As above, this isn't mutually exclusive. It is both the case that head trauma is the cause of death and the case that I killed him by pushing him off the cliff.

Are you honestly going to argue that to be justly convicted and imprisoned for murder one must have either strangled someone or beaten them to death with one's bare hands, and that for everything else "I didn't do it" is true?

They are mutually exclusive because the push didn’t cause the death. Medical examiners can examine the body and find out exactly what did. Maybe they found he had a heart attack on the way down, or was dead before you pushed him. One thing they will not find is that the push was a death blow.

I’m not speaking of law here.

This is equivocation. If by "autonomous" you mean "has agent-causal libertarian free will" then in saying that biological organisms are autonomous you are begging the question. If by "autonomous" you don't mean "has agent-causal libertarian free will" then your reasoning is a non sequitur; you are missing a step that gets you from "is autonomous" to "has agent-causal libertarian free will".

As for "autonomous machines" that "self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, and maintain themselves", what of von Neumann probes? Would such things have agent-causal libertarian free will?

I honestly don't think you actually understand much about physics or determinism. As I referenced in an earlier comment – that you ignored – agent-causal libertarian free will requires a non-physical substance capable of acting as an uncaused cause. It certainly isn't proven true by the mere existence of plants.

No, by autonomous I mean organisms can self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, and maintain themselves. They are capable of creating their own components and structures, continually renewing and reproducing themselves. They can spontaneously create and maintain their complex organization from simpler components. They can maintain their integrity and functionality through ongoing processes of internal regulation and repair, counteracting degradation and external degradation like disease. No need for non-physical entities at all.

If you want to use spaceships from science fiction as an analogy, go ahead, but it doesn’t help your case in my view. Maybe stick with something more grounded.

I've been over this so many times. Speech causes the ears to release neurotransmitters to the brain causing certain neurons to behave in certain ways. Given eliminative materialism, certain neurons behaving in certain ways just is what it means for someone's mind to have been changed.

Then it should be easy to demonstrate. Use your words to change my mind.

One thing they will not find is that the push was a death blow. — NOS4A2

Strawman. I didn’t say it was. I said that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, which is true.

I’m not speaking of law here. — NOS4A2

Deflection. I assume because you recognise the absurdity of your position and are just unwilling to admit it.

Then it should be easy to demonstrate. — NOS4A2

Non sequitur. That something is possible and sometimes happens isn’t that it’s easy.

No, by autonomous I mean organisms can self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, and maintain themselves. They are capable of creating their own components and structures, continually renewing and reproducing themselves. They can spontaneously create and maintain their complex organization from simpler components. They can maintain their integrity and functionality through ongoing processes of internal regulation and repair, counteracting degradation and external degradation like disease. No need for non-physical entities at all. — NOS4A2

Red herring. Plants do not have agent-causal libertarian free will, and neither the existence of plants nor the possible existence of von Neumann probes disprove causal determinism.

It’s just one fallacy after another with you, along with absurd misinterpretations of “cause”, “determinism”, “agent-causal libertarian free will”, and “persuasion”.

Strawman. I didn’t say it was. I said that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, which is true.

And what would a medical examiner say killed him? Is their answer a reduction to the absurd?

Deflection. I assume because you recognise the absurdity of your position and are just unwilling to admit it.

No, you equivocate between “kill” and “murder”. I think you realized your mistake and, once again, we can watch the goalposts widen.

Non sequitur. That something is possible and sometimes happens isn’t that it’s easy.

Then what is the difference between words that compel agreement and those that do not?

Red herring. Plants do not have agent-causal libertarian free will, and neither the existence of plants nor the possible existence of von Neumann probes disprove causal determinism.

It’s just one fallacy after another with you, along with absurd misinterpretations of “cause”, “determinism”, “agent-causal libertarian free will”, and “persuasion”.

I never said plants have free will. You just can’t talk about human beings for some reason. Why is that?

And what would a medical examiner say killed him? Is their answer a reduction to the absurd? — NOS4A2

Again, it is both the case that head trauma from the fall is the cause of death and the case that I killed him by pushing him off a cliff.

No, you equivocate between “kill” and “murder”. I think you realized your mistake and, once again, we can watch the goalposts widen. — NOS4A2

If I murdered someone then I killed them. Therefore if I didn't kill them then I didn't murder them and so ought not be convicted and imprisoned for murder.

Then what is the difference between words that compel agreement and those that do not? — NOS4A2

This is like asking for the difference between a push that causes someone to fall to their death and a push that doesn't. It's such a misguided question.

I never said plants have free will. — NOS4A2

This was our exchange:

Do you actually understand what causal determinism is, and how it differs from something like agent-causal libertarian free will? Some object "spending the energy and doing the work" does not prove that it has agent-causal libertarian free will. — Michael

True, but I’m not just speaking of any object. I’ve long specified my application of agent-causal free will strictly to biological organisms. There are plenty reasonable people who can differentiate between machines and biological organisms. But for some reason you can’t, or refuse to.

Unlike biological organisms, machines are not autonomous. They’re heteronomous. They cannot self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, nor maintain themselves. — NOS4A2

Plants are biological organisms. Therefore if plants do not have agent-causal libertarian free will then your comments above are a red herring, and your conclusion a non sequitur. Autonomy as you've defined it is compatible with causal determinism.

Ah, you're a much more patient person than I.

Plants are biological organisms. Therefore if plants do not have agent-causal libertarian free will then your comments above are a red herring, and your conclusion a non sequitur. Autonomy as you've defined it is compatible with causal determinism.

I don’t know how biological autonomy is compatible with causal determinism.

Yesterday you made some interesting comments about human beings and it all being too complex, but I see you’ve changed your mind and deleted them. Which external forces caused that behavior?

I don’t know how biological autonomy is compatible with causal determinism. — NOS4A2

Because this is how you defined autonomy:

No, by autonomous I mean organisms can self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, and maintain themselves. They are capable of creating their own components and structures, continually renewing and reproducing themselves. They can spontaneously create and maintain their complex organization from simpler components. They can maintain their integrity and functionality through ongoing processes of internal regulation and repair, counteracting degradation and external degradation like disease.

Other than your use of the term "spontaneously", which I didn't take to be literal given that you previously denied that uncaused causes occur in the body, nothing here is incompatible with the causal determinist's claim that everything that happens is caused to occur by antecedent events according to the laws of nature.

But I'm curious, if plants do not have free will and if their behaviour is not causally determined, then what is going on with them? Is there some third option?

Yesterday you made some interesting comments about human beings and it all being too complex, but I see you’ve changed your mind and deleted them. Which external forces caused that behavior? — NOS4A2

I value brevity. So I often re-read my comments and then re-write them to slim them down if nobody has replied.

Ah, you're a much more patient person than I. — AmadeusD

I've about reached my limit.

[...]

Then you should be able to [...] — NOS4A2

Then it should be easy to demonstrate. Use your words to change my mind. — NOS4A2

How so? You might be incorrigible, for example.

Either way, once you've (mis)understood words/sentences that you read or heard, then they've already had an effect.

Other than your use of the term "spontaneously", which I didn't take to be literal given that you previously denied that uncaused causes occur in the body, nothing here is incompatible with the causal determinist's claim that everything that happens is caused to occur by antecedent events according to the laws of nature.

The common incompatiblist argument is that if you have no control over the past and the laws of nature, you have no control of the consequences of the past and the laws of nature. If determinism is true, free will is false and vice versa.

But I'm curious, if plants do not have free will and if their behaviour is not causally determined, then what is going on with them? Is there some third option?

I’m not sure. The behavior of plants is so limited that I don’t think any satisfying account of their will could be made.

I value brevity. So I often re-read my comments and then re-write them to slim them down if nobody has replied.

But you removed any references to the human body and reverted back to plants. It’s a shame; we almost had an opportunity to discuss the actual subject matter.

How so? You might be incorrigible, for example.

Either way, once you've (mis)understood words/sentences that you read or heard, then they've already had an effect.

It’s the other way about. We affect words. We direct the soundwaves, transduce the signal, interpret the vibrations and electro-chemical symbols. What can you say that they do to you? That’s why you keep putting words in the object position of the sentence, which is the proper way to do it by the way.

Whether machine, plant, or human, the involuntary behaviour of any sense receptor is causally influenced by external stimuli according to the laws of nature, which may be either deterministic or, if quantum indeterminacy is a factor and is not explained by hidden variables, stochastic. These stimuli are causally responsible for (even if not exclusively) subsequent steps in the causal chain — ended only if something like a non-physical mind interferes.

So there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy and I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights".

As such your defence of free speech absolutism fails.

That’s all I have left to say on the matter.

We write/read speak/hear words/sentences.
All part of our social practices, like this comment to you (the reader).
Such socializing can go via light (to eyes), touch, soundwaves (to ears), doesn't matter much which, and the reader/listener may (mis)understand, presumably with an awareness of some writer/speaker, at which point the words/sentences have already had an effect.
Without the writer/speaker and their words/sentences, it wouldn't have happened.

It’s the other way about. We affect words. — NOS4A2

You'll have to set this out and how it's contrary to the above.

Anyway, there isn't anything new in the above; maybe there's nothing more to come after.

Whether machine, plant, or human, the involuntary behaviour of any sense receptor is causally influenced by external stimuli according to the laws of nature, which may be either deterministic or, if quantum indeterminacy is a factor and is not explained by hidden variables, stochastic. These stimuli are causally responsible for (even if not exclusively) subsequent steps in the causal chain — ended only if something like a non-physical mind interferes.

So there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy and I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights".

As such your defence of free speech absolutism fails.

That’s all I have left to say on the matter.

If it worked all the same you wouldn’t have had a problem discussing human beings, but you invariably chose machines engineered by human beings to be controlled by the voices of human beings. Counterfactual thinking, before this therefore because of this, and false analogies, all of it founded on superstition.

Thank you for the lengthy discussion.

We write/read speak/hear words/sentences.
All part of our social practices, like this comment to you (the reader).
Such socializing can go via light (to eyes), touch, soundwaves (to ears), doesn't matter much which, and the reader/listener may (mis)understand, presumably with an awareness of some writer/speaker, at which point the words/sentences have already had an effect.
Without the writer/speaker and their words/sentences, it wouldn't have happened.

I read your words if and when I want to. I focus my eyes, move them along the sentence, think about them, consider whether I should bother responding, and do so according to my own whim and fancy. Frankly, it’s ridiculous to think that your words sat there for hours, causally frozen until someone looked at them, and then suddenly and without cause go on affecting people. When in fact I turned on the light of the screen, went to the website, scrolled to your post, and by reading the words you left there I literally caused them to go into my eyes. All you’ve done is put them in the ether, affecting a couple inches of space on a website.

, I'm not seeing much to "set this out and how it's contrary to the above".

Anyway, you read (hear, feel) the sentences by light (sound, touch), which is one effect. You may then understand or misunderstand them, which is another effect. From there on, you may or may not act accordingly; it's not that you're necessarily compelled to subsequently act in a particular way (though some may be compelled to panic in some cases). "Move! Car!" Either way, they've already had an effect on you; otherwise, it's doubtful we'd be language users. Nothing new or controversial here; over and out unless something comes up.

I see you won’t or can’t take up any of my arguments, which shows that what you call effects are actions performed by an agent.

Cheers.

think about them, consider whether I should bother responding, and do so according to my own whim and fancy. — NOS4A2

This happens prior to your whim and fancy. You can't read them without thought. That's a direct cause of activity in your brain and consequently, your relevant decision making. Additionally, your following thoughts and decisions are at the whim of all your prior thoughts and decisions (though, this one, I understand you will reject and I wont press it. But it is physically true, in some neurological sense - and thats ignoring Libet).

This is fun.

Well, I am my biology, my brain activity, my thoughts and so on, so to me this is another instance of everything being willed by yours truly.

Good times.

Well, I am my biology, my brain activity, my thoughts and so on, so to me this is another instance of everything being willed by yours truly.

Good times. — NOS4A2

Not everything our body does is voluntary.

Just as “one’s heartbeat” refers to a particular thing in the body, not the body as a whole, so too does “one’s will”. If eliminative materialism is correct then one’s will is a particular kind of neurological phenomena, and only bodily behaviour caused by that particular neurological phenomena is “being willed by yours truly”.

Not everything our body does is voluntary.

Just as “one’s heartbeat” refers to a particular thing in the body, not the body as a whole, so too is “one’s will”. If eliminative materialism is correct then one’s will is a particular kind of neurological phenomena, and only bodily behaviour caused by that particular neurological phenomena is “being willed by yours truly”.

Voluntary or not, the thing that does the action is operating under its own power, is self-governed, autonomous, and freely determined by itself.

None of those noun-phrases refer to any singular or particular thing outside of language. They’re just abstractions.

@NOS4A2, how do (or might) you learn new stuff and correct mistakes? "Move! Car!" never has any effect on you? (still not seeing much to "set this out and how it's contrary to the above")

As stated, and always unaddressed, the error is in moving the words to the subject position and the listener to the object position. This grammatical trick allows you to make the case that the words are always acting upon the listener rather than the other way about.

While it’s true that we use cues from the environment such as sounds that might indicate danger to make decisions, it is untrue that those cues move us around, act upon us, and make us do so. In short, they do not have the causal power people pretend they do.

As for your counterfactual dependency, if the American revolution did not happen, you would not have wrote those words. Therefor the American revolution caused you to write those words.

You have almost no control, whatsovever, over your heartbeat. It is separate to even your brain's control center. You do not control the vast, vast, vast majority of what happens in your body. You couldn't possibly...

, agaigain: an effect they can have is you (mis)understanding them.
(and, beforehand, light, sound, or something, whichever doesn't matter much, also has an effect on you)

@NOS4A2, how do (or might) you learn new stuff and correct mistakes? "Move! Car!" never has any effect on you? — What did you make of it, if anything?

If you "take a cue from the environment", then it's already had an effect on you.

The claim still isn't that words/sentences are the cause, but rather that they can have an effect.
(responding to something else suggests misunderstanding)
Generalizing and objecting to that instead misses the point.

As an aside, would the big bang count as a cause in your book?

(still not seeing much to "set this out and how it's contrary to the above")

This is fun. — AmadeusD

:grin:

You have almost no control, whatsovever, over your heartbeat. It is separate to even your brain's control center. You do not control the vast, vast, vast majority of what happens in your body. You couldn't possibly...

Then I have to ask once again, “what does”?

If anything else in the universe that is not me can be shown to beat my heart I will concede. But if it is the case that the cardiac conduction system controls the heart rate, or branches of the nervous system, you’ll be left trying to prove how I am neither my heart or my nervous system, advocating some sort of dualism. This is why I always repeat that free will is often an issue of identity.



Sheer force of repetition and the proliferation of URLs cannot convince me that understanding is an effect of words, or that words cause understanding. You have to explain how words can cause understanding.

Like I said before, you both control the amount of light that enters your eyes and direct the sounds that enter your ear, and convert any and all stimuli into impulses you can understand. So what effect exactly has the lights and sounds caused? How do they produce that effect?

If anything else in the universe that is not me can be shown to beat my heart I will concede. But if it is the case that the cardiac conduction system controls the heart rate, or branches of the nervous system, you’ll be left trying to prove how I am neither my heart or my nervous system, advocating some sort of dualism. This is why I always repeat that free will is often an issue of identity — NOS4A2

You have explicitly moved the goal post. It is not under your volition. That is the point. You have no control over it (other than by brute force, which is present among all these arguments). You simply don't. It isn't even connected to your brain, so there's no way for you to control it. What's called the "intrinsic pacemaker" is what's making sure your heart keeps beating. You have no knowledge or control of this.

Like I said before, you both control the amount of light that enters your eyes and direct the sounds that enter your ear — NOS4A2

I see you don't grasp reality. That's fine.

You have explicitly moved the goal post. It is not under your volition. That is the point. You have no control over it (other than by brute force, which is present among all these arguments). You simply don't. It isn't even connected to your brain, so there's no way for you to control it. What's called the "intrinsic pacemaker" is what's making sure your heart keeps beating. You have no knowledge or control of this.

“Signals from your body’s nervous system and hormone from your endocrine system control how fast and hard your heart beats. These signals and hormones allow you to adapt to changes in the amount of oxygen and nutrients your body needs.”

“Your heart has a special electrical system called the cardiac conduction system. This system controls the rate and rhythm of the heartbeat.”

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/heart/heart-beats

Do you believe that I am not my cardiac and nervous systems?

I see you don't grasp reality. That's fine.

What’s your excuse?

“ Pupil: The pupil is the opening at the center of the iris through which light passes. The iris adjusts the size of the pupil to control the amount of light that enters the eye.”

https://www.nei.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/parts-of-the-eye.pdf

“ The auricle (pinna) is the visible portion of the outer ear. It collects sound waves and channels them into the ear canal (external auditory meatus), where the sound is amplified.”

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/how-the-ear-works

“The iris (pl.: irides or irises) is a thin, annular structure in the eye in most mammals and birds that is responsible for controlling the diameter and size of the pupil, and thus the amount of light reaching the retina.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_(anatomy)

“ The auricle is a paired structure found on either side of the head. It functions to capture and direct sound waves towards the external acoustic meatus.”

https://teachmeanatomy.info/head/organs/ear/external-ear/

“ Your eyelids are a protective covering for your eyes, shielding them from outside objects and light.”

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/eyelids

Do you believe that I am not my cardiac and nervous systems? — NOS4A2

You don't control it. And no, you are not that. It is something which happens in your body without your knowledge. Unless you believe you consist in simply your body. In which case you've an uphill battle to prevent me from laughing at how dumb that response was.

You're now arguing with ghosts. That is uninteresting, deceitful and far below you. The next comment seems to prove that. You do not grasp reality, and these facts we're discussing. You're just making claims. No one takes it serously. We're trying to help you. It's like talking to my seven year old.

Your insults don’t do you any favors because that’s clearly how you mask your evasions, like a squid shooting ink. The more you do the more you get on yourself and the dumber you end up looking.

Yes, I believe I am my body. That’s not a controversial belief, but here you are feigning surprise.