[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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?

You seem to miss the concept of evolution. Those living organisms are simply not filtered out yet by natural selection. Flexibility is one of the most important features an organism can have to pass from consecutive natural selections with different environmental conditions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

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?

[alancalverd]

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?

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!

[alancalverd]

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.

Have you dealt with many suicidal people? In my experience life is rarely that simple.

[alancalverd]

You seem to miss the concept of evolution.

Evolution is a general observation, not a single mechanism or even a defined group of mechanisms.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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?

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!

We test simulators to make sure that we didn't put false assumptions into it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Have you dealt with many suicidal people? In my experience life is rarely that simple.

Not directly. IMO they have lost hope, and calculated that their death would bring better result than staying alive, however the equation they used are set. They usually believe that what they want is impossible to get. As long as there is hope, they would try to survive, since it would give them the chance to choose in the next step.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

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?

[alancalverd]

We 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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We 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.

It looks like they've finally made adequately accurate simulations to go there. So the next missions should be more reliable.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

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?

Can someone who sacrifice millions of people to save someone he/she loves can be called immoral? Why or why not?

[alancalverd]

It looks like they've finally made adequately accurate simulations to go there.

No, they have finally got the radar altimetry and braking systems right. And sorted out the feet/meters problem that bugged at least one early attempt.

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.

[alancalverd]

Can someone who sacrifice millions of people to save someone he/she loves can be called immoral? Why or why not?

That's a  very dense sentence that needs a bit of analysis.

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.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

An accurate simulation requires accurate data on realtime environmental conditions significant to the system. If the simulation assumes no wind but in reality it's in a hurricane, the results would be much different. Or if there is a bend in the wing which is not accounted for in the simulation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can't usefully label a person as immoral on the strength of one decision, but you can assess the morality of that decision.

Agree. Even immoral persons made good deeds sometimes. Moral persons can also make some immoral decisions once in a while.

 

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. 

In the scenario above, few people are willing to sacrifice their loved one for 5 stangers. Perhaps more people are willing to sacrifice if it's for a million strangers. But it's likely that few people aren't willing to sacrifice at all. Is there an objective threshold for moral decision in this case? How do you measure or calculate harm and good objectively?

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. 

Most people believe that their enemies are the immoral ones. They obviously think that their enemies have non-zero consciousness, but their goals are in conflict with each other. Thus their success becomes their enemies' failure, and vise versa.

[alancalverd]

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.   

[alancalverd]

In the scenario above, few people are willing to sacrifice their loved one for 5 stangers.

What people say in a laboratory experiment is not necessarily what they do in reality. Simple example: 80% claim to love their neighbor, but only 40%  think their neighbor loves them!

How do you measure or calculate harm and good objectively?

In your trolley scenario, harm = death, so you can count the corpses.

Most people believe that their enemies are the immoral ones.

An enemy is someone who intends to do something you wouldn't like or wouldn't do to your nearest and dearest, thus failing one or both tests. What else defines an enemy? 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.   

But the realtime condition can be expected/estimated. The machine is then designed to be able to handle the range of situations as specified. For example, it can handle wind between 0 and 10 m/s. It responds to sensor readings accordingly. The relationships between sensor readings and actuation type, direction and magnitude may not be straightforward, as seen in FSD algorithm.
AFAIK, hurricanes on Mars have been recorded by Mars orbiters. It's expected to have caused Opportunity rover to lose contact.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In your trolley scenario, harm = death, so you can count the corpses.

Death of your loved one=1 corpse. Death of n strangers =n corpses.
So you should sacrifice your loved one as long as there are more than 1 strangers on the other track.
Is it sound reasonable?

[alancalverd]

it can handle wind between 0 and 10 m/s

No. The difference between a 10 m/s headwind and a 10 m/s tailwind is about 40 kt. You want to clear the boundary fence with about 10 kt airspeed above stall. If the wind flips 180 degrees in the last mile of approach, as it often does in a downburst, you might have time to go around in a light plane (say 70 kt approach speed) or fighter (massive power/weight ratio) , but an airliner approaching at 130 kt probably won't clean up and gain 30 kt before it falls out of the sky.

Prediction of likely approach conditions helps you design the machine, knowledge of actual conditions determines your actions at the time, and simulating worst cases helps train you to take those actions correctly, but there is no met office or control tower on Mars so you don't know the actuals and everything is happening  within an 80 mile approach beginning at 100 times the approach speed of an airplane, with no aerodynamic control surfaces. The approach is mostly ballistic.