The EMH on Voyager certainly became sentient, although he didn’t seem to start out that way. By the end of the show they were dealing with the consequences of this growth, incl. questions about the “slavery” of his fellow (obsolescent) EMHs elsewhere in the Fleet, and his intellectual property rights to a holonovel he’d written.
The Moriarty sim was not such a rarity of artificial sentience by Picard’s time:
The Federation would surely have laws to address holodeck criminal issues; it doesn’t appear to be something which came up much. Nobody talked about suing or prosecuting Barclay; they were just annoyed with/concerned about him. I personally am of the “it’s probably a healthy way to blow off steam” outlook, but I can see that violent, torture-based, aggressively sexual, pedophilic or misogynist programs could be quite troubling. Some people, not all, who engaged in that kind of holoescapism might find the line between fantasy and reality dangerously blurred. As noted earlier, we’ve already dealt with these issues a bit regarding violent video games, but the holodeck’s extreme realism makes it qualitatively different, I think.
On a lighter note:
“When virtual reality lets Joe Sixpack make love to Claudia Schiffer hour after hour in his den, it’s gonna make crack look like Sanka.” - Dennis Miller
Really? Do you think for an otherwise normal person, a realistic rape would be an enjoyable act? I’m not sure that it would. I’ve read testimony written by men who have committed rape in unusual circumstances (such as going along with the crowd during a gang rape at a party, or rape during post-battle marauding) and they have expressed disgust, self-loathing and remorse for what they have done.
Those with normal rape fantasies probably wouldn’t enjoy it. While normal rape fantasies can get brutal, they still do not really imitate a real rape- generally in normal rape fantasies the victim reacts in ways that are unlikely in real life- for example, they probably react with soft whimpering rather than ugly screeching screams. They probably always struggle and squirm, and never choose to go limp or tense up. They rarely vomit or turn red-faced or leak nasty bodily fluids- or have a tampon. Rape fantasy is just a totally different thing that what drives people to actually commit rape.
This leaves us with the real sickos, who really do get off on causing real suffering to real people. I don’t think the holodeck is going to be a major factor in how that sickness progresses.
The facts are that pornography based on rape and murder exists and is sold in the United States, and, to judge by this thread or any other where I’ve seen the issue discussed most people voice the opinion that as long as no actual violent crimes were committed in making that stuff, then it’s moral. Some people disagree, obviously, but that seems to be majority opinion.
I, personally, am planning on doing a lot of sex and killing and general mayhem when holodecks are invented
To piggyback on this topic, this was touched on in a couple of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. I remember that some time travelers from the future mentioned a few times about a future war with the holograms. In another episode, the Hirogen, a race of brutal hunters, was given some of Voyager’s holodeck technology and modified it so that, they said, the holograms would suffer when hunted and feel their equivalent of pain. Janeway tried to stop it somehow but I thought she was totally out of her gourd.
This reminds me a little of the debate over “child pornography” using drawn figures, cartoons, or computer-generated characters. No “real person” is involved, so there can be no victim.
But as the depictions come to represent reality more and more closely, the fiction gets more and more disturbing.
I’m not a Christian by any means, but I do think there is an element of “immorality” in thinking some kinds of thoughts, especially when envisioned in great detail.
I’ve done a lot of role-playing-gaming, and have always shied away from playing games or scenarios that involve particularly horrid acts of cruelty. Even if it’s just a game, it alarms my moral sense. (Sort of like Spider-Sense, but much more ambiguous!) I also would not feel comfortable reading books that depict such acts.
(My uncle bequeathed me a bunch of John Norman “Gor” books. I could not read them. It seemed to me to be a moral violation for me to. I’m also opposed to book-burning, so I had one heck of a dilemma on my hands! I finally dumped 'em in a Goodwill Industries donation box…which is, I suppose, just burning them by proxy…)
I know a guy who makes pseudo-snuff movies. I consider those to be immoral also. I wouldn’t ban them; I hold them to be wholly protected speech. But I won’t ever watch 'em…
Obviously not; in post #2 I said “Personally I believe that such things are highly immoral. I’d speculate that most people around here would not agree.”
Is this just where fictional children are involved? If not, there are a great many authors and screenwriters who are visualizing in detail how a fictional person (child or otherwise) could be gruesomely murdered, and translating these thoughts to the written word and, possibly, film. Is Stephen King immoral? How many fictional characters has he “killed” over the years? Agatha Christie? The guys who wrote the Saw movies? Is there a moral difference between creating a detailed story for an audience vs. just for one’s own amusement?
Well, I once roleplayed ripping a guy’s leg off to use his femur as an improvised club. He was already “dead”(-ish) and it was his screwup that got the party captured in the first place, but I digress. I have no regrets for that action, nor do I think it planted a seed in my psyche that will one day turn me into a bloodthirsty leg-ripper.
Heck, anyone with basic literary skills will feel an instinctive revulsion on that front, morals notwithstanding.
So I guess the main issue this rests on is whether someone who acts out a rape fantasy is more or less likely to go on to commit a real rape.
I suspect less, though I wouldn’t claim to be certain.
<digression>
I think we underestimate how different a world with holodecks would be. The fantasies would quickly move beyond mundane reality. Epic environments, amazingly good-looking people (plus aliens, famous people, giants, whatever), being able to fly and so on. And it would be more surprising than the real world because it would be the product of other people’s imaginations as well as yours.
Finally the separation with reality would blur once multiple people can be in the holodeck together.
Someone growing up with constant access to a holodeck would see the real world as incredibly constrained and repetitive. I don’t think they’d want to do much in the real, crippled world beyond what is necessary to sustain themselves.
</digression>
Ah, well, you’ve got me. I feel a moral revulsion, but I can’t define it meaningfully.
THAT isn’t where I was coming from!
I think I was more trying to re-phrase, “When you stare too long into the abyss, you become abysmal.” Or something. I think that immersing oneself in evil thoughts, in detail, is, in a limited way, self damaging. I also think that, at some point, at some level, self-damaging behavior is immoral. But, again, I know you’ll ask me to define this more clearly, and, at the moment, I don’t know how.
Can I hide behind the “I know it when I see it” definition?
re Gor novels: good point. The immorality is in anyone writing so damn poorly in the first place!
I don’t know. If when you’re in the holodeck, characters seem real to you, they’re passing the Turing test. So, how do we know they aren’t sentient? So, if you rape them, aren’t you raping a sentient being? And if they’re “erased” afterwards, as some posters noted, aren’t you in fact compounding the rape with a murder?
Apart from that, I’m on a side considering that criminal fantasies, be them in your mind, in written or drawn form, on the internet or in an holodeck aren’t immoral in any way. Otherwise, as mentioned, anyone who ever watched your average movie would be guilty as hell.
Well, I’m gonna go play another game of Civilization 3 (my favourite in the series). Maybe this’ll be the game that finally causes me to snap and go invade India.
Because they cannot be sentient unless humanity has discovered how to make a program sentient. Finding out whether a given holocharacter is sentient or not should be as easy as asking the computer a question.
Unless it occurs as an emergent characteristic. And it’s not like they’ll be dumb one moment, and sentient the next; they’ll likely be a vast grey area in practice.
Chances are, someone somewhere will create the first sentient intelligence, and it will make headlines, before it occurs on your holodeck. But you can’t be sure of that. Perhaps the parameters of your simulation provided the perfect environment.
I’d always assumed (right up to the first draft of this post) that such an emergent intelligence would not initially be capable of feeling pain or suffering.
But now that I think about it, the computer is creating a simulation of something which looks like it’s in pain and has emotions. And intelligence is emerging as a side effect. I think it’s entirely possible (though not entailed) that it will have pain and emotions as a side effect.
I don’t think you could really call anything done on the holodeck immoral. The whole concept of ethics is to me, is based upon creating harm or suffering in another sentient being. Everything else is just make believe. A sim where I try to catch Jack the Ripper is no different than one where I play him and try to elude capture. It would be fun to play both those games. That is the beauty of the Holodeck, it allows you to explore any scenario in safety and without the need to impact another real person. I’m not a Victorian era policeman, nor a real serial killer. Creating the “corpses” for my pursuers to find is no different than making a halloween display. You might find it icky, gross, or scary, but it isn’t unethical.
I would be fine with a prohibition on the usage of images of* real persons* under the age of consent provided that law was coupled to a biologically sane number like 13 or 14. I would argue that minors under that age have a both a higher right to privacy and may be adversely impacted should they learn of their image usage before gaining enough age to process that information correctly.
Perhaps…but I just don’t want those kinds of thoughts in my head. It’s a pollution issue!
It certainly could have a positive use. Psychologists take hideous ideas into their heads when trying to understand murderers, rapists, etc. Simming a rape might help in the understanding of a rapist’s thoughts, which might make it easier to catch him, or even prevent him from committing another crime.
In the military, war-games are held all the time, simming attacks on one’s own country, and we fully expect – demand! – that the leader of the “opposing force” do his level best to defeat the defending troops.
Devil’s advocate checking in. Consider a particularly imaginative individual with a knack for constructing truly horrific scenarios, but who is also, in reality, a super gentle person who finds it difficult to harm even bugs. Would it not be possible to understand the value of shock in causing a viewer to reflect on his own morals and tendencies? And knowing how society is becoming increasingly jaded, greater and more terrible scenarios may be required in order to shock an audience into reflection. Such “art” would become the height of salvational morality, no? But like anything else, the intent of the artist would matter. Maybe.
It might be more sensible to nail down what is meant by “moral” and why it matters to anyone else what goes on in someone else’s head. Our justice system is set up to seek retribution for the victims and to prevent the occurrence of victims. It is not set up to reform or heal perpetrators. Apart from the possibility of harming a sentient computer holodecks have only perpetrators, no victims.
Technically, no. But Holodek psychosis would be a concern, would it not? I mean, what if you lost the ability to discern Holodek programs from reality? The potential for mind-screw is significant here.
