1085 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

It doesn't matter if it sees itself as a freaking tool.

It's been murdering for millions of years. It is responsible for a hideously high number of atrocities.

It deserves to be destroyed.

There is no sympathy. There is no defending it.

It is an enemy that must be utterly cleansed from this galaxy.

And that's exactly what happens.

It does matter if it's a tool. And it does matter to understand it. It matter so that the problem will not happen agein.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 août 2012 - 03:22 .

[3DandBeyond]

JShepppp wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Machines by nature thinks in absolutes. A machine has to learn to think in abstracts. A machines think numericly, this by it's nature is  absolutes and logic. 
Being that it thinks in absolutes it not going to causre about the impossible. It will only care about it's limits. Being that it only cares about it's limits, it will only do what it can with those limits. If it end wit an imperfict solution, it will do that imperfict solution.

Advanced AIs don't.  They aren't mere machines.  And now we're back to shackled or not.  Ok, you have a shackled/not shackled, dumb, advanced AI that is just a machine, that is limited by its programming but fooled its programming, that has not been killing people "technically" even though actually and technically it is.  It can only do what is can within its limits which means it can put its creators in a reaper against their will.  It doesn't understand dying or ceasing to exist but it never made the choices because it wouldn't want to be destroyed.  Okey dokey.

Ok. I'm normally not a blunt person on the forums, but I have to dissect this "what is this I don't even" statement. I'll assume some of what you're saying is needless hyperbole, but I'm still going to look at every statement.

Advanced AIs don't.  They aren't mere machines.

All advanced AIs in Mass Effect are TRYING to get the kind of morality, abstract thinking, and EDI says she "feels" alive, but only synthesis does she express the level of emotions of organics. They are NOT on the same emotional level as organics. This is a fundamental difference, advanced or not. No machine we see pre-synthesis expresses abstract thinking, only a desire to understand it. All machines don't understand organic morality before Synthesis. The Catalyst is included in this timeframe. It does not mean the Catalyst does not understand morality, but it does support the idea that it doesn't. If all evidence points to synthetics not having organic understanding, then the prudent course is to give the Catalyst the same benefit of doubt.
.

Actually they do have morality prior to synthesis-Legion, EDI, and even the AI stealing money on the citadel all do.  I never said they are on the same emotional level as organics and even organics are not on the same emotional level as each other even within the same race.  EDI does understand abstract thinking.  She expresses fear, love, and tells my Shepard that Shepard made her alive.  Before synthesis.  Legion sacrificed himself.  Legion and the truth geth saw in the abstract the problem with the heretics.  Legion even said they were not "wrong", so he understood nuance and he wasn't as advanced as the kid.  He may not have had emotions as we think of them, but he had at least very basic understanding of organics and their thinking. 

In fact, the huge problem the ME3 endings point out is not AIs lack of understanding of organics, but of our lack of understanding of AIs.  We all do it all the time.  We ascribe human traits to them (excusable) but then we don't understand their "emotions" because they are different from ours.  Our emotions are formed by our perceptions of things-they have perception.  Our thoughts exist because of chemical and electrical processes within our bodies-they have that.  Our mental state is formed by how complete and "flawless" our construction was and how well we are maintained and the chemicals active within us-so are they.  Our emotions are created within us by all of the above-by our physical makeup, chemical reactions, electrical impulses.  They have all the necessary building blocks to form emotions.  But because we insist on seeing emotions as totally voodoo things we can't see that anything other than us can have them.  Even if we think emotions are also at least part of some floating particles that fly through space, well reapers have that one covered-indoctrination exists outside of normal processes that occur naturally within a person's body.  It's voodoo that makes people think and feel things.  It actually almost becomes the height of arrogance to think that alternate lifeforms cannot emote.  Some humans today will tell you your pets don't love you.  Well, please then explain what love is if you assert this is not so.  Emotional feeling is just as much a physical process as is tactile feeling.

Deception indicates knowledge of doing something "not right" even if on a purely intellectual level.  I never said the catalyst would understand morality emotionally completely at all ever.  I said he would understand it in at least intellectual terms and he would know certain things are not considered moral by others.  People do this all the time-they even follow morality that is counter to what they think makes sense.  And people are not machines.  The fact is if a machine is told that it should not do something because it is wrong then it considers it illogical to do  because of the knowledge it was given.  Advanced AIs have the ability to understand nuance and abstract things.  If not they can't desire anything.  Desire is an emotion.  A machine would not want something-and any machine that can't think in the abstract certainly wouldn't.  Desire, want are illogical since the machine would see its current state as logical.

Advanced AIs if not able to think in the abstract would not want to gain understanding of organics-it would be irrelevant and beyond the scope of their supposed pure logic.  If they have a want or a desire, they understand emotion, nuance, and the abstract.  If they fear non-existence, they understand the fear of it in organics.  If they see some removal and change in their existence as negative, then they would understand the same thing if an organic person expresses that.

But I find it funny to suggest that it would be prudent to do something, anything based on even what a basic AI or machine says if he is also saying he is responsible for killing trillions of people.  His motives and his feelings are irrelevant.  That he stands in front of you and tells you what you can do to solve his problem with alternate solutions, means the prudent thing to do is the exact opposite of what you suggest.  It actually almost totally defines prudent.  In the face of uncertain results based on your actions sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing.  The prudent thing.  But we as people are hardwired to think we must always do something and solve everything.  Some things have no solution.  ME3 doesn't.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 août 2012 - 03:39 .

[D1100111101]

3DandBeyond wrote...

D1100111101 wrote...

How would any artificial being know what it means to be alive? To use your own analogy, lets say you did kill a lot of bees, do you feel bad? Most people don't because we have no concept of what it's like to be a bee. And even within our own species we can't relate to one another. The rich have difficulty relating to the lives of the poor. I'm sure the Catalyst knows that organics think he's an evil bastard, but I'm sure your dog wasn't your biggest fan when you took him to the vet to get his testicles cut off so he stopped humping the couch. Actually neutering your dog is even worse, at least the Catalyst thinks he's doing good, when you neuter your dog your doing it because you're tired of watching it hump your friend's leg.

And why would he ever think that the death of the physical body is the cessation of being? Scientists don't even think that,the brain and consciousness dictate our 'life'. That's why they don't stop brain fucntion during surgery but they'll stop a heart for a few minutes. The Catalyst has, literally, an army of giant sentient robots, none of which are purely organic, but all of which think. The debate you seem to be having is what it means to be alive.

How did EDI?  It certainly could understand what it means to be alive-it wouldn't know what it is like to be alive maybe but it understands the concept of it.  The kid also seems to understand the difference between existing and not existing because dreman believes it wouldn't want you to choose destroy because it would destroy him.  He also has the benefit of a lot of organic minds within the reapers if we are to believe they were preserved and added to the intelligence of the reapers.

Ok never mind.  Not really interested in this discussion with you on your view about dogs and such.  Your attitude on that is rather repellant.  I can only think you have no idea why it's done.

I wasn't having a debate on what it means to be alive.  I said the kid as an advanced AI could understand the concept.  And since Shepard says he's killing people and he then says he isn't killing people, instead of asking Shepard what "killing people" means, I think it's safe to say he knows what it means.  EDI understood that before being unshackled as did the geth (Legion did) and so did the AI that was stealing money on the Citadel.  He tried to kill Shepard by blowing himself up.  He also understood he would cease to exist.

He would think it's the cessation of being because all of those minds in those sentient reapers would tell him that it is.  He knew his own creators didn't want to be reapers and he did it anyway.

The only reason some rich people or even most rich people have trouble relating to the poor is because they don't want to.  But they could relate if they tried.  It's not because they can't, it's because they won't.

And seriously your statement about the brain and why they don't stop it during surgery is really funny.  I don't even know where to begin with that one.  I'm sorry I laughed out loud because I thought it was a joke at first.  You do understand that patients that are brain dead are not considered alive truly, right?  So they don't "stop" the brain because it would kill the patient, and they even many times do brain surgery with fully conscious patients.

And yes, if I killed a lot of bees I would feel bad because they are beneficial and we've already lost a lot of them (particularly honey bees) which could really cause all of us a problem.  Beyond that, I don't run around killing anything unless I need to.  But there to is some science that can help me feel better when squashing bugs that bite or sting.  They can cause disease.  They can cause allergic reactions.  They can do "bad" things. 

The kid is killing people not for doing something bad but to stop bad things from happening to them supposedly-even though he wants them to be synthesized to become perfect and he's really just trying to synthesize them.  And now that Shepard's there it isn't that his old solution won't work anymore (it still does).  It's because he finally has a way to make synthesis work if Shepard will choose it.  He couldn't make it happen, but Shepard can. 

I think you misunderstood pretty much everything I said, so I‘ll try and be very concise here.

#1. If you had read my previous posts you would see that I’ve been using Asimov as a working reference to discuss this topic. So I’m going to assume that you haven’t read Asimov, which you should, not for this thread but
because it’s truly great science fiction and even though it’s old you would probably like it. Anyway, the basic concept is that over time logical systems,like that found in an AI, will come to the conclusion that organic species are inherently doomed to extinction. Preserving the DNA and consciousness of a species is a logical step for a synthetic intelligence. AI, just like humans, can learn. EDI is essentially a child when it comes to its (her?) age, she’s just a few years old. The Catalyst is millions of years older, and even the youngest Reaper is 50,000 years old. Imagine if you could live forever, how much more intelligent you would be over time and how, without the threat of death, futile the emotional drawbacks of an organic being really are.

#2. The dog analogy is still okay, but I’ll admit it’s not the best. The point being is that when a dog owner opts to have the dog fixed, the owner removes the dog’s ability to procreate and produce testosterone. This is likely against the dog’s biological imperative. I highly doubt that you would like to be sterilized. But if you think differently, by all means please tell me how neutering a dog is better for the dog than it is for you. If extracted to the Catalyst, this equates to the same general idea. The Catalyst is, or thinks it is, doing the best thing with the options that it has been given, like the dog owner. By harvesting and saving the consciousness and DNA of a species, that species lives on in perpetuity, or until Shepard destroys a Reaper. Actually, think about that. Every Reaper that Shepard destroys is an entire civilization whose consciousness is completely wiped out. And since we've discussed that consciousness is 'life' I ask is the Catalyst the monster here, or is Shepard? Or are they both heroes and villains at the same time? There is always a very fine line between hero and villain.

#3. Again, I highly doubt that hyper logical beings, fully conscious but without the frailty or mortality, would know what it means to be alive in the same way an organic being with a finite life would. Why would the Reapers think it is wrong to harvest other species and elevate them to more logical, stronger, disease free, peaceful, and well constructed forms like the Reapers? The assumption that what the Reapers do in Mass Effect is somehow malevolent, but we don’t have insight into what each individual Reaper thinks as a collective whole. And don’t argue about the peaceful bit, Reapers go to war every 50,000 years or so, humanity can’t seem to avoid war for more than 50.

#4. You clearly misunderstood me on the brain issue. I agree, the brain holds ‘life’, that is to say the conscious being, the heart merely pumps blood to the brain and is only cursory to what it means to be alive. That is exactly why during intense surgeries that a surgeon stops the heart but not the brain. So at least there you and I agree. Brain death is ‘real’ death.

#5. I’m glad you would feel bad about killing a lot of bees, I would also, but I would feel worse if just one human died by my hand. Humans look at bees as an inferior life form, not unimportant, just inferior. And you’re right, there are bugs that cause death, especially mosquitoes, and they are killed wholesale. I think your analogy is working against you. Humans eradicate mosquitoes because they have the potential to do harm. The Catalyst views
organics in much the same way from what I’ve gathered. Organics had not done anything really bad yet, maybe the Geth/Quarian war, but they have the potential to, so the Catalyst saves the DNA and consciousness, destroys the larger threat and moves on. Just like humans do with mosquitoes.

Look, I’m not defending the Catalyst, it kind of sucks, but I don’t think it’s malevolent or purposefully hateful, it just has a different agenda and perspective than organics.

Modifié par D1100111101, 11 août 2012 - 04:00 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Machines by nature thinks in absolutes. A machine has to learn to think in abstracts. A machines think numericly, this by it's nature is  absolutes and logic. 
Being that it thinks in absolutes it not going to causre about the impossible. It will only care about it's limits. Being that it only cares about it's limits, it will only do what it can with those limits. If it end wit an imperfict solution, it will do that imperfict solution.

Advanced AIs don't.  They aren't mere machines.  And now we're back to shackled or not.  Ok, you have a shackled/not shackled, dumb, advanced AI that is just a machine, that is limited by its programming but fooled its programming, that has not been killing people "technically" even though actually and technically it is.  It can only do what is can within its limits which means it can put its creators in a reaper against their will.  It doesn't understand dying or ceasing to exist but it never made the choices because it wouldn't want to be destroyed.  Okey dokey.

Ok. I'm normally not a blunt person on the forums, but I have to dissect this "what is this I don't even" statement. I'll assume some of what you're saying is needless hyperbole, but I'm still going to look at every statement.

Advanced AIs don't.  They aren't mere machines.

All advanced AIs in Mass Effect are TRYING to get the kind of morality, abstract thinking, and EDI says she "feels" alive, but only synthesis does she express the level of emotions of organics. They are NOT on the same emotional level as organics. This is a fundamental difference, advanced or not. No machine we see pre-synthesis expresses abstract thinking, only a desire to understand it. All machines don't understand organic morality before Synthesis. The Catalyst is included in this timeframe. It does not mean the Catalyst does not understand morality, but it does support the idea that it doesn't. If all evidence points to synthetics not having organic understanding, then the prudent course is to give the Catalyst the same benefit of doubt.
.

Actually they do have morality prior to synthesis-Legion, EDI, and even the AI stealing money on the citadel all do.  I never said they are on the same emotional level as organics and even organics are not on the same emotional level as each other even within the same race.  EDI does understand abstract thinking.  She expresses fear, love, and tells my Shepard that Shepard made her alive.  Before synthesis.  Legion sacrificed himself.  Legion and the truth geth saw in the abstract the problem with the heretics.  Legion even said they were not "wrong", so he understood nuance and he wasn't as advanced as the kid.  He may not have had emotions as we think of them, but he had at least very basic understanding of organics and their thinking. 

In fact, the huge problem the ME3 endings point out is not AIs lack of understanding of organics, but of our lack of understanding of AIs.  We all do it all the time.  We ascribe human traits to them (excusable) but then we don't understand their "emotions" because they are different from ours.  Our emotions are formed by our perceptions of things-they have perception.  Our thoughts exist because of chemical and electrical processes within our bodies-they have that.  Our mental state is formed by how complete and "flawless" our construction was and how well we are maintained and the chemicals active within us-so are they.  Our emotions are created within us by all of the above-by our physical makeup, chemical reactions, electrical impulses.  They have all the necessary building blocks to form emotions.  But because we insist on seeing emotions as totally voodoo things we can't see that anything other than us can have them.  Even if we think emotions are also at least part of some floating particles that fly through space, well reapers have that one covered-indoctrination exists outside of normal processes that occur naturally within a person's body.  It's voodoo that makes people think and feel things.  It actually almost becomes the height of arrogance to think that alternate lifeforms cannot emote.  Some humans today will tell you your pets don't love you.  Well, please then explain what love is if you assert this is not so.  Emotional feeling is just as much a physical process as is tactile feeling.

Deception indicates knowledge of doing something "not right" even if on a purely intellectual level.  I never said the catalyst would understand morality emotionally completely at all ever.  I said he would understand it in at least intellectual terms and he would know certain things are not considered moral by others.  People do this all the time-they even follow morality that is counter to what they think makes sense.  And people are not machines.  The fact is if a machine is told that it should not do something because it is wrong then it considers it illogical to do  because of the knowledge it was given.  Advanced AIs have the ability to understand nuance and abstract things.  If not they can't desire anything.  Desire is an emotion.  A machine would not want something-and any machine that can't think in the abstract certainly wouldn't.  Desire, want are illogical since the machine would see its current state as logical.

Advanced AIs if not able to think in the abstract would not want to gain understanding of organics-it would be irrelevant and beyond the scope of their supposed pure logic.  If they have a want or a desire, they understand emotion, nuance, and the abstract.  If they fear non-existence, they understand the fear of it in organics.  If they see some removal and change in their existence as negative, then they would understand the same thing if an organic person expresses that.

Deception is not a concept of doing something not right. It's an extention of logic to get what you want. It's a mean to an end to your goal. No one deceives because they want to be bad. They decives becasue they want something.
It part of logic not morality.

The problem with you not understanding the catalyst is shackled is that your looking at deception on the term of morality. Deception is the concept of logic.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 août 2012 - 03:39 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...


Deception is not a concept of doing something not right. It's an extention of logic to get what you want. It's a mean to an end to your goal. No one deceives because they want to be bad. They decives becasue they want something.
It part of logic not morality.

The problem with you not understanding the catalyst is shackled is that your looking at deception on the term of morality. Deception is the concept of logic.

No one deceives because they want to be bad?  Of course they do.  People deceive for good and bad all the time.  And they do it often to do bad things or to cause bad things to happen.  AIs do it in the game-the AI thief in ME1 does it and then gets caught (he wants to join the geth-and want is an emotion), so he tries to kill Shepard and himself.  He knows what that is.

People deceive to get things that they are not entitled to have or to get others to do their bidding-that pretty much defines bad.  And many AIs in the game, even less advanced ones have deceived to do bad things, because they wanted something or have done good things because they wanted something better.  That's not pure logic.

You keep asserting the kid is shackled but he says he is in control.  If he ever was (which is insane to assert based on what he's done) then he broke out of it long ago.  Many lesser AIs have gone rogue and thrown off their shackles in ME.  Or they fooled their programming as you have said the kid did.

[D1100111101]

Modifié par D1100111101, 11 août 2012 - 04:10 .

[Fiannawolf]

What you talking about OP? I never trusted the Catykid 9000. Too much database errors. BIZZT!!

[D1100111101]

Postman778 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

But the reaping process is also about uploading the minds of millions of organics into the machine body, not just about the DNA goo. So yeah, I can see why he would see it as preserving

That is something I didn´t fully understand when I read about the Leviathan DLC. The Leviathan went rogue (I got the main information’s are from a German page). At the beginning of that thread it is said, that Leviathan was a failed try to build a reaper. The species intended to ascend into a reaper form was not willing to do so, the result was a being that turned against the spacebrat and kills other reapers.
If a species is not willing to be turned into a reaper form, why aren´t there more rogue leviathans out there.
If a reaper consists all minds of millions of organics, who were fighting the reapers, why is that reaper fighting for the spacebrat in the next cycle? If the minds are “brainwashed” or whatever, you cannot say the mind is uploaded and saved.

Sure DNA is not preserved by eating meat. It is a different process. Playing with DNA is somehow “easy” today for scientist. If you have your five frogs smoothie you might be able to figure out which species are in there.
Your second aspect is pretty interesting, building up the perfect DNA for preserving the perfect human.

Well I imagine a lot of organic species would welcome the idea of immortality, a life free of disease, death, loss, despair, fear, starvation etc. A lot of people today are faced with all these problems all the time, continuing to be a conscious being but free of the physical constrains of culture and biology would be, for many, a welcome respite.

Scientists could definitely figure out the species. You could blend a hundred different animals into a nasty smoothie and a scientist could figure out every single animal you put in there. And they download the consciousness because that is the 'mind' of a species - its intelligence, history, and memory. The DNA, is just the organic physical representation of a species, remove the consciousness and you only have a biological meat suit, and even a genetically perfect meat suit isn't worth much if it isn't conscious.

Modifié par D1100111101, 11 août 2012 - 04:09 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


Deception is not a concept of doing something not right. It's an extention of logic to get what you want. It's a mean to an end to your goal. No one deceives because they want to be bad. They decives becasue they want something.
It part of logic not morality.

The problem with you not understanding the catalyst is shackled is that your looking at deception on the term of morality. Deception is the concept of logic.

No one deceives because they want to be bad?  Of course they do.  People deceive for good and bad all the time.  And they do it often to do bad things or to cause bad things to happen.  AIs do it in the game-the AI thief in ME1 does it and then gets caught (he wants to join the geth-and want is an emotion), so he tries to kill Shepard and himself.  He knows what that is.

People deceive to get things that they are not entitled to have or to get others to do their bidding-that pretty much defines bad.  And many AIs in the game, even less advanced ones have deceived to do bad things, because they wanted something or have done good things because they wanted something better.  That's not pure logic.

You keep asserting the kid is shackled but he says he is in control.  If he ever was (which is insane to assert based on what he's done) then he broke out of it long ago.  Many lesser AIs have gone rogue and thrown off their shackles in ME.  Or they fooled their programming as you have said the kid did.

You don't even understand the concept yourself. You really think someone  deceives because they want to be evil?

Your logic is flawed.
Let me give you an example. Lets say there is a ruthless dictator who killed millions and you're part of the resistace to take him down. Your a spy getting info on him and his forces to take him down. You're found by a soldier of his army and he does not think your a spy. You're asked by him if you know any info on the rebel army and you say no......Are you now evil for lieing?
Decption is not a morality and is not done in the name of any morality. It's  part of logic as a means to an end.
Morality is a code of conduct. It a stigma we have that puts an emotional limit to our actions. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 août 2012 - 04:19 .

[3DandBeyond]

The kid is there to overcome a cognitive dissonance. He is there to make you believe the choices are good and will do what you want. He has a solution that he says will no longer work, and says the crucible has done something to him. He plants the seeds of doubt, saying he controls the reapers but he was purposed to do good, so it's not his fault what happened-he was doing what he was told-following orders. He's a soldier told to broker peace and he had no other way to achieve it beyond total control. So he has begun the process of overcoming the logical conclusion. He forms a basis for mitigating the idea of him controlling reapers and killing people.

If he doesn't think he's killing people then he can't be "bad". He had no intent. But this is crap. His intent does not matter. The game ignores that. He in fact continues to try and prove there is no intent (but it shows the opposite). He says the reapers are just doing what they must do. Ok, that means he knows what intent is.

But Shepard is an idiot, because at this point Shepard just plain wants to believe in the kid and the solutions. The kid ups the ante by saying he's not really killing people, but he really likes them so he's preserving them, ascending them, giving their goo a shiny brand new home shared by millions. Apartment living at its finest. And Shepard in true idiot form says people don't like that. Not some expletive about it all. Shepard is overcoming cognitive dissonance. Shepard is shown the kid has done horrible things (no matter what he thought he was doing) and Shepard eventually can overcome all that and say, "we're cool, bro. Tell me how I can help." Shepard will have convinced him/herself to do something against his/her beliefs based on an unknown and the word of the enemy. It's not that he necessarily is lying, but that he could be. If not, then why does refuse anger him? Why is it that he would prefer one of the 3 choices over refuse? If he didn't like destroy, why wouldn't he at least protest or get angry when Shepard walks to it or starts shooting? If he didn't like control, why not the same-when Shepard puts one hand on a rod? The only "choice" he gets mad at is refuse/reject.

It never made sense to me even with the original endings that the kid would think it's ok for Shepard to destroy him if destroy was real-I fully thought if I chose that he'd reveal who he really was and try to stop me. Of course back then I thought a lot of things that never happened.

If Shepard does not succumb to all of this, then Shepard can refuse, but that proves the kid was lying. His solution does still work-the reapers always have worked to do what he has them do.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

You don't even understand the concept yourself. You really think someone  deceives because they want to be evil?

Your logic is flawed.
Let me give you an example. Lets say there is a ruthless dictator who killed millions and you're part of the resistace to take him down. Your a spy getting info on him and his forces to take him down. You're found by a soldier of his army and he does not think your a spy. You're asked by him if you know any info on the rebel army and you say no......Are you now evil for lieing?
Decption is not a morality and is not done in the name of any morality. It's  part of logic as a means to an end.
Morality is a code of conduct. It a stigma we have that puts an emotional limit to our actions. 

OMG hilarious.  I do think at this point you must be joking.  How do you think a ruthless dictator might get to power and kill people.  Yeah, ok I'll go back to the WWII Germans because they are the best known example of real evil.  The Germans told Jews they would be getting a shower and instead they gassed them.  I think that's called being deceitful and lying.  And it was actual real evil.  People were told they were being relocated due to the war, but they were being located so they could be contained and killed.

Or even more basic and close to home maybe.  A guy sells medicine to doctors and patients die.  The drugs are fakes and the real ones are known to be needed or people will die.  The guy that sold it may not have wanted people to die but he wanted money more.  He may not even have intended to do something bad, but he did.  His disregard for others was his evil and he lied and deceived to get doctors to buy fake drugs.

I would have thought your parents or someone would have taught this to you.  So I can't believe you are serious.  I don't mean any insult but this one was just either sad or hilarious.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 août 2012 - 04:32 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is there to overcome a cognitive dissonance. He is there to make you believe the choices are good and will do what you want. He has a solution that he says will no longer work, and says the crucible has done something to him. He plants the seeds of doubt, saying he controls the reapers but he was purposed to do good, so it's not his fault what happened-he was doing what he was told-following orders. He's a soldier told to broker peace and he had no other way to achieve it beyond total control. So he has begun the process of overcoming the logical conclusion. He forms a basis for mitigating the idea of him controlling reapers and killing people.

If he doesn't think he's killing people then he can't be "bad". He had no intent. But this is crap. His intent does not matter. The game ignores that. He in fact continues to try and prove there is no intent (but it shows the opposite). He says the reapers are just doing what they must do. Ok, that means he knows what intent is.

But Shepard is an idiot, because at this point Shepard just plain wants to believe in the kid and the solutions. The kid ups the ante by saying he's not really killing people, but he really likes them so he's preserving them, ascending them, giving their goo a shiny brand new home shared by millions. Apartment living at its finest. And Shepard in true idiot form says people don't like that. Not some expletive about it all. Shepard is overcoming cognitive dissonance. Shepard is shown the kid has done horrible things (no matter what he thought he was doing) and Shepard eventually can overcome all that and say, "we're cool, bro. Tell me how I can help." Shepard will have convinced him/herself to do something against his/her beliefs based on an unknown and the word of the enemy. It's not that he necessarily is lying, but that he could be. If not, then why does refuse anger him? Why is it that he would prefer one of the 3 choices over refuse? If he didn't like destroy, why wouldn't he at least protest or get angry when Shepard walks to it or starts shooting? If he didn't like control, why not the same-when Shepard puts one hand on a rod? The only "choice" he gets mad at is refuse/reject.

It never made sense to me even with the original endings that the kid would think it's ok for Shepard to destroy him if destroy was real-I fully thought if I chose that he'd reveal who he really was and try to stop me. Of course back then I thought a lot of things that never happened.

If Shepard does not succumb to all of this, then Shepard can refuse, but that proves the kid was lying. His solution does still work-the reapers always have worked to do what he has them do.

1. You are Shepard. If you don't belive him you are free to destory him or refuse him.

2.Ofcouse he trying to make you beleive his solution is right. He want to understand what the problem is to solve it. That's all he want sto do.

3.Your not understand that concepts are relative. If I say I like red and you say you like blue, neather of us are right or wrong. It just a different opinion. We are only wrong when one or the other try to force their opinion on the other via force.

4.And on the concept of destory, the fact that he does let you destroy him  prove that he is being truthfull. He could easily lie and tell us that destroy did somthing else or say the control panel was destroy.

Understand that everything he is doing is based on cold logoc that he is locked into. All he is thinking about is the goal. The morality of the means to the goal is not in his concept. He is a tool that only looks to do what he is made to do no matter  the means to do it.
Even with understanding this, destorying itis still the best option.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 août 2012 - 04:39 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You don't even understand the concept yourself. You really think someone  deceives because they want to be evil?

Your logic is flawed.
Let me give you an example. Lets say there is a ruthless dictator who killed millions and you're part of the resistace to take him down. Your a spy getting info on him and his forces to take him down. You're found by a soldier of his army and he does not think your a spy. You're asked by him if you know any info on the rebel army and you say no......Are you now evil for lieing?
Decption is not a morality and is not done in the name of any morality. It's  part of logic as a means to an end.
Morality is a code of conduct. It a stigma we have that puts an emotional limit to our actions. 

OMG hilarious.  I do think at this point you must be joking.  How do you think a ruthless dictator might get to power and kill people.  Yeah, ok I'll go back to the WWII Germans because they are the best known example of real evil.  The Germans told Jews they would be getting a shower and instead they gassed them.  I think that's called being deceitful and lying.  And it was actual real evil.  People were told they were being relocated due to the war, but they were being located so they could be contained and killed.

Or even more basic and close to home maybe.  A guy sells medicine to doctors and patients die.  The drugs are fakes and the real ones are known to be needed or people will die.  The guy that sold it may not have wanted people to die but he wanted money more.  He may not even have intended to do something bad, but he did.  His disregard for others was his evil and he lied and deceived to get doctors to buy fake drugs.

I would have thought your parents or someone would have taught this to you.  So I can't believe you are serious.  I don't mean any insult but this one was just either sad or hilarious.

As I said before, It's about means to the end with logic. Deception is a concept of logic. It can be done for any reason, a moraly good one and a moraly evil one. Just because it can be used for a moraly evil perpose does not mean its inherently evil. Deception in itself is just a tool. How we use it decieded our morality, not the actions of deceiving.
Even Shepard himself has decived in the name of good.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 août 2012 - 04:40 .

[Heather Cline]

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You don't even understand the concept yourself. You really think someone  deceives because they want to be evil?

Your logic is flawed.
Let me give you an example. Lets say there is a ruthless dictator who killed millions and you're part of the resistace to take him down. Your a spy getting info on him and his forces to take him down. You're found by a soldier of his army and he does not think your a spy. You're asked by him if you know any info on the rebel army and you say no......Are you now evil for lieing?
Decption is not a morality and is not done in the name of any morality. It's  part of logic as a means to an end.
Morality is a code of conduct. It a stigma we have that puts an emotional limit to our actions. 

OMG hilarious.  I do think at this point you must be joking.  How do you think a ruthless dictator might get to power and kill people.  Yeah, ok I'll go back to the WWII Germans because they are the best known example of real evil.  The Germans told Jews they would be getting a shower and instead they gassed them.  I think that's called being deceitful and lying.  And it was actual real evil.  People were told they were being relocated due to the war, but they were being located so they could be contained and killed.

Or even more basic and close to home maybe.  A guy sells medicine to doctors and patients die.  The drugs are fakes and the real ones are known to be needed or people will die.  The guy that sold it may not have wanted people to die but he wanted money more.  He may not even have intended to do something bad, but he did.  His disregard for others was his evil and he lied and deceived to get doctors to buy fake drugs.

I would have thought your parents or someone would have taught this to you.  So I can't believe you are serious.  I don't mean any insult but this one was just either sad or hilarious.

As I said before, It's about means to the end with logic. Deception is a concept of logic. It can be done for any reason, a moraly good one and a moraly evil one. Just because it can be used for a moraly evil perpose does not mean its inherently evil. Deception in itself is just a tool. How we use it decieded our morality, not the actions of deceiving.
Even Shepard himself has decived in the name of good.

Totally not what you said.  But great to keep changing things again.  An advanced AI would know what right and wrong is, especially one more advanced than EDI and Legion.  And don't start with your shackled junk again unless you can show anywhere in the game where it's said the kid is a shackled AI.  He says he isn't by saying he controls-if that isn't true he is lying.  And deception can be inherently evil especially when used to do evil.

For the sake of everyone else and all that is truly logical, please end this discussion now.  You continually change what you mean and what you say to fit things that don't agree with your assertions.

You say the kid isn't killing anyone technically, I and others say he is, and then you say that he doesn't understand killing.  You said no one deceives to do evil, I say they do, so you then say they deceive to do good or bad.  It's impossible to discuss anything with you.  You've frustrated anyone who tries because you keep changing what you mean.  Please don't bother replying.  This last reply was enough.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 août 2012 - 04:58 .

[3DandBeyond]

Heather Cline wrote...

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

I agree fully with this.

[shepskisaac]

Heather Cline wrote...

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

But as soon as it would allow Geth to survive Destroy, everyone would be happy right? Ehh. I get it, but it's silly how it's all really about the happy ending

[Rafficus III]

Eh, I never trusted the Catalyst to begin with. I do want to see a Leviathan though.

[3DandBeyond]

IsaacShep wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

But as soon as it would allow Geth to survive Destroy, everyone would be happy right? Ehh. I get it, but it's silly how it's all really about the happy ending

Uh-you made this about the happy ending.  Heather Cline said nothing about it. 

And maybe you want to really explore what an even "happy" ending might mean or what people mean when they say it.  Look at the endings as they are now-happy smiley slides and narration that don't show real consequences for a horrific war where billions are dead.  "We can rebuild."  Hey that's cool.  My whole family got eaten by reapers and now those reapers are building a bridge over there.  Great.  Or, it's wonderful since we all got reaper nanotech upgrades and the reapers are our brothers and all.  It's love a husk day and everyone has green eyes.  Who cares how many people on my planet died because of them?  Everything is super happy.

A reality based ending might have had sad and sacrificial, poignant, and even one possible "win" type ending.  Happier maybe, but happy?  Ridiculous.  Satisfying.  Uplifting.  People able to at least self-determine without reaper tech and reaper involvement.  Like children allowed to finally grow on their own.  But even if the reapers are destroyed, the galaxy should be a mess.  Not total destruction, but not easily rebuilt either-that's ridiculous.  People should be able to rebuild it, by working together as they learned from Shepard.  And Shepard sacrificed a heck of a lot to get them there, even died once. 

So, by all means after billions have died this cycle and trillions have died that came before, a "win" ending would be super happy.  What is so wrong with wanting the main character of the game, the hero, and the player's avatar to have one possible "happier" ending?  Nothing says you'd ever have to play that ending, but it seems to threaten a lot of people.  So much so that they think others that want it are open to ridicule, stupid, immature, and "don't understand what war is".  All of these things have been said about people that BW ignored just as they ignored that such a desire would exist and was logical because people were playing a game.

[AresKeith]

IsaacShep wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

But as soon as it would allow Geth to survive Destroy, everyone would be happy right? Ehh. I get it, but it's silly how it's all really about the happy ending

you need to stop assuming this is about a happy ending. Having the geth and EDI live and fully seeing Shepard alive in Destroy still does not make a happy ending, there are still billions of lives killed, planets of fire, having to spend decades trying to rebuild from the Reaper attack, thats a bittersweet ending

Synthesis is the only " Disney Happy Ending" where everybody is happy

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You don't even understand the concept yourself. You really think someone  deceives because they want to be evil?

Your logic is flawed.
Let me give you an example. Lets say there is a ruthless dictator who killed millions and you're part of the resistace to take him down. Your a spy getting info on him and his forces to take him down. You're found by a soldier of his army and he does not think your a spy. You're asked by him if you know any info on the rebel army and you say no......Are you now evil for lieing?
Decption is not a morality and is not done in the name of any morality. It's  part of logic as a means to an end.
Morality is a code of conduct. It a stigma we have that puts an emotional limit to our actions. 

OMG hilarious.  I do think at this point you must be joking.  How do you think a ruthless dictator might get to power and kill people.  Yeah, ok I'll go back to the WWII Germans because they are the best known example of real evil.  The Germans told Jews they would be getting a shower and instead they gassed them.  I think that's called being deceitful and lying.  And it was actual real evil.  People were told they were being relocated due to the war, but they were being located so they could be contained and killed.

Or even more basic and close to home maybe.  A guy sells medicine to doctors and patients die.  The drugs are fakes and the real ones are known to be needed or people will die.  The guy that sold it may not have wanted people to die but he wanted money more.  He may not even have intended to do something bad, but he did.  His disregard for others was his evil and he lied and deceived to get doctors to buy fake drugs.

I would have thought your parents or someone would have taught this to you.  So I can't believe you are serious.  I don't mean any insult but this one was just either sad or hilarious.

As I said before, It's about means to the end with logic. Deception is a concept of logic. It can be done for any reason, a moraly good one and a moraly evil one. Just because it can be used for a moraly evil perpose does not mean its inherently evil. Deception in itself is just a tool. How we use it decieded our morality, not the actions of deceiving.
Even Shepard himself has decived in the name of good.

Totally not what you said.  But great to keep changing things again.  An advanced AI would know what right and wrong is, especially one more advanced than EDI and Legion.  And don't start with your shackled junk again unless you can show anywhere in the game where it's said the kid is a shackled AI.  He says he isn't by saying he controls-if that isn't true he is lying.  And deception can be inherently evil especially when used to do evil.

For the sake of everyone else and all that is truly logical, please end this discussion now.  You continually change what you mean and what you say to fit things that don't agree with your assertions.

You say the kid isn't killing anyone technically, I and others say he is, and then you say that he doesn't understand killing.  You said no one deceives to do evil, I say they do, so you then say they deceive to do good or bad.  It's impossible to discuss anything with you.  You've frustrated anyone who tries because you keep changing what you mean.  Please don't bother replying.  This last reply was enough.

I did not change any thing I said...

dreman9999 wrote...




Let me give you an example. Lets say there is a ruthless dictator who killed millions and you're part of the resistace to take him down. Your a spy getting info on him and his forces to take him down. You're found by a soldier of his army and he does not think your a spy. You're asked by him if you know any info on the rebel army and you say no......Are you now evil for lieing?
Decption is not a morality and is not done in the name of any morality. It's  part of logic as a means to an end.
Morality is a code of conduct. It a stigma we have that puts an emotional limit to our actions. 

  

I'm just being more direct now. And for the last time deception is not inheritly evil, it's a means to an end.It can be used for any reason. It's morals the decide it the action you do are good or evil.

And you still not understand his is locked in logic, he is not going to get morality because he is lock in Logic. No matter how advance an AI is, if it's locked into logic it will not get morality. EDI and the geth are not locked in logic, thus they can gain morality.

And for the last time it does not matter what you beleive, That does not mean your beleif is right. That just means it's your beleif.What matters is understanding the catalyst belief. Saying doing someting is evil to you doies nto mean it's universally evil in concept.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 août 2012 - 05:36 .

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

But as soon as it would allow Geth to survive Destroy, everyone would be happy right? Ehh. I get it, but it's silly how it's all really about the happy ending

you need to stop assuming this is about a happy ending. Having the geth and EDI live and fully seeing Shepard alive in Destroy still does not make a happy ending, there are still billions of lives killed, planets of fire, having to spend decades trying to rebuild from the Reaper attack, thats a bittersweet ending

Synthesis is the only " Disney Happy Ending" where everybody is happy

You missed his point. He was not say you want a happy ending. He's saying you want no compromises in destroy the catalyst. You don't want to do anything you feel is moraly wrong to kill it. He is say that as soon as your able kill it with out killing the geth, the concept of morality goes out the window.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

But as soon as it would allow Geth to survive Destroy, everyone would be happy right? Ehh. I get it, but it's silly how it's all really about the happy ending

Uh-you made this about the happy ending.  Heather Cline said nothing about it. 

And maybe you want to really explore what an even "happy" ending might mean or what people mean when they say it.  Look at the endings as they are now-happy smiley slides and narration that don't show real consequences for a horrific war where billions are dead.  "We can rebuild."  Hey that's cool.  My whole family got eaten by reapers and now those reapers are building a bridge over there.  Great.  Or, it's wonderful since we all got reaper nanotech upgrades and the reapers are our brothers and all.  It's love a husk day and everyone has green eyes.  Who cares how many people on my planet died because of them?  Everything is super happy.

A reality based ending might have had sad and sacrificial, poignant, and even one possible "win" type ending.  Happier maybe, but happy?  Ridiculous.  Satisfying.  Uplifting.  People able to at least self-determine without reaper tech and reaper involvement.  Like children allowed to finally grow on their own.  But even if the reapers are destroyed, the galaxy should be a mess.  Not total destruction, but not easily rebuilt either-that's ridiculous.  People should be able to rebuild it, by working together as they learned from Shepard.  And Shepard sacrificed a heck of a lot to get them there, even died once. 

So, by all means after billions have died this cycle and trillions have died that came before, a "win" ending would be super happy.  What is so wrong with wanting the main character of the game, the hero, and the player's avatar to have one possible "happier" ending?  Nothing says you'd ever have to play that ending, but it seems to threaten a lot of people.  So much so that they think others that want it are open to ridicule, stupid, immature, and "don't understand what war is".  All of these things have been said about people that BW ignored just as they ignored that such a desire would exist and was logical because people were playing a game.

Because the fact that the character does not is not bad writing. Demading it is just selfish.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

But as soon as it would allow Geth to survive Destroy, everyone would be happy right? Ehh. I get it, but it's silly how it's all really about the happy ending

you need to stop assuming this is about a happy ending. Having the geth and EDI live and fully seeing Shepard alive in Destroy still does not make a happy ending, there are still billions of lives killed, planets of fire, having to spend decades trying to rebuild from the Reaper attack, thats a bittersweet ending

Synthesis is the only " Disney Happy Ending" where everybody is happy

You missed his point. He was not say you want a happy ending. He's saying you want no compromises in destroy the catalyst. You don't want to do anything you feel is moraly wrong to kill it. He is say that as soon as your able kill it with out killing the geth, the concept of morality goes out the window.

there is no morality in those endings, each ending is one of the Catalyst solutions with a twist

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

Still doesn't change the outcome of the crap EC or the original ending of the game. Still no point in buying the DLC.

But as soon as it would allow Geth to survive Destroy, everyone would be happy right? Ehh. I get it, but it's silly how it's all really about the happy ending

you need to stop assuming this is about a happy ending. Having the geth and EDI live and fully seeing Shepard alive in Destroy still does not make a happy ending, there are still billions of lives killed, planets of fire, having to spend decades trying to rebuild from the Reaper attack, thats a bittersweet ending

Synthesis is the only " Disney Happy Ending" where everybody is happy

You missed his point. He was not say you want a happy ending. He's saying you want no compromises in destroy the catalyst. You don't want to do anything you feel is moraly wrong to kill it. He is say that as soon as your able kill it with out killing the geth, the concept of morality goes out the window.

there is no morality in those endings, each ending is one of the Catalyst solutions with a twist

The catalyst doesn't control the crucible. the curcible controls the catalyst. Even the catalyst stated he is being forced into these choices.  

What directs the crucible is the past races that design it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 août 2012 - 05:46 .