186 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Like how Alrik used tranquility to rape tranquil mages? Yeah, I imagine there would be some serious problems with having tranquil mages handling any level of responsibility.

I don't know what you think your'e trying to prove with that...I guess you think that proves tranquil are mindless drones.
But how exactly?
A tranquil can get raped? No s*** Sherlock!

[Lotion Soronarr]

Celene II wrote...
The chantry/templar enslavement of the mages is just as bad as being wiped out. At least fighting gives them a chance to win.

Even most mages disagree with you.

Hardly. In fact, it seems outright impossible to me, because I seriously
doubt things would just go back to the status quo after DAI. And since
the non-status-quo victory would involve killing every mage in Thedas...
I don't believe any templar victory will happen.

Nope.
Plenty of rebellions have been crushed trought the history.

[Althix]

i think we should counter Ser Alrik with Quentin. Seems fair enough.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Plenty of rebellions have been crushed trought the history.

In DA2 setting? I saw somewhere that bunch of First Enchanters were killed.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:50 .

[Wulfram]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I don't know what you think your'e trying to prove with that...I guess you think that proves tranquil are mindless drones.
But how exactly?
A tranquil can get raped? No s*** Sherlock!

"Once you're tranquil you'll do anything I ask"
Ser Alrik

And there's that Tranquil in the courtyard who wanders about saying that she's Ser Alrik's now.

Both suggest that the Tranquil lack real independence.

[Xilizhra]

Nope.
Plenty of rebellions have been crushed trought the history.

IRL, yes. In-game? Going back to the status quo would make no sense for dramatic reasons.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Wulfram wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I don't know what you think your'e trying to prove with that...I guess you think that proves tranquil are mindless drones.
But how exactly?
A tranquil can get raped? No s*** Sherlock!

"Once you're tranquil you'll do anything I ask"
Ser Alrik

And there's that Tranquil in the courtyard who wanders about saying that she's Ser Alrik's now.

Both suggest that the Tranquil lack real independence.

Again, Gaider's response is that the Tranquil are logical enough to do whatever it takes to avoid a beating. How that works with no emotions, I can't say, but there you go.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

EUREKA!!! EUREKA!!!
*jumps out of pool and runs like maniacs*

[LobselVith8]

secretsandlies wrote...

i think we should counter Ser Alrik with Quentin. Seems fair enough. 

That doesn't make any sense. Alrik was brought up because this is a discussion about tranquil mages, and Alrik used the Rite of Tranquility to turn female mages tranquil so he could rape them, because they would do whatever he told him to do. If mages are simply "templar puppets", as Karl (a former tranquil mage) pointed out, then I don't think they should decide the mage conflict.

[Wulfram]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Again, Gaider's response is that the Tranquil are logical enough to do whatever it takes to avoid a beating. How that works with no emotions, I can't say, but there you go.

Which makes them pretty poor mediators of a dispute, no?  They'll just pick whichever side is logically judged to be more capable of delivering them a beating?

Modifié par Wulfram, 10 janvier 2013 - 04:22 .

[Althix]

no my point is that we have a rapist on side of templars against necrophile and befouler for mages.

[Plaintiff]

I don't see how the Tranquil can be logical. Lacking emotion doesn't automatically make you logical, the two faculties are largely unrelated. Logic requires a certain level of critical thinking that the Tranquil have never been shown to possess.

[Althix]

yeap. because question is more complicated and require answer which is not consist of yes or no.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 10 janvier 2013 - 04:35 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Wulfram wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Again, Gaider's response is that the Tranquil are logical enough to do whatever it takes to avoid a beating. How that works with no emotions, I can't say, but there you go.

Which makes them pretty poor mediators of a dispute, no?  They'll just pick whichever side is logically judged to be more capable of delivering them a beating?

So, unless there's some third party that promises not to beat them unless they screw up, and strong enough that neither side can gainsay it (maybe a PC, if Bioware lets them come up with this idea), this idea doesn't work.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 janvier 2013 - 05:16 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't see how the Tranquil can be logical. Lacking emotion doesn't automatically make you logical, the two faculties are largely unrelated. Logic requires a certain level of critical thinking that the Tranquil have never been shown to possess.

Well, emotion can certainly get in the way of logic. If you don't believe me, watch an election sometime.

As for critical thinking, merely removing emotion wouldn't hamper that overmuch, though it does enough that it'd still be a good idea to have people of capable saying "There's got to be an easier way than this" or "Are we sure we're morally justified in turning all of Thedas into ghouls" to advise them.

Or maybe the Tranquil themselves should be the advisors. Sort of like the people in Dune trained to think like computers. Were they called "mentats?" Or am I thinking of something from Fallout?

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 janvier 2013 - 05:15 .

[Althix]

Just think about what answer will Tranquil give on mages problem. Just consider for a second pros and cons from his point of view.
It's gonna be very... logical and simple answer, simple evaluation of good things and bad things.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 10 janvier 2013 - 05:30 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Nizaris1 wrote...

I watched "I Robot", in the end, it is logic who about to destroy mankind...

Because robots don't have emotions, they only have logic. based on the 3 rule, the master robot Viki have concluded, to save human is by contain them in their home, so she order all new robots to contain human in their home, who ever fight back result in death, for their own good.

You're probably thinking of the first law, not the third. The third is that the robot must preserve itself at the cost of anything except breaking the first two laws.* The first is the one that means they can't harm humans or let them come to harm via inaction, and what you're describing is a flagrant violation of it's letter and spirit in the name of that very law; therefore I assume the robot was malfunctioning. If there's a lesson there that's applicable to the current idea, it's "Don't use mentally ill Tranquil as advisors or superiors."

* Or maybe the movie messed up the rules. Either way comes to the same thing.

The basis of the story is about a guy who got accident with other car who have a little girl in in, they both drowned into a lake, a robot passing by....using logic, the robot save that guy and not the little girl, because the little girl chance to survive is only 11%....

the guy protest saying we human have emotion, 11% don't count, we will save the girl...that is why he hate robots

Whatever the guy thinks, I actually think the robot made the right choice in this case. If the girl is basically guaranteed to die anyway, save the man.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 janvier 2013 - 05:41 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Nizaris1 wrote...

In I Robot, the creator of the robots have made a robot that is "human-like", have 'emotion", have the ability to defy rule...the he commit suicide. it is because he have see what will happen in the future, he who create the rule and the AI, so based on his calculation, the logical thinking of the robots only lead to one thing, destruction of mankind.

Because the robots don't require humans to reproduce or feed themselves. The Tranquil do.

Like the little girl case, they calculate that the girl is illogical choice to be saved, they abandon the little girl...but human, logic or not, with our emotions, we will try to save the girl from drowning, even if we have to sacrifice our own life for it...

Yeah, that's a safe bet.

So, this new robot he named "Sony" is like a "messenger" to the guy who hate the robots, they both save the mankind...

(see, they are Messiah...like what i wrote in other thread)

I don't see where this is relevant.

Whatever the guy thinks, I actually think the robot made the right 
choice in this case. If the girl is basically guaranteed to die anyway, 
save the man.

The guy don't mind to die, and told the robot to save the girl, but the robot don't listen

With an 11% chance of success? Are you familiar with the old robot saying "Does not compute?" Seriously, this is part of the reason I say emotions can be a bad thing.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 janvier 2013 - 05:51 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Nizaris1 wrote...

With an 11% chance of success?

his argument is "11% is enough"

You see, the world not run run by calculations alone, we human have HOPE, 11% chance is a CHANCE, we don't look at the numbers, we look at "maybe we can save her, we must try"

The guy think that, "don't mind me, save her!'

The robot don't have that, the robot only see the number 11%....

Well, that is the relevant bit... Try rolling 11% or below on a percentile dice thing, with only one chance to get it right.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 janvier 2013 - 06:48 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Nizaris1 wrote...

The other example, in KotOR there is a quest of the map, in the wookie forest....the computer there give questions to unlock the map, all the questions are challenging logic, the logical answers give you dark side points lols

Why?

because logic is black and white

Q: There's a competent Sith who does his job well one spot above you. Do you kill him for your own temporary benefit, or let him keep doing his job for the good of your entire side?
A: I kill him, because I'm evil and therefore not focused on long term consequences.

That's what I found on the internet, in the only bit that looked like it might conceivably be what I was looking for. Is it accurate? Because that's not what logic looks like. At all.

If I was looking in the wrong place, give me an example, I'll reevaluate my answer.

you have 6 faced dice, the numbers are 1-6, number 6 will show up if throw the dice is 1/6. But as human, we can hope to get the number 6, the computer just throw it away because of 1/6 chance.

If you're betting lives on a 1/6 chance, you're flat out irresponsible. Even more so for a 11/100. If there's nothing to be lost by attempting, that's one thing, but to give the life of someone you can save, for the sake of someone you have less than a one in five chance of saving? Or less than one in six? That's just stupid.

(Nobody else is arguing with you, do they know something I don't?)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 janvier 2013 - 07:12 .

[Manic Sheep]

Because they wouldn't take into account or understand the emotion and suffering of others and that is an important part of the issue?

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 10 janvier 2013 - 08:42 .