PDA

View Full Version : Whose side are you really on? OWN UP TIME!



Pages : [1] 2

Lady_Of_The_Vine
21st Jun 2008, 14:58
Okay, just a light-hearted fun poll to participate in...nothing to be taken too seriously or matter-of-fact. :)

Right now, we are all mentally preparing ourselves (probably at least a year in advance, dare I say) for that deeply profound moment when we can finally get our sweaty, eager hands on a spanking new copy of DX3, fresh off the press!

You have already constructed a large, IN-YOUR-FACE. can't-be-ignored, neon-flashing "Do Not Disturb!" sign and you've precision-screwed in those extra high-security bolts on all the doors and windows of your humble residence. All important efforts (BUT, OF COURSE!) to ensure that no living entity (man, beast or vegetable) dare interrupts "le moment glorieux". You've also stocked up on vital life-sustaining food supplies (baked beans and beer :p ) and you're ready for whatever it takes to save the world again, totally ALONE, lol.

But... wait a moment! Before we get to this stage, I think it's "Own Up" time for us all.
Yup, I'm curious as to what organisation you truly supported in DX1/DXIW. After all, some or all of them may still be active in DX3. Maybe even the start of DX3 asks you to choose before you can begin play?!... wow!

At the end of the games (if you were obsessed and greedy like me :o ) you probably placed your penultimate save in a convenient spot and then played all the possible endings, lol.
How indecisive of us...shameful even!! ****

So, it really is time to reminisce and make up your mind, once and for all!

To participate in the poll, let us imagine that the different organisations/factions from both DX and DXIW will appear again in DX3. You have to make an immediate choice as to which one you give your utmost loyalty to from the outset. For the sake of keeping this poll as simple as possible, only the MAIN known organisations are included and not any break-off factions like that of X-51. I know we all take this game very seriously, but this poll is just for fun, remember. ;)

Look at the list below and vote for which organisation you really supported (or now choose to support) and thus must continue to do so at the start of DX3.

Relax and take a deep breath... and don't be ashamed to be honest, ha!
You can either vote anonymously and leave it that, or you can reply in this thread and tell us WHO you voted for and WHY - this is an opportunity to wax lyrical about your sociopolitical/religious beliefs or otherwise within the DX setting.

Mmmmm. Decisions, decisions...
This should be very interesting! :D

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
This is not a clandestine personality test for unsuspecting forum members... and psychology has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Hehe. :whistle:



THE CHOICES (in alphabetical order):

1. APOSTLECORP
2. ILLUMINATI (or THE ORDER)
3. KNIGHTS TEMPLAR
4. MAJESTIC 12
5. NSF
6. OMAR
7. UNATCO
8. WTO
9. ANOTHER?

serene_chaos
21st Jun 2008, 15:27
I voted "Another".
Helios! FTW!
I liked Helios's endings in DX and IW, because artificial intelligence is just cooool. so are hive minds, which is why Omar would have been my second choice.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
21st Jun 2008, 15:47
Interesting, thank you for your vote. :)

Yes, I added the "Another" option because I understand that any of the AI entities (Daedalus, Icarus, Helios) may have been a preferred choice to that of an organisation "it" may previously have belonged to. The poll function will only allow a maximum of 10 options, so had to keep it as short as possible.

Oh yes, I definitely had a soft-spot for The Omar. :o :)

stokesy131
21st Jun 2008, 16:45
daedalus and helios

SemiAnonymous
21st Jun 2008, 18:21
Helios for me. I just love the idea of a computer controlling humanity by merging with a human.

Scampi_93
21st Jun 2008, 19:08
you should have put assassin on there along side the knights templars:cool: :D

im a bit obsessed with assassins creed :nut: :whistle:

Gary_Savage
21st Jun 2008, 19:13
I put 'another' because I did not see Tracer Tong's Dark Age ending there. It only later occurred to me that that option might have been the 'NSF.'

jcp28
21st Jun 2008, 19:41
I don't really know. I'd say probably anybody who has a chance of bringing order and stability. As long as they aren't clear bad guys. So I'd say probably UNATCO. The NSF rubbed me the wrong way as "terrorist scum" from the start.

I might pick someone els,e but I can't think of anyone at the moment right now.

Blade_hunter
21st Jun 2008, 20:32
Lol I don't vote yet, because I am like JC (I think) I'm with the people !

SageSavage
21st Jun 2008, 20:34
And I am on my own.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
21st Jun 2008, 23:26
LOL, I'm regretting adding that "Another" option now; its made it too easy! :p

I mean, the fantasy scenario behind this poll is that in order to begin the new DX3 game... you HAVE to decide on an organisation you will side with first. Albeit a 'blind' decision at first, there would be an option (if it were real) to defect to another side later in the game.

Maybe people who vote for "Another" can see that option being for the choices of Daedalus, Icarus or Helios only? Or maybe it's too late now. :(

Oh well, perhaps we can just study what ends up being the most popular organisation "proper" after all the votes have come in. ;)

Tsumaru
22nd Jun 2008, 00:49
For those of you who wanted to vote for Helios - you probably should have selected ApostleCorp.

As for myself. Out of all the endings of IW, I found JC's philosophy to be the most interesting and potentially valuable, and so went the ApostleCorp way. However, it's not something I would like to jump straight into as it *does* seem unnatural to have everyone connected through a nanite strain. If you think about it - how many of you would agree if your country tried to implement forced computer chip implantments into every person? It seems like an invasion of our privacy. It's really a similar (not identical, though) concept with Helios.

As such, I would probably go either Illuminati - come on, who doesn't want to control the world? - or maybe UNATCO, under the assumption I am not aware that it's totally corrupt. However, due to that latter clause, I voted on the poll as Illuminati. Ideally though, UNATCO is the best organisation. Just in DX1 it has a few problems... like being a front for MJ12. >_>

SemiAnonymous
22nd Jun 2008, 04:38
For those of you who wanted to vote for Helios - you probably should have selected ApostleCorp.

Yeah, prolly shoulda:mad2:

iWait
22nd Jun 2008, 07:41
I voted Illuminati.
The Unseen Hand will eat your babies! RAWRAWRRAWRAWRAWR

minus0ne
23rd Jun 2008, 01:24
I voted other, namely; my own damn side. Hey, don't look at me like that, it's the 2050s and someone has to look after numero uno :p

DXeXodus
23rd Jun 2008, 04:06
NSF :D Why? I have no idea. Just as in the games it is tough to choose one.

But ultimately, it doesnt make a difference... Kinda like in the games too :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 07:41
^
We know it doesn't really make a difference.... this is just a little fun poll and I'm curious as to which organisation the majority of players actually prefer. ;)

Anyway, I can see that if we ignore the (cop-out? :p ) "Another" choice, the Illuminati are so far in the lead. :)

I wonder if this choice has been enriched in any way by any factual connotations, rather than just the Illuminati's role within the game. ???
We know the history of secret societies and we know of the concept of New World Order and intellectual elitism vs aristocratic hierarchy etc, as well as any so-called (or not) related 'conspiracy theories'.
Are we quite intrigued with it all... do we find favour in its existence and/or beliefs?

Interesting. ;)
Still, no hard conclusions can be drawn yet - it is still early days and we need some more votes to come in. Vote everyone! :D

Alex Denton
23rd Jun 2008, 07:53
Apostlecore all the way :P I've always supported the Dentons in DX and IW. I mean when I first played through IW I couldn't imagine betraying JC and his brother after all I'd been through with them in Deus Ex. I mean besides its not like the other choices in IW were any good either. Give power to a Secret Society of power hungry people? Let Bigots rule the world? Or kill everyone so the modded out Omar end up dominant? Um.... not exactly good choices. :P

So yea, anyway I'll just stick to supporting JC and his brother, and Tracer Tong :D Which is why I'm playing through Deus Ex again right now. :P

Luminous Path
23rd Jun 2008, 13:27
I voted for the Omar. Their loyalties are directly proportional to an individual's actions towards the collective, they do not pretend to associate with you for any other reason than mutually beneficial transactions. Its all business.

In addition the Omar never actually ask for your allegience until it is hinted at during the return to Liberty Island in IW. By which time you have had enough time to form an opinion. The WTO, Order, Illuminati and Templars are to preoccupied with controlling your abilities, and as for UNATCO and the NSF these are military outfits where there is too much more impetus on obeying orders without conscience.

With the Omar everything is optional. What about Leo Jankowski I hear you cry? His ambition led him down the route to becomming an Omar, and, as to whether he was coerced or not, I leave that to you to decide.

I would have liked to have seen the Omar Russian science labs talked about in IW.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 13:48
OMG, yes! In total agreement with all the above. :cool:
So glad to know I am not completely alone, lol.

Come on, The Omar!!!! :D :D :D




*Wow, I really want them to win the poll, don't I?* :o

:D

Tsumaru
23rd Jun 2008, 13:55
I really liked the Omar and thought they were absolutely awesome - but I could never *be* one of the Omar. Leo Jankowski was a bit of a twerp, but I did sympathise with his situation.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 14:05
Fair comment about not wanting to *be* one of them. :)

However, is that decision because you don't like the way they look etc? Only, if you consider their characters and what they stood for as 'awesome', I'm quite curious as to the reasons why you don't wish to join them, hehe.

I also hope you didn't base your decision not to be an Omar just because of the lacklustre and indecisive, Leo Jankowski. :p He was only a character after all; he doesn't represent YOU.

Luminous Path
23rd Jun 2008, 16:35
The Omar don't have a set belief system such as the WTO --- Law and Order, the Order --- an organic belief system based on religion, the Templars --- fanatical purity (opposition to nanoaugmentation) and the Illuminati --- plutocratic elitism.

They therefore accept anyone without bias i.e. regardless of belief or status; fairly unique among the factions in dx and IW. They rely on an individual's actions towards the syndicate as a judge of character; logical and fair as a persons actions define who they are.

It makes sense that they are stigmatised due to their appearance and filtered voices, but I am glad I am not alone in supporting them. :thumbsup:

Demiurge
23rd Jun 2008, 17:26
Nice poll, I liked the idea of being with MJ-12, a secret organisation powerful enough to take over the world.

Lulz0rz666
23rd Jun 2008, 17:46
I'm in the freemasonry (Europe) myself, so, Illuminati.

SageSavage
23rd Jun 2008, 18:40
I'm in the freemasonry (Europe) myself, so, Illuminati.
:nut: :whistle:

iWait
23rd Jun 2008, 19:32
My Uncle was in the Skull + Bones group.....






Though everybody knows they just sit around betting on horse races while drinking scotch.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 19:39
:nut: :whistle:
LOL, don't worry... just offer up the customary Mason handshake and you'll be okay. :D

***


I'm in the freemasonry (Europe) myself, so, Illuminati.

Mmmm, interesting. :)

As you are a self-proclaimed Freemason, I am curious as to why you choose the Illuminati and not the Knights Templar.
If I remember correctly, didn't the Illuminati (high Masons) take their teachings from the Knights Templars originally? The latter being historically older than the former.

Maybe I have that mixed up/the wrong way round? I am only relying on several books I have read in the past. I have no personal knowledge. :)

Perhaps the teachings of the Illuminati take precedence over that of the KT now?
Please DO elaborate more, I'm very interested. :)

iWait
23rd Jun 2008, 19:47
Wow MissDenton if you connect all the smilies in your post it resembles a hourglass. Strange otherworldly coincidence, or a freemason attempt to summon a demon from the interwebz?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 19:50
A coincidence, absolutely. I can assure you. :)
















:o :whistle:



LOL :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 19:54
My Uncle was in the Skull + Bones group.....

Though everybody knows they just sit around betting on horse races while drinking scotch.


Yes, I've read much about the symbolism of the Skull and Bones. ;)

The initiation rite of the Third Degree/Master Mason tells candidates that they "will make you brother to pirates and corsairs."

***

So, was your last sentence meant to redicule your uncle or just throw us off the heady scent of suspicion? :p

iWait
23rd Jun 2008, 19:59
I actually went to one of their meetings, it was like a social club for powerful white men.

Though I did see a cattle-prod there....... :confused:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 20:03
I actually went to one of their meetings, it was like a social club for powerful white men.


Sorry, but why do you say "for powerful white men"? :scratch:

LOL @ the cattle-prod. :D
So glad I'm a vegetarian and kind to animals. :p

SageSavage
23rd Jun 2008, 20:35
I was interested but the results turned out to be somewhat boring.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 20:38
I was interested but the results turned out to be somewhat boring.

Voting isn't over yet. I only posted it up two days ago, lol. :D

SageSavage
23rd Jun 2008, 20:49
Voting isn't over yet. I only posted it up two days ago, lol. :D Yeah, I was talking about the "cattleprod sex in google images"-thing though. ;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
23rd Jun 2008, 20:54
Yeah, I was talking about the "cattleprod sex in google images"-thing though. ;)

Ooops, I do apologise.
When you said "results", I genuinely thought you were referring to the poll.

Ignore my reply then, thank you. :)

SageSavage
23rd Jun 2008, 21:38
The DX1-ending I like the most is the Dark Age-one so I guess I'd go with NSF. I also got fascinated by the way Silhouette tried it.

Tsumaru
24th Jun 2008, 02:22
I was interested but the results turned out to be somewhat boring.
I concur.


Well, I now command you to watch the video entitled "2 Girls 1 Cup."
I had done this long ago.


Fair comment about not wanting to *be* one of them. :)

However, is that decision because you don't like the way they look etc? Only, if you consider their characters and what they stood for as 'awesome', I'm quite curious as to the reasons why you don't wish to join them, hehe.

I also hope you didn't base your decision not to be an Omar just because of the lacklustre and indecisive, Leo Jankowski. :p He was only a character after all; he doesn't represent YOU.
No, I thought they LOOKED awesome. I was more concerned with the fact you become part of a collective consciousness, lose your personality, and effectively exist entirely as a slightly more self-conscious and intellectual ant. That didn't really appeal to me a whole lot.

Lo Bruto
24th Jun 2008, 04:59
Voted in 'Another'
I'm with Tong 4 the life.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2008, 09:51
No, I thought they LOOKED awesome. I was more concerned with the fact you become part of a collective consciousness, lose your personality, and effectively exist entirely as a slightly more self-conscious and intellectual ant. That didn't really appeal to me a whole lot.

Thanks for your explanation. :)

I understand what you say regarding collective consciousness and the non-desire to become nothing more than an 'intellectual ant', but I'm not too sure about the losing your personality part. I guess because I think you can still have a personality as an Omar, but you just voluntarily lose the "Ego" part. Ego, put simply, is inward, selfish, blind - a self-denial, if you like, that we amount to more than our own desires, inclinations, wants etc. The personality refers more to individual traits, emotions, actions, tastes etc. So, it is possible to dismiss all egocentric tendencies in favour of wider, universal thought, but still retain personality, in my opinion.

I don't believe the collective consciousness necessarily means that you lose the essence of individuality. It is more a case of achieving greater awareness toward your group society and working together for the greater good, the necessity of common survival, evolution/improvement etc. The collective consciousness of the Omar could be considered in many ways superior to that of any fanatical cult-like group ego, such as the Illuminati. We know critics often refer to cult members as having been 'brainwashed'. So, I am just not convinced that one's individuality truly remains intact within a cult environment - we just THINK it is because there has been no direct 'tampering' of our outer mental or physical attributes. With the Omar, there is no pretence, no religious undertones or false promises. What you see is what you get...

And interesting that you should mention ants - aren't insects undeniably the most successful species on Earth, hehe. :D

Oh, and just to add that to side with the Omar, the game does not force you into becoming one 'proper'. DXIW saw ordinary humans in allegiance with them. The only time you would probably happily opt for the full transformation is if your survival absolutely depended upon it, eg. being able to survive a toxic atmosphere. An easy choice in that case, perhaps.

So, as far as this poll is concerned, you can still vote for The Omar without assuming you must be 'dehumanised' mentally or physically. To add weight to that argument, one could ask what is so good about being just human anyway? Our species leaves much to be desired. Is there nothing better for us? ;)

Tsumaru
25th Jun 2008, 11:45
As I recall, they replace your frontal lobe with some form of electronic/mechanical interface. This would pretty much kill your unique individual personality. I refer you to the case of Phineas Gage.

So, it is possible to dismiss all egocentric tendencies in favour of wider, universal thought, but still retain personality, in my opinion.
I don't see how. Your ego is simply a part of your personality. It does not occur in a separate part of the brain; it is not isolated in any way.


And interesting that you should mention ants - aren't insects undeniably the most successful species on Earth, hehe.
We can improve efficiency in society by culling the weak, the useless, the needy and replacing as many areas of the means of production with robots. Destroy welfare or anything which is used to help other people and focus entirely on the strong. We will end up with more resources for a more capable few, and potentially live in the most successful society.
But do we want that?
Just because something works the best, doesn't mean it is necessarily the most righteous or the best.
I have nothing against transhumanism and improving lacking qualities. But humanity without individuality is worthless. What good is a species of intellectual beings without creativity? And make no mistake - if we were all the same in personality and consciousness, there would be no creativity. There would be only the ideas which already exist; but no fuel to ignite further sparks of imaginative ingenuity. There would only be cold, calculated reason. And in the themes of Deus Ex, this is what Helios lacked too. That is why he had to merge with JC. Or at least, this is what I believe. What we do know is that Helios needed somebody with compassion who could understand human desires. I don't see that same compassion and understanding in an Omar system. This is the distinction in Invisible War as well. With JC's Great Advance, Helios uplinks with everyone and I quote, "will communicate, not assimilate" as in contrast to the Omar.
So to me, an insectoid system may be good for slavery under a ruler (the hive always has a queen), but it is hardly ideal for progress of society or the individual. You might be able to build great big towers and harvest lots of food - but what is the point? Of course, this is leading towards a "the meaning of life" debate which will not easily be solved - but if we look only to survival as worthy in life, then we know in that same instance that there is *no* worthiness in life. Survival is impossible; we all die. The minute we die, whether it be of illness, toxins in the air, or old age - we have failed in our quest for survival. And as everybody inevitably must fail in that survival, it doesn't leave us in a very nice place to live. So in my opinion we must look beyond mere survival in life and society, or there is just no point in life at all. Which, as I have outlined, would lead us away from an Omar system.


Oh, and just to add that to side with the Omar, the game does not force you into becoming one 'proper'. DXIW saw ordinary humans in allegiance with them. The only time you would probably happily opt for the full transformation is if your survival absolutely depended upon it, eg. being able to survive a toxic atmosphere. An easy choice in that case, perhaps.
I was talking generally, not in terms of gameplay. Although if you recall, they were forcing Leo into it.

SageSavage
25th Jun 2008, 15:44
Without ego there won't be progress and a collective ego seems like a paradox. I guess that is why ants are still ants. They are successfull with holding the status quo but they don't evolve (significantly). I am not satisfied with the status quo of mankind and I also think it went some steps too far in the wrong direction so I'd prefer the total reboot aka a new chance but with lots of individual experiences. I am talking about the Dark Age. In the beginning it would be total chaos and FUBAR but it'd offer the chance for creating a better future - based on our experience. Maybe.

What part of a collective conciousness determines it's goals anyway?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2008, 16:47
Thank you for your replies, I love to debate!
:)


As I recall, they replace your frontal lobe with some form of electronic/mechanical interface. This would pretty much kill your unique individual personality. I refer you to the case of Phineas Gage.
Umm, okay.... but Phineas Gage's case was in the Victorian era and resulted from a brain "injury" rather than that of any specialist "surgery", yes? Plus,surgery of the future will be much more precise and refined so I don't think the Gage case really relates. In brain surgery, if you know where that specific switch or door is that you can safely manipulate (for whatever purpose you require) destroying personality wouldn't come into it. When I think of personality I consider it as our inner 'soul/spirit'. I think the brain has absolutely nothing to do with self/soul but is just mere 'housing' for management purposes within this physical realm. I assume, therefore, that if you think your true self/soul/personality is only Matter inside the brain, then you do not believe in life after death and that the loss of your physical body is the end of you? Consider patients that have been in a coma. Many who have regained consciousness after weeks, months or years have related how they are still inwardly aware of themselves but unable to enter and interact with the outer environment. This suggests that the personality/soul still functions, but the management system of the brain has shut down and is no longer at the control or free Will of that person. So, to return to the Omar, any brain surgery they perform will be precise for an intended purpose and if the front lobe is home to your personality, they will cater for that too. There is also no mention or hint in DXIW that each thinks exactly the same as another or than none of them have their own personality.


I don't see how. Your ego is simply a part of your personality. It does not occur in a separate part of the brain; it is not isolated in any way.

I am not saying they occur in separate parts of the brain, only that they are separate processes. I believe Ego and Personality are/can be separated/isolated by example scenarios. Imagine a dire situation where you must give up your own life in order to save your whole family/group. The Ego would question it (You wish to live, YOUR life is important) but your personality/emotional side may easily override that question (you LOVE your family/group, you will SAVE THEM because you consider them more important that yourself). Another scenario can be to consider a spouse who has just committed a crime of passion. I'm talking murder, through jealousy and despair. You can live a normal life with no violent tendencies whatsoever until, one day, that button gets pressed. At the spur of the moment, the Ego overrides your normal self - forcing you to act truly out of character. It happens. I think the two scenarios show how these kinds of separate thought processes do suggest a dividing line between that of the Ego and that of the normal personality/self.



We can improve efficiency in society by culling the weak, the useless, the needy and replacing as many areas of the means of production with robots. Destroy welfare or anything which is used to help other people and focus entirely on the strong. We will end up with more resources for a more capable few, and potentially live in the most successful society.
But do we want that?Just because something works the best, doesn't mean it is necessarily the most righteous or the best.
I have nothing against transhumanism and improving lacking qualities. But humanity without individuality is worthless. What good is a species of intellectual beings without creativity? And make no mistake - if we were all the same in personality and consciousness, there would be no creativity. There would be only the ideas which already exist; but no fuel to ignite further sparks of imaginative ingenuity. There would only be cold, calculated reason. And in the themes of Deus Ex, this is what Helios lacked too. That is why he had to merge with JC. Or at least, this is what I believe. What we do know is that Helios needed somebody with compassion who could understand human desires. I don't see that same compassion and understanding in an Omar system. This is the distinction in Invisible War as well. With JC's Great Advance, Helios uplinks with everyone and I quote, "will communicate, not assimilate" as in contrast to the Omar.So to me, an insectoid system may be good for slavery under a ruler (the hive always has a queen), but it is hardly ideal for progress of society or the individual. You might be able to build great big towers and harvest lots of food - but what is the point? Of course, this is leading towards a "the meaning of life" debate which will not easily be solved - but if we look only to survival as worthy in life, then we know in that same instance that there is *no* worthiness in life. Survival is impossible; we all die. The minute we die, whether it be of illness, toxins in the air, or old age - we have failed in our quest for survival. And as everybody inevitably must fail in that survival, it doesn't leave us in a very nice place to live. So in my opinion we must look beyond mere survival in life and society, or there is just no point in life at all. Which, as I have outlined, would lead us away from an Omar system.
I agree that just because something works the best, doesn't mean it is necessarily the best or most righteous choice. ;)
With regard to the rest of what you said above, it supposes no personality or creativity and as I do not believe these attributes are definitely lost, I cannot comment further on those points. Suffice to say that much seemed irrelevant to the game as the Omar are not a true insectoid system. Their evolutionary past is human and cyborg; they have only adopted certain traits and adapted themselves slightly for survival purposes AS A GROUP, with intentions to survive and possibly inherit the Earth because of Man's reckless folly. There is no mention in the game of a Queen and there is no slavery as you suggest. Oh, and the building of tall towers and accummulation of food has gone way off topic now...hehe. :D


Of course, this is leading towards a "the meaning of life" debate which will not easily be solved - but if we look only to survival as worthy in life, then we know in that same instance that there is *no* worthiness in life. Survival is impossible; we all die. The minute we die, whether it be of illness, toxins in the air, or old age - we have failed in our quest for survival. And as everybody
inevitably must fail in that survival, it doesn't leave us in a very nice place to live. So in my opinion we must look beyond mere survival in life and society, or there is just no point in life at all. Which, as I have outlined, would lead us away from an Omar system.

The point of life, to me, is to become something better than we are. Nothing materialisic - only spiritual. When I say spiritual, I do not include any form of religious philosophy, only that of a collective-consciousness whereby, human beings can learn to be more considerate, sharing, resourceful and less greedy, etc. Like a collective-consciousness "second nature", if you like. If we look at human history... collectively, as individuals, we have failed each other miserably in the past and continue to do so to this day. When I see starving children in one part of the globe, and waste and over-indulgence on another side, I feel ashamed. Is it our separation and freedom (and selfishness) that holds us back from greater things? Can we have personality and still be a greater species acting in unity as a single organism for the benefit of all (or more), I believe we can. But not with our present faculties... we are too separated, not just from ourselves but also nature. Oh, and regarding your statement 'there is no survival, we all die'. I disagree. There can be survival but not necessarily in physical form.

Of course, all our opinions are speculation. It's just a lot of fun to discuss different viewpoints. :)


I was talking generally, not in terms of gameplay. Although if you recall, they were forcing Leo into it.
Did they really force Leo into it? That was never actually confirmed, I believe. I was under the impression that although Leo didn't much like the idea, it was still his option to choose - he just couldn't really decide.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2008, 17:10
Without ego there won't be progress and a collective ego seems like a paradox. I guess that is why ants are still ants. They are successfull with holding the status quo but they don't evolve (significantly).

Ego should exist, yes, there is no question of that but if we rise above 'singular' Ego then there could be much more progress in my opinion. Non-singular Ego within a society can be deemed as a collective-consciousness (ie. considering the greater part of your species, not just yourself) and is therefore not a paradox.

Ants are still ants because of the limitations of their physical make-up, just like any other species. They are very small and they lack the formidable size of a human; and also the tools we have been given - one design in particular, the hand with five digits. But don't be fooled into complacency because you think size and toolkit are the most important thing to ensure survival (on this Earth, anyway)... they are not. In a nuclear war, with all humans obliterated, many insects will be there to see the mess we left behind, lol. :D
Back to the Omar. They may indeed have the best of both worlds - human size, tools, intelligence AND the ability to live life as a wider organism with the aid of collective-consciousness.



What part of a collective conciousness determines it's goals anyway?
The singular goal to ensure the survival and well-being of your species. That is the ultimate goal. Everything else is unwritten... you can go about your business how you choose with no religious doctrine or political rules to follow.

SageSavage
25th Jun 2008, 18:12
Ego should exist, yes, there is no question of that but if we rise above 'singular' Ego then there could be much more progress in my opinion. Non-singular Ego within a society can be deemed as a collective-consciousness (ie. considering the greater part of your species, not just yourself) and is therefore not a paradox.

You've just made that definition up while I was talking more about "the self" rather than the somewhat fuzzy term "the ego". :cool: Collective consioussness means destruction of selves. If anybody would be part of it, there would be no competition against other intellectually skilled creatures at all so progress would drastically slow down. Remaining motivations to progress would be things like the energy-problem or defense against meteorites etc.. Things that get worked on with or without the connected minds.



Ants are still ants because of the limitations of their physical make-up, just like any other species. They are very small and they lack the formidable size of a human; and also the tools we have been given - one design in particular, the hand with five digits. But don't be fooled into complacency because you think size and toolkit are the most important thing to ensure survival... they are not. In a nuclear war, with all humans obliterated, many insects will be there to see the mess we left behind, lol. :D


Right, but what will they feel about it? Is an ants life, a life I'd consider satisfying? Considering their lack of a limbic system or something with a simillar function, I'd say no. Humans are evolving very quickly while I don't know about any species that evolved from or into an ant. They just seem to not evolve (significantly). That may be because they are very successful with surviving but that they probably will never feel the joys of being a human as a trade off. Evolution offers a chance for optimizations but this getting way offtopic now... :)


The singular goal to ensure the survival and well-being of your species. That is the ultimate goal. Everything else is unwritten... you can go about your business how you choose with no religious doctrine or political rules to follow. That may be true for the current mankind but applied to a mankind that completely assimilated to a collective conciousness this would mean relative stasis because the survival problems would be the only problems to overcome.

I have to refrain from the debate for now because of the EM semi-finals currently taking place... talking about progress and evolution... :whistle:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2008, 18:35
You've just made that definition up while I was talking more about "the self" rather than the somewhat fuzzy term "the ego". :cool: Collective consioussness means destruction of selves. If anybody would be part of it, there would be no competition against other intellectually skilled creatures at all so progress would drastically slow down. Remaining motivations to progress would be things like the energy-problem or defense against meteorites etc.. Things that get worked on with or without the connected minds.
I haven't made anything up, sorry - but you are entitled to see it that way, for whatever reasons you have. It is a difficult subject to debate via slow text, without the spontaneity of instant voice communication. Nothing to get serious or defensive about, this is just a fun discussion based on theories and opinions. I am not writing to say I am right and you are wrong, or the other way around. It really doesn't matter to me... I just enjoy the debate and I may switch sides at any moment! Changing my views is always an option... that's why I like to discuss. :p

Anyway, I believe collective-consciousness does not mean the destruction of the Self... only destruction of the singular Ego part of the self. Not the same thing to me.



Right, but what will they feel about it? Is an ants life, a life I'd consider satisfying? Considering their lack of a limbic system or something with a simillar function, I'd say no. Humans are evolving very quickly while I don't know about any species that evolved from or into an ant. They just seem to not evolve (significantly). That may be because they are very successful with surviving but that they probably will never feel the joys of being a human as a trade off. Evolution offers a chance for optimizations but this getting way offtopic now... :)

Ummm, lol, I don't understand the fixation on ants! The topic of ants was not brought up by me, but I replied to suggest that insects are not to be considered an inferior species, but a superior one in their own right. Anyway, back to the Omar. An Omar is not an ant, they are ex-scientists/humans - they must surely, therefore, be intelligent and individual. There is no hint in the game that they are anything otherwise. As ex-humans (proper) they enjoy all the benefits of being human but INCLUDING that of perhaps, an ant, where they consider it more important to live in consideration of others in their society, as a single organism; as ants and other insects do.


I have to refrain from the debate for now because of the EM semi-finals currently taking place... talking about progress and evolution... :whistle:

Hehe, no problem. Enjoy the semi-finals... see you when you get back. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2008, 19:12
Okay, I want to just recap on the vote count so far. At the moment we have the following scores:

APOSTLECORP x1
ILLUMINATI (or THE ORDER) x7
KNIGHTS TEMPLAR x0
MAJESTIC-12 x3
NSF x5
THE OMAR x4
UNATCO x3
WTO x0
ANOTHER? x11

***

I'm interested in noting any change, if any, at a later date; say, in the next two weeks. ;)

I have to ignore the 'Another' votes because they seem to be split between various AI choices rather than an individual organisation/society. So, that means The Illuminati are in the lead with 7 votes!

I am really surprised this is such a popular choice. :eek:
If the player sides with the Illuminati at the end of DXIW, the ending of the game is hailed "The Age of Light" and the Aquinas Hub and Helios core are transported to the orbital space station "Ophelia" where the Illuminati will now scrutinise and monitor the world's finances and have complete control of all communication in the world. The game states that this is a new era of "enlightened control".

Wow! :scratch:
I'm not sure that scenario appeals to me at all. If DX3 begins with this ending (let us JUST suppose) how do you guys feel about this? Is it really an 'enlightenment'? Enlightenment for whom? Would you feel comfortable with this 'control' or consider it an invasion of privacy and freedom? Will individuality be forcefully oppressed in any way?
What do you think are the exact possible implications of the Illuminati being the main society in the DX3 world? Let's discuss... :)

If you voted for the Illuminati, please elaborate more on that decision. I would like to hear what you consider the good and bad sides of this particular choice. Thank you.

iWait
25th Jun 2008, 20:31
I voted for the Illuminati because I felt they were the only ones who had a true interest in the progression of mankind.

The Knights Templar were a bunch of racist redneck retards that wanted to go back to the age when polygamy and incest were legal.
The Omar were concerned solely on survival, not advancement. Plus they were a group consciousness, which would make them limit risks.
Majestic 12 I didn't much care for, they had no plans for humanity.
UNATCO was more concerned about getting the world under control after the gray death and stuff.
The NSF weren't very far-thinking.
The WTO was a combined real estate agency/police force that worked with the Order. I also disliked their uniforms.

SageSavage
25th Jun 2008, 20:32
I haven't made anything up, sorry - but you are entitled to see it that way, for whatever reasons you have.
Well, I googled "non-singular ego" and some variations but there was noone else using it...


It is a difficult subject to debate via slow text, without the spontaneity of instant voice communication.
It is but my spoken english is even more barbaric than my written English.


Nothing to get serious or defensive about

...I wasn't. ;)


Anyway, I believe collective-consciousness does not mean the destruction of the Self... only destruction of the singular Ego part of the self. Not the same thing to me.

I don't like it in the extreme form the Omar or the infamous Borg are utilizing it.


Hehe, no problem. Enjoy the semi-finals... see you when you get back. :) Yay, we won! :D


The Illuminati are in the lead with 7 votes! I am really surprised this is such a popular choice.


It confirms my own observations I made over the time on several other boards. I am also a bit shocked about it because the Illuminati were always the totally unlikable super villains for me and the whole totalitarian "1984"-like society they are propagating is my greatest nightmare ever.

iWait
25th Jun 2008, 20:37
Well if it is a true collective consciousness everybody is the same person influenced by each individual's personality.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
25th Jun 2008, 22:14
Well, I googled "non-singular ego" and some variations but there was noone else using it...
Aha, I see what you are saying now, I misunderstood, my bad. I thought you meant I was making up the logistics of what I was actually trying to say, I didn't realise you were refering to just the word itself. In that case, yes, I did kind of pluck that word out of the air. :o I was trying to explain what I meant as best I could, lol. Perhaps the term "egoless consciousness" might have been a better phrase? Or perhaps not, lol. So sorry for confusion anyway, in fact I've lost track now and have even confused myself, lmao. Rewind button... I'll try to approach it from a different angle when it arises at a later point in this thread.


It is but my spoken english is even more barbaric than my written English.
Hehe, well you're doing fine. For me, writing is the most frustrating form of communication!


...I wasn't. ;)
Of course you weren't, sorry. I misunderstood the first part, as explained, so hence response. Also, it was really addressed to everyone. Not a personal thing but 'writing' it (yet again) has come across all wrong, lol.


I don't like it in the extreme form the Omar or the infamous Borg are utilizing it.
But are the Omar really that extreme? Sure, they have a purpose (like any other society) but it isn't like they force anything on you. They are not secretive, they tell it like it is. I just think they are more real than some of the other options.


Yay, we won! :D
Congratulations! :cool:


It confirms my own observations I made over the time on several other boards. I am also a bit shocked about it because the Illuminati were always the totally unlikable super villains for me and the whole totalitarian "1984"-like society they are propagating is my greatest nightmare ever.

In total agreement on that one. :D
I really want to hear a lot more opinions on the Illuminati.... come on guys 'n' gals!

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Jun 2008, 00:01
Well if it is a true collective consciousness everybody is the same person influenced by each individual's personality.
Ummm, not exactly correct in definition there... or perhaps not as detailed as it should be to deliver full clarity, if I may say so. You could read that sentence the wrong way, misunderstand it completely... but I know it happens when you read and write stuff, hehe. :)

I like to describe collective consciousness is a mode of awareness when our identities expand beyond our egos. It symbolises shared beliefs and/or morality that unifies a group/society with a common influence. I emphasise 'shared' because it is completely different to 'dominant'. The Omar are not dominant over each other and they do not rule over any other society.
Collective consciousness promotes the common good and offers respect, compassion and empathy and all this adds to a greater chance for survival of the species. Just imagine if humans could embrace true collective consciousness, we would enjoy an abudance of social benefits including creative cooperation and enhanced emotional, physical, mental and spiritual health and no more war!
Human society is in dire need of a collective consciousness - maybe the Omar are on the right track after all! ;)

For me, collective consciousness does not mean that you become the SAME person absolute. How could you be? Only if you are a pre-programmed machine/robot could you be deemed completely identical in that sense. Collective consciousness doesn't mean that you have had your mind/personality/self completely "wiped" and replaced by the combined personalities of others. The Omar are not machines and they still have free-will, they can choose their own day-to-day existence and still process their own thoughts. The only 'law' they abide by is that of the well-being of their society. In their case, it isn't even a law... but really an "instinct". Their collective consciousness is more related to that of telepathic awareness, so if you hurt an Omar, then all the Omar will know what happened and react with you accordingly.

I prefer to use the term 'aware', rather than influenced and 'existence' rather than personality on this one. But, however you say it, they still retain their own personality. You could argue that their personality is less complex and not as multi-faceted as a human but that is because they are not so preoccupied with singular/individual desires as a regular human is. But that doesn't mean they are less intelligent, not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. Is it not better to be pre-occupied with important and relevant issues rather than the lesser needs of vanity, desire and greed, for example? Compared to the Omar, humans are flawed. How can we be enemies with our own kind? Why should we wish harm to one person, an entire nation, and even our own planet? When we inflict such harm on another, we are really hurting our self, the "All" - we just don't seem to recognise that at the moment. The realisation of this is the seed of collective consciousness.

I can't help thinking that if DXIW had given us much more insight and interaction with the Omar, we may not be so suspicious or critical of them. We don't even know what the Omar look like under their ekoskeleton suits but as they are humans, I imagine they look just like us. They certainly would not be physically identical. Unless, of course, all outer flesh no longer exists? We know so very little about them... perhaps DX3 will reveal more to us. ;) I hope so!!! :D

Perhaps any reservations of the Omar is the classic fear of the unknown? Funny that the Illuminati are leading in the poll. :confused: Shouldn't we be more suspicious of them? We think we know all about them... but do we really, or is it only what they will have us believe? :eek:

WhatsHisFace
26th Jun 2008, 02:02
I have to say, I never liked being forced to leave UNATCO. I felt so bad at that point in the game, I tried EVERYTHING to keep working for them. :(

But at the same time, I wanted to see the rest of this awesome game, so screw UNATCO. :D

AaronJ
26th Jun 2008, 02:10
six.

iWait
26th Jun 2008, 03:22
The Omar are not harmless, they tried to convert Leo unwillingly into one of their own.
In my view, the Omar are like insects, each one has their own job, none is unique, and they all serve for the good of their species. Plus they're hard to kill.

Tsumaru
26th Jun 2008, 04:04
The disadvantage to living on the other side of the globe is the huge number of posts to trawl through the next morning. =P


Umm, okay.... but Phineas Gage's case was in the Victorian era and resulted from a brain "injury" rather than that of any specialist "surgery", yes? Plus,surgery of the future will be much more precise and refined so I don't think the Gage case really relates. In brain surgery, if you know where that specific switch or door is that you can safely manipulate (for whatever purpose you require) destroying personality wouldn't come into it.
What difference is it whether you get a pole shoved through your brain or someone surgically removes it? The Phineas Gage case reveals undeniably the relationship between personality and the frontal lobe. Consider then what the Omar do:
"The Omar are not fully individuals, rather, each Omar is part of a merged collective consciousness, achieved through the replacement of their frontal lobes with a wireless cortical interface."
Pay attention now. The replacement of their frontal lobes with electronics. Even if there are other areas of the brain and so forth which deal with personality - you are now predominantly part of the Omar personality. You would most likely be indistinguishable except perhaps in extreme scenarios which would bring out those minute variances of personality. But on the whole, you *have* lost your individuality. Make no mistake, that is what they have created. A collective consciousness could be mere brain-to-brain communication like telepathy so that everyone is always aware of each other; or it could be a hive mind. If the Omar were the former, they wouldn't need such huge replacements of the brain; just a small transmitter implant. Like the Infolink of the Dentons. But no, they went overboard. What they have created is a hive mind - which is DEFINED by the lack of individuality. It is all very Borg. It is naive to suggest that you could have that form of collective consciousness without losing individuality; that you could remove certain greedy and egotistical parts of personality but leave uniqueness intact. If you remove all the negative and all that is left is the positive - how are we individuals at all? We *are* the same in our positive personalities. It is the balance of ego and non-ego which makes us who we are.


Consider patients that have been in a coma. Many who have regained consciousness after weeks, months or years have related how they are still inwardly aware of themselves but unable to enter and interact with the outer environment. This suggests that the personality/soul still functions, but the management system of the brain has shut down and is no longer at the control or free Will of that person.
People in a coma are not brain dead with their frontal lobes shut down. Therefore this example is irrelevant. Yes - they do lose certain control; but the brain DOES still function. They are comatose, not in a vegetative state. Therefore it is perfectly logical for them to still be internally self-aware without being externally conscious. I don't see comas as evidence of mind-body dualism at all.


I believe Ego and Personality are/can be separated/isolated by example scenarios. Imagine a dire situation where you must give up your own life in order to save your whole family/group. The Ego would question it (You wish to live, YOUR life is important) but your personality/emotional side may easily override that question (you LOVE your family/group, you will SAVE THEM because you consider them more important that yourself). Another scenario can be to consider a spouse who has just committed a crime of passion. I'm talking murder, through jealousy and despair. You can live a normal life with no violent tendencies whatsoever until, one day, that button gets pressed. At the spur of the moment, the Ego overrides your normal self - forcing you to act truly out of character. It happens. I think the two scenarios show how these kinds of separate thought processes do suggest a dividing line between that of the Ego and that of the normal personality/self.
Once again, I don't think your example necessarily supports your case. Just because there is internal conflict doesn't mean that ego and personality are separate - only that your personality is diverse and complicated. Ego is *part* of personality, just as compassion is a part, and all other aspects of who we are. Let's take a counter-example. Suppose you see a person with a serious mental illness go crazy and hold some people hostage. He looks like he's about to kill them, so a police officer has to shoot him. I don't know about you, but I would feel two seemingly conflicting emotions at this point. I would feel quite relieved that everybody got out safe and alive and there wasn't a huge meaningless massacre - but also sad that the mentally ill person had to be killed; as it wasn't that he was a bad person as such - just he had a disability. Here we have two separate emotions from our personality which seem in conflict but both exist at the same time as a result of the same scenario. Now if you happen to be watching the events live, what would you be feeling? You would WANT everyone to get out life, you would be HOPING that nothing bad happens - but you would want them for both the mentally ill person and also the hostages. You would also be thinking "but if he goes to shoot any of them, he has to be stopped - it's a terrible tragedy, but it has to be done". You have this same kind of internal conflict.

The example is not exactly the same as yours, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that you can have internal conflicts which just arise from different emotions, different thoughts, different feelings - but all of them originate from your personality. Your personality which *includes* greed, selfishness, your own well-being. We entitle those feelings the ego - but it's still part of your personality. Isn't that what personality is? "Personality can be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, motivations, and behaviors in various situations" (Ryckman, 2004). Doesn't this include your ego? It all comes from personality, and it all (for the most part) comes from the frontal lobe.


Oh, and regarding your statement 'there is no survival, we all die'. I disagree. There can be survival but not necessarily in physical form.
If you are interested in a non-physical survival such as life after death; then the whole Omar system is completely useless. Because they are interested only in physical survival. They have no moral system, no spirituality - or at least not as far as we can see. If I recall correctly, they had no problem with killing competition in the arms trade. They don't sound like nice people to me. So if there is some other purpose to life; a group consciousness and technological evolutionary practice designed only to continue the physical survival of the group at all costs is probably not the best way to go about it.


For me, collective consciousness does not mean that you become the SAME person absolute. How could you be? Only if you are a pre-programmed machine/robot could you be deemed completely identical in that sense. Collective consciousness doesn't mean that you have had your mind/personality/self completely "wiped" and replaced by the combined personalities of others.
Actually, as mentioned earlier, that is *exactly* what the Omar have done. They replace your frontal lobe with pre-programmed electronics.


You could argue that their personality is less complex and not as multi-faceted as a human but that is because they are not so preoccupied with singular/individual desires as a regular human is. But that doesn't mean they are less intelligent, not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. Is it not better to be pre-occupied with important and relevant issues rather than the lesser needs of vanity, desire and greed, for example?
What is more greedy than being concerned purely with survival? Is the most important and relevant issue *really* just the survival of the species? Isn't the greater needs the ones of the spiritual self? Can you satisfy these needs if you don't even have your own consciousness? And you cannot debate that last point - that is what a collective consciousness is. "A single consciousness occupying many bodies". You aren't an individual. You *are* the group. It actually sounds that you are expounding the benefits of JC Denton and Helios, not the Omar! Consider the following transcript:
JC Denton: Address the flaws in human nature. Make all beings truly equal in both body and mind. If you start with minds that are lucid, knowledgable, and emotionally sound, the needs of government change dramatically.
Alex D: How do you control human emotions? Antidepressants? Is that freedom?
JC Denton: Is it freedom when one child is born to poverty, a chance combination of organic materials, while the wealthy child is shaped every day of his life, enhanced genetically, trained, educated, often augmented nanotechnologically?
Alex D: Why not get rid of nanotech and genetic engineering, the technologies that make people different from each other?
JC Denton: Then you go down the path of intolerance, as your friend Billie did. Is human nature perfect? No. Therefore, improvements are to be welcomed, not annihilated in Templar pogroms. As enhanced beings, we can establish a pure democracy that runs on instantaneous input from the electorate.
Alex D: What would this "pure democracy" look like?
JC Denton: The Helios AI has the processing power to handle all governmental functions worldwide, legislative, executive, and judicial. Once every mind has been enhanced and can merge with the AI, attitudes toward major legislation can be processed on a daily or even more frequent basis.
Alex D: You want everyone to be like the Omar and meld themselves together into one huge AI construct?
JC Denton: Helios will communicate, not assimilate. Life will go on as usual.
Alex D: Helios is starting to sound like an enlightened despot.
JC Denton: All governments have power. The benefit of giving this power to a synthetic intellect is that human affairs would no longer need to be ruled by generalities. Helios will have a deep understanding of every person's life and opinions.

And lastly...

Did they really force Leo into it? That was never actually confirmed, I believe. I was under the impression that although Leo didn't much like the idea, it was still his option to choose - he just couldn't really decide.
I'm pretty sure they were like "okay, so, now let's mess with your brain" and he was like "I need to think about it" and they kinda bugged him about it. And as soon as he said no they abandoned him and disabled his suit and everything. At that point I imagine he also became a public enemy. So, yeah, pretty sure that they're not so pro-choice.


Hope I didn't miss anything. But I probably did. Oh well.
Also, I know this is getting really long, drawn-out, and completely irrelevant. But it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Oh, and also, in regards to the Illuminati. I made my choice on the basis that we don't exactly know how everything will turn out. If you assume we have watched the endings and everything, I would probably go with ApostleCorp and the Helios uplink. Just because I think that's the best for humanity. It is ironic, however, that you seem to think having the world destroyed and turned into a barren wasteland is clearly the best choice considering you made some earlier comments about being too separated from nature.
But yeah, I was kind of thinking from a really unfamiliar viewpoint. Like it would be at the start of a new game. The Illuminati at the end of DX1 I think were the best choice. Leading the world from the shadows. You don't have any big dictator up front. And as it is a group, there isn't a huge risk of someone taking total global power. But yeah, I'm greedy so I just wanted in on the Illuminati for the power. =P
But also, with the Illuminati ending in DX:IW. Really it's not too different from Helios. I mean, Ophelia essentially took the role that Helios would have - doing all the transactions, management, and spying on everybody. But without the nanotech infusion, so not spying in their heads quite so much. And the Omar are like the JC/Helios one because of the forced nanotech on everybody - just that rather than a global mediator they give everybody the same general thoughts, feelings and opinion in the same place. Some variance perhaps (though we don't know for sure) - but ultimately there isn't the individuality so they don't need a Helios mediator.
All of them seem to have an invasion of privacy to some degree. It is the Knights Templar which don't invade your privacy at all - but are instead bigots. I guess it just depends on where you want the world to lead.

Oraiel
26th Jun 2008, 08:20
I haven't had time to read all the posts in this thread (yet) so I'll keep it short :P. I personally loved UNATCO (especially having my own office :D) but I also thought the Illuminati were great for the plot, very deep as well...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Jun 2008, 09:38
The Omar are not harmless, they tried to convert Leo unwillingly into one of their own.
In my view, the Omar are like insects, each one has their own job, none is unique, and they all serve for the good of their species. Plus they're hard to kill.

LOL @ the fixation on insects... but its fun, albeit unfounded. :D
The Omar are at the threshold of post-humanism -but they are STILL human internally.

Sure, they are not harmless per se - but it depends what you mean by that word. The Omar never caused a fight, unlike others. If they engaged in combat, it was in the act of self-defence.
They did indeed attempt to convert Leo - but it was never absolutely dictated. Leo still had a choice.
Umm, yes, some have their own jobs - just like humans did in the game, yes? But how can you say no Omar are unique? That is only an unfair assumption based on your idea of what collective consciousness means. We don't really know too much about their inner psyche, so we cannot really suppose anything. Collective consciousness isn't about being COMPLELELY identical in personality/inner self to others in your group... only in the sharing of their combined knowledge and wisdom.
LOL @ they're hard to kill - so is a human protected within a turret tower. :D

The question I would ask is why would you want to kill an Omar? I guess it is just an inherent human trait to do so, yes? They are not dictatorial or territorial, at no point in the game do you see them interfering with human life; they only observe it. They go about their black market business in pretty much a fair and unobtrusive manner.

Tsumaru
26th Jun 2008, 10:10
Actually I'm pretty sure they ask you to kill some other non-Omar arms dealer. Though I might be wrong on that one. My memory is a little fuzzy.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Jun 2008, 11:29
Actually I'm pretty sure they ask you to kill some other non-Omar arms dealer. Though I might be wrong on that one. My memory is a little fuzzy.

I honestly don't remember such a scenario. :eek:
Can anyone check this? I would like to know if this actually happened and what the circumstances were that brought it about. Thank you. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Jun 2008, 12:08
The disadvantage to living on the other side of the globe is the huge number of posts to trawl through the next morning. =P
OMG, yeah, I never even considered that, hehe. :D



What difference is it whether you get a pole shoved through your brain or someone surgically removes it? The Phineas Gage case reveals undeniably the relationship between personality and the frontal lobe. Consider then what the Omar do:
"The Omar are not fully individuals, rather, each Omar is part of a merged collective consciousness, achieved through the replacement of their frontal lobes with a wireless cortical interface."
Pay attention now. The replacement of their frontal lobes with electronics. Even if there are other areas of the brain and so forth which deal with personality - you are now predominantly part of the Omar personality. You would most likely be indistinguishable except perhaps in extreme scenarios which would bring out those minute variances of personality. But on the whole, you *have* lost your individuality. Make no mistake, that is what they have created. A collective consciousness could be mere brain-to-brain communication like telepathy so that everyone is always aware of each other; or it could be a hive mind. If the Omar were the former, they wouldn't need such huge replacements of the brain; just a small transmitter implant. Like the Infolink of the Dentons. But no, they went overboard. What they have created is a hive mind - which is DEFINED by the lack of individuality. It is all very Borg. It is naive to suggest that you could have that form of collective consciousness without losing individuality; that you could remove certain greedy and egotistical parts of personality but leave uniqueness intact. If you remove all the negative and all that is left is the positive - how are we individuals at all? We *are* the same in our positive personalities. It is the balance of ego and non-ego which makes us who we are.

The difference is that precise, knowledgeable surgery can allow any intrusion into the brain without any dire consequences and therefore you quoting Gage's case was not relevant to the capabilities of the Omar (if/should anything like them exist in the future), I just wanted to answer that particular comment in response to the quote so that readers do not assume that any manipulation of the frontal lobe is necessarily detrimental to the personality. Yes, from what we know today, the frontal lobe houses the part of the brain that "manages" self/personality - though I don't believe the self/personality is organic in any way, only the management system/housing is organic. I'm just trying to see things with a broader perspective and without limitations of what we know today about the brain and the self. In the game, I consider that the Omar can add an "enhancement" to any lobe in the brain without any problems... just because they completely replace the frontal lobe with a cortical interface, does NOT mean that they have wiped out your personality at the same time.
I believe the collective consciousness of the Omar is more related to telepathy and empathy...I do not see them as merely a hive mind. They ARE human beings, not insects. Wow, that ant thing really is playing on our minds, hehe. :D The interface isn't necessarily going overboard; it depends on what its full functionality actually is. We don't really know about that, as this point, but I just don't think it is fair to assume only negativity in this practice.

If you tell a devout Buddhist that his efforts to remove the egotistical and negative thought processes from his mind is making him lose his individuality/personality, I don't think he would agree, so it is not naive of me to suggest such a process. Collective consciousness is not a new or unique idea; its all about achieving a balance and a wider view of the world... to engage with the "All". But the majority of humans are neither aware of this, or have the inclination to study further. Maybe the Omar's implant gives enhancement to this area of inclination and study? That wouldn't be so bad at all.
Hehe, this is a fun discussion! I guess we just have to remember nobody is right or wrong here. I just try to look beyond what we normally "suppose" as human beings.


People in a coma are not brain dead with their frontal lobes shut down. Therefore this example is irrelevant. Yes - they do lose certain control; but the brain DOES still function. They are comatose, not in a vegetative state. Therefore it is perfectly logical for them to still be internally self-aware without being externally conscious. I don't see comas as evidence of mind-body dualism at all.
Ummm, I never said people in a coma are brain dead when their frontal lobes shut down. If it doesn't function at the person's Will, then it may as well be shut down. Comas can leave patients in a vegetative stage indefinitely. Right now, we have no control over the comatose state directly or indirectly but I assume all it takes is to find the door and open it again. Be that yourself or a surgeon. In bringing up this subject, I thought it would help show us that our personality/self is separate to our brain and that both can be independent of the other; and/or even rely on each other to operate efficiently in this world. So hard to explain really, sorry if I'm doing a bad job of it. :D


Once again, I don't think your example necessarily supports your case. Just because there is internal conflict doesn't mean that ego and personality are separate - only that your personality is diverse and complicated. Ego is *part* of personality, just as compassion is a part, and all other aspects of who we are. Let's take a counter-example. Suppose you see a person with a serious mental illness go crazy and hold some people hostage. He looks like he's about to kill them, so a police officer has to shoot him. I don't know about you, but I would feel two seemingly conflicting emotions at this point. I would feel quite relieved that everybody got out safe and alive and there wasn't a huge meaningless massacre - but also sad that the mentally ill person had to be killed; as it wasn't that he was a bad person as such - just he had a disability. Here we have two separate emotions from our personality which seem in conflict but both exist at the same time as a result of the same scenario. Now if you happen to be watching the events live, what would you be feeling? You would WANT everyone to get out life, you would be HOPING that nothing bad happens - but you would want them for both the mentally ill person and also the hostages. You would also be thinking "but if he goes to shoot any of them, he has to be stopped - it's a terrible tragedy, but it has to be done". You have this same kind of internal conflict.
I am not attempting to support my case, absolute. That would be impossible to do anyway... all opinions are open for discussion, argument or agreement. :)
When I try to describe them as separate, I am saying that there is a difference between thought processes and so one can define some sort of dividing line. In relation to the Omar, I wanted to explain that you can become a greater being if you consider brain enhancement/body modifications without necessarily losing your personality or 'humanity'. It can all sound very unnatural to us... but is it not our destiny? Already we partake in cosmetic surgery and body transplants. There is no difference in the ideology.


The example is not exactly the same as yours, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that you can have internal conflicts which just arise from different emotions, different thoughts, different feelings - but all of them originate from your personality. Your personality which *includes* greed, selfishness, your own well-being. We entitle those feelings the ego - but it's still part of your personality. Isn't that what personality is? "Personality can be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, motivations, and behaviors in various situations" (Ryckman, 2004). Doesn't this include your ego? It all comes from personality, and it all (for the most part) comes from the frontal lobe.
Yes, yes... but just because you have a better control of one type of thought or feeling, does not mean you no longer have individuality. That is the point I'm trying to get across. We can learn to master what is good about personality and what is bad. It is possible to pick and choose and separate the mediocre from the important. We already do that in our day-to-day personal living, we just don't do it on a wider scale ENOUGH.
Consider medical and genetic technology today. Already we can decide the sex of a foetus, we can choose inherent characteristics - hair colour, bone structure, artistic tendencies and 'design' our children. It won't be long now until we can completely iradicate known diseases and other malfunctions of the body. All it takes is to remove the rogue gene that supports it. Tomorrow, there will be no cancer, no disability, no short-straw.. So, I can imagine quite easily that the Omar can remove whatever is unhealthy in the mind of a human being - the bad ego, if you like, such as the selfish and murderous tendencies toward our own species and others. Wow, I just think that is cool BECAUSE we don't seem to be able to achieve this ourselves, NOT on a mass scale. Collective consciousness can help us achieve this influence of mass scale.


If you are interested in a non-physical survival such as life after death; then the whole Omar system is completely useless. Because they are interested only in physical survival. They have no moral system, no spirituality - or at least not as far as we can see. If I recall correctly, they had no problem with killing competition in the arms trade. They don't sound like nice people to me. So if there is some other purpose to life; a group consciousness and technological evolutionary practice designed only to continue the physical survival of the group at all costs is probably not the best way to go about it.
You only suppose they are interested in physical survival only because of the little we know about them in DXIW. They are humans after all, why wouldn't they want more than just physical life? How do you know they have no moral system or spirituality? These matters are unclear one way or the other, so I cannot comment further based on these assumptions. Also, I did not see them kill anyone in their pursuit of arms trade. If the Omar get into a fight, it is always another who starts it. The Omar will "defend", yes, but that is different to assuming that they dictate. As for them not sounding like nice people to you... I understand, but as explained previously in this thread, I think our distaste for them stems from the unknown and our own possibly misguided assumptions - of which border on hypocrisy because human beings are certainly no better and, in all cases, behave far worse. They are humans but they have adapted themselves further, in preparation of our own (normal human) demise. Is it fair to dislike them because they have forward-thinking?


Actually, as mentioned earlier, that is *exactly* what the Omar have done. They replace your frontal lobe with pre-programmed electronics.
Mmmm, yes, but that does not mean or even prove that they have wiped out your own personality in doing so. This is only a negative assumption really. Come on, we shouldn't forget that the Omar are human and are ex-scientists. Are you supposing that an intelligent, knowledgeable scientist would be happy to have his OWN thought processes destroyed in favour of a mere program. I doubt that, myself.


What is more greedy than being concerned purely with survival? Is the most important and relevant issue *really* just the survival of the species? Isn't the greater needs the ones of the spiritual self?
No, it isn't the most important and relevant issue, I never said it was, but it is a consideration. I don't think the Omar are only concerned with survival. It is just a matter of 'needs be' at this point. You can have the highest form of spiritual self, but it is useless if you don't exist. I believe the Omar understand the weakness of ordinary humankind and from the destruction of the past and in preparation of the destruction yet to come, they constantly work toward ultimate survival because they have to. They do not rule over any other organisation and so do not control. Instead, they wisely "prepare" for what is probably deemed the inevitable - human annihilation. The qualities we ascribe to humanity seem important to us, but we have only just begun our journey.
Any society/race that descends from humans will not be immediately recognizable as human and so that is why I try to think about the inner psyche of the Omar and not what they look like on the exterior.
If we consider cold, hard facts then happiness is not a requisite of survival, surely. Survival goes to the ones most able to endure.


Can you satisfy these needs if you don't even have your own consciousness? And you cannot debate that last point - that is what a collective consciousness is. "A single consciousness occupying many bodies". You aren't an individual. You *are* the group.
I can debate it and have described what I believe collective consciousness means to the Omar. I obviously cannot say that I am right and you are wrong, I would not do so anyway... but I can debate it. I believe you are still an individual and you are part of your group. You CAN have BOTH.


It actually sounds that you are expounding the benefits of JC Denton and Helios, not the Omar! Consider the following transcript....
Yes, indeed, JC and Helios are not without merit.. BUT also not without flaw. This hypothesis is yet another discussion for later, hopefully, hehe. ;)


And lastly...
I'm pretty sure they were like "okay, so, now let's mess with your brain" and he was like "I need to think about it" and they kinda bugged him about it. And as soon as he said no they abandoned him and disabled his suit and everything. At that point I imagine he also became a public enemy. So, yeah, pretty sure that they're not so pro-choice.
Well, even humans bug people about their ideas - like politicians on a campaign for your votes. The Omar disabled Leo's suit because they assumed he was no longer in need of it. They didn't kill him, they just separated themselves from him. At no point was it suggested that he became public enemy to them, he still had the choice to return to them, or not.


Hope I didn't miss anything. But I probably did. Oh well.
Also, I know this is getting really long, drawn-out, and completely irrelevant. But it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.
No, it isn't long drawn out and irrelevant to me. I really enjoy such discussions. :)


Oh, and also, in regards to the Illuminati. I made my choice on the basis that we don't exactly know how everything will turn out. If you assume we have watched the endings and everything, I would probably go with ApostleCorp and the Helios uplink. Just because I think that's the best for humanity. It is ironic, however, that you seem to think having the world destroyed and turned into a barren wasteland is clearly the best choice considering you made some earlier comments about being too separated from nature.
The Omar DID NOT destroy the earth, the endless war between the ideological factions did. This seems a common misunderstanding in the Omar ending in the game, for some strange reason. :scratch:
We shouldn't alienate them for being the fittest to survive the chaos that already existed. The Omar just stood by and watched the humans continue to run their course. That course would be the same with or without the Omar so their existence in the player's decisions within the game was pretty much irrelevant really.

Interesting that you opted for the Illuminati. Personally, I found it no better than the previous game's Templar ending. Nothing has really changed, has it? Everyone continues to do what they did before with no real enlightenment on a personal or mass level. Everyone continues to be spied upon by the hierarchy, who still pull the strings on their puppet subjects. I hate to say that I can just see "history repeating itself....":mad2:

With the Omar, you get a group of like-minded people with no hierarchy. Together, they have clearly decided to put human weakness behind them and commit themselves to a path that they believe will last for eternity. I'm not saying they will be proved correct - but I am saying that there is merit in that belief and the outcome certainly has its appeal if we consider the other options.
:p

SageSavage
26th Jun 2008, 13:26
If you tell a devout Buddhist that his efforts to remove the egotistical and negative thought processes from his mind is making him lose his individuality/personality, I don't think he would agree, so it is not naive of me to suggest such a process. Collective consciousness is not a new or unique idea; its all about achieving a balance and a wider view of the world... to engage with the "All". But the majority of humans are neither aware of this, or have the inclination to study further. I am aware of this and I tend to agree that a balance between collective conciousness and and self would be enriching but the Omar seem to be very extreme on the collective consciousness side. They always reminded me of the Borg, which I find fascinating and super-creepy at the same time. I'd hope that mankind would learn at least a bit from their past after the Dark Age took place so they are able to develop a stronger collective conciousness as well. I am not believing in wonders but I guess it's the only way to try it without relying on methods that have the potential to radically change the whole species very quickly. That'd seem like the cheap'n'easy way that might come with giant tradeoffs I am not willing to take.

jcp28
26th Jun 2008, 21:56
Listen, I know that the there may be more to controlling personality that what our knowledge may tell us. But just look at what you see in front of you. The Omar were clearly modeled after the Borg. The hive-mind consciousness and seeming disregard for anybody who was not part of their consciousness attests to that. I know you are just speculating here, MissDenton, but I don't really think the Omar were thought of much beyond a group of Borg type arm-traders. While they didn't go out and attack a lot of people, their collective consciousness just really turns me off. Whether there is room for individuality can be debated endlessly, but it seems that removing the frontal lobe would leave only flickers of individual personality if that.

I agree that there are no absolutes, but I still think we would have enough knowledge of neurology to determine where the personality centers come from. Personality may still be able to exist without the frontal lobe, but it could get very hard to express individuality without something like that which allows an outlet of sorts.

Alex Denton
27th Jun 2008, 00:07
Alright, I've been reading over the third page here and I feel I should voice more of my opinion's on the whole DX:IW set of endings. Now as I said I chose the Apostlecore ending, partly because I thought that was the best choice I had given the circumstances, and partly because I felt attached to JC Denton and his brother after all I'd been through with them in the original. It felt wrong to just turn around and kill them simply because I may disagree with their methods.

I agree with them on every point except the fact we would have lost complete privacy and we would all be uplinked to Helios without really a choice in the matter. I can see WHY he did it, I mean if you think about it JC is right, human beings are by and large imperfect, and we have wants and ambitions. How can we therefore have a true democracy when there will always be someone wanting to take control and have all the power? I mean our own system of checks and balances is to stop a person like that, but as shown in Deus Ex, in the end those so called balances were just used to MJ12's advantage.

Now if we truly want a democracy that can be fair and balanced, with equal chances for everyone we have to ask ourselves what are we prepared to give? After all were not going to get something like that without having to also give something up. I mean I don't know if I'd be comfortable with the loss of complete privacy, the privacy of my own head.. but... is it any better than the other choices? Let me just analyze the other choices as -I- see them. Bare in mind this is merely my opinion.

Okay, if you give things over to the Templars, they will kill a few people. They'll then wipe out all nano tech in the world, and keep an iron fist grip on the world. In the words of the Doctor Humanity will just stop. We'll stop advancing and things will be restricted mainly because were AFRAID of the unknown. In what world is that choice GOOD or mentally sound? Really.... It isn't at all. Its letting a small group control everyone out of fear.

Next option, we can hand the world over to the Illuminati. They won't be anywhere near as drastic, but they'll use Helios to control the world, spy on people, control finances, keep the rich richer and powerful and all that stuff. Thats pretty much the world we have right now, which really isn't that great. If your going to make a choice, it should be for the benefit of mankind, not for the benefit of the few. With Helios in JC and the Nano aug technology there's a chance to really change the world, and do some good. I don't see how it can be passed up for a cushy spot in the new power base known as the Illuminati.

Then we come to the last option, we can kill everyone and let war break out, causing the earth to be scorched and unlivable save for the Omar, their collective thought process and their augmentations to the human condition. Now personally I believe the ending saying Oh well Humanity will burn on bright into the future because of that is kind of stupid. I mean alright as a race we'd like to survive long on into the future, but at the cost of what makes us human? I don't believe the Omar were human any longer, I believe they made themselves into something else. Not necessarily better or worse, but just something else. Now Leo didn't want to become an Omar, but in MY game, the Omar said we'll find you when you sleep and finish the conversion because you've already made the choice! Not exactly sounding like the nicest bunch of people in the world. :P So that ending was definitely out for me.

Now we come to Apostlecore, and JC's mission to bring the world the first true democracy. To make all people equal and give everyone a chance at a full, productive, happy life. Now thats a very sunny way of putting it, but what do we have to give up in exchange for this? Well simple, our privacy, the privacy of our own minds. We'll all be uplinked to Helios who will help make decisions on a daily basis. He won't assimilate us though, so we'll still be who we are. Now I definitely jumped at the chance to help humanity along and give everyone a chance at a productive and happy life. But I was taken aback by the fact it meant an end to personal privacy and the feeling we'd have a watchful eye over us at all times. However given the other choices I felt this was the best option. Would I have made another choice if it had been there? Probably, because this one didn't sit too well with me either.

Now then keep in mind this is just my opinion and you don't have to agree with me, I figured I'd just throw my hat into the ring to discuss this with you all.

Tsumaru
27th Jun 2008, 07:14
The difference is that precise, knowledgeable surgery can allow any intrusion into the brain without any dire consequences and therefore you quoting Gage's case was not relevant to the capabilities of the Omar (if/should anything like them exist in the future), I just wanted to answer that particular comment in response to the quote so that readers do not assume that any manipulation of the frontal lobe is necessarily detrimental to the personality. Yes, from what we know today, the frontal lobe houses the part of the brain that "manages" self/personality - though I don't believe the self/personality is organic in any way, only the management system/housing is organic. I'm just trying to see things with a broader perspective and without limitations of what we know today about the brain and the self.
I’m sorry, this argument just holds no weight. I don’t want to insult you or say outright “you’re wrong” – but saying “Phineas Gage is irrelevant because I do not believe science is necessarily right” is just… well, if you want to use that as an argument, this discussion is worthless. I mean the evidence is there. He gets a pole through his frontal lobe, and all of a sudden people say “he’s not even the same person anymore” – he behaves completely differently. This is undeniable – it’s in the case report. What the exact function of the frontal lobe is seems to be mostly irrelevant, because we DO know that damaging it will change the personality. If you refuse to accept this, I cannot debate with you any longer.
Now, the Omar aren’t doing some minor precise surgery – they are REPLACING the frontal lobe. The consequence of this is that it is essentially equivalent to damage. If they just tinkered with it and put a few electronics, I could see your point. But we’re talking a FULL REPLACEMENT. Phineas Gage is perfectly relevant here, because this is almost exactly what the Omar are doing. Unless you are going to tell me that they somehow map your exact personality and then program that into the cortical interface which they replace your frontal lobe with? Pretty sure they don’t.


I believe the collective consciousness of the Omar is more related to telepathy and empathy...I do not see them as merely a hive mind. They ARE human beings, not insects. … The interface isn't necessarily going overboard; it depends on what its full functionality actually is. We don't really know about that, as this point, but I just don't think it is fair to assume only negativity in this practice.
As my point was; if they just wanted telepathy and awareness, they wouldn’t NEED to replace the whole frontal lobe. It would just be an infolink like the Dentons have. I believe the developers made this distinction for a reason. I believe they have made quite clear that there is an actual group mind. Similarly…


I can debate it and have described what I believe collective consciousness means to the Omar. I obviously cannot say that I am right and you are wrong, I would not do so anyway... but I can debate it.
I’m sorry, but if you are just going to make up your own definitions for words and concepts which already exist, I refuse to discuss with you any longer. Collective consciousness already has a meaning – you can’t just change it and say “with no evidence, with no proof, I believe this is REALLY what the Omar are doing”. The assumption we have to make is that if the game says “The Omar have a collective consciousness” then what they are referring to is the commonly accepted idea of what such a thing is. If we cannot make that assumption, the entire discussion is fruitless.


If you tell a devout Buddhist that his efforts to remove the egotistical and negative thought processes from his mind is making him lose his individuality/personality, I don't think he would agree, so it is not naive of me to suggest such a process.
This is not applicable. I never said you can’t change your personality – what I said is that it is impossible to track the distinctions between ego and compassion within the brain. One centre is not for happiness, the other centre is not for greed, the other centre is not for your desire to own a pony because they look oh-so-pretty. Thus while a Buddhist may be able to be liberated from ego (also karma and the cycle of samsara!) – that is the same as me trying to avoid road rage, or if I so desired; I could attempt to be LESS kind and revel in the darkness and evil bwahahaha! As these are conscious decisions in the first place, and all your actions work within the complex network of neurons in the brain, it is possible. I am not doubting that. What I am saying is…
1. It is unfeasible to be able to perform such manipulations PHYSICALLY through the dissection of brain matter. Even within 100 years it will be most likely not occur. Everything is just *too* precise; it is all on a neuron-by-neuron basis, and every brain is unique.
2. Even if the above WERE possible (I did say unfeasible – not impossible); that is NOT what the Omar are doing. They are NOT performing precise surgery. They are removing the entirety of the frontal lobe.

I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.

Oh, and uh, as for the Buddhist not agreeing that he is losing his individuality/personality… I suggest you do a little reading into sankhara, sanskara and other Buddhist concepts. I think you will find the complete opposite – the dissolution of the self is *exactly* what they seem to want. Of course, this isn’t relevant anyway. Buddhists don’t define reality with what they believe. Just because they disagree with me doesn’t make them right – I, personally, have a lot of interest in Buddhist philosophies and practices; but I believe reality is grounded more firmly in science than religion.


In relation to the Omar, I wanted to explain that you can become a greater being if you consider brain enhancement/body modifications without necessarily losing your personality or 'humanity'. It can all sound very unnatural to us... but is it not our destiny? Already we partake in cosmetic surgery and body transplants. There is no difference in the ideology.
Just because people do it, doesn’t make it “our destiny”. Not everybody engages in cosmetic surgery or has transplants. Besides – we could whack everybody on a cocktail of antidepressants, endorphins and happy drugs for the rest of their life. Is that truly a good idea?


Any society/race that descends from humans will not be immediately recognizable as human and so that is why I try to think about the inner psyche of the Omar and not what they look like on the exterior.
If we consider cold, hard facts then happiness is not a requisite of survival, surely. Survival goes to the ones most able to endure.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. What’s your point?


The Omar DID NOT destroy the earth, the endless war between the ideological factions did. This seems a common misunderstanding in the Omar ending in the game, for some strange reason.
That wasn’t a misunderstanding I had – that was me not articulating myself well. My point was that there are two ways you can approach your initial question of “which side?”
1. Knowing how DX:IW turns out and picking the one you like the best from there.
2. Going based on what we publicly know *before* the endings, and picking the one which appeals to you there.
When I chose Illuminati, I was going from that second perspective. You brought up the whole dictator/spying thing and my point was that I assumed I didn’t know these things. And that if you wanted to go based on each specific ending, the Omar one doesn’t sound particularly nice. Whether the Omar caused it or not was irrelevant to my point. If I was going from the first perspective, I would probably go with JC and the Helios uplink as discussed in my previous post.


Interesting that you opted for the Illuminati. Personally, I found it no better than the previous game's Templar ending. Nothing has really changed, has it? Everyone continues to do what they did before with no real enlightenment on a personal or mass level. … With the Omar, you get a group of like-minded people with no hierarchy. Together, they have clearly decided to put human weakness behind them and commit themselves to a path that they believe will last for eternity.
I don’t see how survival for the sake of survival is particularly enlightened. At least with the Illuminati I retain freedom and liberty to live my life as I choose.

And as my final point… you have contradicted yourself. Here is the contradiction:

Yes, from what we know today, the frontal lobe houses the part of the brain that "manages" self/personality - though I don't believe the self/personality is organic in any way

So, I can imagine quite easily that the Omar can remove whatever is unhealthy in the mind of a human being - the bad ego, if you like, such as the selfish and murderous tendencies toward our own species and others
You refute my claims that replacing the frontal lobe would replace the personality on the basis that personality is not organic, and yet you say the Omar could quite easily change personality through brain modifications. These appear to be quite inconsistent.



Listen, I know that the there may be more to controlling personality that what our knowledge may tell us. But just look at what you see in front of you. The Omar were clearly modeled after the Borg. The hive-mind consciousness and seeming disregard for anybody who was not part of their consciousness attests to that. I know you are just speculating here, MissDenton, but I don't really think the Omar were thought of much beyond a group of Borg type arm-traders. While they didn't go out and attack a lot of people, their collective consciousness just really turns me off. Whether there is room for individuality can be debated endlessly, but it seems that removing the frontal lobe would leave only flickers of individual personality if that.
I completely agree with you jcp28!

Alex Denton – I generally agree with your entire analysis. Although you’re being a little hard on the Illuminati, I think. While their history seems to be one of power and domination, I believe the DX:IW ending was a bit nicer. They did seem interested in improving human life. It *was* the Age of Enlightenment ending after all. And the ending of the DX1 was the same – they were fixing up the vaccinations and everything. Sure, they’re not going for the absolute best democracy or anything, but it’s not *totally* horrible.
As a note, when playing the game, I did choose the ApostleCorp ending for the same reason. It felt wrong to ditch the Dentons at the end of it all. I trusted that JC knew what he was doing. And watching through the endings, I do agree that the Helios uplink is best for humanity. But if you ask me “what do YOU want?” – egotistical person that I am, I would prefer the power with the Illuminati.

</end long post for today> =P

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jun 2008, 07:40
Hi, I'll answer as best I can. So that my replies fall sensibly into place, I've quoted and responded to separate points. :)


Listen, I know that the there may be more to controlling personality that what our knowledge may tell us. But just look at what you see in front of you.

I'm listening. :)
Yes, I really believe there is much more to the essence of personality/self and the physical and neurological systems by which it is controlled. There is still much to be discovered.
I do clearly see what is in front of me. But not just the outer/physical... I like to look much deeper,... to the inner/mental. ;)


The Omar were clearly modeled after the Borg
I completely disagree with the term 'clearly modelled'. Not at all. Borg is Borg, Omar is Omar. Whilst I may agree that one can draw a few similarities between Borg and Omar, by the same token you can see plenty of dissimilarities.
The Borg, with their 'resistance is futile' ultimatums, can be considered one of the greatest threats to all species. The Omar do not display this dominant form of character or ambition.
In fairness, the ONLY way the Omar could end up like the Borg is if they "go too far" and dictate to entire races throughout the Universe. There is no hint that this is the case or their ultimate goal.


The hive-mind consciousness and seeming disregard for anybody who was not part of their consciousness attests to that.
There is no attestment. Your assumption that collective consciousness equals "hive mind" is not necessarily true and perhaps a little closed-minded because you think the Borg and the Omar represent the same thing. 'Hive mind' really doesn't come into my vision of what the Omar are actually all about. Perhaps elements of... but certainly not the whole. We don't know enough about them to draw such matter-of-fact conclusions, but what little we do know about them suggests otherwise.

I also don't understand why you deem the Omar as being disregardful for anybody who is not part of their consciousness. You are only describing the Borg there, not the Omar.
The Omar were the least demanding and aggressive faction by far.

This is the Borg:
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields, and surrender your ship. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile."
"Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant ... Death is irrelevant. You will comply."

This is the Omar:
"Behaviour Heuristics... Abnormal. Please Desist." - Omar Trader, when Alex bumps into him or throws things at him.
"You are only minimally modified. We can help you correct this." - Omar Bodyguard, when prompted.
"I am here to prevent unfair transactions" (Omar Protector)
Note that if you rat out on the Omar then you will lose the Omar's "preferred customer status".... that is a fair and polite stance; they do NOT become hostile.

Totally different psychology going on if we compare the typical communication of the Borg and the Omar.


I know you are just speculating here, MissDenton,...
Yes, I am only speculating, hehe. This week I am the voice on behalf of the Omar. Next week, I will no doubt wish to move on to a different group... maybe. :p


...but I don't really think the Omar were thought of much beyond a group of Borg type arm-traders.
They are ex-scientists from Russia. I think they amount to MUCH more than a group of Borg-type arms-traders. Maybe DX3 will tell us more.... I REALLY want the Omar back in the next story.


While they didn't go out and attack a lot of people, their collective consciousness just really turns me off.
Yes, I can tell, hehe! :D
So, in that sentence you praise them for not attacking people (Oh, not very Borg really then?!), but say the collective-consciousness really turns you off.
Mmmm, I guess it really does depend on what you deem collective-consciousness really means.


Whether there is room for individuality can be debated endlessly, but it seems that removing the frontal lobe would leave only flickers of individual personality if that.
Yes, but ... in your own words, it only "seems". So, maybe it might be a good idea to delve a little deeper to see if there are any clues in DXIW that would suggest otherwise, yes?
For instance, each Omar will often refer to themselves as "I". They don't say "We". That would suggest to me that there is still plenty of individuality.
EVEN at the end of the game, Leo who has now joined the Omar says: "I am watching from a spy satellite, Alex. I am an Omar now. It is good...."
That sentence alone clearly suggests that Leo has retained his original status of mind/personality/memory.... he has just been enhanced and he confirms that he is happy.


I agree that there are no absolutes, but I still think we would have enough knowledge of neurology to determine where the personality centers come from.
We presently do not have enough knowledge of neurology... we have only just skimmed the surface! Therefore, we cannot yet determine where the personality comes from... or, I like to say, 'dwells'.


Personality may still be able to exist without the frontal lobe, but it could get very hard to express individuality without something like that which allows an outlet of sorts.
Yes, if we consider that personality/self/soul is NOT in any way an organic substance; then it would be fair to assume that it is something separate and therefore can be removed and/or replaced elsewhere.
The ability to move or replace this separate entity (mind) implies that it would be feasible to 'rehouse' it elsewhere. Which is why I say that the Omar, in enhancing your frontal lobe, have not necessarily tampered with your Self. This appears to be confirmed above with Leo's comments.
It is only an assumption that they have destroyed your individuality COMPLETELY. I don't believe they have. I think they have just enhanced your consciousness - your personality is still there. THEIR own human personality is still with them.

Ummm, yes, the replacement that the Omar gives you will, in my theory, contain the housing and receptor for your personality/self to dwell and function, so there is indeed an outlet catered for. The replacement is just an upgrade - a substituted part capable of doing exactly what your brain already does, but more.
I have already given you quotes above from the Omar and Leo in the game which I hope will pretty much put most negative opinions to rest. The Omar DO have their own personalities/individuality/self.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jun 2008, 11:21
I’m sorry, this argument just holds no weight. I don’t want to insult you or say outright “you’re wrong”
You would only be insulting yourself if you say outright that you are right and I am wrong. :p
Also, I am sharing my opinions, just as you are, so there is no 'argument', don't worry. :)


– but saying “Phineas Gage is irrelevant because I do not believe science is necessarily right” is just… well, if you want to use that as an argument, this discussion is worthless.
Science isn't necessarily right...but you misunderstand what I meant. I am saying science IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. Whilst we can deem it correct today, it may be proved incorrect tomorrow. My discussion on the subject is based on the the game/the Omar. I imagine and believe that the technology OF THE FUTURE will indeed allow intrusion and manipulation of the brain with no detrimental effects to the personality whatsoever.


I mean the evidence is there. He gets a pole through his frontal lobe, and all of a sudden people say “he’s not even the same person anymore” – he behaves completely differently. This is undeniable – it’s in the case report. What the exact function of the frontal lobe is seems to be mostly irrelevant, because we DO know that damaging it will change the personality. If you refuse to accept this, I cannot debate with you any longer.
Yes, but the case of Gage illustrated evidence of an ACCIDENT that DAMAGED his frontal lobe and he wasn't the same since. I was not refuting that point. But where in the game is it suggested that the Omar in fact damage the brain? I am just saying that I believe it would be possible to tamper with the frontal lobe with "precise" surgery in the future without detrimental effect to the personality. We still have much to learn... we don't have all the answers.


Now, the Omar aren’t doing some minor precise surgery – they are REPLACING the frontal lobe.
Yes, they are replacing it but in order to do so, they must also be undertaking some sort of precise surgery. The replacement isn't something that would just 'snap into place', is it?


The consequence of this is that it is essentially equivalent to damage.
Not necessarily, the technology of the future would give no consequences of damage. That very fact that this process can be undertaken in the first place suggests this is the case...


If they just tinkered with it and put a few electronics, I could see your point. But we’re talking a FULL REPLACEMENT.
Yes, but the replacement could be an exact copy of what the brain already is...just with enhancements of whatever it may be, be it electronic, nano, plasmic etc.


Phineas Gage is perfectly relevant here, because this is almost exactly what the Omar are doing. Unless you are going to tell me that they somehow map your exact personality and then program that into the cortical interface which they replace your frontal lobe with? Pretty sure they don’t.
How do you know they don't? Anyway, as with my Leo quote in previous post... Leo becomes an Omar at the end of the game and he HAS still retained his personality/memory etc, so that would suggest that they can and do.


As my point was; if they just wanted telepathy and awareness, they wouldn’t NEED to replace the whole frontal lobe. It would just be an infolink like the Dentons have. I believe the developers made this distinction for a reason. I believe they have made quite clear that there is an actual group mind. Similarly…
Yes, but the interface is much more complex and diverse than just an infolink to provide greater enhancement in all areas (telepathy, wisdom, collective consciousness/group mind etc) hence the NEED to use it.


I’m sorry, but if you are just going to make up your own definitions for words and concepts which already exist, I refuse to discuss with you any longer. Collective consciousness already has a meaning – you can’t just change it and say “with no evidence, with no proof, I believe this is REALLY what the Omar are doing”. The assumption we have to make is that if the game says “The Omar have a collective consciousness” then what they are referring to is the commonly accepted idea of what such a thing is. If we
cannot make that assumption, the entire discussion is fruitless.
Collective consciousness already has MANY meanings, not just one, so I am not making up my own definitions. You have chosen to accept only one... I have chosen to consider another or others. Science is still limited. Where we have excelled in examining sensory experience and phenomena that can be understood through reason, logic and concepts, there is still much left that is unknown. Actually understanding some further aspects of collective consciousness require the practice of transrational, transmental and translogical contemplation and meditation - as with elements of Buddhism, for example, that you say you know much about.
Yes, we are told that the Omar have a collective consciousness. That doesn't mean we must all stick to one definition of what this means/implies. If you are saying that we must all agree on one assumption otherwise discussion is fruitless, I have to disagree. But this is your perogative and I really don't mind if you choose not to discuss further. Please feel free to ignore my posts if you wish; I won't dislike you for that at all. No problems. :)


I never said you can’t change your personality – what I said is that it is impossible to track the distinctions between ego and compassion within the brain. One centre is not for happiness, the other centre is not for greed, the other centre is not for your desire to own a pony because they look oh-so-pretty. Thus while a Buddhist may be able to be liberated from ego (also karma and the cycle of samsara!) – that is the same as me trying to avoid road rage, or if I so desired; I could attempt to be LESS kind and revel in the darkness and evil bwahahaha! As these are conscious decisions in the first place, and all your actions work within the complex network of neurons in the brain, it is possible. I am not doubting that. What I am saying is…
1. It is unfeasible to be able to perform such manipulations PHYSICALLY through the dissection of brain matter. Even within 100 years it will be most likely not occur. Everything is just *too* precise; it is all on a neuron-by-neuron basis, and every brain is unique.
2. Even if the above WERE possible (I did say unfeasible – not impossible); that is NOT what the Omar are doing. They are NOT performing precise surgery. They are removing the entirety of the frontal lobe.
I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.
Ummm, we don't actually know what procedure the Omar use to replace the frontal lobe, so how can you assume that they are not performing (their form of) precise surgery? I am not imagining anything like our present day ideas of brain surgery. I assume in the future that medical nanobots will be doing all the work. They will enter each individual's brain and map it out, neuron-by-neuron. They will process this information and perform the surgery required with no detrimental effect. So, if we try to imagine the discoveries and abilities of the future, then it is indeed quite FEASIBLE for this to be done.


Oh, and uh, as for the Buddhist not agreeing that he is losing his individuality/personality… I suggest you do a little reading into sankhara, sanskara and other Buddhist concepts. I think you will find the complete opposite – the dissolution of the self is *exactly* what they seem to want. Of course, this isn’t relevant anyway. Buddhists don’t define reality with what they believe. Just because they disagree with me doesn’t make them right – I, personally, have a lot of interest in Buddhist philosophies and practices; but I believe reality is grounded more firmly in science than religion.
Thank you for your suggestions on what books to read, but I already have done so on many topics relating to various religions.
But, you misunderstand what my point was anyway and Buddism philosophy and practice is off topic. Yes, I know many aspire to the dissolution of the self etc. I was describing the very fact that even if they attain this level of dissolution, they are still who they are. It was all about explaining how becoming an Omar doesn't necessarily mean you become mindless, without personality.


Just because people do it, doesn’t make it “our destiny”. Not everybody engages in cosmetic surgery or has transplants. Besides – we could whack everybody on a cocktail of antidepressants, endorphins and happy drugs for the rest of their life. Is that truly a good idea?
Sure, I agree that it doesn't necessarily make it our destiny... but, in the case of the Omar, it may be a "necessity" and therefore may become our destiny. That is what I mean.
LOL @ the happy drug suggestion - a bit extreme and quite a bit off topic there, hehe! :D


I’m sorry, I don’t understand. What’s your point?
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
You asked:
"What is more greedy than being concerned purely with survival?...Isn't the greater needs the ones of the spiritual self?"
I answered:
"Any society/race that descends from humans will not be immediately recognizable as human and so that is why I try to think about the inner psyche of the Omar and not what they look like on the exterior.
If we consider cold, hard facts then happiness is not a requisite of survival, surely. Survival goes to the ones most able to endure."

What I was trying to say is that I am sure the Omar just don't exist for matters of survival and that they may indeed hold the spiritual self as important. The two go hand-in-hand because if you don't survive/live then you don't exist (physically anyway). If you have the desire to survive and exist, then that desire must mean you have a spiritual sense. The fact that they are also not an aggressive race strongly suggests further spirituality of some form.
I was also saying that just because they don't LOOK very human, does not mean that they are not human underneath the exterior. They are humans; they have just evolved/adapted because they had to, in preparation of ensuring that the legacy of humankind continues. They may not be HAPPY/elated with the changes they have had to make (as with Leo) and the way they look, but happiness is second to survival, yeah?
Because they are the ones that can endure...they set the odds higher for ultimate survival.


That wasn’t a misunderstanding I had – that was me not articulating myself well. My point was that there are two ways you can approach your initial question of “which side?”
1. Knowing how DX:IW turns out and picking the one you like the best from there.
2. Going based on what we publicly know *before* the endings, and picking the one which appeals to you there.
When I chose Illuminati, I was going from that second perspective. You brought up the whole dictator/spying thing and my point was that I assumed I didn’t know these things.
And that if you wanted to go based on each specific ending, the Omar one doesn’t sound particularly nice. Whether the Omar caused it or not was irrelevant to my point. If I was going from the first perspective, I would probably go with JC and the Helios uplink as discussed in my previous post.
I see, thank you for the explanation. :)


I don’t see how survival for the sake of survival is particularly enlightened.
I never said it was 'enlightened'. Neither is it a matter of the 'sake' of survival. The point was, if it comes down to survival... then it must be.


At least with the Illuminati I retain freedom and liberty to live my life as I choose.
But do you really? Is this real freedom and liberty or just an illusion? :D


And as my final point… you have contradicted yourself. You refute my claims that replacing the frontal lobe would replace the personality on the basis that personality is not organic, and yet you say the Omar could quite easily change personality through brain modifications. These appear to be quite inconsistent.
I obviously didn't explain very clearly, suffice to say there is no contradiction and neither have I ever "refuted" your claims, as you put it.
I am not categorically saying that the Omar WILL do this or do that. How can I say that, I don't know. Rather, I am saying that I IMAGINE that the Omar will have the technology to do all manner of things with the brain and/or personality/self... just as science today allows us to manipulate all manner of things on a genetic level. I just don't see what we know today as the last sentence on possibilities. I'm open to anything that could be feasible, but not yet proven. So, yes, that includes the possibility that the Self is not organic but the housing (area of brain) is; and, yes, the Omar COULD quite easily change parts of the personality through modification.
This is not a contradiction, it is an expansion of thought.

Alex Denton
27th Jun 2008, 11:34
Why do I feel like my well thought out post got completely lost :P

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jun 2008, 11:46
Why do I feel like my well thought out post got completely lost :P

Hehe, sorry Alex Denton. :o

I will respond to your post asap, as I'm sure others will want to. :)

In fact, I intend to change my discussion focus shortly and champion that of another side. ;)

It all adds up to an interesting, well-rounded debate. :cool:

Tsumaru
27th Jun 2008, 14:27
Alex Denton - I did reply to you. It was brief, because I agreed with you and had little extra to offer. =P

MissDenton (why is everybody on this forum a Denton anyway?) - I have come to the conclusion that our discussion is absolutely fruitless to me. It has become clear to me that you have no contention. You have few specific beliefs, little actual defined thought, no distinct holistic view to set forward. I had assumed when we began this discussion that you were going to put forward arguments (definition: a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point) in support of the Omar based on evidence and consistent reasoning. As such I intended to offer contrary evidence and reasoning designed to disprove your points as well as support my own differing view. If this is what we were doing, it would have been worthwhile. Whether or not anybody would "win" at the end was not important, because at least there would be some coherency to the debate and most likely points would be won or lost as time went on. Of course, this was not about winning either. Or at least, not winning for the sake of winning. I intended to win only because to lose means that my view is wrong - and obviously I want my view to be correct. That is natural. But I'm getting off track here. The idea was to ensure strength in my own view. If you happened to win, while I would be upset that my view was wrong, I ultimately prefer to be "defeated" than to hold to the untruthful.

Anyway, it seems that you have no actual interest in such a debate. Rather you seem more inclined towards throwing individual responses to each of my individual points with no cohesion. While this might be enlightening to you as "thought expansion", I am not good at such discussions. My mind works better while arguing. I look for logical flaws and inconsistencies, weaknesses in arguments, and attack there. Without you having an actual well-defined point to make on the whole for your entire series of posts, I just find this discussion not to be too useful. It all just becomes speculation, hypothesis, and a whole series of "what ifs". What if the Omar do this, what if the Omar do that, what if the Omar are or aren't these? Frankly, I don't care what the Omar may or may not have done or been if we cannot prove or disprove the viability of any of those possibilities through logic, science, reasoning, or evidence in the game. If anything I come up with can be responded to by "it's not strictly in the game - you don't know that" and anything you come up with is supported by "the opposite is not strictly in the game - it could be" then the entire discussion, to me, has absolutely no meaning. I might as well guess as to the meaning of works of abstract art. Tomorrow perhaps I will try to discover the deep philosophical insights Jackson Pollock conveyed in No. 5, 1948.

I appreciate your own opinion and personal tastes if you do find such discussions to be interesting, but I am finding this one to be increasingly time-consuming and decreasingly valuable. As such I intend to thank you for the entire exchange so far, but respectfully intend not to reply to any points along this particular line of discussion at this time.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jun 2008, 17:03
MissDenton
Tsumaru. :)


(why is everybody on this forum a Denton anyway?)
Because we are one big happy family! :rasp:


I have come to the conclusion that our discussion is absolutely fruitless to me. It has become clear to me that you have no contention. You have few specific beliefs, little actual defined thought, no distinct holistic view to set forward.
I have clearly offered plenty of contention to your comments regarding the physiology of the brain and the Omar. I have no specific beliefs because we are, after all, discussing unfinished science and also a fictional game. There can be no distinct holistic view because holism is a philosophical theory and as we still know little regarding the Omar, it is quite impossible to discuss the more complex system of their identity, psychological and social factors. Sorry, but this is hardly my fault and I think it is only reasonable for me to remember that I am unable to categorise one way or the other.


I had assumed when we began this discussion that you were going to put forward arguments (definition: a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point) in support of the Omar based on evidence and consistent reasoning.
But I have, in fact, done just that - obviously within the limitations of what we know and don't know about the physiology and psychology of the brain and the Omar.


As such I intended to offer contrary evidence and reasoning designed to disprove your points as well as support my own differing view. If this is what we were doing, it would have been worthwhile.
Well, in any other discussion based upon life, reality and conclusive evidence, that would be the natural way for things to progress. But as we are discussing the ideology of a game, neither of us can achieve this status fairly, can we.


Whether or not anybody would "win" at the end was not important, because at least there would be some coherency to the debate and most likely points would be won or lost as time went on.
"Winning" (or losing) and scoring points never entered my head. The whole point of an online discussion is to facilitate open exploration of the topic in hand.


Of course, this was not about winning either. Or at least, not winning for the sake of winning. I intended to win only because to lose means that my view is wrong - and obviously I want my view to be correct. That is natural. But I'm getting off track here.
First you say it is not about winning... then you say you intended to win? Now THAT is a contradiction, lol. :D


The idea was to ensure strength in my own view. If you happened to win, while I would be upset that my view was wrong, I ultimately prefer to be "defeated" than to hold to the untruthful.
I really don't understand why the emphasis must be about winning or losing, triumph or defeat. Not as far as a game is concerned anyway! :confused: Do you think you may be taking this all too seriously?
As already explained, as far as this topic is concerned, there are limitations of what we know or can surmise to be false or true. I guess we will just have to wait for DX3 to be released, perhaps we will learn more about the Omar then. :)


Anyway, it seems that you have no actual interest in such a debate.
That is a very presumptuous and rudely dismissive point of view. If I had no interest then I wouldn't be posting in here, would I.
It is not a lack of interest that prevents me from "arguing my point". As already explained, it would be silly for anyone to make absolute assumptions on matters we have no evidence of and/or know too little about.


Rather you seem more inclined towards throwing individual responses to each of my individual points with no cohesion.
I have answered your comments very clearly and set them out in the exact order that you made them, so how can there be no cohesion? It would have been exactly the same to have quoted your statements in full and just replied underneath it in full. Instead, I simply split each part in to sections and replied to each separately (as I am doing right now) - for the very sake of cohesion and clarity. It isn't like I have mixed your sentences all up in a topsy-turvy fashion in an attempt to confuse or tamper with the content, lol.


While this might be enlightening to you as "thought expansion", I am not good at such discussions.
My comment "thought expansion" was in reply to your comment that I was contradicting myself. What has enlightenment got to do with it?


My mind works better while arguing. I look for logical flaws and inconsistencies, weaknesses in arguments, and attack there.
I see. Well, we all have our own views of what a discussion entails... I guess I prefer to stand in the middle and digest the logical and illogical, weaknesses and strengths..ie. both sides. However, the word 'attack' is alien to me on this issue.


Without you having an actual well-defined point to make on the whole for your entire series of posts, I just find this discussion not to be too useful. It all just becomes speculation, hypothesis, and a whole series of "what ifs". What if the Omar do this, what if the Omar do that, what if the Omar are or aren't these?
But don't you consider that it would be rather silly for anyone to state anything other than speculation, hypothesis and 'what ifs'? We are discussing a game and a race within that game.


Frankly, I don't care what the Omar may or may not have done or been if we cannot prove or disprove the viability of any of those possibilities through logic, science, reasoning, or evidence in the game.
With respect, I have offered up some evidence (for and against) some of the comments that have been made (see next quote below). Obviously, all I can rely on is what has been offered up in DXIW so far, by way of quotations or specific events.


If anything I come up with can be responded to by "it's not strictly in the game - you don't know that" and anything you come up with is supported by "the opposite is not strictly in the game - it could be" then the entire discussion, to me, has absolutely no meaning.
Where appropriate, I have indeed stated one or two "there are no hints of this in the game..." and "you don't know that..." replies... but very few compared to my entire contribution to this discussion so far, so I feel some exaggeration on your part has crept in there. But, in all fairness, that would be a logical response to someone who is making claims that cannot be partly or wholly substantiated as complete truth.
Where I have mentioned strong hints that argue against some of the things you said, you have chosen to completely and conveniently ignore them!
For example, I have had absolutely no response from you regarding the conversations of the Omar I quoted, and that of Leo's conversation after he changed into an Omar. All of which strongly hint that individual personality and memory are indeed intact after the cortical interface has been attached.


I might as well guess as to the meaning of works of abstract art. Tomorrow perhaps I will try to discover the deep philosophical insights Jackson Pollock conveyed in No. 5, 1948.
Yes, and while you are at it, you may wish to consider some of the works of Cy Twombly. ;) Neither appeal to my taste, I have to say. :)


I appreciate your own opinion and personal tastes if you do find such discussions to be interesting, but I am finding this one to be increasingly time-consuming and decreasingly valuable.
I find many, many things interesting, Tsumaru. :)
You have no idea of the complexity of my opinions and personal tastes and it is rather pompous of you to remark in such a way; as if to imply that the level of my intelligence is only what you have seen so far, lol. :D
But, if you find it time-consuming and invaluable... please do move on.


As such I intend to thank you for the entire exchange so far, but respectfully intend not to reply to any points along this particular line of discussion at this time.
And thank you too. No doubt we will join paths again within another discussion on this forum. :)

zemegauser
27th Jun 2008, 17:52
Nobody voted for WTO, why? Well I did, I kinda like them the most, being military and the like. More reasons but it will take forever to list them. Woulda been cool to be able to rise up in the ranks in Number 2.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jun 2008, 19:51
Nobody voted for WTO, why? Well I did, I kinda like them the most, being military and the like. More reasons but it will take forever to list them. Woulda been cool to be able to rise up in the ranks in Number 2.

Yes, the WTO doesn't appear to be a popular choice.
I expect it may be because this organisation denotes somewhat of a 'grey area'; together with that of The Order because both are really separate branches of the same group, ie. the Illuminati.

Also, I seem to remember that if you did something that displeased them, there were no obvious repercussions at doing so. :nut:

Still, the WTO at least have one vote so far. The Knights Templar has received none. :)

Alex Denton
27th Jun 2008, 23:06
Hehe, sorry Alex Denton. :o

I will respond to your post asap, as I'm sure others will want to. :)

In fact, I intend to change my discussion focus shortly and champion that of another side. ;)

It all adds up to an interesting, well-rounded debate. :cool:

Okay MissDenton, look forward to your reply. Tsumaru thanks for replying, I just read it and I'm glad someone agrees with me. :D But yea, given the choices I felt Apostlecore was the best one. I just never have trusted the Illuminati I guess, not even in DX. In DX I went with Tracer Tong's way so that we could start over.

Tsumaru
28th Jun 2008, 00:55
I have no intention of arguing the value of arguing about the original topic. Nor do I intend here to argue why it is not valuable to argue about the value of arguing about the original topic. Or any other argument which will end as cyclically and uselessly as the first.

What I will do, is correct a few of your semantic misinterpretations.


there can be no distinct holistic view because holism is a philosophical theory
Holism: ~relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts
Ie. I expect you to have a general concept of the Omar in mind, which includes a set idea on the brain. You cannot talk both about their ability to change the personality through brain surgery while also saying that the brain does not control personality because it is not an organic entity. All arguments or points you make form the part of a greater whole view. If you feel it is impossible to have such a vision due to our lack of knowledge, at least what you *do* put forth should be cohesive...


I have answered your comments very clearly and set them out in the exact order that you made them, so how can there be no cohesion?
Cohesive: ~Cohering or tending to cohere; well integrated
Cohere: ~to stick together; be united; hold fast, as parts of the same mass
As with holistic, I am talking about views which are consistent with each other and actually fit. Such as with the previous example. You deny a contradiction, but it is still at least inconsistent. Also, taking every individual point I make and rebutting it independantly of all others is not cohesion; it is the exact opposite. All points must work together to form that holistic whole as above.


My comment "thought expansion" was in reply to your comment that I was contradicting myself. What has enlightenment got to do with it?
Enlighten: ~to give intellectual or spiritual light to; instruct; impart knowledge to
What is the point of discussion if not to enlighten us? If there is no further insight, no clarity, no development of knowledge or understanding, the entire endeavour is quite pointless.

And now to make a few final points at other misunderstandings.


First you say it is not about winning... then you say you intended to win? Now THAT is a contradiction, lol. ... I really don't understand why the emphasis must be about winning or losing, triumph or defeat. Not as far as a game is concerned anyway! Do you think you may be taking this all too seriously?
What I said is it is not about winning for the sake of winning, ie adding another victory to the belt. Don't take my comments out of context. And for the latter part, I clearly stated that it was not about this. How I can make it any clearer is quite beyond me. Anybody who puts forth arguments without intending them to be completely right is a fool, and is in fact arguing just for the sake of arguing.


For example, I have had absolutely no response from you regarding the conversations of the Omar I quoted, and that of Leo's conversation after he changed into an Omar. All of which strongly hint that individual personality and memory are indeed intact after the cortical interface has been attached.
Oh, those? I fail to see how every Omar responding in the exact same way to being bumped (Note: You didn't even quote conversations) is any evidence of them having individual personalities. Nor do I see how Leo saying "I am an Omar now. It is good." shows anything remotely akin to his previous personality which, in my opinion, would have been "Hey Chicago, I'm full Omar now. These biomods are totally awesome, I'm gonna kick some serious ass!" Of course, the reason I didn't reply is the same reason I didn't reply to *any* point - I was stopping the particular discussion. The only reason I choose to make this point now is because it seems as if you bring up further arguments when I intend to cease the discussion just to accuse me of avoiding them as if I have no logical reply and am just running away. Which is untrue.


Anyway, that's it from me. It would probably be best if you try to avoid dissecting my posts henceforth as it seems to serve no further purpose. As I reiterate, I have no intention of beginning another argument. I have made only these final minor points to clear up some misconceptions, and you will notice that I didn't reply to any but one of your "main" points - this was completely intentional, and for reasons already given.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Jun 2008, 14:47
I have no intention of arguing the value of arguing about the original topic. Nor do I intend here to argue why it is not valuable to argue about the value of arguing about the original topic. Or any other argument which will end as cyclically and uselessly as the first.
Yawn. Tsumaru, you are sending me to sleep already, hehe!
Your fixation on "argument" appears to be a somewhat unhealthy disposition. This thread/forum discusses a game, you really need to lighten up a bit. :)


What I will do, is correct a few of your semantic misinterpretations.
Hehe, it is extremely amusing that you will spend SO MUCH of your time gathering, copying and pasting dictionary quotes from Wikipedia/internet sources and yet you consider valid/relevant/on-topic discussion to be a waste of your time and invaluable (in your own words)! I think your priorities are sadly misplaced on this discussion forum. Quoting dictionary terms to people is dull and unnecessary - dynamic, on-topic discussion is much more constructive; in my book anyway.
Thank you, but I am well aware of the definitions Tsumaru.... BUT, if it makes you feel a little more happier or superior in any way to waste your time on such things, who am I to spoil your fun? But it would be more intelligent to stay on topic and not digress onto matters of no relevance. It just turns any thread into something utterly boring for others to read.

So, okay, lets hear what you actually have to say of importance, in between those dictionary definitions...



Ie. I expect you to have a general concept of the Omar in mind, which includes a set idea on the brain. You cannot talk both about their ability to change the personality through brain surgery while also saying that the brain does not control personality because it is not an organic entity.

As with anyone else on this forum, I can only speculate on the general concept of the Omar. PLEASE REMEMBER, they are not real, they are characters in a game. There are obvious limitations on what we actually KNOW about them and, therefore, we are governed by those limitations on how far we can discuss them in greater depth. That said, YES I CAN talk about the possibilities of their ability to change personality via brain surgery and still suggest that the brain does not control the personality because personality may not necessarily be organic. I CAN indeed speculate on all matters as much as I like, just as anyone else on this forum can. It really is a case of YOU CANNOT tell someone that they shouldn't do so. As we know so little about the Omar anyway, and what the advances of medical techology will be in the far future, speculation IS INEVITABLE. Here you are trying to state that everything I speculate on is prohibitive and not worthy of discussion. That is the same as saying that anyone, including yourself, who has EVER made speculations on this forum is wrong to do so! Oh, lighten up... please.

Let me recap on what I said. I hate to have to repeat myself but you obviously need some guidance to get back on track.
I suggested that the personality/self may not be anything organic and so could be something that can be 'moved' and thus dwell elsewhere. If we think of the inner self as the soul/spirit, then it isn't unreasonable to suggest such a thing, especially if we wish to believe that there is some form of life after death; whatever it may be. If we continue with this notion, it makes sense to see the actual brain as only the 'housing' in which the Self dwells and the management system being either wholly or partly a combination of processes between the brain and the self. Yes, all mere speculation (but allowed)..and, as such, I am unable to PROVE or ARGUE any truth in that idea, but this isn't the issue, is it. For you to begin to attack mere speculation is pointless as I never suggested it as the absolute truth or what will definitely be. Your specific argument against what I said was to quote Gage's case; ie. that the damage of the frontal lobe would effect personality. Yes, we know the details on this case but it doesn't serve to disprove my speculation. That is because we don't know what the future holds, we know not of future advances in relation to the self and the brain. If we stick to what we do know (in the game) and consider the evidence that Leo had indeed retained his memory/personality after he had turned Omar (received the interface) then this must go some way to support my idea rather than discredit it, but obviously that is as far as it goes. I am unable to expand on that until I can find some more clues within the game. Checking all conversational scripts within the game, of and between the Omar and Leo, will mean playing the entire game again from start to finish as I don't think there is a comprehensive source for such information on the internet. If there is one, please (anyone) share the link as I would really love to research this further. Thank you.

I then continued to expand my thoughts/speculation - of which you deemed as a contradiction but was not and could not be, because it is only another speculation. I suggested that the Omar may also even be able to alter parts of the personality/self if it was required, such as the undesirable elements of the ego, eg. unnecessary anger, malicious or murderous intent etc. This idea could be supported if we consider the disposition of the Omar within the game. They are quite "cool, calm and collected"... somewhat aloof but still watchful, wary and intelligent and sociable where need be. None of them appear to have any negative characteristics on a personal level. Whilst some may deem this calmness as having "no personality", others may consider it of a higher state-of-mind? Who knows, that is not for me to say, but it is evident that they do not preoccupy themselves with unnecessary confrontation or arguments etc and this suggests that they see such characteristics as completely unnecessary. That makes sense to me. To address the "physical possibility" of removing such unwanted elements of the mind (negative ego) from the self/personality which has been explained as non-organic, this is indeed still a fair speculation. We can describe something as non-organic but the fact that it is a 'something' makes it a tangible element of some sort. We cannot physically see the self/personality, but it is there, yes. It must exist. "I think, therefore, I Am". Just using my own free will, I can make decisions and I can choose to remove certain elements of my personality, eg. needless argumentativeness, anger, cruelty etc. If I am, myself, able to make changes to my personality and the way I act, then the "corrective thought process" that allows this to happen must exist too. Why couldn't the Omar map and tap into these corrective thought processes and make adjustments accordingly and if needed? For example, one character in the game may be a murderous, angry thug but he wishes to join the Omar. They can accept him into their ranks and replace his frontal lobe with the interface and then go on to 'tweak' his mind (wherever it dwells within the interface) somewhat to remove the parts of his character that are not required - not required for the Omar collective-consciousness and not needed for the thug as it benefits neither. I imagine that they make these changes for the better and not for the worse. It is completely feasible to consider that this could be done in the future, why not. It may be beyond our comprehension now but that doesn't make it not possible. But, I must state again, all this is speculation but I discuss such a thing within the realms of fiction and a game. In fiction, anything and everything is possible.


All arguments or points you make form the part of a greater whole view. If you feel it is impossible to have such a vision due to our lack of knowledge, at least what you *do* put forth should be cohesive...
Cohesive: ~Cohering or tending to cohere; well integrated
Cohere: ~to stick together; be united; hold fast, as parts of the same mass
As with holistic, I am talking about views which are consistent with each other and actually fit. Such as with the previous example. You deny a contradiction, but it is still at least inconsistent. Also, taking every individual point I make and rebutting it independantly of all others is not cohesion; it is the exact opposite. All points must work together to form that holistic whole as above.
I have been cohesive. It is you who has not been cohesive... hence the dictionary quotes, lol.
Yes, I denied a contradiction because it wasn't one. So what if it was or wasn't consistent... we are discussing future possibilities in science and a game here, we are discussing fiction. I take it you refuse to read fictional sci-fi or similar then, only factual books? A sci-fi author would be unable to prove or substantiate any of his imagination as to what the future may hold - do you write to them and discredit their thoughts, lol?

I can address individual points, those parts still add up to the whole if absolute holism is what you demand. Just simply join all my sentences together if it helps... it will still say exactly the same thing.


Enlighten: ~to give intellectual or spiritual light to; instruct; impart knowledge to
What is the point of discussion if not to enlighten us? If there is no further insight, no clarity, no development of knowledge or understanding, the entire endeavour is quite pointless.
Umm, as already said, we are discussing possibilities about a world within a game setting. If you seek only enlightenment, you are in the wrong type of forum, lol.
So, you are saying that just because a discussion on a discussion forum doesn't give you enlightenment, knowledge and understanding - there is no point to it and we shouldn't all be here writing all the things we do? Amusing logic, I must say.


And now to make a few final points at other misunderstandings.
Oh, at least this may be interesting....:p


What I said is it is not about winning for the sake of winning, ie adding another victory to the belt. Don't take my comments out of context. And for the latter part, I clearly stated that it was not about this. How I can make it any clearer is quite beyond me. Anybody who puts forth arguments without intending them to be completely right is a fool, and is in fact arguing just for the sake of arguing.
I haven't put forth any arguments, because I don't need to argue. I try to remind you constantly that we are speculating on this forum, there are many threads that speculate. It isn't anything we have to prove unless we state that something is definitely the truth. :)
If you read my posts you will see that I say things like ".... this would suggest" and not "this definitely is". Big difference. It is YOU who is taking my comments out of context.
YOU are the fool for thinking that anyone who speculates (NOT argues: that is your word) must be completely right. I have never heard such nonsense!:lol:
Yes, your statement would hold weight HAD I put forth arguments that I intended to be absolutely right, but I never did. So please stick to the facts and not manipulate what I said, or how I said it, for your own argumentative satisfaction, thank you.


Oh, those? I fail to see how every Omar responding in the exact same way to being bumped (Note: You didn't even quote conversations) is any evidence of them having individual personalities. Nor do I see how Leo saying "I am an Omar now. It is good." shows anything remotely akin to his previous personality which, in my opinion, would have been "Hey Chicago, I'm full Omar now. These biomods are totally awesome, I'm gonna kick some serious ass!" Of course, the reason I didn't reply is the same reason I didn't reply to *any* point - I was stopping the particular discussion. The only reason I choose to make this point now is because it seems as if you bring up further arguments when I intend to cease the discussion just to accuse me of avoiding them as if I have no logical reply and am just running away. Which is untrue.
Yes, THOSE... of which you did deliberately ignored and only address now. ;)
Let me explain further in the context they were written.
1. The mention of the Omar getting bumped by Alex was to illustrate the non-agressive behaviour of the Omar, compared to that of the Borg. NOTE: "Behaviour Heuristics... Abnormal. Please Desist." - IS a conversation quote; that is what the Omar said to Alex.
2. "You are only minimally modified. We can help you correct this." - Omar Bodyguard, when prompted. This IS a conversation too and illustrated further the difference between the Omar and the Borg. That is, the Omar will offer to help you modify yourself (if asked) as opposed to the Borg who wish to force you to become modified (whether you ask or not).
3. "I am here to prevent unfair transactions" (Omar Protector). Believe it or not, this is another conversation quote. This suggests again that the Omar are not aggressive, unlike the Borg.
4. "I am watching from a spy satellite, Alex. I am an Omar now. It is good...." - Leo's conversation to Alex after he had become an Omar. This was a reasonable example against your assumption that the Omar do not have a personality of their own, and/or that once you become an Omar you lose your personality. I am sorry he didn't say what you think he should have said... but you are (conveniently) missing the point. The fact that he still retains his previous memory and feels good after becoming an Omar is the definite POINT. This suggests that your assumption that all Omar have no personality must be wrong; as is the regular conversation of the Omar when you interact with them in the game, when they address themselves as "I" and not "We".
When you say that his conversation was not anything like: "Hey Chicago, I'm full Omar now. These biomods are totally awesome, I'm gonna kick some serious ass!" in support of your idea that he has lost his personality; by the same token, I could say his conversation was not anything like: "I am a robot. I exist only for the We. I have no recollection of who you are, Alex" etc. ;)


Anyway, that's it from me.
I certainly hope so. You are just spamming this thread with irrelevant argument and dictionary quotes. Not required... you are wasting my time now. :rasp:


It would probably be best if you try to avoid dissecting my posts henceforth as it seems to serve no further purpose. As I reiterate, I have no intention of beginning another argument. I have made only these final minor points to clear up some misconceptions, and you will notice that I didn't reply to any but one of your "main" points - this was completely intentional, and for reasons already given.
Another argument? I haven't noted any arguments in our exchanges... only nonsensical and irrelevant comments from yourself that have not cleared up any misconceptions as none exist except in your own head. I know, by your own admission, that you prefer to argue and that is your perogative, but I'm afraid I do not wish to join in at any point.

____


Now that Tsumaru has retired from this discussion, I would like this thread to get back on track and will recap as follows:

1. It has been suggested that the Omar are clearly modelled on the Borg and are nothing but a hive-mind entity with no personality.
Let's discuss this further by offering up any more clues that would either affirm or discredit this notion. If you can find any more hints on the psychology of the Omar, please share.

2. Speculation of whether science in the future can tamper with and/or replace areas of our brain without the loss of memory/personality/self is also welcomed.
As already noted, there is no indication that Leo's modification effected his basic memory/personality. But I have personally only found that one small clue. Can anyone else find any further clues that would agree or disagree with this assumption?

Please contribute all your opinions on the Omar. I am hoping that they will appear again in DX3, so it would be good to gather up as much information as we can about them. Thank you.

3. This thread includes a poll to vote for the organisation you REALLY supported. You can share your reasons why you supported one particular group, or disliked another. You can take this discussion where you like (despite Tsumaru's claims to the contrary...).
I look forward to further reading. :)

Alex Denton
28th Jun 2008, 15:50
Don't forget about my post MissDenton :P

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Jun 2008, 16:36
Don't worry, Alex Denton, I'm working on it right now. ;)

Sorry for delay but as you can see from above, I have had to spend too much time answering irrelevant matters. :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Jun 2008, 18:05
Alright, I've been reading over the third page here and I feel I should voice more of my opinion's on the whole DX:IW set of endings.
Yes, thank you for posting and widening the topic discussion here; I certainly wish to address the pros and cons of all factions in the game so far. :)


Now as I said I chose the Apostlecore ending, partly because I thought that was the best choice I had given the circumstances, and partly because I felt attached to JC Denton and his brother after all I'd been through with them in the original. It felt wrong to just turn around and kill them simply because I may disagree with their methods.
Yes, it certainly felt wrong for me too. :( You do form a strong bond with the Dentons, it is extremely difficult not to choose Apostlecorp. However, I didn't choose them - pretty much for the same reasons of doubt you mention in your later comments. Also, I had to ask myself if Helios could be trusted...:o I mean, the Dentons may have your trust but then you have to question their trust in a third-party (be it human or AI).


I agree with them on every point except the fact we would have lost complete privacy and we would all be uplinked to Helios without really a choice in the matter. I can see WHY he did it, I mean if you think about it JC is right, human beings are by and large imperfect, and we have wants and ambitions. How can we therefore have a true democracy when there will always be someone wanting to take control and have all the power? I mean our own system of checks and balances is to stop a person like that, but as shown in Deus Ex, in the end those so called balances were just used to MJ12's advantage.
Human beings definitely are indeed imperfect. That brings me onto something I wanted to discuss further. That is, what being a human actually means. Many will say to be imperfect is to be human, that modifying ourselves to become more perfect would be unnatural. I have to agree with that synopsis in general terms, I wouldn't want to be perfect 'plastic', if that's the right way to say it. I don't wish to be a robot. Individual thought and creativity are important, however... the negative attributes of the human character do not appeal to me. If being perfect means respecting all human life and never having to perform or observe atrocities, then that is appealing to me. Maybe it is time for us to 'move on' to to speak. We could continue as we are, with all our genius and stupidity - but what would be the ultimate end, I have to wonder. If we don't nuke ourselves to almost complete extinction on a mass scale, will we alienate ourselves from each other on a smaller scale. The latter already existing in our society when we consider race discrimination, the poor and rich divide, religious differences, etc. If we carry on as we are, will we always have these horrible problems to deal with. History suggests we will and that is why I wonder if we should make changes for the better, whatever they may be. I would like to hear more views on this matter...


Now if we truly want a democracy that can be fair and balanced, with equal chances for everyone we have to ask ourselves what are we prepared to give? After all were not going to get something like that without having to also give something up. I mean I don't know if I'd be comfortable with the loss of complete privacy, the privacy of my own head.. but... is it any better than the other choices? Let me just analyze the other choices as -I- see them. Bare in mind this is merely my opinion.
Yes, agreed that we have to give something up in order to progress. Whether that means we have to let transhuman/AI or just AI guide us (be our God, if you like) is the ultimate question. I'm wondering what ALL the consequences of that might entail. Also, choosing either the AI route or the Omar route involves some loss of privacy 'inside your head' kind of thing. Which of these two might be better than the other and have preference. I invite further discussion on this question.


Okay, if you give things over to the Templars, they will kill a few people. They'll then wipe out all nano tech in the world, and keep an iron fist grip on the world. In the words of the Doctor Humanity will just stop. We'll stop advancing and things will be restricted mainly because were AFRAID of the unknown. In what world is that choice GOOD or mentally sound? Really.... It isn't at all. Its letting a small group control everyone out of fear.
Exactly. I did not choose this option at all. If anything, prejudice in the world will be even stronger and supported by a society that is supposed to represent good. Definitely not for me. :(


Next option, we can hand the world over to the Illuminati. They won't be anywhere near as drastic, but they'll use Helios to control the world, spy on people, control finances, keep the rich richer and powerful and all that stuff. Thats pretty much the world we have right now, which really isn't that great. If your going to make a choice, it should be for the benefit of mankind, not for the benefit of the few. With Helios in JC and the Nano aug technology there's a chance to really change the world, and do some good. I don't see how it can be passed up for a cushy spot in the new power base known as the Illuminati.
In total agreement with this one. The Illuminati choice was far less appealing than Helios/JC.


Then we come to the last option, we can kill everyone and let war break out, causing the earth to be scorched and unlivable save for the Omar, their collective thought process and their augmentations to the human condition. Now personally I believe the ending saying Oh well Humanity will burn on bright into the future because of that is kind of stupid. I mean alright as a race we'd like to survive long on into the future, but at the cost of what makes us human? I don't believe the Omar were human any longer, I believe they made themselves into something else. Not necessarily better or worse, but just something else. Now Leo didn't want to become an Omar, but in MY
game, the Omar said we'll find you when you sleep and finish the conversion because you've already made the choice! Not exactly sounding like the nicest bunch of people in the world. :P So that ending was definitely out for me.
Well, this brings me back to the questions I posed earlier, about what makes us human; or what being human actually means at the end of the day. Just because we may alter our bodies in whatever way we do (now and in the future) doesn't necessarily mean we are no longer human, does it? It is difficult to imagine but I think it may be an inevitable process. I believe the Omar are still human - they just don't appear very human and so we immediately find them quite aesthetically alien. To me, being human is what comes from within. Isn't it always those spiritual moments in your life, a picture, a movie or book, that brings out the deepest human emotions that often result in you weeping at being 'touched' by whatever the subject is. That part of our being, to me, is what makes us Human. THAT is what I think it is about. With this notion in mind, I believe we can alter our bodies beyond recognition but still retain that very part of us that makes us special. It's the emotion of love and compassion all the way for me. If I don't ever lose that, but dwell in a different type of body, then I would say I am still human.

Ultimately though, we have to survive - otherwise it wouldn't matter if we become God-like or just a fly on the wall. Whether we stay the same human beings we are now, or become transhuman in whatever way we imagine, for better or worse, neither would be beneficial if we don't live on and continue the legacy of Humankind.


Now we come to Apostlecore, and JC's mission to bring the world the first true democracy. To make all people equal and give everyone a chance at a full, productive, happy life. Now thats a very sunny way of putting it, but what do we have to give up in exchange for this? Well simple, our privacy, the privacy of our own minds. We'll all be uplinked to Helios who will help make decisions on a daily basis. He won't assimilate us though, so we'll still be who we are. Now I definitely jumped at the chance to help humanity along and give everyone a chance at a productive and happy life. But I was taken aback by the fact it meant an end to personal privacy and the feeling we'd have a watchful eye over us at all times. However given the other choices I felt this was the best option. Would I have made another choice if it had been there? Probably, because this one didn't sit too well with me either.
LOL, I agree. If you really think about it, there are some flaws to this option too, as already discussed.


Now then keep in mind this is just my opinion and you don't have to agree with me, I figured I'd just throw my hat into the ring to discuss this with you all.
Hehe, don't worry... I understand the principle of opinion and you have complete liberty to suggest what you like. :)

mad_red
28th Jun 2008, 19:54
Might as well throw my opinion in here...

I side with Miss Denton on many points, though mostly in the spirit of the message. I think that collective consciousness means individual consciousness accessible to all members of a group. Furthermore think that individuality can be seperated from ego simply by blocking certain actions that "do not compute", if not by finding the neurons that are responsible or other means. The fact that However, I don't believe the Omar are as benevolent as Miss Denton makes them out to be, though hardly as bad as the borg. I've already quite a lot of DXIW, but I got the impression that they don't want more individualism than absolutely necessary. Also, I don't like their augmentationism - surely there's more to life than that? All augs and no play make Leo a dull boy.

As for the guys spouting all the science-talk, keep in mind that if most of your assertions may well be, as Miss Denton pointed out, baseless. Physics is basically taking it's experimentally "proven" assumptions and winging it as it goes, grasping at mathematical and sometimes contradictory straws to fill in the holes. Neurology is rife with falsification, such as the girl with water for brains who leads a perfectly normal life, or documented back-from-braindead cases.

Don't get me wrong; I love science and I actively take an interest, but our mistakes more likely than not go deeper than most people are able to imagine at this moment. Science may have all the answers, but we certainly don't. For the sake of science, we must turn a blind eye to these mysteries and deal with them in our own time. But in the meantime, forgive if I take your claims with a grain of salt.

As for the vote, I'm putting one in for Apostlecorp. A computer reading my mind to get my vote? Sure, it's just a computer - not a group of people oligarchs or whatever. It's mundane but it works, or at least it's a worthwhile experiment. (Or was it more to it than that?)

Illuminati could be interesting, but I don't see anything what they have that Helios doesn't. Except maybe their secret meditation. Again, please correct me if I'm missing something.

Being a Kung Fu fan, I would have gone with with Tong and the Luminous Path, but it's not on the list. The NSF doesn't quite hold the same appeal for me.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
28th Jun 2008, 21:35
Hi mad_red, thank you for sharing your views. :)

It is good to read that someone else has a broader view of what collective-consciousness may actually mean. Not necessarily an 'insectoid-type hive mind', as is the common assumption, but possibly a greater consciousness/one thought that is shared with all members of that group. Not dissimilar to having a kind of religion to focus on, if you like - but not actually a religion because there is no hierarchy, no Idol to worship, no king or queen, no big boss etc. With the absence of anything that might be deemed a religion or hierarchy, then perhaps this offers a more logical, comprehendible 'coming-together' of like-minded people that does away with unnecessary conflict of opinion that religion often finds itself with. Not only does religion give us so many unanswered questions (that will, in all probability, remain forever unanswered?); we must also listen to those of another (or no) religion questioning the validity of our beliefs...and even championing their own in the same breath! Contradictions abound, lol! It seems an endless cycle because there is no proof one way or another that our particular God exists or not. Headache time, really, hehe. :mad2:
So many religions in this world, of which many wars appear to be based or challenged upon. Often I wonder whether human beings would be more content as a species if it were not for the "candy-box assortment" of religious factions we have found ourselves with. They just appear to separate us as a species and the outcome has never been good. I can't help thinking that there may be much more harmony in this world if we all had the one/same religion (or perhaps none at all). Maybe you or others have further views to share on this one... :)
NOTE: Absolutely no disrespect intended to those here who consider themselves devoutly religious. I am just stating my views and inviting further discussion...

Yes, thank you for also thinking that it could be possible to manipulate the mind/self/personality in the far future. I don't see it as an unreasonable suggestion that neurons in the brain could not be intricately mapped out and duplicated or altered etc; and that you couldn't do the same with the inner psyche of an individual's mind. It may not be an organic substance but still, nevertheless, it is a 'something'.

I wasn't making the Omar out to be overly benevolent, as such, I was just championing their cause for a moment in time. ;) I'm glad you agree that they are not anything as bad as the Borg. There is indeed a HUGE and obvious difference between these two groups. Yes, you are probably correct that they don't appear to want more individualism than absolutely necessary. That seems to agree with my earlier comment that they may have done away with areas of human characteristics that they may deem as not required/necessary... but for good reasons, if we think about it. If they have taken away illogical thoughts of greed, anger, vanity etc. then I don't see that as such a bad thing really. Goodness, humans wouldn't be any worse off if they didn't have these kinds of thought processes, lol.
As for their augmentation... they have adapted thus because they HAD to. It is in preparation of survival because they had realised that Humanity was heading for that 'scorched earth' syndrome and the endless wars they have witnessed only gives testament to that. Don't forget they are human under that frogman suit and they may not even like the idea of having to look like that (Leo didn't) but it is a necessity if they are to survive and continue the legacy of Humankind. There is no other way. If you knew tomorrow that the Earth would meet with catastrophe and the air would be so toxic you would choke to death on the first whiff of fumes, wouldn't you agree to instant augmentation to ensure survival? Without it you die...goodbye Humankind. With it you survive... pick up the pieces, move on and make better what was.

Hehe, I'm a Kung-Fu fan too. :D
I don't practice it but I love to read up on the history and watch cool movies and interesting documentaries. You could have opted for the 'Another' choice if you prefer Tong - I think another member chose that option for the very same reason. :)

Kevyne-Shandris
28th Jun 2008, 23:21
This is how hardcore I am...

http://www.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf/battlefieldnewsdetail.aspx?site_id=R3GK79NA-I9XN-YPOIIREX&storyid=13955

Notice UNATCOII?

I guess I gave my choice away! ;)

If I'm not JC, I'm UNATCOII. This game is simply never out of my mind -- even when playing other games...hehehe.

Tsumaru
29th Jun 2008, 01:01
So you don't mind being part of a corrupt front for a group bent on world-domination by any means necessary?


Illuminati could be interesting, but I don't see anything what they have that Helios doesn't. Except maybe their secret meditation. Again, please correct me if I'm missing something.
Well as I've discussed earlier, if you look from the perspective of having watched the DX2 endings, I would say it's apparent that Helios/JC/Apostlecorp should be the best choice for humanity. And probably in life, I would go for something like that. However at the time of the start of the poll, I was in a bit more of an ego-driven mood and thought "hey, controlling the world would be nice - and the Illuminati aren't so bad" so I went with them. You're correct that they don't really add anything on. Although you could argue that they *do* take away. For those people who don't believe mandatory invasion of your head is a good thing, Illuminati is a fair way to go. There is still some spying, but it's fairly mundane and superficial compared to the Helios invasion.
I think most people (or at least most posts I've read so far) agree that none of the IW endings really jump out at you as *the best*. Although if you think about it, is JC/Helios merger from DX1 really any different to the Illuminati global dictatorship from DX2? That's something to think about.

gh0s7
29th Jun 2008, 01:09
Apostlecorp, all the way. :)

Now let's see if I can explain the why... The feeling of bond and trust in the Denton family aside :p , they really did seemed not just the best but also the only valid choice.

Illuminati: a group of people controlling the entire world... Reminds me of the Roman Empire and, consequently, of its inevitable downfall. Next.

Knights Templar: Rewinding on some of the most ground-breaking technological evolution, back to a "simpler" age, living in a dictatorship? I'll skip that one too, yes, for obvious reasons.

MJ12: Just like with the Illuminati, except on a more "individual" manner.

NSF: Being somewhat of an anarchist myself, I'd usually team up with them. Except that they seemed rather incomplete. They knew who they were fighting, but not having decided what would happen after a hypothetical victory, that was the impression I had when dealing with them.

The Omar: Unlike MissDenton (not meant as an insult of any kind, really!), I bear a more simpler view of the Omar; if they were presented as a collective mind, then that's what they are. And to be part of a collective mind, one has to sacrifice some of its own individuality (if not all, but since we are given little info about the group we will never know for sure), and that is completely unacceptable for me. I am who I am, and I'll decide what and if I want to share with other people.

UNATCO: A second-close, if it could be "cleaner" (read: not so corrupted). As it is, I'll say that a complete revocation would be absolutely necessary.

WTO: Too widespread with a too-strong grip on economy and security for me to possibly trust in such a group.

Just a note on Tong's return to the Dark Age: we keep repeating History. Doesn't matter how hard it was, we redo our mistakes over and over again. Can't really seem to learn, can we? Individually, each learns from its own errors (or is supposed to, but that's another matter :p ), but as a whole, or as close to a whole as Humankind will ever be ;) , we just seem to forget that the errors from now are hardly "new". So, that leads me to believe that we would end up where we left in the first place. Could be wrong, of course. But redoing seems the most likely to me.

Apostlecorp: Many have already expressed their distaste for the loss of privacy; I share that feeling. Knowing that someone is watching me all the time, noting my every move and decision I take, is more than just a feeling of loss of privacy to me, it goes straight down to a violation of my most intimate.

However, we are talking about an A.I.. An independent A.I.. Not another person or group of persons, but rather another life-form (actually, I'm not sure if calling it a life-form is correct), similar to Humans but different simultaneously, self-aware and completely set off from Humankind. Close enough to be watching every one of us, but at the same time distant in order to not be a part of us.

Didn't make much sense, did I?

Let me try it this way: we are imperfect, no arguing about it. :D Then, as far as I can see, we will never be able to create something perfect. There will never be a flawless system. Helios, from what I understood during the two games, became what it was on its own. Influenced, yes. And as JC merged with it, then one could believe that it is partly human. But I don't particularly think so; I believe that what resulted was something, an entity, beyond a merging of an artificial intelligence and a human (and a human construct, at that ;) ). Not necessarily superior to Man, but definitely above and beyond our fragile grasp. Not perfect either, as Man was involved with its creation and becoming. But definitely far more capable of serving as a Judge, Jury and Executioner than any other Human being, for the simple fact that it is not Human and is "away" from us. As close to an incorruptible system as we'll ever get, methinks...

Deep down inside every one of us, I think we want to believe, more, to fully trust the legal system. Justice. But we don't, nobody does. Not fully. As long as there are Humans, the sentence will be biased, influenced, partial, regardless of how "small". But if it's a artificial system, an Entity not-human... Well, I believe that such can be partial, unbiased, not influenced by everything that each one of us is and, in a way, shapes and makes one be who he/she is.

But that's just me. :)

P.S.: Thank you, MissDenton, for this incredible topic. Just for the record, I registered so that I could express my gratitude openly, for this topic and its posts have enlightened me so far. :lol:

Kevyne-Shandris
29th Jun 2008, 01:13
So you don't mind being part of a corrupt front for a group bent on world-domination by any means necessary?

For FPS games, it's actually a good nick. :lol:

gamer0004
29th Jun 2008, 08:17
Right... Er, I'm not going to read all of this... :whistle:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Jun 2008, 08:25
^
LOL :D

@ gh0s7: Welcome to the forum and thank you for your detailed views, I enjoyed reading them. :)

pHdeus
29th Jun 2008, 13:26
Given some of the name calling, bullying, trolling, and polarization that has visited this site recently, it is nice to see an exploration into the diversity of opinion that originally made this site interesting. I appreciate your respect for diversity.

mad_red
29th Jun 2008, 15:34
Hi gh0s7, welcome. You hit the nail on the head with the apostlecorp privacy issue. If I were facing a total loss of privacy, JC/Helios would be the only acceptable choice. Besides, the returns could even be worth it.

But about the Illuminati, as Miss Denton said here earlier, they actually usher humankind into an Age of Light. As far as ordinary governments go, they're pretty much the best kind to have I'd say. Sure they might be on the top of the pyramid, but nothing is free in life and I don't expect them to give handouts. Are the people truly ready?

However, I don't really know their policy on persecuting nosy people that are figuring out the big picture or dealing with opposition to their secret plans. Their ability to deal with those 'troublemakers' constructively determines whether they are a viable option or not. Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

That last question also pertains to the Dark Age option. Does history inevitably repeat, or do we make special note of our repition of past mistakes? Are we going around in circles or spirals? If it's the latter, then who is to say that a Dark Age isn't exactly what humans need?

gh0s7
29th Jun 2008, 19:40
Hi gh0s7, welcome. You hit the nail on the head with the apostlecorp privacy issue. If I were facing a total loss of privacy, JC/Helios would be the only acceptable choice. Besides, the returns could even be worth it.

But about the Illuminati, as Miss Denton said here earlier, they actually usher humankind into an Age of Light. As far as ordinary governments go, they're pretty much the best kind to have I'd say. Sure they might be on the top of the pyramid, but nothing is free in life and I don't expect them to give handouts. Are the people truly ready?

However, I don't really know their policy on persecuting nosy people that are figuring out the big picture or dealing with opposition to their secret plans. Their ability to deal with those 'troublemakers' constructively determines whether they are a viable option or not. Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

That last question also pertains to the Dark Age option. Does history inevitably repeat, or do we make special note of our repition of past mistakes? Are we going around in circles or spirals? If it's the latter, then who is to say that a Dark Age isn't exactly what humans need?

First and foremost, I thank you and MissDenton for the fair welcome. :)

Concerning the Illuminati: what guarantees can we have that the group won't later (like, a few generations later) steer Humanity into a decaying society? It's just that the whole situation keeps reminding me of the Roman Empire; the higher one goes... ;)
Nowadays, we still design our roads as the Romans did. The professional career of accounting was created by the Romans. Even the plumbing was created by them. :lol: And these are just those I could think of in the moment; I'm certain that, looking back, we can discover that much of what we are today, the Romans were. And I mention the Roman Empire only because it has been the one that sparked my interest, because, in truth, there are more Civilizations that lent a hand, in the construction of the world today.

Now, why did I present this? Because the Roman Empire also went through a Golden Age, so to speak. And then it fell, just like any other Ancient Empire.

Also, regarding "absolute power....", I'm thoroughly convinced (until proof that I am wrong is "present" right in front of me) that a normally-educated politician, if elected, will inevitably embrace corruption, so to speak. That is, assuming one can get that far in the political ladder without having to lie, bribe, etc. Which, unfortunately, I can't believe it is possible as the system itself, in general, is corrupted. IMO, of course.

Which ultimately leads me to believe that JC/Helios can succeed where we failed. So to speak. :D
More, being the best we can have is not enough, and I'll even say that such a view is actually quite depressing and disappointing, so the Illuminati cannot win over JC/Helios in the grand scheme of things. As far as I can see, anyway. Perfectly possible to be wrong :D .

Nothing's free, like you said it yourself. Sacrificing a part of our intimate self to someone/thing beyond our grasp, in order to have a fair system in all aspects... That sounds even better than having the grace of seeing a convertible 1965 Ford Mustang last Friday. :D
(Note: the Mustangs are not commercialized in my country (Portugal); only through importing, and that requires a lot of bucks, so it's pretty rare around here, as most prefer the Italian and German over-the-top beauties :D )

And what I meant with that is, that I will never really trust a fully-created-by-Humans system, because it will have inheritable flaws. And I'm quite certain that such aspect is not unique, and that there are more that will reason similarly to me. Which will lead to dissension and conflict. And thus, we will return, sooner or later, to what we were in the first place.

Note that I believe that, in the Apostlecorp ending, that there will be inevitably (repeating this word too many times) individuals wishing, and maybe even trying to take action against JC/Helios. Because we are a bunch of selfish and ambitious* monkeys with inverted thumbs. :p
(words chosen in jest with this last comment, please nobody take this as an insult)
*(and the list could go on and on and on...)
However, the truth would be only one and completely accepted by all other individuals, of what the real motives of the perpetrators were. In contrast with the most likely that, in the Illuminati ending, it would end up in misinforming the population in order to prevent mass-panic. Right... :rolleyes:

About the Dark Age: :eek: Never thought of it that way. Spirals... Ascending or descending ones? Pretty important, figuring out which one. :D
Furthermore, I'm not saying (sorry if I did so in my previous post) that it's not absolutely guaranteed that Humanity will redo all and return to back where it was, if presented with such a scenario. Just the most likely, in my opinion. Maybe it would become dependent on the larger (and more "powerful") group of leading individuals: either those intent on starting anew trying to improve/evolve, or those taking our history and using it for their own benefits.
Personally, I believe that the latter would be the one, as ambition of the self is a very common trait among us.

Then again, I'm not sure if it can be argued that ambition and greed is directly related with the hyper-capitalist society, or if it's a "natural" trait. Fruit of the human genes or of the education/conditioning in the modern society?
If the latter, then the trick (or the cheat, if you will ;) ) would consist on completely erasing selected periods of Human History, to ensure that there would be nothing to learn about and, thus, negatively (in the wide scheme) influence the future.
If the former, then it's seems to me quite possible that the most probable result of the Dark Age would be a return to what Humankind was.

Completely off-topic, but has anyone ever tried comparing a return to the Dark Ages as a "reboot with the PC"? You know, to ensure that any "new installations" are compatible with the OS (Humankind) and run as few bugs, or none at all, as possible? ;)

So much food for thought here... Yeah, going to be spending the next few days (or years, considering my mood :D ) trying to work this out.

Kevyne-Shandris
29th Jun 2008, 19:49
Furthermore, I'm not saying (sorry if I did so in my previous post) that it's not absolutely guaranteed that Humanity will redo all and return to back where it was, if presented with such a scenario.

<occam's razor>

They had no option. Deus Ex Machinia

</occam's razor>

commander 199514cc
30th Jun 2008, 00:53
the omar baby there so modified the could do anything they wanted i recall some one say L for IWeo lost his pesonality by how he talked how do you know he wasen't unsure of being a omar. If i had to be ingected a million times (exaduration) i waould be unsure too :scratch: (Leo said something about being ingectied before coming fully omar.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jun 2008, 06:42
the omar baby there so modified the could do anything they wanted i recall some one say L for IWeo lost his pesonality by how he talked how do you know he wasen't unsure of being a omar. If i had to be ingected a million times (exaduration) i waould be unsure too :scratch: (Leo said something about being ingectied before coming fully omar.

Hi, and welcome. :)

Would it be possible for you to write/quote in full the conversations you speak of, as they appear in the game? I'm trying to gather up as much information as possible for clues about the Omar. I am unable to comment further without knowing the exact words/possible meaning of any exchanged dialogue. Thank you.

Regarding your question about how can we know Leo was "unsure" of being an Omar (I think that is what you asked), that could be possible, yes, but I would say that he probably was fully aware of the situation - if we are to take clues from actual conversation already quoted. Also, if we are talking about the Omar having collective consciousness, then I assume that would go a long way to clarify that he must be aware that he is now an Omar?

Also, since we have returned to the topic of collective consciousness... maybe we could discuss this matter in relation to that of quantum science which suggests that we ALREADY ARE of some sort of a collective mind - ie. each individual's consciousness being (somehow) mysteriously "connected". Not just with each other, but in our dimension of Time and Space; that of the entire Universe; the "All". So, the idea of collective consciousness on a quantum level may be worth considering and discussing further...:cool:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jun 2008, 09:02
Given some of the name calling, bullying, trolling, and polarization that has visited this site recently, it is nice to see an exploration into the diversity of opinion that originally made this site interesting. I appreciate your respect for diversity.

No problems, and thank you. :)
Yes, diversity of opinion is important, no matter whether other individuals agree with that opinion or not. I welcome free discussion, it's the only way to go. :cool:

mad_red
30th Jun 2008, 12:30
Well gh0s7, I respect your opinion about the nature of humankind. History proves it. Despite all that, I have more faith in humanity. Given enough time, I believe every individual can come to control his or her own base nature.

That's why both the Dark age and Illuminati options remain viable for me. Maybe even Communism isn't inherently flawed. It's just a tool that isn't fit humanity's current level of development. Capitalism hasn't always been there either.

Whichever way it goes, I think every person has to find his own way. I don't agree with keeping power or information from the general public, but most of the time people will not care anyway. Give them a house and a full belly however, and they might start to think about things. Give them plenty of time and freedom, and they might actually learn. But notice how it cannot be achieved all at once.

Miss Denton. If you're looking for proof of our unity you probably won't find any at the moment. But people have been doing lots of thinking about collective consciousness throughout the ages and they've come up with lots of interesting stuff. Quantum Theory, however, can say little about the subject in its own words. It's a relatively young field of science and it isn't much focused on the mind anyway.

Anyway, if I asked you "who are you?" What would you answer?
And if I ask the collective consciousness "who are you?" What would it answer? What if I followed up with "Really? Show me." Kinda like that A.I. test - in which an A.I. has to convince you he's human to qualify as an A.I. Pretty mind-boggling huh? It is to me. :nut:

gh0s7
30th Jun 2008, 14:04
Well gh0s7, I respect your opinion about the nature of humankind. History proves it. Despite all that, I have more faith in humanity. Given enough time, I believe every individual can come to control his or her own base nature.

Just like I respect yours, and actually wish I could have faith as well in Humanity and its future. :)


Whichever way it goes, I think every person has to find his own way. I don't agree with keeping power or information from the general public, but most of the time people will not care anyway. Give them a house and a full belly however, and they might start to think about things. Give them plenty of time and freedom, and they might actually learn. But notice how it cannot be achieved all at once.

Too true.

Completely off-topic, but it's games like these that do more than entertain the player; it actually can make one think and learn. :D
That's why DX was and always will be one of my favorite games. Because it is more than just a game to me.

gh0s7
30th Jun 2008, 14:21
Also, since we have returned to the topic of collective consciousness... maybe we could discuss this matter in relation to that of quantum science which suggests that we ALREADY ARE of some sort of a collective mind - ie. each individual's consciousness being (somehow) mysteriously "connected". Not just with each other, but in our dimension of Time and Space; that of the entire Universe; the "All". So, the idea of collective consciousness on a quantum level may be worth considering and discussing further...:cool:

Personally, I hope the most connected we'll ever be with each other, will be through empathy and a basic personal want of connection and understanding... If we reach a state like that, I suppose we'll either turn apathetic (too "drunk" with knowing and feeling what others do) or we'll become even more distant from each other; it's bad enough suspecting that that cute girl might have not enjoyed my birthday gift. :o
(just as an example)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jun 2008, 15:26
OMG, yeah, you're right! I never thought of it like that, lol! :lmao:
I wouldn't have any surprises on my birthday or Christmas if I already know whatever the item is under all the wrapping! NO fun!!! :eek:

:D

gh0s7
30th Jun 2008, 19:11
I may be wrong on this, but, the way I understand it, collective consciousness would lead to "one mind, one purpose". Zero creativity, since it's one mind, the mind of all and not all minds in one. Right?

I mean, all minds thinking together individually? Talk about a massive order of fried brains for table 3 (Earth). :D
Might as well compare us to a Borg race without a queen...

However, this may be a too simplistic way of seeing the picture.

All minds together... Would there be a dominant one? We (Humans) kind of have this thing with control. :p
Would it be the shared wish of all (and not by all)? If so, what would determine the "starter" mind? Who or what would trigger?

...

Ok, going to have dinner and spend the next eon thinking about this... :)

SageSavage
30th Jun 2008, 19:59
I agree with mad_red about the Dark Age. Oh and yeah... I think of it as a reboot. The scary part of this is how similar this is to what the (somewhat powerful and dangerous end time christians believe ("the cleansing", "the last stand", "apocalypse" etc...).

iWait
30th Jun 2008, 20:00
In a true collective consciousness all minds form one entity, separate from all but part of each. There would be no starter mind or one mind that determines what would be done, rather each individual mind determines the thought process of the collective mind, whose intentions are also determined by each individual mind.

gh0s7
1st Jul 2008, 08:55
Given the complexity of the human mind, wouldn't there be a conflict if "each individual mind determines the thought process"?

I mean, 6 billion minds all determining together the thought process? Or, given the connection, there would be a "shared attitude"? Or would it be the "largest" idea, the one most thought of "independently", that would be "accepted"?

Still a scary idea to me...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Jul 2008, 12:25
Given the complexity of the human mind, wouldn't there be a conflict if "each individual mind determines the thought process"?


Exactly, which is why my view of collective consciousness is completely different to what is being suggested. :)

Kevyne-Shandris
1st Jul 2008, 13:59
I may be wrong on this, but, the way I understand it, collective consciousness would lead to "one mind, one purpose". Zero creativity, since it's one mind, the mind of all and not all minds in one. Right?


Actually, no. As shown by our trolls, even as a Borg they are "creative", be it in the funnybone, illogic or even in destructing their own home, (e.g., methods to the madness).

The human mind is a primitive organ, that while even in a pack, the primal need for individuality still rules supreme (ego has a funny way of rearing itself, as it's a survival tool). Which in the end, is how and why any external control mechanism fails.

It's also why and how gangs fail in the end, too. Only internally can true control be had, and that can't be manipulated externally, either.

That "one" only lasts as long as the motivation to be "one" exists. To be "one" takes a lot of bribery (in material goods and psychologically), which "collective consciouses" can't keep continuing to do, since Ego and Id gets in the way (jealously enters and starts the destruction from within as soon as someone else got more).

And because humans aren't readily able to be but ants in a mound, is why mankind has survived all these hundreds of thousands of years. Animals need security of the herd, humans don't for survival -- externally or internally or psychologically.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Jul 2008, 14:51
Actually, no. As shown by our trolls,...
We have trolls here? I had no idea! :eek:
Care to give a NAME to them so they know who you are referring to and, at the same time, us 'no-trolls' can keep a watchful eye out for them. Thank you. ;) :D


...even as a Borg they are "creative", be it in the funnybone, illogic or even in destructing their own home, (e.g., methods to the madness). The human mind is a primitive organ, that while even in a pack, the primal need for individuality still rules supreme (ego has a funny way of rearing itself, as it's a survival tool). Which in the end, is how and why any external control mechanism fails. It's also why and how gangs fail in the end, too. Only internally can true control be had, and that can't be manipulated externally, either. That "one" only lasts as long as the motivation to be "one" exists. To be "one" takes a lot of bribery (in material goods and psychologically), which "collective consciouses" can't keep continuing to do, since Ego and Id gets in the way (jealously enters and starts the destruction from within as soon as someone else got more).
Agree with most of what you have said, with the main point (for me) being highlighted in bold. :)


And because humans aren't readily able to be but ants in a mound, is why mankind has survived all these hundreds of thousands of years. Animals need security of the herd, humans don't for survival -- externally or internally or psychologically.
Not sure I understand what you are saying about Mankind having survived hundreds of thousands of years because they aren't readily able to be an ant etc. :confused:
I mean, survival is common-place with all life on earth, is it not? Could you explain this comparison more so that I understand what you mean, thank you.

Oh, and not all animals need security of the "herd"...some do prefer to live on their own, or as mates/one pair (or on their own AND occasionally join a social circle within a group) and some humans DO require group security for survival.
I guess it depends on what branch of group consciousness (and there are many) you specifically refer to, which isn't clear. :)

mad_red
1st Jul 2008, 16:52
I agree with mad_red about the Dark Age.

Thanks fox, I appreciate that! ...only, what part did you agree with? I didn't say much at all, did I?

And yeah, I thin there is a lot of macabre appeal to a reboot. The Christian endtimes, but also the recently more and more popular 2012, Mayan Calender, Age of Aquarius (for example see the movie zeitgeist) beliefs, and last but not least the song Aenima on the Tool album of the same name (awesome song!).

The Dark Age ending doesn't seem to offer any kind of progress, but in fact starting with a clean slate means infinite potential. The question I posed earlier - is the slate truly 'clean', or are we doomed to repeat our mistakes. I for one have faith and infinite patience, though not infinite time personally.

KUDOS to Scadvid - excellent observation on human nature. Although collective consciousness may be something to be weary of, as people generally worry about losing their individuality, you show that the human ego is not so easily dealt with. I'm curious about your views on collective consciousness. Also I didn't get what you said about Deus Ex Machina and Occam's razor (I know the terms themselves.)

Kevyne-Shandris
1st Jul 2008, 17:59
KUDOS to Scadvid - excellent observation on human nature. Although collective consciousness may be something to be weary of, as people generally worry about losing their individuality, you show that the human ego is not so easily dealt with. I'm curious about your views on collective consciousness. Also I didn't get what you said about Deus Ex Machina and Occam's razor (I know the terms themselves.)

My views on "collective consciousness" is that it's high Sci-Fi/Fantasy. It's that simple. It makes good "what if" scenerios in books/movies/games, but in reality it's not possible. Humans are equipped with internal tools that prevent being just a clone (which maybe how and why humans may not be clonable in the future, either -- on the genetic level, forget moral/ethical concerns). Individuality isn't just some right, it's in our very DNA.

As for the deus ex machina comment: anything in books/movies/games has a god-does-as-he-pleases clause. Nothing needs to be even logical, it just happens (can infuriate fans of all three, but that's also the creative clause, too). A great example of this in process is watching the F.E.A.R. franchise and how godawful it's plot (what plot?) has become via each expansion.

Occam's razor = simplier solution is usually the best. A lot of waxing philosophical here, when there's really not much philosophy in DX -- it's a patchwork of many ideas crammed together to APPEAR to be more involved than it is. The devs couldn't turn this game into a cult enterprise, so it's bits and pieces of the truth along with some fiction -- like any good conspiracy yarn needs to be. That's the beauty of the DX storyline, it could never get old. Take a headline in the news, stretch it a tad, insert some game fiction, and you got yourself a storyline that can go on for 100+ years. There is no need for logic, philosophy, religion or anything REAL. Only enough individual reality to fuel the conspiracy.

Other games try to stay away from the taboo topics. DX needs them to exist, but not as we know it (which considering what the Mod had to clean up, and the Zodiac mod showed, folks haven't realized it yet -- they're still too busy trying to mold the game into reality. This game isn't any more real than Santa Claus, nor does it need to be to work).

The Deus Ex world works, because the game is but Deus Ex Machina.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Jul 2008, 20:04
You mean, Santa Clause isn't real?!!! :eek: :(
:o

Everyone here knows that the Deus Ex is just a game, surely. It isn't a case of some people trying to mould it into "reality"; people just enjoy the discussion. It's just a heck of a lot of fun to consider the game content as if it were real; or might be...one day. :)

I agree with you about the personality being part of your DNA (and individual life experiences), it can't be 'cloned' in the true sense of the word. :) Identical twins are clones because they're genetically identical, but there personalities are completely different.

iWait
2nd Jul 2008, 00:31
Don't clones have to be man-made to be clones?

Kevyne-Shandris
2nd Jul 2008, 01:06
Don't clones have to be man-made to be clones?

In the future who knows.

Thinking of the here-and-now and trying to envision the future with it, is the flaw that gets us 50s and 60s Sci-Fi ideas of the future. Seriously dated before it's time.

Theres even a chance man can't be cloned. He'll get to the point of cloning parts, but the assembly of them, as life, is beyond him. The parts will reject the body, much worse than now with organ transplants.

Nature wasn't designed to be manufactured like food, for a reason.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Jul 2008, 06:39
Don't clones have to be man-made to be clones?
No, nature already clones. The identical twins mentioned above were not created in a lab.
As for the possibilities of the future... just about everything/anything goes, I guess. :)

iWait
2nd Jul 2008, 07:34
Don't believe whatever they say we're gonna have in the future.

Still waiting on my hover-car...

gh0s7
2nd Jul 2008, 09:47
And because humans aren't readily able to be but ants in a mound, is why mankind has survived all these hundreds of thousands of years. Animals need security of the herd, humans don't for survival -- externally or internally or psychologically.

Excellent post, just have a doubt or two concerning this last paragraph; History isn't my specialty, but I've seen our ancestors (read: after leaving the trees :D ) depicted as living in packs. Does this not denote the fact that Humans actually need contact with others, if not constant then occasional, in order to survive?

At those times, survival in all the primal aspects, but nowadays it's mostly the psychological. Going out of my mind without having someone to talk to, to have some kind of contact with, even brief. :p

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Jul 2008, 11:21
Don't believe whatever they say we're gonna have in the future.

Still waiting on my hover-car...

I'm not 'believing'... I'm imagining, with the help of science and technology we already know about. You know, carbon nano-tubes are not pure fantasy fiction. ;)

Hover car, huh? Mmmm... could be fun. :D

***


....but I've seen our ancestors (read: after leaving the trees :D ) depicted as living in packs. Does this not denote the fact that Humans actually need contact with others, if not constant then occasional, in order to survive?

At those times, survival in all the primal aspects, but nowadays it's mostly the psychological. Going out of my mind without having someone to talk to, to have some kind of contact with, even brief. :p

Yes, this touches on my reply to ScadVid's comments:


Oh, and not all animals need security of the "herd"...some do prefer to live on their own, or as mates/one pair (or on their own AND occasionally join a social circle within a group) and some humans DO require group security for survival.
I guess it depends on what branch of group consciousness (and there are many) you specifically refer to, which isn't clear.


Understanding the sheer complexity of everything, in relation to each different kind of 'group connectivity', is difficult to explain via board discussion (writing).

gamer0004
3rd Jul 2008, 15:50
Why do so few people like the WTO? It felt a bit like UNATCO to me, I liked it.
And I don't understand why everyone here seems to like the OMAR. I thought they were just a bunch of armed, socially handicapped nobodies with a rubber fetish, and the stuff they sold was never what I needed :(

Kevyne-Shandris
3rd Jul 2008, 15:56
Why do so few people like the WTO? It felt a bit like UNATCO to me, I liked it.

Why anything related to DX:IW?

Kevyne-Shandris
3rd Jul 2008, 16:02
Understanding the sheer complexity of everything, in relation to each different kind of 'group connectivity', is difficult to explain via board discussion (writing).

In my reply, no. Humans have egos. Without an ego, we'd be but a herd.

And no one could remove the ego, since without it, we'd curl up and simply die (the Id would've ruled supreme).

gh0s7
3rd Jul 2008, 21:51
Why do so few people like the WTO? It felt a bit like UNATCO to me, I liked it.
And I don't understand why everyone here seems to like the OMAR. I thought they were just a bunch of armed, socially handicapped nobodies with a rubber fetish, and the stuff they sold was never what I needed :(

I don't like the WTO -- centralization of any kind, and in this case of security and economy, works as a perfect tool for choking the very system itself.

Interpol, for example, has restrictions, as they can't just waltz in any country and arrest someone.

Centralization leads to absolute dominance in whatever area, and that, eventually, dumbs down and slows progress, evolution if you will. ;)
Microsoft, I believe, is a very popular example of what happens when one company rules supreme...

I don't like the Omar as well. They're a nice group, I suppose, as long as they remain just that; a group, that competes with other businesses, minding their own lives (or should it be singular? ;) ), in limited numbers, and making as little crimes as possible.
Personally, I view the Omar as an end to the very concept of freedom, and thus they have my respect as long as nobody is forced to adhere, but that's me. :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Jul 2008, 22:54
In my reply, no. Humans have egos. Without an ego, we'd be but a herd.

And no one could remove the ego, since without it, we'd curl up and simply die (the Id would've ruled supreme).


Basic ego isn't exclusive to humans, animals have it too.
This can be seen if we consider the typical 'pecking order' syndrome or territorial dominance etc. If you want something specific, how about the silverback gorilla who is definitely the 'big banana' within his group, hehe. :D

So, if we consider that we both have egos, then would that not eliminate any assumptions that humans would be 'but a herd' without it?
If animal herds contain individuals with egos then that means they are just the same as us, no? Both animals and humans could be considered part of a herd in that case, yeah?
This state of consciousness (herd consciousness, if we refer to it with that term) is primitive to the brain of animals and humans alike. This gives us all the basic extinct of self-preservation and we also enjoy the 'togetherness' of our kind. We are no different in that aspect.

I know what you mean when you say nobody can remove the ego because we would all curl up and die, that is easily agreed. That covers the instinct-to-survive part. But ego is complex and survival is only one element.
But going back to 'removing' it... the ego isn't really an *it*, but made up of several complex parts so it all depends on what part you specifically refer to.. the good or the bad, the negative or the positive etc. If we can remove the bad parts ourselves (aka 'self-discipline' - in whatever area) then that suggests that it is possible to remove it by 'thought and action', correct?
So, in the case of the Omar (because we are discusssing the world of Deus Ex and not known science), I think that if they are in possession of the know-how, then they could select parts of the bad ego they wish to eliminate. The fact that they appear to lack all the generally bad characteristics of human beings would suggest to me that they do have the know-how.

My thoughts on how it all fits anyway... the 'game' and 'the omar', that is. :)


**



I don't like the Omar as well. They're a nice group, I suppose, as long as they remain just that; a group, that competes with other businesses, minding their own lives (or should it be singular? ;) ), in limited numbers, and making as little crimes as possible.
Personally, I view the Omar as an end to the very concept of freedom, and thus they have my respect as long as nobody is forced to adhere, but that's me. :D


Ooooh... a chance to champion the Omar again. Did I ever desert them in the first place... hehe. ;)

Okay, I like the way you praise them for being a nice group. They do in fact perform to your very wishes - they remain loyal as a group, they attend to their own economics, they mind their own business, they don't hang around in huge gangs and they steer clear of crime to the point of being virtually zilch in statistics, unless they are provoked. Sounds very reasonable to me... no reason for me to dislike them.

I see what you mean about viewing them as an end to the concept of freedom... I have to agree with that statement but I'm seeing it as them not taking away the freedom to be happy and get on with your life and pull together for the good of the group etc. I see it as them removing the freedom of pointless or negative thought and action, if you like. Imagine a world of humans that co-exist in harmony.... like the Omar do. Is that such a bad thing? Could the removal of a small (but negative) element of our freedom/ego be likened to any good parent laying the foundation of discipline to a child? The only trouble is, by our very nature (ironically), humans never learn! Or too few learn. Or we learn but we so easily forget and fall back into bad habits. I don't know what it is... but sometimes I think we need something (that magic wand) to help us achieve a greater destiny.
I feel that we are missing a "save" button at the end of each day! If we fail to get better on a daily basis, this suggests that things won't improve in hundreds of years! Our scales are always tipped to one side, we are never completely balanced or whole. War, murder, poverty, hunger, theft, deceipt, prejudice, everything... its all happening around us STILL. Nothing has changed....because we have not changed.

So, that is why I'm not against getting rid of the 'unnecessary and bad' in human beings for the greater good. We need a true 'coming together' and this is collective-consciousness in its purest form in my opinion. Without it, we are doomed.... so, to me, the Omar represent a realistic solution to everything that is wrong about a human and everything that is right (yes, they keep their own good personalities too). :p

gh0s7
4th Jul 2008, 01:00
But who decides what part of the "bad" ego to remove? How can one categorize "A" as bad and "B" as good, and then apply it on everybody?
(Ok, as they have a collective consciousness, this point is a bit moot. Right?)
And this assuming of course, that it can be divided, which, personally, I don't believe it can be done. Either take both or none at all.
Kind of "how can one be good if there are no bad to compare and struggle against"? ;)
Or the Ying and Yang, as it's a very good way of interpreting this. The whole is made of the good and evil. And there is goodness in evil and evil in goodness, metaphorically speaking.

I consider the Omar as a nice group of people, yes, as long as they keep it to themselves. Or as much as possible, anyway, as having contact with the society, they are influencing it and their citizens, just for being there.
Don't agree with them not committing a crime, as black market is an illegal group of transactions that occur outside of the legal system, and, if my memory is correct, the Omar deal almost exclusively in the black market. So, for that reason alone, the Omar are criminals. :D Also, we are never given any info on the suppliers of the Omar. Their Biomods are likely produced by them, but what about the rest? Weapons, tools, etc, are all manufactured by the Omar? Or do they have other ways of acquiring the products? ;)


I have to agree with that statement but I'm seeing it as them not taking away the freedom to be happy and get on with your life and pull together for the good of the group etc. I see it as them removing the freedom of pointless or negative thought and action, if you like.

Happiness is subjective. Their happiness may not correspond with the concept in general used in our society. Just like pointless and negative action/thought can result in the opposite. "Can", not "will". :p
Also, the Omar are all forced to wear those suits, having differences in the role of each. Now, being forced to wear clothes for the sake of public decency, that seems quite reasonable. But suffering alterations in my body so extensively and then have to use one of those suits?
Thanks, but no thanks. :D
BTW, I say that they suffer physical alterations from memory during the game. Can't tell if it's valid info or not, ATM... :o

If it's not for health reasons, just for the "you're an Omar, you have to wear this", then there is even less freedom, huh?
And I know one can argue (a lot) about our supposed freedom at this day and age (or even speculate about DX), but ours still seems quite wider, more "tolerant" than theirs.

I'll stay on my side of the field, and you'll stay on yours, and we'll communicate and exchange in a neutral field between us.

As long as the above is kept by both parties, then respect is a minimum.
In my opinion, of course. :)

Also, if we, Humans, had a beginning, then we must have an ending as well, right? Alpha and Omega. Be it through extinction or evolution. Specially in the last paragraph, you make it seem like the Omar are, in your opinion, a successful step for Mankind. I only wonder for how long would it remain so, until it could, possibly, end up in an individualist conflict within and, consequently, to a return back to the old ways? :p

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Jul 2008, 10:25
But who decides what part of the "bad" ego to remove? How can one categorize "A" as bad and "B" as good, and then apply it on everybody?
(Ok, as they have a collective consciousness, this point is a bit moot. Right?)
And this assuming of course, that it can be divided, which, personally, I don't believe it can be done. Either take both or none at all.
Kind of "how can one be good if there are no bad to compare and struggle against"? ;)
Or the Ying and Yang, as it's a very good way of interpreting this. The whole is made of the good and evil. And there is goodness in evil and evil in goodness, metaphorically speaking.
I consider the Omar as a nice group of people, yes, as long as they keep it to themselves. Or as much as possible, anyway, as having contact with the society, they are influencing it and their citizens, just for being there.

Thanks for adding your thoughts, I love to discuss possibilities. :)
I agree that for us it is difficult to understand how we could remove the bad ego, parts A and B or whatever, but if we can do so ourselves in our thought process it must be possible.... somehow. The answers may come in the future... I certainly don't have them, obviously, I'm just imagining the possibility of it.
As for the removal applying to everyone... I assume the Omar interface (replacement of frontal lobe) will do all the necessary mapping and searching of the personality and remove the unwanted parts? Just seems a feasible idea...
Yup, hear what you say about the Ying and Yang stuff - yes, there exists an opposite to everything. BUT, having both in existence doesn't necessarily mean one can't work without the other... or without some parts of the other. That's like saying I can't understand good because I haven't experienced evil...(we do understand evil, but may have never commited it) or I must be evil in order to become good.. that doesn't compute. It's a matter of 'knowing' rather than doing and just because you know doesn't mean you must become. There are humans who are consistently good and kind and there are humans who are consistently bad and cruel, so already there is separation and comparison to be made. I know what you are saying but maybe the Omar see logic in their alterations of bad concept and mind. It seems to work for them anyway.


Don't agree with them not committing a crime, as black market is an illegal group of transactions that occur outside of the legal system, and, if my memory is correct, the Omar deal almost exclusively in the black market. So, for that reason alone, the Omar are criminals. :D Also, we are never given any info on the suppliers of the Omar. Their Biomods are likely produced by them, but what about the rest? Weapons, tools, etc, are all manufactured by the Omar? Or do they have other ways of acquiring the products? ;)
Sure, I understand what you say if we consider their actions in our own society today. But if we think about it from the Deus Ex world, it can be viewed differently. Are they even committing a crime? Not really,.. they don't follow human legal systems, religions etc, so they are not really criminals. Who is to say that only human laws are relevant on this earth? In Deus Ex, the Omar set themselves apart from others (just as certain human factions/organisations do that too, it must be said). Also, to be fair, humans do bad things themselves, yeah? Far, far worse in fact. I'd rather have a guy quietly selling the latest, greatest gadgets outside my house/street than him injecting a drug, stabbing someone or committing another heinous crime. I'd feel safer with an Omar around than I would a 'certain type' of human...
I'm not sure about where they get the weapons, tools etc (possibly Russia as that is where they are from).... maybe that will be revealed in DX3, hehe.


Happiness is subjective. Their happiness may not correspond with the concept in general used in our society. Just like pointless and negative action/thought can result in the opposite. "Can", not "will". :p
Also, the Omar are all forced to wear those suits, having differences in the role of each. Now, being forced to wear clothes for the sake of public decency, that seems quite reasonable. But suffering alterations in my body so extensively and then have to use one of those suits?
Thanks, but no thanks. :D
BTW, I say that they suffer physical alterations from memory during the game. Can't tell if it's valid info or not, ATM... :o

Yes, happiness is subjective... but in the case of the Omar, objective too as I imagine they have already evaluated it as part of their group consciousness. Anyway, no clear distinction between objective and subjective even exists, this has been debated often in philosophy. Everything can be reduced to degrees of subjectivity (except perhaps in mathematics), can it not?
The Omar are definitely not forced to wear the suits, as such, it comes with the choice to become an Omar. It is also a matter of survival of the human species - which is the whole point of their existence. Without modification they will die because of the destruction and pollution of the Earth - caused by human beings. I hasten to add. It is a necessity if they are to continue the legacy of mankind - they are humans after all.
Oh, I don't think they suffer physical alterations of memory... has that ever been suggested in the game? I don't think so but I'm interested in any "clues" that we can collect on the Omar.
Going back to the collective-consciousness thingy....many believe it means just a 'hive mind' with no individuality... a few think otherwise (me included). A group with collective consciousness does not mean that they don't retain individuality. I already found evidence to suggest that with conversations and events in the game (posted them in this thread already), but I actually found another one last night, lol. That was a bit of a buzz for me because we know so little about the Omar and that means people make assumptions about them that are perhaps ungrounded. Finding clues really helps build up a more fair and realistic overview of them.
Check this out:
It's a walkthrough with graphic illustrations. It says "You'll find Leo Jankowski here. He's now working for the Omar. Behind him you'll find a Seeker and a Templar arguing over philosophy".
http://www.visualwalkthroughs.com/deusexinvisiblewar/seattle3/seattle3.htm
The fact that an Omar is interested in philosophy and even debates it suggests strongly that there is indeed spirituality and personality in the Omar.
Further thoughts on this, anyone?


If it's not for health reasons, just for the "you're an Omar, you have to wear this", then there is even less freedom, huh?
And I know one can argue (a lot) about our supposed freedom at this day and age (or even speculate about DX), but ours still seems quite wider, more "tolerant" than theirs.
I'll stay on my side of the field, and you'll stay on yours, and we'll communicate and exchange in a neutral field between us.
As long as the above is kept by both parties, then respect is a minimum.
In my opinion, of course. :)
Yes, our freedom today is wider and more tolerant. But, in my view, some 'tolerance' is way over-stretched and also brings a whole can of extra worms to deal with. Tolerance to live, socialise, debate, protest etc (in a positive way) is not in question but tolerance to ignore the bad in humans is not good - it hasn't worked so far. The can of worms can be likened to our legal system when it comes to trying to deal with crime... it wriggles in all directions but can't focus on a single course. Crime never ends in our so-called tolerant society - our prisons burst at the seams, and a high majority of offenders commit crime again upon release. We debate about capital punishment and the truth or myth of rehabilitation etc. What has all *this kind* of tolerance achieved? Nothing. Our society goes round and round in circles. Because we have the freedom to take the good road, or the bad road, there is never consistency in our species as a whole. Bad people spoil it for the good people. The innocent suffer in the hands of the perpetrator. If a member of your family is mugged and stabbed and die as a result. Is that fair on them?... they lose their life, you lose a loved one. This needless loss and suffering could have been avoided if murderous behaviour didn't exist. Its all about tweaking the thought processes somewhat and creating a balance - so that nobody gets the 'short straw' unfairly.
I honestly can't see any other way that humans as a species can achieve this balance other than by some form of 'operation' to correct what ever is wrong with us. Can you...? ;) If we think about all the bad things we have done, and still do today, it seems that it is impossible for us to achieve harmony on our own. We need help, lol. I just believe that humans have to give up *something* in order to proceed to the next level of understanding.


Also, if we, Humans, had a beginning, then we must have an ending as well, right? Alpha and Omega. Be it through extinction or evolution. Specially in the last paragraph, you make it seem like the Omar are, in your opinion, a successful step for Mankind. I only wonder for how long would it remain so, until it could, possibly, end up in an individualist conflict within and, consequently, to a return back to the old ways? :p
Yes, well the Omar do exist in the matters of evolution rather than extinction of human beings. I didn't say they would be a successful step to Mankind... we won't know that until it happens. I just view it as a 'realistic' step.
As for wondering how long it would remain so, I think they have much more of a chance than pure humans do because of their modifications. Therefore, returning to the old ways of human beings wouldn't be possible because they have deleted those unwanted traits.

gh0s7
4th Jul 2008, 14:47
Yup, hear what you say about the Ying and Yang stuff - yes, there exists an opposite to everything. BUT, having both in existence doesn't necessarily mean one can't work without the other... or without some parts of the other. That's like saying I can't understand good because I haven't experienced evil...

How can you know if you'll enjoy the taste of a chocolate ice cream without ever tasting it? ;)
How can our (or, in this case, the Omar's) future generations tell the difference between good and evil, acceptable and intolerable, if their society consists of a broken record, where everybody will react to a given situation in basically the same way?
So to speak.

As an example:

Someone runs over your dog; going over all the facts, one can only reach the logical conclusion that the driver could not stop in time to prevent the disaster, and that the area did not present any proof that a lower velocity was obligatory to all drivers, thus freeing the driver from any responsibilities. Will you still not feel pain for losing someone special? Anger, even? At the driver, at the circumstances, at yourself?


Sure, I understand what you say if we consider their actions in our own society today. But if we think about it from the Deus Ex world, it can be viewed differently. Are they even committing a crime? Not really,.. they don't follow human legal systems, religions etc, so they are not really criminals. Who is to say that only human laws are relevant on this earth? In Deus Ex, the Omar set themselves apart from others (just as certain human factions/organisations do that too, it must be said).

What the Omar do in their own land, is their business (considering that they actually have a land of their own, and not a parcel lent by the ruling government. ;)
However, once operating in our land, then they must follow our laws, much like we should follow theirs. Considering that they are frequently accused of dealing in the black market, then I can only suppose that they do such in our lands and, thus, they are criminals. As simple as that. :D
Dura lex, sed lex.

BTW, how about that side-quest with the hologram in the nightclub, in Seattle? The player can denounce their presence and illegal trading, thus marking them as criminals at the eyes of the WTO specifically, IIRC.


Also, to be fair, humans do bad things themselves, yeah? Far, far worse in fact. I'd rather have a guy quietly selling the latest, greatest gadgets outside my house/street than him injecting a drug, stabbing someone or committing another heinous crime. I'd feel safer with an Omar around than I would a 'certain type' of human...
I'm not sure about where they get the weapons, tools etc (possibly Russia as that is where they are from).... maybe that will be revealed in DX3, hehe.

Yeah, well, the guy selling the latest gadget in the street is harming the main companies in doing so. And let's not forget that we are talking about the employment of thousands of people, if needed. ;)
Not that I believe that there should be no black market, quite the opposite, as I defend that a balance must be upheld, so that neither dominates the other.
Which ends up in me agreeing that the Omar are needed, as long as their harm (to our society, in all aspects) is minimum.


they are humans after all.

Actually, I don't agree that they are humans. Yes, we share similarities, but just as well I see too many discrepancies from us to call an Omar a fellow Human. And not in any derogatory way, I assure you.
The chimps and humans share some similarities, right? Yet, they're too different from us to be considered humans; the same with the Omar. In fact, I wonder if, in their course of adaptation and becoming, they consider themselves different, too different, from Mankind to call themselves Humans?
Would you consider self-pride as a negative aspect to be removed? ;)


The fact that an Omar is interested in philosophy and even debates it suggests strongly that there is indeed spirituality and personality in the Omar.
Further thoughts on this, anyone?

But his own spirituality/personality, or that of the Omar? By one becoming an Omar, is there not a conditioning in the way of thinking?

We allow you to think as you want to, as long as you think as an Omar. ;)


Its all about tweaking the thought processes somewhat and creating a balance - so that nobody gets the 'short straw' unfairly.
I honestly can't see any other way that humans as a species can achieve this balance other than by some form of 'operation' to correct what ever is wrong with us.

But in that case, there is no balance, as the Omar have removed all the weight from the "bad" side. :D
And I believe that nothing is impossible, just really really difficult at the given time. :D


Therefore, returning to the old ways of human beings wouldn't be possible because they have deleted those unwanted traits.

Like that, one can then reason that the Omar are the Super-ego given a physical form. But Nature always finds a way (directly related with the Theory of Chaos, IIRC), and one day there might be a single Omar that, for some unknown reason ;) , his/hers/its :p Id will be prevalent over the Super-ego and, thus, start a chain-reaction that would lead to a change in the Omar, hopefully a better one.

Kevyne-Shandris
4th Jul 2008, 15:47
Basic ego isn't exclusive to humans, animals have it too.
This can be seen if we consider the typical 'pecking order' syndrome or territorial dominance etc. If you want something specific, how about the silverback gorilla who is definitely the 'big banana' within his group, hehe. :D

You're confusing ego with primal instincts to procreate. That "pecking order" is there to reproduce and survive, not have ambition. The silverback doesn't go through the trouble to be alpha male because it's the top job (and gives him self-worth), he does it because it's the only way he can survive (younger male gorillas are pushed out to form their own breeding group, and if they don't hurry to form a group, not only they die, their species can).

Mankind is what he is because of moderated selfishness (compared to total selfishness of the Id). He does what he does not for the group itself, but it benefits the group in the end. Creating the wheel was no doubt a guy wanting to lighten his load, which later helped his band/tribe/the whole of mankind, for example.

For a gaming example: a fan's ego drives him/her from just playing the game, to actually wanting to make the game better. Their own selfishness is tempered that it can actually help make a better game for more gamers (and the good feedback helps to reward him/her doing so). If the Id ruled supreme, s/he'll still continue playing the game and not thinking how to make it better (pleasure is more important than the messiness of change). Then even the devs who made the pleasure possible wouldn't have a clue of what the fans wanted -- blind leading the blind, and maybe to a dead end.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Jul 2008, 16:14
You're confusing ego with primal instincts to procreate. That "pecking order" is there to reproduce and survive, not have ambition. The silverback doesn't go through the trouble to be alpha male because it's the top job (and gives him self-worth), he does it because it's the only way he can survive (younger male gorillas are pushed out to form their own breeding group, and if they don't hurry to form a group, not only they die, their species can).
We weren't talking about 'ambition'. Your previous statement implied that only humans have egos and if we didn't, we would just be a 'herd'. I was demonstrating that animals have egos too, that's all. :)
You can say it is just a survival instict if you like; but humans have this also.... so there is no difference between us in that aspect.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Jul 2008, 16:35
How can you know if you'll enjoy the taste of a chocolate ice cream without ever tasting it? ;)
Hehe, you've made me want some chocolate ice cream now! :p


How can our (or, in this case, the Omar's) future generations tell the difference between good and evil, acceptable and intolerable, if their society consists of a broken record, where everybody will react to a given situation in basically the same way?
So to speak.
Umm, I think they know about good and evil, they are humans and they've lived with humans and, just like you and I, they know what is good in humans and what isn't. Common sense, yeah?


As an example:
Someone runs over your dog; going over all the facts, one can only reach the logical conclusion that the driver could not stop in time to prevent the disaster, and that the area did not present any proof that a lower velocity was obligatory to all drivers, thus freeing the driver from any responsibilities. Will you still not feel pain for losing someone special? Anger, even? At the driver, at the circumstances, at yourself?
Sure... but I wouldn't feel the need to pull a knife out on the driver and finish him off, hehe. :D Ordinary and natural emotion is allowed, it just wouldn't go so far that I make the situation illogically worse.


What the Omar do in their own land, is their business (considering that they actually have a land of their own, and not a parcel lent by the ruling government. ;)
However, once operating in our land, then they must follow our laws, much like we should follow theirs. Considering that they are frequently accused of dealing in the black market, then I can only suppose that they do such in our lands and, thus, they are criminals. As simple as that. :D
Dura lex, sed lex.
Ummm, the Omar are human so they have a right to live on the Earth just as any other human. They are not a different species from another planet.


BTW, how about that side-quest with the hologram in the nightclub, in Seattle? The player can denounce their presence and illegal trading, thus marking them as criminals at the eyes of the WTO specifically, IIRC.
Well, yes, to other societies, the Omar will be considered as undertaking criminal activities. To other people, they are not criminals but provide a service...even JC partook of their wares, hehe. :p


Yeah, well, the guy selling the latest gadget in the street is harming the main companies in doing so. And let's not forget that we are talking about the employment of thousands of people, if needed. ;)
Yes, but aren't those Fat Cat company bosses rich enough already? :D
Guess it depends on the politics of a particular company... some of them use their profits to support other factions that may not be what the common public want.


Not that I believe that there should be no black market, quite the opposite, as I defend that a balance must be upheld, so that neither dominates the other.
Which ends up in me agreeing that the Omar are needed, as long as their harm (to our society, in all aspects) is minimum.
Sure... but I'm confused what you mean by 'harm'. What about the harm caused by humans... even mega stuff like destroying the planet? :D


Actually, I don't agree that they are humans. Yes, we share similarities, but just as well I see too many discrepancies from us to call an Omar a fellow Human. And not in any derogatory way, I assure you.
How dare you say that about my Omar! :eek: LOL. Umm, but they are humans, they are ex-Russian scientists. They are just modified.


The chimps and humans share some similarities, right? Yet, they're too different from us to be considered humans; the same with the Omar. In fact, I wonder if, in their course of adaptation and becoming, they consider themselves different, too different, from Mankind to call themselves Humans?
Would you consider self-pride as a negative aspect to be removed? ;)
Yes, but chimps and humans stem from different evolutionary trees. The Omar come straight from the human tree, whether you want to consider them still human or not. Just as if a person got badly burned in a bombing incident and had to have all their face replaced and false body limbs etc... they are still human, even if they no longer look the way they used to. :)



But his own spirituality/personality, or that of the Omar? By one becoming an Omar, is there not a conditioning in the way of thinking?
We allow you to think as you want to, as long as you think as an Omar. ;)
Yes, its his own personality in there but he ALSO considers the good of the group. Thats what that quote says to me. "One For All and All For One". :)


But in that case, there is no balance, as the Omar have removed all the weight from the "bad" side. :D
And I believe that nothing is impossible, just really really difficult at the given time. :D
Well, even if you wish to consider that still unbalanced... you must surely agree that the scales look healthier if all the bad has gone?


Like that, one can then reason that the Omar are the Super-ego given a physical form. But Nature always finds a way (directly related with the Theory of Chaos, IIRC), and one day there might be a single Omar that, for some unknown reason ;) , his/hers/its :p Id will be prevalent over the Super-ego and, thus, start a chain-reaction that would lead to a change in the Omar, hopefully a better one.
You could say that... but as they are just humans with a higher consciousness, I doubt they would want to go back to any foolish ways.

***

Hehe, loving this. :cool:

Kevyne-Shandris
4th Jul 2008, 16:58
We weren't talking about 'ambition'.

Ego's main drive IS ambition and a host of other more advanced selfish motives.

We're born with an Id (the most primitive psychological trait: pure pleasure, and pure black and white view of the world). Evolve to developing an ego (to better interact with our environment, and understanding adventure sometimes hurts. Knowing of a more gray world). Then (apart from sociopaths) learn those consequences and group dynamics with adventuring, that Super-ego (our conscience - and distinguishing the very different colors of gray, and how each choice has consequences, too). In child development the later doesn't even start to form until after 6 years-old, sometimes later (and why kids should never be punished for what adults understand is "right/wrong", a kid at that age doesn't even understand it).

Without the ego, there would be no incentive to try, to adventure or do anything but gain pure pleasure and selfishness. Ambition is a trait needed to gain more pleasure despite the risks to obtain it, and tempering it with others. It's the adult pleasure principle. It's kept checked by the Super-ego, because over-ambition is the Id in overdrive, and can hurt (and kill) if not controlled (and why external laws exist).

That silverback gorilla has but one trait, that Id. His existence is to survive and keep his species alive, and he has to enjoy it (or die) [why sex is so pleasurable]. Humans are one of the few species that has the luxury to put procreation on the backburner and do novel things like create civilizations, and the tools to build them -- he evolved to having an Ego and Super-ego, to get there.

What the future will involve of our very outlook, who knows.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Jul 2008, 17:04
^

Yes, I do know all about that. But I was only addressing your initial statement about humans only having ego. I never touched on 'ambition', the Id etc... as it wasn't mentioned beforehand. :)

gh0s7
4th Jul 2008, 17:45
Umm, I think they know about good and evil, they are humans and they've lived with humans and, just like you and I, they know what is good in humans and what isn't. Common sense, yeah?

But imagine, for a moment, that the Omar turn out to be the only sentient race in this world. Having certain aspects removed, it would only be a matter of time (generations), until all that was left to portray evil, were history books. And it doesn't matter how many pictures we see of car crashes and accidents until we, not only witness one, but actually are involved directly in it. It's only then that one can get a better view/grasp of things.

From your point of view, the Omar are doomed to reach a standstill, I believe. How can one be a virtuoso if there are no flaws? How can there be progress if no gaps are present?


Well, yes, to other societies, the Omar will be considered as undertaking criminal activities. To other people, they are not criminals but provide a service...even JC partook of their wares, hehe. :p

Doesn't matter if others benefit or not; at the end of the day, the Omar broke the law. And that makes them criminals.


Sure... but I wouldn't feel the need to pull a knife out on the driver and finish him off, hehe. :D Ordinary and natural emotion is allowed, it just wouldn't go so far that I make the situation illogically worse.

Ummm, the Omar are human so they have a right to live on the Earth just as any other human. They are not a different species from another planet.

How dare you say that about my Omar! :eek: LOL. Umm, but they are humans, they are ex-Russian scientists. They are just modified.

Yes, but chimps and humans stem from different evolutionary trees. The Omar come straight from the human tree, whether you want to consider them still human or not. Just as if a person got badly burned in a bombing incident and had to have all their face replaced and false body limbs etc... they are still human, even if they no longer look the way they used to. :)

Yes, its his own personality in there but he ALSO considers the good of the group. Thats what that quote says to me. "One For All and All For One". :)

Just considers the good of the group, or places the group above himself? If the latter, then there is no individuality.

Regardless, in the first paragraph of the quote, you make it seem like the Omar are "logic over emotion", yet call them human afterwards. Humans are emotive. In fact, I'll even be bold enough to defend that logic does not apply to humans. All "decisions" are based on emotions, or concepts ruled by emotions. "Good" feels good, and "Evil" feels bad. Or deliciously wicked, but that's another matter. Or not? ;)

Above all else, we are not machines. And I do not consider JC as a machine, but rather as an entity, an intelligent creature not-human. Intelligence requires emotions. And emotions keeps us from turning into machines. That's one of the main motives why Helios wanted to merge with JC.
But that's just me. :)

As for the Omar, given how little we know, I'll withhold any conclusion; I theorize that they are more machine than human (and I'm not speaking only in matters of external appearance/presentation), but it's just a theory.


Well, even if you wish to consider that still unbalanced... you must surely agree that the scales look healthier if all the bad has gone?

No, all the bad being gone does not sound healthy at all to me. Can you imagine a balance completely tipped to one side? That's absolute dominance, and I don't think anything good can come from such. Because we would have nothing to improve.

Imagine that China gives autonomy to the Tibetans. Not independence, just autonomy, along with the right to practice Buddhism. I don't know about you, but I'd feel extremely proud of being a human and ecstatic for their newfound "freedom".
But in a society that knows no evil, not only such event would never occur, you would even have at least one less reason to feel happy. And that's one reason too many in my book.


You could say that... but as they are just humans with a higher consciousness, I doubt they would want to go back to any foolish ways.

You doubt, but so do I. And doubts are not certainties, so either could happen. :D
(specially considering Murphy's Laws n.º 1 :p )

P.S.: If I were an Omar, I'd certainly feel myself more than just a modified human; I'd most likely feel proud of what I was, lived and breathed as, of what I considered myself as: an Omar, and not a Human being.

P.S.S.: The example I expressed with the situation in Tibet and China is somewhat "volatile". If the Mods or Admins prefer, I'll remove it.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Jul 2008, 18:55
But imagine, for a moment, that the Omar turn out to be the only sentient race in this world. Having certain aspects removed, it would only be a matter of time (generations), until all that was left to portray evil, were history books. And it doesn't matter how many pictures we see of car crashes and accidents until we, not only witness one, but actually are involved directly in it. It's only then that one can get a better view/grasp of things.
What I understand about the Omar is that there is no ambition to take over the world, other planets, or destroy any species, etc.
I can't see them not having a grasp on what they already know because of their human history. I mean, I have no experience of coming face-to-face with a dinosaur, but I know all about them, hehe.


From your point of view, the Omar are doomed to reach a standstill, I believe. How can one be a virtuoso if there are no flaws? How can there be progress if no gaps are present?
No, I don't see the Omar as doomed to reach a standstill. There will always be other species they will meet in the future to either gain further knowledge from, to unite with, or to help. There will be lots of flaws to deal with in whatever new planets they may discover... space is a big gap. Don't we have to go elsewhere eventually? The sun will explode one day and the earth will be no more... so there is plenty of road for the Omar to travel. I would also imagine that they will continue the technology of biomodification - handy for Earth and for stranger environments on new planets. They would be more adaptable than any 'pure' human could be. If we want to go for a trip to the moon now, we have to take tanks of oxygen, wear the appropriate clothing to protect us and equip ourselves with everything imaginable to help us survive. The Omar already have the means to breathe in an assortment of environments, protective clothing etc. They are no different to a human preparing themselves for a given situation.


Doesn't matter if others benefit or not; at the end of the day, the Omar broke the law. And that makes them criminals.
They are only criminals in your book, in your way of thinking, in your society. Just like marrying under 12 is considered a criminal offence in some countries, it is not in others.


Just considers the good of the group, or places the group above himself? If the latter, then there is no individuality.
But its the same for humans. A human can consider the welfare of a group; or they can think they are above that group. When called upon to choose, it is down to personal morals and beliefs but NOT the ego (in the Omar). Human ego may decide that they will not give up their life to save 100 others. An Omar would give up the one life to save the others, it wouldn't be questionned because that would be the most compassionate action to take.. A human has often decided to give up his life for many others (a hero) - and just because he chose to do so does NOT mean he had no individuality.


Regardless, in the first paragraph of the quote, you make it seem like the Omar are "logic over emotion", yet call them human afterwards. Humans are emotive. In fact, I'll even be bold enough to defend that logic does not apply to humans. All "decisions" are based on emotions, or concepts ruled by emotions. "Good" feels good, and "Evil" feels bad. Or deliciously wicked, but that's another matter. Or not? ;)
Yes, humans are emotive but they can also be logical. So having logic does not mean that you have no emotion.
Logic can apply to humans, if they choose to use it. Just like you can be upset about being dumped by a partner, so bad that your emotions drive you to thoughts of suicide... but logic tells you that such an action would not be a sensible one.


Above all else, we are not machines. And I do not consider JC as a machine, but rather as an entity, an intelligent creature not-human. Intelligence requires emotions. And emotions keeps us from turning into machines. That's one of the main motives why Helios wanted to merge with JC.
But that's just me. :)
As for the Omar, given how little we know, I'll withhold any conclusion; I theorize that they are more machine than human (and I'm not speaking only in matters of external appearance/presentation), but it's just a theory.
Sure, we are not machines and neither are the Omar... they just use machinery in their modifications. Like we use a machine to help us mow the lawn, wash the laundry, or drive us to work.


No, all the bad being gone does not sound healthy at all to me. Can you imagine a balance completely tipped to one side? That's absolute dominance, and I don't think anything good can come from such. Because we would have nothing to improve. Imagine that China gives autonomy to the Tibetans. Not independence, just autonomy, along with the right to practice Buddhism. I don't know about you, but I'd feel extremely proud of being a human and ecstatic for their newfound "freedom". But in a society that knows no evil, not only such event would never occur, you would even have at least one less reason to feel happy. And that's one reason too many in my book.
I wasn't talking about dominance when I mentioned scales. Living in a good society full of good, caring people is not dominance... it is consideration. And why would it be so bad to not have anything to improve? So, you mean that humans should carry on as they always have, going round in circles, just so that the possibility of improvement always exists?


You doubt, but so do I. And doubts are not certainties, so either could happen. :D
(specially considering Murphy's Laws n.º 1 :p )
Yes indeed, either could happen. My opinion does not override yours.. it is equal to. :)


P.S.: If I were an Omar, I'd certainly feel myself more than just a modified human; I'd most likely feel proud of what I was, lived and breathed as, of what I considered myself as: an Omar, and not a Human being.
I understand that being part of any group can make you feel proud. But, as I think I said earlier in this thread - just because you have made changes to yourself does not mean you wouldn't call yourself human or be proud that you are human. You can be human and a proud member of the Boy Scouts club - you can have both. A more extreme example would be transsexuals - they have modified their bodies but they are still human. Joseph Merrick (The Elephant Man) was seriously deformed by nature, to the point of not looking human at all... but he was human. Being human is from 'within' and not anything exterior. Therefore, in my opinion, the Omar are just modified humans... as the game tells us they are. They are still most definitely human, no matter how much they may repulse you in their appearance or set beliefs.

gh0s7
4th Jul 2008, 22:07
They are only criminals in your book, in your way of thinking, in your society. Just like marrying under 12 is considered a criminal offence in some countries, it is not in others.

Not mine, but WTO's, and their book is global. ;)


But its the same for humans. A human can consider the welfare of a group; or they can think they are above that group. When called upon to choose, it is down to personal morals and beliefs but NOT the ego (in the Omar). Human ego may decide that they will not give up their life to save 100 others. An Omar would give up the one life to save the others, it wouldn't be questionned because that would be the most compassionate action to take.. A human has often decided to give up his life for many others (a hero) - and just because he chose to do so does NOT mean he had no individuality.

Of course, but, going to a more basic perspective, it's our second instinct, namely the reproduction. Maintaining our species. And, I think, it's that primal drive (Id?) that may influence a Human to sacrifice himself for the perpetuation. It's not so logical, but rather instinctual, and we can see often a mother protecting its cubs to the death if needed, with nary a hesitation. No matter how far we go, we're still just another animal species, and we still have an instinct. :)

...

Could it be then, the want of letting go, that compels us such forward to a synthesizing of the body?


Yes, humans are emotive but they can also be logical. So having logic does not mean that you have no emotion.
Logic can apply to humans, if they choose to use it. Just like you can be upset about being dumped by a partner, so bad that your emotions drive you to thoughts of suicide... but logic tells you that such an action would not be a sensible one.

Actually, it would be the instinct of survival that would tell me not to commit suicide. No matter how hard we try, emotions are something that we cannot (naturally) plug off, stop listening to. Logic, on the other hand, is an entirely Human concept/term/ideology, thus making it all the easier or not to ignore it (it really depends on the person).

At the end, I think, that logic (and others) is only an excuse for the self, a manner of justifying (mostly to myself) why I acted or not the way I did.


I wasn't talking about dominance when I mentioned scales. Living in a good society full of good, caring people is not dominance... it is consideration. And why would it be so bad to not have anything to improve? So, you mean that humans should carry on as they always have, going round in circles, just so that the possibility of improvement always exists?

Have you ever seen the movie "Demolition Man" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/), with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes? :D
If not, then I recommend, as it presents just how fragile (and boring) a society full of goodness, with the scales tipped completely to one aside, lead to.
That's why such is an utopia, methinks.


Being human is from 'within' and not anything exterior. Therefore, in my opinion, the Omar are just modified humans... as the game tells us they are. They are still most definitely human, no matter how much they may repulse you in their appearance or set beliefs.

A society comprised of people sharing a collective consciousness gives me the impression of suffering (not explicitly, just figuratively speaking) a severe alteration within. Specifically in their psyche.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Jul 2008, 22:12
I guess we will just have to agree to differ in the way we understand how things might be. :)
Thank you for discussing though... I love getting the ball to go back and forth. :cool:

gh0s7
4th Jul 2008, 23:10
I guess we will just have to agree to differ in the way we understand how things might be. :)

I agree. :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Jul 2008, 11:23
^No problems. :)

I'm just curious.... but am I the only one here who actually considers the Omar as okay in every way? :o

LOL, seriously... I feel all alone, hehe! :D :p

gh0s7
5th Jul 2008, 17:07
Hmm, reinstalled the game, to see if I could get a new perspective on the Omar, and, in the Greasel Pit, in the same room where the player can find Leo, are a Seeker from the Order and a Thug, not a Templar. :scratch:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Jul 2008, 17:36
^
Yeah, I'm quite tempted to play IW again, just so I can take note of the Omar interaction.

A thug? Oh well, I only got that info via the walkthrough so I guess it must be an error of some sort. Unless the characters change depending upon what level of difficulty you are playing? Doubt it though...

gh0s7
5th Jul 2008, 20:03
Playing in Normal diff and with version 1.2. :)
Perhaps the creator of the walkthrough made it using an earlier version?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Jul 2008, 21:31
No idea. :confused:

That said, it now seems likely that I will have to play IW again. If I am to undertake reliable research on the Omar, I guess I am best doing it myself. ;)

It's just getting in the mood, lol....
... that's the hard bit! Do I really want to be reminded of everything I didn't like about it, lol. :nut:

gh0s7
6th Jul 2008, 08:33
In Medina, level 107, when the Player is eavesdropping on the Templar, to know about the Raid on the Omar, one of them (the male, sitting behind the desk) states that "the Omar are a self-replicating machine".

Now, considering that it's coming from an anti-nano fanatic, one can only assume that his opinion is very biased. :rolleyes:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
6th Jul 2008, 14:10
^
Yes, indeed. Its human nature, I guess. :)

gh0s7
6th Jul 2008, 20:49
Two more "leads", so to speak. :)
The first is with the K-something at Trier, in the coffeshop (not the Nine Worlds Tavern), who gives the Player a lead into contacting the Omar at the upper ruined floor of the NWT; after the Player meets with the Omar and returns to the coffeeshop, while talking with him, he mentions that "the Omar have the habit of removing anyone blocking their path".
(not exact words, but it's essentially that)

(This, along with the first time the Player speaks with the Omar trader, in the VIP section of the Vox Club, it seems to point that the first and main objective of the Omar is survivability, at all costs. Which is the main primal instinct of all animal species, which is weird, perhaps even conflicting, with the second point)

Then, in JC's sactuary, while talking with him, if the Player asks about the pure democracy, there comes a part (the 4th dialog, if I'm not mistaken) where Alex says, and I quote


You want everyone to be like the Omar and meld themselves together into one huge AI construct?"

Not sure if Alex related the Omar fully or until the "meld themselves together"? :confused:

robotwo
6th Jul 2008, 23:09
well i just had to vote for Omar :3 , could have gone with Helios aswell

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th Jul 2008, 06:00
Ooooh, another Omar Appreciator!!! :cool:

gamer0004
7th Jul 2008, 15:38
Hmm, reinstalled the game, to see if I could get a new perspective on the Omar, and, in the Greasel Pit, in the same room where the player can find Leo, are a Seeker from the Order and a Thug, not a Templar. :scratch:

The thug IS a Templar, he just isn't wearing the Templar uniform. Am I the only one here that has played DX:IW more than once?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th Jul 2008, 17:06
^
Okay, that explains the confusion then. Thank you. :)

urban_queen41
12th Jul 2008, 05:28
Damn, this thread is awesome. All school students should be made to play DX- look at the discussions it creates!


I've just read through the whole thread, and am very interested in the discussions here, particularly the debate on the Omar and loss of individuality through becoming a collective consciousness.

Personally, it looks to me as if the Omar discussion is coming down to this- whether the Omar are making it possible to have a collective consciousness without losing personality.

I agreed with most of what Tsumsru was saying before he left the debate. I personally think it is impossible to have an Omar-like collective consciousness without losing personality, individuality and essentially what makes us human. The Omar are replacing the frontal lobes entirely, which pretty much means to me that there goes individual characteristics and thought.

It sounds impossible to me for everyone to share the same ideals and policies while still having personality, which leads me to disagree with MissDenton's argument. Aren't our ideals affected by our personalities? I know mine are. My individual personality - warts and all - affects how I look at the world and how I think about humanity and social change. If I lost this personality, wouldn't it affect the way I thought about the world? A person with a bitter, angry, resentful personality would not look at life the same way I do. if the Omar wants everyone to look at things the same way, it'd have to remove the personality factors that affect individual opinions.

Freedom of thought and expression would be completely gone in favour of the group's interests. There would be no more creativity, no more freedom of press. No more meaningful music or artwork commenting on politics etc. Debates like this thread would completely cease to exist, as we'd all be agreeing on the same thought. ;) Where would the spice of life be?

I enjoy my life, I love to live. Despite obvious major flaws in this world we live in, my personality allows me to still have hope and still take joy in the simple things in life- things like love, friends and family. It is my personality that leads me to enjoy these things- my outgoing sociable nature. I would never, ever give that up simply to survive. What is survival without human passions like love and joy? To me, nothing at all. It's pointless if we cannot make mistakes, learn from them and grow.

I understand what MissDenton is saying completely. From what I've read, she is looking at the Omar as if they can remove negative personality traits without also removing positive ones, and letting us live in a perfect society (please correct me if I am wrong). As I have said above, I do not think it is possible for everyone to have the same views on things without having the same, or at least very similar personalities.

Moving on from the Omar and talking about the actual choices in-game, while playing IW I would have to go for the ApostleCorp ending, mainly because I wouldn't dream of betraying the Denton brothers. :D JC Denton seems to know what he is talking about....however I have strong doubts on this ending. Personally I wouldn't like to be forced to have something implanted in my brain so an AI can read my every thought...and there's no way everyone else would comply. Some people would, a lot of people wouldn't, and there would undoubtedly be resistance. The eventual result of a perfect democracy sounds good, but what would it cost us?

Knights Templar is completely out of the option. Racist bigots who will encourage discrimination? No thanks, buddy.

Then we have the Illuminati. Here, I think we have to separate what we know about the Illuminati in the real world and simply focus on the in-game Illuminati. To me, it seems that in-game, at the end of the original Deus Ex at least, they have the right idea in mind. I don't particularly like the sound of them in IW, but in the original DX they are pretty much my first choice. Morgan Everett sounded like he had the world's best interests in mind, and with JC Denton up there with him I think they could do a pretty good job.

Basically, I don't like any of the endings of IW. I am strongly against the Omar for their hive-mind-like result, don't think any of the other endings are brilliant either. Out of all endings for all games, I'd go for the DX1 Illuminati ending, simply because it seems to be able to lead humanity into a better phase without compromising individual freedom of thought.

Xcom
12th Jul 2008, 12:49
I voted for another. I just hate choosing sides. :D

jcp28
12th Jul 2008, 18:20
Damn, this thread is awesome. All school students should be made to play DX- look at the discussions it creates!


I've just read through the whole thread, and am very interested in the discussions here, particularly the debate on the Omar and loss of individuality through becoming a collective consciousness.

Personally, it looks to me as if the Omar discussion is coming down to this- whether the Omar are making it possible to have a collective consciousness without losing personality.

I agreed with most of what Tsumsru was saying before he left the debate. I personally think it is impossible to have an Omar-like collective consciousness without losing personality, individuality and essentially what makes us human. The Omar are replacing the frontal lobes entirely, which pretty much means to me that there goes individual characteristics and thought.

It sounds impossible to me for everyone to share the same ideals and policies while still having personality, which leads me to disagree with MissDenton's argument. Aren't our ideals affected by our personalities? I know mine are. My individual personality - warts and all - affects how I look at the world and how I think about humanity and social change. If I lost this personality, wouldn't it affect the way I thought about the world? A person with a bitter, angry, resentful personality would not look at life the same way I do. if the Omar wants everyone to look at things the same way, it'd have to remove the personality factors that affect individual opinions.

Freedom of thought and expression would be completely gone in favour of the group's interests. There would be no more creativity, no more freedom of press. No more meaningful music or artwork commenting on politics etc. Debates like this thread would completely cease to exist, as we'd all be agreeing on the same thought. ;) Where would the spice of life be?

I enjoy my life, I love to live. Despite obvious major flaws in this world we live in, my personality allows me to still have hope and still take joy in the simple things in life- things like love, friends and family. It is my personality that leads me to enjoy these things- my outgoing sociable nature. I would never, ever give that up simply to survive. What is survival without human passions like love and joy? To me, nothing at all. It's pointless if we cannot make mistakes, learn from them and grow.

I understand what MissDenton is saying completely. From what I've read, she is looking at the Omar as if they can remove negative personality traits without also removing positive ones, and letting us live in a perfect society (please correct me if I am wrong). As I have said above, I do not think it is possible for everyone to have the same views on things without having the same, or at least very similar personalities.



I pretty much think the same thing. But I have to disagree with the assertion that personality will necessarily affect the way one looks at the world. Why that is certainly the case for many people, there are plenty of exceptions. I know a fair number of libertarian-type people that are actually quite sociable and outgoing. And using this logic that you state here, it would sound like most libertarians seem to be the type who like to keep to themselves and maybe not care so much about the outside world. While there is a certain isolationist tendency among American libertarians at least, that has as much to do with the fact that foreign intervention, among other things, will just lead to more big government that we don't need.

I still agree that having your frontal lobe removed would likely make one much more susceptible to hive-mind mentality, whether for good or for bad. Individual personality would likely cease to function in such a setting.

Just thought I should put that out there.:)

Styrisvolurin
12th Jul 2008, 19:31
My father is a mason... but mainly I'm just a bad seed, so I went for Illuminati.

Chance to rule the world? I'm there :D

gh0s7
12th Jul 2008, 23:43
Regarding the Omar, when the Player returns to New Cairo, Leo can be found at the door of the Mesquita. Among other things, he states that there are skeletal modifications during Phase II (of becoming an Omar), and "think like an Omar".

Personally, I'd recommend playing IW one more time, and trying to squeeze every little bit of info about the Omar from Leo. I have, and it reminded me of why I can't ever agree with a possible Ending for them.

But that's just me. :)

urban_queen41
13th Jul 2008, 03:50
I pretty much think the same thing. But I have to disagree with the assertion that personality will necessarily affect the way one looks at the world. Why that is certainly the case for many people, there are plenty of exceptions. I know a fair number of libertarian-type people that are actually quite sociable and outgoing. And using this logic that you state here, it would sound like most libertarians seem to be the type who like to keep to themselves and maybe not care so much about the outside world. While there is a certain isolationist tendency among American libertarians at least, that has as much to do with the fact that foreign intervention, among other things, will just lead to more big government that we don't need.

I still agree that having your frontal lobe removed would likely make one much more susceptible to hive-mind mentality, whether for good or for bad. Individual personality would likely cease to function in such a setting.

Just thought I should put that out there.:)

Of course, I never said it was the case for everyone :) It is true for some and not for others- agreeing with you on that one.

So one who wanted to join the Omar would, as you mentioned you agreed to, lose individual personality. In my mind, it's definitely not worth losing that. ;:)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
13th Jul 2008, 06:49
Enjoyed your comments, UrbanQueen... welcome to the forum. :)

I understand exactly what you are saying about the Omar.
Due to lack of enough clues, I can't agree or disagree with you wholly or partly. I'm presently trying to find the time to replay IW again so I can gather up all the information I can on the Omar.
This could take me another month, but I'm on the case, hehe. I have an Eidos cookie to nibble on to sustain me during this time. :D

Generally though, I do know what you are saying when you consider that the Omar 'must have' lost some major part of their own personality in order to become one. I only disagree on that part because what clues we do have suggests that personality is retained and that the only change, mentally, is an agreed common goal is to become "as One" with the group. I have to ask, is this any different to you or I joining any other group/cult/faction/religion? I don't think there is a real difference myself... but hopefully some answers will be forthcoming.

Thanks for all the clues gathered up so far everyone. :)

urban_queen41
14th Jul 2008, 08:11
MissDenton, I am looking forward to your research, hopefully you'll help us gain a better insight into the Omar :) I just love how the Deus Ex series makes us all think so much. There's always something new to discover...

Good point about the joining a cult/religion etc., I suppose it's not that different to joining the Omar. But if I joined a new religion, at least (hopefully) that religion would not be replacing my frontal lobe. And I wouldn't have all the other people in that religion tapped into my thoughts constantly. ;)

Necros
14th Jul 2008, 11:17
X-51 :)

Styrisvolurin
14th Jul 2008, 15:09
I'm torn with my views on the Omar. I've enjoyed reading the various opinions regarding their ways in this thread, but I think theres more to be thought about other than "loss of individuality".

If you think about it, and look to the various real life examples of cultism and traditions, there are hundreds of examples of tribes and cultures who breed their children into a set way of thinking, even down to some cultures who brand the males at a certain age with body modification such as tattoos and piercings. Why is that any different?

It's an interesting debate though, I think I'll be sticking to my dreams of one day running the world :D

Oym
14th Jul 2008, 16:01
I believe in JC Denton + Helios. A human being actually controlled by a decision making system that does not involve weaknesses of humans , like corruption , attraction , the very big flaw of human society ..

This ending is the best ever ..

Lady_Of_The_Vine
15th Jul 2008, 06:13
I'm torn with my views on the Omar. I've enjoyed reading the various opinions regarding their ways in this thread, but I think theres more to be thought about other than "loss of individuality".

If you think about it, and look to the various real life examples of cultism and traditions, there are hundreds of examples of tribes and cultures who breed their children into a set way of thinking, even down to some cultures who brand the males at a certain age with body modification such as tattoos and piercings. Why is that any different?

It's an interesting debate though, I think I'll be sticking to my dreams of one day running the world :D

Wow, yes, I never considered tribal cultures of the world, even though I have watched plenty of documentaries in the past! Thank you for bringing this point to our attention. :)

urban_queen41
21st Jul 2008, 04:39
Aack, it'd be a shame to let this thread die. Let's start the convo again.

Not much talk about what Tracer Tong wanted you to do...I personally hated his ending (it was the first one I chose, I was so disappointed...) What do you all think?

Romeo
21st Jul 2008, 05:39
Are the Omar truly different than humans in the sense of acting as one?

The civilized world is generally guided by democracy, a system which caters to the majority and treats issues regarding to the people as a whole, not individuals. To boot, many people strive to excel at school and adopt a decent job, which in turn aids the rest of humanity by providing some service; The Omar also work together to attain goals for themselves. Personally, I don't find the Omar are hive-minded at all. They're all seperate entities, but they work in such a way as to end up with the same goal.

Oym
21st Jul 2008, 08:25
Aack, it'd be a shame to let this thread die. Let's start the convo again.

Not much talk about what Tracer Tong wanted you to do...I personally hated his ending (it was the first one I chose, I was so disappointed...) What do you all think?

I think that Helios ending is the best :cool:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
22nd Jul 2008, 15:08
Are the Omar truly different than humans in the sense of acting as one?

The civilized world is generally guided by democracy, a system which caters to the majority and treats issues regarding to the people as a whole, not individuals. To boot, many people strive to excel at school and adopt a decent job, which in turn aids the rest of humanity by providing some service; The Omar also work together to attain goals for themselves. Personally, I don't find the Omar are hive-minded at all. They're all seperate entities, but they work in such a way as to end up with the same goal.

Yes, yes. That is exactly how I view the Omar to be. I guess many people don't like their appearance and perhaps it portrays to them something quite alien/not human... which I can understand, of course, but I do feel the Omar are misunderstood because of the way they look. I agree totally, "hive mind" is far off the mark but, again, I can understand why some would connect this term to 'collective consciousness'.
Does anyone think that the Omar will be seen again in Deus Ex 3?

***

@urban_queen41: Yeah, I was disappointed with the Tracer Tong ending too. Needless to say, I reloaded and chose a different path, hehe.
I played all the endings really, shameful indecisiveness! :o

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Jul 2008, 19:22
Wow! :eek:
I've just reviewed the latest poll results... and things seem to be levelling out quite a bit - compared to the initial, early results where the Illuminati had a very clear lead. Not so much the case now. :)

Maybe people are thinking more about the actual implications of their choices. Mmmmm.... interesting. ;)

SubTonic20
26th Jul 2008, 19:24
Templars. Mostly because they're (IMO) the most interesting group in the DX universe and had HQ in my favorite part of the first game. Plus the name is just cool.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jul 2008, 11:42
Templars. Mostly because they're (IMO) the most interesting group in the DX universe and had HQ in my favorite part of the first game. Plus the name is just cool.

Welcome to the forum. :)

Yes, they are indeed an interesting group in the DX universe; but I wouldn't base my vote for them just on the fact that I liked the location of their HQs or that their name sounded cool, hehe.
Goodness, please don't ever choose politics as a career! :eek:
I'm only kidding! :p

Personally, the Templars were nowhere near the top of my list of best choices. Too much religious zealotry for me to cope with. I don't think that leadership based on religion is necessarily a sensible approach... not everyone will want to be converted and an individual choice was never an option.
Also, I didn't like their unholy (hypocritical) prejudice policy against bio-modified individuals (although they left the Omar alone because they did not consider them as humans, lol). If you don't convert/repent, you could be targeted for assassination. Wow... no thanks! I really dislike prejudice in any form. :(

I also questioned the use of their vast financial wealth - it wasn't shared to benefit the common people. Instead they used it to establish power and control for their own hierarchy.
That's how I understood them anyway. Maybe I'm wrong... any feedback? :)

SubTonic20
27th Jul 2008, 12:00
Yeah, I'm really not political at all. I choose what I like and that's it. Thanks for the greet as well. I decided to go ahead and make myself a regular on here with DX3 being officially announced recently. I know it was supposedly announced a year go, but I didn't really see anything on the net about it, so yeah.

Oh, and I really only liked the Templars as a villainous group. They always interest me more than the good guys (in games, of course), though I would choose the good side if this were not a game being discussed. I hate the idea of religion holding me by the nuts as much as any other person.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jul 2008, 12:18
Cool, good to have you here! :cool:

Yes, I understand your choice as far as the game is concerned; and it not being a decision based on reality. :)
My fault... just got a bit carried away there, hehe. :o
:D

Jimmy Rabbitte
28th Jul 2008, 02:07
I'd probably join Helios if put in JC's position. I am a technophile and I like the idea of scientific progress finally being able to correct humanity's flaws rather than create more. I'd be afraid if a boring monoculture emerged from the Helios ending..

but Tong's ending seemed too technophobic for me. I like the idea of preserving culture and individuality, and abolishing all authorities, but you know more greedy people are just going to come out and try to take over.

If there was an ending that could reconcile with Tong and Helios, I'd pick that. If all or at least most of humanity was 'fixed', so to speak, by using nanotechnology to eliminate irrational thinking but then also a perfect anarchy emerged, that'd quench my philosophical thirst. Plus who doesn't want to be a messiah?


P.S. I know a perfect anarchy is impossible.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
31st Jul 2008, 07:38
Plus who doesn't want to be a messiah?


Not me. :p

I don't know, but once we view one (or group of) human beings as "leaders" (ie. have a hierarchy structure), doesn't everything fall apart at the seams... eventually? :scratch:

Jimmy Rabbitte
31st Jul 2008, 23:28
Not me. :p

I don't know, but once we view one (or group of) human beings as "leaders" (ie. have a hierarchy structure), doesn't everything fall apart at the seams... eventually? :scratch:

Not necessarily. In my opinion the only thing that ruins governments is the inability to compromise disagreement, or when you have a few bad apples who want to take advantage of it for their own personal gain. As long as there's a human who can do something better than another human, there will always be leaders. Many groups of animals follow leaders. It's a natural thing for the less experienced and/or capable to follow those that are more so.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Aug 2008, 06:27
I agree that we have always had leaders, absolutely. But it only takes one bad apple, huh? That is inevitable, eventually....

I hear what you say and totally agree but, at the same time, surely you agree that we (the human race) will never achieve that level of true/honest leadership because there will always be someone who is corrupt?

Jima B
1st Aug 2008, 19:18
arent WTO and The Order both the Illuminati? :P

Im pretty sure they where, in DX2; you find out in Trier :)

Anyway, i support NONE of those listed.

I fight for one, and one alone; QueeQueg.
I know they are like... the same company as Pequod in the end but that's not the point :(
I was heartbroken when i found out my masters had betrayed me :(


Anyway, Long live QueeQuegs coffee; those brave souls, fighting for what's right. :)

Jimmy Rabbitte
1st Aug 2008, 23:25
I agree that we have always had leaders, absolutely. But it only takes one bad apple, huh? That is inevitable, eventually....

I hear what you say and totally agree but, at the same time, surely you agree that we (the human race) will never achieve that level of true/honest leadership because there will always be someone who is corrupt?

Well, not Helios. That's why I like him :D

iWait
2nd Aug 2008, 03:03
What about the inevitable pole shift. Oh ****, Helios is fried, we're ****ed now.

Jimmy Rabbitte
2nd Aug 2008, 03:08
Well we won't have to worry about that, Helios probably won't be made before the end of the Mayan calendar. Or we're all overrun by bigfeet. (Is bigfeet the plural of bigfoot?)

iWait
2nd Aug 2008, 03:42
It doesn't even need to be a pole shift, a large solar flare (The ones characteristic towards the end of a stars life cycle) can cause most - if not all - computers on Earth to be rendered useless.

timborg
2nd Aug 2008, 10:56
i voted for the illuminatibe because the illuminati try to bring order to the world and who would want to be as one were a computer makes your Decisions for you and the omar who would like to be a cyborg that has no feeling

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Aug 2008, 16:49
Welcome to the forum. :)

Mmmm, interesting.
No way would I have chosen the Illuminati. They don't actually "bring" control to the world, they "controlled" the world - kind of a big difference in my opinion. They just represent everything that is manipulative and corrupt in an organisation.
I would rather a computer make decisions, than the Illuminati, definitely. At least those decisions are based on logic, fairness, facts, etc. rather than personal greed or ambition etc. Yeah?
Also, the Omar may be considered a "Cyborg" but let us not forget that they are still humans, and intelligent ones at that. In perspective, if you think about it, they showed more 'feelings' than many of the humans in the game (whatever faction they were in).

A little food for thought anyway. ;)

Jimmy Rabbitte
2nd Aug 2008, 17:58
It doesn't even need to be a pole shift, a large solar flare (The ones characteristic towards the end of a stars life cycle) can cause most - if not all - computers on Earth to be rendered useless.

Lol well at that point it's really all redundant since all of the humans would be dead as well :scratch:

iWait
3rd Aug 2008, 01:15
Ugh, no........
It takes an immense electromagnetic field to actually harm a human. Ever wiped your hard drive with a magnet? Now put that magnet on your head for 4 hours, you don't die. I wasn't talking about the red giant stage or a supernova either, I meant the 2 million year period towards the end of THIS stage the sun is in.

Jimmy Rabbitte
3rd Aug 2008, 01:23
A superflare can increase a star's activity by something like 20 percent IIRC. When the entire earth is engulfed in flames I think a little electromagnetism would be the least of our concerns.

iWait
3rd Aug 2008, 01:32
No, not a giant solar flare that can screw with a star's life cycle, a good sized- solar flare, in the right position could render computers useless.

Jimmy Rabbitte
3rd Aug 2008, 01:34
No, not a giant solar flare that can screw with a star's life cycle, a good sized- solar flare, in the right position could render computers useless.

What exactly is the "Right position?" the majority of solar flare activity is shielded by the atmosphere. The atmosphere envelops the whole planet.

iWait
3rd Aug 2008, 01:41
Right position as in the bulk of the electromagnetic field is not enveloping Mars. Not a "glancing blow," but a "direct hit."

Jimmy Rabbitte
3rd Aug 2008, 01:53
Well are you talking about solar flares as they occur now or as you said before "at the end of the sun's life cycle"? Because the ones that occur now have never threatened global communication. Even on the off chance that a more considerable amount of electromagnetism threatened the planet I imagine Helios would have taken extra precaution and had himself shielded from it. It's not very hard to protect something from an electromagnetic field.

A solar flare at the end of a star's life cycle is a superflare. Near the end of its cycle it starts fluctuating and expanding and generates a lot more heat. So again, the bigger threat is heat.

But we have many, many years to wait for that. A lot of these threats are avoided simply by leaving the earth.

timborg
3rd Aug 2008, 04:47
Welcome to the forum. :)

Mmmm, interesting.
No way would I have chosen the Illuminati. They don't actually "bring" control to the world, they "controlled" the world - kind of a big difference in my opinion. They just represent everything that is manipulative and corrupt in an organisation.
I would rather a computer make decisions, than the Illuminati, definitely. At least those decisions are based on logic, fairness, facts, etc. rather than personal greed or ambition etc. Yeah?
Also, the Omar may be considered a "Cyborg" but let us not forget that they are still humans, and intelligent ones at that. In perspective, if you think about it, they showed more 'feelings' than many of the humans in the game (whatever faction they were in).

A little food for thought anyway. ;)

yes but they were the ones that brought the world back on its feet they brought order when there was chaos. sometimes this can be an nessery evil

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Aug 2008, 09:01
^
Seeing as the Illuminati are just expert puppet-masters, I guess it is easy for them to pull the strings and 'bring the world back to order'.
The Illuminati, to me, were just very clever at controlling everything.... hidden behind a thick curtain of illusion and deception. The hierarchy of the group were never really in it for the good of humanity; only for the 'Fat Cats' that pressed the buttons. Even if you were a genuinely compassionate 'member' of the group (ie. low down the hierarchy), thinking that all your efforts were being put toward good things... the reality was very, very different. Also, as I said earlier, I didn't like the prejudice they showed to augmented humans.
If the new teaser trailer is anything to go by, I'm sure the Illuminati will be back playing a leading role within the Dx3 world. I guess we will have to wait and see.

I don't believe they gave us any true options and were therefore not a 'necessary evil'. Far from it....

timborg
3rd Aug 2008, 09:36
good point:) mind you i think it would be cool to be aug and to be a cyborg

Jima B
3rd Aug 2008, 18:45
I want to see, and to fight for the one faction i Really supported - wholeheartedly. This faction only features in one level of DX:IW, and i supported their every move.
The Panzerwerks techs. :D
Loved the trier streets level, getting to beat the hell outta Order seekers with Panzerwerks employees. :p

Would really like to see them return, but i don't see that happening :(

urban_queen41
4th Aug 2008, 06:59
You know, with the Illuminati option....do you think that the organisation might be able to change if JC was at the helm? I only just noticed something very interesting involving the intro cinematic and the Illuminati ending cinematic.

At the end of DX1 Illuminati ending, JC Denton and Morgan Everett are in the same position as Walton Simons and Bob Page were in the game's intro (I think this is only in the PS2 version). Don't you think it's interesting that in these cinematics, Walton Simons and Bob Page seem to be replaced by Everett and JC Denton?

This could make you think that JC and Everett will become corrupt, just as Page and Simons did. But listen to the final comments in both versions.

Everett says 'Eventually, we will lead them into the day.' Contrast this with what Page says in the intro- 'We will be crowned as kings. Or better than kings- gods!' Quoting from the PC ending, Everett seems to realise the errors they have made- 'We have made our own mistakes...this time, we will do it right.'

Do you think this implies that the Illuminati's intentions have changed with Everett and JC's control? Or do you think that it displays that they have become the exact thing that they were trying to destroy?

Just though it was an interesting thing to point out.

timborg
4th Aug 2008, 08:42
You know, with the Illuminati option....do you think that the organisation might be able to change if JC was at the helm? I only just noticed something very interesting involving the intro cinematic and the Illuminati ending cinematic.

At the end of DX1 Illuminati ending, JC Denton and Morgan Everett are in the same position as Walton Simons and Bob Page were in the game's intro (I think this is only in the PS2 version). Don't you think it's interesting that in these cinematics, Walton Simons and Bob Page seem to be replaced by Everett and JC Denton?

This could make you think that JC and Everett will become corrupt, just as Page and Simons did. But listen to the final comments in both versions.

Everett says 'Eventually, we will lead them into the day.' Contrast this with what Page says in the intro- 'We will be crowned as kings. Or better than kings- gods!' Quoting from the PC ending, Everett seems to realise the errors they have made- 'We have made our own mistakes...this time, we will do it right.'

Do you think this implies that the Illuminati's intentions have changed with Everett and JC's control? Or do you think that it displays that they have become the exact thing that they were trying to destroy?

Just though it was an interesting thing to point out.

thank you some one is a true beliver in the Illuminati

J.CDenton
4th Aug 2008, 08:57
I'm from the Super Mario Club!

Ok I voted Anothe because I run for Helios but I wait also to see which puppetmasters I can choose in DX3.

Arilias
4th Aug 2008, 22:29
The great tragedy of DX was that UNATCO never got the chance they deserved. They were crippled by corrupt leadership and MJ-12 infiltration, but the bulk of the organization seemed to genuinely believe in bringing about a global democracy.

The Illuminati thought that humanity needed their superior guiding hand. Having seen Lucius DeBeers, Morgan Everett, and Bob Page, I respectfully disagree. The Illuminati can't even govern themselves, let alone the rest of the world. They're just as human as the rest of us.

MJ-12 was basically Bob Page's vanity project. They had no real ideology or goals other than bringing him to power, and we've already established what an ******* he is.

The NSF and the other rebels are a mix. They believe in bringing down MJ-12 and the Illuminati, but they have no plans for what to do afterward. More important than that, however, is that they seem more interested in sovereignty and decentralization than genuine freedom. Did Tong honestly think for a second that sending the world back to the Dark Ages would bring about freedom? All it would do is put the power back into the hands of the warlords and the upper class. (Which, as we saw in DX:IW, is exactly what it did do)

The WTO is a runner-up, since they're basically UNATCO, Take II, trying to pull the world out of the mess Tong and JC made of it. On the other hand, I dislike their economic bent, and their more closely wedded to the Illuminati than UNATCO is to MJ-12.

The Templars? You're kidding, right? The Templars were completely insane.

The Omar have clearly been shown systematically trying to eliminate individuality in their members (see what they tried to do to Leo). And I don't think humanity would work as a hivemind.

ApostleCorp is probably the best long-term solution, but JC/Helios needs to go. Having one, almighty being superior to all of humanity simply because of its nature doesn't sit right with me.

Ultimately, if UNATCO could be purged of corruption, it would be the best faction. They want a balance between freedom and unity - a world government that nevertheless allows people to voice dissent and live as they choose. They're the only people who seem to be seeing through the false dichotomy the game presents.

iWait
5th Aug 2008, 09:29
What I don't understand is why people think Helios is perfect. It is a computer program, and just because it has nifty programming does not give it the right to take control of humanity.

gh0s7
5th Aug 2008, 10:28
I don't believe Helios is perfect; only better-suited to give an impartial and balanced executive/juridical/etc management than a human can, not to mention that, through biomodification, he sets all humans truly equal. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Aug 2008, 15:41
The Omar have clearly been shown systematically trying to eliminate individuality in their members (see what they tried to do to Leo). And I don't think humanity would work as a hivemind.


Hehe, again I am compelled to comment on this misrepresentation of the Omar. :p
I'm offering up my own opinion here but I think it is supported...

The Omar have been discussed in detail in this thread, so you can go back to check but, basically, they did npt do anything to Leo. They gave him the choice - he was just very indecisive about it. In the end, he freely decided to join the Omar.
Neither is there any proof, if you study the scripts and gameplay, that the Omar eliminated individuality. Leo still had his memories/personality after he had joined the Omar.
Finally, 'hive mind' is not a justified term for the Omar's idea of 'collective consciousness'.
:)

gh0s7
5th Aug 2008, 15:56
(....)
Neither is there any proof, if you study the scripts and gameplay, that the Omar eliminated individuality.
(....)
:)


Actually, after the dialog with Leo at the doors of the Medina (the second time one goes to Cairo), I got pretty much convinced that there is no individuality among them. Among other things, he said, and I quote, "Think like an Omar".

But that's just me. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Aug 2008, 16:00
Yes, but other conversations do not suggest that there is no individuality.

But on the particular quote "Think like an Omar"... why would that mean, without question, that there is no personality left?
It could be a simple term of coming together, yeah? Its the same as quoting "All for One, and One for All"; "United we stand, divided we fall" etc.
:)

Clucky
5th Aug 2008, 17:00
Yes, but other conversations do not suggest that there is no individuality.

But on the particular quote "Think like an Omar"... why would that mean, without question, that there is no personality left?
It could be a simple term of coming together, yeah? Its the same as quoting "All for One, and One for All"; "United we stand, divided we fall" etc.
:)

Judging by Leo's fear to enter phase II of the Omar "transmogrification", I would think that it does mean giving up a hefty part of your personality. Otherwise, it would seem he would have no reason to doubt his alignment. He didn't seem intelligent enough to be able to hold any sort of strong political ideology, which he couldn't bring himself to lose. Remarkably unlike other characters such as Dumier, DuClare or the Dentons, who would rather die that let their visions of the world be destroyed. In fact, Leo seemed to be more concerned with his own safety than anything else, and, in the end, didn't support any one faction.

Then again, his lack of political opinion could probably be attributed to the fact that many of the characters in IW seemed act like vegetables. :eek:

;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Aug 2008, 19:21
I think the fear you speak of was really just indecisiveness and hesitation. Even if it is fear, it could be assumed to be a 'natural' one, because of the impending final-stage modifications to his body; he experienced natural anxiety - just like anyone expecting major surgery, for example. Also, I am sure he would have had worries about the prejudice he would come across now that he was about to become an Omar. Wouldn't anyone? His anxiety had nothing to do with the Omar personally, otherwise he wouldn't have joined with them in the first place. I think it is just a general assumption that he had to lose (or lost) his personality... there certainly is no direct or definite evidence of that.

I cannot comment on his intelligence but just because you don't hold any strong political ideology does not mean you are not intelligent. In fact, it is probably more intelligent not to have one. One can support a political faction, organisation or religion... but that doesn't mean you know what the insides are made of, which way the cogs turn, who turns them, or what 'exactly' is going on behind the scenes. With this in mind, is it really "wise to think you are the wiser"...just because you are presented with a friendly, inviting facade? ;)

Ummm, the world was already being destroyed - by human beings, not the Omar. Nothing unusual, it is happening today. As for Leo being concerned about his own safety - of course he was, only natural. The Omar are human beings - they have just transformed/evolved accordingly in order to survive, so that they could continue the legacy of Mankind. All other humans will die because they cannot survive in such a polluted, poisoned environment. Logically thinking.... if you are told tomorrow that you must wear special breathing apparatus, OR DIE, in order to survive a catastrophe, wouldn't you wear it? :)

mad_red
6th Aug 2008, 00:10
Hi again,

Seems like the games provide just so much info to leave enough room for speculation on the factions.

Most people seem to think that the Omar remove your individuality, but perhaps they simply offer group-telepathy. The game simply doesn't tell you whether the Omar hive-mind assimilates you, or even so much as invades your privacy. So long as their own survival is assured they could be a pretty mellow bunch. Yes the make some changes to people, but maybe only as few as necessary, and only to the (partially?) willing.

Also, a lot of people seem to think that Helios turns you into a zombie, but as far as I could tell from the game, it's really just a search engine and voting machine put together. So what if some guy called Denton knows what you're thinking? Nobody else does. The least of it's functions would be the lessening of bureaucracy, and I can't imagine anyone complaining about that. The next significant step would be: does Helios intervene if people vote themselves into say a global climate catastrophe? Does it simply compute and inform you of cause and effect? Does it mandate green energy ads, like the Illuminati might do, or transmit them directly into your brain, perhaps like the Omar? I suspect that JC/Helios will find a solution that puts minimal pressure on the population (like any good welfare state).

As for the Illuminati - guardian angels or puppet-masters? Where does it say they aren't they fit to rule? I don't think they are so different from any parent. They have to raise a child and expose him to the world in stages. The Illuminati might actually care more about the people than a warlord, or the barely-elected president of a single country. In fact, they're like Morpheus and Yoda - hidden masters, because most people are simply not ready and able to change from the inside. They bide their time (and buy humanity more time if necessary).


Finally, I simply love the end quote:
"Yesterday We Obeyed Kings And Bent Our Necks To Emperors. Today We Kneel Only To Truth."

But can anyone tell me why it goes with the Tracer Tong ending?

iWait
6th Aug 2008, 00:40
Helios Ending:
"Our unity will soon be absolute"
"Share your mind with everyone, open yourself, your needs are the needs of all. Let us understand and be transformed. Transform each other and transform ourself."

Dunno about you, but it seems to me that everyone is in each others mind.
"Transform each other and transform ourself." That sounds like the loss of individuality to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeboqg4t9vs

timborg
6th Aug 2008, 02:38
so whos side are you on

Jimmy Rabbitte
6th Aug 2008, 03:06
What I don't understand is why people think Helios is perfect. It is a computer program, and just because it has nifty programming does not give it the right to take control of humanity.

What about the fact that it's a computer program goes against the argument of putting it in power?

iWait
6th Aug 2008, 03:17
Nothing should control the population of Earth. Especially when the people have not decided to put it in power.

Jimmy Rabbitte
6th Aug 2008, 03:36
The ending assumes that a majority of people accepted helios willingly. JC/Helios explicitly stated that they wouldn't assimilate people into the new order.

Nothing should control the population of earth, eh? I'm guessing you believe in perfect anarchy? That's a load of bollocks IMHO. Do you really think anything good can come out of a system that doesn't ask anything of its constituents? No matter how many people don't like it, there will always be someone greedy to take control of people and wealth. You'd rather live under the rule of gangs than in an all-inclusive democracy?

Furthermore, Helios does not cause a loss of individualism. That's what the Omar are for. Helios creates a perfect democracy by cutting all the bull**** out of representative democracy and putting a direct line from constituent to leader. Everyone that chose to join Helios chose to share their mind (their wants, needs, ambitions) with Helios and he changed legislation to accommodate everyone. He says "This is the consensus we have reached" implying that the people who signed up were altruistic in nature and chose to shape their new government around that kind of idea.


Quoting Helios saying "we" and "our" doesn't lend much credence to your argument, it's not as if people have never referred to humanity as a whole with those articles :rolleyes:

iWait
6th Aug 2008, 04:31
Nothing should control the entirety of the population of Earth. Never said anything against governments.

And nobody signed up. Watch the video again. Everyone suddenly looks up. Don't see any signing up there.

I didn't choose those quotes just because they say "our" and "we". Read them again.

And I'm sure Miss Denton shall have something to say on your stance concerning the Omar and individuality.

Jimmy Rabbitte
6th Aug 2008, 04:41
Nothing should control the entirety of the population of Earth. Never said anything against governments.

And nobody signed up. Watch the video again. Everyone suddenly looks up. Don't see any signing up there.

I didn't choose those quotes just because they say "our" and "we". Read them again.

And I'm sure Miss Denton shall have something to say on your stance concerning the Omar and individuality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBeoreJr4Yc

The people looking up are symbolic, dude. Just because they look up at the same time doesn't make them a hive mind.. The end sequence takes place several years after the end of the game, as they all do. jesus h christ I can't believe I had to say that.. Anyway I suggest playing through IW again, JC confirms my argument.

iWait
6th Aug 2008, 05:41
Never said they were a hive mind.

Never said the endings took place right after you choose them.

That conversation between Alex and Helios proves nothing. It never says it gives them a choice to join, it merely states "People will welcome equality."
If this computer program desperately needs Alex to complete its plan of a "perfect democracy," Could it not lie to Alex? My take is that the general consensus is Helios can make a perfect democracy where everyone is safe and happy, whilst the Illuminati lie to JC to get him to join, and in the end are just men corrupted by power.

Jimmy Rabbitte
6th Aug 2008, 05:50
http://nihilcredo.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/facepalm1.jpeg

"Helios will communicate, not assimilate."

iWait
6th Aug 2008, 06:20
Yes, because computer programs could never ever never ever never lie.

El_Bel
6th Aug 2008, 07:14
This subject has taken long enough..! Lets ask Sheldon Pacotti himself what the heck he meant!!

iWait
6th Aug 2008, 07:25
/agree

timborg
6th Aug 2008, 07:33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBeoreJr4Yc

The people looking up are symbolic, dude. Just because they look up at the same time doesn't make them a hive mind.. The end sequence takes place several years after the end of the game, as they all do. jesus h christ I can't believe I had to say that.. Anyway I suggest playing through IW again, JC confirms my argument.

yes you make a good argument but he also says that they will be "linked body and mind" and that the a computer tells want its right and what is wrong.

Clucky
6th Aug 2008, 15:44
I think the fear you speak of was really just indecisiveness and hesitation. Even if it is fear, it could be assumed to be a 'natural' one, because of the impending final-stage modifications to his body; he experienced natural anxiety - just like anyone expecting major surgery, for example. Also, I am sure he would have had worries about the prejudice he would come across now that he was about to become an Omar. Wouldn't anyone? His anxiety had nothing to do with the Omar personally, otherwise he wouldn't have joined with them in the first place. I think it is just a general assumption that he had to lose (or lost) his personality... there certainly is no direct or definite evidence of that.

I cannot comment on his intelligence but just because you don't hold any strong political ideology does not mean you are not intelligent. In fact, it is probably more intelligent not to have one. One can support a political faction, organisation or religion... but that doesn't mean you know what the insides are made of, which way the cogs turn, who turns them, or what 'exactly' is going on behind the scenes. With this in mind, is it really "wise to think you are the wiser"...just because you are presented with a friendly, inviting facade? ;)

Ummm, the world was already being destroyed - by human beings, not the Omar. Nothing unusual, it is happening today. As for Leo being concerned about his own safety - of course he was, only natural. The Omar are human beings - they have just transformed/evolved accordingly in order to survive, so that they could continue the legacy of Mankind. All other humans will die because they cannot survive in such a polluted, poisoned environment. Logically thinking.... if you are told tomorrow that you must wear special breathing apparatus, OR DIE, in order to survive a catastrophe, wouldn't you wear it? :)

Fair 'Dos. You are certainly correct about the ignorance of humanity as a whole, and how they know very little about the factions they support in this universe. But I was talking about mere ideology, not political association. You can think for yourself, and come to support the ideas of certain people without joining their group. For example, you may have a liberal attitude towards many issues, but you aren't forced to register a vote. Just because you share some ideas with particular groups, doesn't mean you have to join that group and be associated with them. Leo seemed to lack any ideas at all on how to pull the world out of the mess it was in.

This in itself does not make it look like you lack intelligence, but when you want to simply assassinate the worlds leaders because of your own moral affiliation without a substitute to fill the void, well let me just say that that doesn't sound like a clever plan to me. To change such an extensive political system, you need a replacement. this is what the Dentons envisioned. Leo had no alliances at all, no ideas, no creativity. His heart was in the right place, but he had no practical solution to any problems.

Nevertheless, perhaps I did make the assumption a little too quickly. There is no direct evidence to support the total loss of personality. But again I disagree with your assumption that he had actually joined the Omar in the first place. I don't think it was simple hesitance. I don't think he actually was even part of the Omar. He was paid by them, yes, but he always claimed he was "protection." Didn't he say in Seattle he "no longer wanted to be someone's puppet." This would apply to the Omar as well I guess.

He was threatened by the Omar to make him become one of them. But perhaps all this doesn't add up to the complete loss of individuality. But I say you'd have to pay some price to join a hive-like consciousness. Whenever you function as a group or hive-like entity you will always lose some of your own individuality. That is essentially the definition of a group, especially one as closely knit together as the Omar. :)

P.S A rebreather does not change who you are. It is open for debate whether the extreme biotechnology of the Omar does, however. There is evidence for both sides of the argument though, as we have both just proved. I don;t think it's clear enough to draw an adequate conclusion. :rasp:

mad_red
6th Aug 2008, 19:45
Hi iWait,

I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation, but you don't know who those people are that are looking up and whether the represent the entire world population. And the things that Helios says could be about its goals, excluding the means (eg. by force, or otherwise).

Questions whether both Helios and JC are just lying aside, I did get the impression that Helios was meant to be a tool for the people. Not a tool for controlling people.

Anyway, Pacotti has the last word.

Also, about Leo's hesitation, I find it perfectly reasonable given how invasive the technology is, even if only physically. Besides, I expect the Omar explained the rules to him and wouldn't take kindly to anyone changing his mind and going rogue while stuffed full of their technology - plenty of reason to get really nervous.

Jimmy Rabbitte
6th Aug 2008, 23:34
yes you make a good argument but he also says that they will be "linked body and mind" and that the a computer tells want its right and what is wrong.

Linked by body and mind doesn't mean loss of individuality. Helios never said that it would judge what is right and wrong but simply that it would administer a direct democracy.

iWait, has a computer ever lied to you?

Romeo
6th Aug 2008, 23:40
Rabbitte, has a computer ever had a personality or free will...? And by the way, a friendly discussion is fine, but to both parties, remember to speak to others as you wish to be spoken to, regardless of frustration.

=)

Jimmy Rabbitte
7th Aug 2008, 00:20
That's the thing, computers have never lied so to say that they will lie in the future is less probable than to say that they won't. Either way, it's impossible to ascertain for obvious reasons, but his argument is less valid because it is never implied in the DX series that Helios or JC might be dishonest. In fact, I'd say JC is the most honest character in the game.

iWait
7th Aug 2008, 03:31
http://www.turboconnection.com/images/picard.jpg


Helios is not a computer, it is a program. It is not hardware, but software.
A computer cannot lie because it is a series of switches. A program can lie.
Helios is an artificially intelligent being. I have no doubt it is sentient. Helios can obviously learn and form personal opinions and ideas. If it can do that, why is it impossible for it to lie?

About the people looking up, Mad_Red you are right, it can neither be proved nor disproved if Helios was originally intended to take control of the entire population of Earth.

One last thing:

Linked by body and mind doesn't mean loss of individuality.

Hmm, I have a problem with that post. Individuality is not only a preservation of your personality but also the solitarity of mind and body. If you are linked with multiple consciouses you are no longer completely individual.

Jimmy Rabbitte
7th Aug 2008, 03:52
I've got news for you, people are already linked in such a way. Memes, simulacrum, conformity. Any of these words ring a bell?

Secondly, you have not and cannot prove that AI can lie, or that Helios is dishonest with the information given in or derived from the game.

This is getting cyclical, you keep changing the subject by assessing miniscule points and bringing up irrelevant information. Therefore with this post I will discontinue this argument.

Romeo
7th Aug 2008, 04:33
I found they answered the questions rather well. And just because they can't prove their point doesn't mean you can prove yours. I can't prove that there's intelligent life somewhere else in the galaxy, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can dismiss it either.

DarkStorm
7th Aug 2008, 04:41
Majestic 12. ;)

timborg
7th Aug 2008, 08:48
iwait using picard (good job):) see picard would be one my side

gh0s7
7th Aug 2008, 08:50
The ending assumes that a majority of people accepted helios willingly. JC/Helios explicitly stated that they wouldn't assimilate people into the new order.
(....)

Actually, IIRC, Helios spread nano agents globally, biomodifying everyone with the same "blueprint" (JC and Alex).

If still they (human population) accepted Helios or not, is indefinite at this time; we'll have to wait for a sequel to know that. ;)

timborg
7th Aug 2008, 10:38
hi all dx fans and others that have joined the forum.

there can be seraval possiblies

1. knights templar (likey if prequel and cool)

2. omar (same as knights templar)

3. possiblie Illuminati/helios


please disscuss:)

El_Bel
7th Aug 2008, 11:58
Lets hope we dont find.. If i wanted to play star trek i would play star trek. I liked Deus Ex story just because it was set on a world similar to our. The only sequel i would like to see is a few years after the collapse, but with more of real world then IW fake world(i would like to see what would happen to our world without the centralization of our times)

jordan_a
7th Aug 2008, 13:39
I think you'll get more answers in the "Whose side are you really on? OWN UP TIME!" thread.

jordan_a
7th Aug 2008, 13:49
i would like to see what would happen to our world without the centralization of our timesOur own world is not so concentrated, polarized.

René
7th Aug 2008, 18:05
Threads merged.

timborg
8th Aug 2008, 08:01
why

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th Aug 2008, 23:53
Fair 'Dos. You are certainly correct about the ignorance of humanity as a whole, and how they know very little about the factions they support in this universe. But I was talking about mere ideology, not political association. You can think for yourself, and come to support the ideas of certain people without joining their group. For example, you may have a liberal attitude towards many issues, but you aren't forced to register a vote. Just because you share some ideas with particular groups, doesn't mean you have to join that group and be associated with them. Leo seemed to lack any ideas at all on how to pull the world out of the mess it was in.

This in itself does not make it look like you lack intelligence, but when you want to simply assassinate the worlds leaders because of your own moral affiliation without a substitute to fill the void, well let me just say that that doesn't sound like a clever plan to me. To change such an extensive political system, you need a replacement. this is what the Dentons envisioned. Leo had no alliances at all, no ideas, no creativity. His heart was in the right place, but he had no practical solution to any problems.

Nevertheless, perhaps I did make the assumption a little too quickly. There is no direct evidence to support the total loss of personality. But again I disagree with your assumption that he had actually joined the Omar in the first place. I don't think it was simple hesitance. I don't think he actually was even part of the Omar. He was paid by them, yes, but he always claimed he was "protection." Didn't he say in Seattle he "no longer wanted to be someone's puppet." This would apply to the Omar as well I guess.

He was threatened by the Omar to make him become one of them. But perhaps all this doesn't add up to the complete loss of individuality. But I say you'd have to pay some price to join a hive-like consciousness. Whenever you function as a group or hive-like entity you will always lose some of your own individuality. That is essentially the definition of a group, especially one as closely knit together as the Omar. :)

P.S A rebreather does not change who you are. It is open for debate whether the extreme biotechnology of the Omar does, however. There is evidence for both sides of the argument though, as we have both just proved. I don;t think it's clear enough to draw an adequate conclusion. :rasp:

Thank you for a fab debate. :)
Yeah, I think it is important for human beings to recognise how little we know about what factions/groups/organisations etc that we support. Also, you can support something without even being conscious of it - that is one of the scariest points to consider. For example, your choice of groceries (coffee you drink, detergent you prefer, packaging materials used for produce etc) - the company profit generated from grocery sales often has profound political or social implications many individuals may not be aware of.

Yes, I agree that you don't have to join a group in order to support it. No argument there.
To comment further though, not to argue any point but just to conveniently bring me back to the Omar and what I believe is their idea of collective consciousness. Do you not NEED to be in a group to bring about change? Anyone can "talk the talk" (passive) but not everyone chooses to "walk the walk" (active). In the passive stance, nothing really changes and history moreorless repeats itself - life goes on, the same it always has. As history has shown us, this stance is often not for the greater good of Mankind...it doesn't seem to have been so far. In the active mode, situations can be challenged, the ball is pushed in a completely different direction. Life goes on but the cycle is greatly altered, and something profoundly different can begin to happen.
This is what I believe the Omar were trying to do. They were addressing the segregation of Mankind and preparing for an alternative. I don't believe the Omar represented loss of individuality or personality at all; only the loss of selfish desire and whims that do not benefit the human species as a whole. Our lack of 'connectivity' with each other (as one species sharing one planet) is our failing. 'Individuality' is all very well, but on a general level it brings great limitations for Mankind. It will be forever impossible for us to become 'as One' and attain a higher level of consciousness so long as this cycle continues. We CAN retain individuality/personality but in order to reach the "higher ground", it seems that many of us desparately need some help. So, I think the Omar understood this flaw in the human brain and developed a way to correct it by using the front lobe implant. Makes sense to me anyway.

We could add weight to this conclusion if we analyse the actual game ending, in relation to the Omar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLMn3_SzBiU

A single, lone Omar (NOT a buzzing hive group, I hasten to add) looks around at the scorched earth and then turns and walk off toward the horizon. The very fact that this single Omar is on his own certainly does not suggest to me that there isn't individuality. I think it suggests a higher consciousness and philosophy for what has passed and is yet to come. Neither does the Omar walk as if he is full of doom and gloom, but rather he steps assertively to a brighter future, it seems, in order to continue what he must now do in order to carry on the legacy of humankind. Knowing that the other members of his group - without even being in their presence - are walking toward that same goal.

Also, consider the closing quotation by Montaigne - very important and relevant.
"Let us tell ambition that it is she herself who gives us a taste of solitude; for what does she so much avoid as society?"

I'm assuming that most of us have studied the entire essay of "On Solitude" to understand the full meaning of this quote and its origin - not to mention similar philosophical essays by Lamb and Rousseau. In a nutshell, we are asked to consider that the anomie of modern society lies in the self-conscious and competitive 'self-love' of individuals. By this very fact, a competitive, selfish society at once becomes immoral, corrupt and unequal. Society is and will always be extremely unstable because such competitive instincts will never be satisfied. This theory projects a nightmare vision of the capitalist world - our world today and the world in DX. The only way there can be thought that a society could live without this malaise, is if all the individuals discarded their individual wills in favour of adopting the general, collective will. Personally, I recognise the logic. I think this sums up the collective-consciousness of the Omar; as what MUST have been the intention of using Montaigne's quote in the Omar ending of the game, surely?


Leo seemed to lack any ideas at all on how to pull the world out of the mess it was in.
I totally agree with that... but wouldn't the majority of mankind be in the exact the same situation? What would you have Leo do? There is nothing he could do, or you, or any other individual. Note the word 'individual' - as insignificant as a pawn on a chessboard, if you like. The world leaders are the ones in complete control, it is their hands that control the levers and push the buttons. The majority of humanity is totally powerless to make any changes in this world - an individual is quite insignificant when it comes to making changes on a global scale. Some individuals have managed to make their mark in history and some success has been achieved. Sadly, still a minority and pace of change can be awkwardly slow or even too late in coming. But when we consider larger elements of global leadership/universal influence, then an individual is easily squashed. Indeed, it brings us back to the fact that you HAVE to join a group in order to bring about promotion of facts/ideas, gather support and bring about possible change. In DX, the Omar are that group. Radically different - an alternative to an endless and non-productive cycle of life.

Yes, I agree, the assassination of world leaders/groups isn't a very pleasant decision to make, nor one to be taken lightly. It could only be considered if there was no other sensible option. In the game, I believe there was no other sensible choice - not without condemning humanity (once again) to the same old self-destructive circle of leadership/hierarchical routine. If the world is being destroyed by centuries of war between main leaders, then is it not sensible to put a stop to it "somehow"? In DX, negotiations haven't worked, the red alert alarm sounded centuries ago. Perhaps it is a case of "anniliate the few now, or destroy absolutely all". That was the predicament, as I understood the game. There was a substitute to fill the void - the Omar. Not a political option, of course, but a social one.

Also, in support of my statement in Leo's case (the original focus of our discussion), he does have the intelligence to think about things. Consider this script within the game:

ALEX D: I thought you wanted to be a corporate heavy?
LEO: I've been thinking about this. I don't want to be a lab monkey or be in anybody's army. I don't want to be a piece of meat they fight over.
Corporate heavy, maybe. But right now I work for myself....

So, yeah, I think Leo is definitely 'out for himself' (typical standard human being - not yet an Omar, hehe) and is keeping his options open. But he does display the intelligence to think for himself. He wasn't threatened by the Omar with his "life" though, was he? They wanted him to make his mind up once and for all...and to stop being selfish or paranoid about it. The Omar had a plan, they wanted to get on with it - and so perhaps wasting their time on Leo was not an option when they could be giving their time to another.

Sure, a rebreather does not change who you are. EXACTLY my point, yes.
A person who has had a complete new face via plastic surgery and/or synthetic body parts due to severe burning/accident, for example, is still the same person inside - even if their family members do not recognise the external features of their beloved any longer. I do believe it is easy to misunderstand the Omar. I think because they "look so different/inhuman" is the main point here. They are not particularly pleasing to the human eye...thus, perhaps, not endearing to the mind, but if you can look deeper, beyond the outer layer, they do not really represent anything to fear. Outwardly, they are different, inwardly they are still human and intelligent - but offer one main difference, put very simply, that of "truth". No need of fancy promises to gather support, no campaigns for your vote, no religious or political ideology, just truth and simplicity.

Yes, of course it is not possible to draw a clear conclusion either way. It is fun to discuss it though. Perhaps if the Omar return in DX3, we will discover more about them. In the meantime, you'll find I often like to support the 'underdog' and, in this case, it is definitely the Omar, hehe. :p

drummindog
12th Aug 2008, 00:50
NSF :D Why? I have no idea. Just as in the games it is tough to choose one.

But ultimately, it doesnt make a difference... Kinda like in the games too :)

I voted NSF because I trusted them more than I did anyone else after finally learning the truth in DX1. At least they were trying to help the poor, sick people with the plague get the Ambrosia vaccine. That game was just so good at making you question loyalties and truth(or what appears to be the truth at that moment).

Romeo
12th Aug 2008, 06:44
I agree with Miss Denton, I think that the Omar appear hive-minded, yet some semblance of individuality remains. Without it, they would be useless in over-coming problems on their own, and yet, they arn't completely unique, as they're all united in one goal. The Omar were always my favorite group to study, along with the Grays. I hope both make a return. =)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Aug 2008, 08:48
I'm so surprised with the poll results to date. Anyone else?

How come the Illuminati are the most popular single group? :eek:

It seems the 'power of deception' still works exceedingly well...
Or maybe their name is 'cleverly suggestive' of greater things to each individual?
Perhaps the cloak of mystery that surrounds the group is intriguing enough to win votes? ;)

Seriously though, WHY the Illuminati, lol? :scratch: :nut:
Hopefully, an Illuminati supporter will enlighten me. :)

Poll results as at 12/08/08:

APOSTLECORP = 11
ILLUMINATI (or THE ORDER) = 14
KNIGHTS TEMPLAR = 3
MAJESTIC 12 = 4
NSF = 11
THE OMAR = 7
UNATCO = 7
WTO = 1
ANOTHER? = 23




VOTE FOR THE OMAR!!! :cool: :D

jcp28
12th Aug 2008, 15:45
Wow, lots of votes for the NSF.

I suppose sympathy for the underdog might play a part. but Really, they never seemed like a real strong faction. Besides that, they were not completely morally upright. Like the bum in the basketball court in Hell's Kitcheb said, they gave guns to anybody who wanted to fight, but some people would just do what they wanted with their guns. Beyond that, they were all too willing to take hostages in many cases. It seems like UNATCO really tried to do the right thing better than the NSF did. The leadership may have been corrupt, but I never saw UNATCO act overly brutish to civilians. It's not like there weren't a few bad apples among the soldiers, but they weren't in DX as far as I could see.

Jimmy Rabbitte
12th Aug 2008, 17:00
Hopefully, an Illuminati supporter will enlighten me. :)

Nice pun!

timborg
12th Aug 2008, 20:18
It seems the 'power of deception' still works exceedingly well...
Or maybe their name is 'cleverly suggestive' of greater things to each individual? [/B][/CENTER]

thats the point of the Illuminati. i think that it is more of a symbol than anything else because Illuminati means in latin enlightened as you know and some meanings of enlightened are: all knowing. and theres a saying knowledage is power. and if you see the picture of the symbol it has a eye Which can represent all seeing/ all knowing and the Pyramid can represent for all of time. and the Illuminati dont want to control like all the crazy Conspiracy thoesist say they just give the aillusion of order and peace when there is no real order and peace in the world to day.

well thats what i think anyways ;)

Romeo
13th Aug 2008, 04:25
The key to winning wars isn't having bigger guns, but better lies. And that's where the Illumnati's true power is presented: Disception.

On topic, it would be comepletely awesome to have EVERY faction, plus some new ones make an appearence, although the level of planing required for such a feat would be ridiculous. =)

timborg
13th Aug 2008, 07:36
halalola some sees the light

Lady_Of_The_Vine
13th Aug 2008, 07:36
Wow, lots of votes for the NSF.

I suppose sympathy for the underdog might play a part. but Really, they never seemed like a real strong faction. Besides that, they were not completely morally upright. Like the bum in the basketball court in Hell's Kitcheb said, they gave guns to anybody who wanted to fight, but some people would just do what they wanted with their guns. Beyond that, they were all too willing to take hostages in many cases. It seems like UNATCO really tried to do the right thing better than the NSF did. The leadership may have been corrupt, but I never saw UNATCO act overly brutish to civilians. It's not like there weren't a few bad apples among the soldiers, but they weren't in DX as far as I could see.

Hehe, well...someone has to stick up for them. ;)

Depends on what you deem as a 'strong' faction? In what area do you think they were not strong?
Sorry, I'm not sure if you refer to their numbers/population, inner philosophy, external dominance etc?
As the only group capable of surviving into the future AND continuing the legacy of humankind, I think their capabilities were very significant.

Sure, the Omar never claimed to be morally upright, or otherwise. No false ideology is promoted within this group - what you see is what you get and you can't get any more straightforward than that. Much more honest than all the other groups who each had some sort of dark secret or questionable connection with another faction - it was difficult to trust any of them because they were often not what they claimed to be.
If you refer only to the Omar's business of dealing in arms and blackmarket goodies as an 'immoral act'; then, yes, to another member of society it may seem immoral - but not to the Omar personally. Just business: a means to an end. Besides, did you not yourself purchase a few Omar goodies? If so, I take it that you do not question your own morals, hehe? A simple case of demand warrants supply, I guess. Also, the Omar only supplied the wares; they did not manufacture them. MAKO Ballistics (run by humans) were the manufacturers... and supported by which other faction or factions, one must ask... ;)

Sure, it was really of no interest to the Omar if people wanted to fight or not. Conflict and corruption already existed, the Omar just took advantage of a lucrative market at the time, in order to accumulate money to fund their own technology and secure their ultimate survival. Given the state of the world as it was - they did what they had to do. Two choices: either remain a standard human and live as normal and perhaps choose to support one of the existing factions... and probably end up dead; or radically change themselves in order to create a different alternative. A break-away solution to the endless cycle of death and destruction of mankind's existence.
When you mention taking hostages... I assume you are refering to other characters or factions in the game? I know the taking of hostages was a common habit with other groups. If you were referring to the Omar, when did they take a hostage? Sorry, I can't remember this ever happening (but its been a long time since I've played DXIW :o ).

Regarding UNATCO - a few bad apple soldiers is fair comment but it is the very fact that the leadership was corrupt, as you say, that made supporting them a BAD idea, in my opinion. This just adds more weight and reason for choosing the Omar alternative. Soldiers are just your average 'nice guy' human beings like you and I. So long as they are on the payroll and shooting at the 'enemy' (whoever it may be), they are doing their job and the leaders are happy. Other than that, they are an insignificant number in the greater equation. The significant people ARE the corrupt leaders you recognise... therefore, why would one support them? Directly or indirectly, you are supporting them. UNATCO had financial links to Simons/MJ12 and thus carried out a lot of the dirty work. willingly or not, they did it. The dispersal of biological warfare agents against the general population is an utterly brutish act, don't you think?

***


thats the point of the Illuminati. i think that it is more of a symbol than anything else because Illuminati means in latin enlightened as you know and some meanings of enlightened are: all knowing. and theres a saying knowledage is power. and if you see the picture of the symbol it has a eye Which can represent all seeing/ all knowing and the Pyramid can represent for all of time. and the Illuminati dont want to control like all the crazy Conspiracy thoesist say they just give the aillusion of order and peace when there is no real order and peace in the world to day.

well thats what i think anyways ;)

Yes, indeed - it is just an illusion of order and peace.
When we consider the symbolic images and term "All Knowing"... then that can only ever be an 'illusion' and/or a 'delusion'.
The term sounds mystical and fascinating...and its meant to as it draws people in even though the term defies all logic in reality. Being 'all knowing' can be an appealing thought if it gives one a sense of power... but there is no power really. 'Control' can be achieved in a very subtle way just by suggesting this air of enlightenment. It cleverly conceals the 'darkness' that exists.
Basically, how can any human ever be 'All Knowing'? Especially when you are just an ordinary person within a group such as the Illuminati. The leaders could be telling you the truth... or they could be telling you lies. Do we really know what the truth is? No, we don't and we cannot.
When I consider the fundamentals of the suggestion of being "All Knowing", it must surely be spiritual and sensed from 'within', not gained from 'without'. That's how I view it. Again, the Omar addressed this gap by creating a pathway to a collective consciousness and a real sense of truth and connection - without a fancy name, a political view or a religious belief etc.

jcp28
13th Aug 2008, 16:54
Hehe, well...someone has to stick up for them. ;)

Depends on what you deem as a 'strong' faction? In what area do you think they were not strong?
Sorry, I'm not sure if you refer to their numbers/population, inner philosophy, external dominance etc?
As the only group capable of surviving into the future AND continuing the legacy of humankind, I think their capabilities were very significant.

Sure, the Omar never claimed to be morally upright, or otherwise. No false ideology is promoted within this group - what you see is what you get and you can't get any more straightforward than that. Much more honest than all the other groups who each had some sort of dark secret or questionable connection with another faction - it was difficult to trust any of them because they were often not what they claimed to be.
If you refer only to the Omar's business of dealing in arms and blackmarket goodies as an 'immoral act'; then, yes, to another member of society it may seem immoral - but not to the Omar personally. Just business: a means to an end. Besides, did you not yourself purchase a few Omar goodies? If so, I take it that you do not question your own morals, hehe? A simple case of demand warrants supply, I guess. Also, the Omar only supplied the wares; they did not manufacture them. MAKO Ballistics (run by humans) were the manufacturers... and supported by which other faction or factions, one must ask... ;)

Sure, it was really of no interest to the Omar if people wanted to fight or not. Conflict and corruption already existed, the Omar just took advantage of a lucrative market at the time, in order to accumulate money to fund their own technology and secure their ultimate survival. Given the state of the world as it was - they did what they had to do. Two choices: either remain a standard human and live as normal and perhaps choose to support one of the existing factions... and probably end up dead; or radically change themselves in order to create a different alternative. A break-away solution to the endless cycle of death and destruction of mankind's existence.
When you mention taking hostages... I assume you are refering to other characters or factions in the game? I know the taking of hostages was a common habit with other groups. If you were referring to the Omar, when did they take a hostage? Sorry, I can't remember this ever happening (but its been a long time since I've played DXIW :o ).

Regarding UNATCO - a few bad apple soldiers is fair comment but it is the very fact that the leadership was corrupt, as you say, that made supporting them a BAD idea, in my opinion. This just adds more weight and reason for choosing the Omar alternative. Soldiers are just your average 'nice guy' human beings like you and I. So long as they are on the payroll and shooting at the 'enemy' (whoever it may be), they are doing their job and the leaders are happy. Other than that, they are an insignificant number in the greater equation. The significant people ARE the corrupt leaders you recognise... therefore, why would one support them? Directly or indirectly, you are supporting them. UNATCO had financial links to Simons/MJ12 and thus carried out a lot of the dirty work. willingly or not, they did it. The dispersal of biological warfare agents against the general population is an utterly brutish act, don't you think?

***



Yes, indeed - it is just an illusion of order and peace.
When we consider the symbolic images and term "All Knowing"... then that can only ever be an 'illusion' and/or a 'delusion'.
The term sounds mystical and fascinating...and its meant to as it draws people in even though the term defies all logic in reality. Being 'all knowing' can be an appealing thought if it gives one a sense of power... but there is no power really. 'Control' can be achieved in a very subtle way just by suggesting this air of enlightenment. It cleverly conceals the 'darkness' that exists.
Basically, how can any human ever be 'All Knowing'? Especially when you are just an ordinary person within a group such as the Illuminati. The leaders could be telling you the truth... or they could be telling you lies. Do we really know what the truth is? No, we don't and we cannot.
When I consider the fundamentals of the suggestion of being "All Knowing", it must surely be spiritual and sensed from 'within', not gained from 'without'. That's how I view it. Again, the Omar addressed this gap by creating a pathway to a collective consciousness and a real sense of truth and connection - without a fancy name, a political view or a religious belief etc.


Wait, I was talking about the NSF. I never mentioned the Omar once in that post. Did you get thrown off by that "underdog" reference? Or did you just feel like bringing them up?

Vadim Verenich
13th Aug 2008, 19:13
I'm in the freemasonry (Europe) myself, so, Illuminati.

One can be TOO self-confident. Trust no one.

Romeo
13th Aug 2008, 19:18
Oh noes! :eek:

timborg
14th Aug 2008, 01:04
Oh noes! :eek:

why

K^2
14th Aug 2008, 02:58
arent WTO and The Order both the Illuminati? :P

Im pretty sure they where, in DX2; you find out in Trier :)
Yeah. WTO and Order are just branches of Illuminati. They create apparent opposition to gain total control. This is very similar to situation in Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle". Even the fact that one side is more spiritual and other is more militaristic is preserved. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that this is where idea came from. Many of Kurt Vonnegut's themes can be ripped straight into Deus Ex.

Romeo
14th Aug 2008, 03:08
why
Why not?

No, it was because the gentleman above me posted about how the Illumnati watches everything, so I made an intelligent and planned response to his statement.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
14th Aug 2008, 06:01
Wait, I was talking about the NSF. I never mentioned the Omar once in that post. Did you get thrown off by that "underdog" reference? Or did you just feel like bringing them up?

Yes, I did get thrown off by the underdog reference. You carried on from that statement, so I assumed you were commenting on the Omar.
I apologise. :)

Romeo
14th Aug 2008, 06:02
MissDenton, I think we should start an Omar fanclub. =P

Lady_Of_The_Vine
14th Aug 2008, 12:31
A nice idea.... :cool:
... but it may be taking 'Omar Appreciation' a little too far?
:p :D

Jimmy Rabbitte
14th Aug 2008, 23:40
DX3 really needs an anarchistic/libertarian faction.