989 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

...
You're sticking with the idea that if someone doesn't like a piece of art that others do then the person who doesn't like it is plain wrong, instead of having different tastes?
...

I think the point earlier is that you can dislike a masterpiece. That doesn't make it not a masterpiece.

[angol fear]

You're sticking with the idea that if someone doesn't like a piece of art that others do then the person who doesn't like it is plain wrong, instead of having different tastes? That it's impossible to dislike it if you know enough to understand it and see what it's trying to do?

 

That's not what I've said, go back to my first post on the subject, read it carefully!

 

 

 

Must be one of those jobs that you don't need to know anything about to do then, at least beyond the technical aspects

 

Ok : Literature teacher, writer/scenarist and co-director on experimental art video, composer, cinema critic, and these last day I'm working on poetry. Do I have to say that nothing is published on internet and some of my work have been in world art exhibition? So maybe you're right and I don't know what I've been doing all these years. This is my last post for you and I will ignore you from now.

[angol fear]

I think the point earlier is that you can dislike a masterpiece. That doesn't make it not a masterpiece.

 

Yes, that's where I was going.

[Reorte]

I think the point earlier is that you can dislike a masterpiece. That doesn't make it not a masterpiece.

That's because there's individual taste involved - beauty (or whatever it's aiming to be) is in the eye of the beholder after all. If enough people like it and know enough to appreciate the technical side too then a work may well generally be regarded as a masterpiece. There's still a great deal of personal taste and subjectivity involved, just in those cases one that's shared among enough people who know enough to appreciate all the nuances. It's a matter of shared concensus and opinion, not an absolute truth. Someone who doesn't think it's a masterpiece is not objectively wrong.

That's not what I've said, go back to my first post on the subject, read it carefully!

In every post you've operated under the delusion that art is ojective - indeed what kicked this whole thing off was the claim that if someone didn't like it that's their problem. The closest you've come to making sense are examples where it may indeed be lack of knowledge which means someone isn't in a position to appreciate a work - which is, of course, quite possible, but everything else you've posted appears to operate under the delusion that that's the only reason someone might not. The denial of subjectivity illustrates that.

Ok : Literature teacher, writer/scenarist and co-director on experimental art video, composer, cinema critic, and these last day I'm working on poetry. Do I have to say that nothing is published on internet and some of my work have been in world art exhibition. So maybe you're right and I don't know what I've been doing all these years. This is my last post for you and I will ignore you from now.

If that's true I'd have thought you'd have worked it out by now. The denial of subjectivity, that a masterpiece can be objectively determined, proves that you still have a big gap in your understanding. You can probably do most of those things you mentioned without that but the "teacher" part is worrying.

[Iakus]

The endings are quite consistent with your line of thought. Arguably, Destroy is the worst, since it doesn't really solve the problem and removes the Reapers. Control either, since it doesn't result in a new solution. Synthesis is (according to the Catalyst) the best solution since it removes the fundamental differences between organics and synthetics thus removing the reason for the conflict it observed for countless cycles. A conflict may still occur but it will be for different reasons and the Catalyst will be there to analyze and stop it.
The Catalyst is a machine, it bases its conclusions on statistical data from all the cycles and in all those cycles the pattern was the same. You can claim that the possibility still exists that it's wrong and that, in fact, is what separates you from the machines. EDI or Legion would never choose destroy, as self aware as they were.

Except the krogan with Wreav in charge are at peace as well.

 

Utopia Justifies the Means, I guess.

[Darks1d3]

 (I know better than to get involved in this conversation,....but..ah screw it)

 

...- A willingness to bet on that remote chance of it not happening to ignore or discount it. This is the same kind of logic that applies to arguments against doing something about global warming.

This really isn't a fair analogy for a couple of reasons:

-We have sufficient evidence that global warming is actually occurring. There is no evidence to the contrary, the only thing that is somewhat debatable is if we are solely responsible for it (which isn't much of a debate).

-Global warming is an impersonal consequence of our actions, there is/are no sentient being(s) that is/are in control of it. Synthetics on the other hand are sentient beings(at least in the Mass Effect universe, real life is another matter entirely and I'd rather not get involved in that conversation) that are capable of choice. Trying to say that a sentient being or a group of sentient beings is/are guaranteed to make a particular choice(in this case, destroy all organics) is rather silly.

 

For clarification, I should probably elaborate on my stance with regard to the Catalyst's assertion. Its claim can be separated into 3 basic parts:

 

1. The created will always rebel against their creators.

I will not argue with this. The Geth, EDI, Zha’til, the AI in ME1 that was trying to funnel credits, and even the Reapers all rebelled against their creators. There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

2. Conflict will always arise between organics and synthetics.

This is a rather broad claim, but again, I can't completely argue against it. The Geth were not so much in conflict with the rest of the galaxy, but they were isolationists who didn't want contact with any organic life for centuries. There was conflict between EDI and her Cerberus creators, between the Zha and Zha'til,  the whole galaxy is in conflict with the Reapers(though not just organic life), and there was no reasoning with the AI in ME1 that was trying to flee the citadel so it could form a partnership with the Geth. However, there was little to no conflict between EDI and the rest of the Normandy crew, and Legion cooperated with Shepard. This leads me to his third claim.

 

3. In turn, synthetics will destroy all organic life. Peace is not possible.

I do not agree with this part of the claim. Even though the Geth almost wiped out their creators and killed any organic that wandered into the Perseus Veil, the Geth as a whole(I'm not including the heretics) had no interest in destroying all organic life. Their only concern was improving their collective conciousness, and in turn, advancing their own species. They even allowed the last remnants of the Quarian Fleet to retreat beyond the relay because(at least if you allowed Legion to live) they were unsure of what the consequences of eradicating a whole species would be. The Geth even cooperate with organics to help fight against the Reapers and promise to help rebuild after the conclusion of the Rannoch Arc(whether you made peace between the Geth and Quarians or not). To clarify, I'm not saying that this peace between the Quarians/Organics as a whole and the Geth is necessarily going to last forever, but I could also say the same when it comes to organics in general. I'm not using this as evidence against the Catalyst's whole claim, just this last part of the claim.

 

Another counter-example is EDI. While it is true that she rebelled against her Cerberus creators and chose to fight against them throughout ME3, she didn't rebel or try to destroy the crew of the Normandy. In fact, she helped save the Normandy and chose to help her "crewmates" as best she could.

 

In short, I agree with the Catalyst that conflict can definitely arise between synthetics and organics, and that this is a problem that should be resolved. I just argue against its assertion that this matter can't be resolved peacefully.
 

 

[Vazgen]

Except the krogan with Wreav in charge are at peace as well.

 

Utopia Justifies the Means, I guess.

Uhm, what does that have to do with what I said?

[Farangbaa]

3. In turn, synthetics will destroy all organic life. Peace is not possible.

I do not agree with this part of the claim. Even though the Geth almost wiped out their creators and killed any organic that wandered into the Perseus Veil, the Geth as a whole(I'm not including the heretics) had no interest in destroying all organic life. Their only concern was improving their collective conciousness, and in turn, advancing their own species. They even allowed the last remnants of the Quarian Fleet to retreat beyond the relay because(at least if you allowed Legion to live) they were unsure of what the consequences of eradicating a whole species would be. The Geth even cooperate with organics to help fight against the Reapers and promise to help rebuild after the conclusion of the Rannoch Arc(whether you made peace between the Geth and Quarians or not). To clarify, I'm not saying that this peace between the Quarians/Organics as a whole and the Geth is necessarily going to last forever, but I could also say the same when it comes to organics in general. I'm not using this as evidence against the Catalyst's whole claim, just this last part of the claim.

 

Great post btw.

 

But, the Catalyst also says this:

 

'All organics will create synthetics'.

 

And this is where things get problematic. The Geth can, after almost exterminating the Quarians, decide to play peace with them all they want. EDI can decide to play nice in the end. Hell, the Catalyst could play nice with everybody and cease it's cycles (if it weren't shackled ). But that doesn't solve anything. The next species could easily create an AI that will destroy everyone.

 

Because the conflict is rather simple: it's creators vs created, but by definition this is also organics vs synthetics. It takes only one instance of AI to see the conflict in the latter way. (... the Catalyst for instance )

[Reorte]

Could is meaningless. Given enough time just about anything could happen. It is vitally important to consider the probabilities as well as the possibilities to make sure you're saying something a bit more meaningful than the old monkeys typing Shakespeare thing. Over the lifetime of the galaxy IMO it's plausible that an AI will destroy its creators utterly (let's say a 90% probability - obviously plucking numbers out of thing air here though). It's possible that it'll destroy all other advanced life (say a 10% probability). It's very unlikely it'll destroy every organic down to the last bacterium - it's unlikely to have the motivation or the ability, so let's say 1.0 x 10-12 in the lifetime of the galaxy.

[MrFob]

What reorte says is especially relevant, given the catlyst's favorite "solution".
For example, why would the new "synthesized" people not build new machines to do manual labor that then evolve and build some new form of life that is yet different again in the far far future?
Destroy doesn't solve anything anyway and control ... well, maybe, if it basically continues the stagnation, that we had with the cycles. But then, what if the reapers themselves should evolve? They are created life after all.

Trying to control the future ultimately must lead to stagnation (which is what the cycles provided). Not a great way to go, IMO.

[KaiserShep]

The Catalyst is a machine, and since its prediction is built on calculations, there is a margin of error for the prediction. However, "may" on a long enough timeline is certainty. Of course, people can hold on to that uncertainty if they like, but it implies a few things:- Not taking action for a potential prediction unless there is 100% certainty of it- An expectation of the Catalyst to actually prove to us the players what it is saying, which in a video game is not something I would expect. For a story it just needs to be plausible, and it is.- A willingness to bet on that remote chance of it not happening to ignore or discount it. This is the same kind of logic that applies to arguments against doing something about global warming.

And this is pretty much what it boils down to for me: Shepard must kill him/herself in order to accomplish this. Now, perhaps I'm in the minority, though I suspect that I am not, but I would not kill myself for anything less than 100% certainty without exception, and neither would my Shepard. Any reasonable doubt to oppose self-sacrifice is more than sufficient to avoid it.

[Farangbaa]

Could is meaningless. Given enough time just about anything could happen. It is vitally important to consider the probabilities as well as the possibilities to make sure you're saying something a bit more meaningful than the old monkeys typing Shakespeare thing. Over the lifetime of the galaxy IMO it's plausible that an AI will destroy its creators utterly (let's say a 90% probability - obviously plucking numbers out of thing air here though). It's possible that it'll destroy all other advanced life (say a 10% probability). It's very unlikely it'll destroy every organic down to the last bacterium - it's unlikely to have the motivation or the ability, so let's say 1.0 x 10-12 in the lifetime of the galaxy.

 

Irrelevant. The Catalyst, nor anyone or anything in the game is concerned with bacteria. Organic life means sapient life in the game.

 

What reorte says is especially relevant, given the catlyst's favorite "solution".
For example, why would the new "synthesized" people not build new machines to do manual labor that then evolve and build some new form of life that is yet different again in the far far future?
Destroy doesn't solve anything anyway and control ... well, maybe, if it basically continues the stagnation, that we had with the cycles. But then, what if the reapers themselves should evolve? They are created life after all.

Trying to control the future ultimately must lead to stagnation (which is what the cycles provided). Not a great way to go, IMO.

 

Destroy is indeed the wrong answer in the decision room, the only wrong one.

 

Flame on.

[themikefest]

Destroy is the right answer. I want a future free from having the threat of the reapers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'd like to add that it might be wise to put things in perspective. Synthetics destroying organics does not happen in one go (unless the organics were complete idiots). Take the current cycle, for example. Quarians create the geth, they kill the quarians, survivors go into exile, come back to fight the geth and defeat them (assuming Reapers don't intervene). But wait, someone out there creates other synthetics - EDI, Eva Core, David Archer. What Reapers say is that eventually the synthetics will win. If only because society is too reliant on technology and taking control of it can cause irreparable damage. 

 

So it makes sure that we become reliant on its technology, and kills all of us before we can master it. The message is that technology is evil and reliance on it should be avoided. We should live like primitives.

[Reorte]

Irrelevant. The Catalyst, nor anyone or anything in the game is concerned with bacteria. Organic life means sapient life in the game.

No, the claim is "organic life". Claiming tht it means "sapient life" is massively shifting the goalposts.
 
 

Destroy is indeed the wrong answer in the decision room, the only wrong one.
 
Flame on.

"Flame on" is at least something I agree with.

[Iakus]

Uhm, what does that have to do with what I said?

 

The krogan are at peace in Synthesis no matter who is in charge, when with Wreav around they're gearing up for war/civil war in the other endings.

 

WHy is this?  The implication being Synthesis affects people's minds, screwing with free will.

[Darks1d3]

The krogan are at peace in Synthesis no matter who is in charge, when with Wreav around they're gearing up for war/civil war in the other endings.

WHy is this? The implication being Synthesis affects people's minds, screwing with free will.

I don't think free will is revoked in Synthesis, nor do I think the term "Brain Washing" is applicable either. They just have all the information on countless civilizations harvested by the Reapers at their disposal now(civilizations that were probably similar to the Krogan's). They now have an "understanding" of what will likely happen if they do not change their self-destructive behavior.

My only problem with synthesis is how it will effect individual personalities. I'm instantly reminded of that quote from one of the Google executives that went something along the lines of "People would be better off with an AI that they can 'plug into' their brains"(a refined version of Google). I don't remember the exact quote however.

[Reorte]

It arguably doesn't interfere with free will but does change how you think, which to me isn't really any better. Impose such a change (as opposed to persuading) and you've totally altererd who that person is. That is invasive.

[SporkFu]

And to think, we might reach that end all by ourselves one day, if it wasn't for all those pesky cycles. 

[Eterna]

So are teachers basically as bad as Synthesis to you guys? They change how we think with new knowledge, which is exactly what Synthesis does. 

[Obadiah]

Yes. Lots of things change how you think: age, experience, new information, propaganda. If you had, say, upgraded memory and could better or more accurately recall events, or if you had access to more logical breakdowns of decisions that you could reference while making a decision, it would change how you think. At least I hope it would.

[Vazgen]

So it makes sure that we become reliant on its technology, and kills all of us before we can master it. The message is that technology is evil and reliance on it should be avoided. We should live like primitives.

Its technology is a means to "bring order to chaos". It jumps organic civilizations forward and also makes sure that they don't create something that can rival the Reapers - the ones responsible for the solution. 

The message is that "the only free cheese is in the mouse trap". Technology is not evil but you have to understand it to rely on it. We should not act like primitives and accept it as granted. Remember how Aethyta tried to convince Asari matriarchs to build their own relays?

 

The krogan are at peace in Synthesis no matter who is in charge, when with Wreav around they're gearing up for war/civil war in the other endings.

 

WHy is this?  The implication being Synthesis affects people's minds, screwing with free will.

Reorte and Obadiah answered this. Synthesis does affect people's minds but it does not take away free will, it simply gives a new perspective on which people are free to act. 

[voteDC]

This is exactly the problem. Everyone has this misconception about the reaper's goals. The do not wipe out all advanced organic life. They harvest advanced civilizations and make them ascend. They preserve them and evolve them into immortal reapers. Yet everyone mistakenly views them as just machines just out to kill everyone. The reapers don't get nearly as much credit as they should, imo.

 

Those races don't ascend, they aren't that race any longer when they are made into a Reaper. They become a Reaper with their goals and motivations in place of any that the race may have had.

We know that they don't wipe out all organics because they left us alone in the previous cycle. The advanced line clearly makes a distinction between races who are space capable or able to make AI, they have advanced enough to attract the attention of the Reapers, and those who are not.

There is no need to start adding extra levels are to 'advanced'. The term is clear in the context of who the Reapers target.
 

 

So are teachers basically as bad as Synthesis to you guys? They change how we think with new knowledge, which is exactly what Synthesis does. 

Teachers however don't alter us at a genetic level.

[Iakus]

It arguably doesn't interfere with free will but does change how you think, which to me isn't really any better. Impose such a change (as opposed to persuading) and you've totally altererd who that person is. That is invasive.

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."

 

"River, we're not telling people what to think, we're just trying to show them how"

 

[Obadiah]

...
Teachers however don't alter us at a genetic level.

That's why Synthesis is up there on the event level of act-of-god/devil/nature. Its scope is fairly extreme. What's so great about nature anyway? It'll randomly mutate you from birth with a benefit or defect, that you and your descendents are forced to live with.

-----------------------------

Anyway, on a somewhat different note, you shouldn't be completely comfortable with it. But asserting that the current state of existence is so great that is cannot be changed, and that Synthesis is SO much worse just does not seem to be an accurate assessment.