Then I don't see anything that has actually contradicted what I have said. — Harry Hindu

I wasn't trying to contradict you. I was just answering your questions.

Some reactions are common, some reactions are individual.

Every human likes to breath. Not every human likes garlic.

Isn't it that simple?

"there must be some difference in the way the two humans interpret the same input to be able to produce a different output"

I can provide a real life example of this, not limited to 2 individuals, but rather, male and female staff. I had been a manager in an Emergency Department and, in an effort to ensure the best patient care possible and support constant staff education and improve practice, I said to the staff during a staff meeting...

"Just let me know what you need; equipment, training, specialized education, etc. Anything you can think of that would improve your ability to practice and provide care and maximize the patient experience and outcome. If you think it would help I want to hear about it so we can make it happen."

The male staff heard " The manager wants to know how to make the place better and is willing to train and educate the staff and wants us to provide input."

The female staff heard "Everyone is so terrible at their job that I need to retrain everyone and our equipment is terrible and also needs replacing."

The difference in take away messaging from the same message, at the same meeting, was astounding. To this day I have no idea how I should have phrased the message for equivalent positive uptake throughout the staff. That the take away was so immensely different still bewilders me.

I think the male and female interpretations are both correct and both complement each other.

It's logical that improvement is only possible where something is not good enough. Something perfect has no room for improvement. Whether the "imperfect" is "terrible" is just a rhetorical play, I guess. But the logic is correct, isn't it?

In any case, I am more interested in your defense of not making things like contractual lies, slander/defamation, trademark violation, perjury etc... illegal rather than 'private speech' as it were (bad wording, but hopefully says what I want). Is there something for you to say here? Why would we want to allow the chips to fall where they may in these areas?

For my own tastes it's because of principle. Namely, I do not think any person nor group of people should have the power to pick and choose what the rest of us can say, write, and think. Far better to let the chips fall as they may than to give anyone that power. I'll outline some other principles below, but there are plenty more.

Speech is a harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others. So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.

But worse, the reason's stated as to why a censor might criminalize speech are entirely superstitious. In fact I would argue that the censor's superstitions are the most prevalent, ancient, and at the same time, most disastrous of superstitions of the entirety of human existence.

The evidence of this is in their reasoning, where they invariably waiver between the actual and the figurative when making their claims (this word literally"triggers" that action, where "trigger" in the literal sense means "to fire by pulling a mechanical trigger". They must be figurative because they cannot explain how it actually occurs). One can read historical accounts of censorship (the trial of socrates for example) to see how this is the case. 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. So in my view, to choose to censor is to tacitly believe in superstition and sorcery. Personally, I refuse to do so. Far better to let the chips fall as they may.

But also I wish to possess knowledge. Speech, and therefore our knowledge of history, is as fragile as the Herculaneum papyri. If we were able to gather the sum-total of human speech into a vast pile of writings, art, and artifacts, imagine if some censor was allowed to have his superstitious way with it. What works have already been robbed from humankind we'll probably never know, but in this sense censorship is a form of robbery, perhaps of the worst kind. (Think of what was stolen from mankind with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria). Knowledge of human history must also include lies, fabrications, insults, hate speech, and anything else that is speech. So far better to let the chips fall as they may than to engage in robbery of that kind. Far better to possess knowledge than to be ignorant.

I have plenty more arguments and could go on ad nauseam but I'll refrain for now.

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. — NOS4A2

Nobody is saying anything like this at all. It's not just about the immediate kinetic energy of an action. This is such an absurd strawman.

There's very little kinetic energy involved when I click the various keys on my computer, but clicking the appropriate keys begins a causal chain of events that influences the words that appear on your screen. There's no magical thinking or superstition involved in acknowledging this basic fact.

It's not a coincidence that the words that appear on your screen correspond to the words that I type. It's not a mere correlation. There is a very real causal connection between the two.

And there's a very real causal connection between sound stimulating an organism's sense organs and the subsequent neurological activity (which is a physical reaction).

The idea speech does not affect the world and that all these sovereign individuals can just ignore it, is devoid of fact. Speech can be abusive and cause harm. Child abuse can consist of solely verbal abuse. There are plenty of examples of bullied kids committing suicide. To then have people argue words don't harm and that it is apparently the person's choice to commit suicide is a prime example of victim blaming.

It is not a coincidence or magical thinking you read my words and respond to them. That’s entirely up to you whether you do or not. It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond.

It's logical that improvement is only possible where something is not good enough. — Quk

It's not. The females made wild assumptions (based on what we've been told above). The males did not - if anything, there seems a bit of pronoia going on in the males, but it seems more likely that is what the speakers tone intimated. I also notice the same disparity when speaking with colleagues/subordinates.

For my own tastes it's because of principle. — NOS4A2

I have read the entire response and will make further comments. But I am telling you mate, this is the only reasonable answer you have given. That's fine, but it does absolutely nothing for the arguments you've been presented with, regardless of you either not getting htem, or pretending they aren't there.

I do not think any person nor group of people should have the power to pick and choose what the rest of us can say, write, and think — NOS4A2

Not entirely unreasonable, but doesn't quite get to what I asked you. My assumption (which was founded) being you'll get deeper as you go...

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

This is equivalent to saying "Preventing crime is violating people's rights to eat fresh Apples from the corner near my house". Utterly preposterous and non sequitur. There is absolutely no connection between criminalizing speech and the (obviously nonsensical, in context) "sacrifice" or "another's" right to "live and survive with others". These are non-arguments.

But worse, the reason's stated as to why a censor might criminalize speech are entirely superstitious. In fact I would argue that the censor's superstitions are the most prevalent, ancient, and at the same time, most disastrous of superstitions of the entirety of human existence. — NOS4A2

You've made this claim. It is ridiculous, on it's face, and empirically unsupportable. You've done nothing to support it, or massage it into appearing more reasonable. There is no argument to contend with here.

They must be figurative because they cannot explain how it actually occurs — NOS4A2

We've already done this for you within this thread. If you do not understand defamation and its follow-ons, you need to just bow the heck out of this before you're left at the gates of an actual conversation.

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

They literally do. I've explained this in hte response you have quoted from me. Granted I didn't ask you to address that - you have gone and done so, further showing that you:

A. Do no understand the position you're arguing against;
B. You do not understand hte physics of speech and hearing;
C. You do not understand your own point of view adequately to defend it (plenty can. you're floundering).

I would suggest you have a deep, hard, logical think about what you're doing here. We can all see hte problem here. It's not one of opinion. You have no arguments. You have failures of understanding (or, complete lack of knowledge about a relevant field).

So in my view, to choose to censor is to tacitly believe in superstition and sorcery. — NOS4A2

You may want to turn this around - your positions are so abjectly stupid and ignorant of that which you pretend to rail against that you aren't off the ground yet. Sorcery would be required for your positions to obtain, particularly because you are yelling at a ghost (it seems other commenters have already pointed this out to you).

Far better to let the chips fall as they may. — NOS4A2

You have entirely refused to address the issues I put to you.

Tell me why defamation is acceptable? Repudiating contract? Misleading commercial dealings? Politicians lying about their policies? Police lying on their reports? Judges lying about evidence in their command? Perjury? Trademark violations? You truly think these should not be regulated?
If so, you want communism. Plain and simple.

It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond. — NOS4A2

This is so fundamentally wrong, It is extremely hard to know how to approach this to get you off such a hollow point.

If we couldn't respond to you, that would be true. We can, therefore, your speech causes a response. "If but for" your comment, there would be no response. These aren't legal arguments, to be sure - that's something quite different - but all the legal arguments fall under these heads and are discussed at some fair length.

Your point is we chose to respond. Okay. In most cases, yes, that'll be true. But even reading words can literally cause irresistible chemical urges in the brain and these are known mental conditions. They are simply normal mechanisms gone awry. Because speech can cause action. I have provided several sources and we have, collectively, explained this to you plenty of times.

At this stage, your ignorance can be your own. You have failed to make an argument.

I have read the entire response and will make further comments. But I am telling you mate, this is the only reasonable answer you have given. That's fine, but it does absolutely nothing for the arguments you've been presented with, regardless of you either not getting htem, or pretending they aren't there.

I thought I’ve addressed most if not all of the arguments but I’ll be happy to address any that if I’ve missed them.

This is equivalent to saying "Preventing crime is violating people's rights to eat fresh Apples from the corner near my house". Utterly preposterous and non sequitur. There is absolutely no connection between criminalizing speech and the (obviously nonsensical, in context) "sacrifice" or "another's" right to "live and survive with others". These are non-arguments.

Preventing crime? I’m speaking about preventing someone’s speech, which I stated was “harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others”. Is crime “ harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others” in your book? Your equivalence is utter nonsense. I’ll repeat it for you and anyone else you think are moved like a marionette by your sophistry. “Speech is a harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others. So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.”

Tell me why defamation is acceptable? Repudiating contract? Misleading commercial dealings? Politicians lying about their policies? Police lying on their reports? Judges lying about evidence in their command? Perjury? Trademark violations? You truly think these should not be regulated?
If so, you want communism. Plain and simple.

I don’t think any of them are acceptable. 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. Or if I believe they’re acceptable. Why ask if you can’t handle the answer?

I don’t think your sophistry is acceptable and I think you should have at least enough respect for yourself to regulate your bad faith, but in any case I would never criminalize your behavior, punish you for it, or seek your sanction. It’s much better to let you express yourself so I and others can know what kind of person we’re dealing with, whether I should take you seriously, and so on. As proven, it appears I don’t need to.

But even reading words can literally cause irresistible chemical urges in the brain and these are known mental conditions.

Reading words! Finally, the reader is causing it. As long as you say the writer didn’t cause it, you’re thinking more clearly.

It is not a coincidence or magical thinking you read my words and respond to them. That’s entirely up to you whether you do or not. It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond. — NOS4A2

"Entirely up to me" and "causally influenced by you" are not mutually exclusive. See compatibilism.

It is a proven physical fact that my brain activity is causally affected by what some external stimulus causes to happen to my sense organs. That's what it means to sense things in the environment.

You're playing word games when you interpret "A causally influences B" as only meaning "B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy". It's ridiculous.

One cannot know what's in the text before it's been read.

One cannot know what's in the speech before it's been heard.

Therefore one cannot warn oneself in advance.

Some reactions are common, some reactions are individual.

Every human likes to breath. Not every human likes garlic.

Isn't it that simple? — Quk

Only if you're interested in effects divorced from their causes. Why doesn't every human like garlic?

Going by what some are saying in this thread, everyone that hears that garlic is delicious and nutritious should be eating garlic. But they don't. Why?

Why doesn't every human that hears inciting words participate in a riot?

If you hear inciting words and are not incited to riot, then why don't you or take us through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words and why you don't end up rioting?

Why doesn't every human that hears inciting words participate in a riot? — Harry Hindu

Different brains respond differently to the same stimulus.

Much like not every computer displays the letter "A" on the screen when you press the "A" key.

The difference in take away messaging from the same message, at the same meeting, was astounding. To this day I have no idea how I should have phrased the message for equivalent positive uptake throughout the staff. That the take away was so immensely different still bewilders me. — Book273

I like to use the analogy of two cats. One cat has been a pet of mine for years and another is a stray I only recently adopted. When I use the electric can-opener to open a can of tuna, the pet cat comes running toward the sound. The stray runs away from the sound and only learns that the sound means tuna is being served after several instances of this happening. How can two entities of any species react so differently to the same sound and then change when new information is introduced (tuna is being served rather than something loud and dangerous is coming)?

Different brains respond differently to the same stimulus.

Much like not every computer displays the letter "A" on the screen when you press the "A" key. — Michael

I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process, or are you a p-zombie?

If you hear inciting words and are not incited to riot, then why don't you or ↪Michael
take us through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words and why you don't end up rioting? — Harry Hindu

The personality of individuals varies a lot; it consists of many attributes, for example:
• Egoism -- ranging from low to high
• Credulity -- ranging from low to high
• Narcissism -- ranging from low to high
• Introversion -- ranging from low to high
• Social intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Emotional intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Mathematical intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Experience -- having learned from various specific stories
• Political taste -- ranging from right to left, and vertically from liberal to authoritarian
... and a zillion other attributes, scalable from low to high, from down to up.

A certain mix setting within a personality determines or causes a certain reaction; a reaction to certain inciting words or certain invitations or inspirations etc. pp.

(But I'm not saying that everything is determined; I think there are random effects as well.)

So there's much more involved than just a "thought process".

I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process — Harry Hindu

Are they different? As I've mentioned several times, I am assuming that eliminative materialism is correct because NOS4A2 endorses eliminative materialism, and I am arguing with him.

Everything that exists – including the "mind" – is physical. Human behaviour and "decision-making" is ultimately reducible to the movements of matter and energy according to natural, causal laws. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of the neurons in my brain. And the neurons in my brain behave the way they do because they were caused to do so by other neurons and (sometimes) electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of my sense organs. And the sense organs behave the way they do because they reacted to some external stimulus like light or sound.

There's no immaterial thing like a soul that interferes with the natural behaviour of the physical matter that constitutes my body.

or are you a p-zombie? — Harry Hindu

No. I don't personally endorse eliminative materialism. I'm more partial to mental supervenience. But this works in a one-way direction; brain activity generates mental phenomena, but this mental phenomena doesn't causally affect the brain (and so doesn't causally affect the body).

The personality of individuals varies a lot; it consists of many attributes, for example:
• Egoism -- ranging from low to high
• Credulity -- ranging from low to high
• Narcissism -- ranging from low to high
• Social intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Emotional intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Mathematical intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Experience -- having learned from various specific stories
• Political taste -- ranging from right to left, and vertically from liberal to authoritarian
... and a zillion other attributes, scalable from low to high, from down to up.

A certain mix setting within a personality determines or causes a certain reaction; a reaction to certain inciting words or certain invitations or inspirations etc. pp.
— Quk

This is moving the conversation forward at least - something that seems adverse to.

Some people choose to live in a bubble and in doing so cut themselves off from alternate forms of information, or views. As a result, they end up being easily manipulated.

So, I asked you to take us readers through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words. How do these different things come into play for you, personally, when hearing any words? Why is it so difficult for you or to do this? Either you're p-zombies and have no idea what I'm talking about when I use the words, "thoughts", or you are being intellectually dishonest. Would it help if I went through my own thought process when hearing some words? I would, but I just need to know whether or not you're a p-zombie so I don't waste my time with my example, as you would never hope to understand it - if you're a p-zombie.

(But I'm not saying that everything is determined; I think that are random effects as well.) — Quk

Everything is determined and "random" is just a term that stems from our ignorance of the causal process that preceded some effect.

I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process
— Harry Hindu

Are they different? As I've mentioned several times, I am assuming that eliminative materialism is correct because NOS4A2 endorses eliminative materialism, and I am arguing with him. — Michael

You're arguing with me as well that does not assume that eliminative materialism is correct, so you're talking past me. NOS4A2 and I don't exactly share the same views when it comes to the reality of minds, so it would seem to me that an eliminative materialist would have a problem in explaining how there are different reactions to the same stimulus if you don't account for the working memory of the mind where sensory information is interpreted.

No the brain and a thought process are not the same thing. A thought process is one of the functions of the brain. The brain also regulates body temperature, hormone levels in the blood stream, etc. So I'm talking about a specific process the brain performs.

Everything that exists – including the "mind" – is physical. Human behaviour and "decision-making" is ultimately reducible to the movements of matter and energy according to natural, causal laws. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of the neurons in my brain. And the neurons in my brain behave the way they do because they were caused to do so by other neurons and (sometimes) electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of my sense organs. And the sense organs behave the way they do because they reacted to some external stimulus like light or sound.

There's no immaterial thing like a soul that interferes with the natural behaviour of the physical matter that constitutes my body. — Michael

You're the one that keeps using terms like "material", "physical" and "immaterial", not me. I don't see any use for them. The world is neither physical or non-physical. The mind is neither physical or non-physical. Everything is process-relationships-information. So we're obviously not going to come to some agreement about free speech if we can't agree on the fundamentals of reality and the relationship between mind and world.

I edited my previous comment and added this line:

So there's much more involved than just a "thought process".

I could show you a sample algorithm of a decision process that leads to the acceptance of an incitement. But that sample would be beyond the scope now and tedious. I just want to say there's more involved than just an abstract thought process. There are special tastes and certain emotions and individual temperaments. A flat-earther, for example, cannot be convinced by rational arguments. Flat-earthers insist on their dogma because it's an emotional conviction. Reason cannot beat emotion. Similarly, certain tastes are open to certain offerings. "Thought processes" are just a part of the game.

(Re "random": I think the observations in the quantum mechanics do show that there are random effects -- in the sense of true random and not just pseudo-random with hidden causes. There is no reason to believe that every event has a cause. According to Kant, causality is just a category of our reason that enables our perception. This thesis may be wrong, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.)

A thought process is one of the functions of the brain. — Harry Hindu

Which is just to say that a thought process is a particular kind of brain activity. And brain activity just is the configuration and behaviour of neurons.

Trying to explain or predict how the brain's neurons will react to various stimuli is even more difficult than trying to explain or predict the weather. You're certainly not going to get anything close to even a partial answer from even several pages worth of mathematical formulae written by even the most intelligent and knowledgeable neuroscientists. So asking me, here, to explain in a few words why and how different brains and different organisms respond the way they do to the same stimulus is an impossible ask, and also unwarranted.

It is sufficient for my purposes to argue that the body's movements are causally determined by brain activity which is causally influenced (in many cases) by some environmental stimulus, and that there's nothing like an immaterial soul or self or mind that interferes with these natural, causal processes.

You're the one that keeps using terms like "material", "physical" and "immaterial", not me. I don't see any use for them. The world is neither physical or non-physical. The mind is neither physical or non-physical. Everything is process-relationships-information. So we're obviously not going to come to some agreement about free speech if we can't agree on the fundamentals of reality and the relationship between mind and world. — Harry Hindu

Then let's try to keep it simple.

Are you a compatibilist or an incompatibilist? If you are an incompatibilist then do you believe that we have libertarian free will or do you believe that we don't have free will? If you believe that we have libertarian free will then do you believe in interactionist dualism?

According to Kant, causality is just a category of our reason that enables our perception. This theses may be wrong, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.) — Quk

Then Kant didn't have reasons for his conclusions? It seems to me that thinking is inherently a causal process. This just pulls the rug out from under the premise that sounds cause certain behaviors in others, like rioting. By asserting that causation is an illusion of the mind means that we can't be sure that some speech caused some behavior.

I could show you a sample algorithm of a decision process that leads to the acceptance of an incitement. But that sample would be beyond the scope now and tedious. I just want to say, that there's more involved than just an abstract thought process. There are special tastes and certain emotions and individual temperaments. A flat earther, for example, cannot be convinced by rational arguments. Flat earthers insist on their dogma because it's an emotional conviction. Ratio cannot beat emotion. Similarly, certain tastes are open to certain offerings. "Thought processes" are just a part of the game. — Quk

I was asking for something much simpler - and you keep avoiding it. I'm not asking for a sample algorithm. I'm simply asking you for you to explain the process of how you interpret political speech.

I'm a-political, so when I hear political speech I don't accept it at face value, no matter which side of the political spectrum it is coming from. I do research. I listen to what others of varying political persuasions say and then form my opinion about the veracity of what was originally said. I do these things because of my learned history that politicians and those persuaded by them lie. Notice I'm taking about experiences and memories and how they integrate with what is heard or read in the present moment. I don't experience neurons firing and hormones raging when I integrate sensory data with my stored memories. I experience colors, shapes, (of which neurons and brains are composed of and is what we are referring to when we talking about brains and neurons) sounds, feelings, etc.

What you refer to as abstract, I refer to as fundamental. Objects like brains and neurons are the abstraction as everything is process. These eliminative materialists like to talk about brains and neurons without acknowledging that they are using their mind to view them and they are referring to how they appear in the mind. It's like they're saying that the view through the window is true, but the window does not exist.

Then let's try to keep it simple.

Are you a compatibilist or an incompatibilist? If you are an incompatibilist then do you believe that we have libertarian free will or do you believe that we don't have free will? If you believe that we have libertarian free will then do you believe in interactionist dualism? — Michael

How is that keeping things simple? What's with all the labels?

Just answer the question about what happens when you hear some sound. Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing?

Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing? — Harry Hindu

Hearing a sound is the firing of certain neurons.

Just answer the question about what happens when you hear some sound. — Harry Hindu

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing

The inner ear consists of the cochlea, which is a spiral-shaped, fluid-filled tube. It is divided lengthwise by the organ of Corti, which is the main organ of mechanical to neural transduction. Inside the organ of Corti is the basilar membrane, a structure that vibrates when waves from the middle ear propagate through the cochlear fluid – endolymph. The basilar membrane is tonotopic, so that each frequency has a characteristic place of resonance along it. Characteristic frequencies are high at the basal entrance to the cochlea, and low at the apex. Basilar membrane motion causes depolarization of the hair cells, specialized auditory receptors located within the organ of Corti. While the hair cells do not produce action potentials themselves, they release neurotransmitter at synapses with the fibers of the auditory nerve, which does produce action potentials. In this way, the patterns of oscillations on the basilar membrane are converted to spatiotemporal patterns of firings which transmit information about the sound to the brainstem.

The sound information from the cochlea travels via the auditory nerve to the cochlear nucleus in the brainstem. From there, the signals are projected to the inferior colliculus in the midbrain tectum. The inferior colliculus integrates auditory input with limited input from other parts of the brain and is involved in subconscious reflexes such as the auditory startle response.

The inferior colliculus in turn projects to the medial geniculate nucleus, a part of the thalamus where sound information is relayed to the primary auditory cortex in the temporal lobe. Sound is believed to first become consciously experienced at the primary auditory cortex. Around the primary auditory cortex lies Wernickes area, a cortical area involved in interpreting sounds that is necessary to understand spoken words.

And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

Gross movement – such as locomotion and the movement of arms and legs – is generated in the motor cortex, divided into three parts: the primary motor cortex, found in the precentral gyrus and has sections dedicated to the movement of different body parts. These movements are supported and regulated by two other areas, lying anterior to the primary motor cortex: the premotor area and the supplementary motor area. The hands and mouth have a much larger area dedicated to them than other body parts, allowing finer movement; this has been visualised in a motor homunculus. Impulses generated from the motor cortex travel along the corticospinal tract along the front of the medulla and cross over (decussate) at the medullary pyramids. These then travel down the spinal cord, with most connecting to interneurons, in turn connecting to lower motor neurons within the grey matter that then transmit the impulse to move to muscles themselves. The cerebellum and basal ganglia, play a role in fine, complex and coordinated muscle movements. Connections between the cortex and the basal ganglia control muscle tone, posture and movement initiation, and are referred to as the extrapyramidal system.

Then Kant didn't have reasons for his conclusions? — Harry Hindu

Reason and cause are two different things.

• Reason is a logical condition.

• Cause is an event along a timeline.

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°. For this there is a reason, not a cause. The reason is independent of time and events. It's not a story.

Rain makes the road wet. Rain occurs, then wetness occurs. This is a story. Rain causes wetness. Rain is not a reason; rain is a cause.

It seems to me that thinking is inherently a causal process. — Harry Hindu

I think so too -- almost. I don't think the processes are 100 % deterministic as they are accompanied by a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations. A tiny random electron path deviation may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later. I'm not saying our brain is pure chaos. Obviously, it's not. But it's not a plain deterministic computer program or formula book either.

I was asking for something much simpler - and you keep avoiding it. I'm not asking for a sample algorithm. I'm simply asking you for you to explain the process of how you interpret political speech. — Harry Hindu

Pardon, I'm not intending to avoid your questions. Perhaps I was just misunderstanding your question.

What you are describing here looks like an algorithm to me. So your comment here isn't so much different to mine:

I'm a-political, so when I hear political speech I don't accept it at face value, no matter which side of the political spectrum it is coming from. I do research. I listen to what others of varying political persuasions say and then form my opinion about the veracity of what was originally said. I do these things because of my learned history that politicians and those persuaded by them lie. Notice I'm taking about experiences and memories and how they integrate with what is heard or read in the present moment. I don't experience neurons firing and hormones raging when I integrate sensory data with my stored memories. I experience colors, shapes, (of which neurons and brains are composed of and is what we are referring to when we talking about brains and neurons) sounds, feelings, etc. — Harry Hindu

Translated to a computer algorithm:
Declaration: Harry is a-political. Harry does research and he listens.
Contradiction:
IF Harry does research THEN Harry is political
Declaration: Harry has listened to a number of politicians that lied.
Program error:
Harry generalizes "a number of politicians" to "all politicians".
Declaration: Harry compares former experiences with current experiences.
Program error:
Harry concludes that former experiences are always "more correct" than current experiences.
IF experience is made THEN keep that valid for all times
Declaration: Harry is free of personal tastes and emotions.
Program error:
Harry is a machine; he has no human attributes.
Contradiction:
IF Harry is political THEN Harry has personal interests
IF Harry claims he is a-political THEN Harry includes a contradiction AND possibly further errors.

"Entirely up to me" and "causally influenced by you" are not mutually exclusive. See compatibilism.

It is a proven physical fact that my brain activity is causally affected by what some external stimulus causes to happen to my sense organs. That's what it means to sense things in the environment.

You're playing word games when you interpret "A causally influences B" as only meaning "B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy". It's ridiculous.

The fact is you read the words. You scanned your eyes over them, considered them, and formulated your response. You understand the language, know how to type, reply, quote, use the website, turn on the computer. Your education, your lexicon, your intelligence, your aptitude. Your body, your brain, your lungs, your hormones, your heart, your genes. All of this “causally influenced” your response but for some reason you want to blame the words for what you write. It’s bizarre.