305 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

Your doing what you complained about others doing which is your no basing your conclusion on facts given but what you believe might be the case. It was not the influence of the Reapers, the Quarians in ME2 told you they wanted to retake their homeworld despite the Reapers coming and in ME3 they did so going against any warnings you gave them prior. Their conflict with the Geth taking precedence over the Reaper threat organic and synthetic conflict which resulted in the extinction of their organic race.

You are not making much sense here. It is a known fact that the events in ME3, during the Quarian and Geth conflict, that the reapers were directly involved in the end result(whether you choose to ally with the geth, quairans, or both) and were also involved in the specifics of this end result.

Otherwise, what was the point of that piece of information you gave if not to show the reapers as not culpable to that event?

I want to know why you think they were directly involved.

[Meltemph]

And HOW exactally can you demand proof from ME and say YOU don't need to show any? You can't say I need it and you don't.

Again, you haven't psoted any proof, so there is NO evidence that what you say is any more the truth. I gave a refrence to wiki, spicifically:

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying or that you are arguing... I don't need proof because I am not making any claim about something in the game that I don't know about. What exacly am I trying to prove here? The only thing I'm trying to prove is that you or whoever are creating scenario's to prove the catalysts logic.

All I'm saying is the only real rational thing to do is with the information given to us to make a decision. It sounds to me, that people who are making these arguments in defense of the catalyst have reason to do so, because some of their decisions are based off this.

How can I give you facts or proof about your subjective view point about an assumption of a theoretical problem, with theoretical motives? I'm not sure you understand the defensive position you are holding.

As for your whole cybernetic revolt point, across certain fiction... You do realize these are not the only scifi about robots right? Asimov, Robert Allen, and scifi books in line with them(which there are many) are just as numerous as your examples... Even then I dont get your point.

You dont use other scifi books/shows or ect to prove an idea in this setting, it doenst make any sense to do it.

[silverexile17s]

[quote]Dragoonlordz wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Dragoonlordz wrote...

I have never said I think he is right, I said he thinks he is right.
[/quote]
And this does not prove that he is right.
When proving that his absolute premises are false - proves that he is wrong.
Like this.

[quote]
Simple - premise about organics always creating synthetics is false.
And premise about synthetics always rebelling against organics also false.
As is premise about synthetics always wiping out organics.[/quote]

Again you are wrong, your example does not set the premise as "all races will always create synthetics", you said "organics will always create synthetics" and from what we have been shown "organics" have always created synthetics. You do not need all organics to create synthetics to be true and would be plain silly to try to argue from that stance in first place since would require every man, women and child organic to create their own synthetic, you only need one creating synthetics to be true and is the same for your second premise. The only one that is actually worthy of debate is your final premise. In subjective logic it is true based on the premises I gave you, in inductive logic it is false because requires it to have already happened.

[quote]
He is using logic, just it seems not the same form of logic you choose to, given you think I am using inductive when I am not. Who is to say he is using inductive too. In subjective logic the conclusion is still true even though allows room for error or variation.
[/quote]
If conclusion have a probability of being true and probability of being false - it can not be used in absolute statements.
And Catalyst states in absolutes.
"Without us synthetic will destroy all organics" - is an absolute statement, and obviously false.
When
"Without us, there is a high probability that synthetics could destroy all organics" - is what are you talking about.
Also, second assertion, as you said, have a probability of being true and probability of being false. It is not absolute.

[/quote]

As i said with subjective logic it is a+b=c (destroy all organics) if c is the most likely outcome, subjective logic would not work in this case if it was a+b=d (not destroy all organics) is the most likely. The difference is in the data it is basing its conclusion on. That is where I said I consider it a flawed construct, it depends on the accuracy of his data. The data we have would imply his conclusion is wrong. The data it has may lead it to the subjective logical conclusion that it's conclusion it right. Myself personally I do not think it is right but I believe it think's it is right. I personally believe it is a possiblity but not a certainty. He believes it is a certainty probably due to applying subjective logic that it is the most likely scenario based on data that is flawed or data that is unknwn to us.

[/quote
Let me simplify for him:
To simplify, (I think. Let me know if I'm wrong) the Catalyst sees everything through numbers, as if it all was like a giant scale, and the variables are weights. It adds them all up on the scale,  and whichever way the scale tips, is the way things will likely go, hence, that's the path it takes.
My attempt at over-simplifying how the Catalyst sees things.

[Meltemph]

I want to know why you think they were directly involved.

Huh? Are you purposely playing coy? Do you not remember rescuing Legion?

[Meltemph]

No.
The geth's dislike and distrust of organics was present long before the Reapers. If it wasn't, none of the geth would have been willing to follow the Reapers against organics in the first place. They all would have said no if you were right. Which they didn't.

I'm not sure how you think this proves that the reapers were not a major part of the development of the Geth. Anything beyond you ttying to understand what the geth would have done, without the Reaper influence in ME1 is just you guessing what you think might have or could have happened.

And it's appearent that without the positive interaction of working with Sheperd, the geth would have retained their negitive views on organics, as shown by the Geth V.I stand-in that takes his place in ME3. It is much more willing to slaughter the quarians, for the sake of it's own race.

"Negative view of organics" does not mean "we will wipe them all out". At this point in time they are free as slaves, and are not being pressed at all. Any idea's about what they would do without reaper influence at this point is nothing but guessing or creating a narrative that one wants to have.

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

And HOW exactally can you demand proof from ME and say YOU don't need to show any? You can't say I need it and you don't.

Again, you haven't psoted any proof, so there is NO evidence that what you say is any more the truth. I gave a refrence to wiki, spicifically:

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying or that you are arguing... I don't need proof because I am not making any claim about something in the game that I don't know about. What exacly am I trying to prove here? The only thing I'm trying to prove is that you or whoever are creating scenario's to prove the catalysts logic.

All I'm saying is the only real rational thing to do is with the information given to us to make a decision. It sounds to me, that people who are making these arguments in defense of the catalyst have reason to do so, because some of their decisions are based off this.

How can I give you facts or proof about your subjective view point about an assumption of a theoretical problem, with theoretical motives? I'm not sure you understand the defensive position you are holding.

As for your whole cybernetic revolt point, across certain fiction... You do realize these are not the only scifi about robots right? Asimov, Robert Allen, and scifi books in line with them(which there are many) are just as numerous as your examples... Even then I dont get your point.

You dont use other scifi books/shows or ect to prove an idea in this setting, it doenst make any sense to do it.

Didn't you just earlier make claims about the Catalyst, and the evolution of the galaxy in responce to ME tech?
You yourself Just said you were trying to disprove the Catalyst logic. Don't you typaclally need proof for a debate like that?

It's all right for you to make those claims with no proof, but everyone elese needs it? That makes no sense!!!
And again, I postes a site refrence about all the times this has been used in other media besides ME.
: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_revolt
Remember? So don't question me about proof on my views. If I can give proof of my reasons, you can too, otherwise, your arguements will not have real validity compaired to mine, which have actual source material to support my views.

My point is that you claimed the synthetic revolts were tied to them alwyas developing the same by having ME technology, and that the Reapers always pushed them to have the same cultures thrugh the Mass Relays, implying that synthetics rising up was because the Repaers made sure the cultures developed the same way.
My claim was the Reapers don't infulence the development of cultures like you think. Just that they accelerate their growth. And that synthetics would have arisen regardless of whether or not they had ME tech pushing their development along.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:20 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

And HOW exactally can you demand proof from ME and say YOU don't need to show any? You can't say I need it and you don't.

Again, you haven't psoted any proof, so there is NO evidence that what you say is any more the truth. I gave a refrence to wiki, spicifically:

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying or that you are arguing... I don't need proof because I am not making any claim about something in the game that I don't know about. What exacly am I trying to prove here? The only thing I'm trying to prove is that you or whoever are creating scenario's to prove the catalysts logic.

All I'm saying is the only real rational thing to do is with the information given to us to make a decision. It sounds to me, that people who are making these arguments in defense of the catalyst have reason to do so, because some of their decisions are based off this.

How can I give you facts or proof about your subjective view point about an assumption of a theoretical problem, with theoretical motives? I'm not sure you understand the defensive position you are holding.

As for your whole cybernetic revolt point, across certain fiction... You do realize these are not the only scifi about robots right? Asimov, Robert Allen, and scifi books in line with them(which there are many) are just as numerous as your examples... Even then I dont get your point.

You dont use other scifi books/shows or ect to prove an idea in this setting, it doenst make any sense to do it.

No, what people are saying is not that it is right, but that is (might) be right but that we do not know for certain which might be the case because we do not have all the facts and know about everything it witnessed even in Leviathans cycle not everything was explained to us all the events of that cycle. I believe it is wrong or more secifically it's data we seen leads to a different conclusion but I refuse to say in absolutes that it cannot be right because I do not have all the data on which it based it's solution on.

[Meltemph]

Didn't you just earlier make claims about the Catalyst, and the evolution of the galaxy in responce to ME tech?

Huh?

You yourself Just said you were trying to disprove the Catalyst logic. Don't you typaclally need proof for a debate like that?

It's all right for you to make those claims with no proof, but everyone elese needs it? That makes no sense!!!
And again, I postes a site refrence about all the times this has been used in other media besides ME.

Huh? I specifically said I cant disprove what the catalyst says, what are you talking about?

: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_revolt
Remember? So don't question me about proof on my views. If I can give proof of my reasons, you can too, otherwise, your arguements will not have real validity compaired to mine, which have actual source material to support my views.

Again, you are not making sense. Do you think that wiki article is a factual reality of how things work in real life and in all fiction?

My point is that you claimed the synthetic revolts were tied to them alwyas developing the same by having ME technology. My claim was the Reapers don't infulence the development of cultures like you think. Just that they accelerate their growth. And that synthetics would have arisen regardless of whether or not they had ME tech pushing their development along.

Again, you are not making sense. I'm saying that with what we know vs waht we dont, that the assumptions you are making are essentially that, based on your own preconceptions about synthetics, and with you specifically, you use other sources of fiction to try and prove a point in a different source of fiction.

I'm assuming you think because there is fiction that runs with the idea of "gods vs creation" that all scifi that deals with synthetics/robots is all the same?

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:24 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

No.
The geth's dislike and distrust of organics was present long before the Reapers. If it wasn't, none of the geth would have been willing to follow the Reapers against organics in the first place. They all would have said no if you were right. Which they didn't.

I'm not sure how you think this proves that the reapers were not a major part of the development of the Geth. Anything beyond you ttying to understand what the geth would have done, without the Reaper influence in ME1 is just you guessing what you think might have or could have happened.

And it's appearent that without the positive interaction of working with Sheperd, the geth would have retained their negitive views on organics, as shown by the Geth V.I stand-in that takes his place in ME3. It is much more willing to slaughter the quarians, for the sake of it's own race.

"Negative view of organics" does not mean "we will wipe them all out". At this point in time they are free as slaves, and are not being pressed at all. Any idea's about what they would do without reaper influence at this point is nothing but guessing or creating a narrative that one wants to have.

The Reaper's existance had no bearing on the geth's views of organics. They had distrust prior to the Reapers.
If they didn't have any negitive feelings to organics, no geth would have followed Sovergien. Or the True Geth would have refused to allow the Heretic's to march on Organics. They had no lost love on the organics that died. It wasn't their problem. So they indeed had negitive views on organics, otherwise, they would have interviened. Simple as that.

And look at the quarians. If it comes to it, the geth had no qualms on killing them all off to ensure their self-preservation. Again, they had no lost love on onganics.

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

I want to know why you think they were directly involved.

Huh? Are you purposely playing coy? Do you not remember rescuing Legion?

It's been quite while since I played ME2, if wish to debate finer points of that aspect I will need examples of why you believe what do about it.

[Meltemph]

The Reaper's existance had no bearing on the geth's views of organics. They had distrust prior to the Reapers.
If they didn't have any negitive feelings to organics, no geth would have followed Sovergien. Or the True Geth would have refused to allow the Heretic's to march on Organics. They had no lost love on the organics that died. It wasn't their problem. So they indeed had negitive views on organics, otherwise, they would have interviened. Simple as that.

What does this have to do with anything? That didn't even address what I said, you literally said the same thing that I quoted but with different words.

And look at the quarians. If it comes to it, the geth had no qualms on killing them all off to ensure their self-preservation. Again, they had no lost love on onganics.

What is your point? Without the reapers the geth would have been wiped out in ME3.

[kal_reegar]

the catalyst is a machine.
the Leviathans established that there is a problem -> synthetics will always rebel against organics, and ordered the catalyst to find a solution.

the catalyst cannot dispute this statement (synthetics will always rebel). It is the axiom, the arbitrary but indisputable premise on which his task is based.

Maybe the Leviathans knew that this axiom was opinable, that it was based on limited empiric evidence and therefore it was just very probable and not 100% certain.
But they build the catalyst to find a solution to a specific problem, not to speculate about the problem being probable, possible or certain.

[Meltemph]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I want to know why you think they were directly involved.

Huh? Are you purposely playing coy? Do you not remember rescuing Legion?

It's been quite while since I played ME2, if wish to debate finer points of that aspect I will need examples of why you believe what do about it.

I'm not talking about 2.  ME3, we save LEgion from the device he was in that was comunicating with the Geth who reached out to the reapers for their help so they were not wiped out.

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

Didn't you just earlier make claims about the Catalyst, and the evolution of the galaxy in responce to ME tech?

Huh?

You yourself Just said you were trying to disprove the Catalyst logic. Don't you typaclally need proof for a debate like that?

It's all right for you to make those claims with no proof, but everyone elese needs it? That makes no sense!!!
And again, I postes a site refrence about all the times this has been used in other media besides ME.

Huh? I specifically said I cant disprove what the catalyst says, what are you talking about?

: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_revolt
Remember? So don't question me about proof on my views. If I can give proof of my reasons, you can too, otherwise, your arguements will not have real validity compaired to mine, which have actual source material to support my views.

Again, you are not making sense. Do you think that wiki article is a factual reality of how things work in real life and in all fiction?

My point is that you claimed the synthetic revolts were tied to them alwyas developing the same by having ME technology. My claim was the Reapers don't infulence the development of cultures like you think. Just that they accelerate their growth. And that synthetics would have arisen regardless of whether or not they had ME tech pushing their development along.

Again, you are not making sense. I'm saying that with what we know vs waht we dont, that the assumptions you are making are essentially that, based on your own preconceptions about synthetics, and with you specifically, you use other sources of fiction to try and prove a point in a different source of fiction.

I'm assuming you think because there is fiction that runs with the idea of "gods vs creation" that all scifi that deals with synthetics/robots is all the same?

1. WOW. You really haven't been reading, have you?
I was defending the Catalyst's logic. You are the one trying to disprove it. You yourself admitted that.

2. You keep saying that the Catalyst's logic is flawed. I replyed it wasn't.

3. It says so right there. It has several sources and refrences. Even more exist on the page: Aritfical Intelligence.
And the fact that we ourselves keep working day and night to create an A.I. seems to be proof of our eventuall advancement in that direction.

4. And I said that you are the same. You can't lecture me on it when you use the same method of preconception that you accuse me of doing.
And again, look at those pages. Cybernetic Revolt, and Artifical Intelligence. It pops up more then often enough.

[Meltemph]

No, what people are saying is not that it is right, but that is (might) be right but that we do not know for certain which might be the case because we do not have all the facts and know about everything it witnessed even in Leviathans cycle not everything was explained to us all the events of that cycle. I believe it is wrong or more secifically it's data we seen leads to a different conclusion but I refuse to say in absolutes that it cannot be right because I do not have all the data on which it based it's solution on.

So you don't think the writers of the setting told us the evolution of the catalyst/reapers in Leviathan to give us the understanding of how they came to be? Or do you think they just gave us the Leviathan DLC to speculate more on how it came to its conclusion?

Either way it doesn't matter. My point is people are creating scenario's to prove their assertions correct and by extension their choices. Which is fine, but it doesn't seem like some are willing to admit that is what they are doing and are trying to pass it off as something else.

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

The Reaper's existance had no bearing on the geth's views of organics. They had distrust prior to the Reapers.
If they didn't have any negitive feelings to organics, no geth would have followed Sovergien. Or the True Geth would have refused to allow the Heretic's to march on Organics. They had no lost love on the organics that died. It wasn't their problem. So they indeed had negitive views on organics, otherwise, they would have interviened. Simple as that.

What does this have to do with anything? That didn't even address what I said, you literally said the same thing that I quoted but with different words.

And look at the quarians. If it comes to it, the geth had no qualms on killing them all off to ensure their self-preservation. Again, they had no lost love on onganics.

What is your point? Without the reapers the geth would have been wiped out in ME3.

You just said:
I'm not sure how you think this proves that the reapers were not a major part of the development of the Geth. Anything beyond you ttying to understand what the geth would have done, without the Reaper influence in ME1 is just you guessing what you think might have or could have happened.

I just said that the geth's behavior wouldn't have been any different. WIth or without Reaper involvement, they still would have harbored negitive feelings to organics, and would eventually war with them. Most likely after the quairans re-provoke them.

And you do realize, that without the Reapers, the geth would have stayed behind the Veil, until someone eventually attacked them?
Without Sovergien, no geth information or samples would have been gathered. Therefore, no weapon like Xen's would ever have been developed.
So no, the geth being wipe out would not have happened.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:35 .

[Dragoonlordz]

silverexile17s wrote...

Let me simplify for him:

To simplify, (I think. Let me know if I'm wrong) the Catalyst sees everything through numbers, as if it all was like a giant scale, and the variables are weights. It adds them all up on the scale,  and whichever way the scale tips, is the way things will likely go, hence, that's the path it takes.

My attempt at over-simplifying how the Catalyst sees things.

The AI works on paremeters and variables.

If it's data says that the highest most likely outcome is what it claims to be a+b=c (c being more likely than the other possiblities) then it is using subjective logic. The most likely to occur based on it's data is the most logical one to act upon. If it was using inductive logic it might be wrong to come to it's conclusion if we go on the limited data we have been shown and we have not been shown everything it has been privy to. However from what data we have it's fair to believe it's conclusion is wrong, but to it the conclusion is correct. As mentioned before I personally believe it's data is wrong but not impossible to me that it could be right because I do not have the same data or my data is not the same as what it made it's conclusion based on so I refuse to say absolutely that is it is wrong and remain in the stance I think it's wrong, it thinks it is right but I cannot be certain of either.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:40 .

[Meltemph]

I was defending the Catalyst's logic. You are the one trying to disprove it. You yourself admitted that.

Where did I say that I could prove for a fact that I could prove that there isnt going to be a synthetic that is going to wipe out all organics? Do you not understand what I am exactly saying is illogical/irrational?

You keep saying that the Catalyst's logic is flawed. I replyed it wasn't.

Its logic in which how he decides to deal with the idea that they may be a synthetic that wipes out all organics. Again, you seem to be confused as to what was being argued.

3. It says so right there. It has several sources and refrences. Even more exist on the page: Aritfical Intelligence.
And the fact that we ourselves keep working day and night to create an A.I. seems to be proof of our eventuall advancement in that direction.

4. And I said that you are the same. You can't lecture me on it when you use the same method of preconception that you accuse me of doing.
And again, look at those pages. Cybernetic Revolt, and Artifical Intelligence. It pops up more then often enough.

Again, I want an answer from you about the this part that I quoted. Do you think that the wiki article and the fiction stories it shows is a factual and reality based eventuality and/or do you believe that this is the reality for ALL forms of science fiction?

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:41 .

[silverexile17s]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Let me simplify for him:

To simplify, (I think. Let me know if I'm wrong) the Catalyst sees everything through numbers, as if it all was like a giant scale, and the variables are weights. It adds them all up on the scale,  and whichever way the scale tips, is the way things will likely go, hence, that's the path it takes.

My attempt at over-simplifying how the Catalyst sees things.

The AI works on paremeters and variables.

If it's data says that the highest most likely outcome is what it claims to be a+b=c (c being more likely than the other possiblities) then it is using subjective logic. The most likely to occur based on it's data is the most logical one to act upon. If it was using inductive logic it would be wrong to come to it's conclusion. However from what data we have it's fair to believe it's conclusion is wrong, but to it the conclusion is correct. As mentioned before I personally believe it's data is wrong but not impossible to me that it could be right because I do not have the same data or my data is not the same as what it made it's conclusion based on so I refuse to say absolutely that is it is wrong and remain in the stance I think it's wrong but I cannot be certain.

Exactally. _Maxster keeps making these false assumptions because he's using the wrong logic.
He's using emotional reasoning logic, which combines mathmatical factors with human intution and instinct. Using that logic, one can see the moral horror in the Catalyst's Solution.
The Catalyst doesn't use emotional reasoning for logic. It uses cold ruthless caluclus. Everything is numbers and probabilaties. The view of a computer, or calculator.
If you look at it from that viewpoint, it's easy to see why the Catalyst believed this was the right option: The numbers pointed to this as the likely outcome, and this as the most effectoive solution.
It isn't until Shepard reaches the end of the game, that the Catalyst realizes that it underestimated the emotional reasoning factor, hence why it stands down and lets Shepard choose a new Solution.

[Meltemph]

I just said that the geth's behavior wouldn't have been any different.

We dont know what that behavior is though. The heretics joined the reapers because they saw them as the pinnacle, it was never said that the geth joined them because they wanted to wipe out all organics.

What we do know is that there were 2 factions of geth at that point, so that if anything, gives you a better clue on what could have happened had not the reapers been involved(the geth could ahve disagree'd on something and caused a split). Not all the geth wanted to side with the reapers and decided every race should be free to self determinate.

Your conclusions are based on the involvement with the reapers. My point is, you have no idea what the geth would have done without the reapers.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:46 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

I was defending the Catalyst's logic. You are the one trying to disprove it. You yourself admitted that.

Where did I say that I could prove for a fact that I could prove that there isnt going to be a synthetic that is ging to wipe out all organics? Do you not understand what I am exactly saying is illogical/irrational?

You keep saying that the Catalyst's logic is flawed. I replyed it wasn't.

Its logic in which how he decides to deal with the idea that they may be a synthetic that wipes out all organics. Again, you seem to be confused as to what was being argued.

3. It says so right there. It has several sources and refrences. Even more exist on the page: Aritfical Intelligence.
And the fact that we ourselves keep working day and night to create an A.I. seems to be proof of our eventuall advancement in that direction.

4. And I said that you are the same. You can't lecture me on it when you use the same method of preconception that you accuse me of doing.
And again, look at those pages. Cybernetic Revolt, and Artifical Intelligence. It pops up more then often enough.

Again, I want an answer from you about the this part that I quoted. Do you think that the wiki article and the fiction stories it shows is a factual and reality based eventuality and/or do you believe that this is the reality for ALL forms of science fiction?

I didn't. I said It's not fair to say that I need proof of my statements, when it's fine for you to not need them. It's what you believe. Fine. But I'm just saying there are parts that show the Catalyst indeed has a measure of justification.

And again, the Catalyst being synthetic has nothing to do with any of that, because it doesn't see itself as a being. Just a tool to ensure the future of the galaxy. So it following the logic it imposes on other synthetics is impossible, as it lacks the self-reconition that made the other synthetics, like the geth, rebel.

And what is in those articals shows that this seems to be a repeating factor in just about every sci-fi medium. So yes, I believe that most, if not all, sci-fi series may come across this mentalaty of "creator vs created," at one point or another.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:46 .

[KevShep]

silverexile17s wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Let me simplify for him:

To simplify, (I think. Let me know if I'm wrong) the Catalyst sees everything through numbers, as if it all was like a giant scale, and the variables are weights. It adds them all up on the scale,  and whichever way the scale tips, is the way things will likely go, hence, that's the path it takes.

My attempt at over-simplifying how the Catalyst sees things.

The AI works on paremeters and variables.

If it's data says that the highest most likely outcome is what it claims to be a+b=c (c being more likely than the other possiblities) then it is using subjective logic. The most likely to occur based on it's data is the most logical one to act upon. If it was using inductive logic it would be wrong to come to it's conclusion. However from what data we have it's fair to believe it's conclusion is wrong, but to it the conclusion is correct. As mentioned before I personally believe it's data is wrong but not impossible to me that it could be right because I do not have the same data or my data is not the same as what it made it's conclusion based on so I refuse to say absolutely that is it is wrong and remain in the stance I think it's wrong but I cannot be certain.

Exactally. _Maxster keeps making these false assumptions because he's using the wrong logic.
He's using emotional reasoning logic, which combines mathmatical factors with human intution and instinct. Using that logic, one can see the moral horror in the Catalyst's Solution.
The Catalyst doesn't use emotional reasoning for logic. It uses cold ruthless caluclus. Everything is numbers and probabilaties. The view of a computer, or calculator.
If you look at it from that viewpoint, it's easy to see why the Catalyst believed this was the right option: The numbers pointed to this as the likely outcome, and this as the most effectoive solution.
It isn't until Shepard reaches the end of the game, that the Catalyst realizes that it underestimated the emotional reasoning factor, hence why it stands down and lets Shepard choose a new Solution.

Your logic is wrong on this...

The reapers DO understand emotional logic because it uses indoctrination. The...ONLY...way to use indoctrination like the reapers do (they use it in the absolute way possible) you have to understand the emotional side of the organic other wise your not going to be able to indoctrinate.

[Meltemph]

So yes, I believe that most, if not all, sci-fi series may come across this mentalaty of "creator vs created," at one point or another.

All I can say to this is, you need to read more fiction, becuase the "gods vs creator" motif is not the only version, nor is it considered the most accurate, nor is it the "most". It is popular in movies and TV shows because that is what people want with tv and movies, action paced stories with a lot of bullets.

I gave you a good starting point to reading other works of fiction. Whether you decide to recognize these forms of fiction is irrelevant.

[silverexile17s]

KevShep wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Let me simplify for him:

To simplify, (I think. Let me know if I'm wrong) the Catalyst sees everything through numbers, as if it all was like a giant scale, and the variables are weights. It adds them all up on the scale,  and whichever way the scale tips, is the way things will likely go, hence, that's the path it takes.

My attempt at over-simplifying how the Catalyst sees things.

The AI works on paremeters and variables.

If it's data says that the highest most likely outcome is what it claims to be a+b=c (c being more likely than the other possiblities) then it is using subjective logic. The most likely to occur based on it's data is the most logical one to act upon. If it was using inductive logic it would be wrong to come to it's conclusion. However from what data we have it's fair to believe it's conclusion is wrong, but to it the conclusion is correct. As mentioned before I personally believe it's data is wrong but not impossible to me that it could be right because I do not have the same data or my data is not the same as what it made it's conclusion based on so I refuse to say absolutely that is it is wrong and remain in the stance I think it's wrong but I cannot be certain.

Exactally. _Maxster keeps making these false assumptions because he's using the wrong logic.
He's using emotional reasoning logic, which combines mathmatical factors with human intution and instinct. Using that logic, one can see the moral horror in the Catalyst's Solution.
The Catalyst doesn't use emotional reasoning for logic. It uses cold ruthless caluclus. Everything is numbers and probabilaties. The view of a computer, or calculator.
If you look at it from that viewpoint, it's easy to see why the Catalyst believed this was the right option: The numbers pointed to this as the likely outcome, and this as the most effectoive solution.
It isn't until Shepard reaches the end of the game, that the Catalyst realizes that it underestimated the emotional reasoning factor, hence why it stands down and lets Shepard choose a new Solution.

Your logic is wrong on this...

The reapers DO understand emotional logic because it uses indoctrination. The...ONLY...way to use indoctrination like the reapers do (they use it in the absolute way possible) you have to understand the emotional side of the organic other wise your not going to be able to indoctrinate.

Not really. The galaxy used the Mass Realys without any comprehension of what they really are or how they really work. It's just another tool.
Indoctrination doesn't need an understanding of emotional logic to use. The Derilict Reaper in ME2 proves that, as it's indoctrination field still functions, despite it being dead. The log of the Cerberus scientist monologes about how the indoctrination field around the Reaper is unconcious, like the way a God warps reality by just being there.
"It doesn't have to want to. It doesn't have to think about it. It just does."
So no, the Reapers don't need to understand organic logic. The indoctrination is by all evedence, a natural automatic responce.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:50 .

[KevShep]

silverexile17s wrote...

KevShep wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Let me simplify for him:

To simplify, (I think. Let me know if I'm wrong) the Catalyst sees everything through numbers, as if it all was like a giant scale, and the variables are weights. It adds them all up on the scale,  and whichever way the scale tips, is the way things will likely go, hence, that's the path it takes.

My attempt at over-simplifying how the Catalyst sees things.

The AI works on paremeters and variables.

If it's data says that the highest most likely outcome is what it claims to be a+b=c (c being more likely than the other possiblities) then it is using subjective logic. The most likely to occur based on it's data is the most logical one to act upon. If it was using inductive logic it would be wrong to come to it's conclusion. However from what data we have it's fair to believe it's conclusion is wrong, but to it the conclusion is correct. As mentioned before I personally believe it's data is wrong but not impossible to me that it could be right because I do not have the same data or my data is not the same as what it made it's conclusion based on so I refuse to say absolutely that is it is wrong and remain in the stance I think it's wrong but I cannot be certain.

Exactally. _Maxster keeps making these false assumptions because he's using the wrong logic.
He's using emotional reasoning logic, which combines mathmatical factors with human intution and instinct. Using that logic, one can see the moral horror in the Catalyst's Solution.
The Catalyst doesn't use emotional reasoning for logic. It uses cold ruthless caluclus. Everything is numbers and probabilaties. The view of a computer, or calculator.
If you look at it from that viewpoint, it's easy to see why the Catalyst believed this was the right option: The numbers pointed to this as the likely outcome, and this as the most effectoive solution.
It isn't until Shepard reaches the end of the game, that the Catalyst realizes that it underestimated the emotional reasoning factor, hence why it stands down and lets Shepard choose a new Solution.

Your logic is wrong on this...

The reapers DO understand emotional logic because it uses indoctrination. The...ONLY...way to use indoctrination like the reapers do (they use it in the absolute way possible) you have to understand the emotional side of the organic other wise your not going to be able to indoctrinate.

Not really. The galaxy used the Mass Realys without any comprehension of what they really are or how they really work. It's just another tool.
Indoctrination doesn't need an understanding of emotional logic to use. The Derilict Reaper in ME2 proves that, as it's indoctrination field still functions, despite it being dead. The log of the Cerberus scientist monologes about how the indoctrination field around the Reaper is unconcious, like the way a God warps reality by just being there.
"It doesn't have to want to. It doesn't have to think about it. It just does."
So no, the Reapers don't need to understand organic logic. The indoctrination is by all evedence, a natural automatic responce.

The reapers manipulate and control indoctrination. This means that they HAVE to know the in's and out's of the organic mind and thought process in order to indoctrinate them.

Indoctrination is NOT a "tool" that all they have to do is flip a swich to use. They control the suggestions in the human mind without letting the organic know that they are being tricked...That requires them to understand EVERY thing about there emotional state and logic.

Modifié par KevShep, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:57 .