I'm not going to do word play with you. If you really have something to 'teach', lay out the process of decision making and provide empirical evidence for it.

The details of the process aren’t necessary for this discussion so long as we know where the process begins and ends: in an individual’s biology. Could we agree on that?

As you can see folks, Terrapin has nothing to teach. And this is the type of thing you can expect when you deal with him.

As you can see folks, Terrapin has nothing to teach. — Baden

Rather, you have no interest in learning anything. You're only interested in arguing and being right.

@Baden Feeling bored, Baden?

his only alternative is to demand I agree with his bare assertion, — Baden

I just explained that I was asking you a question. You just answer it honestly.

But you're not being honest here either. That's a regular issue with you; a lack of honesty.

What is the process by which you think decision-making is reached? Give empirical evidence to back up your position.

So first, do you understand that decisions are not forced?

I've work to do now actually. Just wanted to demonstrate that with Terrapin, there's very often no 'there' there.

(To others⁠—not Terrapin as I won't indulge his deliberate attempt at distraction from his inability to make a basic case for his own position⁠—whether a decision is considered 'forced' or not depends on your definition of 'force'. And there are different contexts under which force can be defined, physical, psychological etc. In other words, it's not a question that admits of a simple yes/no answer and the attempt to procure one is just another rhetorical tactic.)

The Baden needed, but not the Gooden deserved. :pray:

And there are different contexts under which force can be defined, physical, psychological et — Baden

Psychological force is the same thing as physical force. Mentality is physical.

At any rate, aside from the fact that I was asking you about decisions, you could just explain whatever you believe you need to explain in your answer.

It's not part of any set of phenomena that FORCE the actions in question. — Terrapin Station

Then what causes the actions in question? Without invoking your religious supernaturalism, what is it that causes the action? Something with evidence good and solid enough to legislate on. Something so certain that it surmount the harms that would come about if you are wrong.

And no, some new age horseshit about quantum uncertainty affecting macro scale events won't wash. Quote a single physicist who teaches that quantum uncertainty makes macro scale systems non-determinate on this context.

Buy the way, if you're a Laplacean determinist, why wouldn't you be claiming that the subsequent actions are physically forced? — Terrapin Station

I am claiming that. One of the forces which, collectively with other forces, physically determine the decisions we (appear to) make is the speech of others.

I don't claim this out of Laplacean determinism, but out of pragmatism. We're talking about laws here that affect people's lives, and states do not have the benefit of possessing virtues, ideals or feelings so must be coldly utilitarian.

The main reason as to why you want to promote and actually force people to express their particular form of hate speech is that they will simply run out of energy and hate. They hate whatever is different for a reason, an event that occurred in the past, it doesn't matter. It is cruel to stifle their anger and beneficial to us all. We all hate. We all wish death on people at times. If there is no release valves for people then they will pick up a gun and massacre whole swathes of children. Let them go. Their free will is their own. Stop trying to fix people and instead turn inside and fix yourself first. Only then can you move forward, with YOUR life.

Oh that dangerous free speech fanaticism, sure to lead to genocide and death. Of course, free speech fanaticism has never lead to any such extreme, only to the defense of human rights. — NOS4A2

It would lead to all kinds of wrong, including permissible discrimination, a rise in hate crime, permissible fraud, and things like this:

People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, a theater in New York's Harlem neighborhood in 1884,[8] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead. In the Shiloh Baptist Church disaster of 1902, over 100 people died when "fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church causing a panic and stampede. — Wikipedia

Your ignorance in this regard, whether wilful or otherwise, is no excuse.

And the answer is that you could apply the same reasoning, but in the case of hate speech there's a sensible basis for banning it,
— S

. . . What does that have to do with Shamshir's post? — Terrapin Station

You asked a question, I answered it. And the first part of my sentence you quoted is clearly about his reasoning, so why ask what that has to do with his post? How could you miss that? Are you feeling okay?

I don’t see it. I wouldn’t imagine a blue elephant just because you told me to. I would have to choose to do so. — NOS4A2

Haha. Sure, you have 100% full control of your mind. What a joke.

I think there may be something with terrapin being in a thread and it reaching 30 pages in a week.

Neurology. Sounds are physical, neurolgical reactions to them are physical
— khaled

You'd be claiming that mind isn't involved in other words? — Terrapin Station

Rereading some of this I came across this quote right here. I thought you kept saying that the mind is physical no? That consciousness is just a brain state and is (somehow) no different from the chemical interactions in he brain that cause it. So me claiming that causally pegging the sounds of hate speech to violent action is possible is not me claiming that the mind isn’t involved. It would actually be me claiming that the mind IS involved fully according to you, at least as far as I’m understanding it

Also your definition of free will is basically equivalent to saying that mental processes don’t have predetermined results. As in this neuron might fire this way OR that way, and that that or is ontological not epistemological. So, if one could prove that hate speech makes violence more likely then why wouldn’t it count as a cause? So it would be like:

hate speech + it’s hot outside + I’m late for work + free will => violence

Where each factor contributed to “biasing the probability” (as you said in the free will thread). Are you claiming that hate speech plays no role in biasing towards violence?

So his speech forces them to talk about what they do? — Terrapin Station

How much of this discussion has just been you completely getting the wrong end of the stick?

I don’t see it. I wouldn’t imagine a blue elephant just because you told me to. I would have to choose to do so. — NOS4A2

So, while you are reading my words here in this sentence you are choosing to have the meanings of these words arise in your mind. And if I mentioned brain or horse, unless you chose have the meaning of those words arise in your mind, those meanings would not appear there.

Haha. Sure, you have 100% full control of your mind. What a joke.

If it is not me, then what is controlling my mind?

So, while you are reading my words here in this sentence you are choosing to have the meanings of these words arise in your mind. And if I mentioned brain or horse, unless you chose have the meaning of those words arise in your mind, those meanings would not appear there.

I don’t think I need the meaning to “arise in my mind”. I already know the meaning. The meaning is already there. They are not put there or otherwise coaxed into my mind by your words.

I don’t think I need the meaning to “arise in my mind”. I already know the meaning. The meaning is already there. They are not put there or otherwise coaxed into my mind by your words. — NOS4A2

The meaning is not in your consciousness. You not thinking about it before. And further what you are implying is that if you read any text and there is any new idea at all, you must choose consciously to let that new idea or image come into your mind or it will not. Me, when I read and if someone describes something or shouts something and its new, I can get new images automatically in my mind. It can even happen with conversations I am not focusing on but I am in the same room as. Suddenly I realize they just said 'albino bat' and I see the image and understand the phrase and wonder what the heck the context is for that novel to me phrase. Suddenly I am aware someone said albino bat, which would likely be accompanied by an image I did not choose to construct, and 100% a meaning for that phrase I did not decide to construct. I have an unconscious mind doing all sorts of stuff.

And what are the criteria you use to decide whether to let a novel phrase or novel image arise in your mind when you decide to make the image or not? Like someone says 'inverted ice cream truck' and you spend a moment deciding whether to picture that or not? That seems extremely inefficient, if possible.

If I could decide somehow to make all such instances a moment of choice, where I weigh making the image or not in my mind, I would not. It would make reading, listening, communicating slower and for no good reason. Someone repeatedly keeps saying things like 'bamboo shoot trhough the iris', ok, I might tune them out, focus elsewhere, but in general I let my unconscious mind generate images and meanings and don't waste time deciding to understand or see.

If it is not me, then what is controlling my mind? — NOS4A2

It doesn't follow from the fact that you don't have full control over your mind that someone or something else is controlling your mind.

It is known scientifically, as well as simply being a matter of common sense, that our thoughts and behaviour can be involuntarily influenced.

The meaning is not in your consciousness. You not thinking about it before. And further what you are implying is that if you read any text and there is any new idea at all, you must choose consciously to let that new idea or image come into your mind or it will not. Me, when I read and if someone describes something or shouts something and its new, I can get new images automatically in my mind. It can even happen with conversations I am not focusing on but I am in the same room as. Suddenly I realize they just said 'albino bat' and I see the image and understand the phrase and wonder what the heck the contet is for that novel to me phrase.

And what are the criteria you use to decide whether to let a novel phrase or novel image arise in your mind when you decide to make the image or not?

Maybe it’s me; I don’t see images unless I’m dreaming. My thinking process resembles an inner language as opposed to an inner picture book.

It doesn't follow from the fact that you don't have full control over your mind that someone or something else is controlling your mind. Like Terrapin, you are using inappropriate language that I haven't used.

It is known scientifically, as well as simply being a matter of common sense, that our thoughts and behaviour can be involuntarily influenced.

I just asked a question. It’s fine if you don’t want to answer it but blaming me is hilarious.

Now, sincerely, can I get an example of thoughts and behavior being involuntarily influenced?

Now, sincerely, can I get an example of thoughts and behavior being involuntarily influenced? — NOS4A2

You've been given plenty of examples already.

Roses are ____ .

There you go. That's an example. If you deny that the word of a particular colour didn't come to mind just now, then you're lying. And that it did so is obviously not a coincidence.

It's common parlance to say, "That made me think of such-and-such".

I asked for an example of my thoughts and behavior being involuntarily influenced, something you said was common sense. It was a simple request. Instead you provide question begging, where your assertions are already assumed to be true.

So you're a liar, then.

You think that me saying “red” to finish that sentence is an example of your influence, and not a matter of there being no other option. To prove your influence, see if you can influence me to say “blue” in that same sentence instead of red.