Modern Star Trek Megathread: A holistic approach to starship security

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > Modern Star Trek Megathread: A holistic approach to starship security

«‹›1952 »

Technowolf: Nov 4, 2009

Gelf posted:

In the Disco S4 trailer I think it is Mr. Rhys who dies during their first encounter with the anomaly. I know the bridge set is loving huge and he could be standing off to the right, but you can see Bryce but no Rhys

I know this is speculation, but it's from a trailer and I'm reasonably confident.

Oh no! Who else could do their important job of...

...
...

um?

What did they do again?

# ? Apr 8, 2021 00:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 02:01

The_Doctor: Mar 29, 2007; "The entire history of this incarnation is one of temporal orbits, retcons, paradoxes, parallel time lines, reiterations, and divergences. How anyone can make head or tail of all this chaos, I don't know."

Gelf posted:

In the Disco S4 trailer I think it is Mr. Rhys who dies during their first encounter with the anomaly. I know the bridge set is loving huge and he could be standing off to the right, but you can see Bryce but no Rhys

I know this is speculation, but it's from a trailer and I'm reasonably confident.

Yeah, tactical would be just off camera to the right.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 00:24

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

They do really need to trim the completely superfluous bridge cast

# ? Apr 8, 2021 00:26

AJA: Mar 28, 2015

FlamingLiberal posted:

They do really need to trim the completely superfluous bridge cast

Whenever a bridge member is on-screen, they should be asking themselves, "why am I on screen and not Michael Burnham?"

# ? Apr 8, 2021 00:37

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

What if 6 Micheal Burnham's crewed the bridge?

# ? Apr 8, 2021 00:51

nine-gear crow: Aug 10, 2013

Nitrousoxide posted:

What if 6 Micheal Burnham's crewed the bridge?

I mean you say that, but that was one of Picard's better running gags.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 01:04

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I'm reminded of that scene in the Disco S3 finale where the only bridge crew that actually ever do anything (Tilly and Owo) save the ship while the other three ones that never get to do anything just pass out

# ? Apr 8, 2021 01:39

JUST MAKING CHILI: Feb 14, 2008

Picard and faux-Picard, at Coppelius.
Faux-Picard, when the tentacles came.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 07:54

Neddy Seagoon: Oct 12, 2012; "Hi Everybody!"

JUST MAKING CHILI posted:

Picard and faux-Picard, at Coppelius.
Faux-Picard, when the tentacles came.

Faux-Pacard, a polite mistake in first-contact diplomacy.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 08:01

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Imagine finding out that the difference between yourself and your mirror universe counterpart is that your counterpart actually had ambition and was proactive.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 08:52

nine-gear crow: Aug 10, 2013

Alchenar posted:

Imagine finding out that the difference between yourself and your mirror universe counterpart is that your counterpart actually had ambition and was proactive.

I'd say good for Mirror Universe Me. I'm happy he's out there living his best mirror life.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 08:55

Erulisse: Feb 12, 2019; A bad poster trying to get better.

please stop doxxing

# ? Apr 8, 2021 08:58

Tiggum: Oct 24, 2007; Your life and your quest end here.

Khanstant posted:

If souls existed, nothing changed. New body, old soul, so what. If souls are a magic thingy that somehow contains the information that makes up your previous body and mental state as to provide a copy to the new body... still a new thing. What happens when you take a soul and put it in someone else's body, do they become one soul, or does Tuvix have two souls? Are we sure souls have any value, or are they just intangible parasites feeding on the life experiences of living beings?

Souls work however you want them to because it's not real. Can two souls merge into one? Sure, if you want. Can you duplicate a soul? Not if the writer says you can't. Once you bring souls into it, the answer is whatever you want it to be.

Khanstant posted:

Picard is dead and they mashed an altered copy of some of the memory data from his corpse (temporarily stored and altered in a quantum simulation, along with a reconstructed-simulation) of Data into a new body meant for someone else, but they instead used it to non-consensually make a copy of the dead. Picard died when he died. Copy-of-Picard was born when they cobbled together harvested memories and put it in a framework for consciousness in the sim and then transferred that consciousness to the golem.

Stop erasing Artificial Picard, treat him how he would want to be treated, which happens to be "being treated as if I were Picard as I was created to believe." So, to his face, we treat him like Picard but make no mistake, the Picard we saw in TNG is dead regardless of how many copies are created. Should probably also write some laws to prevent this sort of nightmare poo poo from happening against people's wills and being abused.

You're assuming that there is a distinct, identifiable something we can call "Picard"; a thing that possesses the unique quality of "being Picard". To put it another way, you've invented the soul.

Erulisse posted:

Oh cmon its same argument as with transporters.
Body with consciousness just closes eyes, consciousness shuts down and never comes back. New body opens eyes and, retaining all memories and short term memory, thinks that consciousness transferred. No one will ever know because original consciousness is dead.

Yes, it's the same mistaken argument as with transporters. That thing you're calling "consciousness" is not something that exists. It's just a different name for a soul.

Erulisse posted:

The consciousness interrupts.

What does that mean though? In what way is it significant that this "consciousness" is broken? What is the effect?

Powered Descent posted:

The philosophical issues raised by the transporter were best explored by a Canadian cartoon from 1990. Well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXKUcsvhQc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Be_(1990_film)

The argument laid out in this cartoon doesn't hold up.

You have a person, let's say Fred, go into a teleporter. Out of the other end comes Fred�, who claims to be Fred. The cartoon wants to argue that he is actually not Fred but a meaningfully distinct person. But to make this argument, it changes the scenario.

In the altered scenario, Fred goes into the teleporter and both Fred� and Fred� come out, both claiming to be Fred. But only one Fred is allowed, so one of them has to die. Neither one wants to, so they each set out to prove that the other is the "copy". But that's missing the point. If Fred� is Fred then so is Fred�. They're distinct from each other, but that doesn't invalidate either one's claim to being the "real" Fred. From an outside perspective, it doesn't actually matter which one of them is killed - Fred survives, because there's no meaningful difference between "original" and "copy" if it's a perfect copy. They're both Fred.

Nitrousoxide posted:

The ship is theseus problem for the continuity of self is a related, but different one from the transporter problem. Theseus at least has continuous uninterpreted operation of the ship. A transporter does not.

It makes literally no difference.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 09:09

Small Strange Bird: Sep 22, 2006; Merci, chaton!

If the Freds had any sense, they'd realise they'd created a matter duplicator and would start buying as much gold and jewels as they could afford to shove them in there.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 09:19

Gonz: Dec 22, 2009; "Jesus, did I say that? Or just think it? Was I talking? Did they hear me?"

OG Harry Kim�s body is still out there in space.

Somewhere.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 09:24

Seemlar: Jun 18, 2002

Gonz posted:

OG Harry Kim�s body is still out there in space.

Somewhere.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 09:52

Astroman: Apr 8, 2001

Retrowave Joe posted:

The new Star Trek Legends game on the Apple Store is a pretty good gacha with zero ads or microtransactions.

I like how Riker is glaring at Michael like he's silently thinking "Goddamit don't you gently caress this up Burnham!"

Seemlar posted:

Ironically this is how he ends up happily ever after with Lyndsay Ballard...

# ? Apr 8, 2021 12:39

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

Tiggum posted:

It makes literally no difference.

If continuity of consciousness is what makes your identity secure than replacing your brain or your entire body piece by piece are you remain in a continuity of consciousness and the individual pieces of you lose the continuity of consciousness once they are removed then it does potentially avoid the ship of Theseus issue.

Now, there are reasons to probably think that you don�t lose identity upon a interruption in your continuity of consciousness, otherwise someone who briefly ends up knocked out or is undergoing surgery and has general anesthesia would you be killed in a new person would awaken.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 12:42

MikeJF: Dec 20, 2003

Arquinsiel posted:

If it makes anyone feel better, there are very few cells that aren't replaced regularly in the human body, so there's very little of the original "you" left for a transporter to kill anyways.
I've read short stories with similar concepts where the consciousnesses sometimes decided not to synchronise because their subjective experiences make them different people, but that was based on computer storage where it's absolutely possible to clone "infinitely" and operate at vastly different timescales.

Oh they're all distinct in House of Suns too by design; the minds of the shatterlings (the process of cloning oneself into a thousand bodies is called 'shattering') were identical to start but their experiences shaped them and sharing memories at the Reunions, while bringing them closer together and giving them a sense of continuity between them, isn't enough to make them identical. They all give themselves unique names and by the time of the book they're a fairly broad range of people.

MikeJF fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Apr 8, 2021

# ? Apr 8, 2021 13:23

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

I think continuity used in this way can actually be discontinuous in terms of time.

Scotty was apparently not conscious in any meaningful sense while locked in a cycle of the pattern buffer for decades. He resumed the state he was in when he dematerialized and I don't think the interceding time has any bearing on it whatsoever.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 13:48

Neddy Seagoon: Oct 12, 2012; "Hi Everybody!"

Retrowave Joe posted:

The new Star Trek Legends game on the Apple Store is a pretty good gacha with zero ads or microtransactions.

It's funny how even there you can see how badly the Discovery uniform just blends into the scenery unlike the others.

Tiggum posted:

The argument laid out in this cartoon doesn't hold up.

You have a person, let's say Fred, go into a teleporter. Out of the other end comes Fred�, who claims to be Fred. The cartoon wants to argue that he is actually not Fred but a meaningfully distinct person. But to make this argument, it changes the scenario.

In the altered scenario, Fred goes into the teleporter and both Fred� and Fred� come out, both claiming to be Fred. But only one Fred is allowed, so one of them has to die. Neither one wants to, so they each set out to prove that the other is the "copy". But that's missing the point. If Fred� is Fred then so is Fred�. They're distinct from each other, but that doesn't invalidate either one's claim to being the "real" Fred. From an outside perspective, it doesn't actually matter which one of them is killed - Fred survives, because there's no meaningful difference between "original" and "copy" if it's a perfect copy. They're both Fred.

It makes literally no difference.

"This argument doesn't hold up to my personal altered scenario" isn't quite the solid footing you think it is.

It also doesn't work anyway, because the moment both Freds see eachother they'd disassociate due to now-unique perspectives from something as simple as waking up in different pods. Fred2's gonna KNOW he's different just by being a little more to the left when he opens the door, and he can't definitively say he's the same Fred, because there's Fred1 walking out the same pod he supposedly went in.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:17

Typical Pubbie: May 10, 2011

Tiggum posted:

In the altered scenario, Fred goes into the teleporter and both Fred� and Fred� come out, both claiming to be Fred. But only one Fred is allowed, so one of them has to die. Neither one wants to, so they each set out to prove that the other is the "copy". But that's missing the point. If Fred� is Fred then so is Fred�. They're distinct from each other, but that doesn't invalidate either one's claim to being the "real" Fred.

The point is that "real" is a meaningless distinction. They are two distinct entities and their life experiences begin to diverge the instant Fred 2 is created. That's why the original Fred doesn't want to die. He is his own person. If they were both the real Fred there would be no reason to distinguish between them, but you have to because they're different people.

Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Apr 8, 2021

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:25

Tiggum: Oct 24, 2007; Your life and your quest end here.

Nitrousoxide posted:

continuity of consciousness

This doesn't mean anything. Or it's just another way to say "soul". :shrug:

Neddy Seagoon posted:

"This argument doesn't hold up to my personal altered scenario" isn't quite the solid footing you think it is.

I didn't alter the scenario, I just described how the author altered their own scenario in the cartoon.

Neddy Seagoon posted:

It also doesn't work anyway, because the moment both Freds see eachother they'd disassociate due to now-unique perspectives from something as simple as waking up in different pods. Fred2's gonna KNOW he's different just by being a little more to the left when he opens the door, and he can't definitively say he's the same Fred, because there's Fred1 walking out the same pod he supposedly went in.

The point I'm making (specifically about the cartoon) is, I think, the same as what you're saying here. Whether Fred� is the same person as Fred� is a separate question to whether either of them is Fred. The cartoon does this sleight-of-hand where it replaces one question with another and tries to convince us that it's still answering the first.

The question originally posed is whether Fred� is Fred.
Then it tells us that Fred� isn't Fred�.
And because of the way it framed those two questions as actually being the same question, we're left with the impression that "Fred� isn't Fred�" somehow proves that "Fred� isn't Fred". But it doesn't prove that at all.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:27

Erulisse: Feb 12, 2019; A bad poster trying to get better.

Tiggum posted:

no meaningful difference between "original" and "copy" if it's a perfect copy. They're both Fred.

The one that originally though "I should step in transporter" and then stepped out of said transporter in the same place is the OG one. Not the one who remembered saying it, the one who said it is.
The continuous though is what it is. The consciousness. The thing that made you click "reply".

So yeah it makes the difference for the og one. Yes the second one is totally the same but the original ceases to exist.

ps
the "soul" chat is bullshit

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:31

HD DAD: Jan 13, 2010; Generic white guy.; Toilet Rascal

transporting is a crime against the lord and corrupts your soul, forever condemning it to hell, hth

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:35

Tiggum: Oct 24, 2007; Your life and your quest end here.

Typical Pubbie posted:

The point is that there is no "real" Fred.

They are two distinct entities and their life experience begins to diverge the instant Fred 2 is created.

That's why the original Fred doesn't want to die.

He is his own person.

Yes.
Yes. But that's not important.
No. What? I don't want to live because I'm unique. That's irrelevant. Even if they were somehow "the same person" (whatever that means) they'd still want to live.
That doesn't mean anything. A person is an idea, not an objective part of reality.

Erulisse posted:

The one that originally though "I should step in transporter" and then stepped out of said transporter in the same place is the OG one.

Not the one who remembered saying it, the one who said it is.

The continuous though is what it is. The consciousness. The thing that made you click "reply".

So yeah it makes the difference for the og one. Because the original ceases tro exist.

The distinction between "original" and "copy" is imaginary. They both have equal claim to the title of "original".
There's no meaningful difference.
Define "consciousness". Not what it does; what it is. Where is it located? What is it composed of? In what way is it real?
Only in the same sense that we all cease to exist from one moment to the next. You're the same "person" you were yesterday because a person is a social construct. You're not the same physical matter, nor are you the same thoughts or memories. Everything you were has been altered to some extent. There's no thing that continues on that you can identify and say "this is the bit that makes me me".

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:38

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Erulisse posted:

The one that originally though "I should step in transporter" and then stepped out of said transporter in the same place is the OG one. Not the one who remembered saying it, the one who said it is.
The continuous though is what it is. The consciousness. The thing that made you click "reply".

So yeah it makes the difference for the og one. Yes the second one is totally the same but the original ceases to exist.

From a legalistic or socially constructed sense maybe

"original" is just probably not a meaningful signifier for something like consciousness that changes moment to moment anyway. There is no "you" in there, just a pattern that results from the previous pattern one moment earlier.

If a duplication process produces identical patterns, A=A they are identical, their only meaningful differences are spatial/location. What they experience in the next moment diverges them.

Erulisse posted:

ps
the "soul" chat is bullshit

nah, it's core to the conversation

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:40

Emrikol: Oct 1, 2015

Transporters work however the show says they work because they don't actually exist.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:40

Neddy Seagoon: Oct 12, 2012; "Hi Everybody!"

Tiggum posted:

Yes.

Yes. But that's not important.

No. What? I don't want to live because I'm unique. That's irrelevant. Even if they were somehow "the same person" (whatever that means) they'd still want to live.

That doesn't mean anything. A person is an idea, not an objective part of reality.

The distinction between "original" and "copy" is imaginary. They both have equal claim to the title of "original".

There's no meaningful difference.

Define "consciousness". Not what it does; what it is. Where is it located? What is it composed of? In what way is it real?

Only in the same sense that we all cease to exist from one moment to the next. You're the same "person" you were yesterday because a person is a social construct. You're not the same physical matter, nor are you the same thoughts or memories. Everything you were has been altered to some extent. There's no thing that continues on that you can identify and say "this is the bit that makes me me".

What you're fundamentally missing is you are subjectively pointing at both Freds and saying you could live with either one as the definitive Fred you know and speak to. Both Freds, however, are going to have very different ideas on the subject, namely that one of them knows they popped into existence a few minutes ago and there's a pre-existing Fred proving that no they did not just blip across the room and reassemble.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:41

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Emrikol posted:

Transporters work however the show says they work because they don't actually exist.

yes, we've covered that

Much of the discussion actually arises because of the inconsistency of how they work within the show, in fact

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:42

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Neddy Seagoon posted:

What you're fundamentally missing is you are subjectively pointing at both Freds and saying you could live with either one as the definitive Fred you know and speak to. Both Freds, however, are going to have very different ideas on the subject, namely that one of them knows they popped into existence a few minutes ago and there's a pre-existing Fred proving that no they did not just blip across the room and reassemble.

Right, social constructs

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:42

Typical Pubbie: May 10, 2011

Would you create a perfect copy of Hitler so that you could punish him? Makes you think.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 14:43

Erulisse: Feb 12, 2019; A bad poster trying to get better.

The Bloop posted:

nah, it's core to the conversation

How is metaphysical concept of inexistent and scientifically inmeasurable, inexplainable "soul" compared to conscious thought process (the electric impulses in one's brain) though?

# ? Apr 8, 2021 15:35

Erulisse: Feb 12, 2019; A bad poster trying to get better.

Tiggum posted:

The distinction between "original" and "copy" is imaginary. They both have equal claim to the title of "original".

There's no meaningful difference.

Define "consciousness". Not what it does; what it is. Where is it located? What is it composed of? In what way is it real?

Only in the same sense that we all cease to exist from one moment to the next. You're the same "person" you were yesterday because a person is a social construct. You're not the same physical matter, nor are you the same thoughts or memories. Everything you were has been altered to some extent. There's no thing that continues on that you can identify and say "this is the bit that makes me me".

1. Everyone can claim all they want. Doesn't change the fact that one of them can be physically traced to being present in the room before the creation of the copy.
2. Not for the outside viewer, yet there is.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
4. We do not cease to exist every moment. One's vitals and brain waves, electric impulses do not cease to exist, they continue existing. It's a process. In case of a copy, they appear. In case of transporter, they appear in a new body and cease to exist in previous one.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 15:45

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Erulisse posted:

How is metaphysical concept of inexistent and scientifically inmeasurable, inexplainable "soul" compared to conscious thought process (the electric impulses in one's brain) though?

Not 100% sure I am parsing your question correctly but the idea of a Self that is Continuous is the concept of a soul

In order for identical A=A duplicated consciousnesses to meaningfully* have an "original" and a "copy" there would have to be something non-fungible and lasting about one of those consciousnesses that links it and it alone back to the pre-duplication version. We generally call that thing a soul.

*duplicates would be in different spatial coordinates, because that's how space works, and laws and mores and social instincts may treat them differently, but none of that makes them actually different from each other at the moment of duplication

# ? Apr 8, 2021 15:45

Erulisse: Feb 12, 2019; A bad poster trying to get better.

I always understood concept of "soul" as the something divine, "incorporeal essence of a living being". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
Maybe because it doesn't exist or have not been proven to exist even theoretically it has so many different concepts?

I am talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness, which someone refers to as a soul, but it is not.
They coincide in some parts of the concept of the soul, but are not the same thing.

I'll put it as blunt and as dumb as i am myself
soul and consciousness lead to totally different wikipedia pages
one talks mainly about philosophy and religion while the other one is talking science

Erulisse fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Apr 8, 2021

# ? Apr 8, 2021 15:50

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

lmao a wikipedia link to define consciousness

Presumably we are not attaching self-identity to the MEAT which contains the consciousness? Again, legally, maybe in some way.

If we could do a brain transplant of Steve's brain into a brain-dead cadaver (formerly home of Greg), most of the body would be Greg's but we would still call that Steve, wouldn't we? Like, they don't get Greg's house and wife because they are wearing their body now?

What we are really tracking though is Steve the consciousness, not the brain. That's the person which seems like what we should be caring about

The Duplicator thought experiment throws a wrinkle into this but if Steve is duplicated, Steve(left side of room) and Steve(right side of room) are divergent consciousnesses, not an old one and a new one.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 15:53

Erulisse: Feb 12, 2019; A bad poster trying to get better.

The Bloop posted:

lmao a wikipedia link to define consciousness

Presumably we are not attaching self-identity to the MEAT which contains the consciousness? Again, legally, maybe in some way.

If we could do a brain transplant of Steve's brain into a brain-dead cadaver (formerly home of Greg), most of the body would be Greg's but we would still call that Steve, wouldn't we? Like, they don't get Greg's house and wife because they are wearing their body now?

What we are really tracking though is Steve the consciousness, not the brain. That's the person which seems like what we should be caring about

The Duplicator thought experiment throws a wrinkle into this but if Steve is duplicated, Steve(left side of room) and Steve(right side of room) are divergent consciousnesses, not an old one and a new one.

Sorry I lack eloquence and language ability to explain myself better discussing such intricate matters. It's my third language, after all
Yeah, "person" could work too. Consciousness of Steve in Steve's brain is living inside Greg's body.
ps
If we could take Steve's brain electric impulses and move them to Greg's brain, it would be still Steve's consciousness, if you get what I'm meaning here

Erulisse fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Apr 8, 2021

# ? Apr 8, 2021 15:55

Powered Descent: Jul 13, 2008; We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.

Typical Pubbie posted:

Would you create a perfect copy of Hitler so that you could punish him? Makes you think.

Do it many times. Make a coin-op machine that'll create and dispense a new sentient Hitler-copy-in-a-box that you can take home and watch being punished to your heart's content, and... drat it, ~~Simpsons~~ Black Mirror already did it.

# ? Apr 8, 2021 15:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 02:01

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Erulisse posted:

Sorry I lack eloquence and language ability to explain myself better discussing such intricate matters. It's my third language, after all
Yeah, "person" could work too. Consciousness of Steve in Steve's brain is living inside Greg's body.

No worries, you do better in a third than I do in a second

I'm just saying that neither Steve (left side of room) or Steve (right side of room) is "old" Steve - they are both just two Steves

Since we are positing that the Steveness gets duplicated perfectly and the meat doesn't matter

# ? Apr 8, 2021 16:00

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > Modern Star Trek Megathread: A holistic approach to starship security

«‹›1952 »