Is free-will an illusion?

@FBM,

You have a future as a defense attorney

1 Reply

@neologist,

I doubt judges would like me very much.

1 Reply

@FBM,

That settles it.
You're retained!

1 Reply

@neologist,

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

That's a religious view of man as different from animals. Nothing scientific in that. My point remains: the sense of agency is not an illusion because such an illusion would be useless in a Darwinian sense.similarly we have an instinctual sense of a 3D euclidian space, not because space is an illusion but because space exists and it's usefull for us to model it in our mind.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Of course the brain is useful. Try and cut it off and see what happens. But my point is about our sense of agency. That's useful too, because it's real.

0 Replies

There is a crude notion of causality, employed by some implicitly or explicitly, which is based on the following reasoning:

If x hadn't occurred, then y wouldn't have occurred. Therefore x "caused" y. Upon analysis, this notion creates virtually an infinite number of "causes" for the very same event.

Suppose a drunk driver, going 100 mph in a school zone, plows into six kids on a schoolyard sidewalk after losing control of his car, killing them all. Now the question is: What "caused" the death of those kids?

None of them would have died if they had simply played hookey that day, so under this notion of causality, "not playing hookey" caused their death. It's easy to see that, using that criterion, there are billions of "causes" of their deaths.

Suppose one of those kids "decided" not to play hookey because his dad had beat the hell of out him for skipping school the day before. Now, the dad beating his kid "caused" his death, and so on, ad infinitum.

This notion of "cause" is worthless, but it seems to the one ultimately favored by many who argue that all subjective thoughts and decisions are effectively pre-determined, and hence not free.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Does a mother have "no choice" but to make playful noises, etc? Is that a predetermined necessity, determined by "fate" billions of years ago?

The interpretation is different. The baby provides reinforcing consequences that select playful noises. The mother provides reinforcing consequences that select cooing. No coercion here. The mother, who has already acquired self-observation skills can add design to her interactions. She can compose her interactions, but does not originate the principles of the interactions (I.e., she did not determine which responses of the baby would be reinforcing for her; she did not determine which responses of hers would be reinforcing to her baby; just as she did not determine any of her baby's features; those were all passed down through preceding events)

Quote:

Is that a predetermined necessity, determined by "fate" billions of years ago?

These are interesting philosophical thought experiments, but I do not know how to resolve these types of questions and haven't seen a different outcome other than perpetual arguments; I think due to these thoughts not moving beyond the level of hypothesis (but I have no expertise in this area and only consider it as a hobbyist).

Quote:

If you argue against free will, you implicitly include yourself.

No, I EXplicitly include myself. I think I do what I do (write what I write) because of my genetic, cultural, and behavioral history, in addition to the present moment. I cannot account from where all the bits come, but I can respond to the bits and modify them to my liking. And I feel free when I do so.

Quote:

One mother makes playful noises, another beats the living crap out her baby for crying too much and disturbing her. No choice there?

I made precisely this point with a very similar example (shaken baby syndrome) earlier. If you only view determinism as a gun to your head or the result of destiny then we will never be talking about the same thing.

Quote:

A stilted reading of a cue card by some performer does not convince me that there is anything substantial in the words he says.

I think you bring up a good example. Why do cue cards remain off screen when we watch TV. It is likely due to the reduced credit we attribute to the reader when we can explain that the reader's speaking is under the control of something we can readily explain; I.e., the text on the card.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

An organism's behavior being determined really isn't an issue for philosophy to solve. The endless one-upmanship of philosophical gotchas is not the way to answer these questions. Either behavior comes under the control of the environment or it does not. I maintain that it does, not because it is an hypothesis, but because of the decades of empirical research with these types of demonstrations.

For the individuals who gamble excessively, the consequences of gambling behavior (the small and large payouts) is what explains why the person gets "hooked" on gambling. Attributing it to feelings or willpower, or any other hypothetical construct is not an answer, and it is not something that has ever been demonstrated. It also does not lead to solutions to problems. But by getting stuck on specific examples and saying, aha, that example may apply to someone else, but it doesn't apply to me, so the whole idea is meaningless misses the entire point of the principles that inform the examples. It also does nothing to explain what is happening with the individuals for which the example does apply; which conveniently gets ignored in each of these conversational exchanges.

3 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Either behavior comes under the control of the environment or it does not. I maintain that it does, not because it is an hypothesis, but because of the decades of empirical research with these types of demonstrations.

The strict behavioralistic theory (Skinner) of explaining all human behavior by means of stimulus and response, positive and negative reinforcement, has indeed been posited as a hypothesis and studied for decades. But with what conclusions?

Quote:

"Behavior therapy (based on operant principles) has proven effective in treating phobias and addictions; operant shaping is widely and effectively used in animal training; and behaviorist instructional methods have proven effective...

Skinner's attempt to extend the approach to the explanation of high-grade human behavior failed, making Noam Chomsky's dismissive (1959) review of Skinner's book, Verbal Behavior, something of a watershed. On Chomsky's diagnosis, not only had Skinner's attempt at explaining verbal behavior failed, it had to fail given the insufficiency of the explanatory devices Skinner allowed....

"[p]sychology is ... deprived of its theoretical terms" meaning "psychologists can provide methodologically reputable accounts only of such aspects of behavior as are the effects of environmental variables"; but "the spontaneity and freedom from local environmental control that behavior often exhibits" makes "this sort of methodology intolerably restrictive" (Fodor 1975

By 1985 Zuriff would write, "the received wisdom of today is that behaviorism has been refuted, its methods have failed, and it has little to offer modern psychology" (Zuriff 1985: 278)."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/behavior/

That same entry goes on the conclude that the frequent claim that "Cognitive Science killed behaviorism" may be overstated and that behaviorism, remains important, as a methodology, to "scientific" study of behavior.

But the point is that behavioristic philosophical approaches to human behavior are strictly hypothetical and far from "proven." It seems that very few researchers of human behavior are adherents to the radical behavioralism of Skinner, with it's outright denial of free will. Your post seems to suggest otherwise.

2 Replies

@layman,

Even present-day coverage is terribly inaccurate. The well-known Stanford professor, Robert Sapolsky, butchers the historical accounts of behaviorism a la Skinner
https://youtu.be/W9Tq_ijscWQ And who in the general public is going to spend the time researching the accuracy of statements like this? Very few.

Quote:

Skinner's attempt to extend the approach to the explanation of high-grade human behavior failed, making Noam Chomsky's dismissive (1959) review of Skinner's book, Verbal Behavior, something of a watershed.

Besides your selection being historically inaccurate (not your fault), why do you think you left out the preceding quote?

Quote:

Even the most strident critics of radical behaviorism, I believe, must accord it some recognition in these connections. Behavior therapy (based on operant principles) has proven effective in treating phobias and addictions; operant shaping is widely and effectively used in animal training; and behaviorist instructional methods have proven effective -- though they may have become less fashionable -- in the field of education. Skinnerian Behaviorism can further boast of significantly advancing our understanding of stimulus generalization and other important learning-and-perception related phenomena and effects.

Cherry-picking quotes to frame your argument may convince people without expertise in this area, but I promise that I have more than just a passing interest in this discipline and can spot cherry-picking a mile away.

And there are many examples of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. This article addresses one example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686987/

Quote:

But the point is that behavioristic philosophical approaches to human behavior are strictly hypothetical and far from "proven."

There are decades of peer-reviewed research that demonstrate the principles solving applied problems. You can view any of them here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/309/

Quote:

It seems that very few researchers of human behavior are adherents to the radical behavioralism of Skinner, with it's outright denial of free will.

Well of course. You could pretty much say that about any discipline relative to all the others that exist in the area of human studies.

Quote:

Your post seems to suggest otherwise.

If you attempt to compare and contrast my position with the inaccurate or misrepresented information you found on the internet, then I can understand why you would draw that conclusion. It used to be difficult to find explanations of this work as stated from the horses mouth. It's difficult no longer. One can find many lectures and invited discussions that B F Skinner gave, available right on youtube.

The account of determinism from the biological sciences does not always sound like that of the physical sciences.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

You ask:

Quote:

Besides your selection being historically inaccurate (not your fault), why do you think you left out the preceding quote?

Then you quote this from the same article

Quote:

Even the most strident critics of radical behaviorism, I believe, must accord it some recognition in these connections. Behavior therapy (based on operant principles) has proven effective in treating phobias and addictions; operant shaping is widely and effectively used in animal training; and behaviorist instructional methods have proven effective -- though they may have become less fashionable -- in the field of education. Skinnerian Behaviorism can further boast of significantly advancing our understanding of stimulus generalization and other important learning-and-perception related phenomena and effects

.

What YOU overlook is the fact that I quoted much of that same passage myself, to wit, this part: " Behavior therapy (based on operant principles) has proven effective in treating phobias and addictions; operant shaping is widely and effectively used in animal training; and behaviorist instructional methods have proven effective..."

The contrast was then made to what happened when Skinner attempted to apply this same rudimentary methodology to "higher" levels of human behavior.

Quote:

Cherry-picking quotes to frame your argument may convince people without expertise in this area, but I promise that I have more than just a passing interest in this discipline and can spot cherry-picking a mile away.

Really? Who's doing the cherry-picking now?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Really? Who's doing the cherry-picking now?

That would be you. You are the one attempting to shift the argument from research that demonstrates behavior as a function of the environment and reduce the argument to a few sentences found on a web page. I provided you a link to the source research and asked why you left out the preceding few sentences that were at least more favorable Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

You are the one attempting to shift the argument from research that demonstrates behavior as a function of the environment..

Ya think? Are you talking about "demonstrations" that relate to "some" behavior, or ALL behavior?

Are you talking about the environment as being "one" function , or as being THE ONE AND ONLY factor (function)?

Or do you even make such distinctions?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

An organism's behavior being determined really isn't an issue for philosophy to solve. The endless one-upmanship of philosophical gotchas is not the way to answer these questions. Either behavior comes under the control of the environment or it does not. I maintain that it does, not because it is an hypothesis, but because of the decades of empirical research with these types of demonstrations.

Reading your posts, Brian, leads me to view your thinking as primarily materialistic, mechanistic, reductionistic, deterministic, etc. You come across as one who might appropriately be described as a devotee of "scientism."

Many of this mindset sincerely believe that there is no "philosophy" whatsoever involved in their thinking and that there are no "hypotheses" upon which their conclusions are based (they only deal with "demonstrated" matters of empirically verified "fact" as they see it).

On the other hand, many disagree with this self-assessment.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Are you talking about the environment as being "one" function , or as being THE ONE AND ONLY factor (function)?

Sat 17 Oct, 2015 06:15 am

0 Replies

I recall reading about an experiment that was done some decades back:

A young child (perhaps 9 months old or so) had a teddy bear placed next to him every time he was eating. After several weeks of this, the kid smiled whenever he saw the teddy bear, and wanted to hold and cuddle it.

Then these "truth-seeking" researchers switched things up a little on the kid. No longer was he shown the teddy bear while he was eating. Instead, the teddy bear would make brief, sudden appearances which were accompanied by loud booming noises which upset the baby. After a few weeks of this, the kid would cry and try to push the teddy bear away when he saw it.

What does this experiment tell you about this kid and "human free will," if anything?

What does it tell you about the researchers?

1 Reply

In order for a thought or decision to be an act of free will, it must by definition be a consciously chosen, uncaused cause.

This would require that conscious thoughts and choices precede and direct subconscious brain activity. (The neurological processes that control muscle movement, for example, are subconscious.)

I don't know of any mechanism for this except for the old Cartesian "ghost in the machine." (Ryle's phrase, not Descartes'.) Perhaps this is why free will is so much more important to theists than others. They need us to have a culpable spirit that can be punished or rewarded.

3 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

In order for a thought or decision to be an act of free will, it must by definition be a consciously chosen, uncaused cause.

This would require that conscious thoughts and choices precede and direct subconscious brain activity. (The neurological processes that control muscle movement, for example, are subconscious.)

I don't know of any mechanism for this except for the old Cartesian "ghost in the machine."

=====

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYJdekjiAog

I just accidentally came across that video and haven't listened to it all. I don't expect you to either, FBM. But it is a presentation by an apparently prestigious MD who says that "outside of God or Nature (take your pick) it could be argued that the human imagination is the most powerful force on earth."

He appears to adhere to a belief in "mind/body" medicine were the mind "uses" the brain to heal mental maladies.

How would it be possible for the "mind" to "use" the brain. The brain is a completely independent organ which "uses" the body, if there is any "using" going on, right?

Any talk of "imagination" is just an appeal to some voodoo involving a "ghost in the machine," right?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

(The neurological processes that control muscle movement, for example, are subconscious.)

Doesn't sound right to me. Reaching over to grab my bottle of beer and guzzle some more involves "muscle movement," doesn't it? It all that "subconscious," ya figure?

0 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know