Free will redux: What is true free will?

[Piggy]

Take an entirely novel idea: E=MC2... was it "missing" prior to Einstein?

You seem to be saying so and it's hard to take that seriously.

Let's not change the frame of reference, please. The equation was novel. So if you compare the world prior and the world post, there's a difference. However, when you analyze inputs and outputs, I don't see any "missing information". Again, you're seeing flour, sugar, and eggs go in, and cake come out, and asking where the cake came from.

 

[hammegk]

Often materialists' thoughts appear to have no more intrinsic value than flour, sugar, or eggs, and the odd part is -- materialists choose to have faith that is so!

 

[Piggy]

Suppose 'i' chooses paper instead of plastic - we can ask why did 'i' choose paper?. The choice could either be completely pre-determined by prior state or not (in which case we can say there is a random element to the choice).

hodgy, let me just say that you are damn inconvenient. I was perfectly happy with my little black box, and you have to go smashing it open.

So far I haven't been able to hold Humpty Dumpty together.

Muchas gracias. I do appreciate a good debu**sh**ifier.

 

[JayT]

Free Will and Testament

A thread in the Science section got sidetracked to the question of true free will. It was suggested that we continue that topic here.

I hope Piggy will regale us with his ideas about "true" or "genuine" free will, which is called libertarian free will in the philosophy biz.

~~ Paul

Free will is not knowing or being able to prove one way or the other if someone else is controlling everything you think, do and say.

Women are especially skilled at making you think that you came up with that bright idea that they actually planted in your head from the start.

LOL

 

[President Bush]

Let's not change the frame of reference, please. The equation was novel. So if you compare the world prior and the world post, there's a difference. However, when you analyze inputs and outputs, I don't see any "missing information". Again, you're seeing flour, sugar, and eggs go in, and cake come out, and asking where the cake came from.

There seems to be an echo in the conch, Piggy... I'm not following you (been driving my truck all day). Would you please reconcile this with what, I assume, first set you off: this sentence.

Radical behaviorism explains away acts of creativity, including those including information impossible for the individual to have previously known.

 

[Piggy]

Would you please reconcile this with what, I assume, first set you off: this sentence.

Radical behaviorism explains away acts of creativity, including those including information impossible for the individual to have previously known.

Sure thing. You are referencing "acts of creativity... including information impossible for the individual to have previously known."

When asked for examples, you merely cited the results of acts of creativity:

Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Handel's Messiah. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

When asked specifically what information -- involved in the acts which produced these outcomes -- was "impossible for the individual to have previously known", you again pointed to the outcomes.

As I have said, this is like saying that the known laws of nature cannot explain how we get cake, because at first there was no cake, and now there is cake.

You haven't pointed to any part of the process and explained "Here is where information was introduced which could not possibly have been known to the person developing the theory/composition".

Suppose, for example, I develop the "cat scratched up my sofa" theory. I developed this theory by coming home and seeing my sofa scratched up, noting that the house does not appear to have been entered in my absence, and also noting pieces of upholstery (matching my sofa) clinging to one of the cats' claws. Here we have a new thing in the universe, a new theory which did not before exist. Yet there was no "information impossible for the individual to have previously known" involved.

So I ask you yet again -- where is this information of which you speak?

 

[President Bush]

You haven't pointed to any part of the process and explained "Here is where information was introduced which could not possibly have been known to the person developing the theory/composition".

The information impossible for the individual to have previously known - which I referred to in the sentence "acts of creativity including those including information impossible for the individual to have previously known" - is what is composed in the creative act itself.

Have you thought about using some tape to fix those glasses?

 

[Mercutio]

The information impossible for the individual to have previously known - which I referred to in the sentence "acts of creativity including those including information impossible for the individual to have previously known" - is what is composed in the creative act itself.

In shaping through successive approximation, a rat (or pigeon, or dog, or monkey, or person, or group of people) is trained to do something that was not previously in its (or their) behavioral repertoire. Your phrase "impossible for the individual to have previously known" is, of course, an assumption; we could agree that it is at least not something the individual has previously demonstrated. In this case, a history of reinforcement has already been shown, countless times, to result in behavior not previously exhibited.

We can also differentially reinforce novel behavior (or combinations of behaviors); in this case, we do not specify beforehand what is to be reinforced, but simply reinforce any behavior not previously exhibited. Under this schedule, dolphins (as but one example) have performed complex tricks that their trainers had never even considered teaching them.

"Acts of creativity" are not a fatal blow to behaviorism. Not even close.

 

[Piggy]

The information impossible for the individual to have previously known - which I referred to in the sentence "acts of creativity including those including information impossible for the individual to have previously known" - is what is composed in the creative act itself.

So you're saying that my "cat scratched the sofa" theory involves some information that was impossible for me to have known before I connected the dots?

Again, you're amazed at where this cake came from.

All that's happening w/ the examples you gave is that known information is being recombined and conclusions reached from those combinations. There is nothing appearing out of nowhere.

If you claim there is, then you'd better be prepared to be specific about it, or you're left looking like a rube scratching his head about where the eggs and sugar went to.

 

[President Bush]

In shaping through successive approximation, a rat (or pigeon, or dog, or monkey, or person, or group of people) is trained to do something that was not previously in its (or their) behavioral repertoire. Your phrase "impossible for the individual to have previously known" is, of course, an assumption; we could agree that it is at least not something the individual has previously demonstrated. In this case, a history of reinforcement has already been shown, countless times, to result in behavior not previously exhibited.

We can also differentially reinforce novel behavior (or combinations of behaviors); in this case, we do not specify beforehand what is to be reinforced, but simply reinforce any behavior not previously exhibited. Under this schedule, dolphins (as but one example) have performed complex tricks that their trainers had never even considered teaching them.

What does your occasionally feeding a rat have to do with a self-directed Albert Einstein visualizing a representation of the universe in which he imagines himself racing a beam of light?

I know, Mercutio. Nothing at all.

Radical Behaviorism denies that individuals can act in a self-directed way, much less operate mentally within a creatively-imagined representation of their choosing.

Hey, what happened with this?

Where will uninstitutionalized adults such as you or I benefit from the theories of Radical Behaviorism in our life today?

 

[President Bush]

So you're saying that my "cat scratched the sofa" theory involves some information that was impossible for me to have known before I connected the dots?

Again, you're amazed at where this cake came from.

Don't know what you're talking about. If the cake came from Mercutio's lab it comes at a price.

 

[Piggy]

Don't know what you're talking about.

Then I'll type slowly.

You claim that certain creative processes require the introduction of information which it was impossible for the individual to have previously known.

When asked for examples, you point to outcomes, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Handel's Messiah, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

When asked where the previously-unkown information is, you point to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Handel's Messiah, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

This is like me claiming that certain construction projects require the use of materials which could not possibly have existed before the objects were built.

When asked for examples, I cite the statue of Christ Redeemer, the US Capitol building, and the Taj Majal.

When asked specifically where the previously nonexistant materials are, I once again point to the statue of Christ Redeemer, the US Capitol building, and the Taj Majal.

Do you see what I'm getting at, here?

If you're going to make the claim that these results require the introduction of information that would have been impossible for the men creating the results to have known, then you have to at least point out what this information is and where it was introduced.

Otherwise, you're saying nothing at all.

 

[President Bush]

If you're going to make the claim that these results require the introduction of information that would have been impossible for the men creating the results to have known, then you have to at least point out what this information is and where it was introduced.

I haven't claimed any introduction of information took place which then resulted in a creative act, Piggy. Read what I wrote.

The information impossible for the individual to have previously known - which I referred to in the sentence "acts of creativity including those including information impossible for the individual to have previously known" - is what is composed in the creative act itself.

Is an assumption that Radical Behaviorism is relevant to the issue muddying the waters here? Radical Behaviorism IMO would add unnecessary steps to the process (to convert thinking into "behavior"). So-called complex behaviors - like "what if E=MC2?" - are acquired through a program of (external) discriminative stimulis and reinforcement.

Similar to this?

the claim that these results require the introduction of information that would have been impossible for the men creating the results to have known

 

[Mercutio]

What does your occasionally feeding a rat have to do with a self-directed Albert Einstein visualizing a representation of the universe in which he imagines himself racing a beam of light?

Do we need, once more, to examine this like we did Tesla? If you are right, the more we look at the details, the more amazed we will be--there will be no gradual progression toward the discovery, but rather a leap of insight which could not have been predicted. If the behaviorists are right, the more we know about it, the more his discoveries will be seen as the product of his experience.

So... Other physicists agree that had Einstein not made these discoveries, others would have. We know that his 1905 papers were preceded by three others, from 1902 to 1904, in which his ideas are clearly "in progress". We know that some of the topic areas were current "hot topics" (Brownian motion was one) in which there was a great deal of interest and writing which he would have had access to. We know that he had an active collaborater in his wife (at least one Russian journal lists her as co-author of at least some of the 1905 papers. His dislike of statistics was compensated by her facility with it. We know that he had been exposed to science at the dinner table from a young age, and that he had been thinking about physics at a deep level since his childhood. His environment was clearly one which facilitated and reinforced inquiry.

A hundred years is quite a distance to look back, but we clearly see that the details fill in. Einstein was a remarkable man, but it does not diminish his discoveries to point out the role of his environment in bringing them to fruition.

I know, Mercutio. Nothing at all.

Oh, that's ok. As you asked it, it was a trick question anyway. "A self-directed Albert Einstein", your assertion, is a strawman Einstein. Truly, there is no connection between real science and this fictional character. But, if you asked whether the schedules of reinforcement discovered through rat studies could shed light on the real Albert Einstein's work, then you have another answer altogether. (Of course, what I wrote earlier about "just-so stories" still holds true, although it holds equally true for any attempted explanation of his achievements, even yours.)

Radical Behaviorism denies that individuals can act in a self-directed way, much less operate mentally within a creatively-imagined representation of their choosing.

Oooh, nice choice of words. "Denies" is good; it implicitly frames the problem in terms of something that exists, but is denied. Politicians love this word. How different it is to say that Radical Behaviorism will not, without evidence, invent fictional entities or processes to explain away ignorance. We would rather look to real influences, and leave story-telling to others. When you have any evidence of self-direction in the absence of environmental determinism, get back to me. Evidence, please, not wishful thinking.

Hey, what happened with this?

I was giving it time. I have too many friends with autistic kids (and count many autistic adults among my friends--including at least 3 highly-respected posters to this forum) not to take offense at your marginalization of people with autism.

Certainly, if you are ceding successes in both education and autism (and you would be an idiot not to, with the track record there), behaviorism has already shown its worth. In addition to this, there have been applications to "uninstitutionalized adults" in areas from smoking cessation to athletic performance to automobile safety to medicine (pain management, cardiovascular disease, adherence to medical regimens) to environmental issues, crime prevention, occupational safety...

...In some cases, the methodologies of radical behaviorism are used by others who do not adopt that label; because it works, it is used. Applied Social Psychology often uses the methodology and/or philosophy of behaviorism, in issues from decreasing workplace stress to protesting nuclear war.

Do you have anything beyond arguments from ignorance?

 

[Mercutio]

Is an assumption that Radical Behaviorism is relevant to the issue muddying the waters here? Radical Behaviorism IMO would add unnecessary steps to the process (to convert thinking into "behavior"). So-called complex behaviors - like "what if E=MC2?" - are acquired through a program of (external) discriminative stimulis and reinforcement.

Please do not try to tell us what Radical Behaviorism "would add". If there is one thing behaviorism is, it is parsimonious. The accusations against behaviorism are virtually always that we are oversimplifying.

We do not "convert thinking into 'behavior'"; such a step is only necessary if you are assuming that thinking is somehow something more than behavior in the first place. Your "added step" is actually the removal of a superfluous step. You are allowing yourself to be blinkered by mentalistic assumptions.

 

[Piggy]

I haven't claimed any introduction of information took place which then resulted in a creative act, Piggy. Read what I wrote.

The information impossible for the individual to have previously known - which I referred to in the sentence "acts of creativity including those including information impossible for the individual to have previously known" - is what is composed in the creative act itself.

Why don't you try reading what you wrote.

"The information impossible for the individual to previously have known ... is what is composed in the creative act itself".

Again, I challenge you to stop making generic references to the results and pony up by getting specific.

I understand what you're saying -- you're claiming that the new configuration of ideas, and resulting insights, is "new" information which didn't exist before, and that behaviorism somehow can't account for this in its models.

Yet you don't seem to be at all concerned that you can't describe why or how, or point to any specifics in the process to demonstrate your claim.

When I come up with my "cat scratched the sofa theory", it's true that the information "the cat shredded my sofa" did not exist before I thought of it.

But where -- oh, where -- in the process of my examining the evidence, considering it, and reaching a conclusion is there anything which is impossible for a behaviorist model to account for?

 

[President Bush]

Do we need, once more, to examine this like we did Tesla? If you are right, the more we look at the details, the more amazed we will be--there will be no gradual progression toward the discovery, but rather a leap of insight which could not have been predicted.

Prediction and control are the objectives of science according to Skinner. I guess he wasn't talking about physics.

If the behaviorists are right, the more we know about it, the more his discoveries will be seen as the product of his experience.

Yet not solely the product of his environment as, I believe, Radical Behaviorism would have it. Einstein achieved something beyond his conditioning.

So... Other physicists agree that had Einstein not made these discoveries, others would have. We know that his 1905 papers were preceded by three others, from 1902 to 1904, in which his ideas are clearly "in progress". We know that some of the topic areas were current "hot topics" (Brownian motion was one) in which there was a great deal of interest and writing which he would have had access to. We know that he had an active collaborater in his wife (at least one Russian journal lists her as co-author of at least some of the 1905 papers. His dislike of statistics was compensated by her facility with it. We know that he had been exposed to science at the dinner table from a young age, and that he had been thinking about physics at a deep level since his childhood. His environment was clearly one which facilitated and reinforced inquiry.

That one of his contemporaries was on the verge of formulating an equivalence between energy and relativistic mass in direct proportion to the square of the speed of light in a vacuum is conjecture. That his motivation for working on his theories was partially influenced (not entirely controlled) by his environment isn't being argued (nice straw man).

"A self-directed Albert Einstein", your assertion, is a strawman Einstein. Truly, there is no connection between real science and this fictional character. But, if you asked whether the schedules of reinforcement discovered through rat studies could shed light on the real Albert Einstein's work, then you have another answer altogether.

Skinner believed that that all behavior is externally controlled and that behavior is solely a function of genetic and environmental conditions. To distinguish who I was talking about from an Albert Einstein whose thinking was solely a function of genetic and environmental conditions, I used the term "self-directed".

When you have any evidence of self-direction in the absence of environmental determinism, get back to me.

Think about that sentence a while, Mercutio.

I have too many friends with autistic kids (and count many autistic adults among my friends--including at least 3 highly-respected posters to this forum) not to take offense at your marginalization of people with autism.

I certainly did not intend to marginalize anyone with autism. A close friend of mine has Tourette Syndrome. I'm continually amazed at his imperturbability when confronted by the odd looks.

... there have been applications to "uninstitutionalized adults" in areas from smoking cessation to athletic performance to automobile safety to medicine (pain management, cardiovascular disease, adherence to medical regimens) to environmental issues, crime prevention, occupational safety...

...In some cases, the methodologies of radical behaviorism are used by others who do not adopt that label; because it works, it is used. Applied Social Psychology often uses the methodology and/or philosophy of behaviorism, in issues from decreasing workplace stress to protesting nuclear war.

If these applications are externally controlled and solely a function of genetic and environmental conditions... no thanks.

You are allowing yourself to be blinkered by mentalistic assumptions.

Do you have an example?

 

[Piggy]

You are allowing yourself to be blinkered by mentalistic assumptions.

Do you have an example?

Yes. The things that you've said.

How do you like that kind of logic now?

 

[Mercutio]

Prediction and control are the objectives of science according to Skinner. I guess he wasn't talking about physics.

And what do you guess the objectives of science are?

Yet not solely the product of his environment as, I believe, Radical Behaviorism would have it. Einstein achieved something beyond his conditioning.

Because you say so, I suppose.

That one of his contemporaries was on the verge of formulating an equivalence between energy and relativistic mass in direct proportion to the square of the speed of light in a vacuum is conjecture. That his motivation for working on his theories was partially influenced (not entirely controlled) by his environment isn't being argued (nice straw man).

Please enlighten us as to how you intend to discriminate between what you call "free will" from your ignorance of environmental influence.

I explained my reasoning--that if you were right, closer examination would not reveal more and more environmental factors. Consistent with environmental determinism, the closer we look, the more influence we see; the popular picture of Einstein's ideas as a miraculous is simply a myth. If you remain unconvinced, look to your example; when you choose examples that are 100 years old, do not complain when only "partial" influence is found.

Skinner believed that that all behavior is externally controlled and that behavior is solely a function of genetic and environmental conditions. To distinguish who I was talking about from an Albert Einstein whose thinking was solely a function of genetic and environmental conditions, I used the term "self-directed".

Once again, argument from ignorance. Self-direction, in this case, is purely your assertion.

Think about that sentence a while, Mercutio.

Have you realized the logical impossibility?

I certainly did not intend to marginalize anyone with autism. A close friend of mine has Tourette Syndrome. I'm continually amazed at his imperturbability when confronted by the odd looks.

I'll take your word for it, and gladly. I have heard too many people say what I thought you were saying; I am very happy to hear I was wrong in my assumption.

If these applications are externally controlled and solely a function of genetic and environmental conditions... no thanks.

No thanks? You'd rather have the illusion of free will without the progress allowed by the assumption of determinism? Do you also prefer the "good old days" before vaccines? Struggle for struggle's sake?

"No thanks." Not an argument against the progress demonstrated by behaviorism, but a dismissal.

Do you have an example?

Sure. It's a hypothetical, but perhaps someone who treasures the illusion of free will, when presented with a claim of progress made through environmental manipulation, will neither look for the studies to verify this claim nor look for evidence to counter the claim, but instead simply say "no thanks" and refuse to even consider the evidence at all.

It's a stretch, admittedly, but it could, in theory, happen.

 

[President Bush]

... the popular picture of Einstein's ideas as a miraculous is simply a myth.

To disagree with your mental representation that Albert Einstein's thinking was solely a function of genetic and environmental conditions is not the same as representing them as a miracle, Mercutio.


If you have chosen to mentally represent Einstein's formulation of an equivalence between energy and relativistic mass in direct proportion to the square of the speed of light in a vacuum as solely a function of genetic and environmental conditions, well, that's your decision and I... wait, hold on. That's not right, is it? Let me try it again...


If you are determined to have it your way and... well, I guess that doesn't make sense at all, does it? How about... if your purpose in this is to... hmmm. Can't say that, can I? Suggests free will...


If Radical Behaviorism calls for portraying Einstein's thinking as solely a function of genetic and environmental conditi... goddamnit, this is tricky. No, not Tricky. But you knew that. Wait, how could you? That would have been suggesting a mental representation. And now I've gone and made a mental representation of a mental representation...


One more time... why do you commit yourself to this point of view... holy cow. Did it again. In all honesty, how would you rather I put this? Whoops! That's wrong, too...


Would you prefer I... well, excuse me. How could you, after all. Though I really am trying to single out a way to... oh, man. I've done it, again. No, I haven't. That would be another mental representation...


I'm ready to call it quits and just say, for better or worse, that I opt for Radical Behaviorism. But it won't let me...


How did you get in there?