136 réponses à ce sujet

[Auld Wulf]

The Biggest Tyrant of Them All

Preface

I have mentioned before (as you might or might not have read) that I feel that one of the primary purposes of science isn't well understood. Nor does the person who claims that some forms of science are "unnatural" know precisely why. I have always had my reasons for this, and they are founded in a lifetime's experiences and my personal knowledge and understanding of the world. As such, this is going to be a more... personal topic than many prior.

Why Does Science Exist?

This is necessary to cover to lead into the topic, as I'd be arrogant to believe that any one person slavishly follows my posts, let alone an entire forum. So, to begin, let's examine sentience. The key component of evolution is mutation -- and the mutation that sets humanity apart from all other known Earth-based life is that we are capable of a very advanced form of curiosity. Curiosity in and of itself is related to intelligence -- you'll often find that the mroe intelligent an animal is, the more curious they are. This is why higher animals such as dogs and cats tend to be as curious as children and into everything, regardless of the dangers, whereas other animals would obey instinct and fear to avoid such scenarios.

So, curiosity then. But why is curiosity linked to sapience? <- That's why. Advanced curiosity leads to the ability to ask a question, and from there more complicated questions can be asked. We can question our existence, we can question our purpose, we can question our raison d'etre. I have spent a good portion of my life struggling with some of the most important questions asked, as I find philosophy to be an important part of who we are, as a species. You see, whilst we can teach a degree of language to an animal (yes, this is possible), and the animal can even answer a question, no animal has ever yet asked one.

That's important.

Science exists because of curiosity. We ask about the world and we expect answers, if none are forthcoming, then we attempt to make our own. We ask about the sky, the stars, the depth of the sea, and our own bodies. We ask. You see, contrary to cogito ergo sum, which I've always seen as somewhat solipsistic, I think the truth of us is not that we think, therefore we are, but that we ask, therefore we are. Asking requires other beings of intellect to interact with, so we all group together under the banners of various questions, collaborating so that we might all have the answers we so fervantly seek.

A human asks, therefore it is. One can also do many other things, but the truest expression of human intellect is to ask. One may complain, or act out in anger, or choose to not think at all, but these are things that any animal can do. Any animal can do any of the above, the only thing an animal cannot do is ask.

This is why our most appropriate response is more questions. We are driven by mystery.

Why Does Medicine Exist?

Any animal can mourn or show emotion. I can show you a video of a pack of wolves fetching food for a packmate and then howling around the dead body once they've passed away. An animal is capable of emotion -- and higher animals are capable of more advanced forms of emotion, like sympathy. We are higher animals ourselves, and as such, unless we are damaged in some way, we feel sympathy. It's part of what we are. So if we see someone with sickness, we want to help, and we question how we can. Thus women and men alike across the world are devoted to finding cures to some of our greatest illnesses.

Our personal history has driven us to responding to sympathy with questions, as part of our intellect. In the past, when we've responded with other things, it hasn't worked out very well for us. If you're familiar with the black plague, it was believed that cats are the servants of the devil, so as such they were to be put to death. Of course, cats were the only way of stopping the rats responsible for being a proxy for the plague. Indeed, it was the rats that gave the plague its mobility. Without the cats to hunt rats, the black plague became much, much worse. This is what happens when we respond immediately with action instead of curiosity.

There must always be curiosity first. But we might not like what we find.

Beyond Curiosity

Able to ask questions, we are where we are now. Our heightened curiosity has allowed us to come this far. Almost everything we are and have we owe to our curiosity, and the women and men who followed their curiosity to advancement and progress. Since the first questions, whatever they might have been, we have further advanced. Yet there are some questions we ask and yet still have no answer to. We do not yet understand everything, despite wanting to. The desire to understand all perspectives, all knowledge, and all things is a wisdom in and of itself. Thus far, however, we do not have this ultimate knowledge.

So what lies beyond curiosity? Where does curiosity take us because we are able to ask? It creates the constructs of civilisation that we see today, for one. As people ask instead of acting, and asking leads to understanding, understanding leads to less war and death. Knowing the importance of asking leads to education, and education leads to better minds, able to ask bigger questions. And the questions are always bigger. The questions we ask today are more profound than those of ten years ago, and those of ten years ago moreso than a hundred years ago.

Yet, as I said, we do not have the ultimate knowledge. And sometimes we do not like what we find -- this leads us to justice, and a desire to know how to fix problems which exist within us. Yet there are secrets held from us which enforce our own suffering, it's these secrets we must uncover.

The Biggest Tyrant

So, put your conspiracy hats on! Who is the biggest tyrant? What controls how you think and how you perceive? What has been responsible for more deaths than anything else? Which tyrant has been responsible for incurable sickness and frailty? Which tyrant gives us the inexcusable harshness of our reality? I'd be curious to know what your answers are to this, but I have my own. As humans, we're almost defective by design, to a degree. We run on proprietary systems that aren't well understood, and we are slaves to this design.

To some level, our intellectuality demands justice against locked design -- and this has been express in many ways throughout the centuries. We are designed to create a hierarchy of status, and to pigeon hole each other into this hierarchy, and unfortunately some must be at the bottom. Thanks to this, we've dealt with all manner of things, from ancient racism to modern homophobia. There have been continual pushes to promote higher thinking and higher emotions to understand why equality for these people is necessary.

Yet there is still injustice -- people die from the most basic things every minute. Not just old age, but many genetic issues of the body, a body which is defective by design. We understand that to be sick with cancer is unfair and unjust, we acknowledge that a person should not have to suffer with such. We understand that to be disable puts a person in an unfortunate position of lesser ability, we understand that this delimits persons and peoples based upon capability rather than choice, and we recognise the injustice of this. Many have been inspired toward science in order to create a better tomorrow for all.

I have a friend who's a robotics engineer who feels much the same way. He wants to create prosthetic limbs to help amputees, he wants to provide them with what they've lost, since it wasn't their choice to lose capability. And this cycle of ethics, an emotional understanding of sympathy and fairness, and our own innate curiosity drive us to provide solutions for people who are less fortunate. And anyone of any walk of life could have something happen to them which could degrade their quality of life. Many of these problems we are still unable to understand or repair.

There are people, right now, who live in fear that tomorrow might be their last day. I know some of these personally.

I post, then, that the biggest tyrant is nature itself. Nature is reaching a point of obsolescence and our curiosity will eventually drive us to overthrow it and to leave it behind.

The Quiet Revolution

So then, what is science, and where is it going?

I see science as being, essentially, just what I've written there. There are people of ethical standing, with an emotional understanding of fairness, and with the ability to ask such questions who operate within fields of science to change us. If you think about it, all modern mdecine and science is unnatural, as it's something that no animal that we know of on Earth other than us could create. Only we, of the species we've encountered, have achieved what we have. And not just in medicines, but consumer tech that allows us to stay in contact with distant loved ones. With every decade, our quality of life increases in new and interesting ways.

This pushes us inevitably toward the Singularity.

If you think about it, the moment you put on a pair of spectacles to help you see, you're augmenting yourself in a way that no animal can. It is questions and those able to answer them to some degree that provide us with the ability to augment ourselves. And with each passing decade, we will further augment ourselves more and more. There are ongoing developments which look promising -- affordable, wearable computers, cures for diabetes and cancer, and so on. We keep pushing against the door, to throw it open so that we can see what knowledge lays behind.

The only war we've ever fought is against ourselves -- as Helios would say, the only frontier that has ever existed is the self. Indeed, we push towards the exoself, and beyond that. A natural question at this point is: What is the exoself? It's what's already happening -- the exoself is, to wit, a wide range of systems linked to the self in a cooperative way, extending the mind and the body. With tomorrow technology like wearable computers, and technology on the horizon such as medical wetware, we're coming close to creating an exoself.

Something that can monitor us and the world around us, to help us understand ourselves better, and the world around us better. The drive to understand the self leads to the improvement of self, that's the quiet revolution I spoke of. This is essentially where science is taking us, like it or not, it is an inevitability. It will lead to earlier detection of sickness and better medicines to deal with them, it will lead to us becoming closer to friends and family, it will provide us with extended perceptions, and ultimately it will transform us.

There is a point we will reach where we will leave nature behind -- at that point we will become more like the synthetics of Mass Effect. We will have much greater control over ourselves, and a much greater ability to extend the self and to understand everything surrounding the self, internally and externally.

It's important to be forward facing to see where this could take us, and how we could benefit from it.

Consider that a hundred years ago, the technology we have today would be seen as devilry and people would be unable to accept it. It would have been seen as abhorrent, an abomination, and something which stands against nature, and they would have wanted to turn away from it. If, a hundred years from now, technology was brought back and exposed to us, it's conceivable that many of us would think the same way, but in less numbers than a hundred years ago. That's important.

This is a transitionary period between natural and unnatural, and it's also a period of philosophy in which we begin to understand that unnatural is not necessarily bad at all.

Synthesis

Ho boy, the big one. This is always the thing. All roads lead to Synthesis.

Okay, so the first thing to understand about Synthesis is that it's entirely symbolic, it's not meant to be taken factually or at face value. It's a romantic poem about the future and all the possibilities that might be waiting for us there. It's a hopeful, optimistic look at where we're going and what we're going to become. That's why I like it. You see, Synthesis and the Singularity are interchangeable terms, since the Singularity will make us into what Synthesis would regardless, it would just be a slower process. The Singularity exists to make us unnatural -- to overthrow the tyranny of nature.

I forget whose thread it was now... was it MyChemicalBromance? I'm fairly certain it was. Yeah. Okay... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think so. Anyway! The point here is that someone wrote a thread that pointed out that all roads lead to Synthesis anyway, because Synthesis is the Singularity. It's just a matter of how long it's going to take before we get there. Each ending represents a longer period of time and different means, and perhaps differing amounts of organics withint hat future, based upon how many could accept the transition.

Another series that deals with this really well is Deus Ex, of course, with the end result being Helios. Helios is nothing more than the ultimate symbolic manifestation of the exoself. An A.I. linked to all humans that extends their bodies and minds, and helps them to understand and perceive the world in larger ways than they otherwise would, but also something htat helps them improve their quality of life, and their well-being, whilst embracing their individuality, creativity, and curiosity.

Of course, this also provides fo a new era of peace -- if you can understand a person's perspectives, and if you have access to their thoughts and feelings, and you're sound of mind and emotion yourself, then killing another person becomes a Herculean task. That's the thing -- the reason we're able to so easily asuage our conscience today is due to how easily we don't have to understand or imagine the suffering of other people. We can even purposefully limit our sepxosure to it to further limit our ability to imagine it. So it's easy to consider homeless people, fatally sick people, and so on as mere statistics.

Except, of course, someone you personally know could be fatally ill -- but then it becomes important. You understand them. With an exoself, essentially everyone becomes an extended family, since we're all able to better understand each other, and death then cannot simply be attributed to a statistic, as every life will matter.

Where we're headed will allow us to become something new, something better, and something exotic -- something not at all defined by nature. We see glimpses of that in every symbolic representation of it. Be it Deus Ex; Mass Effect; Iain M. Banks books; Danny the World; or what have you.

The world of tomorrow exists in the wildest fictions of today. All we have to do is ask how, rather than deny it.

[Brako Version 5.0]

I like the part about testicles, but why can't animals have those too? Oh you said spectacles. Sorry about that.

[Ledgend1221]

I didn't read it, I don't care what you wrote about.
Synthesis is stupid.

[Ajensis]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

I didn't read it, I don't care what you wrote about.
Synthesis is stupid.

So... why are you posting here exactly?

This thread actually has potential for an interesting discussion, so would be nice if we don't have these 'Synthesis is stupid' posts. You're contributing absolutely nothing of value here.

[Han Shot First]

Although I'm not a fan of turning the entire galaxy into cyborgs, the worst aspect of Synthesis is that is a negotiated truce with the Reaper faction. The Reaper War ends in a stalemate, with the Catalyst responsible for annihilating countless civilizations still firmly in control of a fully intact and operational Reaper fleet.

Its like playing Russian roulette with the galaxy's future. Is that what Shepard was aiming at over the course of three games? It seems like somewhere along the line Synthesis Shepard forgot what he or she was fighting for.

[KingZayd]

If you're forcing synthesis on every living thing then you're behaving as the tyrant. Just because you're ready for it, doesn't mean everything else in the galaxy is.

If people choose to upgrade themselves later on, that's their choice. They can do it after the Reapers are dealt with.

Modifié par KingZayd, 15 mai 2013 - 05:52 .

[Ledgend1221]

Ajensis wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

I didn't read it, I don't care what you wrote about.
Synthesis is stupid.

So... why are you posting here exactly?

This thread actually has potential for an interesting discussion, so would be nice if we don't have these 'Synthesis is stupid' posts. You're contributing absolutely nothing of value here.

Why are you posting here?

Fact: Synthesis is stupid.
Now if you want a discussion, why did you respond to me looking for an arguement?
You have no intrest in this topic, you're only looking for conflict.
You barbarian savage.
A curse on thee!

[Ecrulis]

K

*shoots the tube*

[Brako Version 5.0]

America dropped an atomic bomb on Japan. Now they live side by side and build a better future. England invaded countries all over the globe.. now there civilians live among us in a time of peace.

If the likes of Iraq someday figured out how to create a new source of energy for a better life for us all and the planet. Would you not want to forget the past and be thankful to our new allies?

The instantaneous effect of Reaper turning good could happen simply because they're machines which can be switched off or on, or reprogrammed in an instant. The difficulty would be the organics acceptance in a short amount of time, let alone an instant, but synthesis is about the organics and synthetics being able to understand each other. Perhaps see it simply as that.

I don't care how big of a tool you may be. If you had the chance to stop people being killed, tortured, murdered, raped, babies born with deceases before having a chance at life. If you had the power to do so, you would. Synthesis is the perfect happy ending. The most unrealistic, but still the ending/outcome we would all want if we was in that situation.

[Ajensis]

Ledgend1221 wrote...
Why are you posting here?

Fact: Synthesis is stupid.
Now if you want a discussion, why did you respond to me looking for an arguement?
You have no intrest in this topic, you're only looking for conflict.
You barbarian savage.
A curse on thee!

I posted because I wanted to disrupt any early signs of a bandwaggon mentality. This is an Aulf Wulf thread, after all, and it's easy to dismiss his threads before even reading them (as you yourself proved). I have no interest in an argument with you at all.
I don't like Synthesis either, and I disagree with Auld Wulf's view of Nature as presented here, but I think it's an interesting starting point for a discussion. Unfortunately, English is my 2nd language and I've learnt it takes me too long to engage in such a topic, but I can at least try to bring some anti-Synthesis/Aulf Wulf sentiments to this thread. I can at least encourage other members to consider the topic and not just go on a knee-jerk reaction to Synthesis. That way, we might get a bit more interesting replies than what you've produced.

[Liamv2]

 

[Ledgend1221]

Ajensis wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...
Why are you posting here?

Fact: Synthesis is stupid.
Now if you want a discussion, why did you respond to me looking for an arguement?
You have no intrest in this topic, you're only looking for conflict.
You barbarian savage.
A curse on thee!

I posted because I wanted to disrupt any early signs of a bandwaggon mentality. This is an Aulf Wulf thread, after all, and it's easy to dismiss his threads before even reading them (as you yourself proved). I have no interest in an argument with you at all.
I don't like Synthesis either, and I disagree with Auld Wulf's view of Nature as presented here, but I think it's an interesting starting point for a discussion. Unfortunately, English is my 2nd language and I've learnt it takes me too long to engage in such a topic, but I can at least try to bring some anti-Synthesis/Aulf Wulf sentiments to this thread. I can at least encourage other members to consider the topic and not just go on a knee-jerk reaction to Synthesis. That way, we might get a bit more interesting replies than what you've produced.

Well I can either give you a paragraph or a sentence.

[Morlath]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Synthesis

Ho boy, the big one. This is always the thing. All roads lead to Synthesis.

Almost all roads. You're forgetting man's natural instinct to create factions which protest and rebel against the grain.

But you're not wrong in the essence of what you've said even if the general concept of what Synthesis is is actually somewhat vague on these boards.

[Ecrulis]

Liamv2 wrote...

 

That it will my good sir, care to partake in the popcorn I have procured?

[Papa John0]

Han Shot First has a good point; still, it is not my main objection to Synthesis. With Leviathan, it becomes pretty clear that the Catalyst is a straight shooter. The Catalyst is a flawed intelligence with twisted logic. It has made an absolute ruthless calculation and has set in motion a plan to follow its calculations.

The problem I then have with Synthesis is that the decision cannot be Shepard's to make. Synthesis is determining the evolutionary track for all life in the universe; its playing God, for lack of a better expression.

The theme of the series has long been FREE WILL vs. DETERMINISM (Indoctrination of Saren, Illusive Man, Husks, Collectors, Rachni queen, Leviathans, Thorian, Miranda's control chip, relays to determine growth of civilizations, etc.).

In choosing Synthesis, Shepard violates what he has been fighting for the whole time: FREE WILL and the ability to choose a future--to evolve and make mistakes as those in the galaxy so choose. It's the same reason that Shepard can't kill the Rachni or the Geth: it's not his choice to make.

Modifié par Papa John0, 15 mai 2013 - 06:18 .

[AresKeith]

Liamv2 wrote...

 

*and grabs popcorn*

Also I choose Thanix ending

[Bizinha]

Ecrulis wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

 

That it will my good sir, care to partake in the popcorn I have procured?

[Ecrulis]

Oh man the smile on MJ us perfect for this

[KaiserShep]

Brako Version 5.0 wrote...
I don't care how big of a tool you may be. If you had the chance to stop people being killed, tortured, murdered, raped, babies born with deceases before having a chance at life. If you had the power to do so, you would. Synthesis is the perfect happy ending. The most unrealistic, but still the ending/outcome we would all want if we was in that situation.

I, in fact, would do no such thing, and for good reason:

If applied to reality, such an offer could come with a litany of caveats. People always dream of a perfect world, or a utopia, or heaven, but the reality is that these things are made more meaningful because of our memories of suffering, or the suffering of others. So the question is: what happens to us? Our personalities are shaped by the world we're leaving behind in this process, so what becomes of the next generation, or the one after that? Is it to be some permanent, idyllic utopia with everlasting peace? How do we determine joy, or appreciate sadness and tragedy? Do these things simply not exist anymore? It's possible that such a choice could have a broad wave of consequences that you simply could not anticipate. What if you press the heaven button, and suddenly everyone is instantly lobotomized and sedated? It'll be peaceful, but would it be worth it? 

The idea that we can outrun nature somehow is curious. No matter what we do, or what we augment to stave off some "tyrannical" whim of nature, we will always be inextricably tied to it. There's no escaping the plight of being an organic life form.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 15 mai 2013 - 06:32 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Nature's not a tyrant, it's chaos. There's nothing inherently good or evil about it. I also don't see synthesis as overcoming the idea of limitations at all. You may overcome some of the problems facing some people, but all you're doing is moving the goal post to whatever problems will arise with the new green standard. It certainly starts out as more or less an equalizer but there's no promise it will remain that way in the future (and that's assuming it fixes anything, green Joker still limps last I checked). Mo tech, mo problems, albeit you might end up with a different set of problems than you had originally but that doesn't mean new one won't rise up to take their place.

I also have to laugh at the prospect of the new era of peace. Having access to the perspective of others and their feelings doesn't guarantee much. I can understand your motivations and your feelings on a subject doesn't mean I'll agree with them or particularly like you. Saying synthesis will solve all future problems and conflicts borders on fantasy.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 15 mai 2013 - 06:30 .

[Ecrulis]

tickle267 wrote...

Brako Version 5.0 wrote...
I don't care how big of a tool you may be. If you had the chance to stop people being killed, tortured, murdered, raped, babies born with deceases before having a chance at life. If you had the power to do so, you would. Synthesis is the perfect happy ending. The most unrealistic, but still the ending/outcome we would all want if we was in that situation.

did you notice that joker is still a cripple in synthesis?

Well hello there my pictoral friend....popcorn?

[Liamv2]

Ecrulis wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

 

That it will my good sir, care to partake in the popcorn I have procured?

Thank you good sir/madam/thing

[mumba]

Ajensis wrote...
So... why are you posting here exactly?

Becasue YOLO