The Zombie Poll

[Apathia]

Like I said before, looks like nobody is voting for her/himself in this poll.

Poll Options:

A: Smooth as silk
B: Zombie
C: Curare
D: I really don't know
E: Lifegazer is a zombie from Planet X

Which would I choose. If I voted for myself?

Or do you mean I haven't made my own selection but advocated someone else's? My own selection is A. I admit it's a selection done in vast ignorance and with a lack of understanding of what is really going on with consciouness.
D. would probably be the better answer, but it's no fun.

 

[Mercutio]

Wish I could assume you refer to behaviors more complicated than pigeons playing ping-pong. While according to Skinner...

There are more complete links...I have posted some in these zombie threads. And yes, behavior modification has taught pigeons to play ping-pong. Although it is more well known for being the best hope of developmentally disabled, autistic,...and more.

I invite you to take a look at the behaviorist literature; it has progressed (as science tends to do) tremendously in the last decades. Most critiques of behaviorism are stuck in the 1950's; it makes a wonderful strawman, but it is only a strawman, long ago dismissed. Your own link quotes a 1981 text (how much changed from the 1975 original?) that doesn't even make it to Skinner's death in 1990 (he was writing up till the end), let alone the 16 years following that. In a science, the 25 years between 1981 and 2006 is a huge span of time; if that is your view of this science, it is due for an update.

In a behavioristic world (material determinism) wouldn't all of our thoughts/behaviors be determined?

None would be freely chosen. The determinants of your behavior are in your environment (both your individual learning history within your environment, and your genetic predispositions selected by the environment over a much longer scale). Of course, we know that the things that determine our behavior are many, and that the level of measurement we have is inadequate. From our perspective, sometimes a probabilistic model is more appropriate (was a behavior random? or determined by something beyond our measurement? we simply cannot know.), so there is a difference between "all our behaviors are determined" (which, as explained parenthetically, we cannot be assured of) and "all our behaviors can be predicted" (which is not the case at all).

Since your quote mentions free will, I will quote myself (I know Dancing David liked this one...) "any sufficiently subtly-determined behavior is indistinguishable from free will". The problem is that free will is a positive claim, but with only negative evidence; to be free will, you must eliminate both "determined" and "random". So far, that has proven....difficult.

Like I said before, looks like nobody is voting for her/himself in this poll.

Nah. My environment voted through me.

 

[President Bush]

My environment voted through me.

I assume that you voted Smooth as silk. Would behaviorism/material determinism hold that this vote was an effect produced by a material cause?

You seem to answer "yes".

What I'm wondering is how you(r environment) could meaningfully vote to begin with. Wouldn't what argues for the truth of behaviorism (your vote) also, already, be determined?

It seems an odd way to beg the question.

 

[President Bush]

Which would I choose. If I voted for myself?

I believe that I am with hammegk in saying that is entirely up to you.

 

[Apathia]

I believe that I am with hammegk in saying that is entirely up to you.

A Hobson's choice, is it?

 

[President Bush]

A Hobson's choice, is it?

What, beggars can't be choosers?

 

[Apathia]

What, beggars can't be choosers?

You can be a "Decider."

 

[Apathia]

BTW, here's Hammy's vote and my suggested additional option.

"That would yield a person, and the same person. Whether molecular level is detailed enough is a yet unanswered question, but assuming the answer is "it is" replacing a molecule that is part of a living structure with a

duplicate of that molecule should have no effect.

I don't agree that such technology will ever exist.

As to the OP, I voted zombie because the option I suspect is correct -- brain death, followed shortly thereafter by body death -- was not an option."


Option D, "D" as in Dead:" Self-Consciouness and subjective experience are lost and so is the functioning brain as it's torn apart for substitute pieces that malfunction or can't interface. Physically dead and subjectively dead. Dead all around. Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are not invariant here. It may be they need truely functioning physical components or are the functioning of the physical components. It's not clear which.
selecting option D, is saying "no, no way, not now not ever" is this experiment going to be carried out in reality.

It's a no can do
Frankenstein is a woo.

Of course there is variant position to take with Death, and that is your body dies, but your still conscious soul goes to Heaven, Purgatory, another plane, or just hangs around watching TV. Are there any takers for this?

 

[Mercutio]

I assume that you voted Smooth as silk. Would behaviorism/material determinism hold that this vote was an effect produced by a material cause?

You seem to answer "yes".

What I'm wondering is how you(r environment) could meaningfully vote to begin with. Wouldn't what argues for the truth of behaviorism (your vote) also, already, be determined?

It seems an odd way to beg the question.

There is a difference between determinism and predestination.

But, if you are sincerely interested in exploring this seeming paradox, you might like to listen to Skinner's lecture "On Having a Poem", in which he compares the creative process (whether composing a poem or voting on this thread) to childbirth; the mother's womb is the locus for the intersection of two genetic lines. Nothing she can do will change the genetic makeup of her child, and she does not actively choose which of her genes (or his) contribute. Is she creating a new life? Or acting as the locus where two existing strains of life merge to continue a chain? Likewise, Skinner would argue that what we see as an act of creation is better seen as our acting as a locus for multiple lines of determination in our environment.

As far as begging the question...it would indeed be a strange sort of begging the question. Behavior can be (is, has been for decades) shown to be under the lawful control of environmental contingencies. We can (and have, countless times) systematically changed the environment and noted the resultant systematic changes in behavior. We can demonstrate that an individual need not be "consciously aware" of these changes to be affected by them, so the fact that we "feel like" we are acting autonomously is not evidence that we are doing so. Of course, you are right--we cannot trace the causal chain back infinitely. It is a chaotic system, sensitive to very small differences. Even when we can demonstrate that a small change in one environmental factor has effects on behavior, we are ignoring countless others (especially in the very rich environments humans live in). One could always point to an unmeasured factor and say "but you have not demonstrated that this one has an effect." Sure. It could be that through some chance, or systematic error, we have only investigated things that appear deterministically related, and there are a whole slough of other things...but the thing is, the stuff we have investigated does influence our behavior. It is not simply begging the question. These experiments could have turned out to show no lawful relationship of behavior to environment. But...

 

[President Bush]

There is a difference between determinism and predestination.

But, if you are sincerely interested in exploring this seeming paradox, you might like to listen to Skinner's lecture "On Having a Poem", in which he compares the creative process (whether composing a poem or voting on this thread) to childbirth; the mother's womb is the locus for the intersection of two genetic lines. Nothing she can do will change the genetic makeup of her child, and she does not actively choose which of her genes (or his) contribute. Is she creating a new life? Or acting as the locus where two existing strains of life merge to continue a chain? Likewise, Skinner would argue that what we see as an act of creation is better seen as our acting as a locus for multiple lines of determination in our environment.

As far as begging the question...it would indeed be a strange sort of begging the question. Behavior can be (is, has been for decades) shown to be under the lawful control of environmental contingencies. We can (and have, countless times) systematically changed the environment and noted the resultant systematic changes in behavior. We can demonstrate that an individual need not be "consciously aware" of these changes to be affected by them, so the fact that we "feel like" we are acting autonomously is not evidence that we are doing so. Of course, you are right--we cannot trace the causal chain back infinitely. It is a chaotic system, sensitive to very small differences. Even when we can demonstrate that a small change in one environmental factor has effects on behavior, we are ignoring countless others (especially in the very rich environments humans live in). One could always point to an unmeasured factor and say "but you have not demonstrated that this one has an effect." Sure. It could be that through some chance, or systematic error, we have only investigated things that appear deterministically related, and there are a whole slough of other things...but the thing is, the stuff we have investigated does influence our behavior. It is not simply begging the question. These experiments could have turned out to show no lawful relationship of behavior to environment. But...

I'm on dial-up in a motel room and leaving shortly so I'm not inclined to wait for an MP3 download... sorry.

If your post is, indeed, a reply to this...

What I'm wondering is how you(r environment) could meaningfully vote to begin with. Wouldn't what argues for the truth of behaviorism (your vote) also, already, be determined?

... I'll be checking in this evening. Thanks.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm on dial-up in a motel room and leaving shortly so I'm not inclined to wait for an MP3 download... sorry.

Sorry I could not locate a print version. I have a print version at my office (or did, until it was "borrowed" some years ago), but the sound version is the only one I can find online.

If your post is, indeed, a reply to this...


... I'll be checking in this evening. Thanks.

Take your time...yes, it was a reply to that.

 

[Apathia]

Absolutistic, Ontological Free Will:

My Cosmic Self that exists outside space/time and the physical/emperical world decided.

Determinism: An organism decided as a result of a complex chain of causation.

Predestination: The Absolute Soverignty of a Theistic God decided for me before I was born.

Contemporary Behaviorism: I as an organism who changes her enviornment and is in turn changed by it make my own decisions. (No absolute Free Will involved.)

Buddhism: There is no inherently existing, absolute Free Will. Free Will is our sense of Volition in participation with a world of experience of which we are fully integral. I male my own decisions.

Vedantic Idealism: The Brahman is the Atman. The "I" who alone is, is the Cosmic Decider. This is roughly a combo of Predestination and Ontological Free Will.

Please note: not holding that there is an Ontological, Absolute Free Will doesn't amount to Materialism, and holding that there is doesn't amount to Materialism either. It's a fruit basket.

Also, a person coming from any of the worldviews above could select "Smooth As Silk." None of them rule it out hands down, though there might be some Theological qualifications.

BTW my best stories "write themselves." Some writers speak of the writing as a birthing or with male metaphors, the "Tyranny of The Story."

 

[jmercer]

Got a catagory that includes Chaos Theory?

 

[Apathia]

Got a catagory that includes Chaos Theory?

That falls under the Deterministic catagory because even though the unpredictable can follow from an ordered system, and order can arise from chaos, the chain of causation is still unbroken.

Can consciouness shape the frontier between order and chaos?
This is probably a nonesense question.

OK, let's give it its own:
In chaos theory, I'm a complex organism whose decisions can't be predicted and who takes advantage of the dynamic between order and chaos to create or destroy my own order. I make not entirely predictable but completely causal decisions.

 

[chriswl]

What I'm wondering is how you(r environment) could meaningfully vote to begin with. Wouldn't what argues for the truth of behaviorism (your vote) also, already, be determined?

Are you suggesting the fact that an opinion is determined makes it somehow meaningless?

It seems to me that for an opinion to be correct it is necessary (but not sufficient) for it to be determined. Otherwise, even if it turned out to be true it would be merely be a lucky guess. How can our opinions reflect the way the world is if they are not caused by that world?

 

[elliotfc]

Cemetery Man is the greatest movie ever!

I think the best way to avoid zombies and becoming a zombie is to wear *a suit of really sharp spikes that are about three feet long*. This way zombies couldn't get close to you.

There's a short story about little kids who become zombies, they walk into a cave and when they come out they are zombies. I can't remember the name of the story, but it's a good one, mainly because the little kids who are on a field trip turn into zombies.

In the movie Premutos Jesus is a zombie. Now I know it's been said before and all, ha ha ha Jesus is a zombie, but like he is really a zombie in that movie, he is annointed with the zombie juice or whatever the hell it was.

-Elliot

 

[President Bush]

Are you suggesting the fact that an opinion is determined makes it somehow meaningless?

It seems to me that for an opinion to be correct it is necessary (but not sufficient) for it to be determined. Otherwise, even if it turned out to be true it would be merely be a lucky guess. How can our opinions reflect the way the world is if they are not caused by that world?

In the world of Radical Behaviorism, all our thoughts/behaviors seem to be determined. So the thought that argues for the truth of Radical Behaviorism would also have to be determined. Right?

What I'm wondering is how that Radical Behaviorist can meaningfully assert that Radical Behaviorism is true to begin with. Where is the perspective outside determined thought from which one might referee what is true versus what isn't?

A simple point.

 

[President Bush]

Sorry I could not locate a print version. I have a print version at my office (or did, until it was "borrowed" some years ago), but the sound version is the only one I can find online.
Take your time...yes, it was a reply to that.

I listened to the whole thing, Mercutio. And took notes...

Simple environments influence simple behaviors. Complex behaviors cannot yet be predicted as the environments giving rise to them are too complex.

Like whether I played the "Annabelle the Sheep" game on the RealPlayer screen opened while enduring the drone.

"Individuals have no true responsibility" was the quote he ended with, I believe. Behaviors are subject to a process much like Darwinian selection.

Take that, chriswl.

I'd wondered if he had actually made the (awful) quote attributed (elsewhere) to him, that "... the spontaneous generation of behavior has reached the same stage as the spontaneous generation of maggots and microorganisms in Pasteur’s day."

What reward is attached to having made such an inspiring quote? None, whatsoever. It (according to his line of thought) "chose" him.

What did I miss?

 

[Mercutio]

In the world of Radical Behaviorism, all our thoughts/behaviors seem to be determined. So the thought that argues for the truth of Radical Behaviorism would also have to be determined. Right?

Put another way, any other person with the exact same environment as B. F. Skinner would have come up with those same ideas. He would agree with that. Mind you, "seem to be determined" is an ambiguous phrase; some will see "predestined" there, where the behaviorist will not.

Baum argues that Skinner's underlying philosophy is Pragmatism, and thus the "big questions" are only addressed if they actually can give meaningful answers. It is quite literally impossible for us to know if all behaviors are determined; there are too many potential variables, the level of measurement may be inadequate, etc.. Since the truth or falsehood of "all behaviors are determined" cannot be determined, it is not a question to waste time on.

Rather, the thing to do is to see under what conditions behavior can be predicted, influenced, determined. Through contextual analysis, we can easily see environmental influences on our behavior, which can be harnessed to make our lives better. (It is paradoxical, but the greatest advances in allowing developmentally disabled, mentally ill, and autistic individuals more freedom in their lives...has come from a theoretical approach that denies that their behavior is free.)

What I'm wondering is how that Radical Behaviorist can meaningfully assert that Radical Behaviorism is true to begin with. Where is the perspective outside determined thought from which one might referee what is true versus what isn't?

Radical Behaviorism is a philosophy. As such, it is dependent on axiomatic assumptions, and the idea of it "being true" is not really a coherent question. On the other hand, the science of Behavior Analysis, and the application of that science, hold plenty of opportunities for the testing of the ideas that come from Radical Behaviorism. So far, the experimental data are great; the problem with Behaviorism is that people don't like that it robs them of individual agency...or so they believe. (Behaviorists, it must be said, have done a poor job of public relations.)

A simple point.

Perhaps a straw point. How is Radical Behaviorism any worse off on this point than any other philosophy? If any philosophy is true, is it not impossible for there to be a perspective outside it from which to referee? Or are there philosophies that only cover part of reality?

 

[Mercutio]

I listened to the whole thing, Mercutio. And took notes...

Simple environments influence simple behaviors. Complex behaviors cannot yet be predicted as the environments giving rise to them are too complex.

Like whether I played the "Annabelle the Sheep" game on the RealPlayer screen opened while enduring the drone.

"Individuals have no true responsibility" was the quote he ended with, I believe. Behaviors are subject to a process much like Darwinian selection.

Take that, chriswl.

I'd wondered if he had actually made the (awful) quote attributed (elsewhere) to him, that "... the spontaneous generation of behavior has reached the same stage as the spontaneous generation of maggots and microorganisms in Pasteur’s day."

What reward is attached to having made such an inspiring quote? None, whatsoever. It (according to his line of thought) "chose" him.

What did I miss?

So far, I must say I am impressed. Sounds like a fair understanding of the talk. I must say, though, I am curious as to why you dislike the "spontaneous generation" quote. He has, in other places, spoken of how we used to think that things fall to the earth because they wanted to be close to it. When we dismiss the internal causality and look to the environment for why things fall...we find the birth of Newtonian physics. When we dismiss the spontaneous generation of maggots and look to the environment...we find flies. Oh, and biology. When we want to look scientifically at human behavior, we must again look outside the thing that is influenced, to the environment (social and physical) that does the influencing. ...so the quote has maggots and bacteria in it...you remembered it, didn't you, and wrote it here, no? It has a sort of reproductive fitness, does it not?

For what it is worth, the "individuals have no true responsibility" is something he expands on quite a bit in Beyond Freedom and Dignity. It is worth mentioning that this does not "let people off the hook" for a crime (for example); we know that organisms respond to punishment, and if a behavior is indeed harmful to society, that behavior may be punished. On the other hand...our current view of personal responsibility is one which "lets the environment off the hook", as it were. If we, as a society, know that certain educational and economic variables are associated with more or less crime, our providing a particular environment is indeed causally related to an individual's crime. Our view, though, finds only the individual responsible (barring extreme circumstances), and finds that he has freely chosen to act that way. Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity advocates a reformulation (going "beyond" our current view), focusing not on blame and responsibility, but on cause and effect. If we do not look to pin responsibility on an individual, but to see where the causal factors are, then an individual's behavior is still addressed, but so is the environment. Crimes, then, are not merely addressed after the fact (as they are in our culture), but are also addressed through their roots in the environment. Skinner is not at all promoting anarchy; he is proposing a re-examination of the assumptions our society makes.