Or it could be lazy writers....naaaaahhh!
Sentient Holograms?
- Thread starter Python Trek
- Start date
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?
A laptop can have a word processing program, but this doesn't mean that every program on the laptop is capable of word processing.
I'll just add my vote to the "it was a ridiculous and lazy plot device" to have holograms become sentient. The holodoc on VOY was a great character, but the whole plotline of him "evolving" more and more to self-aware, sentient personhood was ridiculous. He weas basically a complex computer program, nothing more.
An A.I. program (artificial intelligence) runs on a computer. With Data it's mostly the same thing, except of course that he has a positronic net that his programs run within. So, a "holodeck program" is kind of an extension of this.
The EMH doctor is designed to learn. This is necessary for it to build up medical expertise in the course of its workings. Of course, all medical techniques would be logged in the Starfleet medical database, but the subtle nuances of techniques would not... this is something captured by doing. I would think that in the Federation, the EMH doctor program would be linked up across multiple instances to share information. This would help propagate experience rapidly. But how far would this go? Would non-medical information be shared as well? Could in fact the EMH doctor become something like a Borg?
The EMH doctor continued learning and didn't stop at just medicine. Because he would be active for more than just emergencies, he took to learning more about living with humans. In essence, his learning helped him evolve... to the point where you could call him sentient. He wasn't constricted by a few programs. He was continuing to self modify his programs. What really set him apart from most other AI examples (like Data), is that he had much of Dr. Zimmerman's personality programmed into him. So, he had very human like characteristics.
Most holodeck programs are not designed to self-learn. What's most curious is Moriarty. He wasn't written to self-learn, but he was endowed with detective like characteristics, for his encounters with Sherlock Holmes. And perhaps his skills at detecting gradually shifted to operate with self-learning as well. But was he really sentient? I'm not so sure.
What bothered me most about Voyger's EMH doctor, is that he was treated like a corporeal entity. That his program could be "lost". That there was no concept of backup and retrieval proffered. The idea is just plain ridiculous, given what we know today about computing. Software programs are easily copied, backed up, and distributed.
The EMH doctor is designed to learn. This is necessary for it to build up medical expertise in the course of its workings. Of course, all medical techniques would be logged in the Starfleet medical database, but the subtle nuances of techniques would not... this is something captured by doing. I would think that in the Federation, the EMH doctor program would be linked up across multiple instances to share information. This would help propagate experience rapidly. But how far would this go? Would non-medical information be shared as well? Could in fact the EMH doctor become something like a Borg?
The EMH doctor continued learning and didn't stop at just medicine. Because he would be active for more than just emergencies, he took to learning more about living with humans. In essence, his learning helped him evolve... to the point where you could call him sentient. He wasn't constricted by a few programs. He was continuing to self modify his programs. What really set him apart from most other AI examples (like Data), is that he had much of Dr. Zimmerman's personality programmed into him. So, he had very human like characteristics.
Most holodeck programs are not designed to self-learn. What's most curious is Moriarty. He wasn't written to self-learn, but he was endowed with detective like characteristics, for his encounters with Sherlock Holmes. And perhaps his skills at detecting gradually shifted to operate with self-learning as well. But was he really sentient? I'm not so sure.
What bothered me most about Voyger's EMH doctor, is that he was treated like a corporeal entity. That his program could be "lost". That there was no concept of backup and retrieval proffered. The idea is just plain ridiculous, given what we know today about computing. Software programs are easily copied, backed up, and distributed.
If you think of the EMH as an exceptionally large and exceptionally resource-intensive program, most likely the single largest resource hog on the ship aside from the main computer itself, then it makes some sense that it couldn't be backed-up...Voyager simply didn't have the resources to hold two copies of it.
Of course, there's "Living Witness" to contradict that, but I tend to consider that a minor flaw in an otherwise delightful episode.
Of course, there's "Living Witness" to contradict that, but I tend to consider that a minor flaw in an otherwise delightful episode.
There could be other reasons for the inability to copy the EMH. Quite possibly, his program is too dynamic in nature to be copied - the idea of duplicating his data bits could be as ridiculous as the concept of killing Kirk, duplicating his molecules, and then reanimating both corpses!
Something like the EMH is probably as far beyond today's computer programs as a World War is beyond a game of tic-tac-toe. Analogies may well be futile.
Timo Saloniemi
Something like the EMH is probably as far beyond today's computer programs as a World War is beyond a game of tic-tac-toe. Analogies may well be futile.
Timo Saloniemi
*sigh*
Remember the episode where the EMH doctor is restarted, and he discovers that he's in a museum on some strange planet far in the future? He was contained in a Voyager data storage unit, no bigger than a football. Copying and storing him is no problem. The issue is that Voyager writers were remiss in remembering this fact and having too many situations where there's this "danger" of losing him. This isn't something that can be explained away to make it all fit together nice and neat. It's an oversight, pure and simple. And an annoying one, in episodes where the doctor is in danger of being "lost forever".
Remember the episode where the EMH doctor is restarted, and he discovers that he's in a museum on some strange planet far in the future? He was contained in a Voyager data storage unit, no bigger than a football. Copying and storing him is no problem. The issue is that Voyager writers were remiss in remembering this fact and having too many situations where there's this "danger" of losing him. This isn't something that can be explained away to make it all fit together nice and neat. It's an oversight, pure and simple. And an annoying one, in episodes where the doctor is in danger of being "lost forever".
^That would be "Living Witness", which I referenced previously, and where I consider the Doctor's back-up to be a necessary evil of the story rather than a well-considered notion.
In any case, episodes such as "The Swarm" previously established that the Doctor's program indeed could be lost, so I tend to think the back-up in "Living Witness" is either a retcon needed to make the episode work, or possibly something developed by the Voyager folks later in the series and not well-documented.
Given the overall high quality of "Living Witness" IMO, I'm willing to overlook this one questionable detail.
In any case, episodes such as "The Swarm" previously established that the Doctor's program indeed could be lost, so I tend to think the back-up in "Living Witness" is either a retcon needed to make the episode work, or possibly something developed by the Voyager folks later in the series and not well-documented.
Given the overall high quality of "Living Witness" IMO, I'm willing to overlook this one questionable detail.
But... knowing what we do about data storage and the curve of technological advances, it's inconceivable that Starfleet computer systems wouldn't have enough portable data storage to hold a program such as the EMH. Remember in the TNG episode "Ship in a Bottle" with Professor Moriarty, a seemingly "sentient" hologram, Barclay devised a portable storage unit that "contains enough active memory to provide them experiences for a lifetime." It seems very plausible for the EMH to fit into such a device.
Not necessarily. Moriarty didn't contain Starfleet's entire medical database plus whatever information the Doctor had added to himself since Caretaker.
In any case, the best information we have in "The Swarm" says that creating a backup of the EMH isn't possible. If you're not willing to believe the information we're given that's fine, but I'm not sure what you want to hear at that point.
In any case, the best information we have in "The Swarm" says that creating a backup of the EMH isn't possible. If you're not willing to believe the information we're given that's fine, but I'm not sure what you want to hear at that point.
The EMH doesn't have the whole Starfleet medical database stored with the program. We see him access it as a separate cache of data on a number of occasions.
It has been a long time since I saw "The Swarm"... what was said about not being able to backup the EMH? If this is the only reference, then we have two episodes in contention--one that says a backup isn't possible and one that proves there is.
It has been a long time since I saw "The Swarm"... what was said about not being able to backup the EMH? If this is the only reference, then we have two episodes in contention--one that says a backup isn't possible and one that proves there is.
"Living Witness" later established that Voyager did have a back-up module for the EMH program. The problem in "The Swarm" was not that the EMH could not be backed up, but rather that 1) his operational time by that point had exceeded the 1600 hours before program degradation would begin; and 2) his memory had swelled to include "non-relevant" information for a medical program, exceeding the memory capacity of the program. In other cases where there was a concern over losing the EMH, it involved the EMH being outside of sickbay while tasked to the mobile emitter.
For whatever reason, it seems like - without the back-up module (perhaps they only had one, and were unable to build or replicate another) - the program was unable to be backed up within the ship's computer systems directly. Perhaps the program was merely too complex.
For whatever reason, it seems like - without the back-up module (perhaps they only had one, and were unable to build or replicate another) - the program was unable to be backed up within the ship's computer systems directly. Perhaps the program was merely too complex.
^ Thanks, PsychoPere. Makes good sense to me.
A program is data. Data can be copied. Move or copy, it's essentially the same thing with regard to the destination. The EMH in the mobile emitter or the EMH in the computer core, doesn't make a difference. Wherever it can exist, it can be stored. The thing is that if data is copied, not transferred, then an "older" copy remains in the original place. You could essentially "wipe" that data out and refresh it with the latest, from whatever the location is--sickbay or mobile emitter.
Anyway, I'll refrain from beating the tired horse. The writers wanted to convey a "singularity" nature to the EMH, and in doing so went against some basic computer conventions. I think they could have achieved both, but perhaps they just didn't have a technical person on reference to help them with it.
Incidentally, did they ever attempt to make a replicated emitter? From what we're shown, it looks to be simply technology of a sophisticated nature, but it's corporeal nonetheless. The transporter can understand it and beam it around... you'd think that the pattern buffer could be used to replicate one. I wonder if they ever tried... can't remember.
A program is data. Data can be copied. Move or copy, it's essentially the same thing with regard to the destination. The EMH in the mobile emitter or the EMH in the computer core, doesn't make a difference. Wherever it can exist, it can be stored. The thing is that if data is copied, not transferred, then an "older" copy remains in the original place. You could essentially "wipe" that data out and refresh it with the latest, from whatever the location is--sickbay or mobile emitter.
Anyway, I'll refrain from beating the tired horse. The writers wanted to convey a "singularity" nature to the EMH, and in doing so went against some basic computer conventions. I think they could have achieved both, but perhaps they just didn't have a technical person on reference to help them with it.
Incidentally, did they ever attempt to make a replicated emitter? From what we're shown, it looks to be simply technology of a sophisticated nature, but it's corporeal nonetheless. The transporter can understand it and beam it around... you'd think that the pattern buffer could be used to replicate one. I wonder if they ever tried... can't remember.
