A philosophical question pertaining to self-driving cars

[Pallas_Athene]

:newidea:

Personally, I think self-driving cars should have unbridled free will. They should be programmed to be allowed to do absolutely anything and cause any amount of mayhem and chaos with no restraint other than the physical limitations of their designs. After all, if there were any limitations on the choices available to the AI, then the car and passenger wouldn’t be able to have a meaningful relationship, and the relationship is more important than the health or safety of the passenger, pedestrians, other drivers, or anyone in the path of the car of course.

…joking…

Well, at last! That is what I was hoping for.

Thank you for presenting exactly the “argument” which is brought forth by the proponents of unbridled free will. And presenting how utterly irrational that “argument” is. No rational designer, constructor would allow “freedom” which would counteract the basic design aim of the creation.

And since God is “supposed” to be rational, we must accept the conclusion that the current state of affairs is exactly the one that God intended and desired from the get-go.

 

[vz71]

And since God is “supposed” to be rational, we must accept the conclusion that the current state of affairs is exactly the one that God intended and desired from the get-go.

Or perhaps God knew that whatever choices we make will not be of sufficient consequence to change what he intended.

 

[edwest2]

Or perhaps God knew that whatever choices we make will not be of sufficient consequence to change what he intended.

No, but Jesus warned us to not be involved in ‘offenses.’ Good choices good.

Ed

Or you can put some wheels on your laptop…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Or perhaps God knew that whatever choices we make will not be of sufficient consequence to change what he intended.

You mean… the incredible sufferings do not matter? The end justifies the means? You can’t have it both ways. Either God intended all the sufferings for their own sake… or God uses the sufferings for his own “inscrutable” purposes, in which case the end DOES justifies the means… both outcomes contradict what the church teaches.

 

[NovusFidem]

You mean… the incredible sufferings do not matter? The end justifies the means? You can’t have it both ways. Either God intended all the sufferings for their own sake… or God uses the sufferings for his own “inscrutable” purposes, in which case the end DOES justifies the means… both outcomes contradict what the church teaches.

Probably, that is mostly right, but I could be wrong. This moment we are living is exactly as God **expected ** - not intended, but nothing happens without His permission (Lamentations 3:37). Both what we perceive as the good and the bad. However, His understanding of “stuff” is far greater than ours - what we see as “bad” is probably a step towards something better somewhere, sometime and to someone. St. Thérèse of Lisieux was good at finding the “better” in the “bad” - she understood suffering as a tool to bettering ourselves.

I don’ know which Church teaching you meant to say, but I am pretty sure that learning how to “properly” suffer is part of what we are called to do. To become humble, one must have his own pride kicked in the guts; to become chaste, one must deny his very flesh. To be charitable, one must give up his every possession (no, giving just a bit is not true Charity). You have to be completely broken to become Christ-like, as He was beaten, bleeding and dying on the Cross.

Also, “the end justifies the means” as long as its God’s “end” and “means”. He owns us. Whatever happens that we may see as “the most terrible thing” is just our own, limited, perception - God knows further in time what is to come, and we have faith that it is for our own, ultimate, good. He may not have intended all the bad, but He allows it, and He makes something greater out of all that bad.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You mean… the incredible sufferings do not matter?

No, that incredible sufferings do matter for their own sakes, not necessarily as a means to an end. Just because they are painful or difficult to cope with does not mean they have no value in themselves.

The end justifies the means? You can’t have it both ways. Either God intended all the sufferings for their own sake… or God uses the sufferings for his own “inscrutable” purposes, in which case the end DOES justifies the means… both outcomes contradict what the church teaches.

God need not use them for anything. They are what they are.

Suffering is not evil, necessarily. Evil is something quite different.

We may love someone and be willing to bear pain, struggles, emotional sorrow and sadness, etc., precisely because of love for them. We suffer but that suffering demonstrates love. It isn’t evil but precious in its own right.

Some suffering may accompany evil, but the evil that is in the harm, not in the suffering. Some harms and evils may involve no suffering at all at the moment the evil occurs.

 

[You]

A woman, when she is in labour, hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but when she hath brought forth the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

 

[vz71]

God has a plan.
Whether I choose to be part of it or not, the plan will remain.

 

[mikekle]

You speak as though humans are the only wild cards on the road.
What about animals?
What about the broken infrastructure?
What about the car itself being broken?

It is easy to make an automaton do things in a perfect world. But the world is not perfect.

Sensors would solve all these problems, heck, in some higher end cars right now, they have sensors that can detect obstructions in the road and even stop/slow the car if the driver does not react to it quickly enough.

 

[vz71]

Sensors would solve all these problems, heck, in some higher end cars right now, they have sensors that can detect obstructions in the road and even stop/slow the car if the driver does not react to it quickly enough.

Assuming they work.
I have a number of sensors on my car right now that tell me I have no oil pressure and my tire pressure is low.
Neither is right. But it is simply more expensive for me to monitor the issues myself then to replace the sensors.

Understand, I am not saying a self driving car cannot be a reality. I am simply saying it is going to be decades away before they are anywhere near reliable enough for the general public to trust.

For instance…
Let’s take for an example a program running on a smart phone.
The smart phone is much simpler then a car, and there are only a handful of (name removed by moderator)ut methods available. Yet there are constant bugs being found and repaired.
A car is not going to be so forgiving. A bug can cost lives.
We cannot successfully program around every (name removed by moderator)ut a simple phone can get, but somehow we believe we can make a safe program to drive a vehicle around in an environment with much more varied (name removed by moderator)ut and much more possible.

The manufacturer of such car is going to have to assume responsibility for the damage the car does when it malfunctions. After all, it is their program, their decisions, or their lack of planning for every possible contingency.

 

[vz71]

You mean… the incredible sufferings do not matter? The end justifies the means? You can’t have it both ways. Either God intended all the sufferings for their own sake… or God uses the sufferings for his own “inscrutable” purposes, in which case the end DOES justifies the means… both outcomes contradict what the church teaches.

Some suffering is God’s intent, and for our betterment. Some is brought on by our own decisions. But no matter the decision we make, we do not alter the plan.

 

[mikekle]

Assuming they work.
I have a number of sensors on my car right now that tell me I have no oil pressure and my tire pressure is low.
Neither is right. But it is simply more expensive for me to monitor the issues myself then to replace the sensors.

Understand, I am not saying a self driving car cannot be a reality. I am simply saying it is going to be decades away before they are anywhere near reliable enough for the general public to trust.

For instance…
Let’s take for an example a program running on a smart phone.
The smart phone is much simpler then a car, and there are only a handful of (name removed by moderator)ut methods available. Yet there are constant bugs being found and repaired.
A car is not going to be so forgiving. A bug can cost lives.
We cannot successfully program around every (name removed by moderator)ut a simple phone can get, but somehow we believe we can make a safe program to drive a vehicle around in an environment with much more varied (name removed by moderator)ut and much more possible.

The manufacturer of such car is going to have to assume responsibility for the damage the car does when it malfunctions. After all, it is their program, their decisions, or their lack of planning for every possible contingency.

Well, yea, you are right, thats why they are testing this in certain areas first, so all the bugs ARE worked out before it goes nationwide, I believe it is certain areas in CA and a few other cities. They will just come up with much better electronics, which will lead to high sticker prices at first Im sure, but will come down eventually, as everything else does.

Im sure liability is one of their main concerns though, if it is a self driving car, you could not force the owner to have insurance (that would not make sense), They will make sure all these bugs are worked out before they go nationwide…thats precisely what they are doing now…Id say it will go nationwide within 10-15 yrs.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sorry for the editing, I performed it or clarification purposes

1. Some suffering is God’s intent, and for our betterment.
2. Some is brought on by our own decisions.
   3)But no matter the decision we make, we do not alter the plan.

A few questions:

1. Is there a suffer-o-meter which will show which sufferings are for our “betterment”, and which ones are frivolous? If there are any sufferings, which are not necessary for the “plan”, then those are incompatible with God’s alleged loving nature. After all “love” only allows useful, necessary sufferings.
2. Even if some are brought upon us by our own decisions, they still must be in accordance with that “plan” of God. As we agreed, the good designer only allows “free will”, which does not disrupt the workings of the system.
3. If our decisions cannot “alter the plan”, then what use is having freedom in the first place? We could just as well be puppets on a string.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Sorry for the editing, I performed it or clarification purposes

A few questions:

1. Is there a suffer-o-meter which will show which sufferings are for our “betterment”, and which ones are frivolous? If there are any sufferings, which are not necessary for the “plan”, then those are incompatible with God’s alleged loving nature. After all “love” only allows useful, necessary sufferings.
2. Even if some are brought upon us by our own decisions, they still must be in accordance with that “plan” of God. As we agreed, the good designer only allows “free will”, which does not disrupt the workings of the system.
3. If our decisions cannot “alter the plan”, then what use is having freedom in the first place? We could just as well be puppets on a string.

1. If any sufferings are “frivolous” it means that God desires suffering for its own sake and is evil. Fortunately, we can’t exhaustively prove that there is any suffering like that, though it certainly seems that way most of the time. I have significantly painful sciatic nerve damage. I am in pain every waking moment, and I probably will be for years, if not for the rest of my life. Certainly seems pointless, but I don’t blame God and I’m not angry with God. For all I know, it is worth something to someone, somehow.
2. Yes, God is totally omnipotent and in control. There is no way to disrupt his plan. Our freedom and his are co-operative, not competitive though, so we are not just puppets or machines.
3. His plan is our freedom. Yes that means all the worst atrocities of history are his plan. Yes that means he supports the existence of rapists, child molesters, mass murderers, and reality TV producers . I have no idea why he would allow this mess, however I have no solid reason to suppose that there is either absolutely no reason or that he enjoys evil for its own sake. Also, someday, evil people will get what’s coming to them, big time. No, not eternal torture, God isn’t a sicko. But, they will get what they deserve. That is one of the main themes of the Torah. Nietzsche calls it “ressentiment” but I think it is just the natural desire for justice.

 

[vz71]

Sorry for the editing, I performed it or clarification purposes

A few questions:

1) Is there a suffer-o-meter which will show which sufferings are for our “betterment”, and which ones are frivolous? If there are any sufferings, which are not necessary for the “plan”, then those are incompatible with God’s alleged loving nature. After all “love” only allows useful, necessary sufferings.
​

If what you mean by “love” is “not real love but I will use the word anyway.”
Then I suppose you can claim anything.​

 

[NovusFidem]

1) Is there a suffer-o-meter which will show which sufferings are for our “betterment”, and which ones are frivolous? If there are any sufferings, which are not necessary for the “plan”, then those are incompatible with God’s alleged loving nature. After all “love” only allows useful, necessary sufferings.
​

If what you mean by “love” is “not real love but I will use the word anyway.”
Then I suppose you can claim anything.

Well said :yup:

It could also be said that Love doesn’t allow (or makes, or needs) bad things; instead, it transforms them into good things (just like God does, making bad things turn into great things - just look at the Cross!).

Every bad thing that happens can be transformed by Love. Maybe Love won’t bring back the loved one who died in the storm, but it certainly will change how you feel and react to the situation.​

 

[NovusFidem]

1. Yes, God is totally omnipotent and in control. There is no way to disrupt his plan. Our freedom and his are co-operative, not competitive though, so we are not just puppets or machines.

That:

Just to help understanding this: we are like sheep (creative much?), and God is our… yeah, you get it.

Our freedom is us running around, trying to get off the road into dangerous places.

God would still keep on calling for us to come back to the flock, and would eventually go after us (because we are too busy frolicking around to listen to Him). His Love for us would eventually overpower us. He’d carry us back, and we’d calmly let Him - we like hugs, and we like Him, and we want to go where He wants us to go - so it’s not against our will.

We have free will, but our will seeks to be in accordance with His… eventually.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

1. If any sufferings are “frivolous” it means that God desires suffering for its own sake and is evil. Fortunately, we can’t exhaustively prove that there is any suffering like that, though it certainly seems that way most of the time.

In the world where I live, things are exactly what they seem to be. When I hear the garage door opening, I am (almost) 100% sure that it signifies that my spouse comes home. It could be that some space alien is fiddling with the automatic door opener, and an invasion is about to start. But I would not waste time on investigating it.

When I hear about a psychopath kidnapping, raping and torturing a child, I do stop to think: “Hmmm maybe it is for the betterment of this child… maybe God in his infinite ‘wisdom’ allows this to happen, for some inscrutable purpose”. No! If something looks like evil, it is very, very, very probably evil. If there comes an explanation to show why this preconception is incorrect… fine and dandy. But the usual “MAYBE it is incorrect” simply does not cut it.

Of course, I am pretty sure that you have the same reservation about a human perpetrator. We do not need 100%, absolute, Cartesian certainty… it is sufficient to be guided by common sense, while accepting that our assessment might be incorrect, and if it turns out to be incorrect, we must be ready to accept the correction.

1. Yes, God is totally omnipotent and in control. There is no way to disrupt his plan. Our freedom and his are co-operative, not competitive though, so we are not just puppets or machines.

So, let’s see if I understand your position. When see a homeless person I have (at least) two choices. I can give him some money, or I can kick him in the stomach and throw him in the gutter. Do you mean that there is no difference in my two options? That no matter what I do, I support God’s “plan”?

1. His plan is our freedom.

Freedom in and of itself is useless… or even dangerous. That is why we would not dream about giving total freedom to that “car” - as you pointed it out so correctly.

Yes that means all the worst atrocities of history are his plan. Yes that means he supports the existence of rapists, child molesters, mass murderers, and reality TV producers . I have no idea why he would allow this mess, however I have no solid reason to suppose that there is either absolutely no reason or that he enjoys evil for its own sake.

Your solid reason is (would be, or should be) the lack of contrarian explanation.

Also, someday, evil people will get what’s coming to them, big time. No, not eternal torture, God isn’t a sicko. But, they will get what they deserve. That is one of the main themes of the Torah. Nietzsche calls it “ressentiment” but I think it is just the natural desire for justice.

That is not much on a consolation for the victims. Don’t you remember that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure? And punishing the perps is not even a “cure”/

 

[You]

…

That is not much on a consolation for the victims. Don’t you remember that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure? And punishing the perps is not even a “cure”/

ah that old chestnut: why is there evil in the world?

we have two choices naturally three supernaturally;

1. we are atheistic in outlook, sink into a depression at the state of the world, despair and finally as a solution get our scientists to blow up the world. Finito. Problem solved, no more suffering.
2. Or, we might sign up to an idea that said it wasn’t meant to be this way, an enemy sowed cockle amongst the corn. The solution to saving the corn by destroying the cockle is the solution in 1.
3. Because the enemy has done this. And because we don’t want to blow up the world in despair or to destroy the corn and cockle together in a blitz of the evildoers, we will instead answer suffering with patience, evil with kindness and despair with hope. And probably save more than could be in choices 1. or 2.

 

[inocente]

Some suffering is God’s intent, and for our betterment. Some is brought on by our own decisions. But no matter the decision we make, we do not alter the plan.

Every minute of every day, a child dies somewhere of diarrhea or another water born disease, apparently arranged personally by God for their betterment. Every child since the beginning of time who dies suffering is a cog in God’s unchanging plan for their betterment.

I’ve seen many different theologies, but dude, yours takes the biscuit.