How are you getting from "You are a 'bunch of neurons'" to "You don't control your choices"?

Do "you" control your choices, no, the randomness of your choices results in the feeling of control. — khaled

Can you explain why you believe this?

I didn't say that. Just to confirm, if the bunch of neurons called "you" decides something, even though each neuron has its own life and is just interacting with the others. Did the "you" control the neurons? — khaled

I can't really make sense of the way you're asking this. The "bunch of neurons" called "you" deciding something IS controlling something--namely, the probability biases of the options available to you.

"Do 'you' control the neurons" sounds like you're contradicting "The 'bunch of neurons' called 'you'"--in other words, as if you're something other than the "bunch of neurons," which isn't the case. The bunch of neurons control lots of things, including the bunch of neurons--unless you believe that it's not possible to control your thoughts to any extent, but I certainly don't think that.

Something like an electron interacting with another electron may very well control the probabilities that the second electron is in one state versus another (when its state is indeterminate).

A subset of brain functions correct? This subset of brain functions is ultimately just a collection of neurons and other brain matter correct? How can you say that the emergent property "you" CONTROLS the lower level mechanisms? — khaled

Where are "emergent" and "lower level" coming from?

At any rate, you're supposing that no physical stuff can control probability biases with respect to other physical stuff because?

So I reckon that rhetorical questions are an invalid language construct, because it's effectiveness relies upon the breaking of a fundamental code of language: that questions are a request for a response. — Serving Zion

The "code of language" isn't that simple. Rhetorical questions are an example of it not being that simple.

I say "That's not a rhetorical question" sometimes because I realize that it might be taken to be a rhetorical question, but it's something I'm actually looking for a response/an answer to.

The point is that I'm not necessarily going to parse it semantically.

Something my wife can well confirm. ;-)

Yes, a la random equalling "not deterministic."

Random doesn't imply anything like "not controllable." Again, you bias the possibilities. You control this.


Yeehaw it's a square dance.

If it's just like "every other physical interaction" but those are not deterministic, they often involve biased probabilities, etc., then there's no distinction to be made

"You feel like you control this but it's actually just like every other physical interaction" seems more accurate to me. — khaled

Which is why I wrote yet again; when we're just talking about electrons and rocks and stuff, (a) I'm not a strong determinist, and (b) I'm not a realist on physical laws.

So it doesn't work to appeal to strong determinism a la real physical laws.

Yes, a la random equalling "not deterministic."

Random doesn't imply anything like "not controllable." Again, you bias the possibilities. You control this.

Yes. And again--this is something else that I've had to repeat many times (which is incredibly annoying) when we're just talking about electrons and rocks and stuff, (a) I'm not a strong determinist, and (b) I'm not a realist on physical laws. So it doesn't work to appeal to strong determinism a la real physical laws.

Okay. So once again--for the umpteenth time now, biasing the possibilities is something that you do. You control this.

Sure, so that's not random. There's not even any other possibility at that point.

Uhhhhh. Aren't you literally proposing the mystical third way of causation that we both said doesn't exist, this "free". Something is either ontologically determined or it is random. There is no room for "free" unless free means "not determined" in which case it means random. You said this yourself... — khaled

So first, you understand that at the point you make a decision, you've biased the possibilities so it's 100% in favor of one of them, right?

that hate speech cannot be a cause of violent action — Isaac

We covered this already. I'm repeating myself again. I didn't say that it's impossible for speech to be a cause of violent action. I said that we can't show that it is.

Except it IS something random no? — khaled

No, it's not random. For the third time now, at the point you make the decision the biasing is 100% (or 1 in probability terms) towards what you decide. The biasing is done by you, not by something prior to you. The biasing is not random--you don't have random contemplation about your possibilities. But it's not determined, either. You're not forced to take just one route, you have real options, due to the fact that the world isn't as strong determinism depicts it.

But. You have different probabilities to do things before this biasing takes place no? — khaled

The probabilities with respect to the options are a factor of your contemplation. It's not deterministic in that you're not forced to make a particular choice.

This post was from 10 days ago. It's very simple and straightforward. What don't you understand here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/316725

Uhhhh. What? You mean it's not something deterministic? — khaled

I explained this. What did you do when you read that explanation?

Okay, thanks.

So, with free will, it's not something random, is it? I've explained this to you in some detail already in another thread.

I want you to admit that it's not causal first. Is it causal?

.

I want you to admit that it's not causal first. Is it causal?

So I assume rigging a gun to shoot randomly by some indeterminate mechanism (say, random nuclear decay) and putting that in a public street is fine? — khaled

It's not causal, is it?

I said beyond wishful thinking. — Isaac

You're a determinist. I'm not. Obviously I don't believe that free will is "wishful thinking" I think that determinism is thinking that hasn't moved past about 1840.

A is hate speech, BC and D are the additional thing your brain has to do to that speech to cause you to act violently. — Isaac

Why am I having to repeat something I just wrote? Something prior to free will isn't causal to a free will decision.

As in X is the sound waves, C is the final result of the indeterminate mental processes in your brain. — khaled

If it's indeterminate it's not causal.

you are going to get that sentence and that sentence will affect you, — Coben

Not necessarily, and it's "not whether I believe it or not." You'd be saying not only that I have unconscious mental content but that you can know what that content is better than I do.

Now. Say X is hate speech, Y is violence and C is free will — khaled

Free will can't be part of the equation if we're trying to claim that something prior to it caused something. That's contradictory. Free will isn't deterministic.

I don't you remember you doing so. So would B C and E all be punishable or what? — khaled

It's ridiculous to think I was ever suggesting anything special about "things with single causes."

Now. Does this mean the ONLY way for something to be punishable for you is if it has a single cause — khaled

No. I addressed this already above.

So if one were to empirically establish that hate speech increases the likely hood of violence wouldn't that be good grounds for banning it? — khaled

Again, I don't want to keep going over the same stuff again and again. Above I wrote "'X makes y more likely' isn't a statement of causality" and "On my view only causality matters."

So why do I have to write both again a couple hours later?

We'd need to establish it via empirical evidence, etc.--the way we need to do with any empirical claim, which has nothing to do with proof.

so one wouldn't need to prove that shooting people causes them to die in order to make it punishable? — khaled

No, because no empirical claim is provable period. Proof has nothing to do with empirical knowledge. It's a category error.

You wrote "So, if one could prove that hate speech makes violence more likely"

I was commenting on that.

I'm tired of going over the same stuff again and again.

Shooting someone causes them to die is an empirical claim but we can't prove that — khaled

Since empirical claims are not provable, it's not something to bother with. I'm not saying anything at all about proof in any of these comments. Proof has nothing at all to do with knowing empirical claims. Is that understandable?

Re the first poll question, I don't see how anyone could argue that an individual's status/outcome couldn't be aided by assistance/cooperation from others.

Re the second poll question, I think both options you present are misconceived. It's neither "accurate" nor "illegitimate." It's simply a symptom of the way we've set things up and some common belief/idea tendencies in the context of how we've set things up.

When the elephant thing first came up, I pointed out that it's still something the receiver has to basically choose (I'm saying "basically" because it's not necessarily something you're thinking about as a choice, but it's a matter of willfully orienting yourself towards it in particular ways). You have to focus on the utterance, you have to think about it a particular semantic way, and if we're talking about picturing things, you need to willfully direct yourself for that, too.

An example of this that a lot of people are familiar with is this: when I listen to music--and I know many other people who do this, too (although maybe most of them are musicians)--I only rarely parse lyrics (so parse vocals) semantically. Most of the time I hear lyrics/vocals so that they might as well be an instrument like a trumpet or a saxophone. I listen to melody, phrasing, timbre, etc. In order to parse lyrics/vocals semantically when I listen to music, I have to make an effort to focus on that aspect.

That someone saying 'the ape is on the loose' has no affect on you unless you choose to construct a meaning. — Coben

I wasn't following this latest tangent (I'm going to be pretty busy for awhile), but on my view, you have to intentionally construct meaning, but that doesn't imply that on all subsequent occasions it's something you need to make a conscious effort to do.

It's similar to something like learning how to drive. At first, you need to consciously think about everything you're doing, and you need to figure out how to do it. After you've done it a bit, though, you no longer need to think about it to do it. That doesn't imply that it's not something you're doing.

Rereading some of this I came across this quote right here. I thought you kept saying that the mind is physical no? — khaled

In other words, I was seeing whether you were asserting determinism, or at least asserting that mind doesn't phenomenally involve free will.

Also your definition of free will is basically equivalent to saying that mental processes don’t have predetermined results. — khaled

Correct.

So, if one could prove that hate speech makes violence more likely — khaled

First, that wouldn't be possible, because empirical claims are not provable period.

Secondly, aside from proof, "X makes y more likely" isn't a statement of causality

Where each factor contributed to “biasing the probability” (as you said in the free will thread). — khaled

On my view only causality matters.