Emergency ....Medical? Hologram???

[Hando]

^Well, there are Emergency Holograms of the three types in STO.

But there are additional points:

1. What is the difference between regular (entertainment) holograms and dedicated/professional holograms?
We have seen regular holograms that were the same as the real person. So why can't I just create a holographic McCoy and let him heal people?

2. The problem of "memory"/"run time". This is connected to my 1. point. The longer a hologram runs the more unstable it becomes and requires a restart/reboot - kind of like Windows.
A regular hologram has a run time of a month, a emergency a year and the long-term five years.
So you could have a emergency hologram on ships within or near the UFP. And a long-term on explorers where the hologram cannot be restarted because it needs the knowledge on the new species encountered on the current mission.
This was the problem with Voyager's EMH, they could have restarted him, but as it would rob him of his memories they searched for a different way.

3. Why there was a Medical hologram, well perhaps Zimmerman had to create one because Barcley's hypochondria was getting on his nerves. And if the Medical one would have been successful, he would go on to create different types.

4. ESecurityH, just what weapons would they have? Holographic phasers? Could a holoemitters handle so much power?

5. Reachability. Already the Prometheus had holoemitters everywhere? But is accessibility the only requirement? In Engeneering: Perhaps it is faster for a human to just jump to his death and press the button to release something then it is to call a EEH and explain to it what it should do.

6. Human in the machine. Something we have seen in M-5 and EMH (just basic arrogance, at the time when he adapted too many personalities). At the same time what constitutes an emergency...

7. AI rights. If you give human rights to AIs, just how do you create more an actually use them?

[Timo]

Random points:

Medical emergencies are relatively rare, and between them there is very limited need for medical personnel. It's nice to have a "stowable" doctor, then.

Engineering emergencies may be rare, too, but an emergency system reliant on engineering doesn't make for a very good system for fighting an engineering emergency. You don't want a repairman who shuts down when things go haywire. You want a permanent repairman who can bring your emergency systems (including EMHs) back online in an emergency. Plus, engineers need to monitor things constantly between emergencies, unlike medics who only do very occasional checkups. You don't want to stow away your engineers, nor do you really want to have more than the exact number needed to care for the systems you have onboard, not even in emergencies.

Security emergencies may be very regular on certain types of mission, but generally they are rare. You need a lot of humanoid-shaped bodies to deal with a typical security emergency (as opposed to medical emergencies where just a few extra hands will do, and engineering emergencies where extra hands will only get in the way), and basically none outside emergencies, so "stowability" is very important.

However, security emergencies can also be handled by non-humanoid projections. Medics need to be humanoid to help humanoids, perhaps not in terms of efficiency but in important terms of psychological comfort. Engineers need to be compatible with systems normally operated by humanoids. But an emergency security projection might take the (transparent or invisible) shape of an octopus with a weapon in each tentacle, or of an impenetrable barrier, or of a fierce-looking beast.

Timo Saloniemi

[The Wormhole]

Also, if there was a security emergency too serious for the reuglar security force to handle, it would be far more practical to give any available officer and crewman a phaser and have them help fighting the enemy. After all, combat training is presumably part of Starfleet basic.

[Dream]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Also, if there was a security emergency too serious for the reuglar security force to handle, it would be far more practical to give any available officer and crewman a phaser and have them help fighting the enemy. After all, combat training is presumably part of Starfleet basic.

Emergency Force fields would take care of nearly all security problems on board the ship.

The only really dangerous situations are for those that go on away missions. I still think it is ridiculous how many redshirts died on Kirk's watch.

[T'Girl]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Daystrom was a bit nuts himself, so naturally the M-5 also was.

And Zimmerman?

[Anji]

Sorry. No Emergency Medical Holograms on my ship. Real doctors treating real people.

[CoveTom]

Dream wrote:

---

Emergency Force fields would take care of nearly all security problems on board the ship.

I think we've seen ample evidence that emergency force fields, while great in theory, are rarely sufficient on their own to stop security problems on board starships.

[Tosk]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

Holograms are tools.

Especially that one played by Andy Dick AM I RIGHT?!

Sorry. Got a little carried away there.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Are we sure those redshirts and other security officers were not, in fact, holograms?

[Timo]

I think we've seen ample evidence that emergency force fields, while great in theory, are rarely sufficient on their own to stop security problems on board starships.

On the other hand, adversaries capable of defeating forcefields are typically also capable of defeating live security people with at least equal ease.

Live personnel are mainly an asset in the intelligence gathering aspect of security work. In a flat-out fight, forcefields and live troopers are equally vulnerable. But if the task is one of tracking a suspect, there are a number of ways the suspect can thwart dumb machinery or render intelligent machinery dumb, including "nonviolent" ones, ones even a mild-mannered opponent might resort to (because even gentle crooks seldom think that brutally murdering a computer would be a bad thing, but they will stop short of slaying live eyewitnesses). So, sending a pair of redshirts to chase after a criminal may well be smarter than tracking the criminal on cameras or other, more futuristic sensors.

Also, using live security personnel may have a calming effect similar to using fierce dogs or frighteningly large horses: even hardened villains find the animals both cute and intimidating at the same time, and will yield more easily than in the face of water cannon and armored vehicles.

Timo Saloniemi

[Bry_Sinclair]

Why have a security force that could be programmed to turn against your crew, have its morality switched turning them into murderers, or deleted altogether?

Yes, I know flesh and blood crew could be brain-washed, mentally unbalanced or killed, but I'd always feel much happier with a real person watching my back than a hologram--at least I know a real person would be trying to force the non-issue of holographic rights down my throat!

[TiberiusMaximus]

As much as the idea of "holographic rights" might seem ridiculous from a real-world point of view, it's definitely not a non-issue within the Trek universe because holograms are capable of reaching sentience. And as Optimus Prime would say, "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."

If artificial intelligences could not attain sentience, Bry, what does that say about Data? How is he any different from Voyager's EMH? The only real difference is what their bodies are made of. If humans (or Vulcans, or whatever) can create a sentient positronic life-form, why can't they create a sentient holographic lifeform?

[Photonic]

Lots of good points.

1. Its clear starfleet lacks military knowledge. A private fresh out of boot today could critique all the tactical errors in startrek.

2. Good call on the rights of sentient holograms. but who says they have to be sentient? depending on the complexity of their subroutines they can be sentient, or they can be simple machines. After all, even humans are machines. Complex ones. In VOY - flesh and blood belanna thought just as I did. "you liberated MINDLESS machines". And she was correct. it begged the question, even the holograms use consoles, ships, and machines. Their very own logic could be used against them. What if the ship had a computer core that was itself capable of sentience ...would the holograms not be guilty of using it as a tool? They use machines all the time as well. They also take them for granted because they do not recognize them as beings..until it begins to think for itself, then they fight for their own ideals. Or in their own logic they said "it doesnt MATTER they are children of LIGHT and I will LIBERATE THEM". This would be akin to us saying a virus deserves the same respect. After all...we could always genetically engineer it to grow into a multicellular sentient life form right? no one has a right to kill a virus .....

A hologram need only be as simple as todays drones and autonomous weapons. They need only identify friend or foe, they only need to rove the ship and only need to discharge weapons on foes. This is doable with todays technology using non photonic machines, and it hardly involves sentience.

To those questioning them being reprogrammed ....or some other stuff. really ....think a boarding situation through. I mean seriously ...tactically ..beginning to end. And if you think our military is even NOW ..near as "inept" as starfleet at intelligence leaks ..and tech problems ..think again. Encryption is a big deal and there are actually procedures and contingencies in place. Hundereds of times in startrek I find myself going "WAIT .....you know what could happen right??? why isnt your crew standing by to execute contingencies ...why do you even NEED to send a command??"

Startrek is mostly Plot moving ... very little actual science and very little military aptitude. it would be easiest to refute on a case by case basis.

My fav eps are always the philosophy ones . Inner light, who watches the watchers, all good things, the host! very good one Even the borg eps. Even though ..The borg would be easy to beat o.O

[Bry_Sinclair]

TiberiusMaximus wrote:

---

As much as the idea of "holographic rights" might seem ridiculous from a real-world point of view, it's definitely not a non-issue within the Trek universe because holograms are capable of reaching sentience. And as Optimus Prime would say, "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."

If artificial intelligences could not attain sentience, Bry, what does that say about Data? How is he any different from Voyager's EMH? The only real difference is what their bodies are made of. If humans (or Vulcans, or whatever) can create a sentient positronic life-form, why can't they create a sentient holographic lifeform?

In my mind Data's status is partly because of his unique nature.

In "The Measure of a Man", it is Data (not artificial lifeforms as a whole) that is given equal status, so what he achieves isn't immediately applicable to Lore (Juliana Tainer would be a grey area however, seeing as she doesn't know she's an android). B4 would need a ruling of his own (just because he looked to become Data 2.0 doesn't mean he is Data, his more simplistic manner might mean he is incapable of making the same choices and decisions). B'Elanna states in "Prototype" that Starfleet has lots of robots but only one (Data) has equal status.

It is obviously extremely difficult to build such a complex and advanced android (Data only tries it once, and all of Doctor Soong's earlier versions were a bust) that is capable of achieving sentience--otherwise we'd see at least one on every ship and station in Starfleet. It is this uniqueness that gives Data his own place within the Federation, where he has the same rights as a flesh and blood person.

Holograms are a dime a dozen. Yes there are those who have are sentient so as to perform various tasks and roles (the EMH programmes, Vic Fontaine, Professor Moriarty), but the vast majority are programmed to be characters. Would a ruling on holographic rights apply to all of them (would T'lana from Vulcan Love Slave refuse to participate due to the exploitative nature of the programme) or just those deemed sentient, and what would be the definition of that requirement? And when holograms can be so easily made and manipulated, would that not mean that any and all of them could be upgraded and deemed sentient--which would destroy countless programmes if a character decided not to play their role or wanted another part.

What then does that mean for a starship's computer core? Depending on the definition of sentience for holograms, couldn't it be applied to advanced computers? It would never end.

Had it just been the Doctor looking to be recognised as a unique individual, for all he had developed, learnt and experienced, I would be more willing to accept the concept. Though for all holograms just seems ridiculous to me.

But then, that is just how I see things.

[Christopher]

It's a valid point that all holograms are not created equal. Instead of "holographic rights," the issue should be one of sentient rights in general, with any sentient being -- whether organic, silicone-based, cybernetic, psionic energy matrix, or whatever -- entitled to the same rights regardless of origin. Although then you do get into the tricky question of how to prove sentience and whether such tests are even ethical (do only AIs have to prove their sentience or should everyone have to?).

After all, strictly speaking, it's a bit inaccurate to refer to the Doctor or Moriarty as "a hologram." Rather, they are AIs that reside inside starship computer mainframes (or inside a mobile emitter or other computer unit) and that use holographic bodies as their interfaces with the physical world. So defining it in terms of the hologram rather than the animating AI is kind of missing the point.