By Meg on Thursday, December 31, 1998 - 12:02 pm:
I find this one of my favorite episodes.
Every time I watch it though I always wonder why Picard got the picture of Yar. It was almost like he knew that she and data had a liason of some kind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Thomas on Thursday, December 31, 1998 - 12:13 pm:
When Tasha died, maybe Picard had to access her personal logs?
But on the little statue of Yar - was Denise Crosby paid a small royalty for this brief appearance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Hans Thielman on Wednesday, February 17, 1999 - 02:03 pm:
Why didn't Maddox appeal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mike Konczewski on Wednesday, February 17, 1999 - 05:33 pm:
I believe this was not a trial, but binding arbitration. Once two parties agree to binding arbitration, there is no recourse for appeal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Meg on Saturday, February 20, 1999 - 09:17 pm:
But Chris Thomas, she said it "never happened" I don't think she was going to put it in her personal logs, I mean I wouldn't if something "never happened," but I do see your point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Thomas on Saturday, February 20, 1999 - 11:45 pm:
It is possible she changed her mind - as time went on she may have thought about it and then realised how special it sort of was - she had sex with an Starfleet's top android! Her "never happened" comment was straight after the event.
Possible there were rumours running riot around the Enterprise as well and Picard picked up on those?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Charles Cabe (Ccabe) on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 02:35 pm:
I like that explanation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Meg on Sunday, February 21, 1999 - 08:13 pm:
That does make sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mark Morgan on Thursday, February 25, 1999 - 09:31 pm:
The picture in question, if it's the one Picard shows to the jury at the end of the trial, is one he pulls out of Data's bag. Data had packed it earlier to prepare for the transfer to Commander Maddox. The image of Tasha Yar is identical to her farewell hologram, right down to the clouds in the background.
Believe it or not, I made a connection about this particular episode driving home from work today! In the NexGen Guides, Phil wonders why the JAG officer called Data a toaster, since they cook everything by replicator. The "Wild Card" anthology series also features an android that his creator contemptuously calls a toaster. The connection? "Measure of a Man" writer Melinda Snodgrass also wrote stories for "Wild Cards."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By D.K. Henderson on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 07:58 am:
Regarding Riker's very effective moment where he turned Data off: I was rather hoping that Dr. Crusher would come in, inject Riker with a quick-acting sedative (Or a lethal poison, for that matter), and then "turn him on" again with an antidote. Everybody's got an off switch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mike Konczewski on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 08:20 am:
D.K.--true, but the difference is, Data's on/off switch is built in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rene on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 02:36 pm:
Interesting episode. Of course, it contradicts the original series episode where Kirk is accused of killing Lt. Finney. In that episode, Kirk's lawyer successfully argues that "a machine has no rights." Is it just me, or were they really paranoid of machines and computers in the 60s?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mike Konczewski on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 04:07 pm:
You're definitely right, Rene, people in the 60's were very distrustful of computers. The list of films that revolve around evil computers is very long, from Tracey and Hepburn's "Desk Set" to "Colossus: The Forbin Project." I think the fear arose from the fact that early computers were not exactly user friendly. People tend to distrust that which they don't understand. While modern computers still need to improve accessibility, they're light years ahead of Univac.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mark Morgan on Friday, February 26, 1999 - 09:00 pm:
Not going to start a new thread! Honest. But..we ain't too thrilled with computers now--just watch (if you can) "The Net." Hey! Technology can destroy your life! Especially if the pizza delivery people seem to have forgotten who you are...
I really enjoyed this episode, too. Considering Data's emerging friendship with the crew at this point in the series, I had high hopes that he would develop emotions naturally. This episode in particular, and the evidence for his sentience, got me going. Then they got the chip, and wimped out. Sigh. When they elect me God....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mike Konczewski on Monday, March 1, 1999 - 10:09 am:
Well, with the Y2K issue, I think we're going to see some new anti-computer backlash in the near future. And if there actually are problems on 1/1/2000, watch out!
Of course, if there aren't any problems, I'd hate to be a Y2K consultant on 1/1/2000.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Charles Cabe (Ccabe) on Monday, March 1, 1999 - 04:04 pm:
If I were a Y2000 consultant, I would say that there were no problems because we fixed the before they happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mike Konczewski on Monday, March 1, 1999 - 04:36 pm:
You should go into marketing, Charles. ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Keith Alan Morgan on Monday, April 19, 1999 - 10:04 am:
In Who Watches The Watchers Picard doesn't want the Mintakans to return to the "dark ages of superstition", implying that 24th century Humans are no longer subject to superstition. If that is true, then why in this episode does O'Brien insist on sitting on the dealer's right for luck? (Not to mention Lavois' later comments about whether Data or herself have souls.)
Data says that he can gauge the strength of each players' hand by the bets, but later he tells Bruce Maddux that he had read every treatise and book on Poker, so why didn't Data understand the nature and power of the bluff?
This is really a real life nit instead of a Star Trek nit, but the General in Judge Advocate General refers to the fact that in the Army the position is held by a Brigadier General, but in the Navy the position is held by a Captain. So why isn't the position in the Navy called Judge Advocate Captain?
Data asks Maddux if he has solved the electron flow problem. I should think electron flow would be a real problem in a positronic brain since positrons are anti-electrons.
Maddux says that he has studied all of Soong's work. Oh, really? Then why didn't he know about Data's off switch? Riker has to discover Data's off switch all by himself when he is researching Data. Which brings up another question. In Datalore wasn't Riker on the Bridge when Lore, disguised as Data, casually mentions the off switch?
Picard is amazed that Starbase 173 was built so close to Neutral Zone, then we find out that Data has been reassigned to Starbase 173 under the command of Maddux, who will be conducting tests to figure out how to duplicate Data. A unique cybernetic achievement like Data will be taken apart and studied fairly close to an enemy power who can fly right up to the Starbase in cloaked ships. Well, it's good to see that the Starfleet brain trust isn't basing its membership on high IQ numbers. (It's especially interesting when you remember that Admiral Jarok will tell Data in The Defector that "a host of Romulan cyberneticists would love to be this close to you." Hmmm, perhaps it's not Starfleet officials who keep trying to take away Data's rights, it's those Romulan spies who've infiltrated Starfleet's ranks?)
Data refers to himself as unique, apparently believing that Lore is dead.
This last time when Phillipa Lavois refers to Data as a toaster, I wondered how would Data be able to cook two slices of bread?
Lavois chooses Riker to argue that Data is just property, but couldn't she have chosen one of the officers who serve on the Starbase or even Maddux himself to do this? (Or are we supposed to believe that an entire Starbase, based near the Neutral Zone, is manned by an Admiral, Commander Maddux, JAG Officer Lavois and a frightened Ensign?) If the Admiral is not based at the Starbase then he must have arrived by ship, so why not use one of his officers?
Maddux was the only member of the screening committee to oppose Data's entry to Starfleet because he was not a sentient being, therefore the rest of the committee must have felt Data was sentient, but when asking for a definition of sentience Picard asks Maddux for his definition of sentience and ignores the arguments of the rest of the committee. One would assume that when Maddux said Data was not sentient, one or more of the other members must have had a good argument to say he was sentient?
Even if he knew Lore was still alive, Data would still be unique.
And therefore, shouldn't his name be Datum? :-)
How could Star Fleet even beging to bring up the arguement that Data was property? I mean, they didn't invent him. He came to them and applied to the Academy on his own free will. The ship computers didn't do that.
I think I figured out how Picard knew about Yar & Data.
(Shortly after The Naked Now)
Picard: Lt. Yar, did you input the data?
Yar: How did you find out about that? I told Data it didn't happen!
Shouldn't that be in the groaners section?
I considered putting it there. ;-)
That's what Data said.
(sorry, had to)
I have a number of issues with Measure of a Man - some already mentioned. (Of course I realize that the problems are mostly because writers generally don't bother with logic or canon, in order to crank out 40-odd minutes of so-called tension and drama.)
Stupidities like the starbase-near-the-enemy, the fact that Maddox clearly knew Data was built by Soong (having been a student of Soong and of Data, for his whole life) yet everyone was surprised in DataLore. Not to mention that Maddox couldn't have been much more than 35 or 40 at the most at the time of MoaM -- making the claim that he was on Data's academy admissions board 24 years earlier ridiculous.
But my main gripe is that the emotional tactics Riker used totally ignored the much more important point of *logic*. Maddox believed everything about Data was explainable by pointing at algorithms (albeit complex ones) and this would be true if Data were only a machine. Given the algorithms' details, and certain inputs, a machine would necessarily give specific response(s) (within a certain range, if randomization of some factors plays a part). Presumably Data, as a person, has something *more* than the dictates Soong built into him. Some unpredictability not explainable by looking at the variables involved.
As for Maddox, his position really wasn't so unreasonable. Let's face it - a guy who has spent his life studying Data's construction and programming isn't going to jump to the conclusion that Data suddenly came *alive*. The more one knows of a technology, the less one is inclined to believe in "magic".
Plus - no android prior to Data had *ever* been considered alive or to be a *person* once their machine origin was known -- even those far more realistic than Data, like Rayna or the Exo androids. Why *would* Maddox think that the very literal Data he examined was different than all those realistic androids? Why would he think Data was a person -- remember how literal and awkward Data was early first season? Now imagine him 24 years earlier...
Another fundamental flaw was in Maddox's comment, "if it were a box on wheels, we wouldn't be having this conversation." Wrong - form has nothing to do with sentience. Data's brain in a box would be just as sentient as it is in a humanoid frame.
And last but not least, it's interesting that Maddox is so thoroughly reviled by fans. He really, really believes that Data is simply a machine and his actions are logical in that light. Picard has no reason for not trusting Maddox - actually, while Maddox is obviously impulsive and temperamental, he clearly does abide by the rules by getting the transfer orders, by requesting the designation of property... good preemptive tactics.
Maddox finally does redeem himself when, having finally spent time with Data, he comes to the emotional and subjective assessment that Data is a person. Not such a bad guy after all. Though I would have really liked to see Maddox and LaForge meet, and for LaForge to punch his lights out. Now that's what I call drama! ;-)
Sorry to upset any pathetic Trekkies out there, but as an android, Data has no more rights than a chair or a holodeck character.
I love this idea that somehow there is thought behind that white face of his there is thought going on instead of cogs and wheels and processors. (It is white isn't it? People often say he has gold skin and I wonder if I might be colour blind. As far as I can see Data is white and R2-D2 is gold.)
Take his emotion chip. The way people go on you would think that the chip made him actually feel joy and sadness rather than simply activate a subroutine that makes him say "I am happy" when a baby is born, and "I am sad" when a crew member dies.
Maddox was right in what he said, and Data should indeed have been taken to pieces, along with Wesley, Troi and Worf too if I had had my way. And Riker would have to watch his step too. :-)
Peter.
Congratulations, you're colorblind. R2-D2 is white and blue. Data's face is gold-ish. C3P0 is gold.
Bleedin' troll
I meant the gold one from Star Wars. If people wouldn't give them silly names then people wouldn't get them confused.
And are you sure about this? When Data walked into a poker game with Gul Dukat in Time's Arrow Dukat said "Pale face". How can gold skin be pale?
And I'm not a troll.
Peter.
**Sorry to upset any pathetic Trekkies**
You're a troll.
No, I just don't like these people who won't admit that Data is as much a machine as the computer you use to read this.
Peter.
No, I just don't like these people who won't admit that Data is as much a machine as the computer you use to read this.
Peter.
You can say that without calling them pathetic.
Plus, as they say on MST3K, "Remember that it's just TV, you really should relax!"
They use gold make-up on Brent Spiner's face -which isn't *as* gold as C-3PO or natural gold - and the lighting used in different episodes tends to make the face look pale. An instance where I do recall the gold make-up being noticeable is the close-ups of Data in Star Trek: First Contact when the Borg Queen has him strapped up.
Lavois says the hearing can't be held because she lacks the staffmembers to fill in the positions. So bacause she havn't got the manpower, the legal rights of Starfleet personel is curtailed?
And who made this silly rule that people who has an emotional relationship/freindship with the defendant can act as prosecuters. Talk about a conflict of interest. I know she said that Riker should make an effort to win, but people are people.
During the hearing picard objects to the test of Datas strenght and Lavois says she can't agree. Is the correct respons not "overruled"?
Maddox says that if he is able to duplicate Data it would meen limitless possibilities for human development. So he wouldn't share this invention with the Vulcans, Andorians, Betazeds, Trills etc. even though they are Federation members.
During the farewell party for Data he carefully peels of the paper the present is wrapped in claiming that it could be reused. Well isn't it just to recycle it in the replicator, shreeded or non-shreeded.
I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but it appears to me that in the enlightend 24th century people is expected to testify against themselves as Data does in this episode.
Teral: ***Lavois says the hearing can't be held because she lacks the staffmembers to fill in the positions. So bacause she havn't got the manpower, the legal rights of Starfleet personel is curtailed...
And who made this silly rule that people who has an emotional relationship/freindship with the defendant can act as prosecuters. Talk about a conflict of interest. I know she said that Riker should make an effort to win, but people are people. ***
It's been a while since I've seen this episode. And I'm certain Jwb52z will be there to correct me if I'm wrong...
The reason she forced Riker to prosecute was because she *was* short on personnel and didn't want to curtail Data's rights. Regardless, a person's rights are not curtailed in this situation any more than a defendant's rights are curtailed when the courts adjourn for the weekend.
Teral: ***During the hearing picard objects to the test of Datas strenght and Lavois says she can't agree. Is the correct respons not "overruled"? ***
If this were the American justice system, this is usually the case. But this is a Starfleet/Federation hearing so the protocols may be different. And I don't think the word "overruled" is required, anyway. I think any statement where the judge's decision is clear will suffice.
And who made this silly rule that people who has an emotional relationship/freindship with the defendant can act as prosecuters.
That's been in Trek since the beginning. See TOS:"Court Martial". Seems like the rules of judicial/prosecutorial impropriety have devolved since our current day.
Teral: ***During the hearing picard objects to the test of Datas strenght and Lavois says she can't agree. Is the correct respons not "overruled"? ***
Mikey: ***If this were the American justice system, this is usually the case. But this is a Starfleet/Federation hearing so the protocols may be different. And I don't think the word "overruled" is required, anyway. I think any statement where the judge's decision is clear will suffice. ***
Teral: Picard earlier described Lavois as someone following the law to the letter. Since she used the word "sustained" when ruling in favor of an objection it would seem logical that she would use the word "overruled" when ruling against an objection.
Teral: ***Lavois says the hearing can't be held because she lacks the staffmembers to fill in the positions. So bacause she havn't got the manpower, the legal rights of Starfleet personel is curtailed...
And who made this silly rule that people who has an emotional relationship/freindship with the defendant can act as prosecuters. Talk about a conflict of interest. I know she said that Riker should make an effort to win, but people are people. ***
Mikey: ***It's been a while since I've seen this episode. And I'm certain Jwb52z will be there to correct me if I'm wrong...
The reason she forced Riker to prosecute was because she *was* short on personnel and didn't want to curtail Data's rights. Regardless, a person's rights are not curtailed in this situation any more than a defendant's rights are curtailed when the courts adjourn for the weekend. ***
Teral: I see this the other way around. Lavois finds presedent that says that Data is the property of Starfleet. Picard says is going to appeal. Lavois answers that it would be very difficult because she is short on staff. On sugestion from Picard she uses on-the-site officers to fill in, Picard becomes defender and Riker have to be prosecuter. Riker objects saying he considers Data a freind and thus won't and can't. Lavois then coerce Riker by stating that if he don't her original ruling stands.
So if Riker don't play ball Data won't get his appeal trial. Would it really be that difficult to send notice to Starfleet that they need some additional JAG personel in order to settle a case with farreaching consequences. It would only mean a few days delay, a week at the most.
Don't get me wrong. This is a great episode, but I can tell that it was written by people with little to no legal understanding.
Maddox tries to make his point that Data is a machine by asking "What if the computer of the Enterprise refused a refit?" Lavois acts like he just hit her with a real zinger. Picard should have jumped on that little analogy immediately because it would only serve as proof that Data isn't a machine. Here's how it should have gone:
Picard: You just proved my point.
Maddox: What do you mean?
Picard: Would you allow the computer of the Enterprise to refuse a refit? No. Would you allow the computer of the Enterprise to join Starfleet?
Maddox: No
Picard: Why?
Maddox: Because it's a machine.
Picard: Exactly. Data was admitted to Starfleet Academy. He graduated with honors. He has been decorated for bravery on numerous occasions. For Data to have even reached this point Starfleet has already at least tacitly acknowledged that Data is more than a mere machine.
Also, in the context of the episode Riker's arguement is totally ineffective simply because it's the wrong argument entirely.
Oooooh Riker proved beyond a shadow of a doubt Data was a machine. So what? The fact that he is a machine is blatantly obvious and incontrivertible. What was always at issue was whether or not Data was sentient. On that basis Riker would have no argument because he can no more conclusively disprove Data's sentience than he could conclusively prove his own.
NIT (IMHO) No Troi.
ALTERNATE ENDING:
JAG: "Data is a toaster."
Picard: "No, he is not!"
Data: "Yes, I am. I'll prove it!" (Suddenly, toasted bread starts popping out of Data)
Picard: "Anyone got a pound of butter?"
(Anyone who's seen "The Ant & The Aardvark" cartoon will get this joke)
I fail to understand the JAG's decision to not call Data "sentient". Picard seemed to feel that Prof. Moriarty in "Elementary Dear Data" was sentient. AND HE WAS A HOLOGRAPHIC IMAGE! Why didn't Data just say, "I think, therefore I am" and be done with it?
Philosophically speaking, Data merely saying "I think, therefore I am" would prove nothing about Data except that he had been programmed to utter those words. The phrase "I think, therefore I am" served Descartes to prove to HIMSELF that HE existed in some form--that is, that even if the entire universe, including even Descartes's own body, was an illusion perpetrated by some "evil genius," the fact that he could still think proved that he himself did exist, even if only as a disembodied consciousness. In short, "I think, therefore I am" can't be used to prove another's sentience, or one's own sentience to another, but only to prove one's own sentience to oneself.
The starbase for this episode resembles Regula One from "Star Trek II"
It isn't so much that they want to blur the distinction between men and machines as the wholly ridiculous basis behind the ideas that make it up. If someone like the Doctor is programmed to be a certain way, then what is the purpose of deeming him a sentient being anyway? If you determined every possible way in which he will behave by programming him, then he is literally your slave even if he is "sentient". He has not an ounce of freedom in the sense of free will and nothing can change that, so if you are to value these programs as sentient lives, this "slavery" must stop and no more programs can be made. The Doctor could never "choose" to leave Starfleet or become something else, unless his designer programmed him to be that way under certain circumstances (which would make no sense at all, of course). He could never make any independent decisions at all, and his whole life is based on a written program that apparently once compiled produced a "spark" of life which some call the soul and some consciousness, but which separates us from what we know to be machines.
Furthermore, there is the idea that machines can "break their programming" or "go beyond their original programming". This again makes zero sense, as the inclination and ability to do so would have to have been pre-programmed in by a man who obviously wanted the programming to survive. The idea that the Doctor could independently decide to behave in a manner which is not a part of his programming is literally as realistic as a pocket calculator deciding to respond "Do your own freaking multiplication" when you press the "=" key after typing in a sum you want solved. If Star Trek insists on artificial characters all the time, the least they could do is consult some programmers. It wouldn't be acceptable to have moons jumping out of their orbit for no reason or planets without gravity or something, so why have "sentient" computer programs that can feel, act independently and do things they were never programmed to do?
Peter.
I agree with you on that. How can a machine go beyond it's programming.
So I doubt we will ever be able to create a Data or an EMH in real life.
Well scientists can't even agree on a definition of consciousness. So we are a long way from "creating" it yet. If we can explain it, maybe it is the first step towards reproducing it. I don't know. I think that consciousness as we know it cannot have evolved on its own, and so it can't be created without divine intervention. I will get round to reading a few books by the Philosopher Daniel C. Dennett before coming to a final decision on that.
Of course, you've also got to realize that you're coming at this from a 21st Century way of thinking and knowledge of electronics and how limited we currently are with technology. In the future science might be able to create an AI that's so beyond what all the Steven Hawkins in the world now could imagine. I dunno that it'll really ever happen (probably not) but who's to really say right now? A person today really can't project what we know about electronics now onto what it'll be like decades, let alone centuries, from now.
Technology will advance so much further than what we know it to be now so it's possible that one day maybe, just maybe, a sentient AI will be created. But again, probably not. If we've learned anything from AI's-gone-bad sci-fi films (2001, Demon Seed, Colossus: The Forbin Project) then let it be that we shouldn't create any AI that could be so intelligent or powerful as to desire world domination, especially ones that we wouldn't have some sort of failsafe way to disable them if they did. We'd have to be very careful in just how far we'll be willing to go to allow AI's to be sentient.
I'd just like to point out that the whole idea of Data and other artifical lifeforms is that they have artifical intelligence. Dispite the fact that video game programers always say the virtual enemy has artifical intelligence the truth is that no scientist has ever come close to creating true AI. True AI would be a machine that thinks for itself. The whole point of Data and Holodoc is that they were made as true artifical intelligence. People in our time trying to grasp the idea of how that could be created would be like the Wright brothers trying to imagine how to build an airplane that could go mach 7.
The point of my post is that some things are impossible no matter what technology you have.
But isn't that the point of science FICTION? To play with ideas that seem impossible to us?
Again, there is a difference between something seeming impossible and something being impossible. There are certain things that science teaches cannot be done - ever.
I would contend that a little knowledge of programming would reveal that a computer could no more have free will than a pocket calculator. If you programme in some free will, then it is all pre-determined by programming, and the will is not free. If you programme him to behave randomly, it is still random behaviour, not freely chosen behaviour. There is no way around this conundrum.
That's assuming that the computer operates in the same way as computers do today. If we could learn to make a computer that operated like the human brain does would that not be true artificial intelligence?
are certain things that science teaches cannot be done - ever
Such as travelling faster than light?
As usual, the discussions on AI seem to assume that AIs operate like PCs/microprocessors, executing a set of preprogrammed instructions: IF...THEN...ELSE. I agree that it is hard to see how this can amount to consciousness.
However, the most encouraging research into AI is not based on microprocessors. It is based on neural nets which mimic the operation of the brain. The neural net is not preprogrammed, but is set a goal. The net learns from experience, making whatever connections are needed to attain the goal.
The result is a machine which (with varying degrees of success) performs the assigned function, but where the means by which the machine performs the task was not defined by the scientists who created it.
When you look at the functioning neural net, you do not see a program; you see an incomprehensible web of neural connections.
In other words, the creators may have some idea what the net does, but may have little idea how it does it.
This is a better starting point for a discussion of whether AI can be conscious.
Faster than light travel is a good example of something that will always be impossible. At least Star Trek tries to work a way around this though. This is more than can be said for Data/EMH etc.
Computers like human brains would still ultimately be machines. Machines can't and don't do anything that they aren't told to do. You could ask a machine to behave randomly, but it couldn't act for itself. So even if you could produce a conscious machine, it would still be nothing more than a slave to the program humans had written for it. It would be a conscious, sentient slave. There would be no justification for such a thing at all.
That's as may be. But science has not yet proven it impossible.
Scott, a machine by definition does as it is told - either by direct commands, or by an earlier program created by its designer. For example, it is perfectly possible for a pocket calculator to display the sum "6 x 7 = 42" without a person typing that into the keypad. But only if the man who made it had first told it to do this.
My point is that a machine capable of independent thought and action is a contradiction in terms. So even if you could make a conscious machine, there would be no getting around the problem of it being a slave to whatever certain people want it to do.
Of course, (IMHO) the whole debate whether or not Data was sentient and have rights SHOULD HAVE been decided when Data entered Starfleet.
You'd think they would've seen Data's CHOICE to enter Starfleet as an act of self-decision..therefore..SENTIENCE!
I am surpised also that Starfleet didn't see Maddox's attempt to create a race of Datas and then use them for "forced labor" as slavery.
Theoretically, a sufficiently sophisticated neural net taught to attain a goal would not be dissimilar to an animal brain trained by humans, or to a human brain directed by laws, peer pressure and religion.
And just like a human or animal brain, a neural net would have the capacity to 'go down the wrong path', learn the wrong lessons, and end up either incapable of performing the intended function, end up wilfully disobeying its creator, or just being plain selfish.
John, Data couldn't choose anything. He joined Starfleet because of the way Soong programmed him. If he had been programmed in a different way, he would have had another career.
Sophie, are you saying the people have no free will?
John, Data couldn't choose anything. He joined Starfleet because of the way Soong programmed him. If he had been programmed in a different way, he would have had another career. I find this interesting in light of Soong's desire to have Data become a scientist, not an officer of Starfleet.
Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind argues for Peter's side of this debate, which is countered by people like Marvin Minsky and his colleagues of the "strong AI" school. Penrose's book made me go lie down several times while reading it. Strong stuff.
I find this interesting in light of Soong's desire to have Data become a scientist, not an officer of Starfleet.
I also gave that some thought. It is important to realise I don't mean this literally (not always, anyway). Data clearly wasn't given a "job=starfleet officer" subroutine. But he was programmed with the mechanisms by which he made the "choice" on which career path he wished. He could not have disobeyed that. Of course, even if Star Trek said otherwise, they would still be wrong, for reasons explained above. But this isn't necessarily a nit.
Peter, people have free will, but maybe not as much as you think.
You can choose to respond to the post or not. If you are tempted to do something you think wrong, you can choose whether to obey the rules or obey your morallity.
But look at the people around you. Could you, by an act of will, choose to be one of them? (I'm not talking about physically, of course.) Can you choose to have the characteristics they have, can you choose to lack the characteristics they lack? Could you choose to like the things they like, if those things are currently boring or abhorent to you? Could you choose to delight in committing a crime which every fibre of your current self screams is wrong?
People are diverse in their abilities and desires. Your intellect can allow you to emphasise or de-emphasise some abilities and desires, but only to an extent.
Even a new-born baby has a distinct personallity, before it has acquired any experience.
We all have some free will, but are also slaves to our own programming.
We may need our own JAG officer to settle this A.I. issue.
If we are slaves to our programming then our wills are not free. Make your mind up.
NANJAO: Frakes (Riker) and Sirtis (Troi) look like they are genuinely laughing when Spiner (Data) rips the gift wrap in half just to satisfy Wesley's nitpicking.
A few links regarding "artificial" animals (and there should be also an article in Nature):
Phonotaxis in crickets and robots
Tierisch kuenstlich (in German, use babelfish or teletranslator)
The biobots (equipped with a neural network) are better than a computer simulation when it comes to realism.
data- bot! data is a toaster one of treks best lines
WHY does Data's fingers move AFTER his arm is disconnected from the rest of his body?
Because Dr. Noonian Soong is the brother of the "space hippie" with a great sense of rhythm from "The Way to Eden."
He's so angry at Riker for doing it that he's trying to use his fingers to tell Riker what he thinks of him.
Maddox never responds to Data's question about uninvited entry.
At that point in time, Data is either
I'm not familiar with military law. If this took place under today's UCMJ, would Data be required to take the stand?
When I decided to start scrutinizing the show myself for nits, and record them, this was the first episode that I did. It was after the series ended its original run, and began repeats with the second season. I was quite proud of the first three listed here, which were the ones I saw when I first saw this episode’s repeat. Whereas I normally try to list nits in chronological order of when they occur in an episode, I decided to list these first three together because they were the first ones I ever came up with. First up:
No, but that weird purple cylinder ship in the Enterprise rec room in ST The Motion Picture sure is! It’s part of canon, but nobody knows where or when it existed!
When Admiral Nakamura states, "For five hundred years, every ship that has born the name Enterprise has become a legend." Five hundred years? Obviously, he can’t mean the starships Enterprise, since their history only spans 214 years by this episode. While it is true there were other Enterprises, such as the real life aircraft carrier seen in ST IV (though that was actually the U.S.S. Ranger, standing in for the Enterprise, which was at sea at the time of the movie’s filming), and the first space shuttle test orbiter Enterprise, and the sailing ship seen in Generations (though I don’t know if that was a historically real or fictional ship), were any of these ships really "legends?" The shuttle orbiter was only a test prototype, and never flew into space. As for the sailing ship, was that even a real ship? Is it considered a maritime "legend?"
Did Picard stuff a few more medals in the case before the proceedings to make Data look better?
When the courtroom computer lists Data’s medals, it lists four: The Starfleet Command Decoration for Valor and Gallantry, the Medal of Honor with clusters, the Legion of Honor, and the Star Cross. But when Picard holds up Data’s medal display case, there are eight medals in it!
Insert Twilight Zone music here.
When Data gives the definition of an android, he says that Webster’s 24th Century Dictionary, Fifth Edition gives it as "an automaton made to resemble a human being." As with all the other examples of terracentricity seen in Trek, it would appear that the Webster people think humans are the only race to make androids. I guess they were unaware of the Andromedan-constructed androids from I, Mudd(TOS). What’s more, it would appear we primitive, 20th century folks are a lot more open-minded. When I looked up the word in The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, copyright 1983, mind you, it gives the definition as "an artificially created person." Isn’t this odd? Our dictionary just says "person," but theirs specifies "human." One would think our dictionaries would be more discriminating, specifying humans, since the existence of alien life is not fact, and that their dictionary would be less discriminating. (Historical note: It appears that this is coming to pass! Since I originally wrote this nit, the third edition came out, and the definition has changed! It now defines android as "an automaton created from biological materials, and resembling a human being! Did some Trekker from the AHD society see this episode, and change it to make it consistent with the Webster’s definition of the future?)
Maybe Data’s laying the groundwork for an insanity defense?
When Data speaks with Picard in his ready room in Act 2, he says that Geordi’s eyes are superior to human biological eyes, and wonders why all humans aren’t required to have cybernetic implant replacements. Geordi’s eyes are human biological eyes, and they’re not superior. They’re inoperative. It’s Geordi’s VISOR that provides superior vision. Geordi doesn’t have cybernetic implants at this point. He has a VISOR which connects directly to his visual cortex. This inaccuracy would be no big deal from anyone else, but Data should be more precise.
Of course the affair preceded the trial. Do you really need Dr. Ruth Westheimer to tell you that prosecuting your lover in a court martial kinda tends to cool things between the sheets?
The teaser and Act 1, in which Captain Louvois and Picard meet after 10 years, reveals that A: she prosecuted him during his court martial, and B: they had an affair. I gotta ask: Did their affair happen before the trial, or after? Either one makes no sense. Picard is still slightly bitter towards her in this episode, because he feels she prosecuted him a bit too vigorously, perhaps even enjoying it. I’d find it hard to believe that if he’s still a bit sore 10 years later, that he’d have been all peachy keen about it right after the trial and ask the little lady out. The Star Trek Encyclopedia, Vol. II., on the other hand, states on page 278, under Louvois’ biographical entry, that the affair preceded the trial, and that the trial ended their relationship. Haven’t the creators ever heard of "conflict of interest"? In jurisprudence, a person would NEVER be appointed to sit in on a case as judge, prosecutor or even defense counsel if the defendant or one of the other attorneys is a present or former relative, close friend, business associate, or lover of that person. Courts try to do everything they can to eliminate even the appearance of a conflict of interest, even if the connection between the two parties is an extremely tenuous one, because failure to do so could result in mistrial or grounds for appeal in the case of a conviction. Did all the other officials in the court martial not know of their affair? It’s certainly possible, but why in the world would Louvois and Picard not tell them? It’s certainly in conflict with Picard’s mentioning to Data that Louvois was both "attached to the letter of the law," and understanding of its "spirit." The same exact problem occurs in this episode, because supposedly, Louvois has no staff. Is the Enterprise really that far away from another starbase that is fully staffed? And if it is, why in the WORLD would they place a JAG office there? Louvois tells Picard she intends to make some good law there. For who? Interstellar hermits and nomads? Yeah, yeah, the creators wanted to add more tension and conflict by making Riker and Picard adversaries, and by introducing a new character with a history with Picard, but that doesn’t explain why it happened 10 years ago.
Even Lance Ito saw this episode and said, "Aw, come on!"
In addition, if Louvois needs to appoint someone as prosecutor, and Riker doesn’t believe Data to be mere property, why doesn’t Louvois ask Admiral Nakamura to perform task? He apparently has no qualms about Maddox working on Data. Moreover, why isn’t Pulaski called as a witness? She’s a doctor, an expert, therefore, on life, and she expressed the opinion that Data is not truly alive on a variety of occasions, most notably in Where Silence Has Lease, and Elementary, Dear Data. In addition, the last scene of the teaser, Picard first sees Louvois in the station lounge, gets up, walks over to speak to her, and as he does this, he walks between two seated command officers, both of which look old enough to have the necessary experience for this task.
Yeah, but dude, that guy’s dead by now
Speaking of which, Louvois picks Riker not because of his legal expertise, but because he is the next senior officer. Is EVERY officer expected to have such ability? Is law a required course at Starfleet Academy? Aren’t there lawyers in Starfleet to do this, like Samuel Cogely in Court Martial(TOS)?
Or this guy I know with a thyroid problem
When Riker researches all information on Data in Act 4, the head on the schematic of Data on the viewscreen has a disproportionately large head, and the image, therefore, looks like that of a child.
A switch that switched places?
Also, the image of Data indicates his off switch to be on the upper portion of his back, a bit above the halfway point between the top and bottom. But Act 2 of Datalore established it to be on the small of his back, much lower.
If I were Dr. Soong, I wouldn’t have designed Data to be so easily disarmed. (I’m sorry. I couldn’t resist.)
During Riker’s case-in-chief in Act 4, he removes Data’s left forearm. Am I the only one who thinks it comes off just a bit too easily? All Riker had to do was twist it slightly. No code-restricted keypad, no latches, etc. Wouldn’t this make it easy for someone to remove his arm in a fight?
I hope he turned Data back on before leaving the courtroom, going to Ten Forward, and having a heart-to-heart talk with Guinan!
Wouldn’t Riker’s shutting off of Data at the end of Act 4 be construed as an act of assault? True, this would require first establishing that Data is a person with rights, and the whole point of the trial is to determine whether Data is a such a person, but until such ruling is made that he does not have such rights, isn’t he by default considered such a citizen? And even if not, why doesn’t Picard object to this act, or at least immediately walk over to Data and turn him back on? Instead, he just sits there totally dumbstruck by Riker’s act, and calls for a recess.
I want to know why Picard didn't call Riker.
Picard: Cmdr. Riker, would you please tell the Court what you said to Lt. Cmdr. Data just before you removed his arm?
Riker: I said, "I'm sorry".
Picard: Why?
Two reasons: First, because Riker's emotional attachment to Data is both already established (and therefore not something that would be a huge revelation), and second, presumably in the eyes of Maddox and Louvois, not relevant to the issue.
1. Riker's personal feelings toward Data are already known to both Maddox and Louvois. Riker is advocating Maddox's position, not his own, therefore, his case does not hinge upon his own view on the matter. If he had staked his case on what he himself claimed to believe, then indeed, the revelation that he did not believe what he claimed he did would call his credibility into question, but he has not done this. Everyone already knows Riker is acting as the advocate for Maddox because he's been ordered to.
2. The issue is whether Data is a sentient being. From their point of view, the fact that Riker has formed an attachment to him doesn't determine that one way or the other, because Maddox himself, in Louvois' office, already pointed out that the crew have formed an emotional attachment to what he considers to be nothing more than a machine. Their attachment to him, in and of itself, doesn't make Data sentient.
The courtroom set for this ep (check out what appears to be a view screen on the back bulkhead) was used as the bridges for the Enterprise-C in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and the Bozeman in "Cause and Effect." It also was the Battle Bridge in "Best of Both Worlds."
This episode marks the first time we see members of the Enterprise playing poker.
Data's sentience could be proved by one simple fact. Data voluntarily entered Starfleet. He was not made to be a Starfleet device, nor did he give himself to them by joining. Surely, a person who voluntarily entered an organization has the right to leave it when that organization threatens his life, android or not. He may have been influenced by being reactivated by Starfleet personnel, but that is no more extraordinary than why Worf, Yar, Wesley or Troi joined. Also, at one point, Maddox asks something like "could the Enterprise computer refuse a refit?" One could ask in response "could you be commanded to submit to a potentially lethal experiment, Mr. Maddox?" That would put things in greater perspective, I think. If Starfleet ordered Maddox to let some scientist test a hair-brained pet theory by screwing with his mind and body, he would refuse and resign. Nobody would question his right to refuse, because he joined voluntarily, just like everyone else, including Data.
Peter - Furthermore, Data could be proved to have rights by the same method Tuvok used to prove that the Holodoc had rights in some Voyager Episode, because he was an artist, and had created a Holonovel, and artists had rights under the law. Wasn't data an artist too, since he painted and so forth. He also played music. Of course, these events may have occurred after the episode in question.
John A. Lang: This episode marks the first time we see members of the Enterprise playing poker.
:: And rather badly at that. Why would Riker show his hole card when everyone else folded? In table parlance, they "haven't paid to see it."
Well, for starters, Data is neither a man nor a toaster, being fictional. His sentience or lack thereof is therefore a matter of opinion. As for Peter's assertion that certain things are simply impossible, no responsible scientist claims to be able to prove that anything is impossible. We don't know all the laws of physics, and we don't know how the human brain works. If I were going to attempt creating artificial intelligence, I would not program the android. I would attempt to reproduce the human brain, which starts out with very little innate programming. What mental tendencies I think I was born with are very few - artistic skill (which runs in my family), good language skills (which also run in my family), etc. These don't generally control a person's decisions. The issue isn't computer programming. I agree with Peter that a programmed being can't be sentient. So perhaps Data's behavior is not the result of programming.
Anyway, as I said, I would not try to create an artificial intelligence by programming a computer. Millions of artificial neurons with the same inputs as a human brain? Maybe. If there is no way for any manmade being to be sentient, then how sure can we be that we are sentient?
Of course one has to ask, Why wasn't the decision of what Data is / is not decided when he entered Starfleet?
John, Data couldn't choose anything. He joined Starfleet because of the way Soong programmed him. If he had been programmed in a different way, he would have had another career.
Sophie, are you saying the people have no free will?
Actually in Brothers Soong told Data that he was disappointed that Data joined Starfleet. He had hoped that Data would go into cybernetics like Soong himself.