53 réponses à ce sujet

[Abelas Forever!]

According to IT theory (as I understand it), Destroy is the only true ending and functions by Shepard waking up after the blast. What this means is that the game, in effect, concludes without any actual confrontation with TIM, without any defeat of the Reapers, or any resolution period.

 

Yes according to IT theory when you choose the destroy ending it means that Shepard don't get indoctrinated and if your EMS is high enough you get the breathing scene which don't happen in any other endings. Of course this means that reapers are still there so the ending is left quite open. I don't have a problem with that. I'm just hoping that Bioware has some kind of solution for the ending if they ever make a sequel. Whatever that is I think it has to be pretty good. Maybe something which we haven't thought about earlier because there is a great risk that many people will get very angry if the sequel is not done well.

[Deathsaurer]

I mean the mechanics of it; how it was supposed to happen. TIM can control Shep's actions now? How?

Same way the Leviathans force a Brute to punch another Brute. He somehow gained the Dominate bonus power. I call Reaper hax.

[Franky Figgs]

HYR 2.0, on 11 May 2014 - 12:23 AM, said:

What's your point? Just because people who are indoctrinated don't realize it doesn't mean that every person who doesn't think they're indoctrinated actually are. And people who you think are helping the Reapers are not necessarily indoctrinated either. Shepard can accuse TIM of being indoctrinated come Thessia, but evidence at Cerberus HQ suggests he was wrong. Henry Lawson is in on the Control scheme and there's no reason to think he's indoctrinated, either. If he were, the Reapers would have been able to locate Sanctuary long before they actually did, and he wouldn't have been in mental condition to carry out the work required there (you can actually let Mr. Lawson go off scot-free if Miranda did not survive ME2).

There is no scarlet letter that we can point to and say that a particular person is indoctrinated or not. The story gives less than subtle clues that Saren and TIM are indoctrinated by calling them out on it. And there is no other point in Reaper indoctrination other than helping the Reapers, no matter what else it might look like, which is what Saren and TIM were doing. And the point of it a it all is if we are helping the Reapers in whatever goal it claims we are indoctrinated too.

 

Javik holds little to no value in individual life. He says he would have tricked the krogan about the cure and that his people sacrificed entire planets merely to slow the Reapers down (not even kill them). For him, genocide is fair game to him to accomplishing his goal of destroying the Reapers. What I've seen from your posts here is that you suspect people with that kind of ruthless attitude are actually indoctrinated thralls killing off others on behalf of the Reapers, and that's also where it's flawed, as sometimes ruthless people are just... ruthless. For that matter, those types are arguably morefit to lead the effort against the Reapers than those who are appalled by such actions.

With the ending, there are lots of folks that think they understand what sacrifice is just because they knowingly killed off the geth and EDI to destroy the Reapers, but they don't. Sacrifice is never that simple, like: trade me [x] and you'll get [y]. You typically don't have the luxury of knowing if what you sacrificed will be worth it in the future, or if it will have been in vain. Javik and the Protheans killed many of their own by choice in fighting the Reapers. Were they all indoctrinated? Is Javik actually an agent of the Reapers, trying to trick you into killing more of your allies?

You make such a good point here that I will have to correct the wording of that statement. Further to your point Saren and TIM were ruthless calculators for what they believed to be a greater good. I could not argue that their ruthlessness held less merit than Javik’s or even our own. The example is more distinguishable by claiming that if someone finds the justifications to work towards an enthrallers goal they are, for the sake of argument, indoctrinated into it.

 

Free-will does not matter; indoctrination physically subverts choice. They don't need anyone to agree when they can make them agree.

And, again, what would this form of control accomplish that their current methods are insufficient for?

This is were I disagree. A person forced under control would likely end up fighting against it. A person that gives up control to something else is going to embrace it.

And that is what it would accomplish, an enthrallment over organic/synthetic life that is in complete harmony. However, I didn’t put the words in the Starchilds mouth, the ME writers did. He said them; I’m interpreting them. Beyond that I don’t know what the ME team has had in store for it’s stated goals.

[Franky Figgs]

SilentShadows, on 11 May 2014 - 05:08 AM, said:

Of course it's possible that the theme of indoctrination is present in the final moments. But TIM is there and he is indoctrinated but I guess you are talking about the process? Is the process of indoctrination present in the end? Well I think the result of the process is there in the form of TIM.

I believe the disconnect is people already assume by saying Indoctrination was present at the end that I mean the whole thing was a hallucination. I do not. I started with that, but lets see how many time's I need to repeat myself on it. Everything we saw happened as presented. TIM was there, Anderson died, even the epilogues can proceed as shown. The indoctrination I’m talking about isn’t about what didn’t happen, it’s about how we interpret what did happen.

Case in point: Are you of any concern solving the Catalyst pop quiz problem it threw at us at the very end? If so a person can rationalized towards the Catalyst stated goals and then that person is indoctrinated into solving it.

 

 

I think that AI is talking in the perspective of someone who has created the solution to a problem and the problem was that organics created synthetics who then killed organics. The solution is flawed because the AI can't understand organics and that they really cannot be preserved in the reaper form. I don't think that the AI seeks for autonomy. It just does what it was created to do and it tries to make the process perfect. I think the process has failed because if I remember right then the AI hasn't been able to create any other reapers with the mind of that species so every reaper has the mind of the Harbinger. Is Shepard there so she/he can become the mind of reaper? Because i think that would make sense because why would reapers let you in CItadel so easily. But then the breathing scene doesn't make any sense because if you failed to became a mind of the reaper it would make sense that you either became a mind of a reaper or die trying.  Or is Shepard there because he/she is being indoctrinated? Or are the options really what the AI tells Shepard they are?

 

I think we both believe in IT theory so it's funny that I'm arguing against you. I believe in IT because for me it's weird that Hacket doesn't know that Anderson made it to CItadel and then there is a scene where TIM makes Shepard shoot Anderson. I think that IT also explains better the situation that Citadel can be used as weapon to destroy the reapers. Why would the AI allow that to happen. I also haven't found any evidence that IT wouldn't be true.

We may both believe in IT but we both believe in it in very different ways, hence the disconnect. I would agree with everyone that hates the IT theory about Shepard hallucinating the whole thing because it doesn't add up, I know this. That is why I asked if its possible to disassociate the theory from hallucinating. If one can’t, I can’t make my next point.

 

As far as the organic/synthetic conflict, the evidence I found was that AI does seek autonomy. The Geth were all about that and both EDI and Legion expressed it. They can not have this freedom if the world around them views them only as tools. This is something the Leviathan or it’s thralls can not give because the Leviathan has to control and thralls are being controlled. This an enthraller/thrall existential problem. If we enter into solving it we are indoctrinated potentially thralls.

[Franky Figgs]

I've said this before, but the best argument against Indoctrination Theory is actually a metagame argument (imo).

 

According to IT theory (as I understand it), Destroy is the only true ending and functions by Shepard waking up after the blast. What this means is that the game, in effect, concludes without any actual confrontation with TIM, without any defeat of the Reapers, or any resolution period.

 

Personally, I think the idea that Bioware would actively make that choice, to conclude ME3 without an official resolution, to be an even worse idea than the current incarnation of the endings.

 

As it stands, IT theory could have been a much more clever idea if Bioware had written ME3 with it in mind. Instead IT feels more like a patch job to fix the fact that the endings do not stand well on their own.

 

I agree with you in every way in regards to the idea that IT means the ending did not happen. This is what I fight against as well and makes it very hard for me to present any other theory about indoctrination.

[Deathsaurer]

This is were I disagree. A person forced under control would likely end up fighting against it. A person that gives up control to something else is going to embrace it.

Yeah, they fight it. Until they can't. Just look at Benezia, ended up a prisoner in her own mind.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

This is were I disagree. A person forced under control would likely end up fighting against it. A person that gives up control to something else is going to embrace it.

 

There's nothing to agree with. Fighting indoctrination is a losing battle. Its signals physically change the subject's brain to make them embrace the Reapers, no matter how opposed to them they may initially be. Only ways the subject can save themselves is (1) removing themselves from the source of indoctrination signals before the Reapers get a foothold in their mind; (2) kill themselves before the Reapers have complete hold of their mind. If the subject is completely indoctrinated, they cannot fight back against it. In one of the Mass Effect novels, Paul Grayson becomes indoctrinated, and the Reapers talk him out of pulling a Saren (suicide) because they have complete control. Similarly, you can't talk Dr. Kenson into giving up -- even if you try (Paragon) -- because she's completely there. Saren and TIM were not.

 

And even if you do have the right-of-mind to kill yourself, well... then you are dead -- one less person fighting the Reapers.

 

And that is what it would accomplish, an enthrallment over organic/synthetic life that is in complete harmony. However, I didn’t put the words in the Starchilds mouth, the ME writers did. He said them; I’m interpreting them. Beyond that I don’t know what the ME team has had in store for it’s stated goals.

 

That doesn't truly answer my question, though.

 

Enthrallment has always been a means to an end for the Catalyst/Reapers, with new Reapers being that end. So now you've got all life enthralled. Great! Now what? I think that if the Catalyst/Reapers were interested in controlling all galactic life down to micromanagement level, they would not leave the galaxy for millennia in dark-space. They would just sit here and control us as we develop. They don't, though.

[JasonShepard]

We may both believe in IT but we both believe in it in very different ways, hence the disconnect. I would agree with everyone that hates the IT theory about Shepard hallucinating the whole thing because it doesn't add up, I know this. That is why I asked if its possible to disassociate the theory from hallucinating. If one can’t, I can’t make my next point.

 

 

I've been tossing up over whether to join in this conversation - partly because I wasn't sure what to add, as someone who's made their peace with the endings as they stand. However, with that comment you've successfully peaked my interest. And, to your credit, you're being polite to all involved, so there's that too

 

I've always disassociated indoctrination from hallucinations. Hallucinations appear to be a common side effect of indoctrination, but they've never seemed to be the main method. ME:Retribution gives us an in depth view of Paul Grayson's indoctrination, and there are no hallucinations. Although Paul is an extreme case, since he has Reaper nanites in his blood, and he's also aware that he's being indoctrinated.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Reaper indoctrination gives you a sort of mental tunnel vision. Every single thought that you have is still your own, but thoughts that align with the Reapers' desires are encouraged, and other thoughts merely become less likely. Both Saren and TIM were broken by forcing them to consider perspectives that they'd been blinded to - and it's this blinding that is how indoctrination works. Once the war started, TIM never gave a serious thought to actually just working with the Alliance. He never gave a serious thought to the idea that, while Control might be preferable to Destroy (from his POV), Destroy itself was still preferable to extinction. And with that, he was turned against us.

 

So, yeah - if you're going to suggest a variation on IT that doesn't rely on hallucinations and fits closer to my understanding of how indoctrination works, then I'm all ears. And I say that as someone whose canonical ending is Control.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Yes according to IT theory when you choose the destroy ending it means that Shepard don't get indoctrinated and if your EMS is high enough you get the breathing scene which don't happen in any other endings. Of course this means that reapers are still there so the ending is left quite open. I don't have a problem with that. I'm just hoping that Bioware has some kind of solution for the ending if they ever make a sequel. Whatever that is I think it has to be pretty good. Maybe something which we haven't thought about earlier because there is a great risk that many people will get very angry if the sequel is not done well.

 

Certainly you don't have a problem with it, but can the same be said for the general audience? For a game series which, up until this point, has been quite literal in its meaning, and was being served up as the conclusion to the Shepard/Reaper storyline, that's about as anti-resolution as you can get.

 

I think it's the rough equivalent of saying that the general audience would have been comfortable with Return of the Jedi ending with Luke waking up on Dagobah after being electrocuted by the Emperor to death.

 

But on a different point, I think talking about "sequels" is dangerous, since everything Bioware has indicated up until this point is that they are trying to distance themselves as far from the Shepard storyline as is possible. I highly doubt there will be any resolution to the matter.
 

[Kabooooom]

I've been tossing up over whether to join in this conversation - partly because I wasn't sure what to add, as someone who's made their peace with the endings as they stand. However, with that comment you've successfully peaked my interest. And, to your credit, you're being polite to all involved, so there's that too

I've always disassociated indoctrination from hallucinations. Hallucinations appear to be a common side effect of indoctrination, but they've never seemed to be the main method. ME:Retribution gives us an in depth view of Paul Grayson's indoctrination, and there are no hallucinations. Although Paul is an extreme case, since he has Reaper nanites in his blood, and he's also aware that he's being indoctrinated.

As far as I'm concerned, Reaper indoctrination gives you a sort of mental tunnel vision. Every single thought that you have is still your own, but thoughts that align with the Reapers' desires are encouraged, and other thoughts merely become less likely. Both Saren and TIM were broken by forcing them to consider perspectives that they'd been blinded to - and it's this blinding that is how indoctrination works. Once the war started, TIM never gave a serious thought to actually just working with the Alliance. He never gave a serious thought to the idea that, while Control might be preferable to Destroy (from his POV), Destroy itself was still preferable to extinction. And with that, he was turned against us.

So, yeah - if you're going to suggest a variation on IT that doesn't rely on hallucinations and fits closer to my understanding of how indoctrination works, then I'm all ears. And I say that as someone whose canonical ending is Control.

This is pretty much exactly how I understand indoctrination to work as well. I would like to elaborate that there are also different rates of indoctrination - rapid or slow - and that this seems to be correlated with some conscious input on behalf of the Reapers. With slow indoctrination over months, years, or decades, it seems like the hallucination does not occur and what you have described as a "tunnel-vision" of thoughts is the predominant mechanism. This is what happened to Saren, and likely to TIM after his first encounter with Reaper tech during the First Contact War and all subsequent exposures to it later on (like keeping part of a dead reaper as a doorstop outside his goddamn office for at least six months). Victims like that don't seem to be aware they are being indoctrinated at all, but fear the possibility of it. Their minds are largely their own - because the less control a reaper exerts, the more useful the indoctrinated subject is. Hence, Saren was able to create an entire facility dedicated to studying indoctrination and TIM was able to create Sanctuary. Doesn't make them less indoctrinated though.

With more rapid indoctrination, like the Cerberus scientists aboard the Derelict Reaper, the scientists on the asteroid with Object Rho, and most other cases of Indoctrination that I can think of from the story and extended universe- hallucination seems to be a prevalent side effect of it.

It always made me wonder if the default rate of indoctrination is rapid, as with the Derelict Reaper or Reaper artifacts, but live Reapers could choose to indoctrinate a victim more slowly to suit their specific needs.

[JasonShepard]

It always made me wonder if the default rate of indoctrination is rapid, as with the Derelict Reaper or Reaper artifacts, but live Reapers could choose to indoctrinate a victim more slowly to suit their specific needs.

 

Well, that would make a reasonable amount of sense. After all, if a randomly discovered Reaper artifact will cause anyone who studies it to go rapidly insane, then that's a pretty good anti-discovery system. On the other hand, controlled indoctrination probably needs some intelligence behind it rather than just a lump of Reaper tech (although it's suggested that most Reaper tech is interconnected by QECs or some such).

[Kabooooom]

That's pretty much always been my position on the matter, yeah.

Side note, I also always suspected that the Reapers deliberately left Reaper tech behind for organics to discover and become indoctrinated in the interim between cycles. That would make a reasonable amount of sense, and would explain the prevalence of such objects (you encounter like 3-4 during ME and ME2 alone while randomly gallivanting across the galaxy). Either that or they are just hilariously incompetent in their post-war cleanup efforts.

[JasonShepard]

Yikes. Low level indoctrination across the entire galaxy in between cycles. That's a terrifying thought.

 

...Then again: "Your civilisation develops along the paths we desire" - maybe there was more to that line than just offering us the conveniently placed mass relays and Citadel. It would help explain why the Protheans observed patterns within the cycles.

[Deathsaurer]

It always made me wonder if the default rate of indoctrination is rapid, as with the Derelict Reaper or Reaper artifacts, but live Reapers could choose to indoctrinate a victim more slowly to suit their specific needs.

Nope. The Leviathan of Dis, despite being dead, managed to flood the Hegemony with sleeper agents.

[Kabooooom]

Nope. The Leviathan of Dis, despite being dead, managed to flood the Hegemony with sleeper agents.

How does that fact invalidate what I said? Whether rapid or slow, indoctrination can still produce sleeper agents just fine.

It's only if the indoctrination is carried to completion that they become blithering idiots and useless as pawns, and it's only proximity to a Reaper or Reaper artifact for the duration that will carry the indoctrination to that level. Anything else produces indoctrinated pawns on a spectrum from useless to near-full-freedom of will based on length of exposure.

And it is the rate of indoctrination that is, quite apparently, variable- as two individuals could be exposed for the same length of time and have drastically different extents of indoctrination. Case in point - Saren was chilling with Sovereign for nearly 30 years and retained way more personal freedom than Benezia and the Asari commandos.

[Deathsaurer]

Rapid burns them out in days or weeks as per the codex. They were studying it heavily since Terra Nova, far too long for rapid. The derelict Reaper probably did it fast because it was a trap for Shepard and needed the husks. Rho was probably fast because they were going to destroy the Alpha Relay. While the Leviathan of Dis was slow because it didn't need to do anything else. It simply happens however fast the Reapers want it to.

[Kabooooom]

That's a reasonable proposition, but it would require that if a reaper is dead, it is still connected somehow to reapers that are alive and could choose how quickly to indoctrinate. That would make a certain degree of sense, since we know that the Reaper artifacts are somehow connected to them via FTL

[quinwhisperer]

The process/length of intoctrionation could also depend on how strong one's psyche is.

[Applepie_Svk]

In a synthesis ending leviathan would be synthesized too, thus no need to control anybody. 

 

there is a flaw in this logic, if you spoke with them, than you know that they are the apex race thus arogant bunch of bastards which wants to control, how do we know that with synthesis their taste for control will end ? 

 

First line of thoughts telling me that if synthesis will allow them to control literally everything and everyone, they will achieve of what they always wanted, ergo catalyst was created only because Leviathan either coulnd´t fully control organics or just the synthetics.

Catalyst nor conflict betwen the organics and synthetics wasn´t problem, it was just its climax. Lack of control was the problem, a reason why a Catalyst was build, Leviathans either couldn´t fully control their thralls via artifact or they  have led their thralls to development of the AI, which led them into the conflict.

 

Second path gives you a question, why they would suddenly lose their temptation for control ? 

[Kabooooom]

The process/length of intoctrionation could also depend on how strong one's psyche is.

To a degree, this seems possible - but unlikely to have a strong effect for long given the nature of indoctrination. Saren was in the process of being indoctrinated for almost thirty years, all while being directly in the proximity of a reaper for large parts of it.

Plus, we know that the extent of indoctrination dictates whether an indoctrinated individual is actually useful or not. So it seems to make more sense to me that the Reapers could control the speed of the process too, since they already control the process itself.

But ability to resist probably does play a role, to a degree.

[Abelas Forever!]

 

Case in point: Are you of any concern solving the Catalyst pop quiz problem it threw at us at the very end? If so a person can rationalized towards the Catalyst stated goals and then that person is indoctrinated into solving it.

Well I was trying to defend myself in that situation. I didn't think it was anything more. So are you suggesting that the AI is acting like EDI?

 

 

 

That is why I asked if its possible to disassociate the theory from hallucinating. If one can’t, I can’t make my next point.

We can assume that it can be dissociate so we can move to the next point.

 

 

As far as the organic/synthetic conflict, the evidence I found was that AI does seek autonomy. The Geth were all about that and both EDI and Legion expressed it. They can not have this freedom if the world around them views them only as tools. This is something the Leviathan or it’s thralls can not give because the Leviathan has to control and thralls are being controlled. This an enthraller/thrall existential problem. If we enter into solving it we are indoctrinated potentially thralls.

You have found evidence that it is possible that AI can seek autonomy. But it doesn't have to be like that. The ancient AI can be exception. So what other evidence you have that support the assumption that the ancient AI seeks for autoomy?

[Abelas Forever!]

Certainly you don't have a problem with it, but can the same be said for the general audience? For a game series which, up until this point, has been quite literal in its meaning, and was being served up as the conclusion to the Shepard/Reaper storyline, that's about as anti-resolution as you can get.

That's why I said that I don't have a problem with that. I said nothing about the general audience.

 

 

But on a different point, I think talking about "sequels" is dangerous, since everything Bioware has indicated up until this point is that they are trying to distance themselves as far from the Shepard storyline as is possible. I highly doubt there will be any resolution to the matter.

Yes from the Shepard's storyline.There are four different ending scenarios and then there are IT theories. I just can't see that they can make a sequel without addressing the endings in somehow.

[Applepie_Svk]

 

 

You have found evidence that it is possible that AI can seek autonomy. But it doesn't have to be like that. The ancient AI can be exception. So what other evidence you have that support the assumption that the ancient AI seeks for autoomy?

 

As I mentioned before, whole synthetics vs organics isn´t an issue here, the problem is an assumption that conflict will always rise again and again. Leviathans were once silent gods among the galaxy, lurking in shadow, enjoying their time of dominance across whole star systems thanks to their artifacts. From what we have seen and heard, it´s hard to believe that thralls would just like that craft an AI, not without approval or direct intervention of Leviathans, therefore AI wasn´t fighting against their true enemy, but only tools. When Leviathans found that they screwed pretty much everyone, so they did their own apex AI - and we know how did it torned out.

 

What assumption do we have ? Well pretty much reapers, as devil´s advocate I would say that AI - Catalyst, found a truth that not just the conflict itself is a problem, but its creators were at begining of it, so he choose to eliminate even them, but you know it´s an infinite loop logic which means that Catalyst itself became the problem.

[Abelas Forever!]

As I mentioned before, whole synthetics vs organics isn´t an issue here, the problem is an assumption that conflict will always rise again and again. Leviathans were once silent gods among the galaxy, lurking in shadow, enjoying their time of dominance across whole star systems thanks to their artifacts. From what we have seen and heard, it´s hard to believe that thralls would just like that craft an AI, not without approval or direct intervention of Leviathans, therefore AI wasn´t fighting against their true enemy, but only tools. When Leviathans found that they screwed pretty much everyone, so they did their own apex AI - and we know how did it torned out.

 

What assumption do we have ? Well pretty much reapers, as devil´s advocate I would say that AI - Catalyst, found a truth that not just the conflict itself is a problem, but its creators were at begining of it, so he choose to eliminate even them, but you know it´s an infinite loop logic which means that Catalyst itself became the problem.

 

The Leviathans knew that minor races build synthetics and that synthetics always killed their creators. Leviathans didn't like that because they liked that the minor races were worshipping them. Leviathans created the AI for preventing those killings. The reason why AI thinks that there will always be conflict between synthetics and organics is because Leviathans build it and it reflects the society and the people who build it. The reapers were the best solution for the problem. The AI just does what it was created for and that is also the reason why it wanted to preserve the Leviathans as well.

[Franky Figgs]

There's nothing to agree with. Fighting indoctrination is a losing battle. Its signals physically change the subject's brain to make them embrace the Reapers, no matter how opposed to them they may initially be. Only ways the subject can save themselves is (1) removing themselves from the source of indoctrination signals before the Reapers get a foothold in their mind; (2) kill themselves before the Reapers have complete hold of their mind. If the subject is completely indoctrinated, they cannot fight back against it. In one of the Mass Effect novels, Paul Grayson becomes indoctrinated, and the Reapers talk him out of pulling a Saren (suicide) because they have complete control. Similarly, you can't talk Dr. Kenson into giving up -- even if you try (Paragon) -- because she's completely there. Saren and TIM were not.

 

And even if you do have the right-of-mind to kill yourself, well... then you are dead -- one less person fighting the Reapers.

 

 

That doesn't truly answer my question, though.

 

Enthrallment has always been a means to an end for the Catalyst/Reapers, with new Reapers being that end. So now you've got all life enthralled. Great! Now what? I think that if the Catalyst/Reapers were interested in controlling all galactic life down to micromanagement level, they would not leave the galaxy for millennia in dark-space. They would just sit here and control us as we develop. They don't, though.

 

I can not give you a very satisfying answer as to what end the Catalyst is wanting in any of it's "solutions", that it should be meaningful to us. I can only repeat what the ME writers made the Catalyst say in terms of want it wanted. The Catalyst said it tried and failed at synthesis before. In our final moment it sees the solution is at hand and would like to go for it, if we so choose it. Why it wouldn't want to just keep the Reaper thing going or police synthetics and organics instead probably has something do to do with what it thinks is meaningful in the universe. My theories as to why can get far reaching and meta but here is the short and nasty on why a compliant thrall might be desirable to a resistant one - a healthy body: 

 

"Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years." - codex

 

The Leviathan seeks thralls as extensions to themselves. They might view us as we might view our own own hands. The Leviathan AI needs the sweetest set of good hands to be like daddy wanted and it can't do that with it's thalls dieing off in a few years. Sure, the Reapers are forever, but so is it's described "chaos". It loses the chaos in synthesis and .... theoretically everything can be connected to everything including it. 

 

 

I can't tell you or anyone that what I'm saying is want's really going down. Like I said before, the authors are tight lipped and it's up to our interpretations. At the end of the day we are all placing bets and this is just another one.

But everyone keeps talking about how this one piece or the next doesn't add up. But if an interpretation can make use of all of the major points of information, to include why this controversy of interpretations are a necessity to it's aims, shouldn't it be counted as a viable one?

That being said, I appreciate the challenge. You raise good questions for me to refine what I mean or expose what is merely plausible.