🚀 go-pugleaf

Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility.
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <52019@linus.UUCP> <1309@lzfme.att.com> <1966@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <528@orawest.UUCP>
Sender: 
Reply-To: brianc@daedalus.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Distribution: 
Organization: UCSF Dept. of Lab Med
Keywords: Behaviorism, materialism, dogma, science

In article <528@orawest.UUCP> orawest!ejs@unix.sri.com (e john sebes) writes:
>In article <1966@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> brianc@daedalus.UUCP (Brian Colfer) writes:
>>One of the classic arguments against Behaviorism is that it is
>>essentially a fascistic philosophy.
>>...
>
>I have a number of corrections to Mr. Colfer's rhetoric.
>
>Behaviorism is not a philosophy, it is psychological theory or method.

Most psych text books consider Behaviorism as a school of
psychological thought.  BF Skinner in *About behaviorism* says that 
he does not call Radical Behaviorism a theory because it is an
investigation of the principles of being, rather than a scientific
investigation of the relationship between observations.

But anyways that isn't my point... I'm saying that many see RB as
a unattractive view of what it means to be human.

Mr. Sebes essentially has two criticisms of my rhetoric:

I)  My statements are inappropriate as philosophical statements 
    because they are dogmatic 

....
>Mr. Colfer's posting is classic example of a naive form this dogmatism.
...
>The *philosophical assumptions* of behaviorism are what is generally
>  called materialistic determinism.
>  As an assumption, this is scientifically acceptable; as a 
>    philosophical dogma, it is like all such, unacceptable.
>The *criticism of* (not "arguments against") some behaviorists' rhetoric
>  (not "Behaviorism") is that it is dogmatic. That is, in addition
>  to *assuming* materialistic determinism, some behaviorists assert it,
>  making essentially metaphysical claims that are out of the bounds
>  of science; this reduces the credibility of them as scientists,
>  and hence clouds the value of their work, which is as important
>  (to me, at least) as any theory of human actions.

The crux of Mr. Sebes critique is that if behaviorists philosophically
assert materialistic determinism then they are making dogmatic
metaphysical claims.   I see this as deriving from two points:

	   1) No one can absolutely answer the question of whether 
		  the human mind is completely determined.
	   2) Without this convincing evidence reasonable people can
		  reasonably disagree about this...

My point is that if we talk about the rest of the universe as being 
materialistically determined...<except for Pele in Hawaii :-) > then
why change our set of assumptions when it comes to the human mind.

>Still, a lot of people
>have the belief that this is the case, both from observation and
>from unverifiable suspicion. The key word is unverifiable--
>that the human mind is not completely deterministic is
>a metaphysical claim that can't be scientifically addressed,
>just like the existence of God.
>
....
>The key point here is that you can't base respectable scientific
>work on an assertion *either way* about an unverifiable question;
>you just assume that since you can't prove it, it is not important,
>and forget about it, except for bull sessions over <your favorite beverage>.
...
>Such folks (responsible ones at least), recognize that
>there is nothing to do about it but take an agnostic stance, and
>get on with work.

No one can prove that Mt. St. Helen's did not blow her stack because
of Her free will.   Still, it is not a serious position at least in
modern times to ascribe free will to such geologic behaviors.
Just because we cannot prove that free will is not taking place is no
reason for adopting it or even being agnostic.  
There is a large body of data and logic describing that our universe
is materialistically determined.

If we are agnostic about this issue then we are saying that when we are
studying an unverifiable question all of our previous scientific
assumptions/assertions are inappropriate.  Tabala Rasa for every
single question?  I think the more reasonable position is to stay with
my previous assumptions unless I have good reasons not to, based on sound
logic or good evidence.

These questions on free will have an impact because they frame the type
of questions and problems people will address.  People are being
effected by assumptions of free will, e.g. "for someone to change
(learn, rehabilitate, etc.) they need to want change?" More important
to AI assumptions on the nature of human intelligence is an issue which
can dramatically the course of the technology.

>(The current consensus, from where I sit, is that nobody was convinced
> then of the ultimate wonderful of behaviorism, and few people are
> pushing it these days as anything but one of several interesting
> approaches to the study of human actions. However, people (like Colfer)
> who are already of a materialistic bent, are continually rediscovering
> behaviorism, and getting keen on it-- evidence that the theory does
> some essential value, at least in the world of ideas.)

Behaviorism is not the ultimate statement on how and why humans behave
it is an important component help to describe the interaction between
the biology and environment of an organism (in this case a person).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

II) My statements ignore the potential for harm if some people
    systematically maliciously apply technologies derived from RB.	

>This is not to deny that many people are concerned about
>  the totalitarian possibilities of the application of techniques
>  that behaviorists claim are efficient.
>Finally, the point of such concern isn't that the practitioners of
>  such techniques will be immune to them, but that they will
>  have the knowledge of the use of the techniques--
>  in other words, POWER over others.

If we don't use the techniques to empower the people then
perhaps the elite will use them to control the people in ways
that will bring short term reinforcement but long term punishment.
But Johnathan Platt says that this is happening anyways even if we 
are not being systematic about it.

>That is where the concern over behaviorism arises. To a strict
>determinist, this is not a problem: the controlling people are
>behaving deterministically in their deterministic control over
>others, so the controllers are no different; developing
>behaviorist control techniques is the whole deterministic system
>developing new ways of changing.

Yes my point is tat we will be determined with or without a
behaviorist technology.  If we are not systematic about it then
we loose the opportunity to do some wonderful things and we will
have no way of counteracting those who will abuse the technology.

>However, there are few real determinists so dyed in the wool
>that they would like to let other people use such techniques
>on them without any caution, just because it is all determined.
>

We probably are just not smart enough to understand the 
social ecology well enough to prevent us from making mistakes
with behavioral technologies.  But just because we should be
careful doesn't mean we shouldn't do it ... lets be careful, 
have full disclosure about whats happening but let's not stop
it just because it involves control.

How can we use behaviorism to understand AI?
=============================================================================
Brian  | UC San Francisco        | E-mail: USENET, Internet, BITNET
Colfer | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  |..!{ucbvax,uunet}!daedalus.ucsf.edu!brianc
       | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | brianc@daedalus.ucsf.edu 
       | PH. 415-476-2325        | BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET
=============================================================================