What Has Discovery Added To Star Trek Lore?

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

NOS makes you just kinda sit and watch the room look like its repeating onto itself, and it's a very funny experience. The sounds you hear also echo over and over, to match the visuals. You disassociate from the world around you for but a moment, but you know you are on something, and it lasts like less than 3 minutes. Again, all of it is hilarious. You will say words just to hear it echo in your head. It doesn't actually make you see things like trees, and you aren't in a state of mind to go running around and stuff. There is a difference between a hallucination like seeing a forest and monsters (like a nightmare or a bad mushroom or acid trip or dmt) and then just visual hallucinations like things looking like they're melting (like a light mushroom or acid trip) or repeating themselves (like NOS or salvia). In this particular situation, I don't think 'laughing gas' is the solution you're looking for.

 

[marsh8472]

NOS makes you just kinda sit and watch the room look like its repeating onto itself, and it's a very funny experience. The sounds you hear also echo over and over, to match the visuals. You disassociate from the world around you for but a moment, but you know you are on something, and it lasts like less than 3 minutes. Again, all of it is hilarious. You will say words just to hear it echo in your head. It doesn't actually make you see things like trees, and you aren't in a state of mind to go running around and stuff. There is a difference between a hallucination like seeing a forest and monsters (like a nightmare or a bad mushroom or acid trip or dmt) and then just visual hallucinations like things looking like they're melting (like a light mushroom or acid trip) or repeating themselves (like NOS or salvia). In this particular situation, I don't think 'laughing gas' is the solution you're looking for.

People react to things differently. I doubt hallucinations have rules that they're supposed to follow. It's also possible that there were additional dangerous gases in the air.

KIRK: We must cure the computer by then or there's no telling what we'll be forced to breathe next. Scotty, how's the door coming?

On every other episode of TOS where they showed the "rec room" I didn't see anything like a holodeck in it. It's not a big deal as far as canon goes. We just aren't completely sure what really happened in that rec room under the circumstances.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

People react to things differently. I doubt hallucinations have rules that they're supposed to follow. It's also possible that there were additional dangerous gases in the air.

I understand why you may think that, but this is like saying some people get high from drinking or drunk from smoking weed because their bodies are different. NOS is not the type of drug that will make you see a forest that you think you can interact with and is comparable to the real world. This is simply not how it works. Hallucinations do have rules they follow in that they and are all different from substance to substance, but remain consistent within the substance. It is an umbrella term for a huge variety of experiences, and the type of hallucination you want to attach to this argument simply does not work.

 

[Nerys Myk]

On every other episode of TOS where they showed the "rec room" I didn't see anything like a holodeck in it. It's not a big deal as far as canon goes. We just aren't completely sure what really happened in that rec room under the circumstances.

You aren't ( for some reason), but the rest of are because we saw the episode. It wasn't some trippy mind game type story designed to leave the viewer with questions.

 

[fireproof78]

We could be seeing a single person's hallucination in that scene even though there appear to be 3 people interacting doesn't mean there are. Or in DS9 episode "Emissary" where sisko was seeing a storm while dax was seeing a sunny day. Who knows

Alright, I'm out. I'll stick with the Occam's Razor on this one. This is basically arguing all the most possible scenarios with no indication of their probability or intention by the authors.

Star Trek is just this-you can't prove otherwise.

And a bonus for the rest of my friends here:

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Sadder than Batman on mother’s day.

I hear both he and superman call it 'Martha's day'

I'll show myself out

 

[Tuskin38]

We just aren't completely sure what really happened in that rec room under the circumstances.

Don’t speak for everyone, considering no one here agrees you with.

 

[marsh8472]

I understand why you may think that, but this is like saying some people get high from drinking or drunk from smoking weed because their bodies are different. NOS is not the type of drug that will make you see a forest that you think you can interact with and is comparable to the real world. This is simply not how it works. Hallucinations do have rules they follow in that they and are all different from substance to substance, but remain consistent within the substance. It is an umbrella term for a huge variety of experiences, and the type of hallucination you want to attach to this argument simply does not work.

When the brain is deprived of oxygen I'm sure seeing a series of visual hallucinations such as a forest and a snow storm is a medical possibility. The brain is capable of all sorts of possible hallucinations when its deprived of oxygen.

Alright, I'm out. I'll stick with the Occam's Razor on this one. This is basically arguing all the most possible scenarios with no indication of their probability or intention by the authors.

Star Trek is just this-you can't prove otherwise.

And a bonus for the rest of my friends here:

Occam's Razor agrees with me. I simply said we can't draw any conclusions from the scene. You're the one wanting to draw conclusions from it. Occam's Razor states that the simpler solution is more likely to be correct than a complex solution. Notice it applies a likelihood to a conclusion rather than an assumption to the conclusion. Since we cannot know for sure, we cannot draw a solid conclusion about what went on in the rec room. I'm not sure how you'd measure better likelihood between visual hallucinations vs holodeck anyway.

It reminds me of Voyager episode "Twisted"

TORRES: But it's not just that we're being led back here. I mean, rooms are in the wrong place. Is it possible that this distortion ring is somehow changing the layout of the ship?
EMH: There is another possibility. Exposure to some types of EM radiation has been known to cause hallucinations. Perhaps it's not the ship that's undergone changes but rather your perception of it. Unfortunately, without my medical equipment to analyse your optic nerves, there's no way to tell.

 

[fireproof78]

Occam's Razor agrees with me. I simply said we can't draw any conclusions from the scene. You're the one wanting to draw conclusions from it. Occam's Razor states that the simpler solution is more likely to be correct than a complex solution. Notice it applies a likelihood to a conclusion rather than an assumption to the conclusion. Since we cannot know for sure, we cannot draw a solid conclusion about what went on the rec room. I'm not sure how you'd measure better likelihood between visual hallucinations vs holodeck anyway.

The simple solution would be the crew are in control and it is then manipulated by the practical joke program in the computer, not a shared hallucination. A shared hallucination is more complex than a computer simulation. It is unlikely that individuals would share hallucinating falling down a hole at the same time.

Also, Occam's Razor also utilizes information we have, such as authorial intent. Which agrees with me.

his episode also includes the first appearance of a holodeck in Star Trek history (and summarily, the "holodeck malfunction"), although it is known here as a recreation room. Gene Roddenberry had intended to introduce a holodeck-type room in the third season of Star Trek: The Original Series; however, budget constraints prohibited it. (Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, p. 404)

One nice thing in this tale is the Rec Room. The idea of using computer holography to create a mock-up of a planet's surface within a room on the starship is nice, and it makes a good deal of sense. Crews on extended space missions would naturally be most happy to at least have the illusion of a planet about them from time to time. On the other hand, in the simulation that room looked awfully small to contain so much! And how, exactly, did the computer dig a pit in the floor for the revellers to fall into?" (The Star Trek Files: The Animated Voyages End, pp. 41-43)

 

[marsh8472]

From Memory Alpha....

"At least one type of recreation room was capable of holodeck-like simulation of environments. By 2270, the Enterprise was outfitted with such a room in area 39 of the ship. This rec room was capable of creating pre-programmed illusions using holographic scenes, simulated weather including wind and temperature, and sounds played from audio tapes. The scenes it created included an 18th century European hedge maze, forests, blizzards, and a beach with seagulls. Even though the scenery extended beyond the room, one would still be able to walk up to and touch the walls during a simulation. (TAS: "The Practical Joker")"

it says this now:

Possibly one type of recreation room was capable of holodeck-like simulation of environments. By 2270, the Enterprise was allegedly outfitted with such a room in area 39 of the ship. This rec room was capable of creating pre-programmed illusions using holographic scenes, simulated weather including wind and temperature, and sounds played from audio tapes. The scenes it created included an 18th century European hedge maze, forests, blizzards, and a beach with seagulls. Even though the scenery extended beyond the room, one would still be able to walk up to and touch the walls during a simulation. (TAS: "The Practical Joker") Although it should be noted that the scene that showed this rec room was also the scene where the people in the room were being exposed to nitrous oxide and possibly other hallucinogens causing them to see what looks, but may not actually be, a holodeck.

 

[marsh8472]

The simple solution would be the crew are in control and it is then manipulated by the practical joke program in the computer, not a shared hallucination. A shared hallucination is more complex than a computer simulation. It is unlikely that individuals would share hallucinating falling down a hole at the same time.

Also, Occam's Razor also utilizes information we have, such as authorial intent. Which agrees with me.

Ocaam's razor would then also suggest that we're more likely seeing a single person's hallucination even though we see multiple people participating in it like what happened in ENT "Doctor's Orders" rather than seeing a shared hallucination. This whole episode defies Ocaam's razor anyway when you think about it: first subatomic particles invade the computer, this makes the computer self-aware and then preforms pranks on the crew then at the end it makes a big balloon the same size as the enterprise to fool Romulans into thinking there are 2 ships. I wouldn't really trust that any of the events of the episode really happened to tell you the truth.

 

[fireproof78]

Ocaam's razor would then also suggest that we're more likely seeing a single person's hallucination even though we see multiple people participating in it like what happened in ENT "Doctor's Orders" rather than seeing a shared hallucination. This whole episode defies Ocaam's razor anyway when you think about it: first subatomic particles invade the computer, this makes the computer self-aware and then preforms pranks on the crew then at the end it makes a big balloon the same size as the enterprise to fool Romulans into thinking there are 2 ships. I wouldn't really trust that any of the events of the episode really happened to tell you the truth.

And I should trust you why?

 

[DaveyNY]

@marsh8472
Still trying to drag everybody under that bridge of yours I see.

And aren't you just the clever one rewriting Memory Alpha info. to suit your insanity.
(which BTW, the folks in charge over there may not take kindly too)

Anyway,

There's just one problem with your editing and it's in the background information included in the citations of the episode...
(which if you fiddle with, will definitely get you banned from being able to edit anything there)

And I quote...

• This episode also includes the first appearance of a holodeck in Star Trek history (and summarily, the "holodeck malfunction"), although it is known here as a recreation room.
• Gene Roddenberry had intended to introduce a holodeck-type room in the third season of Star Trek: The Original Series; however, budget constraints prohibited it. (Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, p. 404)
• D.C. Fontana, who had worked on the first season of TAS but left for its second and later returned to Star Trek to assist with the inaugural season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, was insistent that the TNG writing staff didn't remember this episode when conceiving the holodecks. (Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 1, Issue 17, p. 73)"

Good luck rewriting DC Fontana's memories of that time period.


(Ya know, I'm not really sure the Mods here are going to be all that happy to see you admitting to altering Memory Alpha to suit your needs as well)

 

[fireproof78]

Good luck rewriting DC Fontana's memories of that time period.

 

[Midquest]

Can you explain how nitrous oxide could create a shared hallucination? Otherwise, that edit is not the simplest explanation, not supported by the historical statements of the artists, and not consistent with what appears on screen. Also, by editing that article, you've creating inconsistencies with other articles, which continue to claim that the recreation room did in fact employ holographic technology.

Because the fact remains that the idea that this was the hallucination of one person just isn't supported by the episode, no?

 

[marsh8472]

And I should trust you why?

When Discovery 1x06 came out this topic about holodecks came up, at https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/tech-issue-with-1x06.290833/ , and all people could primarily do is point to TAS "The Practical Joker". Just on the first 2 pages alone the animated series episode was brought up over and over on posts 5, 11, 12, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26, 30 to name a few examples. Next they'll point to the enterprise episode where they shoot at dots. Then they'll point to the future to star trek 6. There's not a whole lot of corroborating evidence there.

That appears to be why people are so insistent here the holodeck shown in TAS was not an hallucination even though no one has proven it wasn't. But the burden of proof is technically on the people arguing they were on holodeck in that scene. Even though no mention of it is seen anywhere else.

Here's the proof that it's not the case that even the memory alpha mentions in VOY "Flashback"

KIM: No replicators, no holodecks. You know, ever since I took Starfleet history at the academy, I always wondered what it would be like to live in those days.

@marsh8472
Still trying to drag everybody under that bridge of yours I see.

And aren't you just the clever one rewriting Memory Alpha info. to suit your insanity.
(which BTW, the folks over there may not take kindly too)

Anyway,
There's just one problem with your editing and it's in the background information included in the citations of the episode...
(which if you fiddle with, will definitely get you banned from being able to edit anything there)

And I quote...

• This episode also includes the first appearance of a holodeck in Star Trek history (and summarily, the "holodeck malfunction"), although it is known here as a recreation room.
• Gene Roddenberry had intended to introduce a holodeck-type room in the third season of Star Trek: The Original Series; however, budget constraints prohibited it. (Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, p. 404)
• D.C. Fontana, who had worked on the first season of TAS but left for its second and later returned to Star Trek to assist with the inaugural seasonof Star Trek: The Next Generation, was insistent that the TNG writing staff didn't remember this episode when conceiving the holodecks. (Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 1, Issue 17, p. 73)"

Good luck rewriting DC Fontana's memories of that time period.

Gene Roddenberry declared TAS non-canon but that doesn't carry any weight, yet that's supposed to matter now. That's about as helpful as quoting a story from a novel, comic, or other non-canon material about the history of holodecks.

 

[marsh8472]

Can you explain how nitrous oxide could create a shared hallucination? Otherwise, that edit is not the simplest explanation, not supported by the historical statements of the artists, and not consistent with what appears on screen. Also, by editing that article, you've creating inconsistencies with other articles, which continue to claim that the recreation room did in fact employ holographic technology.

Because the fact remains that the idea that this was the hallucination of one person just isn't supported by the episode, no?

I never said it was a shared hallucination. We could be seeing an hallucination from a single person's point-of-view

Said that 4 times now:

It could be one person's hallucinating the others being in the same hallucination with that one person. Why use a scene that has hallucinogens in it as proof of anything?

We could be seeing a single person's hallucination in that scene even though there appear to be 3 people interacting doesn't mean there are. Or in DS9 episode "Emissary" where sisko was seeing a storm while dax was seeing a sunny day. Who knows

In "Space Seed" they flooded the ship with neural gas pretty quick.




Not necessarily. In ENT episode "Doctor's Orders" Phlox was with T'Pol even though we found out that T'Pol was also an illusion. From the audience's point-of-view she looked like she was really there with him though. We could be seeing a series of hallucinations being produced by only one of them. We're not given enough information in the episode to rule it out.

Ocaam's razor would then also suggest that we're more likely seeing a single person's hallucination even though we see multiple people participating in it like what happened in ENT "Doctor's Orders" rather than seeing a shared hallucination. This whole episode defies Ocaam's razor anyway when you think about it: first subatomic particles invade the computer, this makes the computer self-aware and then preforms pranks on the crew then at the end it makes a big balloon the same size as the enterprise to fool Romulans into thinking there are 2 ships. I wouldn't really trust that any of the events of the episode really happened to tell you the truth.

But we've seen plenty of shared illusions in episodes like DS9 "Emissary", VOY "Persistence of Vision", VOY "Waking Moments", VOY "Unimatrix Zero", DS9 "Things Past", DS9 "Extreme Measures", VOY "Flashback", Star Trek 5

 

[DaveyNY]

Dude, yer just arguing with yourself now.

The rest of us understand what Roddenberry's intent was with Holodeck's in general and I've shown you actual citations of his intent with "The Recreation Room" in TAS.

His retractions of what is and isn't canon no longer matter, as he has been dearly departed for many years and the Folks In Charge now, have decided he was incorrect.

Whatever you whip outta your arse at this point, is going to be hot gas that dissipates rapidly in a light breeze of logic.

 

[Midquest]

I never said it was a shared hallucination. We could be seeing an hallucination from a single person's point-of-view

Said that 4 times now:

Er, yes. I saw that. And like I said in my post, there's not a single line or moment in the episode that supports a single person's hallucination, is there? If so, can you share it?

But the burden of proof is technically on the people arguing they were on holodeck in that scene. Even though no mention of it is seen anywhere else.

To the contrary, the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to argue for events or conditions beyond those displayed or referenced in the story. One group of people is saying, "What happened on screen is what happened." Note that the rec room is treated as much as a real place as the bridge or mess hall within the story, for instance. But I think you're arguing that something else, unseen and unacknowledged in dialogue--in an animated show that went out of its way to make everything blatantly clear--was happening. The burden of proof ought to fall on the latter, not the former, right?

 

[DaveyNY]

Can you explain how nitrous oxide could create a shared hallucination? Otherwise, that edit is not the simplest explanation, not supported by the historical statements of the artists, and not consistent with what appears on screen. Also, by editing that article, you've creating inconsistencies with other articles, which continue to claim that the recreation room did in fact employ holographic technology.

Because the fact remains that the idea that this was the hallucination of one person just isn't supported by the episode, no?

Yeah, willy-nilly changing of information over at Memory Alpha, can very often bring the Wrath of the Trek Info-Brokers down upon ones head.
Everything done over there is recorded and then checked by much more studious Trek Fans than I.
And they aren't as nice as I am.