2407 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

But because Google can anticipate you asking questions about the soul does not indicate that Google will itself wonder if it has a soul.

And my argument is simply that Google's algorithm simply isn't advanced enough to wonder if it has a soul. The Geth are more advanced than Google, but that doesn't mean the Geth are so advanced that they are alive. If I keep wondering if I have a soul in front of a parrot, eventually the parrot will repeat the phrase back to me. That doesn't mean a parrot has a soul.
 

What a soul is and whether a given species (even humans) is irrelevant.  What is relevant is if something has the sapience to ponder the question. "I think, therefore I am"

It actually is relevant, and the Geth do not and have never said, I think therefore I am.
 

Leave the question of who actually has a soul to priests and philosophers.  But I think a being capable of pondering the state of its own existence is as alive as I am

Why would that be solely the purview of priests and philosophers? I'm human, and I can wonder if I have a soul. I fail to see why a priest or philosopher is better off answering that question than I am. "Does this unit have a soul?" is not a question of existence. It already knows it exists, otherwise it wouldn't refer to itself as "this unit."
 
 

The answer is irrelevant.  The question is.  And that is what scared the cr*p out of the quarians

I honestly can't begin to imagine what the question is supposed to mean. We don't know what the Quarians thought of the soul. The Geth didn't come up with the concept of a soul on their own. If they had, they wouldn't have asked. As I stated, the human concept of a soul is bound up in faith and religion and an afterlife. What does the Quarian religion teach about the afterlife, if anything, and why would a Geth unit translate that to itself?

The question is not there for the Geth. The question is there for the player, and that's why it's meaningless to me.

[MrFob]

And my argument is simply that Google's algorithm simply isn't advanced enough to wonder if it has a soul. The Geth are more advanced than Google, but that doesn't mean the Geth are so advanced that they are alive. If I keep wondering if I have a soul in front of a parrot, eventually the parrot will repeat the phrase back to me. That doesn't mean a parrot has a soul.

 

But we are just running on algorithms ourselves. Very complicated ones to be sure but actually not that much more complicated than a parrot's (and there are a lot of humans out there that ascribe souls to animals and are therefore advocating for very strong animal rights).

 

Our actions and thoughts are ultimately shaped by physical processes in our brains. Processes that we can very easily control or manipulate with drugs, electrical or magnetic stimulation or conditioning techniques.

 

It is actually not unimaginable that we can simulate the processes that our brains use to learn and shape input-output functions in a virtual environment. We currently lack some understanding of the underlying processes (which Neuroscientists all over the world are working on) and the adequate hardware to do this in a timely fashion (our current computers can barely emulate older computers, a neural network of the complexity of the human brain is whole different animal) but theoretically, there is nothing to prevent it.

 

Therefore, I find your rather arbitrary definition of what can or cannot have a soul (a completely undefined term btw) or what can be counted as "alive" a bit narrow minded.

 

 

 

EDIT: Ok, going through the last page of posts again, I think I might have misinterpreted where your problem lies actually and I apologize if that is the case. It seems you are not really saying that the geth are not alive but you are mainly concerned with the fact that the quarians panicked when a geth asked the soul question, is that correct? Ah well, In that regard, I can see where you are coming from but I don't think it's a roblem at all.

 

You see, it's Legion/the geth who thought this incident that they play back to Shepard was important, not necessarily the quarians. Now, to the geth, this may have been very important and they would know, they can judge that when that unit asked that question, it was not just a parrot repeating but there was actually more to it. The geth are in fact the only ones who can accurately evaluate this situation and to them it was important.

For the quarians to start shooting, I bet more was required than this simple question by one serving unit to some random quarian. Read: this one incident probably did not start the morning war on it's own (and Legion never says so either) but to the geth themselves, it was important because it was the first time one of their own asked this question with a deeper meaning behind it and the quarian reacted with fear.

So that scene makes perfect sense to me.

Modifié par MrFob, 22 avril 2016 - 08:11 .

[Monica21]

EDIT: Ok, going through the last page of posts again, I think I might have misinterpreted where your problem lies actually and I apologize if that is the case. It seems you are not really saying that the geth are not alive but you are mainly concerned with the fact that the quarians panicked when a geth asked the soul question, is that correct? Ah well, In that regard, I can see where you are coming from but I don't think it's a roblem at all.
 
You see, it's Legion/the geth who thought this incident that they play back to Shepard was important, not necessarily the quarians. Now, to the geth, this may have been very important and they would know, they can judge that when that unit asked that question, it was not just a parrot repeating but there was actually more to it. The geth are in fact the only ones who can accurately evaluate this situation and to them it was important.
For the quarians to start shooting, I bet more was required than this simple question by one serving unit to some random quarian. Read: this one incident probably did not start the morning war on it's own (and Legion never says so either) but to the geth themselves, it was important because it was the first time one of their own asked this question with a deeper meaning behind it and the quarian reacted with fear.
So that scene makes perfect sense to me.

My initial response had to do with the question of whether Destroy was committing genocide. A Geth unit asking whether it had a soul has nothing to do with whether or not it is alive. If something is not alive, then rendering them nonfunctional cannot be considered genocide. In my opinion, the question is not an indicator of whether something is alive.

[MrFob]

My initial response had to do with the question of whether Destroy was committing genocide. A Geth unit asking whether it had a soul has nothing to do with whether or not it is alive. If something is not alive, then rendering them nonfunctional cannot be considered genocide. In my opinion, the question is not an indicator of whether something is alive.

 

It's not just about that one question though. You have to evaluate the geth as a whole, taking their entire behaviour into account, beyond that one question alone. From what is shown about them in all three games, they are clearly sapient. The relevance of just this one question is tough to judge for a non-geth as I explained.

 

Ultimately, I agree, you cannot conclude from that question that the geth are alive. You cannot exclude it either though, so just looking at that question doesn't really give you any insight that is pertinent to the destroy choice one way or the other. The geth's behavior throughout the story however does.

[Iakus]

And my argument is simply that Google's algorithm simply isn't advanced enough to wonder if it has a soul. The Geth are more advanced than Google, but that doesn't mean the Geth are so advanced that they are alive. If I keep wondering if I have a soul in front of a parrot, eventually the parrot will repeat the phrase back to me. That doesn't mean a parrot has a soul.
 

SO what criteria would you use to determine if it was a serious question or not?

 

 

 

It actually is relevant, and the Geth do not and have never said, I think therefore I am.

 

But they reached a point where they began to ponder their own existence.  A sign of sapience

 

 

 

Why would that be solely the purview of priests and philosophers? I'm human, and I can wonder if I have a soul. I fail to see why a priest or philosopher is better off answering that question than I am. "Does this unit have a soul?" is not a question of existence. It already knows it exists, otherwise it wouldn't refer to itself as "this unit."

 

Wonder all you like.  I simply meant that whether a geth (or a human) actually had what you would define as a soul is irrelevant.  What was relevant was the geth advancing enough to be able to ask the question. 

 

 

 

I honestly can't begin to imagine what the question is supposed to mean. We don't know what the Quarians thought of the soul. The Geth didn't come up with the concept of a soul on their own. If they had, they wouldn't have asked. As I stated, the human concept of a soul is bound up in faith and religion and an afterlife. What does the Quarian religion teach about the afterlife, if anything, and why would a Geth unit translate that to itself?
 

Well, since you asked:

 

Quarians: Religion:
The ancient quarians practiced ancestor worship. Even after abandoning faith for secularism, quarians continued to revere the wisdom of elders. As time passed and technology advanced, they inevitably turned their knowledge to preserving the personalities and memories of the elderly as computer virtual intelligences. These recordings became a repository of knowledge and wisdom, stored in a central databank and available through any extranet connection.

 

They held no illusions that this was like a form of immortality; like all virtual intelligences, their electronically-preserved ancestors were not truly sapient. This was considered a surmountable problem; sapience could surely be reduced to simple mathematics.

 

The quarians began exhaustive research into creating artificial intelligence so they could learn to escape the bounds of mortality and give their ancestral records true awareness. Unfortunately, the life the quarians created did not accept the same truths they did. The geth destroyed the ancestor databanks when they took over.

 

In the centuries since they evacuated their homeworld, most quarians have returned to religion in various forms. Many believe the rise of the geth and the destruction of their 'ancestors' were chastisement for arrogantly forsaking the old ways and venerating self-made idols.

 

Others have a more philosophical outlook, believing their race was indeed arrogant, but no supernatural agency lay behind the geth revolt. Rather, the quarians' actions wrought their own doom. Either way, every quarian would agree that their own hubris cost them their homeworld.

 

Emphasis mine

 

As for why a geth would translate that to itself:  Simply put, it would want to know if it was alive.
 

[Monica21]

It's not just about that one question though. You have to evaluate the geth as a whole, taking their entire behaviour into account, beyond that one question alone. From what is shown about them in all three games, they are clearly sapient. The relevance of just this one question is tough to judge for a non-geth as I explained.
 
Ultimately, I agree, you cannot conclude from that question that the geth are alive. You cannot exclude it either though, so just looking at that question doesn't really give you any insight that is pertinent to the destroy choice one way or the other. The geth's behavior throughout the story however does.

Here was the initial exchange:
Iakus: You're committing genocide if you pick Destroy.
Me: No you're not, because I'm not committing genocide if I destroy all the iPhones in the world.
Iakus: Has your iPhone ever asked you if it had a soul?
*discussion ensues about the question of the soul and it's meaning*

I agree that you have to look at the behavior, but Iakus has insisted on focusing on the soul almost exclusively. You also have to look at the cost/benefit to choosing Destroy versus other options. Control is problematic, because the Reapers are still around. It creates a god-like Shepard. There's a possibility that organics will not be allowed to develop on their own paths. If you do believe that Destroy is the same thing as genocide, and not simply the equivalent of powering down a bunch of computers, then you have to ask how different Synthesis is. Forcing all organics to become part computer removes free will from those organics who want to make that decision themselves. There's also no indication that the Geth can't be rebuilt. They'll be different, but they can be rebuilt. If you destroy the Krogan, you can't bring them back.

So, even if I did accept the premise that Destroy is genocide, it's the lesser of three evils and I will continue to choose it.
 
 

SO what criteria would you use to determine if it was a serious question or not?

I don't think the question wasn't serious. I simply have no reason to believe that the Geth understood the concept of the soul.
 

But they reached a point where they began to ponder their own existence.  A sign of sapience

Wondering if you have a soul is not the same as pondering your existence. That's why it's a stupid question and it's a stupid reason for the Quarians to freak out. I ponder my existence all the time. I ponder based on my ability to understand that I have free will. I think about whether to take that walk that I know I need to take. That I need to go to bed earlier to get enough sleep. Whether my job is as personally fulfilling as I want it to be. None of these things have anything to do with whether I have a soul.
 

Wonder all you like.  I simply meant that whether a geth (or a human) actually had what you would define as a soul is irrelevant.  What was relevant was the geth advancing enough to be able to ask the question.

It's not relevant to anything. The Geth never asked, "Why am I continuing to do these things that you're asking me to do?" In fact, they did the opposite. They continued to try to do everything to please their creators. They, for the most part, continued to follow their programming until they felt they had to defend themselves.

If anything, the desire for self-preservation is more indicative of being "alive" than asking an existential question about the soul.
 

Well, since you asked:
 
Quarians: Religion:
The ancient quarians practiced ancestor worship. Even after abandoning faith for secularism, quarians continued to revere the wisdom of elders. As time passed and technology advanced, they inevitably turned their knowledge to preserving the personalities and memories of the elderly as computer virtual intelligences. These recordings became a repository of knowledge and wisdom, stored in a central databank and available through any extranet connection.
 
They held no illusions that this was like a form of immortality; like all virtual intelligences, their electronically-preserved ancestors were not truly sapient. This was considered a surmountable problem; sapience could surely be reduced to simple mathematics.
 
The quarians began exhaustive research into creating artificial intelligence so they could learn to escape the bounds of mortality and give their ancestral records true awareness. Unfortunately, the life the quarians created did not accept the same truths they did. The geth destroyed the ancestor databanks when they took over.
 
In the centuries since they evacuated their homeworld, most quarians have returned to religion in various forms. Many believe the rise of the geth and the destruction of their 'ancestors' were chastisement for arrogantly forsaking the old ways and venerating self-made idols.
 
Others have a more philosophical outlook, believing their race was indeed arrogant, but no supernatural agency lay behind the geth revolt. Rather, the quarians' actions wrought their own doom. Either way, every quarian would agree that their own hubris cost them their homeworld.
 
Emphasis mine

Cool. Thanks.
 

As for why a geth would translate that to itself:  Simply put, it would want to know if it was alive.

And why would the Geth think that having a soul equates to being alive?

[MrFob]

Here was the initial exchange:
Iakus: You're committing genocide if you pick Destroy.
Me: No you're not, because I'm not committing genocide if I destroy all the iPhones in the world.
Iakus: Has your iPhone ever asked you if it had a soul?
*discussion ensues about the question of the soul and it's meaning*

Well, I strongly disagree with the notion that the geth are comparable to iPhones, given how they are portrayed in this story (see my posts above).
 

I agree that you have to look at the behavior, but Iakus has insisted on focusing on the soul almost exclusively. You also have to look at the cost/benefit to choosing Destroy versus other options. Control is problematic, because the Reapers are still around. It creates a god-like Shepard. There's a possibility that organics will not be allowed to develop on their own paths. If you do believe that Destroy is the same thing as genocide, and not simply the equivalent of powering down a bunch of computers, then you have to ask how different Synthesis is. Forcing all organics to become part computer removes free will from those organics who want to make that decision themselves. There's also no indication that the Geth can't be rebuilt. They'll be different, but they can be rebuilt. If you destroy the Krogan, you can't bring them back.

So, even if I did accept the premise that Destroy is genocide, it's the lesser of three evils and I will continue to choose it.

The cost-benefit angle, I do agree with. Given the situation and absolutely no alternative, I would also choose destroy but I would not bug out of the responsibility to call a genocide what it is, even (or rather especially) if I had to commit it.

[Monica21]

Well, I strongly disagree with the notion that the geth are comparable to iPhones, given how they are portrayed in this story (see my posts above).

Well sure. And I would disagree with anyone who said that a pocket watch was comparable to an iPhone. Unless that person wanted to argue that the difference was a sufficiently advanced technology.

[MrFob]

Well sure. And I would disagree with anyone who said that a pocket watch was comparable to an iPhone. Unless that person wanted to argue that the difference was a sufficiently advanced technology.

 

Soooo, what, you were just using derogatory terminology to make a reductio-ad-absurdum argument before?

 

In any case, the point is (as you well know) that the geth are described as sapient AIs in ME. Therefore, killing them classifies as genocide.

[Iakus]

Here was the initial exchange:
Iakus: You're committing genocide if you pick Destroy.
Me: No you're not, because I'm not committing genocide if I destroy all the iPhones in the world.
Iakus: Has your iPhone ever asked you if it had a soul?
*discussion ensues about the question of the soul and it's meaning*

I agree that you have to look at the behavior, but Iakus has insisted on focusing on the soul almost exclusively. You also have to look at the cost/benefit to choosing Destroy versus other options. Control is problematic, because the Reapers are still around. It creates a god-like Shepard. There's a possibility that organics will not be allowed to develop on their own paths. If you do believe that Destroy is the same thing as genocide, and not simply the equivalent of powering down a bunch of computers, then you have to ask how different Synthesis is. Forcing all organics to become part computer removes free will from those organics who want to make that decision themselves. There's also no indication that the Geth can't be rebuilt. They'll be different, but they can be rebuilt. If you destroy the Krogan, you can't bring them back.
 

I think you're mistaking me for gothpunkboy, as this was how the exchange started:

 

 

 

Elhanan, on 20 Apr 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:
Destroy causes technological regression and genocide,

*which I agreed with*

 

 

 

themikefest, on 20 Apr 2016 - 3:53 PM, said:
there is no genocide when destroy is chosen especially if the quarians are chosen over the geth

 

 

 

gothpunkboy89, on 20 Apr 2016 - 6:43 PM, said:
If Geth get wiped out by Quarians there is still genocide because you let the geth be killed.

 

 

 

Monica21, on 20 Apr 2016 - 7:00 PM, said:
Geth are machines that talk. It's not genocide to disable every iPhone that has Siri on it.

 

 

 

Iakus, on 20 Apr 2016 - 7:08 PM, said:
Has your phone ever asked you if it has a soul?

 

*conversation turns to geth and souls*

 

Ad interestingly, yes, you can rebuild the krogan (or, in theory any organic) via cloning technology and those breeding tanks (like Grunt, Miranda, etc).  But of course they will be "different" because they will be different individuals from the ones who already lived and died.

[Xisuthros]

The Catalyst IS scouring the galaxy of organic life. It's just doing so in a measured, controlled way that ensures there's always organic life to commit genocide against.

 

It was programmed to believe synthetic life inevitably destroys all organic life. It realized it was itself synthetic life. Therefore its purpose is to destroy all organic life. It just takes an extra step and preserves the data about the organic life it's exterminating, and it makes sure there's some organic life to exterminate in the future.

 

Without organic life to exterminate, it would lose its purpose for existence.

There is... absolutely nothing in the game that supports this idea. It would have about the same amount of credibility as IT, except unlike this some people have actually found some stuff that could be construed as evidence for IT.

[Xisuthros]

And why would the Geth think that having a soul equates to being alive?

This is pure speculation, of course, but it's entirely possible that the Geth's logic went along the lines of "Quarians say that living things have 'souls'" -> "We do not know if we are alive" -> "The best way to determine whether we are alive is to determine whether we have souls" Thus, their question.

 

[Iakus]

The Catalyst IS scouring the galaxy of organic life. It's just doing so in a measured, controlled way that ensures there's always organic life to commit genocide against.

 

It was programmed to believe synthetic life inevitably destroys all organic life. It realized it was itself synthetic life. Therefore its purpose is to destroy all organic life. It just takes an extra step and preserves the data about the organic life it's exterminating, and it makes sure there's some organic life to exterminate in the future.

 

Without organic life to exterminate, it would lose its purpose for existence.

So we've gone from Space Cthulhu to AM?

[Monica21]

Soooo, what, you were just using derogatory terminology to make a reductio-ad-absurdum argument before?
 
In any case, the point is (as you well know) that the geth are described as sapient AIs in ME. Therefore, killing them classifies as genocide.

Where are they described as sapient? It's an honest question. I don't recall that.

Sapience is the ability of an entity to act with judgment. Even if they are described as such in ME, I'd have to disagree with that. The heretics existed because of a coding error, not because of a choice. Similarly, they can be brought back into the consensus with another change to that code. In both examples that is not acting with judgment.
 
 

I think you're mistaking me for gothpunkboy, as this was how the exchange started:
 
*which I agreed with*
 
 
 
 
 
*conversation turns to geth and souls*

Ah, yes. I was mistaken in how it started. My apologies.
 

And interestingly, yes, you can rebuild the krogan (or, in theory any organic) via cloning technology and those breeding tanks (like Grunt, Miranda, etc).  But of course they will be "different" because they will be different individuals from the ones who already lived and died.

I'd thought about mentioning cloning, but since I don't know what Destroy does I didn't want to. Mostly because I'm curious if Destroy actually destroys the hardware and software, or just the software. Because if it's just the software, you can rebuild it using the existing platform much like Shepard and Project Lazarus. You're right in that creating new Geth would be similar to growing a new Miranda. I'm not sure how much that has to do with anything, but it's curious. 

 

This is pure speculation, of course, but it's entirely possible that the Geth's logic went along the lines of "Quarians say that living things have 'souls'" -> "We do not know if we are alive" -> "The best way to determine whether we are alive is to determine whether we have souls" Thus, their question.

Sure. Could be.

[MrFob]

Where are they described as sapient? It's an honest question. I don't recall that.

Sapience is the ability of an entity to act with judgment. Even if they are described as such in ME, I'd have to disagree with that. The heretics existed because of a coding error, not because of a choice. Similarly, they can be brought back into the consensus with another change to that code. In both examples that is not acting with judgment.
 

 

They are described as AIs (as opposed to VIs). According to the ME codex, AIs are by definition sapient.

 

As for mind controlling them by changing an equation in their basic runtimes, if you mess with a human's neurotransmitters, you can also make them change their judgement (and in the ME universe there is even indoctrination). As Legion says, our basic operating system is hardware based, theirs is software based, that is the difference. Both system have specific advantages and disadvantages. that does not preclude sapience.

 

Before I start repeating myself too often, I'd like to link a discussion I had on this topic a while ago with "Tali's Sweat" (that username, I know ). Here is the post where it started, it goes on from there intermittently for two pages, at which point s/he stopped answering me. I am happy to continue this discussion though.

[StarcloudSWG]

There is... absolutely nothing in the game that supports this idea. It would have about the same amount of credibility as IT, except unlike this some people have actually found some stuff that could be construed as evidence for IT.

 

True, there's nothing in the game that hints in any way shape or form at the existence of previous civilizations that were wiped out by the Reapers, or of garden worlds bombarded so severely they have no life on them, or anything the Catalyst says about wiping out old life and storing it in Reaper form to make way for new life. None of this exists in the game.

[Xisuthros]

True, there's nothing in the game that hints in any way shape or form at the existence of previous civilizations that were wiped out by the Reapers, or of garden worlds bombarded so severely they have no life on them, or anything the Catalyst says about wiping out old life and storing it in Reaper form to make way for new life. None of this exists in the game.

Except every time you interact with a Reaper, or with anyone who has any knowledge on the Reapers, or observe what the Reapers do, it becomes patently obvious that they have other motivations. If they just wanted to destroy advanced civilizations, they could do it without harvesting their DNA and minds in order to engage in an incredibly inefficient method of building a new Reaper. There's no reason to preserve their harvests in Reaper form if they're just committing genocide for Teh Evulz as you claim.

 

 

Where are they described as sapient? It's an honest question. I don't recall that.

Sapience is the ability of an entity to act with judgment. Even if they are described as such in ME, I'd have to disagree with that. The heretics existed because of a coding error, not because of a choice. Similarly, they can be brought back into the consensus with another change to that code. In both examples that is not acting with judgment.
 

Yes, because in the Mass Effect universe there's no way to alter or change the perceptions or goals of a sapient being. Such a hypothetical process (Let's call it "indoctrination") would be completely impossible.

[gothpunkboy89]

It works perfectly.  Its information is anecdotal at best.  No hard evidence is presented,  

 

And calling the Catalyst "God" is pretty LOL.  It's a broken machine.  It is a liar.  Or at best grossly mistaken.  And yes I demand proof, especially if it's calling on such horrible "solutions"

 

 

The existence of the AI is proof only of a powerful, but foolish precursor race.  Nothing more.  If the AI was proof of it's own rantings, it would have scoured the galaxy of organic life long ago.

 

Hard evidence is presented the very existence of the Catalyst is the hard evidence. I repeat the AI didn't just magically spring into existence. The Reapers didn't just appear because someone made a bad wish on the dragon balls. Their creation their very existence is because of the organic and synthetic conflict. This feels a lot like dealing with someone who out right refuses to admit climate change is even possible. Oh look all of Florida is now under 3 feet of water and we have to build all our houses on pillars and take boats to work. Just before that happened all the polar ice on the planet melted releasing the trapped water and rising the ocean's level. Yet you are sitting there in a canoe claiming there is no connection or proof climate change caused it.

 

As I stated earlier I never made the comparison of the Catalyst to God. That comparison was to Bioware which for all intents and purposes is the God the divine creator of heaven and earth for the game's universe.

 

So you are claiming because an AI created to solve a specific problem didn't fall prey to the same trap it some how invalidates everything else? By that logic murder, prostitution, drug use, stalking, compete invasion of privacy and many other things should that generally are looked at in a negative light by most people should be welcomed with open arms. These are generally considered bad things yet there have been singular moments that they actually help even if only small things. Thus by your logic it should remove the entire reason they are viewed as bad because that 1 exception to the rule.

[gothpunkboy89]

True, there's nothing in the game that hints in any way shape or form at the existence of previous civilizations that were wiped out by the Reapers, or of garden worlds bombarded so severely they have no life on them, or anything the Catalyst says about wiping out old life and storing it in Reaper form to make way for new life. None of this exists in the game.

 

Fairly certain those garden worlds bombarded into lifelessness was the prothean's doing. They tended to not mess around.

[Xisuthros]

Fairly certain those garden worlds bombarded into lifelessness was the prothean's doing. They tended to not mess around.

No, no, those were definitely the Reapers. Some of them have estimated dates, and they're all A: before the Prothean's cycle and B: a multiple of 50,000 years ago, approximately.

 

Besides, the Protheans were expansionist, not genocidal. They wouldn't sterilize a planet, they'd just subjugate it and force its people to become "Prothean".

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

I choose the destroy the Reapers because it has to end, and this evil they unleashed upon the entire galaxy has to end.

[Xisuthros]

I choose the destroy the Reapers because it has to end, and this evil they unleashed upon the entire galaxy has to end.

In every ending (except Refuse, obviously) the Reaper's evil is ended. Either they're dead, Shepard takes control of them, or they're freed from the Catalyst's control and the species that was used to create them become their controller. Except in Destroy, you're perpetuating the Reaper's evil just a little while longer in the form of an unnecessary genocide.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

In every ending (except Refuse, obviously) the Reaper's evil is ended. Either they're dead, Shepard takes control of them, or they're freed from the Catalyst's control and the species that was used to create them become their controller. Except in Destroy, you're perpetuating the Reaper's evil just a little while longer in the form of an unnecessary genocide.

Destroying the Reapers is the only way for the galaxy to have peace and to start over so they can grow and heal, I'm giving them a chance for life to flourish. That's what I believe by me choose to destroy the Reapers instead of controlling them.

[Natureguy85]

What if you picked Control with the intention of ordering the Reapers to self destruct immediately afterwards?

 

Well, you can’t affirmatively give that motivation to Shepard. You could head-canon it in the original endings, but the Extended Cut epilogues kill that.

 

 

 

oh dear.

 

watch the problem of choice on youtube.

 

That was quite interesting but I don’t see how it’s relevant to this conversation.

 

 

 

Yes; the Catalyst saves Shepard to make a choice that will doom humanity anyway. See redundant.

 

I don’t think redundant is the word you want, but more importantly, there is no doom. The Catalyst claims it, but there is no reason to believe it.

 

 

There is no intellectual dishonesty here. The Geth were created to be simple VI servants with the Quarians constantly making little upgrades. Never breaking the law by pushing them into full AI territory. The Geth all on their own made the jump from VI to AI status and started to evolve on their own. Their evolution moved at a pace that the Quarians didn't expect causing them to panic. That panic caused the Quarians to instigate a war with the Geth that nearly lead to the genocide of their species.

 

You seem to like to recap game events when you have nothing else to say. We were talking about the two specific examples you raised, not the Geth or the Quarians.

 

 

 

 

What knowledge or wisdom does anyone in a position of power qualify them to rule so?  3 idiots sharing power will do the same if not more damage then 1 idiot in power. There are a couple of things that does qualify Shep AI to have that power. First and foremost it has access to all the histories of every race that has existed up to that point. This means it can actually learn from history rather then ignoring it and repeating the same **** up over and over again like humans seem to. Second it seems fairly free of emotions. By which I mean unlike organic beings it will not allow it self to be dominated by emotions. Which is something organics seem to be more often then not.  Third Shep AI is in a position that can not be bribed or blackmailed into helping or ignoring specific groups.

 

That’s exactly why so much centralized power is a bad idea. Really only the bribery one holds up. More knowledge is good, but how will that be used? You could head canon it before, but the EC epilogues define Shepard's intentions and thoughts more. And there is definitely some emotion in them.

 

 

You didn't pay attention to the Catalyst did you. The Reapers were created to create and maintain the cycle. Thus they have the ability to adapt to changes and alterations in the cycle when they show up. Thus the entire reason ME1 even exists is because the Protheans altered the signal preventing Citadel from activating. Unless they were capable of independent thought and action Sovereign would have just sat in space doing nothing because the slight change happened thus changing everything. But rather then float there like a slack jawed idiot it gathered intelligence from the shadows to figure out what happened. Created a plan spanning years and nearly succeeded if not for the fact it was the antagonist in a video game and reality warping effects of that means it failed.

 

The Catalyst says the Reapers themselves are the solution. That they can adapt is not a reason for the Catalyst to not have control over the Relay function. That grand plan of Sovereign’s relied on the technology of the last batch of squishies. It’s actually a really interesting role reversal on the Reapers.

 

 

 

Destroy causes technological regression and genocide, and causes history to eventually repeat, but doom is a stretch. Control places humanity in the care of a non-perfect demi-god, but again; no doom. And Synthesis brings peace and prosperity sans doom.

 

After the EC, there really isn’t technological regression. Everything gets rebuilt quickly and is just fine. More importantly, nothing repeats as far as the Epilogue goes and there’s no reason to think it will. Sure, it might, but it’s not guaranteed and the free galaxy will figure if it happens. Destroy best preserves free will. You only need to decide if sacrificing the Geth is worth saving everyone else. Some weren’t sold on the Geth being valid as people, but you’re meant to be.

 

 

I do not believe that

 

 

If Geth get wiped out by Quarians there is still genocide because you let the geth be killed.

 

Well, if the Geth are already dead because you killed them at Rannoch, then there is no genocide at Destroy. It already happened earlier.

 

 

 

And yet you have no info to back it up.

 

Info is not required to point out that the other side has no info. It’s the Catalyst that is claiming to know what will happen.

[Natureguy85]

That would be true if the Geth were nothing more then a voice activated search program. But I have yet to see Siri plan, construct and man a warship. Never seen Siri create a program that would corrupt all the Cortana's into Apple I phone Siries. Never seen Siri lead a revolution adapting to military tactics and over coming them. Causing them to nearly wipe out humans from the face of the Earth.

 

It happened last Tuesday. You must have missed it.

 

 

 

And will every single possible synthetic creation follow this same path? Hell humanity doesn't even follow that logic.  Simply compare TIM to Anderson, Wrex to Wrev, Mordin to Dalatrass Linron. The Turians to Krogan or Humans to Batarian. Thousands of years later the Krogan and Turian still hate each other. It quite literally takes and outside force that will ensure total and complete destruction of both of them to work together. If it was one or the other the Krogan would have happily sat back and watched the total destruction of the Turians.

 

You talk about batman logic when your entire argument is based on one synthetic race being the total representation of all other possible. Or that the actions of a few months will be the same for hundreds of thousands of years?

 

You’re right but that works both ways. Just as the Geth don’t mean some killer synthetics won’t appear, there is also no guarantee that they will and then no further guarantee they will be able to kill everyone. You also again point out that conflict is not limited to Synthetic vs Organic, so the focus on that is strange.

 

 

 

Never said that it was genocide free. The only free path is making piece

 

Though as Quarian Master Race pointed out, it’s peace at the point of a gun.

 

 

Genocide requires intent. The only way Destroy is genocide is if you choose it with the intent of wiping out synthetics. If you've already ruled out the other two, the principle of double effect applies.

 

You’re technically correct, but this is an easy way to talk about it. The question on the double effect is if the secondary outcome is acceptable to achieve the primary outcome.

 

 

 

Why should you believe the geth?  Same reason you'd believe the quarians, krogan, batarians, turians, salarians, etc.  Or the same reason you don't.

 

The game went extra lengths to show Legion being deceptive though. Additionally, Legion is the only example we get of peaceful Geth and we have to take his word on it. Every other time we encounter Geth, they are following the Reapers.

 

 

 

But everything is possible. When you make the statement "Well we made peace with the Geth that disproves everything the Catalyst said" you are closing your mind to all other possibilities and claiming in pure ignorance that any possible variation of new synthetic life will be exactly like the Geth. Or that the alliance that was created because they both faced a mutual threat.  To make the claim as you are that everything will remain the same from now till the heat death of the universe is equally close minded.

 

Possibilities are all there are. The problem is that the Catalyst and it’s defenders are claiming inevitability, not possibility.

 

 

 

When the entire reason it was created was due to the repeat and I shall say this again. REPEAT BATTLE TO THE DEATH WITH SYNTHETIC LIFE which resulting more then once in the complete destruction of an entire race. Who attempted for many years to bring a sort of peace between organic and synthetic races while watching those efforts fail again and again.

 

vs

 

3 months of being allies with Geth while both groups face a mutual threat.

 

The 3 months of being allies with the Geth is the experience the characters and audience have. They take precedence over the unverified claims of a new character/exposition machine.

 

 

 

ME3 is a story though. A story where brokering peace is possible and is treated with complete sincerity. This has an impact on how players view the relationships between organics and AIs, especially considering the Rannoch arc is the microcosm for this conflict and is largely the only time the issue is explored. So, yes, the choice is extremely important in the perception of AI/organic conflict and, again, doubly important in the absence of anything else (the other AI/organic arc in the game involves EDI, which is doubly unhelpful).

 

When the Catalyst starts talking about the conflict players will naturally think about the past AI/organic events in the game, events that were important ends to series long arcs. That's the cause of the dissonance -- the Catalyst words are almost at complete odds with the player's own experience. That's the failure. Sure, you can argue that peace won't last but now you're entering speculation that does not follow intuitively from the events of the game.

 

Thank you. It’s nice to finally find someone else who understands how stories work and can articulate it. Unfortunately, this concept is lost on Gothpunkboy.

 

 

 

Argument from Authority doesn't actually work here because the entire plot behind the game trilogy's existence is based on this fact. The Catalyst's authority is based on the people who created the very existence of that world who state that this is what happens. In essence God or which ever deity you worship directly telling you X issue will always happen because he created the entire universe with X issue in mind to happen. And you are calling him a liar and demanding proof of these facts.

 

The very existence of the AI is proof of the problem. The AI didn't just spontaneously spring into existence in a flash of light. A tear in the very fabric of reality didn't appear and the AI and the Reapers show up from some twisted alternate reality. Some poor bullied synthetic kid didn't go home sacrifice a synthetic goat on a pentagram and summon the synthetic devil and him minions into our universe to kill everything over and over again.

 

Wait, if the existence of the Catalyst is proof of the problem “because the writer says so,” then why do you challenge everything Vigil says? He said those things “because the writer said so” too.

 

Like all of yours, this analogy fails. God exists in the analogy but the writers do not exist within the universe of ME. I’m the one who said I used meta-game knowledge to know the Catalyst was telling the truth. Within the game world, however, there is no reason to believe it.