305 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

That has nothing to do with the orgainc/synthetic conflect, or the reason they harvest. The Leviathans touch upon that as well, twlling us that the Mass Relays were an attempt to control evolution, and find the direction to steer it in that world bring the Solution to frutition.
Infulencing the develiopment of Mass Effect technology has nothing to do with the develipment of A.I. tech. It's two different fields, and synthetics would have arisin regardless of if the galaxy was based on Mass Effect tech, or Warp Drive, or Hyperdrives, or Stargates. It wouldn't have had any effect on the creation of synthetics.

You dont accept that the path laid before them didnt control the direction of all technology, but you have nothing to assert that claim, other then your personal disbelief that it is possible. However, Sovereign was quite explicit that we developed along the path they choose.

What I give you is what the game tells us. What you respond with is your own personal rationalization why in this specific situation it isnt the case. Legion in ME2 gave an in-game reason as to why taking technology, in the way it has developed, can have a negative impact(in universe/setting explination).

What you offer is your own assumptions in regards to the narrative you want the game to have. What I offered was in-game explanations as to the end conclusions of how the reapers are so consistent.

You dont like the in game rationalizations or explinations(or at least you dont think they are sufficient) so you create your own personal narrative as to the reason why things in-game are the way they are. This is all fine, but you cant pretend you have a deeper insight into the "reasons".


You focus on the things unknown and the non-provable to support your claims. I choose to take what I know, in game, and apply that to the decisions I make in game. You take the information you don't know, and create a narrative that rationalizes your choices.

Look at all the other media. Look at our own development. We strive day and night to make A.I.s. Yet, wh have none of the tech displayed in those games. Automation of induatry through artifical inteligence is a natural step in the development and advancement of races. It was shown in just about every other space fantasy and sci-fi series epic out there. Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Deus Ex. You can even google it. See for yourself.
Just beacuse they always had ME tech, doesn't mean that all the other tech will be the same. Look at  the Conduit the protheans built. If your assertation was true, then Shepard's cycle would have done the same and built a mini-relay themselves.

Sovergien was explisit in that they developed in that areas that they choose. They never have access to any other areas of space, or any other means of travel, besides Mass Effect and Mass Relays. That's all. Sovergien said nothing about their cultures and tech all being exactally the same, becasue we obviously know that they are not. Looking at the protheans and comparing them to the rest of the galaxy proves that.  Their locolized development is compartmentilized and contained for convinece. Like managing an ant farm.
Or more like gardening. Say the galaxy is a garden. The cultures are random seed. You can control how fast they grow and develop, but you have no control over what plant shows up, because the seeds are all random every time.
And likewise, you have no proof of otherwise. Sovergien's talk about mass effect tech is only indicitive of how ME tech is controlled development through the cycles. They're cultures, tech, and choices are not infulenced by that. Not they way you think. If they were, none of the cultures (turian, asari, human, ect) would have had any major cultural difference between them, and would never have come into conflict with each-other at all. Which is BS.
So again, they only control how fast the development of the race is. Not the culture or tech they make. (evidenced by the prothean's beacons and the conduit)

[silverexile17s]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

"Make your points without nit-picking"?
Ha ha, not in a million years. That's how he fights.

[Dragoonlordz]

silverexile17s wrote...

"Make your points without nit-picking"?
Ha ha, not in a million years. That's how he fights.

I noticed he uses shotgun argumentation, by splitting anyones viewpoints into tiny parts then attempting to argue against those parts in an out of context format in effort to confuse and divert attention away from his fallacious criticisms.

[Meltemph]

silverexile17s wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

That has nothing to do with the orgainc/synthetic conflect, or the reason they harvest. The Leviathans touch upon that as well, twlling us that the Mass Relays were an attempt to control evolution, and find the direction to steer it in that world bring the Solution to frutition.
Infulencing the develiopment of Mass Effect technology has nothing to do with the develipment of A.I. tech. It's two different fields, and synthetics would have arisin regardless of if the galaxy was based on Mass Effect tech, or Warp Drive, or Hyperdrives, or Stargates. It wouldn't have had any effect on the creation of synthetics.

You dont accept that the path laid before them didnt control the direction of all technology, but you have nothing to assert that claim, other then your personal disbelief that it is possible. However, Sovereign was quite explicit that we developed along the path they choose.

What I give you is what the game tells us. What you respond with is your own personal rationalization why in this specific situation it isnt the case. Legion in ME2 gave an in-game reason as to why taking technology, in the way it has developed, can have a negative impact(in universe/setting explination).

What you offer is your own assumptions in regards to the narrative you want the game to have. What I offered was in-game explanations as to the end conclusions of how the reapers are so consistent.

You dont like the in game rationalizations or explinations(or at least you dont think they are sufficient) so you create your own personal narrative as to the reason why things in-game are the way they are. This is all fine, but you cant pretend you have a deeper insight into the "reasons".


You focus on the things unknown and the non-provable to support your claims. I choose to take what I know, in game, and apply that to the decisions I make in game. You take the information you don't know, and create a narrative that rationalizes your choices.

Look at all the other media. Look at our own development. We strive day and night to make A.I.s. Yet, wh have none of the tech displayed in those games. Automation of induatry through artifical inteligence is a natural step in the development and advancement of races. It was shown in just about every other space fantasy and sci-fi series epic out there. Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Deus Ex. You can even google it. See for yourself.
Just beacuse they always had ME tech, doesn't mean that all the other tech will be the same. Look at  the Conduit the protheans built. If your assertation was true, then Shepard's cycle would have done the same and built a mini-relay themselves.

Sovergien was explisit in that they developed in that areas that they choose. They never have access to any other areas of space, or any other means of travel, besides Mass Effect and Mass Relays. That's all. Sovergien said nothing about their cultures and tech all being exactally the same, becasue we obviously know that they are not. Looking at the protheans and comparing them to the rest of the galaxy proves that.  Their locolized development is compartmentilized and contained for convinece. Like managing an ant farm.
Or more like gardening. Say the galaxy is a garden. The cultures are random seed. You can control how fast they grow and develop, but you have no control over what plant shows up, because the seeds are all random every time.
And likewise, you have no proof of otherwise. Sovergien's talk about mass effect tech is only indicitive of how ME tech is controlled development through the cycles. They're cultures, tech, and choices are not infulenced by that. Not they way you think. If they were, none of the cultures (turian, asari, human, ect) would have had any major cultural difference between them, and would never have come into conflict with each-other at all. Which is BS.
So again, they only control how fast the development of the race is. Not the culture or tech they make. (evidenced by the prothean's beacons and the conduit)

Everything you have said is your personal perception on different aspects of scifi.  Nothing you have presented is known information about a particular point. Everything you are saying is your own personal assertions based on incredibly realative outlooks on specific fiction.

As for proof... I'm not sure why I would need to?  I'm not trying to create conclusions based on what we dont know, I make decisions(not conclusions) based on what we know.  I have no reason to "prove" anything, because I'm not the one trying to back up or prove the specific theory of the catalyst.

All of what you just posted is projecting your own personal bias on the story.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:10 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

You really do not understand logic. There are many forms and where your failure to grasp this has left you at a disadvantage. Your arguing against something you do not understand. Subjective logic is like any other form of logic only it allows for variation in the conclusion. It does not require certainty only that it is likely based on the premises used to form the logical process with some room for potential error.

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

Inductive logic operates with probabilities not absolute statements.

All of the swans we have seen are white.
Therefore, all swans are white.

Is false.

You are using incomplete induction, like listing some examples A1,A2,..,An of organics creating synthetics.
But thing is, you are doing it wrong. Because you are deliberately ignoring cases like rachni or krogan, who are organics also.

Also, to use complete induction logic, you need to know all cases of all organics of all cycles.
And you can not know that.

And, as you should know, incomplete inductive reasoning is not a proof in formal logic.
You can not prove absolute statements with that.

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

Everything you have said is your personal perception on different aspects of scifi.  Nothing you have presented is know information about a particular point. Everything you are saying is your own personal assertions based on incredibly realative outlooks on specific fiction.

As for proof... I'm not sure why I would need to?  I'm not trying to create conclusions based on what we dont know, I make decisions(not conclusions) based on what we know.  I have no reason to "prove" anything, because I'm not the one trying to back up or prove the specific theory of the catalyst.

All of what you just posted is projecting your own personal bias on the story.

But you have to accept that the Catalyst is not working on the same information you have been presented with. It's conclusion is based on more than you know so while it is fine to base yours on what you know it does not invalidate it's conclusion as it knows more. It simply has more data to which it came to it's conclusion.

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

You really do not understand logic. There are many forms and where your failure to grasp this has left you at a disadvantage. Your arguing against something you do not understand. Subjective logic is like any other form of logic only it allows for variation in the conclusion. It does not require certainty only that it is likely based on the premises used to form the logical process with some room for potential error.

Hehe.
And you using that to prove absolute statements.
This is exactly what it is - appeal to probability.
You are saying that there is a probability(unknown) that Catalyst is right - therefore he is right.

Modifié par Maxster_, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:11 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

Inductive logic operates with probabilities not absolute statements.

All of the swans we have seen are white.
Therefore, all swans are white.

Is false.

You are using incomplete induction, like listing some examples A1,A2,..,An of organics creating synthetics.
But thing is, you are doing it wrong. Because you are deliberately ignoring cases like rachni or krogan, who are organics also.

Also, to use complete induction logic, you need to know all cases of all organics of all cycles.
And you can not know that.

And, as you should know, incomplete inductive reasoning is not a proof in formal logic.
You can not prove absolute statements with that.

I never said I was ever using inductive logic, I said look up deductive and adunctive which includes subjective logic which I am using.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:12 .

[Meltemph]

 But you have to accept that the Catalyst is not working on the same information you have been presented with.

Actually, I have no reason to accept or believe that the catalyst is working on anything other then the same information that was given to me across all 3 games+DLC. 

It's conclusion is based on more than you know so while it is fine to base yours on what you know it does not invalidate it's conclusion as it knows more. It simply has more data to which it came to it's conclusion. 

No, your assumption is that he based his conclusion on more then I know.  However, the Leviathan DLC gave us the exact evolution of his decision and we have been given no indication he has diverged from this point since.  So with what we have been given, and what we know, I have no reason to create unknown scenario's to try and make the catalyst more then what was shown.  

All you've presented is a narative you believe is happening, becuase, you dont think the catalyst would be doing this if there was a better way or his original conclusion was proven false.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:16 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

There is no premise that a synthetic race wiped out an organic race. Not even the reapers were successful in wiping out the Leviathans. The Geth did not wipe out the Quarians. Granted these were close, but not completely successful. The Zha'til did not wipe out the Zha, but the Protheans solution to the problem was to cause the sun of the Zha's system to supernova.

Unless you are including the Reapers themselves as synthetics. Or are they considered "hybrids". If you are considering them synthetics, we end up in the: "Yo dawg, I heard you were creating synthetics so I made a bunch of synthetics to kill you before you made synthetics that killed you." If this is the case then there are plenty of examples. If not, then there are not.

If you can point me to an exception to this in the codex please do.

I don't have time to look up and read up on logic form debates. I'll leave that to you guys.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:17 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

You really do not understand logic. There are many forms and where your failure to grasp this has left you at a disadvantage. Your arguing against something you do not understand. Subjective logic is like any other form of logic only it allows for variation in the conclusion. It does not require certainty only that it is likely based on the premises used to form the logical process with some room for potential error.

Hehe.
And you using that to prove absolute statements.
This is exactly what it is - appeal to probability.
You are saying that there is a probability(unknown) that Catalyst is right - therefore he is right.

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

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:18 .

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

Inductive logic operates with probabilities not absolute statements.

All of the swans we have seen are white.
Therefore, all swans are white.

Is false.

You are using incomplete induction, like listing some examples A1,A2,..,An of organics creating synthetics.
But thing is, you are doing it wrong. Because you are deliberately ignoring cases like rachni or krogan, who are organics also.

Also, to use complete induction logic, you need to know all cases of all organics of all cycles.
And you can not know that.

And, as you should know, incomplete inductive reasoning is not a proof in formal logic.
You can not prove absolute statements with that.

I never said I was ever using inductive logic, I said look up deductive and adunctive which includes subjective logic which I am using.

Really?
And what is this then?

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.

[Dragoonlordz]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

There is no premise that a synthetic race wiped out an organic race. Not even the reapers were successful in wiping out the Leviathans. The Geth did not wipe out the Quarians. Granted these were close, but not completely successful. The Zha'til did not wipe out the Zha, but the Protheans solution to the problem was to cause the sun of the Zha's system to supernova.

Unless you are including the Reapers themselves as synthetics. Or are they considered "hybrids". If you are considering them synthetics, we end up in the: "Yo dawg, I heard you were creating synthetics so I made a bunch of synthetics to kill you before you made synthetics that killed you." If this is the case then there are plenty of examples. If not, then there are not.

If you can point me to an exception to this in the codex please do.

I don't have time to look up and read up on logic form debates. I'll leave that to you guys.

I can't be bothered to load up ME3 and write down codex entries so taken from the walkthrough...

If you allow the upload, Legion will sacrifice itself to distribute the new programming and the upload will be finalized. The Migrant Fleet will be wiped out by the newly-enhanced geth, resulting in the extinction of the quarian race.

[Dragoonlordz]

Maxster_ wrote...

Really?
And what is this then?

Okay I have used some inductive countering your claims also some deductive and some subjective, but used subjective in explaining the catalysts.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:28 .

[Meltemph]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

There is no premise that a synthetic race wiped out an organic race. Not even the reapers were successful in wiping out the Leviathans. The Geth did not wipe out the Quarians. Granted these were close, but not completely successful. The Zha'til did not wipe out the Zha, but the Protheans solution to the problem was to cause the sun of the Zha's system to supernova.

Unless you are including the Reapers themselves as synthetics. Or are they considered "hybrids". If you are considering them synthetics, we end up in the: "Yo dawg, I heard you were creating synthetics so I made a bunch of synthetics to kill you before you made synthetics that killed you." If this is the case then there are plenty of examples. If not, then there are not.

If you can point me to an exception to this in the codex please do.

I don't have time to look up and read up on logic form debates. I'll leave that to you guys.

I can't be bothered to load up ME3 and write down codex entries so taken from the walkthrough...

If you allow the upload, Legion will sacrifice itself to distribute the new programming and the upload will be finalized. The Migrant Fleet will be wiped out by the newly-enhanced geth, resulting in the extinction of the quarian race.

Through conditions created and encouraged by organics.  Not to mention this is with the assumption that all quarians in the galaxy at the time, were all at the fleet and that none of them were on the citadel or other parts of the galaxy.

Besides, again, this doesnt actually make a case for the catalyst, it only makes the case that the quarian and geth conflict wasnt as simple as organic vs synthetic.  Either way though, this was with the influcence of the reapers, so the point is moot.

[Maxster_]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

You really do not understand logic. There are many forms and where your failure to grasp this has left you at a disadvantage. Your arguing against something you do not understand. Subjective logic is like any other form of logic only it allows for variation in the conclusion. It does not require certainty only that it is likely based on the premises used to form the logical process with some room for potential error.

Hehe.
And you using that to prove absolute statements.
This is exactly what it is - appeal to probability.
You are saying that there is a probability(unknown) that Catalyst is right - therefore he is right.

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.

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.

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

There is no premise that a synthetic race wiped out an organic race. Not even the reapers were successful in wiping out the Leviathans. The Geth did not wipe out the Quarians. Granted these were close, but not completely successful. The Zha'til did not wipe out the Zha, but the Protheans solution to the problem was to cause the sun of the Zha's system to supernova.

Unless you are including the Reapers themselves as synthetics. Or are they considered "hybrids". If you are considering them synthetics, we end up in the: "Yo dawg, I heard you were creating synthetics so I made a bunch of synthetics to kill you before you made synthetics that killed you." If this is the case then there are plenty of examples. If not, then there are not.

If you can point me to an exception to this in the codex please do.

I don't have time to look up and read up on logic form debates. I'll leave that to you guys.

I can't be bothered to load up ME3 and write down codex entries so taken from the walkthrough...

If you allow the upload, Legion will sacrifice itself to distribute the new programming and the upload will be finalized. The Migrant Fleet will be wiped out by the newly-enhanced geth, resulting in the extinction of the quarian race.

Through conditions created and encouraged by organics.  Not to mention this is with the assumption that all quarians in the galaxy at the time, were all at the fleet and that none of them were on the citadel or other parts of the galaxy.

Besides, again, this doesnt actually make a case for the catalyst, it only makes the case that the quarian and geth conflict wasnt as simple as organic vs synthetic.  Either way though, this was with the influcence of the reapers, so the point is moot.

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

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:33 .

[Meltemph]

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

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

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

[silverexile17s]

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[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

[/quote]
1. Ironic of you to say that, since that's how you act to everyone else. It even got you banned once, if I recall.
And by "deconsturct," you mean "use headcannon while accusing you of doing it."

2. You do realize that humans built an A.I. on Gagarian Station? (ME wiki: Gagarian Station. Or just look up the Codex, which will tell you in plain text that the first  human A.I., Eliza, became sentiant in 2172 CE) They even got repremended for it in Mass Effect: Revalation. So no, humans making A.I.s is not that big a hurdle. It's actually logical.
I don't think he's the one who doesn't understand the concept of logic.

3. Those laws didn't prevent the creation of that A.I. on the Citadel in ME1. And it doesn't apply to any race that the Council hasn't contacted yet. Since only 1% of the galaxy is explored, instantly assuming that the Council's law magically means that every being out there isn't building A.I.s is foolish. Besides, both humans and batarians disregarded the law and were cunducting A.I. research, as shown in Mass Effect: Revelation.
Between that, the quarians 300 years ago, the illegal A.I. on the Citadel in ME1 and the three A.I.s that Cerberus built (EDI, Eva, and the UDI seen in the OS game, Mass Effect: Infiltrator), and that EDI was a V.I. that became an A.I.
.... yeah, the Council's ban on A.I.s totally stopped the possibilaty of their consturction.
(This is scarcasim)
Seriously, that ban doesn't stop the creation of A.I.s, any more then their laws against slavery stopped the batarians from enslaving others.

4. That doesn't exclude the possibilaty that they will. Saying they never would is the same as years ago, when people said it was impossible to get to the moon.
You just don't know. I mean, did anyone expect the hanar to have a real culture when they're jellyfish?

5. They would have in time. If Legion was never recruted, he never tells the geth of the positive expenerces he had with organics. If that happens, then the Geth V.I. stand-in for ME3 is notibly more hostile to organics, and more then willing to slaughter the quarians.
If Shepard hadn't met Legion, the geth would have retained their negitive views on organics. I mean, you realize that the whole reason the geth never contacted any other race was because they never saw the point, because they figured that organics would always be hostile to them. In ME2, when Tali and Legion are fighting over the data Legion stole from Tali's onmi-tool, we learn that the geth would indeed march out of the Veil and attack, should they learn of the threat against them the quarians were creating. That means that for all your claims, the geth are more then willing to kill off another race if they think it means thir self-preservation. This is proven in ME3, where, if you cannot get the quarians to stand down, the geth butcher them.
And even had none of that happened, they still would likely come to the conclusion that the quarians will always come back to attack them, and would attack first, wiping them out. This will panic the other races, which will march against the geth, and the pattern repeats all over again.

It's logic and numbers. Something you seem to lack an understanding in.

6. Look at the quarians. They would never have left them alone. Sooner or later, they would have provoked the geth into war with the other races. The above point 5^ more then expains that.

You are the one not comprehending the logic here.

7. Again, what happened in the Leviathan Age was proof of what happened when it sat back and did nothing. And it was the same result every time. Why take a chance now?
The problem here is you are using the wrong logic. You are using the logic of emotional reasoning, which the Catalyst doesn't have. That's why you are unable to comprehend any of this.
You are unable to see the logic in numbers and calculus.

8. History is your proof of that.
And are you telling me that in the President's position, you would just leave the conflict to be delt with by it's progenitors, even though they have failed to contain or solve it? After the conflict spilled out into the rest of the known world?
You'd really just let the conflict, that has no end in sight, and threatens everything else around it, persist?
THAT'S the insane breed of logic.

9. Again, wrong. The Leviathans said that several races were wiped out by their creations. Their genocide was the reason they built the Catalyst in the first place. And they stopped synthetics from repeating the process again.
Your only validating them with that.

10. It does to a computer.
If the numbers weigh in that direction, that's the direction it will go in. That's basic knowledge.
You keep using emotonial reasoning. That's the wrong logic to see this with. Cold calculus is what computers use. That's the only way you can see this in.

11. You misread him.
His point is that without intervention, the synthetics would wipe out all organics by  terminator-style mechinizing every world they come across. That wouls end the cycle right then and there.
His point is that the cycles had no visible end, because organics will always create synthetics that will rise up against them. The Reapers intervine and reset the board, but the same thing happens.
His point is that letting the conflect fester without intervention will just lead to the end of organic life.

12. Close.
The Leviathans could not stop the conflicts from happening. They could only ever clean upo afterwords. They created the Catalyst to prevent the problem from happening.
It's the same as how law enforcement strives to make sure that things like murders never happen. And how laws are layed down to prevent people like that from coming up.
Preventive measures. That's what the Cycles are: preventive measures against domination by synthetics.

13. Again, untrue for a computer. It will automatically choose the path that the numbers say is the most likely.
That's how cold logic and ruthless calculus work. When using pure, cold logic and numbers to think with, probabilaty will always equal inevitabilaty, in their eyes.
That's just how computer's work.

14. Based on how this always ended with the same result in the Leviathan Age, the numbers were most likely 80% of ever cycle being the same, as they all reached the same "conflict terminus." The result was never left to chance, as they believed that since it always happend the same way in the past, there was no reason to think it would be any different in the future.

15. Look at us. I can say that going without major conflict for ten years is nigh impossible for us. That's a prediction based on the numbers from our past. We are a species in conflict by nature. The prediction that we would be fighting each-other again is a certinty.

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

That has nothing to do with the orgainc/synthetic conflect, or the reason they harvest. The Leviathans touch upon that as well, twlling us that the Mass Relays were an attempt to control evolution, and find the direction to steer it in that world bring the Solution to frutition.
Infulencing the develiopment of Mass Effect technology has nothing to do with the develipment of A.I. tech. It's two different fields, and synthetics would have arisin regardless of if the galaxy was based on Mass Effect tech, or Warp Drive, or Hyperdrives, or Stargates. It wouldn't have had any effect on the creation of synthetics.

You dont accept that the path laid before them didnt control the direction of all technology, but you have nothing to assert that claim, other then your personal disbelief that it is possible. However, Sovereign was quite explicit that we developed along the path they choose.

What I give you is what the game tells us. What you respond with is your own personal rationalization why in this specific situation it isnt the case. Legion in ME2 gave an in-game reason as to why taking technology, in the way it has developed, can have a negative impact(in universe/setting explination).

What you offer is your own assumptions in regards to the narrative you want the game to have. What I offered was in-game explanations as to the end conclusions of how the reapers are so consistent.

You dont like the in game rationalizations or explinations(or at least you dont think they are sufficient) so you create your own personal narrative as to the reason why things in-game are the way they are. This is all fine, but you cant pretend you have a deeper insight into the "reasons".


You focus on the things unknown and the non-provable to support your claims. I choose to take what I know, in game, and apply that to the decisions I make in game. You take the information you don't know, and create a narrative that rationalizes your choices.

Look at all the other media. Look at our own development. We strive day and night to make A.I.s. Yet, wh have none of the tech displayed in those games. Automation of induatry through artifical inteligence is a natural step in the development and advancement of races. It was shown in just about every other space fantasy and sci-fi series epic out there. Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Deus Ex. You can even google it. See for yourself.
Just beacuse they always had ME tech, doesn't mean that all the other tech will be the same. Look at  the Conduit the protheans built. If your assertation was true, then Shepard's cycle would have done the same and built a mini-relay themselves.

Sovergien was explisit in that they developed in that areas that they choose. They never have access to any other areas of space, or any other means of travel, besides Mass Effect and Mass Relays. That's all. Sovergien said nothing about their cultures and tech all being exactally the same, becasue we obviously know that they are not. Looking at the protheans and comparing them to the rest of the galaxy proves that.  Their locolized development is compartmentilized and contained for convinece. Like managing an ant farm.
Or more like gardening. Say the galaxy is a garden. The cultures are random seed. You can control how fast they grow and develop, but you have no control over what plant shows up, because the seeds are all random every time.
And likewise, you have no proof of otherwise. Sovergien's talk about mass effect tech is only indicitive of how ME tech is controlled development through the cycles. They're cultures, tech, and choices are not infulenced by that. Not they way you think. If they were, none of the cultures (turian, asari, human, ect) would have had any major cultural difference between them, and would never have come into conflict with each-other at all. Which is BS.
So again, they only control how fast the development of the race is. Not the culture or tech they make. (evidenced by the prothean's beacons and the conduit)

Everything you have said is your personal perception on different aspects of scifi.  Nothing you have presented is known information about a particular point. Everything you are saying is your own personal assertions based on incredibly realative outlooks on specific fiction.

As for proof... I'm not sure why I would need to?  I'm not trying to create conclusions based on what we dont know, I make decisions(not conclusions) based on what we know.  I have no reason to "prove" anything, because I'm not the one trying to back up or prove the specific theory of the catalyst.

All of what you just posted is projecting your own personal bias on the story.

You haven't said anything that proves your points diffinitively, I remind you. Therefore, my word is no less possibilaty then yours. I told you to look at all the other series and tell me if the differences in tech mattered, when they have the same problems regarding A.I.s?

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

Again, you haven't psoted any proof, so there is NO evidence that what you say is any more the truth. I gave a refrence to wiki, spicifically:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_revolt
Look at the reasoning behind that, then go out and work to find something that counters the arguements in that, and then tell me that I'm wrong on my views.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:52 .

[silverexile17s]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

There is no premise that a synthetic race wiped out an organic race. Not even the reapers were successful in wiping out the Leviathans. The Geth did not wipe out the Quarians. Granted these were close, but not completely successful. The Zha'til did not wipe out the Zha, but the Protheans solution to the problem was to cause the sun of the Zha's system to supernova.

Unless you are including the Reapers themselves as synthetics. Or are they considered "hybrids". If you are considering them synthetics, we end up in the: "Yo dawg, I heard you were creating synthetics so I made a bunch of synthetics to kill you before you made synthetics that killed you." If this is the case then there are plenty of examples. If not, then there are not.

If you can point me to an exception to this in the codex please do.

I don't have time to look up and read up on logic form debates. I'll leave that to you guys.

The exception is in the Leviathan DLC. The Leviathans tell you themselves that several races were destroyed by their creations. They spicifically say "Tribuet does not flow from a dead race."
Note the bolded. Their genocide was the reason the Catalyst was created: To prevent total genocide like that from happening again. The "Solution" was to "preserve" every race in a new, eternal, inexaustible form - the Reapers.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:01 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

Modifié par silverexile17s, 19 janvier 2013 - 08:59 .

[silverexile17s]

Maxster_ wrote...

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).

He put up a link to a site with the post you qouted.
Convineint that you missed it.\\You really cannot to two pages without fighting with someone? Even the people trying to watch out for you?
Again, you use emotional responce logic. To a computer, the numbers are like the weights on a scale. Whichever side the scale tips in, is what it's going to go with. That's how pure numbers, and mathmatics, work.
It's simple logic. What's wrong for you is right for someone else.
That doesn't make it an illogical fallacy. That makes it a difference and/or matter of opinion.

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

[Dragoonlordz]

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.

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.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:12 .