Rat Maze - Thought Experiment

[Brian 2.0]

This is somewhat related to my Theory on Suffering thread, but different and specific enough that I thought I'd post it separate here.

This is a thought experiment.

You have the Scientist

You have the Rat

Scientists put the Rat at the beginning of a MAZE. Their are two ways out of the maze. One leads to a piece of YELLLOW cheese (good). The other leads to a piece of RED cheese (a poison causing a long prolonged painful death).

The Scientist has the ability to to all of the following:

- The scientist can change the walls of the maze at anytime, but can never close off completely a path to either cheese

- The scientist can instantly kill the rat, painlessly, at anytime

- Through diodes attached to the Rat head, the scientist can prompt the Rat which way to go, but the rat still chooses himself (the scientist cannot control the rat) (EDIT: last point unnecessary for purposes of test)

Under these conditions, the Scientist is 100% percent capable of preventing the Rat from eating the red cheese.

The question is... IF the Rat DOES eat the red cheese, is that the Scientist's Will? He may not have CAUSED the rat to eat the cheese, but he very well could have PREVENTED it.. so is the Rat eating the red cheese then in line with the Scientist's Will?

If someone is 100% Capable, does that make them 100% Culpable?

EDIT: Since "culpable" indicated blame, I am restating.

If Subject A is 100% capable to preventing Event A, is there any instance of Event A that is NOT in line with Subject A's Will?

(This isn't a trap, by the way... I'm still trying to work this out in my head and don't know where I land on it)

Also... I would like this not to turn into a "God is different, this is nothing like God's relationship to us." I know that. But this is a simple experiment to try and discuss the relationship with capacity and culpability.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[DBMormon]

hmmmm. I bet the red cheese is really good for catching catfish

In seriousness, even if he doesn't force but does things to get the rat to lean that way, he has to take some ownership for the choices.

Edited June 12, 2012 by reelmormon

[Brian 2.0]

It could also very well be that in this thought experiment, that yes, 100% Capacity = 100% Culpability. But that there are other circumstances and stipulations that could be added that would make the scientist <100% Culpable. Just trying to figure out what those stipulations are.

[mrmandias]

Some responsibility, yes. I doubt 100% responsibility, since you've said that the rat is an agent. I wouldn't say 'culpable,' since that implies a moral condemnation that isn't warranted without more information about the scientists' actions and purposes.

[CV75]

The question is... IF the Rat DOES eat the red cheese, is that the Scientist's Will? He may not have CAUSED the rat to eat the cheese, but he very well could have PREVENTED it.. so is the Rat eating the red cheese then in line with the Scientist's Will?

We can only know the scientist’s will if he honestly states what it is.

Very simplistically, we can surmise that it is the scientist’s will is that the rat eat some cheese, whether poisoned or not, or not navigate the maze so as to find any cheese at all. Then there are different levels of will. Whatever the scientist’s will, he suspends it for the sake of the test, and accepts that the rat might eat of either the good or the poisoned cheese, or none at all, making his will to conduct the test superior to his will for any particular outcome.

If someone is 100% Capable, does that make them 100% Culpable?

Yes, and in a "universe" where everyone is capable of realizing his own success, everyone is culpable for his own failure.

Edited June 12, 2012 by CV75

[DBMormon]

how strong are the "Through diodes attached to the Rat head, the scientist can prompt the Rat which way to go, but the rat still chooses himself (the scientist cannot control the rat)" ???? this is the crux of the problem I believe

[bcuzbcuz]

This is somewhat related to my Theory on Suffering thread, but different and specific enough that I thought I'd post it separate here.

This is a thought experiment.

You have the Scientist

You have the Rat

Scientists put the Rat at the beginning of a MAZE. Their are two ways out of the maze. One leads to a piece of YELLLOW cheese (good). The other leads to a piece of RED cheese (a poison causing a long prolonged painful death).

The Scientist has the ability to to all of the following:

- Through diodes attached to the Rat head, the scientist can prompt the Rat which way to go, but the rat still chooses himself (the scientist cannot control the rat)

- The scientist can change the walls of the maze at anytime, but can never close off completely a path to either cheese

- The scientist can instantly kill the rat, painlessly, at anytime

Under these conditions, the Scientist is 100% percent capable of preventing the Rat from eating the red cheese.

The question is... IF the Rat DOES eat the red cheese, is that the Scientist's Will? He may not have CAUSED the rat to eat the cheese, but he very well could have PREVENTED it.. so is the Rat eating the red cheese then in line with the Scientist's Will?

If someone is 100% Capable, does that make them 100% Culpable?

(This isn't a trap, by the way... I'm still trying to work this out in my head and don't know where I land on it)

Also... I would like this not to turn into a "God is different, this is nothing like God's relationship to us." I know that. But this is a simple experiment to try and discuss the relationship with capacity and culpability.

I have a problem with the "prompts" as stipulated in your premise. I would not give the scientist the ability to foresee outcomes but instead only offer prompts on "theory" as to possible outcomes. A, blind leading the blind, if you will.

[Nominee]

The question is... IF the Rat DOES eat the red cheese, is that the Scientist's Will? He may not have CAUSED the rat to eat the cheese, but he very well could have PREVENTED it.. so is the Rat eating the red cheese then in line with the Scientist's Will?

No. The rat has free agency. The rat can choose to endure to the end (whatever end he chooses). The scientist could NOT have prevented the mouse from eating the red cheese without changing the stipulations of the maze as you have described.

~ Naomi

edit: I should have said, "No, NOT NECESSARILY." As CV75 says, "We can only know the scientist’s will if he honestly states what it is."

Edited June 12, 2012 by Nominee

[Maestrophil]

I agree with Nominee... "The Scientist's will" if this analogy is to hold true to our Heavenly Father's will is that we are ALWAYS able to exersize our will - even unto death, if we so choose. He may very well DESIRE to have us choose differently, but we are here to prove our choices in accordance to his mandates or not.

Just my view...

[ERayR]

This is somewhat related to my Theory on Suffering thread, but different and specific enough that I thought I'd post it separate here.

This is a thought experiment.

You have the Scientist

You have the Rat

Scientists put the Rat at the beginning of a MAZE. Their are two ways out of the maze. One leads to a piece of YELLLOW cheese (good). The other leads to a piece of RED cheese (a poison causing a long prolonged painful death).

The Scientist has the ability to to all of the following:

- Through diodes attached to the Rat head, the scientist can prompt the Rat which way to go, but the rat still chooses himself (the scientist cannot control the rat)

- The scientist can change the walls of the maze at anytime, but can never close off completely a path to either cheese

- The scientist can instantly kill the rat, painlessly, at anytime

Under these conditions, the Scientist is 100% percent capable of preventing the Rat from eating the red cheese.

The question is... IF the Rat DOES eat the red cheese, is that the Scientist's Will? He may not have CAUSED the rat to eat the cheese, but he very well could have PREVENTED it.. so is the Rat eating the red cheese then in line with the Scientist's Will?

If someone is 100% Capable, does that make them 100% Culpable?

(This isn't a trap, by the way... I'm still trying to work this out in my head and don't know where I land on it)

Also... I would like this not to turn into a "God is different, this is nothing like God's relationship to us." I know that. But this is a simple experiment to try and discuss the relationship with capacity and culpability.

Who else would be culpable? In this scenario the scientist Is the only one capable of rational thought.

For that reason it can not hold as an analogy for God.

Edited June 12, 2012 by ERayR

[Brian 2.0]

The scientist could NOT have prevented the mouse from eating the red cheese without changing the stipulations of the maze as you have described.

He could have killed the mouse before he ate the red cheese.

He could have endlessly adjusted the maze so that the mouse would never reach the red cheese.

Those are two options available without changing the stipulations of the maze.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[bcuzbcuz]

I agree with Nominee... "The Scientist's will" if this analogy is to hold true to our Heavenly Father's will is that we are ALWAYS able to exersize our will - even unto death, if we so choose. He may very well DESIRE to have us choose differently, but we are here to prove our choices in accordance to his mandates or not.

Just my view...

Aha, Now you see the heavenly father as the scientist and we, as rats in a maze. Are you sure you want to go with this analogy??

[Brian 2.0]

how strong are the "Through diodes attached to the Rat head, the scientist can prompt the Rat which way to go, but the rat still chooses himself (the scientist cannot control the rat)" ???? this is the crux of the problem I believe

I was trying to draw a parallel to spiritual prompting, but that's obviously difficult to do.

I think you can eliminate the the diodes completely form the thought experiment and it still stands. It's perhaps even cleaner.

EDIT: I have deleted the diodes from the experiment in the OP

Edited June 12, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[ERayR]

Aha, Now you see the heavenly father as the scientist and we, as rats in a maze. Are you sure you want to go with this analogy??

A very poor analogy.

[Brian 2.0]

We can only know the scientist’s will if he honestly states what it is.

Very simplistically, we can surmise that it is the scientist’s will is that the rat eat some cheese, whether poisoned or not, or not navigate the maze so as to find any cheese at all. Then there are different levels of will. Whatever the scientist’s will, he suspends it for the sake of the test, and accepts that the rat might eat of either the good or the poisoned cheese, or none at all, making his will to conduct the test superior to his will for any particular outcome.

Since the Scientist is 100% capable, we should be able to determine his will (in regards to eating the cheese) based on the outcome of the test.

There may be a "higher up" will involved, but it's still "his will"

If the scientist decides to suspend his will for the sake of the test, that is his decision, it was not forced upon him, so that decision is his own will. So anything that happen in the test, including eating the red cheese, can travel up to that decision which he made.

You can add reasons upon reason as to why he chose not to intervene and prevent the rat from eating the red cheese, but since he is 100% capable of stopping it at the outset, there should be no instance of eating the red cheese that is AGAINST the will of the scientist.

[Brian 2.0]

A very poor analogy.

I wasn't trying to hide this as evident in the last sentence of my original post.

And that last sentence basically say that this is not directly analogous, but a thought experiment desired to try and discuss the interplay between capacity, will, and culpability.

I'm not saying the Scientist is GOD and we are the RAT. There are similarities yes, but that relationship is far more complicated.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[Nominee]

He could have killed the mouse before he ate the red cheese.

He could have endlessly adjusted the maze so that the mouse would never reach the red cheese.

Those are two options available without changing the stipulations of the maze.

If he kills the mouse to stop him from making that choice ~ he takes away his choice.

If he endlessly adjusts the maze so that the mouse would never reach the red cheese ~ he removes reaching the red cheese as an option.

This changes the stipulations of the maze in which the rat has choices.

~ Naomi

[ERayR]

I wasn't trying to hide this as evident in the last sentence of my original post.

And that last sentence basically say that this is not directly analogous, but a thought experiment desired to try and discuss the interplay between capacity, will, and culpability.

In your scenario there is no way the scientist can be anything but culpable. He is the only one with the capacity of rational thought. Now, if one wants to discuss his reasons for his choice. You see Adam and Eve made the choice knowing the consequence.

[Nominee]

Even with the diodes the rat can still CHOOSE to strive toward the yellow cheese, even unto death, regardless of how painful it may be. In your OP the scientist does not remove that agency from the rat.

[ERayR]

Even with the diodes the rat can still CHOOSE to strive toward the yellow cheese, even unto death, regardless of how painful it may be. In your OP the scientist does not remove that agency from the rat.

In my experience a rat is incapable of rational thought and therefore has no choices as valid choices are a result of being able to weigh the consequences of those choices.

[Nominee]

In my experience a rat is incapable of rational thought and therefore has no choices as valid choices are a result of being able to weigh the consequences of those choices.

I don't know, what about natural instinct and senses? The rat knows the difference between 'good' cheese and 'bad' cheese even if it doesn't know why (has no reason). The rat makes choices even without understanding the consequence of those choices. Gut feeling. Is the rat accountable? Certainly not. Does that make the scientist accountable? Not entirely.

So with the question being ~ Is it the will of the scientist that the rat dies (if it does) because the scientist could have prevented it? I still say no, not necessarily. It would depend on why the scientist put the rat in the maze.

[ERayR]

I don't know, what about natural instinct and senses? The rat knows the difference between 'good' cheese and 'bad' cheese even if it doesn't know why (has no reason). The rat makes choices even without understanding the consequence of those choices. Gut feeling. Is the rat accountable? Certainly not. Does that make the scientist accountable? Not entirely.

So with the question being ~ Is it the will of the scientist that the rat dies (if it does) because the scientist could have prevented it? I still say no, not necessarily. It would depend on why the scientist put the rat in the maze.

In my experience the rat doesn't know the difference. That is why he can exterminated by poison baits. The rat has no way of discerning good cheese from poison cheese nor which poison is extremely painful and which is not. Your supposition comes from anthropomorphizing animals. attributing human characteristics to animals does not make it so.

[Calm]

It could also very well be that in this thought experiment, that yes, 100% Capacity = 100% Culpability. But that there are other circumstances and stipulations that could be added that would make the scientist <100% Culpable. Just trying to figure out what those stipulations are.

I think the purpose of running the maze and what benefit it has for the rat would have an effect.

I don't see a rat as being a real "agent" though as agency is usually discussed (someone who can look at possible outcomes to choose among them is different than something that responds to a set of stimuli a certain way).

[Calm]

Since the Scientist is 100% capable, we should be able to determine his will (in regards to eating the cheese) based on the outcome of the test.

Only if you know all the limitations and the reasons for them he has placed on himself for his own decisions involving the test.

[Calm]

Even with the diodes the rat can still CHOOSE to strive toward the yellow cheese, even unto death, regardless of how painful it may be. In your OP the scientist does not remove that agency from the rat.

How would a rat even know there was yellow cheese at the end of the maze to strive for? A rat would be responding to immediate stimuli, not making any 'long term' plans. And how would a scientist 'inform' it about the outcomes of its choices prior to the actual experience? Where is the "learning" taking place? What are the actual choices the mouse is making (if it doesn't know about the cheese, the only choice it is actually making is whether to turn right or left, the ultimate prize of the cheese has nothing to do with it).

****I haven't trained rats to run in a maze, though I've studied the process. I have trained chicks to respond to certain stimuli using food as a reward/reinforcer.

I think there are some misunderstandings here about what is occurring with the rat during this behavioural training/shaping experiment.

For one thing, nothing can be 'learned' by the rat and thus applied to its 'choices' if it hasn't already run the maze.

Edited June 12, 2012 by calmoriah