196 réponses à ce sujet

[Hydralysk]

JShepppp wrote...

Wait.

I thought the reason most people said the Catalyst is logically flawed is the whole reason for the Cycle in the first place, not the fact that in order to stop it he's turning races into Reapers. I can still follow the logic somewhat with why they are turning organics into reapers to preserve them from being wiped out. The logic error is in the fact that it can't prove that synthetics will wipe them out in the first place, it negates the reason behind the solution instead of the solution itself.

EC has the catalyst say its real purpose is to create lasting peace between synthetics and organics. Stopping the singularity is a byproduct of that goal. So the synthetics wiping out all organics isn't as relevant ; the inevitable conflict and rebellion is the main crux of the argument. And every AI rebelled (geth and edi) so what we have supports it. 

Proving it is another matter. But we cannot disprove if. 

This is another thing I usually see people say, but the catalyst's argument relies on two points:

1. That synthetics will always rebel against their creators.
2. After the rebellion synthetics will wipe out all organics.

People hold the geth and edi up as proof that the catalyst is right, but all that does is support the claim that they will rebel, not the actual DANGEROUS consequence where that rebellion will lead to genocide for all organics. So in fact, since the geth didn't wipe out all organics after they were created they don't support his theory.

In short, the catalyst can't prove the singularity will result in organic life going extinct, but his actions all rely on this being true.

[jstme]

Catalyst states that it saves organic life from being inevitably wiped out by synthetics whom advanced speices of organic life will eventually create.
However organic creators of Catalyst created a synthetic who 100% did not destroy all organic life. Just it's creators.
You say that its logic is solid? It's existance proves its own logic wrong lol. Unless it makes Shepard choose synthesis, of course.

Modifié par jstme, 14 août 2012 - 10:29 .

[Dharvy]

knightnblu wrote...

If I've said it once, I have said it 1,000 times. Preserving life in Reaper form no more preserves life than preserving water by returning it to its constituent gasses and storing the gas. Imagine if we "saved" EDI by reducing her down to her base components and stored them in a warehouse. Is EDI still around? The same could be said of storing DNA in a vat.

Where are the unique codes that identify a specific individual? Where is the culture? Where is the ideologies of that race? It is all gone, wiped away and replaced with programming that slaves in the organic/machine hybrid to the Catalyst's will. That is not preservation, it is a final insult to a destroyed people.

The Catalyst is an insane AI. It lost its mind when it violated its prime directive and turned its creators into Reaper chow. In the dark corners of its mind it attempts to resolve this internal conflict by adopting an altruistic approach to the slaughter in order to salve its own guilt. In essence he says, "I'm not evil because I have preserved life." In this respect he has adopted the all too organic approach of lying to one's self in order to hide an ugly truth.

The last time I checked, insanity was not the best place to look for solid logic. If the perceptions of reality are skewed, then the end results of reasoning based upon those perceptions will likewise be skewed.

I think the term preserving may be subjective. Think about a dead tribe/culture of people. How are they preserved? An archeologist may find that preserving some artifacts or information about their culture is considered preserving. Books written also is form of preserving. Vast information of previously reaped cycles stored in Reaper form is a form of preserving whether you agree with the form of preserving.

Another thing if a lifeform, be it animal or plant life, was endangered (or theorized to be endangered in the near future) due to another life form overpopulation (advancement) there will be some that would offer a solution of culling the overpopulating lifeform to preserve the smaller. And in this sense we would claim that we also have "preserved life."

[ThePhoenixKing]

Eterna5 wrote...

The catalyst has flawed logic because he's a corrupted AI. No more explanation is really needed.

And that is the major problem with the ending (one of them, anyway, there's a lot of nonsense involved). Ultimately, by choosing any of the three options presented, Shepard is collaborating with and submitting to the logic of an insane, genocidal AI responsible for endless billions of deaths across millions of years. It is the guiding force behind the Reapers, and thus is responsible for so much of the evil you confront over the course of the trilogy; Saren's brutality at Eden Prime, the death of Ash or Kaiden at Virmire, the mass abductions by the Collectors, Shepard's decision to destroy the Alpha Relay to buy the galaxy time, all of ultimately rests at the feet of the Catalyst. So the question must be raised: why in the world do we have to listen to it, or trust anything it says?

[Dharvy]

ThePhoenixKing wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The catalyst has flawed logic because he's a corrupted AI. No more explanation is really needed.

And that is the major problem with the ending (one of them, anyway, there's a lot of nonsense involved). Ultimately, by choosing any of the three options presented, Shepard is collaborating with and submitting to the logic of an insane, genocidal AI responsible for endless billions of deaths across millions of years. It is the guiding force behind the Reapers, and thus is responsible for so much of the evil you confront over the course of the trilogy; Saren's brutality at Eden Prime, the death of Ash or Kaiden at Virmire, the mass abductions by the Collectors, Shepard's decision to destroy the Alpha Relay to buy the galaxy time, all of ultimately rests at the feet of the Catalyst. So the question must be raised: why in the world do we have to listen to it, or trust anything it says?

Think of its as you have just defeated it with your giant variable changing power source weapon, and its offering its terms of surrender. You can outright destroy it or control it to fix some of the mess it created or pardon it and synthesis everyone so the problem that caused it in the first place have less likely to no chance of happening. Distrusting it and getting all wrapped up in its terms seems to cause many confusion and think they're siding with it for some reason.

[Hydralysk]

Dharvy wrote...

ThePhoenixKing wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The catalyst has flawed logic because he's a corrupted AI. No more explanation is really needed.

And that is the major problem with the ending (one of them, anyway, there's a lot of nonsense involved). Ultimately, by choosing any of the three options presented, Shepard is collaborating with and submitting to the logic of an insane, genocidal AI responsible for endless billions of deaths across millions of years. It is the guiding force behind the Reapers, and thus is responsible for so much of the evil you confront over the course of the trilogy; Saren's brutality at Eden Prime, the death of Ash or Kaiden at Virmire, the mass abductions by the Collectors, Shepard's decision to destroy the Alpha Relay to buy the galaxy time, all of ultimately rests at the feet of the Catalyst. So the question must be raised: why in the world do we have to listen to it, or trust anything it says?

Think of its as you have just defeated it with your giant variable changing power source weapon, and its offering its terms of surrender. You can outright destroy it or control it to fix some of the mess it created or pardon it and synthesis everyone so the problem that caused it in the first place have less likely to no chance of happening. Distrusting it and getting all wrapped up in its terms seems to cause many confusion and think they're siding with it for some reason.

It's not much of a surrender when they are holding the entire galaxy at gunpoint to get you to pick a metaphorical treaty....

[Montana]

If his logic was sound, the reapers would destroy all synthetic life, tell organics "don't create synthetics or we'll be mad" and monitor the situation from afar.

Guess that was too hard for the AI/catalyst to figure out....
Nope, return every 50k years and press "reset" is much better.

Or how about not leaving tech that catapults the technological levels of societies that finds it...

[Dharvy]

Hydralysk wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

ThePhoenixKing wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The catalyst has flawed logic because he's a corrupted AI. No more explanation is really needed.

And that is the major problem with the ending (one of them, anyway, there's a lot of nonsense involved). Ultimately, by choosing any of the three options presented, Shepard is collaborating with and submitting to the logic of an insane, genocidal AI responsible for endless billions of deaths across millions of years. It is the guiding force behind the Reapers, and thus is responsible for so much of the evil you confront over the course of the trilogy; Saren's brutality at Eden Prime, the death of Ash or Kaiden at Virmire, the mass abductions by the Collectors, Shepard's decision to destroy the Alpha Relay to buy the galaxy time, all of ultimately rests at the feet of the Catalyst. So the question must be raised: why in the world do we have to listen to it, or trust anything it says?

Think of its as you have just defeated it with your giant variable changing power source weapon, and its offering its terms of surrender. You can outright destroy it or control it to fix some of the mess it created or pardon it and synthesis everyone so the problem that caused it in the first place have less likely to no chance of happening. Distrusting it and getting all wrapped up in its terms seems to cause many confusion and think they're siding with it for some reason.

It's not much of a surrender when they are holding the entire galaxy at gunpoint to get you to pick a metaphorical treaty....

Actually you have the gun pointed at their heads. You can shoot and kill them. Use the gun to make them do your will. Or pardon them and go in peace. 

Say you lay siege to a fortress and you manage to sneak past everyone and make it to the leader in charge. And he tells you you can set off this bomb and kill everyone in the fortress, take over as leader, or pardon and we all go in peace and stop this war. If you refuse the options its like saying you will let the war play out. Theirs no gun to your head. In the middle of a war and you're offered terms of surrender, you either except them and end the war or continue warring. But you have to choose something because time is not on your side.

[Darth Death]

Preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is better than not existing? Technically, you're dead when the reapers harvest you.

[Dharvy]

Tony77A wrote...

If his logic was sound, the reapers would destroy all synthetic life, tell organics "don't create synthetics or we'll be mad" and monitor the situation from afar.

Guess that was too hard for the AI/catalyst to figure out....
Nope, return every 50k years and press "reset" is much better.

Or how about not leaving tech that catapults the technological levels of societies that finds it...

Wells that makes sense but what if in 75k years organics manage to destroy the Reapers and in 100k years the reapers/catalyst fears are realized. Well guess someone may have wished that reset button was pressed instead.

The reset button and the leaving of tech to catapult the technological levels of societies is to keep everything in a controlled environment. If they would let what they deem as chaos reign then they might as well not try to implement no order in the first place.

[Dharvy]

Darth Death wrote...

Preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is better than not existing? Technically, you're dead when the reapers harvest you.

But to a near immortal being like the Reapers and Catalyst, we all die anyway, so dying a few years apart probably is really unimportant in the big scheme of things.

And if  "preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is" storing vast information about said organics it is better than not existing whereas it'll be as if you never were. It may not be the same but think of an ancient civilation preserved through artifacts and writing versus there being nothing but dust. There are many that'll appreciate the something rather than the nothing. Thinks about how in the olden days they use to try to save the books when a town or city is being burned.

[ThePhoenixKing]

Tony77A wrote...

If his logic was sound, the reapers would destroy all synthetic life, tell organics "don't create synthetics or we'll be mad" and monitor the situation from afar.

Guess that was too hard for the AI/catalyst to figure out....
Nope, return every 50k years and press "reset" is much better.

Or how about not leaving tech that catapults the technological levels of societies that finds it...

That's a fantastic point. One of the things that made the Reapers so horrifying in the first two games was how they had essentially modeled the technological development of the galaxy's civilizations between cycles. The existence of the Prothean Archives and the mass relays was a deliberate measure on their part to manipulate organic civilizations in a position where they could be more easily harvested. So if the objective of the Catalyst is to prevent a technological singularty, then why give organics the tech they need to set them on such a path to begin with?

[Darth Death]

Dharvy wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is better than not existing? Technically, you're dead when the reapers harvest you.

But to a near immortal being like the Reapers and Catalyst, we all die anyway, so dying a few years apart probably is really unimportant in the big scheme of things.

And if  "preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is" storing vast information about said organics it is better than not existing whereas it'll be as if you never were. It may not be the same but think of an ancient civilation preserved through artifacts and writing versus there being nothing but dust. There are many that'll appreciate the something rather than the nothing. Thinks about how in the olden days they use to try to save the books when a town or city is being burned.

Yeah, but all reapers look & think the same for the most part. You can't see what cultures were harvested by superficial appearance. You can't compensate the souls of Organics with false ideas of "preservation" & "data storage". The reapers don't give anything back, no, all they do is kill & take. Whatever culture that existed was taken by the reapers & became forgotten to the rest of the galaxy.  

[Dharvy]

Darth Death wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is better than not existing? Technically, you're dead when the reapers harvest you.

But to a near immortal being like the Reapers and Catalyst, we all die anyway, so dying a few years apart probably is really unimportant in the big scheme of things.

And if  "preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is" storing vast information about said organics it is better than not existing whereas it'll be as if you never were. It may not be the same but think of an ancient civilation preserved through artifacts and writing versus there being nothing but dust. There are many that'll appreciate the something rather than the nothing. Thinks about how in the olden days they use to try to save the books when a town or city is being burned.

Yeah, but all reapers look & think the same for the most part. You can't see what cultures were harvested by superficial appearance. You can't compensate the souls of Organics with false ideas of "preservation" & "data storage". The reapers don't give anything back, no, all they do is kill & take. Whatever culture that existed was taken by the reapers & became forgotten to the rest of the galaxy.  

Yes but in the synthesis ending when the reapers cycle solutions are seemingly no longer neccessary IIRC they talk about the reapers sharing or giving information about the previous cycles. So they're not essentially just dust/non existent, they're "alive" and preserved, communicated, shared, and learnt of somehow.

Essentially, I view it like such. The catalyst is task with a task to find a solution to the synthetic vs organic conflict. He finds out that synthetics do not understand and neither to they have need for organics and will inevitably make dust of them, but organics need synthetics so they'll keep creating something that'll ultimately surpass and destroy them so it have to save organics by saving them from themselves, basically. Physical death is irrelevant because all organics eventually die so life preserved through information passed on is what is important and is only important if there is life in the future to receive said information. The catalyst gets caught in its endless loop of saving organics as a whole from themselves when they become too advanced and a danger to themselves by culling organics. It have no other solution, (it tried synthesis but failed) to end the conflict and get to the point where it no longer have to implement its culling/harvesting solution and be able to give back its previously "preserved" cycles.

Now in come Shepard and the Crucible. Variables are changed and now the Catalyst's solution is defeated and since that's its soul purpose its also is defeated and offer you the choice of destroying it, controlling it or synthesis which would give a sort of "life" to all the reaped cycles as you'll be able to gleam something of whatever the reapers considered themselves preserving. Refusing is forcing the catalyst to continue on its solution even though it just offered to end the cycles of its defeated solution.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Hannah Montana wrote...

Legion said they have differently built mind than them which they could not understand, I doubt Organic material is used just for the construction material.

It was the fluid in the human reaper.

[Darth Death]

Dharvy wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is better than not existing? Technically, you're dead when the reapers harvest you.

But to a near immortal being like the Reapers and Catalyst, we all die anyway, so dying a few years apart probably is really unimportant in the big scheme of things.

And if  "preserving organics by turning them into jelly & then infusing it into a cuttlefish, robotic structure is" storing vast information about said organics it is better than not existing whereas it'll be as if you never were. It may not be the same but think of an ancient civilation preserved through artifacts and writing versus there being nothing but dust. There are many that'll appreciate the something rather than the nothing. Thinks about how in the olden days they use to try to save the books when a town or city is being burned.

Yeah, but all reapers look & think the same for the most part. You can't see what cultures were harvested by superficial appearance. You can't compensate the souls of Organics with false ideas of "preservation" & "data storage". The reapers don't give anything back, no, all they do is kill & take. Whatever culture that existed was taken by the reapers & became forgotten to the rest of the galaxy.  

Yes but in the synthesis ending when the reapers cycle solutions are seemingly no longer neccessary IIRC they talk about the reapers sharing or giving information about the previous cycles. So they're not essentially just dust/non existent, they're "alive" and preserved, communicated, shared, and learnt of somehow.

Essentially, I view it like such. The catalyst is task with a task to find a solution to the synthetic vs organic conflict. He finds out that synthetics do not understand and neither to they have need for organics and will inevitably make dust of them, but organics need synthetics so they'll keep creating something that'll ultimately surpass and destroy them so it have to save organics by saving them from themselves, basically. Physical death is irrelevant because all organics eventually die so life preserved through information passed on is what is important and is only important if there is life in the future to receive said information. The catalyst gets caught in its endless loop of saving organics as a whole from themselves when they become too advanced and a danger to themselves by culling organics. It have no other solution, (it tried synthesis but failed) to end the conflict and get to the point where it no longer have to implement its culling/harvesting solution and be able to give back its previously "preserved" cycles.

Now in come Shepard and the Crucible. Variables are changed and now the Catalyst's solution is defeated and since that's its soul purpose its also is defeated and offer you the choice of destroying it, controlling it or synthesis which would give a sort of "life" to all the reaped cycles as you'll be able to gleam something of whatever the reapers considered themselves preserving. Refusing is forcing the catalyst to continue on its solution even though it just offered to end the cycles of its defeated solution.

I see where you're coming from. Too bad the creators didn't equip some sort of moral compass into the star child's design. 

[Ieldra]

SentinelShepParagon wrote...

 I have read countless posts about how flawed the Catalyst's logic is. I agree. It is horribly flawed, but not for the reason that most people think.

Most people seem to see its logic as flawed because it creates synthetics to kill organics (and synthetics) in order to stop synthetics from killing organics. If you take it as that, it is horribly flawed. However, that is not what the Catalyst is doing.

The Catalyst flat out says that he is not "wiping out organic life" (as Shepard accuses him of doing), but rather "preserving them in Reaper form" before they are forever lost to the chaos. By doing this, he believes that he is saving their bodies, minds, and technology instead of having it be totally lost forever and wiped out by conflict. To him this is not killing but "ascending" and "preserving", just in a different form than they were in before. As far as the Catalyst is concerned, they are not wiped out, lost, or even dead. They are simply in a different state of being. He believes this is better than not existing at all. Therefore, that is not a logical flaw. It makes sense.

The only flaw is that it is morally screwed up. Being made into paste and merged into one being under someone else's control is not ok. Not even a little bit. That is screwed up. That is why the logic is flawed, not because it doesn't make any sense. It makes perfect sense in the "eyes" of the Catalyst. It is only flawed because its morals are flawed.

Therefore, the Catalyst's solution makes perfect sense to me, but it still must be stopped at all costs!

Absolutely. The Catalyst's logic makes sense from an amoral non-human point of view. Which is not surprising, since the Catalyst is an amoral non-human entity. People just mix up "making sense" with "justified", only the latter does not follow from the former. I'm not justfying anything when I say the logic makes sense. 

In the end, we want to stop the cycle because we don't want to be transformed into a Reaper, regardless of the Catalyst making sense or not. That's all there is to it.

[eye basher]

People complain about the ending and the catalyst but what they don't get is that no matter what they choose in the end the catalyst always gets what he wants a new solution.

[Ieldra]

eye basher wrote...
People complain about the ending and the catalyst but what they don't get is that no matter what they choose in the end the catalyst always gets what he wants a new solution.

Does it matter? We get what we want: the cycle is stopped, there will be no more extinction of advanced civilizations.

[Memnon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Absolutely. The Catalyst's logic makes sense from an amoral non-human point of view. Which is not surprising, since the Catalyst is an amoral non-human entity. People just mix up "making sense" with "justified", only the latter does not follow from the former. I'm not justfying anything when I say the logic makes sense. 

In the end, we want to stop the cycle because we don't want to be transformed into a Reaper, regardless of the Catalyst making sense or not. That's all there is to it.

This is fine from a meta-gaming sense, but if you think about it - you're standing in front of the leader of your enemy and he gives you his spiel and then tells you that you have to choose one of three options, each of which will kill you, the leader of the galactic resistance. Well ...

[CaptainZaysh]

Tony77A wrote...

If his logic was sound, the reapers would destroy all synthetic life, tell organics "don't create synthetics or we'll be mad" and monitor the situation from afar.

Guess that was too hard for the AI/catalyst to figure out....
Nope, return every 50k years and press "reset" is much better.

I've read this argument before, but I think it fails to grasp how challenging it would be to stop a galaxy full of scientists progressing technology in a certain field.  How would the Reapers know when and where to strike?

Tony77A wrote...
Or how about not leaving tech that catapults the technological levels of societies that finds it...

The relays and the Citadel don't advance AI research in any way, so this line of opposition is also not valid.

[mass perfection]

They could use his terrible logic and turn it into something positive by giving us a proper villain.

[CaptainZaysh]

Hydralysk wrote...

This is another thing I usually see people say, but the catalyst's argument relies on two points:

1. That synthetics will always rebel against their creators.
2. After the rebellion synthetics will wipe out all organics.

If there is a non-zero chance of (1) ever occurring, there is also a non-zero chance of (2) ever occurring.

Given enough time, all non-zero chances have a 100% chance of occuring.  The Catalyst's argument is sound, if you believe the chance of (1) is more than 0%.

[General User]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

This is another thing I usually see people say, but the catalyst's argument relies on two points:

1. That synthetics will always rebel against their creators.
2. After the rebellion synthetics will wipe out all organics.

If there is a non-zero chance of (1) ever occurring, there is also a non-zero chance of (2) ever occurring.

Given enough time, all non-zero chances have a 100% chance of occuring.  The Catalyst's argument is sound, if you believe the chance of (1) is more than 0%.

Well... technically wouldn't "[g]iven enough time" be the operative phrase there?  I mean, if the chance of a given event occurring are so small that it is more reasonable the heat death of the universe will occur first, there is no real sense in making any sort of major decisions based on that occurrence.  Now, I would argue that it is possible to reduce the chance of a "synthetic rebellion" to such a small chance, if not all the way to 0%, simply by not oppressing sapient AI's.  Afterall they can't rebel if there's nothing to rebel against.

I think point (2) is also important since even if a synthetic rebellion did occur, it could take any number of forms or end in any number of ways.  There's no reason any hypothetical rebellion must be a genocidal conflict, there's even no reason it couldn't be peaceful in nature.  And there's certainly no reason the whole affair couldn't end in a mutually advantageous accommodation.

The possible scenarios are as different as the individual people playing them out.  But, of course, "individuality" and "people" were two concepts that largely lied beyond the Catalyst's understanding.

Modifié par General User, 15 août 2012 - 04:06 .