467 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

Overall, belief in Catalyst's solutions and assessment of the problem is not required. There is an option - Destroy, that destroys the Reapers and leaves the galaxy free from the Reaper influence. Control is a more tempered reaction, like "if the problem occurs, I'll be here". Synthesis is acceptance of the problem and going with the Catalyst's suggestion. Personally, I believe that the problem exists within the universe, but I also think that the organics will manage to deal with it without Reaper influence. That's why I choose Destroy.

One of my problems with the ending is that the options presented are solutions to Shepard's problem, not the Catalyst's.

Shepard's problem - ending the reaper threat / harvest
Catalyst's problem - preserving life at all costs, bringing order to chaos, making peace between synthetics and organics.

The Catalyst presents you with these new potential solutions as if they would solve the problem it was designed to solve - but they don't.

Destroy solves Shepard's problem, but dismantles everything the Catalyst has been building for eons. All those lives it was supposed to preserve - gone. And that synthetic-organic conflict will arise again...

Control only passes the responsibility for the current solution to Shepard. Assuming Shepalyst quits harvesting, Shepard's problem would be solved - but would still need to find a solution for the synthetic-organic conflict.

Synthesis might address both problems, but only in the short term. New un-synthesized species will arise.

When the Crucible docked and Shepard showed up, the variables were changed, making new solutions possible. Apparently, the problem definition also changed, because the newly available solutions do not solve the problem.

[Vazgen]

One of my problems with the ending is that the options presented are solutions to Shepard's problem, not the Catalyst's.

Shepard's problem - ending the reaper threat / harvest
Catalyst's problem - preserving life at all costs, bringing order to chaos, making peace between synthetics and organics.

The Catalyst presents you with these new potential solutions as if they would solve the problem it was designed to solve - but they don't.

Destroy solves Shepard's problem, but dismantles everything the Catalyst has been building for eons. All those lives it was supposed to preserve - gone. And that synthetic-organic conflict will arise again...

Control only passes the responsibility for the current solution to Shepard. Assuming Shepalyst quits harvesting, Shepard's problem would be solved - but would still need to find a solution for the synthetic-organic conflict.

Synthesis might address both problems, but only in the short term. New un-synthesized species will arise.

When the Crucible docked and Shepard showed up, the variables were changed, making new solutions possible. Apparently, the problem definition also changed, because the newly available solutions do not solve the problem.

Hmm, I don't think so.

Destroy doesn't solve the problem, yes, but it removes the immediate synthetic threat and gives organics a chance. "Clearly, organics are more resourceful than we realized" - the Catalyst acknowledges that the organic chaos is capable of feats it didn't predict. They managed to build and dock the Crucible. And if they fail to make peace, Crucible is always an option, just use it again and start anew

Control is kinda the same, except with the added benefits of Reapers still being present, helping to recover and able to intervene if necessary.

Synthesis is, according to the Catalyst, an ideal solution. There are no un-synthesized species, the wave even affects trees

[wright1978]

One of my problems with the ending is that the options presented are solutions to Shepard's problem, not the Catalyst's.

Shepard's problem - ending the reaper threat / harvest
Catalyst's problem - preserving life at all costs, bringing order to chaos, making peace between synthetics and organics.

The Catalyst presents you with these new potential solutions as if they would solve the problem it was designed to solve - but they don't.

Destroy solves Shepard's problem, but dismantles everything the Catalyst has been building for eons. All those lives it was supposed to preserve - gone. And that synthetic-organic conflict will arise again...

Control only passes the responsibility for the current solution to Shepard. Assuming Shepalyst quits harvesting, Shepard's problem would be solved - but would still need to find a solution for the synthetic-organic conflict.

Synthesis might address both problems, but only in the short term. New un-synthesized species will arise.

When the Crucible docked and Shepard showed up, the variables were changed, making new solutions possible. Apparently, the problem definition also changed, because the newly available solutions do not solve the problem.

Since destroy deliberately targets and kills synthetics it seems to be tailored to the brat's worldview. If it was solving Shep's problem it would just destroy the reapers.

[wright1978]

Still worth it, because there's no way to defeat billion year old synthetics otherwise. And even if there was, they'd drag a lot of people down with them.

 

This is your one shot. *cue Eminem*

 

There's no way to guarantee any choice you make will do anything other than be an anecdote at the Brat's next dinner party how he convinced the ape to kill himself/herself.

[SwobyJ]

I never, ever got the impression that we are to personally support what the Reapers are doing, even with Synthesis. Not in Shepard's role, at least.

But that's not the same as attempting to comprehend their perspective. It is simply put by the writers for the simple minded: they Harvest us. As crops. To feed them.

That's a terrible thing for us. So run with that and shoot the tube. Remember your ME2 disgust (whether curious about the Reapers or not), and go for it.

Just maybe do that with the understanding of the intentions and outcomes and technologies surrounding that. You can reject it utterly. You're given the Renegade option. You are NOT harshly judged for it. And when you are judged for being Renegade (in general), you're given the plus of having a Shepard who is more confident in himself and his capabilities.

You confidently shoot the tube. Go for it. Don't let distractions get in you way.

Or not! Get distracted. Learn more. Maybe even accept more. As long as you can take in the outcome (Reapers existing, Reaper Lord/Reaper People).

How much do you want to stop? The problem that created the Reapers? The Cycle system only? Or everything Reaper, including the Reapers' existence?

The Catalyst can be a lot of things. He can be the final boss fight. He can be the challenge of your roleplaying. He can be the final step of your Shepard's journey. Or a mix of all three. Ultimately, you're seemingly not allowing the Reapers to continue on with the Reaping Cycle. This is Shepard's only roleplaying path he always goes on - not Hackett, TIM, Harbinger, WHATEVER. Ultimately, you've either killed them, made them go away, or made them love you. In a sense. And depending on EMS gained from SP/MP/Previous Games.

Not saying I love the ending deal with all this, but this is still my interpretation.

 

 

And its my literal interpretation. Yes, I think it could all be a dream of sorts, yadda yadda. But I can look at it on its face, more or less, as well.

[Iakus]

Since destroy deliberately targets and kills synthetics it seems to be tailored to the brat's worldview. If it was solving Shep's problem it would just destroy the reapers.

Yup.  It means Shepard (and organics in general) have to do what the Reapers were doing:  wipe out the other side before they get too advanced.  But instead of synthetics wiping out organics before they can develop AIs, it's organics wiping out their own AIs before they get too advanced.

 

Organics have become Reapers themselves.

 

As Hespith's rhyme goes "Now she does feast, as she's become the beast"

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

And so perhaps the ending is Maruader Shields shooting Shepard. The End. Or let The Illusive Man kill Shepard. No! I'm in Control!

[JasonShepard]

However, note that some level of mystical crap -- I've decided to just go with this term from now on -- was embedded into ME from the start. "Essence of a species," etc.

 

Well, back in ME1, I don't think there's any mention of essences. At best, Vigil speculates that they harvest us for our technology. (See also: the original motivations for the Borg before they got retconned into "Assimilate Everyone".) But then he immediately points out that the Reapers motivations are largely irrelevant, since stopping them is far more important.

 

I suppose that the Beacon and the Cipher were somewhat mystical, as was Asari mind-melding, but I was willing to accept some handwavy telepathy hanging around.

 

***

 

 There is some belief that DNA can also be a medium of memory-storage/passage. This is not something BioWare writers came up with themselves.
 
http://www.bbc.com/n...health-25156510
http://www.wired.co..../25/gene-memory
 
Whether or not there is truth to that, it is how the Reapers function. Whatever memories existed onto DNA is now the Reapers' knowledge.

 

Fair enough.

 

That relates back to what I was saying about footprints in your DNA. Individual genes can be visibly activated - which does pass some level of 'experience' to offspring. (Indeed, that's the explanation offered in those articles.) However, that's like passing a note saying that "you want to avoid this smell", rather than passing on the memory of why you want to avoid the smell. The gene gets activated, and stays activate in your offspring, but it doesn't carry the experience itself. It's a footprint of your life experience, not the life experience itself.

 

The ME-U is not privy to what you believe. Genetic memory is canon in this fictional setting.
 
If you reject this, then you are also at odds with Javik, because that is how he is able to read and speak to primitives.

 

I suppose I should comment that Javik's abilities very nearly blew my Willing-Suspension-of-Disbelief out of the water That level of reading shouldn't work. In the end, I only got around it by some serious headcanon crafting. (I figure that the Inusannon did some extensive genetic engineering on the Protheans that the Protheans themselves are unaware of - which is ironic, since they put such stock in evolution. It also fits into a pattern with the Protheans then engineering the Asari.)

[JasonShepard]

Not sure? Here's a fairly old, but pretty memorable article that'll describe some of where I'm coming from. Read the comments too, which are just as illuminating (and not all are against AI btw. It's more complicated. And since you're a cyberpunk fan, you might be interested that Bruce Sterling is one of the commenters). If you think the argument is over, and have a total grasp of life, consciousness, and reality, then that's like embracing a religion. Which is OK, if you want to do that. I embrace religion myself. Just a different sort.

 

http://edge.org/conv...alf-a-manifesto

 

Oof, that article is a bit difficult to get my teeth into. It feels as if he's speaking a slightly different language to me. There's a good chance that I'm familiar with the ideas though, even if the exact terminology is new to me. I can mostly understand his discussion of Belief 3, which seems to be the most relevant to our current discussion. Which brings us onto the question of whether an AI can be considered alive.

(I did make a thread on this a while ago - which then got unceremoniously eaten by the BSN forums of the time.)

 

I guess TNG's Data is my measuring stick for this. If an AI ever reached his level, or EDI's level, (or Ava from the recent and excellent Ex_Machina movie) I would consider it to be alive. It appears to have an 'inner experience', so I assume that it has one.

 

How do I justify that? Well, it comes down to what I think consciousness is. Consciousness, subjective POV, 'inner experience', sentience, however you want to label it.

 

In my mind (heh) consciousness is what it feels like to be a self-aware information processor. Something capable of thinking about itself, and potentially choosing to change itself based on those thoughts. It's not an accidental byproduct of genetics and the brain - it's a vital component, since otherwise we, as human beings, wouldn't be able to learn. We wouldn't be... us. (I'm using that phrase too much lately...)

 

So if an AI demonstrates that sort of self-awareness, then I'm willing to think of it as a sentient being. Which, for the record, is a test that the Geth pass with flying colours (in-universe, of course). As do the Reapers.

 

And by now you've probably had enough of me going on and on about my own viewpoint of a materialistic universe

[Coyotebay]

EDI is based on Reaper hardware, Sovereign, to be more precise. Remove all Reaper-influenced synthetic vs organic relations from the games and all that's left is conflict. 

 

Overall, belief in Catalyst's solutions and assessment of the problem is not required. There is an option - Destroy, that destroys the Reapers and leaves the galaxy free from the Reaper influence. Control is a more tempered reaction, like "if the problem occurs, I'll be here". Synthesis is acceptance of the problem and going with the Catalyst's suggestion. Personally, I believe that the problem exists within the universe, but I also think that the organics will manage to deal with it without Reaper influence. That's why I choose Destroy.

 

It all comes down to whether you believe there is a problem and if you believe that all that is left is conflict without the Reaper influence.  The so-called inevitable conflict is based on what some ancient race decided billions of years ago.  It's a theme similar to what we have today when people say that the Bible says this or the Koran says that, so it must be true.  Pointing to individual examples as "proof" (look, the Geth are at war with the Quarians!) is just cherry-picking events to suit your narative.  The big negative with the Destroy option is that in destroying the Reapers you destroy the entire history of the galaxy that they have archived away.  And that is a colossal loss.  Control is the most pragmatic option, but also highly risky because you have no idea what this new overlord might decide to do down the road.  Synthesis is just space magic, but even if you suspend disbelief it is actually quite disturbing, basically saying that we will eliminate all future conflict by making everyone the same.  Very Orwellian.  Reminds me of some of those old Twilight Zone episodes set in a dystopian future.

[Pasquale1234]

Let's look at the mandate from the Leviathan:

Leviathan: ... we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost. As the intelligence evolved, it studied the development of civilizations. Its understanding grew until it found a solution. In that instant, it betrayed us.

The intelligence has one purpose: preservation of life. That purpose has not been fulfilled. It directed the Reapers to create the mass relays - to speed the time between cycles for greatest efficiency. The galaxy itself became an experiment. Evolution its tool.

Shep: Will it ever end?

Leviathan: Unknown. Until the intelligence finds what it is looking for, the harvest will continue.

============================

And compare that with how the Catalyst explains its job description:

Catalyst: I control the Reapers. They are my solution.

Shep: Solution? To what?

Catalyst: Chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order.

...A construct. An intelligence designed eons ago to solve a problem. I was created to bring balance; to be the catalyst for peace between organics and synthetics.

When they asked that I solve the problem of conflict, they failed to understand they were part of the problem themselves. The flaws of their organic reasoning could not perceive this. They lacked the foresight to understand their destruction was part of the very solution they required.

... they created me to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life. To establish a connection.

Reapers harvest all life: organic and synthetic, preserving them before they are forever lost to this conflict.

... new life, both organic and synthetic, can once again flourish.

============================

Whether there was more to the Leviathan's mandate than "preserve life at all costs" or the Catalyst refined and re-interpreted it is unknown.
 

Hmm, I don't think so.
Destroy doesn't solve the problem, yes, but it removes the immediate synthetic threat and gives organics a chance. "Clearly, organics are more resourceful than we realized" - the Catalyst acknowledges that the organic chaos is capable of feats it didn't predict. They managed to build and dock the Crucible. And if they fail to make peace, Crucible is always an option, just use it again and start anew
Control is kinda the same, except with the added benefits of Reapers still being present, helping to recover and able to intervene if necessary.
Synthesis is, according to the Catalyst, an ideal solution. There are no un-synthesized species, the wave even affects trees

A couple of things:
1) You're distilling the Leviathan's mandate and the Catalyst's description of its role down to simply this: Make sure synthetics don't wipe out organics. That might actually be what the Leviathan needed / wanted, but it does not fulfill the mandate or the Catalyst's stated interpretation of its job. It does not ensure the preservation of synthetic life, and tosses away all those previous harvests like so many expendable Cerberus lab rats. It only ends conflict by annihilating one side of that conflict.

2) The synthesis wave affects all species currently in existence. Others may evolve or be created that would not be synthesized.
 

Since destroy deliberately targets and kills synthetics it seems to be tailored to the brat's worldview. If it was solving Shep's problem it would just destroy the reapers.

I thought that was a technological shortcoming - because the Crucible had taken some damage or it just wasn't able to target Reapers without including other synthetics.

The Catalyst seemed to me to be equally sympathetic to both forms of life.

[AlanC9]

Well, back in ME1, I don't think there's any mention of essences. At best, Vigil speculates that they harvest us for our technology. (See also: the original motivations for the Borg before they got retconned into "Assimilate Everyone".) But then he immediately points out that the Reapers motivations are largely irrelevant, since stopping them is far more important.

I suppose that the Beacon and the Cipher were somewhat mystical, as was Asari mind-melding, but I was willing to accept some handwavy telepathy hanging around.

Yeah, that was how I felt. You could say that ME3 foregrounds stuff that was in the background before.

I suppose I should comment that Javik's abilities very nearly blew my Willing-Suspension-of-Disbelief out of the water That level of reading shouldn't work.

I got around this by never buying him.

[Vazgen]

It all comes down to whether you believe there is a problem and if you believe that all that is left is conflict without the Reaper influence.  The so-called inevitable conflict is based on what some ancient race decided billions of years ago.  It's a theme similar to what we have today when people say that the Bible says this or the Koran says that, so it must be true.  Pointing to individual examples as "proof" (look, the Geth are at war with the Quarians!) is just cherry-picking events to suit your narative.  The big negative with the Destroy option is that in destroying the Reapers you destroy the entire history of the galaxy that they have archived away.  And that is a colossal loss.  Control is the most pragmatic option, but also highly risky because you have no idea what this new overlord might decide to do down the road.  Synthesis is just space magic, but even if you suspend disbelief it is actually quite disturbing, basically saying that we will eliminate all future conflict by making everyone the same.  Very Orwellian.  Reminds me of some of those old Twilight Zone episodes set in a dystopian future.

The inevitability of the conflict is mentioned twice in the series (Presidium AI and the Catalyst) by independent sources. The games provide multiple examples of the conflict without the Reaper influence and provide no examples of cooperation (again, without Reaper influence). The player's perception of the story can be different, but in-game sources do support the Catalyst's statements. 

But like I said, player's belief in the problem is not required at all. Each choice has a cost, but nobody ever said that there won't be a price to pay for the victory. Will you take risks for the advancement of the galaxy? Or take a safer, but more costly route? Will you create an utopia instead? These are the questions a non-believer in the problem asks. Each option has positive and negative sides, it's up to the player to pick one.

And tbh, Reaper knowledge becomes a potential reward only in the final conversation with the Catalyst. Shepard never had any problems with destroying them and Control or Synthesis, while foreshadowed, were not possible until the Crucible docked.

[Vazgen]

A couple of things:
1) You're distilling the Leviathan's mandate and the Catalyst's description of its role down to simply this: Make sure synthetics don't wipe out organics. That might actually be what the Leviathan needed / wanted, but it does not fulfill the mandate or the Catalyst's stated interpretation of its job. It does not ensure the preservation of synthetic life, and tosses away all those previous harvests like so many expendable Cerberus lab rats. It only ends conflict by annihilating one side of that conflict.

2) The synthesis wave affects all species currently in existence. Others may evolve or be created that would not be synthesized.

1) It is a solution though, isn't it? Solution to the chaos it mentions. Like the Reapers. 

 

2) I have no idea what it affects. But seeing as how it affected the trees and synthetics, I doubt there will be any non-synthesized evolution there. Creation is possible, but there will be no need for that. Why create something inferior? Organics are now on par with synthetics in terms of capabilities, synthetics gain the understanding. All work together and transcend mortality itself...

[ImaginaryMatter]

The inevitability of the conflict is mentioned twice in the series (Presidium AI and the Catalyst) by independent sources. The games provide multiple examples of the conflict without the Reaper influence and provide no examples of cooperation (again, without Reaper influence). The player's perception of the story can be different, but in-game sources do support the Catalyst's statements. 

But like I said, player's belief in the problem is not required at all. Each choice has a cost, but nobody ever said that there won't be a price to pay for the victory. Will you take risks for the advancement of the galaxy? Or take a safer, but more costly route? Will you create an utopia instead? These are the questions a non-believer in the problem asks. Each option has positive and negative sides, it's up to the player to pick one.

And tbh, Reaper knowledge becomes a potential reward only in the final conversation with the Catalyst. Shepard never had any problems with destroying them and Control or Synthesis, while foreshadowed, were not possible until the Crucible docked.

 

The problem isn't a logical one though, it's a thematic and narrative one. The story has lot's of examples of conflict but that's par the course for the galaxy so it doesn't really rise from the static of constant conflict (I'm also unsure about this no example of cooperation without Reaper influence, because the degrees which the Reaper are 'influencing' cooperation is extremely speculative; like couldn't we say that everyone is cooperating because of Reaper influence due to the Mass Relays?). If the writer's write that the Catalyst is right, there might not be anything to say it's logically wrong but it still doesn't make it feel right. An example, because I am making up words here, in Star Wars Episode II we are told Anakin and Obi-wan are great friends, but the interaction between the characters never really reflects that, it's something we're told logically but never comes through in any other part of the story. I think that's what we have in ME3, we may be told in exposition, text files, and the occasional side quest that this is indeed an issue, but the interaction between characters, game mechanics, etc. never really reflects this and those things weigh so much more when we're trying to dig through the goop and find meaning.

My problem isn't that the Catalyst is wrong, just that the story didn't set up this conflict enough (it actually seems to pull in the opposite direction with Rannoch and EDI). When I get to the decision chamber there just isn't any tension in making a choice, because I feel like I'm dealing with a conflict that was never any more significant than the others, much less the Reaper one. It's like that runaway trolley, it might make for an interesting discussion but it doesn't make for a compelling narrative.

[God]

Doesn't really put it into a different light. It's still killing even if they re-purpose the grey sludge.

 

Then you're not trying to see it from another point of view. 

 

Don't let your moral outrage dictate the rationality of an act.

[God]

Yup.  It means Shepard (and organics in general) have to do what the Reapers were doing:  wipe out the other side before they get too advanced.  But instead of synthetics wiping out organics before they can develop AIs, it's organics wiping out their own AIs before they get too advanced.

 

Organics have become Reapers themselves.

 

As Hespith's rhyme goes "Now she does feast, as she's become the beast"

 

Until you synthesize, someone's got to do it. 

 

If you won't, someone else will. If not you, then the Synthetics. The Reapers.

 

It's not beastly, it's nature. It's a simple fact of life. It's not evil, it's not terrible, it's not bad. It's simply cleaning house.

 

Your worldview isn't rational or sustainable for this problem. It fails. Get a better one that actually addresses the issue instead of insisting that you're morally and ethically on the high ground.

[God]

Since destroy deliberately targets and kills synthetics it seems to be tailored to the brat's worldview. If it was solving Shep's problem it would just destroy the reapers.

 

The 'brat's' worldview is more valid and relevant (and rational) than your Shepard's worldview.

 

Your Shepard's problem is frankly unsustainable. He isn't going to solve it without synthesis; either now, or in the future. 

 

There can be no peace between organic and synthetic. Period. Your view is wrong.

[wright1978]

Then you're not trying to see it from another point of view. 
 
Don't let your moral outrage dictate the rationality of an act.

I'm not morally outraged, just practically rational. Chopping up a human being and re-using their parts isn't preserving them and neither is blending them into goop to make reaper soup.

[wright1978]

The 'brat's' worldview is more valid and relevant (and rational) than your Shepard's worldview.
 
Your Shepard's problem is frankly unsustainable. He isn't going to solve it without synthesis; either now, or in the future. 
 
There can be no peace between organic and synthetic. Period. Your view is wrong.

My world view's fine, certainly better than a deranged meddling brat. I don't accept your argument, the future is unwritten nothing is inevitable. Conflict will always exist and is good, whether that be between organics and organics or vs synthetics, or even in your loony genetically raped future between greeny one and greeny two.

[Vazgen]

The problem isn't a logical one though, it's a thematic and narrative one. The story has lot's of examples of conflict but that's par the course for the galaxy so it doesn't really rise from the static of constant conflict (I'm also unsure about this no example of cooperation without Reaper influence, because the degrees which the Reaper are 'influencing' cooperation is extremely speculative; like couldn't we say that everyone is cooperating because of Reaper influence due to the Mass Relays?). If the writer's write that the Catalyst is right, there might not be anything to say it's logically wrong but it still doesn't make it feel right. An example, because I am making up words here, in Star Wars Episode II we are told Anakin and Obi-wan are great friends, but the interaction between the characters never really reflects that, it's something we're told logically but never comes through in any other part of the story. I think that's what we have in ME3, we may be told in exposition, text files, and the occasional side quest that this is indeed an issue, but the interaction between characters, game mechanics, etc. never really reflects this and those things weigh so much more when we're trying to dig through the goop and find meaning.

My problem isn't that the Catalyst is wrong, just that the story didn't set up this conflict enough (it actually seems to pull in the opposite direction with Rannoch and EDI). When I get to the decision chamber there just isn't any tension in making a choice, because I feel like I'm dealing with a conflict that was never any more significant than the others, much less the Reaper one. It's like that runaway trolley, it might make for an interesting discussion but it doesn't make for a compelling narrative.

I'd compare it to Darth Vader revealing Luke that he's his father You are correct in that the conflict doesn't get enough screen time and that character interactions do not reflect it (except, probably, Javik). That is probably the reason for the conflict not to feel central to the trilogy and I'm not arguing against it. After all, feelings are completely subjective. I'm arguing against the notion that the conflict doesn't exist at all. 

As for Reaper influence, mass relay technology does not have anything to do with interspecies cooperation. Batarians and Rachni prove that there are still conflicts, even with mass relay technology. I was talking about direct implementation of Reaper technology (coming from the Reapers themselves) - hardware and code. These only became possible after the Reapers revealed themselves. The cycle had already failed

 

I wonder, if someone was to play through the trilogy as a completionist with all the DLCs and books/comics, would he notice more examples of the conflict, now when he knows its importance? Planet descriptions, codex entries, different dialogue lines... I'll be doing my final trilogy playthrough close to ME:Next release and will keep an eye out for more information.

[God]

I'm not morally outraged, just practically rational. Chopping up a human being and re-using their parts isn't preserving them and neither is blending them into goop to make reaper soup.

 

It is preserving them. Because it doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean that its incorrect. Said goop is still the preserved genetic material of a human. 

 

It's still a human, though no longer living and not in a human biological avatar.