217 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

Reorte wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

It really boils down to "is rape preferable to murder?".

Control and synthesis Vs. destroy.


Getting tired of all these people claiming Synthesis is disgusting while they willfully acknowledge and ignore the equally disgusting Destroy.

Equally disgusting? I'm very worried that you'd think that. One of them affects one species, the other affects every single living thing in the galaxy and will change things for all life forever. Destroy is the lesser evil.

Getting tired of people calling Synthesis "rape" simply because they live in denial of how malleable and changing their minds and bodies are.

What on earth are you on about?

destroy has been done before, many times as this cycle is the first for synthesis. The crucible wasn't capable of it before, it wasn't as fully functional, apparnetly from the lore of it.

the point being that 'rape' is used as a buzz word and not descriptive but for that effect.

[Ultranovae]

It could be argued that the slides show what happens way after the war and there was still strife in the galaxy. I think my favorite part of synthesis is the idea that sownthing has been won, something has changed us all, literally. The enormous scale and cost of this war brings about a great result, peace, progress and understanding.
Conflict is a natural result of the struggle between individuals or groups to achieve things, bento obtain resources, to use resources. If synthesis simply facilitates this process, a prices of understanding and acknowledging ideas, then who counsel complain.
If it indeed makes us unable to have conflict, then it is not something to be desired

[Wayning_Star]

Ultranovae wrote...

It could be argued that the slides show what happens way after the war and there was still strife in the galaxy. I think my favorite part of synthesis is the idea that sownthing has been won, something has changed us all, literally. The enormous scale and cost of this war brings about a great result, peace, progress and understanding.
Conflict is a natural result of the struggle between individuals or groups to achieve things, bento obtain resources, to use resources. If synthesis simply facilitates this process, a prices of understanding and acknowledging ideas, then who counsel complain.
If it indeed makes us unable to have conflict learn stuff, then it is not something to be desired

there, fixed.. hope it works.

[Auintus]

Helios969 wrote...

Well, there is that...the scientific absurdity of synthesis.

Has nobody considered that element zero is a neutron? Which is most definitely not capable of doing all that fantastic stuff that it does.
It is never explained, but one can(and I have) make up an explanation that applies better to Clarke's third law than eezo does. Nobody ever complained about eezo, so I really think people are just grasping at straws.

PinkToolTheater(WTF?) wrote...

Also, how do these new synthetic+organic things reproduce? Do they stop having babies and just live endless lives? What about babies (like Jacobs kids in his GFs womb) what happens to them?

EDI says in the epilogue that they may one day achieve immortality, which implies that they are not immortal yet.

[Ultranovae]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Ultranovae wrote...

It could be argued that the slides show what happens way after the war and there was still strife in the galaxy. I think my favorite part of synthesis is the idea that sownthing has been won, something has changed us all, literally. The enormous scale and cost of this war brings about a great result, peace, progress and understanding.
Conflict is a natural result of the struggle between individuals or groups to achieve things, bento obtain resources, to use resources. If synthesis simply facilitates this process, a prices of understanding and acknowledging ideas, then who counsel complain.
If it indeed makes us unable to have conflict learn stuff, then it is not something to be desired

there, fixed.. hope it works.

people are learning, society is shown to be advancing and going beyond their former glory, so you're point is completely invalid.

[Shaani]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Nah, not clear cut at all, imo.

I can't really argue the thought processes of fictional aliens.

I do think that Hackett would undoubtably destroy ("Controlling Reapers isn't how we win this war.  Dead Reapers is").  I also do not believe that EDI would reject Destroy out of hand to save herself.  Her dialogue before the end says as much.

On the same note: if given time to contemplate it, I would probably still pick Destroy even if the species to be sacrificed were humans.

[BiffBuffington]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

blah64 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Pro-Synth here.


People are the same as they always were, post-Synthesis.

Impossible. The very definition of synthesis procludes this possibilty. The utter rage I would feel at such a genetic rape of my mind and body is horrifying to contemplate. I would kill the in themost brutal fashion the person(s) who did it too me. And if I did not feel ragepost-synth? Then is just proves that I was not the same person after the change, showing that I "died"and was reflaced with a hybrid fascimile.

Well then it's a good thing that you are never synthesized. You die, everybody else gets to reap the benefits.

Epilogue showed no one complaining. No one.

Borg don't complain.

[Ultranovae]

I wish I had read through more of the thread, but the OP's question is a very good one, is war the inevitable consequence of being living creatures with free will? Or can we ever resolve our conflicts without conflict that scalates to war?
Otherwise, I suppose we're saying that war is the inevitable consequence of having free will.
I have to admit that though I appreciate the sentiment behind synthesis ( that comprehension and empathy is needed to live peaceful lives) I have a hard time buying the concept that the reapers are forgiven after the war. It does seem like anyone would want them destroyed after what they've done.
But, if the reapers stop shooting, I think it's a good idea to stop shooting too. Seeking their destruction for revenge is petty and counterproductive.
I digress, what makes people believe that synthesis removes our free will? Please do provide in game evidence, not out of game speculation (I.E.: points like the reapers will try to indoctrinate us again is invalid)

[Auintus]

Ultranovae wrote...

I wish I had read through more of the thread, but the OP's question is a very good one, is war the inevitable consequence of being living creatures with free will? Or can we ever resolve our conflicts without conflict that scalates to war?
Otherwise, I suppose we're saying that war is the inevitable consequence of having free will.
I have to admit that though I appreciate the sentiment behind synthesis ( that comprehension and empathy is needed to live peaceful lives) I have a hard time buying the concept that the reapers are forgiven after the war. It does seem like anyone would want them destroyed after what they've done.
But, if the reapers stop shooting, I think it's a good idea to stop shooting too. Seeking their destruction for revenge is petty and counterproductive.
I digress, what makes people believe that synthesis removes our free will? Please do provide in game evidence, not out of game speculation (I.E.: points like the reapers will try to indoctrinate us again is invalid)

There isn't much for in-game evidence. The only example I can think of is that (I've heard) it is implied that Wreav never leads the Krogan to war, despite his clear intentions to do so. I've never finished a playthough where I made the mistake of killing Wrex, so I'm not certain on this.
One thing you pointed out interests me, though. "The Reapers stop shooting" Now, clearly the war still rages around the Crucible, but the entire Crucible scene seems, to me, like parley. More accurately, negotiation over terms of surrender. Destroy eradicates them so they can never be a threat. But how often is the extermination of a surrendering enemy condoned? Control is probably the most realistic option in this comparison as it would symbolize occupation, turning over control to your enemy. Synthesis is the most optimistic option, a "peace without victory." The Reapers are clearly shown to be helping rebuild and EDI claims they share their memories of the harvested cycles(imagine what that'd do for Javik.)
The Catalyst lets you dictate these terms, and accepts them whatever they may be. This, in my opinion, makes me doubt any theries of deception.

[Obitim]

Where does it categorically state the synthesis removes all free will?

Also, I don;t see synthesis as the worst option, it's a fundamental change to peopel that is made I agree, however, it gives understanding of the other side, synthetics and organics understand more, of course there is still room for conflict, people's opinion won't change and there will still be feuds.  

However I feel that destroy is essentially genocide, you destroy on entire race, a race who, for the most part have peaceful intentions and wanted to be left alone (If you ignore the heretics)

Incidently, I chose to rewrite the geth, I couldn't kill that many when there was the option to rewrite.

Thinking about it, is that what most pro destryoers think syntheses is?  Rewriting the way that all people think?

Modifié par Obitim, 29 janvier 2013 - 09:55 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Where does it categorically state the synthesis removes all free will?

It is required to be this to be a viable solution to the Reaper threat - otherwise, they might just have decided to keep killing us anyway (if organics are capable of creating synthetics capable of wiping out all life, then surely merged synthetic/organic hybrids are even more dangerous). You still have an AI of questionable sanity in charge of a armada with enough firepower to annihilate all sentient species.

It's also implied; watch the synthesis ending cinematic again - does that marine's reaction seem human to you?

[Ieldra]

Ultranovae wrote...
It could be argued that the slides show what happens way after the war and there was still strife in the galaxy. I think my favorite part of synthesis is the idea that sownthing has been won, something has changed us all, literally. The enormous scale and cost of this war brings about a great result, peace, progress and understanding.
Conflict is a natural result of the struggle between individuals or groups to achieve things, bento obtain resources, to use resources. If synthesis simply facilitates this process, a prices of understanding and acknowledging ideas, then who counsel complain.
If it indeed makes us unable to have conflict, then it is not something to be desired

The problem is that conflict is one factor that drives advancement. Also, I don't think improved understanding will remove conflict. Individuals and factions have different interests which can come into conflict. It is - to use one of Mac's favorite buzzwords - inevitable. What improved understanding may do is decrease the likelihood that conflicts turn violent, and that, of course, is very much desirable. 

Edit:
Regarding the question of "free will", no, it is not required that it is removed. Synthesis removes the difference in advancement speed which is the result of organics' and synthetics' mutual exclusive design principles. Conflicts, if they happen, will be more between equals now, which will make it more likely that they are resolved with no significant loss to either side. It is not people's ability to make decisions which will be affected, but the way evolution works in organics. iI changes not free will, but the foundation on which decisions will be made. It may influence the decisions people will make indirectly, but it doesn't remove any freedom they may have.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:57 .

[Obitim]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Where does it categorically state the synthesis removes all free will?

It is required to be this to be a viable solution to the Reaper threat - otherwise, they might just have decided to keep killing us anyway (if organics are capable of creating synthetics capable of wiping out all life, then surely merged synthetic/organic hybrids are even more dangerous). You still have an AI of questionable sanity in charge of a armada with enough firepower to annihilate all sentient species.

It's also implied; watch the synthesis ending cinematic again - does that marine's reaction seem human to you?

But I thought the remit of the Reapers was to reap organic life, if synthesised then it becomes techno-organic, therefore not within the remit of the reapers

[Mouton_Alpha]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Where does it categorically state the synthesis removes all free will?

It is required to be this to be a viable solution to the Reaper threat - otherwise, they might just have decided to keep killing us anyway (if organics are capable of creating synthetics capable of wiping out all life, then surely merged synthetic/organic hybrids are even more dangerous).

We do not know how Synthesis works at all. Obviously, they are many issues like the one you underlined, but the ending does say, that this transformation will remove the need for cyclical genocide.

Perhaps the idea is, that all synthetic life created thereafter will be "synthesis-enabled" as well. Or at the very least, that post-synthesis world will have much greater ability to cope with new synthetic life. Pure speculation on my part, of course - the point is, since synthesis is basically warping reality, we cannot know for sure what is required for it to work, including removal of free will.

[Shaani]

Obitim wrote...

Where does it categorically state the synthesis removes all free will?

I don't see how it could be a viable solution otherwise.  Peace and understanding don't erase what the Reapers did.  It's great that the Reapers have humanity and all, but they can forgive their victims a whole lot easier than their victims can forgive them.

Allowing the Reapers to continue existing is a monsterous crime against every living thing that the Reapers hurt, every bit as bad as destroying the Geth, and likely to be the downfall of any post-Synthesis society with free will.

However I feel that destroy is essentially genocide, you destroy on entire race, a race who, for the most part have peaceful intentions and wanted to be left alone (If you ignore the heretics)

Humanity is also a peaceful race, if you ignore everyone who isn't peaceful.

Modifié par Shaani, 29 janvier 2013 - 12:18 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

Shaani wrote...

Obitim wrote...

Where does it categorically state the synthesis removes all free will?

I don't see how it could be a viable solution otherwise.  Peace and understanding don't erase what the Reapers did. 

It does work like that on a smaller scale IRL, though. Not always, of course.

[Obitim]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Where does it categorically state the synthesis removes all free will?

It is required to be this to be a viable solution to the Reaper threat - otherwise, they might just have decided to keep killing us anyway (if organics are capable of creating synthetics capable of wiping out all life, then surely merged synthetic/organic hybrids are even more dangerous).

We do not know how Synthesis works at all. Obviously, they are many issues like the one you underlined, but the ending does say, that this transformation will remove the need for cyclical genocide.

Perhaps the idea is, that all synthetic life created thereafter will be "synthesis-enabled" as well. Or at the very least, that post-synthesis world will have much greater ability to cope with new synthetic life. Pure speculation on my part, of course - the point is, since synthesis is basically warping reality, we cannot know for sure what is required for it to work, including removal of free will.

yeah, that;s it.. A lot of peopel are saying 'it's the removal of freewill' or 'everyoen will be rewritten' but no one knows exactly what has been done, I suspect not even BW

[Helios969]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Plus the entire galaxy gave up their right to choose when
they(metaphorically) got on their hands and knees to beg Shepard to save
their asses from being killed. They don't care about the means, only
the goal: survival.

I feel it's a bit far reaching to say that the entire galaxy got down and prayed for Shepard to do whatever.  We only know 1% of the galaxy.  It isn't right, in my opinion, to then change ALL (and in my opinion again, any of the races involved in the war, but I digress) of the galaxy, the "primitive" races, the slightly less "primitive" races that don't even know that this war is going on.  They don't know about the Reapers or Shepard, so...

Now you just gave any T-Rex like race the ability to create synthetic arms to reach ****.  Good job.

Also, my suspension of disbelief exploded when the crucible managed to change all life in the galaxy.  Exploded everywhere.

Well, there is that...the scientific absurdity of synthesis.

IN the MEU, there is NO such thing as scientific absurdity... Thats the fun part of synthesis.. it actually worked.

(too bad about the destroy option and control..problematic, at best.)

Alas, the problem with a heavy science background...if the science part isn't somewhat plausible, the fiction part tends to fail.  In truth, the who shoot the tube, grab the control rods, jump into beam is all pretty retarded.  The devs said they didn't want a big boss fight because it was "too videogamey," and come up with that scheme.  It reminds me of something you would have seen in a cheesy 90's game.  If there is a logic too that scheme it eludes me.

[Helios969]

Auintus wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Well, there is that...the scientific absurdity of synthesis.

Has nobody considered that element zero is a neutron? Which is most definitely not capable of doing all that fantastic stuff that it does.
It is never explained, but one can(and I have) make up an explanation that applies better to Clarke's third law than eezo does. Nobody ever complained about eezo, so I really think people are just grasping at straws.

PinkToolTheater(WTF?) wrote...

Also, how do these new synthetic+organic things reproduce? Do they stop having babies and just live endless lives? What about babies (like Jacobs kids in his GFs womb) what happens to them?

EDI says in the epilogue that they may one day achieve immortality, which implies that they are not immortal yet.

Since you brought it up...the whole eezo thing giving superpowers is pretty retarded as well, but since it largely remains an undefined substance I am able to suspend disbelief.  Shepard's special essence capable of homogenizing organic and synthetic life into some new "dna framework" is quite simply impossible.  IMPOSSIBLE.  Of course, if BW wants to reclassify ME as science fantasy, then I'll shut up about it.

Modifié par Helios969, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:14 .

[RainbowDazed]

After thinking about the ending for almost an year I have come to the conclusion that synthesis indeed is the best possible ending. It's the one my main renegadish Shepard chooses. Refuse is my second favorite and the one my super-badass renegade Shepard goes with. My wimpy paragon-Shep goes with control. Destroy is the only choice none of my Shepard's goes for.

To the OP: I think that free will is an illusion - a luxury of those who imagine they can afford it. The Galaxy united behind Shepard. They all supported the Crucible-project and helped Shepard make it there. They trusted Shepard and helped her/him get into a position of power where she/he could do what is necessary to end the conflict. Whatever Shepard chooses, s/he imposes her/his will on the galaxy.

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ultranovae wrote...
It could be argued that the slides show what happens way after the war and there was still strife in the galaxy. I think my favorite part of synthesis is the idea that sownthing has been won, something has changed us all, literally. The enormous scale and cost of this war brings about a great result, peace, progress and understanding.
Conflict is a natural result of the struggle between individuals or groups to achieve things, bento obtain resources, to use resources. If synthesis simply facilitates this process, a prices of understanding and acknowledging ideas, then who counsel complain.
If it indeed makes us unable to have conflict, then it is not something to be desired

The problem is that conflict is one factor that drives advancement. Also, I don't think improved understanding will remove conflict. Individuals and factions have different interests which can come into conflict. It is - to use one of Mac's favorite buzzwords - inevitable. What improved understanding may do is decrease the likelihood that conflicts turn violent, and that, of course, is very much desirable. 

Edit:
Regarding the question of "free will", no, it is not required that it is removed. Synthesis removes the difference in advancement speed which is the result of organics' and synthetics' mutual exclusive design principles. Conflicts, if they happen, will be more between equals now, which will make it more likely that they are resolved with no significant loss to either side. It is not people's ability to make decisions which will be affected, but the way evolution works in organics. iI changes not free will, but the foundation on which decisions will be made. It may influence the decisions people will make indirectly, but it doesn't remove any freedom they may have.

Competetion drives advancement as well. What Synthesis may do is allow for competition without, or with less, destructive conflict. If through better understanding one side knows they will lose in a conflict, they may seek other remedies.

[3DandBeyond]

Where to start. Ask people on the BSN if they like Synthesis and a lot will say, "no", or rather "NO!" Let's say only one person says, "no, I don't like it." This should start you understanding the problem with it. Go further. A poll was conducted on the BSN and people were asked if they would like to be synthesized, if it could happen. The majority said, "no". Still don't get it? In the game there were people that didn't even want implants of any kind inserted into them. Do you see the problem now?

Synthesis is forced upon people against their will. If I determine it would be best for you to have a hearing aid, and I try to put one in your ear, and you don't want it, I'm committing a crime.

Take it a step further. Say you are a doctor and you find me unconscious and you try to save my life by giving me blood. But maybe that's against my religion or what I'd want you to do if I was conscious. So, well that's not your fault. However, if you know it's against my wishes or my religion or some other reason, and you do it, anyway, that's another issue altogether. In ME, Shepard does know there is not universal agreement on having tech fully integrated with DNA. There's no way one can even consider Shepard did not know this. If Shepard chooses to force that upon not just people, but all life, then it's not acceptable.

It's even worse when considered contextually, given all that Shepard may learn within the game. I'm sorry but any Shepard that would choose that once s/he knows what s/he knows is irrational.

The metagaming aspects of it only make things worse. EDI already told my Shepard she was alive. Synthetics already are said to be immortal and yet EDI says she is alive and says they may transcend mortality. Good to know. This may however indicate a direction for all life. Transcend mortality-well Krogan and Rachni have babies, lots o' babies. No foreseeable conflict there?

Tech is just as flawed as are the people that created it. All tech is created by someone. We have no idea who creates the tech organics get injected into their DNA, but all of it is imperfect. The discussion of blue boxes is merely one in-game expression of this as a thing Shepard would know. Tech fails. Programmed code decays. Tech also is synthetic and if it's so that synthetics will always surpass and destroy organics, then tech (even at the genetic level) would still have that potential. The Zha'til story explains what could happen. With synthesis, Shepard doesn't even know where the tech comes from, nor does s/he know where the understanding given to synthetics comes from.

But, nothing is ever perfect and there is nothing to suggest that inserting tech into organics at a genetic level could bring peace, unless everyone is internally controlled to avoid any and all confrontation, a rejection of free will and free thought.

[3DandBeyond]

Obadiah wrote...

Competetion drives advancement as well. What Synthesis may do is allow for competition without, or with less, destructive conflict. If through better understanding one side knows they will lose in a conflict, they may seek other remedies.

And who decides that?  What is destructive conflict?  Is there only one opinion on that-if not, then who's opinion is correct?

The lack of conflict or the lack of asserting one's own opinion, true debate, rules out full understanding of anyone.  So synthetics get full understanding-from where?  And, what if that understanding merely informs a free-willed synthetic that organic life (that no longer exists) is chaotic, disorderly.  Synthetic life is seen as orderly.  So, some arrogant synthetic being has full understanding of what it means to be organic and maybe decides to exploit the weakness.  How about someone decides to hack the technological genetic code that exists in all people?

Sure, that's head canon, but it's a logical extention of what we've been shown.  Tech is programmable-the tech inserted into all organics must be programmed to do something-what is it supposed to do?  If it is meant to reduce some form of conflict, then who decides what is not allowed? And if that tech is meant to reduce conflict or to provide some sort of knowledge-both purposes pose problems.  One restricts free will.  The other provides random knowledge that in and of itself does not reduce conflict.

I understand a dog needs food, likes to be petted, needs to poop, wants to feel secure.  So does my neighbor.  But my neighbor still may hate dogs.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ultranovae wrote...
It could be argued that the slides show what happens way after the war and there was still strife in the galaxy. I think my favorite part of synthesis is the idea that sownthing has been won, something has changed us all, literally. The enormous scale and cost of this war brings about a great result, peace, progress and understanding.
Conflict is a natural result of the struggle between individuals or groups to achieve things, bento obtain resources, to use resources. If synthesis simply facilitates this process, a prices of understanding and acknowledging ideas, then who counsel complain.
If it indeed makes us unable to have conflict, then it is not something to be desired

The problem is that conflict is one factor that drives advancement. Also, I don't think improved understanding will remove conflict. Individuals and factions have different interests which can come into conflict. It is - to use one of Mac's favorite buzzwords - inevitable. What improved understanding may do is decrease the likelihood that conflicts turn violent, and that, of course, is very much desirable. 

Edit:
Regarding the question of "free will", no, it is not required that it is removed. Synthesis removes the difference in advancement speed which is the result of organics' and synthetics' mutual exclusive design principles. Conflicts, if they happen, will be more between equals now, which will make it more likely that they are resolved with no significant loss to either side. It is not people's ability to make decisions which will be affected, but the way evolution works in organics. iI changes not free will, but the foundation on which decisions will be made. It may influence the decisions people will make indirectly, but it doesn't remove any freedom they may have.

Competetion drives advancement as well. What Synthesis may do is allow for competition without, or with less, destructive conflict. If through better understanding one side knows they will lose in a conflict, they may seek other remedies.

That's what I was saying - conflict may get less violent. The point is it still exists. Competition is a form of conflict - the two sides (if it's two) have conflicting interests.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ultranovae wrote...
It could be argued that the slides show what happens way after the war and there was still strife in the galaxy. I think my favorite part of synthesis is the idea that sownthing has been won, something has changed us all, literally. The enormous scale and cost of this war brings about a great result, peace, progress and understanding.
Conflict is a natural result of the struggle between individuals or groups to achieve things, bento obtain resources, to use resources. If synthesis simply facilitates this process, a prices of understanding and acknowledging ideas, then who counsel complain.
If it indeed makes us unable to have conflict, then it is not something to be desired

The problem is that conflict is one factor that drives advancement. Also, I don't think improved understanding will remove conflict. Individuals and factions have different interests which can come into conflict. It is - to use one of Mac's favorite buzzwords - inevitable. What improved understanding may do is decrease the likelihood that conflicts turn violent, and that, of course, is very much desirable. 

Edit:
Regarding the question of "free will", no, it is not required that it is removed. Synthesis removes the difference in advancement speed which is the result of organics' and synthetics' mutual exclusive design principles. Conflicts, if they happen, will be more between equals now, which will make it more likely that they are resolved with no significant loss to either side. It is not people's ability to make decisions which will be affected, but the way evolution works in organics. iI changes not free will, but the foundation on which decisions will be made. It may influence the decisions people will make indirectly, but it doesn't remove any freedom they may have.

Competetion drives advancement as well. What Synthesis may do is allow for competition without, or with less, destructive conflict. If through better understanding one side knows they will lose in a conflict, they may seek other remedies.

That's what I was saying - conflict may get less violent. The point is it still exists. Competition is a form of conflict - the two sides (if it's two) have conflicting interests.

nature creates organics, organics creates needs, needs creates competition, competition creates evolution


evolution created sythetics

Nature creates synthesis.

Shep attempts to govern nature via the catalyst.

destroy=competition
control=evolution
refuse=intellect
synthesis=all of the above

simple really