/sci/ - Science & Math

the philosophy board is this way
>>>/his/

>>10321730
>implying math isn't a part og philosophy

>>10321719
>Why not just make the problem even more extreme, like "Kill 1 planet filled with people or kill 5 planets filled with people?"
because it's the same exactly choice fundamentally, and changing it to planets is just needless hyperbole

>pseudo-science horseshit
who is claiming that the trolley problem is science? it's not an "experiment" in the scientific sense of the word either

>People literally die either way so whatever I do or don't do doesn't matter
ok that's a philosophical stance, which you cannot escape or objectively justify, which is actually what a large part of this trolley problem is about: is ""inaction"" an action?

>>10321719

>>10321719
>"Hurr pull this lever and only kill one person? Or let the trolly continue and kill 5 people?"
>What fucking difference does it make? How is this even a test of morality? People die either way. I literally have no meaningful agency in this hypothetical scenario whatsoever.
>Why not just make the problem even more extreme, like "Kill 1 planet filled with people or kill 5 planets filled with people?"
>It's like, what kind of fucking retarded moral choice is that? People literally die either way so whatever I do or don't do doesn't matter. Wow, you sure pulled one over on me in this retarded hypothetical scenario. Go fuck yourself with your psuedo-science horseshit. Your experiment doesn't prove shit.
>Fine you want an answer? I kill the person giving me this fucking test and then no one has to die. Problem fucking solved.
not science or math

>>10321789
At this point the choice is made for you, pulling the lever is the only way out.

>>10321719
What the fuck is happening to /sci/?

>>10321898
Leaking containment boards like /pol/, /bant/, and /g/

>>10321898
Don't worry, I'll fix it

*Ahem*
This is now a trolley problem meme thread

>>10321950
back when /b/ was good lol

is there an uncountably infinite one?

>>10321955
if there is I don't have it

>>10321950
Zeta of 0 is -1/2, so this isn't even accurate.

>>10321719
It is just a question to study the different branches of psychology. A utilitarian for example might pull the lever because they would rather fewer people die. However, some people would rather not pull the lever because they think that by taking an action, they would become responsible for the death and by not doing anything, they are not responsible because it is how it would have happened if they weren't there.

>>10322733
I would only pull the lever when the second trolly comes

>>10322192
The original didn't have the text, leaving the reader to figure it out themselves, but someone decided to explain the joke without fully understanding it.

>>10322192
>>10322791
>criticizing memes without a degree in memeology
>not knowing about numberphile
shiggy

https://youtu.be/w-I6XTVZXww

>>10321719
The question is really to see how many people will over estimate their ability to make a sound decision in a stressful situation.

>>10321719
Even children know the real answer
https://youtu.be/-N_RZJUAQY4

>>10322846
Based and red pilled child.

>>10322733
>However, some people would rather not pull the lever because they think that by taking an action, they would become responsible for the death and by not doing anything, they are not responsible because it is how it would have happened if they weren't there.
This reasoning makes no sense to me, for one they would still be choosing not to pull the lever, second It seems like they are more concerned with not taking responsibility rather than actually doing the right thing.
I see the trolley problem as no different than stopping one person from killing 5 people and I question the motives and intellectual honesty of anyone who does not immediately opt to pull the switch.

>>10322903

Protip. Dont move to China.

>>10321719
The problem I have with it is that people obsess over these hypothetical scenarios more than real world situations. Even if you were to pick killing one or letting five die, it has no relevance to how you would act IRL. It's pointless wankery.

>>10322903
The problem is that you can't really blame the person at the lever for any choice they make, because the people on the railtracks are people, which means they could have different worth.
What if the five were rapist murders and the one was an innocent bystander pulled off the street for this experiment? The person pulling the lever doesn't know and makes the "morally best" decision to kill the one over the five and gets a "congratulations, you killed an innocent person and saved five death row inmates" message as a result.

The question wants us to treat the people on the tracks as animals whose only worth is in quantity when people actually have varying relative worth to each other.

>>10321719
Please be bait

>>10322921
1 person dies regardless, so now you are dealing with saving 4 random people, do you always want to stop and think "Not sure I wanna help anyone, they might be a bad person"? you can't just make assumptions about them, that's a bad personality trait.

>>10322928
>do you always want to stop and think "Not sure I wanna help anyone, they might be a bad person"? you can't just make assumptions about them
That's the problem. You're gonna do it anyway. Everyone makes assumptions about other people. The problem is thinking you wouldn't make any assumptions and would just pull the lever regardless of who was on the tracks.
Sure, this may work if you remove yourself from the problem (enclosed room with a lever and a countdown clock that you have to choose the position of the lever before it runs out) but as long as you can see they are humans you'll make assumptions that could affect your decision, even if it's just that it makes you hesitate before choosing the "correct" option.

>>10321719
find a formula to calculate how important a person is.
i.e. taxed_income/age + (max_age - age)^2
then kill the group of people with the lowest score

>>10321719
The correct answer is to not participate because doing so is enticing the person who tied them up to continue doing so.

>>10322907
China is culturally damaged, they're trying to fix it through brute force.

>>10322799
I do know about numberphile, the point of the original image was to make brainlets think that not pulling the lever would be better since it saves 1/12 of a person, while the correct choice was pulling the lever since it saves 1/2 of a person.

>>10321719
The real retardation of the problem is that you're only given a lever to operate the switch, whereas if you are the actual operator of the system, you could just operate the tram itself and order it to stop.
>but what if the brakes don't work!!!
There are already two independently operated brakes on all trams, even from 100 years ago.

>>10321962
Is it B4?

Because if Albert doesn't know it means it's not 5 or 6.
When he tells Bernard that he doesn't know Bernard realizes it's B4, because it can't be B5.
When Albert realizes that Bernard deduced the right pad just by this information, he also knows it's B4 because it's the only combination that satisfies the conditions.

I'd let them all die. I don't wanna be a hero. Fuck that crazy scientist shit.
This is the correct philosophical answer btw.

>>10321719
This problem can also be written like this:

A) You murder an innocent child
B) Or half of humanity dies
C) If you do nothing or try to leave, everyone dies including yourself.

Brainlets will argue whether the correct answer is A or B, if the end justifies the means and if you can sacrifice someone for the the greater good and other such pseudo-philosophical "dilemmas".

Of course the only correct answer is C as any non brainlet can easily deduce. Because it is the only option where you refuse to play some twisted sickos game. The outcome is simply not your problem.

Now apply this simple knowledge to the trolley problem and you have your answer. You walk away, go home, order some pizza and watch your favorite show and let everyone go fuck themselves.

>>10324038
>Because if Albert doesn't know it means it's not 5 or 6.
You were close to not falling at the first hurdle. For Albert to know for sure that Bernard doesn't know, it cannot be either of the letters that have one entry on one number, because if Albert had been told A or B, then Bernard may have been told 5 or 6 and known which it was for sure.

>>10321950
Why did this make me laugh

>>10324118
Oh shit I mixed up the names.
Thought Albert knew the numbers and Bernard the letters.

Okay, this has to be bait, but I'll bite anyways.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to not only consider this to be actual math/science, but also not comprehend such a simple concept? It's literally grade-school ethical decision making.