In Star Trek: The Next Generation’s “Measure of a Man”, the Starfleet Enterprise seeks to answer the question of whether or not Data has a soul. If he has a soul, that means he is human. And if it’s proven that he’s human, that allows him the right to resign or refuse being disassembled. Of course, in the end, it was proven that he wasn’t human, but that he possessed human characteristics such as consciousness, self-awareness, and intelligence. In addition, he was regarded as a valuable asset to the team.
The part that was most interesting to me is when Captain Louvois admitted that she didn’t know if she had a soul. Neither she nor Maddox could explain what made their sentience different from Data’s. Aside from being extremely intelligent and aware of his current situation, Data was capable of loving someone romantically (Tasha) and placing value on friendship (he packed a book that was given to him by Picard). However, he was still considered to be a machine/automaton, or in Maddox’s words “property”.
And, while it might seem cruel to suggest that, Maddox wasn’t entirely wrong. Data’s name suggests that he is simply a collection of information, hence why Maddox believes that disassembling him won’t affect his core memories, since data (the way it’s viewed in the tech world) can be backed up and restored. It’s not entirely lost except in special circumstances. But, while Maddox views Data’s memories as, well, data, Data views his memories as human memories (he holds a constructivist view of memory). These memories, that, once destroyed, cannot be remade. Even if he were to attempt replicating the situation in which he experienced the memory, as he said, “The substance or the flavor would be lost”. The memories would just become facts, facts that would not have any special meaning to him. His claim reminded me of last week’s movie “Inside Out”, where it was shown that Riley’s memories were influenced by her environment, which is why her emotions thought that sending her back to Minnesota would help her recreate the core memories that she lost.
“Marjorie Prime” also focused on memory, but it did so through the portrayal of a lady, Marjorie, who has Alzheimer’s. Marjorie is able to remember the past through the use of a “Prime”- a projection (I think) of her husband, Walter, who relays the past back to her. I’m not sure if the Prime is really a projection, because he seems to be physically present when ice is thrown at him, and he’s able to hold a conversation with Marjorie’s family and caretaker.
So, I guess he’s a robot? Anyways, the Prime is fed information from Marjorie’s relatives, who themselves seem to have little recollection of the past, considering that Tess was a child and the in-law wasn’t even there to experience it.
A quote from the movie that explains memory best is, “Memory is not like a well that you dip into or a filing cabinet. You don’t remember the memory; you remember the last time you remembered it”. The act of remembering something was compared to making a photocopy of a photocopy. Funny enough, a real life example is provided right after this quote. Tess says that she remembers eating vanilla ice cream the last time Jon told her the quote. Jon says that it was pistachio. Tess calls him insane and says that it’s vanilla ice cream. They are speaking about the same event, yet their memory of what they ate is different. The memory has changed over time that neither one can differentiate between the truth and a false memory.
While Tess and Jon experience a false memory, Marjorie can’t remember at all unless prompted. However, it seems like her brain is able to recall memories that weren’t even given to her. For example, Jon tells Walter Prime not to bring up Damian, but despite that, Marjorie randomly retrieves the memory of their dog, Toni and her son, Damian. This is surprising because, ever since Damian killed himself and Toni, Marjorie never spoke of him again. I think that forcing that memory into her subconscious mind where it could be forgotten was a form of protection. She didn’t have to confront a memory that hurt her-until it came into her consciousness in her old age.
7 thoughts on “Memory”
Hi Tonicia,
I love your analysis of Data’s name—which is especially important in this episode. As you note, his name suggests that he is information that can be downloaded and backed up, but, obviously, this is not what we see play out in this episode. Rather, we see that Data’s memories are not just data, but a deeply emotional aspect of who he is—and if he loses them, he will no longer be the same. The loss of those emotions will fundamentally change who he is.
Just to clarify, the Prime is a holographic AI. The ice passes through Walter, and at one point Marjorie walks through the space where his legs should be. And yes, I think you are right that Marjorie tried not to think about Damien—or remember him—because she was not able to handle the grief that accompanied his death. That’s why she got rid of his pictures and rarely said his name.
Jessica Hautsch
Hi Toni,
Great post! I also did understand where Maddox was coming from, since collecting data would allow Data to have his memories intact. However, the fact that Data was so reluctant to even take a chance at losing his memories speaks to his self-awareness. He knows that simply having the knowledge of those memories happening is not the same as actually experiencing them. There’s something else that comes along with experiencing those memories, the emotions behind them at the moment they happened.
Alessa Bustillo
Hi Toni,
I also thought it was interesting that the other Captain admitted her conflation on the matter. Also what you say in the following sentence, “ Neither she nor Maddox could explain what made their sentience different from Data’s.” Sounds like an excellent way to conn=cure they were coming at this matter from a point of prejudice. Later in your post you use the example they provide in Marjorie prime, I think this part about the ice cream is helpful in under standing the concept they define in film as well as beneficial to your own blog.
Olivia
Olivia Nobs
I really liked how you explained Data’s memories. On one hand his memories could be backed up and stored for another body but he knows that those memories would not be the same without the body he created them with. When everyone was asked what made them human and if they knew of their own spirits they were all at a loss. That was truly the moment that everyone started to view Data as a member of the crew.
jjwaterman
Hi Jeremy,
The point that you make about Data remembering without the body brings up an interesting point, because we run into the same issue when we think about human cognition as embodied. If our memories are inseparable from our emotions–what would it mean to remember without our bodies?
Jessica Hautsch
Hi Toni!
I also thought that Louvois not knowing if she has a soul was really interesting. Data does a lot of human-like things, like loving other people, both romantically and platonically. He’s obviously a sentient being, so why wouldn’t he have just as much of a soul as a human? It seemed so silly to me that someone could look at Data and call him “it” as if he were a computer when he acts so much like a human.
Maddy
Hi Toni! I liked that when you were discussing Marjorie Prime you gave a strong example as to how memories could not always be accurate as people have different views of every event, even if it is one that they both participated in. Small details such as what Ice Cream was being eaten are always the first to go so there’s no way of knowing if a certain memory is 100% accurate because of these changes overtime. Great Post!
Rebecca Kennedy