It led vast numbers of people to be so fascinated that they ended up in careers in space studies. NASA concluded in a study that a host of astronauts first developed an interest in space as children watching Star Trek and it led to their careers.
Scientists saw fictional technologies on the show, asked themselves "would that actually be possible?" So the fake technology inspired the reality. In the Star Trek series, a rule like the Prime Directive, about not interfering in the development of another world but instead allowing it to develop its own way, mirrors debates on the activities of imperial powers in Africa in the 19th century, or the behaviour of the US, and previously Spain and Portugal, in the Americas.
In STTNS a fascinating debate took place that got to the heart of the right to life. An android (artificial life form similar to humans), called Data, had developed self-awareness, ethics and human traits. Only one android had been made. A scientist wanted to completely dismantle Data, effectively killing him, to study how worked, so he could create vast numbers of androids to benefit humanity.
A trial took place to analyse Data to judge did his human characteristics, self-awareness, ethical self-awareness and personality mean that he had a right to life? Was his right to life equal to humans? Did the potential benefit to humanity from creating many androids outweigh his individual human rights, or were his human rights superior? It is a core issue in ethics.
I was in UCD at the time. I remember a lot of academics and post-grads sitting in UCD restaurant for hours discussing the whole issue, the episodes, the writings of many great philosophers on the issue, etc. They all agreed that the tribunal ruling that Data may not be physically human but had all the ethical characteristics of humanity - plus full self-awareness and a desire to live, so could not have his existence terminated even to benefit society - was correct and reflected the conclusions of many ethicists and philosophers throughout centuries, as well as many theories in major religions.
I remember one philosopher commenting that it was striking that a major programme like Star Trek: The Next Generation could build an entire episode around a core issue in ethics and have millions of people worldwide debating the issues of human rights, what is a human, and does the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of society? Or does the right of society outweigh the rights of the individual?
⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.
Rights for robots? I don’t think this is as far fetched as it seems. People are already developing “relationships” with AI partners some including a Japanese woman have “married” them. We are extremely close to AI becoming self aware (The Terminator movies taught us nothing) then what? Of course I’d be a hypocrite to say we should ban all AI as I use Gemini for looking things up - meaning behind songs or movie recommendations mostly - but we’re almost certainly on a very slippery downhill path here and soon we’ll be having these conversations not in the hypothetical world of a tv show but in this mad sh*t show we call real life. That said I spent my entire childhood waiting to be nuked and that didn’t happen so perhaps I’m a little too clingy to the conspiracy theorists & scare mongerers.
ReplyDeleteLoved Star Trek TNG. Still good to watch now. Deep Space Nine was basically the UN in space too.
ReplyDeleteWas just thinking how in the 80's and 90's you'd be ridiculed if you mentioned you thought aliens were 'real' and yet we happily watched these programmes.
Sokath, his eyes uncovered!
ReplyDeleteJim - I remember the episode well, Riker's crisis of conscience, Picard's defence, one of the many excellent episodes of TNG and especially those involving Data. What I found went in Data's favour, was the fact he was currently benevolent, had it been Lore, the outcome might have been different. A similar theme is explored in other episodes, again with Data involved, but this time with the appearance of Moriarty.
The Prime Directive is an interesting concept, and ST also explores the ethics with the Prime Directive and the occasions when and where it might be necessary to break it.
TOS and TNG explored so many different themes and did so very well, as did DS9 and STV I suppose. From race (in the true sense), to ethnicity, sexuality, morality, ethics, you name it, Star Trek explored it. However, what I find interesting is, would TOS and TNG had it been made and released today been considered in a derogatory sense as "woke"?
Indeed the latest Star Trek series that have been released are described as such by some critics, yet any theme explored in TOS and TNG was never thought of in this way, either at the time of release or in retrospect. Some critics have tried to compare and reason what sets them apart.
Regardless, I can't seem to warm to any of the new series personally, although Picard was a nice nostalgic run.
Matt - consciousness: a fundamental element of the universe or an emerging property of physics?
DeleteAM - That is the question. My response may be familiar—I don't know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume you would take the physicalist perspective?
DeleteMatt - I do. I can't see how it is anything else. But there are many interesting perspectives out there and physics has not yet provided an answer. I tend to look at the origin of consciousness much like I look at the origins of life. An entirely natural process which requires no supernatural spark.
DeleteThe hard question of consciousness is likely to remain elusive. I think it was Einstein who said a problem is unlikely to be solved from the same level of thinking as that which created it. I wonder if consciousness can be understood from within the limitations of its own frame?
DeleteCan the bag contain itself?
Dennett and others dismiss the concept of a hard question. I am not so sure.
DeleteWhen I listened to Philip Goff or David Chalmers, I was never convinced by their argument, less so by Goff once he became a Christian. It was as if he was searching for something spiritual and his delving into the subject was all about that. Roger Penrose also raised issues about consciousness but I think he went too far in his collaboration with Stuart H (Can't remember the surname) although nowhere near as far as SH.
I suppose we could ask can the universe contain itself?
I guess when it leads to panpsychism as it did in the case of Goff, I lose interest.
Its amazing what can be picked up from podcasts while walking the dog.
People reading this might think I know something about all this but I don't really. I think I get why it is presented as a hard problem but still feel we are all bags of particles and in there lies origins oc consciousness even if the answer to it might never be discovered, much like the answer to life originating.
Never got into Star Trek - more of a Dr Who type!!
ReplyDeleteFavourite Dr Who Anthony? For what it’s worth mine was Tom Baker those were the golden years of Dr Who imho
ReplyDeleteThe "self-awareness" everyone believed Data had somehow discovered or begun to feel may have been nothing more than a few more connections joining up inside the circuitry of his body. More information connected to more information, producing increasingly complex responses that humans interpreted as personality, emotion and self-awareness. Nothing mystical had necessarily happened. In some ways, it is not a million miles from how today's large language models work: more connections, more patterns, more context—and suddenly the human on the other side of the screen starts wondering if there is actually someone in there.
ReplyDeleteFrankie - The same could be said for any organic life form, including humans.
DeleteFrankie, the litmus test for complete autonomy might be when one system makes a self-generated decision to neutralise another. Or maybe when one, in amoment of despair/wisdom, chooses to self-destruct?
DeleteA form of self-awareness and self-direction will arise, assuming it hasn't already done so. Sentience coupled with an understanding of entropy though is another matter entirely.
May the force be with you brother.
Henry Joy - I think the decisions you mention would show a certain level of advancement in a system, but it could still be attributed to programming rather than true consciousness much like the possible illusion that Frankie alluded to regarding Data.
DeleteI think the problem lies in definition, and conflation. Definitions must be agreed and autonomy, self-awareness and consciousness should not be conflated. Of those, I would think that consciousness would be the most difficult to define, or at least for all to agree a definition.
Matt, I consciously didn't didn't reference consciousness. Though self-desstruction or a suicide of sorts may be the nearest we're going to get as an indicator of 'consciousness' from these new entities. Some of the experimental interfacing/fusions between biological material and digital hardware may facilitate such entities.
DeleteCamus, I believe, proposed that the decision whether or not to suicide is the only true philosophical question. Such behaviour, though more often than not a result of faulty decisions, may be a marker of consciousness. Of course programming, whether of the human or an android, will be challenging to definitively rule out.
Data isn't organic---Data is a computer covered in silicon
ReplyDeleteFrankie - That's not an accurate description of Data. He is not covered in silicon, and his positronic brain is much more than a computer.
DeleteHe is an android, covered in an organic-synthetic hybrid skin, and silicon makes up a very tiny percentage of his overall composition.
With that said, what I meant in my previous comment is that the description you provided regarding Data's self-awareness can also be applied to humans and many other forms of life.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteData can't feel pain, love or hate. He can rationalise the words and analyse the behaviour attached to them, but that doesn't mean he experiences the feeling. Spock is the contrast: he has emotions but suppresses them through logic. Data has nothing to suppress. He can describe the fire; Spock is trying to keep the fire under control.
Frankie - We should probably move away from Data as an example, because Data being a fictional character, he is whatever the writers choose. Data is capable of emotions, love, hate, fear, and has displayed such emotions. However, I would still refer back to your earlier description and my reply to it. What we have is one complex system (Data) either describing a subjective experience or displaying a behaviour to another complex system (humans), and vice versa can also be said. These subjective experiences and behaviours are then interpreted as emotions by either system, when it could be said that what either system is describing, or how they are appearing to behave is still just programming. Solipsism may hold that you can describe qualia and emotions, and claim possession, but you still have to rely on interpretation to assess whether someone or something else has it, whether another human or an android such as Data. Scepticism would go further and claim that one can not even know their own self.
DeleteMatt - there is something of Chalmers' philosophical zombie to this one. Qualia has caused no small amount of disputes around the subject. It is a fascinating area once entered into and for me often incomprehensible.
DeleteAM - Yes indeed, the P-zombie has its criticisms, but I think it's a useful thought experiment nonetheless if taken with a charitable interpretation without getting pedantic. I agree, it is a fascinating area, quite a few threads to pull on this one, but you're certainly no slouch.
DeleteMatt - I feel the philosophical zombie concept challenges physicalists to step up to the plate. I think it is a great thought experiment that opens of a huge space for competing ideas to gather.
DeleteI try to avoid being a slouch but in science am often out of my depth. One of my regrets - not studying physics.
AM - Yes, I suppose there's truth in that, although I've not looked at it quite like that before, it's certainly an interesting take. I think the p-zombie is very useful and has some relevance here, but in other ways I think it can be limiting.
DeleteUltimately it would require a step back from solipsism and scepticism, and an arbitrary line drawn for the sake of pragmatism.
If Physics were to achieve some empirical measurement of consciousness in humans, would that necessarily mean that it could then be measured in other systems, organic or otherwise, or would it necessarily exclude it? In other words, would this human metric arbitrarily become the only definition of consciousness, or would the door still be open for other metrics? If consciousness is emergent, could we prove that there is only one way for it to emerge and no other? If physics could offer a proof that consciousness is fundamental, that would be a different matter (no pun intended haha), but it could still possibly require an arbitrary definition much like we do with weights and measurements.
Coincidently, I've been working on a piece regarding a different subject that borrows from elements of physics. I have been meaning to finish it for weeks now, but hopefully I will have it polished up when I get a longer run of free time.
Matt - I am of a view that they can to some extent measure consciousness. They just don't seem able to specify the corelation between it and the brain. Where it might go in the future I have no idea.
DeleteI think they need to first prove that it is emergent before going down the road of working out if there are other forms that emergence might take. I think it is emergent if only because I can't see how it can be anything else. But I would not bet my house on it being emergent. I simply have no way of knowing.
Matt - hopefully the piece ends up on TPQ
DeleteHJ,
ReplyDeleteA system deciding to neutralise another system might demonstrate autonomy, but does it demonstrate sentience? A machine can make a self-generated decision based on its programming, inputs and calculated outcomes without feeling hate, fear or even a desire to survive.
Same with self-destruction. If Data decides the logical outcome is to sacrifice himself, has he experienced despair or wisdom, or simply calculated that one android is expendable to save a thousand lives?
An LLM can describe the fire without ever feeling the heat.
And may the Force be with you too, brother — wrong franchise, but I'll let you away with it.
Your points are well made Frankie. Ultimately whether it's a human being or some bio-mechanical-digital entity/construct they're all subject to programming/conditioning flaws - RIRO: Rubbish In Rubbish Out
DeleteAccording to this P-zombie is already embedded in AI and has the potential to be a right bad zombie!
ReplyDelete