Customer Reviews

Is Data Human?: The Metaphysics Of Star Trek

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

First of all, I agree with Murray Moffat that the first part of this book, which dicusses the criteria of personhood (a moral concept) is boring. This is because it is too loosely written. Hanley's discussion seems unfocused; sometimes one paragraph does not seem to follow from another. I still have not figured out what precisely the author concludes about organisms that display linguistic behavior, for instance. His comments on this issue are scattered, and, I believe, are never satisfactorily brought together. Chapters 4 and 5 of Part II constitute by far the best part of the work. In these chapters, Hanley discusses personal identity over time, i.e. synchronic identity, in opposition to diachronic identity, or identity at an instant, discussed in the first part. The first part of the book asks, "How can we identify a person?" and the first two chapters of the second part ask, "How can we identify the SAME person at two different times?" Hanley makes a compelling case (though, ultimately, I cannot agree) in the second part that continuity of psychology or pscychological states must be our guide in determining who is the same person as whom. The final chapter, chapter 6, seems somewhat disconnected from the rest of the book in discussing time travel, though this topic obviously fits with the general theme of the book. It is a satisfying discussion, though not as lively as that in the preceding two chapters. The epilogue seems preachy and entirely out of place, but only comprises a few pages. So, the rating for this book breaks down as follows:

Part I (chapters 1-3): 3 stars
Chapters 4 and 5: 5 stars
Chapter 6: 4 stars
Epilogue: 1 star

Averaging, but discounting the epilogue (since it is so short), we arrive at the rating of 4 stars for the book overall.

I am a student of philosophy and rhetoric and have spent many hours of my life buried in complicated and dense reading. But this book just takes the cake!

It is not complicated. It is not dense. It is just boring.

The idea is interesting, but Hanley spends too much time on basic philosophy and too little on the relationship of Star Trek and its philosophy. However I am sure a few undergraduates would be comfortably induced into an introductory class with this title.

If you really want to read the book, read it out loud as though it were being presented as a series of lectures. It is much easier to follow.

I really would only recommend this book to Star Trek fans, since the author frequently refers to the episodes. They would probably find it very intriguing. I still was able to enjoy it because I knew a little about philosophy and AI; however, if you're not familiar with Star Trek or philosophy of mind, then don't bother. Of course, that should go without saying...

I decided to read this book after finishing Lawrence Krauss' The Physics of Star Trek and was surprised to learn that there's a whole lot more controversial stuff going on in Star Trek than just the technological aspects. Krauss' brings up some interesting philosophical viewpoints. I was hoping he would give a little more of his opinion in the book, he stayed mostly neutral throughout his arguments, but I guess that lets us draw our own conclusions. The book gets a little slow and difficult to read a times but I think it is worth reading if you're a Star Trek fan and ever thought about the possibility of an artificial intelligence like Data.

Get "The Ethics of Star Trek" instead (and tell author Darling about this better choice for his list!). With this book: wrong question, wrong answer. Data is not a human "being," of course, but he is certainly, as portrayed, a human PERSON. And the real issue regarding Data is not artificial intelligence, but the nature-nurture debate. Data only blossomed in the care of people who loved him. For heaven's sake, can anyone watch "Iin Man" and not be moved?

And all sentient beings should have civil rights. How can that even be questioned? Wasn't this something important that Rodenberry wanted to stress? Of course it was. Star Trek is science, but it is also soul. (And Data could make ya cry with that fiddle of his! And not just by copying!! And that was the point. And Mr. Spiner should think about donning that dang spacesuit again because the fans want him! Is it so annoying to be beloved? And, Data did not overstay his welcome. He is welcome!)

Nuff said,
RM

If you're interested in Star Trek _and_ philosophy then this is the book for you! However if you like Star Trek but aren't too fussed about philosophy then you might want to give this one a miss.

I found the first half of this book, discussing what constitutes intelligence and what is "a person", fairly boring. Things picked up a bit when the author moved on to transporters and time travel, but I've got to question some of the authors technical knowledge. He may know lots about philosophy but his physics is a bit shaky at times.

Of course philosophy being such a "hairy-fairy" science (some people don't even class it as a "real" science) it's very hard to argue with the authors conclusions. It's not like you can _prove_ anything, is it?

A much better read are Lawrence Krauss' books "The Physics of Star Trek" and "Beyond Star Trek".

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but after studying Philosophy for 2 years, this book was an insult. It didn't offer me any new insights into star trek, or the philosophy behind it. Instead, it made me realize that anybody can make a buck, despite the poor quality of their work, if they take the opportunities before them and act on them quick enough, and thats what this guy did.

He must have read "The Physics of Star Trek", realized the oppotunity before him, and jumped at it, at the expense of myself and others.

This book was an insult to my intelligence to be brutally honest. This guy must have read, "The Physics Behind Star Trek", and realized he could make a buck by hitting on the Metaphysics.

I've been studying Philosophy (Thats what Metaphysics is) for the last three years, and theres not ANYTHING that I actually considered useful. If it wasn't for the fact that I must finish any book I start, I wouldn't have finished this one.

You, the reader, whether educated in this subject or not, could probobly put together a better piece of work.

I recommend you invest your money in birth control, at least you'll get some use and pleasure out of that.

This book is horrible. If I didn't have to read this book for class, I would burn it right now. It is arguing fiction with nonfiction. I think we all know machines aren't human! Don't waste your money unless you idolize Star Trek.