Is free-will an illusion?

Quote:

this is paramount to understand that Realitty is only the ensemble, the order of all that it is present....no past no future...only existing !!!

Fess up, Fil. Ya done stole that line from Parmenides, dincha?

Thought about it when I was 14

Just exactly which POV are you pulling for?

It appears that you feel more intensely about this than I. You seem to have a preferred outcome to defend. I'm trying to approach it without such a bias.

From here on out, I'm just going to scan the thread from time to time to see if anyone brings some controlled, peer-reviewed experimental data

There are two broad focusses of many of the scientific disciplines. The focusses may be "basic" or "applied." Basic research may seek to identify principles that function relative to some phenomenon; applied research (at least in behavioral science) is geared to solving issues of importance for people by using the principles learned in basic research. My description here is drawing a greater distinction than may actually occur in basic and applied sciences, but I think is a fair contrast.

Quote:

the awareness of a thought always come after the thought, because awareness is a form of perception, always post factum.

in Libet's experiment, ... The announced intention ALWAYS preceded the action.

Again, subsequent experiments have shown that the so-called "readiness potential" measured by Libet does NOT indicate the time at which a decision is made. It is presumed to indicate that the brain is "paying attention" and prepared to perform on command.

So what is the behaviorist interpretation of complex verbal communication? Do you know how to explain such a complex communication behavior using behaviorist models?

Skinner has argued that his account of verbal behavior might have a strong evolutionary parallel. In Skinner's essay, Selection by Consequences he argued that operant conditioning was a part of a three-level process involving genetic evolution, cultural evolution and operant conditioning. All three processes, he argued, were examples of parallel processes of selection by consequences. David L. Hull, Rodney E. Langman and Sigrid S. Glenn have developed this parallel in detail. This topic continues to be a focus for behavior analysts. Behaviour analysists have been working on developing ideas based on Verbal Behaviour for fifty years, and despite this, experience difficulty explaining generative verbal behaviour. Note: However, research has shown generative outcomes through stimulus equivalence and tests for response generalization

Most importantly, however, the results of this research indicate that behavior analytic procedures can be combined to produce behavior that has often been considered beyond the scope of behavioral principles (Chomsky, 1959). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779919/

Like a scientific article, complete with phrases, graphs and mathematic formulas, can be seen as the result of a human behavior, right?

Behaviour analysists have been working on developing ideas based on Verbal Behaviour for fifty years, and despite this, experience difficulty explaining generative verbal behaviour... the results of this research indicate that behavior analytic procedures can be combined to produce behavior that has often been considered beyond the scope of behavioral principles (Chomsky, 1959).

And that's a very high standard, which behaviorism and hard-core materialism have failed to pass so far...

The source I cited did not say that (read again), and a criticism noted on a Wikipedia page is not a scholarly account of the contributions to the field. The National Academies of Sciences and the U.S. Surgeon General have issued position statements in support of the scientific accounts of behavior analysis based on the quality of the decades of research.

Regardless, discrepancies in science, or arguments about what the data say are not evidence in favor of nonphysical constructs. You have no evidence that people can transcend their bodies and the laws of nature; just your belief that it happens based on how you have been taught to think about the issue.

In real life, as in labs, complex instructions are given and correctly understood and followed all the time. .... This is SCIENTIFIC, replicable and reliable evidence that symbolic language can motivate ('cause') actions/behaviors. This fact needs to be accounted for, just as much as any experiment by Libet. (I'll come back to them)

Relevant findings include the pioneering study by Benjamin Libet and its subsequent redesigns; these studies were able to detect activity related to a decision to move, and the activity appears to begin briefly before people become conscious of it.[4] Other studies try to predict activity before overt action occurs.[5] Taken together, these various findings show that at least some actions - like moving a finger - are initiated unconsciously at first, and enter consciousness afterward. [6]

In many senses the field remains highly controversial and there is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. It has been suggested that consciousness mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious,[7] so its role in decision making is experimentally investigated. Some thinkers, like Daniel Dennett or Alfred Mele, say it is important to explain that "free will" means many different things; among these versions of free will some are dualistic, some not. But a variety of conceptions of "free will" that matter to people are compatible with the evidence from neuroscience.[8][9][10][11]