639 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

for a consistent picture of Synthesis and what it actually does you might try the OP of my Synthesis thread (link in my sig).

Oh god, skimming that stupid thing reminded me of another horribly awful piece of writing involved with Synthesis...

The Catalyst: "Synthesis is the final evolution of all life."



EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

I CANNOT stress this point enough, but evolution DOES NOT have a set destination, it CANNOT reach a pinnacle, it WILL NEVER, EVER result in a "Final evolution" because EVOLUTION ALWAYS CONTINUES, PERIOD.

By definition, the Theory of Evolution necessitates constant adaptive change of species to changing parameters.

Dear writer of that line of dialogue,

YOU

FAIL

BIOLOGY

FOREVER

Actually evolution can stop. The last evolution before extinction would be the final evolution. If you were to stop having genetic descendents, there would be no more evolution in your branch. (e.g. Reaperisation would be a final evolution)

[Ieldra]

@CosmicGnosis:
Please consider:

(1) What people think after the fact may be quite different - and not because of brainwashing. If people don't actually *feel* like they have foreign stuff in their bodies it will become natural fast. IMO it's the idea rather than the reality that some people find loathesome.

(2) You are not making the decision only for humans. I'm sure the salarians would be rather excited about the prospect.

(3) Late 22nd century humans may be a little more open-minded than people here on BSN.

(4) Destroy may be the most popular choice, but the fanatics are a minority.

In the end, if I am convinced that a decision will result in the best future for the galaxy, I feel obligated to take it, whatever other people may think of it beforehand. Also, Shepard is making the decision alone, guided only by his own intellect, emotion and conscience.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:14 .

[ghost9191]

ditto to that admiralcheez

[clennon8]

@HYR: *shrug* Whatever. Unfortunately, the post where you made that remark is now lost in the depths of the forum pages. I could call on Mega Sovereign to vouch for me, I suppose. I remember he pretty quickly chastised you for making that remark, for the precise reason that it could be used against you.

I'm out. Good night all.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Actually, DMS, synthesis is fundamentally flawed on every level.

I have seen so many anti human comments from you synthesis supporters I'm disgusted by it.

This conversation is over

And yet, these mysterious anti-human comments you speak of are no match for your blanket statements! 

[ghost9191]

right. did you not hear the conversation about transhumans

[teh DRUMPf!!]

clennon8 wrote...

@HYR: *shrug* Whatever. Unfortunately, the post where you made that remark is now lost in the depths of the forum pages. I could call on Mega Sovereign to vouch for me, I suppose. I remember he pretty quickly chastised you for making that remark, for the precise reason that it could be used against you.

MegaSovereign wrote...

Pretty sure I was tipsy when I wrote that.

[HellbirdIV]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, Hellbird, it seems it's pointless to argue with you. You have just "skimmed" my Synthesis thread OP and are already determined to find it stupid.

... reaching the conclusion that it's unrelated to what's actually in the Synthesis ending, ergo irrelevant to any discussion on the topic.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that ascension is somewhat of a religious belief for you - you want it to be possible out of a fear of death and the inevitability of a cold, dark future in which you and that which you do in life holds no part. I say this because "ascension" is something you emphasise a lot all over the place, despite the fact that Synthesis is merely a change, not an "upgrade" (as evolution is understood).

Indeed your thread seems to deal mainly with the quasi-philosophical theories of ascension and potential implications of a wider human consciousness - that's not what Synthesis is. You're applying something else to Synthesis.

To give a similar example, I could argue that Destroy is the culmination of emancipation, setting all organics free for the rest of time from the evils of the Reapers - and it is. But only in the strictest sense.

Destroy still leaves Reaper influence. It still leaves behind their technology which has shaped all galactic civilizations for millions of years. We are still scarred by their war to a point that makes recovery difficult, and full recovery to Status Quo Ante Bellum very distant. I can argue that post-war reconstruction will ultimately change the galaxy for the better with the Reaper war in constant memory, but that is me applying theories of post-war, post-catastrophy collaboration such as the formation of the United Nations to a situation that is not the founding of the United Nations.

I believe Destroy changes things for the better, but I will only argue the short-term, visible benefits of it. Not my own theories of socio-political ramifications of such an event.

Likewise Synthesis cannot be said to do anything more than what we first see and elaborated from there.

[AdmiralCheez]

I know this is a fallacy, but one of the reasons I'm never picking Synthesis is because HYR 2.0 is being kind of a jerk about it.

Y'ALL SHOULD BE NICE TO EACH OTHER.

BEDTIME FOR REAL.

[KingZayd]

J. Reezy wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Whatevs, in my head canon Shepard has been in a coma since the collector attack in ME2, and everything that happened afterwards including the endings was a dream, but you're welcome to head canon what you wish.

Best head canon ever tbh.

I imagine it kinda sucks for PS3 players

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CosmicGnosis:
Please consider:

(1) What people think after the fact may be quite different - and not because of brainwashing. If people don't actually *feel* like they have foreign stuff in their bodies it will become natural fast. IMO it's the idea rather than the reality that some people find loathesome.

(2) You are not making the decision only for humans. I'm sure the salarians would be rather excited about the prospect.

(3) Late 22nd century humans may be a little more open-minded than people here on BSN.

(4) Destroy may be the most popular choice, but the fanatics are a minority.

In the end, if I am convinced that a decision will result in the best future for the galaxy, I feel obligated to take it, whatever other people may think of it beforehand. Also, Shepard is making the decision alone, guided only by his own intellect, emotion and conscience.

If the choices were up for a vote, almost everyone in the galaxy would choose Destroy. I'm convinced of that. What right, then, would I have to ignore them? I may think it sucks, but it's what the majority wants. They won't care about what they might think of Synthesis after it has been implemented.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:21 .

[HellbirdIV]

KingZayd wrote...

Actually evolution can stop. The last evolution before extinction would be the final evolution.

No, that's an evolutionary dead-end. It happens all the time. Evolution is an abstract applied to the gradual development of life through trial, error and survival of the fittest in order to remain adapted to changing environments.

As I have noted before, as long as the universe can have life, evolution will exist. The universe needs to end for evolution to end.

[ghost9191]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CosmicGnosis:
Please consider:

(1) What people think after the fact may be quite different - and not because of brainwashing. If people don't actually *feel* like they have foreign stuff in their bodies it will become natural fast. IMO it's the idea rather than the reality that some people find loathesome.

(2) You are not making the decision only for humans. I'm sure the salarians would be rather excited about the prospect.

(3) Late 22nd century humans may be a little more open-minded than people here on BSN.

(4) Destroy may be the most popular choice, but the fanatics are a minority.

In the end, if I am convinced that a decision will result in the best future for the galaxy, I feel obligated to take it, whatever other people may think of it beforehand. Also, Shepard is making the decision alone, guided only by his own intellect, emotion and conscience.

don't agree with 2 and 3 . i mean they are probably more open minded,. but doubt many would want that much of a change forced on them . but agree with the last part. have told him that multiple times

what fanatics though?


and not sure why i don't just say yay . but whatever , doubt you would do the same. you would probably say something like welcome brother

and then it will go " meanwhile at the legion of doom... "

i am tired leave me alone

Modifié par ghost9191, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:23 .

[KingZayd]

HellbirdIV wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Actually evolution can stop. The last evolution before extinction would be the final evolution.

No, that's an evolutionary dead-end. It happens all the time. Evolution is an abstract applied to the gradual development of life through trial, error and survival of the fittest in order to remain adapted to changing environments.

As I have noted before, as long as the universe can have life, evolution will exist. The universe needs to end for evolution to end.

And if all life ends up extinct?

[Nightwriter]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't think it's physically possible to know what you're talking about when it comes to the endings.

In terms of actual in-universe consequences, I agree. I can't say for sure what Synthesis does because I'm only shown a vague slideshow with Six telling me everything's alright despite the logic to the contrary. I can't apply said logic at all because there's no real way for me to do so - I can't ask the game to show me why everyone now glows of minty freshness. That's why we have headcanon.

I hate Synthesis more as a failiure in the story and themes. As a writer, that's my real gripe with the half-baked faux-intellectual bullsh*t that they put in it. I know what I'm talking about in regards to that.

Well, it seemed like what we had going on was a technical discussion. And as far as I can figure, the technicals of the endings are about as knowable as the Infinite Improbability Drive. *Pop* whale *pop* plant in a pot. That's the ending. Technically speaking.

God, I can't believe I'm sitting here eating these dumb old frosted oatmeal cookies. I hate eating the thing that is only the substitute for what you really want and every bite reminds you that it's not what you really want. I don't even have a pina colada SoBe to slate the coconut fix.

[HellbirdIV]

KingZayd wrote...

And if all life ends up extinct?

Then the universe will be pretty boring for a while until new life evolves. And it will, because if there's one thing fossil evidence has taught us it's that life really wants to exist.

[Ieldra]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, Hellbird, it seems it's pointless to argue with you. You have just "skimmed" my Synthesis thread OP and are already determined to find it stupid.

... reaching the conclusion that it's unrelated to what's actually in the Synthesis ending, ergo irrelevant to any discussion on the topic.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that ascension is somewhat of a religious belief for you - you want it to be possible out of a fear of death and the inevitability of a cold, dark future in which you and that which you do in life holds no part. I say this because "ascension" is something you emphasise a lot all over the place, despite the fact that Synthesis is merely a change, not an "upgrade" (as evolution is understood).

Indeed your thread seems to deal mainly with the quasi-philosophical theories of ascension and potential implications of a wider human consciousness - that's not what Synthesis is. You're applying something else to Synthesis.

Watch the EC epilogue and tell me again it's not about all this. What about "As the line between organics and synthetics disappears, we may transcend mortality itself to reach a level of existence I cannot even imagine" didn't you understand?

Also, if such a thing is possible in reality, I certainly won't profit from it any more because I'll be dead long before it happens, so I wonder what my purported fear of death has to do with it. As an atheist and transhumanist, I subscribe to the statement: death is not something to fear but to loathe.

And lastly, I maintain that the theme of "embracing the unknown" is inherent in the Synthesis ending. It sort of smacks you in the face if you watch the epilogue.

Edit:
I do admit I'm more concerned with the thematic implications of the endings, particularly of Synthesis. The technicalities, as Nightwriter says, are unknown - and irrelevant in the end. What does it matter if there's a genetic change, a DNA wrapper or nano-symbiotes facilitating the changes, if it all results in the same kind of future?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:33 .

[KingZayd]

HellbirdIV wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

And if all life ends up extinct?

Then the universe will be pretty boring for a while until new life evolves. And it will, because if there's one thing fossil evidence has taught us it's that life really wants to exist.

Fossil evidence doesn't indicate that life has started more than once on Earth as far as I know.

[inko1nsiderate]

HellbirdIV wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Actually evolution can stop. The last evolution before extinction would be the final evolution.

No, that's an evolutionary dead-end. It happens all the time. Evolution is an abstract applied to the gradual development of life through trial, error and survival of the fittest in order to remain adapted to changing environments.

As I have noted before, as long as the universe can have life, evolution will exist. The universe needs to end for evolution to end.

Look, I'm not going to argue very much with you, but a few points:

1)  Evolution isn't actually survival of the fittest.

2)  If a species doesn't reproduce any longer, or has exceedingly long times between generations, the evolution of the species can effectively be zero.

3)  There is a theoretical limit in which evolution does not happen in a population.  It is called Hardy Weinberg principal.  Anyone with even a rememdial biology course should probably have heard of it.  I'm sure with a bit of information theory and statistical mechanics, you could make analogous limits where a biological system has reached a limit where it can no longer have a change in its overall genetic makeup.


You are correct in that evolution is not telelogical, but you are wrong about the way you are presenting some of this information.

[HellbirdIV]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Watch the EC epilogue and tell me again it's not about all this.

Synthesis must be about your
theory?

Who's being rigid and unreasonable in this argument, again?

KingZayd wrote...

Fossil evidence doesn't indicate that life has started more than once on Earth as far as I know.

We don't have fossil evidence of the very first lifeforms for obvious reasons (here's a hint: They were microscopic and soft-tissued so they don't leave behind any fossils) but rather what we have is evidence that life has existed in a number of periods where Earth's climate and atmospheric compositions have been substantially different from today.

Essentially, in the long ago times, the Earth could not support human life, or indeed any life that currently exists on it. It was, for practical purposes, an alien world - and yet there was life there. Presumably tiny, ugly life, but life none the less.

inko1nsiderate wrote...

1)  Evolution isn't actually survival of the fittest.

Not sure what you mean here. Perhaps I use the term in a different way than you do, because evolution isall about survival of the fittest. Can you explain what I'm seeing wrong?

inko1nsiderate wrote...

2)
 If a species doesn't reproduce any longer, or has exceedingly long
times between generations, the evolution of the species can effectively
be zero.

Yes, that is an evolutionary dead-end. But, as I have said, evolution is a broader abstract and not limited to species. Even when a species evolution is "effectively zero", they CAN change in the future, as long as reproduction can occur (if not, they become extinct, ergo evolutionary dead end).

inko1nsiderate wrote...

3)  There is a theoretical limit in which evolution does
not happen in a population.  It is called Hardy Weinberg principal.
 Anyone with even a rememdial biology course should probably have heard
of it.  I'm sure with a bit of information theory and statistical
mechanics, you could make analogous limits where a biological system has
reached a limit where it can no longer have a change in its overall
genetic makeup.

This discludes the constant of genetic anomalies, however. As long as reproduction occurs, mutations may occur, and mutations which benefit an individual's survival will continue.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "biological system reaching a limit", either. As far as my understanding of biology goes, it's not a matter of putting parts on top of other parts and seeing what sticks and hoping it doesn't fall apart.

Modifié par HellbirdIV, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:44 .

[KingZayd]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Watch the EC epilogue and tell me again it's not about all this.

Synthesis must be about your
theory?

Who's being rigid and unreasonable in this argument, again?

KingZayd wrote...

Fossil evidence doesn't indicate that life has started more than once on Earth as far as I know.

We don't have fossil evidence of the very first lifeforms for obvious reasons (here's a hint: They were microscopic and soft-tissued so they don't leave behind any fossils) but rather what we have is evidence that life has existed in a number of periods where Earth's climate and atmospheric compositions have been substantially different from today.

Essentially, in the long ago times, the Earth could not support human life, or indeed any life that currently exists on it. It was, for practical purposes, an alien world - and yet there was life there. Presumably tiny, ugly life, but life none the less.

Isn't it common belief that RNA evolved once, and has been self replicating (imperfectly), ever since? I'm not debating that evolution has taken place many times. But as far as I'm aware, there is only evidence for  one evolution from "not-life" to "life".

[Ieldra]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Watch the EC epilogue and tell me again it's not about all this.

Synthesis must be about your theory?

Who's being rigid and unreasonable in this argument, again?

I am saying that a certain part of the EC epilogue is *explicitly* about prospects for an ascenscion. My interpretation may emphasize this point, but to say that theme doesn't exist in the Synthesis ending is ignorant.