Is the Holographic Doctor...a real lifeform?

[Phantassm]

...OK,
I just caught half an episode where the Doctor and B'Lanna went to the aid of a crazy holographic alien that killed his entire crew. At any rate and I'm sure its been discussed here but do you fans feel that the Doctor is a true lifeform albeit different? Does the crew come to consider him...real? I'm curious to read your thoughts. I'd say he's a true lifeform.

 

[Michael]

I'd say he's a true lifeform.

And I would most certainly agree.

 

[EnsignRicky]

As with Data, he certainly meets all of the criteria; So I would say absolutely.

 

[highlander]

As with Data, he certainly meets all of the criteria; So I would say absolutely.

I concur. I think he is self aware and therefore a new form of life.

 

[Akiraprise]

He's definitely real. :thumbsup:
Is he a life form?
That one's more up for grabs. Is my computer a life form? No. Is the Doc? Maybe. He has a distinct personality, feelings, emotions...but they're all programed. We'd have to have a clear definition of life form to be able to conclude one way or the other. Any definition we have is open to individual interpretation.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

He has a distinct personality, feelings, emotions...but they're all programed.

So are ours, in a way.

 

[Triskelion]

What if he weren't, but everybody assumed he was. They'd be deluding themselves and self-importantly believing that life can be artificed. In so doing they would be debasing actual living creatures as mere, well, technology.

If this were happening in actual true real life, I would seriously have my doubts about it. Looking alive and acting alive do not confer life. Making copies of himself would not constitute an urge to reproduce. He can claim individuality but in fact it is people who have programmed that information into him. By that criteria, we could say that current AIML (ALICE AI) is alive, because "she" says so.

I think that he would have to be "active" for many years before I were to treat him as someone whose opinion counted. I'm not saying he isn't alive. I am saying that the programmers could very well be projecting their own desires and deluding themselves about the nature of their creation. That goes for Data too.

I think asserting that "Yes he is alive" is to claim authority that frankly, humans do not possess. The best we could truly manage is saying, "Yes he is independent enough to warrant freedom in society. (But he's not marrying my daughter)."

Still--LOVE those guys, and would be open to friendships with them, as long as they didn't interfere with getting women!

 

[exodus]

If the Doc is a lifeform, then what is every other holographic character from the holodeck or other wise?

 

[Unicron]

Personally, I have mixed feelings. I've always believed that Data is a life form, because he's clearly demonstrated sentience and a desire to fit in with humanoid society. The Doctor is also sentient, but is not necessarily representative of a typical hologram. His sentience is, no offense intended, a sort of fluke that would not have occurred normally, and without it he would essentially be a tool. I suppose the difference is that Data can modify his "programming" much the way we can, and was always meant to have that capacity, while holograms do not. If they do become sentient, and their personalities become unstable (as in "Flesh and Blood") then they become dangerous.

 

[HoundDog]

Wasn't the whole point of the doctor's development during VOYs run to show that he is indeed a real lifeform?

 

[Timo]

Looking alive and acting alive do not confer life.

There is an inherent danger in this sort of thinking: the more severe consequences of false negatives versus false positives.

That is, this sort of thinking has supported the idea that blacks or women should not be subject to rights that real humans are entitled to. The danger of error in stating that a gorilla is a human being is smaller than the danger of error in denying that a woman is a human being. The gorilla won't really suffer from getting those rights imposed upon it, nor will those who impose the rights. But in denying such rights, at least the party being denied the rights is hurt, and possibly the party doing the denying loses out as well.

If it looks like a hen, walks like a hen and clucks like a hen, raising it in the hopes of getting edible eggs is better than deciding that there's a finite chance that it's actually a duck and therefore not worth the effort.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kegek]

exodus, that's a good point. Some holograms are unambiguously sentient beings - Moriarty, for example. Others are clearly not - like static profile images. Where the line is drawn when it comes to interactive holograms is more complicated. At some level they're probably just AI in the sense we use the term for computer characters in contemporary videogames, at another level they are artificial life, and it's terribly vague where that line should be drawn.

What if he weren't, but everybody assumed he was. They'd be deluding themselves and self-importantly believing that life can be artificed. In so doing they would be debasing actual living creatures as mere, well, technology.

Well, they know that the Doctor is an artificial lifeform. Whether or not that counts as being alive due to a capacity for self-awareness or some other trait, does it matter? The Doctor is exceptionally intelligent and articulate, with a personality and all the other external attributes of a human being. In everything that counts, the Doc qualifies.

We can't know more than that, but that always should be enough. To employ solipsism for a moment, what if everyone and everything you know is an illusion? Then you've been treating nonentities as if they were flesh and blood human beings because that's how they appeared to you. Which is to underline my point: In every way it is possible for us to test the sentience of a being, he succeeds, and the same kind of hypothetical chance that he is not can be applied to humanity at large.

 

[Triskelion]

Ok, sentient, but I thought the question was whether they were alive.

There's a difference between debating whether the behavior of technology can be called life, and whether a human being can be called life. A human being is human. It doesn't follow that technology is alive. Why? Because we don't know what life is. We can define an artificial measure of what constitutes "life", and measure according to that...but life life? I certainly don't know what makes that. I'm just saying that, creating an object that seems to exhibit intelligent behavior could be nothing more than a reflection of the builder's life--and not alive in and of itself. Autonomy isn't life. It's a set of programmed actions and probabilities.

I'm not touching the race thing with a barge pole!


Of course, according to my argument it may very well be that humans don't fall into the category of lifeforms. D'oh!

 

[Bill Morris]

Aren't all the incorporeal beings in Trek lifeforms, even though not biological? And if we had real ghosts, wouldn't they also be lifeforms?

 

[exodus]

Wasn't the whole point of the doctor's development during VOYs run to show that he is indeed a real lifeform?

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?

 

[Turbo]

I think the real question is here is "Are the EMHs sentient?"

They were designed to be different from other holograms or computers - they have the ability to think for themselves, analyze a situation, and make decisisons.

By Maddox's definition of life, are the EMHs, or more specifically the Doctor, sentient?
1. Intelligence - Obviously, the Doctor is extremely intelligent (sometimes far too much. )
2. Self-Awareness - Again, the Doctor knows who and what he is - an emergency medical hologram
3. Consciousness - Is the Doctor conscious? If we accept that Moriarty is sentient, and therefore conscious, the Doctor must then be conscious, and therefore sentient.

 

[Evil_Kirkneivel]

Personally, I have mixed feelings. I've always believed that Data is a life form, because he's clearly demonstrated sentience and a desire to fit in with humanoid society. The Doctor is also sentient, but is not necessarily representative of a typical hologram. His sentience is, no offense intended, a sort of fluke that would not have occurred normally, and without it he would essentially be a tool. I suppose the difference is that Data can modify his "programming" much the way we can, and was always meant to have that capacity, while holograms do not. If they do become sentient, and their personalities become unstable (as in "Flesh and Blood") then they become dangerous.

In the season 4 episode message in a bottle, the doctor tells the EMH2 that he is capable of having sexual relations because he "...made an - addition - to my program." So apparently he can program himself - unless he was just bragging.

 

[HoundDog]

Wasn't the whole point of the doctor's development during VOYs run to show that he is indeed a real lifeform?

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.

 

[exodus]

Wasn't the whole point of the doctor's development during VOYs run to show that he is indeed a real lifeform?

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?

 

[P0sitr0nic]

I believe the DOC is alive, this doesnt mean EVERY Emh is. Tho they could break out of their mold if encouraged.