Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Sept 9, 2008 8:30:59 GMT -6
For example, without the soul those triggered memories in your brain would be like a DVD in a DVD player - no connection or personality, just a replay of something that happened. You need the soul to make the person who they are. Yes, that's essentially what Data was saying in "The Measure of a Man". The actual set-up for the trial was a little wobbly -- for example, surely Capt. Louvois could have found another Commander beside Riker to make Maddox's case -- but the story itself was fascinating. How do we know other people on this forum are Sentient? I mean, suppose the CalTech Artificial Intelligence department (if there is such a thing) has come up with a computer program that mimicks human consciousness, and they test it by registering it with Internet forums at random? How could we tell the difference? Commander Maddox gave three indicators of Sentience: Intelligence, Self-awareness, and Consciousness. But really, Self-awareness is pretty much the same thing as Consciousness. Consciousness is usually taken to mean the existance of thoughts, feelings and desires. The computer on the Enterprise is Intelligent, but not capable of creative thought. It can answer any question you present to it, but it can't volunteer information on its own.
|
|
JADIS
Lieutenant
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 372
|
Post by JADIS on Sept 9, 2008 22:07:23 GMT -6
Have you seen the episode: The Ultimate Computer ? That's a good example of a computer with a concious. Kirk finally "defeated" it by making it remorseful to it's killing.
Sidenote: I wonder if some of Dr Daystrom's theories were used in creating Data
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Sept 12, 2008 8:02:00 GMT -6
Actually, I tend to disagree. The M-5 only had Dr. Daystrom's engrams engraved in its circuitry, which wouldn't necessarily make it conscious or self-aware. It think because it wasn't self-aware is the reason it couldn't handle the contradictions inherent in Daystrom's thought patterns.
|
|