From: jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Smiley)
Subject: Re: Lynch's Spoiler Review: "The Quality of Life"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:43:40 GMT
Keywords: TNG, Data, machine life?

dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
:)In article <By531y.6o6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jal41820@uxa (Smiley) writes:
:)>dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
:)>:)In article <1emnn4INN13r@gap.caltech.edu>, tlynch@cco (Timothy W. Lynch) wr
:)>:)>WARNING:  The following review contains spoiler information for "The Qual
:)>:)>of Life."  (The TNG episode, that is, not the concept itself.  :-) )  Tho
:)>:)>not wishing said spoilers are advised to remain calm, avoid panic, and si
:)>:)>skip this message.

:)>:)What about "Evolution"?  IMHO, this is almost a straight re-working of that
:)>:)episode:
:)>:)  -modification on a tool creates intelligence
:)>
:)>The nanites were let out of their contained environment. The exocomps were
:)>*physicallY* modified.

:)So were the nanites.  Remember?  Wesley's experiment was to see if he could
:)improve the nanites, just like whatsername wanted to improve the exocomps.

Nanites are normally not allowed to interact, according to that episode.
Wesley's experiment was to see if, by allowing them to interact by letting
them out of contained sparation, they could be improved. The *problem* occured
when they were let out of *that* containment. There was a mistake that caused
the creation of intelligence. Here, it was a side effect.

:)True, "Evolution" required Wesley to act like an idiot so the nanites would
:)get loose on the ship, but I don't see that that is a major difference.

It's the difference of a mistake versus a side effect. I don't think that's
plot stealing. (And Wesley falling asleep isn't acting like an idiot, but
that's another matter).

:)>:)  -new intelligence causes havoc, which gets in the way of obsessive scient
:)>
:)>The intelligence itself causing havoc, and someone *protecting* that
:)>intelligence, is *quite* a difference.

:)I was referring specifically to the incident where the exocomp failed to repai
:)the cracked Whatsis tube, and caused an explosion.  This was well before Data
:)began protecting them.

Helllllo. The exocomp didn't repair the tupe because it *knew* it couldn't
repair it in time. It in no way caused the explosion. Furthermore, the
explosion resulted from something completely different than why the exocomp
was sent in, as shown in Data's tests when the exocomp returned with the
tool to correct the other problem.

:)>:)  -since recognizing this new presence as life would impair the scientist's
:)>:)   research, the scientist is opposed to any line of inquiry to establish
:)>:)   whether a new intelligence is present
:)>
:)>In Evolution, this occured. Here, the scientist *watched* a test that
:)>everyone there agreed would determine it's state of life.

:)She also was opposed to performing it.  She was also first to jump to the

Quite different than "Evolution" where there was no such test, wouldn't you
agree? And being on a 48 hour time limit, I'd much rather spend my time
on that time limit, too.

:)conclusion that they were not intelligent on the basis of a single experiment.

The fact that she was "first" has nothing to do with it. Everyone there, except
Data, accepted the results as the exocomps not being alive. That isn't
being "opposed to any line of inquiry", that's accepting a scientific test,
which ALL of them (except Data) did.

:)>Data was the
:)>only one who still had hopes. Even Geordi thought the test meant it
:)>wasn't alive. Quite different from Evolution.

:)Well, I /did/ say it wasn't *exactly* like "Evolution".  IMHO, the essence
:)of the plots is almost point-for-point the same (as I outlined in my previous
:)post).  Certainly, you can point to differences, and say "See?  They're
:)different!", but it doesn't change the fact that several key elements of
:)the plot in each case are virtually identical.

I don't think they're identical at all. I don't think they're anywhere *close*.
Hence my post. Basically, unless I think just about every aspect of the
show is awful (like the episode with Riker's father), I'm of the opinion
not to try and find all it's flaws, and just accept the show. So when
other people try and find all the flaws, especially in an episode I enjoyed
so much, I'm going to point out everything I can that's not acurate about
those "flaws".

:)>:)  -Data is instrumental in proving the existence of the new intelligence.
:)>
:)>Actually, Wesley was more instrumental in Evolution.

:)Since Wesley was the motivating cause in "Evolution", he was (of course?)
:)the first one to realize what had happened.  But if you recall, it was Data
:)that first established intelligent contact with the nanites, and it was Data
:)who volunteered his body for the nanites to inhabit for negotiation.

Data was simply working the computers to establish it. Picard could have
done that, given more time. Data volunteering his body doesn't prove the
intelligence. Dr. Stubbs was the one who proved their intelligence when
he forced the nanites to provoke a counter-attack on him. If anything,
it was Data's *physical* properties that made that episode flow as it did.
Here, it was his *mental* properties, and judgement, that made the episode
flow, an ENTIRELY different approach.

:)>Actually, Picard and Geordi would have quite probably died if it weren't
:)>for the exocomps. I'd say that doesn't make them invulnerable.

:)So Picard and LaForge die on the fountain, Data is court-martialed, convicted,
:)and delivered to Bruce Maddox for disassembly, and 3 of the primary characters
:)of the show are written out with one fell swoop.

:)You didn't seriously believe that might possibly happen, did you?

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that the ending promoted the
feel of invulnerablity of our main characters.

-- 
        Josh Laff              #     #      
email to: smiley@uiuc.edu     _       _     Hello! I am a signature virus!  
      (217) 384-6249         |#\_____/#|    Join the fun and copy mo*#(*&^!>.
                              \#######/     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current