Synth ban

[The_Baroness]

What does it mean for holograms? Is Voyagers EMH switched off somewhere, or was he granted an exception due to his service on Voyager?

Could HE be the reason Seven gets involved instead of what most likely assume to be due to the Borg?

I realise Rios has Holograms, but they could easily be illegally obtained.

Or, is it as simple as The Federation doesnt consider holograms to be lifeforms like they (eventually) did Data, and presumably synths after?

 

[Nerys Myk]

What does it mean for holograms? Is Voyagers EMH switched off somewhere, or was he granted an exception due to his service on Voyager?

Could HE be the reason Seven gets involved instead of what most likely assume to be due to the Borg?

I realise Rios has Holograms, but they could easily be illegally obtained.

Or, is it as simple as The Federation doesnt consider holograms to be lifeforms like they (eventually) did Data, and presumably synths after?

There was a holo in the archive Picard went to. So holos are good. Physical synths bad

 

[SJGardner]

As long as holograms are mainly software that require a computer core of a starship or a base to be run on and can be deactivated by a simple voice command, I think they'd be deemed safer for general use than synths with their completely independent hardware. The Federation is far too dependent on AI to implement such a blanket ban.

 

[KennyB]

IT means NOTHING for them because they are not the same thing.

 

[Rao Van Tickle]

The difference between synths and holograms might lie in the way of the creation / emergence of sentience (or is consciousness the better term here? English is not my first language), at least in the eyes of Starfleet.

Holograms, as seen with Voyager's EMH, seem to grow as personality due to adaption of their program in resonance with their experiences. So they write their code (with or without clear intention, we've seen both cases) themselves after starting out in a basic form.

Synths, at least those of the Soong type, seem to develop their sentience through adaptation of the hardware. That's how I always understood the positronic brain to be, comparable to a biological brain, but built out of artificial neurons, synapses and whatnot. And those neurons are able to grow and develop in response to enviromental stimuli. That's also the implication of Juliana Tainer's description of Data's "childhood".

Now, I believe that synths appear more unpredictable, if they truly are able to develop instincts and ethics in a way which can not be interfered in through outside forces, in contrast to the coding of holograms.

That's merely speculation on my part though. To call the synths "rogue" may or may not cover an naturally (if technologic) evolved reason for an uprising. And then is there the in universe implied "hacking" of the synths.

I'm curious about other possible explanations...

 

[Rao Van Tickle]

To add to my comment above: As a bonus, a biological-like nature of the positronic neurons (self replication, building of new pathways etc.), leads to the possibility of cloning of said neurons being a bit more believable.

 

[Makarov]

IT means NOTHING for them because they are not the same thing.

The Doctor from Voyager would certainly object to it even if not applying to himself

 

[The Wormhole]

Besides, holograms have a perfect built-in security feature: don't want them in a particular room, don't install holoprojectors in that room. Granted, once mobile emitters become widespread that's gone, but I guess the fact that a good whack in the arm deactivates the hologram is an acceptable trade-off.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Neither are sentient.

Data was made to mimic sentience, and holograms were created to be docile slaves.

Positronic brains are randomizers. The computer can try to be logical, but it's impossible to force a positronic brain to act predictable. Meaning it's difficult to preconsider if an electron is is going to chose path A or path B, 160 thousand times a second.

Regular holograms do not use use randomization, they use long winded algorithms to impersonate randomization, and the less Human their creators want the hologram to seem, the less shuffled the algorithmic randomization seems.

 

[KennyB]

The Doctor from Voyager would certainly object to it even if not applying to himself

He can argue all he likes till I turn of the holo emitters........Are they both AI, YES , are they both Synths NO.

 

[Timo]

Well, you can argue all you want till I turn the machete in your jugular. How's that particularly relevant to whether you are sentient or not?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kor]

There was a holo in the archive Picard went to. So holos are good. Physical synths bad

That one was just a dumb interactive terminal, though.

Kor

 

[Longinus]

Neither are sentient.

And neither are you. Prove me wrong.

 

[Guy Gardener]

And neither are you. Prove me wrong.

Sentient means that you can sense stuff with your senses.

I can see your posts, and I can prove that I see than by reading them, and responding appropriately.

According to Wikipedia, sentience only means sapience in science Fiction, becuase its too hard to fight nerds with bad facts, but usually sentience does not mean sapience.

Proving sapience is harder than proving sentience.

 

[Longinus]

Sentient means that you can sense stuff with your senses.

I can see your posts, and I can prove that I see than by reading them, and responding appropriately.

According to Wikipedia, sentience only means sapience in science Fiction, becuase its too hard to fight nerds with bad facts, but usually sentience does not mean sapience.

Proving sapience is harder than proving sentience.

Yes, I know that it is used incorrectly in scifi. But you cannot prove that you have consciousness, and this is what is implied by sentience in this context. A clever chat bot could reply to my comments.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Riker tried to prove that Data wasn't sentient, because he could rend par-steel with his bare hands.

I cannot rend par-steel with my bare hands, so I must be sentient.

 

[Longinus]

Riker tried to prove that Data wasn't sentient, because he could rend par-steel with his bare hands.

I cannot rend par-steel with my bare hands, so I must be sentient.

Riker lost his case, so I don't think that counts.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Riker lost his case, so I don't think that counts.

If that's his argument, Riker threw the case.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Sentient means that you can sense stuff with your senses.

If that's the definition we're using, then synths and holos are even more sentient than you or I. Dahj is killing Romulan ninja assassins right and left while blindfolded. She must have an amazing sense of her surroundings.

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

Riker tried to prove that Data wasn't sentient, because he could rend par-steel with his bare hands.

I cannot rend par-steel with my bare hands, so I must be sentient.

It always bothered me that Louvois overruled Picard's objection that many biological species possessed mega strength. It was a valid point.