323 réponses à ce sujet

[iOnlySignIn]

Evolution is not a word you can use like a five dollar whore.

[Megaton_Hope]

KennyAshes wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

There's literally no such thing as an evolutionary "pinnacle," of course, unless you count the point at which a species becomes stagnant and is edged out by a more adaptable competitor which survives to breed more effectively.

Given the fact that its said that we'd end up at the pinnacle of our evolution I assume that we'd be stagnant.
And even then, life did spring out of nothing so to speak, even after synthesis, organic life will still come to be, it will just take a whole lot longer.

The whole concept of arriving at a "pinnacle" or an "apex" or an end goal of any kind to evolution is just ridiculous. It's not what's going on. Evolution is most simply stated as "a species not dying or going sterile all at once, because then they'd all be gone."

The only things in the Mass Effect universe that can definitely keep changing in a positive way indefinitely, so long as they don't really screw up their future updates, are the Geth and the Rachni, for whom the present generation incorporates most or all of the accumulated knowledge and adaptations of the past generations. And that because they're a hive mind and are possessed of a race memory, respectively. Those are things which future generations could conceivably cease to have, as well.

Anything else is subject to current or future generations making really bad decisions, overextending their population range vis-a-vis their resource base, and...say...turning their home planet into a crime-riddled slum (like the earthlings did) or almost murdering themselves (as the Krogan did) or almost murdering one another (as the humans and Turians/Salarians and Krogans/every council race and Reapers did). The most fault-tolerant humanoid race are the Asari, who can at least see and experience an awful lot in an average lifetime, pass their memories unaltered from one generation to the next, and otherwise comport themselves as a superior version of humanity.

[Rhayak]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Yes! Let's become the next version of husks to be used by the Reapers!

I think lemmings are smarter than this.

Certainly smarter than such repetitive headcanon.

You think the Reapers would order Kasumi to.... be reunited with her lover's memory? Or Zaeed to enjoy beer? Or the Quarians to amiably chat with the Geth?

Because it's alarming if you do.


I'm with Seival and her unyielding positivity.

Modifié par Rhayak, 03 avril 2013 - 11:04 .

[cyrslash1974]

The final evolution of life is... X-men ! That's all !

Euh... sorry...^^

[Ecrulis]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Yay, more hatred and vitriol aimed at Synthesis. This doesn't do anything other than make non-Synthesis fans look like sub-human troglodytes, you realise?

Oh for intelligent discussion...

Yay, its Wulf here to tell us all that we are psychopaths for wanting to end the existance of the genocidal death machines, *waves frantically before shooting the tube every time*

Modifié par Ecrulis, 03 avril 2013 - 11:38 .

[Megaton_Hope]

Rhayak wrote...

You think the Reapers would order Kasumi to.... be reunited with her lover's memory? Or Zaeed to enjoy beer? Or the Quarians to amiably chat with the Geth?

The Machines in the Matrix movies would certainly want Zaeed to enjoy beer, as that would be something familiar to him that he would relate to, which would keep him inured to his state of imprisonment in a simulation they control.

I mean, okay, so Synthesis is necessarily a different business, since ostensibly it is "real" and not "simulated," but given the first thing listed, I'm not sure to what degree I'd say that applies. Keiji is, after all, physically and irrevocably deceased, so the thing she is reunited with can only be some form of construct based on information retained in his greybox, which may or may not constitute a sufficiently accurate version of his memories at the time he died to build a convincing simulation of his memories and personality. Building a new Keiji rather fundamentally requires either godhood (thus to reawaken whatever pattern produced the original Keiji before discorporation) or a certain amount of willingness to compromise on just how much like Keiji the new personality construct is.

Maybe that didn't make any sense, I dunno, I'm procrastinating on some writing.

[Astartes Marine]

Ecrulis wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...
Yay, more hatred and vitriol aimed at Synthesis. This doesn't do anything other than make non-Synthesis fans look like sub-human troglodytes, you realise?
Oh for intelligent discussion...

Yay, its Wulf here to tell us all that we are psychopaths for wanting to end the existance of the genocidal death machines, *waves frantically before shooting the tube every time*

Yeah I'm getting to the point where I'm about to write them off as absolutely insane, or just a good troll.  Either way I've got no time for someone who throws around the term 'sociopath' because of a choice in a video game.<_<

[Ticonderoga117]

Rhayak wrote...
Certainly smarter than such repetitive headcanon.

You think the Reapers would order Kasumi to.... be reunited with her lover's memory? Or Zaeed to enjoy beer? Or the Quarians to amiably chat with the Geth?

Because it's alarming if you do.


I'm with Seival and her unyielding positivity.

And you think the Reapers would do things for our benefit? Because it's not like they killed billions upon billions and are totally cool with brainwashing people to get what they want.

A 180 degree turn around in the last 5 minutes of the series is not going to convince me that the Reapers, or cyborgification while the Reapers are still around of every lifeform (and hat) is a good thing.

In fact it's a horrible thing.

You can go be a lemming running towards that cliff, herded by big daddy Reaper. Me? The only way for the galaxy to move forward is to destroy the Reapers and make our own dang choices.

[Rhayak]

And you think the Reapers would do things for our benefit? Because it's not like they killed billions upon billions and are totally cool with brainwashing people to get what they want. 

A 180 degree turn around in the last 5 minutes of the series is not going to convince me that the Reapers, or cyborgification while the Reapers are still around of every lifeform (and hat) is a good thing.

Dude, that's all an effect of bad writing.

I'm about to open a new thread about this.

[Fixers0]

Synthesis is brainwashing and Conrol is opression.

[KennyAshes]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

KennyAshes wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

There's literally no such thing as an evolutionary "pinnacle," of course, unless you count the point at which a species becomes stagnant and is edged out by a more adaptable competitor which survives to breed more effectively.

Given the fact that its said that we'd end up at the pinnacle of our evolution I assume that we'd be stagnant.
And even then, life did spring out of nothing so to speak, even after synthesis, organic life will still come to be, it will just take a whole lot longer.

The whole concept of arriving at a "pinnacle" or an "apex" or an end goal of any kind to evolution is just ridiculous. It's not what's going on. Evolution is most simply stated as "a species not dying or going sterile all at once, because then they'd all be gone."

The only things in the Mass Effect universe that can definitely keep changing in a positive way indefinitely, so long as they don't really screw up their future updates, are the Geth and the Rachni, for whom the present generation incorporates most or all of the accumulated knowledge and adaptations of the past generations. And that because they're a hive mind and are possessed of a race memory, respectively. Those are things which future generations could conceivably cease to have, as well.

Anything else is subject to current or future generations making really bad decisions, overextending their population range vis-a-vis their resource base, and...say...turning their home planet into a crime-riddled slum (like the earthlings did) or almost murdering themselves (as the Krogan did) or almost murdering one another (as the humans and Turians/Salarians and Krogans/every council race and Reapers did). The most fault-tolerant humanoid race are the Asari, who can at least see and experience an awful lot in an average lifetime, pass their memories unaltered from one generation to the next, and otherwise comport themselves as a superior version of humanity.

I don't really agree though. Just take sharks or crocodiles, they are not perfect but they are perfect for what they do thus they didn't evolve over time. And only external factors treathen their existence. But just becasuse they are stagnant in their evolution they are threathened by us and their demise. The Geth have no need to keep evolving. As long as there is no need I don't see why any AI would evolve at a rapid speed. Nor is the Rachni hivemind a garantee for success. We encountered Rachni that were cut-off from their queen and went insane because of that.

I do agree on the fact that there is no 'completely and perfectly evoluted'. We'd be completely godlike if we'd achieve that.
But like said in ME3 I do believe we come to a point where evolution would not be necessairy without exterior, natural,... reasons.

But as I mentioned before, I have to many questions to stand 100% behind one of the choices. One of them being, are feelings still existing after synthesis or is it all just practicality? The slides seemed to point towards feelings, but aslong as there are feelings there will be conflict. So then what did synthesis solve?

[Megaton_Hope]

Sharks and crocodiles haven't evolved in a long time because what they do is still viable, so they haven't come up against resource/habitat scarcity boundaries in a meaningful way during that period. Obligate predators, however, have painted themselves into a corner in evolutionary terms. If their chosen prey becomes scarce, and they can't adapt to follow new prey into a new habitat, they will die out from hunger. And if something not as strong but smarter comes along, like us, it could force you into a progressively smaller range, like we've done to tigers:

http://archive.21stc...tiger range.jpg

You have to follow your habitat and your food supply, of course. If you change either of those things beyond a certain amount of wiggle room, it necessitates that changes are occurring or will occur in your species to account for your new requirements at chasing down, catching, eating and digesting new foods.

There are also dead ends to evolution, of course. The Quarians have adapted to an environment where strong immune systems weren't necessary,because everything was carefully sterilized, by failing to breed strong immune systems. (Actually preposterously soon, because some things about the immune system would be carried in the genes and passed from parent to child, which wouldn't disappear in a few hundred years.)

And the Tardigrades, they're plain so good at surviving that they never developed from microscopic life forms. You could shoot one into a vacuum, though, and after a few months lying around dormant, it could land in a puddle on another planet and happily start rooting around for meals again.

As far as WHY the Geth and the Rachni might continue to change over time in spite of failing to encounter the kind of pressures that ordinarily cause species to have to adapt or die, their ability to remember the existence of those pressures over time can substitute. They can remember successful and unsuccessful strategies and compensate in their approach. It's also why humans are still around although we're weaker and not as physically robust as a lot of wild animals, although in a more extreme form, because the continuity of their social structure can be eons-wide, while ours is a few hundred years from end to end, tops.

I don't personally think that Synthesis solves anything, it's silly. Having Wifi in our heads probably wouldn't even keep earth people from fighting one another, much less robots who also have Wifi in their heads. Conflicts would just be faster and cover a wider range, that's all.

[Ecrulis]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Ecrulis wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...
Yay, more hatred and vitriol aimed at Synthesis. This doesn't do anything other than make non-Synthesis fans look like sub-human troglodytes, you realise?
Oh for intelligent discussion...

Yay, its Wulf here to tell us all that we are psychopaths for wanting to end the existance of the genocidal death machines, *waves frantically before shooting the tube every time*

Yeah I'm getting to the point where I'm about to write them off as absolutely insane, or just a good troll.  Either way I've got no time for someone who throws around the term 'sociopath' because of a choice in a video game.<_<

Pretty much, my shepards choose destroy (in the absence of MEHEM) because since ME1 their goals were to destroy the reapers, on top of that they believe in a galaxy where life can evolve on it's own terms not on the rails that the reapers dictate; and a pointless speech about a non-problem from the Reaper CiC is not going to change that for any of my shepards.

[spirosz]

Controlling the Reapers are the step before the pinnacle of evolution? Right.

[OdanUrr]

Seival wrote...

...Yes, this is that simple.

While the process isn't over yet, evolution demands changes. Evolution demands saying farewell to old ways.

If you don't wanna be changed, if you don't wanna change others, if you don't have desire to shape the world around you, then you are dead-end and will become extinct eventually. And the ones who always look forward, who's mind is opened to changes and innovations - will prevail.

This is the way the universe works.

Say what?

[Ecrulis]

Pretty much my response to a Sevial post at this point

[Hadeedak]

I actually don't agree with this one, mostly because of how evolution's bandied about.

The term itself means a gradual unfolding or slow change. And it's not inherently progressive or regressive. There's a tendency towards complexity, but it's very weak, only visible on a scale of millions (or billions) of years. You might say something is the final stage of technology, but to say there's a final evolution seems... odd. Humans have been domesticating themselves since we started living in cities, evolving for greater social adaptability, and the process is ongoing. Speaking of regressive. I still need glasses to drive (but not work at a computer), because the optic nerve is no longer selected for as strongly as when it was the difference between dinner and death. And we didn't have corrective lenses.

Evolution isn't a great forward push to something better. It's moment to moment circumstances (who finds the berry bush, who twists an ankle) played out in macrotime.

[Ecrulis]

Hadeedak wrote...

I actually don't agree with this one, mostly because of how evolution's bandied about.

The term itself means a gradual unfolding or slow change. And it's not inherently progressive or regressive. There's a tendency towards complexity, but it's very weak, only visible on a scale of millions (or billions) of years. You might say something is the final stage of technology, but to say there's a final evolution seems... odd. Humans have been domesticating themselves since we started living in cities, evolving for greater social adaptability, and the process is ongoing. Speaking of regressive. I still need glasses to drive (but not work at a computer), because the optic nerve is no longer selected for as strongly as when it was the difference between dinner and death. And we didn't have corrective lenses.

Evolution isn't a great forward push to something better. It's moment to moment circumstances (who finds the berry bush, who twists an ankle) played out in macrotime.

Especially considering how many times in history something has evolved into an evolutionary dead and which died out.

[Hadeedak]

I also dislike the term dead end. Nothing EVOLVES into a dead end. It becomes better fit for the environment, until something changes which it cannot adapt to. Nothing becomes less fit until it's dead.

[ghost9191]

i am not gonna pretend i have a full understand ( unlike some  ) but you do know that synthesis is in no way evolution ... it is a force "upgrade" if you wish to call it that

and not only that but that in no way is the final evolution of life. hell what edi says contradicts what the catalyst says

Modifié par ghost9191, 03 avril 2013 - 01:54 .

[Ecrulis]

Hadeedak wrote...

I also dislike the term dead end. Nothing EVOLVES into a dead end. It becomes better fit for the environment, until something changes which it cannot adapt to. Nothing becomes less fit until it's dead.

Fair enough, the concept does still apply to disproving the term "final evolution" the bottom line is when a species can no longer evolve it will die out.

[Ecrulis]

ghost9191 wrote...

i am not gonna pretend i have a full understand ( unlike some  ) but you do know that synthesis is in no way evolution ... it is a force "upgrade" if you wish to call it that

and not only that but that in no way is the final evolution of life. hell what edi says contradicts what the catalyst says

Most events in the three games contradicts what the catalyst says <_<

[ghost9191]

Ecrulis wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

i am not gonna pretend i have a full understand ( unlike some  ) but you do know that synthesis is in no way evolution ... it is a force "upgrade" if you wish to call it that

and not only that but that in no way is the final evolution of life. hell what edi says contradicts what the catalyst says

Most events in the three games contradicts what the catalyst says <_<

true enough

[CDR David Shepard]

Death is the final evolution of life.

Modifié par CDR David Shepard, 03 avril 2013 - 02:36 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Ecrulis wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

i am not gonna pretend i have a full understand ( unlike some  ) but you do know that synthesis is in no way evolution ... it is a force "upgrade" if you wish to call it that

and not only that but that in no way is the final evolution of life. hell what edi says contradicts what the catalyst says

Most events in the three games contradicts what the catalyst says <_<

Only thing which support Catayst´s claims of bloodthirsty AIs is the idiotic sidequest back at Citadel in ME1 with suicidal money-grabing cash machine...