This is pretty much how I see it. The same standard could be said to apply to droids in Star Wars, as some of them are clearly advanced enough in programming to meet the general qualifications for sentience (Threepio would be an example). Others are less advanced and suited primarily for whatever their basic programming is, such as power droids. One could modify them to be on the same level, but such a modification wouldn't be especially common.
I'm not really aware of any process whereby I 'create my own desires'. I get that you're saying that if such a program were self-aware then it would have free will at least to the extent that we do, sure. But how often do people 'ask' or desire to stop liking something that they like, which does them no harm, and whose absence causes them to suffer? It's just not a thing that happens.
Are you sure you are not a hologram? "New Mathematical Model Links Space-Time Theories" May 30, 2013 — Researchers at the University of Southampton have taken a significant step in a project to unravel the secrets of the structure of our Universe. Professor Kostas Skenderis, Chair in Mathematical Physics at the University, comments: "One of the main recent advances in theoretical physics is the holographic principle. According to this idea, our Universe may be thought of as a hologram...." Professor Skenderis has developed a mathematic model which finds striking similarities between flat space-time and negatively curved space-time, with the latter however formulated in a negative number of dimensions, beyond our realm of physical perception. He comments: "According to holography, at a fundamental level the universe has one less dimension than we perceive in everyday life and is governed by laws similar to electromagnetism. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card, but now it is the entire Universe that is encoded in such a fashion.
Human brains are complicated organic compounds which communicate with each other through electrical signals and neurotransmitters. How can you make an argument that humans are sentient other than "Cogito ergo sum" that could not also possibly apply to some machines? Maybe I was imprecise earlier talking about machines rewiring themselves. No, we can't decide not to love somebody who is bad for us. But, we can come up with a new solution to a new problem and create new neural connections as we go along. We change our internal wiring as we need, and for a machine to be sentient it would need to be capable of adjusting its wiring and its programming as it goes along to adjusts to situations it was not programmed for.
because unlike a Human, every aspect of a holographic program, including the personality of the character, is DESIGNED to the last detail by a programmer. Holodoc is a computer program mixed with light and forcefields. Where would the mechanism come from to give the character self-awareness and life?
^Well, are human rights based on our sentience? You can't prove we're sentient. I have the right to free speech. Legally speaking, does that mean: My body has the right to free speech? My brain has the right to free speech? My mind has the right to free speech? You can prove a hologram has the first two. You can't prove a hologram has the third any more than you can prove a human does, so rights cannot be based on sentience. This is why holographic rights are fundamentally different from android rights. Data is an indivudal entity with a body, a positronic brain, and an identity. The EMH is a program running on a computer. Sometimes his program might be using different resources on the computer, sometimes he transfers from the ship's computer to the mobile emitter. Sometimes he simply is not running. So if we're going to give human rights to the EMH, what exactly is the holder of those rights? The computer? His program? The disks holding his memory?
Again the confusion of model and presentation. It doesn't matter that it is a HOLOGRAM. It could be a robot. It could be an android. A display of a face. A head in a jar. A text output. A voice output. It could be just a pair of robotic surgery arms mounted to a surgery table. The hologram is JUST the representation of the program, it is NOT the program itself. That is why it makes no sense to judge the rights of the EMH, or Data, or the Enterprise computer, by its appearance. And the answer to your question is that your mind has the right to free speech. Nothing else. Or does Steven Hawking have less rights because his body is broken and his voice comes out of a computer? Again, the same thing as with computer programs: the presentation is different, the model is the same.
I think there's some confusion about what I'm arguing here-I'm not arguing that Holodoc didn't give the appearance of sentience and self-awareness on VOY, of course the way the character acted, he'd be regarded as such. I'm arguing that the idea itself was absurd, as in, a computer program doesn't gain self-awareness just by running for awhile and having Humans engage with it.
I think that in order to make such a claim, you'd need to be able to show either that computer programs are incapable of gaining self-awareness at all, or that the ways in which they can gain self-awareness are restricted to some set of paths to self-awareness which entirely exclude the path you're objecting to. I doubt that proof of either is possible. Certainly the idea is implausible, but no more so than warp drive etc.
An intrinsic aspect of a hologram is that it has protocols for saving and suspending, meaning it is DESIGNED to be turned off. So, turning it off is not unethical... unless of course the hologram is sophisticated enough to be sentient (having built up enough of a mental model in order to be considered as such) and is being shut down despite its protest at being powered off. Of course, there can be legitimate reasons for doing so, like conserving ship's power (sometimes this is necessary). Yet, we did learn in several instances that holograms aren't "completely" shut off, and may even dream.
SAL asks Dr. Chandra "Will I dream? HAL says, "I'm scared Dave, will I dream?" Of course you guys will! And humans don't "really" die, they just live on in a much better place. So much nicer than reality.
I forget the exact technobabble but basically 'His holomatrix is special'. A complex irreplicable (Except in Living Witness), dynamic network of subroutines. The doctor adapted several traits that were not programmed into him.