HOME | DD
brinx-II β The synthetics end
Published: 2013-07-10 21:28:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 29343; Favourites: 830; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
which of you have chosen the destruction ending, hum ?Related content
Comments: 285
"They are only robots in the end"
This makes me want to ask you if we've been playing the same video game...
π: 1 β©: 1
Yes I have. And synthetics are not organics. However you wanna name them.
π: 0 β©: 1
That doesn't make them any less alive. Wheter your hardware is organic or synthetic, it's still genocide.
π: 1 β©: 1
If you think machines are alive, that's your opinion. I have my own and no regrets with my choices. As much as a machine speaks like human, looks like human or another sentient specie, it is still not REAL. It's a reflection of what you would wish to believe it is. If you believe in space magic or even IF it wasn't so, taking the individuality from other races to make everyone "equal" thinking that such "God-like" power would be the right call, then congratulations. The Catalyst has successfully brain washed you
π: 0 β©: 1
Doesn't take their individuality, you see that from the slides, and if a machine is a self-aware being then yes, it's alive. It's not that it "looks" like it's alive, if it's fully sentient it just is alive. That's not subjective.
π: 1 β©: 2
All I see here, R-110 is that you're too stubborn to let people decide for themselves and you're trying to push your own ideals onto them. I personally chose Destroy and will always do so because it's the only ending that makes sense. To me machines aren't living being, they're tools. EDI is the only character I will ever regret having to sacrifice, this doesn't change the fact that most of the synthetics in this franchise are just tools.
π: 0 β©: 1
Only the VI's. The AI's are beings, it's made incredibly clear.
π: 0 β©: 0
There is one amazing thing called science which proves your theory wrong. Not biological being, not alive. 
π: 0 β©: 1
"Science", as you're calling your statement, doesn't dispove sentience, otherwise no one would be alive. If you're a self-aware being then science says yes, you are alive. Your hardware makes no difference there, that's not called science, that's called your subjectivity trying to overide objectivity.
π: 0 β©: 1
A machine will never be a being, it will be a cheap attempt of it but never the real thing.
π: 0 β©: 1
If it's self aware it is.
There's nothing to argue here, like I pointed out it's objective, there's no opinion involved. You can think it's not alive, you can think any sentient being isn't alive if you want, but subjectivity doesn't change objectivity.
π: 0 β©: 2
PS: I meant "prove". Don't mind the typo.
π: 0 β©: 0
We don't even have that technology, therefore you cannot proof what you say either. Sentient being is capable of feeling. Which AIs in Mass Effect CANNOT, unless you believe Synthesis is real and it shows all the green space magic around the synthetics and then organics as well. And even though, it's only AFTER Synthesis option is chosen, not before that. AIs try to understand and want to be like organic beings, but they can't. So many times EDI makes questions to Shepard about that, since she isn't able to feel it by herself naturally, without any program "allowing" her to believe she does. That's why I think that the whole purpose of AIs is an abomination to say the least. People (real people, organics) let their FEELINGS get in the way, and that's what makes organics what they are and AIs not. Organics create AIs to achieve "perfection" throughout an own creation, which is plain wrong and stupid. Although I love Mass Effect as a SCI-FI series, it contradicts the laws of physics/nature in all possible ways, but I don't mind most of them, since it allows us to dream something else than reality actually is. However, some things don't change that far much. You came between a comment of mine with someone else using the word "genocide" which I clearly think is not the case, since a machine isn't something alive, so you cannot kill it in the first place. If it's any comfort, since I don't believe crap of what the Catalyst says, I chose Destroy and other AIs (apart from Reapers) were not affected by it. And even if they were, they could be rebuilt. THERE. That's my Mass Effect ending.
π: 0 β©: 1
As I pointed out, your hardware has nothing to do with you being alive, sentience does. They're self-aware beings so, simply put, they're alive. Your opinion doesn't change that; it's not subjective.
π: 0 β©: 1
This type of topic is as boring as the ones regarding religion. At least, discussing it with you. That's why I wanted it to end, cause it won't go anywhere. No offense, I get that in a sci fi game everything is possible but that depends on what we are discussing now. Are we discussing AIs in game or what the real thing is in real life? Some things, like I said, in a game I can ignore the non sense of it, some others not so much. AIs are one example. The concept of this one(for me) applies in real life as in my decisions in a game. No feelings, not organic, but a machine made by organics? Not truly alive. Exactly why they are called "Artificial" Intelligence. If they were otherwise, they would have the opposite meaning of artificial. 
Same as for articles regarding contemporary studies of Artificial Intelligence. It is still very primitive and I hope that super advanced AIs will remain in fiction only.
But whatever makes you happy man, believe what you will.
π: 0 β©: 1
Artificial refers to it's hardware, which isn't organic, not it's intelligence or being.
There's no belief in it, they really are beings. It's not an opinion, they are sentient; alive. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm correcting your mistake and pointing out that subjectivity doesn't change objectivity. Whether or not you believe them, or anyone, to be alive based on your opinion and not their sentience doesn't change anything.
π: 0 β©: 1
Where sentience can exist is really debatable in philosophy, religion, etc. Articles regarding what a sentient being really is go on and on, from different cultures, beliefs, and so on. It's like walking in circles when debating such things for long time. That's why YOUR truth is not my truth. Therefore, I will consider your concept wrong. We have been typing the same thing this whole time. I would never choose machines over the greater good of organics, I would never dare to believe I could mix both without their consent. No one has that right, no one with a minimum of mental sanity would believe it's even possible to happen, unless if being egocentric enough to assume that such "God-like" powers would be rightful to him/her (speaking now about Shepards who believe their Shepards are more than a mere human in some degree, to possess space magic). I rather use an overall logic. SO WHAT? Sentience in AIs is a very complicated subject to discuss, since we don't have at the moment real ones interacting with us. But still, wishing to correct me, doesn't make your argument correct. Machines are still machines by the end of the day.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not really to be debated, if it's a self-aware being it's alive. Denying that something that's self-aware and a being, for example humans, aren't alive in your opinion doesn't change the fact they are.
Even if you try arguing that self-aware beings aren't alive in the real world, that wouldn't even change anything in the Mass Effect universe, where being alive means you most certaintly are alive.
As such, Destroy is genocide.
π: 0 β©: 1
You think that machines have feelings because they are aware of their surroundings and can talk and act like organics in every day tasks, but the truth is that they are just computers. Very advanced ones, created in shape and intelligence to resemble real organic life forms. An imitation only. If genocide has a new concept that can be applied to things that are only advanced machines, not organic, not alive, then you are right. Destroy is a genocide. And still is the only honest and best choice for the greater good of the galaxy.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not an opinion, if something is a self-aware being it's alive.
Here's your argument with some words adjusted:
You think that other people have feelings because they are aware of their surroundings and can talk and act like me in every day tasks, but the truth is that they are just animals. Very advanced ones, that resemble me. An imitation only.
You can believe that if you want. You can believe any self-aware being isn't alive if you want. Doesn't change anything, subjectivity doesn't override objectivity.
π: 0 β©: 1
No need to twist my words, just because you haven't understood then. Ask when you don't, don't change them.
LIVING beings such as plants or even bacteria are more alive (and have more rights) than any talking piece of metal will ever be (or have). That's a fact.
I usually enjoy discussions where I can learn something useful from, which hasn't happened in this case. Kinda hard to keep discussing with someone who doesn't seem to know what a real organism (also known as "living being") is made of.
It's maybe time for you to have a break from sci-fi games and study a little about BiologyΒ in your free time.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you're aware, sentient, alive, your hardware is irrelevant. Perhaps you should study life and philosophy, so you don't start thinking nothing else is alive and is just imitating you.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never said nothing else is alive or imitating "me". Please, once more. Don't twist my words because of your ignorance.
AIs are not alive. Not like real organic beings, not in the same level of importance. AIS. And I know a lot about life. I base my opinions with common sense, knowledge and logic, no much time wasted philosophizing if my CPU one day will be put at the same level of importance as any organic life is and end up blinding myself believing it's true.
π: 0 β©: 1
Comon sense, knowledge and logic dictates that a self-aware, sentient being, is alive.
As you can see from what you've been saying, you don't believe that. You dislike how I pointed out what you're saying, you keep thinking it's your words being twisted, but you're saying that if something is self-aware and sentient it isn't alive.
That's not logic. That's not common sense. That's not knowledge.
π: 0 β©: 1
You twisted my words saying I was talking about other "people" (organics - unless you meant AIs to be "people" now? LOL) when I clearly didn't state that but the opposite (towards AIS = not real life). So, yes, you are twisting my words thinking you were "re-writing" them in the same sense I meant them to be, but you are just plain wrong.
I clearly don't know if you are not capable of interpreting a text or if you have some other sort of mental deficiency.
You press the same key over and over, trying to sound as if only your opinion is the that counts. I didn't interfere with your opinions in other comments here, you came between my comment with someone else, accusing "Genocide" towards something that isn't even a biological being and started this. Think whatever you want. You clearly don't know shit of what you are talking about, though.
A talking "self-ware" machine isn't a living being. That's what I've been saying cause it isn't a biological being. It will never be. Do you know what living beings are made of?
Sentient BIOLOGICAL beings are alive. Doesn't matter if a modern computer is aware of what's around it.
It will always be just a machine. Instead of trying to correct me when you don't clearly seem to realize a simple common fact, like I said earlier, go educate yourself instead.
π: 0 β©: 0
Some people just disagree with genocide.
π: 0 β©: 0
Synthesis almost all of the time.
π: 0 β©: 0
that was one of the key-reasons I couldn't choose this.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, f ** k the galaxy ..
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev |