1010 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

Necanor wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Sentient beings are shaped by their environment and experiences. It's improbable that you can rebuild EDI exactly as she was.

A good example of this is Legion vs the Geth VI replacement. Both look and sound the same but they are vastly different characters.

So EDI's oh so compelling and invaluable personality is worth far, far more than Shepard's life? I see.

I never said that. You made it sound like EDI's death had no weight to it at all.

And if Shepard is an extension of myself then yea I would sacrifice myself to save other people's lives. Comes with the job title.

[Jorji Costava]

Necanor wrote...

So EDI's oh so compelling and invaluable personality is worth far, far more than Shepard's life? I see.

I can't speak for MegaSovereign, but I assume the point is that a rebuilt EDI would not be EDI in the same way that a perfect clone of Shepard would not be Shepard. I suppose it's also worth noting that Shepard actually can be rebuilt. In fact, it's happened before (i.e. Lazarus).

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, in the epilogue there is the statement "The man/woman I once was", a clear indication that there is continuity of identity, the same way I would say "the child I once was".

"Once was" is a very clear indication that the Shepalyst considers itself something different now (and even if it thought it was completely Shepard that doesn't mean that it would be).

Besides, there just happens to be a machine sitting there that can scan a human being with 100% accuracy, and that the Catalyst's hardware is capable of simulating it, when it wasn't designed to do anything like simulate a life form that didn't even exist when it was created? Based on or influenced by, sure.

[Sir DeLoria]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Necanor wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...
Sentient beings are shaped by their environment and experiences. It's improbable that you can rebuild EDI exactly as she was.

A good example of this is Legion vs the Geth VI replacement. Both look and sound the same but they are vastly different characters.

So EDI's oh so compelling and invaluable personality is worth far, far more than Shepard's life? I see.

I never said that. You made it sound like EDI's death had no weight to it at all.

And if Shepard is an extension of myself then yea I would sacrifice myself to save other people's lives. Comes with the job title.

Sure, I would sacrifice myself to save many lives. But not synthetic ones:P

[MegaSovereign]

jtav wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

People who like Control and Synthesis aren't going to be ones who disagree with the Catalyst. In order to accept those endings some degree of acceptance of the Catalyst is necessary.

People who reject the Catalyst or on a meta level reject BioWare's bad writing are more inclined to pick the option that does not mesh with what is viewed as the manifestation with everything wrong in the ending.


Just my $.02

I don't think this is particularly the case for Control. You essentially replace the Catalyst to asses your own agenda. It doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.

It still requires a fundamental acceptance that people need to be ruled avoid screwing it up.

Considering some of the people we run into in this game, I don't really have a problem with that premise.

Yea, I don't have a problem with this premise either. 100% Paragon/Renegade Shepards already assert their moral judgements on a lot of the big galactic decisions.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 19 octobre 2013 - 10:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

As I'm sure some people already know, I have several links to various threads that call into question the legitimacy of synthesis and, to a lesser extent, control. I'm explaining why they fail for me in a lore wise version. Externally, the ending narrative direction, thematic conclusion, and execution completely break my suspension of disbelief and derail where the series was coming to for its conclusion.

As I see it, the Catalyst has a logic bomb imposed on it by its creators. Along with possibly flawed programming (which isn't necessarily flawed per se, but incompatible with current organic logic which could have lead to said logic bomb).

Why Synthesis fails for me.

Here's a comment from Argolas summarizing a commonly perceived flaw with the ending.

What I took as the themes and points of the series up until the ending (and what would make for a more satisfying conclusion if the ending had been more inclusive of these themes).

How I think the Catalyst/Starchild broke Mass Effect.[/ur]

A good comment from both Nightwriter and Spambot about making the Reapers sympathetic when they have been clearly portrayed by the narrative to be anything but.

A problem with Control (more in-depth in the thread, though you might have to look for it)

Basically, this whole thread is anti-synthesis, especially when I jump in. Good juicy stuff further on in the thread.

Another great post by Nightwriter

And what I think is the creme de la creme of what makes the Catalyst so off-putting:

[url=http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/17126591/2#17127736]Anti-Synthesis argument that points out a contradiction in the Catalyst's explanation of the term synthetic and how it applies to the galaxy.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 19 octobre 2013 - 10:48 .

[Br3admax]

MegaSovereign wrote...

jtav wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

People who like Control and Synthesis aren't going to be ones who disagree with the Catalyst. In order to accept those endings some degree of acceptance of the Catalyst is necessary.

People who reject the Catalyst or on a meta level reject BioWare's bad writing are more inclined to pick the option that does not mesh with what is viewed as the manifestation with everything wrong in the ending.


Just my $.02

I don't think this is particularly the case for Control. You essentially replace the Catalyst to asses your own agenda. It doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.

It still requires a fundamental acceptance that people need to be ruled avoid screwing it up.

Considering some of the people we run into in this game, I don't really have a problem with that premise.

Yea, I don't have a problem with this premise either. 100% Paragon/Renegade Shepards already assert their moral judgements on a lot of the big galactic decisions.

I didn't realise that living in 1984 was so popular. 

[Sir DeLoria]

osbornep wrote...

Necanor wrote...

So EDI's oh so compelling and invaluable personality is worth far, far more than Shepard's life? I see.

I can't speak for MegaSovereign, but I assume the point is that a rebuilt EDI would not be EDI in the same way that a perfect clone of Shepard would not be Shepard. I suppose it's also worth noting that Shepard actually can be rebuilt. In fact, it's happened before (i.e. Lazarus).

Unlike EDI, which is an inanimate object, the organic Shepard can't be rebuilt from scrap. The Lazarus project only worked because Shep's brain was fully intact and his body mostly too.

[MegaSovereign]

Br3ad wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

jtav wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

People who like Control and Synthesis aren't going to be ones who disagree with the Catalyst. In order to accept those endings some degree of acceptance of the Catalyst is necessary.

People who reject the Catalyst or on a meta level reject BioWare's bad writing are more inclined to pick the option that does not mesh with what is viewed as the manifestation with everything wrong in the ending.


Just my $.02

I don't think this is particularly the case for Control. You essentially replace the Catalyst to asses your own agenda. It doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.

It still requires a fundamental acceptance that people need to be ruled avoid screwing it up.

Considering some of the people we run into in this game, I don't really have a problem with that premise.

Yea, I don't have a problem with this premise either. 100% Paragon/Renegade Shepards already assert their moral judgements on a lot of the big galactic decisions.

I didn't realise that living in 1984 was so popular. 

Yup, I'm a big government advocate. All because I think Control's premise is plausible for Shepards who already virtually dictate the politics of Galactic affairs.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 19 octobre 2013 - 10:47 .

[jtav]

Br3ad wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

jtav wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

People who like Control and Synthesis aren't going to be ones who disagree with the Catalyst. In order to accept those endings some degree of acceptance of the Catalyst is necessary.

People who reject the Catalyst or on a meta level reject BioWare's bad writing are more inclined to pick the option that does not mesh with what is viewed as the manifestation with everything wrong in the ending.


Just my $.02

I don't think this is particularly the case for Control. You essentially replace the Catalyst to asses your own agenda. It doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.

It still requires a fundamental acceptance that people need to be ruled avoid screwing it up.

Considering some of the people we run into in this game, I don't really have a problem with that premise.

Yea, I don't have a problem with this premise either. 100% Paragon/Renegade Shepards already assert their moral judgements on a lot of the big galactic decisions.

I didn't realise that living in 1984 was so popular. 

Oceania was impoverished, in a constant state of war, and people were jailed and executed merely for being insufficiently devoted to the Party. None of these things are even implied in Control. Yes, there's a god (more or less) running around but the morality of said god is up to you.

[Steelcan]

literally every slot in my feed is taken up by this thread and I don't see David or Xil

[Kroitz]

osbornep wrote...

Necanor wrote...

So EDI's oh so compelling and invaluable personality is worth far, far more than Shepard's life? I see.

I can't speak for MegaSovereign, but I assume the point is that a rebuilt EDI would not be EDI in the same way that a perfect clone of Shepard would not be Shepard. I suppose it's also worth noting that Shepard actually can be rebuilt. In fact, it's happened before (i.e. Lazarus).

A "perfect" clone would be exactly like shepard. If they had recreated his neural network he would have had the same memories and personality up to the point the "neural-snapshot" was taken. Sad as it is, with sufficent tech it´s just complex plumberwork.

[Br3admax]

jtav wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

jtav wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

People who like Control and Synthesis aren't going to be ones who disagree with the Catalyst. In order to accept those endings some degree of acceptance of the Catalyst is necessary.

People who reject the Catalyst or on a meta level reject BioWare's bad writing are more inclined to pick the option that does not mesh with what is viewed as the manifestation with everything wrong in the ending.


Just my $.02

I don't think this is particularly the case for Control. You essentially replace the Catalyst to asses your own agenda. It doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it.

It still requires a fundamental acceptance that people need to be ruled avoid screwing it up.

Considering some of the people we run into in this game, I don't really have a problem with that premise.

Yea, I don't have a problem with this premise either. 100% Paragon/Renegade Shepards already assert their moral judgements on a lot of the big galactic decisions.

I didn't realise that living in 1984 was so popular. 

Oceania was impoverished, in a constant state of war, and people were jailed and executed merely for being insufficiently devoted to the Party. None of these things are even implied in Control. Yes, there's a god (more or less) running around but the morality of said god is up to you.

Not really. 

[Jorji Costava]

Kroitz wrote...

A "perfect" clone would be exactly like shepard. If they had recreated his neural network he would have had the same memories and personality up to the point the "neural-snapshot" was taken. Sad as it is, with sufficent tech it´s just complex plumberwork.

The point I was trying to make is that however much like Shepard this clone would be, it would not be numerically the same person, because it wouldn't have the same personal history (merely the memories of having had that history, which isn't the same). Suppose someone told you he could kill a family member of yours and replace him or her with a perfect duplicate having all the same memories, etc. If we object to this proposal, it's presumably because we don't feel that this duplicate, for all its similarity, would be numerically the same person as our loved one. Of course, if you're a bundle theorist like Parfit, you'll reject all of that, but I'll just leave things there for now.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I think the Catalyst may have possibly have had a logical paradox over what his programming stipulated to him versus the mission that he was assigned by his creators.

I have a smaller, but not altogether dissimilar example from 2001: A Space Odyssey (Clarke/Kubrick).

This is the example of a logic bomb.

HAL 9000 has a logical paradox in the book. He is programmed not to keep any information or hide any of his knowledge at all from humans. Yet his instructions from his creators during the mission clearly tell him to keep his knowledge of the true purpose of the mission from the human crewmen of the Discovery until they have reached their destination. This seemingly innocuous paradox creates an incredible strain on HAL, which begins to manifest as errors and malfunctions in his calculations and diagnostics. This is not picked up on by the crew until HAL, having also become fearful of being disconnected due to his error (even temporarily, though HAL has no concept of sleep or rest), becomes homicidal due to the combined factors of self-preservation, and, more importantly to my point, reaches a conclusion to his logical dilemma of not withholding information from humans by killing the crew. Self-preservation aside, this also 'reconciles' his programming of not withholding information with his instructions to not inform the crew of the true purpose of the mission, by killing the crew and thus meaning that he is following his instructions without going against his programming of not withholding information. By killing the humans, he no longer has to worry about hiding his information.

The novel acknowledges that, given time, HAL likely would have come to a less violent conclusion, but it ties into the Catalyst as being a possibility of a tragic error in logic stipulated by the Leviathans that caused the Catalyst to become homicidal. Though I don't believe this really explains everything.

That said, I chalk that up to inconsistent and/or incompetent writing.

[Obadiah]

Necanor wrote...

@Obadiah

What if the Geth have already been dealt with? Beside the Geth and EDI, we don't know of any synthetics sophisticated enough to be a target of the big red wave.

Pretty sure all technology gets hit, which is why AI get destroyed.

[Reorte]

Obadiah wrote...

Necanor wrote...

@Obadiah

What if the Geth have already been dealt with? Beside the Geth and EDI, we don't know of any synthetics sophisticated enough to be a target of the big red wave.

Pretty sure all technology gets hit, which is why AI get destroyed.

No, most of it seems to be working, ships carry on flying, quarians aren't dropping dead from suits going wrong (and geth programs are apparently capable of running on the suits).

[Kroitz]

osbornep wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

A "perfect" clone would be exactly like shepard. If they had recreated his neural network he would have had the same memories and personality up to the point the "neural-snapshot" was taken. Sad as it is, with sufficent tech it´s just complex plumberwork.

The point I was trying to make is that however much like Shepard this clone would be, it would not be numerically the same person, because it wouldn't have the same personal history (merely the memories of having had that history, which isn't the same). Suppose someone told you he could kill a family member of yours and replace him or her with a perfect duplicate having all the same memories, etc. If we object to this proposal, it's presumably because we don't feel that this duplicate, for all its similarity, would be numerically the same person as our loved one. Of course, if you're a bundle theorist like Parfit, you'll reject all of that, but I'll just leave things there for now.

"Technically" he or she would be the same person. But the term recreated-person would fit the subjective view you present better.

[Jorji Costava]

Kroitz wrote...

"Technically" he or she would be the same person. But the term recreated-person would fit the subjective view you present better.

This is confusing to me. In what sense is the account I offered "subjective?"

[Steelcan]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Plus, in Destroy you end up in a peer group of players who hated the Geth and wanted them destroyed, which is not a fun group to end up with.

Are you kidding? Fun is my middle name.

Cthulhu Fun 42, that's what they call me.

Our Clique is pretty cool place tbh

[General TSAR]

I'm happy with the Destroy ending, I finally got to EMP the sexbot into refuse.
EDIT
Sorry I originally put kill but I forgot that you can't kill something that was never alive.

Modifié par General TSAR, 19 octobre 2013 - 11:26 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Plus, in Destroy you end up in a peer group of players who hated the Geth and wanted them destroyed, which is not a fun group to end up with.

Are you kidding? Fun is my middle name.

Cthulhu Fun 42, that's what they call me.

Our Clique is pretty cool place tbh

I'm there for other purposes.

I'm actually one of the most vocal Geth defenders on the BSN, and may I say it with much arrogance, one of the best.

[Obadiah]

Reorte wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Necanor wrote...

@Obadiah

What if the Geth have already been dealt with? Beside the Geth and EDI, we don't know of any synthetics sophisticated enough to be a target of the big red wave.

Pretty sure all technology gets hit, which is why AI get destroyed.

No, most of it seems to be working, ships carry on flying, quarians aren't dropping dead from suits going wrong (and geth programs are apparently capable of running on the suits).

"The crucible will not discriminate. All Synthetics will be targetted... Technology you rely on will be affected, but those who survive will have little difficulty repairing the damage."

Synthetics (Geth, EDI, Reapers, and any other AI in the 99% of the unexplored galaxy) are destroyed. Ships and Quarian suits can be repaired.

[Kroitz]

osbornep wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

"Technically" he or she would be the same person. But the term recreated-person would fit the subjective view you present better.

This is confusing to me. In what sense is the account I offered "subjective?"

osbornep wrote...

... it's presumably because we don't feel
that this duplicate, for all its similarity, would be numerically the
same person as our loved one. Of course, if you're a bundle theorist
like Parfit, you'll reject all of that, but I'll just leave things there
for now.