Is free-will an illusion?

Conveniently ignored when I first posted it:

If this "increase in firing rate" IS the decision to move, then why would it continue to increase (1) after the decision has been made, (2) after he is consciously aware of the (already determined) decision, and (3) EVEN AFTER action has already been taken?

"reasoning" is nothing different from doing a complex calculation

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information...

it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad....

It is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.

It cannot fully explain what you and I are doing right now, for instance (conversation)

We have described our research findings in this summary rather than all of the literature on verbal behavior because that would be beyond the scope of a single article. Interested readers are encourage to review issues of The Analysis of Verbal Behavior for other research findings and theoretical analyses in verbal behavior...In closing, we acknowledge that there are many more conceptual research studies needed on Skinner’s theory. However, our specific goal was and continues to be pragmatic; that is, does
the theory provide potential solutions to instructional or treatment problems that we encounter with our students? That is, does it work? Our answer to date is that Skinner’s theory has allowed us to serve our students more effectively and to reorganize instruction and curricula into repertoires of function—it works!

It actually does a very good job at helping to explain what we are doing right now, and a better job than anything else I have found.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ848686.pdf

When children emit mands or other forms of verbal behavior naturally and without verbal questions or prompts from others, their speech is characterized as spontaneous. Theso-called “spontaneity” in speech seems to emerge from the child without any environmental sources (Pinker, 2000). Such spontaneity is often seen as missing in children with autism or other language delays....

Those that are seemingly spontaneous are under the control of variables that a structural analysis omits (i.e., pure mand and tact conditions).

Verbal behavior theory and research identified the relevant and often inconspicuous sources of spontaneity in speech as certain establishing operations and an audience that might deliver (Lodhi & Greer, 1989; Williams & Greer, 1993). Often speech that is characterized as “non-spontaneous” consists of verbal emissions that are emitted under certain prompted vocal verbal antecedents (e.g., say “thank you,” “what do you want?”) rather than the establishing operations without verbal antecedents

LAYMAN: "Without any environmental sources," eh? Where's the determinism here?

seemingly spontaneous

Somehow, people figured that out a long time ago without the aid of "science."

In the 45 years since its publication, the theory has been dismissed by Chomsky (1959) (apparently as a result of confusion –see Chomsky & Place;( 2000) and misunderstood by psychologists and linguists –including many behavior analysts (see MacCorquodale, 1970).

Skinner and other radical behaviorists were slow in responding to the critics (MacCorquodale, 1970). However, over the last two decades, a few behavior analysts have acted to explain the theory.

If you take a 4-year old, hook him up to 110 volts, and shock the **** out of him every time he says "milk," then chances are good that, after a spell, you won't here him saying "milk" anymore. At least not while he's hooked up to that machine

Anal Verbal Behav. 2009 Dec; 25(1): 87–98.

Although Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1957) was published over 50 years ago, behavior-analytic research on human language and cognition has been slow to develop. In recent years, a new behavioral approach to language known as relational frame theory (RFT) has generated considerable attention, research, and debate. The controversy surrounding RFT can be difficult to fully appreciate, partly because of the complexity of the theory itself and partly because the debate has spanned several years and several journals...

Whereas behavior analysts have grown accustomed to harsh criticism from those outside their discipline or worldview (e.g., Chomsky, 1959), it is less common for a behavioral theory to generate so much intense debate within the field itself. It is probably accurate to say that RFT has become one of the most , hotly contested topics in modern behavior analysis.

Much of the controversy surrounding RFT seems to stem from two primary sources. First, it is a treatment of human language that differs substantially from that offered by our field's founding father, B. F. Skinner (1957). Although RFT is an extension of Skinner's view of verbal behavior in some respects (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000), its proponents are also directly critical of key components of Skinner's analysis. Given Skinner's prominence and importance in the development of behavioral psychology, it is not surprising that a theory challenging his view on a topic, particularly one as important as verbal behavior, might be met with apprehension, suspicion, and even contempt.

What does this have to do with anything?

Still, ya gotta wonder why, if the theory is so articulate and compelling, even people who profess to practice don't really understand it, ya know?

[Behavior Analysis] is characterized by a degree of internal coherence unmatched by other subdisciplines. Its subject matter is carefully defined and generally agreed upon by researchers within the field. Its methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation are also agreed upon to an extent not found in other areas . . . Second, it is distinct from the contemporary mainstream of experimental psychology in that its historical influences have led to the development of a descriptive, observational, and integrative system of inductively derived principles, in contrast to the theory-driven, hypothetico-deductively derived, statistical principles of most branches of experimental psychology (Chiesa, 1994, p. 7).

Where's the consensus, I ask ya?

Its methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation are also agreed upon to an extent not found in other areas . . .

if the RFT analysis is accurate, it has drastic implications for how we conduct a science of human behavior (Hayes & Berens, 2004). ... Such analyses often require new experimental procedures and can lead to interventions that seem foreign and perhaps unnerving to many behavior analysts.

Many seem to believe the field has adequately addressed verbal behavior, thanks to Skinner's 1957 book. Unfortunately, the impact of Skinner's analysis on research and application has been limited...

Although research based on Skinner's verbal operants is increasing (Sautter & LeBlanc, 2006), both the volume and scope of this research remain underwhelming at best...

Dymond, O'Hora, Whelan, and O'Donovan (2006) found that during the period of 1984 to 2004 “the majority of citations of Verbal Behavior were from nonempirical articles” (p. 81).