Rat Maze - Thought Experiment

[CASteinman]

Can this phrase ever be said by Subject who is 100% capable of preventing said event, "it is against my will, but I will allow it."

It would depend upon the Scientist. And if you do not know the Scientist, you would have to introduce yourself and ask: "Would you ever conduct such an experiment and have an outcome that was against your will but still allow it?".

If he tells you, and is honest about it, then you would know.

Until you ask and get an answer, you will not have a clue.

Edited June 13, 2012 by CASteinman

[Calm]

Brian, have you even done an actual rat maze test? Or anything similar like it? Is this a pure thought experiment for you or do you bring some practical experience to it (which should be showing up in how you construct your experiment).

Rats used in tests are of certain breeds whose behavourial patterns are so well known and rigid that any deviation from them must be due to a change in a test variable, therefore the person who included the variable made the choice for the rat's behaviour, not the rat. I don't see how one can accurately speak of will in regard to the maze rat. So you can just depose all the tricks that the mouse has to run through and simply reduce it to the choice that makes it meaningful for the scientist....will he will for the rat life or death? the simplest of choice, the Lady and the Tiger....and thus we are brought to Rat Version 2.0. Rat sits in front of two see thru doors. Behind one there is a large cat with bad breath, sharp teeth and a long tongue licking lips in anticipation, behind the other there is a lovely young mouse with a comehither eye in the sheerest of attires taking a bath in cheesebits.

Which scenario is the Will of the Ratientist....if nothing interferes with the test, no electrical outages, no sudden shortage of cheese bits, the mouse doesn't turn out to be gay, the cat doesn't turn out to have had a gastric bypass last week and is still on liquids...if none of these happens, then I think one can concluded in a very, very limited way that for that moment in time and for this place and these players, this was the Scientist's Will. The Scientist has successfully run his maze.....hopes this means he gets the good cheese leftover from that other wimpy experiment.

I think you are making it too complicated by using a rat maze experiment which is used to demonstrate learning capability in rats when what you want to focus on, when the real 'rat' for your experiment is the Scientist as it is him you want to study. What you are describing is an attempt to create a maze or other experiment for your subject, perhaps this can help.....envision the Scientist as Rat and one might come up with this:

If the Scientist is really the actor Rat, then what happens to the animal rat is irrelevant except for how the Ratientist perceives his importance, but for Brian 2.0 version's thought experiment, it can be greatly simplified. Have one electrical plate in the box with the rat, when the rat steps on the plate, the Ratientist decides there and then whether he will flip the switch that fries him to the point of having to peel the rat off of the electrode or he flips the switch the other way which as an effect of providing a pleasant stimulation of the brain, sending off the poor beast for some sweetdreams and maybe the Ratientist can throw in some rock and roll as well.

If the Ratientist throws the switch that fries the poor thing....is that his will the rat dies? Of course....at that moment and it certainly doesn't include all the other "wills" he had floating around trying to get his attention at the same time. If a different will came into dominance at that moment due to some exterior influence (the Ratientist got a chance to finally relieve his bladder and has a much more relaxed view about life at the moment), would that be the Ratientist's real Will about the fate of the rat after usurping the first Will's intended goal? Or is the original Will the true Will....or is there no real Will but only miniWills So many questions....

I have found thought experiments that try to simplify human mental and emotional responses in order to isolate for study one behaviour/attitribute at time to end up being so detached from how the brain and body actually work in real life situation that they are meaningless save as brain exercises for Mensa types.

Edited June 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"it is against my will, but I will allow it."

It can be perfectly valid if one realizes that a person's Will is no more monolithic than any other part of his mental and emotional processes.

[blackstrap]

This thread has enticed me to consider my own capability and culpability. I am capable of preventing the starvation of a child in Africa by sending the necessary resources. I don't . Is it my will that the child starve? Am I culpable in the slow death of that child? What reasoning do I use to reconcile my inaction?

[Brian 2.0]

No. Its not a matter of "reasons". Its a matter of knowing if this is his will. There are multiple things that might be true. He might not care either way (does not will anything to happen or not happen). He might want the rat to die (It is his will that the rat die). He might want the rat to live (It is his will that the rat live). In any of those cases he might also want to observe (it is his will to allow whatever happens to happen). Or it might be his will to intervene.

You simply cannot make any estimations of what the scientist "wills" to happen based upon the information you give.

You are assuming that because the scientist can enact some things that the outcome would certainly reflect his will. Which is well beyond good reasoning.

Without more information, the results may well be entirely different than what the Scientist would have "willed" to happen.

I think we might be misunderstanding one another. It seems as though you are equating when I say "in accordance with the his will" as the same as the scientist "willing it to happen". Those are two VERY different things to me.

Saying, "The Giants won the baseball game according to my will" is VERY different than" I willed the Giants to win the baseball game."

Your response seems to use these two either interchangeably.

[Brian 2.0]

This thread has enticed me to consider my own capability and culpability. I am capable of preventing the starvation of a child in Africa by sending the necessary resources. I don't . Is it my will that the child starve? Am I culpable in the slow death of that child? What reasoning do I use to reconcile my inaction?

This is a very good response, and a great thought experiment for those of us who like thought experiments and don't think they are "meaningless"

I have changed "culpability" to "according to your will" in the OP so I'll respond to that first. Culpability denotes blame, which I think its a separate issue, and much much harder to determine, if not impossible for us. But here I go to respond:

You found out about a child who is starving in Africa and will die if he doesn't get food.

You were capable of sending food over to the child in Africa and preventing that starvation to death.

You didn't send the food over. That child starved to death.

That child's death happened according to your will.

That doesn't mean you CAUSED the death. But you did ALLOW it to happen.

That doesn't mean you aren't saddened by the death. But you did ALLOW it to happen.

That doesn't mean you didn't have good reason to not send the food (maybe your family needed it).

But you did ALLOW the death to happen when you could have prevented it.

The death of that child happened according to your will.

If you say that the death was against your will, you would have to prove to me that you tried to save the child in some way but it didn't work (food got lost in the mail). You would basically have to prove to me that you were not 100% capable of saving that child.

This doesn't prove blame or culpability on your part. As I said, you may have had "good reason" to not send the food. But those reasons are irrelevant when trying to determine if the death happened according to your will.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CASteinman]

I think we might be misunderstanding one another. It seems as though you are equating when I say "in accordance with the his will" as the same as the scientist "willing it to happen". Those are two VERY different things to me.

Saying, "The Giants won the baseball game according to my will" is VERY different than" I willed the Giants to win the baseball game."

Your response seems to use these two either interchangeably.

No. I was not talking about him willing it like some magical power. I was talking about him willing it like he wanted it to occur a certain way. I used the word the way you are using it.

[Brian 2.0]

No. I was not talking about him willing it like some magical power. I was talking about him willing it like he wanted it to occur a certain way. I used the word the way you are using it.

Look at blackstraps post and my reply. He told me the very basics on some actions he took. he spoke of nothing about reasons, and he gave no indication as to what "his will" was. I responded and was able to determine his will without any of that. I didn't need to ask him "was is your will that that this happened" I didn't need to ask him anything. Provided he was 100% capable of sending food over, I was able to determine if the action was "according to his will." Action can speak on their own sometimes.

Tell me where i went wrong in my response to blackstrap. I may have gotten it wrong and I welcome correction on it.

[Calm]

This thread has enticed me to consider my own capability and culpability. I am capable of preventing the starvation of a child in Africa by sending the necessary resources. I don't . Is it my will that the child starve? Am I culpable in the slow death of that child? What reasoning do I use to reconcile my inaction?

I find this a very worthwhile thought experiment as it is close enough to open options of behaviour that it may have an effect beyond a clinical mental conclusion. Edited June 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Tell me where i went wrong in my response to blackstrap. I may have gotten it wrong and I welcome correction on it.

Two things are wrong.

In your reply to Blackstrap that you did not determine what his will was. You simply declared it to be so by fiat. In this mind game (thought experiment) you are a sort of omnipotent dictator -- able to declare knowledge that would not be available to ordinary mortals. When you jump from inaction to remote consequence, you are, in essence, doing this:

This is not just my opinion. You are making connections that have been demonstrated by psychologists to not exist in the human mind -- namely that there is equivalence between taking an action to cause something to happen and not taking an action thus allowing the natural course of events to occur. It has been shown that these two things are not equal to almost all human minds -- and I should point out, if they are not equal in the human mind, it is impossible to prove that they are objectively equal with regard to "will", intent or desire.

Yet that is the fundamental unspoken construct in your mind game. A construct that is in direct violation of what really happens inside people and thus cannot be legitimately ignored the way you have done. Your "Scientist" is a mindless binary machine. Not actually a person with any sort of will. It is a Tabula Rasa and you can impose upon this creature any "will" you want to imagine - post hoc.

This thought experiment is not merely fiction because the characters in it are fiction but also the rules by which they and this world operate and the way information in it is transferred have no connection to a world of real people. In fact it is exactly wrong in that way. While thought experiments can be good exercises for some things -- this one is very poorly designed if the intent is to draw some sort of systematic yet practical conclusion from it.

Edited June 13, 2012 by CASteinman

[CV75]

Can this phrase ever be said by Subject who is 100% capable of preventing said event, "it is against my will, but I will allow it."

It could be said that since each rat will probably react differently, each test is a different event. But I understand that the “scientist + rat + maze” set-up is consistent for each test (even though that seems to be more of a condition than an event, or that the test is a description of a type of potential event or series of events). But let’s say the test from beginning to end constitutes a single event.

If the “It” in "It is against my will, but I will allow it" is defined as the maze test from beginning to end and is not perceived to be one of any number in a series of events that can occur within the test, then Subject A, who sets up the test and who is 100% capable of preventing said test cannot rightly say "it is against my will, but I will allow it."

If the “It” in "It is against my will, but I will allow it" is defined as any one of a number of smaller events occurring within or comprising the test from beginning to end and is perceived to be one of a series of events, then Subject A, who sets up the test but not each smaller event within it and who is 100% capable of preventing any of these events can rightly say "it is against my will, but I will allow it."

We really don't know what Subject A would actually do, despite his capability. We can at best only determine what he and the rat actually did, once the event is over.

[bcuzbcuz]

This is a very good response, and a great thought experiment for those of us who like thought experiments and don't think they are "meaningless"

I have changed "culpability" to "according to your will" in the OP so I'll respond to that first. Culpability denotes blame, which I think its a separate issue, and much much harder to determine, if not impossible for us. But here I go to respond:

You found out about a child who is starving in Africa and will die if he doesn't get food.

You were capable of sending food over to the child in Africa and preventing that starvation to death.

You didn't send the food over. That child starved to death.

That child's death happened according to your will.

That doesn't mean you CAUSED the death. But you did ALLOW it to happen.

That doesn't mean you aren't saddened by the death. But you did ALLOW it to happen.

That doesn't mean you didn't have good reason to not send the food (maybe your family needed it).

But you did ALLOW the death to happen when you could have prevented it.

The death of that child happened according to your will.

If you say that the death was against your will, you would have to prove to me that you tried to save the child in some way but it didn't work (food got lost in the mail). You would basically have to prove to me that you were not 100% capable of saving that child.

This doesn't prove blame or culpability on your part. As I said, you may have had "good reason" to not send the food. But those reasons are irrelevant when trying to determine if the death happened according to your will.

A very good response and definitely "food" for thought.

[CASteinman]

A very good response and definitely "food" for thought.

Can you explain that? What "thought" arises out of this that has any value in a real, practical world? How and what does it contribute?

I believe this "thought experiment" is not particularly new and as far as I can tell previous versions have not resulted in anything that was helpful. What is different this time?

[CASteinman]

We really don't know what Subject A would actually do, despite his capability. We can at best only determine what he and the rat actually did, once the event is over.

Yes. And once we have seen the action and the result, we still do not know what the "will" was.

Human's sort of know this. Although we may be suspicious of other people, we also know that we cannot read their minds. That is why, when someone does something wrong or when they don't do something that they should have, even if what should have been done is obvious --- we will often ask "Why did you do that?".

We ask it because we are aware that we do not know necessarily know what the will and desire of a person is and if we want to get some insight into that, we like to examine their reasons and thereby infer their "will" on the matter.

Of course we could directly ask about their will, but in real-world human interactions we almost never ask "did you want that to happen?" (And even if we did, we would still want to know why! But that's a whole different issue).

[CV75]

Yes. And once we have seen the action and the result, we still do not know what the "will" was.

In this case, then, Subject A, who sets up the test and who is 100% capable of preventing said test must also be less than100% capable of setting up, initiating and conducting the test (not just preventing it) -- he could be enticed or coerced to set it up and conduct it -- before he can rightly say "it is against my will, but I will allow it" …and then prevent it or not according to his will.

[Nominee]

In this case, then, Subject A, who sets up the test and who is 100% capable of preventing said test must also be less than100% capable of setting up, initiating and conducting the test (not just preventing it) -- he could be enticed or coerced to set it up and conduct it -- before he can rightly say "it is against my will, but I will allow it" …and then prevent it or not according to his will.

OR the will of another human being is outside the box of human comprehension. Playing God doesn't make it so. Humans are simply not capable of deducing and judging the will of another.

edit to add: accurately

Edited June 13, 2012 by Nominee

[CASteinman]

In this case, then, Subject A, who sets up the test and who is 100% capable of preventing said test must also be less than100% capable of setting up, initiating and conducting the test (not just preventing it) -- he could be enticed or coerced to set it up and conduct it -- before he can rightly say "it is against my will, but I will allow it" …and then prevent it or not according to his will.

Maybe. Maybe not. How would we know?

[bcuzbcuz]

Can you explain that? What "thought" arises out of this that has any value in a real, practical world? How and what does it contribute?

I believe this "thought experiment" is not particularly new and as far as I can tell previous versions have not resulted in anything that was helpful. What is different this time?

I found Brian 2.0's response to the original thought experiment, by linking it to the idea of culpability in real life situations, as thought provoking. Now if I do nothing with this particular twist, if I just nod my head and think that starving children in Africa was a 'cute' thought and go back to doing nothing, then I agree, this thought experiment has no value.

My youngest daughter must, however, have these thoughts foremost in her head and therefore they are important to me. She works for the Swedish government's SIDA organization that governs aid to many countries throughout the world. She has just recently been handed the case work for the nation of Mali and is expected to travel there, assess and develop future aid programs. Mali, as you may know, is currently in the news because they have had a military coup and there are threats of civil war from insurgents in the north as fallout from the collapse of Gadaffi's strife in Libya.

So along with starvation, poor schooling , virtually no infrastructure, sicknesses, lack of medicine and hospitals, along with military unrest where murders occur on a daily basis, yes, I need to really think about my share of responsibilities to these children in Africa.

So this time, for me, it is different.

[CASteinman]

So along with starvation, poor schooling , virtually no infrastructure, sicknesses, lack of medicine and hospitals, along with military unrest where murders occur on a daily basis, yes, I need to really think about my share of responsibilities to these children in Africa.

So this time, for me, it is different.

In the time it took you to post this, probably 15 or 20 children died in Africa. You could have stopped at least one of them from dying. But you didn't.

Was this thread really helpful? Was thinking about it helpful? Is knowing about it helpful? Really?

[Nominee]

In the time it took you to post this, probably 15 or 20 children died in Africa. You could have stopped at least one of them from dying. But you didn't.

Was this thread really helpful? Was thinking about it helpful? Is knowing about it helpful? Really?

Yes. Although there is nothing I can do for the children who died one minute ago, knowing about their deaths and thinking about them is helpful because it can be the cause of change that takes place inside of me in this minute that will effect what happens in the next minute.

[CV75]

Maybe. Maybe not. How would we know?

That gets back to whether Subject A is honestly revealing his true capacility to set up, initiate, carry out, prevent as well as his will in the event or serieis of events. And then whether we know he knows...

[Nominee]

Capacility. I LIKE it! That's capacity and ability rolled into one. I'm going to use it.

[Brian 2.0]

In the time it took you to post this, probably 15 or 20 children died in Africa. You could have stopped at least one of them from dying. But you didn't.

Was this thread really helpful? Was thinking about it helpful? Is knowing about it helpful? Really?

Why are you trying to derail this by talking about the experiments "helpfulness"? While I do think there is usefulness as some people have commented, at least for setting up definitions we could use for other debates that you probably would terms useful... That was never part of this thread.

What type of pragmatic truth that could come out of this is off point

[Brian 2.0]

That gets back to whether Subject A is honestly revealing his true capacility to set up, initiate, carry out, prevent as well as his will in the event or serieis of events. And then whether we know he knows...

And I'm saying subject A is 100% capable. Thats the assumption. It just is. We know it. He knows it. It is.

CAStienmann seems to be arguing that assumption and claiming we can never do what we're trying to do.

I agree that if we can't know for sure that Subject is 100% capable then this whole thing is pointless. But we do know. It's our stated original assumption from the beginning.

[ERayR]

Why are you trying to derail this by talking about the experiments "helpfulness"? While I do think there is usefulness as some people have commented, at least for setting up definitions we could use for other debates that you probably would terms useful... That was never part of this thread.

What type of pragmatic truth that could come out of this is off point

What is part of this thread? Every time the discussion goes in a way you don't like you change the parameters. Is this thread the maze, you the scientist and the rest the rats?