On TPF, in this context, nothing you can say to me, should be limited in any way. I hope you speak highly of me and agree with everything I say, but if you don’t you should be able to say absolutely anything you want in this context (TPF sets some limits but they are so basic who cares, any normal person can basically say whatever they want around here.)

So, in this context, if you told me to murder my wife, or go running naked through the quad, and I did it, no one could hold you accountable for anything - not conspiracy to brake indecency laws, or for plotting a murder.

But in a crowded theater, dark, congested, maybe hot, and for some reason a little smokey, if someone yells “Fire! Fire! Run!” and people start running, his words can be said to have caused the running. If it turns out the smoke was some burned popcorn, but there was no fire, and someone was trampled to death, the law and courts and the US Constitution could hold the person who yelled “Fire” accountable for causing the actions that followed.

That makes sense to me. The pen is mightier than the sword - but we shouldn’t regulate that: but when the pen IS a sword, directly causing bloodshed, we should regulate that.

It’s about context. You don’t get to say whatever you want to whomever you want any time you want.

But at a town hall meeting in a political discussion, or on a philosophy forum like this, you should be able to say whatever you can possibly imagine saying.

So...you're saying fraud and defamation are perfectly fine, because the freedom of speech trumps them.

The “fire in a crowded theater” analogy was used by Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes to jail those who were protesting the draft of American soldiers into world war 1. The analogy was used to describe a scenario in which speech created “a clear and present danger”. He too believed speech could cause them losing the war, and any censor will use such claims as they always have (corrupting the youth, for example). At any rate, there was nothing legally binding in that analogy, never described any actual crime, and his “clear and present danger” principle was eventually overturned in the 1960’s. So if American first amendment jurisprudence is your governing principle, you’re a little out of date. Defamation is a civil wrong, or otherwise a state issue, not a federal crime. If there is a certain state standard which we ought to apply, it would be nice to hear which one.

That being said the American standard is the only standard that has any argument worth defending, and for that you hold a higher more enlightened ground than anyone else here. Thank you for that.

If the pen is mightier than the sword then let’s watch a duel, one man with a sword, one man with a pen. But as we know it’s all metaphorical. As philosophers I believe we ought to approach the actual. My only contention is that if speech is a fundamental rights, which I believe it is, it ought not be blamed for things it is incapable of doing.

So...you're saying fraud and defamation are perfectly fine, because the freedom of speech trumps them.

No, they’re completely immoral and unethical acts.

I think most people sees that. — Christoffer

Perhaps you should focus on yourself. It seems a lack of this has resulted in talking past me, constantly, for a year now.

I’ve argued this point numerous times, to no avail. — NOS4A2

This may tell you something about your argument, then. If all and sundry are rejecting it for being both impractical, and logically weird (not a knock-down, to be sure) you might want to rethink it. Either you think crimes constituted by speech are not crimes (fraud, perjury, incitement, contract evasion and several other kinds besides) should never been curtailed by law.....

.... or you think they should.

Aren't ALL lies (intentional falsehoods) immoral?

This may tell you something about your argument, then. If all and sundry are rejecting it for being both impractical, and logically weird (not a knock-down, to be sure) you might want to rethink it. Either you think crimes constituted by speech are not crimes (fraud, perjury, incitement, contract evasion and several other kinds besides) should never been curtailed by law.....

.... or you think they should.

They dodged it. You’ve dodged it. But it’s simple. One cannot control another’s motor cortex with words. What’s impractical and logically weird about that?

Let me start off by saying that the republican censorship is nowhere near the amount of censorship the democratic party underwent in the last 12 years of being in power. However , with the extreme rise of political power that Elon Musk has as he now owns one of the biggest political platforms (X) as well as his very public support of Trump with glowing endorsements and a ton of money. I sense that this is the start of something dangerous, — Samlw

Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, and we stopped doing this when we replaced an education based on the humanities with education for a technological society with unknown values. This, unfortunately, has led us to anarchy, and because anarchy is not tolerable, a dictatorship follows. Losing freedom of speech is just one step in preventing liberty.

Thomas Jefferson believed that education was crucial for developing a virtuous and informed citizenry, essential for a functioning republic. He saw education as a means to improve both individual character and society as a whole, with morality being a key outcome. Jefferson emphasized that an educated citizenry would be able to make sound judgments about public affairs and participate effectively in democratic processes. AI

Adam Smith, the father of economics, was sure that morality is essential to a good economy. But we are not born knowing morality. It is something we must learn, and leaving moral training to the Chruch is a very bad idea! But that is what we have done. Now, good Christians are screaming they don't want anyone teaching their children morals. Oh really? And how about the boy across town whose parents encourage him to want guns and to use them? You know the student who kills teachers and other students, and the 23-year-old who commits mass murder to make his moral statement, and the copycats to follow.

Bottom line- Jefferson and Adam Smith were right. If we want liberty, we have to learn virtues and good moral judgment. Only then can we have liberty and government by reason, instead of authority above us trying to control things that are spinning out of control.

No one dodged it. You are ignoring all the evidence, including neurological evidence, that was put in front of you. Don't be surprised if you're ignored.

No such evidence was put in front of me. I’m not surprised when people evade simple arguments, especially when they have none of their own.

It was. Your response tells us all we need. All good.

I suppose your words couldn’t move much, then. Tells me all I need.

Wasn't it your argument that they rioted BECAUSE they didn't know the race of the person? You can't have your cake and eat it too. — Harry Hindu

Are you justifying the riots? I don't understand "You can't have your cake and eat it too" in this context.

Can I ask why you dedicate so much energy into arguing a point that is illogical? What is the point of this if there is no effort to find common ground?

This may tell you something about your argument, then. If all and sundry are rejecting it for being both impractical, and logically weird (not a knock-down, to be sure) you might want to rethink it. Either you think crimes constituted by speech are not crimes (fraud, perjury, incitement, contract evasion and several other kinds besides) should never been curtailed by law..... — AmadeusD

Couldn't of said it better myself.

Can I ask why you dedicate so much energy into arguing a point that is illogical? What is the point of this if there is no effort to find common ground?

I enjoy arguing about it. What is illogical about it?

@NOS4A2

You may have missed this:

But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin. — NOS4A2

This seems to me like saying that if I kick a football through a window then I didn’t cause the window to break, as if I’m causally responsible only for kicking the ball and not also for what the ball does to the window after being kicked.

Your suggestion that this sequence of events is one causal chain, that this subsequent sequence of events is a second causal chain, and that there's no causal connection between the two is both incompatible with physics and a seemingly arbitrary delineation.

Brain states and mind? Not so much, though I do not begrudge their application in common use. — NOS4A2

A brain state is just the state of the brain, i.e its composition and the behaviour of its neurons. It is the way it is because of a long chain of causal events, both internal to the body and external. Our brains are not isolated systems.

----

Also of relevance is causality and the science of human behaviour. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full paper, but as a summary:

In this paper an attempt has been made to show that the arguments advanced against the possibility of a scientific study of man are without foundation. Of course, the truth of either strict determinism or statistico-determinism has not been established conclusively; for this cannot be done by logical analysis alone, but requires actual success in the scientific search for uniformities. Since the important arguments against determinism which we have considered are without foundation, the psychologist need not be deterred in his quest and can confidently use the causal hypothesis as a regulative principle, undaunted by the caveat of the philosophical indeterminist.

The general point is that your claim that speech can't influence behaviour is incompatible with eliminative materialism, which you seem to endorse.

So either speech can influence behaviour or eliminative materialism is false. Pick your poison.

Sorry I missed it.

This seems to me like saying that if I kick a football through a window then I didn’t cause the window to break, as if I’m causally responsible only for kicking the ball and not also for what the ball does to the window after being kicked.

Your suggestion that this sequence of events is one causal chain, that this subsequent sequence of events is a second causal chain, and that there's no causal connection between the two is both incompatible with physics and a seemingly arbitrary delineation.

We ought not to treat listeners as passive objects, like a window. You have to switch the position of the subject, with him at the end of the causal chain. A more accurate analogy would be like saying that a football flying at your head can’t cause you to catch it, or kick it, or whatever.

The point is: listeners are subjects and agents too. 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 appears that you treat human bodies as passive receptacles of outside stimulus, and Rube Goldberg devices when it comes to how they operate, and not active agents themselves. That's mainly what I'm objecting to.

A brain state is just the state of the brain, i.e its composition and the behaviour of its neurons. It is the way it is because of a long chain of causal events, both internal to the body and external. Our brains are not isolated systems.

I know what they are I just believe there is no such thing as a brain state. States are imaginary pictures of any given object at any given time. I understand their use in discourse but don’t see how a state of a brain factors into this discussion. The world does not have a frame rate, for one, but living brains are never disembodied. The closest thing we can come to a brain state is a brain floating in formaldehyde in a jar. So perhaps a "body state" would be more useful. That's all I'm saying.

Also of relevance is causality and the science of human behaviour. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full paper, but as a summary:

The general point is that your claim that speech can't influence behaviour is incompatible with eliminative materialism, which you seem to endorse.

So either speech can influence behaviour or eliminative materialism is false. Pick your poison.

I don't see it from your summary. Are you able to explain why one is incompatible with the other?

If physics and eliminative materialism are correct then sound waves causally affect sense receptors which in turn causally affect brain activity which in turn causally affects bodily behaviour.

Your talk of “subjects” and “agents” seems to mimic the very folk psychology that you claim to deny. This talk is misleading (according to your own views on the matter). In principle my body is caused to move by speech (and other things both internal and external to the body) in the exact same way that a sunflower is caused to move by sunlight or a Venus flytrap by a fly’s movements. The human body (including the brain) might be far more complex than any plant but it still behaves according to the same physical principles.

Right, and we can create a causal chain back to the Big Bang and say the Big Bang causally affects my behavior. I’m not interested.

Subject is a philosophical and grammatical distinction. You put words and soundwaves in the subject position and listeners in the object position. “Agent” is another one, a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment. You reserve agency for words and the environment but not for human listeners. It is these little tricks that are the misleading aspects of your arguments.

Right, and we can create a causal chain back to the Big Bang and say the Big Bang causally affects my behavior. — NOS4A2

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism.

You put words and soundwaves in the subject position and listeners in the object position. “Agent” is another one, a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment. You reserve agency for words and the environment but not for human listeners. It is these little tricks that are the misleading aspects of your arguments. — NOS4A2

I haven't done anything like that. I have simply pointed out that – if eliminative materialism is correct – the physics is clear; the wider environment causally influences human behaviour, just as it causally influences animal and plant behaviour, and so your suggestion that another person's speech cannot causally influence my actions is wrong.

You somehow seem to want something like libertarian free will whilst also denying anything like a non-physical mind. These positions are incompatible. So, once again, you need to pick your poison and abandon one of these two positions.

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism.

How is that the case?

I haven't done anything like that. I have simply pointed out that – if eliminative materialism is correct – the physics is clear; the wider environment causally influences human behaviour, just as it causally influences animal and plant behaviour, and so your suggestion that another person's speech cannot causally influence my actions is wrong.

You somehow seem to want something like libertarian free will whilst also denying anything like a non-physical mind. These positions are incompatible. So, once again, you need to pick your poison and abandon one of these two positions.

You’ve simply made that assertion, sure. I am not a determinist, however. Unlike you I need neither non-physical minds nor distant events to believe that a human being is the source of his own actions.

You can demonstrate it on your own by moving a part of your body, perhaps your arm. After this you should have all the evidence required to answer the question “who or what moved my arm”. If you can find anything else in the universe that did so, let me know.

All physical events are a response to prior physical events. Matter doesn't move apropos of nothing. The human body and brain are material, and behave according to the same principles as all matter. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by something else, often electrochemical signals from the brain, and if these electrochemical signals are sent then it's because they were caused to send by something else – and oftentimes they were caused to send by stimulation of the sense organs. That's just how biology works.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "a human being is the source of his own actions". I think you're equivocating. If you mean by this something similar to "a Venus flytrap is the source of its own actions (e.g. closing its jaws)" then it does not contradict what I am saying, because it is also correct to say that a Venus flytrap's jaws are caused to close by a fly's movements. But if you mean by this to argue that humans (unlike Venus flytraps) have something like libertarian free will then this requires either that physics as we understand it or eliminative materialism are false such that the electrochemical signals sent by my brain to my arm are not a causal response to sensory stimulation but a response to some mental "will".

All physical events are a response to prior physical events. Matter doesn't move apropos of nothing. The human body and brain are material, and behave according to the same principles as all matter. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by something else, often electrochemical signals from the brain, and if these electrochemical signals are sent then it's because they were caused to send by something else – and oftentimes they were caused to send by stimulation of the sense organs. That's just how biology works.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "a human being is the source of his own actions". I think you're equivocating. If you mean by this something similar to "a Venus flytrap is the source of its own actions (e.g. closing its jaws)" then it does not contradict what I am saying, because it is also correct to say that a Venus flytrap's jaws are caused to close by a fly's movements. But if you mean by this to argue that humans (unlike Venus flytraps) have something like libertarian free will then this requires either that physics as we understand it or eliminative materialism are false such that the electrochemical signals sent by my brain to my arm are not a causal response to sensory stimulation but a response to some mental "will".

What I mean is nothing else in the universe is source of a human being's actions. The electrochemical signals sent by your brain to your arm, for example, are not foreign to you. A response to foreign stimulus is still such an act, and caused by the only thing that can perform it: you.

What I mean is nothing else in the universe is source of a human being's actions. The electrochemical signals sent by your brain to your arm, for example, are not foreign to you. A response to foreign stimulus is still such an act, and caused by the only thing that can perform it: you. — NOS4A2

This is like saying that because the electricity in my computer's hard drive is not foreign to the computer then I am not causally responsible for letters appearing on the computer screen as I type on my keyboard.

It's such a ridiculous attempt at a copout.

It's not like saying that. Venus fly-traps, sunflowers and computers. See if you can stick to human beings for once instead of evading the arguments with false analogies.

It's not like saying that. Venus fly-traps, sunflowers and computers. See if you can stick to human beings for once instead of evading the arguments with false analogies. — NOS4A2

They're not false analogies. If eliminative materialism is correct then human organisms are not special. They behave according to the same biological and physical principles as non-human animals which behave according to the same biological and physical principles as plants which behave according to the same physical principles as non-organic matter. Their internal behaviour – be it brain activity, photosynthesis, or electrical currents – can be caused to occur by external stimulation. That is simply an irrefutable fact about how physical systems work.

If you want to continue to argue that human behaviour is somehow exempt from this then you need to bite the bullet and reject the eliminative materialism that you so often endorse.

They are false analogies. Human beings are unfathomably different than venus fly traps, sunflowers, and computers. Different physical systems means different behavior. Why can't you stick to the one under discussion?

I still don't require non-physical minds to explain any human behavior, so don't need to bite any bullets. I'm not sure what you're on about.

While it's true that the environment can influence behavior, the genesis of all behavior occurs in the one behaving. The mechanical energy of a sound wave, for instance, is converted into electrochemical energy in a process called "transduction". That behavior, that act—transduction—is an act of the human being and not the sound wave. Do you disagree?

Human beings are unfathomably different than venus fly traps, sunflowers, and computers. Different physical systems means different behavior. — NOS4A2

The human body might be more complex than a plant and a computer but its internal behaviour is still causally influenced by external stimulation. The human body is not an isolated system.

I still don't require non-physical minds to explain any human behavior, so don't need to bite any bullets. I'm not sure what you're on about. — NOS4A2

If you want to argue against determinism (whether compatibilist or incompatibilist) and in favour of libertarian free will, then you must reject eliminative materialism, because eliminative materialism entails that human behaviour is a deterministic response to prior physical causes, both internal and external to the body.

The mechanical energy of a sound wave, for instance, is converted into electrochemical energy in a process called "transduction". That behavior, that act—transduction—is an act of the human being and not the sound wave. — NOS4A2

Yes, and photosynthesis is an act of the plant, not sunlight. But it is still the case that sunlight causally affects plant behaviour and that sound causally affects human behaviour. The soundwaves cause transduction to happen which causes neurons to fire which causes the muscles to contract and relax which causes the ball to be kicked which causes the window to break.

As I said before, your claim that one causal chain ends at this point and that a second causal chain starts immediately after, and that there's no causal connection between the two, is both inconsistent with physics and an arbitrary delineation.

They dodged it. You’ve dodged it. — NOS4A2

But it’s simple. One cannot control another’s motor cortex with words. — NOS4A2

It’s simple? So how does one control one’s own motor cortex? That’s called the problem of free will versus determinism. Not simple.

You seem to be saying that words cannot induce actions in others.

How about “no, please wait in the lobby.” If I move at all it’s because I choose to move at all, but if I pick the lobby, it’s at least in part because of the other person’s words. Right?

I see a stop sign. On one level I control my own motor cortex and I can stop or keep driving.

But on another level, the only reason I am considering stopping is because of the “stop” speech posted on the sign.

Words are causing me to make a decision of what to do with my motor cortex - keep the motor rolling or stop the train.

So if I stop, did I stop because the sign said “stop”or because I chose to stop?

The answer is both. I was trying to drive but stopped instead because of my choice to follow what the sign said to do.

Or how about this, what if I jumped up in a theater and ran to the door and left. Everyone around me would be saying “what’s got in to him - what induced him to run?” They would all assume it was my ability to control my own motor cortex, but, they would still be wondering if there was anything more specific that led to the quick exit.

Then someone else yells “Run! Fire!!”

All the other people who were sitting with me might now say, “Ah, now I see why he ran, he must have smelled smoke or something.” “Now it makes some sense - he must not like being burned to death.” “Good inference,” says the other one, as they sit there…

They sit there because they are free to control their own motor cortexes as they see fit.

Then the person yells again “Run you fools, Fire is coming to kill you all - run for the exits! Fire! Fire!!!”

Next, after trampling someone to death, they are outside and can see there is no fire and never was.

So why did they run out of the building?
Why are they standing outside?
Is there any other reason besides their decision to jump up and run?

They all didn’t see the purpose to me running out. Then, they ran out. What caused the change of heart?

So you know, I ran out of the building because I forgot my cell phone and didn’t want anyone around here to think I was dodging any questions.

This is a perfectly good conversation, but I think you are missing something pretty big about language.

Words (immaterial meanings) really do matter (cause effects in others). I don’t know why we would want to think otherwise, especially in the context of questions about political freedom.

I mean if words can’t be the cause of action, what is the point of laws, political rallies, or anything public relating to political speech (or any speech really)?

——

I think you are talking about how we move - motor cortexes and self-determination.

A discussion about regulating speech and movement is more about why we move - what the words reasonably mean and what we can expect to induce in others’ minds as they make their decisions and self-determine the use of their motor skills.

The human body might be more complex than a plant and a computer but its internal behaviour is still causally influenced by external stimulation. The human body is not an isolated system.

It’s not an isolated system but it is a different system. Humans don’t use photosynthesis, for example.

If you want to argue against determinism (whether compatibilist or incompatibilist) and in favour of libertarian free will, then you must reject eliminative materialism, because eliminative materialism entails that human behaviour is a deterministic response to prior physical causes, both internal and external to the body.

I still don’t know how eliminative materialism entails that human behavior is a deterministic response to prior physical causes. Further, even if you assume determinism, many of the “prior physical causes” are prior states of the brain and body, which is still the person in question except at an earlier time.

What is an example of prior physical causes external to the body? What else besides yourself causes you to listen?

The soundwaves cause transduction to happen which causes neurons to fire which causes the muscles to contract and relax which causes the ball to be kicked which causes the window to break.

The sensory receptor causes the conversion of the energy in a stimulus into an electrical signal. That is what it does. Only this thing can cause that change. From then on every cause, effect, change, or whatever is under the complete control and influence of the body, which uses a different form of energy to make these conversions, and not any outside kinetic stimulus.

As I said before, your claim that one causal chain ends at this point and that a second causal chain starts immediately after, and that there's no causal connection between the two, is both inconsistent with physics and an arbitrary delineation.

I completely reject that formulation.

It’s not inconsistent nor arbitrary because only one system in the universe is converting that energy into another, and using that energy as it does. The body uses sound waves and other aspects of the environment to extract that information. Soundwaves don’t cause us to listen, to differentiate between one sound and another, to turn our heads or cover our ears, to understand the language spoken or to disregard it entirely.

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. Your efforts to paint it as a kinetic Rube Goldberg device is inconsistent with physics, biology, and is completely arbitrary.