Fixed.spotlessvoid wrote...
Simon that link didn't work
Modifié par Simon_Says, 19 août 2012 - 10:13 .
Oh I see. It looks to me like the discussion is no longer if synthesis is good or bad, it's a flawed discussion because people are using different interpretations of the same word. Mass confusion happens. I think both sides raise good points, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't look like you're arguing the same thing anymore.estebanus wrote...
Well, I've been saying that Synthesis as an ending choice is disgusting and wrong, but if it were to be achieved naturally, then it is indeed something great.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Hi Estebanus!What's happening here?
Just read the last few pages to get the gist of what I mean.
I don't know what I did butSimon_Says wrote...
Fixed.spotlessvoid wrote...
Simon that link didn't work
Oh hey, top of the page. I'll take advantage of this moment and says that I have no sympathy for any of you feculent maggots and no more patience
to pretend otherwise. Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness.
You know what will happen when it does? Nothing.estebanus wrote...
Oh, and the Milky Way will collide with another galaxy.demersel wrote...
I hate to bring it to you people, but obvious future of the galaxy is empty vastness of nothingness. The stars will die, turning to supernovas, and supermassive black holes will eventually consume all.
Yeah, that's kinda the problem. I was arguin synthesis from a real life perspective and how it's good if humans achieve it by themselves, while others argue from an ending choice perspective, I think.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Oh I see. It looks to me like the discussion is no longer if synthesis is good or bad, it's a flawed discussion because people are using different interpretations of the same word. Mass confusion happens. I think both sides raise good points, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't look like you're arguing the same thing anymore.estebanus wrote...
Well, I've been saying that Synthesis as an ending choice is disgusting and wrong, but if it were to be achieved naturally, then it is indeed something great.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Hi Estebanus!
Just read the last few pages to get the gist of what I mean.
I know. Still something that'll happen.BansheeOwnage wrote...
You know what will happen when it does? Nothing.estebanus wrote...
Oh, and the Milky Way will collide with another galaxy.demersel wrote...
I hate to bring it to you people, but obvious future of the galaxy is empty vastness of nothingness. The stars will die, turning to supernovas, and supermassive black holes will eventually consume all.
BansheeOwnage wrote...
Wait what?demersel wrote...
Also, Any one remember the interview with Lence Henricsen about him doing lines for the EC?
There was something very curious there -
THe way he phrased it - the way it was in ME3 proper, when player LOSES the game in the end, it ends rather abruptly, with just the words "the end". - so naturally players got confused and concerned, and so that is why they are making the EC
Not a problem for me, I got enough la la land with ME3 ending.FreddyCast wrote...
How does having a hammer as hand make the person less human/organic, and thus, something "new"? Please stop it with the LA LA LAND kind of thinking. I can only take so much.
While there won't be crashing of stars there likely will be complete gravitational chaos. Planets may fly out of thier orbits. The rotation will be all screwed up. Addresses will be jacked beyond repair.BansheeOwnage wrote...
You know what will happen when it does? Nothing.estebanus wrote...
Oh, and the Milky Way will collide with another galaxy.demersel wrote...
I hate to bring it to you people, but obvious future of the galaxy is empty vastness of nothingness. The stars will die, turning to supernovas, and supermassive black holes will eventually consume all.
Modifié par Simon_Says, 19 août 2012 - 10:18 .
No, I'm arguing from a real life perspective.estebanus wrote...
Yeah, that's kinda the problem. I was arguin synthesis from a real life perspective and how it's good if humans achieve it by themselves, while others argue from an ending choice perspective, I think.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Oh I see. It looks to me like the discussion is no longer if synthesis is good or bad, it's a flawed discussion because people are using different interpretations of the same word. Mass confusion happens. I think both sides raise good points, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't look like you're arguing the same thing anymore.estebanus wrote...
Well, I've been saying that Synthesis as an ending choice is disgusting and wrong, but if it were to be achieved naturally, then it is indeed something great.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Hi Estebanus!
Just read the last few pages to get the gist of what I mean.
So am I.FreddyCast wrote...
No, I'm arguing from a real life perspective.estebanus wrote...
Yeah, that's kinda the problem. I was arguin synthesis from a real life perspective and how it's good if humans achieve it by themselves, while others argue from an ending choice perspective, I think.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Oh I see. It looks to me like the discussion is no longer if synthesis is good or bad, it's a flawed discussion because people are using different interpretations of the same word. Mass confusion happens. I think both sides raise good points, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't look like you're arguing the same thing anymore.estebanus wrote...
Well, I've been saying that Synthesis as an ending choice is disgusting and wrong, but if it were to be achieved naturally, then it is indeed something great.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Hi Estebanus!
Just read the last few pages to get the gist of what I mean.
Good, then please be more accurate with real life situations.estebanus wrote...
So am I.FreddyCast wrote...
No, I'm arguing from a real life perspective.estebanus wrote...
Yeah, that's kinda the problem. I was arguin synthesis from a real life perspective and how it's good if humans achieve it by themselves, while others argue from an ending choice perspective, I think.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Oh I see. It looks to me like the discussion is no longer if synthesis is good or bad, it's a flawed discussion because people are using different interpretations of the same word. Mass confusion happens. I think both sides raise good points, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't look like you're arguing the same thing anymore.estebanus wrote...
Well, I've been saying that Synthesis as an ending choice is disgusting and wrong, but if it were to be achieved naturally, then it is indeed something great.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Hi Estebanus!
Just read the last few pages to get the gist of what I mean.
As a matter of fact, it doesn't. The hammer is made out of wood and iron, which are both organic materials.FreddyCast wrote...
How does having a hammer as hand make the person less human/organic, and thus, something "new"? Please stop it with the LA LA LAND kind of thinking. I can only take so much.
I could say the same of you. Maybe we're both in denial. Maybe we're both wrong. Maybe we're both right.FreddyCast wrote...
Good, then please be more accurate with real life situations.estebanus wrote...
So am I.FreddyCast wrote...
No, I'm arguing from a real life perspective.estebanus wrote...
Yeah, that's kinda the problem. I was arguin synthesis from a real life perspective and how it's good if humans achieve it by themselves, while others argue from an ending choice perspective, I think.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Oh I see. It looks to me like the discussion is no longer if synthesis is good or bad, it's a flawed discussion because people are using different interpretations of the same word. Mass confusion happens. I think both sides raise good points, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't look like you're arguing the same thing anymore.estebanus wrote...
Well, I've been saying that Synthesis as an ending choice is disgusting and wrong, but if it were to be achieved naturally, then it is indeed something great.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Hi Estebanus!
Just read the last few pages to get the gist of what I mean.
spotlessvoid wrote...
Btw demersel, humanity's cognitive ability is what gives us the capacity to do a neat trick called time binding, in short the ability to place events in sequential order, giving us the ability to understand causality. That's how we can master fire.
What I term "organic" is simply what an entity becomes through natural evolution only. If something develops a hammerhand on its own, it is organic. If it is added, it is...synthetic? Pretty simple mindset.estebanus wrote...
As a matter of fact, it doesn't. The hammer is made out of wood and iron, which are both organic materials.FreddyCast wrote...
How does having a hammer as hand make the person less human/organic, and thus, something "new"? Please stop it with the LA LA LAND kind of thinking. I can only take so much.
A hammer isn't a real replacemnet for a hand. You can't compare anything like a hammer to something as sophisticated and innovative as a fully controllable synthetic hand. It is more or less a part of you. You are no longer fully organic.
From my view, none of the ones anyone said are really specific to humanity in ME.demersel wrote...
spotlessvoid wrote...
Btw demersel, humanity's cognitive ability is what gives us the capacity to do a neat trick called time binding, in short the ability to place events in sequential order, giving us the ability to understand causality. That's how we can master fire.
Neanderthals also had cognitive ability, so it is not uniqe to the humanity. And in the world of Mass Effect, there are lots and lots of other spicies that have it. So it may not be humanities defining trait. The ones i gave you however can, since they are uniqe to humanity.
That's a good idea. I support this idea, as well as pie.estebanus wrote...
Look Freddy, I suggest we just agree to disagree and leave it at that, all right?
Uh, no they aren't both organic materials. An organic material has to have been living cells at one point of time and able to decay. Such as plants and animals. Iron isn't an organic material.estebanus wrote...
As a matter of fact, it doesn't. The hammer is made out of wood and iron, which are both organic materials.FreddyCast wrote...
How does having a hammer as hand make the person less human/organic, and thus, something "new"? Please stop it with the LA LA LAND kind of thinking. I can only take so much.
A hammer isn't a real replacemnet for a hand. You can't compare anything like a hammer to something as sophisticated and innovative as a fully controllable synthetic hand. It is more or less a part of you. You are no longer fully organic.
That's one way of looking at it. However, from a scientific point of view, one might disagree.BansheeOwnage wrote...
What I term "organic" is simply what an entity becomes through natural evolution only. If something develops a hammerhand on its own, it is organic. If it is added, it is...synthetic? Pretty simple mindset.estebanus wrote...
As a matter of fact, it doesn't. The hammer is made out of wood and iron, which are both organic materials.FreddyCast wrote...
How does having a hammer as hand make the person less human/organic, and thus, something "new"? Please stop it with the LA LA LAND kind of thinking. I can only take so much.
A hammer isn't a real replacemnet for a hand. You can't compare anything like a hammer to something as sophisticated and innovative as a fully controllable synthetic hand. It is more or less a part of you. You are no longer fully organic.
BansheeOwnage wrote...
I can't even explain is words how much I would hate that. That's far worse than disproving IT IMO. What do you guys think?FFZero wrote...
Drewton wrote...
I was worried they were going to disprove the theory, so I'm happy if they're leaving it ambiguous at least for now.
The impression I got from speaking to Jessica and Chris is that they are going to keep it ambiguous FOREVER.
FFZero wrote...
"The body of the Leviathan, especially his eyes, possesses great illuminating power. This was the opinion of R. Eliezer, who, in the course of a voyage in company with R. Joshua, explained to the latter, when frightened by the sudden appearance of a brilliant light, that it probably proceeded from the eyes of the Leviathan. He referred his companion to the words of Job xli. 18: "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning" (B. B. l.c.).
Modifié par Drewton, 19 août 2012 - 10:29 .
Who cares if its a hammer or a metal/plastic version of a hand controllable through muscle twitching, whatever material it is, it came from the ground and is not organic. Our organic parts may have the building blocks of ground/water material, but wood, iron, metal, plastic, etc. is not organic. You may no longer have the full package of a human body, but it makes you no less human than another. You still are essentially organic.estebanus wrote...
As a matter of fact, it doesn't. The hammer is made out of wood and iron, which are both organic materials.FreddyCast wrote...
How does having a hammer as hand make the person less human/organic, and thus, something "new"? Please stop it with the LA LA LAND kind of thinking. I can only take so much.
A hammer isn't a real replacemnet for a hand. You can't compare anything like a hammer to something as sophisticated and innovative as a fully controllable synthetic hand. It is more or less a part of you. You are no longer fully organic.
Modifié par FreddyCast, 19 août 2012 - 10:28 .
BansheeOwnage wrote...
From my view, none of the ones anyone said are really specific to humanity in ME.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
