2612 réponses à ce sujet

[gothpunkboy89]

So you can't possibly make an informed decision then, can you? This is precisely why not to do Synthesis.

 

 

 

I wouldn't even call Cancer "rewrite". Among other things it's the "Stop" command on the replication breaking.

 

Problem is I'm not using informed decision to make the choice.  That was the counter argument against it. I'm making the choice because it is the next step in evolution. "Organic's seek perfection though technology" Was a line from the AI. Even if this is just a line a writer created last minute there is still a disturbing amount of truth to it. Go back in time to 1700's or even 1800's. Any group less advanced then the European groups were considered savages. Why were they savages? Because they didn't have the society and tech levels they had. Still living in huts using out dated bows/basic wooden spears vs the mighty fire arm and plate, chain armor.

 

Fast forward to today. Everyone is obsessed with the newest and latest thing. People flock to apple with each new phone version they release every 6 months. Demanding the newest and the best even if the improvements are minimal. No longer to people travel to locations to play games and no longer are they stuck at home to play games. Now their small portable phone has games to be played when ever.  Do I even need to get into google glasses? Or how about the attempts to create self driving cars? 3D and VR development? Every advancement we make pushes us slowly and closer to the boarder of fully integrating tech into our own bodies.  ME game universe shows the advancements we would take given the time frame.  High tech computers that sits on your wrist and is completely invisible till you need to activate it.  Even TIM's little project with David as bad as it was. You still have to admire what was actually done. Even if you find how it was done less then satisfactory.

 

The stop command is part of DNA. It is also why cancer is most commonly associated with radiation which has a known effect of causing damage to DNA. DNA replicates it's self with each new cell. During that replication the DNA can be corrupted created a new DNA strand that lacks the stop feature. Without that stop feature it is a new form of DNA.

[Reorte]

If I take a program and I alter how it works even if I kept it fundamentally the same so it looked and behaved differently even though it is still the same program code. It would be considered rewriting the program.

It would be a different (even though similar) program.

My dear sweet naive person

You expect to be taken seriously with comments like that?
 

if people were really capable of change. Truly capable of realizing X or Y action is bad. After what 9,000 most likely even more years of civilization and society. Do you really think society would be in the state it is today? People killing others in mass because the form of deity worship they follow is different then their own. Going into church to murder people just because they don't like the color of their skin.  How about just because they played their music to loud out side a  7/11 or how about stabbing your boyfriend because he farted on you.

I have no delusions about the human race whatsoever. I have a very, very dim view of them in fact, can't stand the shallowness and greed that seems to make up most of it, and that's before you even get to the really bad stuff you mention. But that does not make forcing such a change on absolutely everyone in any way acceptable. Might as well say it's fine to kill them all.
 

This isn't even getting into the studies that show the human brain is actually pretty stupid. It plays a lot of fill in the blanks. As well as not always seeing a lot. There is a rather funny...I want to say physiological test though maybe something else out there. Anyways the test is they walk up to a random person and ask for directions. Another group of people walk between them with with a large door or plywood sheet. They then switch out the person asking for directions with someone else. Dressed in the exact same cloths. Only about 40% of people noticed the switch out. The rest didn't notice it till after it was pointed out.

So what?
 

Oh so you are fine with people cutting themselves? Creating addictions to not just drugs but other things. Which cause issues for any family members/loved ones? I mean I always thought bulimia and anorexia were pretty stupid. Something that only a true idiot would do and I really have no sympathy for them. I can still recognize the negative effect their personal choices have on other people. Even if their choices don't directly effect those people because it is only their body. So making the naive claim what someone does to themselves is fine because it doesn't effect others is just that naive.

What a horrible lack of understanding of people.

And yes, I'd let those people do what they want (and have the consequences of it) - and provide help for getting them away from that, only stopping them when they directly affect people (e.g. stealing to get money). The emotional blackmail "it affects friends / family" argument doesn't hold any water for me.

I do find it hilarious when a Synthesis supporter calls someone else naive.

edit - what on earth is going on with the quoting here? It seems to mess up every time I try.

[Reorte]

Problem is I'm not using informed decision to make the choice.  That was the counter argument against it.

You're right that the problem is that you're not using informed choice.

I'm making the choice because it is the next step in evolution.

What "next step"? Evolution isn't some predetermined path that has to happen for some grand cosmic scheme.

[Daemonesque]

I'd say it depends on the Shepard. The entire point of going full Paragon is that you're, well, a paragon! You're a frickin' saint! Control is iffy and risky, absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that jazz, but if I was to trust that kind of power to anyone, it would have to be this paragon, this heroic, self-less, galactic-bloody-Jesus who I could trust, at least when the choice is given and has to be made, to make everything right now and in the future. That's someone I could trust, albeit reluctantly, to make the most of controlling the Reapers...even if machine-lord Shepard comes across as potentially worrying, you've got to have a little faith.

 

...of course that Shepard only got that far because they were a boring dweeb who's way into hugging everybody. Cool Shepards have the decency to blow up the tubes and be done with it. Sucks about EDI, she's cool and Joker's going to hate me forever, but the geth? We can rebuild them if we're so eager to see them back. The first ones seemed like a pretty understanding, intelligent and self-less bunch in the end, they'll understand. Right?

 

(The less said about the other two "options", the better.)

[gothpunkboy89]

It would be a different (even though similar) program.
You expect to be taken seriously with comments like that?
 
I have no delusions about the human race whatsoever. I have a very, very dim view of them in fact, can't stand the shallowness and greed that seems to make up most of it, and that's before you even get to the really bad stuff you mention. But that does not make forcing such a change on absolutely everyone in any way acceptable. Might as well say it's fine to kill them all.
 
So what?
 

What a horrible lack of understanding of people.

And yes, I'd let those people do what they want (and have the consequences of it) - and provide help for getting them away from that, only stopping them when they directly affect people (e.g. stealing to get money). The emotional blackmail "it affects friends / family" argument doesn't hold any water for me.

I do find it hilarious when a Synthesis supporter calls someone else naive.

edit - what on earth is going on with the quoting here? It seems to mess up every time I try.

 

And DNA is the same unless it is the exact same copy each DNA from parent to child is different in build even if it retains the same basic set up. DNA is rewritten each time a child is born.

 

I calls it as I sees it. You are not under any obligation to like it and I'm not under any obligation to care. But to quote Dr. House people don't change. If we were capable of that change we would be living in as close to a utopia as realistically possible. Or lets put this another way. In the USA the US Congress has roughly 20% approval rating. Yet has nearly 90% reelection rate.  I would rather say the little study bit was rather important because people are always willing nay more then willing to boast proudly about how amazing and complext the brain is. Yet in function the human brain plays a lot of fill in the gaps moments.

 

In many ways it is like a Rubgoldberg machine. Big and complex and amazing to see how it all works together. But ultimately all it can do is strike a match at the end.

 

Your statement
 

If you want to rewrite yourself then go ahead, I'm fine for people to decide what they want to do with their own bodies. But when you try to force that on me..

 

My post was just to highlight the.....out of placeness of that statement. Basically that your singular statement is a double edge sword cutting you as much as you think it is cutting me. I point out the fact that even if someone does something that only effects their own bodies it can still effect other people indirectly. I then used well known examples that can cause issues for other people besides the person causing the issues with their own bodies.

 

If the boot fits. The human brain is basically a potato clock.  Every advancement of last century has been to improve our life though integrating it with technology. Humans have shown an inability to learn from past mistakes. Even when the effects are well known to be bad already they still make the same mistakes over and over again. Over thousands of years of development we still haven't advanced that far out from cave men in many ways.

 

Yet a chance to correct these issues that have plagued us since forever is considered bad. Because maybe one day possibly in the future it might change. Even though there has been no sighs of change in a couple hundred thousand years.

 

The questions you have are answered. Looking forward shows the path. Evolution has a purpose it aims towards. Humans and even the other races in the game aim towards integrating with technology on every level. Given enough time it would happen on it's own. How ever it also runs the risk of creating the problems the AI brings up. Chaos with synthetic creations. Synthesis bypasses the issue point and skips right ahead to the part that is past the trouble.

[Natureguy85]

Problem is I'm not using informed decision to make the choice.  That was the counter argument against it. I'm making the choice because it is the next step in evolution. "Organic's seek perfection though technology" Was a line from the AI. Even if this is just a line a writer created last minute there is still a disturbing amount of truth to it. Go back in time to 1700's or even 1800's. Any group less advanced then the European groups were considered savages. Why were they savages? Because they didn't have the society and tech levels they had. Still living in huts using out dated bows/basic wooden spears vs the mighty fire arm and plate, chain armor.

 

Fast forward to today. Everyone is obsessed with the newest and latest thing. People flock to apple with each new phone version they release every 6 months. Demanding the newest and the best even if the improvements are minimal. No longer to people travel to locations to play games and no longer are they stuck at home to play games. Now their small portable phone has games to be played when ever.  Do I even need to get into google glasses? Or how about the attempts to create self driving cars? 3D and VR development? Every advancement we make pushes us slowly and closer to the boarder of fully integrating tech into our own bodies.  ME game universe shows the advancements we would take given the time frame.  High tech computers that sits on your wrist and is completely invisible till you need to activate it.  Even TIM's little project with David as bad as it was. You still have to admire what was actually done. Even if you find how it was done less then satisfactory.

 

The stop command is part of DNA. It is also why cancer is most commonly associated with radiation which has a known effect of causing damage to DNA. DNA replicates it's self with each new cell. During that replication the DNA can be corrupted created a new DNA strand that lacks the stop feature. Without that stop feature it is a new form of DNA.

 

You're right about people trying to advance themselves with technology but that has nothing to do with trusting the Catalyst that the options will do what it says they will do.

 

I know how DNA works. If the stop command is broken, it's not a new form of DNA. It's a broken DNA strand, or at least a broken copying mechanism.

[Dani86]

What "next step"? Evolution isn't some predetermined path that has to happen for some grand cosmic scheme.

 

I think this is a common misunderstanding with evolution. There is no grand scheme. There are no 'supposed to be's'. There is nothing that we as creatures are moving towards. It is just a random reaction over time to environmental changes. In fact, evolution doesn't even always 'favor' the strong. Sometimes it 'favors' the weak and the small. It helps explain why cockroaches have been around forever while we humans have only been around for about a minute in evolutionary terms. 

[Sezarious]

But Destroy is also an option presented by them, so if this were the case, none of the choices presented can be trusted. In which case I will choose the answer that pleases me. And look at that; was right again!

No! You're missing the point. Destroy was ALWAYS the option. The other options presented were no more than a desperate attempt by the reapers to present an alternative right when you were about to put your finger on the button which represented the choice you were going to make all along.

The ultimate endboss. One which can not only beat the PLAYER instead of the character, but make the player an active agent for their cause, a player whose passionate emotions make them fight in the real world for the reaper cause.

Because the idea that you failed the galaxy would be unbearable, that in YOUR version of the game, the cycle will continue with the genocide of billions. That is why you fight so hard against it. But it is not too late. You can fight it.

Well, Casey Hudson certainly was quite the artist then. When the answer comes with Mass Effect 4, there's going to be blood.

[Natureguy85]

No! You're missing the point. Destroy was ALWAYS the option. The other options presented were no more than a desperate attempt by the reapers to present an alternative right when you were about to put your finger on the button which represented the choice you were going to make all along.

The ultimate endboss. One which can not only beat the PLAYER instead of the character, but make the player an active agent for their cause, a player whose passionate emotions make them fight in the real world for the reaper cause.

Because the idea that you failed the galaxy would be unbearable, that in YOUR version of the game, the cycle will continue with the genocide of billions. That is why you fight so hard against it. But it is not too late. You can fight it.

Well, Casey Hudson certainly was quite the artist then. When the answer comes with Mass Effect 4, there's going to be blood.

 

You're right about Destroy but Elhanan's point there is that you have no reason to believe that shooting the Tube will destroy the Reapers. Maybe it triggers Synthesis for all Shepard knows. This idea is also correct. Unfortunately, we have to choose something.

[Reorte]

Evolution has a purpose it aims towards.

No it doesn't.

Humans and even the other races in the game aim towards integrating with technology on every level.

Can't say that there's much sign of that (other than examples like Saren getting filled with Reaper bits, which I doubt is the sort of example you want). That they've got more tech and use it to do things we can't, like FTL space travel, isn't a sign of more integration. What do we see people in Mass Effect doing with their time when not being pestered by Reapers and so on? Pretty much the same sort of things that people do now, in similar ways.

[Reorte]

You're right about Destroy but Elhanan's point there is that you have no reason to believe that shooting the Tube will destroy the Reapers. Maybe it triggers Synthesis for all Shepard knows. This idea is also correct. Unfortunately, we have to choose something.

It could be lying, it might not be. With no way of knowing and no indication at all about what does what beyond the Catalyst's words then you either take it at face value or pick a choice at random, and picking one at random isn't any more likely, so... It's not as if it tells you which does what anyway (the images I interpret as the game showing you rather than anything beamed into Shepard's head).

[Elhanan]

It could be lying, it might not be. With no way of knowing and no indication at all about what does what beyond the Catalyst's words then you either take it at face value or pick a choice at random, and picking one at random isn't any more likely, so... It's not as if it tells you which does what anyway (the images I interpret as the game showing you rather than anything beamed into Shepard's head).

Hence I select the possible answer that solves the most problems, and that appears to be Synthesis.

[Iakus]

Hence I select the possible answer that solves the most problems, and that appears to be Synthesis.

That pesky free will thing is always a problem.

[Elhanan]

That pesky free will thing is always a problem.

As far as I am aware, it is my own choice; one that apparently leads to peace, harmony, and progress. Can live with that.

[Monica21]

As far as I am aware, it is my own choice; one that apparently leads to peace, harmony, and progress. Can live with that.

 

It can be Shepard's choice for Shepard, but deciding that for an entire galaxy of civilizations is problematic.

[Iakus]

It can be Shepard's choice for Shepard, but deciding that for an entire galaxy of civilizations is problematic.

This human understands

[themikefest]

As far as I am aware, it is my own choice; one that apparently leads to peace, harmony, and progress. Can live with that.

Would  people who watch their friends and family members killed while their communities are destroyed make that choice?

 

Destroy FTW

[Elhanan]

Would  people who watch their friends and family members killed while their communities are destroyed make that choice?
 
Destroy FTW

My Shepard did, so guess so....

Synthesis FTW

[Monica21]

My Shepard did, so guess so....

Synthesis FTW

 

And how do you justify making that decision for a galaxy? How do you justify "Shepard Knows Best"?

[Reorte]

And how do you justify making that decision for a galaxy? How do you justify "Shepard Knows Best"?

Although I'm utterly against synthesis the "how do you justify being the one to make a decision?" argument is one I can't really get behind, particularly when you're the one on the spot. I'll happily condemn any Shepard that makes a horrible decision, but not for making a decision, just which one.

[Monica21]

Although I'm utterly against synthesis the "how do you justify being the one to make a decision?" argument is one I can't really get behind, particularly when you're the one on the spot. I'll happily condemn any Shepard that makes a horrible decision, but not for making a decision, just which one.

 

The reason I ask this question is because Synthesis and Control are the two options where Shepard isn't just deciding that the Reapers won't be around anymore. Yes, you're on the spot and you're the decision-maker because circumstance put you there, but Destroy is the only option you have that allows the rest of life in the galaxy to evolve and change in whatever way they choose. Both Control and Syntheses are forced utopias. Synthesis is the worst of the two because you're deciding for all of galactic life that you're going to rewrite their DNA without their knowledge or consent.

 

So, while I agree that you're the one forced to make the choice, you can choose to let everyone continue on without the bad guys being present, or you can actively choose to invade and change everyone's lives. And there is no good justification for actively choosing to make that change without their consent. Yes, I'm being democratic about it all.

[Iakus]

The reason I ask this question is because Synthesis and Control are the two options where Shepard isn't just deciding that the Reapers won't be around anymore. Yes, you're on the spot and you're the decision-maker because circumstance put you there, but Destroy is the only option you have that allows the rest of life in the galaxy to evolve and change in whatever way they choose. Both Control and Syntheses are forced utopias. Synthesis is the worst of the two because you're deciding for all of galactic life that you're going to rewrite their DNA without their knowledge or consent.

 

Not all life though.

 

Only organic life.

[Monica21]

Not all life though.

 

Only organic life.

 

[Elhanan]

And how do you justify making that decision for a galaxy? How do you justify "Shepard Knows Best"?

For which of the decisions do you mean, as all of them are available? Doesn't matter, for with Synthesis, everything knows the answer, FTW.

[Monica21]

For which of the decisions do you mean, as all of them are available? Doesn't matter, for with Synthesis, everything knows the answer, FTW.

I don't want a space marine making the decision to rewrite my DNA for me. So that answer I definitely know.