Obadiah wrote...
You don't discount the knowledge of a 37 million year old enemy just because its about to be defeated. Pretenting that we know more than it because it is fallible is ridiculous.
Modifié par Argentoid, 07 décembre 2013 - 05:32 .
ImaginaryMatter wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Why do you believe it? He's really not being very straight with how he defines the term 'synthetic'. I mean, he does change it's meaning around from destroy to synthesis.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean - ?
If you're referring to him calling Shepard "partially synthetic," well, he's right. And it appears Destroy does affect Shepard, too, since he either dies (Low/Mid EMS) or loses his limbs (High). It can't be the exploding tank since that's scrippted anyway.
When the Catalyst first refers to 'synthetics' he seems to be talking about AI. When he refers to Shepard he just seems to be talking about technology in general.
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 décembre 2013 - 05:37 .
ImaginaryMatter wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Why do you believe it? He's really not being very straight with how he defines the term 'synthetic'. I mean, he does change it's meaning around from destroy to synthesis.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean - ?
If you're referring to him calling Shepard "partially synthetic," well, he's right. And it appears Destroy does affect Shepard, too, since he either dies (Low/Mid EMS) or loses his limbs (High). It can't be the exploding tank since that's scrippted anyway.
When the Catalyst first refers to 'synthetics' he seems to be talking about AI. When he refers to Shepard he just seems to be talking about technology in general.
Firstly, I don't think the Catalyst is capable of withholding information. That's why it mentions destroy. But I do think it is capable of using deceit. I do think it is overtly trying to portray destroy in a negative light to entice Shepard to choose a solution more on its own preference. An example of this is when it uses multiple definitions for the term 'synthetic'.
First, it implies that all synthetic creations, from the Geth, EDI, to things like synthetic flesh, organs, VI's, etc, will be affected. It implies this when it says "even you are partly synthetic"
Going by the definition that I used of synthetic flesh and organs, this is true. I am partly synthetic.
Going by the definition of synthetic as in synthetic sapient intelligence, or synthetic life, this is not true. I am not synthetic in this manner. There is no AI in me at all. I am a human being, with a few synthetic organs, no, there is no part of me that would qualify as synthetic sapient life. I am not 'partly synthetic' in that regard.
Then when it defines synthesis and who will be affected, it mentions that synthetics will be merged with organics... which we already can do. I'm an example. I'm standing right in front of the Catalyst.
Yet the Catalyst uses the definition of synthetic as in synthetic sapient intelligence. It makes it clear that it is talking about things like EDI and the Geth.
And it says how necessary and vital they, so much so that I supposedly can't imagine my life without them.
Except I can. EDI is one synthetic. One. And she's only a year or two old. The Geth meanwhile have existed for over 300 years.... the majority of which they have been isolated from the rest of the galaxy. In fact, it was only just recently that I talked them into joining the war effort. Also, the council expressly forbids the creation of AI's and imposes very harsh penalties for doing so. These laws are effective enough that synthetic sapient intelligence is quite rare and not an influencing factor at all in everyday life. So why does the Catalyst believe that they are now essential to everyday life?
But the point is, yes I can envision my life without synthetic intelligence. I've literally been doing it for almost all of my life. As has most of the galaxy for centuries.
This assertion is false.... unless my prosthetic gall bladder is going to go on a crusade against my pancreas.
It's this little... contradiction that makes me think he's trying to downplay destroy. He doesn't want me to pick it. He's hoping he can convince or manipulate me into following the path he desires. He may not be able to hide the fact that destroy exists, but he can try to deceive me on the nature of it, and him
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 décembre 2013 - 05:38 .
Modifié par KaiserShep, 07 décembre 2013 - 05:42 .
Guest_StreetMagic_*
KaiserShep wrote...
I did like when the catalyst asked "Could you imagine your life without them?"
The first thing that went through my head was "Yeah, then I'd be stuck just shooting mercenaries and varren."
KaiserShep wrote...
Sure, but it focuses on the reaper
pattern, which, as far as I can tell, is the only real consistency we
can account for, and even that gets disrupted.
Argentoid wrote...
You know what is worse? Is that this enemy is actually 1 BILLION YEARS OLD.
KaiserShep wrote...
I did like when the catalyst asked "Could you imagine your life without them?"
The first thing that went through my head was "Yeah, then I'd be stuck just shooting mercenaries and varren."
StreetMagic wrote...
KaiserShep wrote...
I did like when the catalyst asked "Could you imagine your life without them?"
The first thing that went through my head was "Yeah, then I'd be stuck just shooting mercenaries and varren."
Mercs were cool. They had the best combat banter. I don't know what people had against them.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
KaiserShep wrote...
StreetMagic wrote...
KaiserShep wrote...
I did like when the catalyst asked "Could you imagine your life without them?"
The first thing that went through my head was "Yeah, then I'd be stuck just shooting mercenaries and varren."
Mercs were cool. They had the best combat banter. I don't know what people had against them.
Oh, to hear those silly battle cries again. "APPLYING WARP FIELD!"
Modifié par KaiserShep, 07 décembre 2013 - 05:53 .
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Deathsaurer wrote...
ENEMIES EVERYWHERE!
Modifié par Argentoid, 07 décembre 2013 - 06:03 .
Perspective isn't interpretted through a mandate. You use perspective to fullfill a mandate, and the wider perepctive the better. Its how the Reapers know to undermine us in so many ways.CronoDragoon wrote...
It didn't deviate from its mandate. It's hard to see how its perspective can be greater than its programming when the former is always interpreted through the prism of the latter.Obadiah wrote...
It did deviate from the path. The Reapers are its last solution that no longer works. Now its looking for another solution.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Obadiah wrote...
Perspective isn't interpretted through a mandate. You use perspective to fullfill a mandate, and the wider perepctive the better. Its how the Reapers know to undermine us in so many ways.CronoDragoon wrote...
It didn't deviate from its mandate. It's hard to see how its perspective can be greater than its programming when the former is always interpreted through the prism of the latter.Obadiah wrote...
It did deviate from the path. The Reapers are its last solution that no longer works. Now its looking for another solution.
Even if it was "limited", what are these limits to its perspective that are so pertinent? Is there some notion that it didn't study the development and behavior of everything about Organics or Synthetics, and their interactions, to look at all possible solutions before it came to its conclusion?
StreetMagic wrote...
What sucks is I can't quote Harbinger here to illustrate my points more. I have to leave it at the Catalyst, because apparently, it's different and more benevolent. Whatever.
Modifié par Deathsaurer, 07 décembre 2013 - 06:21 .
It's 50,000 years old, plus 1,000,050,000 years of reruns.Argentoid wrote...
Obadiah wrote...
You don't discount the knowledge of a 37 million year old enemy just because its about to be defeated. Pretenting that we know more than it because it is fallible is ridiculous.
You know what is worse? Is that this enemy is actually 1 BILLION YEARS OLD.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Deathsaurer wrote...
Oh and Legion says fear of the unknown is a hardware error so this line of thinking isn't exclusive to the Reapers.
StreetMagic wrote...
Huh. I missed that line. Is it in 2 or 3? Haven't played 3 much.
Retour en haut