Re: [GRIMDARK] Fallout Equestria: Project Horizons Discussion

[Cptadder]

Science is about 'How'. Philosophy and Religion is about 'Why?'

I'd disagree as there are several scientific fields dedicated to "Why" such as the entire branch of Psychology. Ethics may be in Philopsophy but Ethology is a purely scientific discipline to try and quantify exact why's in animals. I can't remember the name but there is a specific brand of Psychology (And thus SCIENCE) dedicated to the moral questions such as the classic fat man and train morality question.

To note the two examples

It's a lovely day out, and you decide to go for a walk along the
trolley tracks that crisscross your town. As you walk, you hear a
trolley behind you, and you step away from the tracks. But as the
trolley gets closer, you hear the sounds of panic -- the five people on
board are shouting for help. The trolley's brakes have gone out, and it's gathering speed.
You
find that you just happen to be standing next to a side track that
veers into a sand pit, potentially providing safety for the trolley's
five passengers. All you have to do is pull a hand lever to switch the
tracks, and you'll save the five people. Sounds easy, right? But there's
a problem. Along this offshoot of track leading to the sandpit stands a man who is
totally unaware of the trolley's problem and the action you're
considering. There's no time to warn him. So by pulling the lever and
guiding the trolley to safety, you'll save the five passengers. But
you'll kill the man. What do you do?

A great many people flip the switch

You are sitting on a bridge above a railroad. A fat man sits next to
you. You notice that 5 people are tied to the railroad track just a few
hundred feet from where you are, and a train is headed toward them. It
is possible, you reason, to stop the train by pushing the fat man down
onto the track - killing him but saving 5 people. Is it ethical/moral
to do this?

A great many people will not push the fat man in front of the train
This kind of snap decision as in the end both choices are the same, save five lives or one life yet in a great majority of cases people chose one over the other. Those that will flip the switch won't push the fat man. But then those who push the fat man always flip the switch as those who won't flip the switch won't push the fat man. But the vast majority (Seventy percent on average) will flip the switch but not push the man.

*Edit, found it, it's called Neuroethics, a brand of Science dedicated to the Why of brains.

[Sindri]

Science is about 'How'. Philosophy and Religion is about 'Why?'

Science is also, on occasion, about What.

[snip]

...
*shove*

I still think those examples are more how than why. They're trying to figure out how the brain makes moral choices, not determine why something is or is not moral.

[Cptadder]

[snip]

...
*shove*

I still think those examples are more how than why. They're trying to figure out how the brain makes moral choices, not determine why something is or is not moral.

It's about the How and the Why of morality. In Neuroethics they are interested in both the How of the brain deciding why A is okay but B is not but the Why (The sociological area of Neuroethics) that Society came to decide that A was okay but B was not. We are not pure nature or pure nurture, our brain is literally partially shaped by our upbringing. There are way to many examples to go into but part of Neuroethics is the search for universals, the Why comes from trying to figure out why a rather uniform percentage of people across all cultures and all upbringings won't push the Fatman. It's the search for the Why of Universal ethics so we can get to the What of Universal ethics.

[Sindri]

It's about the How and the Why of morality. In Neuroethics they are interested in both the How of the brain deciding why A is okay but B is not but the Why (The sociological area of Neuroethics) that Society came to decide that A was okay but B was not. We are not pure nature or pure nurture, our brain is literally partially shaped by our upbringing. There are way to many examples to go into but part of Neuroethics is the search for universals, the Why comes from trying to figure out why a rather uniform percentage of people across all cultures and all upbringings won't push the Fatman. It's the search for the Why of Universal ethics so we can get to the What of Universal ethics.

Everything you just mentioned is part of the How. Any neural network is going to be influenced by its surroundings, and figuring out exactly how different outside factors change the way you think is part of the initial question of how you think. The question of why things exist as they are is left to philosophy, while science skips that part in favor of figuring out as much as possible about things as they exist.

[Ketchup]

You are sitting on a bridge above a railroad. A fat man sits next to
you. You notice that 5 people are tied to the railroad track just a few
hundred feet from where you are, and a train is headed toward them. It
is possible, you reason, to stop the train by pushing the fat man down
onto the track - killing him but saving 5 people. Is it ethical/moral
to do this?

A great many people will not push the fat man in front of the train
This kind of snap decision as in the end both choices are the same, save five lives or one life yet in a great majority of cases people chose one over the other. Those that will flip the switch won't push the fat man. But then those who push the fat man always flip the switch as those who won't flip the switch won't push the fat man. But the vast majority (Seventy percent on average) will flip the switch but not push the man.

Where is the option to jump in front of the train yourself? As it violates the survival instinct, you wouldn't think of it in a pinch, but you might save all 6 people. Of course, this also depends on the distances involved and the mass of the first person in the scenario.

[Sindri]

Where is the option to jump in front of the train yourself? As it violates the survival instinct, you wouldn't think of it in a pinch, but you might save all 6 people. Of course, this also depends on the distances involved and the mass of the first person in the scenario.

I don't think I'd stop a train. Curse my lack of obesity!

[Ketchup]

Where is the option to jump in front of the train yourself? As it violates the survival instinct, you wouldn't think of it in a pinch, but you might save all 6 people. Of course, this also depends on the distances involved and the mass of the first person in the scenario.

I don't think I'd stop a train. Curse my lack of obesity!

It isn't very fun, I assure you.

[Kippershy]

Science is about 'How'. Philosophy and Religion is about 'Why?'

Science is also, on occasion, about What.

I was going to say what, too. Then I saw you made this post so instead I'm quoting you on it. lol.


Sometimes science is about 'what will happen if we...X all the Y'

[Quotidian]

X all the Y?

:[

As I understand it, science is a methodology that attempts to uncover reality, as best as our fairly unreliable human senses and intellects can manage, via observation, experiment, and replication of results. In that way, it's only tangentially related to philosophy or religion.

Or to put it another way, philosophy tells you what you should want, and science helps you get it. (And religion tells you why you should hate yourself for wanting it. >_>)

[NoodleNugget]

I see science as a way of understanding. Because of that 'why' and 'how' tend to go hand in hand. philosophy is more of a 'what if' and religion is a way to keep the sheeple distracted and content.

[Somber]

I would throw the switch and wouldn't push the man. It's because in the case of the trolly, my action would lead to the death of one man where as if I do nothing my inaction results in the death of five. So either way I will be the causal agent of death.

In the case of the train though, my action did not cause the death of those 5 people, whoever tied them to the tracks did. My action would, however, directly cause the death of the heavy person. So in this case, guilt and responsibility is deferred to whomever tied them down in the first place.

It's the same case as being locked in a box with a button. I push it, he dies and I life. We both push it we both die. Neither of us push it, we both die. If I push the button, it will be my action that causes their death, not the person that locked us in the box.

[Kippershy]

I would throw the switch and wouldn't push the man. It's because in the case of the trolly, my action would lead to the death of one man where as if I do nothing my inaction results in the death of five. So either way I will be the causal agent of death.

In the case of the train though, my action did not cause the death of those 5 people, whoever tied them to the tracks did. My action would, however, directly cause the death of the heavy person. So in this case, guilt and responsibility is deferred to whomever tied them down in the first place.

It's the same case as being locked in a box with a button. I push it, he dies and I life. We both push it we both die. Neither of us push it, we both die. If I push the button, it will be my action that causes their death, not the person that locked us in the box.

That's when you need me there to selflessly sacrifice myself for the greater good.
'cos, you know, that's the kinda guy I am.
Especially if it meant saving you.

[O. Hinds]

But we must throw Boo into zee Killing Joke
For science!

You've met with a terrible fate, haven't you?

←→↓←→↓

Where is the option to jump in front of the train yourself? As it violates the survival instinct, you wouldn't think of it in a pinch, but you might save all 6 people. Of course, this also depends on the distances involved and the mass of the first person in the scenario.

But if you jump in front of the train yourself, while you might save the other six, you'll lose yourself. The loss is at least equal.

[Quotidian]

Also, while we're on ethical delimmas: The Lifeboat Problem, and an interesting justification. Actually, Tailsteak's entire site has interesting stuff on it. <INSERT APOLOGY FOR SHAMELESS PLUG HERE>

[O. Hinds]

I would throw the switch and wouldn't push the man. It's because in the case of the trolly, my action would lead to the death of one man where as if I do nothing my inaction results in the death of five. So either way I will be the causal agent of death.

In the case of the train though, my action did not cause the death of those 5 people, whoever tied them to the tracks did. My action would, however, directly cause the death of the heavy person. So in this case, guilt and responsibility is deferred to whomever tied them down in the first place.

It's the same case as being locked in a box with a button. I push it, he dies and I life. We both push it we both die. Neither of us push it, we both die. If I push the button, it will be my action that causes their death, not the person that locked us in the box.

That's when you need me there to selflessly sacrifice myself for the greater good.
'cos, you know, that's the kinda guy I am.
Especially if it meant saving you.

Hm... In this scenario, though, aren't we supposed to consider it without granting ourselves knowledge of who exactly the people are? Since knowing any of them could skew the decision (ie, though in the generic situation most people choose not to push the fat man, I'd imagine that things would be rather different if they were told that the fat man had been loudly expressing political opinions that they disagreed with and drooling on them on a bus while the people tied to the tracks included their best friend, their parents, and their favorite author)?

[WavemasterRyx]

You've met with a terrible fate, haven't you?

That is terrible. And hilarious and kinda cute. Terlhiate.
Anyways, I added it as a submission to Boo's tumblr, because it really is quite funny.

[Sindri]

I would throw the switch and wouldn't push the man. It's because in the case of the trolly, my action would lead to the death of one man where as if I do nothing my inaction results in the death of five. So either way I will be the causal agent of death.

In the case of the train though, my action did not cause the death of those 5 people, whoever tied them to the tracks did. My action would, however, directly cause the death of the heavy person. So in this case, guilt and responsibility is deferred to whomever tied them down in the first place.

It's the same case as being locked in a box with a button. I push it, he dies and I life. We both push it we both die. Neither of us push it, we both die. If I push the button, it will be my action that causes their death, not the person that locked us in the box.

So death is fine as long as it isn't your fault? I might be in the minority here, but I consider the "right" option to be the one with the best results for the most people, regardless of whose hands the blood is on in the end. If all I see is five deaths or one, I'll pick the course that deals the least total damage and figure out who's ultimately responsible later. And if a person attempts to kill five people and one life is lost in the saving of them, I consider that person responsible for the single murder. The person performing the "rescue" is a monster, sure, but sometimes it takes a monster to do the right thing.


Of course both of these present a simple choice between two options; in reality that's almost never the case. For example, if one unprepared fat man being dumped unceremoniously on the tracks would stop the train, it's likely light enough that the two of us working together could tip or derail it with minimal chance of death (or just me, given above-average strength and a habit of carrying tools which could be adapted to the situation... I'd likely lose an arm though).

[NoodleNugget]

Here's a thought. How about we don't get into any situations that have us killing someone?

How did you or that fatty not notice people tied to a train track before you and the fatty decided to stop and sit? Would you really not be that conscious about your surroundings?

How would the man that you direct the trolley towards not notice a metal box screeching down the tracks full of probably screaming people? And what was he doing standing around on the trolley tracks to begin with?

[Cptadder]

Here's a thought. How about we don't get into any situations that have us killing someone?

How did you or that fatty not notice people tied to a train track before you and the fatty decided to stop and sit? Would you really not be that conscious about your surroundings?

How would the man that you direct the trolley towards not notice a metal box screeching down the tracks full of probably screaming people? And what was he doing standing around on the trolley tracks to begin with?

If you want I can spend a day writing up a theoretical example where you have no choice but to either act and kill someone or not act and kill everyone! That's the point of ethical and moral hypothetical.

Why is sometimes considered, but when it comes to the "big questions" regarding the physical world, like "Why the universe?" and "Why is there life?" it's religion that steps in and says "Don't worry, I got this one."

That's where Science steps back in and hits Religion over the head with the book of Universe Probability.

[Sindri]

Here's a thought. How about we don't get into any situations that have us killing someone?

How did you or that fatty not notice people tied to a train track before you and the fatty decided to stop and sit? Would you really not be that conscious about your surroundings?

How would the man that you direct the trolley towards not notice a metal box screeching down the tracks full of probably screaming people? And what was he doing standing around on the trolley tracks to begin with?

Both valid objections to these specific situations. But very few people look for life-or-death scenarios, and yet they happen every day. And if you take the time to mentally debate the point when you get there, it'll typically be too late to do anything. Better to think about things that are unlikely to happen than to find yourself in such a place with no idea what to do.

[Sindri]

...and then religion proceeds to ignore science for millennia :P

Only the stupid religions. If I recall correctly, Pope John Paul II officially pardoned Galileo and said that evolution was true. Granted, he couldn't go much further than that, and there were multiple assassination attempts for even that little... And most other religious leaders don't even go that far... yeah, okay, you got it right the first time.

[FeatherDust]

The problem is with that FeatherDust is that MLP:FOE strongly implies that Souls = Sentience to some degree. You can fake it with a Crusader Maneframe but that's still a computer simulacra not a real free thinking mind.

Why are blanks unintelligent but Boo is? Best guess is still having a Soul, having intelligence even if it's quite primitive or perhaps underdeveloped. One of my internal theories is that Boo's problem is that biologically she's and adult but mentally she the equivalent of a baby pony like Pound cake or Pumpkin Cake.

I don't think Boo is intelligent. Not souled-creature intelligent, at least. She has a greater intelligence than a blank, but nothing that can't be explained by simple animal intelligence. That is to say, I don't see any evidence that she's more sentient than, say, Winona.

I don't want to get into "do animals have souls in the pony universe", but we keep hearing unsouled things (like blanks or zombies) described as acting with "animal instinct", so one presumes that "lower creatures" lack souls.

In any case, until "Shears" takes a look at her and declares that she definitely does have a soul or something, I'm going to have to assume she's a rather smart animal. It doesn't mean she's not adorable, but I think of her like a pet rather than a team member.

[Sindri]

The problem is with that FeatherDust is that MLP:FOE strongly implies that Souls = Sentience to some degree. You can fake it with a Crusader Maneframe but that's still a computer simulacra not a real free thinking mind.

Why are blanks unintelligent but Boo is? Best guess is still having a Soul, having intelligence even if it's quite primitive or perhaps underdeveloped. One of my internal theories is that Boo's problem is that biologically she's and adult but mentally she the equivalent of a baby pony like Pound cake or Pumpkin Cake.

I don't think Boo is intelligent. Not souled-creature intelligent, at least. She has a greater intelligence than a blank, but nothing that can't be explained by simple animal intelligence. That is to say, I don't see any evidence that she's more sentient than, say, Winona.

I don't want to get into "do animals have souls in the pony universe", but we keep hearing unsouled things (like blanks or zombies) described as acting with "animal instinct", so one presumes that "lower creatures" lack souls.

In any case, until "Shears" takes a look at her and declares that she definitely does have a soul or something, I'm going to have to assume she's a rather smart animal. It doesn't mean she's not adorable, but I think of her like a pet rather than a team member.

She strikes me as less animalistic and more childish.

IIRC she's probably less than a year old, and hasn't had any interaction with intelligent ponies before being found by Blackjack, so lack of verbal or social skills can't be seen as evidence against intelligence.

Sanguine and Discord both immediately recognized her as very different from the other blanks; anomalous presence of a soul is the only explanation for that which makes sense so far.

And she used a gun; animals might imitate the use of simple tools, the might learn to fear guns, but I've never heard of a chimp or a monkey picking up that weird club the hunters use, pointing it, and pulling the trigger. Figuring out how something like that works without any sort of training requires a kind of abstract mental connection that only humans display on our planet.

Finally, she put herself at risk not out of training to protect a longtime companion, not for a child or a food source or anything else that would be programmed in by evolution and instinct, but to help somepony she met mere hours before who showed her kindness. That indicates to me sentience and the capacity for friendship.

[Kippershy]

And she used a gun; animals might imitate the use of simple tools, the might learn to fear guns, but I've never heard of a chimp or a monkey picking up that weird club the hunters use, pointing it, and pulling the trigger. Figuring out how something like that works without any sort of training requires a kind of abstract mental connection that only humans display on our planet.

1. A chimp in a (I think German) zoo was proven to be stockpiling rocks for use as ammunition to throw at zoo goers during visiting hours - this wasn't a casual picking rocks up there and then when they did it, the chimp actually stockpiled rocks for use later on.
This is just one example.

2. Chimps have been noted to walk in single file, making no vocal noise and treading lightly, avoiding damaging the path they take when invading another tribes territory - before silently taking down as many guards as possible -- before killing as many rivals as possible.
They didn't learn this from humans either, these monkeys taught themselves this technique and have been doing it for a long time.

3. Chimps have been known to use tools for quite some time, given a little nudge in how to use them (most of the time) though sometimes they figure out without even the slightest of help how to use a tool.

4. this video here:

[Sindri]

And she used a gun; animals might imitate the use of simple tools, the might learn to fear guns, but I've never heard of a chimp or a monkey picking up that weird club the hunters use, pointing it, and pulling the trigger. Figuring out how something like that works without any sort of training requires a kind of abstract mental connection that only humans display on our planet.

1. A chimp in a (I think German) zoo was proven to be stockpiling rocks for use as ammunition to throw at zoo goers during visiting hours - this wasn't a casual picking rocks up there and then when they did it, the chimp actually stockpiled rocks for use later on.
This is just one example.

2. Chimps have been noted to walk in single file, making no vocal noise and treading lightly, avoiding damaging the path they take when invading another tribes territory - before silently taking down as many guards as possible -- before killing as many rivals as possible.
They didn't learn this from humans either, these monkeys taught themselves this technique and have been doing it for a long time.

3. Chimps have been known to use tools for quite some time, given a little nudge in how to use them (most of the time) though sometimes they figure out without even the slightest of help how to use a tool.

4. this video here:

Everything can stockpile. Many species of insect farm. Those stealth tactics and tools are developed over the course of centuries, and carefully taught between generations. We saw the chimp in the video being trained to hold the gun and pull the trigger, and it clearly had no understanding of what the effects were; it imitated the motions but never aimed, attacked, or even looked where the bullets impacted. This is none of those.

Boo saw a pony point a weird bit of metal, move their tongue, and damage dealt to an unrelated person across the room. An animal simply cannot make the connections between those events without being specifically trained or spending weeks at a minimum experimenting. She made an abstract connection, logical deduction, formed a hypothesis of her own, and then fired a burst to save her new friend's life with no prior experience with firearms, no instruction of any kind... That's a clear sign of intelligence, and a feat no mere animal has ever managed the likes of.

[Guest]

But there is very little consensus on whether or not chimps are as (or near as) intelligent as humans. I mean, there are gorillas that know sign language. So... yeah. I'd personally want a better example (and crows don't count, 'cos I'm pretty sure they're cleverer than humans =P).

[Kippershy]

Oh, as clever as humans? of course not.. well, I say that.
They're not as clever as what is accepted as what should be the average human, but I have no doubt they're as intelligent as some of the more stupid humans out there - even if their intelligence limits them to different forms of expression.

[Kippershy]

Everything can stockpile. Many species of insect farm. Those stealth tactics and tools are developed over the course of centuries, and carefully taught between generations. This is none of those.

Boo saw a pony point a weird bit of metal, move their tongue, and damage dealt to an unrelated person across the room. An animal simply cannot make the connections between those events without being specifically trained or spending weeks at a minimum experimenting. She made an abstract connection, logical deduction, formed a hypothesis of her own, and then fired a burst to save her new friend's life with no prior experience with firearms, no instruction of any kind... That's a clear sign of intelligence, and a feat no mere animal has ever managed the likes of.[/quote]


Again - I'm not doubting Boo one bit. I was just taking your post too literally with the whole 'animals don't know how to use tools' part.

Boo is definitely something other then the standard blank, that's for sure.

[Sindri]

Again - I'm not doubting Boo one bit. I was just taking your post too literally with the whole 'animals don't know how to use tools' part.

I never said that animals can't use tools. Even the simplest of creatures have been demonstrated to use tools. What separates intelligent creatures from those operating on instinct and conditioning is the ability to come up with new ideas on the fly, the ability to connect seemingly disparate events, the ability to figure out how things work and use them to achieve your goals instead of simply imitating motions. Almost every human displays these things, and I think that an octopus might, but no dog or crow or chimp ever has. So a chimp can use a club or a rock, a particularly clever one might use a sword or a pick or a spear, but they'll never connect the pull of a trigger to the hole appearing through an enemy on their own. And they could be conditioned to make gestures approximating our sign language, or play tic-tac-toe, or even point the gun and pull the trigger when they see a predefined image, but they'll never understand what they're doing any more than your phone does when its programming tells it to play a recording of a voice.

[NoodleNugget]

you know, we could always ask Somber whether or not Boo has a soul. And if someone doesnt want to get upset because of potential spoilers we could ask Somber not to tell us if it does pertain to the story.

[Sponsored content]