Modifié par Drewton, 10 février 2013 - 10:02 .
Seival wrote...
Argolas wrote...
Destroy the reapers. Then let it occur naturally. This way, it won´t harm, at least.
And what if we really interrupted Saren from performing the Synthesis?
Imagine, how many lives could be saved by "not stopping the Saren".
Modifié par Untold, 10 février 2013 - 10:05 .
As long as we are tool users and technologiaclly advance, it will happen. The only way it can't happen is if our development no longer dependent on tools.Drewton wrote...
Inevitable means that it's certain to happen. No, it's not certain to happen, even if it's convinient. It's not in any way needed. Even with people being obsessed with smartphones these days (me included) I don't see the majority getting cybernetic implants still.
Anyway, again, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You've already said synthesis at it is in ME3 isn't inevitable. And if only half of everything is synthesized how does that solve anything (anything synthesis solves all problems?).
You've talked about how symbiosis is just human cynetics but how do computers become alive?
Seival wrote...
Argolas wrote...
Destroy the reapers. Then let it occur naturally. This way, it won´t harm, at least.
And what if we really interrupted Saren from performing the Synthesis?
Imagine, how many lives could be saved by "not stopping the Saren".
Modifié par dreman9999, 10 février 2013 - 10:07 .
dreman9999 wrote...
Enlighten me why they arenot thesame thing?mvaning wrote...
Symbiosis and Synthesis are two different things. The middle choice(synthesis) is not symbiosis.
If it because oneif force, then you missed the point. Only the catalyst verison is force. It will happen even with out doing it his way.
dreman9999 wrote...
AsDrewton wrote...
Inevitable
means that it's certain to happen. No, it's not certain to happen, even
if it's convinient. It's not in any way needed. Even with people being
obsessed with smartphones these days (me included) I don't see the
majority getting cybernetic implants still.
Anyway, again, I'm
not really sure what you're getting at. You've already said synthesis at
it is in ME3 isn't inevitable. And if only half of everything is
synthesized how does that solve anything (anything synthesis solves all
problems?).
You've talked about how symbiosis is just human cynetics but how do computers become alive?
long as we are tool users and technologiaclly advance, it will happen.
The only way it can't happen is if our development no longer dependent
on tools.
And to fly in space, we need to be technologically advance and use tools.
mvaning wrote...
No, it has nothing to do with force. They are two terms used to describe two different things.
Modifié par Drewton, 10 février 2013 - 10:11 .
dreman9999 wrote...
The catalyst never said that.Samtheman63 wrote...
I thought it was inevitable that synthetics would wipe out organics if the reapers didnt intervine?
But synthesis is also inevitable? wat
lying piece of ****
ps, destroy
1. Who said anything about becoming cyborgs?Drewton wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
AsDrewton wrote...
Inevitable
means that it's certain to happen. No, it's not certain to happen, even
if it's convinient. It's not in any way needed. Even with people being
obsessed with smartphones these days (me included) I don't see the
majority getting cybernetic implants still.
Anyway, again, I'm
not really sure what you're getting at. You've already said synthesis at
it is in ME3 isn't inevitable. And if only half of everything is
synthesized how does that solve anything (anything synthesis solves all
problems?).
You've talked about how symbiosis is just human cynetics but how do computers become alive?
long as we are tool users and technologiaclly advance, it will happen.
The only way it can't happen is if our development no longer dependent
on tools.
And to fly in space, we need to be technologically advance and use tools.
But we don't need to fly in space and we don't need to become cyborgs to do so...
Dude...Look up Endosymbiotic theory or coral reef while your at it.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Enlighten me why they arenot thesame thing?mvaning wrote...
Symbiosis and Synthesis are two different things. The middle choice(synthesis) is not symbiosis.
If it because oneif force, then you missed the point. Only the catalyst verison is force. It will happen even with out doing it his way.
No, it has nothing to do with force. They are two terms used to describe two different things.
Symbiosis is, "Interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both."
Synthesis is "the combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole."
In Symbiosis, the two things that are joined maintain their identity. In Synthesis, the things that are combined become something new.
These are two different definitions. When you are in high school chemistry lab, if you combine vinegar and baking soda, you are "synthesising" a new molecule. That is not the same as a symbiotic relationship that exists between two species.
If you don't believe me, then just remember I told you so when you get an F in Chemistry.
Modifié par dreman9999, 10 février 2013 - 10:21 .
Uh...isn't that what you've been talking about?dreman9999 wrote...
1. Who said anything about becoming cyborgs?
dreman9999 wrote...
The theory can workwith oraganics and machines as well. It's called cybernetic implantation. This is well in the meu.
You're missing the fact here that even Shepard is part organic and part machine.
...why? Why is synthesis with tech in any way necessary in order to survive? It's not.dreman9999 wrote...
The only way sysnthsis will not happen is if we no longer can develop our tech.
Modifié par Drewton, 10 février 2013 - 10:25 .
Drewton wrote...
As
long as we are tool users and technologiaclly advance, it will happen.
The only way it can't happen is if our development no longer dependent
on tools.
And to fly in space, we need to be technologically advance and use tools.
dreman9999 wrote...
Dude...Look up Endosymbiotic theory or coral reef while your at it.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Enlighten me why they arenot thesame thing?mvaning wrote...
Symbiosis and Synthesis are two different th
ngs. The middle choice(synthesis) is not symbiosis.
If it because oneif force, then you missed the point. Only the catalyst verison is force. It will happen even with out doing it his way.
No, it has nothing to do with force. They are two terms used to describe two different things.
Symbiosis is, "Interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both."
Synthesis is "the combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole."
In Symbiosis, the two things that are joined maintain their identity. In Synthesis, the things that are combined become something new.
These are two different definitions. When you are in high school chemistry lab, if you combine vinegar and baking soda, you are "synthesising" a new molecule. That is not the same as a symbiotic relationship that exists between two species.
If you don't believe me, then just remember I told you so when you get an F in Chemistry.
Modifié par mvaning, 10 février 2013 - 10:28 .
And howis not? Mind you, his is a theory with a concept of two differnet bactria forming together to work as singualer cell unit.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Dude...Look up Endosymbiotic theory or coral reef while your at it.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Enlighten me why they arenot thesame thing?mvaning wrote...
Symbiosis and Synthesis are two different th
ngs. The middle choice(synthesis) is not symbiosis.
If it because oneif force, then you missed the point. Only the catalyst verison is force. It will happen even with out doing it his way.
No, it has nothing to do with force. They are two terms used to describe two different things.
Symbiosis is, "Interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both."
Synthesis is "the combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole."
In Symbiosis, the two things that are joined maintain their identity. In Synthesis, the things that are combined become something new.
These are two different definitions. When you are in high school chemistry lab, if you combine vinegar and baking soda, you are "synthesising" a new molecule. That is not the same as a symbiotic relationship that exists between two species.
If you don't believe me, then just remember I told you so when you get an F in Chemistry.
Dude, stop looking for science on wikipedia and actually read about what you are talking about. Endosymbiotic relationships are NOT synthesis.
Modifié par dreman9999, 10 février 2013 - 10:35 .
Seival wrote...
Saren
Let's remember the final minutes of ME1. Geth occupiled the Council Chamber. Saren left all geth behind to finish the job himself. At the same time, Nazara phisically attached itself to the Citadel Tower.
Q: If Saren wanted only to hack the system to allow the Citadel to be used as Mass Relay again, why not send a geth to the console, and go back to try to delay Shepard?
A: Geth couldn't perform the task Saren wanted to perform, so it wasn't just a system hack. It was something more.
Q: Something more?
A: Saren was about to "talk" to the Catalyst, and required some time for that "conversation". But he was interupted by Shepard's squad, and so had to fight.
Q: How did Saren knew about the Catalyst?
A: It's possible that the Catalyst recognized Saren's potential, and introduced itself eventually.
Q: Saren's potential?
A: Yes, the same as Shepard's potential - an "organic anomaly".
Q: And what was the point of conversation between the Catalyst and Saren?
A: The same as in case of Shepard - try to find the new solution together.
Q: But there is no Crucible. How could they implement the solution?
A: Nazara connected itself to the Citadel Tower plysically. Saren and the Geth were already inside, so Nazara's goal wasn't system hacking. Reaper dreadnoughts clearly have overpowered energy sources to generate such strong shields and mass effect fields. Nazara could be repurposed before to be used as a Crucible analogy.
Q: Repurposed when and by who?
A: Before the attack on the Citadel, by Saren, Geth, and Nazara itself.
Q: But Saren was already indoctrinated. What's next?
A: Saren clearly wouldn't given Control option, because indoctrinated persons can't be used as a material to create the new Catalyst. Also Saren wouldn't given Destory option, because he didn't want to Destroy the Reapers. So, it's clear that Saren could have only two options available: sacrifice himself to trigger Synthesis, or refuse.
Interesting, isn't it?... Don't you find Saren's attack on the Citadel in ME1 similar to Shepard's attack on Earth in ME3? Both gathered allies to provide a distraction. Both used a "back door" to reach a "hidden consol". The difference is that Saren failed, when was interrupted by Shepard. But Shepard didn't fail, when was interrupted by TIM.
The Illusive Man
Les't remember the final minutes of ME3. TIM was on the Citadel and tried to mind-control wounded Shepard, but failed. Shepard managed to deal with TIM, and proceed.
Q: But what if TIM wouldn't fail? What will he do next?
A: Talk to the Catalyst obviously.
Q: But TIM was already indoctrinated. What's next?
A: TIM clearly wouldn't given Control option, because indoctrinated persons can't be used as a material to create the new Catalyst. Also TIM wouldn't given Destory option, because he didn't want to Destroy the Reapers. So, it's clear that TIM could have only two options available: sacrifice himself to trigger Synthesis, or refuse.
Both Saren and TIM aren't look like refusers. They would sacrifice themselves for the greater good without any doubts, no matter they are both pure renegades. So maybe we actually interrupted Synthesis attempt in ME1 without even knowing about that? And did exactly the same thing in ME3 in case if Shepard didn't choose Synthesis ending?
Maybe Synthesis is indeed the inevitable thing no matter how we delay it, by Refusing, by Destorying, or by Controlling? The history will always repeat itself till the final solution will be applied.
P.S. Even considering everything that was said above, I still prefer Control ending
1. No. A person with an artifical arm is not a cyborg. Nor is a person with a gray box.Drewton wrote...
Uh...isn't that what you've been talking about?dreman9999 wrote...
1. Who said anything about becoming cyborgs?
"A cyborg, short for "cybernetic organism", is a being with both organic and cybernetic parts."dreman9999 wrote...
The theory can workwith oraganics and machines as well. It's called cybernetic implantation. This is well in the meu.
You're missing the fact here that even Shepard is part organic and part machine....why? Why is synthesis with tech in any way necessary in order to survive? It's not.dreman9999 wrote...
The only way sysnthsis will not happen is if we no longer can develop our tech.
The starchild argued that organics and synthethics needed to merge to co-exist peacefully. You're arguing something completely different and highly speculative and subjective.
Organics need to defeat the Reapers to survive. Doesn't mean victory is inevitable.
1. Wikipedia and dictionary.com beg to differ.dreman9999 wrote...
1. No. A person with an artifical arm is not a cyborg. Nor is a person with a gray box.
2.You do understandhewas programed to beleive that and that was never my point. Organic and synthetic co-exsists has nothing withmy point.
3.That is not the same thing as my reasoning in any way.
Modifié par Drewton, 10 février 2013 - 10:44 .
dreman9999 wrote...
And howis not? Mind you, his is a theory with a concept of two differnet bactria forming together to work as singual celluar unit.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Dude...Look up Endosymbiotic theory or coral reef while your at it.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Enlighten me why they arenot thesame thing?mvaning wrote...
Symbiosis and Synthesis are two different th
ngs. The middle choice(synthesis) is not symbiosis.
If it because oneif force, then you missed the point. Only the catalyst verison is force. It will happen even with out doing it his way.
No, it has nothing to do with force. They are two terms used to describe two different things.
Symbiosis is, "Interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both."
Synthesis is "the combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole."
In Symbiosis, the two things that are joined maintain their identity. In Synthesis, the things that are combined become something new.
These are two different definitions. When you are in high school chemistry lab, if you combine vinegar and baking soda, you are "synthesising" a new molecule. That is not the same as a symbiotic relationship that exists between two species.
If you don't believe me, then just remember I told you so when you get an F in Chemistry.
Dude, stop looking for science on wikipedia and actually read about what you are talking about. Endosymbiotic relationships are NOT synthesis.
How is a mechanical unit implanted into an organic to imporve said organic not the same case?
Synthesis isthe combination of oranic and sythetic down to the dna.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
And howis not? Mind you, his is a theory with a concept of two differnet bactria forming together to work as singual celluar unit.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Dude...Look up Endosymbiotic theory or coral reef while your at it.mvaning wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Enlighten me why they arenot thesame thing?mvaning wrote...
Symbiosis and Synthesis are two different th
ngs. The middle choice(synthesis) is not symbiosis.
If it because oneif force, then you missed the point. Only the catalyst verison is force. It will happen even with out doing it his way.
No, it has nothing to do with force. They are two terms used to describe two different things.
Symbiosis is, "Interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both."
Synthesis is "the combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole."
In Symbiosis, the two things that are joined maintain their identity. In Synthesis, the things that are combined become something new.
These are two different definitions. When you are in high school chemistry lab, if you combine vinegar and baking soda, you are "synthesising" a new molecule. That is not the same as a symbiotic relationship that exists between two species.
If you don't believe me, then just remember I told you so when you get an F in Chemistry.
Dude, stop looking for science on wikipedia and actually read about what you are talking about. Endosymbiotic relationships are NOT synthesis.
How is a mechanical unit implanted into an organic to imporve said organic not the same case?
I just qouted to you the verbatum definitions of Synthesis and Symbiosis. They are different, they are not the same. How much more explaining do you need?
Your going to have to understand that the english language uses different words to describe different concepts. Synthesis is used to describe one concept , analogous to
X + Y = Z
Symbiosis is used to describe a different concept, analogous to
X + Y = XY
I could go get my college biology books and verbatum qoute them too, but they aren't going to be much different.
Endosymbiotic Theory is a theory, not a word that can be simply defined within a dictionary.
Yeah, and in destroy, the Crucible is destroyed, so synthesis can't happen again unless organics make another crucible to combat nonexistant Reapers.masster blaster wrote...
Ya it's inevitable. Oh wait I picked Destroy.
Modifié par Drewton, 10 février 2013 - 11:00 .
Drewton wrote...
Yeah, and in destroy, the Crucible is destroyed, so synthesis can't happen again unless organics make another crucible to combat nonexistant Reapers.masster blaster wrote...
Ya it's inevitable. Oh wait I picked Destroy.
Drewton wrote...
Yeah, and in destroy, the Crucible is destroyed, so synthesis can't happen again unless organics make another crucible to combat nonexistant Reapers.masster blaster wrote...
Ya it's inevitable. Oh wait I picked Destroy.
Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 10 février 2013 - 11:03 .
The use of the crucible is justoneversion of it. Tell be a time when is vendered outin the street with people buying it like iphones.Drewton wrote...
Yeah, and in destroy, the Crucible is destroyed, so synthesis can't happen again unless organics make another crucible to combat nonexistant Reapers.masster blaster wrote...
Ya it's inevitable. Oh wait I picked Destroy.
Shepard: To hell with this again. I am retiring from this bs. The next hero of the galaxy can deal with this. i did my part, so let me die in peace.sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Drewton wrote...
Yeah, and in destroy, the Crucible is destroyed, so synthesis can't happen again unless organics make another crucible to combat nonexistant Reapers.masster blaster wrote...
Ya it's inevitable. Oh wait I picked Destroy.
And they'd have to build another "Intelligence" to solve the "problem" again. I don't think that is going to be happening. At least not for a very very long time. Meanwhile, Shepard will be dead, and won't care.
Retour en haut