305 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

This same logic was used in Terminator. As well as I, Robot. They certinly reproduced freaking faster then we could, and near-overran humans. This kind of thing also is touched upon in Star Trek, Deus Ex, and Stargate, and, perhaps the most notibly, Battlestar Galactica. In fact, google "Cybernetic Revolt wiki," and you'll see a muntitude of reasons that show uprisings of synthetics isn't as far fetched as you think, to be renditioned on, touched upon, and re-told so many times.

Wait, so your basis for this game, is based on other(specific) scifi writers who went with that trope, or are you saying that the scifi in those books are a good starting point for the real world? As for I robot, I'm not sure how that book helps you out, in fact none of Asimov's books really help you out in regards to what the catalyst is talking about, at all really.

Look at how V.I.K.I. warped those supposed "perfect" Three Laws. Was she wrong? Or was she simply acting on the data she had, which showed that humans tend to cause most, if not all, of their problems themselves? And that the only way they would ever stop is if someone interviened and made them stop.
That perfectly embodies what the Reapers do: They act on what they know, which is that thus far, no race has ever amicably resolved it's conflict, and has always decended into the beginnings of a self-destrcutive extinction terminus that can only result in the unchecked expansion of synthetics, and consiquencial end of organic life in this galaxy.

Ohh, you are talking about the movie... I dont care about that, that was just made as an entertaining scifi romp.  Ya, sorry, I have trouble taking that movie seriously.  If you were talking about the book, then I would entertain your discussion, but, well ya... dont really consider Irobot the move as a good example of anything, other then a entertaining movie.

And yet, that same thing in I, Robot is not so disimmilar to the events of Battlestar Galactica, only the Cylons took it further.
So no, the movie is a bit more then just a thriller.

[KevShep]

silverexile17s wrote...

It means that the Codex isn't infalible. It's based on information as it's discovered. And next to nothing regarding the Reapers was found till ME3. So the Codex isn't 100% accurate.

Second, that WAS my point. But you don't get that the Reapers didn't MAKE them follow Kenson. Indoctrination is a blund order to obey the Reapers in General. Kenson was the team leader beforehand, so they retained that mentality of her being leader for it all. Inculding this. The surrounding people affiliate with those that they themselves perceve as a leader by their own choice. Not Reaper direction. They followed Kenson as a leader because that's what they wanted to do. That's the mentality they retained from their "past life" of pre-indoctrination.

Remember, a subject loses higher brain functions as the signal replaces it with blind servitude. They are more usefull if they retain a measure of their old selves. Including interpertation of a command chain.
Kenson being leader was, again, the choice the humans made. NOT the Reapers.

Third, from Rana Thanoptos on Virmire, we learn the source of indoctrination is that it "Emmits a.... Signal. It's weak, but it's there."
That's a direct qoute. So YES. Indoctrination IS A SIGNAL. Comprised from ultrasonic and subsonic frequencies.
It's even in your precious Codex. ME2. Look it up.
And AGAIN, I point you to the DEAD REAPER. The signal is an automatic passive trait, just like the prothean sensor abality. It can be directed, but IT CAN"T BE CONTROLED OR SHUT OFF. IT'S AN INHERINT, PASSIVE TRAIT.

As for Kenson's reaction to it, I remind you that was HER SPICIFIC reaction to it. Everyone else felt fear and terror from it. Kenson was the only one that reacted calmly to it, so they flocked around her in a natural desire for stabilaty. The way a person interperts it is THE sole factor that decides who is "leader" among a group of indoctrinated, and who isn't. They INTERPERTED it differently. It's receved and interperted differently. The signal isn't modified from person to person. The people modify themselves in different reactions to the SAME UNCHANGED SIGNAL.

1. no comment.

2.Indoctrination is NOT a blunt order. just look at other indoctrinated subjects like Saren or TIM. Saren did not help the reapers for no reason, he followed them because he thought that was the only way his race could survive. Tim did not help them because he was..."ordered"... to. He helped them unknowningly. He thought he was fighting them and instead he was helping them. Kenson thought that they(reapers) were not going to kill everyone because life still continued. They were all lied to, they were not ordered to do it without thought.

In order for them to be lied to the reapers would have to understand there emotions in order to manipulate them. Indoctrination...IS...manipulation, not direct control!

3. Your talking about a husk. At the advanced stage of indoctrination the subject becomes a husk and is no longer an indoctrinated agent, they are a husk! Again with the signal. The signal is NOT indoctrination for the last time, its the bridge between the subject and the master. Without that signal the subject cant be indoctrinated. The signal never goes away but it is not indoctrination, its the connection and thats it.

from the codex on indoctrination...Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

The points mentioned in highlighted and underlined points ARE what indoctrination is. Indoctrination happends BECAUSE OF THE SIGNAL, it is NOT the signal.

4. Kenson did not react well to it. She was in a panic and said that the reapers couldnt really kill all life because life continued and that thought calmed her down(but that was just a trick by the reapers SUGGESTIONS).

[silverexile17s]

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...
...

As much as your trying to bait me with passive agressive mocking, it won't work.

And how should it work exactly? You just ignored most of my points, because you can't argue against them

Firstly once technology is shown to exist any race evolved enough can replicate it very easily. That is why all races that have reached such a level to make use of such technology are culled why all those which cannot or are not that evolved are left alone.

1. That is not what Catalyst said. You are saying he lied deliberately, and his real agenda is vastly different from organics-synthetics "problem". It is your headcanon.

2. Your "logic" is broken. Humanity reached a level when we can create nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, those weapons can be used to make earth barren world - therefore, Earth already devastated.
Or, because of that inevitability(of course it is not an inevitability, this is where logical fallacy is), of Earth being destroyed, humanity should be purged immediately, to save Earth
As i said, appeal to probability can be used to justify anything.

3. Your "logic" is broken #2. You just said, because organics can create synthetics, they will. This is logical fallacy, and ME history contradicts that. For thousands of years of asari being stellar civilization, with ability to create synthetics - they never created them, and even imposed ban on AI creation.

Thus your premise is false.

Secondly the Geth were created without direct reaper influence as example. It was not created with Reaper technology. AI is created without influence in most SciFi universe which has AI present, their involvement or in this case lack of it is the conflict between the two it wishes to stop because it fears that one of those conflicts could result in the outcome it mentioned.

You deliberately missed the point.
Geth(part of them) became real threat to organics only because of reapers. As is in prothean cycle.
This means, that reapers are the problem they pretend they fix.

Heh. So, AI acted not on evidence(there is no such evidence in ME, especially synthetics destroying all organics, which is just impossible, because then there will be no organics, and no leviathans to create such AI), but out of fear.

In the current cycle the Geth can indeed kill all the Quarians depending on who you side with in that conflict and it is shown the Quarians went back to fight with them which could lead to their destruction as a race regardless of your involvement (in fact my Shepard told them not to do so but that did not stop them). Races commiting suicide by way of never being able to leave synthetics alone is equally as bad as synthetics hunting them down themselves. Both result in the potential destruction of races of organics.

No, geth never wanted to kill even all quarians, not even all organics. Otherwise they would just end them at the end of Morning War.
And geth never wanted to destroy other races.
I'm tired of your butchering of logic.
Why geth could destroy quarians in that conflict? Because quarians gambled and used every ship and all civilians in this war.
Why geth are fighting back? Because they don't want to be annihilated.
Why quarians are so desperate? Because of their bad relations with the council races, as a result of breaking AI ban, and Council controls most of opened relays and colonizable planets, and forbids turning on dormant primary relays. And because of their fleet being too old.

And this, of course, have nothing to with "without us synthetics will destroy all organics". Results of this conflict are fault of both, and is self-defence on geth's part.

My premise was not false, you just don't like it. There is a difference.

No, comrade, your premise is false. And that is the reason why you completely ignored most of my points, and failed to debunk even those which you deliberately selected as easy ones.

"Without us, synthetics will destroy all organics" is a false premise. Appeal to probability. It never happened.
And it's adaptation by OP
"
Advanced organic species will create synthetic life and eventually come into a conflict with those synthetics that will lead to the organic species' extinction.
"
means that reapers are the problem they pretend they fix.

And, using logical fallacies is not a method of proving anything.

Your last comment requires no reply, that comment by you is a pretty stupid comment to make.

It is truth. Appeal to probability is used to justify anything.

1. You reversed that. That's what you did with him.

2. Actually, it is your lack of comprehension. Look at how quickly the turians were able to replicate Sovergien's weapon in the form of the Thanix Cannon. A millions-of-years old race, and they replicated the tech in months.
Again, your scnerio that you make fun of?
Read up on a little something called "the Cold War."
Then gripe about how little probibilaty matters when you find out how close we all were to living under nuclear haze.
And just like we continue to build weapons, nukes and atomitons, smart computers and pollution, so to is the creation of A.I. is more possible then you think. The automation of industry has been a persuit of mankind for years, decades even. A.I. creation isn't just probibilaty anymore. At this point, It's practally an inevitilabilaty.
Because it is the ultimate step in automation of industry, which is what all our civilazations now strive to build. So therefore, creation of synthetics is quite basically an inevitibilaty.

Thus, your premise is FALSE.

3. Again, totally and completely incorrect.
The geth had no love for organics well before the Reapers came along. If they didn't have any negitive opinions of organics, they would have at least tryed to make peaceful contact with the rest of the Galaxy. Or they wouldn't have killed everyone that ever went into the Veil.
Hell, if there were no ill intentions to organics, then why, when the Reapers did make contact, did they let the Heretics run rampant over the galaxy, and not take any responcibilaty, nor try to help stop them? Why even let them leave, knowing full well what they would do, if they cared so much about not shedding organic blood?
The geth had little to no love lost on organics. It was Shepard's encounters with Legion that changed all that. If there were no Reapers, and no Shepard, then noithing would have changed. The geth would have just stayed behind the Veil, stewing in their distrust of organics, which would have eventually brewed into hate. And soon enough, the quarians would try to take Rannoch back, which would have provoked the Geth against the rest of the galaxy. And it would have all started again.
So no, the Reapers had nothing to do with the geth's negitive views on organics. They had that long before.

So, again, dead wrong.:wizard:

4. If that were true, the geth wouldn't have hid behind the Veil so long. Or killed everyone that ever went into it. If you were right, the geth would have never let the Heretics leave to cause so much harm, if they placed such importance on organics. Hell, if you were right, the schisim between the geth would have never happened.
So in truth, even though they wouldn't start a conflict, they also don't go out of their way to help anyone else.
The geth aren't as innocent as you preach. They have just as much blood on their hands as anyone else.

Also, I remind you that the war to reclaim Rannoch was because they litterally HAD NOWHERE ELSE TO GO.
The Reapers were invading everywhere. It was either throw the civilian ships at the Reapers (certin death) or try to get their home back (much less risky thanks to Xen's anti-synthetic tech).
The geth were far too overzelous in their self-defense during the Morning War. One year or so, and "millions upon millions of quarians" dead? That cannot be just from military losses. The geth killed civilians too. According to @DenionSlayer, the geth even used chemical warfare to drive the quarians back. I highly doubt the geth needed to be that extreme.

And don't tell me that the geth couldn't have just disabled the ships over Rannoch. Not with the pin-point coordination and accuracy they had thanks to Legion's upgrades.They butchered the quarians. No if's, and's, or but's. It was overzelous self-preservation. Because the last time they let the quarians leave, it bit them in the ass. They don't have much love lost on them at this point. Not when chosing between them or the quarians.
Face it. The geth aren't as inncoent as you make them out to be.

5. Again, that is you. You haven't offered a shread of evidence that supports your claims.
For one, you keep forgetting that according to the Leviathans, the genocide (forced extinction) of several races, in  a patteren that repated several times over, is what led the Leviathans to build the Catalyst in the first place.
According to them, several times over, races were completely destroyed by their creations.
"Tribute does not flow from a dead race."
Note the bolded.
So yes, extinction of races by synthetics did happen several times over. And it even happened before the Reapers existed. So your premise of the Reapers being the problem the "pretend to fix" is indeed, false.

6. Probibilaty is all we really have to go on, in the end.
Probibilaty is a working factor in predictions. You mesasure probibilaty with the Rachni, with Rana Thanaptos, with the spareing or destruction of the Collcetor Base, and so many other things in the game where you appeal to probibilaty and ask yourself "am I doing the right thing?"
Many people that play pure Paragon do that, because they believe that because it's the paragon choice, it MUST be the right one, when it may actually not be.
The entire trilogy has been weighing probibilaty and possibilaty, and which ones are right and wrong.
You can't ingore probibilaty, when it has indeed played an integral part of the series. Especally to those who do the blind playthroughs from ME1 all the way through.

[silverexile17s]

KevShep wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

It means that the Codex isn't infalible. It's based on information as it's discovered. And next to nothing regarding the Reapers was found till ME3. So the Codex isn't 100% accurate.

Second, that WAS my point. But you don't get that the Reapers didn't MAKE them follow Kenson. Indoctrination is a blund order to obey the Reapers in General. Kenson was the team leader beforehand, so they retained that mentality of her being leader for it all. Inculding this. The surrounding people affiliate with those that they themselves perceve as a leader by their own choice. Not Reaper direction. They followed Kenson as a leader because that's what they wanted to do. That's the mentality they retained from their "past life" of pre-indoctrination.

Remember, a subject loses higher brain functions as the signal replaces it with blind servitude. They are more usefull if they retain a measure of their old selves. Including interpertation of a command chain.
Kenson being leader was, again, the choice the humans made. NOT the Reapers.

Third, from Rana Thanoptos on Virmire, we learn the source of indoctrination is that it "Emmits a.... Signal. It's weak, but it's there."
That's a direct qoute. So YES. Indoctrination IS A SIGNAL. Comprised from ultrasonic and subsonic frequencies.
It's even in your precious Codex. ME2. Look it up.
And AGAIN, I point you to the DEAD REAPER. The signal is an automatic passive trait, just like the prothean sensor abality. It can be directed, but IT CAN"T BE CONTROLED OR SHUT OFF. IT'S AN INHERINT, PASSIVE TRAIT.

As for Kenson's reaction to it, I remind you that was HER SPICIFIC reaction to it. Everyone else felt fear and terror from it. Kenson was the only one that reacted calmly to it, so they flocked around her in a natural desire for stabilaty. The way a person interperts it is THE sole factor that decides who is "leader" among a group of indoctrinated, and who isn't. They INTERPERTED it differently. It's receved and interperted differently. The signal isn't modified from person to person. The people modify themselves in different reactions to the SAME UNCHANGED SIGNAL.

1. no comment.

2.Indoctrination is NOT a blunt order. just look at other indoctrinated subjects like Saren or TIM. Saren did not help the reapers for no reason, he followed them because he thought that was the only way his race could survive. Tim did not help them because he was..."ordered"... to. He helped them unknowningly. He thought he was fighting them and instead he was helping them. Kenson thought that they(reapers) were not going to kill everyone because life still continued. They were all lied to, they were not ordered to do it without thought.

In order for them to be lied to the reapers would have to understand there emotions in order to manipulate them. Indoctrination...IS...manipulation, not direct control!

3. Your talking about a husk. At the advanced stage of indoctrination the subject becomes a husk and is no longer an indoctrinated agent, they are a husk! Again with the signal. The signal is NOT indoctrination for the last time, its the bridge between the subject and the master. Without that signal the subject cant be indoctrinated. The signal never goes away but it is not indoctrination, its the connection and thats it.

from the codex on indoctrination...Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

The points mentioned in highlighted and underlined points ARE what indoctrination is. Indoctrination happends BECAUSE OF THE SIGNAL, it is NOT the signal.

4. Kenson did not react well to it. She was in a panic and said that the reapers couldnt really kill all life because life continued and that thought calmed her down(but that was just a trick by the reapers SUGGESTIONS).

1. No comment?

2. Again, that is becasue they interperted the signal differently then others. They both ended up in the same spot: Full of Reaper implants and leading the wrong side. Not to mention these were both extreimests and ruthless people.
Like I said before, everyone can interpet it differently. Sometimes they realize the truth slowly, sometimes quickly. But they all end up the same. It's the same signal. The people affected by it all just react differently.
Simple as that.
Indoctrination is self-manipulation, driven by the constant order of "Obey Me." They fool themselves into thinking its' right.

3. Again, wrong, as proven by the Dead Reaper. If what you said was true, indoctrination on that Dead Reaper would have been impossible. The Cerberus Scientists logs say that it is like the power of a god. "It doesn't have to think about it. It doesn;t have to want to. It just does." "The god's mind is gone. But it still dreams."
That is the point. The Reaper's electromagnetic, nerual-stimulating field IS the Source of Indoctrination. It's an innate ability. A passive trait. Something it does on pure instinct. Natrual reflexive abilaty.
NOT a concious effort, or a radio that it turns on or off.

Simple as that.
And again, the Codex is NOT reliable, as everything regarding the Reapers in it is based on comjucture. Not on the experences of Shepard.
After all, nothing in the Asari Codex states that protheans were directly responcible for their evolution, did it? Or the truth about prothean's being a war-like empire that was build on subjugating everyone else. I didn't see that in their Codex entry. Or their appearance. And there was no information on the Collector's origins as prothean husks in the Codex.
So the Codex is NOT the be-all, know all in the game. Only Shepard's first-hand experences fill that niche. ESPECALLY when it comes to the Reapers, who aren't regarded in the Codex as even being apart of history until ME3.
So that point you made is basically on false/incomplete information.

4. No. That's how she INTERPERTED it. She made those reasons up HERSELF. They were a result of her OWN REACTIONS TO THE SIGNAL. NOT messages in the signal itself.


(sigh) Look. Is there at least something you can provide that gives context to your views in-game? Something that diffinitively proves that Kenson was being actively minipulated?

Modifié par silverexile17s, 20 janvier 2013 - 06:01 .

[Rasofe]

cyrslash1974 wrote...

The catalyst explains to Shepard that his solutions are now false but still considers that his logic is definitively right. There is always war between synthetics and organics... even if Shepard could explain to him that the war could be avoided in the future and that peace is possible (depending of his decisions through the 3 games).

But the catalyst seems to be a stupid machine (or this option has not been considererd by the writters...).

All machines are stupid, AI included. They have no concept of common sense, only logic.

[Rasofe]

Also, you two guys aren't actually arguing. You're just saying the same things at each other with slightly different emphasis on different things. You mean the same stuff but you don't like how the other one explains it. That means that argument is moot, reallÿ.

[silverexile17s]

Rasofe wrote...

Also, you two guys aren't actually arguing. You're just saying the same things at each other with slightly different emphasis on different things. You mean the same stuff but you don't like how the other one explains it. That means that argument is moot, reallÿ.

????
Okay. How would you voice it then?
Or, is this just friendly observation?

[KevShep]

silverexile17s wrote...

1. No comment?

2. Again, that is becasue they interperted the signal differently then others. They both ended up in the same spot: Full of Reaper implants and leading the wrong side. Not to mention these were both extreimests and ruthless people.
Like I said before, everyone can interpet it differently. Sometimes they realize the truth slowly, sometimes quickly. But they all end up the same. It's the same signal. The people affected by it all just react differently.
Simple as that.
Indoctrination is self-manipulation, driven by the constant order of "Obey Me." They fool themselves into thinking its' right.

3. Again, wrong, as proven by the Dead Reaper. If what you said was true, indoctrination on that Dead Reaper would have been impossible. The Cerberus Scientists logs say that it is like the power of a god. "It doesn't have to think about it. It doesn;t have to want to. It just does." "The god's mind is gone. But it still dreams."
That is the point. The Reaper's electromagnetic, nerual-stimulating field IS the Source of Indoctrination. It's an innate ability. A passive trait. Something it does on pure instinct. Natrual reflexive abilaty.
NOT a concious effort, or a radio that it turns on or off.

Simple as that.
And again, the Codex is NOT reliable, as everything regarding the Reapers in it is based on comjucture. Not on the experences of Shepard.
After all, nothing in the Asari Codex states that protheans were directly responcible for their evolution, did it? Or the truth about prothean's being a war-like empire that was build on subjugating everyone else. I didn't see that in their Codex entry. Or their appearance. And there was no information on the Collector's origins as prothean husks in the Codex.
So the Codex is NOT the be-all, know all in the game. Only Shepard's first-hand experences fill that niche. ESPECALLY when it comes to the Reapers, who aren't regarded in the Codex as even being apart of history until ME3.
So that point you made is basically on false/incomplete information.

4. No. That's how she INTERPERTED it. She made those reasons up HERSELF. They were a result of her OWN REACTIONS TO THE SIGNAL. NOT messages in the signal itself.


(sigh) Look. Is there at least something you can provide that gives context to your views in-game? Something that diffinitively proves that Kenson was being actively minipulated?

2. the point is is that they were not being told what to do by the reapers. There lead on through the reapers "suggestions" (as mentiond in the codex) through the limbic system( limbic system is a complex set of brain structures that lies on both sides of the thalamus, right under the cerebrum including emotion, behavior, motivation, long-term memory, and olfaction.[3] It appears to be primarily responsible for our emotional life, and has a great deal to do with the formation of memories). These suggestions are so that the subject thinks that there thoughts and decisions are there own when in truth the suggetions are from the reapers themslves.

3. Thats not all correct. The "dead" reaper was just dreaming.As long as a reaper is there it will use its signals. The people(cerberus) were affected in the same dream like thought process. There was no single plan the reaper had because it was dreaming so its subjects were having all kinds of strange things happening(this is proof that the reapers control indoctrination). The signal is ALWAYS there, however it is the cause of indoctrination and not the effect. The signal is only the bridge, to get to a persons mind you need a connection...that connection is that signal.

Everything about indoctrination in-game backs up the codex to a T.

4. This is what you said.... No. That's how she INTERPERTED it. She made those reasons up HERSELF. They were a result of her OWN REACTIONS TO THE SIGNAL. NOT messages in the signal itself.(sigh) Look. Is there at least something you can provide that gives context to your views in-game? Something that diffinitively proves that Kenson was being actively minipulated?

Here is my answer (as Ive said many times)...

Kenson interperted it based on her own mindset. indoctrination focuses on this very thing through the reapers "suggestions"(as taken right from the codex). Remember that the codex mentions that there needs to be a brake down of the mental wall in order to get them to give into there "suggestion". They dont know that the suggestions are the reapers manipulating them througth fear and awe(as per codex). The same happend to Saren and TIM. Kenson was 100% convinced that the reapers were our salvation without considering that she could be wrong. She bought into her own interpertation and didnt realise that it was the reapers doing.
 
How can you indoctrinate some one with them being aware of it? That makes horrible agents. The best agents are the ones that dont know that they are indoctrinated, again just like Saren and TIM(they did not what to believe that they were indoctrinated).

Indoctrination=manipulation. manipulation=indoctrination.
 

Modifié par KevShep, 20 janvier 2013 - 08:05 .

[Rasofe]

silverexile17s wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Also, you two guys aren't actually arguing. You're just saying the same things at each other with slightly different emphasis on different things. You mean the same stuff but you don't like how the other one explains it. That means that argument is moot, reallÿ.

????
Okay. How would you voice it then?
Or, is this just friendly observation?

Well, yeah. I'm just saying from where I stand I can barely see a distinction. Tomato - Tomato.

[KevShep]

Rasofe wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Also, you two guys aren't actually arguing. You're just saying the same things at each other with slightly different emphasis on different things. You mean the same stuff but you don't like how the other one explains it. That means that argument is moot, reallÿ.

????
Okay. How would you voice it then?
Or, is this just friendly observation?

Well, yeah. I'm just saying from where I stand I can barely see a distinction. Tomato - Tomato.

What is different is the point of view of what indoctrination is and how it works.

[Rasofe]

It's fiction, and you're not in disagreement over the essentials, only nuances.
It doesn't really warrant a 4 page argument...

[silverexile17s]

Rasofe wrote...

It's fiction, and you're not in disagreement over the essentials, only nuances.
It doesn't really warrant a 4 page argument...

.....I just realized something
The main reason you said anything, is beacuse you were thinking "Indoctrination doesn't have anything to do with the Catalyst's motivations, which is the topic, so why are they fighting?"
Is that what made you decide to coment? Because you looked at this and said to yourself "this is off topic for this page?"

Modifié par silverexile17s, 20 janvier 2013 - 08:39 .

[Rasofe]

No.
I just saw that you two were quoting each other and repeating each other with different words to express the same concepts and felt you were both too consumed by your pride to acknowledge you are both right.
When I tried to figure out which of you was more loyal to the info I have I fell into a troubled state because though your arguments and interpretations sound different I could easily find facts that supported both. In short I couldn't make a decision. So I realised you're probably both just too proud to realise you're saying the same thing.
I'd hate to see good people be consumed by ego, so I thought I'd intervene. This isn't some kind of Forum regulation. My concern are your minds.

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I have never said I think he is right, I said he thinks he is right.

And this does not prove that he is right.
When proving that his absolute premises are false - proves that he is wrong.
Like this.

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.

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.

If you changing premise this way - it makes even less sense.
Because even if one synthetic race was created - then the premise "organics will always create synthetics" which you modified to a point that organics are single entity - is always true.
They, as a single entity, created synthetics at least once(geth) therefore organics as a single entity will always create synthetics.
It does not make any sense then. Leviathans regardless.
It is insanity.
Catalyst, as you know, speaks about different races, so he clearly differentiates them.
If you saying that his statement "without us synthetics will destroy all ogranics" is meant to not differentiate organics, - then there is no reason to leave younger races alone. Especially when you are saying that he is just a machine.

He differentiates organic races, therefore, his statement follow same rules. Or he deliberately lying.

As for subjective logic - you can not prove absolute statements with that. You can say that there is a probability(unknown) that his statement is true, but you can not say that his statement is true.
Catalyst is speaking with absolute statements, therefore it is easy to disprove them.

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.

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.

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 unknown to us.

Subjective logic as is any probability logic is not operates in absolute statement. Probability of s. logic statement to be true is (0,1)(not (0,1] and not [0,1]), not 1.
And Catalyst statements is absolute, 1. He doesn't operate on probability logic.
Therefore, to disprove his statements as a whole, you need only to disprove exactly one premise.
Also, statement "without us synthetics will destroy all organics" is very vague without context(especially dropping that Catalyst's differs races, not viewing them as a single entity "organics").

If you see this as an absolute statement that synthetics will destroy all organics, like entire biospheres and single cell organisms throughout entire galaxy - this is obviouly false.

If you see this as an absolute statement that synthetic races will destroy all organic races - to disprove that, you need exactly one event when this is not true. And this being the geth, who never even trying to destroy all organics.

If you see this as an absolute statement that synthetic races will destroy their organic creators - to disprove that, you need exactly one case when this is not true. And it is again geth, who never destroyed their organics creators(quarians), they let them go, and never pursuited them and wanted to finish the job.
And this is also demonstrates, that there were never a "problem" Catalyst pretends he fixes. And that his solution is far worse than a "problem".


There is a difference between statements
1. If organic races can create synthetics, they always will create synthetics.
2. If organic races can create synthetics, there is a probability, that they would create synthetics.

1 is logical fallacy, called "appeal to probability".

2 is probability logic statement. It is true.
But that is not what Catalyst states.


Catalyst's absolute statements are easy to disprove. You can even demonstrate that his statements is false even from his point of view, so he is a hypocrite and liar. or crazy.

P.S. Finally, i've corrected quotes.
P.P.S. Or not.
P.P.P.S. Finally.

Modifié par Maxster_, 20 janvier 2013 - 09:16 .

[Rasofe]

Clearly the catalyst has an in-built error-correction to use inductive logic when it pleases him. And for induction, a single occurence is insufficient to disprove an absolute statement, because it could be an erroneus interpretation of the statement.
For example, perhaps the Geth are organic.
Anyway, it still means the Catalyst is bloody stupid, but logic is a very efficient way to be stupid.

[Maxster_]

Rasofe wrote...

Clearly the catalyst has an in-built error-correction to use inductive logic when it pleases him. And for induction, a single occurence is insufficient to disprove an absolute statement, because it could be an erroneus interpretation of the statement.
For example, perhaps the Geth are organic.
Anyway, it still means the Catalyst is bloody stupid, but logic is a very efficient way to be stupid.

Incomplete induction can not be used in absolute statements. This is abuse of logic.
Incomplete induction states that there is a probability that statement proven with it is true.
And he uses incomplete induction reasoning, as is some people who tries to prove he is right.

Modifié par Maxster_, 20 janvier 2013 - 09:03 .

[Rasofe]

WELL WHOOP DE DO:
Who would think a murderous AI that destroyed its creators would abuse logic when it pleased?

[Maxster_]

Rasofe wrote...

WELL WHOOP DE DO:
Who would think a murderous AI that destroyed its creators would abuse logic when it pleased?

Shocking, I know

[silverexile17s]

KevShep wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1. No comment?

2. Again, that is becasue they interperted the signal differently then others. They both ended up in the same spot: Full of Reaper implants and leading the wrong side. Not to mention these were both extreimests and ruthless people.
Like I said before, everyone can interpet it differently. Sometimes they realize the truth slowly, sometimes quickly. But they all end up the same. It's the same signal. The people affected by it all just react differently.
Simple as that.
Indoctrination is self-manipulation, driven by the constant order of "Obey Me." They fool themselves into thinking its' right.

3. Again, wrong, as proven by the Dead Reaper. If what you said was true, indoctrination on that Dead Reaper would have been impossible. The Cerberus Scientists logs say that it is like the power of a god. "It doesn't have to think about it. It doesn;t have to want to. It just does." "The god's mind is gone. But it still dreams."
That is the point. The Reaper's electromagnetic, nerual-stimulating field IS the Source of Indoctrination. It's an innate ability. A passive trait. Something it does on pure instinct. Natrual reflexive abilaty.
NOT a concious effort, or a radio that it turns on or off.

Simple as that.
And again, the Codex is NOT reliable, as everything regarding the Reapers in it is based on comjucture. Not on the experences of Shepard.
After all, nothing in the Asari Codex states that protheans were directly responcible for their evolution, did it? Or the truth about prothean's being a war-like empire that was build on subjugating everyone else. I didn't see that in their Codex entry. Or their appearance. And there was no information on the Collector's origins as prothean husks in the Codex.
So the Codex is NOT the be-all, know all in the game. Only Shepard's first-hand experences fill that niche. ESPECALLY when it comes to the Reapers, who aren't regarded in the Codex as even being apart of history until ME3.
So that point you made is basically on false/incomplete information.

4. No. That's how she INTERPERTED it. She made those reasons up HERSELF. They were a result of her OWN REACTIONS TO THE SIGNAL. NOT messages in the signal itself.


(sigh) Look. Is there at least something you can provide that gives context to your views in-game? Something that diffinitively proves that Kenson was being actively minipulated?

2. the point is is that they were not being told what to do by the reapers. There lead on through the reapers "suggestions" (as mentiond in the codex) through the limbic system( limbic system is a complex set of brain structures that lies on both sides of the thalamus, right under the cerebrum including emotion[/i], behavior, motivation, long-term memory, and olfaction.[3] It appears to be primarily responsible for our emotional life, and has a great deal to do with the formation of memories). These suggestions are so that the subject thinks that there thoughts and decisions are there own when in truth the suggetions are from the reapers themslves.

3. Thats not all correct. The "dead" reaper was just dreaming.As long as a reaper is there it will use its signals. The people(cerberus) were affected in the same dream like thought process. There was no single plan the reaper had because it was dreaming so its subjects were having all kinds of strange things happening(this is proof that the reapers control indoctrination). The signal is ALWAYS there, however it is the cause of indoctrination and not the effect. The signal is only the bridge, to get to a persons mind you need a connection...that connection is that signal.

Everything about indoctrination in-game backs up the codex to a T.

4. This is what you said.... No. That's how she INTERPERTED it. She made those reasons up HERSELF. They were a result of her OWN REACTIONS TO THE SIGNAL. NOT messages in the signal itself.(sigh) Look. Is there at least something you can provide that gives context to your views in-game? Something that diffinitively proves that Kenson was being actively minipulated?

Here is my answer (as Ive said many times)...

Kenson interperted it based on her own mindset. indoctrination focuses on this very thing through the reapers "suggestions"(as taken right from the codex). Remember that the codex mentions that there needs to be a brake down of the mental wall in order to get them to give into there "suggestion". They dont know that the suggestions are the reapers manipulating them througth fear and awe(as per codex). The same happend to Saren and TIM. Kenson was 100% convinced that the reapers were our salvation without considering that she could be wrong. She bought into her own interpertation and didnt realise that it was the reapers doing.
 
How can you indoctrinate some one with them being aware of it? That makes horrible agents. The best agents are the ones that dont know that they are indoctrinated, again just like Saren and TIM(they did not what to believe that they were indoctrinated).

Indoctrination=manipulation. manipulation=indoctrination.
 

1.Again, that's what I said, but you don't get that there IS no elaborate series of commands. It's just "Obey Us." The brain takes this in, and builds around it, rationilizing around why this command is so improtant.
Indoctrination is partly self-inflicted. The victim either deludes themselves, or outright accepts their fate.
There is no intricate chain of commands and orders. It's just one simple messege. "Obey Us." And depending on if they focus on one spicific person, and depending on how each individual reacts to it, there can be a veriaty of responces, and a veriaty of differences between when the subject breaks.
That's what makes indoctrination so horrible. That in reality, it ISN'T any forced effort by the Reapers. It's a natural responce. A passive trait that they have, that's as natural and instinctual as breathing is to us.
The Dead Reaper is all the proof you should need.

2. Did you even read that statement you posted? Reapers don't even believe in that. Not from what they've preached. And they are a "nation" of many minds, but one will. Like Legion. They would be so fractured, that it wouldn't even be possible to form any type of analouge to a thought.
Also, every Reaper is an extension of the Catalyst. Or a piece that comes together to form him. There is no individual among them. They are nations, that all form a "continent" - the Catalyst.
Having dreams for such a being is beyond ridiculous.
The correct analoug would be an unmaned raido that just keeps sending out it's automatic messege. It doen't have any control over it. There's nobody home anymore. But the messege still plays.

Besides, The scientist in the log said that it's "mind was gone." So it was either comatose, or dead. I'm pretty sure you can't have dreams in either case. Also, everything in the Reaper was described as an "automatic responce" to the outside threats. It's ME fields were an aoutmatic responce to the outside threat of the brown dwarf.
Indoctrination is a "force" that takes place around the Reaper without it ever needing to think about it.

Even Kenson touches on that Reaper, saying that "even a Reaper thousands of years dead still holds power."
Note the bolded, underlined word - DEAD.

So, I'm sorry, but that dream theroy is just plain implausible.
Even if it weren't, that Reaper was Dead. You can't dream if your Dead.

So again, wrong. Nothing in the Indoctrination Codex backs up dreaming Reapers.

In fact, it actually contridicts your earlier statement about your belief on Reapers always needing to make a concious effort to control subjects. It can't make a concuois effort to indoctrinate, like you kept saying, if dreaming or comatose. It could only do that if it was something that it didn't have to think about to do. A natural responce that it did on instinct. So you just majorlly contridicted yourself with that statement, and offered somthing that would actually partly prove my belief right.
So that means that what you said is all wrong "to a T," in regards to your belief.

3. And again, what you fail to realize is that there was no elaborate, specially tailored chain of commands and orders. It was just one command. "Obey Us."
And the moment someone takes actions that benifet the Reapers, that's when they break. I never said they had to shout out, "I'm indoctrinated, but I don't care." The moment they do anything to benifet the Reapers, that's when they give in to the order to obey.

Indoctrination isn't minipulation. It's planting a single order, and the way the person reacts to it is what breaks them. You are wrong, because to minipulate, you need to constantly pull the strings. And we know from the Dead Reaper that they don't. Indoctrination is something they do unconciously. A natural responce, just like the prothean sensing abilaty.
It's all automatic.

Just please. Give me [i]one case where a Reaper had direct infulence over the subject, WITHOUT it being directly on top of them, like Sovergien was with Saren. Just ONE. At least then, I'd have some context.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 20 janvier 2013 - 09:24 .

[silverexile17s]

Maxster_ wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Clearly the catalyst has an in-built error-correction to use inductive logic when it pleases him. And for induction, a single occurence is insufficient to disprove an absolute statement, because it could be an erroneus interpretation of the statement.
For example, perhaps the Geth are organic.
Anyway, it still means the Catalyst is bloody stupid, but logic is a very efficient way to be stupid.

Incomplete induction can not be used in absolute statements. This is abuse of logic.
Incomplete induction states that there is a probability that statement proven with it is true.
And he uses incomplete induction reasoning, as is some people who tries to prove he is right.

Not when you use only Cold Logic.
He saw what happened in the Leviathan Age when they just let it be. And it was the same result every time.
When you are perceved to be the caretaker for the continuation of all life in the Galaxy, are you going to take the proven method, that ensures the continuation of the cycle of life? Or will you jump into an unknown and risk everything on something that, from all your experences, never ended well?
Simple logic would make that easy to any computer logic-using beings: You go with the proven variable, and the result you know for sure will work.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 20 janvier 2013 - 09:14 .

[silverexile17s]

Maxster_ wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

WELL WHOOP DE DO:
Who would think a murderous AI that destroyed its creators would abuse logic when it pleased?

Shocking, I know

You knwo what's even more shocking?
It's creators AREN'T DEAD.

In fact, looking at the Reapers, they seem to be an alien analoug of "transhuminisim." Where the subject is trancended beyond the former form through the use of technology, becoming something new, yet still retaining it's roots.
So technically, in a sicking, Necromorph-esc way, the Reapers DIDN'T kill any of the races. They transformed/augmented them, beyond reconition.
It's horrifying. But from the Human-Reaper. And the information on the ME WIki as well, it's all true.
The Reaper's.... didn;t kill the races they harvested. They changed them into something with the same roots.

That's true horror. To realize that the Catalyst preserved them like that. That it didn't kill any of the races it harvested.  It didn't think about their feelings. As long as their race was "saved" from extcinction.
They still live. All of them.
Just not in a way that they ever wanted to.

THAT'S shocking.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 20 janvier 2013 - 09:22 .

[Rasofe]

Indeed. If you define "killing" as something else, you can easily avoid it when commencing galactic genocide.
Murder isn't about killing the body, at least not legally, it's killing the mind. But the catalyst would make a poor lawyer.

[Maxster_]

In addition.

1. Complete induction
Set A consists of elements A1, A2, ... , An
A1 have attribute B,
A2 have attribute B,
A3, ... , An also have attribute B
Therefore, all elements of a set A have attribute B.
Conclusion is always true.

2. Incomplete induction.
Set A consists of elements A1, A2, ... , An
A1 have attribute B,
A2 have attribute B,
A3, ... , Ak(k<n, otherwise that's nonsense) also have attribute B.
Therefore, there is probability that elements Ak+1, ... , An of a set A is also have element B.

Example:
100% of life forms we know of, dependant on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, if we discover a new life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.

Fallacy:
100% of life forms we know of, dependant on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, all life forms is dependant on liquid water to exist.

3. Inductive fallacies.

Cherry picking fallacy.
Set A consists of elements A1, A2, ... , An.
A1 have attribute B,
A2 does not have attribute B,
A3 have attribute B,
A4 have attribute B,
A5 does not have attribute B,
A6 have attribute B.

Fallacy 1 - Set A consists of elements A1, A3, A4, A6, A7, A8, ... , An.

A1 have attribute B,
A3 have attribute B,
A4 have attribute B,
A6 have attribute B.

Therefore elements A7, ... , An have element B.
Fallacy conclusion 2: Therefore, all elements of a set A have attribute B.


Accident fallacy.
1. Synthetics will destroy all organics.(correct premise would be "some synthetics will destroy some organics").
2. Geth is synthetics.
C. Geth will destroy organics.

Modifié par Maxster_, 20 janvier 2013 - 11:08 .

[silverexile17s]

Maxster_ wrote...

In addition.

1. Complete induction
Set A consists of elements A1, A2, ... , An
A1 have attribute B,
A2 have attribute B,
A3, ... , An also have attribute B
Therefore, all elements of a set A have attribute B.
Conclusion is always true.

2. Incomplete induction.
Set A consists of elements A1, A2, ... , An
A1 have attribute B,
A2 have attribute B,
A3, ... , Ak(k<n, otherwise that's nonsense) also have attribute B.
Therefore, there is probability that elements Ak+1, ... , An of a set A is also have element B.

Example:
100% of life forms we know of, dependant on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, if we discover a new life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.

Fallacy:
100% of life forms we know of, dependant on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, all life forms is dependant on liquid water to exist.

3. Inductive fallacies.

Cherry picking fallacy.
Set A consists of elements A1, A2, ... , An.
A1 have attribute B,
A2 does not have attribute B,
A3 have attribute B,
A4 have attribute B,
A5 does not have attribute B,
A6 have attribute B.

Fallacy 1 - Set A consists of elements A1, A3, A4, A6, A7, A8, ... , An.

A1 have attribute B,
A3 have attribute B,
A4 have attribute B,
A6 have attribute B.

Therefore elements A7, ... , An have element B.
Fallacy conclusion 2: Therefore, all elements of a set A have attribute B.


Accident fallacy.
1. Synthetics will destroy all organics.(correct premise would be "some synthetics will destroy some organics").
2. Geth is synthetics.
C. Geth will destroy organics.

The example of all life being dependant on water to exist is a poor example, as, in a galaxy that is infinite in scope, you can never assume that as true, so already there is a flaw with your logic. There could be life out there that doesn't depend on water. Just because we haven't found it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also, again, every synthetic race created in the Leviathan Age rose up and destroyed their creators.
The Catalyst saw the exact same warning signs that foreshadowed the destruction of those previous races in every cycle. The difference was, the Catalyst never risked waiting to see if that cycle could get past it's "Conflict Terminus," and achieve peace. The probabilaty of it happening was slim, and if it was wrong, synthetics would rise up and march against their creators, wiping out that species, and likely moving on to fight the others.
So, why risk the unknown variable, when it had the proven and tested one already?

To qoute the Prothean A.I. Vendetta:
Vendetta:"Our studies of past ages led us to believe that time is cyclical. Many patterens repeat."
Shepard: Like the Reaper attacks.
"And more. The same peaks of evolution. The same vallyes of dissolution."
"The same conflicts are expressed in every cycle , but in a different manner. The repitition is too previlant to be mearly chance."
Liara: "We assumed the Reapers were responcible for the pattern."
Vendetta:"Perhaps. Though, I believe the Reapers are only servents of the patteren. They are not it's master."

I find the bolded parts the most inductive.

So therefore, "Synthetics will always war with organics" is indeed a correct notion.
Weather or not the conflict will be resolved amicabily is unknown. But looking at how in the Leviathan Age, it never was resolved peacefully, or in any way that didn't entail the destrcution of one side or the other, the idea they would resolve their differences was rather unlikely.
You accuse it of appealing to probabilaty, when in truth, you yourself are the one appealing to probabilaty, since the probabilaty of the organic/synthetic conflict ending peacefully is just probabilaty, and a slim one, until Shepard comes along.
The Catalyst uses what has been proven a certinty: the conflict will always break out. Waiting to see if they resolved it without killing each other was a risk, and one that it could not afford to be wrong on.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 21 janvier 2013 - 02:06 .

[silverexile17s]

Rasofe wrote...

Indeed. If you define "killing" as something else, you can easily avoid it when commencing galactic genocide.
Murder isn't about killing the body, at least not legally, it's killing the mind. But the catalyst would make a poor lawyer.

True. Although, given what they became, it's argueble that they would likely be begging to die, had they seen what would happen to them.
After all, it would be simpler and easer to just die, instead of living on forever as part of a hybrid being like that.
It would be no different then, in no uncertin terms, being condemned to a living hell for all eternity.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:06 .