DOOR 17

Imagine a room with 20 doors in it you go in and deliberate this way and that which door to walk through after an hour you walk through door 17 and walk up some stairs on the roof of the room . The room has a glass ceiling so you can look down on the room below . You see that behind every door (apart from 17) was just a brick wall and that door 17 was the only one with the staircase. Door 17 was the only choice you were ever going to make or could make , even though you deliberated over it and made an aware choice.I felt like you were choosing at the time but objectively you were programmed for door 17. Door 8 seemed like a real possibility at the time but scientifically it could never have been.

The worm however does not stay in the room at all and does not deliberate or reason or show self awareness . It simply wriggles up the stairs behind door 17 without even realising that all the other doors are blocked to it. Interestingly to an alien observer there would be little difference between the worm and you apart from the amount of time you spent in the room compared to the worm. Take away the subjective experience of awareness and decison making and you are left with similar determined actions. Both you and the worm will always choose door 17 , it just takes you a bit longer.

The fact that you feel that door 8 is a real possibility does not make it so. The fact that you feel you are choosing door 17 and not door 8 does not make it so as long as door 8 remains eternally blocked to you. Subjectively you feel more free than the worm and you are also more able to make better choices. You are a more efficient entity at choosing just as a cat is more efficient than a worm at choosing. But for you the cat and the worm the door 17 model always applies , it has to unless you move into a two door model (real free will).

Is this model determinist/compatabilist/ both /neither?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Imagine a room with 20 doors in it you go in and deliberate this way and that which door to walk through after an hour you walk through door 17 and walk up some stairs on the roof of the room . The room has a glass ceiling so you can look down on the room below . You see that behind every door (apart from 17) was just a brick wall and that door 17 was ...[text shortened]... a two door model (real free will).

Is this model determinist/compatabilist/ both /neither?

What does any of that have to do with compatibilism?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Imagine a room with 20 doors in it you go in and deliberate this way and that which door to walk through after an hour you walk through door 17 and walk up some stairs on the roof of the room . The room has a glass ceiling so you can look down on the room below . You see that behind every door (apart from 17) was just a brick wall and that door 17 was ...[text shortened]... a two door model (real free will).

Is this model determinist/compatabilist/ both /neither?

You do realise you are making the same non-point in all these interminable threads? One would have been enough (if not too many).

Originally posted by knightmeister
Imagine a room with 20 doors in it you go in and deliberate this way and that which door to walk through after an hour you walk through door 17 and walk up some stairs on the roof of the room . The room has a glass ceiling so you can look down on the room below . You see that behind every door (apart from 17) was just a brick wall and that door 17 was ...[text shortened]... a two door model (real free will).

Is this model determinist/compatabilist/ both /neither?

It was deterministic because if you had actually opened door 8, it would have led to the stairway and from above you would have seen 17 closed off with a wall.

Originally posted by bbarr
What does any of that have to do with compatibilism?

I'm surprised you asked. The fact that you did tells me something. I would have thought the door 17 model is the only logical model any compatabilist could adopt? Sure , you could shake it up a bit by introducing random factors to have more stairways , but you could do the same for the worm easily. How can compatabilism create more stairways for the man than the worm? To have more than one stairway would be to bring on your T4 problem would it not?

Originally posted by sonhouse
It was deterministic because if you had actually opened door 8, it would have led to the stairway and from above you would have seen 17 closed off with a wall.

In a way I agree with you but in another I don't. Does door 17 become blocked off because the man chooses door 8 , or is door 17 always blocked off? Surely true determinism would mean that only door 17 could have a stairway , even before the man walks in? In (hard) determinism there is no 'if' about it.

However , you might mean that my thread could easily have been called door 8 instead?

Originally posted by dottewell
You do realise you are making the same non-point in all these interminable threads? One would have been enough (if not too many).

It's only a non-point to you because you don't understand it's implications. Me thinks you protest too much.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's only a non-point to you because you don't understand it's implications. Me thinks you protest too much.

It's a non-point because all you keep saying is that if we accept that the universe operates entirely according to strictly deterministic laws, then those laws apply equally to human beings and worms (you seem to have a worm obsession). Only one outcome is possible in any event involving humans, or worms, or any other entity within that universe.

That is a trivial consequence of the assumption.

What you simply can't grasp is the idea that someone might say - yes, I accept that, but humans still have free will, since free will simply is the ability to make choices in accordance with complex reasons, beliefs and desires etc., without external hindrance (gun to the head or whatever). Thus understood, "free will" is not a concept that can be applied to worms.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm surprised you asked. The fact that you did tells me something. I would have thought the door 17 model is the only logical model any compatabilist could adopt? Sure , you could shake it up a bit by introducing random factors to have more stairways , but you could do the same for the worm easily. How can compatabilism create more stairways for the ma ...[text shortened]... han the worm? To have more than one stairway would be to bring on your T4 problem would it not?

Again, what does any of this have to do with compatibilism? If you have an actual argument against compatibilism that doesn't beg the question, then present it. Here, I'll get you started:

Premise 1:...................?

Originally posted by dottewell
It's a non-point because all you keep saying is that if we accept that the universe operates entirely according to strictly deterministic laws, then those laws apply equally to human beings and worms (you seem to have a worm obsession). Only one outcome is possible in any event involving humans, or worms, or any other entity within that universe.
...[text shortened]... ad or whatever). Thus understood, "free will" is not a concept that can be applied to worms.

My point is that the term "free will" seems quite inappropriate to use in this context since objectively our will can be no more "free" than the worms. I feel strongly that the phrase "free will" should be reserved for an actual belief in free will , namely the belief that we can and do make real choices between real and possibly alternatives. That we really are free to choose in the sense that we could have done otherwise via an act of will on our part.

This belief seems far more consistent to the term "free will" than compatabilism which logically , in real terms cannot offer a human any more freedom of will than a worm has.

Originally posted by bbarr
Again, what does any of this have to do with compatibilism? If you have an actual argument against compatibilism that doesn't beg the question, then present it. Here, I'll get you started:

Premise 1:...................?

Premise 1 - The door 17 model is a correct representation of human and animal behaviour under determinism.

Premise 2- In the door 17 model a worm may make different choices than a human but looked at from outside has no less freedom of will than a human. The human makes different selections and spends more time in the room but essentially only has one staircase that can he can ever climb.

Premise 3- It is therefore (according to premise 2) technically inaccurate to say that a human has more freedom of will than a worm. A human is different in many ways but in terms of being able to OBJECTIVELY select from various real and possible alternatives courses of action he does not have any more doors open to him than the worm.

Premise 4- If compatabilism is true then our experience of making selections between real and possible alternative course of action MUST be illusionary because door 8 can only ever be experienced subjectively as a real choice but logically and objectively it is always blocked.

Premise 5- Compatabilism presents a problem for those committed to living and behaving strictly according to scientific and objective beliefs. Who can really live according to the door 17 model? We HAVE to believe that we are really making choices and that our lives are not inevitable . Fatalism may not be an option for many compatabilists , so one needs to find a way of compromising and watering down determinism. But if one then commits to the illusion and lives as if there reallly are two staircases not one (even though logically it cannot be) how can one then say one is authentically committed to a logical and rational scientific way of living? How can one then criticise a theist for being committed to an "illusion" that God exists?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Door 17 was the only choice you were ever going to make or could make , even though you deliberated over it and made an aware choice.

As I quite clearly pointed out in the other thread this statement is false making the whole story a waste of time. You are falsely presenting an action as a choice.
The initial presentation is one of 20 doors and a deliberation. If you chose door 8 then what happens? Have you not chosen door 8? Is it impossible to choose door 8?

I felt like you were choosing at the time but objectively you were programmed for door 17. Door 8 seemed like a real possibility at the time but scientifically it could never have been.
Choosing door 8 was a real possibility even scientifically. Going through it was not.
If your story said that you tried every door till you found one with a staircase then there was no choice involved but simply a search algorithm and the action of going through the door (which you are falsely presenting as a choice) is a goto statement.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I quite clearly pointed out in the other thread this statement is false making the whole story a waste of time. You are falsely presenting an action as a choice.
The initial presentation is one of 20 doors and a deliberation. If you chose door 8 then what happens? Have you not chosen door 8? Is it impossible to choose door 8?

[b]I felt like you wer ...[text shortened]... on of going through the door (which you are falsely presenting as a choice) is a goto statement.

Choosing door 8 was a real possibility even scientifical--- whitey

How can you say that choosing door 8 and choosing door 17 are both real and possible alternatives that could BOTH happen by a deliberate choice? Surely determinism applies equally to thoughts , choices and deliberations as it does actions. Is your brain less subject to determinism than your legs?

You forget that the door 17 model could equally be applied to a deliberation. One could say that walking up the door 17 staircase is an analogy for making a mental choice , it doesn't have to be an action , it could equally be a thought.

BTW- Are you saying that we are free to make mental choices for door 8 or door 17 in the sense that if the situation was repeated exactly the man might choose door 8 instead or door 17 ? If so how do you explain this and why would one be able to choose door 8 but not be able to walk up the staircase?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I quite clearly pointed out in the other thread this statement is false making the whole story a waste of time. You are falsely presenting an action as a choice.
The initial presentation is one of 20 doors and a deliberation. If you chose door 8 then what happens? Have you not chosen door 8? Is it impossible to choose door 8?

[b]I felt like you wer ...[text shortened]... on of going through the door (which you are falsely presenting as a choice) is a goto statement.

If you chose door 8 then what happens? Have you not chosen door 8? Is it impossible to choose door 8? WHITEY

Me thinks you don't quite understand the analogy. You could say that if you chose door 8 then all the other doors would be blocked , but they would have been blocked before you entered the room. The point is that whatever choice you make you would always look back and see that it was inevitable . What's impossible is for there to be more than one staircase. You can only have two staircases with free will.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Premise 2- In the door 17 model a worm may make different choices than a human but looked at from outside has no less freedom of will than a human...

I'm sorry. I only got this far before biting my computer in frustration. This isn't the premise of an argument; it is you once again stipulating what "free will" must be.