No, it isn't. So, I wont expand on that.

I thought I’ve addressed most if not all of the arguments — NOS4A2

It's hard to understand this take - you have been consistently told you have not addressed them. You don't really get to claim the opposite to the people who are giving you these arguments. You've not even touched the neuroscientific basis for words causing action. It flies in the face of your entire premise (empirically) and you have failed in any wya to address why you think several extremely harmful crimes should be fully legal, due to not restricting speech.

THose are two you have not touched in any meaningful way. You may think so - you haven't. Onward...

someone’s speech, which I stated was “harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others”. — NOS4A2

Those forms of speech are crimes (currently). You are not in touch with the issue, it seems. You are wilfully not answering to these charges... Why you do think those things should be allowable? Lets hope theres more further on..

Your equivalence is utter nonsense. — NOS4A2

This is just you pretending that harmful activities can't be carried out by speech. They can, and I've presented several (which are crimes). You seem to want to ignore this to support a principled approach to something which has empirical import.

So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.” — NOS4A2

But this is absolute bullshit, isn't it? As it seems you might have to address in your next reply... Onward.

The problem is you’re equivocating between illegal, regulated, and acceptable behavior in a dramatic display of complete casuistry. I say none of it should be criminalized so you repeat the question, moving the goalposts, to where you are now asking if they I think they should be regulated — NOS4A2

I am sorry, but this is perhaps the most awful, dishonest crap you have ever posted on this forum.
You want to - not criminalize harmful speech - but regulate it. Explain yourself, while maintaining an 'absolute' free speech position? You'll note this isn't possible.

Why ask if you can’t handle the answer? — NOS4A2

You're a child, it seems, who cannot have a conversation about their clearly contradictory views. That is not an issue for me. I am handling you with aplomb.

Your final two lines are pure irony. You aren't capable of a rational discussion, and I no longer have time for children pretending to speak to adults.

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. — Michael

You can say that if you want, but that has no bearing on our conversation, as you have already agreed with me that there are brain differences that are the immediate cause of one's behavior and not what goes on in the inner ear.

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. — Quk

Sure, but there is no law against lying. Are you saying there should be? Have you ever lied - to anyone?

I'll just pose to you the question I posed to Michael but did not receive a response, which just makes Michael proving my point:

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? — Harry Hindu

You can say that if you want, but that has no bearing on our conversation — Harry Hindu

Then “our conversation” has only ever been your monologue as I’ve never said anything to the contrary.

The same is true of the machine with a radio receiver. But it’s still the case that if I send it the appropriate radio signal, e.g telling it to self destruct, then I am causally influencing its behaviour.

The fact that the human body and sense organs are organic matter and not metal is of no relevance.

But you set up the receiver and bomb. You programmed it to self destruct. It didn’t grow organically and learn to deal with the environment and others through years of experience and learning. It cannot choose to do otherwise should it desire to do so. You have no such influence over human beings as you would over a radio receiver.

It didn’t grow organically and learn to deal with the environment and others through years of experience and learning — NOS4A2

Why is that relevant? Matter is matter. All physical systems operate according to the same physical laws.

You are engaging in special pleading when you assert that “the entity takes over” applies to human organisms but not machines (and not plants?).

It cannot choose to do otherwise should it desire to do so. — NOS4A2

Okay, so now we might be getting somewhere.

Firstly, are you arguing against determinism and in favour of libertarian free will? If so, how do you maintain this whilst also endorsing eliminative materialism?

There are in general two types of free will libertarians. One type argues for interactionist dualism and the second type argues.that our “choices” are really just the random outcomes of quantum indeterminacy, which to me doesn’t seem much like libertarian free will at all.

Which are you endorsing? If the latter then we’re still dealing with causal influence, albeit probabilistic causation.

Secondly, where does decision-making occur? In the inner ear? Or later in the “higher-level” brain activity? If the latter then you must at least accept that the causal power of stimuli extends beyond the immediate interaction with the sense organs, being causally responsible for the signals sent to the brain and the behaviour of “lower-level” neurons.

Why is that relevant? Matter is matter. All physical systems operate according to the same physical laws.

You are engaging in special pleading when you assert that “the entity takes over” applies to human organisms but not machines (and not plants?).

Physical systems vary in properties and behavior. Why would that be irrelevant?

Firstly, are you arguing against determinism and in favour of libertarian free will? If so, how do you maintain this whilst also endorsing eliminative materialism?

I don’t need to believe in non-physical substances to believe objects can move on their own accord.

Which are you endorsing? If the latter then we’re still dealing with causal influence, albeit probabilistic causation.

I’m inclined towards sourcehood arguments and agent-causation of libertarian free will.

Secondly, where does decision-making occur? In the inner ear? Or later in the “higher-level” brain activity? If the latter then you must at least accept that the causal power of stimuli extends beyond the immediate interaction with the sense organs, being causally responsible for the signals sent to the brain and the behaviour of “lower-level” neurons.

I consider the body to be one holistic system. It is only this system in its entirety that decides, or can decide.

No one cannot can control another’s motor cortex with words. — NOS4A2

Control? Like a Manchurian candidate? A magic spell? :)

I don't think that's what's meant. Your comment elicited this response. Which wouldn't have come about if you'd instead posted "Howdy doody partner", "What's down the sink?", "The Moon is a green cheese".

I consider the body to be one holistic system. It is only this system in its entirety that decides, or can decide. — NOS4A2

You can’t simply assert that because the human organism as a whole can “choose to do otherwise” then the behaviour of its sense organs is not causally influenced by a stimulus and its source.

Even the interactionist dualist accepts that some of the body’s behaviour is not “agent-caused”, e.g our heartbeats and digestive systems.

I’m inclined towards sourcehood arguments and agent-causation of libertarian free will. — NOS4A2

And how do you maintain this whilst endorsing eliminative materialism? Agents are physical systems and agency is a physical process and like every other physical system and physical process in the universe its behaviour can be and is causally influenced by physical systems and physical processes external to itself, whether that be deterministic causation or probabilistic causation (e.g quantum indeterminacy).

Physical systems vary in properties and behavior. Why would that be irrelevant? — NOS4A2

Because these differences do not allow it to escape being causally influenced by things external to itself. Organic compounds still react to the environment in deterministic ways. So saying that the internal behaviour of the TV can be causally influenced by an external stimulus because it is a metal machine but that the internal behaviour of a human cannot because it is a living organism is a non sequitur.

You might as well try to argue that because a plant is not a machine then its behaviour cannot be causally influenced by the sun.

I don’t need to believe in non-physical substances to believe objects can move on their own accord. — NOS4A2

What does it mean to “move on their own accord”? Does the Venus flytrap closing its jaws “move on its own accord”? Does the robot left to its own devices to navigate a maze “move on its own accord”?

You keep throwing around these vague phrases as if they somehow avoid determinism. As it stands I don’t see how this is incompatible with compatibilism.

Sure, but there is no law against lying. — Harry Hindu

This might be unneeded, but there are plenty of laws against lying. They are just context-specific.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/three-virginia-high-school-students-seeking-10m-in-lawsuit-over-principal-s-accusation-of-racist-harassment/ar-AA1GwJLl?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=6849dd2cbebb4d53bbcda000889c872e&ei=8

An oddly on-point example that just came across my headline widget. This could do well in the Myopia of Liberalism thread too..

Sure, but there is no law against lying. Are you saying there should be? — Harry Hindu

No, please reread my post. I'm talking about being influenced. You keep deviating from my point. And I now stop this dialog with you.

This is a vacuous answer. You can’t simply assert that because the human organism as a whole can “choose to do otherwise” then the behaviour of its sense organs is not causally influenced by a stimulus and its source.

Even the interactionist dualist accepts that some of the body’s behaviour is not “agent-caused”, e.g our heartbeats and digestive systems.

I’m not a dualist. The behavior of the sense organs, the brain, the nervous system etc. is the behavior of the whole. I reiterate this because pretending one and then the other are discreet units outside of the scope and control of the whole is abstract nonsense.

If not the agent, then what causes the heart beat and digestion? Is the Sinoatrial node a foreign parasite or something? Like I said, abstract nonsense.

And how do you maintain this whilst endorsing eliminative materialism? Agents are physical systems and agency is a physical process and like every other physical system and physical process in the universe its behaviour can be and is causally influenced by physical systems and physical processes external to itself, whether that be deterministic causation or probabilistic causation (e.g quantum indeterminacy).

In the case of human sensing, the transduction of one form of energy to another, as in the conversion of outside stimulus to internal chemical and electrical signals, is performed by the human organism. No external system involved in the event of listening performs such an action. And when I look at what changes the force of a soundwave can possibly cause inside the human body the effects are exactly the ones I said the were and no more. Past the transduction, that force is simply no longer present and therefor neither is its “influence”. There is no soundwave or words banging around in there like billiard balls.

All subsequent movements occur due to the potential energy stored in the system itself, in this case the body, as determined by the internal process by which your body expends energy and burns calories. The energy and ability to move, or do the work involved in listening, or speaking, or any activity, is converted, stored, and used by the body and no other system. It determines any and all activity involved, and in fact is physically identical to that activity.

What does it mean to “move on their own accord”? Does the Venus flytrap closing its jaws “move on its own accord”? Does the robot left to its own devices to navigate a maze “move on its own accord”?

It just means autonomy: the energy and force required to move is provided by that which is moving, generated by itself, and wholly determined by the biology, not by external forces.

If someone makes disparaging remarks about someone else but all listeners know that those remarks are not true, was a crime committed in making those remarks?

Did the left's constant characterization of Trump as a Fascist and Nazi influence more than half of American citizens to not vote for him? Does Trump have a case to sue those that made those claims?

No, please reread my post. I'm talking about being influenced. — Quk

But I've been talking about influence all along as well but you seemed to reject how I was using it, so I'm now trying to understand how you are using it and you aren't being very helpful.

If not the agent, then what causes the heart beat and digestion? Is the Sinoatrial node a foreign parasite or something? Like I said, abstract nonsense. — NOS4A2

You're equivocating. It is true that the human organism is responsible for its heart beat and digestion but it is not prima facie true that its heart beat and digestion is an example of agent-causal libertarian free will, comparable to the supposedly could-have-done-otherwise decision to either have Chinese or Indian for dinner.

The point I was making is that even if humans – but not plants and machines – are agents, our agency does not prima facie apply to everything our body does.

You need to do more than simply assert that humans are agents to defend the claim that the behaviour of the sense organs is not a causal reaction to stimuli.

It just means autonomy: the energy and force required to move is provided by that which is moving, generated by itself, and wholly determined by the biology, not by external forces. — NOS4A2

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a non sequitur.

I’m not a dualist. The behavior of the sense organs, the brain, the nervous system etc. is the behavior of the whole. I reiterate this because pretending one and then the other are discreet units outside of the scope and control of the whole is abstract nonsense. — NOS4A2

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a non sequitur.

In the case of human sensing, the transduction of one form of energy to another, as in the conversion of outside stimulus to internal chemical and electrical signals, is performed by the human organism. No external system involved in the event of listening performs such an action. And when I look at what changes the force of a soundwave can possibly cause inside the human body the effects are exactly the ones I said the were and no more. Past the transduction, that force is simply no longer present and therefor neither is its “influence”. There is no soundwave or words banging around in there like billiard balls.

All subsequent movements occur due to the potential energy stored in the system itself, in this case the body, as determined by the internal process by which your body expends energy and burns calories. The energy and ability to move, or do the work involved in listening, or speaking, or any activity, is converted, stored, and used by the body and no other system. It determines any and all activity involved, and in fact is physically identical to that activity. — NOS4A2

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a non sequitur.

You're equivocating. It is true that the human organism is responsible for its heart beat and digestion but it is not prima facie true that its heart beat and digestion is an example of agent-causal libertarian free will, comparable to the supposedly could-have-done-otherwise decision to either have Chinese or Indian for dinner.

So even if you want to consider humans – but not plants and machines – as being agents, its agency does not prima facie apply to everything the body does.

You need to do more than simply assert that humans are agents to defend the claim that the behaviour of the sense organs is an application of agency and not simply a causal reaction to stimuli.

I never said it was an application of agency. I used “agency” to distinguish between the human being and your analogies. But the fact remains that the heart beat and digestion is caused by this same agent. So it is with the operation and maintenance with everything else occurring in the body.

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology).

Venus flytraps, yes, but machines no. Machines are designed, built, and operated by human beings. They cannot change their own batteries or plug themselves in.

Venus flytraps, yes, but machines no. — NOS4A2

Are you saying that the fly walking inside a Venus flytrap does not cause the Venus flytrap's jaw to close?

Machines are designed, built, and operated by human beings. — NOS4A2

So?

They cannot change their own batteries or plug themselves in. — NOS4A2

They can if we build them that way. But also: so?

I never said it was an application of agency. I used “agency” to distinguish between the human being and your analogies. But the fact remains that the heart beat and digestion is caused by this same agent. So it is with the operation and maintenance with everything else occurring in the body. — NOS4A2

But the heart beat is not an application of agent-causal libertarian free will. And neither is the sense organ's response to stimuli. So there is no good reason to claim that the behaviour of the sense organs in response to stimulation is any less determined than the behaviour of a radio receiver in response to stimulation. You can't simply hand-wave this away by saying that in other circumstances the organism does have agency.

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. — NOS4A2

Taking a step back for a moment, and re-addressing this, do you at least accept that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight, and so that the above comment of yours is completely misguided?

No, because you've conditioned out the context in which that is a crime. Disparaging is also a little weak to reach any kind of a legal benchmark.

He certainly could. But I highly doubt anyone would entertain that argument from someone running for President. But, as I understand the law, yes, he could absolutely sue several outlets and untold individuals for defamation. Musk could do the same. But why would they?

Are you saying that the fly walking inside a Venus flytrap does not cause the Venus flytrap's jaw to close?

If the action potential is in the plant, then yes, the biology of the flytrap causes it to close if and when such a stimulus happens.

So?

That means they are not autonomous.

They can if we build them that way. But also: so?

But the fact that we have to build them, program them, etc negates their autonomy.

But the heart beat is not an application of agent-causal libertarian free will. And neither is the sense organ's response to stimuli. So there is no good reason to claim that the behaviour of the sense organs in response to stimulation is any less determined than the behaviour of a radio receiver in response to stimulation. You can't simply hand-wave this away by saying that in other circumstances the organism does have agency.

I can and will hand wave it until you can show that something else in the universe beats the heart. Until then there is nothing else that can be shown to determine the heart beat.

Taking a step back for a moment, and re-addressing this, do you at least accept that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight, and so that the above comment of yours is completely misguided?

I do not accept it.

No, because you've conditioned out the context in which that is a crime. Disparaging is also a little weak to reach any kind of a legal benchmark.

He certainly could. But I highly doubt anyone would entertain that argument from someone running for President. But, as I understand the law, yes, he could absolutely sue several outlets and untold individuals for defamation. Musk could do the same. But why would they? — AmadeusD

Exactly. Conditioning out the context in which defamation is a crime is having an informed population.

Conditioning out inciting speech would also involve having an informed society. See the connection?

If the action potential is in the plant, then yes, the biology of the flytrap causes it to close if and when such a stimulus happens. — NOS4A2

And the fly causes it to close. The two are not mutually exclusive. Exactly like with machines.

I can and will hand wave it until you can show that something else in the universe beats the heart. Until then there is nothing else that can be shown to determine the heart beat. — NOS4A2

You're not addressing what I'm saying. I’m saying that even if we have libertarian free will, this could-have-done-otherwise agency does not apply to our heartbeats and does not apply to our sense organs, and so there’s no good reason to say that the behaviour of our sense organs is not causally determined by some stimulus and its source.

I do not accept it. — NOS4A2

Why not? Do you reject the claim that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight?

That means they are not autonomous.

...

But the fact that we have to build them, program them, etc negates their autonomy. — NOS4A2

Autonomous robot.

Every day, every minute, true, semi-true, and untrue news become available. In order to be informed correctly, humans need to decide which news are the true ones. Even smart people cannot filter out all untrue news. It may take days or years until I can see that the information XY at that time was wrong. Until then, I'm believing that the information XY is true and I'll make personal decisions accordingly; I'm relying on information that I got from other humans. During this period my behaviour is being influenced by others (the ones that gave my information XY).

I'm not a doctor. My doctor tells me I should eat more apples. I'll follow her advice. She influenced me.

Her influence on me is possible because I rely on her. I trust her. I trust her not because I have the same medical knowledge as she does. I'm not a doctor and I'm not all-knowing. I trust her because I assume she's right. My assumption may be wrong! Perhaps it's better to stop eating apples. Who knows? Even doctors make mistakes (or want to make more profit). I don't know and therefore I just follow her advice; that's an influence.

Influence is possible in areas where I don't know better. Such areas exist because I'm not all-knowing.

There are countless cases of this kind every minute, every second. To claim it was impossible that speech could influence people is just absurd.

Why are the media full of advertisement? Because ads can influence humans. At least half of all ad producers claim that ads are just "offerings" for humans that can completely decide on their own. Question: Why are ads supposed to evoke emotions? Answer: Because emotions influence better. -- There's the contradiction. They are not "offerings". They are influences.

Why do emotional speeches influence the listeners better than non-emotional speeches? Because emotion attracts and gets more easily into the human memory. So why do influencers generate emotions? Because that's the way influence works.

It's not about "offerings". It's about influence. Be honest!

And the fly causes it to close. The two are not mutually exclusive. Exactly like with machines.

I’m not so sure about that.

You're not addressing what I'm saying. I’m saying that even if we have libertarian free will, this could-have-done-otherwise agency does not apply to our heartbeats and does not apply to our sense organs, and so there’s no good reason to say that the behaviour of our sense organs is not causally determined by some stimulus and its source.

The problem is you cannot point to anything else that determines sensing and heart-beating. So I fully dispute and disagree with what you’re saying.

[quote
] Why not? Do you reject the claim that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight?[/quote]

I utterly reject it and for the same reasons I reject it your other analogies.

Autonomous robot.

Again, all of the have been programmed and built by humans, and therefor are dependent on human input.

So you don't accept that the fly's movements cause the Venus flytrap to close its jaws and you don't accept that spoken words can cause a voice-activated machine to lift some weight.

This just isn't the "superstitious imply[ing] a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality" as you accuse it of being. It's the truth, and common sense. And if this is your best defence of free speech absolutism then so much the worse for your position.

So you don't accept that the fly's movements cause the Venus flytrap to close its jaws and you don't accept that spoken words can cause a voice-activated machine to lift some weight.

This just isn't the "superstitious imply[ing] a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality" as you accuse it of being. It's the truth, and common sense. And if this is your best defence of free speech absolutism then so much the worse for your position.

I’ve already stated my reasoning. The effects cannot be shown to reach as far as you say they do. The objects, structures, and energies responsible for such movements, responses, and actions are not the same as the ones you claim they are. There is no argument for censorship save for superstition and magical thinking.

I’ve already stated my reasoning. The effects cannot be shown to reach as far as you say they do. The objects, structures, and energies responsible for such movements, responses, and actions are not the same as the ones you claim they are. — NOS4A2

And as I have explained, this is a misguided understanding of causation. I cause the bomb to explode by pushing a button, I cause the machine to turn by telling it to, the fly causes the Venus flytrap to close by moving its hairs.

The relationship between each pair of events isn't merely correlation. It's not an accident or happenstance or coincidence. It's causal.

My sense organs send electrical signals to my brain because they have been stimulated. If they do so for any other reason, e.g entirely caused by internal, biological activity, then that's a sign of an injury.

And as I have explained, this is a misguided understanding of causation. I cause the bomb to explode by pushing a button, I cause the machine to turn by telling it to, the fly causes the Venus flytrap to close by moving its hairs.

The relationship between each pair of events isn't merely correlation. It's not an accident or happenstance or coincidence. It's causal.

My sense organs send electrical signals to my brain because they have been stimulated. If they do so for any other reason, e.g entirely caused by internal, biological activity, then that's a sign of an injury.

You’re a determinist. The choice to put yourself as the cause in all these events is completely arbitrary and linear, as any and all anterior states caused you to push the button, and therefor explode the bomb. You have no control or will over anything. Isn’t that so?

Your sense organs send electrical signals to your brain. Nothing else in the universe does that. Nothing else is reading the words you’re reading, thinking the thoughts you’re thinking, sending the impulses you’re sending, moving your body, and responding to words the way you do. While I might be misguided about the philosophy of causation, you’re doing, controlling, determining, governing, creating, catalyzing, producing, generating, evoking those acts, and no one else can do so.

You have no control or will over anything. Isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

No, I'm a compatibilist.

Your position, though, is unclear. You're a free will libertarian but also an eliminative materialist. I assume, then, that you believe that libertarian free will is made possible by quantum indeterminancy? So we "could have done otherwise" only because the applicable human behaviour operates according to probabilistic causation rather than determinism?

Your sense organs send electrical signals to your brain. — NOS4A2

And the infrared sensor sends electrical signals to some other part of the TV. But it's still the case that I cause the TV to turn on by pushing the appropriate button on the remote. Your reasoning is a non sequitur, even despite your assertions that humans, unlike TVs, have "agency" – because this "agency" does not factor into the behaviour of our sense organs in response to stimulation, e.g. I can't just will myself to be deaf (even if I can will myself to cover my ears).