A thought experiment
by DeuceBill is a mad scientist who has invented a remote control device that allows him to take complete control of another person's body. All he has to do is point it at someone, and instantly he can control them with his mind. You are a philosophy student. One day, you are in class about to take a test. It is a logic test - you know, the kind with questions of the following sort:
If all wuzzles are buzzles, and some fuzzles are wuzzles, which of the following must be true?
A) All buzzles are fuzzles
B) Some fuzzles are buzzles
C) All fuzzles are buzzles
D) A and B above
E) None of the above
…and so forth. As you are about to take the test, Bill, who is outside the classroom, cracks open the door just slightly and points his zombie remote at you, and proceeds to control your body as he makes you take your test. He causes you to write down all the correct answers. Before handing the test in, he (using your body) double checks the answers to make sure they are correct. He then causes your body to hand the test in for an A+.
A few weeks later, you have another test in the class. Again Bill takes control of your body, only this time he causes you to write down all the wrong answers (don't ask me why; like I said, he's mad). He makes you go through the motions of checking the answers, but really he's just making sure they're all completely wrong. Then he make you hand in the test for an F.
Now, in which of the two instances are you being more rational?
July 26th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Neither. Or both.
Depends on what you mean by 'rational'. Your actions weren't rational on your part in either case, they were compelled. You chose and did nothing willfully.
However, if you were aware you weren't controlling your actions in both cases and thus reasoned "I have no control and can do nothing", then I suppose it could be said that you were 'being rational' in both cases.
Comment by todd — July 26, 2006 @ 10:09 am
July 26th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Good point here Todd. However, I was referring to your taking of the test (the first part of your answer addressed this).
Comment by Deuce — July 26, 2006 @ 10:15 am
July 26th, 2006 at 11:13 am
B!
Some fuzzles are buzzles.
Comment by Doug — July 26, 2006 @ 11:13 am
July 26th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Yes, Doug, you got the sample question right. Yay for you
Comment by Deuce — July 26, 2006 @ 11:21 am
July 26th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Reading between the lines, I guess this is an attack on determinism?
The test-taker…let's call him "Will"…seems to represent a person's free-will/soul. Bill represents the same person's body, which acts deterministically according to the laws of physics.
The remote control is the relationship between them. We don't know how well it works…maybe Bill can force Will to write down a particular answer, or maybe Will can ignore Bill and write down what he wants. A strict materialist would think that the remote always works (so Will is a mere puppet.) A strict dualist would think that the remote never works. (Bill can only make suggestions, which Will can always reject.)
So we can't talk about Will's rationality as an individual. We can only talk about the rationality of the system that contains Will and Bill. It seems like the system was acting rationally during the first test and irrationally during the second, but in order to make sure we'd need to talk to Will-Bill about its motives. If the Bill component is really crazy and the remote always works, then Will-Bill was irrational both times.
(It's possible to talk about the rationality of a deterministic system. Replace Bill with a computer program which has hard-coded "preferred states", and which is capable of self-modification through some kind of genetic algorithm. If it tends to move towards preferred states, then we can say it's acting rationally.)
Comment by chaosengineer — July 26, 2006 @ 11:26 am
July 26th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Sorry Deuce, I was just goofing around. You can delete this post and my 1st post if you'd like to.
But seriously, what do I win?
Comment by Doug — July 26, 2006 @ 11:27 am
July 26th, 2006 at 11:27 am
I'd say neither.
Comment by MikeGene — July 26, 2006 @ 11:27 am
July 26th, 2006 at 11:36 am
No, it's a thought experiment. It's not an attack on anything.
In this thought experiment it's the former. Also, in the thought experiment, it's you taking the test, not Will. In which instance are you more rational is the question.
Comment by Deuce — July 26, 2006 @ 11:36 am
July 26th, 2006 at 11:58 am
I think it's the philosophy prof who's irrational. I mean, really, wuzzles, buzzles and fuzzles?
Seriously, though, I think chaosengineer makes a decent point about viewing it as a system, even though it strains the analogy some. By that view, here's the important question: how does "Bill," who holds the remote control, decide what to tell you to do? Because if Bill is really in charge, it makes all the difference whether Bill is making decisions by rational means or some other principle.
Comment by TomG — July 26, 2006 @ 11:58 am
July 26th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Since Bill is an independent agent from you, and is not part of your nature, his taking control of your body eliminates you from the equation. Since your self-control has been superceded by an external agent, who is not part of your own nature (and is thus distinct from your own agency), you have no opportunity to be either rational or irrational in either case given above.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 26, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
In this thought experiment it's the former. Also, in the thought experiment, it's you taking the test, not Will. In which instance are you more rational is the question.
Sorry for the thread hijack; I really thought that the setup was an allegory and not meant be taken literally.
Here's my revised answer: I'm equally rational during both tests, but an outside observer might be justified in assuming that I was less rational when I took the second test.
Why do you ask? You don't have one of those remotes, do you? Can I borrow it? I promise I'll only use it in the pursuit of justice.
Comment by chaosengineer — July 26, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
chaosengineer:
I don't think you can really conclude that from the experiment as given, since it says nothing about whether or not you are capable of doing any thinking while Bill's remote is controlling you. Any rational or irrational response you might have internally is effectively isolated from the actions your body takes while under someone else's control.
Also, you can't assume that your actions in either case are necessarily irrational. You might, for example, be in school against your will, and might want to flunk out. An outside observer might not understand your reasons (or Bill's reasons, in the case) for wanting to get an F on that test, but it's not safe to assume that intentionally flunking a test is necessarily irrational.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 26, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I'd say in first instance. In first exam Bill is directing you to mark correct answers and it is coherent with your personal goal which aims to succeed in the exam. Bill's remote control is not conflicting with your consiousness because he is fullfilling your personal goal which in an A+. So you are watching yourself acting in a rational manner when you (actually Bill) is checking for correctness of your answers. Actually, in this case There is no need for Bill to control your body. For Bill, putting the correct answers in your mind will be enough. He can be sure that you'll do the rest by yourself.
In the second exam you are acting in a direction totally conflicting with your inner self. Your mind is totally suppressed by Bill's evil directives. You are totally ignoring yourself and your goal of joining the exam. You've totally lost your control and act in an %100 irrational manner.
(Note:I assume that you still possess some level of awareness even in zombie mode)
Comment by Farshad — July 26, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Hi, chaos:
To elaborate a bit, do you mean that you are completely non-rational in both cases, because you aren't in control of your own actions (the common answer here)? Or do have something in mind along the lines of your first answer, that we can't talk about you having rationality as an individual, but only the system that contains you and Bill?
Comment by Deuce — July 26, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Is this necessarily true? Mightn't it be the case that your own grasp of logic isn't as good as Bill's (He made a remote control for people, for crying out loud!) and that you wouldn't have aced the test without him? And even if you would have aced it, would you have done things exactly the same way as him? Let's assume for this thought experiment that the answer is no: you are either unconscious or a passive observer. Bill isn't trying to do exactly what you would do (and may not even know what you would do).
Perhaps, but for this thought experiment he isn't doing that.
Comment by Deuce — July 26, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Taking this into account, I'd say neither.
Comment by Farshad — July 26, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
It occurs to me that humans are rational by nature. Whether we reason 'correctly' or with logical rigor, we still reason. If mad Bill rendered me unable to think, then I'd no longer be rational!
Comment by todd — July 26, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
That's a good point, todd. The thought experiment asks us to evaluate the subject's rational thought (or lack thereof) without giving us any info about the state of the subject's thinking. From the information given, it's impossible to tell whether you're being rational or not. It's a trick question.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 26, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Good point, todd. It's something I'd like to get into, but I want to stay focused on the thought experiment here. Anyhow, I think you got at something important here:
In the thought experiment, whatever you may be thinking while being controlled, it's in no way related to what you actually end up doing.
Comment by Deuce — July 26, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
I left that out on purpose because I don't want to prejudge certain questions, such as whether Bill's control of you would thereby force you to think what he wants you to, would make you unconscious, or would leave you as an unwilling observer.
Comment by Deuce — July 26, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Deuce, that's a good point. I'd made the assumption that the remote was only controlling muscular movements…so I'd still be aware of what was happening and I'd know whether I was being forced to write down the wrong answers or not.
But it could be a universal remote that actually allows Bill to replace my personality with his. When he "checks the answers", he's not just moving my eyes back to the top of the page and then solving the problem himself, he's actually using my brain's hardware to solve the problem.
In that case, I'd have to say that I don't exist while Bill is using the remote.
I've got to question whether that sort of remote could even exist. The simple remote could just stimulate the right nerve endings to cause the body to move, but overwriting my personality would probably require the nerves to be completely taken rewired.
The puzzle could be solved pretty easily if I could just borrow the remote. I promise I'll only be looking at it. I won't even try to use it, unless of course I'm confronted with a terrible injustice that the remote could fix.
Comment by chaosengineer — July 26, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Deuce:
Seems to me you need to specify the problem a bit more: are you (meaning your soul as the informant of your body) conscious and aware throughout the whole ordeal? Or, are you "hybernating" somewhere unaware? Or, is your soul pushed out of existence during the experiment? Your problem resembles demon possession in the sense that the one possessed has their will subsumed under the possessing power. (Exorcist accounts on this are fascinating.)
In any event, given what you provide, it seems to me from the Thomistic perspective the thought experiment is imaginable… but not conceiveable, and therefore not a real possibility. Why? I can imagine such a situation occuring because the data you supply through your thought experiment permits me to paint a certain picture (image) in my mind of what is going on. But for a living being, the soul informs the body and the two are essentially inseparable. If they are separated (such as at death) you are no longer fully you but just your soul, whereas the "full" you is the hylomorphic soul-body substance. (Recall the importance Christianity (rightfully) places on the resurrection of the body, per the Credo, etc.)
If you are in a "possessed" state (which seems to be the case here"”reduced to a Zombie whose body is performing the will (based on the other's reason"”disordered reason I might add)), you're not acting rationally. In fact, you're probably not acting at all. That's why this thought experiment is not possible in reality: it's inconceiveable that you remain "you" when "possessed" or "under full bodily control" or whatever. (Moreover, no matter how "mad" or how much of a "scientist" he is, does not possess (as a human) the capacity to extend his will into others. If he does, he's no longer human and you ARE talking about real possession.) Your will is not being informed by your reason but by another person's. Again, it appears you are not acting rationally in either case, or (more likely) the "full" you is not acting at all.
Comment by SHolopupenko — July 26, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I would sure like to have the credit for being rational, if I simply could get to the remote control…but hey, If my mind and "free will" is a result of chance and necessity it really makes no difference!
Comment by Albert Voie — July 26, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Deuce,
The problem is that the final part of the thought experiment is about precisely that bit which you left out. The question was "in which of the two instances are you being more rational?" The thought experiment deliberately leaves out any information which would tell us whether you are being rational or not.
You could say that the actions provoked by Bill's remote are (or are not) rational actions, however even if they are rational actions, since Bill's in control, it's Bill that's being rational, not you. There's nothing in the thought experiment that tells us anything about whether or not you are being rational.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 26, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Of course, the question could be asked: what are "you" Does "you" mean the gross muscles of your body, the things that move your movable parts? Are "you" the thought processes that operate inside your brain? Are "you" the amalgam of both the body and the processes which control it? And which "you" is under the control of the remote?
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 26, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
I agree with this, but I couldn't be sure that nobody would answer that it's the actions themselves that are rational, rather than the rationality of the thought that causes them being what decides the rationality of the actions. I wanted to leave that line open in case somebody wanted to go that route. For those who didn't take that line (which appears to be everyone so far) I figured I'd leave it to you guys to fill in the necessary details and address the question of whether or not you're acting rationally instead.
Comment by Deuce — July 26, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Hi, chaos,
I wanted to get back to this, because your last post on the thought experiment enters some really interesting territory. I'll ask some questions, but these are more food-for-thought questions rather than actual ones, mainly to keep this as a thought experiment, and because this thread is old now and I don't want to take the sidebar comment space from the newer threads. I might try to come up with a new thought experiment sometime to think about this stuff some more.
Ah, but implications for the rationality of your actions would be the same either way, wouldn't they, since you're equally not in control both ways?
And that leads to the next question: If we replace Bill with a series of automatic or stochastic causes that determine your actions at any given moment, does that mean that you never exist, and are therefore never rational? What kinds of things might we need to invoke to avoid this conclusion?
Btw, those familiar with Philo of Mind terms may recognize these two scenarios as basically corresponding to the positions of epiphenomenalism (the self exists but has no effect) and eliminativism (the self doesn't exist) respectively.
Comment by Deuce — July 30, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
And what would be the name for the idea that you, as an individual, are not as distinct from the rest of the real world as you might think? If I step on your toe, am I hurting you, or am I hurting your toe?
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 30, 2006 @ 4:30 pm