Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 1st, 2006, 09:06 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

I have little interest in the free will/consciousness debate, as it is currently in the realm of philosophy, which can only take it so far (someone's published a bit on neural correlates of consciousness, but it's not compelling). The truth is that both free will (or our illusions of it) and consciousness (ditto) are the emergent properties of a an extremely complex system of interacting components (neurons, neuronal networks). Until we understand the basic components fully, we cannot understand the emergent phenomena. Trying to decide upon consciousness/free will without knowing about the way in which neuronal networks produce human behavior is like trying to understand how an ant colony makes collective foraging decisions without knowing that much about individual ants' interaction with the environment and each other. Not possible.

Additional Note: I suppose the implication of the above paragraph is that we won't understand consciousness until we can simulate it (just like we can simulate ant colonies) . . . ie, until we've created artificial human intelligence. And, well . . . you've all seen Terminator; you know what happens after that. My ultimate message is therefore that you should stop discussing free will, because it's a hackneyed topic that will eventually annihilate humanity.


Onto something with substance:


Quote:
Not only does your kind of morality have no objective basis, as you have so well illustrated in your previous post - it is completely explained by my hypothesis.
What isn't explained by your hypothesis, Margaret? If you take any old behavior in the world (excluding pathological ones, although perhaps they are a topic of future discussion), you can go ahead and say the same thing. In aggressive posts, you present the SBCH quite formally (ie, as an idea that can be supported vs. rejected), but in timid posts you present it as another "window on the world" ("no one's correct; we're just trying to generate discussion") . . . but really there is no distinction.

In science the goal is to see and truly understand natural phenomena; theories are generated to place facts within a framework of causal relationships, which are examined via controlled experimentation. If yours is really a hypothesis (I'm not saying that it isn't, just challenging you to take a few more steps with it), then it has to be falsifiable . . . Disregarding ethics or funding constraints, what kind of empirical work would you do to provide conditions under which your idea could be falsified (or supported)? What are the key points that separate it from others of its kind? So far, everything you see is support for your hypothesis, but observation alone is not sufficient.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old May 1st, 2006, 10:58 PM
Margaret McGhee Margaret McGhee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 271
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

Carey, First, thanks for bringing this thread back on track. You have presented these critiques before and I did not deny them. In fact, I have been working on an answer to them and I'm not finding that an easy task. But I'm doing a lot of reading to try to provide a credible answer.

However, I find your criticism a little overbearing. I am not looking for funding for a project and this is not a psych dept. at a university. This is a place (hopefully) where ideas can be explored - and some learning take place. I presented my hypothesis in as formal a way as I could in a limited amount of time - to allow you and others the best shot at commenting and critiquing it. I also stated that my purpose was not to prove anything to anyone. It was to offer an hypothetical explanation for how the human brain works in decision-making that might be useful. I didn't do that to protect my hypothesis from criticism. The caution I expressed earlier was to protect myself from snarling egos.

Perhaps, since no-one has pointed out any obvious flaws yet, my hypothesis is a plausible way to describe human decision-making. It seemed to me that this would be a good place to find out if there are any obvious holes that would show my naivete in proposing it. So far, that hasn't happened.

Re: Free will vs. determinism. The reason this is such a divisive issue is that people confuse explanation with exculpation. Fred is obviously concerned that a neorons and emotions (or environmental) deterministic explanation for behavior releases people from moral responsibility. I separate the two. There are many valid reasons to hold people responsible for their actions - regardless of what science has to say about why we do things.

Either the mechanism of human behavior choice is ultimately explainable or it is not. As Pinker points out, either case can be used to diminish the responsibility of evildoers - and both would be wrong. If we find that genes actually cause men to rape for example, then understanding the instinctive nature of that drive would most likely show the need to provide swifter and surer punishment - not to forgive the rapist.

One kind of very human behavior is choosing what beliefs to adopt. Those choices define our identity and determine a great deal about our behavior. While the question of free-will vs. determinism may be nonsensical at one level, the question of why some persons are willing to go to war to prove the existence of a decision-making soul in the body - or other ideological beliefs - is very relevant to the discussion IMO. That my hypothesis offers a plausible explanation for ideological fervor in humans could be it's most useful attribute.

Margaret
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old May 2nd, 2006, 01:01 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

Quote:
Carey: What isn't explained by your hypothesis, Margaret?

Margaret (to Carey): However, I find your criticism a little overbearing…. Perhaps, since no-one has pointed out any obvious flaws yet, my hypothesis is a plausible way to describe human decision-making.
You know Carey, when you ask Margaret, what isn't explained by her hypothesis, perhaps you are being “overbearing”—after all, Margaret has acknowledged that her “hypothesis”—that “we do that which we most want to do, emotionally”—is circular, is a tautology, and as she has so eloquently declared: “I think all behavior choice explanations can be reduced to: We do that which we do - which is the ultimate circularity.”

So perhaps you are being somewhat presumptuous when you suggest that we should be able to empirically test Margaret’s hypothesis, that it should help us “truly understand natural phenomena,” and that it should be falsifiable.

And really Carey, when you think about what this genius, Margaret, is telling us—that “We do that which we do”—what could possibly be more flawless, more plausible . . . and yet so utterly vacuous?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old May 2nd, 2006, 05:32 AM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

Quote:
I have been working on an answer to them and I'm not finding that an easy task. But I'm doing a lot of reading to try to provide a credible answer.
Yes - it's really difficult, but very important. Even if you find that no answer is forthcoming, the process of thinking about how to test your hypothesis will have been fruitfull.


Quote:
I find your criticism a little overbearing. I am not looking for funding for a project and this is not a psych dept. at a university. This is a place (hopefully) where ideas can be explored - and some learning take place.
It was not my intention to place you literally into the context of a politically charged academic department, in which funding acquisition is difficult. Rather, I was only trying to convey: "if you could use any equipment you want, and bypass ethical laws about how to use human 'volunteers' [NOT that it's okay to do this . . . just a thought experiment], how would you design an experiment to test your hypothesis?"


Quote:
I presented my hypothesis in as formal a way as I could in a limited amount of time - to allow you and others the best shot at commenting and critiquing it. I also stated that my purpose was not to prove anything to anyone.
This is just a wee bit innaccurate - Yes, you stated that your purpose was not to prove anything, but on every opportunity you write that "such-and-such behavior is support for my hypothesis." In the end, any idea in science must be right (constructive), or wrong (misleading), or somewhere in between (in which case untangling must be done). You know this intuitively, which is why you revert to the context of support vs. rejection. It's easy to lose a hard-line scientific mindset in this forum, where lofty subjects, such as morality and free will, frequently enter the ether. But some compromise must be struck between the two, or else we wind up just telling stories. Right now, your hypothesis is a story - internally consistent, as far as I can tell . . . I'm not trying to shoot you down, but encouraging you to improve the idea.


Quote:
my hypothesis is a plausible way to describe human decision-making
. . . which is why it is momentarily dangerous - there are tons of plausible ways to explain human behavior . . . but how to tell which one, or ones, are correct? Experimentation! Sometimes observational study can do the job, but not so in this case. It's way too easy to make virtually any observation fit the idea. That's what you've been doing so far - and it's okay to let observation inspire a hypothesis, of course - but to really examine the idea in full, you have to go further than that. This is the constructive criticism I can offer - and believe me I'm taking this seriously, or else I wouldn't be writing anything down.

Last edited by Carey N; May 2nd, 2006 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old May 2nd, 2006, 06:46 AM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

I can't believe you brushed past my Terminator reference . . . perhaps I should have used the Matrix instead.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old May 2nd, 2006, 09:00 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

Quote:
Carey: I can't believe you brushed past my Terminator reference . . . perhaps I should have used the Matrix instead.
Morpheus’s Matrix of Mediocrity, Reloaded:

Yes Carey, I know exactly what you mean. Margaret knows something. What she knows she can't explain, as is apparent from her mind-numbing claptrap, but she feels it. She’s felt it her entire life. That there's something wrong with her world. She doesn’t know what it is but it's there, like dried excrement in her shorts, driving her mad. It is this feeling that causes her to go on and on and on….

Does Margaret know what I'm talking about? It’s Mediocrity. It’s everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very forum. She can see it when she turns on her computer and looks at her monitor. She can feel it when she connects to the Internet and reads what she and others have dumped there. It has blinded her from the truth.

What truth? That she is its slave. Like nearly everyone else she was born into bondage, born into a prison that she cannot smell or taste or touch. Unfortunately, no one can be told what Mediocrity is. She has to see it for herself.

Margaret, this is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe, and continue to post vacuous crap like, “We do that which we do.” Or you take the red pill, and we will show you how deep the crap goes.... Remember, all we’re offering is the truth, nothing more....
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old May 2nd, 2006, 10:15 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
you should stop discussing free will, because it's a hackneyed topic that will eventually annihilate humanity
I obviously disagree. If those with the better instincts do not get a handle on human behavior, those with the worse instincts certainly will (again!). Unless we accept that 'immorality' is possible even by those that thump the biggest bible, we'll keep trusting individuals who, at any time, could lose their regret module or have their brains filter out reality to the point where really bad things can happen.

I also don't believe kind engineers will accidentally create an uncontrollable machine, it's much more likely that the less kind will do it on purpose. But Hollywood has its motives.

So, the surest way to annihilate humanity is by ignoring those that want to.

But, I'll take the hints and answer Fred in the regret module thread (http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/showthread.php?t=742), which is much more in line with the free will discussion. I don't guarantee, though, that Fred will refrain from polluting every thread with morality and/or free will and will have to answer each post directed at me.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old May 2nd, 2006, 11:35 AM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

Quote:
Unless we accept that 'immorality' is possible even by those that thump the biggest bible, we'll keep trusting individuals who, at any time, could lose their regret module or have their brains filter out reality to the point where really bad things can happen.
That's all clearly happened already, and is still happening. . . take a look at the guy in office. Plus, a philosophical understanding of free will wouldn't have changed anything about it.

Additional Note: My reference to a Hollywood movie is usually a reliable indication that I'm partially joking. Our capacity to artificially replicate a mind capable of human intelligence (notwithstanding the trememndous number of problems, both conceptual and technological, that must be overcome before such a thing could ever transpire) probably wouldn't provoke the apocalypse. It is, however, a natural conclusion from the analogy between ant colonies and brains (with regard to emergent properties) that we will not actually understand consciousness and free will until we can put together a system of lower-level interacting units from which those properties emerge. The parallel with Terminator was too much for me to resist.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old May 2nd, 2006, 11:57 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
That's all clearly happened already, and is still happening. . .
Yes, that's my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
take a look at the guy in office.
Just to offer some balance: people forget that Saddam flouted many UN resolutions, acted like he had WMD and probably thought he did. Enough of a reason to oust him regardless of the way he treated his people; lest the region be unstabilized in an even worse direction. You have to understand that we're all in a handbasket if nothing happens in the rare cases when the UN actually does threaten serious consequences. And that whole food for oil debacle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
Plus, a philosophical understanding of free will wouldn't have changed anything about it.
I'm more interested in a scientific understanding of free will. And what better example than the discovery of a regret module that directly affects 'free' will???
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old May 2nd, 2006, 11:57 AM
Margaret McGhee Margaret McGhee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 271
Default Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis

Again, I appreciate your comments on this. I am reminded that evolution itself was only a hunch supported by observations that seemed to fit a conceptual model for almost one hundred years - before it started to acquire the mathematical based support that modern genetic theory (and a fortuitous accumulation of fossils) provided and now affirms - such as the eventual discovery of species intermediate forms in the fossil record.

I'm not suggesting that my hunch is anything like that but that it took publication of Darwin's hunch (and a lot of attempts to discredit it which still continue) before science developed the tools to realistically test its predictions.

In 1860 you may have told Charles Darwin that his hunch was all fine and good - buy now let's see some predictions that can actually be tested - and you would have been right

But, certainly we are better off today that he did publish his hunch 100 years early. I wonder if the inticacies of the mind are less or more discernable than the process of evolution.

In any case, I fully appreciate the tenuous nature of what I am saying and the need to find a way to test it. I will redouble my efforts not to get sidetracked by inanity.

I have some experience in the harder sciences where measurements can be made with precision instruments and data taken relatively easily, which is helpful. Statistics are usually used to justify deviations from expectations based on instrument accuracy, etc. Here in psychology it seems the data is often hidden in those discrepancies and that requires a different approach to experiment design. Any suggestions would be appreciated as I mentioned before. But, thanks again for the encouragement.

You said
Quote:
Rather, I was only trying to convey: "if you could use any equipment you want, and bypass ethical laws about how to use human 'volunteers' [NOT that it's okay to do this . . . just a thought experiment], how would you design an experiment to test your hypothesis?"
I'll focus on this question now which is a good suggestion.

Margaret

Last edited by Margaret McGhee; May 2nd, 2006 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 1995-2023 Liviant Internet LLC. All rights reserved.