There is no argument for censorship save for superstition and magical thinking. — NOS4A2

I think you're saying that those of us who support some restrictions on speech are basing this on false beliefs about the effects of the speech. Is that correct?

And if so, do you agree this is the pivotal issue? Can you please attempt to state exactly what false beliefs we hold, in objective terms, rather than with judgemental terms?

Also state your position on free will. Do you believe humans possess libertarian free will? Reading some of your exchange with @Michael, this seems relevant.

I’ve already stated my reasoning. The effects cannot be shown to reach as far as you say they do. The objects, structures, and energies responsible for such movements, responses, and actions are not the same as the ones you claim they are. There is no argument for censorship save for superstition and magical thinking. — NOS4A2

This is definitely you with fingers in your ears. No matter.. THe world will continue to turn.

No, I'm a compatibilist.

Your position, though, is unclear. You're a free will libertarian but also an eliminative materialist. I assume, then, that you believe that libertarian free will is made possible by quantum indeterminancy? So we "could have done otherwise" only because the applicable human behaviour operates according to probabilistic causation rather than determinism?

I don’t know enough about quantum mechanics to have a position on quantum indeterminacy. What I believe is that each of us are the source of our own actions, and indeed identical to our own actions.

And the infrared sensor sends electrical signals to some other part of the TV. But it's still the case that I cause the TV to turn on by pushing the appropriate button on the remote. Your reasoning is a non sequitur, even despite your assertions that humans, unlike TVs, have "agency" – because this "agency" does not factor into the behaviour of our sense organs in response to stimulation, e.g. I can't just will myself to be deaf (even if I can will myself to cover my ears).

I’ve already conceded that the environment stimulates our sense organs, simply due to the fact that they collide, and have factored it in. But that’s where their influence ends. in the case of hearing or reading, the words do not exert enough force on the body to move it in the way you say it does. It has neither the mass nor the energy to do so. All the energy and systems required to move the body comes from the body. That’s why hearing and reading are capacities of the body, and not soundwaves. That’s why I say words cannot determine, govern, or control our responses.

I think you're saying that those of us who support some restrictions on speech are basing this on false beliefs about the effects of the speech. Is that correct?

That is correct.

And if so, do you agree this is the pivotal issue? Can you please attempt to state exactly what false beliefs we hold, in objective terms, rather than with judgemental terms?

I do believe it is a pivotal issue. I’m not sure if this pertains to you personally, but the false belief I believe some people hold or imply is that words possess some sort of power or force over and above their medium.

Also state your position on free will. Do you believe humans possess libertarian free will? Reading some of your exchange with @Michael, this seems relevant.

I do believe in so-called libertarian free will for the simple reason that nothing else can be shown to determine our actions.

words possess some sort of power or force over and above their medium. — NOS4A2

You are not paying any attention. At this stage, i am more comfortable calling you willfully ignorant.

The words are not entirely relevant. The sound waves constituted by them are. You are not a serious interlocutor if you are stuck on a point that no one has posited.

Call me what you want. You know I already said words have no more effect than any other articulated sound from the mouth. Also, this text has no more effect on the body than this text: durioenzbdifllsbdb.

All laws, written down, are words meant to influence actions. That’s what the law does. That is how it works.

If this is a serious discussion about free speech laws, these being, laws written down to influence what people do and do not say, then NOS4A2, I have to say, you are making absolutely no sense.

According to your position, namely, that words cannot be the cause of actions in others, there is no point to there being any law whatsoever. How could it matter what the law says if we each can only chose to speak, like every other act, without any verbal influence from another possibly intervening?

You are missing the whole point of the law if you think words cannot cause actions, making any mention of “free speech laws” absurd.

Laws matter because they are enforced by the monopoly on violence. If the words written in laws simply made you abide by them, by sheer force of how they were written, there would be no need for police and jail. The fear of violence and being kidnapped by police is what moves people to abide by them.

You keep utterly missing the point.

What forces the police to arrest people? They just magically know what is legal and what is illegal? Or do they follow the code book (words)? Why do they have to read those the arrest their Miranda rights (words), and if they skip reading those words, let them out of jail? What causes the police to be police and not just bullies?

Come on man. You should rethink your position.

You can’t have a government of laws (words) based on a constitution (words), ratified by vote (words) and say “words don’t cause actions”.

You are trying to talk metaphysics and theory of mind on a thread about politics which already has to assume words are sometimes hammers that break bones.

Police follow the code book.

If you want I can limit our discussion to politics.

Do you believe Article 19 of the Declaration of human rights?

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Absolutely I believe that free speech must be protected in the law. Government can’t tell anyone what to think or say about anything.

That is the starting point.

Thank God words cause actions. Now I can tell the government to fuck off, unless they rightfully identify some law (words) that I am breaking. If I am being lawful, and the government doesn’t like what I saying, I can say it anyway, pointing to the law (words) requiring them not to arrest me or even chill my speech.

None if this would make any sense if words did not cause actions.

And if they changed the laws tomorrow you would dutifully follow it, given that the words cause your actions.

And none of that is because of the Declaration on Human Rights. That has no effect on anyone.

It is because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

And if they changed the laws tomorrow you would dutifully follow it, given that the words cause your actions. — NOS4A2

That has nothing to do with the discussion.

And if the US constitution was amended tomorrow stating that you had to walk around with your hand down your pants you would do it, given that the words cause your actions.

Like I tried to say nicely, not a serious discussion.

What I specifically do in response to the law is another discussion. Whether words have effects in our actions is another discussion (that you stink at discussing).

A third discussion is about free speech laws.

Added: you still don’t get it, do you.

All of it has to do with free speech, whether restrictive or absolute. You care more about free speech than most, so I applaud you for that, but once you limit free speech it is no longer free speech. It’s censorship. It’s either one or the other. Take your pick.

once you limit free speech it is no longer free speech. It’s censorship — NOS4A2

How can a law possibly limit free speech? A law is just speech from the government. You said speech can’t cause anything so it can’t limit anything.

See? You can’t say that in this discussion.

You have to make your point some other way or just concede you are not making sense saying words don’t cause actions. Right?

How can a law possibly limit free speech? A law is just speech from the government. You said speech can’t cause anything so it can’t limit anything.

See? You can’t say that in this discussion.

You have to make your point some other way or just concede you are not making sense saying words don’t cause actions. Right?

Do you believe laws cause your actions?

Libertarian free will implies a person chooses which actions he will take. These choices will be made based on his beliefs and his passions. There are both positive and negative passions. A positive passion will tend to influence our choices in positive ways (e.g. acts of charity). A negative passion will tend to influence our choices toward negative behaviors (e.g. hurting others).

When we hear or read words spoken by others, our passions can be evoked. This can lead to negative behaviors. It's true that the perpetator is morally accountable for his actions, but it's also true that the conveyor of the evocative language is a contributing factor or cause. I previously discussed contributing causes with you here.

This is the issue we are confronting, from my perspective. Tell me which portions you disagree with.
.

Do you believe laws cause your actions? — NOS4A2

All I need to say to force your brain to understand is bvgckdsfff. Thereby causing this conversation to end.

I’ve already conceded that the environment stimulates our sense organs, simply due to the fact that they collide, and have factored it in. But that’s where their influence ends. in the case of hearing or reading, the words do not exert enough force on the body to move it in the way you say it does. It has neither the mass nor the energy to do so. All the energy and systems required to move the body comes from the body. That’s why hearing and reading are capacities of the body, and not soundwaves. That’s why I say words cannot determine, govern, or control our responses. — NOS4A2

And this is a misguided understanding of causation, as I have been at pains to explain. Causal influence doesn't simply end after the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. I can cause a bomb to explode by pushing the appropriate button. Your reasoning is a non sequitur when applied to machines and a non sequitur when applied to biological organisms.

What I believe is that each of us are the source of our own actions — NOS4A2

Which is a very vague claim. As it stands it's consistent with compatibilism and so consistent with determinism.

Yet you said before that you endorse agent-causal libertarian free will, but that is inconsistent with eliminative materialism. From here:

Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.

Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior.

...

In non-physical theories of free will, agents are assumed to have power to intervene in the physical world, a view known as agent causation.

agents are assumed to have power to intervene in the physical world

This is exactly what we are talking about.

Like the assumption “all men are created equal” endowed with unalienable rights including “Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Pursuing happiness is a physical act. Free agency is the assumed state of nature here, before one can consider laws about speech.


NOS4A2 is just not talking about the same world that is assumed to exist in the constitution that coined the term “no law…abridging freedom of speech.”

Maybe he’s right, but then he should be talking about the uselessness of legislatures and constitutions as well as any other peoples’ words to regulate action.

Words and their meanings in the listener are one cause among many of the way people subsequently act. NOS doesn’t seem to understand “intervening” causation. Just because I may (or may not) have full control over my cerebral cortex (as he puts it) to direct my car down the road however I choose, doesn’t mean I don’t choose to drive on the right side of the road here in America be-cause of the law (other’s words). Words must cause physical effects or there can be no such thing as constitutionally based government by rule of law.

I think it is pointless to debate free will versus determinism in the context of a free speech debate. If free will is up for grabs, it will be nearly impossible to get to a practical application of laws about speech for free-agents. Which has been the case here talking with NOS.

Odd thing is - I think we all agree that free speech is important and difficult to protect in the law. NOS is just being hard-headed (like his argument and thinking can be analogized to a rock or other hard, physical thing in the causal chain).

His position that words cannot cause actions in others defeats his position that laws cannot limit and must protect freedom of speech.

His position that words cannot cause actions in others defeats his position that laws cannot limit and must protect freedom of speech. — Fire Ologist

He's also arguing that soundwaves cannot cause sense organs to send electrical signals to the brain. It's this argument of his that I have primarily been addressing. If we can't even agree on this then there's no point in even starting a discussion on free speech.

Totally agree with that.

And this is a misguided understanding of causation, as I have been at pains to explain. I cause the distant bomb to explode by pushing a button on my phone. Your reasoning is a non sequitur when applied to machines and a non sequitur when applied to biological organisms.

Causal influence doesn't simply end after the immediate transfer of kinetic energy.

Why doesn’t “causal influence” end after the transfer of kinetic energy? Does the soundwave have some other causal power over-and-above that transfer?

You keep repeating it, telling me I’m misguided, but i have yet seen any reason why I should believe otherwise. You won’t even mention any other forces, objects, and events “causally influencing” subsequent acts.

Rather, what you leave me to picture is a cause A that causes both B and not-B, and I can’t wrap my brain around it. The joke caused me to laugh and the other guy to not laugh, for example, without admitting the reasons for the different effects, the reasons for B and not-B. I wager that is why you wish to stick to more predictable causal relations like button pushing and explosions, so you don’t have to mention the actual causes of, and reasons for, varying responses, for example if the bomb didn’t explode or if the Venus flytrap didn’t close.

Which is a very vague claim. As it stands it's consistent with compatibilism and so consistent with determinism.

Yet you said before that you endorse agent-causal libertarian free will, but that is inconsistent with eliminative materialism. From here:

To my mind there is nothing non-physical about it unless you believe agents are non-physical.

Libertarian free will implies a person chooses which actions he will take. These choices will be made based on his beliefs and his passions. There are both positive and negative passions. A positive passion will tend to influence our choices in positive ways (e.g. acts of charity). A negative passion will tend to influence our choices toward negative behaviors (e.g. hurting others).

When we hear or read words spoken by others, our passions can be evoked. This can lead to negative behaviors. It's true that the perpetator is morally accountable for his actions, but it's also true that the conveyor of the evocative language is a contributing factor or cause. I previously discussed contributing causes with you here.

This is the issue we are confronting, from my perspective. Tell me which portions you disagree with.

I disagree that words are evocative, or have any powers that can “evoke” this or that response. For example, if you read “evocative language” in a dialect you didn’t understand, it would evoke nothing despite it being “evocative language”. So the question is “what does or does not ‘evoke’ the passions?”, the words or you?

So the question is “what does or does not ‘evoke’ the passions?”, the words or you? — NOS4A2

The evocation occurs in the listener, as his brain interprets the words.

The better term is "emotive language", which refers to: "words that do not merely describe a possible state of affairs. "Terrorist" is not used only to refer to a person who commits specific actions with a specific intent. Words such as "torture" or "freedom" carry with them something more than a simple description of a concept or an action.They have a "magnetic" effect, an imperative force, a tendency to influence the interlocutor's decisions.They are strictly bound to moral values leading to value judgements and potentially triggering specific emotions. For this reason, they have an emotive dimension. In the modern psychological terminology, we can say that these terms carry "emotional valence", as they presuppose and generate a value judgement that can lead to an emotion (Wikipedia article)

Example: When you hear about a child being raped, this likely triggers emotional reactions in you: horror at the act, sadness for the victim, and anger at the perpetrator.

Words such as "torture" or "freedom" carry with them something more than a simple description of a concept or an action.They have a "magnetic" effect, an imperative force, a tendency to influence the interlocutor's decisions.They are strictly bound to moral values leading to value judgements and potentially triggering specific emotions. For this reason, they have an emotive dimension. In the modern psychological terminology, we can say that these terms carry "emotional valence", as they presuppose and generate a value judgement that can lead to an emotion

This is what I mean. There are no such magnetic effects, forces, dimensions nor tendencies in the words. They do not carry anything. We can devise any number of instruments in order to detect such forces, and will never be able to measure it. Such descriptions of words are invariably figurative.

Does the soundwave have some other causal power over-and-above that transfer? — NOS4A2

I can turn on the lights by saying "Hey Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands or by pushing a button.

Or are you going to argue that no human has ever turned on a light because no human is capable of discharging electricity from his body?

You keep repeating it, telling me I’m misguided, but i have yet seen any reason why I should believe otherwise. You won’t even mention any other forces, objects, and events “causally influencing” subsequent acts.

Rather, what you leave me to picture is a cause A that causes both B and not-B, and I can’t wrap my brain around it. The joke caused me to laugh and the other guy to not laugh, for example, without admitting the reasons for the different effects, the reasons for B and not-B. I wager that is why you wish to stick to more predictable causal relations like button pushing and explosions, so you don’t have to mention the actual causes of, and reasons for, varying responses, for example if the bomb didn’t explode or if the Venus flytrap didn’t close. — NOS4A2

If the bomb isn't wired appropriately then pushing the button won't cause it to explode, but if it is then it will.

To my mind there is nothing non-physical about it. — NOS4A2

So how do you avoid determinism? Again, as it stands I don't see how your position is incompatible with compatibilism.

Is it because we could have done otherwise? If eliminative materialism is true then we could have done otherwise only if quantum indeterminacy factors into human behaviour (and only if there are no hidden variables), but does this stochasticity really satisfy your agent-causal libertarian free will? Either way, it's still the case that A caused B to happen, even if A could have caused C to happen, and it's still the case that D caused A to happen, even if D could have caused E to happen, and so on and so forth (eventually involving events external to the body).

There's simply no avoiding this without rejecting eliminative materialism in favour of interactionist dualism. But even then, interactionist dualism would only apply to conscious decision-making, not to the involuntary behaviour of the body's sense organs.