530 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
EDI said, in her exact words, that the DNA of ALL life has been changed.
The Catalyst also says that Synthesis will REPLACE - not add, not merge - REPLACE, all DNA in the galaxy with this new one.
Meaning that ALL life would have a DNA structure that is the SAME. Example, if you didn't cure the genophage, Syhthesis does it anyway. It corrects, and adapts. The DNA incompatabilaty barriers would be nonexistant with all lfie having the Same fundimental DNA.
Just look at the Synthesis EDI and Joker

That the DNA of all organics is changed has no relevance to your point. We're discussing how it's changed.

You seem to be saying that the new DNA is literally the same for every single being in the galaxy. Their original code has nothing to do with their new code. OK, but then why do they all still look different if they're actually all the same?

The entire POINT is that the DNA changed. How does that not have any relevence to this?
Because the changes have only JUST been implimented. The CELL structure is now similar, but the PHYSICAL form can't change that quickly.
Remember how long it normally took for Husks to be born from "Dragon's Teeth"? It took an hour or more, and then, the changes were forced, not caring about being delicate. With THIS, the physical changes are ment to be more subtle, altering phisical forms gradually.
They look the same now, but in a thousand years, with the same replicated DNA, they're physical forms will most likely shift to look less and less diverse.

If that didn't make a lick of sence, hey, it's space magic. Altering all life like that should be impossible.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:29 .

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Even if it meant all life now shared a new DNA matrix, life on Earth shares a DNA matrix and humans cannot cross-breed with frogs or plants.

You know that isn't the same. Frogs and Plants aren't civilized, sentiant, calculas-capable beings.

So if frogs could only do calculus, humans could breed with them?  That's idiotic.

Were OUR ansestors any different?
All life developed from the sea. Amphibians like the frogs were our progenators.
They can't cross-breed NOW. But what will they look like in a million years? I doubt the our first ancestors on Earth, or ancestors of any of the other races were any more complex a lifeform then the frog is.
I don't think that the primitive turian ancestors could have had relationships with human ancestors.
Now, we have the option for Garrus/FemShep. Or Tali/MaleShep.
I doubt Asari knew about their abailaty to breed with any species.
Now they breed with all different species.
And LOOK at the Hanar. Did you ever think that a race like them could TALK and WALK, let alone breed with something like an asari?

Don't be too quick to judge how a life-form might evolve. Not everything is set on one path.

[Obadiah]

@drayfish

drayfish...
Unless I am reading you wrong (which may very well be), you appear to be acknowledging that the endpoint of the game is that Shepard accepts the logic of the Reapers, yes?

I think, in the main, the philosophy that Shepard and the Catalyst share is that one may have to make a sacrifice to achieve a goal. Based on the players values, they decide what that sacrifice (or your atrocity) is from the functions available on the Crucible. Or they can abdicate.

The Catalyst and Shepard have different value systems. Simply because they may share (and I say "may" because I'm not sure they do share it) one specific logical axiom, "Survival of life outweighs the autonomous rights to live", while differing on a bunch of others, that doesn't mean they validate each other's worldview. When selecting an option to achieve "Survival of Life", Shepard would necessarily not use the Catalyst's reasoning because his value system (including his set of starting axioms) is different. He will most certainly weigh the potential outcomes in a different manner than the Catalyst.

drayfish...
...
So you are in fact saying that our ethics are completely fluid?
...

I stipulated absolute ethics, but I used them to govern the decision making process, not to govern specific actions regardless of intent. I realize that may seem fluid to someone whose values absolutely proscribe certain actions, but such an ethical standard is not. It would simply be more complicated.

drayfish...
...
In any case, being arbitrarily coerced into making a selection in a game that won't let you 'win' unless you accept its ideology is hardly the same as being 'justified'.
...

I'd disagree. If you don't think Mass Effect 3's ending was good enough, I'm sure you can come up with a thought-experiment where you can justify an atrocity. If you can't, we have some fundamental difference on what "justified" means, and I don't really see a path forward to any kind of accord.

drayfish...
...
..so what?

What did this reveal of substance to you, other than that ethics are fluid (which you seem to have already believed), and that war crimes can be relabelled as 'sacrifices' if we are bargaining for survival?

Your description at present is still in the vague existential wheelhouse of 'everything's relative' – but you have acknowledged how extraordinary this text was; it made you 'examine the boundaries of [your] ethical beliefs'.

So what did you find? What exactly in your ethics were changed/revealed/explored by being funnelled through this arbitrary endpoint?

??? I think it is time to end our back and forth in this thread.

[Applepie_Svk]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Even if it meant all life now shared a new DNA matrix, life on Earth shares a DNA matrix and humans cannot cross-breed with frogs or plants.

You know that isn't the same. Frogs and Plants aren't civilized, sentiant, calculas-capable beings.

So if frogs could only do calculus, humans could breed with them?  That's idiotic.

actaully that sounds funny, be smart and no matter what you are - you can breed with everyone...

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish

drayfish...
Unless I am reading you wrong (which may very well be), you appear to be acknowledging that the endpoint of the game is that Shepard accepts the logic of the Reapers, yes?

I think, in the main, the philosophy that Shepard and the Catalyst share is that one may have to make a sacrifice to achieve a goal. Based on the players values, they decide what that sacrifice (or your atrocity) is from the functions available on the Crucible. Or they can abdicate.

The Catalyst and Shepard have different value systems. Simply because they may share (and I say "may" because I'm not sure they do share it) one specific logical axiom, "Survival of life outweighs the autonomous rights to live", while differing on a bunch of others, that doesn't mean they validate each other's worldview. When selecting an option to achieve "Survival of Life", Shepard would necessarily not use the Catalyst's reasoning because his value system (including his set of starting axioms) is different. He will most certainly weigh the potential outcomes in a different manner than the Catalyst.

drayfish...
...
So you are in fact saying that our ethics are completely fluid?
...

I stipulated absolute ethics, but I used them to govern the decision making process, not to govern specific actions regardless of intent. I realize that may seem fluid to someone whose values absolutely proscribe certain actions, but such an ethical standard is not. It would simply be more complicated.

drayfish...
...
In any case, being arbitrarily coerced into making a selection in a game that won't let you 'win' unless you accept its ideology is hardly the same as being 'justified'.
...

I'd disagree. If you don't think Mass Effect 3's ending was good enough, I'm sure you can come up with a thought-experiment where you can justify an atrocity. If you can't, we have some fundamental difference on what "justified" means, and I don't really see a path forward to any kind of accord.

drayfish...
...
..so what?

What did this reveal of substance to you, other than that ethics are fluid (which you seem to have already believed), and that war crimes can be relabelled as 'sacrifices' if we are bargaining for survival?

Your description at present is still in the vague existential wheelhouse of 'everything's relative' – but you have acknowledged how extraordinary this text was; it made you 'examine the boundaries of [your] ethical beliefs'.

So what did you find? What exactly in your ethics were changed/revealed/explored by being funnelled through this arbitrary endpoint?

??? I think it is time to end our back and forth in this thread.

Agreed.

Thanks for the discussion (when it wasn't being needlessly patronising and antagonistic), but if the sum total of what you gleaned in your reading of the narrative was 'morality is relative' then it is true that we really do have nothing else to discuss.

I am glad that this realisation was fulfilling for you, but for me, if the revelation ends there then it amounts to no more than an Intro to Philosophy catch phrase. Great, great - you can prove that the chair doesn't exist... so what?

And if this epic is really just designed to enable people to re-contextualise some of the worst crimes that can be visited upon an autonomous being as 'sacrifices' for a 'greater good' (a premise that I do not subscribe to anyway), then such a reading really does just dissolve into tedious, reductive semantics about which horror you preferred over the others - and at that point there is little constructive to be said of the narrative's purpose at all.

Again, I'm glad it revealed something to you, but I would suggest that you read some Camus or Sartre. Both writers speak to themes of existential angst that you seem to find intriguing, but at least they then go on to offer redeeming and substantive statements about human experience that can be explored - not just an amoral forfeit for survival in an arbitrary narrative headlock.

All the best.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:29 .