1304 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Yate wrote...

Define a soul then get back to me.

No different than defining what 'life' is.

You do understand that many faths believe only Humans ahve souls, right?

In hindu and Budisum, inanamite objects are considered to have souls and the body it's in does not matter.

[maia0407]

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Xellith wrote...

You can take a human organ out and put it in another human as long as the parts match.

Except for the all-important one: full brain and/or head transplants.

We can't remove our consciousness and toss it into another vessel.

not yet we can't, but eventually....  All we are is a series of firing synapses in a specific pattern, who is to say that eventually we won't be able to take a snapshot of the brain activity, remove the brain transfer it and restart it with the same brainwaves,  I would argue that qualifies as a transplant we just can't do it yet as far as I know.  killing the geth is genocide.

Edit: damn, ninja'd:bandit:

That idea is appealing as, in effect, you would have acheived immortality. Why not save that brain image somewhere and download it again if you are killed? I'd be all for it. But, as neat and tidy as the process sounds it appears that the technological limitations would be hard to overcome. At least in the real world; I suppose you could argue that the Lazarus project probably has alot of the necessary technology.

The first technical difficutly would be understanding the brain well enough to develop precision equipment to 'scan' the brain and record the motion and location of every atom. Next, you would need equipment that could store this ginormous amount of information. It would probably require exponentially more space than all the storage devices we have today. Still sounds feasible as we can assume there will be major computing advances in the future.

But, then, you run into the issue that our personalities are also a function of each unique brain. Some brain abnormalities cause major personality shifts. If your brain has, for example, a minor genetic abnormality you'd need to have an exact copy of your physical brain with the abnormality for the downloaded information to recreate your personality. So, I guess we would need to develop cloning and make sure to exactly replicate the brain with every abnormality. Even then, you run into the question of whether you would even want to recreate an abnormality. I guess, it depends on whether it causes harmful or beneficial personality issues. In any case, if you don't recreate them are you even you? Is a person that suffers head trauma with resulting major personality shifts still the 'same' person as before? 

Next, we run into the issue of our body's effects on the brain. Some research shows that the flora in the gut may effect mood. Do you take samples of that flora and recreate it? And, this is just one example. How many other unknown non-neural biological processes do we need to take into account?

Finally, we run into the problem of exactly what is consciousness? I'll just go ahead and dismiss the idea of a soul as I see no evidence to support that concept. Is it an emergent property of the brains' physical processes? We don't really know at this point although it is being studied. This, more than anything, needs to be understood before we even think about tinkering with recreating individual consciousness.

It boils down to 'what makes you, you?' The only way I can explain what I mean is to give an example similar to the 'transporter problem'. So, say, all the technological limitations are overcome, you are killed, and your brain scan is downloaded into a new brain. How are you sure that you will wake up and not just a copy of you? What if you are still alive when the download takes place? There is now a new and orginal you. It is not possible for you to experience the reality of both individuals. This thought experiment tells me that only a copy of you can ever be acheived and that once the original you is gone, you're gone. Unless of course, we learn something new and unexpected about the nature of consciousness.

[dreman9999]

Aaleel wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It's collateral genocide actually, you still hit the switch that killed them knowing exactly that would happend when you hit it. What you intended when you built the crucible is irrelevent, you shot that tube with full knowlegde of what would happen to the Geth as a result of you shooting the tube.

No it's not.

Say aliens attacked the Earth tomorrow and were centralized in one place.  Then say the people of the world made a weapon that would kill them but it had a chance to wipe out whatever area it was in. 

If you use it you did not commit genocide on Germans, French, Americans or the citizens of whatever country you happened to deploy it in.  You made a sacrifice to ensure the continuity of the human race, or organics in the case of ME.

To compare it to genocide is absurd and ridiculous.  Genocide you one and only purpose and desire is to kill the group of people you kill, and you have no other reason in doing what you're doing than to kill them.

Not nearly the same thing.

That still is a genocide. It does not make it not a genocide because your goal was not genocide. It's both colateral damage and a genocide.

[dreman9999]

maia0407 wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Xellith wrote...

You can take a human organ out and put it in another human as long as the parts match.

Except for the all-important one: full brain and/or head transplants.

We can't remove our consciousness and toss it into another vessel.

not yet we can't, but eventually....  All we are is a series of firing synapses in a specific pattern, who is to say that eventually we won't be able to take a snapshot of the brain activity, remove the brain transfer it and restart it with the same brainwaves,  I would argue that qualifies as a transplant we just can't do it yet as far as I know.  killing the geth is genocide.

Edit: damn, ninja'd:bandit:

That idea is appealing as, in effect, you would have acheived immortality. Why not save that brain image somewhere and download it again if you are killed? I'd be all for it. But, as neat and tidy as the process sounds it appears that the technological limitations would be hard to overcome. At least in the real world; I suppose you could argue that the Lazarus project probably has alot of the necessary technology.

The first technical difficutly would be understanding the brain well enough to develop precision equipment to 'scan' the brain and record the motion and location of every atom. Next, you would need equipment that could store this ginormous amount of information. It would probably require exponentially more space than all the storage devices we have today. Still sounds feasible as we can assume there will be major computing advances in the future.

But, then, you run into the issue that our personalities are also a function of each unique brain. Some brain abnormalities cause major personality shifts. If your brain has, for example, a minor genetic abnormality you'd need to have an exact copy of your physical brain with the abnormality for the downloaded information to recreate your personality. So, I guess we would need to develop cloning and make sure to exactly replicate the brain with every abnormality. Even then, you run into the question of whether you would even want to recreate an abnormality. I guess, it depends on whether it causes harmful or beneficial personality issues. In any case, if you don't recreate them are you even you? Is a person that suffers head trauma with resulting major personality shifts still the 'same' person as before? 

Next, we run into the issue of our body's effects on the brain. Some research shows that the flora in the gut may effect mood. Do you take samples of that flora and recreate it? And, this is just one example. How many other unknown non-neural biological processes do we need to take into account?

Finally, we run into the problem of exactly what is consciousness? I'll just go ahead and dismiss the idea of a soul as I see no evidence to support that concept. Is it an emergent property of the brains' physical processes? We don't really know at this point although it is being studied. This, more than anything, needs to be understood before we even think about tinkering with recreating individual consciousness.

It boils down to 'what makes you, you?' The only way I can explain what I mean is to give an example similar to the 'transporter problem'. So, say, all the technological limitations are overcome, you are killed, and your brain scan is downloaded into a new brain. How are you sure that you will wake up and not just a copy of you? What if you are still alive when the download takes place? There is now a new and orginal you. It is not possible for you to experience the reality of both individuals. This thought experiment tells me that only a copy of you can ever be acheived and that once the original you is gone, you're gone. Unless of course, we learn something new and unexpected about the nature of consciousness.

The ironic thing he is this is already possible in the ME u....
http://masseffect.wi...i/Virtual_Alien

[N7 Assass1n]

Before anyone discredits any Biological finding, minus the Brain, we can Biologically replace any organ in the human body.

[maia0407]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...


[/quote]The ironic thing he is this is already possible in the ME u....
http://masseffect.wi...i/Virtual_Alien

[/quote]

Interesting. I learned something new. Was that in the books or comics?

[Aaleel]

dreman9999 wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It's collateral genocide actually, you still hit the switch that killed them knowing exactly that would happend when you hit it. What you intended when you built the crucible is irrelevent, you shot that tube with full knowlegde of what would happen to the Geth as a result of you shooting the tube.

No it's not.

Say aliens attacked the Earth tomorrow and were centralized in one place.  Then say the people of the world made a weapon that would kill them but it had a chance to wipe out whatever area it was in. 

If you use it you did not commit genocide on Germans, French, Americans or the citizens of whatever country you happened to deploy it in.  You made a sacrifice to ensure the continuity of the human race, or organics in the case of ME.

To compare it to genocide is absurd and ridiculous.  Genocide you one and only purpose and desire is to kill the group of people you kill, and you have no other reason in doing what you're doing than to kill them.

Not nearly the same thing.

That still is a genocide. It does not make it not a genocide because your goal was not genocide. It's both colateral damage and a genocide.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial
or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended
to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group."

Modifié par Aaleel, 08 octobre 2012 - 02:13 .

[jackkel dragon]

I'm surprised that I couldn't find what I expected would be a self-evident truth: the Destroy ending is genocide because it's a deliberate annihilation of a specific group: the Reapers.

Not liking a group doesn't mean it's not genocide. You don't even need fiction to find examples of genocide that was considered a good thing by someone. Doesn't make it not genocide.

[sonicphoto]

They are robots indeed, people want to believe they can be organic, but they simply cannot be. Robots should not be made in the first place. No matter how much you advance them they will not be organic. This has been discussed in thousand of movies and games, but I guess people still think robots can be organic, but they simply cannot be. And the geth are dangerous, they will always be someone that will try to control them and EDI as well, they are more vulnerable of being changed to anyone's desire. That doesn't mean that the ending pleases me, it does not, but it is the only option, Reapers are not our allies, they destroyed billions, they could rebel and do it again any time they want.

[Subject M]

It was genocide because it was a deliberate action from Shepard to wipe out ALL synthetics to clear the galaxy from the Reapers. Even wiping out the Reapers alone would qualify as genocide if the term is extended to incorporate other sapient beings than humans.

I just wondered if the writers over at Bioware is sending us some kind of message here, that genocides sometimes is needed? It kinda is a possible moral of the story.

[MrFob]

Argument 1: The geth are constructed. When they are destroyed, they can be reconstructed.
So are humans. We are constructed and in the ME universe, if we are destroyed, we can be reconstructed as well. Sure, it takes 4 billion credits and a lazarus project to do it but it is possible.

Argument 2: Organics have thoughts and a personality, geth have software:
The geth with reaper code have been upgraded to each have a personality and their software is stored in a quantum blue-box. The "randomness" of quantum mechanics builds an equivalent to our own ion channel kinetics in our brains. Otherwise, the game shows over and over that their personalities are susceptible to the same psychological stimuli as we are. Legion also shows that, for better or worse, he has emotions. I don't know what else you need for a personality.

Argument 3: Applying our moral standards on a synthetic life form is racist.
We are not. The geth proved themselves that they have a very strong survival instinct when they accepted the reapers offer during the quarian attack. Their own standards apply here, not ours.

In my mind, there is no doubt that the geth have to be considered as life. They are self-aware with unique personalities and each individual (after the reaper code is applied) is capable of but unwilling to have their existence ended. As such, they must be allowed the same rights and consideration as any other sentient being. Anything else would diminish our own moral high ground in the fight against the reapers.
Everyone who questions that, I'd recommend to watch the Star Trek episode "A Measure of a Man", this scene in particular.

Now, it may be argued that after the lazarus project and legions return, death is meaningless in the ME universe in general.
It may also be argued that sacrificing the geth and EDI may be necessary, it may even be unavoidable, given the other options.
However, in my opinion, it cannot be argued that it is anything but the genocide of a sentient race that just came into existence.

[Subject M]

dreman9999 wrote...

maia0407 wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Xellith wrote...

You can take a human organ out and put it in another human as long as the parts match.

Except for the all-important one: full brain and/or head transplants.

We can't remove our consciousness and toss it into another vessel.

not yet we can't, but eventually....  All we are is a series of firing synapses in a specific pattern, who is to say that eventually we won't be able to take a snapshot of the brain activity, remove the brain transfer it and restart it with the same brainwaves,  I would argue that qualifies as a transplant we just can't do it yet as far as I know.  killing the geth is genocide.

Edit: damn, ninja'd:bandit:

That idea is appealing as, in effect, you would have acheived immortality. Why not save that brain image somewhere and download it again if you are killed? I'd be all for it. But, as neat and tidy as the process sounds it appears that the technological limitations would be hard to overcome. At least in the real world; I suppose you could argue that the Lazarus project probably has alot of the necessary technology.

The first technical difficutly would be understanding the brain well enough to develop precision equipment to 'scan' the brain and record the motion and location of every atom. Next, you would need equipment that could store this ginormous amount of information. It would probably require exponentially more space than all the storage devices we have today. Still sounds feasible as we can assume there will be major computing advances in the future.

But, then, you run into the issue that our personalities are also a function of each unique brain. Some brain abnormalities cause major personality shifts. If your brain has, for example, a minor genetic abnormality you'd need to have an exact copy of your physical brain with the abnormality for the downloaded information to recreate your personality. So, I guess we would need to develop cloning and make sure to exactly replicate the brain with every abnormality. Even then, you run into the question of whether you would even want to recreate an abnormality. I guess, it depends on whether it causes harmful or beneficial personality issues. In any case, if you don't recreate them are you even you? Is a person that suffers head trauma with resulting major personality shifts still the 'same' person as before? 

Next, we run into the issue of our body's effects on the brain. Some research shows that the flora in the gut may effect mood. Do you take samples of that flora and recreate it? And, this is just one example. How many other unknown non-neural biological processes do we need to take into account?

Finally, we run into the problem of exactly what is consciousness? I'll just go ahead and dismiss the idea of a soul as I see no evidence to support that concept. Is it an emergent property of the brains' physical processes? We don't really know at this point although it is being studied. This, more than anything, needs to be understood before we even think about tinkering with recreating individual consciousness.

It boils down to 'what makes you, you?' The only way I can explain what I mean is to give an example similar to the 'transporter problem'. So, say, all the technological limitations are overcome, you are killed, and your brain scan is downloaded into a new brain. How are you sure that you will wake up and not just a copy of you? What if you are still alive when the download takes place? There is now a new and orginal you. It is not possible for you to experience the reality of both individuals. This thought experiment tells me that only a copy of you can ever be acheived and that once the original you is gone, you're gone. Unless of course, we learn something new and unexpected about the nature of consciousness.

The ironic thing he is this is already possible in the ME u....
http://masseffect.wi...i/Virtual_Alien

That was just plain silly.

[AresKeith]

Subject M wrote...

It was genocide because it was a deliberate action from Shepard to wipe out ALL synthetics to clear the galaxy from the Reapers. Even wiping out the Reapers alone would qualify as genocide if the term is extended to incorporate other sapient beings than humans.

I just wondered if the writers over at Bioware is sending us some kind of message here, that genocides sometimes is needed? It kinda is a possible moral of the story.

Well the Reapers are responsible for billions of years of Genocide, so thats kinda of Karma for them

[Jamie9]

maia0407 wrote...
Interesting. I learned something new. Was that in the books or comics?

Mass Effect 2. Cerberus News Network, I believe.

[jackkel dragon]

AresKeith wrote...

Subject M wrote...

It was genocide because it was a deliberate action from Shepard to wipe out ALL synthetics to clear the galaxy from the Reapers. Even wiping out the Reapers alone would qualify as genocide if the term is extended to incorporate other sapient beings than humans.

I just wondered if the writers over at Bioware is sending us some kind of message here, that genocides sometimes is needed? It kinda is a possible moral of the story.

Well the Reapers are responsible for billions of years of Genocide, so thats kinda of Karma for them

Justify it however you'd like, genociding a group for genocide is still, by definition, genocide.

Huh. Thinking of it that way, it's becoming hard for me to sympathize with some characters in the ME universe. Both sides are waging genocidal war, it's just that one's more effective at it.

[Subject M]

AresKeith wrote...

Subject M wrote...

It was genocide because it was a deliberate action from Shepard to wipe out ALL synthetics to clear the galaxy from the Reapers. Even wiping out the Reapers alone would qualify as genocide if the term is extended to incorporate other sapient beings than humans.

I just wondered if the writers over at Bioware is sending us some kind of message here, that genocides sometimes is needed? It kinda is a possible moral of the story.

Well the Reapers are responsible for billions of years of Genocide, so thats kinda of Karma for them

Well its true that they needed to stop from the perspective of those being harvested. But the problem is that there was no malice or such involved, the Reapers appearntly though they were helping and saving the galactic community.
And that there were other options to stopping them other then wiping out all synthetics.

Modifié par Subject M, 08 octobre 2012 - 02:32 .

[Xerxes52]

AresKeith wrote...

Subject M wrote...

It was genocide because it was a deliberate action from Shepard to wipe out ALL synthetics to clear the galaxy from the Reapers. Even wiping out the Reapers alone would qualify as genocide if the term is extended to incorporate other sapient beings than humans.

I just wondered if the writers over at Bioware is sending us some kind of message here, that genocides sometimes is needed? It kinda is a possible moral of the story.

Well the Reapers are responsible for billions of years of Genocide, so thats kinda of Karma for them

This. Genocide is not automatically an evil action. It depends on who it's being committed against.


An unstoppable fleet of murderous undead robo-squid? Sounds like a reasonable target to me.

If we had a representative from the Geth and EDI standing there at the time, I'm confident that they'd tell me to choose Destroy. They know what's at stake, and they know the necessity of sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

[SovereignX6]

It is, "Does this unit have a soul?" - Legion
Or..."Both organic and synthetic LIFE can flourish" - Catalyst
Either way they deserve to live, whats one person to many.
Rather saves everybody's ass and die than live and kill an entire race.
Not how my Shepard rolls.

[RadicalDisconnect]

Jamie9 wrote...

I don't understand how there are individuals that consider synthetic life to be infinitely inferior to organic life. On what basis are you making that judgement?

Even Sovereign was less arrogant.

This.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 08 octobre 2012 - 02:42 .

[Jamie9]

Xerxes52 wrote...
This. Genocide is not automatically an evil action. It depends on who it's being committed against.

An unstoppable fleet of murderous undead robo-squid? Sounds like a reasonable target to me.

If we had a representative from the Geth and EDI standing there at the time, I'm confident that they'd tell me to choose Destroy. They know what's at stake, and they know the necessity of sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

This is just a clear difference in moral values. I believe genocide is always bad.

Rehabilitation > Execution. Every. Time.

Also, each race refused to help others, instead choosing to protect their own system. The Geth risked Reaper indoctrination to find a way to survive. I can't imagine any of the races sacrificing themselves.

Modifié par Jamie9, 08 octobre 2012 - 02:40 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

"Synthetic life is nothing but an immitation, an accident. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

I suppose Sovereign was right after all, eh?

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 08 octobre 2012 - 02:49 .

[Jadebaby]

AlanC9 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Yes..

How know that...... you?

Jace, dear, I didn't say I knew anything. I was asking how anyone else does, which you didn't answer. Did God Himself tell you? He doesn't talk to me much, probably because I've never seen much reason to believe in Him.

I've had no sleep in 24 hours and still I don't frick up like this...

[Subject M]

Xerxes52 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Subject M wrote...

It was genocide because it was a deliberate action from Shepard to wipe out ALL synthetics to clear the galaxy from the Reapers. Even wiping out the Reapers alone would qualify as genocide if the term is extended to incorporate other sapient beings than humans.

I just wondered if the writers over at Bioware is sending us some kind of message here, that genocides sometimes is needed? It kinda is a possible moral of the story.

Well the Reapers are responsible for billions of years of Genocide, so thats kinda of Karma for them

This. Genocide is not automatically an evil action. It depends on who it's being committed against.


An unstoppable fleet of murderous undead robo-squid? Sounds like a reasonable target to me.

If we had a representative from the Geth and EDI standing there at the time, I'm confident that they'd tell me to choose Destroy. They know what's at stake, and they know the necessity of sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

I dont think anyone will object overly much to someone answering a clear and present genocidal threat with equal force in defensive response - if there is no option to deconstruct the threat in any other way.

Modifié par Subject M, 08 octobre 2012 - 02:44 .

[Jamie9]

Subject M wrote...
I dont think anyone will object overly much to someone answering a clear and present genocidal threat with equal force in defensive response - if there is no option to deconstruct the threat in any other way.

But even then it's an extremely regrettable outcome - just look at Shiala's reaction to the Thorian's demise. She's thankful to be freed from it's control, but at the same time mourns the loss of a unique species.