435 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2: the logical flaw in question isn't one where generalization has gone wrong, any rational being can recognize that in a way that any rational being would not agree with the reaper quote: "You are chaos".

No? Every one of us is the result of random chance, of genes randomly recombined. Synthetics are planned organisms built to a specification. I find it a rather plausible claim. 

Ah, but synthetics are not built to be free to live life, and during this state they are referred to as machines, not synthetic life or synthetics (mass noun). Like organic life, synthetics evolve and develop, why do you think the Catalyst turned against its creators? Why do you think EDI allied with Shepard? Both life-forms value existence, and existence IS chaotic, so is life

Why do you say the position "reaperization means death" is unsound? I can relate to it quite well. I mean, is a husk really alive? If the ascendance provided by reapers really is that incredible then why even fight the reapers? and yes you are absolutely right that from the Catalyst's perspective the hazing to reaperhood isn't so bad considering what a wonderful afterlife you get afterwards, but from Shepard's point of view, yeah, it is death, as he or she said so on Rannoch

Is an uploaded mind dead? You may not believe that an existence as an "infomorph" (as the roleplaying game "Eclipse Phase" calls such a thing) can be meaningful and that the death of the body equals the death of the individual, but this is already an interpretation, your answer to this question that the ME trilogy asks you. Even outside the Reaper ecology, you will find much support for the alternative claim within the MEU, that identity is memory and that uploading a mind is a transformation at most, and not death. 

I would likely find an existence as an enslaved uploaded mind - as things are in a Reaper - a fate worse than death, but that's more due to the enslavement than to the destructive uploading, and actually, Descartes famous line is most applicable here: I think, therefore I am.....not dead.   

Most unequivocally, an uploaded organic mind is dead (note we are not talking about a synthetic mind here), because everything that stimulates organic life ceases to exist, granted you might argue these enivornmental and social stimulants can be recreated in a virtual world but this can only be done to a limited extent, as these "minds", if given choice, will be selective about what they want and not want to experience.

The quote is pertaining to existence, you can exist as a reaper and you can exist as a corpse, in the end it does not really matter. I view it as an appreciation of human life, a sentiment at best

[Ridwan]

Daemul wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Daemul wrote...

M25105 wrote...

No they're not right and I can't understand why anyone would try and think that. They're a bunch of murdering monsters following the orders of an insane space ghost.

http://politiek.star...mj-laughing.gif

"We're killing you, cause you might create stuff that might kill, so therefor we kill you before that happens lololol."There's no debate about this ****, if you want to keep posting gifs go on, but you're essentially saying that a bunch of tentacle robot fish are right to slaughter us cause space Casper thinks so.

Annoyed more like it that there are still people who think the genocidal robot fish are correct and that we should all jump in the goo so we can have robot sex with each other.

[Ieldra]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Ah yes... when all else fails stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU INDOCTRINATION LA LA LA"....

It just scares me that some people are like: "total and complete galactical genocide? Sure!"

No one was saying they agree with the Catalyst's solution, just acknowledging how theoretically it can be interpreted as a solution -- especially by one that is not privy to organic morality. Though yes, you do deserve to be scared.

It wasn't just about it having a point in theory. Heck, even I agree with that, as I always have said.
My problem is with people who answer the question of "Are the Reapers right?" with yes.

I never said that. I said "It is possible to adopt a perspective from where the net balance of the cycle is positive". The problem with the counterargument "you're justifying genocide" is that from that perspective, the continued existence of a single species is as irrelevant as the existence of a small branch to a tree.

Assuming that the problem of organic extinction at the hands of synthetics is a valid one, and that you see some intrinsic value in the continued existence of intelligent organic life, there must be a solution to this problem, and that solution can't consist of doing nothing. The development of certain advanced species has either to be controlled or to be cut short. Neither would be acceptable from the perspective of the species in question, but from the larger perspective it is necessary.

The easy way out is, of course, to not accept the problem in the first place. I wonder what people would've said if the ME team had anchored that problem better in their story. Too bad we'll never get the chance to see that. The ME team has made it too easy to reject the problem.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 janvier 2014 - 11:29 .

[Obadiah]

There's a contradiction with the Catalyst in the Synthesis ending. The Catalyst was attempting to stop the destruction of all Organic life, but in the Synthesis end, it does that in favor of the new matrix of life. Are Synthesis beings still organic?

[Update]
Now that I've thought about it, this is probably the biggest reason to interpret Synthesis beings as organic beings that are integrated with technology, and not a new type of non-organic life-form. If they were now non-organic, it really would make the Cataylst and game devs look crazy.

Modifié par Obadiah, 18 janvier 2014 - 12:26 .

[javeart]

the logic of the AI is as consistent as that of somene who thinks the room it's too cold and sets the house on fire.

I still think they should have said nothing about the reapers motives.

[ruggly]

I think it's more of a problem that reapers flip flop their stances throughout the trilogy.

Modifié par ruggly, 18 janvier 2014 - 12:02 .

[Farangbaa]

ruggly wrote...

I think it's more of a problem that reapers flip flop their stances throughout the trilogy.

No they don't. The Reapers themselves explain nothing, only the Catalyst does.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Psychevore wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I think it's more of a problem that reapers flip flop their stances throughout the trilogy.

No they don't. The Reapers themselves explain nothing, only the Catalyst does.

Sovereign explained a whole bunch, guess he was wrong though... or exaggerating for dramatic effect.

[ruggly]

Psychevore wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I think it's more of a problem that reapers flip flop their stances throughout the trilogy.

No they don't. The Reapers themselves explain nothing, only the Catalyst does.

looking at what sovereign said, then harbinger said, yeah, they're kind of inconsistent.

[Gervaise]

If their intent was to remove conflict owing to competition over finite resources, then it would make sense. Intervening at the point where species are advanced to a point where the galaxy cannot possibly sustain their level of technology is something I could understand, even if I didn't agree with the solution.

However, we are repeatedly told by the Reapers that we cannot understand their purpose and I would imagine we are not the first species to question their logic. So, no, the Reapers are not right because if you think they are, then apparently you understand them, which they categorically insist you are unable to do.

May be this is why the writers came up with such a bonkers justification for the Reapers actions because it is not meant to be comprehensible.

[Farangbaa]

ruggly wrote...

Psychevore wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I think it's more of a problem that reapers flip flop their stances throughout the trilogy.

No they don't. The Reapers themselves explain nothing, only the Catalyst does.

looking at what sovereign said, then harbinger said, yeah, they're kind of inconsistent.

Sovereign and Harbinger just want to show how immensely powerful they are.

[Obadiah]

Agreed.

In effect, they are trolling Shepard (to me Sovereign more than Harby), and Shepard engages in some troll-backs, "Machines can be broken," and, "that's what humans do."

Do you think every time we killed Harbinger in ME2, that the Harby Reaper dropped his sheilds and staggered back the way Sovereign did?

Modifié par Obadiah, 18 janvier 2014 - 03:35 .

[ruggly]

Harbinger is showing how powerful he is by constantly showing interest in just humans? Alright.

[NeroonWilliams]

Gervaise wrote...

If their intent was to remove conflict owing to competition over finite resources, then it would make sense. Intervening at the point where species are advanced to a point where the galaxy cannot possibly sustain their level of technology is something I could understand, even if I didn't agree with the solution.

However, we are repeatedly told by the Reapers that we cannot understand their purpose and I would imagine we are not the first species to question their logic. So, no, the Reapers are not right because if you think they are, then apparently you understand them, which they categorically insist you are unable to do.

May be this is why the writers came up with such a bonkers justification for the Reapers actions because it is not meant to be comprehensible.

I think the general reaction by the fanbase to the AI's explanation is pretty good evidence for the veracity of the Reapers' assertion.

[AlanC9]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

I think the general reaction by the fanbase to the AI's explanation is pretty good evidence for the veracity of the Reapers' assertion.

What does that have to do with veracity?

[NeroonWilliams]

AlanC9 wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...

I think the general reaction by the fanbase to the AI's explanation is pretty good evidence for the veracity of the Reapers' assertion.

What does that have to do with veracity?

I was commenting on the Reapers that we have spoken with stating that we cannot comprehend their purpose/existence.

The fan reaction to finally being told their purpose bears out the truth of the earlier claims.  By and large, most fans didn't get it.

[AlexMBrennan]

The fan reaction to finally being told their purpose bears out the truth of the earlier claims. By and large, most fans didn't get it.

So? By and large ME3 fans lack any grasp of most basic logic, so saying that anything ME3 fans don't get is beyond human comprehension is silly.

For example, many people don't get that the negation of "there exists X such that Y(X) is true" is "for all X, Y(X) is false" rather than "there exists X such that Y(X) is false" which most people here seem to think it is. E.g. Catalyst's statement is "there exists organics that will create synthetics that will wipe out all life", so the geth not doing anything does not prove a thing.

[chemiclord]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

The fan reaction to finally being told their purpose bears out the truth of the earlier claims. By and large, most fans didn't get it.

So? By and large ME3 fans lack any grasp of most basic logic, so saying that anything ME3 fans don't get is beyond human comprehension is silly.

For example, many people don't get that the negation of "there exists X such that Y(X) is true" is "for all X, Y(X) is false" rather than "there exists X such that Y(X) is false" which most people here seem to think it is. E.g. Catalyst's statement is "there exists organics that will create synthetics that will wipe out all life", so the geth not doing anything does not prove a thing.

I tried to lay out the logic as such a while back:

There is a light switch currently flipped to "ON."  You say, "The light switch is ON."  I say, "The light switch will be OFF."  The two statements are not in conflict.  The latter may presume something not immediately in evidence, but the former does not negate it.

The geth scenario is similar.  The Reapers are saying, "War is inevitable."  Not "Peace is impossible."  There IS a logical difference between the two.

[AlanC9]

NeroonWilliams wrote...
I was commenting on the Reapers that we have spoken with stating that we cannot comprehend their purpose/existence.

The fan reaction to finally being told their purpose bears out the truth of the earlier claims.  By and large, most fans didn't get it.

Heh. Got it. Yeah, you're right. We couldn't comprehend it.

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...
If you refuse to believe anything the AI says, you have no business continuing this discussion.

I will attempt one more analogy before throwing my arms up in disgust at your intransigence.

**Keep in mind that I know that this is NOT how electric lines actually work.  The effect is correct for this analogy NOT for real life.**

A tree is growing several branches that may soon come in contact with a high voltage power line or grow around it.  If one of those branches should actually come in contact with the power line, the whole tree will be incinerated.

Is it safer for the tree as a whole to be left alone and hope that those branches that are so close to the line never actually touch it, or would it be safer for a groundskeeper to prune the branches that are close, so that they don't pose a threat to the life of the tree?

Ahem.

Tree = Organic life
Power line = Singularity that will annihilate all Organic life
Branches that are close = the current spacefaring galactic civilizations
Groundskeeper with pruning shears = the AI

Is this bad for the branches in question?  YES.
Is this good for the tree in question?  YES.

I wash my hands of you who insist on argueing ethics with an entity (the AI) that doesn't recognize your ethics as necessary.

This is a really good analogy. I've compared the galaxy to a garden before, from the perspective of the Catalyst, a garden that must be tended and that includes the occasional pruning, but your analogy brings the point home. I'd still argue it's still badly presented in the story, but the logic itself is sound.

As for the ethics, yeah, that gets really tiresome.

Edit:
Yes, I agree the premise would've been more convincing without the possibility of peace at Rannoch.

You know, people love to whine, complain, and whine some more about how ME3 destroyed the Lovecraftian terror of the Reapers. Yet, these same people fail to realize that the Catalyst's harvest is actually "Lovecraftian", in all its glory.

Vigil speculated that the Reapers were driven by motives that organics beings cannot hope to comprehend. Another way of saying this is that organic beings cannot relate to those motives. On a personal level, no matter how "right" the Reapers are, they will never be right to us. We will always fight back because our goals are different. The Catalyst views everything from a cosmic perspective. We view everything from a human perspective.

The reality is that no one is "right". It's all about different beings with different ethics and different goals. Mass Effect began with humanity as the new kid on the block, a species that was new to the galactic stage and had to prove itself to the older, "wiser" species. Then that old galactic civilization discovered that it wasn't the pinnacle of everything, that it was merely a moment in a cycle that spanned perhaps a billion years. Just like humanity had to come to terms with its "insignificant" place in the galaxy, the galactic civilization had to come to terms with its "insignicant" place in the universe. And even the Catalyst had to come to terms with its inevitable failure; when the Crucible docked, it realized that it couldn't prevent the singularity.

The writers certainly struggled to convey these ideas for some inexplicable reason, but I can still appreciate their intentions.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 19 janvier 2014 - 06:02 .

[Red Panda]

AlanC9 wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...
I was commenting on the Reapers that we have spoken with stating that we cannot comprehend their purpose/existence.

The fan reaction to finally being told their purpose bears out the truth of the earlier claims.  By and large, most fans didn't get it.

Heh. Got it. Yeah, you're right. We couldn't comprehend it.

I agree.

Fighting athe Reapers is the result of a misunderstanding of  extraordinary proportions, met with an overzealous response...

All because people didn't see the logic in being harvested.

[chemiclord]

Fandango9641 wrote...

What say you about those who would rather not trust in the word of a genocidal AI and instead use their own experience - namely the reconciliation between Geth and Quarian - as evidence to counter Caspers claim that conflict between organics and synthetics is inevitable? I mean, if you really must 'lay out the logic' of our games conclusion so, please try to do a better job of acknowledging the context of that final choice.

Just because something is "logical" doesn't make it right.  On top of that, not being able to demonstrate something is ILLOGICAL doesn't mean it necessarily isn't.

But what it DOES say is that from the perspective Shepard (and the player) has, you cannot PROVE the Catalyst and the Reapers intentions are illogical (traditional logic does not permit you to prove a negative), and the limited time frame of Geth/Quarian peace in relation to hostility isn't enough to prove conclusively that peace will be lasting.  

There's actually very little reason to think it would be; considering one of the four quarian admirals views the Geth as objects at best and another has far too much ingrained hatred to be swayed for terribly long by one impassioned speech, and by all accounts they both are still in power and still hold considerable clout.  Meanwhile, Legion has already demonstrated a willingness to manipulate and deceive to get what it wanted, and it's hard to believe the now completely independant Geth platforms would not have the same traits if it came down to it.  

It wouldn't take much to light that powder keg again on either side.

Then to take things even further, the Geth are hardly the only experiment in Synthetic Life, and they certainly wouldn't be the last.  The chances that all of them would result in peaceful coexistance is about as likely as two organic civilizations maintaining a permanent piece... so low that over the course of time it might as well be zero.

(As an aside, the willingness of organic species both in the ME universe and our own human conflicts are one of the reasons why I'm not fond of the Catalyst's presented motivation... it's far too narrow.  There's really no reason for the Catalyst to focus on synthetic/organic conflict, organics are more than capable of doing lasting, crippling damage, and with enough advancement it could be just as catastrophic on a galactic scale.)

The perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and the evidence for both sides is inconclusive at best.  At that point, it becomes a matter of subjective belief.

Modifié par chemiclord, 19 janvier 2014 - 07:17 .

[Obadiah]

Right. That's the conflict of philosophy. Synthetics in ME are depicted as logical beings with goals and mostly only evaluate the result. This is the why the Geth didn't wipe out the Quarians (couldn't evaluate the consequences) , the way Legion was evaluating the choice in Heretic Station, and the way the Catalyst defended the Reaper cycle.

Whereas we organics evaluate the action by itself apart from the result (probably through our society's experiences with results of past actions), in addition to the result. Some of us look at the action over anything else, and would rather fail if the action is judged as inhumane, bad, evil, or wrong. Samara is an extreme version of this.

This is why it was good that Bioware included Refuse. Now players can completely refute a strict philosophy of Consequentialism and assert that it is not worth living in such as universe.

I think the Mass Effect 3 ending is supposed to be Deontology vs Consequentialism.

Modifié par Obadiah, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:00 .

[Ieldra]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...

I think the general reaction by the fanbase to the AI's explanation is pretty good evidence for the veracity of the Reapers' assertion.

What does that have to do with veracity?

I was commenting on the Reapers that we have spoken with stating that we cannot comprehend their purpose/existence.

The fan reaction to finally being told their purpose bears out the truth of the earlier claims.  By and large, most fans didn't get it.

That occurred to me as well, almost immediately after ME3 came out, but it's not so much that people lack the capacity to understand, it's more that they're unwilling to accept the problem because they don't like the consequences. Reason is the slave of the passions, nowhere was that more apparent than in the fan reactions to the endings. Not that I wasn't as depressed as many others from the original ending's dark age, but I could recognize it as fitting nonetheless. I hated it, and I'm immensely glad we got the EC, but it made sense.

Granted, the whole thing wasn't exactly a stellar example of SF writing (I have this recurring wish to slap certain writers), but I wonder why people didn't try to make sense of things in spite of that. Rejecting everything as nonsense isn't exactly satisfying.