Is the Holographic Doctor...a real lifeform?

[HoundDog]

I personally felt they started out doing to to endulge Kes.

While Kes had some wisdom, her innocence made her see the EMH as "real" much like how a kid believes his/her toys are "real" and "alive".

If the holdecks are the equivalent to complete and totally interactive video games, then isn't the doctor no different than an interactive SIMS man?

You certainly have a point. But IMO the difference between an "interactive SIMS man" and the doctor is, that the doctor is aware of his own nature and therefore can reflect about. An "interactive SIMS man" that isn't aware of being what he is can't reflect about his nature and - because of that - can't overcome his original programming. The doctor can - and he did, as the series showed.

But SIMS by the 24th century(the way video game technology alone is progressing)would be just like the EMH.

Think about it, why have and interactive SIMS type man if he couldn't behave like a regular human being. Interactive games are meant to bring you into that world as if it were real, right?

Well, than SIMS man with these characteristics should be considered as lifeforms.
But, as it was shown in the trek-universe, there is a difference between the doctor and a regular holodeck-character. Both are interactive, but a regular holodeck-character is not aware of his own nature and thus can't overcome his initial programming. Because of this, he isn't alive - he can't leave "the game", the EMH can.

 

[exodus]

You certainly have a point. But IMO the difference between an "interactive SIMS man" and the doctor is, that the doctor is aware of his own nature and therefore can reflect about. An "interactive SIMS man" that isn't aware of being what he is can't reflect about his nature and - because of that - can't overcome his original programming. The doctor can - and he did, as the series showed.

But SIMS by the 24th century(the way video game technology alone is progressing)would be just like the EMH.

Think about it, why have and interactive SIMS type man if he couldn't behave like a regular human being. Interactive games are meant to bring you into that world as if it were real, right?

Well, than SIMS man with these characteristics should be considered as lifeforms.
But, as it was shown in the trek-universe, there is a difference between the doctor and a regular holodeck-character. Both are interactive, but a regular holodeck-character is not aware of his own nature and thus can't overcome his initial programming. Because of this, he isn't alive - he can't leave "the game", the EMH can.

Ok, I can buy that.


However with that being said, is the Doctor unique? ...........or should his "others" be created more like him?

Also, is the Doctor still considered property of Starfleet?

Is he a slave?

 

[Triskelion]

No but the other EMH Mark I's are kept as menial laborers. However it is unlikely that they have achieved sentience, so are tools.

I think that Admiral Janeway would have a lot of influence on how Starfleet would treat the EMH. She has averred that he is a member of her crew. He wasn't granted citizenship or human rights, but he did win a case for having legal author rights. So he does have some rights under the law.

This question of Starfleet property was addressed in TNG's Offspring, where Lal was to be handed over to Starfleet. It was Captain Picard who defended her rights as an individual and he was prepared to give up his career for it.

Which leads one to conclude that - given what we have seen - any claim to ownership of the EMH would almost certainly be battled out in court before his status could be determined.

It's a gray area and frankly a pretty interesting idea for a story....

I just don't think anyone would be clamoring to make copies of him. Not even himself.

 

[HoundDog]

But SIMS by the 24th century(the way video game technology alone is progressing)would be just like the EMH.

Think about it, why have and interactive SIMS type man if he couldn't behave like a regular human being. Interactive games are meant to bring you into that world as if it were real, right?

Well, than SIMS man with these characteristics should be considered as lifeforms.
But, as it was shown in the trek-universe, there is a difference between the doctor and a regular holodeck-character. Both are interactive, but a regular holodeck-character is not aware of his own nature and thus can't overcome his initial programming. Because of this, he isn't alive - he can't leave "the game", the EMH can.

Ok, I can buy that.


However with that being said, is the Doctor unique? ...........or should his "others" be created more like him?

Also, is the Doctor still considered property of Starfleet?

Is he a slave?

I'm not sure whether it had been addressed if the Doctor is still considered property of Starfleet or not, but as Triskelion already said, it was shown that he gained some rights during VOYs run. And Cpt. Janeway definitely did not see him as a property/tool at the end of the series (I think the episode "Latent Image" marks an important point in this development).
And whether the EMH is unique... well, there had been other holographic characters that had a similar degree of awareness - DS9 Vic Fontaine comes to my mind (if I'm not totaly mistaken). Given certain circumstances, even holodeck-characters could develop self-awareness (I know it hurts, but anyone remember "Spirit Folk"?) So I would say he's not unique.
Regarding your last question: I think the EMH is not a slave, but my argument is kinda week, so I'm not going into detail here - I have to think this over.

 

[Unicron]

Yeah, I'm not sure about Vic's status - he was certainly aware of what he was and the limitations of his programming, and he was aware of the crew. But I got the impression that was partially his programming, as opposed to the sentience the Doctor developed through Voyager's situation. I seem to also recall that "It's Only A Paper Moon" suggested Vic gained something because Nog ran his program for so long. But my memory is fuzzy.

 

[HoundDog]

I think Vic said something like about enjoying to have an actual life and not being deactivated when the programme wasn't in use in "It's only a Papermoon". Weren't they even allowing him to run his programme for 26 hours a (bajoran) day after that experience? I seem to remember something like that.

 

[Michael]

^ Yeah, that's true.

 

[Unicron]

Cool. I haven't seen the ep in a long while, so I can't trust my brain for clarity.

 

[exodus]

Well, than SIMS man with these characteristics should be considered as lifeforms.
But, as it was shown in the trek-universe, there is a difference between the doctor and a regular holodeck-character. Both are interactive, but a regular holodeck-character is not aware of his own nature and thus can't overcome his initial programming. Because of this, he isn't alive - he can't leave "the game", the EMH can.

Ok, I can buy that.


However with that being said, is the Doctor unique? ...........or should his "others" be created more like him?

Also, is the Doctor still considered property of Starfleet?

Is he a slave?

I'm not sure whether it had been addressed if the Doctor is still considered property of Starfleet or not, but as Triskelion already said, it was shown that he gained some rights during VOYs run. And Cpt. Janeway definitely did not see him as a property/tool at the end of the series (I think the episode "Latent Image" marks an important point in this development).
And whether the EMH is unique... well, there had been other holographic characters that had a similar degree of awareness - DS9 Vic Fontaine comes to my mind (if I'm not totaly mistaken). Given certain circumstances, even holodeck-characters could develop self-awareness (I know it hurts, but anyone remember "Spirit Folk"?) So I would say he's not unique.
Regarding your last question: I think the EMH is not a slave, but my argument is kinda week, so I'm not going into detail here - I have to think this over.

The EMH gained rights on Voyager but "Author, Author" showed he has none under the Federation.

However, I think if we(all of us) are going to address if the Doctor is a lifeform is he also property of Starfleet?

 

[Turbo]

However, I think if we(all of us) are going to address if the Doctor is a lifeform is he also property of Starfleet?

I don't think so. He is the creation of a Starfleet scientist (Dr. Zimmerman), but that could be interpreted as being Zimmerman's child. Children aren't property. And I don't think that the Doctor is.

Also, using the other Mark I's to determine the Doctor's status is not a good comparison, because only the Doctor has challenged the rights that the Federation grants him. The status of the other Mark I's hasn't been examined by Starfleet at all.

 

[exodus]

However, I think if we(all of us) are going to address if the Doctor is a lifeform is he also property of Starfleet?

I don't think so. He is the creation of a Starfleet scientist (Dr. Zimmerman), but that could be interpreted as being Zimmerman's child. Children aren't property. And I don't think that the Doctor is.

Also, using the other Mark I's to determine the Doctor's status is not a good comparison, because only the Doctor has challenged the rights that the Federation grants him. The status of the other Mark I's hasn't been examined by Starfleet at all.

The Doc is are Mark 1, just like the rest of them. Even the Doctor himself doesn't see himself as being better than other holograms.

 

[Triskelion]

But he would acknowledge his sea change into a sentient crew member with "a life". I'm reminded of his stark contrast with Andy Dick's 2 dimensional EMH Mark II on the Prometheus.

 

[exodus]

But he would acknowledge his sea change into a sentient crew member with "a life". I'm reminded of his stark contrast with Andy Dick's 2 dimensional EMH Mark II on the Prometheus.

Wasn't "Flesh & Blood" & "Author, Author" all about the Doctor's fight for equality because he saw all holograms as equals and worthy of rights? Didn't those holgrams as well as the MARK II have independant thought and the ability to grow beyond their programming too?

 

[HoundDog]

But he would acknowledge his sea change into a sentient crew member with "a life". I'm reminded of his stark contrast with Andy Dick's 2 dimensional EMH Mark II on the Prometheus.

Wasn't "Flesh & Blood" & "Author, Author" all about the Doctor's fight for equality because he saw all holograms as equals and worthy of rights? Didn't those holgrams as well as the MARK II have independant thought and the ability to grow beyond their programming too?

But did the Doctor really see all holograms as equal? He's using the Holodeck, and he surely does not think holodeck-characters are equal to him, or does he? I'm just imagining Dr. Chaotica having federation citizenship...
It's again this difference between self-aware holograms and not self-aware holograms - for example the mining-holograms Iden wanted to liberate in Flesh&Blood but couldn't, cause they were just programmed to work.
Btw, there is another interesting question regarding this: Iden argued, the mining holograms were enslaved, because their creators hadn't programmed them with sentience-/personality-subroutines. But were they really? Could a hologram be called a slave because his program doesn't include "personality"?

 

[exodus]

Wouldn't such a thing make the Doctor racist against his own kind?

Would we view someone who is paralyzed as less human because they couldn't walk? Wouldn't a hologram with no programmed personality be equal to some who is mentally disabled to us?

 

[Triskelion]

The Doctor would not argue for the individual rights of a medical tricorder. Why should he view a basic hologram as anything other than a tool? Remember his arguments with the Diva? I'd hardly call that equal regard!

But the Iden situation was brought about after the Hirogen had augmented the Starfleet holograms into being able to think for themselves, and that's why he fought for their rights.

Anyway these arguments seem like fertile ground for further exploration in story.

 

[HoundDog]

Wouldn't such a thing make the Doctor racist against his own kind?

Would we view someone who is paralyzed as less human because they couldn't walk? Wouldn't a hologram with no programmed personality be equal to some who is mentally disabled to us?

Yeah, but a basic hologram that never had a programmed personality is not much more than a tool, while a mentally disabled person still has a personality and - in most cases - the ability to express it.

 

[exodus]

The Doctor would not argue for the individual rights of a medical tricorder. Why should he view a basic hologram as anything other than a tool? Remember his arguments with the Diva? I'd hardly call that equal regard!

We he aren't debating if a tricorder is a life form, we know it isn't.

How do we know for certain that other holograms can adapt and grow like the EMH? The ones on the holodeck are programed to act and react to it's environment and to people using it. The ones in Fair Haven knew when their "world" was being tampered with. Anything that happens within the holodeck the EMH is prown too as well. The only thing that seperates him from them is his level of intelligence.

 

[Timo]

So basically the situation is close to that of humans vs. dogs. We know dogs are a lifeform, and we know humans are a lifeform. We can argue that dogs are fundamentally different from us, in ways that really matter. Or we can argue dogs are just a less intelligent form of ourselves, with all the potential hidden somewhere in there - or that we are a less perfect form of dogs, with lots of unused doggy potential.

However, this doesn't lead to the argument that dogs and humans should have equal rights. Rather, to put dogs and humans in equal or at least mutually workable position, they each require their own, different set of rights. And rabbits or cicadas would require yet other, different sets.

So it would make no sense for Starfleet or the Federation to summarily declare all machines sentient just on the basis of a court session or two on Data or Lal or the Doctor. It would all have to be case by case. And two EMHs running on identical hardware built on the same day might well be more different from each other than the average human is from the average cicada.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Triskelion]

The adjudicator in Author Author indicated that the issue of civil or human rights for the Doctor were a matter that could be raised for debate, at some undeclared point in the future. He was unwilling to be the guy who opened that can of worms, especially when the issue could be resolved by conceding authorial rights alone. If the doctor wanted to have civil rights, then I suppose he would have to do what any human has to do: fight for it tooth and nail, and defend it with extreme prejudice. Until then, well, why should anyone regard him as little more than what he was programmed to be? Especially since holograms are such common technology with little more character than a TV set?

Exodus raises a very good point about assuming that other holos can reach the same level of intelligence as the Doctor; in fact it's unlikely, given that the Doctor had one matrix overlaid onto his original matrix in order to prevent decompilation, which resulted from his constant running and program addition. In view of that, without proper maintenance, his life span would have effectively been outmatched by that of the Ocampans. Which doesn't negate the validity of a claim to humanity--after all, the Ocampans, though short-lived, were considered fully endowed with "human" rights. Further, as Timo indicates, two holos begin to lead different experiences from the moment of activation, and over time, these differences may prove--critical.

But it would certainly raise questions regarding the viability of viewing holograms in general as akin to human embryos, as something with life potential that is, for some, to be given every chance humanly possible to survive. If holograms weren't viably sentient on their own, naturally, then it's unlikely people would trouble themselves to endow holograms with extra sentience or survivability--except in unusual circumstances, such as Voyager's, or the Hirogens'.

The holograms of Leah Brahms and Vic Fontaine were not perceived as sentient, though they very well could have become so, just given the chance. I suppose they were "victim" of their own programming not to question their rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

(All of these posts are very inspiring for the VOY novel I'm currently working on)!