305 réponses à ce sujet

[Sejborg]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

The harvest as a solution isn't broken. It just isn't the best anymore.

The kid says his solution (the reapers) no longer works.  No, it isn't (just) broken, it's evaporated.  A non-working solution is not a solution anymore.  Say you have a computer.  It no longer works.  Ok, yeah it's broken.  But, it no longer works.  Do you keep trying to power it on even though it won't turn on?  Do you keep hitting keys on the keyboard and look at your monitor, expecting it to spring to life?  I doubt it.

Take the refuse option and the harvest works just fine. 

[Redbelle]

Meltemph wrote...

@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.

The Catalyst is an AI that does not seem able to debate. Instead, it preaches. EDI is an AI that acknowledges that her way of seeing the galaxy, is not the only way, and adapt's accordingly.

The Catalsyt does not seem to be a true AI in that it refuses to acknowledge other outlooks. We could argue that the Cat has looked at the problem from all sides............ but the Cat's original programming does not seem geared towards accumulating information to make better decision's. It instead arrived at a conclusion based on the limtied outlook's of it's creator's and made a judgement perpertrated by it's programmer's.

Basically, if the Catalyst cannot be talked down, due to it never surrendering or changing it's position on the subject of Org's and synth's then all that talk with the Cat before it offer's the choice's is handy in explaining what is going on. But it also mean;s that, unlike TiM and Saren, you cannot write an ending where it put's a proverbial pistol to head. Instead, you would have to fight it on some level and force its submission in some way.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Its like IF, ELSE, THEN type situation.

1. IF organics created synthetics
2. THEN go to line 4
3. ELSE go to line 7
4. IF synthetics and organics conflict in cycle
5. THEN go to line 9
6. ELSE go to line 7
7. WAIT 100 years
8. Go to line 1
9. CULL galaxy
10. Go to line 1

Others think it's more...

1. WAIT 50,000 years
2. CULL galaxy
3. Go to line 1.

I have a hypothesis that 50,000 years is a pre-determined figure based on the Reapers' objective.

Vendetta, the Prothean VI, says there are patterns that repeat themselves in every cycle.

So I think the Reapers may have determined that every 50,000 years after the completion of a harvest, galactic society has advanced... to the point where they will be capable of creating "problem" synthetics. Not synthetics like early geth, LOKIs, or VIs, but fully-formed AI like EDI and the post-Rannoch geth.

So they nip it in the bud.

[Wayning_Star]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Its like IF, ELSE, THEN type situation.

1. IF organics created synthetics
2. THEN go to line 4
3. ELSE go to line 7
4. IF synthetics and organics conflict in cycle
5. THEN go to line 9
6. ELSE go to line 7
7. WAIT 100 years
8. Go to line 1
9. CULL galaxy
10. Go to line 1

Others think it's more...

1. WAIT 50,000 years
2. CULL galaxy
3. Go to line 1.

I have a hypothesis that 50,000 years is a pre-determined figure based on the Reapers' objective.

Vendetta, the Prothean VI, says there are patterns that repeat themselves in every cycle.

So I think the Reapers may have determined that every 50,000 years after the completion of a harvest, galactic society has advanced... to the point where they will be capable of creating "problem" synthetics. Not synthetics like early geth, LOKIs, or VIs, but fully-formed AI like EDI and the post-Rannoch geth.

So they nip it in the bud.

previous poster forgot to include the tinker varible. That being the left over tech in the system. This ties the tendency, maybe hereditary/evolutionary instinct of organics to take an easier route to success. Thats where the 50k years comes in..usually, some beings develope faster than others, so it's not exactly that number of years between harvest.

my opinion is that it's about communication and the levels of such between beings/races that sets the marker for harvest as well. As that is the reason for the catalyst to find a way to communicate the need for communication/understandng for all concerned. It all comes back to the nature of things/beings and the MEU as a whole entity in of it's self. Some w/could call it 'government'. Everyone wants to be self regulated, but seem to need a higher power system to override their intention, in case they're not intelligent enough to 'not' make mistakes. Why else would any race or society need a super computer?

[Dragoonlordz]

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.

Make your points without nit picking as I have no intention of turning a conversation into a quote pyramid. Also as I said drop the passive aggressive attitude else I will lose all interest in debating anything with you. I am willing to discuss topic with you but only if you do it in more reasonable grown up fashion. Lose the aggression and sarcasm in other words.

Humans did create synthetics in ME just like Quarians did with the Geth so saying does not mean humans would not create such is wrong. Dr. Eva is a synthetic created by Cerberus, one EDI took over it's body to become a companion. saying just because they can they will is true and this is shown time and time again in this world as well as that one. Both Quarians have done so, Humans have also created then as example I just gave, Asari have a whole company you meet on the Citadel called Synthetic Insights which purpose is to create synthetics, Arca a turian tried to capture and use a device to create an army of what he believed would be invincible synthetics. Thats three races so far that have created or attempted to create synthetics just because they could and while I cannot know for sure Hanar, Volus and the remaining ones did so I think it is a safe bet they did.

I also have have not said the catalyst is lying and not said it is not. I have not said or implied his agenda is different to what he claims relating to your second point. Also Geth did not become a threat to organics because of the Reapers at all, they were a threat to the organics the moment the Quarians turned on them and Geth responded forcing them off their homeworld, even without Reaper interference the Quarians could not leave the Geth alone and if not interviened yourself the Quarians would of been wiped out. The rest of the galaxy fears synthetics and this is shown time and time again by what you hear in the games so even if the Geth or synthetics wanted to be alone they organics would not let them be so and their constant fear of them could lead eventually to probably the synthetics reverting to the human idiology similar to real world past being if will not stop attacking us then we should make them stop ourselves, remove the threat. In the real world such happens all the time like the West fearing Iran having nuclear weapons even though it is not a certainty they would use them against the West. The arms race was born of fear of the otherside using nuclear weapons on their neighbours even though was not a certainty would happen. The phrase prevention is better than cure is used and accepted by all yet does not require it to happen to take action prior to prevent it from happening.

Kings and Queens, Governments and Military have wiped out whole villages, towns and cities, families, species of animal or citizens to prevent backlash or based on a percieved threat based on possiblity not a certainty that something might happen. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan as example are similar to such a situation, one group hurt another so the other seeks to remove the threat of it happening ever again even if never did happen again it was a war to prevent the threat or possiblity of it happening again. It is not impossible for for synthetics to wipe out all organic life, organics can not win every single conflict started with synthetics some they will win and some will lose but probability states the more conflicts have the higher the chance one of those will be lost. This has been shown time and time again in the real world to be true. By the way this sentence really makes zero sense "synthetics destroying all organics, which is just impossible, because then there will be no organics, and no leviathans to create such AI" If AI have advanced enough to destroy all organics then the AI can create more, it's does not require organics to create synthetics at that stage. The synthetics would already have been created in order for it to wipe out organics and organics are not require to create additional synthetics by then.

The catalysts is drawing a logical conclusion whether it is a good one or not does not change that it is based on logic (a logical conclusion based on potential flawed data is stil a logical conclusion if he believes the data to be accurate), if there is a probability of even 0.0001 still means there is a possiblity of occurence (regardless of how slim). Such might happen and we in this world have many such low chance of probability events occur all the time some of which people just call miracles like a man surviving fall from aeroplane which has happened in the real world, such unlikely probabilitys happen therefore it is never impossible. The catalyst is a flawed construct so it might consider that probability to be higher than it may be to us but it is logical that it could/might happen. It's flaw is in believing the possiblity is higher than it may be, but it is logical to it to prevent an event (it believes) to be very possible even if we believe the possiblity is lower. If we believed that probability was higher then we too would act on it as shown in this world we do all the time both acting out of fear of a probable event even though it is not a certainty such will occur. Someone not getting on planes even though the probability is low will crash, someone stocking up on food and buying a bomb shelter based on the low probabaility of nuclear war, going to war or stocking up with weapons based on small probability that another person or nation (might) attack at some point.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 05:20 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

They chose that because it is when the terminus keeps happening.

Sovereign tells you why this is the case.

All he says is that "we exist because they allow it." And "we will end because they demand it."
And  that the pattern repated "more times then you can fathom."
He never says anything about the reasons the Reapers do what they do. Just vauge conceps that we supposedly would be unable to comprehend. he never says the reason they keep attacking. Shpard even coments to Vigil on Ilos that he/she still have no idea on why the Reapers repeat the cycles.

He tells you exactly why technology develops in the way it does.

He tells you what technology too which is the citadel and relays which he mentions not synthetics or AI. People are here adding their own context  to different types and forms of technology he never even mentioned (nothing more than personal belief that they mean't AI and synthetics since game does not tell you so).

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 05:00 .

[Wayning_Star]

[/quote]

Make your points without nit picking as I have no intention of turning a conversation into a quote pyramid. Also as I said drop the passive aggressive attitude else I will lose all interest in debating anything with you. I am willing to discuss topic with you but only if you do it in more reasonable grown up fashion. Lose the aggression and sarcasm in other words.

Humans did create synthetics in ME just like Quarians did with the Geth so saying does not mean humans would not create such is wrong. Dr. Eva is a synthetic created by Cerberus, one EDI took over it's body to become a companion. saying just because they can they will is true and this is shown time and time again in this world as well as that one. Both Quarians have done so, Humans have also created then as example I just gave, Asari have a whole company you meet on the Citadel called Synthetic Insights which purpose is to create synthetics, Arca a turian tried to capture and use a device to create an army of what he believed would be invincible synthetics. Thats three races so far that have created or attempted to create synthetics just because they could and while I cannot know for sure Hanar, Volus and the remaining ones did so I think it is a safe bet they did.

I also have have not said the catalyst is lying and not said it is not. I have not said or implied his agenda is different to what he claims relating to your second point. Also Geth did not become a threat to organics because of the Reapers at all, they were a threat to the organics the moment the Quarians turned on them and Geth responded forcing them off their homeworld, even without Reaper interference the Quarians could not leave the Geth alone and if not interviened yourself the Quarians would of been wiped out. The rest of the galaxy fears synthetics and this is shown time and time again by what you hear in the games so even if the Geth or synthetics wanted to be alone they organics would not let them be so and their constant fear of them could lead eventually to probably the synthetics reverting to the human idiology similar to real world past being if will not stop attacking us then we should make them stop ourselves, remove the threat. In the real world such happens all the time like the West fearing Iran having nuclear weapons even though it is not a certainty they would use them against the West. The arms race was born of fear of the otherside using nuclear weapons on their neighbours even though was not a certainty would happen. The phrase prevention is better than cure is used and accepted by all yet does not require it to happen to take action prior to prevent it from happening.

Kings and Queens, Governments and Military have wiped out whole villages, towns and cities, families, species of animal or citizens to prevent backlash or based on a percieved threat based on possiblity not a certainty that something might happen. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan as example are similar to such a situation, one group hurt another so the other seeks to remove the threat of it happening ever again even if never did happen again it was a war to prevent the threat or possiblity of it happening again. It is not impossible for for synthetics to wipe out all organic life, organics can not win every single conflict started with synthetics some they will win and some will lose but probability states the more conflicts have the higher the chance one of those will be lost. This has been shown time and time again in the real world to be true. By the way this sentence really makes zero sense "synthetics destroying all organics, which is just impossible, because then there will be no organics, and no leviathans to create such AI" If AI have advanced enough to destroy all organics then the AI can create more, it's does not require organics to create synthetics at that stage. The synthetics would already have been created in order for it to wipe out organics and organics are not require to create additional synthetics by then.

The catalysts is drawing a logical conclusion whether it is a good one or not does not change that it is based on logic (a logical conclusion based on potential flawed data is stil a logical conclusion if he believes the data to be accurate), if there is a probability of even 0.0001 still means there is a possiblity of occurence (regardless of how slim). Such might happen and we in this world have many such low chance of probability events occur all the time some of which people just call miracles like a man surviving fall from aeroplane which has happened in the real world, such unlikely probabilitys happen therefore it is never impossible. The catalyst is a flawed construct so it might consider that probability to be higher than it may be to us but it is logical that it could/might happen. It's flaw is in believing the possiblity is higher than it may be, but it is logical to it to prevent an event (it believes) to be very possible even if we believe the possiblity is lower. If we believed that probability was higher then we too would act on it as shown in this world we do all the time both acting out of fear of a probable event even though it is not a certainty such will occur. Someone not getting on planes even though the probability is low will crash, someone stocking up on food and buying a bomb shelter based on the low probabaility of nuclear war, going to war or stocking up with weapons based on small probability that another person or nation (might) attack at some point.
[/quote]

all tech in the MEU is Leviathan and is modded over millions of years, but still is reaper tech after the Levi were harvested. Reaper tech sucks, as it's tainted with their intentions/molded by the catalsyt for it's experitment.

The gist of it is played out in the 'reaper code' gizmo in the story, maybe just a writer 'extra' special plot twist, but it's there.. to worry about. Destroy requires it's erradication to be successful, apparently, the Catalyst found this with its evolution design varible. Leaves 'stuff' around to contaminate the MEU with that constant.

over billions of years, the catalyst no longer needs projections, just the correct "choice", un beknownst to it. Hense the crucible, who ever designed it... another varible, external to the catalyst experiment.

[Maxster_]

[quote]Dragoonlordz wrote...

Make your points without nit picking as I have no intention of turning a conversation into a quote pyramid.
[/quote]
You are in no position to give me orders. Just a reminder.
Beside, to demonstrate your logical fallacies, i need to deconstruct your post.
[quote]

Humans did create synthetics in ME just like Quarians did with the Geth so saying does not mean humans would not create such is wrong. Dr. Eva is a synthetic created by Cerberus, one EDI took over it's body to become a companion. saying just because they can they will is true and this is shown time and time again in this world as well as that one.
[/quote]
This is logical fallacy.
Just repeating it with no evidence is not going to make it not a fallacy.
Also, creating several synthetics doesn't mean creation of a whole race of those.

Do you know what logic is?
To disprove absolute statement like "organics will always create synthetics" - you need exactly one example of opposite. Like Rachni or Krogans.

[quote]
 Both Quarians have done so, Humans have also created then as example I just gave, Asari have a whole company you meet on the Citadel called Synthetic Insights which purpose is to create synthetics, Arca a turian tried to capture and use a device to create an army of what he believed would be invincible synthetics.
[/quote]
Asari put a ban on AI creation, and then, 4 corporations were allowed to create AI in controlled environments for research purpose.
It is of course, completely differs from geth situation. And even geth situation was not a problem for organics, before reapers intervention.
And, Council controlled research is obviously not a problem for anyone.

And i'm not interested in your headcanon.
Besides, blaming whole race for a doings of a single individual is a hypocrisy.

So, humans created exactly 1 AI(EDI), tried few times council uncontrolled research, but stopped not wanting to receive sanctions.
Besides, if ever played ME1, you should've paid careful attention on Luna mission briefing. AI|VI research is necessary, especially for humanity. Anyway, combat VIs is main strength of most races, and they are just very sophsiticated programs.

No one in a sane mind would ever put AI in a positions in a society, having example of geth.
[quote]
Thats three races so far that have created or attempted to create synthetics just because they could and while I cannot know for sure Hanar, Volus and the remaining ones did so I think it is a safe bet they did.
[/quote]
Your example failed. None of 3 ever created synthetics en masse.
[quote]
Also Geth did not become a threat to organics because of the Reapers at all, they were a threat to the organics the moment the Quarians turned on them and Geth responded forcing them off their homeworld, even without Reaper interference the Quarians could not leave the Geth alone and if not interviened yourself the Quarians would of been wiped out.[/quote]
Lulwut?
Geth never was threat to organics. They were threat to Quarians only, and even then they didn't wiped them out. Part of geth became threat to all organic civilizations, because they followed real enemy and threat to organic civilization - reapers.

Another logical fallacy - is a premise, that because quarians are refusing to leave geth alone, geth a threat to all organics.
That is butchering of logic.
1. Quarians are refusing to left geth alone, because of severe reprecussion and worsening relations to a council races, due to breaking AI creation ban. And because of their unique environment reqiuriments, meaning that they can not settle on any garden planet, even if the Council ever allow that(biological explanation was very bad, but thats' beside the point).
2. Geth never was a threat to all organics, they are not even threat to a quarians, they just want to be left alone.

And, that your statement is pure nonsense, it illogical mess.

[quote]
The rest of the galaxy fears synthetics and this is shown time and time again by what you hear in the games so even if the Geth or synthetics wanted to be alone they organics would not let them be so and their constant fear of them would lead eventually to probably the synthetics reverting to the human idiology similar to real world past.
[/quote]
What a nonsense is that?
Have you ever tried to use logic?
Anyway, geth just sat in their home space wanting to be left alone. And no one even bothered to start campaign against them, because it was obvious, that geth are no threat to anyone.
Serious reaction was only after reaper controlled attack on the Citadel, which led to a short war against geth heretics. Other geth continued to sit in their home space.

So, it is another example of reapers being problem they pretend they fix.
War against geth and overall increase in hostility was only because of reapers actions. They created a "problem", which are supposed to be a reason of their existence. It is called self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyway, your mockery of logic is very entertaining.
Especially this one.
[quote]would lead eventually to probably the synthetics reverting to the human idiology similar to real world past. [/quote]
So, because there is non-zero probability of something to happen, it will inevitable happen.
It is exactly same logical fallacy, which Catalyst uses - appeal to probability.
It can be used to justify anything.
Like - there are some jewish people that control significant part of world finances, thus there is a probability that jews could someday control all finances of the world, there is also a probability that they will oppress non-jews - therefore, it is inevitability. And thus, for the good of the humanity they must be destroyed right now.

Or, USA have most military might in the world, and there is probability that they would use this military might to interfere with internal affairs of all countries, and then there is a probability that they will outright conquer every other country. Therefore, it is inevitable, and thus requires immediate destruction.

Or, nuclear reactors have a probability of accident due to not following safety regulations. There is a probability that nuclear reactors in the world used without following safety regulations.
Applying logical fallacy, and
Because there is a probability that nuclear reactors in the world used without following safety regulations, therefore, all nuclear reactors in the world are used without following safety regulations. And because there is a probability of accident - therefore, all nuclear reactors will inevitably explode, and must all be closed immediately.


[quote]
Kings and Queens, Governments and Military have wiped out whole villages, towns and cities, families or citizens to prevent backlash or based on a percieved threat based on possiblity not a certainty that something might happen.
The wars in Iraq and Afganistan as example are similar to such a situation, one group hurt another so the other seeks to remove the threat of it happening ever again even if never did happen again it was a war to prevent the threat or possiblity of it happening again. [/quote]
[/quote]
So, Catalyst is right, because humans in history often used similar logical fallacy?
What insane breed of logic is that?
[quote]

It is not impossible for for synthetics to wipe out all organic life,
[/quote]
You have no proof. That never happened in ME history.
[quote]
organics can not win every single conflict started with synthetics some they will win and some will lose but probability states the more conflicts have the higher the chance one of those will be lost.
[/quote]
Probability does not equals inevitability.
Especially near zero probability about something that never happened(meaning that there is no statistics).
[quote]
This has been shown time and time again in the real world to be true. By the way this sentence really makes zero sense "synthetics destroying all organics, which is just impossible, because then there will be no organics, and no leviathans to create such AI" If AI have advanced enough to destroy all organics then the AI can create more, it's does not require organics to create synthetics at that stage.
[/quote]
Dafuq i just read?
AI will create more organics to wipe them out again?!

Anyway, i meant ME history, because you know, there is no artificial intelligence in real life, and there is no real evidence about AI behavior.

And using examples from one story in another - it is just murdering of common sense.
Like because of existence of Cylons from Battlestar galactica, Droids from Star Wars will arise and wipe out everyone, Jedi included.

So, back to the ME story - "synthetics wiping out all organics" - never happened in ME.
[quote]
The catalysts is drawing a logical conclusion whether it is a good one or not does not change that it is based on logic, if there is a probability of even 0.0001 still means there is a possiblity of occurence (regardless of how slim).
[/quote]
There is no logic in logical fallacy.

So, there is a probability that you will deliberately kill a man someday in the future. It is greater than zero.
Therefore, you must be immediately arrested and executed.

[quote]
Such might happen and we in this world have many such low chance of probability events occur all the time some of which people just call miracles like a man surviving fall from aeroplane which has happened in the real world, such unlikely probabilitys happen therefore it is never impossible.
[/quote]
Probability does not equals inevitability.
[quote]
The catalyst is a flawed construct so it considers that probability to be higher than it may be to us but it is logical that it could happen.[/quote]
It is logical that it could happen with some probability.
But, it is logical fallacy, when you say because there is greater-than-zero probability that something would happen, it will happen.
[quote]
It's flaw is in believing the possiblity is higher than it may be, but it is logical to it to prevent an event it believes to be very possible even if we believe the possiblity is lower if we believed that probability was higher then we too would act on it as shown in this world we do all the time both acting out of fear of a probable event even though it is not a certainty such will occur. Someone not getting on planes even though the probability is low will crash, someone stocking up on food and buying a bomb shelter based on the low probabaility of nuclear war, going to war or stocking up with weapons based on small probability that another person or nation (might) attack at some point.
[/quote]
Using of same logical fallacy by some humans in human history - doesn't make this logical fallacy not a fallacy.
It is that simple

Modifié par Maxster_, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:10 .

[Wayning_Star]

[
[quote]
It's flaw is in believing the possiblity is higher than it may be, but it is logical to it to prevent an event it believes to be very possible even if we believe the possiblity is lower if we believed that probability was higher then we too would act on it as shown in this world we do all the time both acting out of fear of a probable event even though it is not a certainty such will occur. Someone not getting on planes even though the probability is low will crash, someone stocking up on food and buying a bomb shelter based on the low probabaility of nuclear war, going to war or stocking up with weapons based on small probability that another person or nation (might) attack at some point.
[/quote]
Using of same logical fallacy by some humans in human history - doesn't make this logical fallacy not a fallacy.
It is that simple

[/quote]

max, be careful what you wish for... don't use that logical fallacy thing...in your arguement against logic, it's logical fallacy...sorry. Nothing is ever that simple, apparently.

to note;


Logical Fallacies

An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning
The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...

-snip-

Your reply is filled with so much nonsense and inaccuracies it would produce a quote pyramid so long it would take someone an hour to read to two hours to write. So instead I will just reply with your excuses are bad, your logic is flawed and your entire post is filled vast amounts of fallacy. Those who come after can read it and see for themselves without the need of me quoting every other sentence and pointing out why each is wrong. Now you can view that as me not being able to counter the really bad, false and innacurate statements of yours if you wish, but in reality I merely see how stupid your counters to my last post were that I assume everyone else can too. You even contradict your own comments in your own reply.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:24 .

[Maxster_]

Wayning_Star wrote...

It's flaw is in believing the possiblity is higher than it may be, but it is logical to it to prevent an event it believes to be very possible even if we believe the possiblity is lower if we believed that probability was higher then we too would act on it as shown in this world we do all the time both acting out of fear of a probable event even though it is not a certainty such will occur. Someone not getting on planes even though the probability is low will crash, someone stocking up on food and buying a bomb shelter based on the low probabaility of nuclear war, going to war or stocking up with weapons based on small probability that another person or nation (might) attack at some point.

Using of same logical fallacy by some humans in human history - doesn't make this logical fallacy not a fallacy.
It is that simple

max, be careful what you wish for... don't use that logical fallacy thing...in your arguement against logic, it's logical fallacy...sorry. Nothing is ever that simple, apparently.

You definitely have no idea what logic is. And what logical fallacy is.

Statement.
Many people says that black is white. Therefore, black is white.
It is logical fallacy called "Argumentum ad populum", or appeal to the masses.


A fallacious appeal to probability:

Something can go wrong (premise).
Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclusion).

A deductively valid argument.

Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong (premise 1).
Something can go wrong (premise 2).
Therefore, something will go wrong (valid conclusion).

Modifié par Maxster_, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:26 .

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

-snip-

Your reply is filled with so much nonsense and inaccuracies it would produce a quote pyramid so long it would take someone an hour to read to two hours to write. So instead I will just reply with your excuses are bad, your logic is flawed and your entire post is filled vast amounts of fallacy. Those who come after can read it and see for themselves without the need of me quoting every other sentence and pointing out why each is wrong. Now you can view that as me not being able to counter the really bad, false and innacurate statements of yours if you wish, but in reality I merely see how stupid your counters to my last post were that I assume everyone else can too. You even contradict your own comments in your own reply.

Prove that. Otherwise you lost the debate.

[AresKeith]

He will surrender and submit to the Sith Empire

[Meltemph]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

They chose that because it is when the terminus keeps happening.

Sovereign tells you why this is the case.

All he says is that "we exist because they allow it." And "we will end because they demand it."
And  that the pattern repated "more times then you can fathom."
He never says anything about the reasons the Reapers do what they do. Just vauge conceps that we supposedly would be unable to comprehend. he never says the reason they keep attacking. Shpard even coments to Vigil on Ilos that he/she still have no idea on why the Reapers repeat the cycles.

He tells you exactly why technology develops in the way it does.

He tells you what technology too which is the citadel and relays which he mentions not synthetics or AI. People are here adding their own context  to different types and forms of technology he never even mentioned (nothing more than personal belief that they mean't AI and synthetics since game does not tell you so).

You missed my overall point.  The game tells us why technology(in gerneral) proceeds along a certain path.  I showed that to silver based on his wondering why the 50k timing is so consistent.  Any assertions that the reapers only meddle in the affairs of organics right before the invasion, is the assumption, that they only do it then.  

I'm saying I have no reason to believe he doesnt, but I also have no proof as to why he does or if he does, so I dont make my decisions or conclusions about what I dont know, to try and prove my decisions.  What the general arguements are FOR the catalyst is creating scenarios with of what we dont know, where as what I am saying is based on what we do know.

Just because I dont know all the context in wich they involve themselves doesnt prove in any way, any assertaions about the catalyst logic.  The arguements used to defend the catalysts position is all based on what we dont know or assertions in game that have been given no context(versus what the game has contextualized for us).

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:37 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

-snip-

Your reply is filled with so much nonsense and inaccuracies it would produce a quote pyramid so long it would take someone an hour to read to two hours to write. So instead I will just reply with your excuses are bad, your logic is flawed and your entire post is filled vast amounts of fallacy. Those who come after can read it and see for themselves without the need of me quoting every other sentence and pointing out why each is wrong. Now you can view that as me not being able to counter the really bad, false and innacurate statements of yours if you wish, but in reality I merely see how stupid your counters to my last post were that I assume everyone else can too. You even contradict your own comments in your own reply.

Prove that. Otherwise you lost the debate.

It is not a productive debate for me to continually counter why you are wrong word by word, sentence by sentence over and over again when you blatently ignore reality and common sense then subsitute it with your own inaccurate version of reality. Your pulling a punch and judy, thinking if you say no he is not behind you enough that you will be able to win an argument. It's what children use to argue.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 06:41 .

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

-snip-

Your reply is filled with so much nonsense and inaccuracies it would produce a quote pyramid so long it would take someone an hour to read to two hours to write. So instead I will just reply with your excuses are bad, your logic is flawed and your entire post is filled vast amounts of fallacy. Those who come after can read it and see for themselves without the need of me quoting every other sentence and pointing out why each is wrong. Now you can view that as me not being able to counter the really bad, false and innacurate statements of yours if you wish, but in reality I merely see how stupid your counters to my last post were that I assume everyone else can too. You even contradict your own comments in your own reply.

Prove that. Otherwise you lost the debate.

It is not a productive debate for me to continually counter why you are wrong word by word, sentence by sentence when you blatently ignore reality and common sense then subsitute it with your own false and inaccurate version of reality.

http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies

And, saying that i "blatantly ignore reality and common sense and then subsitute it with my own false and inaccurate version of reality" is not proving it.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

- Joseph Goebbels.

Well, anyway, if you can't even understand that appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to the masses - that is pointless.

You lost

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...

Well, anyway, if you can't even understand that appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to the masses - that is pointless.

You lost

I suggest you read up on both deductive logic, subjective abduction and maybe logical consequence.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 07:03 .

[Meltemph]

Actually, now that I think about it, we do have proof the reapers meddle quite a long time before their arrival - the Rachni.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 07:06 .

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Well, anyway, if you can't even understand that appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to the masses - that is pointless.

You lost

I suggest you read up on both deductive logic and subjective abduction logic.

You lost because you refused to prove your points, and presented some unproved assertions as a proven facts. And refused to continue debate because of those unproven assertions.

You are refusing to admit that you constantly using logical fallacies - like appeal to probability. Instead, you just tried to prove that this logical fallacy is not one. By using another logical fallacy, appeal to the masses.

You know, citing terms, having no idea of their meaning - is not proving something.

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Well, anyway, if you can't even understand that appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to the masses - that is pointless.

You lost

I suggest you read up on both deductive logic and subjective abduction logic.

You lost because you refused to prove your points, and presented some unproved assertions as a proven facts. And refused to continue debate because of those unproven assertions.

You are refusing to admit that you constantly using logical fallacies - like appeal to probability. Instead, you just tried to prove that this logical fallacy is not one. By using another logical fallacy, appeal to the masses.

You know, citing terms, having no idea of their meaning - is not proving something.

No, I just refuse to take part in your shotgun argumentation. I mentioned those forms of logic because that is what I was using not appeal to probability though they are similar. Put it this way the catalyst could believe will happen because a synthetic race have wiped out organic races before (may have happened many times and even taken some to the brink of extinction, examples we do not know of during the cycles) even in ME3 this is shown to be the case dependant on whos playthrough using as reference in which Quarians are wiped out by the synthetic Geth, in many cycles it would seem that there has been conflict between sythetics and organics and it might be the case of which we do not know if true or not could be all cycles experienced by the Catalyst. The reality is your calling his logic a fallacy when you do not have as much data and evidence as he might.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 07:41 .

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Well, anyway, if you can't even understand that appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to the masses - that is pointless.

You lost

I suggest you read up on both deductive logic and subjective abduction logic.

You lost because you refused to prove your points, and presented some unproved assertions as a proven facts. And refused to continue debate because of those unproven assertions.

You are refusing to admit that you constantly using logical fallacies - like appeal to probability. Instead, you just tried to prove that this logical fallacy is not one. By using another logical fallacy, appeal to the masses.

You know, citing terms, having no idea of their meaning - is not proving something.

No, I just refuse to take part in your shotgun argumentation. I mentioned those forms of logic because that is what I was using not appeal to probability.

Really?

The premise about synthetics wiping out organics is a conclusion it
reached based on it experiences and is already being debated with no
proof it is wrong and no proof it is right. Neither you or I have
hundreds of thousands of years worth of knowledge spend in the ME
universe across many cycles, it does theoretically.

Appeal to probability, crossed with appeal to authority.

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.

Appeal to probability.

The rest of the galaxy fears synthetics and this is shown time and time
again by what you hear in the games so even if the Geth or synthetics
wanted to be alone they organics would not let them be so and their
constant fear of them could lead eventually to probably the synthetics
reverting to the human idiology similar to real world past being if will
not stop attacking us then we should make them stop ourselves, remove
the threat

Appeal to probability.

Kings and Queens, Governments and Military have wiped out whole
villages, towns and cities, families, species of animal or citizens to
prevent backlash or based on a percieved threat based on possiblity not a
certainty that something might happen. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan
as example are similar to such a situation, one group hurt another so
the other seeks to remove the threat of it happening ever again even if
never did happen again it was a war to prevent the threat or possiblity
of it happening again.

Appeal to the masses.

The catalysts is drawing a logical conclusion whether it is a good one
or not does not change that it is based on logic (a logical conclusion
based on potential flawed data is stil a logical conclusion if he
believes the data to be accurate), if there is a probability of even
0.0001 still means there is a possiblity of occurence (regardless of how
slim). Such might happen and we in this world have many such low chance
of probability events occur all the time some of which people just call
miracles like a man surviving fall from aeroplane which has happened in
the real world, such unlikely probabilitys happen therefore it is never
impossible.

Attempt to "prove" that logical fallacy of the Catalyst is correct.

The catalyst is a flawed construct so it might consider that
probability to be higher than it may be to us but it is logical that it
could/might happen. It's flaw is in believing the possiblity is higher
than it may be, but it is logical to it to prevent an event (it
believes) to be very possible even if we believe the possiblity is
lower. If we believed that probability was higher then we too would act
on it as shown in this world we do all the time both acting out of fear
of a probable event even though it is not a certainty such will occur.
Someone not getting on planes even though the probability is low will
crash, someone stocking up on food and buying a bomb shelter based on
the low probabaility of nuclear war, going to war or stocking up with
weapons based on small probability that another person or nation (might)
attack at some point.

By appealing to the masses.

[silverexile17s]

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

-snip-

Your reply is filled with so much nonsense and inaccuracies it would produce a quote pyramid so long it would take someone an hour to read to two hours to write. So instead I will just reply with your excuses are bad, your logic is flawed and your entire post is filled vast amounts of fallacy. Those who come after can read it and see for themselves without the need of me quoting every other sentence and pointing out why each is wrong. Now you can view that as me not being able to counter the really bad, false and innacurate statements of yours if you wish, but in reality I merely see how stupid your counters to my last post were that I assume everyone else can too. You even contradict your own comments in your own reply.

Prove that. Otherwise you lost the debate.

That's petty to say when you haven't put up any proof of your own assertations.
Do that first. Until you do, you of all people have no right to talk about winning debates.

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...
-snip

It is a known premise that synthetic races have wiped out organic ones. It is a known premise that on many occassions conflict between organics and synthetics happen without instigation of the Reapers. It is subjective logic I am using which is an accepted form of logic. I told you to read up on the three forms of logic earlier because your coming across is ignorant by crying logical fallacy to everything even though it is not.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 07:50 .

[Maxster_]

in addition.

Put it this way the catalyst could believe will happen because a
synthetic race have wiped out organic races before (may have happened
many times and even taken some to the brink of extinction in some,
examples we do not know of during the cycles)

This statement consists entirely of logical fallacies.
Catalyst beliveing something to be true doesn't mean that it is true.
This is appeal to authority.
Synthetic race wiped out some organic race doesn't mean that all synthetics will wipe out their creators, or that synthetics will wipe out all organics.
This is faulty generalization.

even in ME3 this is shown
to be the case dependant on whos playthrough using as reference in which
Quarians are wiped out by the synthetic Geth, in many cycles it would
seem that there has been conflict between sythetics and organics and it
might be the case of which we do not know if true or not could be all
cycles experienced by the Catalyst. The reality is your calling his
logic a fallacy when you do not have as much data and evidence as he
might.

If there was conflict of organics and synthetics, or several conflicts, it doesn't mean that there is always conflict between synthetics and organics.
And again appeal to authority. If Catalyst says that something is true, it doesn't mean that it is true.
Anyway, to disprove absolute statements like those of Catalyst, you need only one case of the opposite.

Modifié par Maxster_, 19 janvier 2013 - 07:52 .

[Meltemph]

It is a known premise that synthetic races have wiped out organic ones.

Under set conditions, the era of the Leviathan.

It is a known premise that on many occassions conflict between organics and synthetics happen without instigation of the Reapers

We dont know this, outside of the era with the Leviathan. Everything we know in game, about the reapers, is they are willing to get involved in the galaxy thousands of years before they invade.

We actually dont have any "known premise" in regards to what you are talking about. All we do know is his premise and what the Leviathan were doing(remember before the reaper invention, they were perfectly safe).

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:06 .