The Doctor's behavior in Equinox

[Paradise City]

Barclay has his genius brain housed in the Enterprise's main computer. The Enterprises computer is certainly capable of giving hospitality to sentient life.

 

[hux]

How can someone possibly claim that The Doctor was not sentient?f

How can someone possible claim that he is? Are you professor of what-is-sentient at Oxford?

Anthropomorphising does happen, but it is a fallacy to claim that just because it exists it means The Doctor is not sentient.

Did I say it did? No. I said it explained the crews position. I don't blame them for buying into his self-awareness. Some come to it sooner than others but they all eventually fold (even the ones, like B'Elanna who clearly weren't convinced).

Star Trek has a history of recognizing sentience in things that do not appear humanoid: such as in "Home Soil" and "The Quality of Life" as simple examples. The Doctor passes Bruce Maddox's sentience test from "The Measure of a Man". Saying that The Doctor is not sentient is no different than saying that Data is not sentient. The fact that he was programmed and part of the Voyager's computer is also irrelevant. It is possible for a superior being to emerge from something inferior (without accepting this one cannot believe in evolution).

Barclay has his genius brain housed in the Enterprise's main computer. The Enterprises computer is certainly capable of giving hospitality to sentient life.

So if you pass a fictional characters test for sentience, that qualifies as evidence?

Star Trek has a history of a lot of silly things. If your only requirement for creating genuine, self-aware life is to say the words..."computer, create an adversary capable of beating Data"... and the computer does so then perhaps you need to re-evaluate just how you define sentience and whether it might perhaps be a little too broad. Housing sentience and creating it are clearly different things.

that he made a mistake in programming his family, making them "too perfect", is also irrelevant to arguing against his sentience. How many human authors require editing of their work? How many have created Mary Sue's who are "too perfect"? Was Gene Roddenberry not sentient because of Wesley Crusher?

Editing poor work and... utter ignorance of the basics are two different things.

 

[Paradise City]

So if you pass a fictional characters test for sentience, that qualifies as evidence?

A fictional character passing a fictional character test in a fictional universe means that character is sentient within that particular universe, yes.

 

[hux]

Indeed and as I've already stated, the characters clearly buy into his sentience but there is nothing for us (the audience) to say yes, that is definitive proof. Trek is far too lax with its treatment of sentient life. You literally just have to ask the computer to create it and hey presto, it can.

Also, who is tux? I like the cut of his jib.

 

[Paradise City]

Indeed and as I've already stated, the characters clearly buy into his sentience but there is nothing for us (the audience) to say yes, that is definitive proof. Trek is far too lax with its treatment of sentient life. You literally just have to ask the computer to create it and hey presto, it can.

Also, who is tux? I like the cut of his jib.

If he passes a sentience test within that universe then he's sentient within that universe.

It's a fictional universe. Basic stuff like starships makin' noises in the vacuum of space doesn't make any sense when tested on reality. Foreheaded aliens doesn't make any sense when tested on reality and about a million things don't make sense when tested against reality within Star Trek. Star Trek comes across as quite cartoonish when you test it against reality.

When you engage with a fictional universe it's best to engage with the assumptions of that fictional universe. If you're trying to test a patently absurd universe like Star Trek against reality then the whole Star Trek universe comes crashing down.

Yeah, it's very goofy that 24th century computers can create life but there you go - that's what occurs in the Star Trek universe. I don't think audiences think that hard about these things anyway.

Tux was a better username so I took the liberty of changing it.

 

[Amaraen]

Paradise City is completely correct. You have to argue within the rules of the story's universe. By all definitions within Star Trek, The Doctor is sentient.

 

[hux]

I don't think audiences think that hard about these things anyway.

You're obviously new here.

Everything - no matter what insignificant minutiae it might be - is to be discussed in detail then re-discussed then a poll is done then a new thread is created so we can discuss it all over again until we all die. That's the fun of the forum. I very much take the position that the doctor's sentience should (and can) be questioned.

It's a fun discussion (one which I look forward to having again, probably in a few months time) and one in which I like to explore the nature of what the show is presenting. The pivotal issue for me regarding the doctor is the same as the one regarding Tuvix. Namely, that I don't see their personhood as clear cut. There is an interesting debate to be had.

Just as there was in the last doctor debate

Paradise City is completely correct. You have to argue within the rules of the story's universe. By all definitions within Star Trek, The Doctor is sentient.

Firstly, that would make for a dull discussion. Secondly, there is room for uncertainty on this issue even in-universe. We might agree that the crew accept the doctor's sentience (though we don't know that they all do) but as I've asked before... do Stafleet accept it? Admiral Janeway's shenanigans in getting Voyager home early might have massively hindered holographic rights. They may have reset him as soon as they got home to avoid a huge ethical dilemma.