Who said anything about blame? Enough with the folk psychology. You've made it very clear in the past that you're an eliminative materialist. So commit to it.

We're talking about physics and causality, and it is a fact about physics that the behaviour of one material thing can – and does – have a causal affect on another material thing. It doesn't matter if these material things are organisms or machines or if they're humans or plants. And causal influence is not to be understood so reductively as surface-level kinetic energy transfer.

Who said anything about blame? Enough of the folk psychology. You've made it very clear in the past that you're an eliminative materialist. So commit to it.

We're talking about physics and causality, and it is a fact about physics that the behaviour of one material thing can – and does – have a causal affect on another material thing. It doesn't matter if these material things are organisms or machines or if they're human or plant. And causal influence is not to be understood so reductively as surface-level kinetic energy transfer.

We’re talking about speech. How does speech produce a different causal affect and response than any other sound?

Does none of you, your body, your education, your lexicon, and so on causally influence what you read and write in response?

How does speech produce a different causal affect and response than any other sound? — NOS4A2

The brain reacts differently to different sounds. Loud bangs elicit different responses to soothing music. Meaningful expressions elicit different responses to meaningless noise. The specifics of how and why the brain reacts differently would require an absurdly complex and comprehensive model of the brain’s neurons and their interactions with each other and other peripheral aspects of the central nervous system - including the sense organs and environmental stimuli. Trying to explain and predict the weather is child’s play in comparison.

Does none of you, your body, your education, your lexicon, and so on causally influence what you read and write in response? — NOS4A2

All of it does, given that these things determine the existence and relative placement of the neurons and neural connections that make up my brain.

The brain reacts differently to different sounds. Loud bangs elicit different responses to soothing music. Meaningful expressions elicit different responses to meaningless noise. The specifics of how and why the brain reacts differently would require an absurdly complex and comprehensive model of the brain’s neurons and their interactions with each other and other peripheral aspects of the central nervous system - including the sense organs and environmental stimuli. Trying to explain and predict the weather is child’s play in comparison.

How can a meaningful expression causally influence you differently than a meaningless expression? What is it in the word itself, and what besides surface-level kinetic energy transfer, causes you to respond differently?

All of it does, given that these things determine the existence and relative placement of the neurons and neural connections that make up my brain.

Is it these things that determine your response, or is it the word?

How can a meaningful expression causally influence you differently than a meaningless expression? What is it in the word itself, and what besides surface-level kinetic energy transfer, causes you to respond differently? — NOS4A2

The sound is meaningful because the neurons in the brain react in a certain way to it, differently to how they react to other sounds. As to why the neurons react in this way to these sounds, again this would require an absurdly complex model that cannot be explained in a few words - or even a few pages - and certainly not by me. Even the most knowledgeable neuroscientists in the world probably can’t explain it yet.

Is it these things that determine your response, or is it the word? — NOS4A2

They all play a part.

The sound is meaningful because the neurons in the brain react in a certain way to it, differently to how they react to other sounds. As to why the neurons react in this way to these sounds, again this would require an absurdly complex model that cannot be explained in a few words - or even a few pages - and certainly not by me. Even the most knowledgeable neuroscientists in the world probably can’t explain it yet.

So nothing is in the sound wave itself that makes it meaningful. Meaning isn't transferred from one person to another.

They all play a part.

Do they all equally play a part?

So nothing is in the sound wave itself that makes it meaningful. Meaning isn't transferred from one person to another. — NOS4A2

Correct.

Rather, sound waves cause my ears to send signals to the brain which causes certain neurons to fire in certain ways, and this just is what it means to hear and understand a word. And this in turn causes other neurons to fire in other ways, sending signals to the muscles causing them to contract or relax.

Do they all equally play a part? — NOS4A2

I have no idea how we'd measure the relative degree to which they are involved. The best we can do is ask the question "would I have responded this way had X not happened?", perhaps leading us into the counterfactual theory of causation.

Q. Would I have typed out this comment on this forum had you not posted the response to which I am replying?
A. No.

Q. Would I have typed out this comment on this forum had I not wanted to?
A. No.

So, your words may not have a sufficient causal influence, but they do have a necessary causal influence.

Everything that exists – including the "mind" – is physical. — Michael

Not al all. Lots of things exist that are non-physical. We acknowledge they exist, not because we can see or touch them, but because we can see, touch, and are effected by their existence. Gravity and magnetic force come to mind (also non-physical, and yet existent). Just pointing out a perceived flaw.

Carry on.

Also, for those claiming that the mind is physical: where is it, how big is it, and if, as you claim, it is physical, how come it does not fill up over a lifetime, as any physical thing would eventually reach the limits of it's physical capacity from constantly absorbing information and thoughts.

Thanks

Correct.

Rather, sound waves cause my ears to send signals to the brain which causes certain neurons to fire in certain ways, and this just is what it means to hear and understand a word. And this in turn causes other neurons to fire in other ways, sending signals to the muscles causing them to contract or relax.

I just don’t see it. Even if I assume your description, I don't see how we can get from this to "words causally influence behavior", or "words incite my action", or any sort of conclusion that words produce any effects beyond causing my ears to send signals.

We have to mention that the sound wave hitting your eardrum is the sole interaction it has with your body, and is therefor the only movement determined by it. That's the only "causal influence" it can have. The rest is all produced, structured, controlled, directed, moved, by the body.

The rest is fully determined by the body of the listener. This is even more evident with acts of reading.

I have no idea how we'd measure the relative degree to which they are involved. The best we can do is ask the question "would I have responded this way had X not happened?", perhaps leading us into the counterfactual theory of causation.

We could sum up the amount of interactions or “causal influences” on your behavior produced by either the word and the body and find out who had more or less influence on result.

The universe is expanding exponentially. You're welcome.

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

Hearing a sound is the firing of certain neurons. — Michael

Then how do you determine the differences in some sounds if they are all just firing the same neurons?
You're relying to much on Wikipedia to the point where you are failing to think for yourself.

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. — Benkei

No one is saying that speech cannot affect the world. What we are saying is that there are often times where there are other more immediate causes to one's actions than hearing some sounds made my someone's mouth.

Reason and cause are two different things.

• Reason is a logical condition.

• Cause is an event along a timeline. — Quk

Reason is a type of cause. One could just as well say that a cause is a logical condition as well. Reasoning is an event along a timeline that precedes the conclusion as well as supports the existence of the conclusion.

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. — Quk

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180° is the conclusion of measuring the angles of a multiple triangles. If you never measured the angles of a triangle, then how can you even say that the sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°?

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. — Quk

One could just as easily say that the road is wet because it has rained. A conclusion supported by a reason.

In making a distinction between causes and reasons is to contribute the the dualist's mind-body problem.

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. — Quk

You don't even seem to be aware that you are supporting non-random determinism in explaining how differences in causes (a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations, a tiny random electron path deviation, etc.) can lead to different effects (may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later).

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

Exactly. So isn't the algorithm (thought process) the difference in output here? It is the reason we have a difference in how many people respond differently to hearing the same speech.

I am a Libertarian, but my concept of "free will" is probably different than most. To me, freedom = options and will = central executive. The more options one has, the more freedom one has. And you only get more options by having more information - by being informed, and not living in a bubble.

In having more options means that your central executive can make more informed decisions.

So it would be in a Libertarian's best interest to educate the rest of society in critical thinking and encouraging questioning and criticizing authority that tries to limit our options by limiting our access to all information.

The more options one has, the more freedom one has. — Harry Hindu

I agree. This principle is compatible to mine. There is always at least one option, so the will is not entirely unfree. And the number of options is limited, so the will is never entirely free. So it's not a binary yes-no-question as to whether the will is free or unfree; it's always just a matter of scale, i.e. the number of options. The word "freedom", if it's supposed to make sense, always needs a reference. Can I live forever? In this respect I'm unfree. Can I sing a song? In this respect I'm free. Am I free in general? No, as my lifetime is limited. Am I unfree in general? No, as I can sing a song.

Now that's the specific freedom regarding the options. I think there's another specific freedom which refers to the causes and reasons that influence my decisions. I'd say, this specific freedom doesn't provide a free will since I'm always influenced by something that is not part of my Self.

We have to mention that the sound wave hitting your eardrum is the sole interaction it has with your body, and is therefor the only movement determined by it. That's the only "causal influence" it can have. The rest is all produced, structured, controlled, directed, moved, by the body. — NOS4A2

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

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

Then how do you determine the differences in some sounds if they are all just firing the same neurons? — Harry Hindu

They're not firing the same neurons.

They're not firing the same neurons. — Michael

Ok, Michael the Eliminative Materialst.

I agree. This principle is compatible to mine. There is always at least one option, so the will is not entirely unfree. And the number of options is limited, so the will is never entirely free. So it's not a binary yes-no-question as to whether the will is free or unfree; — Quk

That's why I spoke about freedom in degrees - as in more options the more freedom. I would say that having only one option isn't an option. An option is a relation between two or more responses. To have an option means you must have an alternative response that you can run through the algorithm and compare the predicted outcomes and choose which outcome one prefers.

Now that's the specific freedom regarding the options. I think there's another specific freedom which refers to the causes and reasons that influence my decisions. I'd say, this specific freedom doesn't provide a free will since I'm always influenced by something that is not part of my Self. — Quk

Interesting. So do other selves have an influence on you and you on them? How does one claim that others have an influence on others if the selves are themselves some nebulous and vague concept that only exists as a result of "external" forces?

Politics assumes:
- Individual people have bodies with senses enabling them to interact with each other and the world.
- Individual people use language consisting of written and spoken words as they interact with the world and each other.
- Language/words, once written or spoken, is a thing in itself, like the people with bodies are things in themselves.
- Language/words convey meaning from the speaker to the hearer/reader.
- Meanings of words are distinguishable from the words, like words are distinguishable from speakers and speakers are distinguishable from each other.
(When I say “bank” some might hear “river’s edge” and others might hear “building with money”. This is because words are distinct from meanings.)

If we chop any of these things out, politics doesn’t work. This is a conversation about free speech policy.

Maybe politics is an illusion, our senses are useless to sufficiently interact with the world and each other, words are just sounds, meaning is totally invented when sounds are constructed in the brain (which may be physical or we can’t tell…). But if all of that is up for grabs, who can say anyone actually said “fire!”, or whether there was a crowd that ran, or that “fire!” was supposed to mean “shoot” or “stay seated and eat candy” or “you are in danger if you stay seated”.

We can’t divorce the use of words to convey meaning and figure out whether words cause anything. Just like we can’t metaphysically divorce the notion of cause and effect from bodily interactions, and figure out what causes people to do whatever they do with their bodies.

Are we playing politics here or not?

For those arguing words can’t cause action, are you saying there need not be any laws or governments? Because what is the point of saying it should be legal to yell “fire!” in a crowded building - if we write a law “don’t yell fire or you can be held liable” who cares, because words don’t cause action?

We are talking philosophy of mind, mind-body problem, psychology, metaphysics of causality, but for the sake of governmental policy about public speech.

We don’t have to have a government if we don’t want to. But if we think we need one, it’s because people can use their bodies to harm other bodies and people can use words to mean something in others’ minds causing their actions that cause harm.

If we undo the possibility that the meaning of a word can cause an action in another, we undo politics.

When your boss tells you to chop that tree down, and you chop the tree down and it breaks someone’s house, you might not be liable for anything, if you are just acting according to your boss’s words of direction. Your boss might be liable for everything, or maybe not even he is held liable, but the company you both work for is.

How does one claim that others have an influence on others if the selves are themselves some nebulous and vague concept that only exists as a result of "external" forces? — Harry Hindu

Not sure I understand your question grammatically. Could you express your thought in smaller pieces?

I'm not saying that there is no internal force. I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force.

In the first second of your life, did you already understand English due to an internal genetic program or did you learn English from external sources?

Well said. I was going to write a similar comment.

Not sure I understand your question grammatically. Could you express your thought in smaller pieces?

I'm not saying that there is no internal force. I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force.

In the first second of your life, did you already understand English due to an internal genetic program or did you learn English from external sources? — Quk

Of course not, but I did have the capacity to learn a language, and some have a better capacity than others, which manifests in the way they use a language. It could also be that some might have had better teachers than others. So, the issue is trying to discern which parts are external influences and which are internal, right?

I have never denied that there are external influences. It is the others that deny that there is anything internal that can process those external influences for its own purposes.

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

Wrong. No one ever simply walks around and says, "bank". "Bank" is often used with other words and it the other words that provide the context of the meaning of "bank". The issue is in thinking that only individual words carry all the meaning when other words often change, or clarify the meaning of the other words in a sentence. So you probably shouldn't attribute meaning to words by themselves, but to the sentence they are part of. Just as a cell has no meaning on it's own. It's meaning manifests itself in it's relation with other cells, forming an organism.

I guess the "bank" issue was meant as a metaphor for the fact that individuals define certain words differently.

Other examples:

hot
violent
fast

These adjectives are supposed to describe a certain value range. What does "hot" mean? 30 degrees or 100 degrees? What is violent? A kick in the face or calling someone "idot"? How fast is fast?

Wrong. No one ever simply walks around and says, "bank". "Bank" is often used with other words and it the other words that provide the context of the meaning of "bank". The issue is in thinking that only individual words carry all the meaning when other words often change, or clarify the meaning of the other words in a sentence. So you probably shouldn't attribute meaning to words by themselves, but to the sentence they are part of. Just as a cell has no meaning on it's own. It's meaning manifests itself in it's relation with other cells, forming an organism. — Harry Hindu

Context helps define meaning, but it defines meaning of a particular word. The fact that you may not be able to tell my meaning by the way I use words doesn’t mean words and meaning (or use/function) are not distinct objects.

What if I’m standing in the doorway of a crowded theater and right across the street is a shooting range. And I decide to yell “fire!” Or I’m standing on a bridge and I point to a building that is sitting against the water has a sign on it Savings and Trust and I just say “bank” and point towards where the building meets the water?

If you want to know what I meant by those words, you would have to ask me for more words or better pointing.

You can undo the point I’m making by living in the real world where not everyone is an ironic comedian like myself, or you can wonder if Wittgenstein really was the last word on meaning and see how meaning is distinguishable from words.

These adjectives are supposed to describe a certain value range. What does "hot" mean? 30 degrees or 100 degrees? What is violent? A kick in the face or calling someone "idot"? How fast is fast? — Quk

Context is needed in all these instances. We only communicate in one word sentences when no other words are needed to provide context. Words that have more than one definition are used with other words to provide context.

If you want to know what I meant by those words, you would have to ask me for more words or better pointing. — Fire Ologist

And this proves my point, no?

Maybe. Do you mean words and meaning are distinct?

Context is needed in all these instances. — Harry Hindu

Individuals may experience a certain thing differently, yet they may describe it with the same word. Yes, you can clarify it by context. But at this starting point the context is unknown until the individuals describe their personal background with further, finer words.