Maybe the Reaper didn't go far enough the first time intentional or not. It's motive and/or delivery may have changed. The Reaper could have intervened earlier for a specific reason and intervened again later for another reason or to correct it's previous intervention and it was not fully successful.Schroing wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
marshalleck wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Mutation is essentially faulty programming and that is a naturally occuring process
Evolution is natural. When a machine does something differing from it's strictly designated programming, that's not a naturally occuring thing. It's a mistake made by someone else. Nature occurs with or without human or sapient interferance. The Geth happened because Quarian programs interacted in a manner they didn't desire. It was programmer error. This error didn't just 'happen', it wasn't natural, it was a malfunction due to improper programming.
The entire incedent can be blamed on the individuals responsible for designing, programming, and upgrading the Geth. Personally, these individuals are criminals in my eyes, those that makes a **** up on the level of creating the atomic bomb.
I actually wonder if it's not possible that a group of geth mining a remote asteroid way out on the fringes of the galaxy became noticed by Sovereign or another Reaper, who analyzed their potential for being developed into useful tools and injected them some minor but malicious code that was then replicated throughout their neural net when they returned to quarian space and caused the initial elevation to awareness. Perhaps the quarian engineers weren't to blame at all, maybe they did do everything correctly and by the books? It would make the situation even more tragic.
edit: to be clear, I am talking about a precursor causal intervention to that of the heretic virus.
That's... not out of the realm of possiblity here. We know Sovereign indoctrinated the Rachni over a thousand years ago, and they weren't even a part of the known galaxy yet. Who's to say he didn't run into the Geth sooner than that and do some... reprogramming to *give* them sentience. That's quite an interesting theory, and there's no evidence to prove or disprove it, either. Hrm.
I find this very unlikely at best. The Heretics - the reaper worshippers - were clearly a split from the much larger Geth faction. If the above had happened, such wouldn't be the case. The normal Geth would be a split from the Heretics, or more likely, wouldn't even exist. By spreading sentience through such a virus, they would've also been capable of simply spreading the Heretic virus at the same time.
Legion, as such, logically wouldn't exist. In fact, even the positioning of the geth factions as we know them points directly in the other direction; normal Geth inhabiting the homeworld, and the other geth having built/converted various space stations in the space between stars. So Legion would need to be lying completely, and, in fact, a Reaper/Heretic agent.
Which is stupid.
The quarians got exactly what they deserved
Débuté par
GuardianAngel470
, mars 07 2010 07:10
#251
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:35
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
-
- Guests
Retour en haut
#252
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:36
FoxMcKalen
-
- Members
- 17 messages
We humans are machines as well. Our bodies are a collection of simple mechanisms, such as hinges and sockets, all designed to transport our consciousnesses from place to place and carry out physical tasks. Not unlike the geth mobile platforms. The fact that we're a lot easier to kill, or higher maintenance in general, doesn't make us any more alive than an AI.CmdrFenix83 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
This arguement about whether or not the geth are sapient is meaningless.
No one's saying they weren't sapient, sentient, or aware of their own existence. I don't consider a walking-talking toaster to be any more alive than Shepard's pistol. They're just incredibly advanced programs that are capable of learning and imitating real life. I don't care how smart or advanced it is. It's a machine and therefor is not 'life' in my eyes.
#253
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:38
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
Schroing wrote...
In which case, yes, you're correct. They are not alive.
I fail to see exactly how such would influence your judgement in any way, however.
Geth aren't alive. As such, they have no rights. They are property. Machines. Malfunctioning ones at that. Sapience simply means that it's capable of thinking on its' own. It does not mean it is alive, as it doesn't follow the defined requirements for living. It's simply a program, data.
#254
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:39
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
In which case, yes, you're correct. They are not alive.
I fail to see exactly how such would influence your judgement in any way, however.
Geth aren't alive. As such, they have no rights. They are property.
You're going to have to explain how this is so.
#255
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:43
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
FoxMcKalen wrote...
We humans are machines as well. Our bodies are a collection of simple mechanisms, such as hinges and sockets, all designed to transport our consciousnesses from place to place and carry out physical tasks. Not unlike the geth mobile platforms. The fact that we're a lot easier to kill, or higher maintenance in general, doesn't make us any more alive than an AI.
Life is a biological product of nature, occuring naturally. Synthetics are not natural. They are fabricated *by* things that are alive. Synthetics are an imitation of living things. Fake. Artificial. They are not alive. They do not breathe. They do not eat. Geth, in particular, don't even exist in a body unless they wish to. They're software, data. All your post did was confirm that they are, in fact, mere imitations of life.
#256
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:43
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
Schroing wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
In which case, yes, you're correct. They are not alive.
I fail to see exactly how such would influence your judgement in any way, however.
Geth aren't alive. As such, they have no rights. They are property.
You're going to have to explain how this is so.
I'm tired of repeating myself. Look at one of the other dozen posts I've made in this thread already... some even on this page.
#257
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:43
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
Another gorram double post. More in this one thread, then I have total since I started posting here. <_<
Modifié par CmdrFenix83, 08 mars 2010 - 11:45 .
#258
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:44
GuardianAngel470
-
- Members
- 4 922 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
This arguement about whether or not the geth are sapient is meaningless.
No one's saying they weren't sapient, sentient, or aware of their own existence. I don't consider a walking-talking toaster to be any more alive than Shepard's pistol. They're just incredibly advanced programs that are capable of learning and imitating real life. I don't care how smart or advanced it is. It's a machine and therefor is not 'life' in my eyes.
You're talking in circles Fenix. Either you recognize that they are sapient and are thus entitled the rights given to all sapient species or you are arguing that the aren't and that they're not. You can't have it both ways.
#259
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:46
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
In which case, yes, you're correct. They are not alive.
I fail to see exactly how such would influence your judgement in any way, however.
Geth aren't alive. As such, they have no rights. They are property.
You're going to have to explain how this is so.
I'm tired of repeating myself. Look at one of the other dozen posts I've made in this thread already... some even on this page.
I've looked at every single post you've made in this thread, and you have not once explained why not being alive, by your definition, means that you lack rights.
You have simply explained that they are not alive in many different words many times over, by your own definition.
#260
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:48
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
This arguement about whether or not the geth are sapient is meaningless.
No one's saying they weren't sapient, sentient, or aware of their own existence. I don't consider a walking-talking toaster to be any more alive than Shepard's pistol. They're just incredibly advanced programs that are capable of learning and imitating real life. I don't care how smart or advanced it is. It's a machine and therefor is not 'life' in my eyes.
You're talking in circles Fenix. Either you recognize that they are sapient and are thus entitled the rights given to all sapient species or you are arguing that the aren't and that they're not. You can't have it both ways.
Apparently you don't understand the definion of sapience.
Sapient
- showing great wisdom or sound judgment.
Nothing there requires the things living beings do. I've already stated what I would call 'alive'.
Modifié par CmdrFenix83, 08 mars 2010 - 11:49 .
#261
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:50
GuardianAngel470
-
- Members
- 4 922 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
This arguement about whether or not the geth are sapient is meaningless.
No one's saying they weren't sapient, sentient, or aware of their own existence. I don't consider a walking-talking toaster to be any more alive than Shepard's pistol. They're just incredibly advanced programs that are capable of learning and imitating real life. I don't care how smart or advanced it is. It's a machine and therefor is not 'life' in my eyes.
You're talking in circles Fenix. Either you recognize that they are sapient and are thus entitled the rights given to all sapient species or you are arguing that the aren't and that they're not. You can't have it both ways.
Apparently you don't understand the definion of sapience.Sapient
- showing great wisdom or sound judgment.
Nothing there requires the things living beings do. I've already stated what I would call 'alive'.
Define living. There's two major ones.
#262
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:51
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
Schroing wrote...
I've looked at every single post you've made in this thread, and you have not once explained why not being alive, by your definition, means that you lack rights.
You have simply explained that they are not alive in many different words many times over, by your own definition.
My computer has no rights. My desk has no rights. Factory machinery has no rights. Geth are just advanced machines. They are not alive, and therefor have no rights. I don't care if they're capable of understanding this, they shouldn't have been allowed to get to that point. The only 'mistake' the Quarians made, was create the neural network for the Geth.
#263
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:52
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
This arguement about whether or not the geth are sapient is meaningless.
No one's saying they weren't sapient, sentient, or aware of their own existence. I don't consider a walking-talking toaster to be any more alive than Shepard's pistol. They're just incredibly advanced programs that are capable of learning and imitating real life. I don't care how smart or advanced it is. It's a machine and therefor is not 'life' in my eyes.
You're talking in circles Fenix. Either you recognize that they are sapient and are thus entitled the rights given to all sapient species or you are arguing that the aren't and that they're not. You can't have it both ways.
Apparently you don't understand the definion of sapience.Sapient
- showing great wisdom or sound judgment.
Nothing there requires the things living beings do. I've already stated what I would call 'alive'.
That's an incredibly wrong definition of the word.
#264
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:52
Onyx Jaguar
-
- Members
- 13 003 messages
IF they can fight for their rights then they have rights.
Anything that fights back has will, and if it has will then it has the right to use it.
Anything that fights back has will, and if it has will then it has the right to use it.
#265
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:52
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Define living. There's two major ones.
Getting tired of repeating myself. I stated on the last page
Living. All living things need food, oxygen, water, etc. These things
define life. A machine is a machine. I don't consider any AI 'alive'.
#266
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:53
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
I've looked at every single post you've made in this thread, and you have not once explained why not being alive, by your definition, means that you lack rights.
You have simply explained that they are not alive in many different words many times over, by your own definition.
My computer has no rights. My desk has no rights. Factory machinery has no rights. Geth are just advanced machines. They are not alive, and therefor have no rights.
W
H
Y
?
#267
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:53
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
Schroing wrote...
That's an incredibly wrong definition of the word.
Take it up with dictionary.com then.
#268
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:53
FoxMcKalen
-
- Members
- 17 messages
Irrelevant. The fact is, they can think, they can feel, they do not want to die, et cetera and so forth. Legion can't explain why he specifically searched for a piece of Shepard's armor to repair himself, implying that he sort of idolizes Shepard. Does that sound like something a mere machine would do?CmdrFenix83 wrote...
FoxMcKalen wrote...
We humans are machines as well. Our bodies are a collection of simple mechanisms, such as hinges and sockets, all designed to transport our consciousnesses from place to place and carry out physical tasks. Not unlike the geth mobile platforms. The fact that we're a lot easier to kill, or higher maintenance in general, doesn't make us any more alive than an AI.
Life is a biological product of nature, occuring naturally. Synthetics are not natural. They are fabricated *by* things that are alive. Synthetics are an imitation of living things. Fake. Artificial. They are not alive. They do not breathe. They do not eat. Geth, in particular, don't even exist in a body unless they wish to. They're software, data. All your post did was confirm that they are, in fact, mere imitations of life.
Where they came from doesn't matter. They've shown every sign of intelligence, and you're refusing that simply because their creation differs from ours. It's the sci-fi equivalent of saying someone born via C-section rather than the "natural" way isn't a true person. When you step back and look at the argument, it just doesn't make sense.
Besides, as has been said before, Bioware has the final say in this matter. According to Bioware, the geth are alive, and no matter how much you insist otherwise, you're wrong. Plain and simple.
#269
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:55
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
That's an incredibly wrong definition of the word.
Take it up with dictionary.com then.
I'd rather take it up with your use of faulty sources.
#270
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:56
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
Schroing wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
I've looked at every single post you've made in this thread, and you have not once explained why not being alive, by your definition, means that you lack rights.
You have simply explained that they are not alive in many different words many times over, by your own definition.
My computer has no rights. My desk has no rights. Factory machinery has no rights. Geth are just advanced machines. They are not alive, and therefor have no rights.
W
H
Y
?
Because it's a machine. That's all the justification I need. It's a tool, property. The Geth have no more right to exist than my desk. If I decided tomorrow to take my desk outside and hack it apart with an axe before tossing it in the trash, that's *my* right as its' owner. In the case of the Geth, they might ask why I'm taking an axe to it, and I'd respond with "because you're asking that question. You're faulty, and need to be replaced with one that does what it is supposed to."
#271
Guest_Captain Cornhole_*
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:57
Guest_Captain Cornhole_*
Guest_Captain Cornhole_*
-
- Guests
Even Legion said no two races are the same. So we have to look at the Geth Sentient Machines for now, they are selfaware but not alive. Was it wrong for the Quarians to attack them? No. Was it the best solutions available? Hell no.
#272
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:57
Onyx Jaguar
-
- Members
- 13 003 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
I've looked at every single post you've made in this thread, and you have not once explained why not being alive, by your definition, means that you lack rights.
You have simply explained that they are not alive in many different words many times over, by your own definition.
My computer has no rights. My desk has no rights. Factory machinery has no rights. Geth are just advanced machines. They are not alive, and therefor have no rights.
W
H
Y
?
Because it's a machine. That's all the justification I need. It's a tool, property. The Geth have no more right to exist than my desk. If I decided tomorrow to take my desk outside and hack it apart with an axe before tossing it in the trash, that's *my* right as its' owner. In the case of the Geth, they might ask why I'm taking an axe to it, and I'd respond with "because you're asking that question. You're faulty, and need to be replaced with one that does what it is supposed to."
NOTHING OWNS THE GETH, THEY ARE SELF AWARE OF THEMSELVES, they killed the Quarians when they tried to excercise their will on them. This has granted freedom and shown that they have will themselves.
Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 08 mars 2010 - 11:58 .
#273
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:57
badjezus007
-
- Members
- 124 messages
To the moron who said humans are machines. No we are not machines. In our body chemical reactions take place all the time. In geth, do chemical reactions take place? No.
#274
Posté 08 mars 2010 - 11:59
CmdrFenix83
-
- Members
- 1 315 messages
FoxMcKalen wrote...
Irrelevant. The fact is, they can think, they can feel, they do not want to die, et cetera and so forth. Legion can't explain why he specifically searched for a piece of Shepard's armor to repair himself, implying that he sort of idolizes Shepard. Does that sound like something a mere machine would do?
Where they came from doesn't matter. They've shown every sign of intelligence, and you're refusing that simply because their creation differs from ours. It's the sci-fi equivalent of saying someone born via C-section rather than the "natural" way isn't a true person. When you step back and look at the argument, it just doesn't make sense.
Besides, as has been said before, Bioware has the final say in this matter. According to Bioware, the geth are alive, and no matter how much you insist otherwise, you're wrong. Plain and simple.
To you, it's irrelevant. To me, that matters. Faulty machinery is faulty machinery. Legion would have been left on the derelict Reaper if I had a say in it. However, because I hate Cerberus, I'm stuck with nothing but activating Legion and getting him destroyed later. I was with Jacob's stance there, "space it."
#275
Posté 09 mars 2010 - 12:00
Schroing
-
- Members
- 650 messages
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
CmdrFenix83 wrote...
Schroing wrote...
I've looked at every single post you've made in this thread, and you have not once explained why not being alive, by your definition, means that you lack rights.
You have simply explained that they are not alive in many different words many times over, by your own definition.
My computer has no rights. My desk has no rights. Factory machinery has no rights. Geth are just advanced machines. They are not alive, and therefor have no rights.
W
H
Y
?
Because it's a machine. That's all the justification I need. It's a tool, property.
Again.
I repeat myself, for perhaps the fifth time.
HOW does failing to meet your definition of life AT ALL classify it as being a tool, property?
