Rat Maze - Thought Experiment

[Nominee]

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

I agree with CASteinman, you can never do what you are trying to do. Your assumption is impossible because it cannot be comprehended; it cannot be comprehended because it is impossible.

[Brian 2.0]

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?

When I have gone back to change the parameters of the OP, it was because I realized through discussion that my terms were incorrect and I was not saying clearly what I wanted to say. And I thank those involved in the discussion for helping me in that. But from the beginning the point of my point was to try and get a conscenous the on the following point:

If Subject A is 100% capable to preventing Event A, there is no instance of Event A that is NOT in line with Subject A's Will?

I will admit that I tried to stop a side-discussion, which while not relevant to the point above, is interesting and I shouldn't have done that. I apologize. Talking about the usefulness of this experiment should be allowed. So in response to I'll say just a couple of reasons why I think it's usefull:

- I can look at my own life and try to examine how capable I was of preventing something bad from happening, and if I truly find that I was capable, not pass the buck and pretend like my hands were tied. Then I can look at my reasons, and perhaps my reasons are valid and I wouldn't have done anything different. But perhaps there was something more I could have done. Some little way I could have helped more. It is always valuable to understand how capable we are and how much of a difference we can make.

- One the flipside, when I get upset that something happened, and I saw someone that seemed perfectly capable of stopping it, but didn't, I can try to understand some reasons why either 1) they weren't 100% capable of doing it, or 2) understand that there may have been good reasons for them not stopping it. If I allow myself to think on that, i may stop myself from being upset at that person.

- When something bad happens in my life that I think God could have prevented, and I wonder if it is in "his will", I can think about if God was 100% capable of stopping it, and if so, what reasons he may have not stopped it. And then learn from it.

I find many things useful about having this discucssion.

[Brian 2.0]

I agree with CASteinman, you can never do what you are trying to do. Your assumption is impossible because it cannot be comprehended; it cannot be comprehended because it is impossible.

Really? It cannot be comprehended?

"Subject A has 100% capacity to prevent Event A from happening."

You may say that assumption is "impossible" for Subject A to exist in a real life scenario. But you can definitely comprehend it.

And since you can comprehend it, you should be able to answer the question by granting the assumption as possible.

You can say, "Yes, IF Subject A is 100% capable to preventing Event A, THEN there is no instance of Event A that is NOT in line with Subject A's Will. BUT, Subject A as an entity is impossible and could never exist in our real world."

I would agree with you that Subject A as an entity might be impossible as a mortal man, but I might push against you can say that Subject A could be a God, making the assumption a possible reality.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CV75]

If Subject A is 100% capable to preventing Event A, there is no instance of Event A that is NOT in line with Subject A's Will?

Laying the scientist-rat-maze experiment aside, I maintain that, if Subject A is 100% capable to preventing Event A, an instance of Event A occurring that is not in line with Subject A’s will is where Subject A is perfectly capable, but yet lacks the knowledge, awareness, skill, control and/or priority to prevent Event A.

The inherent potentiality of the state of being “capable” has to be removed from the equation in order to make Subject A’s prevention an absolute guarantee for alignment with his will. Subject A would have to have total control in delivering any outcome he willed.

So if the scientist has capability, knowledge, awareness, skill, priority and total control over the rat’s movements to prevent the rat from eating the red cheese, and the rat still eats the red cheese, this would indicate that the scientist wants the rat to eat the red cheese, unless there is another attribute I am overlooking.

[CASteinman]

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...

Or whether he has a will for anything to happen at all. Or if he constantly operates in opposition to his own will, like Dr. Strangelove's hand. Or... all kinds of things.

Edited June 13, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

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.

Taking care of children who are starving and dying of diseases has been a special desire of mine. Of all of the charitable things to engage in, this is foremost in my heart.

The problems with implementing this in my life are beyond the scope of this thread and probably, in any case, not an area I want to dwell upon.

Having said that, the fact that some children have died because I did not do something, does not make it my fault nor does it make it my will, nor does it make it my desire in any way shape or fashion.

[bcuzbcuz]

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?

And your point is?

I have no idea which or what kind of world you live in. You seem to be saying that thought experiments are a waste of time, in particular, that I have spent time thinking, and therefore wasting time, about the fate of others. Moreover, you have spent time pointing out that I could have saved someone instead of writing a post here. Point taken. Do you accept the same criticism back at you?

"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you." Deuteronomy 15:4

[CASteinman]

Why are you trying to derail this by talking about the experiments "helpfulness"?

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

You have taken the wrong person to task. Someone else brought up its helpfulness or usefulness. Not me.

Edited June 13, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

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.

It may have nothing to do with the Subject's capability. It may be entirely subject to our capability.

And the tighter you screw the subject down into a chair and force him into weird situations in a fictional scenario, the more our capability to know anything about his will declines, until it vanishes completely.

Edited June 13, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

If Subject A is 100% capable to preventing Event A, there is no instance of Event A that is NOT in line with Subject A's Will?

Yes. In any instance where events transpire that are not in accordance with Subject A's will.

[CV75]

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

FORTUOSITY

From the film "The Happiest Millionaire" (1967)

(Richard M. Sherman / Robert B. Sherman)

Well now, ain't this an elegant neighborhood

All the residents dressed so fine

One day off the boat am I

With a job that's nearly mine

'Tis a job with an elegant millionaire

And his elegant family

Today I move from immigrant to high society

Now you may call that luck

And you may call it fortune,

But me, meself, I call it.....

Fortuosity, that's me byword

Fortuosity, me twinkle in the eye word

Sometimes castles fall to the ground

But that's where four leaf clovers are found

Fortuosity, lucky chances

Fortuitious little happy happen-stances

I don't worry 'cause everywhere I see

That every bit of life is lit by Fortuosity

Fortuosity, that's me own word

Fortuosity, me never feel alone word

`Round the corner, under a tree

Good fortune's waitin', just wait and see

Fortuosity, lucky chances

Fortuitious little happy happen-stances

I keep smilin', 'cause my philosophy

Is do your best and leave the rest to Fortuosity

I keep smilin', 'cause my philosophy

Is do your best and leave the rest to Fortuosity!

[CASteinman]

And your point is?

That this thread is not helpful in the way described. Jesus explained, "You always have the poor". Well, you also always have the sick and dying. Always. The real world gets pretty far in the way of this imaginary scenario and the scenario of a Binary machine-like subject who places rats in mazes to die or live is unrelated to real suffering in this world, which I have seen close up and personally and is not a mind game or a thought experiment.

You seem to be saying that thought experiments are a waste of time

I actually said something sort of opposite of that.

Do you accept the same criticism back at you?

No, I do not. But should this really be about me and my guilt? Seems off topic.

[CASteinman]

In abstraction, the fundamental problem is this: It is assumed that we -- observing whatever happens -- can know the will of the Scientist by watching what the outcome is.

We can't.

Some might argue we can infer it. I would argue that the only way we can make that inference is if we and the Scientist share the very similar psychological, mental and moral attributes. At which we can say, "if I were in the Scientists' place, and that happened, it would only have happened because I willed it to -- therefore, that must be true for the Scientist."

That is an inference though and we still do not actually know what the will of the Scientist is.

[Brian 2.0]

Laying the scientist-rat-maze experiment aside, I maintain that, if Subject A is 100% capable to preventing Event A, an instance of Event A occurring that is not in line with Subject A’s will is where Subject A is perfectly capable, but yet lacks the knowledge, awareness, skill, control and/or priority to prevent Event A.

I would agree with that. I have assumed 100% capable includes "knowledge, awareness, skill, control and/or priority to prevent Event A."

In terms of "priority" he could have self imposed priorities that are his reasons for not preventing the action, but those would have to be self-imposed. If there were priorities that he had no control over changing then in my estimation is would not have 100% capable.

So if the scientist has capability, knowledge, awareness, skill, priority and total control over the rat’s movements to prevent the rat from eating the red cheese, and the rat still eats the red cheese, this would indicate that the scientist wants the rat to eat the red cheese, unless there is another attribute I am overlooking.

You use of the word "want" is interesting. I'm trying to figure out if "want" is equivalent to "according to his will" In the blackstrap example, i concluded that he the starvation happened 'according to his will' but I'm not so sure I would equate the blackstrap "wanted" the starvation to happen. I think he didn't want it to happen, yet still choose not to prevent it, making it according to his will.

[CASteinman]

Seems to me, that if we were to watch the Scientist and see if he provided evidence of remorse or satisfaction at the end of each trial that we would have a clue as to what his will was. Maybe.

[Brian 2.0]

Having said that, the fact that some children have died because I did not do something, does not make it my fault nor does it make it my will, nor does it make it my desire in any way shape or fashion.

I agree with you 100%. And you're a good man (or woman, I don't know you) for having that in the forefront of your thoughts.

[CV75]

I would agree with that. I have assumed 100% capable includes "knowledge, awareness, skill, control and/or priority to prevent Event A."

Then I would rephrase the statement to say, “If Subject A is always 100% in complete and willful control of himself and of Event A occurring or not, there is no instance of Event A that is not in line with Subject A's will.”

[CV75]

(but this misses the condition where Subject A does not operate in a vacuum)

[CV75]

(and without interacting with the will of others)

[Brian 2.0]

In abstraction, the fundamental problem is this: It is assumed that we -- observing whatever happens -- can know the will of the Scientist by watching what the outcome is.

We can't.

We may never see this the same way, so we might just have to agree to disagree.

I am saying we CAN, IF and ONLY IF, we KNOW the scientist is 100% capable in all ways of preventing the event.

Seems to me, that if we were to watch the Scientist and see if he provided evidence of remorse or satisfaction at the end of each trial that we would have a clue as to what his will was. Maybe.

I think there is a difference with someones "wants, desires, hopes" and whats "according to your will" Sometimes it's a matter of applying them correctly.

The child and the hot stove comes up a lot so I'll use that.

My child is about to touch the hot stove

I have 100% capacity in stopping him. I'm standing right there.

I choose not to. (because in the end, i want him to learn and grow and this pain will help)

My child burns his hand.

Was it my "want, desire, or hope" that my child burn his hand? No. I would rather he learned it a better way. I would rather he just listened to me the first time I told him. I'm sad that he is now crying and I cry with him.

Did my child's hand touching the stove happen according to my will? I say yes.

ADDED: And I feel that I could have determine that last sentence WITHOUT the phrase "because in the end I want him..." That's a reason and isn't necessarily to determine if it was according to my will

Edited June 13, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CV75]

So then I would rephrase the statement to say, “If Subject A is always 100% in complete and willful control of himself and of Event A occurring or not, and no other Subject can interact with Subject A in any way, there is no instance of Event A that is not in line with Subject A's will.”

[CV75]

Did my child's hand touching the stove happen according to my will? I say yes.

And ths we demonstrate the subjectivity of all experience of all kinds.

[ERayR]

When I have gone back to change the parameters of the OP, it was because I realized through discussion that my terms were incorrect and I was not saying clearly what I wanted to say. And I thank those involved in the discussion for helping me in that. But from the beginning the point of my point was to try and get a conscenous the on the following point:

If Subject A is 100% capable to preventing Event A, there is no instance of Event A that is NOT in line with Subject A's Will?

I will admit that I tried to stop a side-discussion, which while not relevant to the point above, is interesting and I shouldn't have done that. I apologize. Talking about the usefulness of this experiment should be allowed. So in response to I'll say just a couple of reasons why I think it's usefull:

- I can look at my own life and try to examine how capable I was of preventing something bad from happening, and if I truly find that I was capable, not pass the buck and pretend like my hands were tied. Then I can look at my reasons, and perhaps my reasons are valid and I wouldn't have done anything different. But perhaps there was something more I could have done. Some little way I could have helped more. It is always valuable to understand how capable we are and how much of a difference we can make.

- One the flipside, when I get upset that something happened, and I saw someone that seemed perfectly capable of stopping it, but didn't, I can try to understand some reasons why either 1) they weren't 100% capable of doing it, or 2) understand that there may have been good reasons for them not stopping it. If I allow myself to think on that, i may stop myself from being upset at that person.

- When something bad happens in my life that I think God could have prevented, and I wonder if it is in "his will", I can think about if God was 100% capable of stopping it, and if so, what reasons he may have not stopped it. And then learn from it.

I find many things useful about having this discucssion.

IMNSHO the process is to decide for each event whether I can control any part of it thus affecting the outcome or if I can't. If I can, do it. If I can't then there is no reason to fret over that which was beyond my control. Then when it is over it is done. No sense in creating health problems over something that is done and can't be changed.

Edited June 13, 2012 by ERayR

[Brian 2.0]

So then I would rephrase the statement to say, “If Subject A is always 100% in complete and willful control of himself and of Event A occurring or not, and no other Subject can interact with Subject A in any way, there is no instance of Event A that is not in line with Subject A's will.”

I would add the following caveat... bold: my addition

IF Subject A is always 100% in complete and willful control of himself and of Event A occurring or not, and no other Subject can interact with Subject A in any way that would diminish that control to less than 100%, THEN there is no instance of Event A that is not in line with Subject A's will.”

[Brian 2.0]

And ths we demonstrate the subjectivity of all experience of all kinds.

I'm not saying that subjectively, I'm saying it definitively IF I was in 100% control. Would you not agree with this statement, which uses your statement and simply exhanges the subjects.

If FATHER is 100% in complete and willful control of himself and of CHILD BURNING HIS HAND occurring or not, and no other Subject can interact with FATHER in any way, THEN there is no instance of CHILD BURNING HIS HAND that is not in line with FATHER's will.”