rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
>> how wrong he is about this. ...Rich Rosen >> should grant that there are other definitions, or at least grant that >> he doesn't really know. [MOODY] > I do not think it will do much good -- Rich is totally brainwished > by the one true religion -- Skinnerism: It would seem more likely that Michael, like someone else in this newsgroup who detested Skinner admitted at the end of this article, simply holds a strong bias against "Skinnerism" (whatever connotations that bizarre label is supposed to invoke), perhaps, not because there is evidence against it, but because he finds it "repulsive" based on desired conclusions he has that it goes against. And if that strong bias without need to substantiate is not an example of blind faith... > We can follow the path taken by physics and biology by turning > directly to the relation between behavior ant the environment and > neglecting supposed meidating states of mind.. What is being > abolished is autonomous man -- the inner man, the homunculus, the > possessing demon, the man defended by the literatures of freedom > and dignity. His abolition has long been overdue. Autonomous man is > a device used to explain what we cannot explain in any other way.. > Science does not dehumanize man, it dehomunculizes him.. > -- BF Skinner Wow! All I can say here is, what you guys were unable to do for Dennett's "Why I Want to Change the Definition of Free Will So That I Can Have It" (alias "Elbow Room"), Ellis has just successfully done for Skinner: given me a good reason to read a book of his. Your incredible overt bias AGAINST anything he has to say stands out a mile, and makes it clear that here is a man who has something to say that philosophers are so afraid of (because it goes against their precious party line) that they must belittle the man as often and as much as possible, without even feeling the need to cloak their very apparent biases (because it's socially acceptable to be biased against him?) > Is it any wonder Rich hallucinates evil religionists everywhere? > The poor laddie foolishly equates Skinnerist delusions with science! Last time I looked in the halls of Congress I wasn't hallucinating. This poor laddie CORRECTLY equates this "new wave" of "all beliefs are OK" beliefs with shoddy thinking, and you are a contributor to that. (But, Michael, of the two of us, who should get asked the question that Otto asked Miller in Repo Man?---"Did you do a lot of acid back in the hippie days?") It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness, eh, Michael? > Tragically, Rich's only deviations from correct dogma those ways in > which he is yet more rigid than the `Master': >> The fact remains that every definition of what free will is, either >> seen and listed by me, or coming from others on this net, has been >> rooted in EXACTLY what I have been talking about. Some have simply >> reasserted a "new" definition (because they didn't like the "old" >> one?), some have simply asserted that free will as defined does >> exist without naming a mechanism (just assuming that one exists, >> sometimes because they have a specific conclusion in mind, like >> "responsibility"). -- BF Rosen Uh, excuse me, that's "B.F. Good-Rich". We're the ones without the blimp. (i.e., hot air) > At least Mr. Skinner's writings have the honesty to examine and > criticize the major definitions of free will in history -- Rich's > dishonest approach is to assert that his `straw man' is the only true > definition. One thing Michael has learned in this debate, apparently, is the tactic of simply inserting words like "dishonest" to lend an uncredibility to those things he simply doesn't like. Nowhere does he offer evidence that I have been incorrect, he merely asserts that I have been "dishonest". Watch out for folks who pull this shit on you; next thing you know they'll have you wearing "mysticando" armbands and attending rallies shouting "FREE WILL -- FREE WILL -- FREE WILL -- FREE WILL..." Next thing you know after that you'll believe it too. > His only `proof' to date has been: > (1) Grotesque misinterpretations of several major philosophers [appended > to this article] and similar treatments of a few dictionary > definitions. Does he explain how these are "misinterpretations", or does he just assert that they are because he doesn't like them? This charade is laughable. > (2) An anecdote about some person whom he asked the definition > of `free will'. In light of (1), I severely doubt his ability > to interpret ANYONE'S definition of free will.. OOOH, "an anecdote about *some* person"! Boy, (2) sure sounds like the final blow that "proves" my statements are worthless, using the new Ellisist subjective method. I wonder if Michael has ever done what I did, asking real people what free will means. (Of course, Michael lives in California, so there's a handicap there. :-) I defy him to do so and report the results. > Another point -- I am willing to argue that even Rosenesque free will > exists. Which is odd because most everyone in this newsgroup who has had anything to say on the topic has stated that by "my" definition of free will, free will could not exist! What planet IS Michael on? > Nonetheless, I challenge Rich to document any reputable author > or body of literature whatsoever to support his blatant falsehood that > his is the ONE TRUE DEFINITION. Huh? How exactly would one be able to do this? If we ARE talking about the predominant definition of free will, would any writer bother stating the obvious that this is THE definition of free will? If it's not, would they admit that in their writings? Talk about setting up bogus conditions for a test! The examples HE gave himself from the body of philosophical thought weren't enough, were they? >>..some have simply asserted that free will as defined does exist without >>naming a mechanism (just assuming that one exists, sometimes because they >>have a specific conclusion in mind, like "responsibility"). -- BF Rosen > I will ignore the Rich's undemonstrated attribution of ulterior motive > in the above -- that justifying `responsibility' is somehow the purpose > behind free-will arguments. The two are independent issues. Yet it is the fundamental motive behind doing this. When you choose to build a system of beliefs backwards from an assumed conclusion for which there is no evidence, you MUST have a reason for choosing THAT conclusion, right? > Likewise, I will resist the temptation to suggest that Rich's > anti-free-will propaganda might just be motivated by the damaging > consequences of free will on Skinner's pristine vision of a world > perfectly controlled by behavior modification specialists. Unfortunately, this "pristine vision" is a vision of minimum presumption, whereas Michael's (blurred?) vision is one of maximal presumption and working backwards from a desired conclusion rife with assumptions. > I will instead question his implication that an entity may not exist > `without naming a mechanism'. No doubt, in Rich's tiny soulless > mechanical world, only machines exist, and everything not fitting > under his rigid scheme must be discarded, much as meteorites were > at one time discarded from the Vienna museum because they were > contrary to the curators' small-minded views of the cosmos. Given your limited definition of machine (apparently), allow me to ask what is NOT a "machine"? More precisely (to use less manipulative terminology than the bullshit of "Oohh, Rosen is saying we're all like machines---that's obviously wrong---he's *bad*!!!"), describe an entity that is not a mechanism. > Rich fails to accept Skinnerian Behaviorism's fall from scientific > dominance in the field of psychology in the 50's, challenged by Chomsky > and the upcoming tide of `mentalist' disciplines like Cognitive > Psychology and Artificial Intelligence, or the acceptance of natural > autonomy in evolutionary biology and QM. Never mind that science has > outgrown mechanical and behaviorist constraints: In reality, most of these "new" ideas (at base level) do NOT contradict what "Skinnerism" is all about. And the "fall from grace" and social acceptability is rooted in the same presumptive bullshit that you deal in: wokring backwards from the conclusion desired, and discarding (and maligning without substantiation) of anything that "gets in the way". Michael will doubtless claim that it is the other way around, but in fact the biggest thing in the way of my position is not facts (Michael doesn't have any) but intransigence. > [Behaviorists and materialists].. say that only those things > exist which can be observed. No, Michael, what they say is that those things that cannot be observed cannot be assumed to be factual just because you want to see a particular conclusion. > They do not realize that all > observation involves interpretation in light of theories, and > what they call `observable' is observable in light of pretty > old-fashioned theories.. It is not science but dubious philosophy > (or outdated science) which leads to idealism, phenomenalism, and > positivism; or to materialism and behaviorism, or to any other > form of anti-pluralism. -- Karl Popper (1972) Nice set of assertions there. Arndt was saying the same thing a year ago. Didn't hold water then either. By this reasoning, any perspective is a valid perspective. If a bigot offers a theory that "proves" (about as well as Michael's does) that certain groups of people are inferior, or that his group is superior, or any number of other untrue and anti-human things, that's OK. Your "pluralism" is a load of bullshit, Michael. > Is a human a machine? Not if a machine consists of inert matter > causally driven in a reductionist-determinist manner, You have proof that it is otherwise? Or you just feel obliged to feed in extra assumptions to get what you want whenever you want? Nice "philosophy" there, Mikey. > although I > believe humans are `governed' by natural laws -- theories like QM, > Prigogine's dissipative structures, self-referent `strange-loops' in > cognitive organization, and the autonomous nature of future > self-referential systems which validitate the notion of autonomous > behavior -- free will -- in all intelligent life. Say what? In what way does ANY of this disqualify human beings from being machines? Because you say so? How very presumptive! >>Conscious control over the process of decision making, the ability to >>CHOOSE a choice. To be able to do so FREELY, to be able to choose, say, >>between "right" and "wrong" regardless of how your past experiences have >>made you what you are today, would be "free will". To insist that people >>have such "free will" just because one wants that "accountability" factor >>doesn't make it so. > Look Rich -- your desperate need to be free of `accountability' > has little bearing on the anti-scientific quality of your hopeless > Skinnerist denial of free will; furthermore, morality to me is > a personal issue not linked in any way with my pro-free-will > stance. That's quaint. My "desperate need to be free of accountability". Of the two of us, it has always been YOU who has worked backwards from a desired conclusion, engaged in shoddy wishful thinking, and added in numerous assumptions to "get" to your conclusion without substantive reason for doing so. If that is science, then the Wicked Witch of the West was a scientist. Whether or not you choose to link the implications of your philosophy to reality, reality does that for you, so you can't just blithely say "I won't do that." Try removing all the manipulative rhetorical adjectives from your writing ("dishonest", "hopeless", etc.). Now try to find substantive reasons why they might belong there. Or better yet, witness how without those adjectives all you have is a bland vacuous assertion. > I `choose choices' BY DEFINITION -- just as I `think thoughts' or > `remember memories'. And although my choices are indeed be partially > influenced by the past, they are not TOTALLY determined that way. I > have a degree of freedom from any external influence (heredity, > environment, the past...) that you may name -- I am an autonomous > agent: You have evidence of the means by which this miraculous thing happens, that you make these choices outside the bounds of your chemical make-up? Or you just assert that you do, perhaps because you "feel" this to be true subjectively? This is why your notions are just so much hot air, Michael. By Occam, you take the explanation that has the minimal set of assumptions associated with it. Which happens to be this one: the notion that the same mechanisms that operate in the rest of the world operate mechanistically in the human brain. Whereas yours willy nilly forcefits other assumptions like "I am an autonomous agent because I want to perceive of myself that way, therefore let me assume that this is so and work from there, 'proving' that there MUST be some mechanism that allows this to happen." > For example, the brain is the most highly organized form of matter > known and it exhibits unprecedented causal properties such as free > will, intention, anticipation, choice, and valuation. Now if that's not assuming your conclusion, what is? "It exhibits free will, therefore it does." You've got Descartes before Deshorse. :-) > These properties are so foreign to causality as manifested by less > organized systems that they generally are either simply dismissed > by science as illusory, as in Skinnerian behaviorism, or totally > dissociated from material causality, as in Cartesian dualism.. Perhaps because they ARE illusory, Michael? That possibility is so obviously "wrong" to you (i.e., interferes with your desired conclusions) that you will fight to the death to deny and/or malign such a position. Given the nature of subjective experience, how it is very very prone to illusory events, what is your stake in denying this? > The brain truly does possess the novel properties that it appears > to have. Argument by assertion. Deny the notion that such phenomena as "free will" are illusory (though we have plenty of reason to do so) and POOF! all your "problems" go away. By this reasoning, bigots, lunatics, mass murderers, etc. all have valid perspectives and positions: who are we to say that their vision that the world is out to get them (thus justifying their barbaric acts) is an "illusion". We should "never" do that, right, Michael? The only reason for NOT doing this is because doing so would also debunk YOUR precious notions, wouldn't it? > SMASH SKINNERISM!!! Smash wishful thinking! P.S. Nice of you to re-include my points about your choice philosophers without comment. Was there a reason you chose not to comment? Was it "obvious" that these points were flawed? Or were you unable to respond except by asserting elsewhere in the article that these were simply "wrong". If it was the former, I challenge you to be very specific as to where the faults lie. You may find they lie both in your "stars" and in yourself. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/23/85)
>>>..some have simply asserted that free will as defined does exist without >>>naming a mechanism (just assuming that one exists, sometimes because they >>>have a specific conclusion in mind, like "responsibility"). -- BF Rosen > >> I will ignore the Rich's undemonstrated attribution of ulterior motive >> in the above -- that justifying `responsibility' is somehow the purpose >> behind free-will arguments. The two are independent issues. > >Yet it is the fundamental motive behind doing this. When you choose >to build a system of beliefs backwards from an assumed conclusion for >which there is no evidence, you MUST have a reason for choosing THAT >conclusion, right? [ROSEN] Rich Rosen ought to know as this is exactly his practice. He doesn't like the idea of free will, perhaps because he doesn't like the idea of being responsible for his actions. So building backwards from this wished-for conclusion that there is no such thing as free will, he posits as The Definition of Free Will a definition of something that most people today would agree doesn't exist, and then subjects anyone who dares to disagree with him to long sarcastic ad hominem tirades rather than presenting any arguments for his position. I can't think of any other motivation for thinking that there is a One True Definition of free will. Like all philosophically interesting terms, "free will" has no single, cut-and-dried definition. If it had one, as Hume pointed out, the controversy over "liberty and necessity" would long since have come to a resolution. The same is true of such terms as duty, justice, right, good, evil, person, cause, truth, explanation, mind, action, rationality, reason, utility, pleasure, nature, and just about any term commonly used in philosophical discourse. Maybe Rich could enlighten us and put an end to centuries of philosophical debate by posting the One True Definition of each of these terms. Seriously, this is why there is such a thing as philosophy and not merely a lexicon in which we can look up the answers. That is why Plato wrote dialogues consisting entirely of a search for an understanding of such terms as excellence (arete), courage, and justice, sometimes failing to find one. His answer to the question What is justice? is the entire *Republic*. Any contemporary answer to the same question would have to be explained at book length (or even specified at book length, as in M. Walzer's *Spheres of Justice*.) There is no more a single cut-and-dried definition of justice today than there was in Plato's day, and there is no reason to expect that things will ever be any different. BTW, in Book I of the *Republic* an ancestor of Rich Rosen's named Thrasymachus appears, and Socrates deals with him in an instructive manner. Of course I'm not suggesting, heaven forbid, that anyone actually *read* Book I of the *Republic*. The question "Do people possess free will?" has no yes-or-no answer. Merely as stated, the question has no clear meaning, and the task of philosophy is to unwrap the term "free will" and figure out what people are talking about when they talk about free will, just as the moral philosopher unwraps "virtue" and "duty" and the political philosopher unwraps "justice" and "right." So there are varieties of free will, and some of them are worth wanting, as Dennett believes. Another example: Are utilities (satisfactions) interpersonally comparable? The answer is clear: It all depends on what you mean by "utility" or "satisfaction." There is no single "correct" definition for either term. >Wow! All I can say here is, what you guys were unable to do for Dennett's >"Why I Want to Change the Definition of Free Will So That I Can Have It" >(alias "Elbow Room"), Ellis has just successfully done for Skinner: given >me a good reason to read a book of his. [ROSEN] The reason I read books is that I think that the author may have something to teach me that I didn't know or understand before. Obviously this reason does not apply to people who know the answers already. I believe Rosen has abundantly earned himself the right to be ignored and left in peace. Why don't we all declare Rich the WINNER OF THE DEBATE. You were right all along, Rich, and we, your opponents, were totally and irretrievably wrong. We hereby freely acknowledge and confess our grievous and inexcusable error. Now can we get on with some serious discussion? -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes