80611 réponses à ce sujet

[CoolioThane]

Page 5000? Or 4999

Just like to take this moment to say how much I love each and every one of you ITers, Sub, Epyon and Hagar, you make it fun and interesting!

IT for life. YOLO 2K11

Oh shot it's 2012

Modifié par CoolioThane, 21 août 2012 - 01:28 .

[Rosewind]

CoolioThane wrote...

Haha I could never not concentrate in lectures

Not in a lecture in a prac, it a stupid computer class they making me take cause they do reconize my dam IT Degree,,,,,

[CoolioThane]

Rosewind wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Haha I could never not concentrate in lectures

Not in a lecture in a prac, it a stupid computer class they making me take cause they do reconize my dam IT Degree,,,,,

I can relate! Last year they made us sit in these practicals to learn the BASICS of Excel. It was cringeworthy

[paxxton]

5000!

[Simon_Says]

In Page 5000 speculating was beginning...

[masster blaster]

50oo years ago a thread was born. And on that day, so was a fire of hope. Hope that so many people have bannded together to speculate on the endings, and what they mean. On that day they became the ITN7 avengers.

Modifié par masster blaster, 21 août 2012 - 01:54 .

[Rosewind]

CoolioThane wrote...

Page 5000?

Just like to take this moment to say how much I love each and every one of you ITers, Sub, Epyon and Hagar, you make it fun and interesting!

IT for life. YOLO 2K11

Who are you again? .... lol

[Rosewind]

CoolioThane wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Haha I could never not concentrate in lectures

Not in a lecture in a prac, it a stupid computer class they making me take cause they do reconize my dam IT Degree,,,,,

I can relate! Last year they made us sit in these practicals to learn the BASICS of Excel. It was cringeworthy

Oh god I got worse try Word ... by week 3 I wanted to shoot my self...

[Drewton]

masster blaster wrote...

Now what if Bioware adds breath scenes to Control,Synthesis, and refuse. Which one is the right ending, and which one will allow us to end the Reapers once and for all?

I really doubt it, that would confirm the IT as true which I don't think they'll do right now.

[masster blaster]

Drewton wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Now what if Bioware adds breath scenes to Control,Synthesis, and refuse. Which one is the right ending, and which one will allow us to end the Reapers once and for all?

I really doubt it, that would confirm the IT as true which I don't think they'll do right now.

i know, but it would blow the literalist minds.

edit; 6 more minutes till new Red vs Blue.

Modifié par masster blaster, 21 août 2012 - 01:55 .

[ZerebusPrime]

A breath scene after Control, Synthesis, or Refuse would be direct contradictions of what is seen in the literal version, hence why it's only seen with Destroy.  

[Rosewind]

ZerebusPrime wrote...

A breath scene after Control, Synthesis, or Refuse would be direct contradictions of what is seen in the literal version, hence why it's only seen with Destroy.  

Not to mention it will be a huge give away.......

[smokingotter1]

Rosewind wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

A breath scene after Control, Synthesis, or Refuse would be direct contradictions of what is seen in the literal version, hence why it's only seen with Destroy.  

Not to mention it will be a huge give away.......

Although a breath scene with Shepard opening his indoctrinated eyes would be kind of cool game over.

[Hrothdane]

Today I wanted to write about something that has been stewing in my head for awhile. People love to throw
Occam's Razor around, and not just about the IT. However, they only spout the ironically over-simplified version we have all heard: "The simplest answer is often the best answer." The real idea William of Occam was trying to convey--once you get past his awkward sentence construction and translation--is that the answer that requires the
least amount of additional information is most likely correct. When we take this proper and intended meaning into account, Occam's Razor becomes a convincing piece of support in favor of IT.


Consider for a moment how many new pieces of information we have to accept in order to accept everything post-beam run as objective reality. The Reapers suddenly have this benevolent goal to prevent synthetics and organics from destroying each other. The Reapers suddenly have a single ruling consciousness that also happens to speak with Harbinger's voice when displeased. This requires explaining why this immensely powerful Citadel AI couldn't turn on the Citadel Relay himself or even just turn over control to Sovereign directly. The Crucible is not only usable as a method to destroy the Reapers, but also can be used to control the Reapers or synthesize organic and synthetic life. We also have to accept that the beam transported Shepard and Anderson to two different locations, and that Anderson reached the Citadel relatively unharmed. Anderson and TIM's shadows don't follow the laws of light and physics. We also have to come up with a reason for why Harbinger didn't kill Shepard when he has shown pinpoint accuracy, and we have seen several examples of weaker Reaper Destroyers instant killing Shepard with their beams. An explanation becomes necessary for why he flew away without taking a single shot at the Normandy or checking to see if Shepard was actually dead. We also have to explain Shepard somehow survives the Citadel explosion and ends up in an area of
concrete and rebar unlike anything we have seen on the Citadel. We also need to explain how Shepard's gun acts like a weird Predator/Carnifex hybrid.

Now, let's look at the facts we already know. First hand accounts of being indoctrinated during Arrival (also written by Mac Walters) describe nightmares in which people see themselves unable to help those they care for. Kenson starts seeing the Reapers sympathetically at first before going into full-on worship. The codex also tells us that indoctrination is known to cause hallucinations. Prolonged proximity to Reapers, their artifacts, and their minions causes indoctrination. Shepard has had extensive interaction with all of them. Harbinger has expressed a great deal of personal interest in Shepard and said "your mind will be mine" and implied through his "your leaders will beg to serve us" line that they will indoctrinate the leaders of their opposition. Saren said the Reapers showed him the future of organic and synthetic life, and it was a synthesis of the two.

So what do we have to assume in an IT interpretation? Shepard was or is in the process of being indoctrinated at the end. He/she experiences this in the form of a hallucination, dream, waking dream, whatever. The dream/hallucination/whatever takes the form of an allegory, giving Shepard a chance to escape. Harbinger leaves Shepard alive because of his already expressed goal of taking his/her mind. He/she wakes up in concrete and rebar like the London area because he/she never physically left.

Not only are these conclusions fewer, but they require smaller leaps of logic and are grounded entirely in previously established text and canon. Taking that last trip to the Citadel as a hallucination/dream/whatever explains all the individual discrepancies with a single unifying theory, while a literal explanation requires a great deal of coincidence. Shadows in completely opposite directions? Lazy animators! Catalyst has a poor grasp of logic? Bad writing! Harbinger didn't kill Shepard? He didn't notice he/she was still alive! Anderson got to the beam and ended up in a different location? The beam was inaccurate! Why didn't Harbinger shoot at the Normandy? Reaper IFF! I could continue, but I think we all get the point.

While it may not offer deductive proof of IT, Occam's Razor is a powerful and elegant heuristic model that gives strong evidence towards the conclusions of IT.

Modifié par Hrothdane, 21 août 2012 - 02:38 .

[spotlessvoid]

Simon and Doomsday made an excellent point recently that the thematic element of indoctrination theory is of fundamental importance. Without an understanding of it's narrative and emotional impact, the indoctrination plot device holds no weight.

I think that for many players however, it is first necessary to explain why the ending choices are not viable to begin with. Once the illusion is broken, the theme of indoctrination theory can be more receptively introduced, finally followed by the mountain of evidence we and others have collected.

This is why, despite the protests of some, I think the discussion of the validity of the end choices remains not only relevant, but essential to the discussion of IT.

It's not like Leviathan is out yet, we're kind of running on fumes as it were.


So, discussing Simon's theory located here
Damn it I'll keep linking as long as people bringing up the subject.



Your efficiency vs accuracy model for distinguishing organic from synthetic really got me thinking.

I think it is important to note that hominid and organic are not interchangeable terms. What you are comparing is the human brain to an artificial intelligence. This distinction is crucial because the attributes you designate as organic are not inherently so. They are the characteristics of biological life. I'll attempt to elaborate.

The human brain is not one indistinguishable organ, it is a complex system comprised of vastly differing components. They are generally classified into three sections, commonly referred to as the R Complex, the Mammalian Brain, and the Neocortex. The survival mechanism you refer to originates in the R Complex and is further amplified by the chemical processes produced by the Mammalian center, known as emotions.
What makes the Neocortex so different is that it has no such mechanism. It's function is strictly cognitive, and though it operates in conjunction with the survival instincts of our lower brain, it is not it's source.
As I'm sure you well understand evolutionary theory, it will suffice to say that the natural evolutionary process favors survival, as such a naturally occurring organic brain cannot come into existence without first developing all the requisite non cognitive functions required to keep the biological organism alive.
Nevertheless, the Neocortex shows that organic brain function need not be defined as survival oriented. In fact, the Neocortex operates in a manner much more similar to a desktop computer than say the limbic system.
So do we define organic as the nervous system of a biological organism, or simply as any cognitive system made of organic matter?

I think that you are assigning chemical processes developed out of evolutionary necessity as intrinsically organic and although these attributes cannot be ignored when comparing a human brain to an artificial one, they are not prerequisites when discussing the technical advantages of organic vs synthetic
For example, if one were to replace all but the gray matter with synthetic systems, such a system would be free of any involuntary neural activity negatively impacting accuracy in favor of efficacy. Yet the cognitive organ would remain wholly organic. Conversely, a synthetic cognitive system added on to an organic human lower brain would remain cognitively synthetic but would be susceptible to all the problems presented by the biological instinct for survival. It is the involuntary nature of these instincts that creates such a conflicting, tumultuous mental life for we humans. The entirety of buddhism can be summed up in two parts: the philosophical concepts of impermanence and interdependent origination, and the behavioral practice of quieting the control the lower brain has on cognitive function. They actively seek out relative truth over survivalist instinct.

It seems that emotional response is what is typically associated with an organic mind, while synthetic minds are imagined as devoid of such processes. The implications this has on the fundamentally human trait of empathy is, in my opinion, at the source of the fear many have of artificial intelligence, however that is a complex topic best left for another day.

So how does this relate to mass effect? Well, the impact synthesis has on the races of the galaxy, and the morality of such a decision, cannot be properly debated without knowing significantly more details on how the transformative process potentially alters mental function.

Additionally, does the act of transforming from strictly organic based to an organic/synthetic hybrid, if leaving the emotional functions intact, really accomplish anything concerning the fundamentally different world views held by organics and synthetics as portrayed in Mass Effect? To create a true harmonization between them, with the intent of ending conflict between them, would it not be necessary for either synthetics to develop emotional processes or for organics to lose theirs, destroying their defining characteristic, in effect destroying one or the other?

[FellishBeast]

Hrothdane wrote...


Today I wanted to write about something that has been stewing in my head for awhile. People love to throw
Occam's Razor around, and not just about the IT. However, they only spout the ironically over-simplified version we have all heard: "The simplest answer is often the best answer." The real idea William of Occam was trying to convey--once you get past his awkward sentence construction and translation--is that the answer that requires the
least amount of additional information is most likely correct. When we take this proper and intended meaning into account, Occam's Razor becomes a convincing piece of support in favor of IT.


Consider for a moment how many new pieces of information we have to accept in order to accept everything post-beam run as objective reality. The Reapers suddenly have this benevolent goal to prevent synthetics and organics from destroying each other. The Reapers suddenly have a single ruling consciousness that also happens to speak with Harbinger's voice when displeased. This requires explaining why this immensely powerful Citadel AI couldn't turn on the Citadel Relay himself or even just turn over control to Sovereign directly. The Crucible is not only usable as a method to destroy the Reapers, but also can be used to control the Reapers or synthesize organic and synthetic life. We also have to accept that the beam transported Shepard and Anderson to two different locations, and that Anderson reached the Citadel relatively unharmed. Anderson and TIM's shadows don't follow the laws of light and physics. We also have to come up with a reason for why Harbinger didn't kill Shepard when he has shown pinpoint accuracy, and we have seen several examples of weaker Reaper Destroyers instant killing Shepard with their beams. An explanation becomes necessary for why he flew away without taking a single shot at the Normandy or checking to see if Shepard was actually dead. We also have to explain Shepard somehow survives the Citadel explosion and ends up in an area of
concrete and rebar unlike anything we have seen on the Citadel. We also need to explain how Shepard's gun acts like a weird Predator/Carnifex hybrid.

Now, let's look at the facts we already know. First hand accounts of being indoctrinated during Arrival (also written by Mac Walters) describe nightmares in which people see themselves unable to help those they care for. Kenson starts seeing the Reapers sympathetically at first before going into full-on worship. The codex also tells us that indoctrination is known to cause hallucinations. Prolonged proximity to Reapers, their artifacts, and their minions causes indoctrination. Shepard has had extensive interaction with all of them. Harbinger has expressed a great deal of personal interest in Shepard and said "your mind will be mine" and implied through his "your leaders will beg to serve us" line that they will indoctrinate the leaders of their opposition. Saren said the Reapers showed him the future of organic and synthetic life, and it was a synthesis of the two.

So what do we have to assume in an IT interpretation? Shepard was or is in the process of being indoctrinated at the end. He/she experiences this in the form of a hallucination, dream, waking dream, whatever. The dream/hallucination/whatever takes the form of an allegory, giving Shepard a chance to escape. Harbinger leaves Shepard alive because of his already expressed goal of taking his/her mind. He/she wakes up in concrete and rebar like the London area because he/she never physically left.

Not only are these conclusions fewer, but they require smaller leaps of logic and are grounded entirely in previously established text and canon. Taking that last trip to the Citadel as a hallucination/dream/whatever explains all the individual discrepancies with a single unifying theory, while a literal explanation requires a great deal of coincidence. Shadows in completely opposite directions? Lazy animators! Catalyst has a poor grasp of logic? Bad writing! Harbinger didn't kill Shepard? He didn't notice he/she was still alive! Anderson got to the beam and ended up in a different location? The beam was inaccurate! Why didn't Harbinger shoot at the Normandy? Reaper IFF! I could continue, but I think we all get the point.

While it may not offer deductive proof of IT, Occam's Razor is a powerful and elegant heuristic model that gives strong evidence towards the conclusions of IT.

Freaking brilliant. Well done. A voice of reason. Love it.

[spotlessvoid]

Hrothdane

I would replace "additional information" with assumptions. Their respective connotations are not entirely identical. Assumptions is, I think, the preferred term here. Otherwise, great points.

Bertrand Russell's version of Occam's Razor:
"Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities"

[Rosewind]

smokingotter1 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

A breath scene after Control, Synthesis, or Refuse would be direct contradictions of what is seen in the literal version, hence why it's only seen with Destroy.  

Not to mention it will be a huge give away.......

Although a breath scene with Shepard opening his indoctrinated eyes would be kind of cool game over.

And people will be like "RAWR!!! What happens next!!"

[Dam0299]

Rosewind wrote...

smokingotter1 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

A breath scene after Control, Synthesis, or Refuse would be direct contradictions of what is seen in the literal version, hence why it's only seen with Destroy.  

Not to mention it will be a huge give away.......

Although a breath scene with Shepard opening his indoctrinated eyes would be kind of cool game over.

And people will be like "RAWR!!! What happens next!!"

Is that not what some people did when they first completed the game all those months ago? :3.

Modifié par Dam0299, 21 août 2012 - 03:11 .

[Drewton]

Hrothdane wrote...

Not only are these conclusions fewer, but they require smaller leaps of logic and are grounded entirely in previously established text and canon. Taking that last trip to the Citadel as a hallucination/dream/whatever explains all the individual discrepancies with a single unifying theory, while a literal explanation requires a great deal of coincidence. Shadows in completely opposite directions? Lazy animators! Catalyst has a poor grasp of logic? Bad writing! Harbinger didn't kill Shepard? He didn't notice he/she was still alive! Anderson got to the beam and ended up in a different location? The beam was inaccurate! Why didn't Harbinger shoot at the Normandy? Reaper IFF! I could continue, but I think we all get the point.

While it may not offer deductive proof of IT, Occam's Razor is a powerful and elegant heuristic model that gives strong evidence towards the conclusions of IT.

And also the plain impossibilities of it. Like the Catalyst being in the Citadel tower, and Shepard dropping back down to London and surviving.

Modifié par Drewton, 21 août 2012 - 03:13 .

[smokingotter1]

Rosewind wrote...

smokingotter1 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

A breath scene after Control, Synthesis, or Refuse would be direct contradictions of what is seen in the literal version, hence why it's only seen with Destroy.  

Not to mention it will be a huge give away.......

Although a breath scene with Shepard opening his indoctrinated eyes would be kind of cool game over.

And people will be like "RAWR!!! What happens next!!"

This is the scene you get after you the last DLC in 2013, still no resolution but acknowledgement that IT was intended. Then credits, message from Bioware "Stay tuned for Mass Effect 4! Kinnect required to play. Buy moar DLC" Roll credits, credits song is by Will Smith "Massy Massy Mass Effect." Movie made about Mass Effect directed by Ewe Boll. Two versions of the movie will be made, one for femshep and malesheep, both played by Shia Labeouf. Franchise dies of herion overdose in the gutter.

I'm kidding, couldn't possibly happen (nervously whistles)

Modifié par smokingotter1, 21 août 2012 - 03:15 .

[spotlessvoid]

Shia labeouf couldn't possibly play BroShep

[desert_beagle]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Simon and Doomsday made an excellent point recently that the thematic element of indoctrination theory is of fundamental importance. Without an understanding of it's narrative and emotional impact, the indoctrination plot device holds no weight.

I think that for many players however, it is first necessary to explain why the ending choices are not viable to begin with. Once the illusion is broken, the theme of indoctrination theory can be more receptively introduced, finally followed by the mountain of evidence we and others have collected.

This is why, despite the protests of some, I think the discussion of the validity of the end choices remains not only relevant, but essential to the discussion of IT.

It's not like Leviathan is out yet, we're kind of running on fumes as it were.


So, discussing Simon's theory located here
Damn it I'll keep linking as long as people bringing up the subject.



Your efficiency vs accuracy model for distinguishing organic from synthetic really got me thinking.

I think it is important to note that hominid and organic are not interchangeable terms. What you are comparing is the human brain to an artificial intelligence. This distinction is crucial because the attributes you designate as organic are not inherently so. They are the characteristics of biological life. I'll attempt to elaborate.

The human brain is not one indistinguishable organ, it is a complex system comprised of vastly differing components. They are generally classified into three sections, commonly referred to as the R Complex, the Mammalian Brain, and the Neocortex. The survival mechanism you refer to originates in the R Complex and is further amplified by the chemical processes produced by the Mammalian center, known as emotions.
What makes the Neocortex so different is that it has no such mechanism. It's function is strictly cognitive, and though it operates in conjunction with the survival instincts of our lower brain, it is not it's source.
As I'm sure you well understand evolutionary theory, it will suffice to say that the natural evolutionary process favors survival, as such a naturally occurring organic brain cannot come into existence without first developing all the requisite non cognitive functions required to keep the biological organism alive.
Nevertheless, the Neocortex shows that organic brain function need not be defined as survival oriented. In fact, the Neocortex operates in a manner much more similar to a desktop computer than say the limbic system.
So do we define organic as the nervous system of a biological organism, or simply as any cognitive system made of organic matter?

I think that you are assigning chemical processes developed out of evolutionary necessity as intrinsically organic and although these attributes cannot be ignored when comparing a human brain to an artificial one, they are not prerequisites when discussing the technical advantages of organic vs synthetic
For example, if one were to replace all but the gray matter with synthetic systems, such a system would be free of any involuntary neural activity negatively impacting accuracy in favor of efficacy. Yet the cognitive organ would remain wholly organic. Conversely, a synthetic cognitive system added on to an organic human lower brain would remain cognitively synthetic but would be susceptible to all the problems presented by the biological instinct for survival. It is the involuntary nature of these instincts that creates such a conflicting, tumultuous mental life for we humans. The entirety of buddhism can be summed up in two parts: the philosophical concepts of impermanence and interdependent origination, and the behavioral practice of quieting the control the lower brain has on cognitive function. They actively seek out relative truth over survivalist instinct.

It seems that emotional response is what is typically associated with an organic mind, while synthetic minds are imagined as devoid of such processes. The implications this has on the fundamentally human trait of empathy is, in my opinion, at the source of the fear many have of artificial intelligence, however that is a complex topic best left for another day.

So how does this relate to mass effect? Well, the impact synthesis has on the races of the galaxy, and the morality of such a decision, cannot be properly debated without knowing significantly more details on how the transformative process potentially alters mental function.

Additionally, does the act of transforming from strictly organic based to an organic/synthetic hybrid, if leaving the emotional functions intact, really accomplish anything concerning the fundamentally different world views held by organics and synthetics as portrayed in Mass Effect? To create a true harmonization between them, with the intent of ending conflict between them, would it not be necessary for either synthetics to develop emotional processes or for organics to lose theirs, destroying their defining characteristic, in effect destroying one or the other?

I think my brain just imploded.  In all seriousness however, yes it does in fact cause the destruction of both.  Neither would ever be what they were before.  Starchild makes that clear when he states that the DNA of all life and the life matrix would be altered.  Now, I still think that just means turning organic life into Gerber's Reaper Baby formula, but that's just me.

[smokingotter1]

@spotlessvoid also the fact that synthesis, us all being the same doesn't guarantee harmony at all. The geth were the same and they still fought each other over ideas. Hell humans are almost 100% genetically similar and we fight like cats and dog. Forced homogenization leading to super harmony? From our experience in real life and in Mass Effect that does not appear to be the case. Therefore synthesis is bull****.

Just because the Krogan have "Intel Inside" parts and harddrives making up their body doesn't mean they still don't have an axe to grind with the Turians and Salarians.

Modifié par smokingotter1, 21 août 2012 - 03:32 .

[spotlessvoid]

Desert Beagle....Starchild makes no attempt to explain what the psychological effects of this physiological change actually are.

Smoking Otter...exactly