264 réponses à ce sujet

[iSousek]

Soultaker08 wrote...

Ok, i do not like star jar too, but i dont get the "geth/quarian-peace proves him wrong!" movement.

its like throwing an apple in the air and then shouting at your physics teacher that gravity doesnt exist,

the apple may be flying for now, but just because he does not immediately crashs on the ground like your teacher claims any apple will do , does not prove him wrong.

Actually this a bad example because it is completely opposite of this.

To use your own analogy.

There are specific paramteters of planet Earth, Apple and force between them that create certain interaction. When I throw the apple out of my hands it will always fall to the ground. There is not a single scenario on planet Earth, with its current parameters and specific, in which the apple would continuo to flow in the air. It is because of the fundamental characteristcs of the earth, gravity and the apple.

This is what Catalyst is doing. He is atributing fundamental characteristics and bihevioral patterns to subjects in social interactions.

But now, lets imagine a situation where the apple, upon being thrown doesn't fall down. In philosophy of science, this is often called the "Black Swan". This one example, this one empirical insight is all that takes to destroy a scientific theory. This is where all our theories and knowledge of the previous interactions fall apart. Scientific theory that says 'upon being thrown, apple will always fall down because of x,y and z' is debunked and proved false.

An this is what Geth prove. Events on Rannoch are a Black Swan to Catalyst's theory.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Alez Zinai wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Yeah, they're not dead. But they're not killing anyone either, so what's the difference?

Difference like between death sentence and 
life imprisonment. 

So...no actual difference then?

[CronoDragoon]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Nothing proved the Starchild wrong,

I proved him wrong on Rannoch. Legion proved him wrong. EDI and Tali proved him wrong.

None of it made a bit of difference in the end.

You didn't prove him wrong. In order to prove him wrong you would have to prove that synthetics will never wipe out organics. You showed him that the possibility for peace exists, and that therefore we should be given the freedom to succeed or fail on our own, but that isn't the same as proving his statement wrong. It's saying we should be allowed to proceed towards our own future whether we are wiped out or not.

[Soultaker08]

Nyoka wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

Ok, i do not like star jar too, but i dont get the "geth/quarian-peace proves him wrong!" movement.

its like throwing an apple in the air and then shouting at your physics teacher that gravity doesnt exist,

the apple may be flying for now, but just because he does not immediately crashs on the ground like your teacher claims any apple will do , does not prove him wrong.

That's not a proper analogy.

A proper analogy is me saying that sooner or later I'm going to throw an apple that will just keep flying up and up forever. It will happen eventually, it is inevitable. Every time I throw an apple to the air and it comes back down, it doesn't matter, I haven't said apples will do it every time, I've just said eventually they will do that.

Likewise, space kid says synthetics will rebel sooner or later. Doesn't matter that we have proven peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding is possible. They will rebel eventually in the future because he says so, you just wait and see. Just like my flying apple.

Not hard to understand this is nonsense.

you changed the start parameters, by saying "eventually" and "doesnt matter"

The catalyst says it will ALWAYS happen.

you are turning around the argumentation without aknowledging that you got only 1 example and that you dont even know if this example will stay in a stable situation.

i chose the "apple to the sky/ground" analogy  to make clear that your sample is not only about amount , but about time 

by the moment you reach the catalyst you neither got a great amount of examples nor you got enough time to make sure that this one you got doesnt invalidate itself

its not about if the catalyst is right, but its about that you cant say you have proven him wrong

[Jadebaby]

Fixers0 wrote...

Harmony is redundant.

So don't pick Synthesis?

[iSousek]

3DandBeyond wrote...

iSousek wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Synthetics rising up against organics might not be inevitable, but if you follow the destroy path it will be.

  

Any specific reason for this? Synthetics are not a part of the same system, much like all organics are not the part of the same system. Why would any new synthetics translate history into "you (organics) will eventually kill us all", especially considering that these new sythetics will come from a post-war culture. Meaning there is a high chance they will understand that historical actions depend on outside specifics of certain moment in space and time (even Geth understood this). What I'm trying to say is, you can't say for certain that any future synthetics will view organics as someone who will kill synthetics.

Synthetics would be aware of what happened to the geth.  They would know that Shepard did something that killed them all.  They would also see that organics were saved due to Shepard doing something that killed all geth.  Someone will tell them.  History will be written.  That's an awful big secret to keep.  They are presumably going to be smart enough to understand that one form of life was all wiped out and one form survived.

You completely misunderstood what I said. I wasn't talking about hiding history. You need to understand that knowladege and understaning is culturaly dependand, it is shaped by current events and cultural interpretations of the same. What I tried to say is, that considering post-war organics will create these new synthetics, there is a high chance that those same synthetics will understand Shepard's actions. Actions are not shaped in vacuum, they are contextualized by outside structures. And very often, history rewards those who saved it by giving praise.

[3DandBeyond]

IsaacShep wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Yeah, space kid presents you a nonsensical theory and the game originally forces you to play along, making you nonsensical; the EC gives you the possibility of either play along with the nonsense or watch the whole galaxy die. Quite an improvement

How is picking Control playing along? You delete the Catalyst. Catalyst doesn't have any control anymore, for all he know Shep may order the Reapers to fly into a black hole or dance in pink dresses for everyone's entertainment.

The kid's goal is not his own continued existence.  It's finding balance and peace between synthetics and organics.  His implementation of this goal is warped, so he is capable of anything.  He could even hit upon the idea of total galactic annihilation as achieving his goal.  He wasn't tasked with saving organics, but he views ascending them as a way to prevent the inevitability of them creating killer robots bent on the destruction of organic life.  This creates the imbalance.  Logically, it makes far more sense to destroy any killer robots or destroy just labs where people are creating killer robots, or not seeding the galaxy with reaper tech so people can learn to create killer robots, or not sending killer robots to kill people. 

But the kid only follows one logic principle and nothing else matters in service to this-he must find balance and peace between organics and synthetics.  He could wipe out all synthetics and make that happen (destroy) temporarily.  He could get rid of purely synthetic and organic life so that each is a part of the other (synthesis) temporarily, or he could add a new consciousness to the reaper collective, an new intelligence that might bring a new perspective (control) temporarily.  But he believes things are out of control and his reapers are no longer a good solution.  Why?  People are getting close to some sort of true victory against him, something that does not achieve his goal in any way.  And his job is to achieve his goal.  Every solution he has come up with has been temporary.

[iSousek]

EDIT:Connection error double post

Modifié par iSousek, 24 août 2012 - 07:03 .

[Soultaker08]

iSousek wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

*snip*

This is what Catalyst is doing. He is atributing fundamental characteristics and bihevioral patterns to subjects in social interactions.

read another of my answers abouve,

1)my argumentation is not about saying the catalyst is right, but that you can not disrpove his theory by the things you achieved, because amount and time are against you.

2)if you turned around the parameters, so that the catalyst had to disprove you.... well we cannot play this scenario around because bioware DID NOT give us enough information about the experiences the catalyst has.

the lack of variables you get for 2) forces you to go along with 1), which does not prove the catalyst wrong

the lack of variables in 2) allows assumations , but the value of these must naturally lie under 1) unless it gets more variables

i hope my point is understood, its sometimes quite difficult to express what i want to say in the way the thoughts leave my brain^^

[Alez Zinai]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Alez Zinai wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Yeah, they're not dead. But they're not killing anyone either, so what's the difference?

Difference like between death sentence and 
life imprisonment. 

So...no actual difference then?

Almost, but they are immortal - so who will outlive who. And there is something about eye for an eye. 
And you know what - there is a bargain between you and Catalyst - your frends will live if I'll be alive. Do you still think that you defeated Reapers? 

[SeptimusMagistos]

Alez Zinai wrote...
Almost, but they are immortal - so who will outlive who. And there is something about eye for an eye. 
And you know what - there is a bargain between you and Catalyst - your frends will live if I'll be alive. Do you still think that you defeated Reapers? 

Well, he's not exactly alive in Control so yeah, I kind of do.

[shepskisaac]

Nyoka wrote...

The EC tells you what happens if you pick control. The Shepard program or whatever it is will use the Reapers to look after the galaxy so it can have a future. Rebuild and protect. So you're implicitly agreeing that a solution to the organics/synthesis problem was needed at all. In short, control is a solution to it just like destroy and synthesis.

If you say Destroy, Control and Synthesis are ALL agreement on a solution, then you're saying that any possible action Shep can take is somehow playing along with teh Catalyst. This is nonsense. If Shepard farts is he also playing along?

[iSousek]

Soultaker08 wrote...

iSousek wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

*snip*

This is what Catalyst is doing. He is atributing fundamental characteristics and bihevioral patterns to subjects in social interactions.

read another of my answers abouve,

1)my argumentation is not about saying the catalyst is right, but that you can not disrpove his theory by the things you achieved, because amount and time are against you.

Actually I can. This is how scientific development works. If empirical evidence suggests otherwise, your theory is down (until new evidence, or theory arises). It is simple as that.

Also, the "the clock is still ticking" argument is false. Much like the Catalyst didn't wait the whole eternity to make sure 100 percent that his theory is accurate I do not need the whole alot of time to dissaprove Catalyst theory about organics and synthetics. Fundamental characterists are fundamental because they are always. Empirically speaking, Rannoch showed that when it comes to organics and sythetics they are not fundamental (they do not occur always). Meaning any theory about what might happen is not scientific theory. It is just a hypothetical prediction of a possible hypothetical situation.

Modifié par iSousek, 24 août 2012 - 07:13 .

[CronoDragoon]

Nyoka wrote...

I didn't change anything. If space kid can say the geth will betray the quarians eventually just because they're synthetics, just because it's in their nature to betray organics, no matter how many times they resolve their problems by understanding each other and being reasonable... then I can say my apple will eventually fly up in the air, no matter how many times it falls back down.

It's not really a good analogy because the issues at stake in your analogy are different than the synthetic/organic one. Just use the argument proper and we have a more accurate summary.

You can't prove the Catalyst wrong because there is always a chance that he will be right. It is, of course, an infuriating argument to try and counter, which is sort of the point (he's the villain).

[3DandBeyond]

iSousek wrote...


You completely misunderstood what I said. I wasn't talking about hiding history. You need to understand that knowladege and understaning is culturaly dependand, it is shaped by current events and cultural interpretations of the same. What I tried to say is, that considering post-war organics will create these new synthetics, there is a high chance that those same synthetics will understand Shepard's actions. Actions are not shaped in vacuum, they are contextualized by outside structures. And very often, history rewards those who saved it by giving praise.

I see, but I also don't agree.  I think that had Shepard been allowed to ask the geth what they thought about all this, they'd dispute the logic of it.  And so any synthetic would.  The goal as the kid sees it is in direct contrast with the geth reality.  Synthetics would understand that organics, if killing the geth, have acted upon the kid's basis for his logic.  They would perhaps see that Shepard validated the kid's killer robot vision.  They would then understand they are seen as a threat always.  They may have viewed themselves in a far different manner, but as you say actions are formed by internal and external things.  If you think I hate you and act like I do, eventually you may make me hate you-simply put.  I actually had this happen to me when I was pretty young.  And yet, I can take in a lot more nuanced ideas of insecurity that you may have-again this is what happened. 

A girl I worked with thought I hated her, but I had no such idea of her.  I had a group of friends I spent time with, but she wasn't one of them for no particular reason-we just never talked much.  She acted on that idea that I hated her and did everything she could to annoy me, intentionally.  One day after really starting to dislike her, I asked what the problem was and she told me she could tell I hated her.  I said I never had, but her actions really caused me to wonder about her and started creating dislike.  The point is, perception can lead to action, voluntary or involuntary, which can create certain other feelings-animosity, being one of them.  Synthetics may lack certain perceptive capabilities, so they may only understand that people like them who had never wanted to kill organics were killed because of the starkid who thought that all synthetics will always want to kill organics.  It could change their own perception of themselves and organics.

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

The EC tells you what happens if you pick control. The Shepard program or whatever it is will use the Reapers to look after the galaxy so it can have a future. Rebuild and protect. So you're implicitly agreeing that a solution to the organics/synthesis problem was needed at all. In short, control is a solution to it just like destroy and synthesis.

If you say Destroy, Control and Synthesis are ALL agreement on a solution, then you're saying that any possible action Shep can take is somehow playing along with teh Catalyst. This is nonsense. If Shepard farts is he also playing along?

refuse.

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

refuse.

Congratulations. You've just killed everyone in this cycle. About couple trillion lives. Good job! This is clearly what you were fighting for through the trilogy. Damn, so smart! You did it! You told Catalyst to ****** off! I'm sure all the dead people will be greateful to you

[iSousek]

3DandBeyond wrote...

iSousek wrote...


You completely misunderstood what I said. I wasn't talking about hiding history. You need to understand that knowladege and understaning is culturaly dependand, it is shaped by current events and cultural interpretations of the same. What I tried to say is, that considering post-war organics will create these new synthetics, there is a high chance that those same synthetics will understand Shepard's actions. Actions are not shaped in vacuum, they are contextualized by outside structures. And very often, history rewards those who saved it by giving praise.

I see, but I also don't agree.  I think that had Shepard been allowed to ask the geth what they thought about all this, they'd dispute the logic of it.  And so any synthetic would.

No,necessarily it wouldn't. You can't say for certain what any post-Geth sythetic would feel on the question. You stil fail to understan what I mean by cultural contextualization of events. There is a chance that AI would completely understand what Shepard did and saw it as rational. They are not the Geth, nor should they feel anything for the geth. They might saw Geth as a nothing but a colterall. Especially if they are created in a post-destroy culture which will likely over-emphasize how destroying Reapers was imperative.

I can not ephisize how important this is (culture of ones upbringing)

[Soultaker08]

iSousek wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

iSousek wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

*snip*

This is what Catalyst is doing. He is atributing fundamental characteristics and bihevioral patterns to subjects in social interactions.

read another of my answers abouve,

1)my argumentation is not about saying the catalyst is right, but that you can not disrpove his theory by the things you achieved, because amount and time are against you.

Actually I can. This is how scientific development works. If empirical evidence suggests otherwise, your theory is down (until new evidence, or theory arises). It is simple as that.

Also, the "the clock is still ticking" argument is false. Much like the Catalyst didn't wait the whole eternity to make sure 100 percent that his theory is accurate I do not need the whole alot of time to dissaprove Catalyst theory about organics and synthetics. Fundamental characterists are fundamental because they are always. Empirically speaking, Rannoch showed that when it comes to organics and sythetics they are not fundamental (they do not occur always). Meaning any theory about what might happen is not scientific theory. It is just a hypothetical prediction of a possible hypothetical situation.

i do not claim to know the truth, if i did, it would be ingame and we didnt have to discuss about it

its just that the evidence you could present the catalyst would be very thin to break his theory.

on the other side you have to assume that the evidence the catalyst could present is huge, because he was always there,

but  we do not know exact informations and so its nearly impossible to say that the catalyst could not prove wrong shepard (assuming we turned around the situation)

so im going with the thing i actually can predict instead of assuming that the other variables i do not know will prove me

Modifié par Soultaker08, 24 août 2012 - 07:23 .

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

refuse.

Congratulations. You've just killed everyone in this cycle. About couple trillion lives. Good job! This is clearly what you were fighting for through the trilogy. Damn, so smart! You did it! You told Catalyst to ****** off! I'm sure all the dead people will be greateful to you

Currently, that's the best result of refuse. Doesn't mean it can't change. And if it doesn't. I'll headcanon it. Becuase the rest of the endings are headcanon. I am actually permitted to headcanon anything I want and call it canon.

edit: just read the rest of your reply, are you always such a sarcastic dick?

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 24 août 2012 - 07:25 .

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Currently, that's the best result of refuse. Doesn't mean it can't change. And if it doesn't. I'll headcanon it. Becuase the rest of the endings are headcanon. I am actually permitted to headcanon anything I want and call it canon.

Then why don't you headcanon that Shep tells Reapers to fly into a blackhole after using them to rebuild the Glaxy? Or that Quarians revive the Geth somehow and Cerberus enegnieers revive EDI somehow? Hey, if you can retcon everyone dying in Refuse in your headcanon, you won't have a problem with anything else

Nyoka wrote...

I'm saying destruction, control and synthesis are all 3 presented by the game as solutions to space kid's problem, that's all. I'm pretty sure farting isn't.

No. Catalyst even says "soon organics will create new synthetics and the problem will return blah blah" and he clearly doesn't want you to Destroy him and Reapers. And in Control, he's snarky and mad that you will replace him and will be able to do whatever you want with the Reapers. Not to mention, we knew about these 2 choices way before we've even met the Catalyst. Only Synthesis is a solution to the Catalyst's poblem he likes and favours.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 24 août 2012 - 07:32 .

[cerberus1701]

I think the EC just solidified for me that Starbrat has no true 'logic.' That he's just an AI that was given a task: Mediate problems between First Race's organics and AI's.

He wasn't enough like the organics to have a "preferece" for them, yet basically tasked with reaching an agreement with them and convincing the other, presumably quite different from one another AIs to go along.

At some point, he flipped and decided the most expedient way to deal with it was just to Reaper them all and the rest is history.

And, because he couldn't achieve peace the one time he tried he "knows" it can't be done. because, if it were. then he'd have to accept being a failure when it comes to the very reason for his existence.

Modifié par cerberus1701, 24 août 2012 - 07:30 .