Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Absurd Trolley Problems

neal.fun

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#481

Post by wruza »

laputan_machine wrote: post #386
wruza wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re actually multiplying yourself in the second case. To see it this way you have to have a specific idea of consciousness and “self”.

A clone of you, isn't you , it is by definition a copy. You do not possess their memories when they do something else, you do not control them, you do not have their consciousness. It isn't you. When you cease to exist you do not "live on" (in the physical sense) through them, you are dead.

The idea I mentioned is hard to explain in a comment, but I’ll try to message the essence, at least what works for me.

Which is, there is a chance (and further reasoning bases on it) that we all don’t feel as a single entity only because we are physically separated by low-bandwidth channels, e.g. visual, auditorial, text. Opposed to parts of our brains, which are connected by high-bandwidth links. This creates an illusion of self, while we all are actually the single phenomenon divided into islands. Under this idea the thing that matters (to some) is your own physical structure, not from which eyes specifically “you” are looking at the moment, because “you” are everywhere.

Some call it the hard problem of consciousness, or a part of it, but details may heavily vary.

Hope that provides a glimpse into it.

Added: also curious, from your perspective, do you really die when Scott “beams you up”?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#482

Post by McBeige »

Akronymus wrote: post #257
grayfaced wrote: post #75

I wonder what would happen for the bribe problem if the rich man wasn't on the track at all. I feel the unfairness of comparing the relative value of rich life vs poor life compels people to reject the bribe. But if it was simple bribe to kill with the other side being empty, then it becomes a measure of the worth of a life.

For me, him offering the bribe made me refuse to divert the trolley.

My gut reaction was to kill the rich person.

I justify it like this: a world where well-being is decided by wealth is unjust and undesirable, so trying to enjoy your privilege is a moral wrongdoing because it very directly prevents the spreading-out of wellbeing. This makes it equivalent to the littering problem (in mode, not scale), where I chose to kill the litterer.

I'm not confident, but that's how I rationalize it. I'd love to hear any thoughts on this.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#483

Post by darkerside »

ptsneves wrote: post #355
jedberg wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always assume trolley problems are in a vacuum without context. Otherwise for every one of them you have to ask, "what is the background of each person on each track" to make a proper choice. I assume the information they have told me is the only thing relevant and everything else is equal.

In philosophy Kant would disagree with you with his Categorical Imperative[1]. Rawls also went that way, with the veil of ignorance[2]. The lack of state or context is not only desirable but is the whole foundation on why their theories are rational. Of course many philosophers disagree and arguably terrible things were done with such mindset[3]. The point I am trying to make is that if you need context then you cann…

Isn't the most likely outcome that engineering salaries will go up even higher causing massive inflation?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#484

Post by evandijk70 »

mcv wrote: post #387
ptsneves wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my point of view trams have no advantages over buses. On the other hand they need lots of special purpose infrastructure and often condition road traffic rules terribly, like forcing traffic lights instead of roundabouts. Actually I am open to hear the advantages of trams.

Running on rails is super efficient once they are in place. Less resistance, less wear and tear. For high-frequency routes, they really are great. But for new routes, trolley buses are probably a lot cheaper to set up. Maybe use trolley buses first, and only switch to trams once it's clear that this really is a high demand, high frequency route that's not going to go away.

There is indeed about a 30% reduction in power usage when comparing trams to electric buses.

https://bathtrams.uk/the-most-energy-efficient-mode-of-publi...

Still, I feel that trams will be dying soon. The improved efficiency is simply not enough to justify the extra infrastructure and inflexibility. Modern battery electric buses have a range of 500+km and can thus be used for an entire day, and charged at times when electricity is cheap and green (ie overnight on wind energy).

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#485

Post by darkerside »

Nition wrote: post #370
paxys wrote: post #12

Level 20 was weird. It was a choice between letting a trolley run as normal ("emits CO2, kills 3 people in accidents over 30 years") or running it into a brick wall and decommissioning it. For some reason more people picked the latter. So, they just dislike public transit? What about the emissions and death rate when everyone switches to cars instead? Goes to show how easily the context and exact wording of a questio…

The results on all the questions implied to me that most people answered more as if it was a quiz than a philosophical question. That is, they'd tried to select the most logical/utilitarian answer based on the wording of the question rather than necessarily thinking about what they personally would do in that situation, or any wider context that may exist.

I think there was a mix, but people taking the quiz interpretation definitely modified the results from what I expected.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#486

Post by akvadrako »

cookieswumchorr wrote: post #461
thriftwy wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost universally, the most eco friendly trolley (clothes, home) is the one you already have.

with a home, thats not universally true, if its pooorly insulated for example. trolleys, sure, they are all electric, so you can go down to zero emissions if you use green energy sources. Producing them though, metal production still runs with coal today just like in the 19th century

Even if your home is poorly insulated it would take a long time to recoup the (direct and indirect resource) costs of a new home with better insulation.

Taking into account future discounting, it's probably almost never a good idea.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#488

Post by nly »

JonathanFly wrote: post #21

>Oh no! Due to a construction error, a trolley is stuck in an eternal loop. If you pull the lever the trolley will explode, and if you don't the trolley and it's passengers will go in circles for eternity. What do you do? 50% of people pull the lever?!? I hereby declare that if I'm ever going to be stuck in a trolley for my entire life, I do NOT want the lever pulled. Toss me a smartphone charger and my life wouldn't…

My reasoning was someone onboard might make a valuable contribution to the world even if they are stuck on the trolley, and the cost to the rest of society for letting it run seemed small.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#489

Post by egeozcan »

maest wrote: post #445
strken wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you included "the trolley actually exists in a realistic world and is part of a public transport network" then sure, I won't decommission it, but trolley problems are weird zero-context questions about trade-offs and I assume they fully describe the consequences of choosing each leg when answering. It doesn't help that actual trolleys are called trams where I live, so I think of trolleys as philosophical construct…

But it's problematic to assume these problems are in a 0-context vacuum because that would mean your actions don't actually have consequences. If the world ends immediately at the end of the experiment, then your choices in the experiment don't have any meaning, imo.

Well, there's always the heat death of the universe, rendering everything meaningless.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#490

Post by McBeige »

sh4rks wrote: post #278
epgui wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's such a sad perspective. I hope you have the chance to have the life experience in the future to make you think otherwise.

Life experience that would make me want to want to die if I was in this scenario? I sincerely hope I don't experience anything like that. But I'm glad that innocent-minded people like you exist. Here's a question, if you had the choice between killing me or yourself, who would you choose?

"you" are not the thoughts and emotions that happens to reside in some sack of meat. Or at least that's not a complete picture. In some sense "ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee" should be taken literally. 100% individualism is not the only mode of being a person, and not the default or "best" mode.

These are mostly gut feelings and unfinished thoughts. I'm not sure about any parts of it except "it's not a complete picture". I'd love to hear any thoughts on this and reading recommendations are welcomed.

Post reply on HN