271 réponses à ce sujet

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Citation please.

That means quotes. Actual proof. 

Again all the citation needed is by watching the Terminator movies especially with what happens in T2 and T3.

Citation please. 

Yet you already got citation.

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Citation please.

That means quotes. Actual proof. 

Again all the citation needed is by watching the Terminator movies especially with what happens in T2 and T3.

Citation please. 

Yet you already got citation.

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided. 

[iSousek]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You think organics can avoid any possible conflict? How naive can you be? There are power dynamics completely independent from what a single individual wants. History and the development of civilizations has patterns. Some of them may be avoidable. But it's naive to believe we're totally free in where we go. Could the drell have avoided the state of war on Rakhana after its resources had been exhausted and there was not enough for everyone to live? I think not.

There are patterns which will inevitably arise once certain starting conditions are met, and it is totally plausible that the organic/synthetic conflict may be one of them.

This sort of historical determinism (or teleological historicism) has been dismissed long ago. And conclusions made from it are usually completely wrong (most notable example is Karl Marx). I would suggest researching Karl Popper's "Open Society and its Enemies"

Modifié par iSousek, 13 septembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided.

Deny deny deny is all you can do even when all the citation needed is by watching the Terminator movies especially with what happens in T2 and T3.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 13 septembre 2012 - 04:06 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided.

Deny deny deny is all you can do even when all the citation needed is by watching the Terminator movies especially with what happens in T2 and T3.

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided. 

[3DandBeyond]

Why would a supposedly superior of intellect being by definition have to become a mindless killing robot? This is what the title of the thread seems to ask.

It's not whether conflict will inevitably occur-of course it will, but what type and level of conflict is debatable. And who wants to destroy who is also up for grabs. I think honestly that organics wanting to kill organics will always occur (and they have gotten pretty good at it), so should I clone someone to destroy organics so they won't kill organics?

And still not all conflict is damaging in the long run. Conflict can help determine values, define mores, and help us adapt to adversity, and more. Conflict is inevitable, but killer robots are not.

Apparently becoming intelligent is equated with murderous rage.

What if I want to make a fully autonomous being? And I create one that has the equivalent of a heart, a conscience, as well as the ability to learn. These might be Pavlovian reinforcements for certain behavior. And my desire is that he become an advocate for good. Do I have any way of assuring what form that will take or of knowing that he will truly act for that good? No, with autonomy he will decide what he will become and do.

He may see that some people feel threatened by him, so the good thing he could do is to isolate himself from people.

The game applies autonomy to synthetic life, but it has a warped view in the form of what the kid and his programming think will happen with it. Imagination would tell anyone that autonomous synthetic life would have just as varied personalities as organic life has. Part nature and part nurture.

If an autonomous synthetic being is created for the purpose of killing, he may decide he does not like to kill.

And all of this still assumes that synthetic beings would always be focused on what organics are doing. Parents give their kids life. Once the kid grows up and gets his own life, does he obsess about his parents? Maybe, but probably not.

[Ieldra]

iSousek wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
You think organics can avoid any possible conflict? How naive can you be? There are power dynamics completely independent from what a single individual wants. History and the development of civilizations has patterns. Some of them may be avoidable. But it's naive to believe we're totally free in where we go. Could the drell have avoided the state of war on Rakhana after its resources had been exhausted and there was not enough for everyone to live? I think not.

There are patterns which will inevitably arise once certain starting conditions are met, and it is totally plausible that the organic/synthetic conflict may be one of them.

This sort of historical determinism (or teleological historicism) has been dismissed long ago. And conclusions made from it are usually completely wrong (most notable example is Karl Marx). I would suggest researching Karl Popper's "Open Society and its Enemies"

Almost all historians assume various degrees of determinism. It's a necessary consequence of causality. Without it, history is random, and actions aimed at causing specific effects would be impossible. The patterns we're speaking of are ecological, not political, and decisions of individuals average out over long time periods, again, given specific starting conditions. Also, of course 100% certainty is impossible, but you may be able to get a probability approaching certainty.

As for Marx, of course you get things wrong if you start with wrong assumptions about human nature. 

I'm not saying the organic/synthetic conflict is necessarily of the inevitable kind. Not enough data for that. But I am saying it can't be dismissed out of hand, and it's plausible enough to suspend my disbelief for. Bioware just failed to provide evidence in a narratively significant manner.

[Ieldra]

@3DAndBeyond:
Malice and murderous rage are not implied. The conflict is the result of natural power dynamics, and if the power difference between the conflict parties is high enough and the conflict goes on long enough or is repeated often enough, one side will become irrelevant in the end. It may not result in actual extinction, but close enough to be almost indistinguishable from it in the big picture. Details in this post.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
Malice and murderous rage are not implied. The conflict is the result of natural power dynamics, and if the power difference between the conflict parties is high enough and the conflict goes on long enough or is repeated often enough, one side will become irrelevant in the end. It may not result in actual extinction, but close enough to be almost indistinguishable from it in the big picture. Details in this post.

Sorry, but natural power dynamics does not need to always apply.  You can say this till you're blue in the face and it's not so.  People are more powerful than cats and dogs and yet all efforts do not work to destroy them inevitably.  It could happen, but is not inevitable.  It is just as likely that tomorrow people will discover that dogs intrinsically contain a cure for cancer that can be found in their poop.  Or that dogs will rise up and kill all humans.  And dogs have existed in one form or another for longer than humans.  It seems very likely that roaches have as well and we have yet to kill all of them.

This is a narrow-minded view that asserts the idea that a being that is more powerful must always destroy that which is not.  How many protozoa have you destroyed today?  Kill any bacteria?  Should you kill bacteria what happens next?  The baceria adapts and gets stronger.  We may try but can never kill all bacteria and we don't want to, but even our best efforts with the overuse and random use of penicillin has not made it happen-instead, pernicious bacteria is winning, because it's good at adapting, while beneficial bacteria is weakening and even giving up.  Why can't we kill the bad bacteria?  Why haven't we as yet destroyed the Small Pox virus kept in labs?  We don't even like it very much.

My imagination and the extrapolation of what true intelligence and autonomy could mean is an ability to develop different personalities.  Power does not equal the destruction of the less powerful always.  To state this is to ignore reality.  Possible, yes.  Inevitable, no.  Synthetics could even develop protective tendencies or they could just not care.  Power dynamics totally rules out independent thought and independent action as well as the development of a conscience and the best example is seen in the game.  The geth could have totally destroyed all quarians, but didn't.  They are fully capable of it and even had reasons for it, but didn't.  Power dynamics exist in a vaccuum. The result of such is anything but inevitable.

Your opinion is opinion but does not allow for true autonomy and relies in parts on what Javik says (not wholly certainly but in some minor way)-not the best example since his race was all about join or be killed.

You learn from history.  And Javik's society was forcibly homogenized.  They had authority and created all things for making war.  The Rachni were advanced for warfare.  Synthetic life made for warfare.  Diversity is lacking.  And true autonomy wasn't allowed for organics, let alone synthetics.

And anything short of extinction is not extinction.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 13 septembre 2012 - 05:44 .

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
Malice and murderous rage are not implied. The conflict is the result of natural power dynamics, and if the power difference between the conflict parties is high enough and the conflict goes on long enough or is repeated often enough, one side will become irrelevant in the end. It may not result in actual extinction, but close enough to be almost indistinguishable from it in the big picture. Details in this post.

Sorry, but natural power dynamics does not need to always apply.  You can say this till you're blue in the face and it's not so.  People are more powerful than cats and dogs and yet all efforts do not work to destroy them inevitably.  It could happen, but is not inevitable.  It is just as likely that tomorrow people will discover that dogs intrinsically contain a cure for cancer that can be found in their poop.  Or that dogs will rise up and kill all humans.  And dogs have existed in one form or another for longer than humans.  It seems very likely that roaches have as well and we have yet to kill all of them.

This is a narrow-minded view that asserts the idea that a being that is more powerful must always destroy that which is not.  How many protozoa have you destroyed today?  Kill any bacteria?  Should you kill bacteria what happens next?  The baceria adapts and gets stronger.  We may try but can never kill all bacteria and we don't want to, but even our best efforts with the overuse and random use of penicillin has not made it happen-instead, pernicious bacteria is winning, because it's good at adapting, while beneficial bacteria is weakening and even giving up.  Why can't we kill the bad bacteria?  Why haven't we as yet destroyed the Small Pox virus kept in labs?  We don't even like it very much.

My imagination and the extrapolation of what true intelligence and autonomy could mean is an ability to develop different personalities.  Power does not equal the destruction of the less powerful always.  To state this is to ignore reality.  Possible, yes.  Inevitable, no.  Synthetics could even develop protective tendencies or they could just not care.  Power dynamics totally rules out independent thought and independent action as well as the development of a conscience and the best example is seen in the game.  The geth could have totally destroyed all quarians, but didn't.  They are fully capable of it and even had reasons for it, but didn't.  Power dynamics exist in a vaccuum. The result of such is anything but inevitable.

Your opinion is opinion but does not allow for true autonomy and relies in parts on what Javik says (not wholly certainly but in some minor way)-not the best example since his race was all about join or be killed.

You learn from history.  And Javik's society was forcibly homogenized.  They had authority and created all things for making war.  The Rachni were advanced for warfare.  Synthetic life made for warfare.  Diversity is lacking.  And true autonomy wasn't allowed for organics, let alone synthetics.

And anything short of extinction is not extinction.

nothing is 'detroyed' only replaced by a better? version of life. The gist of evolution, and  apparently eventual. Otherwise organics would not need synthetics at all and would advance without it/them...

So if you create technology, better get used to the idea that you will replace yourself with it, to survive as advanced.

[Wayning_Star]

I alway's wanted to create a cyber black hole.... watch'iss!!

[Ieldra]

@3DAndBeyond:
I'm not saying history is generally like that, but I am saying that some problems may be of that kind - all but inevitable given certain starting conditions, power dynamics and hardwired biological traits. Take Rakhana, for instance. I wouldn't be able to say for certain if the general condition of war there was at the end was inevitable once the resources were exhausted, but I certainly wouldn't rule out that it was. It is very plausible to assume so. An intelligence with more knowledge about the development of civilizations and enough processing power to model it for long periods of time may be able to make predictions that come to pass with a probability approaching certainty.

Also, we are not talking about specific events but cumulative probabilities. Of course it's not possible to say "civilization X and civilization Y will inevitably destroy each other", but something like "within the next million years, there will be at least one conflict with the scope and power dynamic that makes it highly probable that all intelligent organic life in the galaxy will be destroyed by it", that's a different statement, one that can't be ruled out by the mere assumption that intelligent beings will always find a way. Because you know.....sometimes they don't.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
I'm not saying history is generally like that, but I am saying that some problems may be of that kind - all but inevitable given certain starting conditions, power dynamics and hardwired biological traits. Take Rakhana, for instance. I wouldn't be able to say for certain if the general condition of war there was at the end was inevitable once the resources were exhausted, but I certainly wouldn't rule out that it was. It is very plausible to assume so. An intelligence with more knowledge about the development of civilizations and enough processing power to model it for long periods of time may be able to make predictions that come to pass with a probability approaching certainty.

Also, we are not talking about specific events but cumulative probabilities. Of course it's not possible to say "civilization X and civilization Y will inevitably destroy each other", but something like "within the next million years, there will be at least one conflict with the scope and power dynamic that makes it highly probable that all intelligent organic life in the galaxy will be destroyed by it", that's a different statement, one that can't be ruled out by the mere assumption that intelligent beings will always find a way. Because you know.....sometimes they don't.

I can just as easily say that within the next million years organics will develop tech that would offset any unequal power dynamic and this is likely if it was always perceived that synthetics were a threat. 

On the one hand you say it's inevitable and then you say highly probable and all but inevitable.  Inevitable is inevitable, not avoidable and it will happen with certainty.  I said it wasn't and you are proving that is the case by your own words.

But you have used civilizations and thoughts that form a basis that does not exist in this time.  You are actually removing true autonomy from the picture because inevitability can only occur within a controlled environment.  Conflict was inevitable for the Protheans because their attitude all but demanded it.  They created it.

There is no such probability approaching certainty at all.  You are not allowing for the variables that occur within differing personalities.  The creation of synthetics can be done for various reasons.  The geth were even partly created for warfare, but they pulled back from the brink. 

You are acting like the starkid in your thinking, in saying that inequality always leads to one (the most powerful) destroying another inevitably.  There are real life comparisons to be made here and all of them refute that claim because they factor in what you don't. 

You first set this up as all conflict being destructive.  Any parent knows that's not so.  Conflict can be ultimately constructive.  You set this up as just involving sterile logic which is why what you insist would happen could only occur with certainty in a lab or controlled environment.  The galaxy is un-controlled, chaotic.  And that is why chaos also is not to be labelled as bad as well.  Chaos changes the variables in random ways, so what you think is true or what should be true, is not.  The geth should have wiped out the quarians in your scenario, by calculation or by accident because of the sheer inequality of power.  But, who'd have thought it could happen-the geth had remorse.  Chaos.

The progression of a virus tends to be fairly straightforward.  Find patient zero.  However, the path the virus takes is a path that is seeking a way to live.  So, sometimes they jump species.  They adapt and change.  Influenza virus is constantly doing this adapting.  Chaos.

Whenever chaos is involved there is no certainty and with diversity and autonomy there is chaos.  Evolution is chaotic and with synthetics capable of evolving there would be a randomness just as with any other person.  Therefore, it is not inevitable. 

One of the biggest problems I have with the endings is that conflict and chaos are stated as these galaxy annihilation events rather than forces for change and natural advancement.  They are neutral items that are stated as big negatives.  Order, on the other hand is seen as something good, which is ridiculous.  It's neutral as well.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 13 septembre 2012 - 07:24 .

[Ieldra]

You have never studied statistics, right?

(1) If you have a probability approaching certainty, things can be said to be inevitable for practical purposes. It doesn't really matter if the probability is 99.9999999999% or 100%, it is highly advisable to act on a prediction that comes with that kind of probability.

(2) You said I'm not accounting for autonomy. In many cases individual decisions tend to even out once you analyse a million of them instead of one. You may not be able to predict the behavior of one, but it's often quite possible to predict the behavior of a million. There is one dropout and you don't know who? Doesn't matter. It may matter for the individual life, but for the big picture not at all.

(3) The reasons why synthetics are created may not matter at all. Personalities may not matter at all. They exist, the dynamic starts. You're blithely assuming that infinitesimal differences in starting conditions *always* change the long-term outcome. Well, there are certainly cases where that's true, but there are others, too.

(4) I am not saying that all conflict is destructive. I am saying that it is perfectly possible that this specific kind of conflict will lead to something destructive on a large scale, with a probability approaching certainty.

(5) You mistake the nature of chaos. Chaos isn't indeterministic. Well, maybe on the quantum level, but so far we don't know if life is susceptible to quantum effects at all. Otherwise, when scientists speak of "chaotic" systems they just mean systems whose development is sensitive to infinitesimal changes in starting conditions. AND EVEN THEN YOU CAN SEE PATTERNS EMERGING!!!!

To be totally clear about this: I am not affirming the inevitability of the organic/synthetic conflict. I do not have enough data to do that. What I'm saying is that the Catalyst's claim cannot be refuted on methodical grounds. I'm saying it is possible for the Catalyst to have data that support its conclusions - with a probability approaching certainty, and that it is possible, for a specific problem, that individual decisions do not matter at all for the final outcome. I am not saying all historical developments are of that kind, I am saying that this specific problem may be of that kind, and we do not have the data to refute or support this claim.

In the end, what matters is that the story does not present us with narratively significant support for the claim. Had we been presented with that, it would have been possible to accept it.

Unless you believe in a kind of freedom that transcends the physical universe. Which I do not.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 septembre 2012 - 08:30 .

[Boydsan]

Look at own history. How many times do Organic governments harm other organics? How many times a few individuals harm other people? Sooner or later, organics (might be a few terrorists, crazies, scientists, soldiers, or something) will eventually harm a synthetic. If the Geth were the template, maybe the Synthetic would see a single violation as a prelude to war or future harm from other organics. After all, nothing in our history remains peaceful. Humans alone, can be murderous and illogical. Assuming humans are a template other organics can also be murderous and/or illogical too.

[JamieCOTC]

Ieldra2 wrote...


In the end, what matters is that the story does not present us with narratively significant support for the claim. Had we been presented with that, it would have been possible to accept it.

And therein lies the crux of the problem.  While I personally don't see the Catalyst as being evil, I don't see him as being some omnipotent being that has all the answers either.  I don’t care how old he is or how much data he’s collected, he simply doesn’t prove his case. And I don’t have faith enough in the story to just go along w/ it. Therefore while the Catalyst may not be “the bad guy” he is, in my headcanon, an antagonist that meddled w/ evolution and doesn’t understand that he is as much a part of the problem as anything else.   Fortunately, the Crucible reprograms him and allows Shepard to meddle w/ evolution, which s/he does no matter which choice s/he picks. 

As to the actual topic organics might come into conflict w/ synthetics, but life also endures.  The singularity is a 21st century boogeyman right up there w/ Y2K and the Aztec calendar. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 13 septembre 2012 - 08:58 .

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided. 

Deny deny deny is all you can do even when all the citation needed is by watching the Terminator movies especially with what happens in T2 and T3.  I'm surprised that you deny what SKYNET is when it has always been the extiminator of organics on Earth.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:16 .

[Blueprotoss]

Boydsan wrote...

Look at own history. How many times do Organic governments harm other organics? How many times a few individuals harm other people? Sooner or later, organics (might be a few terrorists, crazies, scientists, soldiers, or something) will eventually harm a synthetic. If the Geth were the template, maybe the Synthetic would see a single violation as a prelude to war or future harm from other organics. After all, nothing in our history remains peaceful. Humans alone, can be murderous and illogical. Assuming humans are a template other organics can also be murderous and/or illogical too.

To be fair Battlebots are stil attacking other Battlebots and humans aren't attacking them.

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided. 

Deny deny deny is all you can do even when all the citation needed is by watching the Terminator movies especially with what happens in T2 and T3.  I'm surprised that you deny what SKYNET is when it has always been the extiminator of organics on Earth.

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided. 

[Isichar]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided. 

Deny deny deny is all you can do even when all the citation needed is by watching the Terminator movies especially with what happens in T2 and T3.  I'm surprised that you deny what SKYNET is when it has always been the extiminator of organics on Earth.

Nope.

Actual evidence has still to be provided. 

Dont hold your breath. I asked for evidence for "most the complaints towards bioware on the BSN contain death threats" and I am still waiting for it.

Modifié par Isichar, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:38 .

[MegaSovereign]

It saddens me to see so many people missing the point of the Geth/Quarian peace.

Peace was secured because of Shepard's intervention. Given any other circumstance and Rannoch would have turned out ugly. Shepard is the anomaly to the cycle. That's the point. Bioware wasn't trying to contradict themselves. Come on that's just not reasonable.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:44 .

[OdanUrr]

Because it's the fate we deserve, but not the one we need right now... or the other way around.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Isichar wrote...
Dont hold your breath. I asked for evidence for "most the complaints towards bioware on the BSN contain death threats" and I am still waiting for it.

u srs?

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...

It saddens me to see so many people missing the point of the Geth/Quarian peace.

Peace was secured because of Shepard's intervention. Given any other circumstance and Rannoch would have turned out ugly. Shepard is the anomaly to the cycle. That's the point. Bioware wasn't trying to contradict themselves. Come on that's just not reasonable.

sarcasm?

[MegaSovereign]

Greylycantrope wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

It saddens me to see so many people missing the point of the Geth/Quarian peace.

Peace was secured because of Shepard's intervention. Given any other circumstance and Rannoch would have turned out ugly. Shepard is the anomaly to the cycle. That's the point. Bioware wasn't trying to contradict themselves. Come on that's just not reasonable.

sarcasm?

Uhhh sure.