Sound and words are not the same thing. You used “sounds” in your argument and then changed it to “words” in your conclusion. Verbal sleight of hand which I’ll assume was an error and not intentional. Just fyi, enjoying following the discussion. — DingoJones

Thanks - edited for clarity.

Then why post? If it's irrelevant what people take away from your doing so?

I seek expression for its own sake. I also find it healthy and beneficial to hold my ideas to the grindstone of criticism and disputation. It get’s me thinking.

1. Neurons firing are the proximate cause of all action and speech.

2. Sound and light patterns cause different neurons to fire depending on very fine details of the exact sound and the exact light pattern.

3. Nothing we know of causes neurons to fire apart from sensory or interocepted signals, or other neurons. Our current best physics determines that it is impossible for a chain of neurons to fire without having been physically stimulated to do so.

So. Words trigger specific neurons to fire, which form part of a chain of reactions, the end of which is some speech or action in response. Of course other factors also contribute to that chain, but to deny that the specific sounds are one of those factors is to deny everything we know about neurology and physical causation.

If you want to deny that, be my guest. People deny the earth is round, stupidity exists. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you do.

I see no disagreement in the biology, so I won’t deny it. And I would not say certain sounds are not a factor in hearing certain sounds. It’s true that light can fall upon photoreceptors and vibrations can move eardrums. There is undoubtedly a direct interaction between the body and the environment. But that’s where your chain ends for me.

After that the events are generated by, sustained by, governed by, performed by, and therefor caused by the human being. It is true that light falls upon photoreceptors, but photons enter the eye only to the extent that the body allows it. It seems to me that the body, the “other factors”, is the reason why the eyes are open, why light is focused in such a way, absorbed rather than reflected, activating the necessary nerve cells, and so on. It is doing the work.

The same with words. We seek them out, focussing on them, reading them, listening to them, speaking them, understanding them, ascribing meaning to them, becoming aroused or anxious or offended by them, venerating some and banning others. Again, in my admittedly common sense understanding, these are the activities of a human being. At each step we control what we do with these sights, sounds, or whatever form words may take in our environment. And I believe these actions are not just the immanent reactions to word themselves, but of the entire organism as it exists a long process of language development and acquisition.

Basically, I believe people overestimate the power of words while underestimating their own power over words. Words are beautiful, useful, important, valuable—but they are not powerful.

In normal parlance causes for actual events are generally thought in efficient, mechanical terms. — Janus

What do you mean by 'efficient' and 'mechanical' because the explanations given so far have been flawed.

To be 'mechanical' something must cause the decision and so render the decision itself just an arbitrary point in the chain.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'efficient' cause. I thought you might be referring to Aristotle's four causes, but you rejected material, formal and final causes are being 'causes', so that's not quite where you're at. If you mean to say that only efficient causes are what we call 'causes' of actual events, then that's plain wrong as the example I gave earlier show.

If what you mean to say is that when humans are involved, the only causes we're willing to allow is the efficient cause, then I entirely agree - that's the point I'm trying to make. Such an assumption is entirely ideological and has no ground in either logic or science. Conversationally, I wouldn't care. I understand what people mean perfectly well so it doesn't matter. Policy-wise it matters a great deal. We absolutely should not be making policy decisions which will affect the lives of millions of people on the basis of a religious leftover concept, just because it's seeped into our language.

I said we should listen to people if we want to understand them, not believe everything they say. — Janus

You said...

Science is not the best way to understand human behavior in my view. If you want to understand why people do things you need to ask them — Janus

So if you're not going to believe everything they say, but science is not the best tool, then what tool is the overarching judge? It's not science, it's not what people actually say... what is it?

I wouldn't characterize your having written that as "ironic". I'd say it was, is, and will forever remain self-contradictory, untenable, inconsistent, irrational, illogical, unacceptable rhetorical bullshit.

If all censorship is unwarranted, then none is warranted. <-------that points out the self-contradiction and/or untenability of what you've offered here.

It's really pretty simple and easy to understand...

If all censorship is unwarranted then even in situations when an individual owns the means of discourse - say television, radio, or other social media outlet - that ownership does not provide warrant for them to censor.

I never said censorship was warranted. I said that they can censor if they wanted to. This is because it is their property. To deny or punish them for publishing what they want on their own property is to infringe on both their property and free speech rights, which I fully grant them and defend. That doesn’t mean they did the right thing.

I seek expression for its own sake. I also find it healthy and beneficial to hold my ideas to the grindstone of criticism and disputation. It get’s me thinking. — NOS4A2

But that's not going to happen if you simply ignore people who disagree with you. All that's going to happen is you'll re-affirm the ideas thus presented. So either you ought to care what I think or your stated objective is going to fail.

There is undoubtedly a direct interaction between the body and the environment. But that’s where your chain ends for me. — NOS4A2

So denying all the evidence from every single neurological study demonstrating the opposite then?

After that the events are generated by ... the human being — NOS4A2

So defying Newton's first law of thermodynamics then.

The same with words. We seek them out, focussing on them, reading them, listening to them, speaking them, understanding them, ascribing meaning to them, becoming aroused or anxious or offended by them, venerating some and banning others. Again, in my admittedly common sense understanding, these are the activities of a human being. At each step we control what we do with these sights, sounds, or whatever form words may take in our environment. And I believe these actions are not just the immanent reactions to word themselves, but of the entire organism as it exists a long process of language development and acquisition. — NOS4A2

All true. As I said words coming in are one element, our reaction to them is another.

Basically, I believe people overestimate the power of words while underestimating their own power over words. Words are beautiful, useful, important, valuable—but they are not powerful. — NOS4A2

I agree. So what's the problem with banning certain words? They're basically useless and have no effect anyway.

Edit - just to be absolutely clear - this is the grounds on which I don't believe your false virtue signalling about 'free speech'. If you really believed words were powerless, then banning all of them would be a trivial matter, like banning hats. Stupid, pointless, but ultimately harmless. We'd all just get used to wet heads and have done with it. No. The reason why you don't want certain words banned is because (despite your phoney nonsense to the contrary) you know perfectly well that words have the power to influence people and you don't want influence in your chosen direction to be taken away from you.

I never said censorship was warranted. I said that they can censor if they wanted to. This is because it is their property. — NOS4A2

You did answer "I do" earlier when asked if you found all censorship unwarranted.

So, on pains of coherency alone...

If all censorship is unwarranted then even in situations when an individual owns the means of discourse - say television, radio, or other social media outlet - that ownership does not provide warrant for them to censor.



More importantly, they also should not be granted completely unrestricted freedom to say whatever they so chose for whatever reasons they deem necessary, simply because they own the means of discourse, unless of course, they also bear responsibility for the effects/affects of what's said.

Edit - just to be absolutely clear - this is the grounds on which I don't believe your false virtue signalling about 'free speech'. If you really believed words were powerless, then banning all of them would be a trivial matter, like banning hats. Stupid, pointless, but ultimately harmless. We'd all just get used to wet heads and have done with it. No. The reason why you don't want certain words banned is because (despite your phoney nonsense to the contrary) you know perfectly well that words have the power to influence people and you don't want influence in your chosen direction to be taken away from you. — Isaac

A good point to make...

Edit - just to be absolutely clear - this is the grounds on which I don't believe your false virtue signalling about 'free speech'. If you really believed words were powerless, then banning all of them would be a trivial matter, like banning hats. Stupid, pointless, but ultimately harmless. We'd all just get used to wet heads and have done with it. No. The reason why you don't want certain words banned is because (despite your phoney nonsense to the contrary) you know perfectly well that words have the power to influence people and you don't want influence in your chosen direction to be taken away from you.

That’s a silly analogy and conclusion. Your claim to understand what I know and want is fabricated from thin air, projected, just like the power you ascribe to words.

Here’s a thought experiment. Take two pieces of paper and two inkwells with a small but exact amount of ink in them. On one piece of paper, scribble gibberish and random symbols until all the ink is applied to the page. On the other, write something, maybe a letter to a loved one, a song or whatever, until all the ink is applied to the page. There should now be the same amount of paper, same amount of ink, same mass, same velocity, same potential energy, same forces acting on each. So how is the power of one different than the power of the other?

Yes, all censorship is unwarranted in my view. It is for this reason that I refuse to deny or punish someone’s choice to publish what they wish, and censor what they wish, on their own platforms. I can hold that their censorship is unwarranted while refusing to censor them at the same time without any contradiction.

What do you mean by 'efficient' and 'mechanical' because the explanations given so far have been flawed. — Isaac

I hadn't realized you didn't understand the notion of efficient or mechanical causation. Put simply it is understood to consist in a transfer of energy. Something applies a force to something else causing it to it change in some way; it's that simple.

Policy-wise it matters a great deal. We absolutely should not be making policy decisions which will affect the lives of millions of people on the basis of a religious leftover concept, just because it's seeped into our language. — Isaac

It's not a "religious leftover concept". It's based on everyday experience. I feel the sun on my skin causing me to feel hotter, or the wind pushing me, the stone crushing my finger etc, etc: the examples are endless. Also I can do things with my body; I can lift things, smash things, start fires, etc, etc.; again the examples are endless. This experience of natural forces acting on me, and my ability to act on things is the basis of the notion of efficient causation.

I don't know what policy changes you have in mind, but if they are based on rejection of the idea of human agency and responsibility, they won't fly, in my opinion; and nor should they.

So if you're not going to believe everything they say, but science is not the best tool, then what tool is the overarching judge? It's not science, it's not what people actually say... what is it? — Isaac

I thought it should have been clear; but apparently it wasn't clear to you. perhaps I should have said "question them" instead of "ask them": How could you possibly find out why people do things if you don't question them as to why they do things? You don't have to believe everything they tell you, but if you don't question them, you won't find out where blind spots as to their own motivations may be operating.

That said, in simple straightforward cases, people often can simply be believed. "Why did you go to the shops/" " To buy a hamburger". They didn't go to the shop because they were determined to do so by neurological activity which is beyond their control. What possible evidence could there be for such a conclusion?

I don't know what policy changes you have in mind, but if they are based on rejection of the idea of human agency and responsibility, they won't fly, in my opinion; and nor should they. — Janus

Do you think that people ought be held responsible for the effects/affects of their speech?

No, not unless they are in a position of great influence, but I do think that so-called hate speech should be banned.

Why do you ask?

Here’s a thought experiment. Take two pieces of paper and two inkwells with a small but exact amount of ink in them. On one piece of paper, scribble gibberish and random symbols until all the ink is applied to the page. On the other, write something, maybe a letter to a loved one, a song or whatever, until all the ink is applied to the page. There should now be the same amount of paper, same amount of ink, same mass, same velocity, same potential energy, same forces acting on each. So how is the power of one different than the power of the other? — NOS4A2

Because the ink is in a different arrangement and so fires different neurons. We scan images (like paper with writing on it) in saccades looking for salient information and building up the image that way. The location of the first and second ink marks we see determines where we look for the next and so on until we build up the picture. The relevant part (in terms of effect) is the very first dot of ink, which in one case is present and the other not.

To see how ridiculous your argument here is, transfer the unit to a keypad security lock. you press 4,5,6, nothing happens. You press 6,5,4 the door opens. How do you explain that when exactly the same mass velocity and energy is involved in the system (the pressing of three keys)?

All you're saying is that the sum of the energy within the arbitrary boundary you've chosen (the paper and ink) is the same, so the sum of the energy in that which it causes will be the same. Yes. You're absolutely right about that. So?

I hadn't realized you didn't understand the notion of efficient or mechanical causation. Put simply it is understood to consist in a transfer of energy. Something applies a force to something else causing it to it change in some way; it's that simple. — Janus

I was asking about the idiosyncratic way you were using the terms. It's obviously not the definition you've given above. The thing applying force to your arms and legs to cause you to rake the leaves is the ion gradient across the membranes of your muscle cells. Yet for you, that's not the cause.

I feel the sun on my skin causing me to feel hotter, or the wind pushing me, the stone crushing my finger etc, etc: the examples are endless. Also I can do things with my body; I can lift things, smash things, start fires, etc, etc.; again the examples are endless. This experience of natural forces acting on me, and my ability to act on things is the basis of the notion of efficient causation. — Janus

This just seems like a bizarre raising of 'folk science' to a level above actual science. Just because you personally can feel the sun's heat causing you to get hotter, it's OK to call that a cause, but when a neurologists sees exactly the same level of connection between neurons we're not allowed to call that a cause?

They didn't go to the shop because they were determined to do so by neurological activity which is beyond their control. What possible evidence could there be for such a conclusion? — Janus

Newton's first law of thermodynamics, for a start. Plus most of physics, all of neuroscience, everything we know about cells...what more do you need by way of evidence?

You're granting exclusive censorship rights to owners of media platforms(which is to say that ownership is adequate reason to grant censorship rights), and simultaneously claiming that all censorship is unwarranted(which is to say that there are no adequate reasons for censorship).

Either you know this or not. Either way, it's unacceptable even before getting into all of the absurdity of granting exclusivity of censorship rights only to owners of means of discourse; even before getting into the absurdity of the very idea that anyone owns a means of discourse.

And...

You're claiming that there is no power in freedom of speech.

:brow:

Why then, is it so important???

I once picked up an Arabic newspaper and my eyes went immediate to the top-left of the page and I followed the script left-to-right. Had I known Arabic went right-to-left I might have started on the other side. That wasn’t determined by the symbols, which are completely blameless. It was the consequence of me not being able to read Arabic.

As for your keypad, the code opens the door because it is programmed to do so, and is able to do so through mechanical forces and means. It certainly doesn’t open the door because 654 is more powerful than 456.

All you're saying is that the sum of the energy within the arbitrary boundary you've chosen (the paper and ink) is the same, so the sum of the energy in that which it causes will be the same. Yes. You're absolutely right about that. So?

Right. So how can one be more powerful than the other? You’ve already said “because the ink is in a different arrangement”. That to me is sorcery. Witches inscribe runes on objects and recite incantations premised on the same belief.

That’s right. I will respect someone’s property rights while simultaneously holding the belief their censorship is unwarranted. No matter how many times you speak my position back to me, sooner or later you might have to come up with an argument against it or drop it altogether.

I was asking about the idiosyncratic way you were using the terms. It's obviously not the definition you've given above. The thing applying force to your arms and legs to cause you to rake the leaves is the ion gradient across the membranes of your muscle cells. Yet for you, that's not the cause. — Isaac

No, it's not because that neurological process would not occur if I didn't want to rake the leaves.

This just seems like a bizarre raising of 'folk science' to a level above actual science. — Isaac

Human experience is "above science"; the latter is secondary and derivative. To put science above ordinary human understanding is scientism; a baseless diminishment of the human. It's just another unwarranted ideological dogma we don't need.

Newton's first law of thermodynamics, for a start. Plus most of physics, all of neuroscience, everything we know about cells...what more do you need by way of evidence? — Isaac

I doubt we'll agree that scientific theories constitute any reason to reject our ordinary understandings of human freedom and responsibility. To say they do is nothing more than an act of faith; if you decide to accept determinism, or are determined to do so (If you are right) that is up to you (or not up to you if determinism is the case).

Your position is self-contradictory.

That said, in simple straightforward cases, people often can simply be believed. "Why did you go to the shops/" " To buy a hamburger". They didn't go to the shop because they were determined to do so by neurological activity which is beyond their control. What possible evidence could there be for such a conclusion? — Janus

You make it sound like the two explanations are contradictory.

As for what evidence: The fact that we have never seen the mind causing any physical change. No, you raising your arm shortly after intending to raise your arm is not evidence of causation. Just evidence that the intent precedes the act.

As for your keypad, the code opens the door because it is programmed to do so, and is able to do so through mechanical forces and means. It certainly doesn’t open the door because 654 is more powerful than 456. — NOS4A2

It literally does. 654 exerts a power on the system which unlocks the door, 456 loses all the mechanical power in waste heat. It's basic physics. If 654 physically switches a switch but 456 doesn't then 654 has more power (within that system) than 456 (whose power is lost to that system as waste heat). You can't make things happen without power - basic laws of thermodynamics.

No, it's not because that neurological process would not occur if I didn't want to rake the leaves. — Janus

So why bring up efficient mechanical causes then. You keep changing the criteria for what constitutes a 'cause', it's like grasping an eel. So now you're saying that the efficient mechanical cause is not the cause after all, it's your decision (an entirely mental event with no mechanical component at all). Why the distraction about...

Put simply it is understood to consist in a transfer of energy. Something applies a force to something else causing it to it change in some way; it's that simple. — Janus

Where is the energy transfer in you making a decision?

To put science above ordinary human understanding is scientism; a baseless diminishment of the human. It's just another unwarranted ideological dogma we don't need. — Janus

So when science determined that the earth was not flat as it seemed we should have ignored it?

I doubt we'll agree that scientific theories constitute any reason to reject our ordinary understandings of human freedom and responsibility. To say they do is nothing more than an act of faith; — Janus

No, this is a weak line levied against scientific explanations all the time. It's not 'faith' it's biology. You will accept scientific explanation when you understand them, we're hard-wired to expect such a causal relationship in the world. We don't believe the various scientific approaches explain things better out of faith, we do so because it's the way our brains work already. From birth we experiment with the world, make predictive models and test them. It's not faith, it's the overwhelming success of the approach at helping us navigate the world from the moment we're born.

It literally does. 654 exerts a power on the system which unlocks the door, 456 loses all the mechanical power in waste heat. It's basic physics. If 654 physically switches a switch but 456 doesn't then 654 has more power (within that system) than 456 (whose power is lost to that system as waste heat). You can't make things happen without power - basic laws of thermodynamics.

The keys exert power, no matter what’s written on them. The numbers on the keys exert none. This beginning to get ridiculous.

The symbol of the number on the key corresponds to an actual electronic process specific to those particular numbers. You aren’t recognising the connective tissue between what you are referencing as “powerless” and what you are recognising as “empowered”. That’s his point, that there are in fact connections between one recognising symbols and ones actions. This isn’t controversial, there are plenty of studies and research to support that idea. If it seems fanciful and absurd to you it’s because you are ignorant of how these neurological processes interact with words and information.

The power of the written word cannot be understood by looking at the physical components. We cannot measure the power of the written word in terms of the equal sums of energy inherent to the physical components themselves; the ink and paper, etc.

The power of the written word is shown in it's effects/affects.

There have been wars over words. There have been sustained assaults on entire groups of individuals based upon words. Civilizations thrive based upon the power of the written word. Knowledge is both lost and gained via the power of the written word. Civilizations can also self-destruct based upon the power of words. People have openly espoused to be fighting a holy war based upon words. People on opposing sides of a war have shed each other's blood all in the name of the same god. That god remains pervasive due to the power of words.

The written word is a vehicle... by virtue of which meaning transcends time and individual language users. Words make people cry. Words make people rejoice. Words stoke emotions, memories, desires, fears. Words build civilizations, uphold dignity, offer condolence, cause confusion, add clarity, make promises, offer a bit of kindness, express gratitude, offer greetings, bestow namesakes, etc.

To deny the power of words could be a defensive stance taken as a means to exonerate someone from bearing the responsibility of the results stemming from their own word use(free speech). It is self-defeating. In order for it work, the defender and/or defendant uses the power of words(free speech) to convince the jury that words(free speech) have no power. The key to defeat such a defense is to point this out to the jury.

I am not ignorant of neurological processes. My point is that neurons and neurological processes are at the mercy of my own biology and not some abstract symbol out in the world. Yes, we recognize symbols, not because there is something in the symbols, but because we already know what they mean.

Heiroglyphics don’t cause you to understand them. We cannot understand or recognize a language by virtue of it being spoken. We have to refer to our own knowledge, understanding, language in order to do so.

I’m not sure what you mean by neurological processes being at the mercy of biology...they are part of your biology. This biology is triggered and effected by abstract symbols as well as other biological processes. Symbols we recognise have an effect on our thoughts and actions. You call it sorcery, but it’s only sorcery in the way an ipad is sorcery to a caveman.
I understand your point about knowledge, understanding and language...these are the sorts of biological processes that you referenced right? There are internal things effecting action as well as external. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) the internal things can override the external but saying the external has no effect in the way you are is incorrect. It’s both. It’s dynamic.
Glyphs may not cause you to understand them but they do cause certain neurological outcomes if you do recognise them. The degree to which they do effect action is certainly debatable, but that they do is well established.
I think you can recognise that and still maintain your free speech absolutism but your argument that it’s fanciful, magical thinking to claim words effect action doesn’t hold up.

'

They didn't go to the shop because they were determined to do so by neurological activity which is beyond their control. What possible evidence could there be for such a conclusion? — Janus

You make it sound like the two explanations are contradictory.

As for what evidence: The fact that we have never seen the mind causing any physical change. No, you raising your arm shortly after intending to raise your arm is not evidence of causation. Just evidence that the intent precedes the act. — khaled

The two explanations are obviously contradictory. If I go to the shop because I decided to for whatever reason, then I am in control. If I go to the shop because i am determined by neurological processes beyond my control, them I am not in control. There is a contradiction there between being in control and not being in control.

My going to the shop could be determined by a neurological process (my decision) which is under my control, though, which would obviously not be in contradiction to my being in control.

As to evidence; I can say to myself "raise my arm" as many times as I like and unfailingly my arm will rise (if nothing is physically restraining it). No evidence of any causation anywhere gets any better than this.That said, it could indeed be all correlation for all we know (as Leibniz supposed) in which case determinism would be a fantasy and there would be no problem for human freedom.

So why bring up efficient mechanical causes then. You keep changing the criteria for what constitutes a 'cause', it's like grasping an eel. So now you're saying that the efficient mechanical cause is not the cause after all, it's your decision (an entirely mental event with no mechanical component at all). Why the distraction about... — Isaac

Are you claiming that decisions have no physical correlates? If they do, then where is the problem? Accepting that a decision has a physical correlate (which it should given that it is a brain activity) then a decision can be the efficient cause of an act.

It's not faith, it's the overwhelming success of the approach at helping us navigate the world from the moment we're born. — Isaac

The notion of determinism works in understanding (most) observable physical processes, but the assumption that all neural processes (or even all physical processes) are fully determined by antecedent processes is just that, nothing but an assumption; a matter of faith.

Do you think that people ought be held responsible for the effects/affects of their speech? — creativesoul

No, not unless they are in a position of great influence, but I do think that so-called hate speech should be banned.

Why do you ask? — Janus

There's seems to be a problem with holding a speaker responsible for the effects/affects of their speech if we also claim that the listener acted on their own free will, as if they were not influenced by the speech.

However, clearly you acknowledge the influence. How then do we draw the line between holding one responsible for the effects/affects of their speech and not?

Being in a position of "great influence" seems to need a bit more unpacking in terms of what warrants that as bearing responsibility. I'm inclined to agree in general that the responsibility one bears ought be determined by the harmful effects/affects of their speech. However, I'm just uncertain of your stance on matters of free speech, free will, and responsibility regarding who ought be held accountable for one's actions(or a group of people should they follower a leader).

However, I'm just uncertain of your stance on matters of free speech, free will, and responsibility and who ought be held accountable for one's actions(or a group of people should they follower a leader). — creativesoul

I presume that people are (in principle, or if they are sufficiently thoughtful) free to choose whether to be influenced or not by what others say. On the other hand many people don't seem to be sufficiently thoughtful, which means that in practice what other's say may have unwarranted (i.e.,not rationally chosen) influence. Political leaders know this and they can cynically and effectively appeal to people's insecurities, paranoias, feelings of entitlement and so on to gain influence. If that influence turns out to lead to criminal acts then the instigators should be held accountable.