989 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

"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"

 

Wrong analogy. Synthesis is basically giving people a new perspective on things by changing their genetic structure and by sharing the Reaper knowledge. Imagine someone getting his arm replaced by a prosthesis. It would change his body and his perspective on certain subjects. It does not take away from his free will in any way.

One can argue that teaching takes away free will, there are people who practice homeschooling and claim it to be a better alternative to the education system. That argument against Synthesis is something for another discussion.

[Reorte]

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.

That's down to how you decide to act on or view the world as due to external things. Someone seeing something, having an experience, and changing their view on the world as a result of that is one thing. Dumping it into their minds is another. The fact that everyone presumably ends up with the same view after Synthesis makes it even more disturbing. Not everyone reacts to the same events in the same way, it would be creepy if they did. You disagree with me on various things. Imagine having my view and outlook dumped into your mind so that you reached the same conclusions as me. Normally you probably wouldn't even reach the same conclusions.

[Obadiah]

Why would ideas be "dumped" into their minds? Is the thought of people just thinking clearer, that some benefit may be had from the Reapers REALLY that threatening? Oh wait, let me guess, its all subjective - my "clearer" is someone else's mind control. You know what? I think the naysayers will think clearer in Synthesis.

[voteDC]

This is why I find the endings still so fun to discuss today. We can take synthesis and see it from two completely opposite directions.

Is it simply giving us new perspective and knowledge, or has it changed our very being and influenced us to behave how something else wants us to rather than it being our own choice.

[ImaginaryMatter]

This is why I find the endings still so fun to discuss today. We can take synthesis and see it from two completely opposite directions.

Is it simply giving us new perspective and knowledge, or has it changed our very being and influenced us to behave how something else wants us to rather than it being our own choice.

 

I don't think Synthesis is that fun to talk about. There's so little information given about it and what information is given is counter intuitive, overly abstract, or unhelpful. Synthesis is whatever you want it to be because it's too open ended. Ultimately, as a choice I think it's more of reflection on how highly you value the Catalyst's opinion, rather than a question of means, methods, ethics, etc.

[Darks1d3]

That's down to how you decide to act on or view the world as due to external things. Someone seeing something, having an experience, and changing their view on the world as a result of that is one thing. Dumping it into their minds is another. The fact that everyone presumably ends up with the same view after Synthesis makes it even more disturbing. Not everyone reacts to the same events in the same way, it would be creepy if they did. You disagree with me on various things. Imagine having my view and outlook dumped into your mind so that you reached the same conclusions as me. Normally you probably wouldn't even reach the same conclusions.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter, albeit with a few minor differences.

Yes, teachers, certain books, and even personal experiences can alter how someone thinks(usually for the better, but not always). For example, reading Dune, The Republic by Plato, and some of my own personal experiences(both the good and bad) over the past few years have helped shape me and changed the way I think.

My problem with Synthesis(and I'll try to explain this the best I can, I'm not usually the best with expressing my thoughts in a clear and concise manner) is that all this information from past civilizations and their experiences is just transferred into people's minds. Yes, everyone will gain from this because they have been given a better understanding of how to live, how to govern, and even how to behave. But it comes at a cost. In a sense, it robs everyone their chance to live and experience for themselves. Sure, I've had some crappy experiences and ideas in my life, but I've also learned from them and have "improved" myself in the process.

To put it another way, people now have a chance to create a true utopia. But it is just...given, and I can't imagine a more boring existence. I know our existence right now is not perfect, but we have something to strive for as a species, and this gives us purpose in life. I think utopia is a thing to strive for, but not something that should actually exist. Because if it does, what else is there to do?

For the record, I awknowledge that I might be overreacting. Maybe it doesn't completely mean everyone now thinks the same way or that utopia is now in existence. Or maybe it gives new challenges to overcome and just gives everyone a better understanding of how to live without robbing them of their chance to live. Though the EC slides don't give me this impression.

Still, I'm both intrigued and repelled by the idea of Synthesis. And I don't fault anyone for choosing it.

[Reorte]

Why would ideas be "dumped" into their minds? Is the thought of people just thinking clearer, that some benefit may be had from the Reapers REALLY that threatening? Oh wait, let me guess, its all subjective - my "clearer" is someone else's mind control. You know what? I think the naysayers will think clearer in Synthesis.

And everyone will come to the same conclusions? That can't happen without completely changing who they are. Would it mean you accept anything that you currently totally reject?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Still, I'm both intrigued and repelled by the idea of Synthesis. And I don't fault anyone for choosing it.

 

I object to it more on a gameplay level than anything else.

 

My story objections to it sort of tie in with my problems with the entire ending is that it's thematically conflicting with the rest of ME3. Unless the ending is supposed to be viewed as meta-commentary on Mass Effect itself and the story is viewed as being one about determinism/fatalism (pre-EC). Then it's pretty damn synchronous.

[Obadiah]

And everyone will come to the same conclusions?
...

Oh, I'm just going to have to let them think about for a while. I'm sure they'll be fine.

...
That can't happen without completely changing who they are. Would it mean you accept anything that you currently totally reject?

They're "completely" changed in Synthesis? They don't look "completely" changed. My bad. I'll have to go pick Synthesis again and review the slides. Oh wait. Should I meta-analyze it side by side with the other endings to see how "completely" changed everyone is? Excuse me.

[KaiserShep]

Whatever it is that happens during Synthesis, my real problem lies in the idea that any concept of being able to overcome prejudice, misunderstanding and the sort on one's own terms is basically shot dead.

 

"Isn't it even remotely possible that we could eventually come to an agreement or something?"

 

"Sorry bruh, gotta mutate errybody first lol"

 

Of course, the extreme hokum involved and the very stupid glowing green everything puts marks against it too.

[Steelcan]

I haven't gone into a long detailed defense of why I chose destroy in a long time.....

 

 

probably won't right now either

[MrFob]

@Darks1d3: It does remind one of Legion in ME2:

"The Old Machines offered to give us our future. A short cut to our objective. We rejected it. The Geth will build our own future. The process is as important as the result."

or Mordin:

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous."

[themikefest]

I know one thing. When I pick destroy, the reapers are destroyed. That's good enough for me.

[Iakus]

Wrong analogy. Synthesis is basically giving people a new perspective on things by changing their genetic structure and by sharing the Reaper knowledge. Imagine someone getting his arm replaced by a prosthesis. It would change his body and his perspective on certain subjects. It does not take away from his free will in any way.

One can argue that teaching takes away free will, there are people who practice homeschooling and claim it to be a better alternative to the education system. That argument against Synthesis is something for another discussion.

 

So teaching changes people at the genetic level?  

 

"Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that."

[Vazgen]

So teaching changes people at the genetic level?

"Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that."

I didn't say that. What I said is that basically Reapers don't transfer that information in others' minds. Synthesis changes everyone, including the Reapers, but it's a physical change. After that, the Reapers start to teach civilizations the knowledge of all previous cycles (again, I want to emphasize, it's not just transferred to everyone's minds). That process takes time but the benefits are so immense that everyone is too busy reaping them. The slides don't show immediate events, only what happens after some time is passed. We're shown utopia, I don't think everything is that bright, they are bound to be some disagreements, radical groups etc. but the majority is fine with the war being stopped and Reapers helping everyone.

[FOX216BC]

With all due respect Patrick Weekes i didn't grieve my Shepard i pity him(and the trilogy ending).

 

No matter what ending, whenever he dies or not, he died or survived in a  very, very LAME way.

When i first met Sovereign... i never thought i would have defeated it's kind by shooting a tube in order to die or survive.

I was like: is that it

When i choose to jump in a light beam in order to create a new type of dna... i thought to myself: this is to stupid to comprehend   .

In control i bbq myself in order to become what i wanted to destroy.

What the...

 

I wasn't grieving... i was disgusted how the greatest epic trilogy came to it's end.

 

Just being honest, not hateful.

[Reorte]

They're "completely" changed in Synthesis? They don't look "completely" changed. My bad. I'll have to go pick Synthesis again and review the slides. Oh wait. Should I meta-analyze it side by side with the other endings to see how "completely" changed everyone is? Excuse me.

Not good with people disagreeing with you are you? Either people haven't been changed, in which case Synthesis hasn't actually done anything towards what it was claiming to do, or they have been, in which case it's invasive.

No, what you should do is try thinking about the implications.

[Reorte]

We're shown utopia, I don't think everything is that bright, they are bound to be some disagreements, radical groups etc. but the majority is fine with the war being stopped and Reapers helping everyone.

And if that isn't as creepy as hell I don't know what is.

[Reorte]

Lack of knowledge and understanding isn't a big cause of conflict. An awful lot of conflicts are between the groups with the smallest differences. The know exactly what the other side's position is and despise it.

[Vazgen]

And if that isn't as creepy as hell I don't know what is.

I didn't say it isn't. For me genetic alteration to every being in the galaxy is creepy. I don't think that this alteration somehow affects free will, just that it gives new perspective on things. Imagine if every human on Earth became similar to the others, the plants etc. I think many of our differences would've been put aside. 

I don't choose Synthesis exactly because of that creepiness. 

[Reorte]

It doesn't directly affect free will but it does change the way people think. Giving people knowledge is one thing, giving them "perspective" sounds just like ramming a point of view into their brains and if that's not changing how people think then what is? It's not the removal of free will but it is changing how you think and I can't see how else Synthesis is supposed to achieve anything if it doesn't do that. The idea that if we all know the same stuff we won't have any serious disagreements is implausibly far-fetched.

[Vazgen]

It doesn't directly affect free will but it does change the way people think. Giving people knowledge is one thing, giving them "perspective" sounds just like ramming a point of view into their brains and if that's not changing how people think then what is? It's not the removal of free will but it is changing how you think and I can't see how else Synthesis is supposed to achieve anything if it doesn't do that. The idea that if we all know the same stuff we won't have any serious disagreements is implausibly far-fetched.

It may sound like that but it isn't that. See my analogy to prosthesis above. Getting it will change your perspective on certain subjects but will not affect your free will. Same is with Synthesis, physical change gives you a new perspective but you are free to act on it.

Your last sentence has nothing to do with my statement. What I said was "Imagine if every human on Earth became similar to the others, the plants etc. I think many of our differences would've been put aside". There is nothing about knowing the same stuff and there is nothing about us not having any serious disagreements.

[Reorte]

It may sound like that but it isn't that. See my analogy to prosthesis above. Getting it will change your perspective on certain subjects but will not affect your free will. Same is with Synthesis, physical change gives you a new perspective but you are free to act on it.

Which won't change anything much (and having a prosthesis forced on me would give me a pretty negative, angry perspective no matter how useful it is).

Your last sentence has nothing to do with my statement. What I said was "Imagine if every human on Earth became similar to the others, the plants etc. I think many of our differences would've been put aside". There is nothing about knowing the same stuff and there is nothing about us not having any serious disagreements.

If there are still serious disagreements then Synthesis hasn't achieved anything so it's relevant. If it's not about knowledge then what is it about? Something more disturbing? We're already similar to every other human.

[Obadiah]

Not good with people disagreeing with you are you?
...

You got a response. I thought it was quite good.
 

...
Either people haven't been changed, in which case Synthesis hasn't actually done anything towards what it was claiming to do, or they have been, in which case it's invasive.

No, what you should do is try thinking about the implications.

So, first, this is not an implication, this is obvious. It is explicitly stated by the Catalyst, then explicitly stated by Shepard, then explicitly stated by EDI - explicitly stated by me earlier in this thread. Yes, they are changed. You're welcome.

YOU should try thinking about an "implication".

"Invasive", a "violation", "genetic rape", I'm sure there are a host of other negative ways of characterizing granting people new abilities by imposing changes on a genetic level that could be made. I can't really take people seriously when that is the only implication they can make, "Oh no, they're changed. They think differently, therefore they're not the same people. You changed who they are!" Sure, if your definition of "who they are" involves people existing with a particular state with a particular set of perspectives.

The way I see it, given their new abilities and access to knowledge, people probably changed their own perspectives, a bit like the Catalyst did in the climax. Or they may not change their perspectives since the change is also similar to what Cerberus did to Shepard in ME2 (same person, upgraded). If you want to summarize that with "you changed who people are" then I'm fine with it.

Modifié par Obadiah, 13 novembre 2014 - 02:50 .

[Vazgen]

Which won't change anything much (and having a prosthesis forced on me would give me a pretty negative, angry perspective no matter how useful it is).

If there are still serious disagreements then Synthesis hasn't achieved anything so it's relevant. If it's not about knowledge then what is it about? Something more disturbing? We're already similar to every other human.

You will get a negative perspective. Others will get a positive one. You can't claim to equate your feelings to that of everyone. 

It also has to do with how invasive the procedure is. As we see in the ending it's not connected to a physical trauma.

 

Synthesis is not about an eternal peace. It's about stopping organic/synthetic conflict which seems to be the case. Organic/synthetic dichotomy no longer exists and thus, the conflict in question is no more.Disagreements between various groups of Synthesis-changed individuals are not a part of that conflict. 

 

From what we see in the ending, the Synthesis-changed individuals feel a connection between each other and the world. As a crude (and possibly wrong) analogy, imagine everyone becoming able to sense the world and others around him similarly to Neo in Matrix (without the ability to change it all). It did not take away his humanity or free will. It did change his outlook on certain subjects.