296 réponses à ce sujet

[Panda]

I guess it's nice to have options. I'd like to be pro-synthetic myself and I'd love to have Geth squadmate again.

[Mcfly616]

 There's also EDI, and the geth and quarians don't really get a chance to really explore peace since the Crucible itself kills any opportunity to really do so without fundamentally changing everyone if Synthesis is chosen. 

 They had the opportunity. They did nothing to change the notion of the inherent conflict between organics and synthetics. It's in our nature to destroy ourselves and each other. So we must change nature. Hence, the synthesis option.

[Il Divo]

The Catalyst and Leviathan assert that organics and synthetics cannot coexist. Destroy reinforces the assertion.

 

 

Except that's not what Destroy reinforces. Destroy indicates that the only way to remove the Reapers is to inadvertently remove synthetics. 

 

There's a reason why Destroy is considered the most optimistic of the endings in terms of the organic-synthetic conflict; it's a rejection of all values the Catalyst supports. The Geth are destroyed; the opportunity for organic-synthetic cooperation without outside interference is now possible because the Reapers can't interfere any longer, if/when more synthetics are built. 

 

Hypothetical scenario: Say I throw a grenade and hit a civilian in addition to my main target. That doesn't mean that I couldn't have coexisted with the person I accidentally blew to bits; that would be insane. Their death was a byproduct, in an extremely unusual circumstance, not the main result. I'm gonna be charitable here and say that when the Catalyst talks about how organics/synthetics can't go exist, he's not referring to the accidental crossfire from hurling grenades.    

[KaiserShep]

 They had the opportunity. They did nothing to change the notion of the inherent conflict between organics and synthetics. It's in our nature to destroy ourselves and each other. So we must change nature. Hence, the synthesis option.

 

No they didn't. The geth and quarians only go as far as the geth going out of their way to help the quarians boost their immune systems and work alongside them to build the Crucible. But they don't get to really go the long haul in that relationship to see whether or not it can work, because they just don't have time. The war has to end with either reapers continuing to lord over the galaxy, synthesizing everyone, destroying all synthetics just to get rid of the reapers, or refusing and everything dies. There's no "Let's watch these two live together to see if it works out" scenario. 

[Il Divo]

Exactly. And that's why none of the endings serve as indicative of the Reapers being right or wrong. We can't know without observing the long term impacts of the thought experiment. The endings don't give us that; they mostly focus on the immediate/short term results of our decision-making. 

[wass12]

Wait where are we getting that Destroy proves them right? Destroy is itself in opposition to Reaper goals. To know whether the Reapers were "right" we would need confirmation of organic destruction by synthetics and in the context of the time line we're given post-destroy, that doesn't seem to have happened thus far. 

 

Edit: Thinking about it more, neither Control or Synthesis are validation that the Reapers are right or that Shepard agrees with them. They merely validate that Shepard chose the ending with those consequences, with some wiggle room depending on whether we think Catalyst-Shepard and human Shepard are the same guy narrating the Control ending. 

 

They don't validate Shepard's choice of endings, the ARE Shepard's choice of endings. "Validate" meant "prove" or "demonstrate its truthfulness."

 

Destroy and Refuse validate the Reaper's opinions that organics and synthetics cannot coexist. Control and Synthesis shows that this problem can be only solved by transgressing the boundaries between them: A single organic and synthetic in Control, and all organics and synthetics in Synthesis.

[Il Divo]

They don't validate Shepard's choice of endings, the ARE Shepard's choice of endings. "Validate" meant "prove" or "demonstrate its truthfulness."

 

Destroy and Refuse validate the Reaper's opinions that organics and synthetics cannot coexist. Control and Synthesis shows that this problem can be only solved by transgressing the boundaries between them: A single organic and synthetic in Control, and all organics and synthetics in Synthesis.

 

As above, if I lob a grenade that catches someone else in the crossfire, that is not proof that we could not have coexisted together. All that proves is that unfortunately I had to lab a grenade to prevent galactic genocide. 

 

Control and Synthesis don't show the above in any capacity. If I say that the Turians and the Asari can't ever coexist together and press a magic button that turns them all into Turian/Asari hybrids, that is not proof that they could not coexist. That is proof that I did not give them the chance to coexist and took the decision-making out of their hands. 

 

There might be other reasons to believe coexistence is impossible - the Catalyst himself makes vague comments to previous cycles. But the endings themselves, referring to Destroy/Control/Synthesis, don't validate (or invalidate) any of that. Depending on how comfortable you are with the Star Gazer scene, that itself could be interpreted as contrasting the Catalyst's claims, though we would need more information on that too. 

[wass12]

No they didn't. The geth and quarians only go as far as the geth going out of their way to help the quarians boost their immune systems and work alongside them to build the Crucible. But they don't get to really go the long haul in that relationship to see whether or not it can work, because they just don't have time. The war has to end with either reapers continuing to lord over the galaxy, synthesizing everyone, destroying all synthetics just to get rid of the reapers, or refusing and everything dies. There's no "Let's watch these two live together to see if it works out" scenario. 

 

This doesn't paint the picture of teeth-clenched teamwork to me. The current vector of geth-quarian relationship points towards "they will get along just fine" - at least, not worse than most organic species.

[Il Divo]

By the way Wass, rereading your post, I may have misunderstood your argument. As a disclaimer, the above only applies assuming I'm understanding you correctly, otherwise ignore everything I wrote. 

[wass12]

As above, if I lob a grenade that catches someone else in the crossfire, that is not proof that we could not have coexisted together. All that proves is that unfortunately I had to lab a grenade to prevent galactic genocide. 
 
Control and Synthesis don't show the above in any capacity. If I say that the Turians and the Asari can't ever coexist together and press a magic button that turns them all into Turian/Asari hybrids, that is not proof that they could not coexist. That is proof that I did not give them the chance to coexist and took the decision-making out of their hands. 
 
There might be other reasons to believe coexistence is impossible - the Catalyst himself makes vague comments to previous cycles. But the endings themselves, referring to Destroy/Control/Synthesis, don't validate (or invalidate) any of that. Depending on how comfortable you are with the Star Gazer scene, that itself could be interpreted as contrasting the Catalyst's claims, though we would need more information on that too.

 
Well, I admit: you're right, Synthesis (and to some degree, Control) probably not the only ways coexistence could happen. However, Synthesis is the only way coexistence can be ensured, and when the other possibility could mean the destruction of entire species, Synthesis could be the only acceptable solution. (Although this is based on my interpretation of what Synthesis is, which is heavily infulenced by my pre-ME3 thoughts on similar concepts.)

 

EDIT:
 

By the way Wass, rereading your post, I may have misunderstood your argument. As a disclaimer, the above only applies assuming I'm understanding you correctly, otherwise ignore everything I wrote.

 
No, I think you have a point in that we didn't have all the possibilities covered. But the Catalyst couldn't see into the future either, and it needed solutions that would guarantee the desired outcome of coexistence. The Reapers were a first attempt - but they were based on a very flawed and alien interpretation of organic-synthetic coexistence. Control and Synthesis were more acceptable, considering that small-scale implementations were attempted even without the Catalyst's input: the Council races' AI research or the geth-quarian cooperation in case of peace. They also provide an incentive - outer or inner - towards cooperation.
 
On the other hand, Destroy simply wipes the slate clean and hopes that future organics will prove wiser. Which is doomed to failure - not because cooperation is impossible, but because you only need one agent taking a non-cooperative/predatory/parasitic/traitorous strategy for it to break down. Consider a group of city-states that are in peace. They cooperate by commerce, cultural exchange, and not attacking each other. None of them has as army, because why would they need one? And a standing army is a huge drain on resources. But if one of them would create an army, it could use it to conquer and loot its neighbors. Now two things could happen: either this state would conquer everything, leaving no one to cooperate with (and probably collapse after a while like monocultures tends to do), or everyone else also create their own armies, preserving the relative status quo, but leaving everyone worse off, since now they have to dump their resources into an otherwise useless army. Then someone finds an another way to give themselves comparative advantage, and the whole cycle starts again, until it becomes unsustainable and the whole thing breaks down. Examples of this are aplomb from evolutionary biology to the arms-race of the Cold War. 
 
The only way to stop this is to cooperate and and implement measures that dissuade these non-cooperative strategies - which is exactly what Control and Synthesis does.

[Il Divo]

Well, I admit: you're right, Synthesis (and to some degree, Control) probably not the only ways coexistence could happen. However, Synthesis is the only way coexistence can be ensured, and when the other possibility could mean the destruction of entire species, Synthesis could be the only acceptable solution. (Although this is based on my interpretation of what Synthesis is, which is heavily infulenced by my pre-ME3 thoughts on similar concepts.)

 

I wouldn't disagree with you on that. Just so I'm not being unfair to the Catalyst: what he's proposing does solve technically-speaking the problem, although even in that context, there's always the possibility of either new synthetics appearing or new advanced organics being discovered/encountered who could throw off the balance somehow. But that's a bit beyond the scope. 

 

But going back to the previous example, in a similar way, I could solve the Turian-Asari conflict by nuking one of the species. While extreme, that would (in effect) end the conflict, much like the idea behind Synthesis. But that still leaves questions because the Catalyst doesn't seem to only be saying that his solution can work, but that other solutions can't work (that's essentially his Destroy ending commentary). That's where the Catalyst being right is difficult to prove via synthesis. You could argue it's the standard Paragon/Renegade dichotomy, where Renegade is about risk prevention where as Paragon tends more towards trying to produce the best outcome for all parties. 

 

Personally, I find Control a bit dubious for other reasons. Leviathan-era, they were unable to prevent their organic servants from building synthetics, but the Catalyst was able to use drones to destroy the Empire and start the Reaper cycles. Which begs the question why he thinks Controlling the populace through a police state now is a better idea than his Reaper plan originally. 

[Ahglock]

I don't understand hate for a toaster. I don't hate the hammer that fell on my foot.(gravity though man I hate it). I just make sure the hammer is put in a place where it won't fall on my foot again. Toasters are the same just fix them so they don't fall on your foot and instead just make you toast.

[themikefest]

I like my toaster. I use it every morning for breakfast. hahaha

[Mcfly616]

Except that's not what Destroy reinforces.

 Yes it does. You're an organic, choosing to destroy all synthetics. Pretty straightforward.

 

 

 

There's a reason why Destroy is considered the most optimistic of the endings in terms of the organic-synthetic conflict

 Maybe by you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothetical scenario: Say I throw a grenade and hit a civilian in addition to my main target. That doesn't mean that I couldn't have coexisted with the person I accidentally blew to bits; that would be insane. 

 That is a  poor analogy. You're suggesting the Geth are collateral damage in Destroy. I agree. However, you're knowingly blowing them to hell, so that the Reapers may go with them. You're choosing to eliminate all synthetic life. You're proving the Catalyst and Leviathans assertion that we cannot coexist, regardless of your intentions.

[Mcfly616]

No they didn't. 

Yes they did. They had 300 years. They spent it fighting each other. Them having a fragile truce in order to combat a bigger badder mutual enemy, in no way suggests that it'll last. And as the Catalyst says: the peace won't last.

[Il Divo]

Maybe by you. 

 

 

Not just by me. The Catalyst says much the same, hence why he emphasizes the danger of synthetics returning and how the peace won't last. 

 

 That is a  poor analogy. You're suggesting the Geth are collateral damage in Destroy. I agree. However, you're knowingly blowing them to hell, so that the Reapers may go with them. You're choosing to eliminate all synthetic life. You're proving the Catalyst and Leviathans assertion that we cannot coexist, regardless of your intentions.

 

 

No, it doesn't.  If I'm forced to engage in collateral damage in order to remove a greater threat, that is not an endorsement that I cannot coexist with whatever I was forced to destroy, under a different set of circumstances. You acknowledge the Geth as collateral damage. That itself is indicative of my point; if there's no need for collateral damage, there's no need for the Geth to die, much like the civilian example. 

 

For your argument to make sense, in effect you're saying that  collateral damage ipso facto is indicative that coexistence is impossible. That can be disproven by illustrating that there are scenarios where collateral damage is not needed. In this case, removing the need for a metaphorical grenade removes the need for the collateral damage, as per the civilian caught in the crossfire example. 

[Kabooooom]

I'm very skeptical of the concept of truly self aware, sapient machines ever occuring IRL.

But within the context of the ME lore, they are occasionally presented as equally living and individualistic as organics are, albeit inconsistently. I can accept the writers intent. Trying to impose any alternate interpretation of my own would seem a little pointless.

May I ask why? As a comparative neurologist, I am always curious of people's opinions on this topic. People often incorrectly conflate the definitions of "sapient" and "sentient". Do you find it possible that one could create a sentient machine, and just not a sapient one? Or do you think that neither is possible?

[Mcfly616]

Not just by me. The Catalyst says much the same, hence why he emphasizes the danger of synthetics returning and how the peace won't last. 

That's not an optimistic prognosis. Our children creating synthetics and the chaos returning, is in no way a sunny outlook for the future.

 

That's optimistic to you? You're the only one I've ever seen suggest so.

 

 

 

No, it doesn't.  

 yes, it does. You're knowingly choosing against coexistence. It's the only choice that doesn't allow for it, and you're choosing it. Regardless of why you're doing it, you know exactly what it'll do, and you do it anyway.  Human nature.

 

 

 

 

 

Just for the record, I'm not some synthesizing fanboy. I just have no delusions when it comes to the choices, their results, and what they stand for. I actually prefer destroy. But for the classic sci fi implications, not because I think it's the best choice. 

[KaiserShep]

Yes they did. They had 300 years. They spent it fighting each other. Them having a fragile truce in order to combat a bigger badder mutual enemy, in no way suggests that it'll last. And as the Catalyst says: the peace won't last.

 

A fragile truce can potentially develop into a long, mutually beneficial relationship. I have no reason to believe that it is absolutely doomed to failure. And that's the thing. There is no reason to believe that the mere possibility does not exist. Nothing the Catalyst says can change that. I don't consider the Catalyst's statement "The peace won't last" to be particularly meaningful. The universe is by its very nature chaotic. To say the peace won't last is like saying you'll die in a household accident. Statistically, that's pretty likely, or you could live and die of old age first. Sh*t, I'd be more concerned about the krogan post-cure. 

[Il Divo]

 yes, it does. You're knowingly choosing against coexistence. It's the only choice that doesn't allow for it, and you're choosing it. Regardless of why you're doing it, you know exactly what it'll do, and you do it anyway.  Human nature.

 

Just for the record, I'm not some synthesizing fanboy. I just have no delusions when it comes to the choices.

 

 

No, your delusions are just with regard to the scientific method. In rudimentary terms:

 

There are (X) conditions, there is an event, and there are a new subsequent set of conditions (Y). 

 

The Catalyst's claim is that we cannot coexist. That is an absolute statement and implies the conditions (Y) never change under any initial circumstances (X). How do you test that? You change the inputs (X), to see if (Y) changes. 

 

That's not delusional, that's the basic method for testing a hypothesis and in the Catalyst's case, he presents a very extreme hypothesis. 

 

Same example as before: I'm forced to sacrifice someone's life (collateral damage) in order to produce a net positive. Does that mean that I could not ever co-exist with said person under any circumstances? No, that would be idiotic. As with anything else, change the conditions and see what happens. I suspect in most cases, people would probably tell you it's insane to take collateral damage as indicative that coexistence is impossible. 

 

Of course, in this scenario, you're trying to negate that by mentioning the other endings, since we don't have to kill the synthetics, which doesn't work since they're all in effect metaphorical grenades of different types. Want to know how we test the scenario? We stop lobbing metaphorical grenades around via the ME3 endings, hence why Destroy itself doesn't prove anything. Destroy only proves that under a very narrow set of non-sensical conditions, we were forced to kill synthetics. The Catalyst's claim is far more absolute than that. 

 

Now, on the other hand, the Catalyst's statements about organic-synthetic conflict? Those might be demonstrative, assuming we actually had concrete information regarding how that process occurred, preferably not presented in the last 5 minutes by our self-proclaimed enemy who has confessed to galactic genocide on an unprecedented scale. Which leaves Leviathan as an information source. 

[Mcfly616]

Snip

 And that's why we're never going to come to an agreement on the subject. As noted a few pages ago (or last page....I can't remember), I'm operating on the pretense that the Catalyst may be right about everything it says. It's been around a billion years or so. Before the cycles, the harvest and the Reapers. It's had the time to observe the patterns of the galaxy. It's had the time to observe the nature of organics and synthetics and how they interact with eachother.

 

Somethings never change. I'm gonna bet on the side of the billion years of observation, not on some wishful thinking of the possibility that change could occur (even though it never has)

[Mcfly616]

Snip

Bottom line: you're choosing against coexisting. Plain and simple. There's no arguing it. There's no point you're gonna make that changes that fact.

 

Idc about the how or why you're doing it. You had the opportunity to coexist.  To suggest that destroy isn't completely destroying the opportunity for coexistence is what's delusional.

[Il Divo]

Bottom line: you're choosing against coexisting. Plain and simple. There's no arguing it. There's no point you're gonna make that changes that fact.

 

Idc about the how or why you're doing it. You had the opportunity to coexist. Whether it be by sacrificing the Geth in order to destroy the Reapers, is irrelevant.  To suggest that destroy isn't completely destroying the opportunity for coexistence is what's delusional.

 

Not really. A basic understanding of the scientific method would actually do your ability to argue some good, instead of subscribing to insanity. 

 

You see, the "how" and the "why" are pretty important components of any claim/argument. 

[Lady Artifice]

May I ask why? As a comparative neurologist, I am always curious of people's opinions on this topic. People often incorrectly conflate the definitions of "sapient" and "sentient". Do you find it possible that one could create a sentient machine, and just not a sapient one? Or do you think that neither is possible?

 

A bit of both, actually. I believe that we can create devices with the appearance of sapience, maybe a superficial sense of adaptability. As for truly being able to feel, or create, or think independently, I'm doubtful. I see Artificial Intelligence as it generally appears in fiction as fantasy creature, and I accept them in the context of each story. 

 

I'm aware, as I say this, that I sound a lot like a beta villain in a robot movie. The one who through close minded skepticism and inaction causes half the problems. But if I learn anything I don't know, something that seriously supports the current existence of self aware artificial intelligence, I'll rethink my position. 

[Mcfly616]

Not really. A basic understanding of the scientific method would actually do your ability to argue some good, instead of subscribing to insanity. 

 

You see, the "how" and the "why" are pretty important components of any claim. 

 not really. Making the final choice doesn't require the scientific method. You're the only one subscribing to it. You say the Geth are collateral and that their death is necessary in order to get rid of a greater evil in the Reapers.

 

There belies the irrelevance of the how and why. You view the Reapers as evil (subjective), you view it as necessary to destroy and that the Geth are an acceptable sacrifice (again, subjective)

 

No matter your reasoning for choosing destroy, you're choosing the one choice that eliminates the possibility of coexistence. So, no. In this case (as with many throughout life) the how and why are completely irrelevant. 

 

 

One way or another, we can't or won't coexist. You're proving it by trying to justify destroy. You have two other options where coexisting is possible. You choose against them due to your personal feelings towards the Reapers.

 

The Catalyst never states why we don't coexist. It just asserts that we never have been able to. Seems your demonstration of human nature is a good example of why.