CASteinman Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 If the Scientist is in perfect control of both himself and the Rat then whatever the Rat does is the will of the Scientist, since the Rat is basically an extension of the Scientist.
Brian 2.0 Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) I think your wording has confused me somewhat. Is the "Subject A" referred to the rat? If this is the case, it seems that we are assuming the rat knows what event A is prior to event A occuring.No. Subject A is the Scientist. I know there was a lot of pages on this before you came on, and the original though experiment (I think) put people on a wrong course because the existence of a rat in a maze has make people focus on the rat. But the rat isn't the subject. It's the scientist. All my questions in the OP revolve around the scientist. Rational thought of the rat, etc. are irrelevant to the thought experiment. Edited June 14, 2012 by Brian 2.0
Brian 2.0 Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) You're saying that Subject A is a product of environment and his will can be determined accordingly. What about genetic make-up? Does genetic make-up (which has to do with matters of the heart in correlation to genes) in any way diminish that control to less than 100%?edit to add: um, Subject A is the scientist, right?yes. Subject is the scientist. But you are trying to break the assumption again, Nominee. The assumption is that the Subject A is 100% in control, period. Granting that assumption, does the "THEN" make sense to you and do you agree with it? Edited June 14, 2012 by Brian 2.0
Brian 2.0 Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 If the Scientist is in perfect control of both himself and the Rat then whatever the Rat does is the will of the Scientist, since the Rat is basically an extension of the Scientist.The Scientist is NOT in perfect control of the Rat in all respects. The only thing he is in total perfect control of is the event of Rat eating the red cheese, because the scientist could have prevented it.
CASteinman Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 The Scientist is NOT in perfect control of the Rat in all respects. The only thing he is in total perfect control of is the event of Rat eating the red cheese, because the scientist could have prevented it.Then we cannot know the will of the Scientist without additional information.In any case, how does this advance your interest in suffering?
Maestrophil Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 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??If you were able to attribute more intelligence to the rats, and more care to the scientist... possibly. Our knowledge is rat-like compared to God likely. and His greater than any scientist. Plus the "rats" are not the scientist's children.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 If you were able to attribute more intelligence to the rats, and more care to the scientist... possibly. Our knowledge is rat-like compared to God likely. and His greater than any scientist. Plus the "rats" are not the scientist's children.I will only buy that if choices are a function of intelligence. I 'may' think I'm making intelligent decisions but in afterthought intelligence has little to do with it.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 The Scientist is NOT in perfect control of the Rat in all respects. The only thing he is in total perfect control of is the event of Rat eating the red cheese, because the scientist could have prevented it.Can rats actually differentiate the colour red?
TomesD Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 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 ScientistYou have the RatScientists 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.Well, it seems to me that if the Scientist wanted to test the Rat's free will, he'd not do anything at all to direct the Rat after setting up the experiment. The question also arises as to whether other Rats can see and understand the consequences to the actions of preceeding rats...
Aliwe Posted June 25, 2012 Posted June 25, 2012 Can rats actually differentiate the colour red?No, that's a primate thing. We needed to look for the fruits we were eating.
Recommended Posts