:up:
Posting on the forums creates more opportunity to receive input from varying points of view and potential valid criticisms.

Is having to wade through all the drivel to get the few good responses that allow one's ideas to evolve worth it? For me it is.

In what ways has Banno evolved other than him steering more towards using PMs to preach to his choir?

And when the definition of a more authoritative dictionary is provided (the one Google uses and provides as the top result) ... you just dismiss it entirely and you know better than the English professors at Oxford. — boethius

I wasn't arguing about which dictionary we use, only that we use a dictionary to guide our use of terms.

You provided two definitions:

1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Similar:

2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. — Google citing Oxford Languages

I was referring to the first one. If you want to refer to the second one, that is fine. Neither definition mentions socialism or libertarianism. So it would now be necessary to define socialism and libertarianism to see where those definitions overlap with anarchy and where they don't.

My point was that many people conflate the first definition with libertarianism but isn't libertarianism, and the second definition is more like libertarianism than socialism.

I am pretty sure I had almost this same conversation re reasons versus causes with ↪J, using the stop sign example. Maybe it was a stop light :rofl: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Great minds think alike :cool:

I would just suggest that a difficulty here is that "causes" is often used very narrowly, as always referring to a linear temporal sequence (either as extrinsic ordering, or a sort of intrinsic computation-like process), but also very broadly as encompassing the former, but also all "reasons." Or, causes might also be used narrowly in a counterfactual sense. "Reasons" often tend to include a notion of final and formal causality that is excluded from more narrow formulations of "cause." — Count Timothy von Icarus

It depends on how we want to look at causes. Causes are an interaction of two or more things (like a broken tree limb and a window, or like a stop sign, a car and a driver) to create a new set of circumstances - an effect (the broken window, or stopping at a stop sign). Physicists often describe it as a transfer of energy. We should also consider that every effect is also a cause of subsequent effects, and that our current goal is what makes us focus on specific parts of the ongoing causal chain of events - that the boundaries between a cause and its effects are arbitrarily dependent upon the current goal in the mind.

You can raise your hand, or I can do it for you. Both of our wills are the causes of your hand being raised. You might resist me in which case it would be both a battle of wills and of strength, but our comparative strengths only come into play if our wills are still battling - I intend on raising your arm, while you intend on resisting. How can a will cause anything? If a will can be a cause why can't a reason?

So, it's tricky. Lift is a "cause of flight," but you won't find the "principle of lift" as an observable particular in any instance of flight. Likewise, moral principles are causes of people's actions, but you won't find them wandering about the world. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not sure if I'd agree that lift is a cause of flight. It seems to me to be part of what flight is. If you are flying you have lift. A cause would be what preceded the act of flying, just as what preceded the act of stopping at a stop sign. The cause of flight is the interaction of wings and air before one declares flight has been achieved. At what point in the process of running, flapping ones wings and jumping in the air does one achieve the effect of flight? It seems to me that lift is something you have already achieved to say that you are flying - not something that preceded the act of flying.

Just because we don't see moral principles "wandering about the world" (and I assume you mean wandering around independently of minds) does not mean that moral principles do not exist in the world.
They do - as mental constructs, or reasons, for determining one's actions. Morals exist only as characteristics of minds, just as ripeness only exists as a characteristic of of fruit. We don't see ripeness wandering about the world either. If that were the case the world would be a fruit, or the world a mind in the case of morals. They are properties of specific things in the world, like minds and fruit, not properties of the world itself.

Understandably, if there is no choice or decision -- if one adopts a hardcore physicalism or determinism -- then the distinction rather collapses. — J

Not necessarily. I am a determinist and a free-will Libertarian. How do I reconcile the two? I see freedom as having access to as much information as possible. By having access to as much information as possible, you are able to make more informed decisions. By having access to more information, you might choose differently, or you at least have the power to choose differently than you would have if you didn't have the information.

Many people make this assertion that determinism implies that you have the feeling of being forced into something you didn't want to. I say that determinism implies that you have a feeling of naturally choosing what decision is best. Your decisions and actions would feel natural, not forced, if determinism is the case. You always make the best decision with the information you have at that moment. It is only your fear of the consequences that you cannot foresee that make it feel forced. Thinking that you should have chosen differently only comes after the consequences have been realized (after you have more information).

That's a bit dire. I didn't say there was no such thing as a shared world, or that we can never decide how to talk about it meaningfully. I just meant that, taken out of any context, the term "the world" is going to refer to different things for different people. If you and I, or anyone else, want to introduce the term into a conversation, it would be a good idea to first agree on some rough reference. We could locate our usage on a map of well-known usages, such as physicalism, idealism, intersubjectivity, Platonism, et al.

I would say there's no wrong way to do this -- it's only a term -- we just need to stipulate how we'll use it. Then we can indeed talk about our shared world, and if it turns out that our way of using the term isn't as perspicuous as we wanted it to be, we can revise. — J

When someone says that "world" is going to mean different things for different people then you're saying that all qualifiers for "world" are up for debate, including "shared". You could be a solipsist for all I know.

Terms are not really the issue. It is what we are referring to with those words that is the issue. We might use different terms to refer to the same thing, or maybe the boundaries of our terms might overlap in some way. So what if I were to define the world as everything that was, is and will be?

I'm not sure if this line of questioning is going to be useful. Suffice to say, I am a monist and a determinist, so am going to view the world as seamless where there are no "physical" boundaries with the mental. Causes and reasons are the same thing from different views. One monist might say everything is physical. Another might say that everything is mental, or ideas. I like to try to merge the best of the two together and say that everything is information. The world consists of deterministic causal relations - information.

It's not just a matter of having access to information. It's also a matter of who to trust. I chose to trust a qualified and experienced psychiatrist over my parents because I thought that was the right thing to do. I can't even come off the 600 mg of Quetiapine XL I take per night because my brain has become dependent on this medication, and I can't function without it. I am depressed even though I take such a high dose. — Truth Seeker

Getting a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc opinion would also qualify as getting more information before making a decision. I always try to find natural remedies first and will seek alternate opinions if the first doctors are recommending pharmaceuticals or surgery first. They should always be a last resort. And another suggestion, children should listen to their parents more. Parents are not the ignorant, out of touch people that the media portrays to teens. Parents' motives are not typically related to money where a doctor's can be.

I meant whether my nonexistence would have been better for me, compared to the life I have lived so far, which has been mostly suffering. Also, my nonexistence would have prevented all of my negative and positive impacts on others and the world e.g. ecological footprint. I am a Vegan, Egalitarian, Sentientist. — Truth Seeker

That is an unanswerable question, and best not to waste time contemplating it as it would just make your depression worse. There is always someone or some animal that is suffering more. It would be more productive to focus on ways to improve your life than to focus on things you have no control over or can never hope to answer.

Not all of philosophy is contained in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. — boethius

All of philosophy is contained in language which Merriam-Webster provides guidance for using.

Furthermore, a dictionary's goal is to list the most common uses of a word, and not many, if any, meanings specific to a tradecraft or discipline. — boethius

Sure, you can use symbols arbitrarily for your own private use, but if you intend on sharing your ideas, then you might consider using words in ways that others are using them (the common use vs your own private use). It would be like you trying to talk to someone else in a different language.

Not only that, but your definitions need to integrate well with the other words we use that are defined in the dictionary, or you do you never use any words as they are defined in a dictionary?

2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. — Google citing Oxford Languages

Sounds more like Libertarianism, not socialism. Libertarianism is for limited government that does not intrude on personal choices to voluntarily cooperate with other individuals while socialism/communism is for a more robust government that insists on imposing itself within and dictate every personal cooperative agreement. This is what I mean in that if you want to use a word differently it needs to integrate well with the way we use other related words, or else you'll find yourself redefining all words and creating your own language.

Also an important caveat, property in this context is the means of production — boethius

And where does production occur if not within a territory you have to own to then say that you own the means of production within that territory? Why isn't the means of production shared with other societies? Because the means of production occurred within a certain territory and not another.

Not everyone can have the latest iPhone. In a socialist society, who gets the latest iPhone?

Do you think it's the case that, in our everyday talk, no one would find a meaningful difference between what caused the broken window, and the reason why the window broke? — J

I'm not sure. This is the first time I'm asking this question of anyone, including myself. It does appear to be the case given how they are using the terms. I would have to ask that if they do mean something different, what exactly is it that is different.

What I have in mind is that reasons generally are broader, and to ask an interesting
question about reasons is often to require an answer that talks about more than some efficient cause like a tree limb. — J

I don't know. It seems to depend on what we are talking about. It seems to me that we can give specific reasons or broader reasons as to why some state-of-affairs is the case, and those reasons correspond to the causes as to why some state-of-affairs is the case. We could talk about more broader causes of the tree limb breaking in the tree had to grow to a certain height to have one of its branches break the window, another tree had to begat the tree near the window, all the way down to the Big Bang, or we could talk about the more immediate (specific) cause/reason as to why the window is broken - a tree limb broke and hit the window.

(And my personal view is that any talk of "the world" is going to be a matter of stipulation, as there is no agreement on how to use such a term.) — J

If you don't agree that the world is something we share, then I don't know how to talk to you about anything and we would just talk past each other all the time. Do you think that we are always talking past each other when talking about the shared world?

Well, mostly anarchists and communists are both communists — boethius

Then why do so many people on this forum conflate anarchy with libertarianism - as in do whatever you want?

Anarchy:
absence of government
b
: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
the city's descent into anarchy
c
: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without [any] government [including socialist governments]
2
a
: absence or denial of any authority or established order
anarchy prevailed in the war zone
b
: absence of order — Merriam Webster

It must be that the are using anarchy as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, not as defined in your "Marxist Dictionary".

the end goal is the same of living in equal and vibrant communities without private property. — boethius

You're leaving out the part where the socialist goal is for the state to be the only owner of property - privately owned and not shared with the rest of the world. Government property isn't much different than private property in that the government still has to defend it by force.

This happens because I am haunted by previous errors. If I had known how things would turn out, I would have chosen differently. — Truth Seeker

Exactly. If you had access to more information you would have chosen differently. So the question is, could it have been at all possible for you to have that information when making your decision? If not, then you can't blame yourself. You made the best possible decision given the information you had at that moment. Now, we could talk about who might be to blame, if anyone, for your limited access to information (and it could be you that is to blame if you chose to live in a bubble) that would have allowed you to make a more informed decision, but that is a different topic.

Wouldn't it have been better if I had never existed at all? — Truth Seeker

Only if you were Caligula, Hitler or Stalin. But even then, every human is an example of the variety humans come in and permits us to bear witness the scope of human experience and existence that exists.

That's why I mentioned what happens at a stop sign. What caused us to stop? Is what caused us to stop the same as the reason why we stopped?

A broken tree limb caused the broken window. The broken tree limb was the reason the window is broken. What's the difference?

I think the stop sign example is better because the process crosses those "physical" boundaries into the mental. The tree limb breaking the window does not include a mind in the process like the stopping at a stop sign does.

Is our reasoning merely representing the causal process? If we assert there are causal process in the world, why would that not be applied to our minds being that our minds are part of the world? If we were omniscient, we could predict every effect of every cause, and that would include the causes of others' behaviors - the reasons they use to act certain ways.

The plan was to approach the problem of relativism in a particular way, by acknowledging that you are already relying on some particular worldview (etc) when you face the question of whether some other worldview is "acceptable" or in some other way good. It's not like going shopping for something you don't have yet. (Hence the usefulness of the metaphor of where you live, since you must already live somewhere — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know. We are all born solipsists. When we reach 8-12 months of age we convert to realism by acquiring object permanence. Was realism and the idea of other minds a position the toddler already had, or did it just make more sense to the toddler that their mother (other minds) still exists when they are not seen or heard after interacting with the world over the past 8-12 months?

The sorts of issues I wanted to raise seem obvious to me: you've got a worldview, and presumably it provides the framework within which you will evaluate alternative worldviews ― smart money is on finding that you've already got the best one and the others are crap. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know. If you start evaluating other worldviews are you not expressing some dissatisfaction with the one you currently have? Once you start evaluating other worldviews, can you say you are in a state of actually having one?

It's extraordinary to have someone use the internet to deny that the world is coherent and predictable. — Banno

It's extraordinary to claim that the world is coherent and predictable yet we all fail to come to a common understanding of what the world is, how it came to be, what our purpose is (or even if there there is one), what is moral, what is real, what is truth, what language is, etc.

Maybe the world is coherent and predictable to me and those that disagree with the way I interpret simply don't have the intellect to grasp the way I interpret it.

If the world is so coherent and predictable then why do you assert that so many people on this forum are wrong in the way they are interpreting their experiences of the world? Why don't you agree with me 100% of the time?

But reasoning is not a logical rule. — Quk

Reasoning is using reasons to support a conclusion - logic.

Is this a partial answer to the above questions? Do reasons determine a conclusion in the same way that a physical cause determines an effect? Not trying to back you into that position, just intrigued whether you do see them as the same. — J

What does "physical" mean? Your question seems to stem from a dualist perspective in that somehow mental processes not part of the "physical" world, or are somehow distinct from "physical" processes. Its all process. I don't see "physical" as a useful distinction when a process can encompass both physical and mental - like participating in a philosophical discussion on an internet forum. Reading involves the process of looking at the scribbles on your computer screen (what you might call a physical object) and processing the input to produce a valid response by typing on your keyboard and clicking the submit button.

What caused you to look at your computer screen? What caused you to interpret the scribbles on the screen the way you did? What caused your response to appear on others' computer screens? It seems to me that there was a whole lot of causation crossing "physical" boundaries here, appearing to be without any regard to "physical" things. Is the term even necessary?

Don't we point to "physical" states of affairs as reasons to act certain ways? For instance, when you see a Stop sign, is that not the reason you stop? A stop sign is a "physical" object that somehow becomes a mental construct - a reason - to perform an action - to stop. Why did you stop? Because there was a stop sign. You might also run into the stop sign and stop by the stop sign impeding your movement forward. Was the stop sign the reason you stopped in both cases?

If this is going somewhere, please dispense with Socratic questions and get to the point. On the other hand, if you have no clue, as you seem to imply, then go and have a good think, and get back to us when you have something to even start a conversation. I am not interested in watching you stumble in the dark. — SophistiCat

"Socratic questioning is a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions. Socratic questioning is based on the foundation that thinking has structured logic, and allows underlying thoughts to be questioned. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that the former is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems."
-Wikipedia.

Your somewhat literal interpretation might miss the point that what a city is like is dependent on what one chooses to do in that city. — Banno

Is there a difference between what something is like and what something is?

Why do you think that? The problem is that the "contextualists" presumably do not see their position as precluding realism. — Leontiskos

Is the framework that supports the realism of other minds and their contents context-de/independent?

So now we are asking, "Are there [paradigm/framework/worldview/evidence regime/language game/scheme]-independent standards?" — Leontiskos

Talk about "language on holiday".

It seems to me that you're simply asking if realism is the case. Is it?

It seems to me, although I am not certain, that logic requires higher mind functions and perhaps self-awareness. I'd say rather that animals think and behave effectively. — T Clark

Sure. I can agree with that. It depends on how we're defining "logic". If I were defining "logic" in more broad terms, I would say that it is a means of processing inputs to produce accurate/useful outputs, and all brains (and computers) do that.

Many animals have much more complex and intelligent behaviors than that. I think, although again I don't have specific knowledge, moths aren't attracted to the moon but to a bright light against a dark background. This is, I assume, a genetically encoded instinct and is not learned. That's not logic or even logical. — T Clark

As I said, the moth's behavior only appears illogical because we can distinguish the difference between the porch light and the Moon. So of course many animals are capable of more complex behaviors because they can make finer distinctions thanks to their larger, more complex brain.

Moths use the Moon to navigate. They use the distant light source to keep an angle that allows them to fly straight. If you were to take the position of the Moth, having evolved in an environment where there were no porch lights, this method works, and would continue to work until the Moon ceases to exist as a light source. If we were living in a time before there were porch lights and observed the moth's behavior, it would appear completely and utterly logical. The environment changed and now the method is not as useful as it once was. We can tell the difference, but the moth cannot. It was designed to handle a different problem, or handle different input.

humans are exponentially more complex in the way they perceive and behave in the world than the other animals.
— Harry Hindu

This is just not true. — T Clark

Please, explain why it isn't. What other animals are aware of their own extinction and have the power to do something about it?

It's clear, at least to me, that organisms without brains have had a much greater impact on the environment than those with them. This is from Wikipedia: — T Clark

Environmental scientists are saying that we're doing the same thing - modifying the atmosphere on a global scale. We even have theories of how to do it on Mars.

Is this right? Or is it sufficient that we be able to treat things as distinct entities?

Couldn't this be mistaking method for ontology? Mistaking what we do for how things are?

So again, I'm far form convinced that you are not presuming your conclusion. — Banno

It depends on the goal. Sometimes it is useful to treat things as distinct entities. Sometimes it isn't.

If treating entities one way or the other produces useful results in that you are able to realize your goal, then there must be some semblance of truth to the way we are treating it. Can there be distinct entities that form relations between other distinct entities? Yes. You just have to ensure you're not conflating the relation with the distinct entity when you're trying to solve a problem or achieve some goal.

Having goals is the reason we categorize and organize reality into labeled boxes, and we can store boxes within larger boxes. Each box is a tool for solving a problem.

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case?
— Harry Hindu

There are many things without which you cannot perform logic - breathable atmosphere, for example. What's the point of this and the rest of your questions?

Again, there doesn't seem to be a clear direction of inquiry here - just random things being thrown out. — SophistiCat

You're trying to finish the race before starting it. Most people on this forum, once they realize the direction of inquiry, start to dance around the issue. Does a newborn baby have a direction of inquiry when trying to understand and make sense of what its senses are telling it? Don't worry about the direction of inquiry right now and just answer the questions as posed. If there is a problem with the question or you need some definitions for the words in the question, just say so.

Your answer to my quoted question seems to imply that a breathable atmosphere is required to to perform logic. While that wasn't my question it does show that determinism and causation are required - that there are certain circumstances that have to exist prior to other circumstances existing.

My question was more about the logical process itself, not what preceded its existence.

Reasoning takes time. It is a process. As such it is causal.

You provide a reason for your conclusions. Your reasons determine your conclusion. Your premises determine the validity of the conclusion. As such it is deterministic.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power?
— Harry Hindu

Has any of these humans made it into the sky using their own wings?

Your anthropocentrism is using the method of cherry picking. And your conclusions are naturalistic fallacies. — Quk

Your response does not address what I said. Read what I said and respond appropriately.

Humans have made their own wings. Has any other animals designed complex machinery that adds functionality to the human body? Have other organisms designed other body parts to replace failing ones using their brains? Sure lizards can regrow tails, but that is a biological function, not a logical one. I did say that the brain is the logical organ. Your legs, hands and mouth are not logical organs. They are driven by your logical organ.

I'm not saying that humans are special. I'm saying that they are different in respect to their brains and how they use them. This is not an anthropocentric stance. It is merely an observation.

Humans are the only ones at this moment that stand a chance of saving themselves from extinction from dangers that the other animals aren't even aware of - asteroid impacts, black holes, the sun expanding and consuming the Earth, human activity destroying the environment, etc.

I guess I confused things when I wrote "just as much." I didn't mean sentient animal's minds and behaviors are as complex as human's. I meant their minds, their intelligence, are just as big a part of their nature. Animals are capable of using their minds to make images, remember, communicate, create abstractions, and solve problems, obviously, some more than others. — T Clark

Then we agree that animals think and behave logically given the way they are designed and the sensory information they receive as inputs, just as I explained with my example with the moth.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power?
— Harry Hindu

You, or rather Jacob Brownoski, wrote "he is not a figure in the landscape—he is a shaper of the landscape." I responded that animals shape the landscape too, some with their brains some not. What does that have to do with going to the moon? — T Clark

Again we are talking about degrees of complexity where humans are exponentially more complex in the way they perceive and behave in the world than the other animals. They all use their brains to shape the landscape. Name an animal that can shape the landscape without a brain, or that when shaping the landscape they are not using their senses and brain. For what reason are they shaping the landscape? How do they know when to stop shaping the landscape?

Causation was not thought to be a law of logic, even in Hume's time. Aristotle, whose doctrines on both these subjects were predominant in Western philosophy, certainly didn't present it in that way. While Hume's analysis sharpened and clarified the distinction, he wasn't breaking any new ground with this observation. It was rather his austere empiricist take on causality that distinguished his view, but that is about more than simply noting that there is no logical contradiction in denying any particular instance of causation. — SophistiCat

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case? What is logic? What does it mean for a conclusion to "logically follow" from the premises? Is reasoning a causal process?

Sure, but the fact that some particular process led to man's desire for truth as such doesn't preclude the fact that man can now desire truth for its own sake. That is, man can seek truth for the sake of truth and not for the sake of evolutionary advantage. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I doubt we seek truth for the sake of seeking truth. We seek truth to acquire some kind of advantage (knowledge) about how to improve our lives to some degree. But that doesn't mean we don't acquire knowledge that does not have a direct effect on our survival. We do.

Like I said, survival is the best incentive to get your perceptions about the world right, and that may require that we pick up things that don't have a direct impact on our survival. Understanding that there are other planets that we can colonize to improve the chances of humanity avoiding extinction is one thing, but understanding how to do it another thing. You'll need to know about all the physics that goes into designing a rocket ship to accomplish it, which is in itself not knowledge that has a direct impact on our survival.

Yes. His defense of free speech argues that soundwaves do not cause the hairs in the inner ear to convert mechanical energy into electrical signals. I have only been trying to explain that this interpretation of causation is false, and so his defense of free speech fails. — Michael

Personally, I don't care.

I'll interpret the lack of any rebuttal on your part to everything else I said regarding free speech as an agreement with what I said about free speech.

This also speaks to our curiosity. We always want to know what is over the horizon. We are natural explorers. It is in our nature to see the world more openly - to seek out new worlds and new civilizations - to boldly go where no man has gone before, because you never know what part of reality might be useful for something

Or simply because "men by nature desire to know," or because they desire the glory of achieving the difficult. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"By nature" meaning that they were naturally selected to be curious because being curious allows one to be open to new solutions to existing problems.

Going back to the quote from James, humans are just as instinctual as other animals and sentient animals learn from experience just as much as humans. Animals also adapt their behavior in real-time in dynamic environments. That is the whole point of the quote. — T Clark

All you need to do is make some basic observations of animal behavior to realize that this is not true. To say that other animals are "just as" humans simply does not fit our observations. Humans are obviously capable of much more complex behaviors than other animals.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that humans are the only logical organisms. A brain is a logical organ. It receives inputs and processes them to produce meaningful behaviors. Instincts are logical processes. Natural selection is a logical process. By "logical", I mean that it is causal and deterministic - similar causes lead to similar effects. Similar inputs can lead to similar behaviors. The issue is that any logical process is limited by the type of input it receives and the type of process that handles the input. There are different logical process meant to handle specific input. If you try to enter the wrong input into a logical system that was not designed to handle that input, you will get logical errors. Junk goes in, junk comes out.

A moth that flies around your porch light is mistaking the porch light for the Moon. It is only behaving illogically from our perspective because we can distinguish the difference between a porch light and the Moon. The moth, however, is doing what it was designed to with the information it was designed to perceive. It does not adapt it's behavior in real-time. It flies around the porch light until it dies of exhaustion.

Animals; and plants, fungi, bacteria and all other living organisms for that matter; shape the landscape. Beavers build dams that create lakes that provide habitat for fish that provide food for eagles. Grasses prevent erosion and create prairies. They are are also explorers of nature and have migrated to every continent. — T Clark

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power? If what you say is true, we wouldn't be able to distinguish between humans and other species. There is an obvious exponential difference in scope.

Again, the point is the logical one, that we can say of a statement that it is true, and we can say that it is false, and thirdly sometimes we can say that we don't know it's truth value, and that doing so does not, as your statement quoted above implies, lead immediately to "anything goes". — Banno

It depends on what you're talking about. When you are ignorant of the facts, it certainly does appear that "anything goes", or "anything is possible". That is what probability and randomness are - projections of our ignorance. While probabilities seem to narrow down the list of possible truths, randomness seems to imply that anything goes. A probability is probable, but all probabilities are possible.

Well, yes. If your commander gives an order, you are thereby under an obligation, even if you do not follow that order. — Banno

The obligation is created when you signed up for the military - obligating you to follow your commander's intentions - not when the commander speaks. The commander is just informing you of his intentions.

That's right. When I say "Hello" to someone walking towards me on the mountain path, I'm not informing them that we intend to start a conversation. I'm too focused on getting up the mountain and don't really want a chat. — Banno

Now you're moving the goalposts. In the situation where one says, "Hello" to strike up a conversation, what I said still holds.

I can say, "Hello!" when it appears that someone does not hear or understand what I'm saying - to get their attention. Your example appears to be one where you simply want someone to acknowledge your existence and you theirs.

Yes. We say "They ignored my greeting". — Banno

In other words, they did not want to converse with you or acknowledge your existence.

Are you saying all behaviour must be explained algorithmically? I won't agree. — Banno

I wasn't saying anything. I was asking if there are reasons to get married or scratch your nose.

This was written more than 100 years ago, but it is consistent with other things I have read that are more recent. — T Clark

I would prefer that you provide links to those other things because the language used in your quote is unwieldy.

Instincts are useful or else they would not have been selected. They are like a general purpose tool for handling a variety of situations or situations that rarely change. Conscious behavior allows an organism to adapt one's behavior in real-time in dynamic environments. This is why humans have been able to spread into all sorts of environments, including space.

"Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which make him unique among the animals: so that, unlike them, he is not a figure in the landscape—he is a shaper of the landscape. In body and in mind he is the explorer of nature, the ubiquitous animal, who did not find but has made his home in every continent."
Jacob Bronowski

This also speaks to our curiosity. We always want to know what is over the horizon. We are natural explorers. It is in our nature to see the world more openly - to seek out new worlds and new civilizations - to boldly go where no man has gone before, because you never know what part of reality might be useful for something.

Whose goals are being realized - yours or the hacker's?
— Harry Hindu

The hacker's. — Michael

Now, who should be arrested for what Siri does?

No, I don't. I'm not yet addressing that, because NOS4A2 can't even accept that sounds can cause the ears to send an electrical signal to the brain. He can't even accept that sounds can cause the lights to turn on. — Michael

He has accepted that but you keep dancing around the issue with your over simplistic assertions.

Then the hacker is at fault for what Siri does, and not you - the speaker. In other words, your own example can be used to show what I am trying to show you - that there are other, more immediate intervening causes to one's behavior than the sounds that enter one's ear and send signals to the brain.

I am simply responding to this claim made by NOS4A2:

So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.

His claim is false. I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands. — Michael

Then what you're saying is that you and NOS4A2 have gone off-topic arguing about the validity of eliminative materialism.

I, however, am focused on the topic at hand - Free Speech and who is culpable for the actions of an individual - someone that makes sounds with their mouth, or the one that decides what to do when hearing those sounds. The validity of eliminative materialism is irrelevant to the topic and does not need to be settled to settle the issue of who is culpable for one's actions.

I have shown that there is a more immediate cause to a behavior than your voice that explains why there are different responses to hearing the same sound, and does not contradict the fact that speech is part of the causal sequence that preceded one's actions - but so is their mother giving birth to them, and the Big Bang.

We award and punish people based on their actions, not the actions of another because what other people do is not the FINAL cause of one's actions. It is your decision about what to do when you hear certain words or see others behaving a certain way and allow the mob's behavior influence your own into committing immoral acts.

I have also equated freedom to full access to all information. In a society that has a free press with various points of view, everyone has access to most information so if you choose to listen to only one view, and are then influenced by others that share that view to commit violence against others because you've closed yourself off from the information that would show what was being said is false - that is your fault because that was your decision to live in a bubble.

Now, if we do not live in a free society and live under a government that suppresses information and runs the media then we have no freedom of thought or speech anyway and have no way to argue against what some authority is saying and would be easily influenced by their speech.

Then saying "Siri, open the blinds" will cause the doors to open. — Michael

Whose goals are being realized - yours or the hacker's? Who had more control over what happens when you say, "Siri, open the blinds." You or the hacker?

The "reliable" outcome is that my speech will cause the listener's ears to send an electrical signal to their brain (unless they're deaf). This is where NOS4A2 disagrees, and is the extent of my argument with him (notwithstanding the corollary debate on the nature of free will).

Again, you seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. What do you think I'm saying? — Michael

I'm not sure. I'm still trying to figure that out.

You can talk about what happens between the listener's ears and their brain, but what happens after that? You seem to be thinking that that is where the story ends, but it isn't. The sound of your voice enters everyone's ear within earshot and their ears all send signals to their brains, but some of them do not respond to your speech as you intended. That is what we are pointing to. You continue to point everywhere else (at strawmen).

Call x the determinate, and y the indeterminate, and z the mixture.
We live in, and are, z - a mixture in motion.
Because z is mixed with the indeterminate, z is more akin to x, the indeterminate. The indeterminate is the dominant gene, so to speak. The indeterminate poisons everything it touches turning determination into a best guess. — Fire Ologist

Exactly. Once you declare that there is some aspect of the universe that is random, or indeterminate, then you've create a dualistic problem of trying to explain why there are so many things that are determined.

It seems to me that mixing the determinate and the indeterminate would be like "mixing" water and oil. Or, that the indeterminate is a projection of one's ignorance and trying to use the indeterminate as a tool to understand a deterministic universe would create the problems you cite. Dualism just causes more problems than it solves.

Sure.

But that's not all there is going on here. A command also creates of an obligation, a question seeks a reply. That's more than just a transfer of data. — Banno

You seem to be conflating intent with the intended outcome. You can intend to create an obligation for someone to stop when you say, "Stop!" but when they don't did you actually create an obligation? Could you even say that you conveyed any information? Maybe you did and the listener heard you clearly and understands what you want them to do, but the other is under no obligation - ever - to respond in the way you intend. You might need to convey more information, like holding a gun to their head, for them to respond as you intend. The same goes for intending to receive a reply. Just look at many of the conversations on this forum where someone asks a question that is ignored or answered in a way that the questioner did not intend. In these cases, there was an intent, and information was conveyed, but no obligation was created and no reply was received, so how can you say that an obligation was created when one wasn't?

"hello". It doesn't name a greeting, it is a greeting. And I know you will object to this, saying it names an intent to greet or some such. But it doesn't name an intent to greet. It greets. — Banno

I've addressed this one with you before, but your response was that you simply didn't like what I was saying.

Would you consider, "Hello" informative? Are you informed of something when someone says, "Hello"? If you are, then what is it that you are informed of? What does it refer to? — Harry Hindu

["Hello"] is a scribble or sound used to point to the start of communication, similar to how computers establish "handshakes" with each other across a network before they actually begin the transfer of data over the network. When the computers are finished with transferring data, they close the connection in a way that is similar to saying "goodbye". These sounds/scribbles that we make are pointing to the opening and closing of an exchange of information. — Harry Hindu

They are informing the other that we intend to start a conversation (exchanging information) with them and when we intend to stop exchanging information.

"Hello" greets except when it doesn't. If you say, "Hello" to someone and they ignore you, did you greet them? If the other refuses to participate in the "game" do you have a "game"?

Marriage? Scratching your nose? — Banno

Are you saying that you don't have reasons to get married or scratch your nose?

Where did logic come from? Natural selection.

Yes, but this presupposes something prior that determined human logic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Like that the universe is causal and deterministic? Yes. Could a mind evolve in any other type of world?

This is what Konrad Lorenz had to say:

This is the basis of our conviction that whatever our cognitive faculty communicates to us corresponds to something real. The 'spectacles' of our modes of thought and perception, such as causality, substance, quality, time and place, are functions of a neurosensory organization that has evolved in the service of survival. When we look through these 'spectacles', therefore, we do not see, as transcendental idealists assume, some unpredictable distortion of reality which does not correspond in the least with things as they really are, and therefore cannot be regarded as an image of the outer world. What we experience is indeed a real image of reality - albeit an extremely simple one, only just sufficing for our own practical purposes; we have developed 'organs' only for those aspects of reality of which, in the interest of survival, it was imperative for our species to take account, so that selection pressure produced this particular cognitive apparatus...what little our sense organs and nervous system have permitted us to learn has proved its value over endless years of experience, and we may trust it. as far as it goes. For we must assume that reality also has many other aspects which are not vital for us.... to know, and for which we have no 'organ', because we have not been compelled in the course of our evolution to develop means of adapting to them.
— Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror — T Clark

My response is that survival is the best incentive for getting your perceptions right about the world, and to be open to new information that might be useful because you never know what part of reality might be useful to promote one's survival. That is the direction evolution seems to be headed from instinctive, hard-coded behavioral responses to general stimuli to conscious minds capable of making finer distinctions and therefore finer behavioral responses as well being able to change one's behavior based on new sensory information effectively overriding those instinctive behaviors when they are not the best response in a given situation. We can change our behavior in almost real-time compared to instinctive behaviors which can take generations to change.

It’s turned off or broken.

Much like sometimes when I flick the light switch the light doesn’t turn on, perhaps because of faulty wiring or a power cut. But it’s still the case that I can and do often cause the light to turn on by flicking the switch.

What is so difficult to understand about this? You seem to think I’m saying something I’m not and I don’t know what that is. — Michael

There are many other possible causes. What if a hacker hacked your home network and now Siri unlocks your doors instead of opening the blinds? Who would you call to fix the issue - a linguist, a political scientist, an electrician, or an information technology expert?

It is only the case that you often do cause the light to turn on by flicking the switch because the intervening technology is reliable - far more reliable than your speech's effect on other people. So how do you explain the discrepancy between the reliable outcome of your light turning on vs the unreliable outcomes of your speech?

It's false. I can open the blinds by saying "Siri, open the blinds." — Michael

But sometimes Siri does not open the blinds. How do you explain that and wouldn't that mean there's a more immediate cause of the blinds opening or not rather than just your voice saying "Siri, open the blinds".

You sometimes appear to accept that speech can causally influence machines and sometimes you don’t — Michael

There is nothing contradictory about this. In fact, this is the actual point that we are making - that some people can be influenced (but not directly caused) by speech and some aren't. We are simply trying to ask you why there is a distinction, and since there is a distinction then maybe one's speech is not the immediate cause of another's actions, but can be a contributor, but that is only determined after the speech is made, but before the behavioral response.

I have showed that people are influenced by another's false speech when they do not have access to the information that would prevent them from acting on the faulty information. Whose fault is it that a person lacks the necessary information to make informed decisions? Did the person make deliberate choices about which sources they receive information from and exclude others (living in a bubble), or is it the media that controls our access to information's fault? So there seems to be a more immediate cause to one's actions and that is their access to relevant information that would either reject or accept what is currently being said and the culpability would be laid at the feet of either the media itself or at your own feet as the sources of information you have chosen to listen to or not. Isn't this why it is illegal to groom a child - because a child has not had enough life experiences (access to relevant information) to reject what the groomer is saying? The child would be innocently ignorant. An adult living in a bubble could be living in a bubble of their own making.

Thanks, ↪Harry Hindu. I was writing a longish response, only to have it deleted whiel refreshing multiple windows. Bugger. — Banno

Yikes. I hate it when that happens.

It was a list of the various points you made, and how I agreed or disagreed. The upshot was that I pretty much agreed with all you said, except for a few thigns.

Not everything we do with words is communication, if communication is understood as the transfer of information. We also command, ask, promise, and so on. To be clear, I do not see how these can be reduced to just the transfer of information, and also, if they were, it would be very inefficient to talk about them in those terms. — Banno

Commanding and asking are conveying information about one's intent. When someone yells, "Stop!" what they are doing is conveying information about their intent. What they are actually saying is, "I want you to stop!", and "Stop!" is really just shorthand for saying "I want you to stop!". We could just say, "I want you to stop!", or we could just say, "Stop!" (they mean the same thing), and let the other things in our immediate environment speak for us (context), like your hand signals or you reaching out to physically stop the person from stepping into a hole and breaking their ankle. Like I said, scribbles and sounds are just one of many things we use to represent what it is we intend to convey. Its just that scribbles and sounds are what are more commonly used as they are readily available.

If the person did not stop, then how can you say you used the word, "Stop!"? How can you say that it refers to the person stopping. You can't. This is why the command doesn't point to the actions of another, but to your intent to change the actions of another. We can convey our intentions, but that does not mean we always get what we intend.

Information is conveyed even beyond what was said. By looking at someone's writing and listening to them speak information about which languages they can speak and their level of understanding of the language they are using are also conveyed. Those things are just irrelevant to what the speaker is saying, but could be relevant in other situations.

Promises and apologies are conveying information about one's intent, or to solicit help in the future. To promise someone something is to convey that in the future they would provide assistance to another. It is a way of reinforcing social bonds. Apologies are saying, "Please don't socially exclude me for my mistake as it will not happen again, and I intend to correct the wrong." That is a mouthful no doubt, but that is why we can rely on other things to participate in conveying what we mean more efficiently.

And not every word is either a noun or a helper word. — Banno

Examples?

Generally, it seems to me that you are setting out much the same sort of approach as is found in the Tractatus, an approach that needs to be superseded for the same reasons that that book was superseded by the Investigations — Banno

And why wouldn't the Investigations not need to be superseded? Isn't his "language on holiday" from the Investigations? I've been using this to support what is found in the Tractatus in that language is on a holiday when we don't use words as they were intended - to convey something about the world, which includes your intentions. Anything else is just an artful use of scribbles and sounds.

I dunno, the aporetic dialogues of Plato seem quite useful. But we may be saying the same thing -- that aporia is an invitation to reconsider. My idea is that the reconsidering is a lot more radical than looking for a "bug" in the logic, because I think aporia is often a sign that we've set the whole problem up incorrectly.
— J
Which is the same as saying that the program was written incorrectly and/or is handling input that is was not designed to handle. — Harry Hindu

Or, perhaps, the solution is not algorithmic. — Banno

I would need an real-world example of a "solution" that was reached without an algorithm.

I would just like to point out the reason we frequently ask for each other's definitions here, on a philosophy forum, is because when someone does not use a word how it is commonly used, or does not align with any of the multiple definitions the word might have, we are asking for the user's private definition.

Once we learn how each other are using the scribble, we can communicate with an understanding of each other's uses and translate to our own use. We could continue doing this without having a shared, or common, use. The problem is that it is very inefficient when communicating with multiple people every day. We would have to learn every individual's private use to translate to our own. It's much easier to learn one common language rather than millions of private languages. That is why we have a common usage, but can get by by understanding another's private use if we needed to. It would be like two people that speak their native language and the foreign language of the other. They could both communicate by speaking the other's native language without ever using their own native language, or a common language.