587 réponses à ce sujet

[EnvyTB075]

Eterna5 wrote...

People not viewing things as alive does not mean that they are not alive.

If I said I don't believe Ants are alive would ants not be alive? Or would I just be an ignorant fool? 

ITT: Eterna missing the point as always.

The problem with your analogy is that there is absolutely no ethical debate surrounding whether Ants are self aware or not. Of course they are, scientists decades ago have already figured that out, it is a fact. What is not a fact is whether AI's are considered living beings due to their mechanical nature and their origin not of the natural order of evolution, but of mans (or in ME, intelligent organic beings in general) desire for an intelligent robot to do the hard yards for them.

It is easier for someone to rationalise away "genocide" if they don't believe it was genocide in the first place, and especially when their view is legimate within the context of the debate, unlike how mass murderers in history have treated their subjects.

[Eterna]

Indy_S wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
People not viewing things as alive does not mean that they are not alive.

If I said I don't believe Ants are alive would ants not be alive? Or would I just be an ignorant fool? 

From a purely biological standpoint, they are alive. From a purely philosophical standpoint, they are not sapient. From a purely biological standpoint, the Geth are not alive. From a purely philosophical standpoint, the Geth are sapient. You have to strike a balance and there is simply no definitive answer to 'what constitutes alive?'. The idea that someone can have the fulcrum at an extreme does not surprise me.

The Geth are not Biological constructs, our rules on what is life do not apply to them. That is why they are classified as a different form of life. 

Who ever said that life only comes in organic form? 

[Eterna]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

People not viewing things as alive does not mean that they are not alive.

If I said I don't believe Ants are alive would ants not be alive? Or would I just be an ignorant fool? 

ITT: Eterna missing the point as always.

The problem with your analogy is that there is absolutely no ethical debate surrounding whether Ants are self aware or not. Of course they are, scientists decades ago have already figured that out, it is a fact. What is not a fact is whether AI's are considered living beings due to their mechanical nature and their origin not of the natural order of evolution, but of mans (or in ME, intelligent organic beings in general) desire for an intelligent robot to do the hard yards for them.

It is easier for someone to rationalise away "genocide" if they don't believe it was genocide in the first place, and especially when their view is legimate within the context of the debate, unlike how mass murderers in history have treated their subjects.

So basically you're too close minded to allow the possibility of there being other forms of life besides organic. 

[Indy_S]

Eterna5 wrote...
The Geth are not Biological constructs, our rules on what is life do not apply to them. That is why they are classified as a different form of life. 

Who ever said that life only comes in organic form? 

So you're leaning towards the philosophical interpretation, then. Others don't rely on such a vague definition and prefer the more strict 'replicating cells' as a definition. Our rules on what is life are challenged by these two concepts.

[EnvyTB075]

Eterna5 wrote...

So basically you're too close minded to allow the possibility of there being other forms of life besides organic. 

Oh for ****s sake..

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Not that i believe it, just sayin the fact they're AI makes it easier on some

I said i don't agree with the view, but i at least have the forsight to actually acknowledge that it IS a view many DO take and is a far more ethically able to defend than the genocide of organic beings due to the subjective nature of artificial inteliigence.

Go read the thread for a bit you moron. Hell you champion different opinions, how about you practice what you preach?

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 19 février 2013 - 11:40 .

[Eterna]

Indy_S wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
The Geth are not Biological constructs, our rules on what is life do not apply to them. That is why they are classified as a different form of life. 

Who ever said that life only comes in organic form? 

So you're leaning towards the philosophical interpretation, then. Others don't rely on such a vague definition and prefer the more strict 'replicating cells' as a definition. Our rules on what is life are challenged by these two concepts.

But that's stupid. Mass Effect fully acknowledges and points out that organic life isn't the only form of life. Sounds like willful ignorance to me. 

Go read the thread for a bit you moron.

Doesn't take much to rile you up, huh? 

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 février 2013 - 11:39 .

[EnvyTB075]

Eterna5 wrote...

Doesn't take much to rile you up, huh? 

You're not even a troll, you're just pretending not to care because you know i'm actually right and your accusations are blatently false.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 19 février 2013 - 11:41 .

[Eterna]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Doesn't take much to rile you up, huh? 

You're not even a troll, you're just pretending not to care because you know i'm actually right and your accusations are blatently false.

No I really don't care. 

[EnvyTB075]

Eterna5 wrote...

No I really don't care. 

If i had a dollar for every time i've heard that sentence when someone was so incredibly beaten in whatever field they were competing/debating in, i'd have enough money to buy EA and fix Mass Effect 3.

Unfortunately the universe is not a kind mistress and we have to deal with luddites like you.

[Indy_S]

Eterna5 wrote...

But that's stupid. Mass Effect fully acknowledges and points out that organic life isn't the only form of life. Sounds like willful ignorance to me. 

Disagreement? A fundamental difference in a philosophical interpretation? Calling that stupid isn't very mature. The form of life doesn't matter, the rules on what is life do. As you said, they don't apply to the Geth. Therefore, it's not an unreasonable conclusion to say that the Geth are not alive.

I suppose I should make it clear that I am very much on the philosophical end too. To me, thought means life. There can be alternate definitions as well.

[Eterna]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

No I really don't care. 

If i had a dollar for every time i've heard that sentence when someone was so incredibly beaten in whatever field they were competing/debating in, i'd have enough money to buy EA and fix Mass Effect 3.

Unfortunately the universe is not a kind mistress and we have to deal with luddites like you.

Well hey, if it makes you feel better. 

Im so utterly defeated for misinterpreting what you wrote, you just totally destroyed me. Here's a shiny sticker, just for you!




Go head and print that out if you like, it would look great on your fridge. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 février 2013 - 11:59 .

[Eterna]

Indy_S wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

But that's stupid. Mass Effect fully acknowledges and points out that organic life isn't the only form of life. Sounds like willful ignorance to me. 

Disagreement? A fundamental difference in a philosophical interpretation? Calling that stupid isn't very mature. The form of life doesn't matter, the rules on what is life do. As you said, they don't apply to the Geth. Therefore, it's not an unreasonable conclusion to say that the Geth are not alive.

I suppose I should make it clear that I am very much on the philosophical end too. To me, thought means life. There can be alternate definitions as well.

How do we as humans have the right to define what life is with the extremely limited sample size of organisms we have on one planet in one Solar System?

[EnvyTB075]

Eterna5 wrote...

-snip-

And heres the part where the luddite tries to pass it off as humour. Want to be a little more predictable?

Eterna5 wrote...

How do we as humans have the right to
define what life is with the extremely limited sample size of organisms
we have on one planet in one Solar System?

If it bothers you so much take it to another topic, especially since that the debate itself wasn't the point of my OP on the subject.

Y'know, since you obviously care so much to keep responding.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 19 février 2013 - 12:00 .

[Eterna]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

-snip-

And heres the part where the luddite tries to pass it off as humour. Want to be a little more predictable?

lud·dite  NounA member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, esp. in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was...

A person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology.

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 février 2013 - 12:01 .

[EnvyTB075]

Eterna5 wrote...

lud·dite  NounA member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, esp. in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was...

A person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology.

Eterna actually caring about grammar and use of language.

My my, this is a first isn't it.

[Eterna]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

lud·dite  NounA member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, esp. in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was...

A person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology.

Eterna actually caring about grammar and use of language.

My my, this is a first isn't it.

How does it feel knowing that I'm better at using English than you and it's my second language? 

[EnvyTB075]

Eterna5 wrote...

How does it feel knowing that I'm better at using English than you and it's my second language? 

Feels like nothing, because the number of people i know who are perfectly fluent in more than their home language is quite large, not to mention that you never actually knew it. All you've proven is your capacity to google search.

I'm no linguist, i'm not ashamed to admit it. Perhaps you should practice some humility.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 19 février 2013 - 12:05 .

[Eterna]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

How does it feel knowing that I'm better at using English than you and it's my second language? 

Feels like nothing, 

If i had a dollar for every time i've heard that sentence when someone was so incredibly beaten in whatever field they were competing/debating in, i'd have enough money to buy EA and fix Mass Effect 3.

[EnvyTB075]

Eterna5 wrote...
If i had a dollar for every time i've heard that sentence when someone was so incredibly beaten in whatever field they were competing/debating in, i'd have enough money to buy EA and fix Mass Effect 3.

Ah yes, you have mastered the practice of selective reading, bravo.

[Indy_S]

Eterna5 wrote...
How do we as humans have the right to define what life is with the extremely limited sample size of organisms we have on one planet in one Solar System?

The right is implicit. We are able to think, therefore we are able to ponder and theorise. But Envy is right. This is waaay off topic.

Ludditism and transhumanism are not opposite concepts. They are opposing concepts. There exist other methods of thinking on the spectrum as well, some of which oppose ludditism and some oppose transhumanism.

[Eterna]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
If i had a dollar for every time i've heard that sentence when someone was so incredibly beaten in whatever field they were competing/debating in, i'd have enough money to buy EA and fix Mass Effect 3.

Ah yes, you have mastered the practice of selective reading, bravo.

I learned from the best. 

[Auintus]

Indy_S wrote...

That's something I like. I flipped the two: Destroy has the payoff worth the cost while Synthesis is abhorrant to me. I think straight-up slavery is worse than murder. A loss of freedom is worth more than loss of life. And if Synthesis removes conflict as the Catalyst implies, I can't see that as anything but manipulation, brain-washing, a loss of choice. Control enforces a strict set of ethics, one not open to adaptation or disagreement. Both of these are against what I believe. After the red wave hits everything, the galaxy can go back to normal. This is something I can get behind.

I think its pushing it a little far to say slavery. Everyone in the ending is behaving according to their personality beforehand, so I refuse to believe that Synthesis severely altered their psychology. And the Catalyst only says that it removes the Synthetic-Organic conflict, not conflict as a whole, though I believe EDI does imply that in her monologue.
The one thing I tend not to mention about Synthesis is that it only makes one decision for the galaxy, and they can do whatever they want afterwards, but it is a decision that permanently changes every species on a genetic level, thus casading that decision down to every being that would ever be born in the galaxy. If I didn't have a bit of an ego issue, I might consider that too much responsibility.
I do agree on you interpretation of Control, though.
Like I said...somewhere, different minds, different priorities. My goal is to end the war with no more loss of life, your goal is to remove the Reaper threat permanently. I consider the cost of Synthesis to be worth it, and you believe the same for Destroy. No one would willingly sacrifice an entire race unless they truly believed it was for the best.

[Indy_S]

Auintus wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

That's something I like. I flipped the two: Destroy has the payoff worth the cost while Synthesis is abhorrant to me. I think straight-up slavery is worse than murder. A loss of freedom is worth more than loss of life. And if Synthesis removes conflict as the Catalyst implies, I can't see that as anything but manipulation, brain-washing, a loss of choice. Control enforces a strict set of ethics, one not open to adaptation or disagreement. Both of these are against what I believe. After the red wave hits everything, the galaxy can go back to normal. This is something I can get behind.

I think its pushing it a little far to say slavery. Everyone in the ending is behaving according to their personality beforehand, so I refuse to believe that Synthesis severely altered their psychology. And the Catalyst only says that it removes the Synthetic-Organic conflict, not conflict as a whole, though I believe EDI does imply that in her monologue.
The one thing I tend not to mention about Synthesis is that it only makes one decision for the galaxy, and they can do whatever they want afterwards, but it is a decision that permanently changes every species on a genetic level, thus casading that decision down to every being that would ever be born in the galaxy. If I didn't have a bit of an ego issue, I might consider that too much responsibility.
I do agree on you interpretation of Control, though.
Like I said...somewhere, different minds, different priorities. My goal is to end the war with no more loss of life, your goal is to remove the Reaper threat permanently. I consider the cost of Synthesis to be worth it, and you believe the same for Destroy. No one would willingly sacrifice an entire race unless they truly believed it was for the best.

I think I should make it clear that the slavery-murder comparison was an example of valuing something more than life. Everything else is very agreeable with me. I bear the Geth no ill will but GTFO of my galaxy. (/humour)

[Auintus]

ruggly wrote...

I'm going to add this one as well

Synthesis is magic, pure and simple. It's an insult to the struggles of all the scientists, engineers, sociologists, politicians, and everyone else in the Mass Effect universe that put real and hard work into making a civilization like theirs function; to then come along and have a god-like being wash all of our problems away in a magical green space explosion because it says they are insurmountable. It says that you have to do this to get along with machines, when we all know that we don't need this.

The act of choosing Synthesis, from an out-of-universe standpoint, is anti-progressive, anti-technology, and anti-critical thinking given how completely impossible it is from a logistics standpoint. I despise these themes, regardless of the effect they have on the in-game universe.

Eezo. It has been in the ME universe since day one and I've never heard a damn word about it. Element zero is technically a neutron, which does absolutely none of what it is lauded to do in ME. Tell me, how does it make sense to accept something that is explained wrong, but argue against something that isn't explained at all.
I can and have BS-ed an explanation for Synthesis that doesn't even break physics. It assumes incredibly advanced technology, sure, but eezo's done worse than that.
Anti-progressive? The one decision that actually involves taking things forward, rather than setting them back to normal? How do you come to that?

Modifié par Auintus, 19 février 2013 - 01:55 .

[Auintus]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

To use the Hitler comparison, there is no comparable Auschwitz where one can go and see the effect, or the Cambodian mass graves where there is documented evidence of human bones stacked upon each other. Like the rest of the game, theres no visual confirmation of the event, it all happens off screen and the effect is diluted.

Side with the geth on Rannoch and choose Destroy. Rannoch is barren in the ending slides. Confirmation enough for me, anyway.