Butting in here, but isn't you responding to FO proving their point to a degree? They post, you respond. Obviously as adults we are responsible to how we react to things, but it is also clearly possible to say things that will get people to react in semi-predictable ways. I believe this means there can be some gray areas. An example that comes to mind is how "fighting words" are not legal, as they encourage other people to fight.

Use your words and cause me to take specific actions. — NOS4A2

NOS4A2, post something, anything, anywhere on TPF.

You are my slave now.

That's my stance, more or less.

Butting in here, but isn't you responding to FO proving their point to a degree? They post, you respond. Obviously as adults we are responsible to how we react to things, but it is also clearly possible to say things that will get people to react in semi-predictable ways. I believe this means there can be some gray areas. An example that comes to mind is how "fighting words" are not legal, as they encourage other people to fight.

NOS4A2, post something, anything, anywhere on TPF.

You are my slave now.

The rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefor the rooster causes the sun to rise.

Like I said earlier, post hoc ergo propter hoc. I respond if and when I want to. Sometimes I do not respond at all, or even read a post for that matter. A series of words, written or spoken, have no special force over and above their mediums, which are themselves not words. So how can you move a human being with words?

So how can you move a human being with words? — NOS4A2

Ask them a question, like you just did to me.

Can you not do otherwise?

Huh? Just because I can do 50 other things doesn’t mean I am not reacting right now to your words.

What does “can you” have to do with it?

Cause and effect can have intervening causes.

One of the intervening causes may be my consent and choices. But I’m responding to NOS4A2 in a way that rationally relates to what you asked me. So you are involved in these words I’m typing right now.

To get back on point, no government should regulate whatever I am saying now and whatever you said or might say in response to me.

But if you and I were conspiring to commit murder, just flinging murderous thoughts and plans at each other, and one of us takes one affirmative step according to those plans, like buying guns or something, then both of us could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and potentially jailed, not for buying the guns, but for the words we shared as the reason for buying the guns.

That would be government regulating speech but because of its consequences, not because of its content.

Etc., etc.

I respond if and when I want to. — NOS4A2

Yes, this is true. But you don't have 100 % control of your situation. Your situation is partially influenced by yourself and partially influenced by external inputs. You're not the only designer of your situation. There are many designers. You are only able to want to write a reply when there is an input. You don't write the inputs yourself. You don't know when they come in and what will be written in them. You are not all-knowing and not all-mighty. Your reaction depends on the external inputs. You and the external inputs both design your situation. And the situation is the basis for your decisions. Change the situation and it will change your decisions.

es, it's trivial. But some people don't get it or don't want to get it and rather play rhetorical games; they categorically round any influence down to zero. They do this by saying any free speech is just an "offering". I think this is just a rhetorical shift at the surface while the substance underneath remains the same: Call the emotional Pepsi-advertisement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the false fire alarm an "offering" -- its influence remains; call any incitement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the training program of the football coach an "offering" -- the coach's influence remains.

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be all-knowing, so you can at any time detect whether the message you hear is nonsense or not.

Now who on this forum is all-knowing? — Quk

I'll add a second point:

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be -- like a machine -- completely free of emotions, so nobody can make you feel happy or sad; no comedian and no joke can make you laugh, and when your beloved one is dying you can't cry, and no film or music can change your mood.

Now who on this forum is cold as ice? — Quk

Wrong and wrong.

I don't need to know the expansion rate of the universe to know if Joe Biden was mentally incompetent while President or not or to know if Trump really is guilty of the crimes he was accused of or if it was political considering the timing and location. I just need access to the relevant information, not all information.

I can influence my computer to perform specific actions, like which letters appear on the monitor by typing specific keys on my keyboard. Does that not qualify as a causal influence?

You failed to address my point about the impact someone's speech has on a specific act, like eating a pill, rioting or stampeding people in a theater, as being an either-or situation rather than a varying situation. So I am now rejecting your assertion that there is variation. Defend that instead of going on about trivial issues.

You are just talking about how hard it is to be good voter and to determine who there is to vote for, and be a free citizen, and avail yourself of your freedom of speech, to dig deep and make the above observations and stay as free from undue influence as you can. — Fire Ologist

I'm talking about how certain political groups limit our freedom of choice by only telling us part of the story, and part of the story they do tell us is inaccurate. Access to accurate information = freedom. It is access to the relevant information that frees you from being manipulated by propaganda and what provides the ammunition to argue against what someone else is saying. If the only information you have is what someone tells you, are you free to argue against them? Do you believe everything everyone says, or only what certain people say, and is there some common thread among those that you always reject what they say vs always accepting what they say?

Can’t we, in a free society always just ignore the majority if we want? It may take courage, but the majority shouting down the minority is still immensely better than a government silencing the individual and forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do.

Screw the majority! Be bold. And screw the government too. In a truly totalitarian state, you can’t say “screw the government” or really, you can only say what the government and the majority it allows to exist says. Majority and government become a monopoly on speech under a government that regulates speech.

The media sucks. The majority is really loud and intrusive. Those are not the same issue as the government regulating speech. — Fire Ologist

What does one mean by the "majority shouting down the minority"? What is a real world example? In a democracy isn't the majority the same as the government? Isn't that why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic where states are both equally represented in the Senate and represented by population in the House?

The ideas of the majority and the minority should be subject to logical criticism. I should have just as much of a right to question the majority as I would have to question the minority.

Speech is regulated not just by having laws saying "You can't say this or that or you go to jail", but by limiting access to information. Less information about an issue means less can be said about the issue.

It seems to me that suppressing information might be easier for the majority than the minority. I see the Democrats/Republican two-party system as the majority and independents as the minority in this respect where alternate candidates are not given the same screen time as the majority when the number of independents is growing and now outnumbers either Democrats or Republicans.

To get back on point, no government should regulate whatever I am saying now and whatever you said or might say in response to me.

But if you and I were conspiring to commit murder, just flinging murderous thoughts and plans at each other, and one of us takes one affirmative step according to those plans, like buying guns or something, then both of us could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and potentially jailed, not for buying the guns, but for the words we shared as the reason for buying the guns.

That would be government regulating speech but because of its consequences, not because of its content.

What consequence? You haven’t murdered anyone. It’s true, you definitely could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, even though your crime is moving your mouth and breath in certain ways as to form sounds called words, which harmed exactly nothing; but that’s indicative of how superstitious man is.

The difference lies in the reason why we observe a difference in behaviors when multiple people hear the same speech. For determinism to be true, which I believe it is, you have to provide a theory to explain what we observe in that multiple people react differently to the same speech. What is your theory? How do you explain what we observe? — Harry Hindu

I already explained it with the analogy of the computers. How each computer responds to someone pressing the "A" key is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by someone pressing the "A" key.

How the human body (including the brain) responds to some given stimulus is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by the stimulus.

I don't need to know the expansion rate of the universe to know if Joe Biden was ... — Harry Hindu

Bad example. You need to bring a complex example where your evaluation can fail. Now you can say you've never failed in your life and I won't believe you, or you can provide an example where your evaluation has failed and where you had to correct your opinion afterwards. In such a situation you had not enough data and so you relied on someone else's input.

I already explained it with the analogy of the computers. How each computer responds to someone pressing the "A" key is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by someone pressing the "A" key.

How the human body (including the brain) responds to some given stimulus is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by the stimulus. — Michael

If that were the case, we would all be responding the same way, but we don't so your theory does not fully explain what we observe. How is saying some words and getting no reaction the same as pressing the "A" key and getting a reaction? Some people do not riot when hearing those words, which is not equivalent to your example of typing "A" on a keyboard and getting some kind of reaction. It would be more like typing an "A" and nothing happens. You might think the computer or keyboard is malfunctioning. Is a person that hears some inciting words and is not incited to participate in a riot malfunctioning?

Bad example. You need to bring a complex example where your evaluation can fail. Now you can say you've never failed in your life and I won't believe you, or you can provide an example where your evaluation has failed and where you had to correct your opinion afterwards. In such a situation you had not enough data and so you relied on someone else's input. — Quk

You spoke about being "all-knowing", which is what I was responding to.

Now you're talking about access to the proper information, which proves my point that in order to make proper decisions means you need access to the proper information. You only realized you made the wrong decision after you have access to more information.

Now that you and I have had that type of experience of being lied to by another human being, wouldn't that make you more skeptical of what people say? Wouldn't that make you less likely to be manipulated by faulty information in the future?

For members of a political party, they are trained to believe that everything their side says is scripture and everything the other side says is heresy. Political parties are like religions in this regard where you do not question your party or religion or else you are excommunicated (canceled).

If that were the case, we would all be responding the same way — Harry Hindu

No we wouldn’t because our brains are not identical.

How is saying some words and getting no reaction the same as pressing the "A" key and getting a reaction? — Harry Hindu

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed.

Is a person that hears some inciting words and is not inciting to a riot malfunctioning? — Harry Hindu

No.

——————

It’s really not clear what your issue is. Do you just object to physicalism? Do you think that human behaviour is explained by interactionist dualism?

No we wouldn’t because our brains are not identical. — Michael

Exactly. Our brains do not have the same information.

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed. — Michael

We're not talking about ANY reaction, just unethical ones, like rioting. If someone tells you to give all your money to a beggar, and you do, should that person win the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, or should you?

It’s really not clear what your problem is. Do you object to the claim that every physical event is caused to happen by some prior physical event? — Michael

I object to you using the term, "physical", but I do not object to the claim that every effect is followed by a cause, but I am also saying that different effects means that there were different causes at play. This must be the case if determinism is true and you need to acknowledge this if you want to keep using determinism as part of your argument.

Our brains do not have the same information. — Harry Hindu

What does that mean?

Brains are just a bunch of interconnected neurons sending electrical and chemical signals to one another. There’s nothing above-and-beyond this.

How the brain responds to its environment (e.g signals sent from the sense organs) is determined by the nature of these connections.

Different brains have different connections, and so respond differently to the same stimulus.

What does that mean?

Brains are just a bunch of interconnected neurons sending electrical and chemical signals to one another. There’s nothing above-and-beyond this.

How the brain responds to its environment (e.g signals sent from the sense organs) is determined by the nature of these connections.

Different brains have different connections, and so respond differently to the same stimulus. — Michael

We agree, we're just using different terms to describe what is happening. So if you want to say that our brains are different and it is because we have different types of connections between our neurons, that is fine. This is not our point of contention. You not taking this understanding that there is a difference in our brains and applying it to the issue, is the issue.

Address the other points I made in the post you cherry-picked.

You not taking this understanding that there is a difference in our brains and applying it to the issue, is the issue. — Harry Hindu

I am.

Address the other points I made in the post you cherry-picked. — Harry Hindu

What points? Your question asking me who deserves a medal? I don’t know why you’re asking me that as it has nothing to do with anything I’m arguing.

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed.
— Michael
We're not talking about ANY reaction, just unethical ones, like rioting. If someone tells you to give all your money to a beggar, and you do, should that person win the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, or should you? — Harry Hindu

We're not talking about people that respond by saying. "No! What you are saying isn't true! You're manipulating these people to incite a riot.", or actively oppose what others are saying, right? We're talking strictly about bad acts that followed a speech, right?

So let's focus now on why some people either riot or they don't, or they stampede or they don't. Is it the differences in our brain? Yes, I agree. So it would follow that their "brain differences" is what directly preceded their actions and it is those "brain differences" that we should focus on changing if we want to limit stampedes and riots in the future.

If you don't agree that the differences in the brain are the direct cause of one's actions then you would be happy to give the person that told you to give all your money to a beggar the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, right?

When a society punishes and awards others for an individual's actions - that's pretty much communism, right?

So what about my argument are you objecting to? You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not.

So what about my argument are you objecting to? You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. — Michael

Do I seriously need to hold your hand? You must be a p-zombie or an AI training bot.

It follows that, in a society that values freedom and individualism - not communism - that we punish and award an individual's actions, not what someone said that preceded it.

Okay.

How is that relevant to anything I'm saying?

:roll: Then I have no idea what you're saying, as usual.

Then I have no idea what you're saying, as usual. — Harry Hindu

I am saying that NOS4A2's claim that speech has no causal power beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy in the inner ear is a complete misunderstanding of causation.

Now that you and I have had that type of experience of being lied to by another human being, wouldn't that make you more skeptical of what people say? — Harry Hindu

Yes, but only after you've learned it was a lie. You are diverting from my point. I'm talking about situations where you are being influenced by friend XY because you haven't learned yet that friend XY has lied. You are talking about the situation thereafter. Please refer to my point.

I am saying that NOS4A2's claim that speech has no causal power beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy in the inner ear is a complete misunderstanding of causation.

You might be right; I do have issues with causation. But you furtively leave out the body as much as you can. You don’t mention that it is the body that does the listening. In fact, the body does all the work: produces all the components required, converts all the energy, guides the impulses to their destination, directs each and every subsequent bodily movement long after the sound wave has had any impression. Sound waves do none of that stuff.

You don’t mention that it is the body that does the listening. In fact, the body does all the work: produces all the components required, converts all the energy, guides the impulses to their destination, directs each and every subsequent bodily movement long after the sound wave has had any impression. Sound waves do none of that stuff. — NOS4A2

The same is true of the machine with a radio receiver, but it’s still the case that if I send it a radio signal then I can causally influence its behaviour.

The fact that the human body and sense organs are organic matter does not entail that they don’t follow the same principles of cause and effect.