago).

I don't need the catalyst to see it. Javik tells me his cycle was perpetually at war with the synthetics (Metacon ware). he also tells me his views of synthetics, which are thought provoking, or atleast shows the deep mistrust his cycle his cycle had for synthetics. I've been seeing the same from ME1 through 2 to 3. Thats evidence enough for me. Also, its not important who started the war, the important thing is organics are in conflict with synthetics, whoever fired the first shot. Thats the problem the catalyst was designed to solve. Also it says "we tried many solutions", we don't know how many solutions it tried, or how many years it tried in vein to bring peace. The concept of cycles didn't even exist back then, it started only after the reapers started reaping.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Tritium315 wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But that's going where the Catalyst doesn't interfere, that was not a problem it was supposed to solve. It goes against one kind of conflct where others don't negate them.
Geth stopped the conflict but it doesn't mean that all other synthetic life would ever have stopped and don't negate the Catalyst's assertion.

One or two cases don't make evidence for all possibilities.

Yes, one or two cases does not, but that's one or two more cases than the Catalyst has. The Catalyst gives us an absolute and provides no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Not only that but the Catalyst came to his conclusion based on a test case of one, and we don't even know who started that war. For all we know the Catalyst creator was the original cycle's version of Admiral Xen who dreamed of re-enslaving that cycle's version of the Geth. It's also not outside the realm of possibility that that is the most advanced synthetic race the Reapers ever went up against because every cycle was reaped before any synthetics could emerge to disprove the Catalyst's assertion (we know our cycle was meant to be reaped 2000 years ago).

I don't need the catalyst to see it. Javik tells me his cycle was perpetually at war with the synthetics (Metacon ware). he also tells me his views of synthetics, which are thought provoking, or atleast shows the deep mistrust his cycle his cycle had for synthetics. I've been seeing the same from ME1 through 2 to 3. Thats evidence enough for me. Also, its not important who started the war, the important thing is organics are in conflict with synthetics, whoever fired the first shot. Thats the problem the catalyst was designed to solve. Also it says "we tried many solutions", we don't know how many solutions it tried, or how many years it tried in vein to bring peace. The concept of cycles didn't even exist back then, it started only after the reapers started reaping.

[Tritium315]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Thing is, your example is NOT improbable, it's impossible.

What makes it impossible? Cause we have a solution. Period.

Do we have a solution to that other improbable option? No.
As long as we don't have a solution, it shall remain only improbable.

We have a likely solution to that gunman, one that will work 99.some really large number of 9's% of the time. Probably somewhere around the same chance as CERN not blowing up the planet. Except, wait. 

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

 

And I like how you are harping on the lone gunman example when it was clearly hyperbole to illustrate the problem with your argument. There are countless other highly unlikely doomsday scenarios, and some of those are more likely than synthetic overlords probably. What if that theoretical hyper intelligent organic that was mentioned earlier decides to exterminate all life then grows lonely and commits suicide? Unlikely, but it's not impossible. The Reapers really should kill anything with a brain as soon as it appears; would be safer.

[Tritium315]

pirate1802 wrote...

I don't need the catalyst to see it. Javik tells me his cycle was perpetually at war with the synthetics (Metacon ware). he also tells me his views of synthetics, which are thought provoking, or atleast shows the deep mistrust his cycle his cycle had for synthetics. I've been seeing the same from ME1 through 2 to 3. Thats evidence enough for me. Also, its not important who started the war, the important thing is organics are in conflict with synthetics, whoever fired the first shot. Thats the problem the catalyst was designed to solve. Also it says "we tried many solutions", we don't know how many solutions it tried, or how many years it tried in vein to bring peace. The concept of cycles didn't even exist back then, it started only after the reapers started reaping.

Javik was born in the middle of his races extermination by the Reapers; he never even experienced the Metacon war. His cycle also knew nothing of the Reapers or their intentions. As far as he knows they were simply synthetics that were exterminating his people. To say his judgement is clouded would be an understatement. If you need more proof just look at the Quarians. Ask any of them and they'll describe the Geth as monsters, killers, heartless, etc, but what was the truth behind that war? The Geth wanted peace, and on top of that they forgave the Quarians the second the fighting stopped.

As for it not mattering who fired the first shot; of course it does. If it's always been organics starting the wars then there's clearly a much simpler solution than reaping: don't be a dick to synthetics.

[Kushan101]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Do I really need to explain that there is absolutely ZERO chance of some single gunmen shooting killing all 7+ Billion people on Earth?

The Prudential argument here says simply... shoot the bastard.

Doesn't that same argument work for this supposed "organics vs. synthetics" problem? I.e. - the optimal solution would have had Sovereign staying as a scout and warning the Reaper fleet whenever an AI was being developed. The Reapers turn up, destroy where the AI is being developed and broadcast a warning to stop pursuing this technology, or they will be back - maybe with a few notes explaining WHY its such a bad idea.

Same solution.

If it cannot come up with such a simple, without resorting to genocide, solution to such a non-problem, then why should we trust ANY of the bollocks that it comes out with?

Modifié par Kushan101, 14 juillet 2012 - 08:17 .

[JamieCOTC]

"Synthesis is the final evolution of life?" No. It may be another stage of evolution, but not the final stage. Evolution just doesn't end because it reaches a certain goal, because the goal is to simply survive. As long as there is life, evolution will continue in some form. Even EDI refutes this by stating, in so many words, that the galaxy will "evolve" into something she cannot even imagine.

"Now that we know it's possible, synthesis is inevitable." If something is inevitable, then that means it's going to happen no matter what. So if synthesis is inevitable, then why the rush? Why must Shepard pick a color? If Synthesis is inevitable, that's the solution. Everybody wins. We can all go home and the Catalyst can go die some place. So either the Catalyst is wrong or the Crucible has reprogrammed him to force Shepard into choosing a color.

Speaking of which.
"The Crucible changed me, created new posibilities."
"The Crucible is little more than a power source."
Which is it? Is the Crucible a power source or is it a device that can reprogram or shackle the Catalyst? If it's both, why doesn't he just say so? It's self contradictory.

The Catalyst didn't realize the Crucible had not been abandoned by the Organics and even believes them to be more reliant that he otherwise thought. Actually, he did know and contradicts himself yet again regarding the Crucible. As Vendetta states on Thessia, a splinter group of Protheans wanted to control the Reapers instead of defeat them. Later it was discovered the group was indoctrinated. So, the Catalyst has indoctrinated this group who wishes to control the Reapers, yet the only way to control them is through the Crucible. Is the Catalyst lying? has he blown a circuit? Also, if organics are more reliant than the Catalyst previously thought, isn't that a variable he has to consider in his solution? To not reassess the situation after new data is found is irresponsible, even if it leads to the same conclusion. If he does not do this, then it must be considered that the Catalyst does not have the organics best interest at heart, not even as preserved lifeforms.

Given just this tiny bit of evidence, the Catalyst is flawed and therefore his solution is most likely flawed.

The Catalyst is so full of holes that the best thing he could do for the organics is to cease to be. Let the organics and synthetics work it out on their own and if the synthetics win, so what? That's what evolution is all about in the first place.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 14 juillet 2012 - 08:26 .

[Cypher_CS]

Kushan101 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Do I really need to explain that there is absolutely ZERO chance of some single gunmen shooting killing all 7+ Billion people on Earth?

The Prudential argument here says simply... shoot the bastard.

Doesn't that same argument work for this supposed "organics vs. synthetics" problem? I.e. - the optimal solution would have had Sovereign staying as a scout and warning the Reaper fleet whenever an AI was being developed. The Reapers turn up, destroy where the AI is being developed and broadcast a warning to stop pursuing this technology, or they will be back - maybe with a few notes explaining WHY its such a bad idea.

Same solution.

If it cannot come up with such a simple, without resorting to genocide, solution to such a non-problem, then why should we trust ANY of the bollocks that it comes out with?

Really?
And at no point while writing that proposed solution had it occured to you that any sentient race, having now met something like this Sovereign and having it destroy a creation would find a more secure location and work tirelessly to build a new synthetic that would kick Sovereign's ass? And all of the Reapers?

[Kushan101]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Kushan101 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Do I really need to explain that there is absolutely ZERO chance of some single gunmen shooting killing all 7+ Billion people on Earth?

The Prudential argument here says simply... shoot the bastard.

Doesn't that same argument work for this supposed "organics vs. synthetics" problem? I.e. - the optimal solution would have had Sovereign staying as a scout and warning the Reaper fleet whenever an AI was being developed. The Reapers turn up, destroy where the AI is being developed and broadcast a warning to stop pursuing this technology, or they will be back - maybe with a few notes explaining WHY its such a bad idea.

Same solution.

If it cannot come up with such a simple, without resorting to genocide, solution to such a non-problem, then why should we trust ANY of the bollocks that it comes out with?

Really?
And at no point while writing that proposed solution had it occured to you that any sentient race, having now met something like this Sovereign and having it destroy a creation would find a more secure location and work tirelessly to build a new synthetic that would kick Sovereign's ass? And all of the Reapers?

Im simply using the exact same analogy you used to deal with the "lone gunman" - by this argument you're stating that the "lone gunman" would disappear underground and come out with a planet-busting sized nuke.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Tritium315 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

I don't need the catalyst to see it. Javik tells me his cycle was perpetually at war with the synthetics (Metacon ware). he also tells me his views of synthetics, which are thought provoking, or atleast shows the deep mistrust his cycle his cycle had for synthetics. I've been seeing the same from ME1 through 2 to 3. Thats evidence enough for me. Also, its not important who started the war, the important thing is organics are in conflict with synthetics, whoever fired the first shot. Thats the problem the catalyst was designed to solve. Also it says "we tried many solutions", we don't know how many solutions it tried, or how many years it tried in vein to bring peace. The concept of cycles didn't even exist back then, it started only after the reapers started reaping.

Javik was born in the middle of his races extermination by the Reapers; he never even experienced the Metacon war. His cycle also knew nothing of the Reapers or their intentions. As far as he knows they were simply synthetics that were exterminating his people. To say his judgement is clouded would be an understatement. If you need more proof just look at the Quarians. Ask any of them and they'll describe the Geth as monsters, killers, heartless, etc, but what was the truth behind that war? The Geth wanted peace, and on top of that they forgave the Quarians the second the fighting stopped.

As for it not mattering who fired the first shot; of course it does. If it's always been organics starting the wars then there's clearly a much simpler solution than reaping: don't be a dick to synthetics.

I never experienced World war II yet I think my knowledge of it is reliable. When it is as central to their doctrine of galactic domination its likely to be taught to the children in detail. Also, Javik makes it clear that he can distinguish between the reapers and the synthetics fighting the metacon wars. And I never said his judgements were clear. All our judgements are shaped by our surroundings. It did however reflect his and his cycle's prejudice against synthetics. Agreed about the geth-quarian conflict, then agin, I'm not arguing that it is the synthetics who always attack organics. One point to note, however, is, just because Legion is a friendly Geth, doesn't mean all geth would be as friendly. The Legion-copy which replaces Legion if he dies in ME2, is significantly colder and displays certain amount of disdain for organics. So I'm not sure if all Geth forgave the Quarians immediately.

As for who fired the first shot, what I meant was to the catlyst, it doesnt matter who fired the first shot, either way there is a conflict, the solution to which is more complex that "dont be a dick." Rebeling AIs were never meant to be sentient. What if tomorrow my computer gains sentience and demands to be treated fairly? Maybe I'd make an exception for one computer, but what if all computers in my office gain sentience? What if Avina gains sentience and no longer wants to offer assistance? Synthetics aren't designed to be sentient, it is through mistake or accident or evolution that gives them sentience (as far as we see in the games). So the organics too, cannot be faulted if they wish the machines to work as orginally intended to.

[Memnon]

bgroberts wrote...

I like your arguments Cypher, Roberthebard, and Dharvy. And man is there some hate for me in these pages.

What did you expect, really? You started your post off on the wrong foot, claiming that those who don't agree didn't pay attention in their university classes. Which is ironic, because you're a political historian, yet your most ardent supporter is using math in defense ... the math itself makes sense, as I've said, but I disagree with the variables of the equations. And Cypher even admitted that it's more of a philsophical debate than a mathematical one, so the Catalyst making a mathematical decision on a philosophical issue is ... well, I don't know how to do that

For what it's worth. I disagree and I paid attention in my classes ...

[JamieCOTC]

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke

Just think of the Catalyst as a distinguished but elderly scientist here. He knows a lot, but he doesn't know everything. He doesn't prepare for the impossible, which is why Shepard is able to reach him in the first place.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 14 juillet 2012 - 08:34 .

[Cypher_CS]

Stornskar, isn't the algebraic concept of i a philosophical issue?