As someone who's also been somewhat on the fence about Data since his return, can I ask, why do you say that? Just curious.I am personally just not sure about this. I hope it is good. I just don't know what to make of the Data story right now.
As someone who's also been somewhat on the fence about Data since his return, can I ask, why do you say that? Just curious.I am personally just not sure about this. I hope it is good. I just don't know what to make of the Data story right now.
As someone who's also been somewhat on the fence about Data since his return, can I ask, why do you say that? Just curious.I am personally just not sure about this. I hope it is good. I just don't know what to make of the Data story right now.
Just so you know, we didn't approach the idea of Data being out of Starfleet casually. It felt like the right thing to do for now, especially given the changes in Data's circumstances AND the changes to Starfleet and the Federation since Data's "death." One of the items Margaret Clark kept pushing while I was developing the story is the idea that, for the first time in his life, Data is kind of coloring outside the lines, which makes Geordi very, very nervous. The friction between these two old friends is one of the main drivers of the story.
So does mean we will see more of the main TNG characters than just Data?Just so you know, we didn't approach the idea of Data being out of Starfleet casually. It felt like the right thing to do for now, especially given the changes in Data's circumstances AND the changes to Starfleet and the Federation since Data's "death." One of the items Margaret Clark kept pushing while I was developing the story is the idea that, for the first time in his life, Data is kind of coloring outside the lines, which makes Geordi very, very nervous. The friction between these two old friends is one of the main drivers of the story.
I prefer to think of this new Data more as a sort of offspring or clone of the original, a hybrid of Data's memories and the Noonien Soong android's operating system (which would probably translate as behaviors, emotions, inclinations of thought, etc.).
But it could be argued that behaviour, reactions and emotional responses are also largely learned responses shaped by experience, which is after all, memory.
You may well be right, but for sake of argument, an androids brain may well be a blank state when manufactured, without the hard wired responses inherent in biological brains and DNA. The 'potentials and inclinations' you refer to might need to be downloaded too, and therefore would just be the first 'memory'.But it could be argued that behaviour, reactions and emotional responses are also largely learned responses shaped by experience, which is after all, memory.
But that argument would be objectively wrong. Science tells us that the human brain has many behaviors and responses that are instinctive and inbuilt, and different humans have different inclinations of thought and behavior that are functions of their basic neurology rather than life experience -- e.g. being attracted to one sex over another, or being autistic or schizophrenic, or having tone-deafness or perfect pitch. A great deal of behavior is a function of the brain's structure and anatomy rather than experience and learning. Certainly we can learn to adjust and moderate the potentials we start out with, but it's a complete fiction to claim the brain is an absolute blank slate where everything is shaped by nurture and nothing by nature.
And it wouldn't work here either, because we're talking about the operating system vs. the software it runs, or even about the hardware vs. the software. We know that "Data Soong"'s brain is structured different from Data 1.0's, simply because it has emotions if nothing else. And we know that emotions are a hardware issue for Soong-type androids because they were made possible by the installation of a chip. There are bound to be other hardware/structural differences as well, because this android's brain was designed to emulate Noonien Soong's very human psychology and behavior, rather than being a from-scratch AI like Data -- and because it's a more advanced model with upgrades over the original. So there are bound to be inbuilt potentials and inclinations that differ from those within Data's brain. These brains can't be treated as empty containers that have no influence over the minds poured into them; they would have an effect on the resultant personality.
You may well be right, but for sake of argument, an androids brain may well be a blank state when manufactured, without the hard wired responses inherent in biological brains and DNA. The 'potentials and inclinations' you refer to might need to be downloaded too, and therefore would just be the first 'memory'.
Oh I'm cool with him having 'improvements' and therefore being an altered version of the same person - that's interesting.You may well be right, but for sake of argument, an androids brain may well be a blank state when manufactured, without the hard wired responses inherent in biological brains and DNA. The 'potentials and inclinations' you refer to might need to be downloaded too, and therefore would just be the first 'memory'.
Again, we already know that is not the case here, because the book actually told us that. This isn't speculation I pulled out of my hat, it's right there in the actual book. Soong 2.0's brain is different in a number of ways from Data's -- it has emotions, it's more advanced and faster, it has functions he lacked, etc. That's why Data 2.0 and others are uncertain whether he's really the same person. At best, he's an altered version of the same person. Hell, it would be boring if he weren't. It would be just a cheap reset button to resurrect Data in a way that made him exactly the same person he was before, and I know for certain that that was the last thing Dave would've wanted.
a hybrid of Data's memories and the Noonien Soong android's operating system
But it could be argued that behaviour, reactions and emotional responses are also largely learned responses shaped by experience, which is after all, memory.
But that argument would be objectively wrong. Science tells us that the human brain has many behaviors and responses that are instinctive and inbuilt, and different humans have different inclinations of thought and behavior that are functions of their basic neurology rather than life experience -- e.g. being attracted to one sex over another, or being autistic or schizophrenic, or having tone-deafness or perfect pitch. A great deal of behavior is a function of the brain's structure and anatomy rather than experience and learning. Certainly we can learn to adjust and moderate the potentials we start out with, but it's a complete fiction to claim the brain is an absolute blank slate where everything is shaped by nurture and nothing by nature.
And it wouldn't work here either, because we're talking about the operating system vs. the software it runs, or even about the hardware vs. the software. We know that "Data Soong"'s brain is structured different from Data 1.0's, simply because it has emotions if nothing else. And we know that emotions are a hardware issue for Soong-type androids because they were made possible by the installation of a chip. There are bound to be other hardware/structural differences as well, because this android's brain was designed to emulate Noonien Soong's very human psychology and behavior, rather than being a from-scratch AI like Data -- and because it's a more advanced model with upgrades over the original. So there are bound to be inbuilt potentials and inclinations that differ from those within Data's brain. These brains can't be treated as empty containers that have no influence over the minds poured into them; they would have an effect on the resultant personality.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.