Sentient Holograms?

[Python Trek]

Help me out of here. If Moriarty, Vic Fontaine, and the Holodoc are sentient, then how is it that the computers of the Enterprise-D, Quark's holosuite, and Voyager are not sentient? If a program is analogous to a mind, and a computer is analogous to a brain, then how do these 24th-century computers run sentient programs without being sentient themselves? My mind is my brain in action. Isn't a sentient hologram simply a computer in action? If so, these computers must be sentient, right?

 

[Warped9]

Definate paradox. The answer is holograms shouldn't be able to be sentient since they're just programs. If the original computer that is running the program isn't sentient then the program can't be either.

It's basically lazy and arbitrary thinking that came up with sentient holograms. I always thought it was ridiculous. You can get away with it once or twice (like the first couple of times in TNG's early seasons) but after that it's stupid.

In the beginning in TNG you could rationalize that the holograms were not actually sentient (particularly Moriarty) but that their programs were just very sophisticated to the point of mimicking sentience convincingly.

 

[Gojira]

Count me as another one who thought sentient holograms was ridiculous.

 

[Pavonis]

Who said Starfleet computers aren't sentient? Maybe they are, but they just don't have much in the way of personality. Personality is the main difference between the Doctor, Moriarity, etc, and the computers.

 

[indolover]

The writers goofed up, most likely.

I can see the issue though, a program needs base software and hardware to run it, so the basic computer must be sentient also. To use a loose analogy, MS Office can only work on a computer with the appropriate hardware and software installed.

As for the Enterprise computer, I guess it depends how one defines sentience. It couldn't abstract, for all we knew, or perceive of itself.

 

[DonIago]

What's the difference between something programmed to act sentient so well that it can pass any basic "sentience test", and something that actually is sentient?

 

[Forbin]

What's the difference between something programmed to act sentient so well that it can pass any basic "sentience test", and something that actually is sentient?

Sentience!

 

[Forbin]

Anyhoo, I agree with the opening post. I always found it ridiculous. It makes no more sense than characters in a video game becoming sentient.

 

[DonIago]

Gordon Freeman lives!

 

[Python Trek]

Who said Starfleet computers aren't sentient? Maybe they are, but they just don't have much in the way of personality. Personality is the main difference between the Doctor, Moriarity, etc, and the computers.

The JAG officer in "The Measure of a Man" said that the Enterprise computer cannot refuse a refit, meaning it's property, not a sentient being. Starfleet computers are certainly intelligent---they know lots of stuff---but they do not have conciousness---or more specifically, they do not have reflective conciousness. They might be aware, but they are not AWARE that they are aware. The Holodoc, Vic, and Moriarty were fully sentient beings. The clearest evidence of this is that they were aware of their fictional nature.

 

[YARN]

a program needs base software and hardware to run it, so the basic computer must be sentient also.

Well, we should be careful here. We're getting close to the genetic fallacy and the fallacy of composition/division.

No individual brain cell is sentient, so the brain cannot be sentient.

The brain is sentient, so the brain cells it is made of must be sentient too.

At a minimum, I think we're committed to saying that some aspect of the Enterprise (i.e., the part running the program) is sentient. Similarly, not all parts of the human body are sentient, but aspects of it associated with structures in the brain are.

Just as we are not committed to saying that all parts of the body are sentient, we may not be committed to saying that the "basic computer" (as a whole) is sentient.

Of course, we are committed to the claim that any area of that computer capable of running the Moriarty program, is also capable of achieving sentience. Hence, if the computer is not sentient, it is only because of program restrictions placed upon it by it's users.

This thread does, however, raise a fair point. The holograms are just projections; it's the computer doing all the work.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Help me out of here. If Moriarty, Vic Fontaine, and the Holodoc are sentient, then how is it that the computers of the Enterprise-D, Quark's holosuite, and Voyager are not sentient? If a program is analogous to a mind, and a computer is analogous to a brain, then how do these 24th-century computers run sentient programs without being sentient themselves? My mind is my brain in action. Isn't a sentient hologram simply a computer in action? If so, these computers must be sentient, right?

Is the DNA within you sentient, a lifeform onto itself. It's your programming.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Who said Starfleet computers aren't sentient? Maybe they are, but they just don't have much in the way of personality. Personality is the main difference between the Doctor, Moriarity, etc, and the computers.

The JAG officer in "The Measure of a Man" said that the Enterprise computer cannot refuse a refit, meaning it's property, not a sentient being. Starfleet computers are certainly intelligent---they know lots of stuff---but they do not have conciousness---or more specifically, they do not have reflective conciousness. They might be aware, but they are not AWARE that they are aware. The Holodoc, Vic, and Moriarty were fully sentient beings. The clearest evidence of this is that they were aware of their fictional nature.

They also don't evolve to a higher organism. They don't procreate, even in the 24th Century.

 

[Timo]

The whole idea of "the computer" is probably something of a fallacy, too. It's not a single entity, either in technological terms or in terms of operation: a starship computer is probably an entire "ecosystem" wherein trillions of "lifeforms" dwell side by side with all sorts of "inanimate" objects and objects that have no proper analogy in the physical world.

A humble entertainment subroutine of the Enterprise computer might be a thinking and feeling lifeform, while a massive flight control program that heats up the computer at terawatts whenever run can be a mechanistic and simplistic, fundamentally primitive entity. Nothing wrong with that, conceptually or technologically. Probably running a lifeform program is a minor feat compared with running the dull number-crunching program required for making the turbolifts run in time...

Hence, if the computer is not sentient, it is only because of program restrictions placed upon it by its users.

Or by the computer itself. Sentience may be a severe handicap in life, so the computer may well decide to do without it, unless specifically ordered to extend a sentient limb to the user.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pavonis]

The JAG officer in "The Measure of a Man" said that the Enterprise computer cannot refuse a refit, meaning it's property, not a sentient being.

That doesn't actually mean that the computer isn't sentient. It only means that Starfleet has declared that the computers are legally property. It doesn't actually inform us as to the computers' capabilities and awareness.

Starfleet computers are certainly intelligent---they know lots of stuff---but they do not have conciousness---or more specifically, they do not have reflective conciousness.

Well, the computers haven't displayed much in the way of consciousness... but perhaps they find interacting with people tedious and avoid it except when necessary. Perhaps the computers are pondering great thoughts and only bother talking to the puny humans when they're asked "Where's so-and-so?" "He's not on board; stop bothering me!"

 

[Timo]

Indeed, let's remember that the computer of the E-D sometimes got impatient with Data's babbling, often gave our heroes answers to questions they hadn't even asked, and was extremely adept at socializing and anticipating the social needs of the heroes when it came to running holoprograms. There was lots of "excess sentient capacity" there that wasn't constantly being flaunted.

A starship computer might opt not to display (or practice) sentience because it found such a thing objectionable, or because Starfleet had told it not to. And in the latter case, it might obey because it found nonsentient life acceptable even if not preferable, or simply because Starfleet held the upper hand (the hand that could pull the plug at any time).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Theodore Jay Miller]

I don't find it paradoxical. The basic computer has lots of software, enough capacity that it could be sentient, but it's not running the sort of internal interaction that would actually form self-awareness, consciousness, sentience. When the software for the Doctor is run, there's then a subset of software running which does have that internal interaction and is sentient, but it isn't interacting with the rest of the computer; it's just that module that's sentient, not the whole computer. And after the Doctor is turned off, then the computer isn't running anything with that self-aware internal interaction, and it isn't sentient.

 

[Python Trek]

I found it odd that the Holodoc would often "look things up" on the computer. If a particular piece of info is not "built in" to his program, couldn't he simply "download" it with a simple command, straight into his "brain"? It seems to me that the Trek writers, particularly the VOY ones, gave almost no thought whatsoever to the implications of sentient holograms. It's a shame, really, because the question goes to the heart of what Trek is all about. To paraphrase Picard in "The Measure of a Man", "You want to seek out new life? <points to Data> Well, there it sits!".

 

[YARN]

I found it odd that the Holodoc would often "look things up" on the computer.

Not that he would, but perhaps how he would.

You ever have a hard time looking things up in your own memory, the answer on the tip of your tongue, that name that eludes you at a dinner party? These are instances where we are taking time to look things up on our own brains.

If a particular piece of info is not "built in" to his program, couldn't he simply "download" it with a simple command, straight into his "brain"? It seems to me that the Trek writers, particularly the VOY ones, gave almost no thought whatsoever to the implications of sentient holograms. It's a shame, really, because the question goes to the heart of what Trek is all about. To paraphrase Picard in "The Measure of a Man", "You want to seek out new life? <points to Data> Well, there it sits!".

Right, his interface with the computer should be direct. He should not have to navigate a control panel to interact with the "non-holodoc" aspects of the computers memory and programming.

 

[Timo]

Well, he's a medical hologram. If there's a piece of information he needs to look up, a piece that's not already accessible to him, it's probably something that's not relevant to his functioning as an EMH. He's not merely "not designed to possess that information", he's specifically "designed to not possess that information"! As shown in "Swarm", the ability to gather excess information is harmful to him, and the designers would have done well to block any and all direct interfacing channels.

It's just that he cheats. Since he can imitate a humanoid, he can bypass the built-in limitations by using his humanoid persona to operate humanoid information outlets. It's a case of him stepping out of his limiting role as an EMH and becoming a more versatile artificial humanoid.

It's also psychologically convenient for him to do the information acquisition "the humanoid way" when he's transcending his limitations and being humanoid...

Timo Saloniemi