A Look at Holograms and Ethics

[Riedquat]

On the doctor I believe there is something built into the hologram itself. The closest analogy is something I have heard of but not seen. But I think may be possible. Someone using the logic gates system in Mine Craft got a version of Pokemon to work inside the game. So the computer is running a simulation running a program. The computer itself is not 'thinking' nor is it running the second game in an instance. So basically the doctor and other EMH like programs are not functional unless they are unpacked and running.
I still can't do the leap in logic for the copy/move thing though.

That would still mke the computer running the software be the important part and the hologram merely the interface, unless you mean actually running using the simulated internals that are part of the projection (like my waterwheel example).

I was thinking similar to the water wheel example. Where his being unpacked and running has the hologram itself doing the 'thinking' and the holo emitters are basically just movie projectors.

It would go a long way to justify the idea that it's the fact that he's a hologram being important, and that hologram expertise is a field in its own right and not the same thing as AI expertise.

Still doesn't make any sense of the copying problem, unless it's just over-the-top futuristic DRM Or the quantum example.

[Senko]

I lean towards some level of it. It's not a black and white, all or nothing thing. But I would certainly prefer to take my chances in a world where we're less nannied. That certainly doesn't mean I want to go back to Victorian working conditions. And there are still areas that could certainly do with being safer than they are. But we're also turning in to a society that seems to live in fear of the remote chance, can't cope without the safety line comfort blanket for many simple, ordinary tasks, and yet refuses to have much self-responsibility. The balance isn't right (and going overboard in places has also had a rather clear "boy who cried wolf" effect, leaving some thing not being regarded with the seriousness that they deserve).

All the stuff that's got to be in new cars now I really feel has gone past the level of reasonable precautions into the territory of the absurd. It also hits my intense hatred of treating everyone like unruly children, and my equally strong dislike of piling more technology in to things that worked fine without it. It puts me off buying a new car by a country mile. Which is a pity, because an electric car would be ideal for my usage.

The future of humanity is looking more and more like the humans in Wall-E.

oh - that's a perspective from the UK, it'll differ from place to place obviously.

Not just the UK here in Australia we have laws limiting windows to opening no more than 6 inches if the drop outside is more than X meters. I live in a ground floor apartment, my window has a chain limiting how much I can open it (and how much air flow I can get since it opens at the bottom). The drop that requires this is on the far side of my balcony and not protected. So a child can fall 1m from my window and 3m from my balcony so per the law my window can't open enough for the child to fall from it, the balcony? "Nah she'll be right."

The advantage of a humanoid over a hologram is that humans aren't programable. We saw that without his ethical subroutines the doctor can be the ultimate monster. These can be turned off easily. There is no way to know if you're talking to data or to lore. They have no fear of death. They don't need you and needing each other is important for relationships to exist.

There are more than enough humans you could say the same about.

Whether or not a sufficiently advanced machine would fear death or not is an open question. If it's potentially going to be something that'll threaten us (as opposed to a dumb one following some fairly simple routines, which could still be a big threat) then it would have to have motivation to do so. And if it's got that motivation it'll probably have its own self-preservation as one too. Any that didn't would probably be fairly easy to defeat.

I have to admit given even today we have RAM and ROM data storage I don't understand why things like ethics or safety procedures can be so easily switched off or removed. Me I'd have much stricter controls on how hologram suite safety protocols can be turned off and if I've got a hologram/robot/other then the ethic core would be read only you can't get rid of it without killing the person involved.

[Nealithi]

Not just the UK here in Australia we have laws limiting windows to opening no more than 6 inches if the drop outside is more than X meters. I live in a ground floor apartment, my window has a chain limiting how much I can open it (and how much air flow I can get since it opens at the bottom). The drop that requires this is on the far side of my balcony and not protected. So a child can fall 1m from my window and 3m from my balcony so per the law my window can't open enough for the child to fall from it, the balcony? "Nah she'll be right."

Bureaucracy in action. I work near an air field and a state law came down requiring a fence. Not to keep animals from the runway or anything. as a post 9/11 safety against terrorists. One business man they were going to end up destroying in their ill conceived plan offers to put up the fence himself. Minimum requirement three feet. Yes just under a meter. But it met the guidelines. I swear we still have lead poisoned morons running things and the people under them just try and do the bare minimum to get past the idiocy.

I have to admit given even today we have RAM and ROM data storage I don't understand why things like ethics or safety procedures can be so easily switched off or removed. Me I'd have much stricter controls on how hologram suite safety protocols can be turned off and if I've got a hologram/robot/other then the ethic core would be read only you can't get rid of it without killing the person involved.

I think the safeties and failsafes fall under a writing problem. Either the writers don't understand the point. IE failsafe meaning to fail into a safe position. Manual override being something done by hand not a different electronic lock etc. OR and this might excuse the ignorance perspective. Everything is properly made, now write drama. If the reactor on the sub will just go inert we lose the drama of the explosion/meltdown. The failsafes failed. Gloss over how they failed because it will be too hard to justify.
Because everyone looks at the half baked justifications and goes. "But that just raises further questions!" As in the exploding bridge consoles. They want the bangs that could occur on sea going vessels that shell one another. But need to explain it away. . Plasma. We power everything with raw plasma in the future. And an overload will sometimes go through a console.
Leading to why? Because writers needed the excuses to put in the flash for a visual medium.