The inverted spectrum problem is still alive and well. No brain scans or neural activity measurements will ever convince me that your experience of red is the same as mine. — RogueAI

Strictly speaking the inverted spectrum problem doesn’t even require qualia. Even if colour experiences are reducible to particular neural activity it is possible that the same wavelength of light triggers different neural activity in different people such that the neural activity that I describe as “seeing blue” is the same as the neural activity that you describe as “seeing red”.

So what they actually did was measure the neural correlates of colour experience.

Human beings are organic, living, beings that have the capacity to move, think, and act, among many other activities. Radio receivers cannot do any of the above and have no such capacities. Humans use their environment to sense while radio receivers cannot. — NOS4A2

I'm not asking you to compare radio receivers to humans; I'm asking you to compare radio receivers to sense organs. Why is it that I can be said to cause a radio receiver to send an electrical signal to the catalyst but I can't be said to cause a sense organ to send an electrical signal to the brain?

But if you want to compare humans to something then let's compare them to robots or Venus flytraps. Why is it that I can be said to causally influence the behaviour of robots and Venus flytraps but not humans? They move and act, and in the case of Venus flytraps are living, organic beings. Or will you say that I can't causally influence the behaviour of robots and Venus flytraps?

As for your reference to thinking, recall here where you said "when considering the human body, its activities, and what it expresses, nothing called a 'thought' can be found there." Are you now abandoning eliminative materialism in favour of folk psychology?

An agent is a general term in philosophy of mind denoting “a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment”. — NOS4A2

Everything has the capacity to act and influence the environment. Unless you mean something specific by "act" that applies only to humans and not also to insects, plants, bacteria, and volcanos? Then what is this specific sense of "act"?

Your link mentions "intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states and events", but once again such terms like "intentionality" and "mental states" are things that you have previously rejected. Are you now endorsing something like interactionist dualism?

All you can do is use agency in your analogies, then remove it when it comes to your physics, or when it’s otherwise convenient. — NOS4A2

You are the one who introduced the term "agency". I have only ever been addressing the physics. I can cause someone to turn around, the fly can cause the Venus flytrap to close its jaws, and the drought can cause a famine.

I said we are different, and that is the difference. — Harry Hindu

Different in what relevant way? A plant is different to a computer, but that would be an insufficient justification to simply assert that the behaviour of plants is not causally influenced by external stimuli. You need to actually flesh out what human organisms have that other things don’t that allows us to (uniquely?) defy determinism.

You're not answering the question.

What's the relevant difference between a radio receiver and a sense organ such that I can be said to be the cause of what happens after the radio receiver converts radio waves into electrical signals but cannot be said to be the cause of what happens after a sense organ converts sound waves into electrical signals?

You can't just assert that they're different without explaining what that difference is and why that difference makes a difference to the topic at hand (e.g. it's not enough to just say that the ear is organic and the radio receiver isn't).

You bring up the term “agent”, but what does that mean? If I say that the drought caused the famine am I putting the drought in the role of “agent”?

Your language reeks of folk psychology, which I thought you were against? We should only be addressing the physics of the matter, so commit to it. And when addressing the physics of the matter there is no good reason to believe that the human body’s response to sound waves is any different in principle to a bomb’s response to radio waves.

And on the example of the drought causing the famine, this once again shows that causal influence ought not be understood so reductively as only the immediate transfer of kinetic energy, as you try to do when misinterpreting what it means for speech to influence behaviour.

You should just accept that this approach you're taking to defend free speech is entirely misguided. You'd be better served arguing in favour of interactionist dualism and libertarian free will, or if that is a step too far then just that the causal influence speech has does not warrant legal restrictions.

I’ve stated this before but each one of your analogies invariably put the human being in the subject position as the agent of causation. — NOS4A2

It doesn't have to be a human. It could be that a rock fell onto the switch, in which case the rock caused the bomb to explode.

But you are not answering the question. You are the one who made these claims:

As an example, the hairs in the ear tranduce the mechanical stimulus of a sound wave of speech into a nerve impulse, as it does all sounds. The words do not transduce themselves. But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

...

Any and all responses of the body to outside stimulus are self-caused. You are causally responsible for transducing soundwaves into electrical signals, for example. Nothing can cause transduction but the biology. Nothing can send those signals to the brain but the biology. Nothing can cause you to understand the signals but the biology.

It's simply special pleading to claim that my biology "governs, controls, and thereby determines" transduction but that a bomb's machinery doesn't. Flesh, blood, and bone is in principle no different to metal.

So, once again, I can cause a bomb to explode by flicking a switch and I can cause someone to turn their head by shouting their name. All your talk about transduction and the kinetic energy of speech is utterly irrelevant. Whether man or machine, I can and do causally influence another entity's behaviour, as can other men and machines causally influence mine.

Bombs do not have the capacity to govern, control, and thereby determine their behavior. That’s why it is a false analogy. — NOS4A2

Sounds like folk psychology to me.

What's the relevant difference between a radio receiver and a sense organ such that I can be said to be the cause of what happens after the radio receiver converts radio waves into electrical signals but cannot be said to be the cause of what happens after a sense organ converts sound waves into electrical signals?

Remember, you are the one who made these claims:

As an example, the hairs in the ear tranduce the mechanical stimulus of a sound wave of speech into a nerve impulse, as it does all sounds. The words do not transduce themselves. But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

...

Any and all responses of the body to outside stimulus are self-caused. You are causally responsible for transducing soundwaves into electrical signals, for example. Nothing can cause transduction but the biology. Nothing can send those signals to the brain but the biology. Nothing can cause you to understand the signals but the biology.

It's simply special pleading to claim that my biology "governs, controls, and thereby determines" transduction but that a bomb's machinery doesn't.

You are simply incapable of being intellectually honest. — Harry Hindu

I am being honest. Determinism applies to human organisms just as it applies to every other physical object and system in the universe. We're not special in any relevant way.

You don’t believe a sensory receptor causes the transduction of the mechanical energy of a soundwave into electrical impulses? — NOS4A2

I do.

Just as I believe that the bomb's radio receiver causes the transduction of radio waves into electrical signals that trigger the catalyst.

But it's still the case that I caused the bomb to explode by flicking the switch. So, once again, you are engaging in non sequiturs.

So you think that the internal workings of a bomb are equivalent to the internal workings of the human brain? — Harry Hindu

In the sense that they both follow the same natural laws of cause and effect; yes. The human brain is just more complicated. It's not as if it contains some immaterial soul that is able to put a stop to one causal chain and then begin a completely independent one.

I'm tired of going in circles with you. — Harry Hindu

And I'm tired of you refusing to answer the question.

You claim that one's sex parts dictate which bathroom one should use. So how does your rule account for those who have had genital surgery?

Should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom?

This only requires a single word response: either "yes" or "no". Why is it so difficult for you?

Well, you set the bomb, put it in a place that would kill people, wired the whole thing up, flicked the switch, and so on. You didn’t just flick a switch. The way it is framed is misleading, as these false analogies often are. — NOS4A2

I did just flick the switch. Someone else planted the bomb. Not that it would matter either way. The point still stands that I caused the bomb to explode even though the bomb "operat[ed] its own movements and utiliz[ed] its own energy" and even though my bodily movement lacks the kinetic energy required to cause an explosion in isolation.

Which is precisely why all your talk about the kinetic energy of speech and the listener's body being responsible for transduction is a complete non sequitur.

The only thing that can explain the variation in behavior, why one person might be “incited” by a word and another will not, is the person himself. This necessarily includes his biology, but also his history, his education, and so on. For example, he must have first acquired language. He must understand what he is hearing. It’s the person, not the word, that fully determines, governs, and causes the response. — NOS4A2

And the bomb only explodes if it was built a certain way and contains the necessary catalyst, and so on. It's still the case that I caused it to explode by flicking the switch.

Unless you want to argue that human organisms are special in some way that allows them to defy the natural laws of cause and effect that govern every other physical object and system in the universe you're still engaging in non sequiturs.

No one is saying that isn't the case. — Harry Hindu

NOS4A2 absolutely is. He says such nonsense as:

Physically speaking, speech doesn't possess enough kinetic energy required to affect the world that the superstitious often claims it does. Speech, for instance, doesn't possess any more kinetic energy than any other articulated guttural sound. Writing doesn't possess any more energy than any other scratches or ink blots on paper. And so on. 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.

And:

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.

Which is exactly like arguing that I do not cause the bomb to explode because my finger lacks the necessary kinetic energy; that the bomb caused itself to explode by operating its own movements and utilizing its own energy.

It's beyond absurd.

Whether this is a will, whim, or some deep longing and extreme existential desire that we are horrible people for preventing, he has yet to answer. — Outlander

I addressed that earlier:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

It is widely agreed that core gender identity is firmly formed by age 3. At this point, children can make firm statements about their gender and tend to choose activities and toys which are considered appropriate for their gender (such as dolls and painting for girls, and tools and rough-housing for boys), although they do not yet fully understand the implications of gender. After age three, it is extremely difficult to change gender identity.

Martin and Ruble conceptualize this process of development as three stages: (1) as toddlers and pre-schoolers, children learn about defined characteristics, which are socialized aspects of gender; (2) around the ages of five to seven years, identity is consolidated and becomes rigid; (3) after this "peak of rigidity", fluidity returns and socially defined gender roles relax somewhat. Barbara Newmann breaks it down into four parts: (1) understanding the concept of gender, (2) learning gender role standards and stereotypes, (3) identifying with parents, and (4) forming gender preference.

...

Although the formation of gender identity is not completely understood, many factors have been suggested as influencing its development. In particular, the extent to which gender identity is determined by nurture (social environmental factors) versus biological factors (which may include non-social environmental factors) is at the core of the ongoing debate in psychology known as "nature versus nurture". There is increasing evidence that the brain is affected by the organizational role of hormones in utero, circulating sex hormones and the expression of certain genes.

Social factors which may influence gender identity include ideas regarding gender roles conveyed by family, authority figures, mass media, and other influential people in a child's life. The social learning theory posits that children furthermore develop their gender identity through observing and imitating gender-linked behaviors, and then being rewarded or punished for behaving that way, thus being shaped by the people surrounding them through trying to imitate and follow them.

Large-scale twin studies suggest that the development of both transgender and cisgender gender identities is due to genetic factors, with a small potential influence of unique environmental factors.

...

Some studies have investigated whether there is a link between biological variables and transgender or transsexual identity. Several studies have shown that sexually dimorphic brain structures in transsexuals are shifted away from what is associated with their birth sex and towards what is associated with their preferred sex. The volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of a stria terminalis or BSTc (a constituent of the basal ganglia of the brain which is affected by prenatal androgens) of transsexual women has been suggested to be similar to women's and unlike men's, but the relationship between BSTc volume and gender identity is still unclear. Similar brain structure differences have been noted between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women. Transsexuality has a genetic component.

Research suggests that the same hormones that promote the differentiation of sex organs in utero also elicit puberty and influence the development of gender identity. Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match the norm of their sex assigned at birth, and in acting and looking like their identified gender.

We went over this in our characteristics of sex. Artificial parts do not qualify as actual sex parts, just as a dildo does not qualify as a penis. A hole between one's legs that has be kept open with medical grade stents is not a vagina. — Harry Hindu

So you are saying that a transgender man who has had genital surgery should continue to the use the women's bathroom?

That's what I've been asking. Does having genital, or a double mastectomy change your sex, or your gender? Yes, or no? — Harry Hindu

You tell me. You're the one demanding that bathrooms be separated by sex. Is the transgender man who has had genital surgery a biological woman? Should he continue to use the women's bathroom?

If the social construct states that bathrooms are generally divided by sex, then you use the bathroom that corresponds with your sex. — Harry Hindu

So you are saying that a transgender man who has had genital surgery should continue to use the women's bathroom because his sex is female? Even though he has a surgically-constructed phallus?

The question was answered. — Harry Hindu

No it hasn't.

I want a "yes" or a "no", not a deflection.

Should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom?

And I said that to identify as a social construct is sexist. — Harry Hindu

No it's not. It's just a psychological reality.

Isn't this what I said before in equating trans-genderism to a delusion. Both trans-genderism and Christianity are forms of mass-delusion. So nice of you to finally get the point. — Harry Hindu

You're being too cavalier with your use of the term "delusion". Those who believe in Christianity do not suffer from a psychosis.

And you appear to have missed the point. I am not saying that gender is a belief-system like Christianity. I am providing an example of what it means to identify as belonging to a social construct because you seem to have so much difficulty understanding this.

I already did but you've been cherry-picking.

According to your definition of gender as a social construct, gender would be the agreement among members of a society that females use the women's bathroom and males use the men's bathroom. In other words, gender is an expectation, or an agreement, that the sexes, not gender, behave in a certain way. Gender would be the agreement - the social construct, and sex - the biological construct. So, I'm not sure that you really understand what a social construction is. To conflate the social construct with the biological construct would be sexism.

Which bathroom should a woman that had a double-mastectomy from cancer use? Did her sex change because she had a double mastectomy? Does having a double mastectomy change one's gender (society's expectation about which bathroom she uses)? No, so she uses the women's bathroom, but she can use the men's bathroom in certain situations, like when there is a long line at the women's bathroom or to assist her elderly father. — Harry Hindu

Should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom?

Instead of going round in a loop of disagreement I think it would be useful to get your understanding of why you think society and (most) women object to trans women in female spaces. — Malcolm Parry

I'm sure there are many reasons, just as I'm sure there are many reasons why most men in the UK object to trans men using the men's bathroom.

A better question to ask is; are there any good reasons to object to trans men using men's spaces and trans women using women's spaces? When it comes to something like sports, I think there are. But when it comes to something like toilets? I've already addressed the fact that if safety is our main concern then it's better to let trans men use the men's bathroom and trans women using the women's bathroom.

Also, what constitutes being a woman? — Malcolm Parry

Either having a female sex or having a female gender.

Having a female sex refers to having been born with some combination of an XX karyotype, ova-producing ovaries, a womb, breasts, and a vagina (admitting of the existence of intersex people that sometimes make such a classification tricky).

Having a female gender refers to identifying as belonging to the social and cultural group that is typically occupied by those with a female sex, and often feeling most comfortable in expressing oneself in a manner mostly consistent with this social and cultural group.

Is it incumbent on everyone else to fall into line with someone’s view of who they are? — Malcolm Parry

If you want to be a decent person, then yes. Otherwise you're just an ass.

All of this history and growth has much more to do with the response to a word than the shape of a sound wave. — NOS4A2

I agree. But you are making the absurd claim that a word's causal influence "ends" at the ear, and that is simply not how physics works.

You appear to understand this when we consider the bomb. I cause people to die by flicking a switch. It would be ridiculous to respond to this by claiming that I didn't cause people to die because the kinetic energy of my finger movement is insufficient to rip people's limbs apart, and that "my finger hitting the switch is the sole interaction it has with my body, and is therefore the only movement determined by it. That's the only 'causal influence' it can have. The rest is all produced, structured, controlled, directed, moved, by the detonator and the bomb."

And yet this is the nonsense reasoning that you resort to when considering speech and the human body.

Unless you want to argue that human organisms are special in some way such that they defy the natural laws of cause and effect that apply to every other physical object and system in the universe – e.g. by abandoning eliminative materialism and endorsing something like interactionist dualism – then you're simply talking rubbish.

By all means argue that any causal influence that words have is insufficient to entail moral responsibility – as I'm pretty sure I suggested you do many posts ago – but you need to let go of this attempt to argue that words have no causal influence at all on other people's behaviour.

I also said that women have used the men's bathroom and men have used the women's bathroom, but you keep cherry-picking. So generally speaking, bathrooms are divided by sex and using one bathroom or the other does not affirm one's gender. It doesn't even affirm one's sex. Social constructions do not affirm anything other than that you live in a particular culture.

Using one bathroom or another is a social construction. A social construction based on one's sex, not gender. The way you speak of gender as a social construction means that gender would be a society's expectations of the sexes - that they use the appropriate bathroom based on their sex. So the social construction states that males use the men's bathroom and females use the women's bathroom. The rules are only enforced when someone enters the other bathroom for reasons other than to simply piss or shit. — Harry Hindu

So should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom because his sex is female?

Or should the transgender man who has had genital surgery use the men's bathroom because he has a surgically-constructed phallus?

Will you ever just answer the question?

What are they not conforming to if not the social construction? It is their feeling, or psychology that is not conforming to the social construction, and it is the social construction that you are defining as gender, not their personal feeling that is the anti-thesis of the what is accepted socially. — Harry Hindu

This isn't difficult Harry.

Gender identity is to gender as being a Christian is to Christianity.

And just as nobody gets to dictate which religion you belong to (even though they may try), nobody gets to dictate which gender you belong to.

Yes, because bathrooms are divided by sex and not gender. — Harry Hindu

Why?

I asked you this before and you said "because it's where we uncover our sex parts".

So how do you account for those who have had genital surgery? Should transgender men who have had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom – because their sex is female – or should they use the men's bathroom – because their sex parts, even though artificial, are like those of biological men?

It's a red herring. — Harry Hindu

No, it's not. That's why we have such terms as "gender non-conforming". This obviously doesn't mean "sex non-conforming" because what does it mean to be sex non-conforming? Does it mean to act as if one has an XX karyotype (even though one doesn't)? Does it mean to act as if one has ovaries (even though one doesn't)?

Gender exists, and it is distinct from sex, and people identify as belonging to a gender that is atypical of their sex. This is the reality that you need to accept.

Talk about hypocrisy. I'm not deflecting. You are as well as cherry-picking. If gender is a social construction them having genital surgery has nothing to do with gender. You keep conflating the two. Using one particular bathroom or the other does not affirm one's gender, so I don' know why you keep bringing up genital surgery in a thread about gender as a social, sexist construct. — Harry Hindu

I'm bringing it up because you object to transgender men using the men's bathroom and transgender women using the women's bathroom.

I'm bringing it up because you claimed that one's sex parts determine which bathroom one should use.

So just answer the question.

Should transgender men who have had genital surgery use the men's bathroom or the women's bathroom?

Your continued unwillingness to provide an answer is incredibly telling.

How do they identify with one gender or another when gender is a social construction? — Harry Hindu

This is like asking how can we learn a language when language is a social construction. It's just something the human brain and mind does. The specifics of how and why the human brain and mind does what it does is a very complicated question that neuroscientists and psychologists are still trying to answer.

The reality is – despite your objections (and your conspiratorial accusation that this is some left-wing political fabrication?) – is that a) gender exists, that b) gender is distinct from sex, that c) people can and do identify as belonging to a gender that is atypical of their sex, and that d) this gender identity is an integral aspect of one's psyche that developed and became fixed at a very young age.

The point is that they think that they are a type of man. I have been asking you what type of man do they think they are? You might say trans-man, but what does that mean? How is a trans-man different than a biological one - specifically. We keep going in circles because you fail to provide a specific example of what it means to be a sociological-man or psychological-man (even though psychology is rooted in biology), as opposed to a biological man. — Harry Hindu

A transgender man believes that his sex is female and his gender is male.
A transgender woman believes that her sex is male and her gender is female.

Quoting from WHO:

Sex "refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs."

Gender "refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

Sure, children can form a concept that gender is based solely on what one wears and the pronouns that are used to refer to others, but then they would only be getting part of the story. This would be like a child hearing a curse word and then using it without a full understanding of how and when it should be used. — Harry Hindu

And children identify as belonging to one gender or another at this very young age, most often before they have any understanding of biological sex. Once this gender identity is established it is mostly irreversible.

You're the one denying something from entering a bathroom based on whether that something is artificial or not. — Harry Hindu

No I'm not.

You are the one who claimed that one's sex parts determine which bathroom one should be allowed to use.

I don't know why you continue to avoid answering the question.

Should transgender men who have had genital surgery use the men's bathroom or the women's bathroom?

You have two very simple answers to choose from, so just choose. Stop with the tiresome deflection.

Then how do you determine the differences in some sounds if they are all just firing the same neurons? — Harry Hindu

They're not firing the same neurons.

We have to mention that the sound wave hitting your eardrum is the sole interaction it has with your body, and is therefor the only movement determined by it. That's the only "causal influence" it can have. The rest is all produced, structured, controlled, directed, moved, by the body. — NOS4A2

If I flick a switch on a radio detonator causing a distant bomb to explode and kill people then I caused a distant bomb to explode and caused people to die; I didn't just cause a switch to change position.

There is more to "A causes B" than just "B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy". I don't know why you insist on persisting with this absurdity.

So nothing is in the sound wave itself that makes it meaningful. Meaning isn't transferred from one person to another. — NOS4A2

Correct.

Rather, sound waves cause my ears to send signals to the brain which causes certain neurons to fire in certain ways, and this just is what it means to hear and understand a word. And this in turn causes other neurons to fire in other ways, sending signals to the muscles causing them to contract or relax.

Do they all equally play a part? — NOS4A2

I have no idea how we'd measure the relative degree to which they are involved. The best we can do is ask the question "would I have responded this way had X not happened?", perhaps leading us into the counterfactual theory of causation.

Q. Would I have typed out this comment on this forum had you not posted the response to which I am replying?
A. No.

Q. Would I have typed out this comment on this forum had I not wanted to?
A. No.

So, your words may not have a sufficient causal influence, but they do have a necessary causal influence.

How can a meaningful expression causally influence you differently than a meaningless expression? What is it in the word itself, and what besides surface-level kinetic energy transfer, causes you to respond differently? — NOS4A2

The sound is meaningful because the neurons in the brain react in a certain way to it, differently to how they react to other sounds. As to why the neurons react in this way to these sounds, again this would require an absurdly complex model that cannot be explained in a few words - or even a few pages - and certainly not by me. Even the most knowledgeable neuroscientists in the world probably can’t explain it yet.

Is it these things that determine your response, or is it the word? — NOS4A2

They all play a part.

How does speech produce a different causal affect and response than any other sound? — NOS4A2

The brain reacts differently to different sounds. Loud bangs elicit different responses to soothing music. Meaningful expressions elicit different responses to meaningless noise. The specifics of how and why the brain reacts differently would require an absurdly complex and comprehensive model of the brain’s neurons and their interactions with each other and other peripheral aspects of the central nervous system - including the sense organs and environmental stimuli. Trying to explain and predict the weather is child’s play in comparison.

Does none of you, your body, your education, your lexicon, and so on causally influence what you read and write in response? — NOS4A2

All of it does, given that these things determine the existence and relative placement of the neurons and neural connections that make up my brain.

Who said anything about blame? Enough with the folk psychology. You've made it very clear in the past that you're an eliminative materialist. So commit to it.

We're talking about physics and causality, and it is a fact about physics that the behaviour of one material thing can – and does – have a causal affect on another material thing. It doesn't matter if these material things are organisms or machines or if they're humans or plants. And causal influence is not to be understood so reductively as surface-level kinetic energy transfer.

I don't think I'm begging the question at all. I think this is a 'net down for your serves' argument - where you get to engage in the most ridiculous, unfounded, unproven, unjustifiable sceptical arguments while demanding of me shy high standards of absolute proof. — karl stone

I'm not asking you to prove that skeptical claims are false; I'm explaining that you haven't proved that skeptical claims are false.

To perhaps better illustrate the difference: I'm not asking you to cook me dinner; I'm explaining that you haven't cooked me dinner.

You're more than welcome to dismiss skeptical claims as being unworthy of consideration (and to refuse to cook me dinner).

I appreciate you don't claim the proposed scenario is true, but you are saying it's justified to some degree — karl stone

I’m not saying that it’s justified. I’m saying that your attempt at a refutation begs the question.

The skeptic claims that that even though it seems that the pain you feel is caused by a fire it’s possible that the fire doesn’t exist and that the pain (and the visual image) is caused by something else (something hidden from us) – or by nothing at all.

And your response is to say that the pain you feel is caused by the fire and so the fire is real?

Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing? — Harry Hindu

Hearing a sound is the firing of certain neurons.

Just answer the question about what happens when you hear some sound. — Harry Hindu

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing

The inner ear consists of the cochlea, which is a spiral-shaped, fluid-filled tube. It is divided lengthwise by the organ of Corti, which is the main organ of mechanical to neural transduction. Inside the organ of Corti is the basilar membrane, a structure that vibrates when waves from the middle ear propagate through the cochlear fluid – endolymph. The basilar membrane is tonotopic, so that each frequency has a characteristic place of resonance along it. Characteristic frequencies are high at the basal entrance to the cochlea, and low at the apex. Basilar membrane motion causes depolarization of the hair cells, specialized auditory receptors located within the organ of Corti. While the hair cells do not produce action potentials themselves, they release neurotransmitter at synapses with the fibers of the auditory nerve, which does produce action potentials. In this way, the patterns of oscillations on the basilar membrane are converted to spatiotemporal patterns of firings which transmit information about the sound to the brainstem.

The sound information from the cochlea travels via the auditory nerve to the cochlear nucleus in the brainstem. From there, the signals are projected to the inferior colliculus in the midbrain tectum. The inferior colliculus integrates auditory input with limited input from other parts of the brain and is involved in subconscious reflexes such as the auditory startle response.

The inferior colliculus in turn projects to the medial geniculate nucleus, a part of the thalamus where sound information is relayed to the primary auditory cortex in the temporal lobe. Sound is believed to first become consciously experienced at the primary auditory cortex. Around the primary auditory cortex lies Wernickes area, a cortical area involved in interpreting sounds that is necessary to understand spoken words.

And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

Gross movement – such as locomotion and the movement of arms and legs – is generated in the motor cortex, divided into three parts: the primary motor cortex, found in the precentral gyrus and has sections dedicated to the movement of different body parts. These movements are supported and regulated by two other areas, lying anterior to the primary motor cortex: the premotor area and the supplementary motor area. The hands and mouth have a much larger area dedicated to them than other body parts, allowing finer movement; this has been visualised in a motor homunculus. Impulses generated from the motor cortex travel along the corticospinal tract along the front of the medulla and cross over (decussate) at the medullary pyramids. These then travel down the spinal cord, with most connecting to interneurons, in turn connecting to lower motor neurons within the grey matter that then transmit the impulse to move to muscles themselves. The cerebellum and basal ganglia, play a role in fine, complex and coordinated muscle movements. Connections between the cortex and the basal ganglia control muscle tone, posture and movement initiation, and are referred to as the extrapyramidal system.

You're the one that keeps using terms like "material", "physical" and "immaterial", not me. I don't see any use for them. The world is neither physical or non-physical. The mind is neither physical or non-physical. Everything is process-relationships-information. So we're obviously not going to come to some agreement about free speech if we can't agree on the fundamentals of reality and the relationship between mind and world. — Harry Hindu

Then let's try to keep it simple.

Are you a compatibilist or an incompatibilist? If you are an incompatibilist then do you believe that we have libertarian free will or do you believe that we don't have free will? If you believe that we have libertarian free will then do you believe in interactionist dualism?

A thought process is one of the functions of the brain. — Harry Hindu

Which is just to say that a thought process is a particular kind of brain activity. And brain activity just is the configuration and behaviour of neurons.

Trying to explain or predict how the brain's neurons will react to various stimuli is even more difficult than trying to explain or predict the weather. You're certainly not going to get anything close to even a partial answer from even several pages worth of mathematical formulae written by even the most intelligent and knowledgeable neuroscientists. So asking me, here, to explain in a few words why and how different brains and different organisms respond the way they do to the same stimulus is an impossible ask, and also unwarranted.

It is sufficient for my purposes to argue that the body's movements are causally determined by brain activity which is causally influenced (in many cases) by some environmental stimulus, and that there's nothing like an immaterial soul or self or mind that interferes with these natural, causal processes.

I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process — Harry Hindu

Are they different? As I've mentioned several times, I am assuming that eliminative materialism is correct because NOS4A2 endorses eliminative materialism, and I am arguing with him.

Everything that exists – including the "mind" – is physical. Human behaviour and "decision-making" is ultimately reducible to the movements of matter and energy according to natural, causal laws. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of the neurons in my brain. And the neurons in my brain behave the way they do because they were caused to do so by other neurons and (sometimes) electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of my sense organs. And the sense organs behave the way they do because they reacted to some external stimulus like light or sound.

There's no immaterial thing like a soul that interferes with the natural behaviour of the physical matter that constitutes my body.

or are you a p-zombie? — Harry Hindu

No. I don't personally endorse eliminative materialism. I'm more partial to mental supervenience. But this works in a one-way direction; brain activity generates mental phenomena, but this mental phenomena doesn't causally affect the brain (and so doesn't causally affect the body).

Wow, it must suck being an evil brain jar demon! Question is, what evidence is there for the existence of such a being? None at all. And it's perverse to multiply entities beyond necessity, according to ye olde Bill of Occam. The method of sceptical doubt taken to such extremes that it undermines the very concept; reality - supposedly being investigated, is the rankest sophistry. — karl stone

I'm not saying that the proposed scenario is true, or even justified. I am simply explaining that your attempt at a refutation begs the question.

If you insist on engaging in such arguments, at least accept their true logical implications, which is solipsism; and inability to know anything beyond the mere fact of your own existence. I think therefore I am, and that's your lot. — karl stone

That is indeed what many skeptics claim. We don't/can't know anything (other than that which is logically necessary).

Why doesn't every human that hears inciting words participate in a riot? — Harry Hindu

Different brains respond differently to the same stimulus.

Much like not every computer displays the letter "A" on the screen when you press the "A" key.

So are you saying this evil demon brain jar keeper can induce you to put your hand in the fire? If so, can he induce you keep it there? Or is it by your own will that you would put your hand in the fire to test reality? — karl stone

I’m saying that there is no fire and no hand. We are brains in a vat and a mad scientist is using diodes to stimulate the appropriate areas of our brain to cause us to see/hallucinate a fire, see/hallucinate our hand in the fire, and feel/hallucinate our hand burning. And when he detects that we intend to remove our hand from the fire he stimulates the appropriate areas of our brain to cause us to see/hallucinate our hand being removed from the fire and stops stimulating the areas of the brain that cause us to feel/hallucinate our hand burning.

Is it by your own will you engage in radical skepticism such that the very concept of reality is undermined? Or do you have no choice but to do so because the evil brain jar demon is prodding the synapses? — karl stone

Could be either. Perhaps the mad scientist is also stimulating the areas of the brain responsible for decision-making. Or perhaps he finds it more entertaining to leave those areas alone.