Star Trek: Strange new worlds

[CharlesPhipps]

Comparing brains to computers is a fundamental misunderstanding, that much is true, as there's no division between hardware and software in a brain. The hardware is the software. But, brains are extremely plastic, otherwise we wouldn't be able to build memories on the fly like we do. The exact mechanics are barely understood, but it stands to reason that if you can "print" or "alter" the neuronal networks, you'd be able to copy a brain and thus a person/personality.
Also, it is clear that electrical input can alter the brain's functions quite drastically and electrical stimulation thus can reasonably be argued to alter the neuronal network in rather fundamental ways on the fly.
It's at least thinkable to create a situation where either mechanical or electrical input could alter a person or personality, thus allowing for the transfering of a person or personality from one body to another.

I'm not sure that actually is meaningful as a distinction because software ALSO exists as hardware. Software exists as electrical data and switches after all. Mind you, I'm also one of the people who believes the study of consciousness is something far more irreducible than most neuroscientists believe. Studying the Hard Problem of Consciousness has always been a pet field of mine even if some people try to substitute woo.

[Frustration]

Nope.

[CharlesPhipps]

Nope.

Nope you disagree or nope it's not a meaningful distinction.

Mind you, the human brain is more energy-efficient than computers. Our 10 billion neurons only use 10 watts – that's 10x more efficient than computers.

Brain storage is estimated at 1 petabyte.

[McAvoy]

Nope.

Nope you disagree or nope it's not a meaningful distinction.

Mind you, the human brain is more energy-efficient than computers. Our 10 billion neurons only use 10 watts – that's 10x more efficient than computers.

Brain storage is estimated at 1 petabyte.

The brain is pretty adaptable. Plenty of stories where people lose a chunk of their brain, in some cases at least half of it and the rest of the brain is still able to take up added work.

[Frustration]

Pretty much only among children. An adult who lost a hemisphere of the brain would be utterly devastated and likely would no longer be fully sentient.

[McAvoy]

Pretty much only among children. An adult who lost a hemisphere of the brain would be utterly devastated and likely would no longer be fully sentient.

No. Not entirely.

Plenty of stories out there where an adult lost a large of the brain to something. Like one guy lost a lot of his brain mass over time. Basically he had a hollow brain the cavity filled with liquid or something. For him that was gradual.

Other guys losing a chunk of their brain even up to one half of it where they are fully sentient, fully aware, and no way fully incapacitated. Perhaps took time to adjust like being able to walk, talk (properly) etc. But fully sentient.

The ones that regularly lose that sentience is the ones who got brain damaged from a lack of oxygen to their brain for a prolonged amount of time. But that happens to the whole brain.

[CharlesPhipps]

This is kind of a bizarre coincidence but the current episode of Strange New Worlds is about a child's brain being harvested for this exact reason.

Pretty straight forward adaptation of "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas."

[Mabus]

Episode 6:
This one isn't Star Trek. Not because it doesn't discuss (as in being an actual discussion, debate, etc.) the moral, ethical and practical implications of such practice (although it doesn't), but because it's pretty much a blatant adaptation of "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas" only with the Star Trek label slapped on it, won't be surprised if Paramount probably paid Le Guin's estate for the intellectual rights of the book. And I don't care if OldTrek did something similar in the past, it's super lazy what they did: the story doesn't bring anything new to the table, it doesn't put a new twist on the concept, it doesn't change the POV of the characters in any meaningful way, it doesn't even make you think much about what happened due to how the story is structured.

So I'm not gonna rate this episode.

[CharlesPhipps]

Episode 6:
This one isn't Star Trek. Not because it doesn't discuss (as in being an actual discussion, debate, etc.) the moral, ethical and practical implications of such practice (although it doesn't), but because it's pretty much a blatant adaptation of "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas" only with the Star Trek label slapped on it, won't be surprised if Paramount probably paid Le Guin's estate for the intellectual rights of the book. And I don't care if OldTrek did something similar in the past, it's super lazy what they did: the story doesn't bring anything new to the table, it doesn't put a new twist on the concept, it doesn't change the POV of the characters in any meaningful way, it doesn't even make you think much about what happened due to how the story is structured.

So I'm not gonna rate this episode.

Fun Fact: This episode is written by Gene Roddenberry.

No shit.

It was one of his PHASE II scripts, which is why Pike is basically so Kirk-like.

[Mabus]

Fun Fact: This episode is written by Gene Roddenberry.

No shit.

It was one of his PHASE II scripts, which is why Pike is basically so Kirk-like.

"Trivia
This is a new script based upon an unused TOS script by Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry."

So they took an unused Roddenberry script that was no doubt based on "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas", and somehow made it even more similar to the original source?
I'm starting to think that maybe there was a reason that script was never used. And why maybe no one should reuse any Roddenberry stories.