Free will redux: What is true free will?

[hodgy]

I gotta step in and do what RandFan didn't do for me .... Hammegk has never made a clear argument. You will not get one out of him. "Thought exists" is about as far as he gets. After that, it's Jabberwocky. Just so's you know....

I know - got to give the chap a fair chance though...

 

[hodgy]

Blather on as per usual.

Make an assertion, state the logic behind it with regards to the subject under discussion in this thread.

'Blather...' gets us nowhere.

 

[RandFan]

With friends like you, RandFan....

I do my best.

Hey, it was good material even if you were talking to a bot. This from a former dualist. Not too shabby.

 

[President Bush]

Troll.

External influences, controlling the sensory apparatus of my body from birth, caused it to develop in such a way that it posted a parody of Radical Behaviorism's account of Einstein formulating an equivalence between energy and relativistic mass in direct proportion to the square of the speed of light in a vacuum.

This was done as a way of provoking a totally unprecedented EEG pattern (preceding novel verbal behavior in the thread) in order to demonstrate it is possible to make an observation which shows the proposition stating a science of the nervous system based upon direct observation, rather than inference, can describe the neural states and events which immediately precede instances of (verbal) behavior... to fall short of being a tautology.

Skinner wept.

 

[Piggy]

Hey, it was good material even if you were talking to a bot. This from a former dualist. Not too shabby.

Well, that's what's so great about forums like this (rare as they are). We never learn anything by seeking out confirmation, after all. There have to be people (like hodgy and Yllanes recently, for me) who are willing to show us where we've got it wrong, if we ever hope to get it right.

This is why I often bristle at supernaturalists who instantly accuse me and other rationalists of being merely dogmatic. I haven't come to my conclusions by assuming them, but by testing them.

And, especially as a young'un, changing my beliefs about what I am and what the world is... it was very difficult, and often (at first blush) psychologically devastating. But if we never open our hand and examine what's in it, we can never know if it is of any value.

 

[Abolitionist]

There must be a distinction here between 'willpower' : (both subjective and observed) and 'free-will'.

Willpower exists - and it is dependent on many observable factors.

There is nothing in the universe that exists freely in a vacuum. At least there's no reason to think so.

 

[Piggy]

There must be a distinction here between 'willpower' : (both subjective and observed) and 'free-will'.

OK. What is it, then?

 

[RandFan]

Willpower exists - and it is dependent on many observable factors.

When you say observable are you saying that you are making post hoc conclusions about observed behavior? Do you have any predictable statements you can make about "willpower"?

I think such assumptions about willpower are begging the question.

 

[RandFan]

Skinner wept.

And the sophists rejoiced.

 

[President Bush]

And the sophists rejoiced.

External influences, controlling the sensory apparatus of my body from birth, caused it to develop in such a way that it posted a parody of falsifying BF Skinner's science of the nervous system.

This was done as a way of provoking a series of totally predictable EEG patterns (becoming generalized and synchronous with continuous periodic stereotypic 200-millisecond to 400-millisecond sharp waves at intervals of 0.5-1.0 seconds with myoclonic jerks occurring in association with the sharp waveforms) preceding meaningless verbal behavior in the thread to demonstrate it is not possible, in this instance, to make an observation showing the proposition which states a science of the nervous system based upon direct observation, rather than inference, can describe the neural states and events which immediately precede instances of (verbal) behavior... to fall short of being a tautology.

Skinner wept. On his shoes, RandFan.

 

[Mercutio]

This was done as a way of provoking a series of totally predictable EEG patterns (becoming generalized and synchronous with continuous periodic stereotypic 200-millisecond to 400-millisecond sharp waves at intervals of 0.5-1.0 seconds with myoclonic jerks occurring in association with the sharp waveforms) preceding meaningless verbal behavior in the thread to demonstrate it is not possible, in this instance, to make an observation showing the proposition which states a science of the nervous system based upon direct observation, rather than inference, can describe the neural states and events which immediately precede instances of (verbal) behavior... to fall short of being a tautology.

Wrong level of observation.

 

[RandFan]

Skinner wept. On his shoes, RandFan.

And the sophists are still rejoicing.

 

[President Bush]

Wrong level of observation.

Is this a reference to a particular electroencephalograph pattern?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This was done as a way of provoking a series of totally predictable EEG patterns (becoming generalized and synchronous with continuous periodic stereotypic 200-millisecond to 400-millisecond sharp waves at intervals of 0.5-1.0 seconds with myoclonic jerks occurring in association with the sharp waveforms) preceding meaningless verbal behavior in the thread to demonstrate it is not possible, in this instance, to make an observation showing the proposition which states a science of the nervous system based upon direct observation, rather than inference, can describe the neural states and events which immediately precede instances of (verbal) behavior... to fall short of being a tautology.

Your oblique and meaningless reference to prion disease, the consequences of severe anoxic injury or profound over-indulgence in Lithium being for what reason precisely?

 

[Piggy]

Your oblique and meaningless reference to prion disease, the consequences of severe anoxic injury or profound over-indulgence in Lithium being for what reason precisely?

For the precise reason that he's an intentional troll. Consider yourself advised.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Actually I'm not really sure why I bothered. Anyone invoking EEG data on either side of such a debate merely shows his/her profound ignorance of the technique.

I like the jab at intentionality, though. That was well placed. Husserl and Heidegger would be proud.

 

[President Bush]

External influences, controlling the sensory apparatus of my body from birth, caused it to develop in such a way that it posted a parody of falsifying BF Skinner's science of the nervous system.

This was done as a way of provoking a series of totally predictable EEG patterns (becoming generalized and synchronous with continuous periodic stereotypic 200-millisecond to 400-millisecond sharp waves at intervals of 0.5-1.0 seconds with myoclonic jerks occurring in association with the sharp waveforms) preceding meaningless verbal behavior in the thread to demonstrate it is not possible, in this instance, to make an observation showing the proposition which states a science of the nervous system based upon direct observation, rather than inference, can describe the neural states and events which immediately precede instances of (verbal) behavior... to fall short of being a tautology.

Your oblique and meaningless reference to prion disease, the consequences of severe anoxic injury or profound over-indulgence in Lithium being for what reason precisely?

Sorry if you didn't get the joke. It followed directly from post 217 in this thread, where I quoted BF Skinner:

Eventually a science of the nervous system based upon direct observation rather than inference will describe the neural states and even's which immediately precede instances of behavior. We shall know the precise neurological conditions which immediately precede, say, the response, "Thank you."

BF Skinner
Science and Human Behavior, p 28

Just trying to have some fun with such a notion being falsifiable. Why not read the whole thing in context?

Wrong level of observation.

What kind of BF Skinner science of the nervous system, based upon direct observation - rather than inference - describing the neural states and events which immediately precede instances of (verbal) behavior... nevertheless, infers particular states (your "wrong level of observation") of the nervous system?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why not read the whole thing in context?

I did. It completely misconstrues the purposes and limitations of EEG and so falls completely flat as a joke. It is a common misperception, and it is one of my big pet peeves. It further demonstrates your (?willful) misrepresentation of Skinner's intended meaning.

Or, as Piggy said, trolling.

 

[President Bush]

It further demonstrates your (?willful) misrepresentation of Skinner's intended meaning.

OK, I give... what do you think Skinner's intended meaning was?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, I give... what do you think Skinner's intended meaning was?

One need only look at the words of the man himself...

Eventually a science of the nervous system based upon direct observation rather than inference will describe the neural states and events which immediately precede instances of behavior.

He meant precisely that. A science of the nervous system based on observation should theoretically be able to describe brain states that correlate with and even precede instances of behavior. We can already do this to a very limited extent (in part with MEG and functional MRI). The level of description would necessarily be on the order of neural nets, not the gross conglommeration that comprises the EEG. EEGs do not reflect thinking. They do not reflect brain states in the way that Skinner meant. We can tell if someone is awake, asleep, concentrating on some task (only in certain instances) and disease states with EEG patterns. That is all. The only instance of EEG activity helping in this regard at all is with the mu rhythm and movement or planning for movement, but this particular rhythm is not seen in everyone. There is also a particular type of event related potential that may correlate with forming a neural network in some thinking tasks (the 40 Hz event related potential), but this work is still highly speculative.

In other words, we should theoretically be able to describe the neural activity that underlies particular experiences. The description of that neural activity we give is simply that -- a description. The description is not the experience itself, just as a description of a red ball hitting a blue ball is not the collision. The particular experience is a particular experience because it has an emotional/motivational component to it -- that is what makes an experience an experience. Computers do not have experiences (as we typically mean the term -- "subjective experiences") because they have no emotional/motivational system. Create such an entity and computers can then feel, and their thiking would be more akin to ours. We are only beginning to understand those emotional/motivational systems, though, so no one can speak in any great detail about them. We do know what happens when folks do not have properly working emotional systems -- they don't function very well. Cut out the entire mess of emotional systems and they are unconscious. Remove the ability to learn fear and they continually run the risk of falling to human predators. Remove the link between emotion and rational thought and they cannot function in the real world, cannot plan properly, cannot assign value to tasks, cannot work.