The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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:
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
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 doâ€â€”what could possibly be more flawless, more plausible . . . and yet so utterly vacuous? |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Carey N; May 2nd, 2006 at 11:36 AM.. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
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.... |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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:
Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; May 2nd, 2006 at 12:28 PM.. |
|
|