201 réponses à ce sujet

[Mangalores]

Wayning_Star wrote...

...
then where did organic life start? How did evolution "evolve"? These are the things we need to know!!

You are talking abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis

The process of non life turning to life. Evolution only works once life is there, it doesn't and doesn't claim to explain where life comes from. Abiogenesis is currently not known (visible from the number of hyptheisis in the link). The primordial soup theory has some support because such experiments could create basic amino acids within just weeks. The problem as far as I understand it has more to do with DNA and protein which are very specialized and couldn't built up without both doing their thing at the same time. Thus a more primitive basis is what scientists look for where you don't need to match two highly specialized system at once. That might however been eaten by our ancestors and since we don't know how it looks we don't know what to look for, yet.


Darwinisim itself has found favour in other scientific fields. Another non specified area which replicates such behaviour and is more general can be found in chaos theory.

Modifié par Mangalores, 24 avril 2013 - 08:04 .

[robertthebard]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Pure speculation, headcanon and wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid, backed in no way by the in-game evidence. You may be happy to risk it all on wild unsubstantiated hopes, but some of us prefer assurances - or at the very least, minimising risk.

Backed up by an ounce of logic, at least, unlike your alarmism. What do you think is happening, then?

Looks like there's going to be circuitry in tree leaves. Salads are probably going to be extra crunchy.

You know, I do find that repugnant.

Nah, they're electronic bacon bits...

[Tom Lehrer]

Auld Wulf wrote...
See, I don't get that.

Something could happen tomorrow that could result in children being born with a third eye, and that then becomes the common genetic strain. Is it 'too early' for that? I think it's just the fear of the unknown speaking, here. I think you're a step above the vast majority of the forum by knowing of the Culture. But you're still looking at this all wrong.

Such a random mutation is very different then someone dictating change from on high. We all have our own ideas of what makes prefection.

Auld Wulf wrote...
Even as an enlightened, networked civilisation, we would still dream, think, and create. It wouldn't be an end of history. It would be the equivalent of a new Mayan baktun. See, think of it this way. Remember all the apocalyptic talk about 2012? It was interpreted as an 'end of all things,' and a 'great apocalypse to serve as the dusk of mankind.' Further investigation determined it wasn't that at all, but rather it was simply a new chapter.

Unrelated to the actual topic. The forced homogenization of all life is in no way equilivent to the 2012 stuff.

Auld Wulf wrote... 
Life is not a malfunction, it's a product of the environment it exists in. And life goes on.

Being Synthesised is going to cure the vast majority of physical illnesses fairly quickly, and provide avenues to help those with mental ones. It's going to deal with the mundanities of life. It's going to allow us to dream bigger and reach further, to go beyond our limits. See, to undergo a radical change isn't the end of life as we know it. Life goes on. It's simply a transference of life, a transcendence to life on a different scale. We'd cope just fine, just as we do with new sciences and technologies. It wouldn't be an end. To say it again: Life goes on.

Only by the time of ME medical sience has already advanced to the point of curing almost all disease inculding the elemition of genetic disorders. The treatment of mental illness is also one that even modern society is advancing in rapidly so by the time ME they would have treatments and medicans far supperior to what we have even without being "upgraded".

Auld Wulf wrote... 
History would continue to be written based upon what we do post-Synthesis. Synthesis is an event, but not an ending. The only true 'ending' is the eradication of all life, which Synthesis isn't responsible for. I see this as being no different than the kind of radical changes that lead to us using tools, or modern medicine. So much has changed about us over the course of time. And no matter how much we would change, life goes on. We can't see changing what we are as abhorrent, because we're changing all the time. And when evolution happens, those changes can be radical

History would contiune but with an homogenized galaxey the creation of new ideas would be deeply and negitivly impacted. 

Modifié par Tom Lehrer, 24 avril 2013 - 08:11 .

[Wayning_Star]

Mangalores wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

...
then where did organic life start? How did evolution "evolve"? These are the things we need to know!!

You are talking abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis

The process of non life turning to life. Evolution only works once life is there, it doesn't and doesn't claim to explain where life comes from. Abiogenesis is currently not known (visible from the number of hyptheisis in the link). The primordial soup theory has some support because such experiments could create basic amino acids within just weeks. The problem as far as I understand it has more to do with DNA and protein which are very specialized and couldn't built up without both doing their thing at the same time. Thus a more primitive basis is what scientists look for where you don't need to match two highly specialized system at once. That might however been eaten by our ancestors and since we don't know how it looks we don't know what to look for, yet.


Darwinisim itself has found favour in other scientific fields. Another non specified area which replicates such behaviour and is more general can be found in chaos theory.

Generally speaking, I'm supposing that intelligence/intellect can alter that frame of reference. IN this story we are encouraged to implicate synthetic "life" as a control? Or, would that be a variable? Anyways, the head synthetic intellect, as with other organic species/races, tinker with and alter evolution, on different levels and scope, pertaining to specimen at hand. It's even hinted that we/humans wouldn't of made the space race unless Protheans hadn't donated to our cause and piddled about with our DNA, through millions of years of evolution. Then they left that calling card on mars, an invitation to the "party" in the MEU. How thoughtful...

The Catalyst donated the entire MEU to everyone to learn what it's like to be harvested. As it was essentially created out of hand, part of the organic condition, altered by need, results of evolution and logic spinning out of control for eons. Even though the cat figures it to be in control of chaos, simply was just another random factor in it's condition.

Nature taking it's course, no matter what "intellect" thinks or does about it.. funny that.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 24 avril 2013 - 08:15 .

[Mangalores]

A fun bit is that the modern evolutionary theory is called synthesis or synthetic evolutionary theory and integrates/synthesizes all known factors of genetic diversification into Darwin's theory (since genetics and DNA were unknown in his times).

Incidently the Greek word synthesis implies an artificial creation which is kind of weird to call the destiny of evolution which is based on chaos without artificial intervention.

In MEU it certainly is implied that everything is steered and controlled. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by changing the frame of reference though?

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

This, again, depends on what you think Synthesis actually does. If all it does, for instance, is make it easier for organics to tech-augment themselves, which I think is closest to making sense, this "violation" has absolutely no effect on peoples' daily lives beyond what they want it to.

But then why does Shepard sacrifice his or her life  in a beam of green magic energy, if the end result is simply "it's easier for us to plug ourselves in now"?

Kind of f**king unnecessary for such a measly payoff. That actually makes Synthesis worse.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Steelcan wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

This forum amazes me, sometimes. Do they not teach any of the sciences in schools any more? Evolution is mutation. To say that Synthesis is repugnant is to say that life is repugnant. We mutate randomly all the time; Our environment changes us; We change ourselves.

What you're seeing as repugnant and abhorrent is human nature. We strive for perfection through mutation.

. Synthesis isn't natural mutation.  It's an artificial upgrade.

What does this differentiation serve but to try and make one change that simply occurs more suddenly seem evil while another change that results in much more garunteed death and destruction seem good.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 24 avril 2013 - 09:51 .

[ElSuperGecko]

o Ventus wrote...
But then why does Shepard sacrifice his or her life in a beam of green magic energy, if the end result is simply "it's easier for us to plug ourselves in now"?

Because that kind of feeble excuse-making headcanon it makes it easier for Xilizhra to stomach commiting genetic rape on a galactic scale.

[Reorte]

Jukaga wrote...

I kind of look at Synthesis as being something similar from the 'Culture' series of novels. In that storyverse, the culture known as 'The Culture' is composed of post-humans who can exist as data in a network, a biological body, and augmented body or a robotic body of any size or shape. The citizens of 'The Culture' are free to change their forms almost on a whim. They are a true Type-II civilization with some elements of a Type-III civilization creeping in.

The Culture don't force their civilisation on others (well, not too much unless SC gets bored) and would never dream of imposing something like Synthesis - indeed, I think they would find the "affects everyone" aspect of it utterly repugnant, even if they would embrace the concept wholeheartedly if it was something everyone could chose for themselves.

[Reapling]

Completely off-topic, but why do people force their vocabulary so hard on this forum? It's quite funny actually...

[Phatose]

On a simple, pragmatic level, this is not a reason to favor non-refuse endings.

If the crucible's effects are considered outside nature, the in the destroy and control endings, a unnatural force has removed an apex predator. The evolution of all the species in the galaxy will be effected by this - indeed, if using the crucible is unnatural, the reality is that the natural outcome is extinction for the spacefaring species of the galaxy. This will of course effect the galaxy at large, and thus all species.

All endings are equal monstrosities in that regard. A less direct genetic rape via environmental manipulation in Destroy or Control is still genetic rape.

[adayaday]

Reapling wrote...

Completely off-topic, but why do people force their vocabulary so hard on this forum? It's quite funny actually...

Thesaurus=intelligence.

[SpamBot2000]

Reapling wrote...

Completely off-topic, but why do people force their vocabulary so hard on this forum? It's quite funny actually...

wat u mean force there vobaculars?

[AnOniMouse]

I originally was going to agree with Synthesis being a-ok from the title post, then from the next post to second that view.
I do see the point.
Leviathan screwed the pooch on this one.
It was made to uphold their rule, but it was flawed. As much as the claim perfection, the Reapers are ironically the single biggest failure of galactic history an epic scale. Never has 'epic fail' been more applicable. That said, the choices presented are those available. Life adapts. it what we do.
Even synthesis is not the end of evolution, merely a jump.
All machines development directs towards organic systems. All the best scifi tech, not necessarily 'powerful' in general but 'useful', is more and more an imitation of an organic system. Neural maps, synth muscle fibres, just made out of tougher materials than flimsy protein chains.
Organic systems tend to be more effiecent or adaptable, but fragile.
In my mind, the ultimate form of life would be a species, of brain, body, limbs and skin, with a heart like a star running of fusion or antimatter, but skin of supermetallic alloys, blood of pure plasma. That's still aeons away after Syntheses.
Control is not as abhorrent as I thought either, so long and this is key, that Shepard DOES rmemeber the cost, and the new mission.
But Destroy? Edi dies and Legion's death is in vain. That's abhorrent too.
"...happy endings are not for everyone, there not for us..." - Elegantly Broken, Cain's Offering

Modifié par AnOniMouse, 25 avril 2013 - 01:11 .

[Galbrant]

Well said OP.

[remydat]

90% or however many people believe in a higher power already. All the game does is replace our ideas of God with a synthetic God if you will. Otherwise, in just about all religions, people accept their alleged creator will be final arbiter of their lives in this world or the next.

So people are just mad that in the MEU, they find out their God is in fact a dumb AI. I know it is kind of a big let down but I suppose that is probably what the synthetics like the Geth think when they find out their creators are idiot Quarians who want to kill them for existing. I can only imagine the heads that would explode if God was real and said to us, my bad guys, you were a mistake, I don't actually give a sh*t about you and frankly have just been f**king with you all these years by giving you death, disease, war, famine, etc.

[Indy_S]

My problem with Synthesis is it doesn't solve the supposed problem. The Catalyst is tasked with preventing organic and synthetics having conflict. From its metaphor of fire, we can see it doesn't have a good grasp of the meaning of the word 'conflict'. Fire is in conflict. Lasers are also conflict, but it won't admit it. It has a warped view of the word.

Also, keep in mind that there is not a specific cause of the conflict that it is tasked to prevent. It does not have to be along the lines of a misunderstanding between the two. Since Synthesis doesn't remove conflict, this will still happen. When it does, the Catalyst will be obliged to intervene and will return to its previous solution.

But Destroy doesn't have this problem. Remove the Reapers, remove the threat of inevitable destruction.

[o Ventus]

Reapling wrote...

Completely off-topic, but why do people force their vocabulary so hard on this forum? It's quite funny actually...

"Force vocabulary"?

[Indy_S]

o Ventus wrote...

"Force vocabulary"?

He's talking about midichlorians.

[o Ventus]

Indy_S wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

"Force vocabulary"?

He's talking about midichlorians.

So that's what the Synthesis beam is made from.

[Red Panda]

Synthesis is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Xilizhra]

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

This, again, depends on what you think Synthesis actually does. If all it does, for instance, is make it easier for organics to tech-augment themselves, which I think is closest to making sense, this "violation" has absolutely no effect on peoples' daily lives beyond what they want it to.

But then why does Shepard sacrifice his or her life  in a beam of green magic energy, if the end result is simply "it's easier for us to plug ourselves in now"?

Kind of f**king unnecessary for such a measly payoff. That actually makes Synthesis worse.

I don't think that has anything to do with the organic technology part. Rather, Shepard's disintegration is for the other and more important part: giving understanding of organics to synthetics. All that Shepard is is uploaded into the Crucible and compressed into data readable by synthetics, then projected outward. It's the same principle as Legion's Reaper code uploading.

Because that kind of feeble excuse-making headcanon it makes it easier
for Xilizhra to stomach commiting genetic rape on a galactic scale.

You have a major hate-on for Synthesis, but have no clear idea of what it actually does. You appear to be interpreting things in the worst way possible, despite the fact that they're less likely to actually have happened.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 25 avril 2013 - 04:14 .

[o Ventus]

Even that doesn't require Shepard's death. The geth on Rannoch after making peace understand the quarians just fine. According to Tali, the two races are getting along swimmingly.

Aside from her curiosity, EDI understand organics as well. At least, the Normandy crew. She doesn't interact too much with anyone else.

[Applepie_Svk]

I said it once again for today... If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth :3 /Goebbles/

[Mangalores]

remydat wrote...

90% or however many people believe in a higher power already. All the game does is replace our ideas of God with a synthetic God if you will. Otherwise, in just about all religions, people accept their alleged creator will be final arbiter of their lives in this world or the next.

There are more religions than you consider. Already using the big "G" God is limiting your view to essentially three which ignores two other world religions ( Buddhism and Hinduism) who don't have the capital "G" God and Judaism is not actually a world religion by lack of numbers.

Also a theistic God is conceptually incompatible with the Catalyst so he can't replace God of the Abrahamic religions either. He comes closest to the gnostic concept of an evil creator god you want to get away from.

So people are just mad that in the MEU, they find out their God is in fact a dumb AI. I know it is kind of a big let down but I suppose that is probably what the synthetics like the Geth think when they find out their creators are idiot Quarians who want to kill them for existing. I can only imagine the heads that would explode if God was real and said to us, my bad guys, you were a mistake, I don't actually give a sh*t about you and frankly have just been f**king with you all these years by giving you death, disease, war, famine, etc.

creator != god
Since Geth know where their creators come from and that they exist there is actually no mistaking them for the same metaphysical role we use the concept of God for.