1010 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It's because the ending is so messed up they can't really do anything with it. They're going to have to go with an AU without Shepard and any reference to Shepard or the reapers. This story never really happened. Our "choices" never mattered. It was a story in a fiction book told by an old man to his kid. Or by a woman to a child if you refused. In any event it never mattered. The next game will be a prequel or an alternate universe. The same races, but different time line.

[SwobyJ]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I will bring up the inconvenient existence of the ship that contains an entire planet full of people who uploaded themselves into an AI construct on a spaceship 8000 years ago because their sun was about to go supernova IIRC. These are the virtual aliens who made contact with the Council to secure a new power source. There are about a billion minds in that virtual world. These people also will be extinguished in destroy.

"You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want, including the Geth." - it was more definitive in the Original Ending. The writers of the EC felt that was "too strong" and threw some saccharine on it. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic. So it will hit all synthetic life, meaning all AIs will be toast. You are partly synthetic, was to inform you of that fact that your synthetic parts like your eyes may cease to function. 

You will suffer losses but no more than you have already suffered. This is relative. How have your losses been since the start of the war? Light? Heavy? I think pretty heavy. You are going to suffer a lot more. A lot of the technology upon which your civilization depends will be destroyed -- is this your synthetic base like your Virtual Intelligence? Many of your computer systems? Your cybernetic implants and those that your people have? For some civilzations like the Turians and Asari and Salarians and even the Quarians this could be devastating. The Krogan? Not so much. They live like primitives already. Get used to it.

Which makes me really dislike how vague Bioware still has it.

And I still view the Original Ending as outright cruel for them to create.

[Obadiah]

If I may.

Catalyst...

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence, but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, Synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition surpass their creators. The result is conflict, destruction, chaos. It is inevitable.

Quarians created Geth as a distributed intelligence with the ability to learn. They surpassed the power of their creators (evidenced by their ability to win the Morning War) and conflict ensued. Once the Geth's evolution was accepted by the Quarians, the Geth improved the Quarians' existence past their previous limitations by boosting the Quarians' immune systems in ways the Quarians never predicted.

That is pretty much an object example of the Catalyst's statement.

The only reason we know the AI evolution leads to unforseen improvements is that the Reapers appear, the Geth are potentially not wiped out by the Quarians, and the Quarians accept the evolution of the Geth and make peace with them.

Without the Reapers, the Geth would have been destroyed by the Quarians, and at some point in the future they or someone else would again create AI, and the conflict would begin anew. Given this history and the obvious cycle of conflict, I can easily imagine AI deciding to wipe out all organic life to preserve themselves if this scenario took place in an age when technology is far more powerful and Organics refuse to end the conflict - as the Quarians did for 300 years.

[SwobyJ]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

It's because the ending is so messed up they can't really do anything with it. They're going to have to go with an AU without Shepard and any reference to Shepard or the reapers. This story never really happened. Our "choices" never mattered. It was a story in a fiction book told by an old man to his kid. Or by a woman to a child if you refused. In any event it never mattered. The next game will be a prequel or an alternate universe. The same races, but different time line.

Both pretty much assure that the game has to be mindblowingly awesome if they want me to spend money on it.

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...

This has always been problematic for me, because the logistics of it get pretty scrambled up if you put any kind of thought into it. EDI's box is targeted, yet the computer systems in the Normandy are obviously intact. The quarians envirosuits have geth programs installed to boost their immune systems, so are the geth installations deleted? The quarians obviously survive the ordeal so we know that the hardware is still working. It's one of those things you have to blindly accept rather than think about. 

It's much more problematic for the geth than for EDI -- Citadel AIs are described in the lore as being different from other computing systems so some sort of technobabble hitting one but not the other is easy enough to come up with, but the geth were not based on those principles. The standard headcanon move is to believe that post-Rannoch geth are different enough from pre-Rannoch geth to be Destroyed. Turning the irony up to eleven, I guess.

But the real answer, I think, is that vitalism is just true in the MEU. Some computers have the elan vital, others don't. Destroy kills the ones that do. Or rather, snuffs out the elan vital of anything that isn't organic.

[SwobyJ]

Obadiah wrote...

If I may.

Catalyst...

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence, but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, Synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition surpass their creators. The result is conflict, destruction, chaos. It is inevitable.

Quarians created Geth as a distributed intelligence with the ability to learn. They surpassed the power of their creators (evidenced by their ability to win the Morning War) and conflict ensued. Once the Geth's evolution was accepted by the Quarians, the Geth improved the Quarians' existence past their previous limitations by boosting the Quarians' immune systems in ways the Quarians never predicted.

That is pretty much an object example of the Catalyst's statement.

The only reason we know the AI evolution leads to unforseen improvements is that the Reapers appear, the Geth are potentially not wiped out by the Quarians, and the Quarians accept the evolution of the Geth and make peace with them.

Without the Reapers, the Geth would have been destroyed by the Quarians, and at some point in the future they or someone else would again create AI, and the conflict would begin anew. Given this history and the obvious cycle of conflict, I can easily imagine AI deciding to wipe out all organic life to preserve themselves if this scenario took place in an age when technology is far more powerful and Organics refuse to end the conflict - as the Quarians did for 300 years.

That all makes its own sort of sense, until I realize - heck, that's just crazy control freak behavior!

Is there chaos? Um, yes. Not just between organic and synthetic, but between organics themselves. And whoops, seems the Reapers are wanting to oppose and destroy everything that stands in their way - includingggg other synthetics! In fact, its said that Sovereign viewed THEM as nothing more than tools. Ha!

So here comes the return of circular logic - a staple of control freaks in the real world as well. "If I don't stop you from hurting yourself, by harming you, you'll hurt others." "But I didn't even do anything yet!" "But you will."


So yeah, the Quarians were going to wipe out the Geth, so the Geth reached out to the Reapers for help enough to fight against the Quarians. Good point.

But you missed the whole part where the Reapers are going to kill them ALL regardless, and their 'assistance' is only meant to weaken both sides anyway.

[SwobyJ]

AlanC9 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

This has always been problematic for me, because the logistics of it get pretty scrambled up if you put any kind of thought into it. EDI's box is targeted, yet the computer systems in the Normandy are obviously intact. The quarians envirosuits have geth programs installed to boost their immune systems, so are the geth installations deleted? The quarians obviously survive the ordeal so we know that the hardware is still working. It's one of those things you have to blindly accept rather than think about. 

It's much more problematic for the geth than for EDI -- Citadel AIs are described in the lore as being different from other computing systems so some sort of technobabble hitting one but not the other is easy enough to come up with, but the geth were not based on those principles. The standard headcanon move is to believe that post-Rannoch geth are different enough from pre-Rannoch geth to be Destroyed. Turning the irony up to eleven, I guess.

But the real answer, I think, is that vitalism is just true in the MEU. Some computers have the elan vital, others don't. Destroy kills the ones that do. Or rather, snuffs out the elan vital of anything that isn't organic.

I think it has to do with Reaper Code. Not really ALL that, but it seems that any code that is indicative enough of 'life', was targetted.

Maybe that's what the Catalyst defines as 'synthetic life'.

And while Shepard is, over and over, confirmed by others to be organic, there ARE parts of him that I speculate may come from Reaper code. Just a hunch. In this case, those implants would be shut down, and only a super-refined version of the Crucible (top EMS) would be good enough to save Shepard's life from the process.

[Hazegurl]

I wouldn't a mind an alternate Universe or just another system far away in the galaxy that is just rising and know nothing of the Reapers, Shepard, etc. I would hate it if Shepard's whole story was nothing but some work of fiction told by some old man. but I think they may actually go this route, hence why they added it in there.

[KaiserShep]

Nah I don't think the stargazer thing is going to be considered at all, because the high EMS extended cut epilogues basically invalidate it. There's absolutely no reason for records to be lost in time when the infrastructure of galactic society is left reparable and there's enough survivors left who also possess very long lifespans.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 23 octobre 2013 - 06:10 .

[PwrdOff]

I'm still not sure how synthesis is supposed to work, what exactly counts as synthetic vs. organic anyway? If you were wearing a polyester sweater when the green beams hit you, would that become a part of your DNA too?

[KaiserShep]

The fashion industry would implode, since wool, silk, leather and cotton are now partially synthetic.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 23 octobre 2013 - 07:17 .

[Zazzerka]

BNN999 wrote...

I'm still not sure how synthesis is supposed to work, what exactly counts as synthetic vs. organic anyway? If you were wearing a polyester sweater when the green beams hit you, would that become a part of your DNA too?

Oh man, it'd be like the Philadelphia Experiment all over again.

[Ieldra]

BNN999 wrote...
I'm still not sure how synthesis is supposed to work, what exactly counts as synthetic vs. organic anyway? If you were wearing a polyester sweater when the green beams hit you, would that become a part of your DNA too?

There is no such thing as a "biosynthetic DNA". DNA is chemistry, and the distinction between organic and synthetic does not exist on that level.  For the same reason, there can also be no distinction between "synthetic life" and "organic life" that works by biochemistry alone.

The distinction I've come up with is that synthetic life and organic life are based on mutually exclusive design principles. Organic life is "grown life". It grows from a single cell into a whole with no knowledge of the end result. To know what an organic life form looks, you must grow it. Synthetic life forms are constructs. Built organisms. They require "intelligent design".

The exposition of Synthesis is nonsensical in that regard. You can do all you want with your DNA, but if it still works in the same basic way as before it is still a fully organic mechanism. Also, an organic life form can incorporate synthetic life forms, but its basic nature is determined by its structure, and that cannot logically be "in-between" between the two design principles, which are mutually exclusive.

What Synthesis can do, and what the EC exposition added (unfortunately, without removing the earlier nonsense which is incompatible with the EC exposition), is enhance organic functionality with synthetic aspects which the organic life form would not be able - or at least be very unlikely - to evolve on its own. It could add mechanisms that those added synthetic aspects would be passed on to the offspring in a way unrelated to the way biochemical traits grow from organic genes, for instance by passing nanites to the child during growth which self-replicate and build the synthetic enhancements. The resulting organism could reasonably be called "bio-synthetic", and the description "cellular-level cyborg" would be adequate I think. However, the genetic level would still be 100% organic since its basic structure and mechanisms are incompatible with synthetic design principles.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 octobre 2013 - 09:04 .

[PwrdOff]

What I was really getting at was that the game seems to go with the assumption that organic = flesh and blood while synthetic = metal and circuits, when the real distinction between the two is more abstract. Even a sharpened stick can be considered an artificially constructed piece of technology.

Just take Miranda, under the Catalyst's definition she would obviously be considered organic, but if you think about it she is really just a construct, a product of intelligent design rather than evolution. Her traits were not the result of natural selection but artificially chosen to fit the needs of her creator, so in the most relevant sense she should be labeled a synthetic.

And this logic should obviously apply to Destroy too, how would the red beams be selectively targeting only EDI and the geth? There's no way that the Crucible has some kind of built-in self-awareness detector. Would Avina and Glyph also be dead? What about the Normandy's systems, or your trusty Paladin X?

I get that this is just a video game, and that Bioware probably didn't think too hard about this idea, but as long as we're nitpicking over the specific details of the ending we should at least given this topic some consideration.

[David7204]

As a bit of a side note, the argument about evolution supposedly not holding any 'apex' really doesn't hold much weight. If the environment is static, evolution eventually levels off. And it always favors life with traits to match that environment, not random traits that happened to pop up in a cycle.

So depending on our definition of 'static,' it's really quite possibile for an 'apex' organism to exist. I see no reason why such a thing couldn't occur to a sparefaring species such as humanity. Is the universe not static once you zoom out enough?

Modifié par David7204, 23 octobre 2013 - 10:18 .

[PwrdOff]

StreetMagic wrote...

Any attempt at examining things like that seriously are thrown out the window once we're dealing with phrases like "organic energy" and "apex of evolution". You just have to have fun with it (or not).

Sure it's pretty pointless to try and make sense of all that, but I figure it's a more worthwhile exercise than wondering when your war assets are going to show up or if you're going to be reunited with your waifu.

[Ieldra]

BNN999 wrote...
What I was really getting at was that the game seems to go with the assumption that organic = flesh and blood while synthetic = metal and circuits, when the real distinction between the two is more abstract. Even a sharpened stick can be considered an artificially constructed piece of technology.

Just take Miranda, under the Catalyst's definition she would obviously be considered organic, but if you think about it she is really just a construct, a product of intelligent design rather than evolution. Her traits were not the result of natural selection but artificially chosen to fit the needs of her creator, so in the most relevant sense she should be labeled a synthetic.

I notice we are thinking in similar ways. I've indeed thought that Miranda would fit the definition of a synthetic according to two of Javik's criteria. Another problem with the simplistic disctinction is that the story of the ME trilogy repeatedly makes the point that physical differences need not result in conflict. Thus the story invalidates its own simplistic distinction. It is actually rather funny how the writers managed to create this mess. It couldn't be more of a mess if they had tried...

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 octobre 2013 - 11:46 .

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

"Empowered?" Seriously, whoever educated you on anything should barred from teaching ever again.

Empowered as compared to hypothetically rightless AIs.

AIs are again, not alive, and even considering if they were something that even existed why should something that has been made from someone's other inanimate objects somehow be entitled to something? If my laptop suddenly became alive, I would not feel compasion for it.

Robtos are not humans. Black people are.

Hmmm. So your definition of nonpersonhood would also extend to organic aliens?

I think to be a human that you have to be a human, and sense your analogy can't possible include aliens, this point is mute. We're talking about human rights, so I'm going to stick to human rights. Second, aliens aren't built either, but they definietently should not come to Earth and demand the rights that they should have.

Second, the Geth were made networked together, they didn't achieve anything and none of them were intelligent enough to be called sapient. They aren't true AI until ME3, as shown in ME3, just another reason why the consensus is complete bull.

And yet they are AI as a collective.

Again showing the dumbassery that goes into this analogy.

Third, my birth has nothing to do with convience, I didn't conviently become more human, nor did any of my ancestors, some of which were whiter than snow, but there you go again, making assumptions about nonsense.

The convenient part is that it's easy to deny others personhood when you don't feel at risk of having it be revoked yourself.

No the easy part comes from saying that a robot is not the group that was being challenged. My right to be human has nothing to do with a robot's right to say that they are alive and deserving of human rights. Especially considering that the parts that make up my body have never belonged to anyone nor were they constructed by anyone or manufactured in anyway. That will never be the case for any hypothetical AI. 

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

As a bit of a side note, the argument about evolution supposedly not holding any 'apex' really doesn't hold much weight. If the environment is static, evolution eventually levels off. And it always favors life with traits to match that environment, not random traits that happened to pop up in a cycle.

So depending on our definition of 'static,' it's really quite possibile for an 'apex' organism to exist. I see no reason why such a thing couldn't occur to a sparefaring species such as humanity. Is the universe not static once you zoom out enough?

No, it really isn't. 

[KaiserShep]

David7204 wrote...

As a bit of a side note, the argument about evolution supposedly not holding any 'apex' really doesn't hold much weight. If the environment is static, evolution eventually levels off. And it always favors life with traits to match that environment, not random traits that happened to pop up in a cycle.

What arguments have you seen that you've determined to hold no weight? How do you define the "apex" of evolution, when evolution itself has no direction and no goal to be reached? Just because a static environment ensures that certain random gene mutations are no longer proving inadequate for a certain amount of time does not mean that any such thing exists.

So depending on our definition of 'static,' it's really quite possibile for an 'apex' organism to exist. I see no reason why such a thing couldn't occur to a sparefaring species such as humanity. Is the universe not static once you zoom out enough?

How does one define an "apex" organism, when we're comparing species that are irrelevant to each other's environments completely? This is not to be confused with something like an apex predator, in which case we can determine this based on its trophic level, but this doesn't really apply when comparing extraterrestrial species.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 23 octobre 2013 - 01:03 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Is the universe not static once you zoom out enough?

No it isn't - environmental pressure is obviously local; take your hypothetical apex species and put them in an environment different from where they evolved (e.g. dump them on an ice planet if they evolved on an Earth-like planet or vice versa) and they will experience plenty of evolutionary pressure.