• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Data and The Doctor.

The Doc "evolved" with help from Ms.Torres and Harry Kim, who helped him "tweak" his program
Data's journey had a little help as well.


Guess there's a message in there SOMEwhere.... :thumbsup:
 
The Doctor was no different that other holograms they were used to interacting with on the holodeck. If they hadn't "grafted" more file ingrams into his program, he wouldn't have the storage capacity to expand it and grow.

Data didn't need any of that, Data was already adaptive with natural programing to expand & grow. It's what he was designed to do, the EMH originally wasn't. Data is also unique because he is a technological masterpiece. He is a walking, talking piece of technological art. The EMH is common because other holograms like him can & do exist.
 
Red Ranger said:
It's true he owes more to Roddenberry's Questor, but also had Spock-like qualities

Not a stretch considering GR specifically told Spiner that Data was a combination of Questor and Spock.
That said, whole chunks of the Phase II writer's bible's description of Xon were copied into Data in the TNG bible.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that; there isn't. The reworkings of Ilia and Decker were a little more obnoxious, since those two characters had actually had screen-time.
All that said, the philosophy that allowed for a sentient Data - and hologram like Vic - was entirely at odds with the philosophy of TOS.
You may resume your insults.
 
A beaker full of death said:
All that said, the philosophy that allowed for a sentient Data - and hologram like Vic - was entirely at odds with the philosophy of TOS.
You may resume your insults.

One could call it an evolution of Roddenberry's, perhaps influenced by Isaac Asimov (to whom there are unsubtle nods and even a name-drop regarding Data). In TOS, intelligent technology is dangerous, be it derangedly murderous or, more often, impose totalitarian order. It can even sanitize war to make it acceptable (in a personal favourite of mine).

Of course, for Asimov, intelligent machines are buy and large a good thing. Even being ruled by computers is a more equitable form of government than the alternatives. In TOS, if a society is ruled by a machine, no matter how benevolent, that machine must always be destroyed: in Asimov's work, thinking computers will ultimately create the most rational and positive utopia possible. And from at least the seventies, Asimov was an author Roddenberry liked associating himself with.

And add to Asimov's position the rise of technology in the consumer market. In the 1960s, computers were fabled, mysterious things that only the government owned. In the 1980s, the machine was becoming a consumer commodity.

And thus, TNG's generally more optimistic view of technology comes to be.
 
^ Good analysis, and I suppose TMP really marked a turning point in GR's philosophy.

The two points of view are irreconcilable though, and have broad implications. One could write a book on it. Several.
 
Kegek Kringle said:
In TOS, if a society is ruled by a machine, no matter how benevolent, that machine must always be destroyed:
Not always, actually: Kirk was fine letting the Guardian or the Provider or the Oracle or whatever his name was to rule Yonada in ``For The World Is Hollow And The Acronym for This Title Is Longer Than Every Epsiode Title For Voyager Combined''. And for that matter he let the android society in ``I, Mudd'' go as it liked after getting it cured of its plan to take over the galaxy. (Though, actually, given how long the androids lasted against the efforts of a small determined party then even if they conquered the galaxy they'd survive it for maybe as long as eight minutes and the net result would be the influx of a huge dose of cheap labor.)

Anyway, the warming of Roddenberry's views on androids is consistent with another of the ideas of the Original Series, albeit one that's not really expressed quite as clearly as the fear of totalitarianism: the idea that humanity with technology is capable of greater things, and doing greater justice, than humanity without. Unfortunately about the only time that's put directly on-screen is Edith Keeler's speech in ``The City on the Edge of Forever'', where it's received a mixed reception from the audience, but I think the principle is there and implicit in things like Kirk's offer to fix the Organian society in ``Errand of Mercy'' or trying to sell Cochrane on the galaxy in ``Metamorphosis''.
 
Well that goes back to that "technology unchained" thing he was talking about at the inception of TNG - the idea that tech has seamlessly improved our quality of life - but still at the service of man. But that's a huge leap away (or is it ??) from technology existing for its own sake, or even competing with man - being at his level.
I truly loathe the conclusion of that early Data-on-trial-for-his-life episode. I like that the topic was explored. I just hate the side the episode - and the series - falls on.

Data is a toaster.

"Tell me about the women in your world...Has the machine changed them?"
 
Nebusj said:
Not always, actually: Kirk was fine letting the Guardian or the Provider or the Oracle or whatever his name was to rule Yonada in ``For The World Is Hollow And The Acronym for This Title Is Longer Than Every Epsiode Title For Voyager Combined''.

With the Guardian, it's actually ambiguous as to whether or not he is a machine (IIRC he says 'both, and neither'), moreover he does not rule over anything. He offers people a gateway into time, but he's not attempting to restructure time in the way, say, Landru restructed his planet's society. He is completely passive: A plot device in its purest form.

The Oracle is certainly something of an exception, although even in that case it is an imperious machine ruling through religious dictum that must be disobeyed - even to help itself. So as exceptions go that's not much.

And for that matter he let the android society in ``I, Mudd'' go as it liked after getting it cured of its plan to take over the galaxy.

The latter part of that sentence is more important than the first. ;) They cannot be allowed to control societies, and Kirk prevents that.

Anyway, the warming of Roddenberry's views on androids is consistent with another of the ideas of the Original Series, albeit one that's not really expressed quite as clearly as the fear of totalitarianism: the idea that humanity with technology is capable of greater things, and doing greater justice, than humanity without.

True. But an important distinction is that technology is great and beneficial so long as it is at the service of man. Intelligent technology, which almost immediately posits itself as superior to man, is a threat.

On the TOS scale, then, Data occupies a middle ground: He is not subservient to man and though, while superior to him mentally and physically, he does not intend to dominate. He presents himself as an equal of man, and even envies the qualities man has that he lacks - rather than depising them, or attempting to correct them.
 
Why does everybody forget the androids from the "Old Ones". They had emotions, turned on their creators, and had a StarFleet team of scientists studying them. They could even make reasonable android clones of humans. (Good lord, they're uprated Cylons!)
iwannaroc.jpg

I always felt Soong spent a lot of time studying those androids, along with the I, Mudd ~ Norman model. That would explain so much about Lore...
 
Garibaldi O'brien said:
Why does everybody forget the androids from the "Old Ones".

I don't. Actually, they fall rather reasonably under my definition above of machines which get out of hand because they're not subservient and seek to dominate. Emotion, like logical reasoning - is one of the TOS methods frequently used to undermine a machine.
 
Kegek Kringle said:
Nebusj said:
And for that matter he let the android society in ``I, Mudd'' go as it liked after getting it cured of its plan to take over the galaxy.
The latter part of that sentence is more important than the first. ;) They cannot be allowed to control societies, and Kirk prevents that.
But they are. They're left to build their own society, converting the planet again for useful purposes and along the way to train Harry Mudd into somebody with less personality -- pardon, into someone more socially productive. Kirk doesn't leave a governing body of humans behind (else Mudd would be paroled to them instead).
 
Nebusj said:
But they are.

No, the end of the episode leaves them only one person to control - Harry. One person doesn't constitute a society, which is why I used that term. I think it's obvious in context that a society controls itself, so the reference was to the android society, as you put it, controlling another society, which they are not.

Instead, as you observe, they have returned to their original, unambitious purpose of making the planet useful - an obediently servile task.
 
prodigium said:
this is something that has always confused me and i just need to get your thoughts on it.

Data is praised as a scientific brake through. the first android with the capabilities of evolving and learning.

the doctor on Voyager is a normal holoprogram that has been allowed to grow and "evolve".

No, he is not. The whole thing with the EMHes is that they're considered a revolutionary jump in technology. They managed to essentially copy the brain of Lewis Zimmerman, their creator, thus creating a sentient personality into which medical expertise could be added. The implication was that the technology used to create the sophisticated minds of the EMHes came as a result of the advances that Noonien Soong made with androids.
 
Just a side-ramp here.

Did Data ever function as a doctor, or perform more than perfunctory first aid? Seems to me he could have been an excellent physician (bedside manner aside).

--Ted
 
I don't think Data ever did that, or in other respects demonstrated broad knowledge of any speciality other than serving aboard a starship.

Data wasn't a fantastic library of everything ever discovered, he just sat next to one. To find out obscure facts, he needed to type at his keyboard and watch a screen. In contrast, the EMH could just think up all the detail he needed from the medical databases - but even he had to use indirect, intended-for-humans means of data access to learn about things outside his profession.

As far as "revolutions" go, I don't think either Data or the EMH represented that. Nobody seemed to credit them with it, at any rate. Sure, Data was a neat feat for a sapient android, and by some accounts unique. But many seemed to treat him like one of those "inventions" at Japanese car factory annual innovation fairs: a useless curiosity cobbled together from possibly relevant technologies just because.

Machine sapience was available to Starfleet long before Soong made Data (witness the starship computers, for example). It just wasn't packaged into an android body, perhaps because nobody saw any point in doing so. Or perhaps because it was considered bad taste. Or perhaps because positronic brains were really the only way to pack the sapience into an android skull, and there was no incentive to create positronic brains unless one wanted to create an android, and no self-respecting engineer wanted to do that, for the above two reasons.

Once Soong built his little toy, of course, people began finding all sorts of applications for his technologies. As when Bashir did brain prosthetics with Soongian tech in "Life Support"... But if Data and his positronics had truly represented a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, surely far more attention would have centered on Data's "humanhood". The way he was ignored makes one think that artificial intelligences were an old hat for Starfleet and the Federation. They just happened to sit inside mainframe computers rather than android bodies. And holograms were a simple if relatively novel way to take them out of those mainframes when needed, which is why the EMH wasn't considered groundbreaking, either.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Data and the Doctor were both interpretationsof the Tin Man on the Yellow Brick Road. Both were looking for a Heart and what it meant to be human. Before they realised it they became "Human" without realising it.
 
The doctor was an abortion as is voyager, data was envisioned by GR,someone with purpose and vision

...please place your donations in the box to the left as you enter the church of Roddenberry... :eek:
 
...What is this fascination with inanimate objects striving to be humans? Why do we have Pinocchio, or the Tin Man, or the Little Tin Soldier of HC Andersen fame, or a zillion stories before those?

Is it just that we like to watch children grow, and a doll that comes to life takes that process to an extreme?

Or are we such self-satisfied sadists that we want to see others strive to become what we are, and preferably fail?

Timo Saloniemi
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top