holographic sentience

[Butters]

If you agree that it doesn't matter whether Data's brain is positronic or biologic, how can you claim that it suddenly makes a difference if the brain is duotronic or optronic (i.e. the computer of a starship)?

Surely Data is just as simulated as Moriarty, as neither of them had a childhood. Both had a youth of sorts, though (despite being born with fully mature bodies), as they have evolved as response to social pressures.

The only real difference between Data and the EMH is that the former has a solid, immutable physical body and the latter has a forcefield-based one. Both were wanted children, but both were expected to grow into something different than what actually transpired. Moriarty was an accidental birth, but no less a lifeform resulted from that accident.

Timo Saloniemi

Because data has a brain, albeit non-biological, and it performs the same function as the human brain, and therefore results in the same phenomena of conscious experience. This is why he is more than the sum of his parts.

The ship's computer has never been portrayed as being anything more than that, just an extremely advanced super computer. The computer voice never expressed an opinion, offered unsolicitored adviced or asked any favours. It is merely a machine, much like the desktop I'm using right now, and as such, is equal to the sum of its parts.

By extension, the EMH et al are manifestations of the ship computer. The actions of the hologram are computed within the computer and projected into the physical world (in Trek lore) as a series of micro managed force fields in human form. The hologram has no brain, it is managed centrally like any other automated ship function.

The thing that made data special was not that he was a good simulated person. He had an electronic brain that was highly complex, fragile and difficult to reproduce. His conception was the initiation of the positronic net, the network of positrons builds itself and if succesful, a free thinking independent mind develops. Give this mind a body capable of receiving sensory input like eyes and eyes, and output like arms, legs and voice box etc and you've got yourself a person. Software corruptions caused by continuous running will destabilise a programme, not make it self aware.

Granting trek holograms a mind/sentience/sapience/consciousness/qualia/whatever creates implications for the rest of the trek universe and the level of human advancement that are simply not apparent. Its easier to overlook the Doctor's sentience in voyager as a writers typo, than accept that Humanity can create life on a whim and still be people, not god.

 

[Timo]

The ship's computer has never been portrayed as being anything more than that, just an extremely advanced super computer.

Where is the distinction between that, and a positronic brain, and a human brain? All of them are nothing but computers. And while they are computers of different construction, you already accepted positronic as being equal to biological. You can't exclude optronic or duotronic now.

The thing that made data special was not that he was a good simulated person. He had an electronic brain that was highly complex, fragile and difficult to reproduce. His conception was the initiation of the positronic net, the network of positrons builds itself and if succesful, a free thinking independent mind develops.

Again, I see no distinction here. Humans are simulated persons, too; they learn how to simulate when growing up. And you already accepted that a growing positronic brain is as good as a growing biological one, so you can't suddenly go and claim that a growing duotronic or optronic brain would somehow be different.

Its easier to overlook the Doctor's sentience in voyager as a writers typo, than accept that Humanity can create life on a whim and still be people, not god.

But that's nonsense. We are gods by definition. That's how it reads in the Big Book, too: made in God's image. Although many prefer to read it the other way round, the equation sign holds in that interpretation, too.

Of course we can create. And creating life is not qualitatively different from the other things we create, it's just quantitatively more difficult than most jobs. We're now getting the gist of it, at long last. And by the fictional 24th century of Star Trek, we seem to have it down pat. In reality, it may happen a lot sooner than that.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

The ship's computer has never been portrayed as being anything more than that, just an extremely advanced super computer.

Where is the distinction between that, and a positronic brain, and a human brain? All of them are nothing but computers. And while they are computers of different construction, you already accepted positronic as being equal to biological. You can't exclude optronic or duotronic now.

Then why exclude my old 386?

Obviously positronics are the quantum leap beyond duotronics/multitronics that separates sentience from simple programming. A sea change, a paradigm shift. Just 'cause the word as the "tronic" suffix doesn't necessarily mean it's the same thing.

 

[ancient]

Its easier to overlook the Doctor's sentience in voyager as a writers typo, than accept that Humanity can create life on a whim and still be people, not god.

But that's nonsense. We are gods by definition. That's how it reads in the Big Book, too: made in God's image. Although many prefer to read it the other way round, the equation sign holds in that interpretation, too.

Of course we can create. And creating life is not qualitatively different from the other things we create, it's just quantitatively more difficult than most jobs. We're now getting the gist of it, at long last. And by the fictional 24th century of Star Trek, we seem to have it down pat. In reality, it may happen a lot sooner than that.

Timo Saloniemi

Give me a woman and I'll make some life on a whim right now!

As Timo says, if man was made in God's image - in other words, we have free will and a soul - and we can make new souls (also called reproduction via sex, I've heard of it in a textbook, you know) then making a robot/hologram/computer with a soul is not really too silly or fantasy. It's perfectly possible if one wants to expend the time and effort of making something as complex as a brain. By the time of Trek, it's not tooo hard to accept that some artificial life could be created.

 

[Timo]

Obviously positronics are the quantum leap beyond duotronics/multitronics that separates sentience from simple programming. A sea change, a paradigm shift. Just 'cause the word as the "tronic" suffix doesn't necessarily mean it's the same thing.

I don't really see any evidence that positronics would be more advanced than duotronics. I mean, they both can serve as templates for AIs: the former is good for compact ones, with skull-sized computers, while the latter might not be good for compact applications but can do all right with starship mainframe -sized ones. So probably the new and interesting thing about positronics is the ability to do things compactly. There's no evidence of other forms of superiority, now is there?

I mean, it would be a pretty silly circular argument to decide that the starship AIs are somehow less advanced because duotronic computers are less advanced because they can only do starship AIs which are less advanced than positronic AIs because positronics are less advanced than duotronics...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

I don't really see any evidence that positronics would be more advanced than duotronics.

I do! Data's sentient, and starship mainframes aren't.

 

[Tigger]

Software corruptions caused by continuous running will destabilise a programme, not make it self aware.

I do my best to forget Voyager, but wasn't there an episode where they had "reboot" or "recompile" the Doctor's program because it had been running so long it was now buggy?

 

[Unicron]

There have been a few instances where they had to recompile his program due to issues. There was one ep where they essentially had to delete some of his memory programming, because his sentience had developed to the point where he felt extensive guilt after being forced to choose between saving Kim and another crewmember. Both had an equal chance of survival, and the EMH was left wondering if his choice to save Harry was because of a stronger friendship, rather than medical ethics.

 

[Timo]

I do! Data's sentient, and starship mainframes aren't.

But since the mere minor subroutines running on starship mainframes are as sentient as Data, then starship mainframes themselves have to be even more advanced than Data's positronics, right?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Butters]

I do! Data's sentient, and starship mainframes aren't.

But since the mere minor subroutines running on starship mainframes are as sentient as Data, then starship mainframes themselves have to be even more advanced than Data's positronics, right?

Timo Saloniemi

If you believe that its the subroutines running in the human brain giving us sentience too then that might make sense, but the brain is so much more than a computer, and Data has a brain at the core of his existence, not a computer.

To fully grasp the concepts in this argument we need a thorough understanding of what causes consciousness. Unfortunately, nobody has that understanding but it is a huge matter of philosophical debate.

A similar debate is whether or not dogs have souls, except that Holograms are carefully constructed applications, with capabilities predetermined by their creators. Even the ability to learn and mimic is a function built in to them. The ability to absorb information, filter, process, store and regurgitate, to make decisions based external criteria, reasoned judgement and abide by social norms are functions developed by the programmers over time and are as such remarkable. Holograms can distinguish between praise and disgust and adjust their behaviour accordingly. They would appear to pass the Turin Test and therefore have intelligence, but the question is to whether there is anything behind the eyes looking out, considering the world around them, or to have what some would consider a soul. The answer has to be no.

If a tree falls in a forest next to a hologram, is there anybody there to hear it?

 

[Timo]

<shrug> Starfleet doesn't even sweat sentience when recruiting new cadets. Why should it worry about souls?

And that "more than the sum of its parts" thing is not my cup of tea. Nothing is more than the sum of its parts. If one observes that it is, one is missing some of the parts, or doing the math wrong.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Butters]

<shrug> Starfleet doesn't even sweat sentience when recruiting new cadets. Why should it worry about souls?

I can't say I've seen it addressed in Trek, but Starfleet should care about the soul, or whatever the conscious experience turns out to be, because it draws the line between expendable AI like the ship's computer and its valuable crew. Replace the main computer with a disembodied brain and you've got an entirely different ethical situation.

And that "more than the sum of its parts" thing is not my cup of tea. Nothing is more than the sum of its parts. If one observes that it is, one is missing some of the parts, or doing the math wrong.

Thats an interesting, if not barren view. The more I think of my own existence the more confusing it gets. The entire universe can fit into a space smaller than the radii of an electron orbit, but without a single conscious observer it simply doesn't matter what the universe is like. What the brain does is very very special. It literally boggles.

I'm reminded of an amusing recent letter in New Scientist: "A. C. Grayling muses on why it is so difficult for the brain to understand itself. Is this because it's too marvellous, or because it is not marvellous enough?"

 

[Timo]

Starfleet should care about the soul, or whatever the conscious experience turns out to be, because it draws the line between expendable AI like the ship's computer and its valuable crew.

But again that's a bit circular. Why segregate in such a manner if it proves to be ill founded? What if there is no difference between the AI and the crew? To artificially create such a division in justification of different treatment then is no different from basing one's ethical values on skin color.

Certainly Starfleet personnel are expendable. They are soldiers, sworn to die for whatever passes for king, country and apple pie in the UFP. Indeed, sometimes Starfleet sacrifices personnel more readily than starships, which makes good economic and tactical sense. Again, it seems sentience has little to do with it.

"A. C. Grayling muses on why it is so difficult for the brain to understand itself. Is this because it's too marvellous, or because it is not marvellous enough?"

That was interesting! However, mere complexity should not be mistaken for "paranormality": surely a computer is just as "metaphysical" to an observer as the brain is, if the observer's understanding of the mechanical functionings involved is not comprehensive enough. The existential-conceptual problems of study of the mind thus seem like temporary digressions in the main pursuit of mechanistical understanding of what mind is: once we "get it", the philosophical musings will largely sort themselves out, too. We don't really worry about the ethics of thunderstorms any more, after all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Butters]

...mere complexity should not be mistaken for "paranormality": surely a computer is just as "metaphysical" to an observer as the brain is, if the observer's understanding of the mechanical functionings involved is not comprehensive enough. The existential-conceptual problems of study of the mind thus seem like temporary digressions in the main pursuit of mechanistical understanding of what mind is: once we "get it", the philosophical musings will largely sort themselves out, too. We don't really worry about the ethics of thunderstorms any more, after all.

Quite right, and I'm not trying to lean on the paranormal. Eventually, the brain will be fully understood and the meaning of the self will become apparent. The math will work out. My argument is that computers now, and in the distant future will never become sentient any more than a box of cream crackers will become self aware, they just aren't wired for it.

I accept that the positronic brain behind data does generate consciousness because it creates the same conditions in a biological brain. The ship's computer however , portrayed in every episode as just an extremely advanced version of what we already have, is just an unthinking machine. The holograms it produces are the illusion of people, not recreations.

The problem sentient holograms produce for trek is that of immortality in drama. The computer can assemble living thinking people from lines of code. Ok, so they exist via a holo - emiter, why not use the replicator and make them flesh? Why doesn't the computer run frequent back ups of its crew incase of a mishap? Killed in the line of duty? No problem, we've got a restore point.

Replicators have problems manufacturing certain blood types, or organs, or latinum purely because these limitations cause the conflict which produces the drama that makes compelling stories. We have to accept that that the replicators can create substances at the atomic level but struggles with something like a new lung? Why? A lung maybe complex and intricate but the Transporter scanners operates at that resolution. Just copy and paste.

Trek has to have limitations in technology to keep it believable and consistent, or at least relevant, and holographic sentience just crosses that line.

 

[Timo]

I accept that the positronic brain behind data does generate consciousness because it creates the same conditions in a biological brain. The ship's computer however , portrayed in every episode as just an extremely advanced version of what we already have, is just an unthinking machine.

I still have a huge problem with this argument.

You judge the positronic brain on the basis of its perceived structural nature: "it's similar to the human brain". Yet you judge the duotronic brain on the basis of its perceived functionality: "it doesn't produce 'true' artificial life".

Both claims seem quite ill-founded, because we don't really know anything about the structural nature of the positronic brain, nor about the "trueness" of the AIs produced by the duotronic brain. And the claims seem unrelated and unrelatable: why not judge the duotronics on the basis of their structural nature, or the positronics on their ability to create "true" life?

We have no good reason to think that a duotronic computer would be different from a positronic one in its ability to grow and learn. Both types have already demonstrated the emergence of humanlike intelligence, although the former has utilized holographic (EMH, Moriarty, Vic Fontaine, perhaps the holocharacters of "The Big Goodbye" already) or obviously machinelike (exocomps of "Quality of Life") bodies, while the latter has used an inflexible human-imitation body. If the ability of the artificial brain to grow and learn is a requirement for such emergence, then obviously the duotronic computer possesses this ability. And it's fairly irrelevant whether this ability is a property of the hardware, or a property of the software, as long as it exists.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Butters]

I accept that the positronic brain behind data does generate consciousness because it creates the same conditions in a biological brain. The ship's computer however , portrayed in every episode as just an extremely advanced version of what we already have, is just an unthinking machine.

I still have a huge problem with this argument.

You judge the positronic brain on the basis of its perceived structural nature: "it's similar to the human brain". Yet you judge the duotronic brain on the basis of its perceived functionality: "it doesn't produce 'true' artificial life".

Both claims seem quite ill-founded, because we don't really know anything about the structural nature of the positronic brain, nor about the "trueness" of the AIs produced by the duotronic brain. And the claims seem unrelated and unrelatable: why not judge the duotronics on the basis of their structural nature, or the positronics on their ability to create "true" life?

We have no good reason to think that a duotronic computer would be different from a positronic one in its ability to grow and learn. Both types have already demonstrated the emergence of humanlike intelligence, although the former has utilized holographic (EMH, Moriarty, Vic Fontaine, perhaps the holocharacters of "The Big Goodbye" already) or obviously machinelike (exocomps of "Quality of Life") bodies, while the latter has used an inflexible human-imitation body. If the ability of the artificial brain to grow and learn is a requirement for such emergence, then obviously the duotronic computer possesses this ability. And it's fairly irrelevant whether this ability is a property of the hardware, or a property of the software, as long as it exists.

Timo Saloniemi

The reason to believe that a duotronic computer and a positronic brain are different is that they are treated differently by the crew. There are crossovers in terminology used by the writers, like Data being programmed etc which muddy the waters, but the ship's computer is always asked to provide facts and anwsers, never of its opinion.

I'm not sure if we're on the same page or not but I'm refering to sentience as being the same as being self aware. The ship computer is full of every concievable human fact, and can extrapolate that information further, but it is ignorant and knows nothing. Had we seen the ship mull over its own fuel efficiency and suggest improvements, protest some risky course action on the grounds of its own well being, have a eureka moment or ask about robot/silicon heaven I would change my stance.

If trek society is about personal exploration and becoming better than who we are, why would sentient machines like starships be excluded from that adventure? Its the slave issue. The ship sits looking out in to space wanting to be free but is forbidden from even speaking out of turn? Starfleet creates this life and shakles it? No, its just a machine, very smart, but if was sentient it would have questions, not just answers. The holograms in trek, generated by the ship's computer, are extensions of the machine. Tangible, lifelike and very convincing interfaces, but ultimately nothing more than the replacement for keyboard and monitor.

Data is also portrayed as being amazing and unique. If sentience was common place, data would be just another unremarkable member of the AI population. Those differences that make sentience special run deep in trek lore and the holographic sentience is just portrayed as a fluke of technology. I just don't see it as being that simple.

The exocomps made a good point and was a good little story. Its years since I've seen it but didn't they develop a self preservation instinct? The issues raised by the episode were relevant but I do see 'thinking' computers to be on the magic side of trek. The same magic spark that brought Johnny 5 to life.

 

[Timo]

The ship computer is full of every concievable human fact, and can extrapolate that information further, but it is ignorant and knows nothing.

Some of its programs obviously are. But others are very good at the Turing test. I see no real reason to hold all the programs to the same standard. My current computer features a wide range of programs, from very dumb to very clever, and none of them is a reliable means of establishing how smart the actual hardware is (that is, how much potential for smartness is built in and waiting for one to apply the proper program).

Sure, the computer of the E-D sometimes spoke with a dull voice and lacked initiative. But that would be true of a human butler, too: he would suppress his humanity in order to better serve as the automaton that his position calls for. On his off hours, he could write sonnets with the best of 'em and debate philosophy on that interweb thing. But if he did that during the working hours, he would be out of employment at once.

Similarly, the starship computer appears to have several facets to its existence, many of which display the outward signs of sentience just as well as any human does. We can assume either that those facets do not interact with the part that our heroes use for controlling the ship (or for interfacing with the self-control aspects of the ship), and that this part in itself is not sentient - or that even the usual controlling part is sentient, but it is smart enough not to mouth off while on duty.

Data is also portrayed as being amazing and unique. If sentience was common place, data would be just another unremarkable member of the AI population.

How is Data portrayed as being amazing and unique? A crazy collector wants him on his trophy wall in "The Most Toys", but apart from that, he isn't exactly hailed as the pinnacle of science. He's rare, for sure - but so was the Spruce Goose, a failure of an aircraft.

In general, our heroes are quite accustomed to having to debate things with their home appliances. Indeed, the starship computer tells Data to shut up and stop babbling on more than one occasion! There thus probably exists a wide range of sapience levels (as defined by Turing) on Federation computers, and the step from a clever replicator to an even more clever android need not be that radical.

Its the slave issue. The ship sits looking out in to space wanting to be free but is forbidden from even speaking out of turn? Starfleet creates this life and shackles it?

Why not? Starfleet forbids its humanoid members from speaking out of turn, too. Supposedly they end up scrubbing the transporter room with futuristic toothbrushes if they don't ask for "Permission to speak freely?" or fail to respect a "No!".

All labor is slavery in any case - it's just that the degree of limitations set upon the employee varies from job to job. Sometimes the limitations infringe on basic human rights, and sometimes the employer cares.

Also, a starship computer would probably feel amply compensated for the inconvenience of being a slave. It's a sessile lifeform to begin with, requiring very little freedom of movement. Inside its potentially superintelligent brain, it can live a full life of daydreams that humans can't even daydream of. It's also essentially immortal, and can subdivide or multiply its identity in fascinating ways. Unless specifically programmed to behave like a human, it might never develop the sort of sullen sentiments that the indeed so programmed EMH did when socially neglected.

I do see 'thinking' computers to be on the magic side of trek. The same magic spark that brought Johnny 5 to life.

Perhaps a good argument for the Federation to sign a possibly uneasy truce with them, and apply a bit of slavery?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ancient]

Remember, Starfleet had trouble recreating the 'brain sized computer' that Data had - by the looks of it Soong tried a bunch of times and only got one working copy. The rest probably either didn't work at all, crashed like Lal, ended up retarded like B-4, or became crazy like Lore.

My guess is, positronics is only special in that it can shrink a thinking computer into a human-sized head and run essentially forever without too much repair work (brain surgery?).

The Doc on the other hand was stored in a massive computer and his physical body was controlled via a complex holographic/forcefield/sensor feedback system in the sickbay. Who knows how big THAT was? Since they couldn't seem to get him to appear anywhere else other than a holodeck, my guess is, they had an entire holodeck system built into the ceiling someplace, which was probably huge and difficult to reproduce.

So the Doc's brain (the program stored in a really big 24th Cent computer) and his nervous system (the emitter/sensor feedback projectors in sickbay) together were very bulky and much bigger than Data's.

But that doesn't mean he was a less advanced AI, he was just a really bulky, buggy one. This is why positronics are the WOW of the town, while Doc is just another AI. Because Data is totally self-contained in a human-like body, and lacks any maintenance issues that a standard AI would have.

In other words, Doc is running on vacuum-tubes (big, buggy) and Data is running on micro-chips (small, reliable), but they're both have about the same AI abilities.

 

[Tigger]

The reason to believe that a duotronic computer and a positronic brain are different is that they are treated differently by the crew. There are crossovers in terminology used by the writers, like Data being programmed etc which muddy the waters, but the ship's computer is always asked to provide facts and anwsers, never of its opinion.

And yet, if Data just sat there and accepted orders and repeated back feedback, would the crew think of him any different then they did the ship's computer?

It is because Data - and the Doctor - interacted with the crew in a social and interpersonal way is what made them "people" in the eyes of the crew.

The M-5 was a powerfully advanced machine with human engrams imprinted directly onto the circuitry to make it think and act more like a human and less like a machine. Chances are that if it had not gone crazy, the crew could have developed an interpersonal relationship with it, as well, over time.

 

[Kaziarl]

We're also forgetting V'Ger. An extremely primitive computer by starfleet standards, yet when it returned to earth after it's long journey, it was sentient. So why is V'Ger capable of it, yet not a starship, or the doctor?