Data and B-4

[MKIceman]

It's probably a bit late to discuss this with hopes of changes in mind, but this issue really irks me. Data is one of my favourite characters, and I simply cannot accept that he would have 'stolen' B-4's body.

With all the ethical and moral evolution he had experienced in his time with Starfleet, he would never just toss aside another sentient for his own gain. He was disappointed in B-4 in 'Star Trek: Nemesis', but he would have forgiven the ignorance. Data also looked forward to death as the final step in being mortal and human.

I'm sure there is more to come with this story, given the ambiguity of the recent Path update. But I really don't think Data needed to be written this way, and it will take a change in writing, or some elaborate story development, for me to accept this is Data.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

(I posted this as an open topic and not a part of a specific Path thread because this spans the entire STO timeline.)

[topekaguy1988]

Did B-4 count as a sentient being?

[curtst]

Data didn't steal B4. Remember in Nemesis he transferred all of his memory and what made Data into B4. With LaForge and the Soong Foundation updating B4s hardware, Data was able to just come out. Not like he meant to, but he is alive now, so might as well make use of it.

[MKIceman]

Data didn't steal B4. Remember in Nemesis he transferred all of his memory and what made Data into B4. With LaForge and the Soong Foundation updating B4s hardware, Data was able to just come out. Not like he meant to, but he is alive now, so might as well make use of it.
Memories but not personality... Last I checked, only Ira Graves could do that.

What I mean is, 'Data personality asserted over B-4'. To me that sounds like murder.

[curtst]

Memories but not personality... Last I checked, only Ira Graves could do that.

What I mean is, 'Data personality asserted over B-4'. To me that sounds like murder.

:rolleyes:

I wouldn't call it murder. More like putting B4 out of his misery, maybe more like assisted suicide.

Besides Ira Graves did transfer himself to Data, and then to the Ent-D main computer so now everyone with access to those files could do it with the right equipment.

[Drexxus3d]

He didn't "take over" B-4....

Besides, your knowledge and experiences in life are what shape your personality in the first place, especially for an android that has no other factors involved such as hormone levels.

It's like putting all of your memories into a 2 year old. It's still the same 2 year old, not you, but it would act just like you because it would remember being you... If that makes any sense :P

[Varrangian]

It's probably a bit late to discuss this with hopes of changes in mind, but this issue really irks me. Data is one of my favourite characters, and I simply cannot accept that he would have 'stolen' B-4's body.

With all the ethical and moral evolution he had experienced in his time with Starfleet, he would never just toss aside another sentient for his own gain. He was disappointed in B-4 in 'Star Trek: Nemesis', but he would have forgiven the ignorance. Data also looked forward to death as the final step in being mortal and human.

I'm sure there is more to come with this story, given the ambiguity of the recent Path update. But I really don't think Data needed to be written this way, and it will take a change in writing, or some elaborate story development, for me to accept this is Data.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

(I posted this as an open topic and not a part of a specific Path thread because this spans the entire STO timeline.)

I'm not sure how much more of it is going to get flushed out by Cryptic bear in mind that the Data resurrection was a CBS move with the pre-movie comic that was released. Cryptic didn't have much choice, it is not like they could ignore it. Some might argue that the comic is not canon, but since it reveals what happened before the movie (which is canon) I have to believe it is canon.

[curtst]

I'm not sure how much more of it is going to get flushed out by Cryptic bear in mind that the Data resurrection was a CBS move with the pre-movie comic that was released. Cryptic didn't have much choice, it is not like they could ignore it. Some might argue that the comic is not canon, but since it reveals what happened before the movie (which is canon) I have to believe it is canon.

Not to mention the comic is officially sanctioned by CBS/Paramount.

[Deyvid]

For all we know, the B-4 persona didn't "die" and is still active, incorporated into or within the Data persona, the way a Trill host and the Trill symbiant are joined personalities and identities. In the case of Data and B-4, Data's persona and identity would be stronger and more advanced, so it would naturally assume the "leadership" role or primary position.

I didn't read the comic, so I don't know if they specifically stated whether or not the B-4 persona was "lost" or deleted when the Data matrix re-emerged.

I'd have to watch Nemesis again to refresh my memory with specifics, but Data inserted his matrix into B-4 to enhance B-4, thereby changing B4 from what he was, to a more advanced state, closer to Data. It just turned out that the original Data was lost, and with help, the Data matrix stored in B-4 was able to be awoken and activated.

Data was able to create a Soong-type android once before, Lal (in TNG: "The Offspring"), so maybe Data could have rebuilt the emotion chip, and at some point create a new body for either himself (the Data matrix) or the original B-4 matrix.

Data's matrix would basically be a program, but if you think of it in terms similar to DNA, there are dominant and recessive genes, and in this case, the B-4 matrix would be the recessive gene sequence, and the Data matrix would be the dominant gene sequence, so just as dominant genes "take over" or "over-write" the recessive genes in biology, the dominant Data matrix asserted itself over the recessive B-4 matrix.

Again, we really don't have all the techno-jargon specifics to know 100% what happened in detail (unless the comic clearly spells it out, without a shadow of a doubt).

Here is some interesting reading references:

Memory Alpha: B-4 (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/B-4)
Memory Beta: B-4 (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/B-4)
Memory Beta: Data matrix (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Data_matrix)

[Spanish_Broomaker]

Androids are not sentient, programs are not alive, even programs that program do not count as a sentient creature, I don't care what Starfleet says. I am a programmer, and I should know, by definition programs are not sentient, programs are a set of predefined commands, so Data taking over another computer is like me taking my old PC's hard drive data and moving it to a new computer. An android by definition is an imitation, artificial (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/android, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/automaton), so an android terminating another android is not murder but destruction of property (property owned by itself since it is autonomous). So get Data for destruction of property and not murder. And as for me accepting this Data, well, B-4 is an older model, so we have a more advanced Data program without the emotion chip, with older hardware, so I guess we are stuck with an "old" Data...

[ObsidianBlk]

Androids are not sentient, programs are not alive, even programs that program do not count as a sentient creature, I don't care what Starfleet says. I am a programmer, and I should know, by definition programs are not sentient, programs are a set of predefined commands, so Data taking over another computer is like me taking my old PC's hard drive data and moving it to a new computer. An android by definition is an imitation, artificial (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/android, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/automaton), so an android terminating another android is not murder but destruction of property (property owned by itself since it is autonomous). So get Data for destruction of property and not murder. And as for me accepting this Data, well, B-4 is an older model, so we have a more advanced Data program without the emotion chip, with older hardware, so I guess we are stuck with an "old" Data...


Being a programmer myself I have to disagree with you. While it's true that programs we have today are by no means alive, we cannot assume they could never be (whether by design or accident). Computer software has existed less than a century. For all intents are purposes, it's still in it's infancy. How much more complex will computers and programs be given 200+ years of R&D?

Even with the technology of today, you see a lot of aberrant behavior with hardware and/or software for reasons that are often mysterious. For instance, taking a hard drive from one machine to another may cause the OS all sorts of problems. Suddenly, the OS is faced with different video cards, sound cards, motherboard and CPU. An OS not initially configured for these pieces of hardware will have hiccups. Maybe the video won't work quite right. Perhaps some piece of software may glitch because it was expecting your old hardware. Essentially, your software is configured for the hardware (or body) it's in. Suddenly changing that environment may not always be a transparent operation.

This is also true for identical computer setups. Two computers with the same hardware (from motherboard, to CPU, to RAM, HD, Vid, OS, even cooling fans and power supplies) may not always behave exactly like each other. Even within the same room, there may be slight temperature differences which could cause a half millisecond delay on one machine vs the other. Not much at all... but... over time? Over time one machine may feel as if it's not running a program quite as easily as the other machine. One machine may boot up a hair faster, or power down may take a hair longer. And if both of these machine are connected to the internet... well... hell... all expectations of identical operations nearly go out the window because one machine may suffer some network attack as opposed to the other.

There is a reason the term "Ghost in the machine" was coined. These are complex machines effected by a range of complex associations both environmentally and programatically. Computer A and computer B may begin existence looking and running identically, but, over time, they will start to diverge and feel as if they're developing a life of their own. I suspect software will continue to be effected along these lines as well.

[ransomwk]

Data is the TNG analog for Spock. Spock came back from the dead, so does Data.

Spock's method involved accidental use of dangerous and some would say immoral materials.
Data's method involved accidental assertion of his personality over that of B-4, which some would consider immoral.



Technically though wouldn't Data and B-4 have combined into a new person? Though with Data's 20 years of memories next to B-4's 10 days, it makes sense that Data would be overwhelmingly dominant.

[Spanish_Broomaker]

Being a programmer myself I have to disagree with you. While it's true that programs we have today are by no means alive, we cannot assume they could never be (whether by design or accident). Computer software has existed less than a century. For all intents are purposes, it's still in it's infancy. How much more complex will computers and programs be given 200+ years of R&D?

Even with the technology of today, you see a lot of aberrant behavior with hardware and/or software for reasons that are often mysterious. For instance, taking a hard drive from one machine to another may cause the OS all sorts of problems. Suddenly, the OS is faced with different video cards, sound cards, motherboard and CPU. An OS not initially configured for these pieces of hardware will have hiccups. Maybe the video won't work quite right. Perhaps some piece of software may glitch because it was expecting your old hardware. Essentially, your software is configured for the hardware (or body) it's in. Suddenly changing that environment may not always be a transparent operation.

This is also true for identical computer setups. Two computers with the same hardware (from motherboard, to CPU, to RAM, HD, Vid, OS, even cooling fans and power supplies) may not always behave exactly like each other. Even within the same room, there may be slight temperature differences which could cause a half millisecond delay on one machine vs the other. Not much at all... but... over time? Over time one machine may feel as if it's not running a program quite as easily as the other machine. One machine may boot up a hair faster, or power down may take a hair longer. And if both of these machine are connected to the internet... well... hell... all expectations of identical operations nearly go out the window because one machine may suffer some network attack as opposed to the other.

There is a reason the term "Ghost in the machine" was coined. These are complex machines effected by a range of complex associations both environmentally and programatically. Computer A and computer B may begin existence looking and running identically, but, over time, they will start to diverge and feel as if they're developing a life of their own. I suspect software will continue to be effected along these lines as well.

All abnormalities with computers can be explained by carelessness in the programming or faulty hardware, in the direction that computers are going today they can never be sentient because computers are limited to the algorithms, I disagree with the theories that they can ever develop beyond them. The term of "ghost machine" can only apply to sentient beings, it cannot apply to a machine until it is sentient. The only way I can see it happening is when we start using biological tissue as hardware, however, that may be explained by the biological being sentient and not the set of algorithms. What scientists have to find out before making a sentient being is to find out what exactly makes heaps of tissue sentient and find out if it is possible to make that artificially.

[USS_Parallax]

This could mean anything. It could mean B-4's "sense of self" is still there only squished down or B-4 more or less became Data. Maybe B-4 is a multiple personality that doesn't pop up (therefore the same person). Could be anything.

It might be addressed in STO. Maybe B-4 will reappear as the dominant personality/person in an episode.

[THORN74]

For all we know, the B-4 persona didn't "die" and is still active, incorporated into or within the Data persona, the way a Trill host and the Trill symbiant are joined personalities and identities. In the case of Data and B-4, Data's persona and identity would be stronger and more advanced, so it would naturally assume the "leadership" role or primary position.

I didn't read the comic, so I don't know if they specifically stated whether or not the B-4 persona was "lost" or deleted when the Data matrix re-emerged.

I'd have to watch Nemesis again to refresh my memory with specifics, but Data inserted his matrix into B-4 to enhance B-4, thereby changing B4 from what he was, to a more advanced state, closer to Data. It just turned out that the original Data was lost, and with help, the Data matrix stored in B-4 was able to be awoken and activated.

Data was able to create a Soong-type android once before, Lal (in TNG: "The Offspring"), so maybe Data could have rebuilt the emotion chip, and at some point create a new body for either himself (the Data matrix) or the original B-4 matrix.

Data's matrix would basically be a program, but if you think of it in terms similar to DNA, there are dominant and recessive genes, and in this case, the B-4 matrix would be the recessive gene sequence, and the Data matrix would be the dominant gene sequence, so just as dominant genes "take over" or "over-write" the recessive genes in biology, the dominant Data matrix asserted itself over the recessive B-4 matrix.

Again, we really don't have all the techno-jargon specifics to know 100% what happened in detail (unless the comic clearly spells it out, without a shadow of a doubt).

Here is some interesting reading references:

Memory Alpha: B-4 (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/B-4)
Memory Beta: B-4 (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/B-4)
Memory Beta: Data matrix (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Data_matrix)

perhaps, as Data is a machine, he is now a "dual boot" android like a XP/Linux PC he would now be a Data/B4 android.??

[kawaylon]

sorry but i think its like spocks mind meld in tos were he knew thier was no way back so not to sacrifice what he learned transferd into the lesser being of b-4. at the end you see b-4 singing so you know hes not gone just needs story to flush out how he would return ie another tng film say in six years maybe titan film or one based on sto even. that would be cool.:):):):):

[Winginit]

What about saying B-4 "grew" into Data? Instead of saying that Data took over, you could say that B-4 - containing all of Data's memories - simply began to think like Data as he was able to assimilate the information.

He's still B-4. But you would only see Data unless you were to dig deep enough to find that little part of him that shows him to still be B-4.

[Sevenblade]

I find it interesting how people didn't like it when Data got killed, and even more seemed to dislike his resurrection. Personally, I think his death wasn't a sufficiently meaningful way for such a deep and developed character to go out, so the resurrection through B-4 never really bothered me. It helped me forget the lackluster writing of Nemesis.

Perhaps if I had actually connected with the character of B-4 more, I'd feel more for the concern of him being potentially overwritten. Unfortunately, he felt like a cheap gimmick. Like, "Hey, we're gonna chuck in another Soong-type android of the Soong appearance that no one heard about before now, simply as a plot device to avoid rabidly mad fans!" You never learned anything about him as a character, never developed any kind of personality, mostly because they gave him the functionality and intellect of a small child. Then, slightly after he got introduced, he just got replaced as a device to bring Data back. Weak.

What would have been much more interesting is to see him struggle with the dilemma of Data's emerging personality vs. his own 'natural' one. Instead, we see the first sparks of Data coming back at the end of Nemesis, and then the next thing we hear, Data's completely back and Captain of the Enterprise. Maybe some back story on the interim time would give a lot more empathy for a drastically underdeveloped character.

[overlordthor]

Memories but not personality... Last I checked, only Ira Graves could do that.

What I mean is, 'Data personality asserted over B-4'. To me that sounds like murder.

Is our personality not a product of our experiences, and the way our minds function?

Their minds function very similar, and are in fact able to adapt themselves as time passes and the neural net learns a better way to function, so when everything from data was transfered, might B-4s neural net have begun altering itself to function like Data's in order to incorporate Data's information/memories. and at the end it became a combination of the 2 minds, with Data's as the more dominant?

It is also possible that behind closed doors they created a new android data after careful dis assembly, since Data was asked what happened and he refused to say, perhaps something top secret like the creation of more androids is happening.

[Sevenblade]

Androids are not sentient, programs are not alive, even programs that program do not count as a sentient creature, I don't care what Starfleet says. I am a programmer, and I should know, by definition programs are not sentient, programs are a set of predefined commands, so Data taking over another computer is like me taking my old PC's hard drive data and moving it to a new computer. An android by definition is an imitation, artificial (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/android, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/automaton), so an android terminating another android is not murder but destruction of property (property owned by itself since it is autonomous). So get Data for destruction of property and not murder. And as for me accepting this Data, well, B-4 is an older model, so we have a more advanced Data program without the emotion chip, with older hardware, so I guess we are stuck with an "old" Data...

Oh, and um, wait a second, because you're a programmer in the early 21st century, that means you automatically know whether a fictional android from the 24th century is sentient or not? Man, if I knew you could get degrees in non-existent technology 300 years in the hypothetical future, I'd switch my major right now.

[Phunix]

Aren't we biologicals nothing more than just chemical computers anyway?
(I don't subscribe to the belief in spirit or whatever other entity that controls our brain...)

[Amblin]

Err can I just say, does it really matter?

Who cares about the how, we should be more exited that we will get the chance to meet Data!

It's only a TV show/MMO you know, it's not real and is only entertainment. ;)

[Spanish_Broomaker]

Oh, and um, wait a second, because you're a programmer in the early 21st century, that means you automatically know whether a fictional android from the 24th century is sentient or not? Man, if I knew you could get degrees in non-existent technology 300 years in the hypothetical future, I'd switch my major right now.

Change to computer science then! :)
Well, in the direction that computer science is going and the way it is depicted in Star Trek, androids cannot be sentient. After all, who doesn't want android slaves to be morally correct? Oh! Wait, that was off-topic... :p

Aren't we biologicals nothing more than just chemical computers anyway?
(I don't subscribe to the belief in spirit or whatever other entity that controls our brain...)

Sentient beings seem to be more than that, something in the brain that makes it act in an unpredicted manner (the mind-body problem), computers are limited to algorithms, so they cannot go beyond them and are limited within them.

[ObsidianBlk]

All abnormalities with computers can be explained by carelessness in the programming or faulty hardware, in the direction that computers are going today they can never be sentient because computers are limited to the algorithms, I disagree with the theories that they can ever develop beyond them. The term of "ghost machine" can only apply to sentient beings, it cannot apply to a machine until it is sentient. The only way I can see it happening is when we start using biological tissue as hardware, however, that may be explained by the biological being sentient and not the set of algorithms. What scientists have to find out before making a sentient being is to find out what exactly makes heaps of tissue sentient and find out if it is possible to make that artificially.

You are absolutely right... abnormalities! Identical hardware built in the same factory under the same conditions effected by processes that we cannot control cause seemingly identical components to behave erratically. This, essentially, destroys your argument because NOTHING is 100% predictable, even in computers. Assuming a program that, for the sake of argument, nearly replicates human thought (but we will not assume sentients), simply due to hardware, would evolve into completely different personalities due to environmental causes to the hardware beyond the creators control.

As for the software... I'm offended by the use of the word "careless". Any developer worth a damn goes out of their way to test and retest not just the program as a whole, but also the individual algorithms that make up that program. Aye, we're only human, and even all those test cases cannot prevent coding errors, but that, by no means, makes the developer careless. Furthermore, I argue again, that computers and programing languages are less than a century old. They aren't even a full human lifespan old, as a matter of fact. Are you claiming that in the span of one lifetime we have come to the absolute limit of computer technology? This is a technology that, in only the span of only 20 years gone from Zork (text based game) to fully realized, procedurally generated 3D environments of a scale of mere meters to that of an entire planet... and this only in the realm of 3D graphical computer technology. You cannot claim to know for a fact the limits of this technology.

[DarianDrakon]

Is our personality not a product of our experiences, and the way our minds function?

Their minds function very similar, and are in fact able to adapt themselves as time passes and the neural net learns a better way to function, so when everything from data was transfered, might B-4s neural net have begun altering itself to function like Data's in order to incorporate Data's information/memories. and at the end it became a combination of the 2 minds, with Data's as the more dominant?

It is also possible that behind closed doors they created a new android data after careful dis assembly, since Data was asked what happened and he refused to say, perhaps something top secret like the creation of more androids is happening.
Aside from all of the arguments about humans ever ebing able to create a sentient android, I'm really liking overlordthor's idea for what happened to Data and B-4. Just think if they've finally found a way to create more androids. It would certainly make Data much less unique, but it would allow us to have an android on every ship to do the things that humans can't. Just like the EMH/ECH in Voyager. It's only inevitable that if one human could create Data, that eventually someone else could figure out how to do it too.

[Spanish_Broomaker]

You are absolutely right... abnormalities! Identical hardware built in the same factory under the same conditions effected by processes that we cannot control cause seemingly identical components to behave erratically. This, essentially, destroys your argument because NOTHING is 100% predictable, even in computers. Assuming a program that, for the sake of argument, nearly replicates human thought (but we will not assume sentients), simply due to hardware, would evolve into completely different personalities due to environmental causes to the hardware beyond the creators control.
Then the hardware evolved and not the data and algorithms tattooed on the surface.


As for the software... I'm offended by the use of the word "careless". Any developer worth a damn goes out of their way to test and retest not just the program as a whole, but also the individual algorithms that make up that program. Aye, we're only human, and even all those test cases cannot prevent coding errors, but that, by no means, makes the developer careless. Furthermore, I argue again, that computers and programing languages are less than a century old. They aren't even a full human lifespan old, as a matter of fact. Are you claiming that in the span of one lifetime we have come to the absolute limit of computer technology? This is a technology that, in only the span of only 20 years gone from Zork (text based game) to fully realized, procedurally generated 3D environments of a scale of mere meters to that of an entire planet... and this only in the realm of 3D graphical computer technology. You cannot claim to know for a fact the limits of this technology.
I never said we have reached the pinnacle of computer technology, far from it, we have yet to develop programs that itself can program, but as I have said before, event that program will be limited to certain algorithms and it will not evolve. And as I said, all of us programmers do careless mistakes, that is why we spend half the time debugging! :p