So anyway there's this guy called Skinner who has this idea that all behaviour can be explained in terms of tiny, composite behaviours. First we start off with fairly gross stimulus/reward ops; behaviour produces a good outcome (re-inforcer)--everything from mum and dad give baby lots of praise right through to it doesn't hurt to do it--and it's more likely to be reproduced. Behaviour produces a bad outcome (punishment)--everything from mum and dad give baby disproval to sitting on the fire hurts--is less likely ot be reproduced. Eventually we learn how to develop complex rules, such as generalising behaviour from one stimulus to another, different stimulus; and conversely, how to discriminate between seemingly similar stimuli.
So at a high level it looks like we've got free will because of the complexity of the behaviour we produce (and of course, you've always got the option of acting otherwise), but if it were possible to measure every single stimulus a person had experienced, you'd probably have a good basis of being able to predict their behaviour.
So at a high level it looks like we've got free will because of the complexity of the behaviour we produce (and of course, you've always got the option of acting otherwise), but if it were possible to measure every single stimulus a person had experienced, you'd probably have a good basis of being able to predict their behaviour.
That's exactly right.
B. F. Skinner is da Man! Anyone arguing for "free will" is essentially arguing that Skinner and 50 years worth of empirical evidence and resaerch into the Science of Determinism/Behaviorism is all wrong ... utter nonsense.
When questioned the "free willier's" primary reason for believing that Science is all wrong in this instance, is that the Earth appears to be flat and motionless.
Franko said:
Agreed to some extent--but a coupla points. Skinner's theory is enabling as well as constraining (determining)--without this experience we'd have no basis to make any decision, and we do have some basis to apply some form of explicit or implicit judgement on our actions.
People who are unable/unwilling to demonstrate that kind of judgement, who are literally "impotent observers of their own behaviour" are pathologised, as criminals or as mentally ill, for instance. Therefore I'd suggest that free will exists, at least as a necessary political construct for the management of society, if not as a recognition of the reflexive nature of behaviour (we can do, or we can not do; we can decide not to do in the future).
Secondly, though both a powerful metaphor and explanation of human behaviour, the empirical basis for this theory is problematic; Skinner's experiments often involved modifying animal behaviour and he and his researchers could only modify existing instinctive behaviour (pigeons pecking, rats nosying), and in the absence of a re-inforcemnet schedule, any modified behaviours gradually extinguished. Humans have little (I think I could confidently say no) instinctive behaviour; and often it's unclear what the stimuli/reinforcers for our behaviour is.
finally; there's the huge problem of language; Skinner's theory views language acquisition as an imitative (?) process, but by his account children would not be able to make the linguistic leaps they so clearly do (for instance, developing a vocabularly when there is no clear re-inforcer, being able to understand tense before having the correct participle). And language is a (the?) significant part of human reality; without it, we are literally (sic) nobodies.
So yeah, Skinner sure is da man (also for bolting scientific methodology to psychology), but he's not the only man; behaviourism's a good basis, but we need more to fill in the gaps.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Franko(sage): said:How EXACTLY do atoms acquire the power to make “choices” MRC? Where is the “YOU” in the equation? All I see are atoms (chemicals) doing what chemicals do as per the Laws of Physics?
How exactly can you assume that a very complex physical system is not able to be conscious and make choices? Which physical law precludes this?
What is the evidence that there is a “YOU” capable of controlling the four fundamental forces?
Strawman. I have not claimed to control any fundamental forces.
What leads you to conclude that you desire anything without an order from TLOP?
What leads you to conclude that tlop is capable of giving orders? And how does this fit with your earlier statement that perceptions are not controlled by tlop?
(TLOP = The laws of Physics)
You dont SAY?
Hans
The Laws of Physics.
In this Universe the Laws of Physics are DIRECTLY responsible for ALL the motions of ALL the matter. “consciousness” and “choices” are irrelevant, they are nothing more than illusions. It is like the A-Theists version of Intelligent Design – I imagine I make choices, ergo I MUST make choices.
Kind of like claiming that the world is flat and motionless because that is how you perceive it.
Is this a concession MRC???
If there is no “YOU” controlling the any of the four forces, and if the four forces control everything, then how can you claim “free will”?
Hmmm, are you suggesting that TLOP isn’t what’s making the Earth orbit the Sun and the Moon orbit the Earth? Are you suggesting that the chemical reactions in your mind and body are not entirely the result of the 4 forces of TLOP?
Ohhh, I think you’ve taken something I might have said out of context. You don’t have a “Soul” do you MRC? Aren’t all of your perceptions merely the deterministic results of the Laws of physics? How could your perceptions possibly be anything other than a product of TLOP?
Are you seriously claiming that TLOP does not control everything in this universe? What else is there other than TLOP MRC? Are you asserting the existence of magic?
Ahhh, so you want Me to prove that Your “free willy god” does NOT exist? … and unless I can do that you will continue to insist that “he” does?
Why don’t you just present the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim, and then I can assess the evidence for myself and see if your god is real?
Brilliant “refutation” religious fanatic.
Kind of like a Christian claiming … No its a circular argument again (from you). I do not claim to control tlop (including the four forces), but I dont see how tlop should preclude the existence of my personal deity and established traditions of my religion.
If YOU are the one Asserting “free will” the burden of proof is on YOU to PROVE “free willy” exist. So far you are only arguing against Fatalism (your syllogisms wrong! Your syllogisms wrong! Blah, blah, blah), but you haven’t presented ANY evidence (or even a consistent definition) for “free will”.
In what way are you “Thinking Independently” if TLOP is controlling all of your actions and thoughts?
Where is the ‘You” anyway MRC? Which specific atom is calling the shots? Which atom is not getting it’s orders from TLOP, but instead is getting them from “MRC” and causing all the rest of the atoms in your body to do something different than what simple Chemistry was telling them to do?
No, everything is Deterministic. But if you want to claim that magic “randomness” happens for which there is no logical (comprehensible/conceivable) explanation (or evidence) go right ahead. How you can assert that you understand something which you acknowledge is incomprehensible is beyond me? It certainly doesn’t make you a skeptic in my opinion. It makes you more of a dogmatic religious nitwit.
justsaygnosis
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 263
Franko said:
Frank, If TLOP is calling all the shots then it's gotta be TLOP making people behave like dogmatic religious nitwits. We just don't get to choose.
re -Atoms obey argument.
Why should the laws of physics preclude the possibility of atoms forming complex structures (brains) that work by analysing the information presented to it and having the ability to decide a course of action to best preserves is function?
Why should the laws of physics preclude the possibility of atoms forming complex structures (brains) that work by analysing the information presented to it and having the ability to decide a course of action to best preserves is function?