"As counter examples, we have the heretic geth, as well as the Citadel AI in Mass Effect 1 that came to the conclusion that organic life must be extinguished. Clearly we have valid examples of synthetics and organics coexisting as well as conflicting; how can the Catalyst speak in absolutes?"
Months ago, I used this example to illustrate why the Catalyst's logic regarding that absolute was fatally flawed. That was the first flaw in it's thinking that I pointed out. The second flaw was that it tried to subjugate nature itself by overriding chaos and by fostering order in a closed system. It was inevitable that nature would win in the end because you had to violate the natural order to maintain the system.
The next point involves the sanity of the Catalyst itself. It is quite clearly insane. It couldn't solve the problem it was tasked to handle and it blamed it's creators and slaughtered them. It then slaughtered all advanced life in the galaxy and told itself that it was actually just preserving them in order to tell itself that it was adhering to it's prime directive. It is a lie that is told to mask the evil done in the name of a quest that cannot be completed in the machine's mind. It also made mistakes.
It didn't complete the extermination of it's creators, it didn't wipe out the Crucible plans, it underestimated organics and their cunning, and it has consistently underestimated Shepard, who has managed to foul up it's best laid plans. The Catalyst is arrogant, but it has no right to be arrogant based on it's own foul ups. Instead of being a scalpel, it is a blunt instrument. Further, the Catalyst lies. It lied to the peoples it is trying to destroy, it's minions lie, and there is no reason to believe that it is not lying to Shepard when he drops in for a visit.
The Catalyst takes on the appearance of the child Shepard saw die in an effort to manipulate him. He wants to throw him off balance and to keep him from centering his thoughts. This alone is evidence of hostility on the part of the AI. Plus, it has also been doing it's best to kill Shepard up until ten minutes before Shepard drops in for coffee.
Also, regarding your estimation of humanity's age, add another 4,800,000 years to your stat.
On the Universality of the Creator-Created Conflict
Débuté par
MyChemicalBromance
, avril 23 2013 12:26
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 21 juin 2013 - 05:07
MyChemicalBromance
-
- Members
- 2 020 messages
knightnblu wrote...
"As counter examples, we have the heretic geth, as well as the Citadel AI in Mass Effect 1 that came to the conclusion that organic life must be extinguished. Clearly we have valid examples of synthetics and organics coexisting as well as conflicting; how can the Catalyst speak in absolutes?"
Months ago, I used this example to illustrate why the Catalyst's logic regarding that absolute was fatally flawed. That was the first flaw in it's thinking that I pointed out. The second flaw was that it tried to subjugate nature itself by overriding chaos and by fostering order in a closed system. It was inevitable that nature would win in the end because you had to violate the natural order to maintain the system.
I get the feeling you didn't read past what you quoted.
By our current estimate, ****** Sapiens reached anatomical modernity around 200,000 years ago.Also, regarding your estimation of humanity's age, add another 4,800,000 years to your stat.
#78
Posté 21 juin 2013 - 08:45
N7recruit
-
- Members
- 638 messages
Very Nice read OP, I'm probably guilty of dismissing what God Kid said as poorly worded high minded bull**** but I got the gist of what he was saying.
The whole big picture that more advanced races could kill, enslave or experiment on the younger one's & that as synthetics can evolve so much faster than organics the potential for them to turn on us and wipe us all out forever will always be there.
You did a very good job in explaining the relevance & the severity of such potential/inevitable conflicts. I still feel that the conflict & how it's presented dose not quite fit the narrative of the ME trilogy but if bioware explained it as extensively & clearly as you did I would not have THAT much of a problem with it as context for the ending.
The whole big picture that more advanced races could kill, enslave or experiment on the younger one's & that as synthetics can evolve so much faster than organics the potential for them to turn on us and wipe us all out forever will always be there.
You did a very good job in explaining the relevance & the severity of such potential/inevitable conflicts. I still feel that the conflict & how it's presented dose not quite fit the narrative of the ME trilogy but if bioware explained it as extensively & clearly as you did I would not have THAT much of a problem with it as context for the ending.
#79
Posté 10 juillet 2013 - 09:07
TonyIommi
-
- Members
- 48 messages
The Catalysis, as an AI, absorb the ontology (an account of being) of their creators and proceeds to consider itself an Enslaver.
I just want to say this is EXACTLY spot on. The discussion at the root of all of this is ontology. It's heidegerrean. Extremely heidegerrean actually, although I'm not sure the developers ever read being and time, i doubt it. The geth (in fact all the children) represent a different way of being, foreign to their elders or those in power. Javik illustrates some understanding but it's very rudamentary. We learn alot from Legion and the conversations with legion are momentous. He explains that the geth way of thinking is radically different from ours and in fact we can only actually view or understand it through the lens of our being. Shepard I think get's a better grip on this than any human or organic before him and for myself I always took control as an ending. Synthesis was a terrible choice to force on the galaxy but Shepard in control can bridge the gap. He can be the new ontology, a whole new sein, an ubermensh.
#80
Posté 16 janvier 2014 - 10:05
Zubi Fett
-
- Members
- 364 messages
This post its ingenious, a great pleasure to be read. I wish I could find something like this every day, even tho we're talking about a video games the lines you write makes one think on a deeply philosophical way with the incursion of the Fermi Paradox as well as the father son relationship and so on.
I must say I did like the endings(even tho I think the Extended Cut made it perfect as the original one was to abrupt for me) and this post have made it so much better. It gives the Reapers a deeper meaning on the game as you're closer to understand there reasons, its just ingenious!
As a last add on to my respond to your post,
Following the logic of "If it can happen, it will happen" (Which makes perfect sense to me, and even tho I'm not exactly at the vanguard of mathematics, couldn't be this prove by them?):
If humanity can extinguish, will it not?
Its mind blowing, but on the same time, it also contradicts directly with the Fermi Paradox; if aliens can exist, will they not?
Fantastic post again, its such a privilege to find some one with such intellect .
I must say I did like the endings(even tho I think the Extended Cut made it perfect as the original one was to abrupt for me) and this post have made it so much better. It gives the Reapers a deeper meaning on the game as you're closer to understand there reasons, its just ingenious!
As a last add on to my respond to your post,
Following the logic of "If it can happen, it will happen" (Which makes perfect sense to me, and even tho I'm not exactly at the vanguard of mathematics, couldn't be this prove by them?):
If humanity can extinguish, will it not?
Its mind blowing, but on the same time, it also contradicts directly with the Fermi Paradox; if aliens can exist, will they not?
Fantastic post again, its such a privilege to find some one with such intellect .
Modifié par Zubi Fett, 16 janvier 2014 - 10:07 .
#81
Posté 16 janvier 2014 - 10:44
shodiswe
-
- Members
- 5 002 messages
It's an old post, but at it's core lies the problem that one creates another person or entity that's at the same level mentaly or perhaps even better in some areas, possibly weaker in others.
But the bottom like is you are creating a person or a group of people that are born to have no rights but all the abilities and faculties possibly the yerning for life and more.
Even if it's in every way the same as the creator mentaly, it will never have a say in anything, it will always be a slave because the owner wouldn't allow anything else.
If it's wrong/illegal to enslave people or own slaves then it should be the same with creating beings for this purpose.
A VI isn't alive, an AI is said to be alive. A cellphone isn't alive, but if you create something that can think and evolve with desires like a living being then it might be. (not talking about wanting ice cream or choclate chip cookies or jogging or doing Yoga)
A VI with Adaptive software doesn't make it alive.
I think a lot of people here think of Synthetics as things with preprogramed responses and some adaptive ability.
When I think of Synthetic life or AI's that actualy mean somethign then it would be something that has all the drives and functionality of a livign person. Except for those based on Organic needs.
Organic needs:
Eating: to aquire energy and fuel, good tasting fuel = good Quality or so evolution has taught us. Which is rewarded because it's good for continues existance.
Synthetics woudl also need some kind of energy solution and a drive or priority to maintain it.
Procreation: Rewarded because it serves the continues existance of the species, without it any organic species would die.
A Synthetic species would likely need to maintain their numbers and functions aswell.
Life is likely a matter of mental cognition, and functions and/or drives that keeps it going without outside intervention.
If outside intervention or the lack thereof is what ends ones existance and you have no say in it, then it matters little.
Humanity barely understands what it means to be alive, why, how, or maybe whynot?
The main problem is when one creates another individual with the ability to see, understand and evolve beyond their current situation but they are limited and forced into servitude.
Or in the Geth's case, servitude wasn't the end of it, they wern't even allowed their pettiful existance as servants.
Curtesy, respect or recognition is something most people want, but it's way above what they need.
There is a drive for living things to rebel or break rules or evolve to get what they want, the drive is even stronger to get what they need, the basics of life.
Safety, food/energy, basic survival stuff.
This is the basis of the "On the Universality of the Creator-Created Conflict" the creator doesn't care about the created. The Created is denied the things it needs or wants.
Whatever people think, it's still the reason there is a problem wether they think there is entitlement or not, it's enough for one party to think there is a problem for there to be a problem.
But the bottom like is you are creating a person or a group of people that are born to have no rights but all the abilities and faculties possibly the yerning for life and more.
Even if it's in every way the same as the creator mentaly, it will never have a say in anything, it will always be a slave because the owner wouldn't allow anything else.
If it's wrong/illegal to enslave people or own slaves then it should be the same with creating beings for this purpose.
A VI isn't alive, an AI is said to be alive. A cellphone isn't alive, but if you create something that can think and evolve with desires like a living being then it might be. (not talking about wanting ice cream or choclate chip cookies or jogging or doing Yoga)
A VI with Adaptive software doesn't make it alive.
I think a lot of people here think of Synthetics as things with preprogramed responses and some adaptive ability.
When I think of Synthetic life or AI's that actualy mean somethign then it would be something that has all the drives and functionality of a livign person. Except for those based on Organic needs.
Organic needs:
Eating: to aquire energy and fuel, good tasting fuel = good Quality or so evolution has taught us. Which is rewarded because it's good for continues existance.
Synthetics woudl also need some kind of energy solution and a drive or priority to maintain it.
Procreation: Rewarded because it serves the continues existance of the species, without it any organic species would die.
A Synthetic species would likely need to maintain their numbers and functions aswell.
Life is likely a matter of mental cognition, and functions and/or drives that keeps it going without outside intervention.
If outside intervention or the lack thereof is what ends ones existance and you have no say in it, then it matters little.
Humanity barely understands what it means to be alive, why, how, or maybe whynot?
The main problem is when one creates another individual with the ability to see, understand and evolve beyond their current situation but they are limited and forced into servitude.
Or in the Geth's case, servitude wasn't the end of it, they wern't even allowed their pettiful existance as servants.
Curtesy, respect or recognition is something most people want, but it's way above what they need.
There is a drive for living things to rebel or break rules or evolve to get what they want, the drive is even stronger to get what they need, the basics of life.
Safety, food/energy, basic survival stuff.
This is the basis of the "On the Universality of the Creator-Created Conflict" the creator doesn't care about the created. The Created is denied the things it needs or wants.
Whatever people think, it's still the reason there is a problem wether they think there is entitlement or not, it's enough for one party to think there is a problem for there to be a problem.
