235 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

But that also proves I'm right.

No, it once again proves the Catalyst has nothing but a hypothesis, or it is outright wrong because the synthetics have been defeated when they tried. 

Any chance of getting that proof I asked for? 

Sure, the catalysts existence is all the prof you need. 

He prooves that a.) Synthetics will attack organics and B.) that when they do organics will not be able to stop them.

Modifié par Eterna5, 16 juillet 2012 - 08:58 .

[Ji99saw]

Last time I checked sytheisis had nothing to do with implants of technology but more to do with changing DNA

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

But that also proves I'm right.

No, it once again proves the Catalyst has nothing but a hypothesis, or it is outright wrong because the synthetics have been defeated when they tried. 

Any chance of getting that proof I asked for? 

Sure, the catalysts existence is all the prof you need. 

He prooves that a.) Synthetics will attaxk organics and B.) that when they do organics will not be able to stop them.

That eh.............. would undermine the Catalyst's own premise. It would be wrong straight out of the starting blocks.

[Baronesa]

Ji99saw wrote...

Last time I checked sytheisis had nothing to do with implants of technology but more to do with changing DNA

Changing DNA = Creating a new species (if it does not outright kill us)

Accepting those chances and the green kumbaya...  implies some form of mind control as well.

[Memnon]

Eterna5 wrote... 

Sure, the catalysts existence is all the prof you need. 

He prooves that a.) Synthetics will attaxk organics and B.) that when they do organics will not be able to stop them.

The Catalyst's existence proves that:
a) The Catalyst's creators knew how to build the Catalyst

Modifié par Stornskar, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:01 .

[Eterna]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

But that also proves I'm right.

No, it once again proves the Catalyst has nothing but a hypothesis, or it is outright wrong because the synthetics have been defeated when they tried. 

Any chance of getting that proof I asked for? 

Sure, the catalysts existence is all the prof you need. 

He prooves that a.) Synthetics will attaxk organics and B.) that when they do organics will not be able to stop them.

That eh.............. would undermine the Catalyst's own premise. It would be wrong straight out of the starting blocks.

I never argued that he wasn't a giant contradiction. 

[TakedaMauro]

Eterna5 wrote...


Sure, the catalysts existence is all the prof you need. 

He prooves that a.) Synthetics will attack organics and B.) that when they do organics will not be able to stop them.

So, you are saying that the catalyst own self-fulfilled prophecy is proof that he is right? O.o

Again, logic is out there, go out, know him, befriend him, he doesn't bite.

Modifié par TakedaMauro, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:03 .

[Eterna]

TakedaMauro wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...


Sure, the catalysts existence is all the prof you need. 

He prooves that a.) Synthetics will attack organics and B.) that when they do organics will not be able to stop them.

So, you are saying that the catalyst own self-fulfilled prophecy is proof that he is right? O.o

Again, logic is out there, go out, know him, befriend him, he doesn't bite.

The catalyst has no logic, he's a corrupted AI.

[Blacklash93]

Bad writing. Shocking, I know.

People don't support Synthesis or believe the Catalyst because they make sense. They do it because it leads to the happiest ending. And in the warped and messy mix of contradictory ideas and writing this game ultimately is, it somehow makes sense and is the ideal ending. You can speculate on pretense how everyone is a collective hive-mind, is indoctrinated, or how life will never grow anymore, but Synthesis being the ideal conclusion given all current evidence and all conveyed from the writing is not debatable.

The funny thing is if they didn't try to make AI like EDI and the Geth sympathetic in ME2 or mention anything like this Zha'til stuff, the Catalyst would have made much more sense in this respect. If EDI stayed that mad AI on Luna and the Geth were just all hostile killbots preparing for war with organics like they were made to be in ME1 the Catalyst would have been more sensible. It goes to show they were just scribbling on paper as they went along.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:09 .

[Ji99saw]

Baronesa wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...

Last time I checked sytheisis had nothing to do with implants of technology but more to do with changing DNA

Changing DNA = Creating a new species (if it does not outright kill us)

Accepting those chances and the green kumbaya...  implies some form of mind control as well.

What are you talking about? I was just stating that they are not the same at all as the OP tries to insinuate, I have no idea where you get mind contol from or how it applies and as far as I know there is no mind control in synthesis just fabricated tales with no true bases. By the way people who have been exsposed to radiation that has changed their DNA  are still very much human although mutated

[Bill Casey]

Blacklash93 wrote...

but Synthesis being the ideal conclusion given all current evidence and all conveyed from the writing is not debatable.

It's not debatable because it's beyond false...
It's the ideal conclusion for the Reapers, and that's it...

There's a reason "Brave New World" was referenced twice in the notes...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:16 .

[TakedaMauro]

Eterna5 wrote...

The catalyst has no logic, he's a corrupted AI.

Wait, you first state that "People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted", and then you say this?

You are going sideways man.

[Mazebook]

Why is this thread still going on?...i thought we established the fact that symbiotic is not the same as synthesis...they are completely different things.

which makes the argument of the OP mute.

[Applepie_Svk]

maaaze wrote...

Why is this thread still going on?...i thought we established the fact that symbiotic is not the same as synthesis...they are completely different things.

which makes the argument of the OP mute.

They are different things with same goal... thru symbiosis achieved Zha perfection and AI achieved their understanding - living togethger in one body - achieved synthesis...

And why ? Because it´s simply interesting to speculate and discuss something than hearing constant song of How great is something ....

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:25 .

[Eterna]

TakedaMauro wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The catalyst has no logic, he's a corrupted AI.

Wait, you first state that "People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted", and then you say this?

You are going sideways man.

His message is fine and a easy concept to grasp: Synthetics will destroy organics. People like to deny this for some reason, usually citing the geth as a prime example for why he is wrong. That is what I find short sighted.

His logic of wiping out all advanced organic life so they don't create a synthetic problem is where his strange messed up logic comes in. 

You are confusing what I'm trying to argue about.

Modifié par Eterna5, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:23 .

[The Night Mammoth]

maaaze wrote...

Why is this thread still going on?...i thought we established the fact that symbiotic is not the same as synthesis...they are completely different things.

which makes the argument of the OP mute.

Because we aren't arguing the OP's point anymore. 

To the point though, 'Synthesis' isn't really at all related to the actual meaning of the word. Two things are being given traits of the other so they can coexist, but they aren't being combined to create something new. 

Symbiosis is effectively the result of Synthesis. The Zha'til's previous situation before the Reapers started meddling with things and contradicting their own purpose is was similar to the potential outcome of synthesis. Similarly, the Geth and the Quarians after their peace is related for the same reasons, and provides a far better example because it is more detailed and in this cycle rather than the previous. 

To me it raises the issue of why I would ever need to choose Synthesis for the benefits it might provide, because the can already be achieved without it, which is both evident in the peace you help forge between the species of the galaxy, and by the Catalyst's own word. You're traveling towards this already, it will only work if its natural and not forced, so I would rather wait and let things happen at their own pace. 

Effectively the only thing in the way is the Reapers, which is a point I made earlier. The Catalyst is causing more problems than it's solving. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .

[Baronesa]

It is sad that someone who has English as a second language understand the difference between mute and moot.

[Memnon]

maaaze wrote...

Why is this thread still going on?...i thought we established the fact that symbiotic is not the same as synthesis...they are completely different things.

which makes the argument of the OP mute.

Do we really know enough about Synthesis to definitively say that it's not a symbiotic relationship between organic and synthetic life within one shell? Saying it's a fact is using strong language

Modifié par Stornskar, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:26 .

[Blacklash93]

Bill Casey wrote...
It's not debatable because it's beyond false...
It's the ideal conclusion for the Reapers, and that's it...

There's a reason "Brave New World" was referenced twice in the notes...

It's the ideal ending for everyone. Peace, rebuilding, unlimited access to knowledge and culture. The only negative is that Shepard flat-out dies. Does it make sense? No, but it's there.

And if you're going to bring notes into play you should realize there's plenty of ways to interpret that. Concepts of the novel's setting are in Synthesis, but that doesn't mean the consequences will be the same of the futuristic utopia that the novel has. If there were real drawbacks to it they would have been shown. That's really grasping at straws, there.

This is really a case of people looking too much into things. I see a peaceful world where everyone wins and others see a conspiracy that we're given no reason to believe other than our own preconceptions and in-depth research that is extremely likely irrelevant to the Mass Effect universe. It just so happens the group in the latter uses pretense and scrutinizing speculation to relentlessly attempt to convince everyone to see it their way. At least Synthesis supporters aren't so overzealous.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:43 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

maaaze wrote...

Why is this thread still going on?...i thought we established the fact that symbiotic is not the same as synthesis...they are completely different things.

which makes the argument of the OP mute.

It is going on, because it is obvious that the brat and its boys cannot be trusted. The example is valid, because the zha and zha'til had a symbiotic relation and they turned them into monsters to prove the "inevitability" of the threat. And synthesis is a solution to that hypothetical threat. Don't you feel cheated now that you know this?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:41 .

[Uncle Jo]

Rhayak wrote...

If someone is telling me a tale and narrates that "X did Y", i don't see reason to interrupt and comment "no, he did Z".
.... or to nitpick away at every loose strand in his tale until there's nothing left, for that matter.

If someone tells me that "X will ALWAYS do Y to Z" based on only one example and while I saw nothing that could confirm what he said, I do have a reason to interrupt him and say "Sorry, but No, you're full of crap."

Mass Effect is a tale where stuff happens and at the end character X tells me what's what.

Mass effect is a game. You're part of the story and you also interact with X. It's you who write the end, based on what he told you and you've experienced in-game. You decide. Not him.

And i suspend my effin' disbelief so i can actually enjoy it. A person of true sense can't possibly be angry at space magic just because the actual science behind it isn't explained. Just ACCEPT IT and have some popcorn.

Thanks for the enlightenment, I feel much better now. The point is not space magic here btw. And a person with common sense shouldn't accept any statement and make a decision based on it, without even thinking about what's going on.

*snip*

[Mazebook]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Why is this thread still going on?...i thought we established the fact that symbiotic is not the same as synthesis...they are completely different things.

which makes the argument of the OP mute.

They are different things with same goal...

not even that...

The Goal of a symbiotic relationship is to reach superiority through mutial benefitial connection between two partys...the result is a higher chance fo conflict when one party is getting more of the relationship than the other...or there is a powergap between the partys.

The Goal of Synthesis is to erase the differences between to partys so no party can reach superiority.
The result is that the chance of conflict remains the same but are nolonger supported by differences and does not move among the lines of the partys. 

[The Night Mammoth]

maaaze wrote...

The Goal of Synthesis is to erase the differences between to partys so no party can reach superiority.
The result is that the chance of conflict remains the same but are nolonger supported by differences and does not move among the lines of the partys. 

It's not about erasing differences, it's about understanding them and acknowledging them.

I would never, ever choose Synthesis if it erased differences and barriers. Why would I want to take away what defines an individual? 

[Mazebook]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Why is this thread still going on?...i thought we established the fact that symbiotic is not the same as synthesis...they are completely different things.

which makes the argument of the OP mute.

It is going on, because it is obvious that the brat and its boys cannot be trusted. The example is valid, because the zha and zha'til had a symbiotic relation and they turned them into monsters to prove the "inevitability" of the threat. And synthesis is a solution to that hypothetical threat. Don't you feel cheated now that you know this?

No...the zah´til were not turned into monsters to prove anything...the reapers had no arguement to make...
They already concluded their reasoning.
They only did that in preparation of the harvest... which is their only concern.

[Mazebook]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

maaaze wrote...

The Goal of Synthesis is to erase the differences between to partys so no party can reach superiority.
The result is that the chance of conflict remains the same but are nolonger supported by differences and does not move among the lines of the partys. 

It's not about erasing differences, it's about understanding them and acknowledging them.

I would never, ever choose Synthesis if it erased differences and barriers. Why would I want to take away what defines an individual? 

They are all individuals...the Geth now more than ever...but they can not assign themself to be synthetic as much as organics can call themself organics...they are both now organic synthetics.

So conflict can not arise because one side is superior...they are now both on the same side.

Modifié par maaaze, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:50 .