2) I really didn't. This is a point where we're talking past each other. I'm referring to the vitalism/mysticism 'life energy/soul power' that is being referred to by the Catalyst. I've kept relatively silent on the other portions of Synthesis. The stuff I've referred to is scientific cockamamey disproved centuries ago but brought up again here. The whole 'other organics weren't ready but you are' issue is drawn up here as well.
"
The cipher is the very essence of being a Prothean".
"
... absorb the essence of a species".
The idea of a vague magical "essence" of a person or persons is emphasized in both ME1 and ME2.
3) You didn't answer the question (and presented a double-standard with Synthesis).
How would you like for me to answer? With research into a plant's nervous system and lack of ability to clone external organisms, with a physiological diagram showing a lack of organic receptor for mass data transfer between minds, and with textual proof that brain death is, indeed, permanent?
4) No I didn't. I've told you what issues I have with the application of Synthesis and how its explanation is basically cheap mysticism that was disproved by science at least 200 years ago. Here's a question; how open to any explanation would you be for either concept of reversing brain death and physical resurrection and the ability of an organism to be able to absorb a consciousness of a living being? As for leaving something unstated; No. It's a case-by-case basis. In terms of synthesis, the explanation for the fundamental source of it was complete non-sense, yes, even more so than reversing brain death or a telepathic plant. Because what it used as an explanation was proved wrong hundreds of years ago. I can't say for much on the xenobiology of a telepathic plant (or telepathy in general), but reversing brain death and physical resurrection may well be possible in the future. There aren't any explanations I can give you that wouldn't be hand-waived by you though.
5) Your last point is a strawman. I never said that our understanding was flawed or wrong, with both situations being, at this current time, both firmly in the realm of fiction. However, I will say that they are incomplete; to the best of our understanding, there is no precedent for either case via modern Earth biology, but somewhere else in the universe, and in the future (possibly far future)? I wouldn't rule out things in the realm of possibility for all time to come based on our own modern understanding and technology. We can't say what any speculative xenobiology would truly be, nor can we say that technology can never find a way around our mortality.
You're actually establishing a double standard throughout this by giving unstated "speculative xenobiology" a pass and cracking down on speculative nanotechnology (established throughout the narrative) and theoretical particle physics (mentioned in ME3). I'm actually very open to technobabble explanations that clash with known principles, so long as it's from the author of the text instead of conveniently avoided at opportune times. Again, I
personally think the practical application of Synthesis is unreliable and untrustworthy too, something I'd never choose, but that's what you've got when you get your hands dirty with the malleable threshold of science.
"Speculative" science is little more than a palatable rewording of Clarke's third law, which---when associated with the bold---applies to more than xenobiology.
And no, that wasn't a strawman.
Retour en haut
