In that episode I always wondered why they didn't ask for orphans from Federation planets. From other episodes, we find out there are planets that have broken down and have plenty of homeless kids (Bloodlines). Also, it was quite a coincidence that the Aldeans were humans.
In Evolution, Wesley has two nanites in a container. He leaves the lid off and they somehow "escape". How do they escape from a container? They are microscopic robot devices.
This is absolute gibberish. A human IS a hominid, just as an android IS a robot. As for generic ideas by their very definitions they apply to every member of a group, specific ideas apply to a restricted portion of the group. Whoever wrote that dialogue is either an ignoramus or he was drunk at the moment and that's the most charitable assumptions that I can make.
Maybe they're equipped with a tiny rotor, like microscopic helicopters.![]()
Well, not. Specific things about a subgroup are what matters here: "I am a human, therefore not a mere hominid, and you have to credit me with the ability to compose opera even though this is not inherent in the generic hominid" is a relevant thing to say. The dialogue is perfectly fine as is.
...Save for the nuance that in our RW parlance, "android" would merely specify a humanlike body for the robot, whereas in Trek this technical term has gained some other aspects having to do with mental powers or whatnot (that is, Data is humanlike in thought as well as in body). But that's what happens with technical lingo ITRW, too.
Timo Saloniemi
One I rewatched last week and stuck in my mind as weird:
Suspicions: Dr. Crusher runs a murder investigation because reasons (pretty dumb by itself). Her big breakthrough in the case is99 finding evidence of tetryon particles on the body, which Data told her would specifically (hypothetically) be caused by someone trying to sabotage the shuttle *via a technobabble beam from the Enterprise*. The episode then reveals it was the dead body all along. He faked his death and sabotaged the shuttle experiment *from inside the shuttle*.
I seriously don't want to start a religious debate or anything, but I'm genuinely curious which type of "religious people" are you talking about? Because not all of them feel the way you are stating here, nor are they all "against" Star Trek for this reason, especially if someone like that also believes that mere self-awareness is not a proof, like you say non-religious people tend to believe.What's funny is that ST has all the religious people against them (since to all of them only god can create a mind and that it's even sacrilegious to think otherwise, humans, can merely emulate one) and most of the non-religious ones as I for one don't think that exhibiting the mere symptoms of self-awareness is a proof of it.
I seriously don't want to start a religious debate or anything, but I'm genuinely curious which type of "religious people" are you talking about? Because not all of them feel the way you are stating here, nor are they all "against" Star Trek for this reason, especially if someone like that also believes that mere self-awareness is not a proof, like you say non-religious people tend to believe.
I am not saying that they are against ST, a good many probably like ST in spite of that. But religious people think that some things are the exclusive domain of god and among these the power to create a soul, IE a self-aware mind. That's not true of course of non-religious people. Plus I never said anything about "mere self-awareness", pay attention, please. I said that symptoms of self-awareness are not proof of it, that is it's not because a being does all the song and dance traditionally associated with self-awareness that we can conclude that he's self-aware. Just as an actor can play anger without being angry.
..., then wouldn't it be likely that that person also believes something that exhibits qualities of self-awareness to not truly be self-aware?
I apologize if this is coming off obtuse and confusing, because that's not how I'm meaning it.
Yes, I realize that. I just read your earlier post as implying that Person A's beliefs are mutually exclusive from Personal B's beliefs, which I now know is not what you meant.True (the bolded part). But that's not relevant to anything I said.
what does Riker hope to accomplish
Adding the "James T. Kirk impersonator of the year" award to his trophy case.![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.