Is free-will an illusion?

@layman,

Here you go. I could download the whole article if anyone is interested.

Brain preparation before a voluntary action: Evidence against unconscious movement initiation.
By Judy Trevena and Jeff Miller
Duned in School of Medicine, University of Otago, New Zealand
Consciousness and Cognition (Impact Factor: 2.31). 03/2010; 19(1):447-456. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2009.08.006
ABSTRACT

Benjamin Libet has argued that electrophysiological signs of cortical movement preparation are present before people report having made a conscious decision to move, and that these signs constitute evidence that voluntary movements are initiated unconsciously. This controversial conclusion depends critically on the assumption that the electrophysiological signs recorded by Libet, Gleason, Wright, and Pearl (1983) are associated only with preparation for movement. We tested that assumption by comparing the electrophysiological signs before a decision to move with signs present before a decision not to move. There was no evidence of stronger electrophysiological signs before a decision to move than before a decision not to move, so these signs clearly are not specific to movement preparation. We conclude that Libet’s results do not provide evidence that voluntary movements are initiated unconsciously.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222027645_Brain_preparation_before_a_voluntary_action_Evidence_against_unconscious_movement_initiation._Consciousness_and_Cognition_19_447-56

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

A meat robot can't do that.

Strawman argument. Why not address the position I presented?

We know that the human species has extremely little that is intinct-driven (e.g., suckling). We know that our bodies obey the laws of physics, but that behavior does not occur like an endless number of reflexes that only need to be discovered. We know that our anatomy and physiology provide the physical parameters of our mechanical actions. We know that our genetic endowment has been passed down through our ancestry. We know that that there are neurological and physiological changes that occur as a result of our interactions with the environment.

But what do you think happens to a person's behavior as the result of his experiences? What explains the increase in a given behavior when a favorable outcome follows? Why do these phenomena parallel what happens with non-human species who have no language, no developed self-observation repertoire, and therefore no rules to use to describe contingencies?

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

How is underlining your contradictions a strawman?

If you think human beings have no agency, why do you expect them to improve their fate based on any analysis? That would require agency.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Why do these phenomena parallel what happens with non-human species who have no language, no developed self-observation repertoire, and therefore no rules to use to describe contingencies?

Brian, you and I discussed this very same issue quite a ways back. While acknowledging that stimulus/response manipulation can be used successfully with animals, the claim is still made that such methodology cannot explain "high-grade" human activity.

Why try to overgeneralize? Swinging a hammer will drive a nail, but it will not knock down a mountain. There is no real mystery about "why" this is the case, is there?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

This controversial conclusion depends critically on the assumption...

Indeed, as I already said, all so-called "scientific" conclusions depend on assumptions. I can't see where FBM even begins to address or acknowledge this. He often seems to think the data "speaks for itself," and uncritically ratifies any "scientific" interpretation that happens to fit his agenda.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Brian, you and I discussed this very same issue quite a ways back. While acknowledging that stimulus/response manipulation can be used successfully with animals, the claim is still made that such methodology cannot explain "high-grade" human activity

Because you are absolutely wrong about this. I gave you a link to a freely available, peer-reviewed journal with 4 decades of APPLIED research (not basic research). And that's just from one such journal.

Smoking cessation, child rearing, piloting airplanes, reducing pedestrian accidents, improving education, improving mammographies (one of my favorites) and countless other areas are all "high-grade" human activities; you simply are unaware of the research and have erroneously drawn the conclusion that since you don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

3 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Because you are absolutely wrong about this. I gave you a link to a freely available, peer-reviewed journal with 4 decades of APPLIED research (not basic research). And that's just from one such journal.

Heh, Brian, this "response" is rather astonishing to me. You flatly declare that I'm "ABSOLUTELY" wrong without even beginning to say why. That's typical of many posters here, so that is not really what's astonishing.

What is astonishing is that you really seem to think that simply citing the mere existence of (without reference to any particular submission whatsoever) a scientific journal of one kind or another somehow substantiates your pronouncement.

Fraid not, homey.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

http://mammacare.com/mission/research/

This was developed from behavior analytic research. The behavioral work is published in medical journals in addition to behavioral ones. Look this up and tell me you don't want to get certified Wink

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

You and Ollie were specifically talking about linguistic activity. In 1959 Chomsky wrote a scathing, highly foot-noted critique of Skinner's analysis of the role of "behaviorism" in language formation and useage.

Since that time hundreds, or thousands, of comments pertaining to Chomsky's analysis, pro and con, have been published. The overwhelming consensus is that Chomsky was (is) right and Skinner wrong.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

http://mammacare.com/mission/research/

This was developed from behavior analytic research.

What!?

You cite a link to a medical journal which pertains to a bibliography relating to breast cancer and breast examination as "proof' of your claims?

You link doesn't say a single word about behaviorism, let alone "free will" that I can detect. The citation is a complete non sequitur.

If this is your idea of "evidence," then we obviously cannot go anywhere at all with this discussion.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

You and Ollie were specifically talking about linguistic activity. In 1959 Chomsky wrote a scathing, highly foot-noted critique of Skinner's analysis of the role of "behaviorism" in language formation and useage.

Since that time hundreds, or thousands, of comments pertaining to Chomsky's analysis, pro and con, have been published. The overwhelming consensus is that Chomsky was (is) right and Skinner wrong.

Oh boy

Wrong again. Chomsky wrote a review all right. It was so off the mark that it was as if he hadn't read the work he was critiquing. Chomsky is a structuralist. He developed a theory that is called transformational generative grammar. I would love to see something useful that has come out of the research on TGG. Skinner was not a structuralist. It was like an anatomist was telling a physiologist that he was studying the wrong stuff. What it really probably was about was that behaviorism was beating out linguistics in the area of linguistics. Time magazine and other publications throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's said as much. If you think you have found a "consensus" (as though there was some poll conducted), the results of which having any relevance to science aside, there is far from a consensus that Chomsky was right http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865339/posts?page=106; and the work of Skinner continues to this day to inform APPLIED research http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/609/

3 Replies

@layman,

You gotta keep up

Quote:

"high-grade" human activities

Look a little closer. Scroll slowly. Look at the names of the journals. The authors of some of those articles are behavior analysts. They are publishing behavioral work in medical and non-medical journals. The methods of the program were derived from behavioral principles.

Adams, C. K., Hall, D. C., Pennypacker, H. S., Goldstein, M. K., Hench, L. L., Madden, M. C., Stein, G. H., & Catania, A. C. (1976). Lump detection in simulated human breasts. Perception and Psychophysics, 20, 163-176.

Look up the authors to see what their backgrounds are and you will then see why I included this.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865339/posts?page=106; and the work of Skinner continues to this day to inform APPLIED research http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/609/

As always, your links say nothing about the topic we are discussing. As previously noted, the mere existence of a journal is totally irrelevant. Citing that is worthless.

Likewise, the fact that someone wants to disagree with Chomsky's overall theory about language says nothing about the validity of Skinner's theory, and nothing about Chomsky's particular critique of it.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

If you think you have found a "consensus" (as though there was some poll conducted), the results of which having any relevance to science aside, there is far from a consensus that Chomsky was right...

The following quote is from a contemporary blog entry which includes references to some "milestone" books, pro and con, written about the topic:

Quote:

Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior is considered to be a classic in 20th century thought, and was a turning point in the shift from behaviorism to cognitivism in psychology and related disciplines.

http://www.thesapiensblog.com/2012/11/01/chomsky-versus-skinner-on-verbal-behavior/

Is there some minority that stills clings to the hope of resurrecting Skinner? Yes, but they are a small minority, by all accounts. This blogger's last reference includes a reference to a recent paper summarizing the "debate," about which he says:

Quote:

The authors aim to finally validate the Chomskyan side of the debate over 50 years later by giving the behaviorists their due, while clearly presenting all of the evidence that has been accumulated over the past few decades that falsifies many of their ideas. They argue that higher mental processes simply exhibit certain degrees of automaticity that at once, break these processes away from the control of simple stimulus and response, and yet, still keep mental processes in the overarching realm of deterministic science.

1 Reply

@layman,

If you want to make baseless statements, that's fine, but don't expect me to put in effort to put together a lit review. In the context of a hobbyist forum it is a complete waste of my time. You can click on any journal article at the links I provided, pick any one you like, and tell me what is wrong with the methodology or conclusions and I will be happy to discuss that with you. If you wish to ignore how the culmination of the decades of work supports the theory of the evolutionary-like development of the behavior of organisms, go right ahead. I have put forward a theory that can account for why people do what they do, it does not include hypothetical constructs or homunculi; it includes physical accounts of one's biological, cultural, and personal histories.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The following quote is from a contemporary blog entry which includes references to some "milestone" books, pro and con, written about the topic:

Oh...you found it in a blog...then it must be correct. I am now convinced that there really isn't decades of peer-reviewed research that exists and which supports the theories outlined in the behavior of organisms and verbal behavior. I have now also completely forgotten about the review of Chomsky's review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1333660/

The internet is an endless source of STUFF.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

This lengthy wiki article, which I believe may have already been cited, is devoted exclusively to the book by Skinner ("Verbal Behavior") which Chomsky reviewed. The article, like you, refers to the existence of ongoing research by some pertaining to behaviorism's role in language, for example:

Quote:

Current research in verbal behavior is published in The Analysis of Verbal Behavior[52] (TAVB), and other Behavior Analytic journals such as The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA). Also research is presented at poster sessions and conferences, such as at regional Behavior Analysis conventions[53] or Association for Behavior Analysis (ABA)[54] conventions nationally or internationally. There is also a Verbal Behavior Special Interest Group (SIG)[55] of the Association for Behavior Analysis (ABA) which has a mailing list

Mere research in an area does not, I'm afraid, prove Skinner right or Chomsky wrong. Do you actually think otherwise?

The lengthy wiki article concludes as follows:

Quote:

Behaviour analysists have been working on developing ideas based on Verbal Behaviour for fifty years, and despite this, experience difficulty explaining generative verbal behaviour.

In support of this statement they cite, guess what? An article published in the journal "Analysis of Verbal Behavior."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior#Criticism_and_other_reactions

Go figure, eh?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Quote:

I have now also completely forgotten about the review of Chomsky's review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1333660/

Perhaps you're not aware that "consensus" does not mean "absolute unanimity without exception." According to the dictionary I'm looking at it merely means "majority of opinion--general agreement or concord; harmony."

0 Replies

@layman,

The problem for me, layman, is that it's not valuable to me to respond to a quote-mining job. It's not important if you find someone's assessment of Chomsky or someone's assessment of behaviorism. It also means little that someone without any expertise in a given field finds unflattering statements on the internet. It's like sitting around in your underwear, drinking a beer and eating Doritos, watching a show on String Theory, and then criticizing this area of physics on the basis of concerns expressed relative to accounts of multiple universes.

I gave an account regarding something other than behavior starting in a person to explain why free will could be considered an illusion. Look at the evidence. Explain why schedules of reinforcement, generalization, or adduction are not good accounts for behavior. Propose alternative evidence with a different account; something, anything, to actually critically review. I'm all for that and will be happy to discuss any of it, and not afraid to say when I don't know enough about a topic.

0 Replies

A Behavior Analytic Analogue of Learning to Use Synonyms, Syntax, and Parts of Speech
Philip N Chase, David W Ellenwood, and Gregory Madden

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779919/

According to the abstract, this paper is attempting to show that "behavior analytic procedures may be used to produce some generative aspects of verbal behavior related to simple syntax and semantics."

In the processes of doing so, it accurately notes that:

Quote:

For over fifty years, behavior analysts have worked to develop a thorough description of verbal behavior (e.g., Catania, 1998; Chase & Parrott, 1986; Hayes & Chase, 1991; Hayes & Hayes, 1992; Peterson, 1978; Salzinger & Feldman, 1973; Skinner, 1957; Wetherby, 1978; Winokor, 1976)....Despite this effort, behavior analytic explanations continue to encounter difficulty as they attempt to explain generative verbal behavior (Chomsky, 1959; Shahan & Chase, 2002).

The paper is quite lengthy and replete with technical jargon. I'm not going to try to discuss every aspect of it. Instead, I will ask this question: Did this author (or any other that you're aware of) even begin to claim, as you loudly do, Brian, that Chomsky was "COMPLETELY WRONG!!"?

Hardly. The final segment of the "conclusion" portion of the paper only modestly says that:

Quote:

...behavior analysis may eventually be able to comprehensively describe verbal behavior.

Then again, it may not, eh?

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know