I am not compelled to rake leaves everywhere I see them — Janus
What causes me to rake particular leaves is the thought that they look untidy, or that they will rot down and contaminate a hard surface with organic material. or that they will stain the driveway or verandah if I leave them there. — Janus
It seems to me that people generally use the term 'cause' in expressions of the form "X caused Y" when Y must happen when X obtains. — Janus
'He pointed a gun to my head, and ordered me to rake the leaves': in that case I would probably say that having a gun pointed at my head and being commanded to rake the leaves caused me to rake the leaves (or alternatively, I might deny this claiming that I still had a choice — Janus
'falling from the roof, and landing badly on my left leg caused it to break', — Janus
'being hit by a car caused her death' — Janus
You accuse me of appealing merely to how things seem to me, but in the practice of philosophy that applies to all. What authority do you imagine you are appealing to when you say 'leaves cause me to rake them' beyond how it seems to you? — Janus
There are different ways to understand and talk about causation in ordinary language, specialist language and philosophy. Janus leans more on ordinary language, while Isaac insists on certain specialist and philosophical uses. — SophistiCat
Seeing the cup broken causes me to swear is more problematic. No greater number of missing factors in the causal chain. In fact nothing logically different at all between the two scenarios. Except that in the latter, a human mind is in the causal chain, and we just don't like determinism when it comes to humans. — Isaac
The disparity that you point out makes more sense if you think of causation as manipulation than if you think of it as contribution. — SophistiCat
In this example causation also gets mixed up with responsibility, which confounds the issue even more. — SophistiCat
Absolutely. Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but I sense, in the arguments of free-speech absolutists like nos, that they're not merely 'confounded' but deliberately use the confusion as a smokescreen for promoting the use of language to suppress minorities. That's really the only reason I got involved here, to point out that assuming a hard disconnect between the speech of one and the response of another is a political, not a logical decision.
I explained the difference between a necessary and a sufficient cause, did I not? — Isaac
So every single time you have one of those thoughts you're compelled to rake leaves, even if there aren't any leaves to rake? — Isaac
...and immediately what follows is an example where the word is used in a situation where Y needn't follow. — Isaac
Only it didn't, because lots of people fall from roofs and land badly without breaking their leg (unless you're defining 'landing badly' as 'landing in such as way as to break a leg', in which case your argument is just tautological, not causal). So some other factors must also have been necessary. — Isaac
. Basically your position is inconsistent with the laws of physics (it has thought (an immaterial thing) cause action (a material thing) which defies the laws of conservation of momentum, and it appears inconsistent (one minute a necessary but not sufficient cause is labelled 'cause' - the car hitting someone, but a different factor with the same properties - necessary but not sufficient, is denied that label) — Isaac
No greater excuse has been used to justify censorship than this action-at-a-distance, the magical thinking that words cause adverse effects on groups of people or society as a whole, as if it was poison, pollution, or a natural disaster. Examples of this are myriad. Whether expression is “corrupting the youth” in the case of Socrates, “adversely affect public health, safety, and morals” in the censorship of Bertrand Russel, or it leads to “disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith” in the case of Galileo. In each case some fearful authority attempts to raise expression to a species of dangerous sorcery somehow capable of manipulating matter. — NOS4A2
Your sense is way off in my own case. Throughout history censorship has been used against minorities of all types: religious, racial, political, the individual. — NOS4A2
the magical thinking that words cause adverse effects on groups of people or society as a whole — NOS4A2
So I tend to oppose that type of thinking and don’t want to see our children taught to believe it, not only because I believe it is metaphysical nonsense, but because it disarms them against hatred, cruelty and bullying. — NOS4A2
I would rather refer to necessary and sufficient conditions, which for me is a whole different context than what people generally think about in relation to causation. It seems to me that when people think of causes they think of agency, direct action, in other words in terms of efficient cause. — Janus
It's when seeing a particular lot of leaves brings such thoughts to mind, that I may feel compelled to rake them. I still may fail to rake them, so if there is an efficient cause of my raking them it must be my decision to rake them. — Janus
The impact of hitting the ground at a certain speed and angle would actually be the efficient cause of course. But if you fell off a twenty story building you would almost certainly be injured, and probably killed. — Janus
People generally aren't concerned with the "laws of physics" when they attribute causation. Again this shows your misunderstanding of what I've been arguing. — Janus
As to the "thought (an immaterial thing) cause action (a material thing) which defies the laws of conservation of momentum" that is only inconsistent or incoherent if you try to marry considerations of physics with the ways people think about agency; and this is an impossible union; they are two very different ways of looking at things. Why do you assume they must be unified or one or the other eliminated? To me that seems like a baseless presumption. — Janus
So the sentence "last week's heavy rains caused the landslide" makes no sense to you? Or "The cold summer caused a drop in ice-cream sales"? These are all you uses of 'caused' you think are odd and not generally used? — Isaac
What you were 'arguing' was not the matter of what people are generally concerned about. — Isaac
What I object to is the idea that we cannot, should not, make legislation on the basis of sound scientific knowledge about broad patterns of neurological reactions to external stimuli on the basis of some cultural assumptions about agency, no matter how infused into our language those assumptions are. — Isaac
In the first case it's in accordance with ordinary usage. In the second case we are talking about a statistical phenomenon, not an individual decision (like whether to rake leaves or not) so I don't see the relevance of the examples. — Janus
Not true, I was talking about what I think is the general logic behind ordinary usage of the term "cause". — Janus
People are just generally considered to be responsible for their actions in ways that are not compatible with the idea that their actions are wholly driven by neurological processes beyond their control. The two paradigms are incompatible. What basis do we have for priveleging one over the other — Janus
What is the 'logic' of calling the human decision the' cause' of leaf raking when it is neither sufficient, nor efficient, nor proximate? — Isaac
Then it is neither sufficient, nor efficient, nor proximate is it? — Isaac
Scientific fact. We can all believe what we want privately, but government policy should really be based on that which is common between it's citizens (I think) rather than favouring some over others. Science is the closest we have to such a common model. — Isaac
Nice examples of unwarranted censorship. Do you find all censorship unwarranted?
s it okay - on your view - to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example? Is it ok to spread falsehood after falsehood as a means to effect/affect deliberately taken action, say to... oh, I don't know... how about... stop the certification process of an American presidential election by virtue of taking over the building in which the elected officials certify the aforementioned results on the day of certification? Is that protected under free speech? Seems like that speech was an instrumental element, without which, the insurrection attempt would not have even been attempted.
Do you find that Trump's words over the previous year regarding the election are protected under free speech?
You're not fooling anyone. You know that, right? This is a good example of when words don't have an effect. When I disbelieve the person speaking them.
We've been through this argument and you bailed, not me. Don't start it up again like nothing was said last time. If you have a non-magical means by which physical neurons are caused to fire without prior signals then lay it out. Otherwise shut up. I've no objection to you believing in magic/religion/yet-to-be-discovered science. But it's pitiful to try and paint that belief as knowledge and the current science as the fantasy. Again, if you have a non-magical means by which physical neurons are caused to fire without prior signals then just lay it out. Otherwise it's your notion of uncaused reactions which is nonsense here.
Nice examples of unwarranted censorship. Do you find all censorship unwarranted?
I do. When I think about the sum total of linguistic expression, it pains me to think of all the history, knowledge, and art that has been stolen, suppressed, and destroyed because someone could not bear to look at it. I don’t envy the censors; they will forever be tied to what they stole from posterity.
I do think, however, that if someone owns their own means of discourse they can censor at their whim and fancy, ironically, on free speech grounds. — NOS4A2
I wouldn't talk in terms of "sufficient" cause but rather sufficient conditions, which are multifarious, even arguably up to everything else that exists. — Janus
If you want to understand why people do things you need to ask them — Janus
I don't care if you believe me or not. — NOS4A2
I have never believed nor stated that sound and light doesn’t have an effect on the body, so there is no need to pretend I did. I am merely opposing the idea that words, whether spoken or written, have a different, more powerful effect on the body than gibberish or arbitrary marks on paper. — NOS4A2
I am willing to defend this belief if you care to argue the point. — NOS4A2
Despite saying some of the stupidest possible shit one could say about potential treatments for the pandemic, he almost fucking won anyway.
How?
Because people believed him and nothing - evidently - could be done to stop him from dominating the discourse by defrauding the American public. — creativesoul
One of the widespread approaches to the freedom of speech has a few premises. First, there is a set of apparent, obvious basic facts. Second, one can possess a reliable access to what constitutesI've a little different take on the notion of unfettered free speech. — creativesoul
Yes, I'm gathering that. What's not clear is what the difference is between a cause and a conditions, which you thought so 'obvious' at the start. So far, the differences you've offered don't stack up to normal use. — Isaac
I think all human-based sciences rely on asking people. We just correlate that with other facts. Are you suggesting that we should ignore supplementary data? If a defendant says they had no intention of murdering the victim we should just take them at their word, despite the earlier gun purchase? — Isaac
Despite saying some of the stupidest possible shit one could say about potential treatments for the pandemic, he almost fucking won anyway.
How?
Because people believed him and nothing - evidently - could be done to stop him from dominating the discourse by defrauding the American public.
— creativesoul
But why? Why did so many people vote for Trump despite all his lies? — Number2018
I am opposing the idea that some words, certain combinations of letters or articulated guttural sounds, are more dangerous than others. — NOS4A2
I am not so fearful of falsity nor doubtful of truth... — NOS4A2
In fact, I cannot think of any man or group of people in history with the ability and moral superiority to decide what others cannot say and read. Can you? — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.