1304 réponses à ce sujet

[futurepixels]

Kabooooom wrote...

This does not make them alive and does not give them a soul.

I'm still waiting for you (or someone) to tell me what a "soul" even is and why the hell you think that even matters at all.

Easy (from wikipedia):

The soul, in many mythological, religious, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions,immortal essence of a person, living thing, or object. According to some religions (including the Abrahamic religions in most of their forms), souls—or at least immortal souls capable of union with the divine—belong only to human beings.

Modifié par futurepixels, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:12 .

[C9316]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Destroy is only genocide to the Reapers, but come now is anyone really crying over their death?

I am. That's why I choose Synthesis: everyone, Reapers included, benefit. 

Really? How does anyone benefit from the removal of the elements that make themselves what they are? It can be argued that synthesis wipes out both organics and synthetics.What's an organic after synthesis? What's a synthetic after synthesis? They're all the same now

And why do the Reapers deserve to continue 'living'? They've shown no remorse for killing billions upon billions, they are nothing but mass, walking graveyards. A final insult to dead races..

[OblivionDawn]

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...
If it has sentience, it is a living, thinking thing, that's capable of self-preservation.
Destroy is genocide.

Apple's iOS operating system is capable of self-preservation.  If you try to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple might send out its hunter killer malware to permanently disable your device, as is permitted under Apple's terms of service.  Would it be genocide to detonate an EMP device above an Apple store?

A Geth and an iPhone are not even remotely comprable in terms of sentience, and that's all that needs to be said about that.

[wantedman dan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Because the writers wrote the story in such a way that would lead a rational consumer to believe such.

There is no "need" to do such, only a reaction to the given stimuli.

I'm simply being charitable to the relativistic nature of the interpretations here; you cannot say the same.

...A rational consumer?  Are we going with a "No True Scotsman" approach now to this argument?  Because by your logic, I'm not a "rational consumer" because I didn't come to the conclusion of "Destroy = Genocide"

I didn't react to the pre-EC endings with doom and gloom either.  So am I irrational now?

Yes, you are.

After repeating myself, that's how seriously I take this debate. I refuse to believe that repeating myself over and over and over again will produce any benefit for any party involved.

Einstein, I believed, posited that something along the lines of that was the definition of insanity.

[Subject M]

Melrache wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Destroy is only genocide to the Reapers, but come now is anyone really crying over their death?

I am. That's why I choose Synthesis: everyone, Reapers included, benefit. 

No one benefits from such horrendous ending, not even the players.

Not true, but I can understand and so some extent agree with those thinking that self-determination in facing such a huge change is very, very important.

[Applepie_Svk]

keep telling it to yourself, one day you realy start believe in what you said here... I hope that next thread will be Control is not Space Police and Synthesis is not forced...

[Kabooooom]

f you blow up a building full of innocent people to kill one person, it's still murdering the other innocent people.

Or to further this point: If a sociopath blows up a building of people and feels no malice in doing so, is it still murder?

The answer is yes. That's why this discussion is largely an argument of semantics. Discussing the definition of genocide is fine, but it cannot be divorced from the ethics and morality of the action.

[futurepixels]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

They are sentient, which makes just as alive as organics.As someone put on here earlier, our bodies are just organic machines to keep our mind alive, so how are we different?

Sentience isn't the defining factor for what it means to be alive.

Modifié par futurepixels, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:15 .

[ObserverStatus]

Kabooooom wrote...

Apple's iOS operating system is capable of self-preservation. If you try to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple might send out its hunter killer malware to permanently disable your device, as is permitted under Apple's terms of service. Would it be genocide to detonate an EMP device above an Apple store?

If iphones were sentient, then yes. You're missing the point entirely. You cannot create an analogy with today's technology, because artificial intelligence does not exist in today's technology.

Is it? Artificial intelligences like Siri aren't really all that different from the Geth, just more simple.  No matter how many more lines of code a geth may posesss, they are still just as much slaves to their programming, devoid of anything resembling free will.

Modifié par bobobo878, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:14 .

[wantedman dan]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

keep telling it to yourself, one day you realy start believe in what you said here... I hope that next thread will be Control is not Space Police and Synthesis is not forced...

This.

[spinachdiaper]

ROBOTS is PEOPLE!

[Kabooooom]

Easy (from wikipedia):

The soul, in many mythological, religious, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions,immortal essence of a person, living thing, or object. According to some religions (including the Abrahamic religions in most of their forms), souls—or at least immortal souls capable of union with the divine—belong only to human beings.

The definition itself displays how utterly meaningless the concept is. Different religions believe in different definitions of the soul, and Buddhism doesn't even believe in a "soul" as defined by the Abrahamic faiths.

Furthermore, what is a soul "made" out of? From whence to souls come? Why do souls exist? What criteria determines whether one entity gets a soul and one does not? What makes the Abrahamic definition superior to that of any other?

It is a meaningless concept, both in reality and in this discussion.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:17 .

[Subject M]

futurepixels wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

This does not make them alive and does not give them a soul.

I'm still waiting for you (or someone) to tell me what a "soul" even is and why the hell you think that even matters at all.

Easy (from wikipedia):

The soul, in many mythological, religious, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions,immortal essence of a person, living thing, or object. According to some religions (including the Abrahamic religions in most of their forms), souls—or at least immortal souls capable of union with the divine—belong only to human beings.

Yes, history is full of groups claiming they are special and thus need to to trouble themselves with the concern of others. I seem to recall that in early Judaism, only those who were part of the religion had souls (because it was given those who had embraced the faith by god).

Anyway, moving on.

Modifié par Subject M, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:16 .

[Han Shot First]

dreman9999 wrote...



You think a person must be convicted or trailed for it to be a murder?

Please, you not getting it. It would bea case he the poloit new the farmer was there, like how Shepard know destroy will effect all geth.
You're tryin gto use the case of ignoance but the fact remains Shepard was not ignorate that the geth and synthetic life would die off.

It meets neither the legal definition or murder, or the common moral definition of it. Murder is defined by all cultures as an intentional and unlawful killing of another human being. Intent is important.

As an example, if a person drove drunk tonight and accidentally killed someone in a car accident, they'll likely be charged with manslaughter rather than murder.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:20 .

[futurepixels]

Kabooooom wrote...

Synthetics are simulated life, not true organic life. They should not be considered alive in the same way that organics are alive.

The biological definition of "life" is too narrow for the ME universe. That was like, one of the entire points of the Geth-Quarian story arc.

What matters more - being composed of cells, or being conscious?The answer to that question should be pretty clear, I think.

A simulation of consciousness is still not true organic consciousness.

[ObserverStatus]

OblivionDawn wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...
If it has sentience, it is a living, thinking thing, that's capable of self-preservation.
Destroy is genocide.

Apple's iOS operating system is capable of self-preservation.  If you try to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple might send out its hunter killer malware to permanently disable your device, as is permitted under Apple's terms of service.  Would it be genocide to detonate an EMP device above an Apple store?

A Geth and an iPhone are not even remotely comprable in terms of sentience, and that's all that needs to be said about that.

But that's exactly my point.  The idea of granting rights to a machine is fundamentally flawed, because noone really agrees on how many lines of code, or how otherwise intricate a machine's programming must be before it is considered a person.

[futurepixels]

Subject M wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Regardless of the Geth or not, Destroy is genocide because you are killing the entire Reaper race.

Reapers are synthetics too.

I know, and choosing to wipe them out is genocide.

OP is saying that destroying synthetics is not genocide because they are not alive in the same way that organics are.

And I am disagreeing with them. Synthetics are a different form of life, but life nonetheless.

Synthetics are simulated life, not true organic life. They should not be considered alive in the same way that organics are alive.

They might be more alive, alive in another way, or not alive at all. But if they are not alive, they are definitely not dead in an organic sense or how a stone is"dead stone".

You are right. They are just machines.

[Subject M]

C9316 wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Destroy is only genocide to the Reapers, but come now is anyone really crying over their death?

I am. That's why I choose Synthesis: everyone, Reapers included, benefit. 

Really? How does anyone benefit from the removal of the elements that make themselves what they are? It can be argued that synthesis wipes out both organics and synthetics.What's an organic after synthesis? What's a synthetic after synthesis? They're all the same now

And why do the Reapers deserve to continue 'living'? They've shown no remorse for killing billions upon billions, they are nothing but mass, walking graveyards. A final insult to dead races..

Synthesis does only add. This in turn removes the prior status, but it does not remove anything. It integrates synthtic structures with organic.

[Kabooooom]

Is it? Artificial intelligences like Siri aren't really all that different from the Geth, just more simple. No matter how many more lines of code a geth may posesss, they are still just as much slaves to their programming, devoid of anything resembling free will.

Siri isn't artificial intelligence. Like, at all. I'm not sure what you are not understanding about that.

But despite that, the brain is basically a biological computer (for lack of a better analogy). What difference is there in consciousness arising from neurotransmitters and electrical impulses, as opposed to code in a computer?

None.Which leads me to futurepixels comment:

A simulation of consciousness is still not true organic consciousness.

Explain why.

Consciousness arises because of processing in the brain. Although we don't understand the specifics, we do understand enough to say that. What difference does it make what is doing the processing? Brain, or computer? There is no difference.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:20 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

C9316 wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Destroy is only genocide to the Reapers, but come now is anyone really crying over their death?

I am. That's why I choose Synthesis: everyone, Reapers included, benefit. 

Really? How does anyone benefit from the removal of the elements that make themselves what they are? It can be argued that synthesis wipes out both organics and synthetics.What's an organic after synthesis? What's a synthetic after synthesis? They're all the same now

And why do the Reapers deserve to continue 'living'? They've shown no remorse for killing billions upon billions, they are nothing but mass, walking graveyards. A final insult to dead races..

Nothing was removed, you see in the EC ending that the synthetic part added to organics wrapa around their DNA, thus they are still who they were before but with the added benefitsof being synthesized. It's called evolution. They are only connected in a way never before experienced. Soldiers(or most soldiers) don't show remorse after fighting wars, so do they deserve to live too? Of course they do, and the same goes for Reapers.

[Foolsfolly]

Yate wrote...

I've seen this view expressed in various places, and I wanted to set the record straight.

The Destroy ending is not genocide. The geth are not living things. They are machines that can be rebuilt. It's said as much by the catalyst.

If you sold Legion to Cerberus, a perfect copy of it is made by the geth. 'Death' is not the same for synthetics as it is for organics.

Even if you want to argue the geth are alive and have souls (they do not) their 'lives' are not the same as organic lives. If you delete a few of Legion's programs, it's central intelligence is not destroyed. It is a hivemind. Same is true for EDI, who uses the first-person only because it was designed to interface with humans. 'Death' for them is not permanent or absolute.

Destroy is not genocide. If the relays can be rebuilt, so can the geth.

I cannot disagree harder. And I'm someone who agrees with the Destroy ending (dead Reapers are the way you win  this war). They are a sapient race. Destroying them is genocide. You could rebuild the geth but they would not be these geth with these memories and Collective personality. Just like you could kill all the humans and then clone a human being. The death of all humans (or even a specific group) is genocide regardless of if you can repopulate humanity later through clones.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:20 .

[RiouHotaru]

wantedman dan wrote...

Yes, you are.

After repeating myself, that's how seriously I take this debate. I refuse to believe that repeating myself over and over and over again will produce any benefit for any party involved.

Einstein, I believed, posited that something along the lines of that was the definition of insanity.

Well, while I admire the honesty, admitting you're using a logical fallacy to make an argument sort of ruins your credibility in contributing to this debate.  Since you automatically consider anyone who doesn't believe your point of view to be irrational.

[futurepixels]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

C9316 wrote...

Destroy is only genocide to the Reapers, but come now is anyone really crying over their death?

I am. That's why I choose Synthesis: everyone, Reapers included, benefit. 

Organic life doesn't benefit at all.

How so?

Well, for one, we cease being organic, which many of us organics enjoy.  Two, you force this on everyone--organics and synthetics.  And most importantly, you leave the entire synthesized galaxy at the mercy of the Leviathans and Reapers.