0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Problem is that we have absolutely no idea what goes on in the mind of any other animal species apart from "feed/flee/f**k/fight", and no concept of what motivates plants at all. Was it lack of attitude that killed rooftop lichens in Manchester, or acid fog? Is Japanese knotweed really motivated by the imperial aspirations of Hirohito, or just happy to land on another cold wet island? Did goose barnacles really have the evolutionary foresight to wait until Man invented ships before colonising everything that floats?
Quote from: alancalverd on 15/01/2021 16:07:29The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.In a variation of trolley problem, the one bystander is someone you love. How do your rules answer this?
The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.
As long as you put accurate assumptions into the simulation, it will give a correct answer. How else curiosity rover was sent to Mars surface?
Someone who says they don't want to live anymore and try to commit suicide usually means that they prefer to die if don't get something that they want. If you give them exactly that, they most likely want to stay alive.
You seem to miss the concept of evolution.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 04:19:48As long as you put accurate assumptions into the simulation, it will give a correct answer. How else curiosity rover was sent to Mars surface?Sadly, no. You can simulate and approximate in order to design your machinery, but (a) you don't know how good your simulation was until you have actually crashed and burned and (b) you land with realtime radar altimetry because only a fool would trust an untested simulator!
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 04:19:48Someone who says they don't want to live anymore and try to commit suicide usually means that they prefer to die if don't get something that they want. If you give them exactly that, they most likely want to stay alive.Have you dealt with many suicidal people? In my experience life is rarely that simple.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2021 09:40:57Quote from: alancalverd on 15/01/2021 16:07:29The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.In a variation of trolley problem, the one bystander is someone you love. How do your rules answer this?Discussion of morality is more interesting when the subject does not have reached consensus yet. Otherwise it would be boring, doesn't yield new knowledge, and thus just wasting time.People has different answer for the question above. Can the answer be used to judge their morality? Why or why not?
We test simulators to make sure that we didn't put false assumptions into it.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 15:24:36We test simulators to make sure that we didn't put false assumptions into it.The only valid test of a simulator is reality. Ask Boeing. Or the folk who built any of the 70% of Mars "landers" that didn't.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 05:52:28Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2021 09:40:57Quote from: alancalverd on 15/01/2021 16:07:29The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.In a variation of trolley problem, the one bystander is someone you love. How do your rules answer this?Discussion of morality is more interesting when the subject does not have reached consensus yet. Otherwise it would be boring, doesn't yield new knowledge, and thus just wasting time.People has different answer for the question above. Can the answer be used to judge their morality? Why or why not?In some survey, most people choose to save their loved one, when on the other track there are five strangers. I wonder how many strangers could be added before you change our mind? Would you sacrifice your beloved one to save 10 strangers? what if it's 1000? 1 million? 8 billion? infinite?
It looks like they've finally made adequately accurate simulations to go there.
Can someone who sacrifice millions of people to save someone he/she loves can be called immoral? Why or why not?
I have flown extremely accurate simulators out of and into several known airports. The success of each such mission depended on the realtime skill of the pilot, not the simulator, which (like the aircraft itself) did not change between repeat missions. The whole point of a simulator is to exercise the onboard control system (human or autopilot) response to various external unknowables, given that you know everything about the aircraft, rocket or lander itself because you had full control of its design and construction.
You can't usefully label a person as immoral on the strength of one decision, but you can assess the morality of that decision.
Objectively, an action that does more harm than good would fail the tests. Suppose you keep making holes in your socks. You wouldn't like it if I amputated your leg instead of cutting your toenails, and I certainly wouldn't do it to my nearest and dearest.
But as I've pointed out before, there are circumstances where sacrifice is required for the greater good, and the ability to choose the unpalatable over the unacceptable defines a successful politician or military commander. Knowing that pretty well everyone will break under torture, SOE operatives were issued with suicide pills and there are plenty of instances where resistance cells have killed each other rather than let human intelligence fall into enemy hands.
In the scenario above, few people are willing to sacrifice their loved one for 5 stangers.
How do you measure or calculate harm and good objectively?
Most people believe that their enemies are the immoral ones.
By definition you don't know the realtime environment ahead of getting there. All you know is how the aircraft/whatever responds to control inputs, so you don't plan your arrival on the basis of a simulation then sit back and hope, but use the simulator to teach the control system how to cope with whatever actually happens. You can simulate a whole range of damage too. There was a period where enthusiastic sim instructors got so keen on fire, ice and fuel leaks that actual pilot performance declined - too busy anticipating trouble to fly a perfectly functional plane accurately! Problem with a spaceship, or a heavy airplane, is that you are pretty much committed once you have made a control input because stuff outside can happen faster than the machine can respond. Thunderstorm downbursts are often fatal but once you are on final approach with flaps, brakes and wheels, there's nothing much you can do except apply full power and wish. I don't think they have thunderstorms on Mars but if you have exhausted your retro fuel and deployed the parachute, no amount of simulation will alter the outcome.
In your trolley scenario, harm = death, so you can count the corpses.
it can handle wind between 0 and 10 m/s