What is an example of prior physical causes external to the body? — NOS4A2

Light, sound, smells, etc. The very fact that we sense and respond to the external world is only possible because the external world causally influences us.

I still don’t know how eliminative materialism entails that human behavior is a deterministic response to prior physical causes. — NOS4A2

Because all physical events have some prior physical cause, and if eliminative materialism is correct then there’s just a physical brain and a physical body and not some non-physical mind that “interferes”. There’s just electricity and chemicals responding to physical stimuli causing muscle fibres to contract or relax, and other such things.

Further, even if you assume determinism, many of the “prior physical causes” are prior states of the brain and body, which is still the person in question except at an earlier time. — NOS4A2

Yes, I haven’t claimed otherwise. How the brain and the body respond to external stimulation is determined by its current structure and inner workings, just as how a computer responds to me typing on the keyboard is determined by its current structure and inner workings, but it is still the case that the human brain and body, like every other physical object in the universe, is causally influenced by things external to itself.

If you want to employ causal chains to explain it then the causal chain occurring in one environment is taken over, used and controlled by another system, operating its own movements and providing its own conditions, and utilizing its own energy to do so.

You can't just cut a long causal chain into individual pieces and claim that one part is not the cause of the subsequent part.

You might as well try to argue that the brain doesn’t cause the muscles to contract because once the electrical signals have left the brain and entered the muscle the muscle has “taken over”. So I guess we can only say that the muscle causes itself to contract?

Because all physical events have some prior physical cause, and if eliminative materialism is correct then there’s just a physical brain and a physical body and not some non-physical mind that “interferes”. There’s just electricity and chemicals responding to physical stimuli causing muscle fibres to contract or relax, and other such things.

It’s true, I do not need a non-physical mind to explain how a human being listens to his environment, or otherwise uses the environment in various ways. That electricity and chemicals is produced and managed by the human being, and nothing else.

Yes, I haven’t claimed otherwise. How the brain and the body respond to external stimulation is determined by its current structure and inner workings, just as how a computer responds to me typing on the keyboard is determined by its current structure and inner workings, but it is still the case that the human brain and body, like every other physical object in the universe, is causally influenced by things external to itself.

Then, shouldn’t it be the other way around? That the computer is causally influencing you to look at it, to read, to type, to understand what you’re typing?

You can't just cut a long causal chain into individual pieces and claim that one part is not the cause of the subsequent part.

Sure I can. Some acts begin and end. Where do you propose we begin the act of hearing? Some arbitrary point out there in the environment?

You might as well try to argue that the brain doesn’t cause the muscles to contract because once the electrical signals have left the brain and entered the muscle the muscle has “taken over”. So I guess we can only say that the muscle causes itself to contract?

I wouldn’t try to argue that because the brain and muscles are a part of the same physical, biological system, the majority of which is required to contract muscles.

What are laws good for? They protect humans that can't defend themselves on their own against stronger attackers.

So, laws prohibit certain attacks, and this prohibition is supported by the police which is, by design, supposed to be the strongest of all.

Murder, for example, is prohibited. If it were not prohibited, the police wouldn't help that lady that is going to be killed this evening. One could say: It's a free world; she can defend herself on her own, can't she? She has two fists, the killer has a gun. If she has no gun and no greater muscles than the attacker, it's her fault. The only rule shall be this: The survival of the strongest, not of the fittest or smartest. The survival of those that have the strongest weapons.

The dictum shall be: Maximum freedom for the strongest, minimum freedom for the weakest. Hence: Get rid of all laws and all prohibition; abolish the courts and the police.

Everyone should be allowed to use their weapon as they like, at their discretion. Anarchy! No prohibition at all; allow all weapons: Not only guns or poison but also weapons like slander, defamation and other verbal destructive attacks.

"This boy has stolen my car, he's a thief; if you catch him I give you 1000 dollars." -- One week later: "Oh, just joking. I don't know who has stolen my car. But it was funny how that boy was frightened, haha. Well, it's not my fault that he's so weak and that he can't do anything against my slanderous attacks."

Irony mode off.

That electricity and chemicals is produced and managed by the human being, and nothing else. — NOS4A2

The inner ear is caused to generate nerve impulses by soundwaves stimulating the cochlea. That's what it means to hear things in the environment. It's how we're able to navigate and interact with the world. If the inner ear generates these nerve impulses without being caused to by external stimulation then there's likely something wrong with the ear. Tinnitus is a possible symptom of such a thing.

Where do you propose we begin the act of hearing? Some arbitrary point out there in the environment? — NOS4A2

I'm saying that hearing is (usually) caused to occur by external stimulation. If you "hearing" voices is not caused by external stimulation but only by your own biology then you likely have some neurological or psychological illness.

I wouldn’t try to argue that because the brain and muscles are a part of the same physical, biological system, the majority of which is required to contract muscles. — NOS4A2

The human body is not an isolated physical system. Its internal behaviour is causally influenced by external stimuli, whether that be a shockwave causing my internal organs to rupture or light causing my photoreceptors to stop releasing glutamate.

Under your account you seem to be saying that the photoreceptors cause themselves to stop releasing glutamate, as if its relationship to being stimulated by light is merely correlative and not causal. That's just simply mistaken.

That the computer is causally influencing you to look at it, to read, to type, to understand what you’re typing? — NOS4A2

Not necessarily the computer, but yes. The external world triggers processes within the body (given adequate proximity). One example, Michael is explaining (hearing). But this 'effect' extends to behaviour, rather than simply apprehending a noise, as such. Noises cause things in our brains to happen. Speech is a noise. I do not seen it as different to any other noises, in respect of its potential effect. Granted, I understand that this is hard to grok because not only is it intangible, even where it can be demonstrated it's somewhat esoteric, but is simply is the case given human biology and psychology.

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?

That the computer is causally influencing you to look at it, to read, to type, to understand what you’re typing? — NOS4A2

Why did you ask that, and from what did you think there might be any type of effect produced, if speech and words cannot cause actions in others?

You can’t use words to cause me to agree about the ineffectiveness of words to cause action. You would just be refuting yourself as you speak.

You might even be right about the uselessness of my words to be culpable to cause some action of another person. But the minute you use words and get me to agree with that, you might be wrong (and I think you are).

When a vendor wants to recall what he is supposed to do, he can look to his contract. Those words are there precisely to cause specific actions.

When someone yells “fire” - if fire is to mean anything specific at all, it makes sense to wonder why they are yelling, and why yelling “fire” and whether I need to act. So laws can hold the person accountable who yells “fire” because it makes sense that such yelling leads to actions in others.

What about the law itself? What is a law besides speech that causes action?

The distinction between speech as content and speech as incitement to action is essential here. If you don’t think words can cause anything, then why are bothering to use words to explain yourself to us - words can’t possibly cause us to change what we say or do think, according to you, right?

"words can’t possibly cause us to change what we say or do think, according to you, right?"

Words, in and of themselves, have no power. Consideration of those words by an audience, any audience, regardless of the intent of the words, may result in a change of thought, or behaviour, or no change at all. However, the words, as words, did nothing. The consideration of the words by the listener, and resulting internal dialogue and subsequently determined path by the listener are not to be attributed to the words but rather to the listener. No matter how inflammatory the words might be, they are, in themselves, utterly inert.

I compare it to blaming a weapon for a killing, rather than the wielder of said weapon. No knife, of it's own volition, ever killed anyone. Knives do not have their own volition: someone put the knife into motion.

I do believe that inciting others to violence should be a culpable offence, but those who commit the violence should be more culpable; they did have a choice to not be incited.

Oh! Hello @Book273, nice to see you posting here again.

Thanks! Good to be back.

I do believe that inciting others to violence should be a culpable offence, but those who commit the violence should be more culpable; they did have a choice to not be incited. — Book273

Humans can be manipulated. When humans are older than 18 years, are they adults? By the law, yes. Mentally, adulthood is a never ending process. Kids and "adults" can be educated. Where education is possible, there's also a possibility for manipulation. Some humans can hardly be manipulated, some can be manipulated very much; they may even join sects and possibly get indoctrinated to commit a crime. In short: I think the phrase "they did have a choice" is too simple; it doesn't show the whole picture. Humans can be manipulated.

So, to be clear, your position is that, because humans can be manipulated, they are not responsible for their actions, due to being manipulated, and that, again, due to manipulation, they are somehow less culpable for their actions and the ramifications of those actions? Or is your position that, due to manipulation, these individuals have effectively lost their freedom of choice, and so are essentially automatons; capable of action but not of discernment?
Please clarify. This is a position worth exploring further.

Free speech absolutism clings to a libertarian ahistorical fantasy: that speech is just noise until someone acts on it. That words, unlike swords, don’t wound unless the listener chooses to be harmed. But if that were true, the entire structure of society would collapse.

Let’s be clear: if speech had no effect unless acted upon, there would be no marketing, no contracts, no propaganda, no religion, no constitutions, no militaries, no politics and no hierarchies. None of these function without speech triggering behavior. If we were truly sovereign individuals, immune to linguistic influence, then there would be no need to sell, convince, threaten or command. We wouldn’t bother with law or leadership. Hell, we wouldn’t be arguing on this forum.

The claim that speech is harmless unless someone physically acts on it doesn’t merely misrepresent speech, it ignores the entire architecture of human society. Words structure our relations, direct our choices, create obligations and incite movements. Speech is action. Every dictator, advertiser, preacher and policymaker knows this. Only the “free speech absolutist” pretends not to.

What's generally so boring about these discussions though, is that, even if we accept that speech is powerful, the real issue isn’t whether it should be “free”. It’s who gets to speak, and who gets heard. Most free speech debates are built on a false assumption: that everyone already has a platform, and harm only begins when someone’s voice is removed from it. That’s not how platforms work.

People aren’t born with megaphones. They’re given them, or more often, denied. Platforms are political spaces. They are curated, moderated, algorithmically sorted and profit-driven. This discussion shouldn't be about when to restrict speech but how to ensure equal access to being heard.

Free speech absolutism clings to a libertarian ahistorical fantasy: — Benkei

Said by someone with a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be a libertarian.

A libertarian is not "every person for themselves" or "everyone can do whatever they want". That is anarchy, not libertarianism.

A libertarian understands that the right to do what they want stops when what they are doing infringes on the rights of others.

My free speech stops when it infringes on your rights, so threatening bodily harm is not speech a libertarian would support.

Free speech is not "Anyone can say whatever they want without repercussions", because other people have the same right to say what they want, which means they can disagree and criticize what others say - especially what people in positions of authority say.

So instances where people were manipulated by someone else's speech is where the people manipulated did not have the capacity to question or criticize what was said, or they were not manipulated at all and already had hate within them that they were waiting to use any excuse to unleash.

Light, sound, smells, etc. The very fact that we sense and respond to the external world is only possible because the external world causally influences us. — Michael

Yes, but why does each person respond to those same lights, sounds, smells, etc differently?

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism. — Michael

Exactly - which means that because people respond to the same lights, sounds, smells, etc. differently there must be some other process between some speech being made and one's actions that manifests as that difference in actions after hearing a speech.

Yes, but why does each person respond to those same lights, sounds, smells, etc differently? — Harry Hindu

Slightly different biologies. Your eyes are not identical to my eyes and your brain is not identical to my brain.

Exactly - which means that because people respond to the same lights, sounds, smells, etc. differently there must be some other process between some speech being made and one's actions that manifests as that difference in actions after hearing a speech. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that thing being the body and brain of the listener/actor. But it's still the case that the action is a causal response to the stimulation (assuming that eliminative materialism is correct and so that libertarian free will does not exist).

How two different computers respond to their "A" key being pressed depends entirely on their internal mechanics. One computer may display a letter on the screen and the other may emit a noise. Either way, the computer's behaviour is a causal response to someone pushing the "A" key.

So, to be clear, your position is that, because humans can be manipulated, they are not responsible for their actions, due to being manipulated, and that, again, due to manipulation, they are somehow less culpable for their actions and the ramifications of those actions? — Book273

Not "not". It's gradually variable. -- First of all, I think there is a network of many individual wills and many individual manipulations. Consequently, nothing is mono-causal. In my view, mankind and life is multi-causal. Everything is interdependent. Nothing is autarkic. Whether someone is more or less responsible -- "30/70%, 90/10%" --, depends on the scenario. In any case, every individual is a link in the chain. I don't believe in "free will", I just believe in "will". I'd say will is neither free nor unfree. Every will is influenced by something, yet every will is its own decision unit that separates it from other units. In such an interdependent network of reasons and units I have difficulties to integrate the words free and unfree. -- Back to the main topic: For example, if I were to manipulate a child or a very naive "adult" and tell them they need to wear aluminum hats because of the "chemtrails", then I would certainly be a part of the whole responsibility package that leads to that nonsense. In such a case I would misuse my intellectual power over their naivity. Would I then say my responsibilty were zero? No. I would be one of many influences. Other influences come from books, films, other certain persons etc. and from the brainwork of the kid or the naive adult themselves. -- Multicausality. In short words: Whether someone is more or less culpable depends on the scenario, I think. And this question is not only valid in the philosophical field but even in the legal field. That's why penalties are variable, at least in some countries.

Slightly different biologies. Your eyes are not identical to my eyes and your brain is not identical to my brain. — Michael

Yet people with different eyes and different brains respond similarly and sometimes not, so you haven't yet accounted for the difference in why some people are influenced by some speech and not others. Maybe it has something to do with the information stored in their brains.

Maybe it has something to do with the information stored in their brains. — Harry Hindu

Yes, but if eliminative materialism is correct then this is properly understood as "it has something to do with the existence and configuration and activity of the brain's neurons".

And like every other physical object in the universe, the brain's neurons' behavior is causally influenced by prior physical events, and in this particular case these prior physical events are often the stimulation of the sense organs.

I constantly have to repeat myself with you:

Maybe it has something to do with the information stored in their brains. — Harry Hindu

I don't know why you have to repeat that. I quite explicitly responded to it.

Your response is an example of talking past each other.

You're the one using terms like "physical". Not me. Is information physical?

Is information physical? — Harry Hindu

If eliminative materialism is correct, then yes. What we call "the mind" and "mental processes" either don't exist or are entirely physical.

Say we both buy the same computer brand and model. Once we get home we install software on the computer. The software I install is going to be different than what you install. The data I store on mine will be different than what is on yours. As a result both computers, even though they are the same make and model and we interact with the computer the same way - via keyboard and mouse, both computers are going to function differently because of the software and data - the information stored within it.

Software is a physical thing. It's not some immaterial magic.

If eliminative materialism is correct, then yes. What we call "the mind" and "mental processes" are reducible to some physical process. — Michael

Ok. So what I'm saying is that deterministic processes are not necessarily physical (whatever that means).


Whether it is physical (whatever that means) or not is irrelevant. It is the reason behind the differences in how people react to the same stimulus.

Whether it is physical (whatever that means) or not is irrelevant. — Harry Hindu

It's entirely relevant. If materialism, and in particular eliminative materialism, is correct then libertarian free will does not exist. All muscle movements in the human body are a causal response to electrical and chemical signals triggered by the brain's neurons, and the brain's neurons trigger these electrical and chemical signals as a causal response to different electrical and chemical signals – some of which are triggered by the sense organs as a causal response to stimulation by light or sound or some other external stimulus.

I'm not saying anything about materialism or physicalism because I don't support either but neither am I an idealist or panpsychist. I simply accept that determinism is the case.

For determinism to be true means that when the same input goes in but you get a different output, something in-between is interpreting the input differently than in other cases. That is what I'm trying to focus on - what that difference is. I'm not denying determinism is true. I'm saying that if it is true, then there must be some difference in the way the two humans interpret the same input to be able to produce a different output. "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity", is what a determinist would say. They would also say, "If you're doing something repeatedly and you get different outcomes, then you're not really doing the same thing over and over. Something different is happening."

That is what I'm trying to focus on - what that difference is. — Harry Hindu

The physical differences between two different human bodies and two different human brains. Refer back to my example of the computers. Some computers might respond to someone pressing the "A" key by displaying the letter "A" on the screen, some might emit a noise, and some might do something else.

A human organism and a computer might each be constituted of different molecules, but these molecules obey the same physical laws regarding cause and effect. If eliminative materialsm is correct then there's nothing like an immaterial soul or mind to interfere with these (deterministic) physical processes.

If eliminative materialsm is correct then there's nothing like an immaterial soul or mind to interfere with these (deterministic) physical processes. — Michael

What made you think that I was proposing the existence of a soul? Nor am I speaking as an eliminative materialist. I am simply speaking as a determinist. I do believe minds exist by default as that is the only thing I know exists, so if you're saying eliminative materialsm requires that minds do not exist, then I am saying eliminative materialsm is wrong, but not necessarily that determinism is wrong.

Minds are as much a deterministic process as everything else. We have reasons for what we do -whether consciously or instinctively. The difference is the the way we interpret the input. So you can continue talking past me about neurons and molecules, while I am talking about what the billions of neurons and molecules are doing together - and that is interpreting sensory data.

From a strictly deterministic stance, how does the determinist account for the difference in output given the same input? A scientist would attempt to explain the discrepancy by explaining a process in-between that modifies the output given the same input. It must be that the input is being integrated with the information stored within the system, which is different for each system, that produces the different outputs, not the inputs themselves.

From a strictly deterministic stance, how does the determinist account for the difference in output given the same input? — Harry Hindu

I already explained that with the example of the computers. Just apply the same reasoning to a human organism.

The physical differences between two different human bodies and two different human brains. Refer back to my example of the computers. Some computers might respond to someone pressing the "A" key by displaying the letter "A" on the screen, some might emit a noise, and some might do something else.

A human organism and a computer might each be constituted of different molecules, but these molecules obey the same physical laws regarding cause and effect. — Michael

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

For computers to respond differently to the same input must mean that they are programmed differently.

For a human to respond differently to the same input must mean they were raised differently.

Those "physical" laws you speak of also say that different causes lead to different effects.

So thanks for agreeing with me.