Aller au contenu

Photo

There is nothing repugnant or abhorrent about Synthesis...


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
201 réponses à ce sujet

#126
Objectivity

Objectivity
  • Members
  • 35 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...

Objectivity wrote...
Sythesis changes everyone in the universe without their consent. It's mass rape on a galactic scale because its forcing a change on a large number of people against their will.


Terrible logic. When your boss has a workforce reduction, is he raping all the employees? When your parents bring you to a chicken pox party as a child, are they raping you?

Unconsenting change != rape. You people have been trotting out this tired meme for months, give it a rest.


If my boss has a workforce reduction, he's not altering who I am, he's only saying that he won't pay me to work for the company any more. That's not what we're talking about. To keep with your (really inadequate) analogy, Synthesis is the equivalent of your boss secretly putting Exlax into the water supply because he's decided everyone needs cleaner bowels. Or, your boss putting arsenic in the water supply because he's decided the world is too populated and he's decided to eliminate 10% of the population, starting with you. Those are both decisions that should be made by me, not a proxy.

As for chicken pox parties, I wasn't aware we lived in the 1920s. That being said, I'm of two views. A parent's job is to do what they think is best for their child. They are empowered to make that choice until the child is capable of making such decisions on their own. However, a boss is not a parent. I have not empowered my boss to make life altering decisions for me. If that were done, I would not approve. Many other people would not approve. The legal system would not approve. Vigilanties with large guns would not approve.

#127
Indy_S

Indy_S
  • Members
  • 2 092 messages

Auld Wulf wrote...

Every primal fear you have that keeps you in a box of familiarity increases your personal smallness.

Yes, the fear that you won't be looked up to as an intelligent and sagely being is hard at work in you. The easiest way to be above others is to put them down. The easiest way to appear wise and sagely is to believe you are right about everything.

#128
ElSuperGecko

ElSuperGecko
  • Members
  • 2 314 messages

Xilizhra wrote...
Fear not. I don't intend to actually maintain control forever, it was mostly a stopgap because it was the decision that inflicted the fewest direct changes on the galaxy. I'm just holding down the fort until I know which Reapers will be safe to free, and until I can implement Synthesis, albeit not instantaneously and not through the Crucible.


.........now that's another example of self-serving headcanon!  And we were doing so well, too.  :)

Shepard might very well have "Control" of the Reapers after grabbing the blue prongs and getting disintegrated in the decision chamber, but YOU no longer have "Control " of Shepard.  Tell me, which part of the actual in-game narrative and content makes you think that the post-Control ShepAI would EVER release it's control? 

#129
Mangalores

Mangalores
  • Members
  • 468 messages

Phatose wrote...

It is given information, not enforced anything.

If you don't know of any other ways to alter someone's understanding, why are we having this discussion? Is you goal not to alter other people's understanding when you post?


I want you to think. I have no influence on whether you change your understanding or not. I might tell you everything I know and how I come to what conclusion and you still might come up with something entirely different and have a different understanding.

The Catalyst is talking about a failsafe way to prevent his synthetic vs. organics war. What you are suggesting is not a solution because it has no failsafes at all.


Phatose wrote...
And, no, it's not OK. Not because modifying my genes is innately unacceptable, but because your reasons are stupid.


You don't get a say in that. That issue is what you are ignoring and which is not acceptable about the matter.

#130
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Fear not. I don't intend to actually maintain control forever, it was mostly a stopgap because it was the decision that inflicted the fewest direct changes on the galaxy. I'm just holding down the fort until I know which Reapers will be safe to free, and until I can implement Synthesis, albeit not instantaneously and not through the Crucible.


.........now that's another example of self-serving headcanon!  And we were doing so well, too.  :)

Shepard might very well have "Control" of the Reapers after grabbing the blue prongs and getting disintegrated in the decision chamber, but YOU no longer have "Control " of Shepard.  Tell me, which part of the actual in-game narrative and content makes you think that the post-Control ShepAI would EVER release it's control? 

Shepard's role is to serve as a guardian of the many. If the many no longer need one, Shepard's purpose is redundant and may end.

#131
Indy_S

Indy_S
  • Members
  • 2 092 messages

ElSuperGecko wrote...

.........now that's another example of self-serving headcanon!  And we were doing so well, too.  :)

Shepard might very well have "Control" of the Reapers after grabbing the blue prongs and getting disintegrated in the decision chamber, but YOU no longer have "Control " of Shepard.  Tell me, which part of the actual in-game narrative and content makes you think that the post-Control ShepAI would EVER release it's control? 

Most people who willingly choose an ending maintain an optimistic view for determining the outcome. Presenting a more pessimistic scenario, like you have, is never going to dissuade anyone. Maybe inform them, but never dissuade them.

#132
Kataphrut94

Kataphrut94
  • Members
  • 2 136 messages

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...
Considering that everyone in the galaxy appears to be coping well, the Reapers are working hard to repay their debt to society and robot sex is now socially acceptable, I'd say it works out well.


Which would be an example of self-serving headcanon, as outlined above.


Okay, you got me; robot sex on tap is nothing but wishful thinking on my part. However, the rest of what I said is not headcannon and substantiated by the epilogue. I understand where you're coming from in regards to roleplaying, but the statement I made was specifically referring to the post-choice result. If it were as repugnant as this thread title suggests, the results would not appear as positive as they are shown to be.

#133
Ridwan

Ridwan
  • Members
  • 3 546 messages
Pick between lobotomising everyone into a green freak, or sacrificing a bunch of talking toasters. I think the choice is pretty simple.

#134
Indy_S

Indy_S
  • Members
  • 2 092 messages

M25105 wrote...

Pick between lobotomising everyone into a green freak, or sacrificing a bunch of talking toasters. I think the choice is pretty simple.

There's no way this light-hearted statement will get taken out of context and used to generalise a large group on the BSN...

EDIT: Bugger, jumped on it too soon and scared Wulfie off.

Modifié par Indy_S, 26 avril 2013 - 02:25 .


#135
Auld Wulf

Auld Wulf
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages

Mangalores wrote...

Phatose wrote...

There are many ways to "screw with someone's brain".  Reading a book, for instance.  It does not  require brainwashing to alter how someone thinks.


The only ways to alter someone's understanding I know off were invented as early as the 19th century and are all illegal and considered felonies today.

Okay, first things first...

Sigh. I'm getting too damned old for this.

Right, the human brain is not a magical box of wonder. It's a biological machine. A clever one, but a machine. Everything we do, think, and are is a mechanical process in a biological environment. We're understanding how that machine works more and more over time, and this understanding helps us cure things which people suffer with, like Autism. If you don't think that's a good thing, then you're a monster. Moving on...

What we understand is that, as it was pointed out, the brain changes all the time. Let's say that you turn on the television and you watch the news -- what unfolds in front of you is going to change you, because you now have knowledge that you didn't before. This is going to affect your future decisions. This is why propaganda works, because people are subjected to slanted views that could almost be true, and it opens them up to new possibilities, but specifically fashioned possibilities which are desired by the creators of the propaganda in question.

Look at history, look at how often this has worked. And consider how many successful forms of conditioning there are which are legal and happen all the time in day to day life. Every time you form a habit, you've basically conditioned the machine in your head to accept this as common behaviour. Whenever you open a book, your brain is changed because that knowledge is transferred from being words on a page to wiggling around in your limbic system.

You can read a story which affects you emotionally and remains within your memory. That's not changing you? Your mind is being changed by outside stimuli all the time. A good 80% of who you are is forged into reality by environmental stimuli. If you had lead a different life, with different stimuli, you would have been a very different person. And that continues to happen. It's still happening now, but it's all about what sources you want to trust, and how compelling you find them. But your brain is constantly changing.

That's the point that Phantose was making. The brain isn't a magical, impregnable fortress which can only be changed with magical mind control rays. It's a biological computer which rewrites itself all the time. The only time your brain remains static is when you die. Your brain's ability to change slows down a little with age, yes, due to levels of neuroplasticity, but it's still always changing. There's evidence which proves even that every time you access a memory, the memory changes slightly. That none of your memories are actually completely accurate. Ever.

You believe that you, as a person, are a construct set in stone. An unshakable gestalt built upon your beliefs. This is not so. Five years ago you were a very different person, five years from now you will be a very different person. Change is what happens. Change is life. Life mutates and changes all the time. The stagnancy and static existence that you believe in is contrary to reality.

#136
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

Right, the human brain is not a magical box of wonder. It's a biological machine. A clever one, but a machine. Everything we do, think, and are is a mechanical process in a biological environment. We're understanding how that machine works more and more over time, and this understanding helps us cure things which people suffer with, like Autism. If you don't think that's a good thing, then you're a monster. Moving on...

Haven't autistic people been some of our best innovators? Helping cope with it, certainly, that's entirely laudable, but is it wise to get rid of it entirely? Neurodiversity is not inherently a bad thing.

#137
Mangalores

Mangalores
  • Members
  • 468 messages

Auld Wulf wrote...

Mangalores wrote...

Phatose wrote...

There are many ways to "screw with someone's brain".  Reading a book, for instance.  It does not  require brainwashing to alter how someone thinks.


The only ways to alter someone's understanding I know off were invented as early as the 19th century and are all illegal and considered felonies today.

Okay, first things first...

Sigh. I'm getting too damned old for this.

Right, the human brain is not a magical box of wonder. It's a biological machine. A clever one, but a machine. Everything we do, think, and are is a mechanical process in a biological environment. We're understanding how that machine works more and more over time, and this understanding helps us cure things which people suffer with, like Autism. If you don't think that's a good thing, then you're a monster. Moving on...

What we understand is that, as it was pointed out, the brain changes all the time. Let's say that you turn on the television and you watch the news -- what unfolds in front of you is going to change you, because you now have knowledge that you didn't before. This is going to affect your future decisions. This is why propaganda works, because people are subjected to slanted views that could almost be true, and it opens them up to new possibilities, but specifically fashioned possibilities which are desired by the creators of the propaganda in question.

Look at history, look at how often this has worked. And consider how many successful forms of conditioning there are which are legal and happen all the time in day to day life. Every time you form a habit, you've basically conditioned the machine in your head to accept this as common behaviour. Whenever you open a book, your brain is changed because that knowledge is transferred from being words on a page to wiggling around in your limbic system.

You can read a story which affects you emotionally and remains within your memory. That's not changing you? Your mind is being changed by outside stimuli all the time. A good 80% of who you are is forged into reality by environmental stimuli. If you had lead a different life, with different stimuli, you would have been a very different person. And that continues to happen. It's still happening now, but it's all about what sources you want to trust, and how compelling you find them. But your brain is constantly changing.

That's the point that Phantose was making. The brain isn't a magical, impregnable fortress which can only be changed with magical mind control rays. It's a biological computer which rewrites itself all the time. The only time your brain remains static is when you die. Your brain's ability to change slows down a little with age, yes, due to levels of neuroplasticity, but it's still always changing. There's evidence which proves even that every time you access a memory, the memory changes slightly. That none of your memories are actually completely accurate. Ever.

You believe that you, as a person, are a construct set in stone. An unshakable gestalt built upon your beliefs. This is not so. Five years ago you were a very different person, five years from now you will be a very different person. Change is what happens. Change is life. Life mutates and changes all the time. The stagnancy and static existence that you believe in is contrary to reality.


Couldn't you have missed the point with less text? Would have saved us both time. In short: Duh! Thank you, Mr. Obvious. Now move along. Phantose is at least interesting because disagreeing and ending with different understanding of the situation doesn't mean we can't have a nice talk.

Modifié par Mangalores, 26 avril 2013 - 02:36 .


#138
ElSuperGecko

ElSuperGecko
  • Members
  • 2 314 messages
duplicate post

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 26 avril 2013 - 02:46 .


#139
ElSuperGecko

ElSuperGecko
  • Members
  • 2 314 messages
[quote]Kataphrut94 wrote...
Okay, you got me; robot sex on tap is nothing but wishful thinking on my part. However, the rest of what I said is not headcannon and substantiated by the epilogue. I understand where you're coming from in regards to roleplaying, but the statement I made was specifically referring to the post-choice result. If it were as repugnant as this thread title suggests, the results would not appear as positive as they are shown to be.[/quote]

I'm not sure on that score; having to pick the wires out of my daily bacon sounds pretty damn repugnant to me.

BTW - the topic title DOESN'T suggest there is anything repugnant and abhorrent about the concept of Synthesis, nor does the OP - only the means by which the change is made.

As far as the (hastily assembled and tacked on to placate the rioting fanbase) Extended Cut epilogues go, even taking them into consideration I STILL maintain reservations despite the primarily positive outlook.  EDI's monologue does nothing to help; the Synthesis ending is narrated by an AI which has struggled throughout the game to understand the inherent concepts of organic life.  She has repeatedly misunderstood organic behaviour, organic thought process and organic emotional responses (which is at least a step up from the Catalyst, which simply ignores them when devising it's logic and solutions) - so what may she also be misunderstanding about life in the post-Synthesis Galaxy?  If we had heard from Hackett, Liara, Tali, James, Garrus etc about how the inhabitants are coping with a post-Synthesis galaxy, that might be different.  However EDI is an individual with a unique perspective - a perspective which is NOT shared by the galaxy as a whole.  See how clever Bioware are being, here?[/quote]

[quote]Indy_S wrote...
Most people who willingly choose an ending maintain an optimistic view for determining the outcome. Presenting a more pessimistic scenario, like you have, is never going to dissuade anyone. Maybe inform them, but never dissuade them.[/quote]

Absolutely - very few people will make the end game decision believing it's the wrong thing to do (unless they're on an epic 3-game FailShep run), but I'm not trying to present a pessimistic scenario - simply trying to show there are different ways to think about the decision, and multiple points we have to take into account.

And of course, that the Extended Cut endings shouldn't really be a factor when it comes to you making your final decision.  Not unless you roleplay your Shepard as being clairvoyant, anyway.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 26 avril 2013 - 02:44 .


#140
PsyrenY

PsyrenY
  • Members
  • 5 238 messages

Objectivity wrote...

If my boss has a workforce reduction, he's not altering who I am, he's only saying that he won't pay me to work for the company any more. That's not what we're talking about. To keep with your (really inadequate) analogy, Synthesis is the equivalent of your boss secretly putting Exlax into the water supply because he's decided everyone needs cleaner bowels. Or, your boss putting arsenic in the water supply because he's decided the world is too populated and he's decided to eliminate 10% of the population, starting with you. Those are both decisions that should be made by me, not a proxy.


Nope! Synthesis doesn't kill anyone (in fact, it actually brings people back to life.) Synthesis-only slide:

Posted Image

The ex-lax analogy is closer, except you're once again clouding the issue with repugnant imagery (laxatives) in order to play up a false feeling of repugnance. It's still not rape; when a judge court-orders you to be medicated, he's not raping you either, and he's certainly not asking your permission first. Unless you think both the American Psychiatric Association and National Association on Mental Illness are full of rapists, in which case you probably should make sure your tinfoil hat is on securely before venturing outside ;)


Objectivity wrote...
As for chicken pox parties, I wasn't aware we lived in the 1920s.


We might as well. Compared to synthetics, our views on transhumanism and self-augmentation are that far behind, and getting farther.


Objectivity wrote...
That being said, I'm of two views. A parent's job is to do what they think is best for their child. They are empowered to make that choice until the child is capable of making such decisions on their own. However, a boss is not a parent.


The galaxy placed Shepard in that parental role by putting you in charge of the war effort. Did you consult anyone before curing the genophage? Sparing the Rachni? Sparing the Geth? Blowing up the Alpha Relay? Where were the votes then?

#141
ElSuperGecko

ElSuperGecko
  • Members
  • 2 314 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...
Nope! Synthesis doesn't kill anyone (in fact, it actually brings people back to life.) Synthesis-only slide:


Nope!  Self serving personal interpretation and headcanon!

You don't know exactly WHAT that slide represents!  It could be Kasumi saying a last farewell to her loved one.  It could be a final, hopeful image flashing through Shepard's subconscious as the Synthesis beam dissolves him/her.  Hell, it could just as easily be an image from a dreaming Kasumi as she slumbers in her Matrix-like Reaper pod, waiting to be processed into Reaper goo.

Of course, Synthesis supporters don't like that particular spin on things, do they?  Even though - given what we do know about the Reapers, and what happens to organics that are implanted with Reaper tech - it's infinitely more plausible than Synthesis "magically bringing the dead back to life".

Which is why I prefer to ignore the Extended Cut endings altogether when faced with the Catalyst's final choice.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 26 avril 2013 - 03:59 .


#142
dorktainian

dorktainian
  • Members
  • 4 415 messages

Auld Wulf wrote...


What we understand is that, as it was pointed out, the brain changes all the time. Let's say that you turn on the television and you watch the news -- what unfolds in front of you is going to change you, because you now have knowledge that you didn't before. This is going to affect your future decisions. This is why propaganda works, because people are subjected to slanted views that could almost be true, and it opens them up to new possibilities, but specifically fashioned possibilities which are desired by the creators of the propaganda in question.

   


propoganda.  doctrines.  indoctrination.

at last you realise the truth.

Modifié par dorktainian, 26 avril 2013 - 04:28 .


#143
PsyrenY

PsyrenY
  • Members
  • 5 238 messages

ElSuperGecko wrote...

You don't know exactly WHAT that slide represents!  It could be Kasumi saying a last farewell to her loved one.  It could be a final, hopeful image flashing through Shepard's subconscious as the Synthesis beam dissolves him/her.  Hell, it could just as easily be an image from a dreaming Kasumi as she slumbers in her Matrix-like Reaper pod, waiting to be processed into Reaper goo.

Of course, Synthesis supporters don't like that particular spin on things, do they?


So she doesn't say farewell to Keiji in any ending but Synthesis? Why not?

http://en.wikipedia....ne_(literature)

If they wanted us to believe Synthesis was a nightmarish horror of Reaperification, they have the tools to convey that easily. They've done "you messed up" game-overs before (Morinth snu-snu, Arrival time up, failing the SM etc.) Synthesis is not one of them, no matter how much you want it to be.

Every Synthesis-only image is instead hopeful, progressive, and positive.

Maskless Quarians:
Posted Image

EDI showing empathy:
Posted Image

Krogan metropolis:
Posted Image

You won't see this in any other ending for a reason.

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Which is why I prefer to ignore the Extended Cut endings altogether when faced with the Catalyst's final choice.


Translation: "La-la Bioware, I can't heaaaaar you!"

How willfully ignorant.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 26 avril 2013 - 04:33 .


#144
ElSuperGecko

ElSuperGecko
  • Members
  • 2 314 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...
Translation: "La-la Bioware, I can't heaaaaar you!"

How willfully ignorant.


Look closely folks.  Here we have a prime example of a person who completely fails to understand the basic concepts of roleplaying, or even decision making in general.

"My Shepard's choosing Synthesis because everything turns out nice in Synthesis!  I've seen the ending slides and they PROVE it!  It's the BEST!  So there!"

How remarkably naïve.  Your username suits you.  Just need to add a "Hopelessly" in front of it.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 26 avril 2013 - 04:42 .


#145
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34 128 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...

Nope! Synthesis doesn't kill anyone (in fact, it actually brings people back to life.) Synthesis-only slide:


Sooo Space Magic? Posted Image

#146
Enhanced

Enhanced
  • Members
  • 1 325 messages

AresKeith wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Nope! Synthesis doesn't kill anyone (in fact, it actually brings people back to life.) Synthesis-only slide:


Sooo Space Magic? Posted Image


Yes. Like everything else in this game.

#147
Enhanced

Enhanced
  • Members
  • 1 325 messages
After reading ElSuperGecko posts, I understand. He's trying to tell us that his "Self serving personal interpretation and headcanon!" is better than ours.

#148
Cainhurst Crow

Cainhurst Crow
  • Members
  • 11 374 messages

Enhanced wrote...

After reading ElSuperGecko posts, I understand. He's trying to tell us that his "Self serving personal interpretation and headcanon!" is better than ours.

You only just realized that now?

#149
Auld Wulf

Auld Wulf
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages

Enhanced wrote...

After reading ElSuperGecko posts, I understand. He's trying to tell us that his "Self serving personal interpretation and headcanon!" is better than ours.

Pretty much. They also complain that 'canon isn't canon' a lot, too.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 26 avril 2013 - 06:44 .


#150
Auld Wulf

Auld Wulf
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages

Enhanced wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Sooo Space Magic?


Yes. Like everything else in this game.

Oh boy. The "space magic" logic is fun, isn't it? The obvious flaw is, as you point out, that essentially everything is "space magic" since it isn't in accordance with today's technology/sciences. All of the guns? Space magic. Mass Effect drives? Space magic. EDI? Space magic. The Citadel? Space magic. The Hammerhead? Space magic. Biotics? Space magic. Augmentations? Space magic.

And so on, and so on, and so on. Ad nauseum. Of course, the really funny part is that it tends to be selective. So we get "Ehhhh... only the stuff I personally don't like is space magic because shut up." Oh BSN.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 26 avril 2013 - 06:49 .