|
Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions. If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name. |
|
|||||||
| The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
Commander
Location: North Carolina
|
Another Data question....
__________________
Darling, you remain as aesthetically pleasing as the first day we met. I believe I am the most fortunate sentient in this sector of the galaxy. |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
To boldly go...
Location: Kansas City
|
Re: Another Data question....
Get back to us on why there aren't 1000s of Datas walking around. There also does seem to be a technological hurdle in creating a stable "positronic" brain to operate a sapient android. Soong was only able to do it twice with Lore and Data (B4 (Nemesis) was too dim to be considered "sapient" or as "alive" as Data.) Even Data's attempt to do it didn't work out. Creating a positronic brain behind a sentient/sapient android seems to be more than the sum of its parts requiring an absolute level of perfection and even if you pull it off it seems that even then there's a chance it won't work. We can infer that since Data is able to be transported that the perfection need only be on the quantum level but replicators in trek operate on the molecular level. Even if you had a "quantum replicator" (requiring loads of energy to produce something) there still just might be a "quality" that is needed to reproduce a Soong-Type Android that a replicator might not be able to reproduce. Keep in mind how absolutely special Data is in terms of all of the androids we've seen in Trek. We've seen plenty but rarely depicted as self-thinking, autonomous, beings. Simply machines that "act human." Which is different than being human. That's what special about Data, he's not completely driven by facts and programming. He's able to freely think and even create. That's what makes Data special. He's a lot more than "just a machine." That's not likely to be something that can easily be replicated even if you know absolutely everything there is to know. It could be a delicate balance of all sorts of things on levels of creation that even if one speck of a chip or connection isn't 100% perfect the whole thing doesn't work. The quantum level construction of Data's entire being pretty much being like our DNA. If something in our DNA is even slightly abnormal you can be born with any number of defects hastening your death, shortening your life-span or crippling some aspect of your life. If you get to be born at all. There's so much complexity to Data that he can't "just be duplicated." He himself even supposed that if his memories were transfered to a computer memory and then back to his body there'd be a "quality" or "substance" to them that'd be lost that only his own positronic mind can sustain. One could -hypothetically- figure out how every neuron in your head is laid out down to quantum levels and then duplicate it making a perfect copy of your brain. But any consciousness in that brain wouldn't be you. If we did this to preserve your life by copying you into a machine-body there's be a loss of consciousness or some "spark" that makes it all that is you special. What results is a poor imitation and copy. Life is a lot more complex than just copying what is done. It may work on some level when we get to single-celled organisms, or similar absolutely tiny lifeforms but the more complex the system the greater likelihood there is a chance at failure. Data is about as complex as it can get.
__________________
Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical. |
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Another Data question....
You forgot Juliana Tainer in "Inheritance".
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion) The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Another Data question....
We have never gotten the impression that Starfleet would be lacking in manpower. Being a Starfleet employee is a privilege people compete for; creating employees on an assembly line would be an affront running contrary to the interests of both Starfleet and its employees. Nor do we get the impression that Starfleet would be dissatisfied with the muscular power or computing power of the employees it does have. Starfleet personnel, like supposedly all personnel everywhere, have access to machinery that does all the real work; they themselves are there for the adventure and for the human(oid) touch. Giving the adventure and the touch over to the machines is not a goal or even an option. Androids in the 24th century are something of a triviality, a useless curiosity that nobody bothers with. Sentient machines have their uses and their place in the society. Cramming a sentience into an android is a technological feat of sorts, which is apparently why Noonian Soong chose it as the way to demonstrate his mastery of positronics - but it's not useful, merely spectacular. And while spectacles come in all shapes and sizes, megalomania is not common in our heroes and sidekicks; creating a single perfect sentient android (while keeping decades of previous research secret because it was a hair's breadth short of perfection) is more appealing to Soong than creating 4.7 million sentient androids that would dance the perfect Swan Lake in front of the Federation Science Academy but stumble on properly smiling an embarrassed smile at the applause. Sure, Data is unique. But that is no reason to try and have another Data. Indeed, it's a very good reason not to. Timo Saloniemi |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Re: Another Data question....
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Rear Admiral
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
|
Re: Another Data question....
the moral question was about them being slaves. What if they built thousands and thousands of Datas and let them make their own choice about whether to join Starfleet or not? That solves the slavery issue by having them volunteer. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Re: Another Data question....
And they would still have to address the implications of literally creating a new race, and what the creators' obligations and responsibilities are to that race. They would be jumping into a moral quagmire for no real purpose. |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Another Data question....
In any case, sentient holograms are probably cheaper to make than androids. "Voyager" already pondered this question with the EMH in episodes and in the first few post-"Endgame" Relaunch novels.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion) The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Fleet Captain
|
Re: Another Data question....
As impressive a design as his body is, the real magic of Soong's work was in the mind of Data |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Another Data question....
Data himself later saw a purpose in multiplication, too. The slavery thing was always but a straw man and certainly had nothing to do with Maddox' motivations for studying Data - yet OTOH probably would have been no problem for the Federation morally, considering their use of comparably sentient AIs with holographic rather than android bodies later on. Timo Saloniemi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Re: Another Data question....
Did they ever address the moral questions involved in sentient holographic AIs in the later shows? Just curious. I have barely a passing familiarity with what came after TNG. |
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Admiral
|
Re: Another Data question....
We do know that holograms are seldom considered to be sentient and treated with appropriate respect - even though much of holoentertainment is based on the holocharacters convincingly faking sentience. The big moral question thus seems to be whether faking of sentience is grounds for respect or not, and whether faking can be told apart from the putative real thing. Should we politely say hello to window dressing dummies because they look like us, just in case? This issue is implicit in the holodeck-heavy stories of VOY, but never really explicit. Our heroes treat characters as sentient within the context of a program, but simply turn them off (or turn them into weapons) when more pressing matters arise. They do the same to the EMH, who sometimes is miffed. Or does he only fake being miffed? It is rather logical for Data and the holograms to be viewed so differently as regards their (possibly faked) humanness. Data is a unique miracle of technology; holograms are household items, and have been that at least since Janeway's youth. Timo Saloniemi |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Captain
Location: Brooklyn NY
|
Re: Another Data question....
I am now the proud owner of Immortal Coil, which was downloaded to my kindle moments ago
__________________
The bureaucratic mentality is the only constant in the universe. -Dr. McCoy, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Rear Admiral
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
|
Re: Another Data question....
the "sentient hologram" storyline always seemed a bit silly to me. Data was at least built to be a self-aware being who could make his own choices. Holograms are totally programmed characters designed from a computer. It would be like a video game character becoming self-aware. If you played "arkham city" long enough does Batman become self-aware? |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | ||
|
Commander
|
Re: Another Data question....
![]() Seriously, though, it's rather a blurry line as to what makes a hologram sentient. Is it simply the knowlegde that they ARE a hologram. As seen in "The Big Goodbye", seemingly any hologram can learn that. |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.













I am now the proud owner of Immortal Coil, which was downloaded to my kindle moments ago





