Simple question,
If behavior is ultimatly determanistic what does that do to Austrain economics and by extencion classical economics?
Mises, Human Action:
“We may fairly assume or believe that they are absolutely dependent upon and conditioned by their causes. But as long as we do not know how external facts–physical and physiological–produce in a human mind definite thoughts and volitions resulting in concrete acts, we have to face an insurmountable methodological dualism.”
To recycle a reply I’ve written before… The methodological dualism of the Austrian method isn’t resorted to because we don’t know WHETHER actions are determined. Even if it were proven that actions are indeed determined, so long as we do not know WHICH actions will be caused by WHICH factors, we still must resort to methodological dualism. It is not enough to know THAT firing neurons lead to choices. For a scientist studying human behavior to practice methodological monism, he would need to know WHICH circumstances regarding the firing of neurons would lead to deciding to compose a symphony, and WHICH circumstances regarding the firing of neurons would instead lead to deciding to read a book. So long as we can’t accomplish such a mind-boggling feat as that, the only way of studying human behavior that makes sense is by considering humans as acting beings with minds, wills, and intentions.
It can’t do anything. We’re determined into doing what we do, writing what we write, trying to convince the people we try to convince, and so on.
My mistake I should have been prepared the rote answers created by this question in the past.
Allow me to stipulate:
When you come to a fork in the road there is no choice to go right or left. The sum total of your history (past experiences), makes only one choice possible even if you do not know it.
Understanding that point leads to understanding that a person’s history/behavior can be shaped making an end result inevitable.
You do not need to know which circumstances or neurons are firing because prediction of behavior is not the goal, modification of behavior is the goal. To put it simply you will know the past circumstances because you created them.
That is far from a mind boggling feat.
And for scientists studying behavior, we do not need to know the circumstances causing a neuron to fire. Only the antecedent reinforcement that causes the behavior. this is a common feat.
Now that the mind bogging feat has been removed what does that do to Austrian and by extension classical economics?
I don’t agree that it is. However, to answer your question, regarding Austrian economics, I don’t see how it would change anything.
For instance, it wouldn’t change…
(1) The fact that resources are scarce.
(2) The fact that humans aim to achieve ends.
(3) The fact that human ends are, for all intents and purposes, limitless.
(4) The fact that humans, therefore, prioritize their various individual (and determined, in this particular case) ends.
In short, the fact of derminism would affect only the manner in which individuals select their ends. Austrian economics doesn’t deal with the manner in which individuals choose their ends—instead, it takes these ends as given and focuses on the FACT that humans seek ends, and prioritize them due to their being limitless, and due to resources being scarce.
imo.
Edit: “I don’t agree that it is.” I was referring to ‘determinism’ in this sense: (a) Mental acts play no role in the course of events—all causation is material—all causation is mechanical—all causation is physical (iows: all change is brought about by material entities, processes, and events—ideas are intermediary stages which have no autonomous existence). Indeed, however, as others point out below, determinism is central to Austrian economics in this sense: (b) reason leads man to recognize causality—or, determinism—or, regularity—in nature. See Mises, Theory and History, pp. 73-84.
Correct. However, can anyone calculate (i.e. necessarily predict with 100% certainty) which way you’ll go?
Can you explain what you mean by “inevitable”? Because, as far as I can tell, human behavior cannot be calculated (per the meaning I use above).
You will not have created all past circumstances. You do not have control over every neuron in another person’s body, to say nothing of having control over every atom and molecule in his body.
… In experiments. But is the behavior guaranteed to happen in every single case? Or is there a “margin of error”?
Nothing that I know of.
Mises Daily has something to say about this thread:
Deterministic chaos has solved this paradox. It turns out that many natural phenomena can be fully deterministic and yet unpredictable without going through all the computations of the process.
I was about to write that just about everything Mises had to said describing behaviorism was wrong or cherry picked. But at the end he said “stimulus-response scheme”. Which is interesting because that is something difference from behaviorism.
This means he was simply confused and was not writing about behaviorism at all but was actually referring to stimulus response theory.
Ergo he never addressed behaviorism at all.
These are all questions that can be answered that can all be answered with even a rudimentary knowledge of what behavior is. If no one here knows enough about behaviorism to understand/answer the question then that is an outcome in itself.
Huh?
I see you share Mises’s condition only more honestly stated.
Inquisitor, who are you replying to in your posts?
Can you elaborate?
To go back to your original question,
Makes it possible!
These are all questions that can be answered that can all be answered with even a rudimentary knowledge of what behavior is. If no one here knows enough about behaviorism to understand/answer the question then that is an outcome in itself.
Then enlighten us with some rudimentary knowledge and we may better know how to answer your question.
The crucial error in all of this is that radical behaviorism does not try to explain events at a phisiological level but rather at the level of interaction or a behaving organism and the environment.
E.g., this statement
"WHICH circumstances regarding the firing of neurons would lead to deciding to compose a symphony, and WHICH circumstances regarding the firing of neurons would instead lead to deciding to read a book. "
has 2 problems or misunderstanding: 1. that it is the firing of neurons that is the focus of analysis, and 2. that those events then lead to " deciding " on anything as opposed to “behaving” in one way or another
the analysis of importance is that which includes the “environmental circumstances " that lead to directing the symphony or reading the book”
Yes this task is complex BUT that is what a behavior analysis does. the result is identifying the stimulus control of directing the symphony or reading..the firing of neurons happens during this process but it is perhaps only related to "how we behave as a biologivcal organism NOT “WHY”. that question cann only be addressed at the organism-environment level of explanation..that is the subject matter of Psychology and Behavior analysis
“WHY”. that question cann only be addressed at the organism-environment level of explanation..that is the subject matter of Psychology and Behavior analysis
I dont think austrian economics concerns itself with why people make the decisions they do. It is irrelevant. All that matters is that they do choose what they choose. But maybe I am missing your point.
OK, then let me help you. I am sayingthat terms such as “choice” and “Freewill” do not exist. They are mentalistic, blackbox tersm for explaining behavior. Does that make my point more clear?
Science and logic only exist/are useful precisely because the universe is governed by causality, i.e., the regularity in the sequence of phenomena. To somehow imply that this casts doubt upon the tenability and applicability of Austrian and “classical” economics (by which I assume you mean pre-Keynesian analysis) is the ultimate non sequitur.
See Grayson’s response to you (it’s the first one). Your argument is neither radical nor novel; in fact, it is entirely irrelevant.