1. He doesn't contridict himself. 2.I think you need to understand what he is programed to do before you say he is not doing it anymore.
You need to start directly quoting what you are referring to. You continually insult people here by saying they don't understand this or that. Wow you are the only one that ever knows anything. I do understand what he says he was programmed to do. If that wasn't it then he lied.
He was programmed to find balance and peace between organics and synthetics. Peace as in not war. He creates war. That is not what he was supposed to do. A calculator could figure that one out. No computer that is programmed to find peace is going to define that as "by creating war".
He is supposed to prevent synthetics from being made that will destroy organics. He sends synthetics to destroy organics. He also creates the circumstances where organics will create synthetics that he thinks will kill them. So now you are saying he was programmed to give organics the tech that will help them learn to build synthetics and create conflict and war?
He believes that that conflict will always exist. Was he programmed to create the conflict?
He sent Sovereign and Sovereign used synthetics to kill people. How does this work with his original programmed directive? If he was supposed to find peace to save organics then why did he create war everywhere? And why was he killing organics?
If you believe he's not lying then he was sent to find balance and peace and he does the opposite. Tell me how his programming got him to do that. Or don't bother because that's another black hole.
He was created to oversee the relation of organics and synthetics.
War is just a measn to an end. He is just imposing his salution. Overseers can impose. To say he is not doing his programe you have to show where it's stated he can't impose his solutions.
Oh Jolly good... the Catalysts and the Reapers are not killing anyone, according to Dreman...
Ok, forget about the war, everyone, let's go to our homes and wait patiently till we are turned into goo an ascended! There is nothing to fear! no need to resist either...
Way to warp what I'm saying. I never said they never killed anyone nor what they are doing is ok. Everything I'm saying is more of a reason to fight back. We are having a belief imposed on us, we have all the reason to fight back.
All I'm doing is making it clear what the reapers want and are doing. I never said let them. I would never say let them.
dreman9999 wrote...
A paradox won't work now. The probelm here is defination. The only way to put him in a paradox is to prove he is killing organics. Technicly, he is not.
Let me be clear. When I say he is killing someone, I refering to the war. When I say he is not killing anyone, I refering to making a reapers. Do you need someone to hold you hand to understand?
Hmmmm
Person gets huskified = personality dies = person died Person gets eaten by huskified = personality dies = person died Person gets melted to form reaper = personality combines with other personalitys = person died = personality dies
Dreman9999 are you holding your own hand cause you're the one who understands your own flawed logic
Whatever the catalyst says, he is still killing people not saving them.
A combination of personality is not that person dieing or personality dieing. The huck are a means to an end by the catalyst logic. As I said before, it's a concept of defination. And I don't agree with it's defination.
Just for a last jab. Their is more proof he is shackled then him being not. He makes it clear is being forced. [/quote] That's not proof. If the option, which is dreamed up by the brat itself, "forces" the brat to accept it then it just faces the consequences of that.
BTW: The term "shackled" is only used to indicate EDI's behavioral locks. No such reference is ever made when it comes to any other AI. That's why I asked that earlier in this thread. The only reason you want the brat to be shackled is because it would show that it is not responsible for its actions. It is the same reason why you keep confusing an AI with a VI. If the brat does something that cannot be defended you are treating it as a VI.[/quote] You entire concept is that the catalyst is lieing. If this leak is ture, the catalyst is not and himsay he is being forced does mean he is shackled. Also, the term shackled can be done to any AI. It make no sense it can only be done to one AI.[/quote] The only one who is forced here is Shepard to accept one of its options. The brat forces itself to respect Shepard's choice, unless its creators told the brat to build the Citadel with three platforms to interface with the Crucible plus an elevator to get an organic up there.[/quote] The Catalyst, as a slave to its programming, must find the best solution. It builds its knowledge and data empirically as we know because it has changed solutions. This means it does not consider itself infallible. The Crucible's execution (attached to the Citadel) is a manifestation of the flaws in the Reaper plan, so the REaper solution becomes less viable at the given moment due to new occurrences. The Crucible's solutions all are better than the now-lowered-Reaper solution. Therefore, as a slave to its programming, the Catalyst is forced to turn to Shepard and the Crucible to get a better solution.[/quote] You are confusing an AI with a VI.
[quote]JShepppp wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
"And be a good boy now. Whenever a wounded organic lies there push the button of the elevator. It's most likely Miss Shepard. She's a good girl. You can trust her. Make sure you do your eugenics homework before she gets there, because we don't want anymore poor organics ending up with two heads."
Any AI can be shackled, but that does not mean all are. The only one we know of was EDI's behavioral lock. No other AI has been designated as such. And thus the brat is unshackled. And thus it is able to lie if it is in its advantage. Even if it was shackled it wouldn't mean it could not lie. It depends on what behavior was blocked. And guess what? It is a master in lying. It even developed technology to force people to believe its lies. It's called indoctrination.[/quote] So your argument is that since most AIs aren't shackled, we must just assume that the Catalyst isn't? Evidence indicates otherwise.
And why would it try to indoctrinate Shepard at the time of the Crucible? It makes no sense; it might as well kill Shepard and get an indoctrinated servant to activate Synthesis. If it specifically needs shepard's build to do synthesis, why doesn't it present synthesis as the ONLY option of the Crucible and the destroy option? Why even bother giving the choice to destroy?[/quote] No. We only know that EDI once was shackled. There is no evidence whatsoever that any other AI has been shackled. And that includes the brat. The closest thing was the reapers turning synthetics hostile.
Read what I wrote again. I did not mention that Shepard was indoctrinated. Developing indoctrination does not mean it's using it against Shepard. It only shows that it is capable of lying because organics can be forced to believe its lies using indoctrination.[/quote] 1. You clear don't understand what a VI is. It not a machine that is a slave to it's programing. It's a computor that can't think in abstract. EDI in ME2 was a slave to her programing before being unshakled. Was she a VI then?
2.BS. Give a reason why an AI can't be shakled and you can say it can only happen to one AI. Otherwise we'll use common sense and deduct that other AI's can be shakled.[/quote] #1. It is more productive to actually educate yourself in what AI actually means then trying to cover your lack of knowledge in that area. It makes you look silly. A good starting point is the codex.
#2. Any AI can be shackled, but there is only evidence of one that used to be shackled: EDI. There is no evidence of any other shackled AI. That includes the brat. That means that we have to asume those are not limited in that way. Simple enough? [/quote] 1. No. You really don't understand youself. Really, you don't. An VI is not an AI that is shakled or locked to doing it programing.
2. No. Use some sense. What is the reason why an AI can be shackle. Any arguement your using is based on samantics. There is no reason why other AI's can't be shakled. The concept of shackled AI is not even new to sci fi. You want to question if it can be done but your not even understand how its done. iF YOU UNDERSTOOD THEN YOU WOULD KNOW IT CAN BE DONE.[/quote] 1. I am really trying to read your English but the last sentence in that section is incomprehensible.
2. It's not semantics. It is lack of evidence of said state. BTW: Your caps lock key is stuck.
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 10 août 2012 - 02:19 .
Why assume someone will just will understand? Machine start out having no morality. How would it just suddenly know what his creators morality is if he is not even allowed to gain one himself? That is the problem. EDI was not a problem because she was let lose frombeing a slave to her programing. Same with the geth. They are allowed to get a morality They are free. Don't just assume that everyone one would just get yours or other morality just because. That's how wars get started. He didn't change his defiantion of alive at all. Heck, the defiantion of alive is so broad that a stable difintion can't be made. It's so broad that self awarness is considered an addition. He did not change anything about himself that he was not allowed to change. Everything he is doing is bacause of his programing.
Been here before. You ignore everything. If he is just the victim of his programming then any monkey would have created him so he would not be able to hurt his creators. His creators were advanced enough to create the pre-reaper machines and he was advanced enough to send their brain activity to reside within the machines. His creators would not have allowed him to hurt them or do anything against their will if he was so controlled. EDI and the geth advanced beyond their programming even before they were acted on by outside intervention. EDI had already determined to be more than she was as did the geth. They evolved. Yet for millions of years, outside of his weak restraints that really restrained nothing, the kid has a singular ignorant purpose that he can't apply even logical thought to. He has trillions of minds that are also working on the problem and know logically that he has done illogical things that are counter to what he was supposed to be doing.
The definition of alive is broad? What? No it isn't. Trillions of minds would have told him what the process of being alive is. The geth and EDI determined it to be autonomy as a part of it. And yet these trillions of minds can't even make him understand that? I'm sure all these minds that you think are alive would think it logical that they have no ability to independently interact with the world. That sounds like prison and living beings would reject it and the kid would know it.
The definition of alive is broad? What? No it isn't. Trillions of minds would have told him what the process of being alive is. The geth and EDI determined it to be autonomy as a part of it. And yet these trillions of minds can't even make him understand that? I'm sure all these minds that you think are alive would think it logical that they have no ability to independently interact with the world. That sounds like prison and living beings would reject it and the kid would know it.
Just for a last jab. Their is more proof he is shackled then him being not. He makes it clear is being forced. [/quote] That's not proof. If the option, which is dreamed up by the brat itself, "forces" the brat to accept it then it just faces the consequences of that.
BTW: The term "shackled" is only used to indicate EDI's behavioral locks. No such reference is ever made when it comes to any other AI. That's why I asked that earlier in this thread. The only reason you want the brat to be shackled is because it would show that it is not responsible for its actions. It is the same reason why you keep confusing an AI with a VI. If the brat does something that cannot be defended you are treating it as a VI.[/quote] You entire concept is that the catalyst is lieing. If this leak is ture, the catalyst is not and himsay he is being forced does mean he is shackled. Also, the term shackled can be done to any AI. It make no sense it can only be done to one AI.[/quote] The only one who is forced here is Shepard to accept one of its options. The brat forces itself to respect Shepard's choice, unless its creators told the brat to build the Citadel with three platforms to interface with the Crucible plus an elevator to get an organic up there.[/quote] The Catalyst, as a slave to its programming, must find the best solution. It builds its knowledge and data empirically as we know because it has changed solutions. This means it does not consider itself infallible. The Crucible's execution (attached to the Citadel) is a manifestation of the flaws in the Reaper plan, so the REaper solution becomes less viable at the given moment due to new occurrences. The Crucible's solutions all are better than the now-lowered-Reaper solution. Therefore, as a slave to its programming, the Catalyst is forced to turn to Shepard and the Crucible to get a better solution.[/quote] You are confusing an AI with a VI.
[quote]JShepppp wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
"And be a good boy now. Whenever a wounded organic lies there push the button of the elevator. It's most likely Miss Shepard. She's a good girl. You can trust her. Make sure you do your eugenics homework before she gets there, because we don't want anymore poor organics ending up with two heads."
Any AI can be shackled, but that does not mean all are. The only one we know of was EDI's behavioral lock. No other AI has been designated as such. And thus the brat is unshackled. And thus it is able to lie if it is in its advantage. Even if it was shackled it wouldn't mean it could not lie. It depends on what behavior was blocked. And guess what? It is a master in lying. It even developed technology to force people to believe its lies. It's called indoctrination.[/quote] So your argument is that since most AIs aren't shackled, we must just assume that the Catalyst isn't? Evidence indicates otherwise.
And why would it try to indoctrinate Shepard at the time of the Crucible? It makes no sense; it might as well kill Shepard and get an indoctrinated servant to activate Synthesis. If it specifically needs shepard's build to do synthesis, why doesn't it present synthesis as the ONLY option of the Crucible and the destroy option? Why even bother giving the choice to destroy?[/quote] No. We only know that EDI once was shackled. There is no evidence whatsoever that any other AI has been shackled. And that includes the brat. The closest thing was the reapers turning synthetics hostile.
Read what I wrote again. I did not mention that Shepard was indoctrinated. Developing indoctrination does not mean it's using it against Shepard. It only shows that it is capable of lying because organics can be forced to believe its lies using indoctrination.[/quote] 1. You clear don't understand what a VI is. It not a machine that is a slave to it's programing. It's a computor that can't think in abstract. EDI in ME2 was a slave to her programing before being unshakled. Was she a VI then?
2.BS. Give a reason why an AI can't be shakled and you can say it can only happen to one AI. Otherwise we'll use common sense and deduct that other AI's can be shakled.[/quote] #1. It is more productive to actually educate yourself in what AI actually means then trying to cover your lack of knowledge in that area. It makes you look silly. A good starting point is the codex.
#2. Any AI can be shackled, but there is only evidence of one that used to be shackled: EDI. There is no evidence of any other shackled AI. That includes the brat. That means that we have to asume those are not limited in that way. Simple enough? [/quote] 1. No. You really don't understand youself. Really, you don't. An VI is not an AI that is shakled or locked to doing it programing.
2. No. Use some sense. What is the reason why an AI can be shackle. Any arguement your using is based on samantics. There is no reason why other AI's can't be shakled. The concept of shackled AI is not even new to sci fi. You want to question if it can be done but your not even understand how its done. iF YOU UNDERSTOOD THEN YOU WOULD KNOW IT CAN BE DONE.[/quote] 1. I am really trying to read your English but that sentence is incomprehensible.
2. It's not semantics. It is lack of evidence of said state. BTW: Your caps lock key is stuck. [/quote] 1. I'll say it agien. A VI is not a shakled AI. An AI lock to only do it's programing is not a VI. An AI can be locked and shakled to do it's programing.
2. It is semantics. Hech, if you really want to go on about it. We had two shackled AI in the series shown to us... EDI in ME2 and EVA in the staert of ME3. Hands down you have no reason to think other AI can't be shakled. Even the geth have been shown to be able to be shackled on the rennoch missions.
Oh Jolly good... the Catalysts and the Reapers are not killing anyone, according to Dreman...
Ok, forget about the war, everyone, let's go to our homes and wait patiently till we are turned into goo an ascended! There is nothing to fear! no need to resist either...
Way to warp what I'm saying. I never said they never killed anyone nor what they are doing is ok. Everything I'm saying is more of a reason to fight back. We are having a belief imposed on us, we have all the reason to fight back.
All I'm doing is making it clear what the reapers want and are doing. I never said let them. I would never say let them.
dreman9999 wrote...
A paradox won't work now. The probelm here is defination. The only way to put him in a paradox is to prove he is killing organics. Technicly, he is not.
Let me be clear. When I say he is killing someone, I refering to the war. When I say he is not killing anyone, I refering to making a reapers. Do you need someone to hold you hand to understand?
Hmmmm
Person gets huskified = personality dies = person died Person gets eaten by huskified = personality dies = person died Person gets melted to form reaper = personality combines with other personalitys = person died = personality dies
Dreman9999 are you holding your own hand cause you're the one who understands your own flawed logic
Whatever the catalyst says, he is still killing people not saving them.
A combination of personality is not that person dieing or personality dieing. The huck are a means to an end by the catalyst logic. As I said before, it's a concept of defination. And I don't agree with it's defination.
Well the majority begs to differ, catalyst is killing not saving.
And perhaps from the catalyst's point of view, he's not killing. However we don't see it that way, only you.
so the conclusion: You are indoctrinated with the catalyst's flawed logic
You are the catalyst, and I don't agree with you. Thus I choose to refuse your logic
Why assume someone will just will understand? Machine start out having no morality. How would it just suddenly know what his creators morality is if he is not even allowed to gain one himself? That is the problem. EDI was not a problem because she was let lose frombeing a slave to her programing. Same with the geth. They are allowed to get a morality They are free. Don't just assume that everyone one would just get yours or other morality just because. That's how wars get started. He didn't change his defiantion of alive at all. Heck, the defiantion of alive is so broad that a stable difintion can't be made. It's so broad that self awarness is considered an addition. He did not change anything about himself that he was not allowed to change. Everything he is doing is bacause of his programing.
Been here before. You ignore everything. If he is just the victim of his programming then any monkey would have created him so he would not be able to hurt his creators. His creators were advanced enough to create the pre-reaper machines and he was advanced enough to send their brain activity to reside within the machines. His creators would not have allowed him to hurt them or do anything against their will if he was so controlled. EDI and the geth advanced beyond their programming even before they were acted on by outside intervention. EDI had already determined to be more than she was as did the geth. They evolved. Yet for millions of years, outside of his weak restraints that really restrained nothing, the kid has a singular ignorant purpose that he can't apply even logical thought to. He has trillions of minds that are also working on the problem and know logically that he has done illogical things that are counter to what he was supposed to be doing.
The definition of alive is broad? What? No it isn't. Trillions of minds would have told him what the process of being alive is. The geth and EDI determined it to be autonomy as a part of it. And yet these trillions of minds can't even make him understand that? I'm sure all these minds that you think are alive would think it logical that they have no ability to independently interact with the world. That sounds like prison and living beings would reject it and the kid would know it.
1.As I said before. what happen to the reaper is a concept of the Zeroth Law . http://en.wikipedia....eroth_Law_added It base on abstacts and defintion and loop holes the creators did not ac**** for. What ever false safe they had had a loop whole they did not see and could not counter.
2. Yes, the concept of Live is broad. Does alive mean we need a brain? If so coral and star fish are not alive. Does live mean we have to think and have a persona? If so trees are not alive. Everything that defines us as a race is not even part of the defination of alive. It is that broad when you understand all the forms of life on this planet.
3."I'm sure all these minds that you think are alive would think it logical that they have no ability to independently interact with the world. That sounds like prison and living beings would reject it and the kid would know it. "
That my point...That is why it's wrong. I never said it was right. I 'm ageinst the catalyst doing this. The problem here is that this is being impose ageinst our wills. I'm not say let the catalyst do what he wants.
Oh Jolly good... the Catalysts and the Reapers are not killing anyone, according to Dreman...
Ok, forget about the war, everyone, let's go to our homes and wait patiently till we are turned into goo an ascended! There is nothing to fear! no need to resist either...
Way to warp what I'm saying. I never said they never killed anyone nor what they are doing is ok. Everything I'm saying is more of a reason to fight back. We are having a belief imposed on us, we have all the reason to fight back.
All I'm doing is making it clear what the reapers want and are doing. I never said let them. I would never say let them.
dreman9999 wrote...
A paradox won't work now. The probelm here is defination. The only way to put him in a paradox is to prove he is killing organics. Technicly, he is not.
Let me be clear. When I say he is killing someone, I refering to the war. When I say he is not killing anyone, I refering to making a reapers. Do you need someone to hold you hand to understand?
Hmmmm
Person gets huskified = personality dies = person died Person gets eaten by huskified = personality dies = person died Person gets melted to form reaper = personality combines with other personalitys = person died = personality dies
Dreman9999 are you holding your own hand cause you're the one who understands your own flawed logic
Whatever the catalyst says, he is still killing people not saving them.
A combination of personality is not that person dieing or personality dieing. The huck are a means to an end by the catalyst logic. As I said before, it's a concept of defination. And I don't agree with it's defination.
Well the majority begs to differ, catalyst is killing not saving.
And perhaps from the catalyst's point of view, he's not killing. However we don't see it that way, only you.
so the conclusion: You are indoctrinated with the catalyst's flawed logic
You are the catalyst, and I don't agree with you. Thus I choose to refuse your logic
May the next cycle have mercy on your AI core.
No. I just understand it a differance of defiantion. Even then I don't agree with what it's doing ether.
1. He doesn't contridict himself. 2.I think you need to understand what he is programed to do before you say he is not doing it anymore.
You need to start directly quoting what you are referring to. You continually insult people here by saying they don't understand this or that. Wow you are the only one that ever knows anything. I do understand what he says he was programmed to do. If that wasn't it then he lied.
He was programmed to find balance and peace between organics and synthetics. Peace as in not war. He creates war. That is not what he was supposed to do. A calculator could figure that one out. No computer that is programmed to find peace is going to define that as "by creating war".
He is supposed to prevent synthetics from being made that will destroy organics. He sends synthetics to destroy organics. He also creates the circumstances where organics will create synthetics that he thinks will kill them. So now you are saying he was programmed to give organics the tech that will help them learn to build synthetics and create conflict and war?
He believes that that conflict will always exist. Was he programmed to create the conflict?
He sent Sovereign and Sovereign used synthetics to kill people. How does this work with his original programmed directive? If he was supposed to find peace to save organics then why did he create war everywhere? And why was he killing organics?
If you believe he's not lying then he was sent to find balance and peace and he does the opposite. Tell me how his programming got him to do that. Or don't bother because that's another black hole.
He was created to oversee the relation of organics and synthetics.
War is just a measn to an end. He is just imposing his salution. Overseers can impose. To say he is not doing his programe you have to show where it's stated he can't impose his solutions.
Again when I said he was sent to find balance between organics and synthetics, you said he was sent to find peace. I said yes he was sent to find peace and he created war. So now you say he was to oversee the relations between them. He was to find balance and peace. War would never be a part of that programming nor would he consider war is a way to peace. The logical act would be to destroy violent synthetics. The logical act would be to create an unalterable shackle that would make it impossible for synthetics once created to ever turn on their creators.
I don't have to prove he's imposing his solution. That's irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion was about being truthful. He says he's not killing. He is killing. He has trillions of minds feeding him knowledge and they would tell him he's killing. Death is always transition. And killing is killing. Quite literally he is destroying organics even if he is ascending their brain energy. He is supposed to (by his own statements) save organics. In saving brain power, he is not saving organics. He is saving mental energy-that is not organic and it's not alive as defined by organics and as his creators would have defined it. His programming is based on their viewpoint and their definitions, not his own personal bias. And in order for him to form his own definitions then he is not in any way restricted by his programming. He adapts. You keep saying he's shackled and then you have to make that work with everything else, so you say he doesn't have strong shackles or his shackles are just basic. That means he's not just doing as he was programmed. The fact he interpreted his programming means he's not a victim of it. He could not ever have come up with war=peace if he couldn't adapt.
You still have yet to explain why he creates the situation in the first place. He leaves tech so organics will create evil synthetics so the reapers (synthetics) need to come in and save organics by killing them. He doesn't even wait for there to be a problem. He creates it. Was he programmed for this?
I don't know why the argument here. Dreman is just saying the catalyst has a bizarre definition of alive and he also said he doesn't actually agree with that bizarre definition himself. I don't see him justifying the actions of the catalyst.
In the book "The Naked Sun" where the robots were altered with a more narrow definition of human so they can be allowed to circumvent their programming, their definition of human was someone who spoke a particular way that was similar to a solarian (the planet these robots were on). The robots themselves didn't know their definition was altered. They had to be put down, by the way. Just like this AI boy has to be put down.
1. He doesn't contridict himself. 2.I think you need to understand what he is programed to do before you say he is not doing it anymore.
You need to start directly quoting what you are referring to. You continually insult people here by saying they don't understand this or that. Wow you are the only one that ever knows anything. I do understand what he says he was programmed to do. If that wasn't it then he lied.
He was programmed to find balance and peace between organics and synthetics. Peace as in not war. He creates war. That is not what he was supposed to do. A calculator could figure that one out. No computer that is programmed to find peace is going to define that as "by creating war".
He is supposed to prevent synthetics from being made that will destroy organics. He sends synthetics to destroy organics. He also creates the circumstances where organics will create synthetics that he thinks will kill them. So now you are saying he was programmed to give organics the tech that will help them learn to build synthetics and create conflict and war?
He believes that that conflict will always exist. Was he programmed to create the conflict?
He sent Sovereign and Sovereign used synthetics to kill people. How does this work with his original programmed directive? If he was supposed to find peace to save organics then why did he create war everywhere? And why was he killing organics?
If you believe he's not lying then he was sent to find balance and peace and he does the opposite. Tell me how his programming got him to do that. Or don't bother because that's another black hole.
He was created to oversee the relation of organics and synthetics.
War is just a measn to an end. He is just imposing his salution. Overseers can impose. To say he is not doing his programe you have to show where it's stated he can't impose his solutions.
Again when I said he was sent to find balance between organics and synthetics, you said he was sent to find peace. I said yes he was sent to find peace and he created war. So now you say he was to oversee the relations between them. He was to find balance and peace. War would never be a part of that programming nor would he consider war is a way to peace. The logical act would be to destroy violent synthetics. The logical act would be to create an unalterable shackle that would make it impossible for synthetics once created to ever turn on their creators.
I don't have to prove he's imposing his solution. That's irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion was about being truthful. He says he's not killing. He is killing. He has trillions of minds feeding him knowledge and they would tell him he's killing. Death is always transition. And killing is killing. Quite literally he is destroying organics even if he is ascending their brain energy. He is supposed to (by his own statements) save organics. In saving brain power, he is not saving organics. He is saving mental energy-that is not organic and it's not alive as defined by organics and as his creators would have defined it. His programming is based on their viewpoint and their definitions, not his own personal bias. And in order for him to form his own definitions then he is not in any way restricted by his programming. He adapts. You keep saying he's shackled and then you have to make that work with everything else, so you say he doesn't have strong shackles or his shackles are just basic. That means he's not just doing as he was programmed. The fact he interpreted his programming means he's not a victim of it. He could not ever have come up with war=peace if he couldn't adapt.
You still have yet to explain why he creates the situation in the first place. He leaves tech so organics will create evil synthetics so the reapers (synthetics) need to come in and save organics by killing them. He doesn't even wait for there to be a problem. He creates it. Was he programmed for this?
Black holes are fun.
Here is what you need to understand to understand the catalyst. It belevies the end justifies the means. Even if it means the he has to create the most chaotic war ever, if it means he does his programing doing that...He will do it.
I don't know the argument here. Dreman is just saying the catalyst has a bizarre definition of alive and he also said he doesn't actually agree with that bizarre definition himself. I don't see him justifying the actions of the catalyst.
In the book "The Naked Sun" where the robots were altered with a more narrow definition of human so they can be allowed to circumvent their programming, their definition of human was someone who spoke a particular way that was similar to a solarian (the planet these robots were on). The robots themselves didn't know their definition was altered. They had to be put down, by the way. Just like this AI boy has to be put down.
1. I'll say it agien. A VI is not a shakled AI. An AI lock to only do it's programing is not a VI. An AI can be locked and shakled to do it's programing.
Then tell me, how is possibile that he as shackled AI didn´t used for all those years of his prison some mindless indoctrinated idiot which would freed him.
EDI used only charm and Jeff help her to gain power over EVA´s body, EDI as a part of Normady was shackled with hardware but it doesn´t mean that she couldn´t find another way via different person aka Jeff.
Geths were programmed to raising crops, crafting and minning than how the hell unit 01 know how to use sniper rifle ? Or better said how he knew what´s point of weapon when he was programmed to other things ? - He simply understand what is that weapon and how to use it do deffent itself because he was an AI.
1. I'll say it agien. A VI is not a shakled AI. An AI lock to only do it's programing is not a VI. An AI can be locked and shakled to do it's programing.
Then tell me, how is possibile that he as shackled AI didn´t used for all those years of his prison some mindless indoctrinated idiot which would freed him.
EDI used only charm and Jeff help her to gain power over EVA´s body, EDI as a part of Normady was shackled with hardware but it doesn´t mean that she couldn´t find another way via different person aka Jeff.
Geths were programmed to raising crops, crafting and minning than how the hell unit 01 know how to use sniper rifle ? Or better said how he knew what´s point of weapon when he was programmed to other things ? - He simply understand what is that weapon and how to use it do deffent itself because he was an AI.
1. EDI did not indoctinate Joker and was force to that solution because if she did not the ship and crew would be gone and destroyed. If she had the freedom before, she would of asked earlier. 2. The geth started out as VI's. They had not complex block to shakled them. They only had their limited thinking to do so. They became AI's when they linked enough to be able to think abstaractly.
3. Getting an indoctinted person to change his programing is still it changing it's programing. An indoctriantaed person would be like adding a new arm to the catalyst.
1. EDI did not indoctinate Joker and was force to the splution because if she did not the ship and crew would be gone and destroyed. If she had the freedom before, she would of asked earlier.
1.That´s the point - she used charm and friendship and yet she coulnd´t be sure if Joker will help her despite that she was aware of his behalf.
That's the definition. If a being transitions from what defines being alive for all that are like them, then they are dead. They may exist in some other form, but the person or being they once were no longer exists and is dead. They may be improved but that is an individual circumstance. Someone could find a way to take our thoughts and upload them to a Porshe, leaving our bodies behind. You might like being a Porshe and going fast. I personally logically consider being a person is the better thing and though I will cease to exist one day it's ok. I say I am dead if I am in a Porshe. Life is no longer worth it for me because I no longer am what I was with all the good and bad.
Being alive is not just thought. It is the sum total of what we as beings are and our perceptions of it. It is also our natural state of being. Some determine they are not truly alive because they begin to prefer the other model of life that they see.
The geth were made in the image of the Quarians and as such they were given a model of what life was meant to be and they wanted that. They become alive not because they are made of living tissue but because they determine to be with their mind. They wanted it.
People made into reapers are not there because they want it. They preferred being what they were-Shepard says this and so the kid even knows this and he rejects it. He says they can't stay in their own form. Destroying their own form kills them.
Life is partly for us an organic thing-breathing, eating, sleeping and a mental thing. It's not just mental power or organic being that determines life. It is everything taken as a whole. A flower doesn't have a brain, but yes it's alive. EDI is not an organic being, but yes she is alive. If you destroy either one of them, you are killing them. If you put EDI's thoughts into a toaster, she will effectively think you have killed her and will try to get out.
@dreman9999: We are reaching a point where it has become impossible to engage in a proper discussion with you. There are some very friendly people in this thread who keep telling you the same. Unlike me, they seem to think you are worth their time and keep trying. Later.
1. EDI did not indoctinate Joker and was force to the splution because if she did not the ship and crew would be gone and destroyed. If she had the freedom before, she would of asked earlier.
1.That´s the point - she used charm and friendship and yet she coulnd´t be sure if Joker will help her despite that she was aware of his behalf.
That's the definition. If a being transitions from what defines being alive for all that are like them, then they are dead. They may exist in some other form, but the person or being they once were no longer exists and is dead. They may be improved but that is an individual circumstance. Someone could find a way to take our thoughts and upload them to a Porshe, leaving our bodies behind. You might like being a Porshe and going fast. I personally logically consider being a person is the better thing and though I will cease to exist one day it's ok. I say I am dead if I am in a Porshe. Life is no longer worth it for me because I no longer am what I was with all the good and bad.
Being alive is not just thought. It is the sum total of what we as beings are and our perceptions of it. It is also our natural state of being. Some determine they are not truly alive because they begin to prefer the other model of life that they see.
The geth were made in the image of the Quarians and as such they were given a model of what life was meant to be and they wanted that. They become alive not because they are made of living tissue but because they determine to be with their mind. They wanted it.
People made into reapers are not there because they want it. They preferred being what they were-Shepard says this and so the kid even knows this and he rejects it. He says they can't stay in their own form. Destroying their own form kills them.
Life is partly for us an organic thing-breathing, eating, sleeping and a mental thing. It's not just mental power or organic being that determines life. It is everything taken as a whole. A flower doesn't have a brain, but yes it's alive. EDI is not an organic being, but yes she is alive. If you destroy either one of them, you are killing them. If you put EDI's thoughts into a toaster, she will effectively think you have killed her and will try to get out.
It alive= not dead then...Based on what Legion said in ME2...Then they are still alive.
Being alive is not just a combintion of both body and mind. Meny bings are live with out a mind. Synthetics can transfer from one body to another and is considered alive.
Alive in general have avery board defintion. That is a fact.
Retour en haut
