RWhettstone well, either find a nerd and watch theirs, or type ‘TNG complete Blu Ray’ into any search engine and spend about £50. It’s region free and has extras on every disc, including documentaries and commentaries.
@Major Grin Please can you do a compilation of every time someone has stolen a shuttle without clearance? I don't understand why it's so easy to do but I've noticed it happens a lot!!! Kinda dumb really
TNG's senior staff had a captain, 3 commanders, 2 LCDR's, and a senior lieutenant. So how come Voyager had a captain, a commander, a LCDR, two LTJG's, two civilians, and a frickin' ensign?
@@Pyxis10 Sloppy writing. They didn't even understand that an ensign is supposed to make lieutenant after a couple years. By Season 7, Voyager's staff should have been: Captain Janeway Cmdr. Chakotay Lcdr. Tuvok Lt. Kim Lt. Torres Ltjg. Paris (due to prior demotion)
@@jeanvandorst4287 Self awareness and consciousness are two different things. Dogs are, in measurable fact, sentient, which by most conceptions of consciousness would make then conscious. You are making assertions about consciousness on the basis of incredulity. Your comparison to a toaster is a misapplication of a reductio ad absurdum because it fails to adhere to the principle of the argument you use it to discredit (i.e. toasters are not a complex network). It seems that the current best idea in cognitive science is that consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks. However, no cognitive scientist would ever claim to really have a good idea of what consciousness really is, hence the "hard problem of consciousness." No one knows what consciousness is, you are certainly included in that set.
@@Ryan....... "Self awareness and consciousness are two different things. " Explain the difference. "No one knows what consciousness is, you are certainly included in that set." And you as well, which makes me wonder why on earth you think you can make claims like this: "It seems that the current best idea in cognitive science is that consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks." No, this is not the best idea. There is no empirical evidence that this is true. And until there is, you should not be making the assertion. At least according to atheist epistemology.
@@Ryan....... "Toasters are not a complex network." So if I link a thousand toasters together you think consciousness will *magically* emerge? I thought only Christians believed in miracles.
something that's more than the sum of it's parts, that's a really dumb phrase that I never liked. It just means something has been added to the sum and we don't know what, the equation doesn't add up anymore.
Eh... It's accurate enough. Or really, it's pointing out that you can't understand the overall outcome by looking at the individual components. If you treat it like a mathematical formula it makes no sense to say this. But it's like if you take apart a computer processor all you're left with is sand, and that doesn't explain why it can do anything. More than the sum of it's parts really is telling us that the structure matters as well, not just the individual pieces that this structure is composed of. If you're only looking at the pieces, you'll never understand the whole, because you're looking at the wrong thing. It doesn't mean something has been added to the sum; It's not a mathematical analogy. Rather it tells you you're looking at the wrong thing; Think about lego. Thinking of it like a mathematical equation it's like trying to decide what was built out of the parts solely by looking at a list that says it was built out of: 7 times part x, plus 40 times part y, plus 3 part z The 'missing' thing here is that your 'sum' is examining entirely the wrong thing; because what matters is how those parts are joined together, far more so than it matters what each individual part is. More than the sum of it's parts. Aka; The structure or arrangement of parts matters too, not just what they are.
@@KuraIthys when you use words like sum then it is a mathematical analogy. Take your lego, the extra thing added to the equation is the geomatic shapes that stack on top of each other. That is part of the equation too, it's just that those who said the phrase "more than the sum of its parts" failed to account for that. It's not "more than the sum of its parts", it's only that you have failed to properly see the equation so you think it's more than the sum of its parts.
@@TentaclePentacle I have to disagree. When you build something with lego, you are merely adding blocks and gears, each of which cannot function by itself. However, when put together into a machine or something, the blocks suddenly gain functionality. That functionality was not present in each individual blocks in the equation, such that it is not contained within each term of the equation. Also, you don't add functionality to the finished item as if you were enchanting it with magic, one second it doesn't do anything, next second it suddenly functions. Therefore, the functionality is also not a new term in the equation. This is just like human beings. We are all made up of atoms, but the atoms don't produce consciousness nor the soul. Hence the saying "the sum is greater than its parts."
@@niccolom The lego blocks don't gain functionality by itself as if magic. They gain functionality by design, by physics that interact with the shapes of the lego. That design, that physics is also part of the equation you just failed to account for it so it appears that it's more than the sum of it's part because you didn't account for some of the parts.
Fans: A new tv series I hear you have kurtzman. Or should I call you the destroyer of trek? Kurtzman: your arrogance blinds you fandom... Kurtzman: soon I shall have a new series... one far darker and more interesting Kurtzman: you will not stop me! The Section 31 show will gain more viewers than either of us can imagine! Fandom: is that really Star Trek? Kurtzman: I will make it Star Trek Kurtzman: I’m looking to completing the destruction of the franchise. In time, you will call me berman JJ: you’re fulfilling your destiny, Alex become my apprentice. Learn to destroy the franchise as I have. STD writers: it’s impossible to write good trek its beyond our reach JJ: Not for a woke. This is my apprentice mister kurtzman. He will direct your lost Trek.
Geordi should have escaped through the door, Worf wouldn't've been able to follow.
hahaha
The ship computer watching all of this and develops feelings for Geordi.
@rented identity "it doesn't even have reproductive organs"
Worf: Like Gordie.
And thus, the beginnings of Futurama's "Love and Rocket" episode.
But the ship’s computer is Barclay.
OMG NOOOOOOO!!!! ;)
Meanwhile, Chabon and Kurtzman are standing off to the side kvetching and saying, "Yes, yes! Give in to your anger!"
Geordi: *Has a heart attack*
Rest of the crew: *Laughing*
Now...let's see if there's any footage of the Picard cast having a good time
How the hell do you get the outtakes from the show this is pure comedy gold
They’re in the box set.
@@Lumibear. Then I need the box set!
@@Lumibear. Where do I get this set of boxes?
RWhettstone well, either find a nerd and watch theirs, or type ‘TNG complete Blu Ray’ into any search engine and spend about £50. It’s region free and has extras on every disc, including documentaries and commentaries.
@@Lumibear. I don't have a BluRay, is it on regular?
For a moment there I was worried things were gonna go all fanfic on Geordi.
I challenge you to insert ensign Mariner into an Enterprise-D staff meeting.
@Major Grin
Please can you do a compilation of every time someone has stolen a shuttle without clearance? I don't understand why it's so easy to do but I've noticed it happens a lot!!! Kinda dumb really
The best yet! Really amazing.
wow, ya that went south real quick! 😲
LIKE GEORDI
Can't fault Worf's logic.
The ship's replicators don't reproduce more ships 🤔
Love these!
Now that's what I'm talkin about! Thank you so much major grin! You made me laugh today!😎👍
Even Geordi beats up Worf!
Major Grin and Ryan’s Edits going back to back
Ryan?
Needs the TOS fight music, then it's perfect... :P
TNG's senior staff had a captain, 3 commanders, 2 LCDR's, and a senior lieutenant. So how come Voyager had a captain, a commander, a LCDR, two LTJG's, two civilians, and a frickin' ensign?
Flagship versus lesser vessel?
Or bad writing.
@@Pyxis10 Sloppy writing. They didn't even understand that an ensign is supposed to make lieutenant after a couple years.
By Season 7, Voyager's staff should have been:
Captain Janeway
Cmdr. Chakotay
Lcdr. Tuvok
Lt. Kim
Lt. Torres
Ltjg. Paris (due to prior demotion)
That is one violent cast!
Absolutely the best crew in star fleet, they have the most fun...best friends and have the greatest adventures...
Wow jordi really went off on worf there.
ITS HIS HEART!
"DON"T READING RAINBOW ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Actually Geordi reproduces via the holodeck
Nah that's Barclay.
I've yet to watch all of TNG and havent gotten to this episode, I kinda thought this was real up to the 3/4 way mark
Go Geordi!
Wait he does WHAT with the replicators?
Trying to reproduce. Like this: www.theonion.com/i-think-im-going-about-this-cat-breeding-thing-all-wron-1819583446
@@starseed96 wtf did i just read
I mean, dude *did* fall in love on the holodeck once...
@@starseed96 why did this just show up in my comments?
Also 🤮
Haha! That was great!
Ohh shit I'm on the floor
"Captain, this is hot!"
Season 7 got wierd
... like Georgi.
were do you find these bloopers
Best one yet!
ahahaha this got so dumb it got good again
lol wish this kind of staff meetings were real
😂 perfect 👌
Like Geordi!
Worf has no honor =)
no marvel after credits nuggets?
Geordi beating up worf!? >_>
Lol
Hate to get all serious, but consciousness is not an "emergent" property. It doesn't magically arise from dead matter or even living matter.
_Doesn't_ it? 😕
@@Taijifufu No.
EDIT: My toaster will never develop consciousness. Is my neighbor's dog self-aware? I don't think so.
@@jeanvandorst4287 Self awareness and consciousness are two different things. Dogs are, in measurable fact, sentient, which by most conceptions of consciousness would make then conscious. You are making assertions about consciousness on the basis of incredulity. Your comparison to a toaster is a misapplication of a reductio ad absurdum because it fails to adhere to the principle of the argument you use it to discredit (i.e. toasters are not a complex network). It seems that the current best idea in cognitive science is that consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks. However, no cognitive scientist would ever claim to really have a good idea of what consciousness really is, hence the "hard problem of consciousness." No one knows what consciousness is, you are certainly included in that set.
@@Ryan.......
"Self awareness and consciousness are two different things. "
Explain the difference.
"No one knows what consciousness is, you are certainly included in that set."
And you as well, which makes me wonder why on earth you think you can make claims like this:
"It seems that the current best idea in cognitive science is that consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks."
No, this is not the best idea. There is no empirical evidence that this is true. And until there is, you should not be making the assertion. At least according to atheist epistemology.
@@Ryan....... "Toasters are not a complex network."
So if I link a thousand toasters together you think consciousness will *magically* emerge? I thought only Christians believed in miracles.
so cute
something that's more than the sum of it's parts, that's a really dumb phrase that I never liked. It just means something has been added to the sum and we don't know what, the equation doesn't add up anymore.
Eh... It's accurate enough. Or really, it's pointing out that you can't understand the overall outcome by looking at the individual components.
If you treat it like a mathematical formula it makes no sense to say this.
But it's like if you take apart a computer processor all you're left with is sand, and that doesn't explain why it can do anything.
More than the sum of it's parts really is telling us that the structure matters as well, not just the individual pieces that this structure is composed of.
If you're only looking at the pieces, you'll never understand the whole, because you're looking at the wrong thing.
It doesn't mean something has been added to the sum; It's not a mathematical analogy.
Rather it tells you you're looking at the wrong thing;
Think about lego.
Thinking of it like a mathematical equation it's like trying to decide what was built out of the parts solely by looking at a list that says it was built out of:
7 times part x, plus 40 times part y, plus 3 part z
The 'missing' thing here is that your 'sum' is examining entirely the wrong thing; because what matters is how those parts are joined together, far more so than it matters what each individual part is.
More than the sum of it's parts.
Aka; The structure or arrangement of parts matters too, not just what they are.
*its parts
"it's parts" = "it is parts"
@@KuraIthys
when you use words like sum then it is a mathematical analogy. Take your lego, the extra thing added to the equation is the geomatic shapes that stack on top of each other. That is part of the equation too, it's just that those who said the phrase "more than the sum of its parts" failed to account for that. It's not "more than the sum of its parts", it's only that you have failed to properly see the equation so you think it's more than the sum of its parts.
@@TentaclePentacle
I have to disagree.
When you build something with lego, you are merely adding blocks and gears, each of which cannot function by itself. However, when put together into a machine or something, the blocks suddenly gain functionality. That functionality was not present in each individual blocks in the equation, such that it is not contained within each term of the equation. Also, you don't add functionality to the finished item as if you were enchanting it with magic, one second it doesn't do anything, next second it suddenly functions. Therefore, the functionality is also not a new term in the equation.
This is just like human beings. We are all made up of atoms, but the atoms don't produce consciousness nor the soul. Hence the saying "the sum is greater than its parts."
@@niccolom
The lego blocks don't gain functionality by itself as if magic. They gain functionality by design, by physics that interact with the shapes of the lego. That design, that physics is also part of the equation you just failed to account for it so it appears that it's more than the sum of it's part because you didn't account for some of the parts.
Data's description of the ship's functions making it like a biological organism are giving me some uneasy flashbacks to Spock's Brain.
Still light years more funny than every episode of Lower Dreck
Haha
Aw yeah, das hot!
less is more, the other channel doesnt try to put as much in it, dont over do an intake.
Geordi was always such a snowflake
What?
Fans: A new tv series I hear you have kurtzman. Or should I call you the destroyer of trek?
Kurtzman: your arrogance blinds you fandom...
Kurtzman: soon I shall have a new series... one far darker and more interesting
Kurtzman: you will not stop me! The Section 31 show will gain more viewers than either of us can imagine!
Fandom: is that really Star Trek?
Kurtzman: I will make it Star Trek
Kurtzman: I’m looking to completing the destruction of the franchise. In time, you will call me berman
JJ: you’re fulfilling your destiny, Alex become my apprentice. Learn to destroy the franchise as I have.
STD writers: it’s impossible to write good trek its beyond our reach
JJ: Not for a woke. This is my apprentice mister kurtzman. He will direct your lost Trek.
Bollocks.
what is this supposed to be? Sorry, it's neither good nor funny