The Most Toys...... Oh and Transporters.

[Gingerbread Demon]

I find it funny at the end of "The Most Toys" that Data is about to put a hole into the body of Kevis Fajo but at that same moment the Enterprise finds him and beams him back to the ship with the phaser detected in firing mode.

He later lies about this. Isn't this some kind of emotional response but yet he doesn't have the emotion chip?

Also the transporter can shut off weapons that are in the matter stream. Aren't they like disassembled like the poor passengers in that stream?

 

[Tosk]

You assume he lied. Perhaps something occurred during transport.

Even if he did, lying is not an emotion.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Data never actually said he didn't fire. So, logically speaking, he never lied.

True, he didn't say he DID fire, either. But that, in itself, is not a lie; refusing to admit he fired the disruptor is quite a bit different from *denying* that he did it.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Yeah I don't know. I haven't seen the episode in many, many years but it just never sat right with me the way they wrote those lines after they beam back to the ship. It really did feel like he lied a bit to me.

As to the transporters can they do stuff part way through transport like shut off weapons and stuff? Isn't everything a matter stream?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Being evasive is not the same as lying.

If Data had been ordered to say whether or not he fired, he would have told the truth. But he was never asked that specific question. He did NOT say that he didn't fire, therefore he did not lie.

As for why Data would be evasive? He's a sentient being. That's reason enough. And besides, it's hardly important, since Fajo was alive and soon to be in custody...

 

[Tosk]

Yes, they can shut off weapons in transit.

But Mr. Laser Beam makes a good point. Data didn't straight-up lie. If he did indeed fire, he only implied that he didn't. We can't know for sure. ...Unless we get to read the report he filed afterwards.

 

[Paradise City]

We're to take it that he lied, evaded or dissembled or whatever exacting term that's appropriate. It's supposed to give the episode poignancy and give a crytpic hint that Data is more than the sum of his circuitry. That's why the episode worked with me.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

We're to take it that he lied, evaded or dissembled or whatever exacting term that's appropriate. It's supposed to give the episode poignancy and give a crytpic hint that Data is more than the sum of his circuitry. That's why the episode worked with me.

it worked with me too. It's one of my favourite TNG episodes. But I always found that ending a bit unsettling and always makes me ponder.

 

[Triskelion]

They didn't "deactivate" the disruptor during transport; they simply did not have to reconsitute its power cell or triggering mechanism. "Neutralized" may have been a slightly better of word, to appease us obsessive pedants half a century later.... (And I do include myself in this group).

The decision could have been a purely logical one. "I cannot permit this to continue" - Data is capable of lies of omission and failing to correct erroneous assumptions - as with the episode Clues.

Is there anything in the scripts that says outright he is incapable of lying? If he is sentient, he has free will, and so should be able to make such choices. For example, when he protects other people's feelings, like when he treats the boy like an android, or tries to soften his critique of Picard's painting.

Can I just take a moment to commend a stellar performance by Saul Rubinek in this episode? Bested only by his role on Stargate as the impassioned journalist. Just terrific!

 

[Timo]

As to the transporters can they do stuff part way through transport like shut off weapons and stuff?

In the TNG era, they can. Heck, in DS9, they just rematerialized the bad guys without their guns! But there were many instances where the transportees were manipulated in all sorts of subtle ways.

In TOS, not so much. But we don't have to assume the tech wouldn't be mature by the time of the early TNG seasons already.

Isn't everything a matter stream?

Yup. Which probably makes it easier to manipulate.

The stream isn't an undifferentiated mess. Rather, everything is just as it used to be - it just happens to be in the form of phased matter now, hence can be stored in a tiny tank, sent flying through walls and across space, etc. But it's still the same stuff conceptually: phased matter people are still people, phased matter guns are still guns, and they aren't even kept in stasis (unless the chief hits the specific button) but can move around, breathe the phased matter air around them, and then rematerialize in the exact pose required to conform with the ground contours at their target...

Data is capable of lies of omission and failing to correct erroneous assumptions

Yup.

Is there anything in the scripts that says outright he is incapable of lying?

Nope.

Although if the matter ever arose, Data would no doubt lie that he is incapable of lying! He's also never indicated to be incapable of stealing, killing, switching sides or laughing at you. While he has built-in limiters (stiffness of speech and behavior), those clearly are soft limits he can exceed if he wishes to.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[UnknownSample]

It's problematic enough, the idea that Spock can't lie. Let's not extend that to vague Spock surrogates!

If Data can't lie, then he's pretty thoroughly programmed, to the point of having little or no free will. That's a toaster, not an officer.

The point is that he's basically programmed not to kill. That's more problematic than Spock's pacifism, but never mind. Data gathers himself together, emotionally we presume, having found some emotion within himself, or maybe it was an emotionless equivalent expressed by "This cannot be allowed to continue." He decides to kill. Then we're left to wonder about what was going on within Data, that allowed him to break programming. Was it something human, that wasn't there before?

Then he misled Riker about it. It doesn't matter whether It was technically a "lie" or not. Programming doesn't matter anymore. That ship has sailed. That was broken when he pulled the trigger.

 

[Vandervecken]

We're to take it that he lied, evaded or dissembled or whatever exacting term that's appropriate. It's supposed to give the episode poignancy and give a crytpic hint that Data is more than the sum of his circuitry. That's why the episode worked with me.

Well said. That sums it up for me. And it is a lie of sorts--a lie of omission. Aren't there military oaths that include mental evasion as a category of lie? Presumably there is a Starfleet oath, and I'd think it would include that: prohibiting lies of omission. Likely in Starfleet regs, too, for reports, especially to superiors, ie Riker.

I'd think he'd be caught in it too--Kivas Fajo's version of those last moments aboard his ship would conflict with Data's. Given that they know for a fact that the weapon was firing, they might believe Fajo. On the other hand, they (Enterprise command staff) also might not give a rat's ass what he has to say even if they do believe him. I wouldn't.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Programming wise, this was likely a big moment for Data, a shocking moment (as far as he's capable of being shocked) he couldn't rationalize and felt he needed to shuffle away to his subprocessors and not speak of, maybe even "forget".

I choose to beleive Data is the upstanding officer we saw for several years, who dutifully performed in his duties and filed accurate reports, save only instances were extenuating circumstances messed with him in some way.

In that episode alone we saw how he followed regulation down to ever move while transporting dangerous material.

In another episode where Picard ordered him to not reveal what had happened and then Picard and crew had their memories altered, when Picard finally sniffed that out, even then Data kept his word and further more Picard told Data he's likely be disassembled and striped down to his wires to find out what happened (effectively killing him). Data knows the potential price for dishonesty, especially when he made it a goal and continued goal to enter Starfleet and move up the ranks. Being a liar while in uniform and on duty (just cause we don't know for sure) would certainly seem a poor way to accomplish this, especially given that Starfleet once considered him property and that some officers don't fully trust him; lying wouldn't help either of those.

 

[TheSubCommander]

I agree that Data's defacto lie by omission does show growth in Data's original programming, but I don't think it necessarily indicates he has emotion. Nor does him firing on Fajo indicate malice or emotional response. In fact, I would say that everything he did in Most Toys was a logical response, and likely given the facts he had at the moment, the only response.

We know Data was originally programmed not to kill, but that was prior to him having life experience, and encountering situations where the "no kill" program came into conflict with other programs (IE protect life). For example, after Tasha is killed, Data straight up says to Armus that he should be destroyed. I would argue that when Data pulled the trigger on Fajo, at that time, he didn't know when or if he would be rescued. Data reasoned that Fajo was a cold blooded killer, that if Data did nothing, might escape and kill again. SO, like Armus, he came to a logical conclusion that Fajo needed to be destroyed. Note that logic doesn't always mean moral! Also, it does indicate Data has grown past his original programing, to not kill. In this circumstance, his life experience told him that there are cases where he must over ride his "no kill" programming for what is (or seemed to him) the greater good. In this case, Data was reasoning Fajo could kill again, and needed to be destroyed to prevent that. This isn't all that different than examples of other officers bending the rules with the Prime Directive.

As to his lie by omission, I agree he did it. But again, I think this doesn't necessarily indicate emotion. I think it was more about logically preventing Riker from asking the follow up questions of "Did you fire," and "Were you trying to kill Fajo," which I think Riker actually knew the answer to the questions, so Riker didn't ask. Also, Data knows if he admits to attempting to kill Fajo, this could hurt the chances for prosecuting Fajo. So he does the logical (again, not necessarily the moral) thing to say as little as possible. Fortunate for Data, Riker must have reasoned that since Data fired, there must have been a good reason, and therefore he shouldn't ask any follow up questions. This is again an example that Data has gone beyond his programming, but doesn't necessarily indicate emotion.

 

[Triskelion]

This is an interesting postulate to apply to Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (though Data does not seem to be constrained by them specifically). But if a robot cannot through inaction cause a human being to come to harm - how will its program command it to respond when standing between one human intent on killing the other?

It MUST neutralize the threat. And again, it can be a completely logical decision, levied against the attacker, be they moral or immoral, good or bad.

I guess this is why cops usually arrest the first guy to assault or touch the second guy - not the right vs wrong guy.

Data, of course, has more complex reasoning capabilities. Which extend to being able to extrapolate Fajo would just go on killing for pleasure unless he were neutralized permanently.

Janeway once told Tuvok that you can use logic to justify almost anything, that was its lure. I think that's true, since what motivates people varies, just like what people tend to value. Given enough chance to explain, you can rationalize your actions, but your interpretation of events can be questioned - and you're still bound by the threat of legal action.

Anyway, Asimov's laws strike me as inadequate. In reality, humans commit injury to other humans all the time; especially with technology. How are you going to assure anyone that robots are safe? It's wishful thinking.

 

[TwoJakes]

The point is that he's basically programmed not to kill.

He's the second officer of a giant flying death machine, of course he can kill.

What do you think happen to all those Remans in Nemesis when Data blew up their ship?

 

[UnknownSample]

Well, yeah. I didn't say it made sense. During the episode it seems to, though. Maybe the issue was something close to that, but not programming . .. I remember the collector saying if only Data could feel rage, or something, he could pull the trigger, but his nature or programming prevented it. Then he overcomes that.

 

[Marsden]

I believe he came to the logical conclusion that Fajo was breaking the laws of the Federation and as an authorized agent of said Federation, Data had to stop Fajo. The means were limited and Data chose the means at hand. There is no emotion in this decision.

 

[Vandervecken]

In later books Asimov gave us the zeroth law of robotics, ingrained to some extent in R Daneel Olivaw and his followers:


A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.


In Asimov's stories, it isn't an initially enfolded positronic pathway like the 3 laws, but one that some robots themselves manage to follow and ingrain into their pathways over time. For them, though, actually employing the zeroth law to allow killing a human causes severe damage anyway (as with Dors Venabali) that takes a long time to come back from (with the implication that some don't).

Data doesn't seem to have the really strict 3-law pathways, though. They appear more to be strong guidelines for him. In fact the second law is not part of him--Data has no compulsion to obey humans (or sentients). He obeys his Starfleet superiors, like any Starfleet officer, but that's it. Asimov robots MUST obey a human command. Well actually the 2nd law is kind of dead in later stories, even among non-zeroth law robots, because all of them are secretly babying humanity some way, and no one really knows about them; but in the non-Trantorian Empire/non-Foundation books (I, Robot, Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, Robots of Dawn, etc), they have to obey any human.

Data has much weaker versions of the 2 of the 3 laws (in fact, in him, the third law of robotic self-preservation might be even stronger than some others, while weakest in Asimov robots), but he might have evolved a zeroth law as well. And with him, the zeroth law would be about the same strength as the others, which are not even remotely Asimov strength.

 

[TwoJakes]

Data doesn't seem to have the really strict 3-law pathways

The three laws were just programming, a robot that didn't receive that programming would not have that programming.