For me, meaning is the relationship between some cause and its effect. The existence of scribbles on this screen would be an effect with the cause being your idea and your intent to communicate it. The scribbles refer to, or mean, your idea.

The tree rings in a tree stump mean the age of the tree because of the way the tree grows throughout the year. So words are not the only way that meaning manifests, but is one way that it does.

Now, if you want me to understand your idea, you have to know certain things, like which language I speak, and the level of understanding I have with that language. You have to use symbols I understand, or else what is the point in drawing scribbles on the page? Do you think I am going to understand you, or do you think it is an efficient use of time and words to just yell, "fire!"?

If you look for a word whose meaning is intuitively clear immediately after your birth, then it's probably this word:

Mama

At first your lips are closed, so your throat causes an "mmm" sound. Then you open your mouth; that causes an "aaa" sound. Genetic programs possibly trigger double actions so that symbols clearly appear as intentional symbols and not as random effects; i.e. when you make a sign, do it twice. So it's clear the sign is intentional. Therefore, when you say mmmaaa, say it twice: mmmaaa mmmaaa

You see a certain object the first time and you want to say something the first time. This object is your mother and the sound you transmit is "mama". This sound now has a meaning.

So your theory is that the mind is the universe. Way to explain nothing. Care to expand on that or no?

I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force. — Quk

If you are claiming that there are external forces that act upon an individual against their will, I absolutely agree. If you are saying that an individual can be motivated to action, any action, without internal force essentially being the only force that can initiate that action, I disagree. The only force that can cause anyone to do anything (other than an exterior physical force acting directly on said individual) is an internal force created by that individual. Ultimately the individual has control over the internal force, even if they have long since abandoned any deliberate use of said control.

I cannot motivate anyone to do anything, ever. I can use words to perhaps convince them to motivate themselves to do what I am suggesting, but the motivating factor is not me, nor my words. It is the internal force created by the individual that results in action being done, or not done, as the person decides.

If I flick a switch on a radio detonator causing a distant bomb to explode and kill people then I caused a distant bomb to explode and caused people to die; I didn't just cause a switch to change position.

There is more to "A causes B" than just "B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy". I don't know why you insist on persisting with this absurdity.

Because I think you’re wrong. And your false analogies with machines and computers only illustrate the lengths you will go to continue it. Bombs don’t require language acquisition, education, and communal living to develop language in the first place, let alone to let it affect them. All of this history and growth has much more to do with the response to a word than the shape of a sound wave.

(When I say “bank” some might hear “river’s edge” and others might hear “building with money”. This is because words are distinct from meanings.)
— Fire Ologist
Wrong. — Harry Hindu

There are words, and separately, there are what the words signify or mean. The context in which a word is used is helpful to know what the word signifies or means. Context helps define the meaning, but the word remains just the word, separate from its meaning. Like “bank” in one context clearly has nothing to do with a river. And words are just scribbles and not even words if we don’t speak the language; and rules of grammar and such are all part of the context which allows words to convey meaning.

But the point is, words are not meanings, and meanings are not equivalent to words. We have two distinct concepts where we understand what a word is and what a meaning is. (Because meaning is most often described with words, people often see them is inseparably bound, but they are separable, and must be, for words to convey meaning.)

Sometimes we try to say something and have trouble, but as we fumble along someone else says “I still see what you mean” and then they prove it by having less trouble with their words and saying for you what you meant, and you say “yes, that is what I was trying to say.” That scenario hopefully helps show you that words and meanings are distinct things we have to juggle and organize when we communicate. The first person here managed to convey meaning without saying the right words, and this was proven when the second person said better words showing he had the meaning despite not being given the words that could convey that meaning by the first person.

Yelling “fire!” to a bunch of English speaking people in a crowded room, on one level is sound effect.

Separately, it also conveys meaning, such as “everyone, you should all understand that fire is burning nearby and may overcome this room so you better leave now!” (Or something similar, you get my meaning.).

A third distinct element here is an effect that follows after words convey meaning. Certain words convey a meaning that reasonably prompts those who understand the words and their meaning to action. Such as yelling “fire.” It is reasonable to assume people in a burning building will want to run out of the building upon hearing someone yell simply “Fire” because the act of yelling fire inside a building conveys the meaning “the the building your are in is burning, so you should get out.”

The point of all of this is make clear that we should be politically free to say whatever words we want to, and to mean whatever we think we mean by those words in the context of adults discussing public policy, civil and criminal law, all things political, all things artistic (again among adults), and really anything in the context of a discussion for the sake of discussion and exchanging our ideas. No law should ever limit that. And government can (and must) let societal influences sort out the parameters of what people end up thinking is appropriate or not. Government should make no laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (ie. The First Amendment.)

But as soon as whatever is meant by whatever we say would reasonably prompt actions, not simply further discussion for the sake of exchanging ideas, like yelling “Fire!” in a crowded room for instance, then the person who yelled “”Fire!” when there is no such fire should be punishable by law for causing any harm that follows the reasonable response of a room full people who now think they are in burning building.

Many words to say “what’s ‘wrong’ about any of that as you say? Words, meaning, and action need to be three separate things.

I cannot motivate anyone to do anything, ever. I can use words to perhaps convince them to motivate themselves to do what I am suggesting, but the motivating factor is not me, nor my words. It is the internal force created by the individual that results in action being done, or not done, as the person decides. — Book273

I think this statement is full of contradictions.

I mean, if you have convinced a person to do something, you have clearly influenced that person. Yes, that person is responsible. But you are partially responsible too.

If you tell the person something the person didn't know -- nobody knows everything --, then you transfer new decision parameters to that person. The person cannot reliably detect whether you are a liar. Assuming the person trusts you. Now are you still claiming you have no influence? Assuming the person doesn't trust you. Now you can say, right so. Never trust anyone. Just to be on the safe side. But life without any trust is no life.

I claim that every influence is an influence. Influences vary. Small, big. You can't say you're no influence and at the same time say you're not an influence. There are many forces, and you are one of them. Small ones, big ones. We are all participants. You can't isolate yourself and simultaneously participate in the life on earth.

Basically, you're saying a football game is performed by the team, and the coach has no responsibility whatsoever.

To be able to even understand the concept of language-use means that you have to be a realist. You have to have reached the stage of development where you obtain a sense of "object permanence". We are all born solipsists, and around 8-12 months we develop the idea of object permanence which is when we convert to realism. It is around this time when we start using words rather than just babble.

So language-use is dependent upon the idea of realism - that there is an external world that your senses only partially acquire. We use language to convey events and ideas to others whose sense's would not allow them to be aware of what it is we are conveying. This is why it would be redundant to convey something in which the listener was already aware of or knew.

There are words, and separately, there are what the words signify or mean. The context in which a word is used is helpful to know what the word signifies or means. Context helps define the meaning, but the word remains just the word, separate from its meaning. Like “bank” in one context clearly has nothing to do with a river. And words are just scribbles and not even words if we don’t speak the language; and rules of grammar and such are all part of the context which allows words to convey meaning. — Fire Ologist

There are scribbles or sounds, and separately, there are what the scribbles/sounds signify or mean. What makes a scribble/sound a word is the rules of interpretation you learned in grade school. Just look at, or listen to, the "words" of a language you don't know and you will only see scribbles and hear sounds. It is the rules of interpretation that turn those scribbles into words.

You didn't just learn vocabulary, you learned grammar - how to arrange a string of scribbles to convey an idea as opposed to vocabulary which is the rule for deciding which words to use. Both are used in unison to convey an idea. Think about it like this: a word by itself only conveys part of the meaning, whereas the sentence it is used in conveys the whole meaning. This is why you cannot always capture what someone means when they use a single word, but you can when they use more words, as in using the word in a sentence.

But the point is, words are not meanings, — Fire Ologist

I would need to you define "meaning", but honestly I'd much rather talk about free speech in a Free Speech thread.

I mean, if you have convinced a person to do something, you have clearly influenced that person. Yes, that person is responsible. But you are partially responsible too. — Quk

How so, when those same words spoken to a different person would produce a different result?

All of this history and growth has much more to do with the response to a word than the shape of a sound wave. — NOS4A2

I agree. But you are making the absurd claim that a word's causal influence "ends" at the ear, and that is simply not how physics works.

You appear to understand this when we consider the bomb. I cause people to die by flicking a switch. It would be ridiculous to respond to this by claiming that I didn't cause people to die because the kinetic energy of my finger movement is insufficient to rip people's limbs apart, and that "my finger hitting the switch is the sole interaction it has with my body, and is therefore the only movement determined by it. That's the only 'causal influence' it can have. The rest is all produced, structured, controlled, directed, moved, by the detonator and the bomb."

And yet this is the nonsense reasoning that you resort to when considering speech and the human body.

Unless you want to argue that human organisms are special in some way such that they defy the natural laws of cause and effect that apply to every other physical object and system in the universe – e.g. by abandoning eliminative materialism and endorsing something like interactionist dualism – then you're simply talking rubbish.

By all means argue that any causal influence that words have is insufficient to entail moral responsibility – as I'm pretty sure I suggested you do many posts ago – but you need to let go of this attempt to argue that words have no causal influence at all on other people's behaviour.

How so, when those same words spoken to a different person would produce a different result? — Harry Hindu

The closer the result is in relation to the influencer's intention, the more influence is done.

If the influencer says to the newbie: "Eat six apples a day!", and the newbie eats two, then the influencer's intention agrees with the result by about 30 %. Of course, it cannot really be measured in numbers, but I hope you get the picture.

I agree. But you are making the absurd claim that a word's causal influence "ends" at the ear, and that is simply not how physics works. — Michael

No one is saying that isn't the case. The question is what goes on between the word entering the ear and the response that follows.

The closer the result is in relation to the influencer's intention, the more influence is done. — Quk

And it logically follows that if different people have different responses to the same stimuli then the influencer's intention is not the closest thing to the response of the listener - the listener's interpretation of the words and the speaker is.

No one is saying that isn't the case. — Harry Hindu

NOS4A2 absolutely is. He says such nonsense as:

Physically speaking, speech doesn't possess enough kinetic energy required to affect the world that the superstitious often claims it does. Speech, for instance, doesn't possess any more kinetic energy than any other articulated guttural sound. Writing doesn't possess any more energy than any other scratches or ink blots on paper. And so on. So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.

And:

If you want to employ causal chains to explain it then the causal chain occurring in one environment is taken over, used and controlled by another system, operating its own movements and providing its own conditions, and utilizing its own energy to do so.

Which is exactly like arguing that I do not cause the bomb to explode because my finger lacks the necessary kinetic energy; that the bomb caused itself to explode by operating its own movements and utilizing its own energy.

It's beyond absurd.

Well, you set the bomb, put it in a place that would kill people, wired the whole thing up, flicked the switch, and so on. You didn’t just flick a switch. The way it is framed is misleading, as these false analogies often are.

To be clear, I have never denied that the light from writing or the sound waves from spoken words do not “causally influence” the body.

But no, no one has made the case how a spoken word can “causally influence” a human being any differently than any other articulated, guttural sound. No one has made the case how the written word can "causally influence" a human being differently than any other mark on paper. The sound-waves of the spoken word, and light bouncing off the ink, do not possess any special properties, different energies, so it must be assumed that they have similar effects as other similar sounds, similar marks on paper, and with very little variation.

The only thing that can explain the variation in behavior, why one person might be “incited” by a word and another will not, is the person himself. This necessarily includes his biology, but also his history, his education, and so on. For example, he must have first acquired language. He must understand what he is hearing. It’s the person, not the word, that fully determines, governs, and causes the response.

Well, you set the bomb, put it in a place that would kill people, wired the whole thing up, flicked the switch, and so on. You didn’t just flick a switch. The way it is framed is misleading, as these false analogies often are. — NOS4A2

I did just flick the switch. Someone else planted the bomb. Not that it would matter either way. The point still stands that I caused the bomb to explode even though the bomb "operat[ed] its own movements and utiliz[ed] its own energy" and even though my bodily movement lacks the kinetic energy required to cause an explosion in isolation.

Which is precisely why all your talk about the kinetic energy of speech and the listener's body being responsible for transduction is a complete non sequitur.

The only thing that can explain the variation in behavior, why one person might be “incited” by a word and another will not, is the person himself. This necessarily includes his biology, but also his history, his education, and so on. For example, he must have first acquired language. He must understand what he is hearing. It’s the person, not the word, that fully determines, governs, and causes the response. — NOS4A2

And the bomb only explodes if it was built a certain way and contains the necessary catalyst, and so on. It's still the case that I caused it to explode by flicking the switch.

Unless you want to argue that human organisms are special in some way that allows them to defy the natural laws of cause and effect that govern every other physical object and system in the universe you're still engaging in non sequiturs.

NOS4A2 absolutely is. He says such nonsense as: — Michael

You have a history of cherry-picking and straw-manning other's arguments, so I don't trust you haven't done the same here. Your reputation precedes you.

He also just clarified here:

To be clear, I have never denied that the light from writing or the sound waves from spoken words do not “causally influence” the body. — NOS4A2

Which is exactly like arguing that I do not cause the bomb to explode because my finger lacks the necessary kinetic energy; that the bomb caused itself to explode by operating its own movements and utilizing its own energy. — Michael

So you think that the internal workings of a bomb are equivalent to the internal workings of the human brain?

So you think that the internal workings of a bomb are equivalent to the internal workings of the human brain? — Harry Hindu

In the sense that they both follow the same natural laws of cause and effect; yes. The human brain is just more complicated. It's not as if it contains some immaterial soul that is able to put a stop to one causal chain and then begin a completely independent one.

In the sense that they both follow the same natural laws of cause and effect; yes. The human brain is just more complicated. It's not as if it contains some immaterial soul that is able to put a stop to one causal chain and then begin a completely independent one. — Michael

And no one is using the phrase, "immaterial soul" except you, so you are straw-manning.

In the sense that they follow the same natural laws, yes, they are the same, but that isn't what we're talking about, so another straw-man.

You are simply incapable of being intellectually honest.

And the bomb only explodes if it was built a certain way and contains the necessary catalyst, and so on. It's still the case that I caused it to explode by flicking the switch.

Unless you want to argue that human organisms are special in some way that allows them to defy the natural laws of cause and effect that govern every other physical object and system in the universe you're still engaging in non sequiturs.

You don’t believe a sensory receptor causes the transduction of the mechanical energy of a soundwave into electrical impulses? Then what converts the mechanical energy of a soundwave into electrical impulses?

You don’t believe a sensory receptor causes the transduction of the mechanical energy of a soundwave into electrical impulses? — NOS4A2

I do.

Just as I believe that the bomb's radio receiver causes the transduction of radio waves into electrical signals that trigger the catalyst.

But it's still the case that I caused the bomb to explode by flicking the switch. So, once again, you are engaging in non sequiturs.

You are simply incapable of being intellectually honest. — Harry Hindu

I am being honest. Determinism applies to human organisms just as it applies to every other physical object and system in the universe. We're not special in any relevant way.

But the point is, words are not meanings,
— Fire Ologist
I would need to you define "meaning", but honestly I'd much rather talk about free speech in a Free Speech thread. — Harry Hindu

The point of all of this is make clear that we should be politically free to say whatever words we want to, and to mean whatever we think we mean by those words in the context of adults discussing public policy, civil and criminal law…

…Words, meaning, and action need to be three separate things. — Fire Ologist

Words, meaning and action need to be three separate things in order to protect the right to free speech from its being abridged by the government, but to allow the government to punish actions that reasonably follow certain speech in certain context.

What if I’m standing in the doorway of a crowded theater and right across the street is a shooting range. And I decide to yell “fire!” — Fire Ologist

And let’s say everyone in the theatre panicked, runs and tramples someone to death.

In court, some of the issues would be:
What yelling “fire!” reasonably means?
What did I specifically mean when I yelled it?

If I could prove that I wasn’t thinking about where I was standing or who could hear me in the theatre, and I meant to prompt the guys across the street to “shoot their guns”, I would have a defense against the accusation that I meant “the building is burning” and that people should trample their way out.

Here, in order to adjudicate free speech, you need to separate words, meaning and action.

Wittgenstein should definitely let his lawyer do the talking. I’m not really commenting on meaning versus use versus language versus language games.

I’m saying the law that protects or limits speech based on its content (meaning) versus its consequential acts (where they are physical acts potentially/actually causing harm), such law must distinguish the word from its meaning and from its consequences.

We can’t legislate words and their meanings. That’s what free speech is about. Wittgenstein gets to debate with Aristotle all day long about essences and objective meanings. But where words lead to actions, we need to understand if it is reasonable that such words can be meant to cause such actions (in order to connect those specific consequential actions to the specific speaker whose specific words meant something to the specific listeners who acted in specifically harmful ways).

Bombs do not have the capacity to govern, control, and thereby determine their behavior. That’s why it is a false analogy.

No one has made the case how the written word can "causally influence" a human being differently than any other mark on paper. — NOS4A2

Then what is the point of a constitution or a law? About anything? Such as “free speech?”

On another (but now related) topic, why are you bothering to post here?

Bombs do not have the capacity to govern, control, and thereby determine their behavior. That’s why it is a false analogy. — NOS4A2

Sounds like folk psychology to me.

What's the relevant difference between a radio receiver and a sense organ such that I can be said to be the cause of what happens after the radio receiver converts radio waves into electrical signals but cannot be said to be the cause of what happens after a sense organ converts sound waves into electrical signals?

Remember, you are the one who made these claims:

As an example, the hairs in the ear tranduce the mechanical stimulus of a sound wave of speech into a nerve impulse, as it does all sounds. The words do not transduce themselves. But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

...

Any and all responses of the body to outside stimulus are self-caused. You are causally responsible for transducing soundwaves into electrical signals, for example. Nothing can cause transduction but the biology. Nothing can send those signals to the brain but the biology. Nothing can cause you to understand the signals but the biology.

It's simply special pleading to claim that my biology "governs, controls, and thereby determines" transduction but that a bomb's machinery doesn't.

Sounds like folk psychology to me.

What's the relevant difference between a radio receiver and a sense organ such that I can be said to be the cause of what happens after the radio receiver converts radio waves into electrical signals but cannot be said to be the cause of what happens after a sense organ converts sound waves into electrical signals?

I’ve stated this before but each one of your analogies invariably put the human being in the subject position as the agent of causation. Man does something to computer; man flicks a switch; man blows people up. That is until it comes to the topic of discussion, where it is words do something to man, soundwaves do something to man. Why do keep pulling this switch?

Then what is the point of a constitution or a law? About anything? Such as “free speech?”

On another (but now related) topic, why are you bothering to post here?

I enjoy posting here. I enjoy thinking and arguing about such topics.

I’ve stated this before but each one of your analogies invariably put the human being in the subject position as the agent of causation. — NOS4A2

It doesn't have to be a human. It could be that a rock fell onto the switch, in which case the rock caused the bomb to explode.

But you are not answering the question. You are the one who made these claims:

As an example, the hairs in the ear tranduce the mechanical stimulus of a sound wave of speech into a nerve impulse, as it does all sounds. The words do not transduce themselves. But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

...

Any and all responses of the body to outside stimulus are self-caused. You are causally responsible for transducing soundwaves into electrical signals, for example. Nothing can cause transduction but the biology. Nothing can send those signals to the brain but the biology. Nothing can cause you to understand the signals but the biology.

It's simply special pleading to claim that my biology "governs, controls, and thereby determines" transduction but that a bomb's machinery doesn't. Flesh, blood, and bone is in principle no different to metal.

So, once again, I can cause a bomb to explode by flicking a switch and I can cause someone to turn their head by shouting their name. All your talk about transduction and the kinetic energy of speech is utterly irrelevant. Whether man or machine, I can and do causally influence another entity's behaviour, as can other men and machines causally influence mine.

It's simply special pleading to claim that my biology "governs, controls, and thereby determines" transduction but that a bomb's machinery doesn't. Flesh, blood, and bone is in principle no different to metal.

So, once again, I can cause a bomb to explode by flicking a switch and I can cause someone to turn their head by shouting their name. All your talk about transduction and the kinetic energy of speech is utterly irrelevant. Whether man or machine, I can and do causally influence another entity's behaviour, as can other men and machines causally influence mine.

The reason you won’t make the bomb the agent of causation and put it in the subject position in your event is because it’s absurd. The switch touching your finger does not “causally influence” your behavior any more than any other switch touching your finger.

It’s the same with words. The agent who reads or listens or flips switches has certain capacities that neither soundwaves, scribbles on paper, nor switches have. The words you’re reading don’t causally influence you to read them anymore than they cause you to stop reading them.

No one has made the case how the written word can "causally influence" a human being differently than any other mark on paper. — NOS4A2

Yet, your words elicited this response, which I wouldn't have written if not for those ↑ words.

Same for

no one has made the case how a spoken word can “causally influence” a human being any differently than any other articulated, guttural sound — NOS4A2

They say the printing press is among the most influential inventions in human history.

I enjoy thinking and arguing about such topics. — NOS4A2

And yet, such arguing wouldn't come about if not for such words.

(Hm Hasn't this stuff come up before?)

Ok. So, I am arguing my words can cause a physical impact in the world, such that I can be held responsible, through speech, for causing others to trample someone to death.

So, I sent these words out into the world:

Then what is the point of a constitution or a law? About anything? Such as “free speech?” — Fire Ologist

And in response you said…

I enjoy posting here. I enjoy thinking and arguing about such topics. — NOS4A2

So apparently, I may be wrong. :grin:

But I don’t think you answered the question.

Do you think you can be responsible for the actions of others?

If yes, do you think words might help you accomplish such a feat?

If no, I’m glad you enjoy posting, because this seems to be the perfect place to do that.

Trust me, don’t yell “fire!” in a crowded room. Some people might hold you responsible for what other people do, that they will say was based on what you yelled.

I’m just saying “words can’t cause action in others” is not gonna fly in the courthouse.

Speech can be legally determined to be the cause of actions others take.

(I know you know this. But…

If you want to argue that speech causing others to act is metaphysically impossible, or physically impossible, or just not the case, that’s fine, but then what is the point of a constitution, or a law? About anything? Such as “free speech?

Laws are words written to regulate actions. Right?

You might just say “no point to them” and then can get back to posting and arguing the metaphysics.

But then we have just ruled out a discussion about a political issue on a thread about a political issue.