Sound and words are not the same thing. You used “sounds” in your argument and then changed it to “words” in your conclusion. Verbal sleight of hand which I’ll assume was an error and not intentional. Just fyi, enjoying following the discussion. — DingoJones
Then why post? If it's irrelevant what people take away from your doing so?
1. Neurons firing are the proximate cause of all action and speech.
2. Sound and light patterns cause different neurons to fire depending on very fine details of the exact sound and the exact light pattern.
3. Nothing we know of causes neurons to fire apart from sensory or interocepted signals, or other neurons. Our current best physics determines that it is impossible for a chain of neurons to fire without having been physically stimulated to do so.
So. Words trigger specific neurons to fire, which form part of a chain of reactions, the end of which is some speech or action in response. Of course other factors also contribute to that chain, but to deny that the specific sounds are one of those factors is to deny everything we know about neurology and physical causation.
If you want to deny that, be my guest. People deny the earth is round, stupidity exists. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you do.
In normal parlance causes for actual events are generally thought in efficient, mechanical terms. — Janus
I said we should listen to people if we want to understand them, not believe everything they say. — Janus
Science is not the best way to understand human behavior in my view. If you want to understand why people do things you need to ask them — Janus
I wouldn't characterize your having written that as "ironic". I'd say it was, is, and will forever remain self-contradictory, untenable, inconsistent, irrational, illogical, unacceptable rhetorical bullshit.
If all censorship is unwarranted, then none is warranted. <-------that points out the self-contradiction and/or untenability of what you've offered here.
It's really pretty simple and easy to understand...
If all censorship is unwarranted then even in situations when an individual owns the means of discourse - say television, radio, or other social media outlet - that ownership does not provide warrant for them to censor.
I seek expression for its own sake. I also find it healthy and beneficial to hold my ideas to the grindstone of criticism and disputation. It get’s me thinking. — NOS4A2
There is undoubtedly a direct interaction between the body and the environment. But that’s where your chain ends for me. — NOS4A2
After that the events are generated by ... the human being — NOS4A2
The same with words. We seek them out, focussing on them, reading them, listening to them, speaking them, understanding them, ascribing meaning to them, becoming aroused or anxious or offended by them, venerating some and banning others. Again, in my admittedly common sense understanding, these are the activities of a human being. At each step we control what we do with these sights, sounds, or whatever form words may take in our environment. And I believe these actions are not just the immanent reactions to word themselves, but of the entire organism as it exists a long process of language development and acquisition. — NOS4A2
Basically, I believe people overestimate the power of words while underestimating their own power over words. Words are beautiful, useful, important, valuable—but they are not powerful. — NOS4A2
I never said censorship was warranted. I said that they can censor if they wanted to. This is because it is their property. — NOS4A2
Edit - just to be absolutely clear - this is the grounds on which I don't believe your false virtue signalling about 'free speech'. If you really believed words were powerless, then banning all of them would be a trivial matter, like banning hats. Stupid, pointless, but ultimately harmless. We'd all just get used to wet heads and have done with it. No. The reason why you don't want certain words banned is because (despite your phoney nonsense to the contrary) you know perfectly well that words have the power to influence people and you don't want influence in your chosen direction to be taken away from you. — Isaac
Edit - just to be absolutely clear - this is the grounds on which I don't believe your false virtue signalling about 'free speech'. If you really believed words were powerless, then banning all of them would be a trivial matter, like banning hats. Stupid, pointless, but ultimately harmless. We'd all just get used to wet heads and have done with it. No. The reason why you don't want certain words banned is because (despite your phoney nonsense to the contrary) you know perfectly well that words have the power to influence people and you don't want influence in your chosen direction to be taken away from you.
What do you mean by 'efficient' and 'mechanical' because the explanations given so far have been flawed. — Isaac
Policy-wise it matters a great deal. We absolutely should not be making policy decisions which will affect the lives of millions of people on the basis of a religious leftover concept, just because it's seeped into our language. — Isaac
So if you're not going to believe everything they say, but science is not the best tool, then what tool is the overarching judge? It's not science, it's not what people actually say... what is it? — Isaac
I don't know what policy changes you have in mind, but if they are based on rejection of the idea of human agency and responsibility, they won't fly, in my opinion; and nor should they. — Janus
Here’s a thought experiment. Take two pieces of paper and two inkwells with a small but exact amount of ink in them. On one piece of paper, scribble gibberish and random symbols until all the ink is applied to the page. On the other, write something, maybe a letter to a loved one, a song or whatever, until all the ink is applied to the page. There should now be the same amount of paper, same amount of ink, same mass, same velocity, same potential energy, same forces acting on each. So how is the power of one different than the power of the other? — NOS4A2
I hadn't realized you didn't understand the notion of efficient or mechanical causation. Put simply it is understood to consist in a transfer of energy. Something applies a force to something else causing it to it change in some way; it's that simple. — Janus
I feel the sun on my skin causing me to feel hotter, or the wind pushing me, the stone crushing my finger etc, etc: the examples are endless. Also I can do things with my body; I can lift things, smash things, start fires, etc, etc.; again the examples are endless. This experience of natural forces acting on me, and my ability to act on things is the basis of the notion of efficient causation. — Janus
They didn't go to the shop because they were determined to do so by neurological activity which is beyond their control. What possible evidence could there be for such a conclusion? — Janus
All you're saying is that the sum of the energy within the arbitrary boundary you've chosen (the paper and ink) is the same, so the sum of the energy in that which it causes will be the same. Yes. You're absolutely right about that. So?
I was asking about the idiosyncratic way you were using the terms. It's obviously not the definition you've given above. The thing applying force to your arms and legs to cause you to rake the leaves is the ion gradient across the membranes of your muscle cells. Yet for you, that's not the cause. — Isaac
This just seems like a bizarre raising of 'folk science' to a level above actual science. — Isaac
Newton's first law of thermodynamics, for a start. Plus most of physics, all of neuroscience, everything we know about cells...what more do you need by way of evidence? — Isaac
That said, in simple straightforward cases, people often can simply be believed. "Why did you go to the shops/" " To buy a hamburger". They didn't go to the shop because they were determined to do so by neurological activity which is beyond their control. What possible evidence could there be for such a conclusion? — Janus
As for your keypad, the code opens the door because it is programmed to do so, and is able to do so through mechanical forces and means. It certainly doesn’t open the door because 654 is more powerful than 456. — NOS4A2
No, it's not because that neurological process would not occur if I didn't want to rake the leaves. — Janus
Put simply it is understood to consist in a transfer of energy. Something applies a force to something else causing it to it change in some way; it's that simple. — Janus
To put science above ordinary human understanding is scientism; a baseless diminishment of the human. It's just another unwarranted ideological dogma we don't need. — Janus
I doubt we'll agree that scientific theories constitute any reason to reject our ordinary understandings of human freedom and responsibility. To say they do is nothing more than an act of faith; — Janus
It literally does. 654 exerts a power on the system which unlocks the door, 456 loses all the mechanical power in waste heat. It's basic physics. If 654 physically switches a switch but 456 doesn't then 654 has more power (within that system) than 456 (whose power is lost to that system as waste heat). You can't make things happen without power - basic laws of thermodynamics.
They didn't go to the shop because they were determined to do so by neurological activity which is beyond their control. What possible evidence could there be for such a conclusion? — Janus
You make it sound like the two explanations are contradictory.
As for what evidence: The fact that we have never seen the mind causing any physical change. No, you raising your arm shortly after intending to raise your arm is not evidence of causation. Just evidence that the intent precedes the act. — khaled
So why bring up efficient mechanical causes then. You keep changing the criteria for what constitutes a 'cause', it's like grasping an eel. So now you're saying that the efficient mechanical cause is not the cause after all, it's your decision (an entirely mental event with no mechanical component at all). Why the distraction about... — Isaac
It's not faith, it's the overwhelming success of the approach at helping us navigate the world from the moment we're born. — Isaac
Do you think that people ought be held responsible for the effects/affects of their speech? — creativesoul
No, not unless they are in a position of great influence, but I do think that so-called hate speech should be banned.
Why do you ask? — Janus
However, I'm just uncertain of your stance on matters of free speech, free will, and responsibility and who ought be held accountable for one's actions(or a group of people should they follower a leader). — creativesoul
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.