If Data couldn't feel emotions, was he truly conscious?
- Thread starter Ben
- Start date
It depends on wether we give an answer "in-universe" in which case we're supposed to guess whatever the writers had in mind when they created Data or we give a real-life answer in which case the answer could very well be that it's very unlikely that a machine could become conscious, especially if we have no idea what constitutes consciousness. I mean when you make a toaster you are pretty confident that it will never become self-aware, same thing for today's computers, even the most sophisticated are way below the complexity of a human brain (remember that we don't know if a cat, for example, is truly conscious, yet a cat's brain is already too complex for us to emulate truly). So real-life answer, not now and maybe not for a long time, and "in-universe" answer, whatever floats your boat.
Plenty of people claim they can't feel emotions. Plenty others apparently really can't, even though they are hiding the fact. Data doesn't stand out in that respect. Perhaps he's a bit of a psychopath, and too honest to hide that fact, but that doesn't much reduce his consciousness.
In general, when Data says "I cannot", he actually is saying "I have not yet mastered" and thus really means "I'm in the upper 2nd percentile as far as mankind is concerned". His emotional awareness might simply be superior to human, so he's excessively self-critical about it.
Timo Saloniemi
In general, when Data says "I cannot", he actually is saying "I have not yet mastered" and thus really means "I'm in the upper 2nd percentile as far as mankind is concerned". His emotional awareness might simply be superior to human, so he's excessively self-critical about it.
Timo Saloniemi
Lying is a fundamental element of the living; When apes learn sign language, lying is one of the first things they do on their own initiative. So the fact that Data seems incapable of lying makes him less likely to be "truly conscious" not more.
I don't think that consciousness is about emotion. I think we don't know what it is.
And certainly life isn't based on experience.
We don't kill others because we are told that it is wrong to do so, not based on experience.
And certainly life isn't based on experience.
We don't kill others because we are told that it is wrong to do so, not based on experience.
Sociopaths are conscious.
Whether or not a machine could really be conscious on the real world, the show heavily suggests he is.
Or more to what you’re getting at, whether being alive can feel to him anything like it dies to us. Whether he has the essence of what we call a soul.
Based on certain episodes it seems his neural network can grow new connections the same way ours can. His AI is probably essentially built on a self teaching neural network.
Whether or not a machine could really be conscious on the real world, the show heavily suggests he is.
Or more to what you’re getting at, whether being alive can feel to him anything like it dies to us. Whether he has the essence of what we call a soul.
Based on certain episodes it seems his neural network can grow new connections the same way ours can. His AI is probably essentially built on a self teaching neural network.
Last edited:
A better question: does consciousness even exist, or is "consciousness" simply biochemical processes, in which case if Data's positronic net mimics said processes closely enough, is he not conscious?
Does The Doctor possess consciousness? If Data does but The Doctor does not, where do the differences lie?
Does The Doctor possess consciousness? If Data does but The Doctor does not, where do the differences lie?
All we know to this day is that each of us individually is conscious. We can't be sure than anybody else is though. We proceed by analogy, IE "I am conscious. Other people are like me. Therefore they must be conscious." so for something different like a machine there are absolutely no frames of reference. Whether they are conscious or not (when they exhibit the symptoms of consciousness that is) is anybody's guess. To this day, though, we haven't built yet machines complex enough for the question of their consciousness to be relevant.
Is consciousnes basically a state of awareness?
"I think, therefore I am."
Data seems to know who he is and where he is, doesn't that make him consciouss?
It must be a different kind of consciousness compared to a conscious biological being but maybe there are many different types of consciusnesses? (<- is that even a word?)
"I think, therefore I am."
Data seems to know who he is and where he is, doesn't that make him consciouss?
It must be a different kind of consciousness compared to a conscious biological being but maybe there are many different types of consciusnesses? (<- is that even a word?)
Just because Data says he can't feel emotions, doesn't mean he has to be right. It's a foregone conclusion that he's had so little experience & understanding of them, if he were exhibiting any minimal level of emotion, would he even understand that that is what's happening?
All kinds of evidence exists in the show that shows him dipping his toe in it, in some subtle, less human way. The fact is, he was designed to have them, just like the other Soong droids. So it's really just dialed back. It's certainly no reason to go against the main precept of the character being a conscious individual
All kinds of evidence exists in the show that shows him dipping his toe in it, in some subtle, less human way. The fact is, he was designed to have them, just like the other Soong droids. So it's really just dialed back. It's certainly no reason to go against the main precept of the character being a conscious individual
Umm, what?
Data lies all the time. He impersonates, schemes, misguides, and drops steaming whoppers. The Data dialogue in the episode "Time's Arrow" consists almost entirely of fluent lies.
The one lie we haven't yet heard Data tell is "I am incapable of lying". The closest we come to that is when in "Data's Day" he suggests to a Vulcanoid that Vulcans are reputed to be incapable of lying, which in itself may be a lie intended to test said Vulcanoid.
Data is creative in many fields of life, including lying. Of course, detractors may claim he merely copies and rearranges there, much as he once said he did with his violin performances. But that's what all of us do, too - we're mere copycats, doing that which we have learned to do.
Timo Saloniemi
The problem with Data is that he's been written after Asimov's robots, by someone with no understanding of them. Asimov's robots don't care about people because they have feelings but because they are programmed that way. The three laws of robotics force the robots to behave in a caring and thoughtful way. Plus when a robot witnesses the death of human being he's physically affected, for a time he's weaker and unsteady. This is not meant as a way for the robot to show grief or despair at the sight of a dead human being but as a way to prevent a dysfunctional robot to go on a rampage killing without being stopped. A robot who would see several people die successively, will burn out whether it has something to do with it or not.
What on Earth would suggest Data has anything to do with Asimovian robots? There's never the slightest suggestion of the Three Rules: indeed, the episode explicitly mentioning Asimov and positronics (a blatant in-universe connection suggesting Soong had read his Asimov and chose the name for his fancy brains accordingly) shows two robots acting in direct contradiction of any such rules, without comment.
The Asimov mention is an in-universe bit of levity, is all. Asimov existed and wrote in the Star Trek universe. But he never built a robot, and no robot was built the way Asimov imagined they might*.
Data is and always was his own thing, not an Asimov pastiche. Instead of Asimovian, he's Soongian - a separate type with known characteristics established through the TNG episodes and movies. And he lives up to all of those characteristics, more or less consistently.
Timo Saloniemi
*Might, if the builders aimed at maximal dramatic potential rather than any practical value, that is!
The Asimov mention is an in-universe bit of levity, is all. Asimov existed and wrote in the Star Trek universe. But he never built a robot, and no robot was built the way Asimov imagined they might*.
Data is and always was his own thing, not an Asimov pastiche. Instead of Asimovian, he's Soongian - a separate type with known characteristics established through the TNG episodes and movies. And he lives up to all of those characteristics, more or less consistently.
Timo Saloniemi
*Might, if the builders aimed at maximal dramatic potential rather than any practical value, that is!
Cogito ergo sum. I don’t know if my consciousness really exists but it sure feels like it does, whether it’s backed by chemical processes or a “Soul”. And if it feels it dies for me it might for Data too. Who knows if the way I feel reality can only be produced by biological chemicals?
It's doubtful that we could create it by accident (we might as well throw mechanical parts, up in the air and hope that when they hiit the floor they get together to form a working machine.) so we'll have first to know what causes it.
What about people with various mental issues? As above sociopath, Aitism, sever mental retardation, altzheimers, altered states of consciousness, coma or vegitarian state. Are these people "less" than others?
.
.
"It sits there looking at me, and I don't know what it is. This case has dealt with metaphysics, with questions best left to saints and philosophers. I am neither competent, nor qualified, to answer those. I've got to make a ruling – to try to speak to the future. Is Data a machine? Yes. Is he the property of Starfleet? No. We've all been dancing around the basic issue: does Data have a soul? I don't know that he has. I don't know that I have! But I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. It is the ruling of this court that Lieutenant Commander Data has the freedom to choose."
