305 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Since maybe the third sentence out of its mouth when you first meet is an affirmation that it controls the Reapers, yes it does. It corrupts the zha'til, turning them on the Protheans, it sends Sovereign to manipulate the Geth and cause them to leave the Veil after 300 years of intentional isolation from organics, in order to use them as foot soldiers against organics, and it helps the machines of the Metacon war defeat the protheans. 

Being a synthetic itself, whenever it makes the Reapers attack organics it's causing a conflict between synthetics and organics.

Additonally, it used its synthetic creations to instigate a short conflict with the Leviathans all those years ago, which it won.

On top of the ones it doesn't do anything to prevent at all, I'd say it's one monumental failure if its purpose is to prevent conflict. 

Not that any of this matters, because preventing conflict between organics and synthetics is not its purpose, thank you for conveniently cutting away and ignoring the paragraph that pointed out you were wrong. 

I did not snip any paragraph that showed me to be wrong, I snipped your assumption and opinion and nothing more than that. Your paragraph was proof of nothing outside of your opinion.

Again all those examples you gave are irrelvant, the cycles in each of them had already failed it's test and you cannot prove otherwise. For example we know for fact that the synthetic vs organic conflict happened prior to start of culling or rest attempted when Quarians turned on Geth.

You have no proof that during the thousands of years Protheans were around that there was not a similar conflict occured between one of the races of that time so that cycle was deemed a failure. Then the Reapers beginning a culling or reset using Zha'til didn't happen till after during the reset phase since the catalyst already deemed the test failed. The test of whether or not a conflict has occured between synthetics and organics. All of those cycles had such conflicts before he began intervening to begin the process of a reset.

Why does it care about conflict between synthetics and organics? What does it gain by preventing it (or evidently not, as the case is)?

It was programmed to do so.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 janvier 2013 - 10:03 .

[MegaSovereign]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Mass Relays help connect the galaxy and make the harvest easier, not to mention it's rather effective trap when they usually get shot down. However connecting the galaxy in such away also has the down side of a potentially hostile being able to destroy the others. We've seen this with Rachni, killer synthetics determined to kill organics would fall under the same category.

The Relay system is also the answer to the Catalyst's alleged problem. If organic/synthetic conflict occurs, organics can build another Crucible and disable all synthetics.

Or why don't the Reapers build a huge power source and do it themselves? The Reapers built the relays and the Citadel. Plus, after learning about the Crucible for the first time, it should be even easier.

The Catalyst likely didn't know what the Crucible actually does. It probably assumed that it targeted Reapers only and not all synthetics like it's later revealed.

And your question sort of answers itself...If the Reapers use the Crucible, they'll end up killing themselves. The solution is only temporary, which is why organics need to be the ones who are responsible for it...

[Sibu]

Lol... Dragoonlordz is getting owned

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Well the Krogan were being led to genocide due to the genophage apparently.

I'm glad you brought that up. Organic morality was the only thing that kept us from sterilizing them outright. We resorted to the genophage as a lesser evil. Not real logical, but, there are some lines even we don't cross.

Compare that to the Morning War geth's reason for letting the last quarians go.

"Genocide... does not compute."

Preserving them means nothing if they all die out because the Reapers used them all to try to get into the Citadel.

And the Reapers are still suspect #1 in controlling the Rachni.

The Reapers are not infalliable. Never have been. They've made miscalculations dating all the way back to ME1.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 18 janvier 2013 - 10:14 .

[Dragoonlordz]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

No, he is not told at all to preserve organics in any way he can and he clearly says what he is supposed to do-achieve balance, peace, and create a connection between synthetics and organics. He somehow takes that to mean preserve, but he understands destruction and the cessation of life.  He may not care about it, but he knows what it is and yet he says he isn't doing that.  But he is.  And he says specifically that he had to destroy his creators-so much for preserving.  Maybe he needs a new dictionary but mine does not say that destroy=preserve.

Leviathan DLC makes it clear that his mandate is to preserve organic life at any cost. Balance, Peace, and Connection was the ideal, but not required. The catalyst achieves two of those.

For that matter, not all Crucible functions are ideal by those standards.

I don't recall Leviathans saying that (they might have but I do not recall them doing so). I do recall the game however telling the player it was designed with sole purpose of resolve the conflict between organic and synthetics. It is logical to believe it set in place a flawed parameter in which if cycle fails a test, being if any race creates a synthetic life then procedes to start a conflict with them then cycle failed and can begin trying again. The flaw being no variable placed upon the Catalyst to cancel the cycles based on the result of such conflict, only the variable that if conflict happens it is deemed a failure.

Now maybe someone can throw a link to video which shows the Catalyst saying its primary goal is to save organic lives, or Leviathans saying it's primary goal was to save organics from synthetics but I do not recall anywhere in game saying that was it's primary goal. From what I recall it is said that it's primary goal was to resolve the conflict between the organic and synthetics which in it's flawed design decided that each cycle must be reset when any such conflict occurs. We know such conflict already occured prior to creation of the Catalyst within the Leviathans cycle because they said so and is why they created the thing. We also know such conflict occured in this cycle between Geth and Quarians on their homeworld so in both were deemed a failure and both were reset to try again.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 janvier 2013 - 10:19 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

3DandBeyond wrote...

And yet, the kid is supposedly subservient to his programming-he still follows it so that means these functions should be ideal because again he deals in absolutes or he should.  Or else he is adaptable and is not still serving his programming.

IMO, he is not shackled, but he is not adaptable either. He is free, but inflexible.



... Anyway, I have to go walk the doggy. brb.

[Dragoonlordz]

Sibu wrote...

Lol... Dragoonlordz is getting owned

Care to elaborate in how so? Not single person arguing with me has put anything that invalidates what I said about the logic behind the Catalysts reset of cycles. I have however said if someone can provide proof that the game does not tell you it's primary goal is to prevent the conflict or organic vs synthetics to show show such proof. The difference in diiologies between me and some others is I believe the goal is to prevent the conflict from occuring in a cycle and if does occur a rest of the galaxy begins. Others believe its primary goal is to save all organic life which to me it is not.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 janvier 2013 - 10:22 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
snipped

He's not told to achieve peace, he's told to preserve organics in any way he can.

So even by your own admission he's creating conflict, right?  Funny that a synthetic that is tasked with saving organic life and stopping conflict between synthetics and organics (specifically with organics as the victims), is using synthetics to create conflict that is taking organic life, killing organics.

Not killing, preserving into Reaper form. Granted, some die outright, but the overall goal is still accomplished.

No, he is not told at all to preserve organics in any way he can and he clearly says what he is supposed to do-achieve balance, peace, and create a connection between synthetics and organics.  He somehow takes that to mean preserve, but he understands destruction and the cessation of life.  He may not care about it, but he knows what it is and yet he says he isn't doing that.  But he is.  And he says specifically that he had to destroy his creators-so much for preserving.  Maybe he needs a new dictionary but mine does not say that destroy=preserve.

Which gives way to Marmalade Theory.



Our yard has only room for so many berry bushes. Each cycle the bushes make flowers which are pollenated and make berries. Without us the berries would create berry bushes that would take over our back yards and destroy all other plants. It is our job to harvest berries and preserve them in jar form and cut back the bushes before they take over the yard. The bushes may be in conflict with us, but it is not war. There is only the harvest, and the English Muffin. But are the berries alive? Of course not, silly. They are preserved. They will no longer age or spoil unless someone doesn't do a very good job of preserving them.

This is how the Catalyst sees the galaxy and organics. We are the berries of the worlds. We must be harvested. Do you understand Marmalade Theory now? It is not something we as berries can comprehend.

[Meltemph]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Sibu wrote...

Lol... Dragoonlordz is getting owned

Care to elaborate in how so? Not single person arguing with me has put anything that invalidates what I said about the logic behind the Catalysts reset of cycles.

Considering you are doing the exact same thing as everyone else who doesnt like the catalysts arguement... You take incredibly small samples of the synthetic/organic conflict(in scope of what the child is talking about), without lookin at any implications, originating from the Leviathan.  Then you are saying, since organics make synthetics, the premise of the catalyst is correct.

Modifié par Meltemph, 18 janvier 2013 - 10:26 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Since maybe the third sentence out of its mouth when you first meet is an affirmation that it controls the Reapers, yes it does. It corrupts the zha'til, turning them on the Protheans, it sends Sovereign to manipulate the Geth and cause them to leave the Veil after 300 years of intentional isolation from organics, in order to use them as foot soldiers against organics, and it helps the machines of the Metacon war defeat the protheans. 

Being a synthetic itself, whenever it makes the Reapers attack organics it's causing a conflict between synthetics and organics.

Additonally, it used its synthetic creations to instigate a short conflict with the Leviathans all those years ago, which it won.

On top of the ones it doesn't do anything to prevent at all, I'd say it's one monumental failure if its purpose is to prevent conflict. 

Not that any of this matters, because preventing conflict between organics and synthetics is not its purpose, thank you for conveniently cutting away and ignoring the paragraph that pointed out you were wrong. 

I did not snip any paragraph that showed me to be wrong, I snipped your assumption and opinion and nothing more than that. Your paragraph was proof of nothing outside of your opinion.

I quoted the Catalyst saying what its purpose was, your definition of opinion is wrong.

Here's the Leviathans telling us.

"We created an intelligence with a mandate to preserve life at any cost."

Here's the Catalyst actually saying the quote I linked earlier. 

"Without us to stop it synthetics would destroy all organics."

Feel free to ignore me like you did before, or better yet, back up your own claims with some proof.

Again all those examples you gave are irrelvant, the cycles in each of them had already failed it's test and you cannot prove otherwise. For example we know for fact that the synthetic vs organic conflict happened prior to start of culling or rest attempted when Quarians turned on Geth.

You have no proof that during the thousands of years Protheans were around that there was not a similar conflict occured between one of the races of that time so that cycle was deemed a failure. Then the Reapers beginning a culling or reset using Zha'til didn't happen till after during the reset phase since the catalyst already deemed the test failed. The test of whether or not a conflict has occured between synthetics and organics. All of those cycles had such conflicts before he began intervening to begin the process of a reset.

What test? You keep on talking about a test but you haven't said what it is.

I don't know why you're talking like I'm arguing this point, because I'm not. Preventing conflict isn't its purpose. 

I mean, even ignoring that it's never said preventing conflict is its purpose, you can figure out it's not easily using a little logic, deducing that since it hasn't ever prevented a conflict, and repeatedly starts them, preventing them isn't why it was made.

This is easy stuff. Everyone knows this by now, except you. 

Why does it care about conflict between synthetics and organics? What does it gain by preventing it (or evidently not, as the case is)?

It was programmed to do so.

Why was it programmed? Why did its creators programme it this way? Why does it exist? You keep on saying it aims to prevent conflict, and even though it completely fails at this task, repeatedly, even contradicting its own purpose by causing conflict, why does conflict need to be prevented? 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 18 janvier 2013 - 10:28 .

[dreamgazer]

Orange marmalade on English muffins is amazing. I comprehend that.

[Dragoonlordz]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I quoted the Catalyst saying what its purpose was, your definition of opinion is wrong.

Here's the Leviathans telling us.

"We created an intelligence with a mandate to preserve life at any cost."

You are also told is is flawed in it's design.

You are told by the catalyst what it considers to be it's goal which was prevent organic and synthetic conflict in which it considers such conflicts will result in only one outcome which is the synthetics always winning in the long term. Preserve life by reseting each cycle and as each cycle has created synthetic life and a conflict has occured it continues to reset them. It tells you every single cycle has had such conflict. You have some evidence that every cycle the conflict occurs then he resets it, you have no evidence he starts the first conflict in each cycle. It specifically emhasises the "conflict" many times. The conflict he is trying to stop from occuring because that conflict leads to his only perceived outcome without his intervention.

To me the flaw was not programming in a variable that such outcome might not happen aka not lead to synthetic always winning. So it deems the creation of synthetics and any conflict which begins to be a starting point which could lead to its percieved logical outcome of loss. So it culls them both organic and synthetic of that cycle not just organic, resets a cycle. I bet if in the entire 50,000 years no such conflict occurs then I think he won't reset that cycle but we will never know if that is true because it has never happened to our knowledge.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 janvier 2013 - 10:48 .

[Fixers0]

he does, actually, though he seemingly only follows a selective definition of surrender.

[fr33stylez]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

And according to the Catalyst, war will break out eventually even after Destroy... so I'm unsure why you think rannoch doesn't prove him wrong but Destroy does.

The catalyst thought that if organic-synthetic conflict breaks out, the organic side is doomed to extinction at the hands of the conflict. Destroy proves that that's no longer a guarantee. Therefore, the catalyst no longer needs to preserve organics.

I don't agree with this assessment. You seem to be suggesting that the building of the Crucible to stop the Reapers inadventerly satisifies the Catalyst because all synthetics, who are supposedly a danger to organics, are killed.


If this was the case then the Catalyst would've just destroyed synthetics in cycles as opposed harvesting organics. Destroy does not solve the Singularity problem and the Catalyst doesn't pretend it does (the intention of the writers is especially clear if you read the leaked script). Just like Control doesn't stop it either (again, the original script makes it clear that Shepard merely subverts the Catalyst while lloking for a 'new solution').

[The Night Mammoth]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I quoted the Catalyst saying what its purpose was, your definition of opinion is wrong.

Here's the Leviathans telling us.

"We created an intelligence with a mandate to preserve life at any cost."

You are also told is is flawed in it's design.

No, you aren't. In fact, the Leviathans say it's doing exactly what it was made to do; preserve organic life. The means in which it does so are the issue, and given that it was simply programmed to achieve its goal through any means necessary, its not even really flawed in this respect.

You are told by the catalyst what it considers to be it's goal which was prevent organic and synthetic conflict in which it considers such conflicts will result in only one outcome which is the synthetics always winning in the long term. Preserve life by reseting each cycle as each cycle has created synthetic life and a conflict has occured.

You've changed your tune. The bolded part is completely new to your argument.

You are told by the Catalyst what its purpose is, but it's not what you've said it is. I've quoted it twice. 

To me the flaw was not programming in a variable that such outcome might not happen. So it deems the creation of synthetics and any conflict which begins to be a starting point which could lead to its percieved logical outcome of loss. So it culls them, resets with a cycle. I bet if in the entire 50,000 years no such conflict occurs then I think he won't reset that cycle but we will never know if that is true because it has never happened to our knowledge.

It wasn't not programmed with such a variable, it came to the conclusion that all organic life would be inevitably wiped out without intervention on its own, before it started the cycle. It's not looking for a cycle where it wont happen, that's already proven by the fact that it repeatedly talks about it as inevitable, as an absolute, unpreventable without the Reaper harvest, and by the fact that it's been given the opportunity to watch organics succeed in overcoming synthetics at least twice, possibly three times (protheans winning the Metacon War, quarians gaining a massive uperhand in their second war against the geth, and the quarians potentially killing the geth), and live together as allies at least twice (zha'til, geth alliance with quarians/geth allying with Shepard if their side is chosen) that we know of, and still culled the galaxy of all sapient civilizations. 

[HiddenInWar]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
snipped

He's not told to achieve peace, he's told to preserve organics in any way he can.

So even by your own admission he's creating conflict, right?  Funny that a synthetic that is tasked with saving organic life and stopping conflict between synthetics and organics (specifically with organics as the victims), is using synthetics to create conflict that is taking organic life, killing organics.

Not killing, preserving into Reaper form. Granted, some die outright, but the overall goal is still accomplished.

No, he is not told at all to preserve organics in any way he can and he clearly says what he is supposed to do-achieve balance, peace, and create a connection between synthetics and organics.  He somehow takes that to mean preserve, but he understands destruction and the cessation of life.  He may not care about it, but he knows what it is and yet he says he isn't doing that.  But he is.  And he says specifically that he had to destroy his creators-so much for preserving.  Maybe he needs a new dictionary but mine does not say that destroy=preserve.

Which gives way to Marmalade Theory.



Our yard has only room for so many berry bushes. Each cycle the bushes make flowers which are pollenated and make berries. Without us the berries would create berry bushes that would take over our back yards and destroy all other plants. It is our job to harvest berries and preserve them in jar form and cut back the bushes before they take over the yard. The bushes may be in conflict with us, but it is not war. There is only the harvest, and the English Muffin. But are the berries alive? Of course not, silly. They are preserved. They will no longer age or spoil unless someone doesn't do a very good job of preserving them.

This is how the Catalyst sees the galaxy and organics. We are the berries of the worlds. We must be harvested. Do you understand Marmalade Theory now? It is not something we as berries can comprehend.

Raspberry...

[Meltemph]

 

You are also told is is flawed in it's design.

You are told by the catalyst what it considers to be it's goal which was prevent organic and synthetic conflict in which it considers such conflicts will result in only one outcome which is the synthetics always winning in the long term. Preserve life by reseting each cycle and as each cycle has created synthetic life and a conflict has occured it continues to reset them. It tells you every single cycle has had such conflict. You have evidence that every cycle the conflict occurs then he resets it, you have no evidence he starts the first conflict in each cycle. It specifically emhasises the "conflict" many times.

To me the flaw was not programming in a variable that such outcome might not happen aka not lead to synthetic always winning. So it deems the creation of synthetics and any conflict which begins to be a starting point which could lead to its percieved logical outcome of loss. So it culls them both organic and synthetic of that cycle, resets a cycle. I bet if in the entire 50,000 years no such conflict occurs then I think he won't reset that cycle but we will never know if that is true because it has never happened to our knowledge. 

His "precieved outcome of loss" does not make sense at all(which is ok, the race that created them were...special), he holds onto this premise that the reasult of organics making synthetics is the extinction of organics(how the hell it is possible to come to this conclusion is nothing but madness or fear and synthetics dont feel fear).  

The only real conclusion we can make, without making stuff up, is that the Leviathan created specific sociological issues that created the conclusions of the catalyst.  Essetnailly, the catalysts arguemetns are a non sequitor, and really should have no barring in your decisions or conclusions.  His basis is based on a faulty premese instilled by a race with an abundence of intelligence but very little commen sense.

All the "conflicts" we see(be it synthetic or anything else) are just that, simply time taking its course.  Since this thing is so old, it describes events in partial, without recognizing the lack of anything supporting his totality.  Then all we have is circumstances around our cycle(and bits and peices from others), and becuase of ones personal biases or whatever else, it is possible to come to the same conclusions as the catalyst(much like the way a religion is created).

Again though, all this is ok, because he was created out of foolishness, so it only makes sense that his "logic" is that of foolishness.

[Epique Phael767]

 I just see the catalyst as an AI that is incompetent and obsolete and is entire focused on self-preservation. Taking some cues from the indoctrination theory and adding together what he says at different points, I see control and synthesis as traps which he glorifies, and destroy as the correct choice because he says the least about it and uses discouraging words and tone.

Modifié par Epique Phael767, 18 janvier 2013 - 10:55 .

[Sam Anders]

Yet destroy is an equally awful option because it basically invalidates a good chunk of the last two games.

[Epique Phael767]

Sam Anders wrote...

Yet destroy is an equally awful option because it basically invalidates a good chunk of the last two games.

While it may not be completely satisfying in that regard, I still see it as the better choice of the ones we are presented with. Even repurposed or replaced, the catalyst or someone with his kind of power should not exist in my opinion, and that includes shepard.

[Meltemph]

Sam Anders wrote...

Yet destroy is an equally awful option because it basically invalidates a good chunk of the last two games.

Even if this is the case, who cares?  Destroy is the most rational choice, considering everything we knew at the time(or assumed to know).  Now if you want to say that ME3 did a bad job with the reaper story arc, well I would agree 100%, but that really isnt the topic.

[Redbelle]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I quoted the Catalyst saying what its purpose was, your definition of opinion is wrong.

Here's the Leviathans telling us.

"We created an intelligence with a mandate to preserve life at any cost."

You are also told is is flawed in it's design.

You are told by the catalyst what it considers to be it's goal which was prevent organic and synthetic conflict in which it considers such conflicts will result in only one outcome which is the synthetics always winning in the long term. Preserve life by reseting each cycle and as each cycle has created synthetic life and a conflict has occured it continues to reset them. It tells you every single cycle has had such conflict. You have some evidence that every cycle the conflict occurs then he resets it, you have no evidence he starts the first conflict in each cycle. It specifically emhasises the "conflict" many times. The conflict he is trying to stop from occuring because that conflict leads to his only perceived outcome without his intervention.

To me the flaw was not programming in a variable that such outcome might not happen aka not lead to synthetic always winning. So it deems the creation of synthetics and any conflict which begins to be a starting point which could lead to its percieved logical outcome of loss. So it culls them both organic and synthetic of that cycle not just organic, resets a cycle. I bet if in the entire 50,000 years no such conflict occurs then I think he won't reset that cycle but we will never know if that is true because it has never happened to our knowledge.

For me the problem with the Cat is that it see's conflict as a mean's to destruction.

Sure the Geth and Quarian's fought, but in my playthrough I reunited them. The Cat refuses to see this as another possible pathway that Synth's and Org's can follow. Instead it insist's that Synth's and Org's cannot live together..... despite the fact that my pilot and ship's computer are pulling moves on the dance floor together and getting jiggy with it in the cockpit.

That the Catalyst say's conflict's will arise? Ok, I admit that 'could' happen. To say that it will, absolutely, positively, result in the utter demise of all organic life with no other possibilties arising from said conflict? I think that assumption has been proven false. Cat just can't admit it.

[Meltemph]

@Redbelle, why do you care what the catalyst says, outside of curiosity reasons? I mean, outside of perhaps trying to get a better understanding of how the Leviathan created this thing or what each part of the crucible+citadel does.

[Dragoonlordz]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You are also told is is flawed in it's design.

No, you aren't. In fact, the Leviathans say it's doing exactly what it was made to do; preserve organic life. The means in which it does so are the issue, and given that it was simply programmed to achieve its goal through any means necessary, its not even really flawed in this respect.

It's flawed in that no restriction was put in place. It was not designed with safeguards in place.

It is flawed by design.

You are told by the Catalyst what its purpose is, but it's not what you've said it is. I've quoted it twice. 

Then you need to watch your own links. You are told by the catalyst it's goal is to prevent the conflict between organic and synthetic because it believes such conflict can only end one way with Synthetic wiping out all organic life in the end. Your trying to use one sentence of it's entire speech as an argument to invalidate the rest of it's speech and context.

It wasn't not programmed with such a variable, it came to the conclusion that all organic life would be inevitably wiped out without intervention on its own, before it started the cycle. It's not looking for a cycle where it wont happen, that's already proven by the fact that it repeatedly talks about it as inevitable, as an absolute, unpreventable without the Reaper harvest, and by the fact that it's been given the opportunity to watch organics succeed in overcoming synthetics at least twice, possibly three times (protheans winning the Metacon War, quarians gaining a massive uperhand in their second war against the geth, and the quarians potentially killing the geth), and live together as allies at least twice (zha'til, geth alliance with quarians/geth allying with Shepard if their side is chosen) that we know of, and still culled the galaxy of all sapient civilizations. 

Again it is a flawed construct, no restrictions or safeguards was put in place. It believes based on overall evidence we are not privy to that in the long term such conflict will always end in synthetics wiping out organics. Even in a cycle where you win one conflict, because of the existance of the technology to recreate such synthetics and the evidence that in every cycle such conflict will occur again and again of which maybe he has been witness to many such events which has almost led to the complete destruction of organic life (even though in a few cycles this was not yet at that stage by time started a reset). His solution is to cull both organics and synthetics of those cycles in a hope the next cycle will lead to no such conflicts.

We do not know if he would not cull a cycle if no such conflict ever occured and we do not know if previous cycles unmentioned could of ended as he believes would of done without his reset. It's like poking a bear, you may be able to get away with poking it a few times and walking away giggling but the catalyst believes that eventually one of those times that bear is going to wake up and rip your head off. That is what he is trying to prevent.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 janvier 2013 - 11:12 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

 

You are also told is is flawed in it's design.

You are told by the catalyst what it considers to be it's goal which was prevent organic and synthetic conflict in which it considers such conflicts will result in only one outcome which is the synthetics always winning in the long term. Preserve life by reseting each cycle and as each cycle has created synthetic life and a conflict has occured it continues to reset them. It tells you every single cycle has had such conflict. You have evidence that every cycle the conflict occurs then he resets it, you have no evidence he starts the first conflict in each cycle. It specifically emhasises the "conflict" many times.

To me the flaw was not programming in a variable that such outcome might not happen aka not lead to synthetic always winning. So it deems the creation of synthetics and any conflict which begins to be a starting point which could lead to its percieved logical outcome of loss. So it culls them both organic and synthetic of that cycle, resets a cycle. I bet if in the entire 50,000 years no such conflict occurs then I think he won't reset that cycle but we will never know if that is true because it has never happened to our knowledge. 

His "precieved outcome of loss" does not make sense at all(which is ok, the race that created them were...special), he holds onto this premise that the reasult of organics making synthetics is the extinction of organics(how the hell it is possible to come to this conclusion is nothing but madness or fear and synthetics dont feel fear).  

The only real conclusion we can make, without making stuff up, is that the Leviathan created specific sociological issues that created the conclusions of the catalyst.  Essetnailly, the catalysts arguemetns are a non sequitor, and really should have no barring in your decisions or conclusions.  His basis is based on a faulty premese instilled by a race with an abundence of intelligence but very little commen sense.

All the "conflicts" we see(be it synthetic or anything else) are just that, simply time taking its course.  Since this thing is so old, it describes events in partial, without recognizing the lack of anything supporting his totality.  Then all we have is circumstances around our cycle(and bits and peices from others), and becuase of ones personal biases or whatever else, it is possible to come to the same conclusions as the catalyst(much like the way a religion is created).

Again though, all this is ok, because he was created out of foolishness, so it only makes sense that his "logic" is that of foolishness.

The biggest issue is noone knows if what he says is true as far as the outcome goes. It does make some sense however, like running across a road without looking sooner or later your going to get hit by a car. He cannot prove to you that will happen because the only proof would be to have let such happen in which in his thing trying to prevent is the extinction of all organic life in which case would of failed  and noone would be around for him to go "haha! told you so". His culling each cycle does not wipe out all organic life and he leaves the less evolved ones, while what he is trying to prevent would wipe out all organic life including the less evolved ones. It;s a doing somethign just incase situation and noone knows how it would really turn out but I can see logic behind acting to prevent something occuring rather than standing back and letting you get hit by that car for example.