296 réponses à ce sujet

[wass12]

I could definitely see Synthesis as beneficial (despite my posts, I'm actually not a Destroy advocate). ME3's ending doesn't go into this too much, but it still presents gives us that same dichotomy of whether or not it's acceptable to perform genetic engineering on that scale without anyone's input, similar to say Deus Ex Human Revolution's dichotomy, where Sarif forced far greater augmentations on Adam than he ever needed. In effect, as someone who does prefer Control/Synthesis for my own reasons, I still think of them as extremely deterministic in terms of not giving the galaxy (as a whole) a choice in how to approach the situation ahead. In the immediate future, Destroy's consequences do suck, but don't necessarily involve making decisions that will impact the galaxy for the next thousand years or even longer. 

 

Regarding the latter bit (sorry for missing your edited post earlier), that's essentially what I meant in regard to Destroy. If the Catalyst has a legitimate point, it's not really because of Destroy in itself, which represents an extremely unusual/specialized set of circumstances, but rather it's because of all the other examples we (believe we) have of synthetic-organic conflict. 

 

Well, I played Human Revolution... quite extensively, in fact... and in that game, Adam had the option to say that while the circumstances of his augmentation were dubious, the augmentations themselves proved to be both excellent and necessary. I assume that those affected by Synthesis will take the same stance regarding their own augmentations.

 

Otherwise, I generally agree with you. And I'm glad we came to a consensus.

[wass12]

I find more optimistic takes on synthesis as absurd.

Are the krogan killing everyone. Do reapers stop reaping even though that's how they reproduce. Well eff me looks like you took what made them them flushed it down the toilet and turned them into like minded drones. So yup they are dead every one of them as what made them them is gone and replaced. Only edi speaks as the lack of life is easy to hide when it's a toaster that got changed.

 

Is it not true that people can change? Is it not true that a deep change in how they perceive and understand the world would cause deep change in the people as well? And when people change, at what level of change you draw the line and say: this is a different person now? And what are consequences for changing into another person?

 

I simply consider a person's identity a matter of continuity: they are the same person if they use the same body, to put it bluntly.

[o Ventus]

Well, I played Human Revolution... quite extensively, in fact... and in that game, Adam had the option to say that while the circumstances of his augmentation were dubious, the augmentations themselves proved to be both excellent and necessary. I assume that those affected by Synthesis will take the same stance regarding their own augmentations.

 

Otherwise, I generally agree with you. And I'm glad we came to a consensus.

 

Difference between Adam and someone affected by Synthesis is that Adam actually needed to be augmented otherwise he would have died. As shown by the other endings, you can forego Synthesis entirely and people are completely fine.

 

There's a difference between something that you may argue is bad and having it turn out okay in hindsight, and having something forced upon you that is entirely unnecessary.

[wass12]

Difference between Adam and someone affected by Synthesis is that Adam actually needed to be augmented otherwise he would have died. As shown by the other endings, you can forego Synthesis entirely and people are completely fine.

 

There's a difference between something that you may argue is bad and having it turn out okay in hindsight, and having something forced upon you that is entirely unnecessary.

 

Some of his augmentations were life-saving, but most of them were just there to make him a super-agent. Like the CASIE, the hacking module, the Typhoon system, the arm-blades...

 

And didn't Synthesis turned out to be great in hindsight too?

 

EDIT: If someone would give the power of, say, infrared vision, without asking you first, would you resent it and try it to be removed?

[Ahglock]

Is it not true that people can change? Is it not true that a deep change in how they perceive and understand the world would cause deep change in the people as well? And when people change, at what level of change you draw the line and say: this is a different person now? And what are consequences for changing into another person?

 

I simply consider a person's identity a matter of continuity: they are the same person if they use the same body, to put it bluntly.

 

The body is nothing, the mind is what makes a person.  Synthesis was the destruciton of the mind.  While some philosophies do not beleive in the value of the individual identity I do.  To me loss of that is the same as death.

[Ahglock]

 

And didn't Synthesis turned out to be great in hindsight too?

 

What cost is freedom?  There will always be arguments against freedom for safety and security this was just taken to an extreme.  Galactic safety for the loss of freedom of individual thought.

[KaiserShep]

All endings have to turn out great somehow, since validation for each choice is kind of its thing. There are countless scenarios where Control would be a total sh*tshow, and not because of the reapers directly, but that's another story.

[themikefest]

I'm glad I choose destroy.

[Il Divo]

The body is nothing, the mind is what makes a person.  Synthesis was the destruciton of the mind.  While some philosophies do not beleive in the value of the individual identity I do.  To me loss of that is the same as death.

 

To be clear, was it? It's been quite a while since I played the ME3 endings, but the main thing I remember was some vague reference to making us physically part machine and making the machines part organic. I honestly don't remember much about what was said regarding the mind. 

 

Actually as a side point, anyone remember what happens with the Reapers in the Synthesis scenario? 

[Ahglock]

To be clear, was it? It's been quite a while since I played the ME3 endings, but the main thing I remember was some vague reference to making us physically part machine and making the machines part organic. I honestly don't remember much about what was said regarding the mind. 

 

Actually as a side point, anyone remember what happens with the Reapers in the Synthesis scenario? 

 

I don't think any of the endings were clear. They all were some naration on a relatively short term of what happened and what the single entity who was narating saw for the future. But while there are levels of grey etc when even Wreave goes pacifist, no need for revenge something goes way hinky in what happened to their minds.  Its why that debates on what was the best ending are kind of fruitless as there is no objective determinaiton fo what the end actually is. I still find them fun to talk about, but there is no real answer.

[9TailsFox]

To be clear, was it? It's been quite a while since I played the ME3 endings, but the main thing I remember was some vague reference to making us physically part machine and making the machines part organic. I honestly don't remember much about what was said regarding the mind. 

 

Actually as a side point, anyone remember what happens with the Reapers in the Synthesis scenario? 

The moment Shepard helped to realease how ugly and insane you are thank you shepard.

[Keitaro57]

What if in Andromeda we meet a synthetic species? I mean, a species BORN synthetic, not build by another races. A species based on the silicium like humanity is based on carbon. Would you obliterate it because "they are not alive as we are" in a Inquisition style?

 

I'm seriously getting tired of the "AI hate". In the two ways :

* Why must non-organic lifeforms always hate organic ones?

* Why must organic lifeforms always hate non-organic ones?

 

Like the zombies, it is a tired rope that new some fresh ideas.

[shodiswe]

I used to pick Control, it ends the war and saves everyone as they were to make their own choices....

Synthesis might not be bad but the people didn't really make a coice unless you Count the fact that the Central Galactic government and everyone else Shepard saves and helps and supports gives Sheparrd their full support and kind of authority to save them.

In a way Shepard is people elect saviour and decision maker when needs be.

Destroy is the worst ending imo. But it still saves most of the galaxy in one state or another.

[Danadenassis]

Like I said, I'm a comparative neurologist (I study the nervous system and consciousness of animals), so my opinion is different than yours. I see no magic life-force that makes information processing in a biological brain fundamentally different than information processing in a synthetic one, and thus I see no fundamental barrier to creating sentience OR sapience "synthetically".

However, I do see a technical barrier to doing so. The brain of a fruit fly is more complex than anything that can be simulated today. And for decades, artificial intelligence researchers were going about it completely wrong by ignoring how brains actually work. I've seen a couple recent publications from people who are probably more on the right track, but creating an artificial intelligence by 2050 like many people believe is probably a pipe dream.

Thanks for the reply though, this topic and people's view of it is fascinating to me as I suspect that it may become a major hot topic in the next generation and maybe, just maybe, within my lifetime.

I think many are too busy arguing with each other to quite see it this way

 

Like the purposely reasoning making toasters unable to suffer.

[wass12]

The body is nothing, the mind is what makes a person.  Synthesis was the destruciton of the mind.  While some philosophies do not beleive in the value of the individual identity I do.  To me loss of that is the same as death.

 

You didn't answered my question: At what point a person whose mind is changing should be considered another person? And is that change a bad thing? After all, you are not the same personality as you five-year-old self. (Or should I say "the five-year-old who grown up to be you?" This depends on your answer to the first question!) Are we ethically mandated to stunt everybody's mental growth in childhood so their childhood personalities don't disappear? 

 

 

What cost is freedom?  There will always be arguments against freedom for safety and security this was just taken to an extreme.  Galactic safety for the loss of freedom of individual thought.

 

Ah, so you think that Synthesis result in some hive mind, where some group can force their ideas on everyone else? But there's nothing to implicate such enforcement mechanism. Synthesis simply makes understanding others much easier. Just like now, you can come up with any opinion - and just like now, others can argue with that opinion. But because you understands you opponent's reasons - and the reasons behind their reasons - perfectly, you will naturally end up with the same set of reasons and counterpoints, and from that a same conclusion. 

 

As for why murderous people renounced their ways, it is very difficult to kill someone when when you instantly understand the victim's loss and suffering.

[wass12]

What if in Andromeda we meet a synthetic species? I mean, a species BORN synthetic, not build by another races. A species based on the silicium like humanity is based on carbon. Would you obliterate it because "they are not alive as we are" in a Inquisition style?

 

I don't think the choice of substrate is what makes a race synthetic. Their intelligence would be still a side effect of evolutionary processes, not a result of intelligent design. But a synthetic race that lost their creators to a natural catastrophy, rather than war, or a group that reached their own Synthesis would be interesting.

[KainD]

 

But because you understands your opponent's reasons - and the reasons behind their reasons - perfectly, you will naturally end up with the same set of reasons and counterpoints, and from that a same conclusion. 

 

No it doesn't lead to that.  

 

It is very difficult to kill someone when when you instantly understand the victim's loss and suffering.

 

No it isn't. Cognitive empathy is separate from compassionate one. 

 

 

How do you draw those conclusions?

[wass12]

No it doesn't lead to that.  

 

Please expand on that.

 

No it isn't. Cognitive empathy is separate from compassionate one.

How do you draw those conclusions?

 

With less expertise on the matter than I think, because I didn't know about the different types of empathy until now. I need to look into this matter more deeply before proposing an acceptable hypothesis.

[Ahglock]

You didn't answered my question: At what point a person whose mind is changing should be considered another person? And is that change a bad thing? After all, you are not the same personality as you five-year-old self. (Or should I say "the five-year-old who grown up to be you?" This depends on your answer to the first question!) Are we ethically mandated to stunt everybody's mental growth in childhood so their childhood personalities don't disappear?


Ah, so you think that Synthesis result in some hive mind, where some group can force their ideas on everyone else? But there's nothing to implicate such enforcement mechanism. Synthesis simply makes understanding others much easier. Just like now, you can come up with any opinion - and just like now, others can argue with that opinion. But because you understands you opponent's reasons - and the reasons behind their reasons - perfectly, you will naturally end up with the same set of reasons and counterpoints, and from that a same conclusion.

As for why murderous people renounced their ways, it is very difficult to kill someone when when you instantly understand the victim's loss and suffering.

The first question isn't a real question. As there is a difference in natural changes and changed stamped onto your brain. I choose how a tragedy effects me and I move forward. Circuits choosing for me means I'm no longer me.

And yes it's a hive mind. If you truly understood people you'd kill them quicker not hug it out. Or at least some people would. The only way everyone comes to the same conclusion is if there is no everyone there is just one. Synthesis makes destroy look like a wuss was in charge of the genocide brigade as its not just AIs to get stomped it's everyone.

[KainD]

Please expand on that.

 

It all just boils down to how you personally feel about particular things. Here's a random example:

 

Let's say that I meet a person that thinks that alcohol should be banned because drunk people often cause unpleasant incidents, because they often get out of control. Now I can agree with that, because that is the truth, and I myself might not like to deal with inadequate drunk people, specially when I myself am sober or at work. However those are the things I am willing to deal with because I myself enjoy alcohol. Now my opponent does not enjoy alcohol themselves, therefore there is nothing holding them back from banning it since they do not want to use it themselves. 

 

That is a perfect example of me understanding their reasons and considering their point rational and sound, however having a different stance just because I personally feel different on the subject. 

[KainD]

I choose how a tragedy effects me and I move forward. Circuits choosing for me means I'm no longer me.

 

There is no ''you'' really, and if you think you ever choose anything you are delusional. You are your brain, and the brain develops a certain way depending on experience it had, and then draws conclusions from that. 

[Medhia_Nox]

(deleted)

[Ahglock]

There is no ''you'' really, and if you think you ever choose anything you are delusional. You are your brain, and the brain develops a certain way depending on experience it had, and then draws conclusions from that.

Maybe it's a terminology thing but drawing conclusions is choosing in my mind. Which is the distinction I was making. You have an experience and draw conclusions based on that your personality or whatever you want to call it is a summation of you draw conclusions. A chip overriding that so you draw different conclusions IMO basically killed that person. As the only thing that makes a person is their brain and ability to draw conclusions.

[KainD]

Wherever did you get your PhD?  

 

You keep asking me this, and I keep saying - I did not. I am a musician.

[KainD]

Maybe it's a terminology thing but drawing conclusions is choosing in my mind. Which is the distinction I was making. You have an experience and draw conclusions based on that your personality or whatever you want to call it is a summation of you draw conclusions. A chip overriding that so you draw different conclusions IMO basically killed that person. As the only thing that makes a person is their brain and ability to draw conclusions.

 

Hm, I guess I agree here.