435 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

[quote]chemiclord wrote...

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.)
[/quote]

That's why I think the problem with the ending reveal/twiiiiist is more of a thematic one than a logical one (which I think is debatable because the conversation with the Catalyst is often vague and unqualified). Starting with ME2, although with some cracks in ME1, the series has played the line that the differences that devide Organics and Synthetics are an issue of racism (for lack of a better word) rather than some lack of understanding or unconquerable gulf. All the conflicts between Organics and Synthetics, minus the Reapers, in the series have stemmed from rather basic human ones. Furthermore, the Synthetic characters are ones that constantly strive for peace, love, cooperation, and all that jazz, in addition to being the most accepting and tolerant guys and girls around.

And that's why I think it was the wrong aproach to specifically signal out some Organic vs Synthetic conflict when the series preached how alike everyone is, only to then shove everything back into its embryo state at the 11th hour.

That's why I think the ending would have been much better served by some notion that the nature of all races will always lead to war and eventually, as technology becomes more advanced and thus lethal, this will lead to the destruction of everything. The purpose of the cycles in this case would exist to reset everything before this stage of technological advancement and war is reached.

[/quote]

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 19 janvier 2014 - 09:28 .

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
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.

I don't think so. We only got Refuse in the EC, and if anything, it shows that if the stakes are high enough, deontology is stupid. You don't sacrifice your whole civilization for the sake of a principle held by one person, especially since at least a part of the solutions are only considered undesirable by association.

The main themes of the ending, as I see it, are freedom (Destroy), order (Control) and advancement (Synthesis).

Also, I reject the claim that organics are bound make judgements with deontology. We are predisposed by our emotions that way because of the way our morality evolved, but moral reasoning can go either way. Ask any politician or military commander. There are problems where you must be expedient because anything else would be to the detriment of the whole, and that's widely accepted. 

[Yestare7]

 


Of course not, what a dumb question!

[javeart]

NeroonWilliams 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.

It's extremely annoying when someone reduces disagreement to lack of understanding. It's not like it's Sein und Zeit, you know, it's the same old "sacrifice some for the greater good" used before en real life and in fiction ad nauseam, iI's not hard to get at all.  

In my opinion (and many others) It's just that the "created always rebels against the creators" thing is not only not shown along the series, but also kind of a silly idea and hardly the greatest risk organic life encounters; that the "I Robot" thing clearly doesn't belong in the story they being telling all along (much more in the spirit of showing synthetic life is not that different from organic), and that  even you don't object any of this at all, the AI plan is nonsensical, completely unreasonable, You may disagree (I really don't care much about convincing anybody about this), but please, you don't need to go "people doesn't understand it", like I said, it's very annoying

Modifié par javeart, 19 janvier 2014 - 11:29 .

[Vigilant111]

javeart wrote...

NeroonWilliams 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.

It's extremely annoying when someone reduces disagreement to lack of understanding. It's not like it's Sein und Zeit, you know, it's the same old "sacrifice some for the greater good" used before en real life and in fiction ad nauseam, iI's not hard to get at all.  

In my opinion (and many others) It's just that the "created always rebels against the creators" thing is not only not shown along the series, but also kind of a silly idea and hardly the greatest risk organic life encounters; that the "I Robot" thing clearly doesn't belong in the story they being telling all along (much more in the spirit of showing synthetic life is not that different from organic), and that  even you don't object any of this at all, the AI plan is nonsensical, completely unreasonable, You may disagree (I really don't care much about convincing anybody about this), but please, you don't need to go "people doesn't understand it", like I said, it's very annoying

Agreed

I can look at "You cannot comprehend our purpose" in two ways: one, this line is a cop out, there really isn't any purpose pious enough to fill the shoes than feeling alive; two, this line is contradictory: how hard is it to understand "One day synthetics will wipe out organics"?

Also, this is a little off topic but I find it strange some control and synthesis supporters who oppose destroyers for their alledged projection of personal values and sense of justice onto the reapers, but if you do not support such an act then why is it okay for the reapers to project their own values and way of life onto the creatures of this world?

[Sion1138]

chemiclord wrote...

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.  

Logic doesn't matter, the story is what matters and within the bounds of the story, the Rannoch arc provides a conclusion to the issue of AI.

The Quarian and geth are the primary vehicle for that particular theme throughout the series and once their conflict had been settled, that should have been the end of all things related to it.

It's an emotional conclusion rather than a logical one and it should not have been subverted.

 

Modifié par Sion1138, 19 janvier 2014 - 02:54 .

[Mr Plow]

the reapers are right, we all stink

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
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.

I don't think so. We only got Refuse in the EC, and if anything, it shows that if the stakes are high enough, deontology is stupid. You don't sacrifice your whole civilization for the sake of a principle held by one person, especially since at least a part of the solutions are only considered undesirable by association.

The main themes of the ending, as I see it, are freedom (Destroy), order (Control) and advancement (Synthesis).

Also, I reject the claim that organics are bound make judgements with deontology. We are predisposed by our emotions that way because of the way our morality evolved, but moral reasoning can go either way. Ask any politician or military commander. There are problems where you must be expedient because anything else would be to the detriment of the whole, and that's widely accepted. 

I didn't mean to imply Organics were always "bound" by Deontology. After all Consequentialism is a philosophy from us humans, and everyone knows about The Art of War and The Prince which are respected fairly results-only oriented texts. However, I do think Shepard's choice in the Decision Chamber, on some level, does fall back on moral and ethical rules, and is not only an evaluation of the consequences, simply because of the scope of the effects of the Crucible blast.

A full evaluation of the consequence of the choice in the Decision Chamber is not given by the Catalyst. Shepard is told of the consequences with respect to solving one problem. These actions we can potentially take are orders of magnitude in scale above most concepts of moral violations and proportional collateral damage. Shepard doesn't potentially Destroy one society, the Geth, he destroys all Synthetic AI everywhere. In Synthesis, Shepard doesn't change a few people or his own form of life, he changes all forms of life on a galactic level. All of the decisions are vast in scope and contain unpredictable and unknown consequences.

Most of the time we can't evaluate the full impact of much smaller versions of those decisions, and we are really not equipped to evaluate their full impact by ourselves in the Decision Chamber. That is why, on some level, we probably have to fall back on moral and ethical rules.

This is the reason that the Decision Chamber encounter with the Catalyst can be interpreted as a philosophical clash, and why we ought to ethically evaluate the actions of the decision along with the consequences.

Leaders sacrifice their civilization for power, hubris, arrogance, sheer stubbornness, why not for a philosophical or a moral assertion? Certainly some players might think that is stupid, but others don't.

Modifié par Obadiah, 20 janvier 2014 - 06:38 .

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...
I always enjoy your posts Chem. Ok, so mine was not a post meant to prove the Catalyst wrong rather than highlight the lunacy of those players who accept its racist assertions in the face of their own experience. In any case, to say that it’s impossible to prove the Catalyst wrong isn’t actually saying a great deal when one considers you could trot out that line to defend any old nonsense:

‘Cats will always rebel against their owners! The result is conflict, destruction and chaos. It is inevitable!’    

So no, I ask again why anyone would actually accept Caspers claims. Why should we believe it Chem?  

Maybe we shouldn't. My impression is that most of us don't. 

[AlanC9]

Still a small percentage, though. Anyway, none of the threads ever go anyplace other than where chemiclord took us; possibly true, but unproven and unprovable.

[AlanC9]

Yow. Hostile much?

You asked why we should accept the Catalyst's claims. I posted that maybe we shouldn't, and that most of us don't. So what exactly are we disagreeing about?

FWIW, I think it's a problem that the Catalyst doesn't have more evidence, since it'd be nice if Synthesis had a more persuasive rationale. But it doesn't.

Edit: are you bugged by me implying that this debate shouldn't be taken too seriously?

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 janvier 2014 - 08:45 .

[chemiclord]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I always enjoy your posts Chem. Ok, so mine was not a post meant to prove the Catalyst wrong rather than highlight the lunacy of those players who accept its racist assertions in the face of their own experience. In any case, to say that it’s impossible to prove the Catalyst wrong isn’t actually saying a great deal when one considers you could trot out that line to defend any old nonsense:

‘Cats will always rebel against their owners! The result is conflict, destruction and chaos. It is inevitable!’    

So no, I ask again why anyone would actually accept Caspers claims. Why should we believe it Chem?  Which is to say nothing of the horror inherent in embracing those final solutions as the only means of ‘managing’ that conflict.

It won’t do for me, that’s for sure.

You don't accept the claim because your experience (limited as it is) tells you otherwise, and the Catalyst provides little evidence from its larger timeframe to refute that experience.  It's definitely a failure of the narrative to not PRESENT that evidence, but I don't think the logic falters in and of itself.  Barring that evidence, you can only act on what you have seen.  

Your experience may very well be the exception rather than the rule.  I COULD argue that one can infer that to be the case; organic sentiment does not incur in a vaccum... the official galactic response for AIs (one that stems from BEFORE the geth/quarian conflict) was formed for a REASON, even if you don't know the exact circumstances it came to be.  

Which brings up another interesting logic conundrum.  Two beings can act with perfect logic, yet reach two VERY different conclusions, simply based on the evidence and experience they have.  That you have proceeded logically does NOT mean your opponent inherently has not.

[Navasha]

No, its just another twist on a very well established sci-fi theme. Watch IRobot or read any dozen scifi books with a similar concept. The advance AI determines the only way to "save" humanity is to imprison/enslave/etc. humanity.

The reapers are demonstrating the same false logic, that to somehow "save" life they have to wipe it out before it does itself damage.

It follows some peoples belief that everyone is just a child and needs to be "taken care of". That some bigger/stronger/more intelligent being or government should make the decision to do what is "right" for everyone, even if its against their will.

That is undeniably wrong. It is far better to let people be who they are meant to be. Sure, they will fail, and stumble. However, that is how you learn and advance. Having something given to you, always ends in failure. That includes the kind peace and protection offered by the Reapers.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I didn't elaborate on my position in this, but here it is…

To begin with, I think the Catalyst's assertion is misunderstood, as many take it to mean that he's calling all synthetics evil and that they all conspire some grandiose galactic takeover. That's not his position, though (it's Javik's, actually). I mean, he’s synthetic himself, so he’s probably not going to think so negatively of his own kind. If you play at Low EMS, though, the Catalyst actually expressly blames the whole phenomenon on organics, saying "You bring it on yourselves." He also doesn’t mean literally all organic life like trees, grass, dogs, and rabbits will be killed off. Just those that build (“creators”) synthetic life (“The created”).

In this particular setting, that assessment is correct. MEU Synthetics generally don’t have a problem with organics unless the latter incites them. However, organics often do incite them, and the ensuing conflicts often claim numerous lives on both sides -- even those who had no part in causing it.

I also think that this prediction can be fulfilled in ways other than war or conflict. You have things like Project Overlord or the rogue-VI sidequests both in ME2 which claimed many lives, and threatened more in the future. Just look at how dependent we are on machines IRL. We depend on computers for so many critically important things. As we continue to advance, we put ourselves at the mercy of these machines even more (not that the alternative -- mother nature -- is much safer to be at the mercy of). Overlord was a “technological apocalypse” waiting to happen. In an example perhaps more relevant to the Catalyst's point, Cerberus came to rely on EDI, only to find themselves helpless to stop her from allowing Shepard to destroy the heart of their organization at Cronos Station.

When it comes down to it, I’d say that what the Catalyst warns against -- sapient organic life being wiped out by synthetics -- is highly probable. Inevitable?? Ehh. A 1 in 1,000,000 chance is still a chance (thanks, Lloyd). I wouldn't bet on those odds, myself, though. And the Catalyst understandably doesn't count on it, either.

For the record, no, I do not agree with the Catalyst's methods for solving this problem. That should really go without saying, but hysteria apparently plagues this discussion board and this thread in particular, so... there it is.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 janvier 2014 - 06:14 .

[Killdren88]

Nope. They aren't right. They assume they are based on millions of years of observing past cycles. All of them shows Organics and Synthetics waging war. Our Cycle where we can actually make peace with the Geth no matter how brief naysayers say, proves we can break the cycle of Flesh Vs Machine. All the Reapers do to me become self-fulling prophecies where they wipe out Organic life themselves being Synthetic.

[Obadiah]

The Catalyst probably thinks in terms of Hard-Determism when predicting the future, and though it thinks it has accurately predicted the destruction of Organics by Synthetics, it is using the cycles to collect enough information to fully predict organics to such a level of accuracy that another more permanent solution can be found.

That looks like another philosophical clash: Hard Determinism vs Libertarianism.

Modifié par Obadiah, 21 janvier 2014 - 02:13 .

[N7Gold]

TheMyron wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Yes, the Reapers are right.

From a certain point of view.

The Reapers don't welcome death, They fear it.

After all, they did try to use Saren and Illusive Man to make you reconsider your course of action, which is destroying them.

[N7Gold]

Killdren88 wrote...

Nope. They aren't right. They assume they are based on millions of years of observing past cycles. All of them shows Organics and Synthetics waging war. Our Cycle where we can actually make peace with the Geth no matter how brief naysayers say, proves we can break the cycle of Flesh Vs Machine. All the Reapers do to me become self-fulling prophecies where they wipe out Organic life themselves being Synthetic.

History has a tendency to repeat itself, you know. The fact that we are able to make peace between the Geth and Quarians shows that organic life in general is slowly beginning to view synthetic life as more than imitations of life, and that the Reapers' methods of reaching peace between organics and synthetics is unnecessary. Conflict and peace are two sides of the same coin-- one cannot exist without the other. Conflict comes from confusion and misunderstanding, peace comes from understanding.

To achieve peace between the geth and the quarians, Shepard must keep Tali'Zorah, Legion and Zaal'Koris alive and to learn the truth about what happened during the Morning War, which is the quarian government, fearing a geth rebellion, declared martial law on Rannoch and mercilessly attacked the geth, and imprisoned or killed any quarians who defended them, and present the truth to the Migrant Fleet to get them to stop attacking the geth before Legion finishes uploading the Reaper code.

The Reapers are trying to reach a different kind of peace, one where all life, organics and synthetics alike live peacefully, but under the control of the arrogant Leviathans, a race who look exactly like the Reapers who also consider themselves the apex race, once enslaved all organic life eons before the Reapers were made, using them as tools, which is why the Reapers should still be opposed even though they are proven not to be the "Raaagh! Destroy all life!!!" kind of villains.

In short, the Reapers are right, but their methods don't create true peace between organics and synthetics, only an illusion of peace, so that their creators can regain their former glory as the dominant race of the galaxy.

Modifié par N7Gold, 21 janvier 2014 - 12:03 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Our Cycle where we can actually make peace with the Geth no matter how brief naysayers say, proves we can break the cycle of Flesh Vs Machine

No, it proves no such thing. Catalyst is basically saying "Somewhere there is a black sheep" and you respond with "We've found a sheep, and when we looked at it it wasn't black; therefore, you are wrong and all sheep are white". What you'd need to do instead is check every last sheep on the planet.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 21 janvier 2014 - 01:41 .