3472 réponses à ce sujet

[BloodyMares]

But this isn't 1% chance. This is much much higher then this.

How do you conclude this I wonder? Is that a wild guess or did you measure the exact chance of synthetics a) rebelling against creators and b ) destroying all organics eventually?

[gothpunkboy89]

How do you conclude this I wonder? Is that a wild guess or did you measure the exact chance of synthetics a) rebelling against creators and destroying all organics eventually?

 

 

Please you first how did you measure the exact chance of synthetics not rebelling against creators and not destroying all organics?

[Iakus]

Please you first how did you measure the exact chance of synthetics not rebelling against creators and not destroying all organics?

Probably the same way you measured it as an inevitability.

[BloodyMares]

Please you first how did you measure the exact chance of synthetics not rebelling against creators and not destroying all organics?

Excuse me? Did I say something about variables and chances? I didn't make such claims at all. I simply challenged yours. Apparently you don't have an answer if that's your reaction to my quite reasonable question. If you make a claim about probability then you need to be ready to back up your claim with something if you want to be taken seriously.

[gothpunkboy89]

Probably the same way you measured it as an inevitability.

 

I measure it based on a series of progression that seems to be happening.

 

Nature creates man. Man develops, grows and evolves beyond nature's control. Man then learns to dominate nature the way nature once dominated it. Man then creates synthetics. Synthetics develop, grows and evolves beyond man's control. Synthetics then learn to dominate man and nature the way man once dominated them.

 

Then there is the social set up were AI and synthetics in general are treated galaxy wide like the boggy man. This deeply ingrains a mistrust and fear against them. This fear and mistrust will lead to people attacking them and causing the AI's to retaliate simply to protect themselves. Which would lead to a series of escelating events resulting in our right war. Which AI's and Synthetics in general have a massive advantage over organics.

 

Or a few AI's go rouge and given how heavily organics relay on technology could cause massive damage like causing a ground based fusion reactor to overload exploding and killing millions. Or hacking into government system to launch missiles at bases. If done right it make it seem like an unprovoked attack by one group or race against another leading to an entire war between them over it. If/When it is found who actually caused it there would be massive backlash against Synthetics and AI's in general regardless of if they were active participates in the actions or not.  To calm the population and to prevent another problem from happening the various governments would work to pass laws and restrictions on AI's simply because they are AI's. Creating more and more tension around them before it finally erupts in armed conflict.

 

And your conclusion is drawn from?

[gothpunkboy89]

Excuse me? Did I say something about variables and chances? I didn't make such claims at all. I simply challenged yours. Apparently you don't have an answer if that's your reaction to my quite reasonable question. If you make a claim about probability then you need to be ready to back up your claim with something if you want to be taken seriously.

 

No you are quite sure you are correct and that I am wrong. So I simply want to see your proof the proves you are correct and that my statement is incorrect.

 

So I'm asking you for your proof to calculate the odds that you are correct.

 

See what you are doing is trying to avoid the question. I have already explained mine you how ever just stand back claiming it is wrong while providing nothing to prove other wise.

[BloodyMares]

No you are quite sure you are correct and that I am wrong. So I simply want to see your proof the proves you are correct and that my statement is incorrect.

 

So I'm asking you for your proof to calculate the odds that you are correct.

 

See what you are doing is trying to avoid the question. I have already explained mine you how ever just stand back claiming it is wrong while providing nothing to prove other wise.

What nonsense is that? Mirror, mirror, mirror, nothing substantial. Can we have a civil dicussion?

Why do you demand anything from me? I asked a simple question which you refuse to answer and instead demand it that I disprove your statement...You know what the burden of proof is, right? If you make a statement, you need to prove it.

Explanation doesn't count as proof. I can elaborate my imaginings in all the details, it won't make them true.

[BloodyMares]

I measure it based on a series of progression that seems to be happening.

Seems to be happening where? Are we talking about Mass Effect or a sci-fi depiction of robots in general?
 

[Iakus]

I measure it based on a series of progression that seems to be happening.

 

Nature creates man. Man develops, grows and evolves beyond nature's control. Man then learns to dominate nature the way nature once dominated it. Man then creates synthetics. Synthetics develop, grows and evolves beyond man's control. Synthetics then learn to dominate man and nature the way man once dominated them.

 

Assumptions.  Got it.

 

 

 

Then there is the social set up were AI and synthetics in general are treated galaxy wide like the boggy man. This deeply ingrains a mistrust and fear against them. This fear and mistrust will lead to people attacking them and causing the AI's to retaliate simply to protect themselves. Which would lead to a series of escelating events resulting in our right war. Which AI's and Synthetics in general have a massive advantage over organics.

 

Just like when the quarians came back with tech the geth could not defeat without outside help...

 

Wait 

 

 

 

Or a few AI's go rouge and given how heavily organics relay on technology could cause massive damage like causing a ground based fusion reactor to overload exploding and killing millions. Or hacking into government system to launch missiles at bases. If done right it make it seem like an unprovoked attack by one group or race against another leading to an entire war between them over it. If/When it is found who actually caused it there would be massive backlash against Synthetics and AI's in general regardless of if they were active participates in the actions or not.  To calm the population and to prevent another problem from happening the various governments would work to pass laws and restrictions on AI's simply because they are AI's. Creating more and more tension around them before it finally erupts in armed conflict.
 

Complete and utter speculation.

 

Not to mention nothing an organic couldn't do

 

And your conclusion is drawn from?

That virtually every example of genocidal synthetics we've seen have had the Reapers manipulating them from behind the scenes

[voteDC]

That the big issue with the inevitability point at the end of the third game mentioned by the Catalyst. Everything we experience throughout the trilogy shows us that organics will defeat synthetics.

We reach the end of the third game and talk to the Catalyst and we get told the exact opposite of what we have experienced throughout hundreds of hours of gameplay.

Now I know angol will come and tell me that I am wrong, but why should we accept the premise that synthetics beating organics is inevitable when we never see that.

[Dale]

Dang -

 

It's been over a couple YEARS since I played this game.  I thought I check in to see if the [alleged] new Mass Effect game materialized.   Not holding my breath, however it looks like you guys are still holding yours:  those of you with 30 thousand posts -- yep, you're still "stuck" in this game and can't get out.   You probably have every line memorized.    

 

The only way Bioware can save face after this fiasco is to come up with a name (for the new game) like "Mass Effect Andromeda".   Different galaxy, new players, new baddies, etc.

 

Since @julia (who's tactful opinion I respect) pointed out that ME3 was BWT (bad writing theory) -- plus another guy with 8+ thousand posts suggested I "move on"  -- I did.   800 hours in Skyrim and downloaded some 200+ mods there.   Ahh -- GWT (good writing theory) there.

 

As to the original poster of this thread, declaring "Mass Effect 3's ending is absolutely brilliant!"  ----

 

HA!   That's REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY  if it ever was one.

 

Check back in another couple years.

[gothpunkboy89]

Assumptions.  Got it.

 

Just like when the quarians came back with tech the geth could not defeat without outside help...

 

Wait 

 

Complete and utter speculation.

 

Not to mention nothing an organic couldn't do

That virtually every example of genocidal synthetics we've seen have had the Reapers manipulating them from behind the scenes

 

 

And your isn't based on assumptions? What is the old saying. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Because unless you are copying a direct line from the game or making a statement such as AP ammo allows more damage done to Brutes because they have armor instead of health. It is an assumption.

 

Oh yes Geth tech they could only get though outside help themselves. And lets not forget that the very nature of the Geth worked against them when the Quarians targeted their Dyson sphere causing panic when functionally immortal being suddenly had to deal with death and the over all loss of intelligence because of it. This is a weakness normal AIs do not have and as soon as that dependency on each other was removed with the Reaper upgrade the Geth started to hand the Quarians their own bottom on a silver platter. Let us also not forget the various races of the galaxy got a hold of Reaper tech an altered it to be used in weapons against them and yet it still wasn't enough to turn the tide against them.

 

No more speculation then the idea that EDI and/or the Geth would some how lead any other Synthetic life into singing kumbya around a camp fire and would never go to war with them. The game heavily down plays the full potential of Synthetic life and it's interaction with technology. Save for EDI or the villain when ever it is convenient to help the protagonist or move the plot along. Given how effective a omni tool is at hacking doors, computers and what have you and that is even lower on the scale then a VI. That ability in the hands of a fully self aware AI would be able to access anything connected to any sort of network that isn't 100% isolated. It would need manual inputs because if it worked with an Omni tool it would be able to be compromised as they could go after the omni tool first infecting it with a program that would transfer to the one they are trying to get to. Uploading that program into the secure terminal and have it execute a series of commands required to get what they want done.

 

Yes all have been by the Reapers save all those times before the Reapers existed that caused the Leviathans to create something to solve the problem. Considering how egotistical and above everyone else they seem to think they are that would need to be a significant problem to get them to care about it. Then we have the Geth who without the existence of the Mass Relay network would have killed off the Quarians. Who they them selves tried to destroy the Geth out of fear of the Geth rising up against them.

[gothpunkboy89]

What nonsense is that? Mirror, mirror, mirror, nothing substantial. Can we have a civil dicussion?

Why do you demand anything from me? I asked a simple question which you refuse to answer and instead demand it that I disprove your statement...You know what the burden of proof is, right? If you make a statement, you need to prove it.

Explanation doesn't count as proof. I can elaborate my imaginings in all the details, it won't make them true.

 

 

We are you are making a claim that I am wrong but use no examples to claim I am wrong. Simply asking me to show my work. Which I have done time and time again. You are literally asking me to repeat what I just said to someone else to you as if this some how changes what I said before or what I'm trying to say to you.  I mean 2 or 3 pages ago I understand but your post was replied to literally right after I did the explanation to Iakus. That kind of move kind of makes you look a bit stupid in my eyes because your responds is right there but you apparently can't see it.

 

I am fairly certain certain i know what you will state is your proof of why my assertion is wrong. The problem I see with your logic and logic similar to it is it falls under what I call Disney logic. You know guy meets girl, they know each other for a week and then get married and live happily ever after having 2.5 children and living together to the ripe old age of 102. Which is a nice story and makes for a very heart warming ending but has about as much in common with real relationships as Mass Effect fields do with physics in the real world.

 

Explanations don't count as proof? Elaborate imaginings in all the details won't make it true? That is the logic you are using to state I am wrong? Ok then without using explanations or elaborate imaginings in all the details how can you show that I am wrong? What is your proof?

 

You an Iakus seem to have developed this theme were you try to call me out for things when you are guilty of the exact same. Yet some how when you do it is ok but when I do it is wrong.  You both that person who complaints about being stereotyped based on their gender/sexual orientation/race/religion then turns around in the very next breath and stereotypes someone based on their gender/sexual orientation/race/religion.

[BloodyMares]

We are you are making a claim that I am wrong but use no examples to claim I am wrong. Simply asking me to show my work. Which I have done time and time again. You are literally asking me to repeat what I just said to someone else to you as if this some how changes what I said before or what I'm trying to say to you.  I mean 2 or 3 pages ago I understand but your post was replied to literally right after I did the explanation to Iakus. That kind of move kind of makes you look a bit stupid in my eyes because your responds is right there but you apparently can't see it.

 

I am fairly certain certain i know what you will state is your proof of why my assertion is wrong. The problem I see with your logic and logic similar to it is it falls under what I call Disney logic. You know guy meets girl, they know each other for a week and then get married and live happily ever after having 2.5 children and living together to the ripe old age of 102. Which is a nice story and makes for a very heart warming ending but has about as much in common with real relationships as Mass Effect fields do with physics in the real world.

 

Explanations don't count as proof? Elaborate imaginings in all the details won't make it true? That is the logic you are using to state I am wrong? Ok then without using explanations or elaborate imaginings in all the details how can you show that I am wrong? What is your proof?

 

You an Iakus seem to have developed this theme were you try to call me out for things when you are guilty of the exact same. Yet some how when you do it is ok but when I do it is wrong.  You both that person who complaints about being stereotyped based on their gender/sexual orientation/race/religion then turns around in the very next breath and stereotypes someone based on their gender/sexual orientation/race/religion.

Erm...because I didn't? I didn't say that you are being wrong. You just have a different and not quite popular opinion. I have no problem with that. But when you treat your opinion as being the universal truth then you need to back it up with proof. Yes, I simply ask you to show your work because your statements don't look like facts to me but rather your own assumptions based on your belief in Catalyst and some other personal beliefs. If you don't want to prove your statemnt true, fine, just don't force it as a fact. No, I don't ask you to repeat yourself. I just don't see your proof. You may think of me anything you want, that is not my concern. I only care about truth. If you really did prove yourself to be right then please quote it, help me understand where is that proof. For now I only see your assumptions that are not based on anything in the game, only the Catalyst's authority. I don't fall for this fallacy so you need other sources than the Catalyst. 
 

My proof of what? Since when asking a challenging question requires proof? I have no interested in proving you wrong. I am looking forward to seeing that you are correct and understood something we didn't.

No they don't. I can explain why I think the Sun moves around Earth. I can explain why I think God exists. I can explain my opinions, everybody can. Explanations alone don't prove anything. Only facts matter. I use this logic simply to point at your mistake, not prove you wrong. Are you familiar with scientific method?

By all means call us out on things that are not okay. We are humans, we make mistakes, we can admit them. You on the other hand don't want to admit yours and be done with it. Will you lose somehing or what? Do you think you're on the batlefield as well and you are not allowed to change your opinion?

[Natureguy85]

While I am going to break this post down and point out problems with it, this whole post was awesome. It was both well thought out and civil, which is a welcome change from some other people's posts.

 

 

If something is destroyed entirely depends on the different viewpoints. I've said this before, but for us, yes, Reapers destroy organic life. For the Reapers, they store knowledge and preserve. It's simply differences in our understanding.

 

This is true, but in order for us to care, the Reapers have to get us to see it from their point of view. We are given no value to the preservation of the goop in a Reaper shell. There is never any benefit offered to being made into a Reaper.

 

 

 

I absolutely understand your view points and why you feel that way, but honestly, this is only your opinion, as much as it is only my opinion that the Reapers were not reduced to 'just afraid of the future'. I didn't see it that way at all. For me it simply boils down to the Catalyst's axiom.

"Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence, but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition surpass their creators."

It is reasonable to think that, in my opinion. They improve on themselves to surpass limits organics have, and with this alone, they already are superior to organics. And while the Catalyst is following its definition, there is no doubt that this will happen in its mind, while we think... yeah, it could happen, but it could go the other way as well.

 

Sure, on it's own, this statement from the Catalyst sounds reasonable. However, we're given this line in the context of the story of Mass Effect. That story does not support the Catalyst's statements. The Catalyst is making absolutist claims and must convince us of its position. What matters is what the story has told us, not what we think of what is possible outside of the narrative.

 

 

 

 

 

You say that the endings might well be all valid. Yep, I agree on that. Each of us has sooo many different opinions, even if we agree in some parts, we disagree in others. I've seen people arguing for Control, against Control, for and against Destroy and Synthesis, and with that I just wanna say that everything at the end boils down to your own personal beliefs. Many people might not agree with you, others might, but still, you pick your favourite ending according to your very own beliefs and morals, so to me, there is no right or wrong. Only your 'personal right'. Everything is valid, not only your beliefs, but those of others as well.
To each their own is probably appropriate here.

 

On the one hand there are personal opinions on the endings, but there is also the question of what values are supported by the narrative. I have issues with the endings, particularly Control and Synthesis, on both counts.

 

 

 

I'm rather saying potential from our perspective. Yes, the Catalyst speaks of certainty, which is completely fine because of its axiom.

I'm all for Destroy as I'd rather have organics and synthetics develop on their own, conflicts or no, we don't know. We don't need an entity deciding things for us. But seeing it that way does not mean I think the Catalyst is necessarily wrong with its axiom. It's still a machine thinking like a machine.

 

This is very true, and it's not a bad aspect of the Catalyst. The problem is that we are forced into working with the Catalyst and its options and can't tell it to F-off. The EC gave us that option, but it results in failure. Thematically, this should have resulted in victory. For all of Fallout 3's failings, it did this idea right with President EDEN. You can convince him that he's wrong or a problem and he will self destruct.

[Natureguy85]

The game heavily down plays the full potential of Synthetic life and it's interaction with technology.

 

And here we have the golden sentence. This is the core problem of all your posts and understanding of Mass Effect and fiction generally. You are taking the possibilities of AI from real life or other fiction and applying it to Mass Effect. You can't do that. You must use AI as presented in this particular work.

 

You're free to criticize how AI, or anything else, is represented and how believable it is because of real world experience, but that's a separate issue.

 

 

 

he problem I see with your logic and logic similar to it is it falls under what I call Disney logic. You know guy meets girl, they know each other for a week and then get married and live happily ever after having 2.5 children and living together to the ripe old age of 102. Which is a nice story and makes for a very heart warming ending but has about as much in common with real relationships as Mass Effect fields do with physics in the real world.

 

This sentence is similar. It doesn't matter how well Mass Effect fields work with real physics. What matters is that they follow the internal rules of the fiction.

[Natureguy85]

Your going to have to show your math on that one. Because 6 years of time passing in the trilogy vs couple hundred years studying the problem initially finding common patterns in the development of society and repeated attempts to prevent those patterns from falling into a self destruction path. Before finally going with the Reaper solution then a few million years of watching as society after society develops and follows the same path towards eventual self destruction. Not really a valid comparison. It is like a 6 year old telling their grandparents all they need to do create world peace is everyone just get along. Which is an extremely simplified set up that ignores all factors that exist like social and economic standing, local or national history and all those nasty inconvenient variables that exist in the real world and fail to show up in the fantasy world of children who can not comprehend how complex the world actually is yet.

 

Incorrect. The Catalyst is the one making unsupported claims, relying on it's age and saying "Trust me." This is nothing more than an argument from authority, which is a fallacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Reaper is a synthetic/organic hybrid created when the minds of individuals are uploaded into a physical media storage while their bodies are rendered down to their base elements and reconfigured at the atomic level. Their atoms are then rearranged to form the elements required to form the Reaper body. The the minds coalesce to form a new intelligence better then the individuals that were used to form it.

 

This isn't a big deal, but I'm curious; where did you get this explanation? Is it a codex entry I'm forgetting? From ME2, the organic goop is pumped into the Reaper body and we're not sure what purpose it serves. There's nothing to suggest the minds are uploaded as a separate process from pumping in the goop, which EDI says contains the "essence" of a species.

 

 

 

Synthesis benefits everyone. Overcoming organic limitations with technology is the very basis of humanity and all other races in the galaxy entire point of technological development. This is the end of that path and the beginning of a new one. You are basing if it is good or not on consent which is a child's argument. A child complaints that veggies are not good because they don't want to eat them. Even though they are good for them even if they taste terrible. The very nature of being under or a part of any governmental body in any form by it's very nature strips you of personal choice and forces you to follow what ever they decide is law and good for you.

 

Sure, the writing tells us everything is great, and this is clearly meant to be the good and best ending. However, choice and the right of species to chart their own course vs being pushed down a path by the Reapers (or others, looking at the Genophage and Geth arcs), were themes of the series. Synthesis snaps back in the opposite direction.

 

 

 

Control again benefits everyone though not in a direct way like synthesis. When Shepard becomes the new guiding intelligence behind the Reapers it alters everything. You can not work under the assumption they will think the exact same way as before or really be anything like they were before at least in terms of harvest and what not. Despite what ever democratic BS the various races of the galaxy profess to having the real power of any individual race was held in the hands of a minority of people. And on the galactic scale that power was held in the hands of a minority of races. Besides the obvious fact it could act as a deterring and mediator to war and conflict saving thousands if not millions of lives.  Issues like say how terribly the Quarians were treated post Morning War or lest say that time the council rounded up and executed peaceful AI's.

 

Plenty of awful dictators have assumed power under such arguments. The problems with one system are not an argument to start a different terrible one.

 

Wasn't that last example in the Citadel DLC? That's another argument after the fact in an attempt to retroactively bolster the ending.

 

 

 

Destroy benefits organics short term. It provides the most satisfaction because yay the evil Reapers are gone but doesn't address the long term issues of organics and synthetics. Any ground gained while dealing with the Geth is effectively erased with their death. Meaning the next synthetic life that develops is now an unknown factor.  It could end up peaceful or it could end up murderous. Depending on how far into the future it is when it develops it could be even more advanced then the Geth were at the end of the game. Destroy is a lot like punching your boss in the face when you quit your job. Very satisfying at the time because you get to see the pompous jack ass knocked on his ass. As well as you don't have to work at the job you hate any more. How ever your future is now full of questions. How long will it be till you are arrested? Will they press charges? Will you see jail time? Will you be able to work again when they find out your criminal background has you punching your last manager? There is a chance nothing will happen and everything will be fine. But there is also the distinct possibility the best job you will be able to get from now on is asking if they want fries with that.

 

Catalyst has thousands of years of evidence to back up it's statements. You at your best have maybe 100 if you live long enough. Or for a more specific in game example Shepard has maybe 40 years experience vs the 20 million the Catalyst has. We only see about 6 years and we see an extremely narrow view centered entirely around Shepard.

 

For all intents and purposes your statement is a like like  someone claiming that racism doesn't exist in the world in any form simply because they haven't see it. Which ignores just how narrow a view they actually have of the world due to the limitations of seeing it only though their eyes.

 

 

There are no long term issues of organics and synthetics presented by the narrative. These are unsupported claims by the Catalyst. That chance that everything will be fine is enough to be rid of the Reapers. The Catalyst is making absolutist claims.

 

 

 

Genocide of a complete race is not casualties of war. It is genocide.

 

Without getting into if it still counts as genocide or not, they are casualties of war. The Geth are not killed out of malice, but are "caught up in the blast" that destroys the Reapers. It's very similar to the Project in Arrival. The Geth are sacrificed to save everyone else.

 

 

 

 

And you haven't shown how conflict will not happen either. Just some wild claims and estimated guesses.

 

So why is one person make a random guess wrong but another person making a random guess correct? Oh that is right personal bias steps in were you agree with one over the other because that is what you want to be true.

 

 

We don't have to show how it won't happen. The Catalyst is making the absolutist claims. It must support them. All we have to do is challenge its assertions. The burden of proof is on the Catalyst.

 

 

 

It isn't about who is right and wrong it is about preventing millions of deaths.

 

You pretty much sum up all that is wrong with everyone now a days. More interested in being right then doing what needs to be done to prevent future problems.

 

Well, if that's the case the Reapers are the worst. They kill billions or trillions each cycle. Had Synthetics just wiped out everything, there would have been a lot less deaths. Sure, there would also be less lives, but those lives will just be snuffed out eventually.

 

Those are only potential problems and the assurances can be deemed too costly.

 

 

I measure it based on a series of progression that seems to be happening.

 

Nature creates man. Man develops, grows and evolves beyond nature's control. Man then learns to dominate nature the way nature once dominated it. Man then creates synthetics. Synthetics develop, grows and evolves beyond man's control. Synthetics then learn to dominate man and nature the way man once dominated them.

 

Then there is the social set up were AI and synthetics in general are treated galaxy wide like the boggy man. This deeply ingrains a mistrust and fear against them. This fear and mistrust will lead to people attacking them and causing the AI's to retaliate simply to protect themselves. Which would lead to a series of escelating events resulting in our right war. Which AI's and Synthetics in general have a massive advantage over organics.

 

Or a few AI's go rouge and given how heavily organics relay on technology could cause massive damage like causing a ground based fusion reactor to overload exploding and killing millions. Or hacking into government system to launch missiles at bases. If done right it make it seem like an unprovoked attack by one group or race against another leading to an entire war between them over it. If/When it is found who actually caused it there would be massive backlash against Synthetics and AI's in general regardless of if they were active participates in the actions or not.  To calm the population and to prevent another problem from happening the various governments would work to pass laws and restrictions on AI's simply because they are AI's. Creating more and more tension around them before it finally erupts in armed conflict.

 

And your conclusion is drawn from?

 

 

The first follows the Catalyst's claims but is unsupported by the narrative

 

The second is supported by the game via the Quarians and Geth. However, despite the "massive advantage," Synthtics continually lose. The place where they won was the Morning War, but the Quarians return and were winning prior to Reaper intervention.

 

The third is the same sort of hypothetical that you criticize me for when I'm changing the game, but here you're using it to defend what's in the game. Sure, all of that is a possible way to handle an AI in fiction, but Mass Effect doesn't do that so it's utterly irrelevant.

[Natureguy85]

NO.. because the catalyst is lying.  He is lying right from the get-go.  THere is no truth in what it says because your experiences with commander shepard render his assumptions to be incorrect - and thats putting it politely.

 

If you assume the catalyst is telling the truth, then you are committing the most serious underestimation of what it really is.... a reaper.  Nothing it says can be taken as truth.  Synthesis is the best solution?  for who?  Certainly not for organics who have no say in the matter whatsoever.  Control?  who does that suit?  You know who it suits.  Destroy doesn't suit the reapers.  The reapers would like you to choose an end where they exist.  Is it because you dont want to wipe out the geth?  There are always casualties in war, or havent you been paying attention to the narrative?

 

Life is chaos.  Life would not exist without it.  You can try to being order to it, but at the end of the day if you choose synthesis then life will die.  The final evolution of life according to the reapers is..... the reapers.  I would much rather blow them to kingdom come, and I fail to see why anyone would embrace them with open arms after the galactic wide genocide they have been dealing out.  It's like making nice with an axe murderer just because he says his axe is blunt and he's really just misunderstood.

 

I don't know that it's fair to say the Catalyst is lying, but it is certainly wrong. It could well be totally right about every other cycle. However, what matters is this cycle. Not because it overrides everything the Catalyst has said, but because that's what the story is about. This cycle may just be different, a notable exception. But an exceptional circumstance may require and exceptional response. This cycle doesn't need the Reapers, even if every other one did. In a way, the Geth broke the cycle by not aggressively attacking Organics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ending was profound and thought provoking.

 

People are still talking about it after all this time. If it wasn't thought provoking, no one would be talking about it. 

 

It also had a profound impact on people, because they are still feeling the impact that the ending had on them, good or bad. 

 

That's Mass Effect for you. 

 

Profound, no. The thought it provoked was "What the hell is this crap?"

[Dantriges]

Catalyst has thousands of years of evidence to back up it's statements. You at your best have maybe 100 if you live long enough. Or for a more specific in game example Shepard has maybe 40 years experience vs the 20 million the Catalyst has. We only see about 6 years and we see an extremely narrow view centered entirely around Shepard.

 

For all intents and purposes your statement is a like like  someone claiming that racism doesn't exist in the world in any form simply because they haven't see it. Which ignores just how narrow a view they actually have of the world due to the limitations of seeing it only though their eyes.

 

It didn´t show anything to back up its claims and the only thing we know is, that there was a problem in the Leviathan cycle. We don´t know if the Catalyst is buggy, limited by internal blocks it doesn´t realize it has, limited by being patterned after Leviathan thought processes or if there is a runtime error resulting in that conclusion. Or if it´s pulling a fast one and just kills everyone for the lulz.

The Catalyst is the only AI capable of wiping out organics on a galactic scale. It killed every other AI before it developed to that stage. According to his own dogma, which you seem to buy in, it doesn´t wipe out organics, it preserves organic life and helps new life to flourish.

So the only AI which could have killed all organics didn´t do so and saved us from the bad AIs in its own special way.

[fraggle]

Sorry If this already got covered;

Besides that 'surpassing' is not necessarily going along with 'conflict', I still don't see how:

"Inevitable there will be conflict between synthetics and organics" and "(Eventually some) Synthetics will win (one/several/most of) these conflicts"

does lead to:

"(Some / all) Synthetics will (probably / always) destroy all organics"

 

Bracketed parts are omitted by the catalyst, while the bold is specifically mentioned. This means that it is absolutely sure of that, but does not present the slightest bit of information leading to the conclusion that all organics would be eradicated.

 

Edit: Missed possible inferred statements and words, also missed a definitive catalyst statement..

 

Of course, surpassing does not necessarily mean conflict, I totally agree.

The Catalyst does tell us it has seen synthetics wipe out organics multiple times, and from that data it gathered back then, it came to the conclusion that this is what will happen every time. Like this silly example: observed 100 different synthetic races -> 100 times organics were wiped out once synthetics surpassed them, no matter what was tried -> it must be true for all synthetics in the future (because of their exponential growth) -> inevitable that organics are wiped out.

We know it never gave synthetic-organic relationships the chance again to develop to a point where synthetics could potentially wipe out all organics because the cycles are supposed to prevent exactly that. I think the important thing here is to see the two sides again. From our side, the Catalyst's axiom ranges from 'total BS' to 'could happen' to 'I'm sure that's what's going to happen!' - I've seen all these opinions here on bsn already

But from the Catalyst's side, it would never see it is wrong, because for it, the data it gathered over the years is the absolute truth. I think it's stuck in its programming. Stuck in its logic which is correct for it, but might be wrong depending on what you believe yourself. That's why I also believe that we could not have convinced it to stop with the cycles even if we were given the option.

If we take EDI, she gets to experience human behaviour, interacts with different people, can get guidance from Shepard and can modify her behaviour accordingly. The Catalyst never had anyone influence it, for billions of years it thinks it's correct with its axiom and I think it's somewhat stuck with it.

 

So, um... yeah, while we only have the Catalyst's words, for some it was enough 'evidence' to accept its logic, others don't believe it and hate it because of that. 

 

While I am going to break this post down and point out problems with it, this whole post was awesome. It was both well thought out and civil, which is a welcome change from some other people's posts.

 

Thanks, I know things can get pretty heated in here, haha!

 

This is true, but in order for us to care, the Reapers have to get us to see it from their point of view. We are given no value to the preservation of the goop in a Reaper shell. There is never any benefit offered to being made into a Reaper.

 

True, but I think that Legion touches a bit on the topic of the value. IIRC it states that the Reapers offered everything to Shepard/organics what the geth aspire - true unity, transcendance, immortality. The Reapers offer exactly that, but they don't see that this is not what we would want, it truly isn't of value for us, we gain nothing from being turned into a Reaper.

Even though... I guess the question again is - how does each individual see it? Do they want to become something more than human? Do they want to be preserved in a different state for an eternity, become indeed immortal? I would think not, but maybe there are some who welcome this idea (who knows). I certainly wouldn't want that, and that's exactly what the Reapers can't understand. They can't understand that we would rather choose to just die instead of being preserved (I think this is tied to Leviathan and this tribute does not flow from a dead race thinking; could be wrong though).

 

Sure, on it's own, this statement from the Catalyst sounds reasonable. However, we're given this line in the context of the story of Mass Effect. That story does not support the Catalyst's statements. The Catalyst is making absolutist claims and must convince us of its position. What matters is what the story has told us, not what we think of what is possible outside of the narrative.

 

I find this quite interesting, because while you're right that the Catalyst's claims are never actually proven within the game, I like it exactly because of that. For some it's an opportunity to look beyond the game, to think about this kind of stuff and if it could truly happen or not. It's only a game, but people think about this in all seriousness. I find that pretty cool, and I really don't mind that it is not proven within the game.

But that's just personal taste of course and I already know most people don't feel like me.

 

On the one hand there are personal opinions on the endings, but there is also the question of what values are supported by the narrative. I have issues with the endings, particularly Control and Synthesis, on both counts.

 

That's because they're space magic, I take it?

If we're talking on a moral level, you're right to have these issues. I've also seen people interpret Control and Synthesis differently, and more positive, which I think doesn't make their opinion wrong (unless it's clearly stated in the game). I don't have to agree with some things, but I can respect their take on these choices.

I'm interested to see how differently people can perceive these scenes. To be fair though, it's been some time since I've seen the Synthesis ending, and it was pre-EC, but now I try to explore them from a different angle in form of a Shepard that is very different from the point of view that I originally had. I curious to see how I will perceive Synthesis this time, or Control with my next Shepard.

 

This is very true, and it's not a bad aspect of the Catalyst. The problem is that we are forced into working with the Catalyst and its options and can't tell it to F-off. The EC gave us that option, but it results in failure. Thematically, this should have resulted in victory.

 

Did not read the Fallout 3 stuff because I haven't finished it so far (it's on my 'games to play' list that never decreases because I replay ME over and over ).

 

I think we already talked about that in some other thread a while ago. For me it's not necessarily being forced to work with the Catalyst, but with the Crucible. People are pissed off because the Catalyst is there to explain the functions. But they don't really have a choice, because the Crucible has docked and is ready, and it could be destroyed any moment.

 

See, for me it thematically fits that refusal results in failure. People refuse to believe the Catalyst, they refuse to believe its logic or are repulsed by some or all choices provided by it. Or they might believe in the right for each individual to decide over their life instead of having Shepard force something like Synthesis on everyone. In refusing the Catalyst, they refuse to use the Crucible. I know it looks like the Catalyst switches off the Crucible, but I somehow still want to believe that the Reapers destroy it physically like in the original ending.

[Iakus]

And your isn't based on assumptions? What is the old saying. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Because unless you are copying a direct line from the game or making a statement such as AP ammo allows more damage done to Brutes because they have armor instead of health. It is an assumption.

 

I can point to examples where AI did not genocide organics.

 

Can you point to me an example where they did?

 

 

 

Oh yes Geth tech they could only get though outside help themselves. And lets not forget that the very nature of the Geth worked against them when the Quarians targeted their Dyson sphere causing panic when functionally immortal being suddenly had to deal with death and the over all loss of intelligence because of it. This is a weakness normal AIs do not have and as soon as that dependency on each other was removed with the Reaper upgrade the Geth started to hand the Quarians their own bottom on a silver platter. Let us also not forget the various races of the galaxy got a hold of Reaper tech an altered it to be used in weapons against them and yet it still wasn't enough to turn the tide against them.

The tech they used was developed by Admiral Xen.

 

What is a "normal AI?"  One that has a Pinocchio complex?

 

 

 

No more speculation then the idea that EDI and/or the Geth would some how lead any other Synthetic life into singing kumbya around a camp fire and would never go to war with them. The game heavily down plays the full potential of Synthetic life and it's interaction with technology. Save for EDI or the villain when ever it is convenient to help the protagonist or move the plot along. Given how effective a omni tool is at hacking doors, computers and what have you and that is even lower on the scale then a VI. That ability in the hands of a fully self aware AI would be able to access anything connected to any sort of network that isn't 100% isolated. It would need manual inputs because if it worked with an Omni tool it would be able to be compromised as they could go after the omni tool first infecting it with a program that would transfer to the one they are trying to get to. Uploading that program into the secure terminal and have it execute a series of commands required to get what they want done.
 

Who cares if organics and synthetics eventually go to war again (or, more specifically, certain organics and certain synthetics)?  The point is, conflict is not inevitable just because organic and synthetic.  Nor is it inevitable that synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics.  

 

 

Yes all have been by the Reapers save all those times before the Reapers existed that caused the Leviathans to create something to solve the problem. Considering how egotistical and above everyone else they seem to think they are that would need to be a significant problem to get them to care about it. Then we have the Geth who without the existence of the Mass Relay network would have killed off the Quarians. Who they them selves tried to destroy the Geth out of fear of the Geth rising up against them.

So the Reapers cannot point to a single example of organic genocide on the part of synthetics which they were not responsible for themselves.  Glad we cleared that up.

 

BEcause the geth ALLOWED THE QUARIANS TO ESCAPE

[KrrKs]

The Catalyst does tell us it has seen synthetics wipe out organics multiple times, and from that data it gathered back then, it came to the conclusion that this is what will happen every time. Like this silly example: observed 100 different synthetic races -> 100 times organics were wiped out once synthetics surpassed them, no matter what was tried -> it must be true for all synthetics in the future (because of their exponential growth) -> inevitable that organics are wiped out.

We know it never gave synthetic-organic relationships the chance again to develop to a point where synthetics could potentially wipe out all organics because the cycles are supposed to prevent exactly that. I think the important thing here is to see the two sides again. From our side, the Catalyst's axiom ranges from 'total BS' to 'could happen' to 'I'm sure that's what's going to happen!' - I've seen all these opinions here on bsn already

But from the Catalyst's side, it would never see it is wrong, because for it, the data it gathered over the years is the absolute truth.

I understand that most of the catalyst's logic seems totally sound when operating under the same preconditions. I also can completely get behind that first axiom.

(Your 'silly example' seems to be exactly what it did. )

What I don't get is the 'jump' and sudden exaggeration done in the following thesis.

 

(The following is based on this transcript from an IT page. It seems to be the pre-EC conversation, but those lines didn't change afaik. So it's still just as valid)

The catalyst's statements go on like this:

Axiom: "The created will always rebel against their creators"

            -'creators' here could simply mean organics in general. On the other hand it could also mean specific entities.

A bit of exposition: "We harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone"

            -So the catalyst does differentiate between organics in general, more specific 'advanced civilisations', (i.e., civilisations with the ability to create synthetics in the foreseeable future) and less advanced 'younger species'. This means that the previous mentioned 'creators' are narrowed down to at least the level of 'advanced civilisations'.

Thesis: "Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics."

            -Suddenly it is all organics that are threatened. No longer just 'creators' or 'advanced civilisations', but all organics. Also every younger Species, every animal, every mushroom, every bacteria even.

If it would state that "some/several synthetics will destroy some/several/most organics", sure -why not. But with the specific 'all' thrown in there it becomes more than far fetched. And at least that part should have had an explanation, imo.

[MrFob]

I understand that most of the catalyst's logic seems totally sound when operating under the same preconditions. I also can completely get behind that first axiom.

(Your 'silly example' seems to be exactly what it did. )

What I don't get is the 'jump' and sudden exaggeration done in the following thesis.

 

(The following is based on this transcript from an IT page. It seems to be the pre-EC conversation, but those lines didn't change afaik. So it's still just as valid)

The catalyst's statements go on like this:

Axiom: "The created will always rebel against their creators"

            -'creators' here could simply mean organics in general. On the other hand it could also mean specific entities.

A bit of exposition: "We harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone"

            -So the catalyst does differentiate between organics in general, more specific 'advanced civilisations', (i.e., civilisations with the ability to create synthetics in the foreseeable future) and less advanced 'younger species'. This means that the previous mentioned 'creators' are narrowed down to at least the level of 'advanced civilisations'.

Thesis: "Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics."

            -Suddenly it is all organics that are threatened. No longer just 'creators' or 'advanced civilisations', but all organics. Also every younger Species, every animal, every mushroom, every bacteria even.

If it would state that "some/several synthetics will destroy some/several/most organics", sure -why not. But with the specific 'all' thrown in there it becomes more than far fetched. And at least that part should have had an explanation, imo.

 

It should be added here that the "all organics" is absolutely essential to the catalyst's construct of logic. If it were just "some", than the cycle solution is not an improvement at all because it already facilitates exactly what the catalyst wants to prevent. The only thing that would be worse than the cycles is the destruction of all organic life forever (and keep in mind, since organic life can develop on it's own, this doesn't just mean a one time extinction campaign but rather would require the synthetics to perform everlasting galaxy wide maintenance to maintain sterility, an enormous task that even the reapers are incapable of performing).

[BloodyMares]

It should be added here that the "all organics" is absolutely essential to the catalyst's construct of logic. If it were just "some", than the cycle solution is not an improvement at all because it already facilitates exactly what the catalyst wants to prevent. The only thing that would be worse than the cycles is the destruction of all organic life forever (and keep in mind, since organic life can develop on it's own, this doesn't just mean a one time extinction campaign but rather would require the synthetics to perform everlasting galaxy wide maintenance to maintain sterility, an enormous task that even the reapers are incapable of performing).

Skipping the question of why would any AI want to eradicate all life in the galaxy, I see no point in making an emphasis on all organic life. The Catalyst's purpose was to find the solution to created (synthetic)-creator (organic) conflict as I understand, not protect all life in general. And in this task the Catalyst fails horribly. Its mission was to reconcile two hostile groups, not eradicate both of them. Though If it was "protect all life", would it care if organics or cyborgs destroy all life instead of synthetics or would it simply watch as it happens? The Catalyst is a buggy VI that doesn't know what it's doing.

[congokong]

Skipping the question of why would any AI want to eradicate all life in the galaxy, I see no point in making an emphasis on all organic life. The Catalyst's purpose was to find the solution to created (synthetic)-creator (organic) conflict as I understand, not protect all life in general. And in this task the Catalyst fails horribly. Its mission was to reconcile two hostile groups, not eradicate both of them. Though If it was "protect all life", would it care if organics or cyborgs destroy all life instead of synthetics or would it simply watch as it happens? The Catalyst is a buggy VI that doesn't know what it's doing.

Its mission was preservation of organic life; not reconciliation of organics and synthetics.

 

It should be added here that the "all organics" is absolutely essential to the catalyst's construct of logic. If it were just "some", than the cycle solution is not an improvement at all because it already facilitates exactly what the catalyst wants to prevent. The only thing that would be worse than the cycles is the destruction of all organic life forever (and keep in mind, since organic life can develop on it's own, this doesn't just mean a one time extinction campaign but rather would require the synthetics to perform everlasting galaxy wide maintenance to maintain sterility, an enormous task that even the reapers are incapable of performing).

Not necessarily extinction, but all organics' fate would be at the whims of some synthetic race. Granted, this happens already with the reapers, but their purpose is to actually leave primitive organics alone; something some other synthetic race likely wouldn't do.

 

 

Frankly, I'm baffled how many people can not see the huge warning signs of what the catalyst suggests, and instead question its validity. Its accumulation of intellect would be like comparing ours to mice; probably far more. And people don't see the signs of what it suggests through Legion or EDI? Thanks to those characters though, emotional appeal clouds people's judgment; the way people liking Wrex makes them think a race that can produce effectively 10,000 more offspring than humans could ever peacefully stabilize their population.

 

Then there are the people who seem to think the geth are somehow proof the catalyst is wrong despite:

1) The geth are only one synthetic race

2) The geth were in their relative infancy until ME3 if given those reaper upgrades

3) We only see the peace for several weeks during wartime

4) The geth are hardly pacifists

 

From what we know of the geth until Legion, they have killed every organic they've come across upon leaving the Perseus Veil, and killed any who have entered it; peaceful intentions or otherwise. Yes, the quarians instigated the initial conflict, but the geth's continuous hostility to organics for centuries afterwards did them no favors regarding sympathy.

 

It's just a fact of life. The strong rule the weak; in evolution, government, etc. In the long term, I cannot fathom how clearly superior synthetics would ever put up with the flaws of organics and continuously allow equality. Organics might even instigate the conflict that would wipe them out.