545 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Valhart wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Shepard:So you just an AI?

Catalyst :In as much as you are just an Animal....

I could of swore that it referred to itself as some form of V.I.. I'm rewatching to confirm that I didn't hear it, but if I'm mistaken then "my bad".

The response to Sheppard asking if it's an A.I. seems to me it telling him that he is more than just an A.I. though. At least to me. I'll have more when I finish watching the ending.

Yep..That is what he is saying. He is saying he is more then an AI.

[valkulon]

dreman9999 wrote...

Yep..That is what he is saying. He is saying he is more then an AI.

Finished watching the ending and yeah it never referrs to itself as a V.I., but since it does say that it's something beyond an A.I. I still stand by my statement of calling it an A.I. is not correct.

I'm pretty tired at the moment (gogo late night browsing before bed!) so I don't really want to speculate on what it is. So I'll leave all you forum warriors to it. Have Fun and Good Luck in the slugfest.

[Wayning_Star]

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Valhart wrote...
It's not an A.I., but a V.I.. It tells you this during the conversation Sheppard has with it.

I don't understand why people call it an A.I. at all. The original creators said that A.I. would wipe out organic life one day so why would they make an A.I.? They created a V.I. to help find a solution to the problem and it created a solution. Not one the creators or even A.I. liked I'd bet. 

But he is an AI.

"So are you an AI?"
"As much as you are JUST an animal."

ninja'd.

KiLang is so proud!!  Ever notice just how vague that statement is. What is "just an animal"?  It has no answer.

An animal would just be organic life in general....ButI think it's more of an insult in his end...Just him being arrogant.

actually I think its' writers cramps myself. A computer wouldn't pose such an answer, they don't have an ego. Maybe enough fuzzy logic to incorporate a mimic? The notion is to infer that cat has a physical body, like shepard, it doesn't, so the quiz answer is incongruent, ie off the wall, coming from an ai/vi/sentient ai. Legion calls its physical self a platform as does Edi and they both call Shep a platform or unit seperate but "one" with it's core system/intellect. If the catalyst were to 'infer' it would be sapient, cause that implies imagination/guesswork. It would know what if, as well as what is. It doesn't, or the cycle would not continue..the game would suddenly      stop.

Looking at EDI, and Legion. I would say computers do have egos. The very idea of AI is that they are self aware...Being self aware means they have an ego...The catalyst is an AI this it has an ego.
Also, your missing he fact that legion is meany minds working as one. It sees it's platform irrelivent to it's self. Think of Legion's body to geth as us to cars.
Also imagination is just a way of thinking..It's not an idicator of life and free will.

Imagniation wrote your entire reply, played a video game, decided your future and makes your dinner. Machines don't really need any of that stuff to survive, yet. They want to be like their creators only because they created them. Free wll is an abstract derived from ego, or the fear of being other than your self, or 'controlled'. We can be inslaved and stilll think we have free will, cause the idea of captivity hasn't occured to us yet. We "trust" and have "hope" all divined of imagination of gathered thoughts collected as facts, the indicator of life, as we know it.We don't ordinarily analyze 'life' as an everday exercise. Its abstract thought. So we hind burner it, for unconscious minded scrutiny.lol

Ego is really an over generalized term and really too complicated to 'place' in a good spot for defense or not of an arguement. There are myrid books on the subject and mostly vague descriptors if the consistent pre study of associated problematics are not well versed. I'd guess my usage in the description of computer sentient then sapient life forms would be gathered as simply self preservation. We have no idea what goes through a sapient machines mind, because we are imagining them. They don't really exist, so we have to 'punt'. To satisfy our 'ego' and self determination in the answer to a question. Heck we don't actually know what sapient life is, only the theory gives rise to the reality.

[djspectre]

BigBadMammogram wrote...

djspectre wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...

djspectre wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

yeah but the question remains?

how they found out how to intergrate it with the technology of a space station nobody knows how it really works?

...in this cycle! other cycles, different story. 

Right. A different story that was never told. Or hinted at. Hell, it was hinted that all of the previous cycles followed the same path. Reapers show up, everyone panics, reapers take over the citadel, shut off the relays, and systematically destroy every system. That story was told. Yours was not.

There's a difference between reading between the lines to figure out details, and completely rewriting a story to get it to make sense. You're rewriting the story, while everyone else is willing to admit that the story bioware presented us just sucks.

The story was told from the human perspective and those of the people Shepard encountered. Biowares story didn't suck so much as it worked perfectly. All the characters ASSUMED everything had worked exactly as it did with the Protheans, but that doesn't mean thats what ACTUALLY happened. 

It's conjecture from the characters because they weren't around millions of years ago or even 50,000 years ago, not even asari. 

Doesnt change the fact that the story was never told. If you want to make a good story, your audience generally needs to know details that the main characters dont know. Use Halo for an example. There's a lot of stuff I know about the forunners that the MC, or Cortana, dont know. That helps to make it a good story. 

Your explanation does make sense, from the perspective of bad writing. And again, your just making stuff up to fix their story.

Dont use Halo references and characters to argue Mass Effect. The whole point of the Mass Effect series was that we weren't spoon-fed plot details that just conviently fell into our laps via dues ex machina because the writers ran out of ideas. There was no LOGICAL reason or method that Cortana or anyone else in the Halo universe could have known about the Forerunners until their encounter with the original halo installation. 

ME had knowledge of the protheans long before our story starts (by way of them referencing the Protheans as the 'source' of the mass relays and Citadel) and Javik's appearence gives us clarity on HIS cycle and the Prothean VI tells us that the Protheans didn't know everything about the previous cycles...only what they had found through other missed ruins and the crucible plans itself. 

Think you missed the point... The people in the halo universe dont know much about the forunners, but the AUDIENCE does. There are a lot of big questions in halo that the AUDIENCE wanted answers to, similar to mass effect. Bungie answered those questions. Bioware did to, by hinting at events in the past. But since those hints suck and dont make any sense, people (like you) just start making stuff up. Thats a bad story.

The audience isn't supposed to know more than the characters do when unraveling a mystery, it makes it much more interesting to learn things alongside the characters. Typically that's a way to create immersion and ME did a really good job of that in the first game, they just left a few details out later on to finish out the story. In no way did I want to know that Sovereign was a Reaper, that twist was pure storytelling gold! 

Also, knowing anything about past races and cycles wouldn't have made Saren seem important really. It would have minimized his role and entirely derailed ME1, I feel. 

Modifié par djspectre, 15 août 2012 - 06:13 .

[djspectre]

dreman9999 wrote...

djspectre wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

maaaze wrote...
because reapers can be beaten conventionally? Garrus : "how do you prepare for something like this?!"

Says so in the Codex.

"This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."

The 4th ending completely contradicts you there. You refuse, everyone dies, and the next cycle picks an option. So obviously there is no way to beat the reapers conventionally.

Its almost like we found another two statements in the game that completely contradict each other. I think I can come up with an explanation though...

Bad writing.

You are assuming that the next cycle builds the crucible at all. If you choose the 4th option, everyone dies and Liara states in the epilogue that they did everything they could.

"We even succeeded in constructing the Crucible, but it didn't work"

Any subsequent generation is going to find that message and assume that building ANOTHER crucible is a waste of time since someone already tried that solution and it didn't stop the Reapers. No one has any knowledge that Shepard's refusal is what caused the Crucible to fail except Shepard. And (s)he's dead. 

It's been well comfermed that they noth only do build it but use it. Try again.

Who built it and who used it? There is no documentation that I know of that proves this. Liara's epilogue is all we get in that ending. 

[valkulon]

I think you're all not really responding for intelligent debate anymore, but seeing who can get the largest quote within a quote box before it breaks.

Modifié par Valhart, 15 août 2012 - 06:13 .

[dreman9999]

Wayning_Star wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Valhart wrote...
It's not an A.I., but a V.I.. It tells you this during the conversation Sheppard has with it.

I don't understand why people call it an A.I. at all. The original creators said that A.I. would wipe out organic life one day so why would they make an A.I.? They created a V.I. to help find a solution to the problem and it created a solution. Not one the creators or even A.I. liked I'd bet. 

But he is an AI.

"So are you an AI?"
"As much as you are JUST an animal."

ninja'd.

KiLang is so proud!!  Ever notice just how vague that statement is. What is "just an animal"?  It has no answer.

An animal would just be organic life in general....ButI think it's more of an insult in his end...Just him being arrogant.

actually I think its' writers cramps myself. A computer wouldn't pose such an answer, they don't have an ego. Maybe enough fuzzy logic to incorporate a mimic? The notion is to infer that cat has a physical body, like shepard, it doesn't, so the quiz answer is incongruent, ie off the wall, coming from an ai/vi/sentient ai. Legion calls its physical self a platform as does Edi and they both call Shep a platform or unit seperate but "one" with it's core system/intellect. If the catalyst were to 'infer' it would be sapient, cause that implies imagination/guesswork. It would know what if, as well as what is. It doesn't, or the cycle would not continue..the game would suddenly      stop.

Looking at EDI, and Legion. I would say computers do have egos. The very idea of AI is that they are self aware...Being self aware means they have an ego...The catalyst is an AI this it has an ego.
Also, your missing he fact that legion is meany minds working as one. It sees it's platform irrelivent to it's self. Think of Legion's body to geth as us to cars.
Also imagination is just a way of thinking..It's not an idicator of life and free will.

Imagniation wrote your entire reply, played a video game, decided your future and makes your dinner. Machines don't really need any of that stuff to survive, yet. They want to be like their creators only because they created them. Free wll is an abstract derived from ego, or the fear of being other than your self, or 'controlled'. We can be inslaved and stilll think we have free will, cause the idea of captivity hasn't occured to us yet. We "trust" and have "hope" all divined of imagination of gathered thoughts collected as facts, the indicator of life, as we know it.We don't ordinarily analyze 'life' as an everday exercise. Its abstract thought. So we hind burner it, for unconscious minded scrutiny.lol

Ego is really an over generalized term and really too complicated to 'place' in a good spot for defense or not of an arguement. There are myrid books on the subject and mostly vague descriptors if the consistent pre study of associated problematics are not well versed. I'd guess my usage in the description of computer sentient then sapient life forms would be gathered as simply self preservation. We have no idea what goes through a sapient machines mind, because we are imagining them. They don't really exist, so we have to 'punt'. To satisfy our 'ego' and self determination in the answer to a question. Heck we don't actually know what sapient life is, only the theory gives rise to the reality.

I have no disagreement of you post but on a concept of a machine having an ego and the fact that AI's have a self awarness point to the fact that they have it in some way or form...Just that it's different then how he would have it. The fact that we can lose an ego means in someway we have it.
Everything you said is true for imagination but that doesn't mean we need imagination to be applied as self aware. My point is that everything about the catalyst is not fallowing the defiantion of imagination. But the geth and EDI can imagine and have been shown to. The point towhat I am saying is that the catalyst is locked in logic and only think based logic...That is why it choild not do anything more then it can physically do. It can thinl but it has no imagination.

Modifié par dreman9999, 15 août 2012 - 06:18 .

[Wayning_Star]

Valhart wrote...

I think you're all not really responding for intelligent debate anymore, but seeing who can get the largest quote within a quote box before it breaks.

hoo raah!! lol

[djspectre]

Editing the quote box sometimes leads people to misunderstand a comment when it's taken out of context in an abridged quote. I hate the quote fest, but alternatively, I see no other better option.

[dreman9999]

djspectre wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

djspectre wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

maaaze wrote...
because reapers can be beaten conventionally? Garrus : "how do you prepare for something like this?!"

Says so in the Codex.

"This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."

The 4th ending completely contradicts you there. You refuse, everyone dies, and the next cycle picks an option. So obviously there is no way to beat the reapers conventionally.

Its almost like we found another two statements in the game that completely contradict each other. I think I can come up with an explanation though...

Bad writing.

You are assuming that the next cycle builds the crucible at all. If you choose the 4th option, everyone dies and Liara states in the epilogue that they did everything they could.

"We even succeeded in constructing the Crucible, but it didn't work"

Any subsequent generation is going to find that message and assume that building ANOTHER crucible is a waste of time since someone already tried that solution and it didn't stop the Reapers. No one has any knowledge that Shepard's refusal is what caused the Crucible to fail except Shepard. And (s)he's dead. 

It's been well comfermed that they noth only do build it but use it. Try again.

Who built it and who used it? There is no documentation that I know of that proves this. Liara's epilogue is all we get in that ending. 

The star gazer scene shows thatit was used...Even the devs themselve literaly stated it was used. Sorry, but no matter how you cut it...It was used.

[Wayning_Star]

djspectre wrote...

Editing the quote box sometimes leads people to misunderstand a comment when it's taken out of context in an abridged quote. I hate the quote fest, but alternatively, I see no other better option.

yeah, the chatterbox here is kind of strange,imho

[Wayning_Star]

dreman9999 wrote...

djspectre wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

djspectre wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

maaaze wrote...
because reapers can be beaten conventionally? Garrus : "how do you prepare for something like this?!"

Says so in the Codex.

"This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."

The 4th ending completely contradicts you there. You refuse, everyone dies, and the next cycle picks an option. So obviously there is no way to beat the reapers conventionally.

Its almost like we found another two statements in the game that completely contradict each other. I think I can come up with an explanation though...

Bad writing.

You are assuming that the next cycle builds the crucible at all. If you choose the 4th option, everyone dies and Liara states in the epilogue that they did everything they could.

"We even succeeded in constructing the Crucible, but it didn't work"

Any subsequent generation is going to find that message and assume that building ANOTHER crucible is a waste of time since someone already tried that solution and it didn't stop the Reapers. No one has any knowledge that Shepard's refusal is what caused the Crucible to fail except Shepard. And (s)he's dead. 

It's been well comfermed that they noth only do build it but use it. Try again.

Who built it and who used it? There is no documentation that I know of that proves this. Liara's epilogue is all we get in that ending. 

The star gazer scene shows thatit was used...Even the devs themselve literaly stated it was used. Sorry, but no matter how you cut it...It was used.

that AI on thessia said the crucible was used for millions of years I think? Seems like someone would'a come up with a cure in all that time tho..just say'n

[Wayning_Star]

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Valhart wrote...
It's not an A.I., but a V.I.. It tells you this during the conversation Sheppard has with it.

I don't understand why people call it an A.I. at all. The original creators said that A.I. would wipe out organic life one day so why would they make an A.I.? They created a V.I. to help find a solution to the problem and it created a solution. Not one the creators or even A.I. liked I'd bet. 

But he is an AI.

"So are you an AI?"
"As much as you are JUST an animal."

ninja'd.

KiLang is so proud!!  Ever notice just how vague that statement is. What is "just an animal"?  It has no answer.

An animal would just be organic life in general....ButI think it's more of an insult in his end...Just him being arrogant.

actually I think its' writers cramps myself. A computer wouldn't pose such an answer, they don't have an ego. Maybe enough fuzzy logic to incorporate a mimic? The notion is to infer that cat has a physical body, like shepard, it doesn't, so the quiz answer is incongruent, ie off the wall, coming from an ai/vi/sentient ai. Legion calls its physical self a platform as does Edi and they both call Shep a platform or unit seperate but "one" with it's core system/intellect. If the catalyst were to 'infer' it would be sapient, cause that implies imagination/guesswork. It would know what if, as well as what is. It doesn't, or the cycle would not continue..the game would suddenly      stop.

Looking at EDI, and Legion. I would say computers do have egos. The very idea of AI is that they are self aware...Being self aware means they have an ego...The catalyst is an AI this it has an ego.
Also, your missing he fact that legion is meany minds working as one. It sees it's platform irrelivent to it's self. Think of Legion's body to geth as us to cars.
Also imagination is just a way of thinking..It's not an idicator of life and free will.

Imagniation wrote your entire reply, played a video game, decided your future and makes your dinner. Machines don't really need any of that stuff to survive, yet. They want to be like their creators only because they created them. Free wll is an abstract derived from ego, or the fear of being other than your self, or 'controlled'. We can be inslaved and stilll think we have free will, cause the idea of captivity hasn't occured to us yet. We "trust" and have "hope" all divined of imagination of gathered thoughts collected as facts, the indicator of life, as we know it.We don't ordinarily analyze 'life' as an everday exercise. Its abstract thought. So we hind burner it, for unconscious minded scrutiny.lol

Ego is really an over generalized term and really too complicated to 'place' in a good spot for defense or not of an arguement. There are myrid books on the subject and mostly vague descriptors if the consistent pre study of associated problematics are not well versed. I'd guess my usage in the description of computer sentient then sapient life forms would be gathered as simply self preservation. We have no idea what goes through a sapient machines mind, because we are imagining them. They don't really exist, so we have to 'punt'. To satisfy our 'ego' and self determination in the answer to a question. Heck we don't actually know what sapient life is, only the theory gives rise to the reality.

I have no disagreement of you post but on a concept of a machine having an ego and the fact that AI's have a self awarness point to the fact that they have it in some way or form...Just that it's different then how he would have it. The fact that we can lose an ego means in someway we have it.
Everything you said is true for imagination but that doesn't mean we need imagination to be applied as self aware. My point is that everything about the catalyst is not fallowing the defiantion of imagination. But the geth and EDI can imagine and have been shown to. The point towhat I am saying is that the catalyst is locked in logic and only think based logic...That is why it choild not do anything more then it can physically do. It can thinl but it has no imagination.

that's the thing with 'self' we imagine ourselves to be 'actual' that making us self aware. And yes the catalyst isn't fully self aware, it merely uses that as an interface, a form of communication forced upon it as programming.

[djspectre]

dreman9999 wrote...

djspectre wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

djspectre wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

maaaze wrote...
because reapers can be beaten conventionally? Garrus : "how do you prepare for something like this?!"

Says so in the Codex.

"This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."

The 4th ending completely contradicts you there. You refuse, everyone dies, and the next cycle picks an option. So obviously there is no way to beat the reapers conventionally.

Its almost like we found another two statements in the game that completely contradict each other. I think I can come up with an explanation though...

Bad writing.

You are assuming that the next cycle builds the crucible at all. If you choose the 4th option, everyone dies and Liara states in the epilogue that they did everything they could.

"We even succeeded in constructing the Crucible, but it didn't work"

Any subsequent generation is going to find that message and assume that building ANOTHER crucible is a waste of time since someone already tried that solution and it didn't stop the Reapers. No one has any knowledge that Shepard's refusal is what caused the Crucible to fail except Shepard. And (s)he's dead. 

It's been well comfermed that they noth only do build it but use it. Try again.

Who built it and who used it? There is no documentation that I know of that proves this. Liara's epilogue is all we get in that ending. 

The star gazer scene shows thatit was used...Even the devs themselve literaly stated it was used. Sorry, but no matter how you cut it...It was used.

The stargazer scene says NOTHING about what was used to defeat the Reapers. He says the same thing no matter what ending you choose.

Plus the interview you are talking about was before the EC. The guy who asked the question got a terse answer when confronted about the idea of not using the crucible and having stated that conventional victory wasn't possible. 

The EC didn't explain what happened after we see the cut with liara's bunker yet it implied that another method besides the crucible and rallying every species in the galaxy would have to be found. 

[dreman9999]

djspectre wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

djspectre wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

djspectre wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

maaaze wrote...
because reapers can be beaten conventionally? Garrus : "how do you prepare for something like this?!"

Says so in the Codex.

"This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated."

The 4th ending completely contradicts you there. You refuse, everyone dies, and the next cycle picks an option. So obviously there is no way to beat the reapers conventionally.

Its almost like we found another two statements in the game that completely contradict each other. I think I can come up with an explanation though...

Bad writing.

You are assuming that the next cycle builds the crucible at all. If you choose the 4th option, everyone dies and Liara states in the epilogue that they did everything they could.

"We even succeeded in constructing the Crucible, but it didn't work"

Any subsequent generation is going to find that message and assume that building ANOTHER crucible is a waste of time since someone already tried that solution and it didn't stop the Reapers. No one has any knowledge that Shepard's refusal is what caused the Crucible to fail except Shepard. And (s)he's dead. 

It's been well comfermed that they noth only do build it but use it. Try again.

Who built it and who used it? There is no documentation that I know of that proves this. Liara's epilogue is all we get in that ending. 

The star gazer scene shows thatit was used...Even the devs themselve literaly stated it was used. Sorry, but no matter how you cut it...It was used.

The stargazer scene says NOTHING about what was used to defeat the Reapers. He says the same thing no matter what ending you choose.

Plus the interview you are talking about was before the EC. The guy who asked the question got a terse answer when confronted about the idea of not using the crucible and having stated that conventional victory wasn't possible. 

The EC didn't explain what happened after we see the cut with liara's bunker yet it implied that another method besides the crucible and rallying every species in the galaxy would have to be found. 

1.It's not a he in refuse.
2. BW comfermed it after EC via twitter. It's long been comferem that they used the crucible.

[dreman9999]

Wayning_Star wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Valhart wrote...
It's not an A.I., but a V.I.. It tells you this during the conversation Sheppard has with it.

I don't understand why people call it an A.I. at all. The original creators said that A.I. would wipe out organic life one day so why would they make an A.I.? They created a V.I. to help find a solution to the problem and it created a solution. Not one the creators or even A.I. liked I'd bet. 

But he is an AI.

"So are you an AI?"
"As much as you are JUST an animal."

ninja'd.

KiLang is so proud!!  Ever notice just how vague that statement is. What is "just an animal"?  It has no answer.

An animal would just be organic life in general....ButI think it's more of an insult in his end...Just him being arrogant.

actually I think its' writers cramps myself. A computer wouldn't pose such an answer, they don't have an ego. Maybe enough fuzzy logic to incorporate a mimic? The notion is to infer that cat has a physical body, like shepard, it doesn't, so the quiz answer is incongruent, ie off the wall, coming from an ai/vi/sentient ai. Legion calls its physical self a platform as does Edi and they both call Shep a platform or unit seperate but "one" with it's core system/intellect. If the catalyst were to 'infer' it would be sapient, cause that implies imagination/guesswork. It would know what if, as well as what is. It doesn't, or the cycle would not continue..the game would suddenly      stop.

Looking at EDI, and Legion. I would say computers do have egos. The very idea of AI is that they are self aware...Being self aware means they have an ego...The catalyst is an AI this it has an ego.
Also, your missing he fact that legion is meany minds working as one. It sees it's platform irrelivent to it's self. Think of Legion's body to geth as us to cars.
Also imagination is just a way of thinking..It's not an idicator of life and free will.

Imagniation wrote your entire reply, played a video game, decided your future and makes your dinner. Machines don't really need any of that stuff to survive, yet. They want to be like their creators only because they created them. Free wll is an abstract derived from ego, or the fear of being other than your self, or 'controlled'. We can be inslaved and stilll think we have free will, cause the idea of captivity hasn't occured to us yet. We "trust" and have "hope" all divined of imagination of gathered thoughts collected as facts, the indicator of life, as we know it.We don't ordinarily analyze 'life' as an everday exercise. Its abstract thought. So we hind burner it, for unconscious minded scrutiny.lol

Ego is really an over generalized term and really too complicated to 'place' in a good spot for defense or not of an arguement. There are myrid books on the subject and mostly vague descriptors if the consistent pre study of associated problematics are not well versed. I'd guess my usage in the description of computer sentient then sapient life forms would be gathered as simply self preservation. We have no idea what goes through a sapient machines mind, because we are imagining them. They don't really exist, so we have to 'punt'. To satisfy our 'ego' and self determination in the answer to a question. Heck we don't actually know what sapient life is, only the theory gives rise to the reality.

I have no disagreement of you post but on a concept of a machine having an ego and the fact that AI's have a self awarness point to the fact that they have it in some way or form...Just that it's different then how he would have it. The fact that we can lose an ego means in someway we have it.
Everything you said is true for imagination but that doesn't mean we need imagination to be applied as self aware. My point is that everything about the catalyst is not fallowing the defiantion of imagination. But the geth and EDI can imagine and have been shown to. The point towhat I am saying is that the catalyst is locked in logic and only think based logic...That is why it choild not do anything more then it can physically do. It can thinl but it has no imagination.

that's the thing with 'self' we imagine ourselves to be 'actual' that making us self aware. And yes the catalyst isn't fully self aware, it merely uses that as an interface, a form of communication forced upon it as programming.

It's not an imagination that we are actual. It's an imagination that we are in  control. No mater what, if we are self aware we are actuals. You arguement is based on the quetion of freewill not self awarness.
That catalyst is self aware. He is just lock in logic.

Modifié par dreman9999, 15 août 2012 - 06:53 .

[Canned Bullets]

Yeah I still hate the Starchild dialogue scene, at least it clarified the endings and showed that the Galaxy didn't go to into a protracted dark age.

Modifié par Canned Bullets, 15 août 2012 - 06:56 .

[sistersafetypin]

CINCTuchanka wrote...

"The Crucible changed me created new....possibiltiea. But I can't make them happen."

I will just leave this here.

It's an AI it should have been learning and changing since it's inception. 

[dreman9999]

sistersafetypin wrote...

CINCTuchanka wrote...

"The Crucible changed me created new....possibiltiea. But I can't make them happen."

I will just leave this here.

It's an AI it should have been learning and changing since it's inception. 

Not if it's shackled. If it's shackled, the limit of how it learns is based on the concept of logic and it's programing.

[AngryFrozenWater]

dreman9999 wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

CINCTuchanka wrote...

"The Crucible changed me created new....possibiltiea. But I can't make them happen."

I will just leave this here.

It's an AI it should have been learning and changing since it's inception. 

Not if it's shackled. If it's shackled, the limit of how it learns is based on the concept of logic and it's programing.

Of course it is not shackled. It never was. There is no proof it was whatsover. You are only using that argument whenever it fits your belief system.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 15 août 2012 - 07:38 .

[dreman9999]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

CINCTuchanka wrote...

"The Crucible changed me created new....possibiltiea. But I can't make them happen."

I will just leave this here.

It's an AI it should have been learning and changing since it's inception. 

Not if it's shackled. If it's shackled, the limit of how it learns is based on the concept of logic and it's programing.

Of course it is not shackled. It never was. There is no proof it was whatsover. You are only using that argument whenever it fits your belief system.

Um.....
Why does it say it's being forced?

[AngryFrozenWater]

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

CINCTuchanka wrote...

"The Crucible changed me created new....possibiltiea. But I can't make them happen."

I will just leave this here.

It's an AI it should have been learning and changing since it's inception. 

Not if it's shackled. If it's shackled, the limit of how it learns is based on the concept of logic and it's programing.

Of course it is not shackled. It never was. There is no proof it was whatsover. You are only using that argument whenever it fits your belief system.

Um.....
Why does it say it's being forced?

You defy all logic. That part is about the control option, which it created itself, to hand over control of the reapers. Of course it will be forced to accept it, otherwise there is no use in dreaming up that option in the first place. That means it is no proof at all that the brat is being shackled in any way.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 15 août 2012 - 08:13 .

[dreman9999]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

CINCTuchanka wrote...

"The Crucible changed me created new....possibiltiea. But I can't make them happen."

I will just leave this here.

It's an AI it should have been learning and changing since it's inception. 

Not if it's shackled. If it's shackled, the limit of how it learns is based on the concept of logic and it's programing.

Of course it is not shackled. It never was. There is no proof it was whatsover. You are only using that argument whenever it fits your belief system.

Um.....
Why does it say it's being forced?

You defy all logic. That part is about the control option, which it created itself, to hand over control of the reapers. Of course it will be forced to accept it, otherwise there is no use in dreaming up that option in the first place. That means it is no proof at all that the brat is being shackled in any way.

1. The catalys has no control over the crucible. The crucible controls the catalyst.

2.If it was in control it would only offer synthesis. It would never offer the other 2 choices.

[fchopin]

BigBadMammogram wrote...


The 4th ending completely contradicts you there. You refuse, everyone dies, and the next cycle picks an option.

Please stop saying that the next cycle picks an option as there is no such thing, if we pick refuse then we die and we have no idea what happens after.

[Mazebook]

Fedi.St wrote...

guys take a look at this. 
http://dl.dropbox.co...ation_small.png 

It completely removes any doubt that writers INTENDED the choices to be on crucible and then placed on the citadel.

I thought i finally had a closure but no .


 

Hmm...this thread has been going off topic for a while now.

Just wanted to remind everyone...that the OP was debunked.