Free Speech - Absolutist VS Restrictive? (Poll included)

Reply to Samlw Pretty sure it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Reply to NotAristotle You are correct, it is all about context. If there was a fire then there would be no issue but if you are shouting "fire" falsely with the intention to cause panic then you are on grounds for disorderly conduct.

Free speech fundamentally concerns the sharing of ideas.

Platitudes about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre deliberately pretend otherwise, in order to get the so-called 'foot in the door'.

I believe that in the context of a civilized debate any idea should be able to be shared without legal repercussions, no matter how strongly I might disagree with those ideas.

Quoting Tzeentch

Free speech fundamentally concerns the sharing of ideas

Not just the sharing of ideas, but the freedom to criticize and question what others say, and reject or ignore it.

Who on this forum would instantly jump up and stampede over other people when they hear, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, without verifying that there was a fire first? Those that use this example are typically those that do what they are told without questioning, or act without thinking.

If we were to arrest those that ran over others (an action that qualifies as an assault) instead of the person that said something, then maybe we would encourage the rest of society to start thinking for themselves and not simply accept what others say without verification, and to think before they act.

I am skeptical of the "absolute" realization of principles, particularly one that is so specific. From a public policy perspective, it seems to make sense to me that some sort of bigoted free speech act, such as drawing the Prophet Mohammed might be allowable in a Western context, where it is likely to lead to a limited risk of violence, but unacceptable in other contexts (e.g. parts of Southeast Asia), where it might very well be expected to kick off deadly rioting.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

From a public policy perspective, it seems to make sense to me that some sort of bigoted free speech act, such as drawing the Prophet Mohammed might be allowable in a Western context, where it is likely to lead to a limited risk of violence, but unacceptable in other contexts (e.g. parts of Southeast Asia), where it might very well be expected to kick off deadly rioting.

What you are describing is an authoritarian theocracy that has it's followers enthralled by their religion. This is typical behavior of a mass delusion, where people react violently when their version of the world is questioned or criticized. Was the problem the drawing or the fact that a whole society is not free to question their leaders and to think for themselves?

Reply to Samlw

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Who on this forum would instantly jump up and stampede over other people when they hear, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, without verifying that there was a fire first? Those that use this example are typically those that do what they are told without questioning, or act without thinking.
the
If we were to arrest those that ran over others (an action that qualifies as an assault) instead of the person that said something, then maybe we would encourage the rest of society to start thinking for themselves and not simply accept what others say without verification, and to think before they act.

I agree that it is very unlikely that a large group would stampede other people because they heard "fire" but I think you are deliberately missing the point of the example and I also sense a feeling of intellectual superiority in your answer

If we were to extrapolate the "fire" example to something much more serious such as the Southport riots where the UK experienced numerous violent riots targeted towards minority communities due to large-scale disinformation being purposefully spread, I think it would be correct to say there should be accountability for those people spreading the hurtful lies and not just blame the people who blindly follow.

You have to assume that some people are going to be gullible and stupid, and to not allow people to take advantage of that to push agendas. You can't punish people for not knowing better and not punish the people that do know better. (I am not saying the people committing criminals acts should not be arrested)

Quoting NOS4A2

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say.

Do you believe that there should be consequence to certain speech? Realistically we can all say whatever we want at any point, but do you believe people should be able to say WHATEVER they want at any point with no consequence ever?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Samlw

Do you believe that there should be consequence to certain speech? Realistically we can all say whatever we want at any point, but do you believe people should be able to say WHATEVER they want at any point with no consequence ever?

No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever.

Quoting NOS4A2

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say.

Some lies are criminal ie. slander, defamation, inciting a riot. If I point at you and say "he stole my wallet" or "he just touched me/my child" and you get hurt or killed, that's an example of blood libel where I would be liable to be charged with a crime. It doesn't matter if you can defend yourself because in some contexts and scenarios you will be outnumbered and no amount of truth or innocence will save you from a bloody end, hence, the minority's plight (specifically if animosity and bias exists against you or your group already).

Quoting tim wood

As usual, TPFers are talking (writing) without knowing what they're talking about. What!? You object? Well, you must know what you're talking about. I think - subject to correction - that "free speech" is on the docket. Tell us, then, what that is. Is it, is there any such thing? What kind of a thing is it? What are its special features that distinguish it? What are its parts? For, or by, whom? For what purpose?

And in what country? I think all countries claim free speech, but what that means can be complicated, and I'm pretty sure it differs country to country. And of course the subject of rights, also needing to be limned.

Can I ask what you mean by TPFers? your response has a very hostile tone but I am not sure who it is directed at. If it is at me I am sure we can air out any issue you have.

You haven't added anything to the discussion you are just spamming questions, I think I was clear in my definition of absolutism / restrictive. And I am speaking on free speech mainly in America and the UK, if people would like to speak about other countries feel free.

Reply to Outlander

A small quibble. Slander and defamation are usually civil wrongs, not criminal, but I don’t think they should be treated as such. In any case, the fact that something is a civil wrong or a crime doesn’t mean it ought to be. People still claim yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, for instance, but they are merely repeating the fatuous ruling of Oliver Wendell Holmes, which has long since been overruled by later precedent.

Quoting NOS4A2

A small quibble. Slander and defamation are usually civil wrongs, not criminal, but I don’t think they should be treated as such. In any case, the fact that something is a civil wrong or a crime doesn’t mean it ought to be. People still claim yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, for instance, but they are merely repeating the fatuous ruling of Oliver Wendell Holmes, which has long since been overruled by later precedent.

So should I be able to publicly slander and defame you for being a pedophile and lie, resulting in you losing your job and every social factor that would come along with that and be able to continue to carry on with my day with no repercussions?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What I mean by free speech is the ability to express opinions and ideas publicly, without fear of censorship or legal sanction.

The debate topic I would like to discuss is, should there be limits on certain speech and where people believe we should draw the line, hence my original post outlining absolutism and restricting speech.

I understand free speech is different in the UK and US but we do share a lot of similarities as does a lot of countries do in the western hemisphere.

Quoting Samlw

Can I ask what you mean by TPFers?

Tim means the members of TPF, The Philosophy Forum, and has for reasons known only to himself chosen to be difficult and weird. Don’t take it personally.

I am a free speech absolutist. You should have the inherent right to speak your mind at any time, and any place, without a fear of violence or another form of retalliation. It is up to others to decide how they wish to respond. This applies to all speech, even hate speech and so on.

Now, of course there will be consequences to your speech, as most human beings will use their emotions upon hearing something they don't like. There's still a powerful primitive element in most of us. However, the legal or moral repercussions should be based on actions (and evidence), not on words.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Martijn

Sure. But riddle me this. Say people doing a dangerous job in a dangerous environment say with electricity are communicating to one another. "Is the voltage on?" "No" (when he either knowingly is aware it is or is otherwise unaware) sends an innocent family man to his death. That is, in most all legal systems, punishable in some way. So the same thing can apply to more casual and common situations. "Is that path safe?" asks a traveler new to an area. "Sure" says a resident who doesn't like unfamiliar people when the person knows it to be quite dangerous. These things count and actual real laws that respect this are in place, for very good reason. It's nice you've never been a victim or known someone you care about who has been a victim of a fatal lie, but you should be fully aware that makes your view one of conditional and circumstantial ignorance rather than one of true human liberty, one I have no doubt you would reverse if such things were to become true.

Another, common problem, is that some people, especially the most loud, annoying, and unintelligent, actually have no desire to speak or communicate anything, simply to disrupt for the sake of disruption. If I just enter a library or school or emergency city council meeting regarding an important social issue with real lives and livelihoods at stake and just start screaming "AHHHHHH, I FEEL GOOD!" over and over at the top of my lungs disrupting a public institution or service, I would likely be removed, and for good reason. It's just an annoying paradox that the people who talk the loudest and the most actually have the least valuable of things to contribute, which does weigh down an entire society. Which is fine, if that's allowed. But any rational person would agree there are situations where saying the wrong things could result in death or dismemberment that should be avoided.

What about, say, a grown man entering an elementary school or hanging out by the fence at the playground during recess and reciting graphic descriptions of his genitals (or something like that)? Is that what you'd shed your blood to protect? Really now, actually. Not just in the context of a random reply online, I mean, truly, putting yourself and all that you value on the line. Is it really?

Quoting Martijn

However, the legal or moral repercussions should be based on actions (and evidence), not on words.

As they are in the above examples. The man electrocuted because his buddy decided to speak a lie (or ignorant statement) as opposed to the (verifiable) truth. The innocent traveler led towards a wild oblivion to be killed or stranded because the local resident had no human decency or respect for human life. The person shutting down a taxpayer funded city council meeting because he just wanted to yell and perhaps was politically or personally motivated and actually had nothing he truly desired to communicate. The man traumatizing a group of school children because he "has a right to." All these things happen and cause real detriment and discourse in society. Do you not acknowledge that and remain unaware or do you simply not care? That is to say, do you believe that is the lesser of the two evils?

Reply to Outlander

Thank you for the response. A few things need to be cleared up.

First of all, you should always trust your own instinct and accept the consequences of your own actions. Would you really blindly walk a potentially dangerous path, just because a stranger told you it was safe? Blind faith in anyone is always harmful, this has nothing to do with free speech.

Second, in your example regarding cooperation, this has to be a matter of trust. Any profession or task that requires a team to complete succesfully requires some level of trust and interdependence. If we would only sabotage each other, or get each other killed for no reason, the human species would not have survived for long. Cooperation is written in us genetically.

And third, there should be obvious exceptions regarding privacy and decency. No, a man should not be allowed to talk about his genitals near an elementary school. But that doesn't mean he should be banned from talking about his genitals, or get punished for it (by the legal system or otherwise). He should, if needed, be removed from the location if he does not cooperate, but that should be all.

Fundamentally, I do care. I care about autonomy and freedom more than about being 'nice' or 'safe'. I believe that, at the end of the day, the only one who you can truly trust is yourself. That doesn't mean that we should live in a free-for-all wasteland society, in fact it is important to live with virtue and kindness (I practice Stoic philosophy). And it doesn't mean I think other people are inherintely evil.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have, as authoritarianism and other evils can only begin to rise when we give up this crucial freedom.

The idea that a particular human activity (in this case speech) would be devoid of "consequence", is somewhere between absurd and naive in the extreme.

Quoting Martijn

First of all, you should always trust your own instinct and accept the consequences of your own actions.

See, the thing is, I can tell you're smart. Well-educated. And I'd argue you should be grateful for such good fortune. Likely a combination of caring people, a well-led society, and (perhaps above all, the all encompassing fact that you have) fortunate circumstances. Not everyone has that. So what is for you a simple almost brainlessly obvious act of "trusting one's own instinct" is for another person blindly following the lowest level of primal impulse. You must realize that and the disconnect between the haves and the have-nots, per se. To put it in common terms.

As far as the consequences of one's actions, that is generally true. However, if a stoplight is supposed to be red but fails to turn red and remains green and I continue driving, that's not something that can be placed on the individual. That, at least the concept of such, is my point.

Quoting Martijn

Would you really blindly walk a potentially dangerous path, just because a stranger told you it was safe?

Again, it's all about context. In the given example, one simply doesn't have a choice but to keep walking at such a point. So it's not a simple matter of "oh should I do this", it's quite literally: "Option A" or Option B." More with the context, he's not a stranger in this situation, I mean, he is, but he's from what any rational person would consider as "qualified" being a local resident. Sure, perhaps he could be lying. But if he seems to be hanging out in a relatively isolated area with all the creature comforts (perhaps literally at his house) then yes, one would assume he is qualified to give knowledge as he would reasonably know what is around, what's dangerous, and what isn't. Sure, it's not a great example as far as legally damning actions or statements that a court would pursue as [s]manslaughter[/s] culpable negligence, but it touches on a fundamental point and the very concepts, events, and actions that are.

Quoting Martijn

Second, in your example regarding cooperation, this has to be a matter of trust. Any profession or task that requires a team to complete succesfully requires some level of trust and interdependence. If we would only sabotage each other, or get each other killed for no reason, the human species would not have survived for long. Cooperation is written in us genetically.

All of that's fine, but nowhere in the above snippet I quoted is there anything that suggests his use of free speech that resulted in a death was anything but criminal, and should be and remain criminal in any land, time, realm, or culture.

Quoting Martijn

And third, there should be obvious exceptions

Exactly. That's all I was trying to make you realize or admit: that no rational person is an absolutist as far as free speech.

Quoting Martijn

I care about autonomy and freedom more than about being 'nice' or 'safe'.

Do you not think that something that is wholly and fundamentally "unsafe" (dangerous to the very people who proliferate, support, defend, or otherwise live under it) is not a threat to its own existence?

I get the point you can't legislate morality or make people be nice to one another. That's unrealistic. But if something is fundamentally dangerous, isn't that a threat to itself? People voluntarily live in, support, and defend a society (often at slight expense of one's true, unrefined free will and desire) because it provides something a "free-for-all wasteland" does not: consistency. A reasonable expectation of what to expect and not to expect from one day to the next.

Quoting Martijn

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have, as authoritarianism and other evils can only begin to rise when we give up this crucial freedom.

Again, for the most part I agree. Most all people, average, intelligent, decent, whatever they may be plan things and expect laws that accommodate themselves. It's the very small few who are either so deviously crafty, immoral, or whatever your choice of terms are, that can exploit things in ways the average person would never imagine. So, yeah, spot on.

(P.S.: I notice you're somewhat new here so just wanted to make it a point to inform you I'm not against anything you say personally, just as this is an intellectual debate forum, it's fairly standard to have one's views and opinions scrutinized as if the other's life depended on it. I don't like claiming to be "playing devil's advocate" as that might create the idea in one's mind I'm not genuinely wishing to express my arguments and hear your counter-arguments in return. Which I certainly am. :smile: )

Quoting tim wood

If you do not know what path you're on, then you don't know where you're going...

The master of slide put it like this...


Quoting Samlw

What are the limits to free speech, If any?

...looks like a request for a discussion of the nature of free speech. There's a good article in SEP, of course. But no one will read that. So I'll summarise: speech is one of the things we do, so if you value freedom in what folk may do, you will value freedom in what they may say. Hence your system of values will pretty much determine the extent to which you allow freedom of speech. And working through one's attitude towards free speech is very much working out one's attitude towards others, one's overall ethical stance.

Free speech is not, therefore, restricted to "sharing ideas" - burning the flag is an act of free speech. Burning it in the exit from a theatre, not so much. So supposing that one can say anything with no repercussions is hopelessly naive, along with the worst of libertarian thinking - on a par with thinking that folk may do anything, unrestricted.

These considerations show that we might expect to find with free speech the same approaches as to ethics generally. Consequentialism has already been raised, and found some unexpected bedfellows. Reply to Martijn perhaps posits a form of intuitionism. Where is deontology? One ought only say that which one could will to be universal laws... only what we could will everyone to say?

Quoting tim wood

The idea in a nutshell is that nothing is absolute, and to try to make it so or take it so is a big mistake...

Yep. It's a process rather than a definition. But this is to adopt a variant on virtue ethics.

"free speech" is either free, or restricted. So it's worded somewhat misleadingly.

To me, there are clear instances where utterances are blameworthy. Whether this should be legally codified is iffy. I think the consequence is more important. If no harm has come, I can't see why we would do so. And we already have laws that deal with actual (not perceived) harm.

Reply to Samlw

So should I be able to publicly slander and defame you for being a pedophile and lie, resulting in you losing your job and every social factor that would come along with that and be able to continue to carry on with my day with no repercussions?

I don’t think you’d get the responses you’re looking for. The repercussion is you’ll be known as a liar, slanderer, and a defamer. You’d also have to live with yourself.

Quoting NOS4A2

The repercussion is you’ll be known as a liar, slanderer, and a defamer.

Not if you're successful - you will harm and that'll be that. Still happens these days.
That's the point. Causing actual damage is something which needs to be addressed. You cannot rely on social life for justice. It is almost never going to happen. I'm very sympathetic to an actual 'absolute' freedom of speech, but the harms visited by speech on concert with intent to harm is something I am not comfortable with.

Reply to AmadeusD

Not if you're successful - you will harm and that'll be that. Still happens these days.
That's the point. Causing actual damage is something which needs to be addressed. You cannot rely on social life for justice. It is almost never going to happen. I'm very sympathetic to an actual 'absolute' freedom of speech, but the harms visited by speech on concert with intent to harm is something I am not comfortable with.

Kinetically speaking, causing damage with words is impossible. There isn’t enough energy in a word to inflict a wound on even the slightest of biologies. Perhaps yelling a word may harm an eardrum, but you could do the same with any sound.

The harms begin only in the reaction to words, and how people use them to justify their actions towards others.

Reply to NOS4A2 I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said.

Something like a politician saying "Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose" or if you want, imagine an Imam doing the same.
If you want that to be allowed, and rely on human behaviour to reduce the out-going harm, so be it. I think this is patently absurd.

Reply to AmadeusD

I never said anything about allowing murder.

Quoting AmadeusD

Something like a politician saying "Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose" or if you want, imagine an Imam doing the same.
If you want that to be allowed, and rely on human behaviour to reduce the out-going harm, so be it. I think this is patently absurd.

Could you perhaps point out, in the above, where I suggested, or intimated that this is what you wanted? Or that I was questioning it? You'll notice I don't.

Again:

Quoting AmadeusD

I don't think you're coming into contact with what's being said.

Reply to AmadeusD

“Go forth, my disciples, and murder those who would oppose”. Is murder not the “out-going harm” you were speaking of, then? Then what, exactly, is the out-going harm?

Say what you will and accept the consequences. Or, tailor what you say to suit the sensibilities of people who do not accept the notion of absolute free speech.

Quoting NOS4A2

I don’t think you’d get the responses you’re looking for. The repercussion is you’ll be known as a liar, slanderer, and a defamer. You’d also have to live with yourself.

I find it hilarious that you think that the best way to combat slander and defamation is to call someone a liar and let them carry on the rest of their lives... living with themselves. What if you wronged me and I didn't care? I could make up so much terrible stuff about you and completely ruin your life and wouldn't miss a second of sleep about it, if I disliked you that much it may even help me sleep at night knowing that I ruined your life... You simply cannot allow someone to do that with no repercussions.

Can I ask what you think about NDA's? Surely you don't think a piece of paper can stop you from speaking as well. What about Classified information? should there be repercussions for breaching these?

Quoting NOS4A2

Kinetically speaking, causing damage with words is impossible. There isn’t enough energy in a word to inflict a wound on even the slightest of biologies. Perhaps yelling a word may harm an eardrum, but you could do the same with any sound.

The harms begin only in the reaction to words, and how people use them to justify their actions towards others.

I find that Free speech absolutists ignore the damage you can do with words.

Technically speaking you are correct, words cannot cause harm and the harm comes through reactionary actions.

This is a similar justification with gun violence, "Guns don't kill people, people do". I feel like both are absolving the blame on one factor and piling it all on another factor simply because it fits their narrative. Speech can be used as a tool to: Incite violence, Abuse people, Cause fear, Slander, defamation and much more... Can I ask why you think that you are within your right to do these things and why your rights supersede the victims rights to not have these things happen to them?

If I was passing by a school on the street and I started screaming really threatening stuff to the children on the other side of the gate, should I be arrested?

I understand I am peppering you with questions, I am just seeing how far your absolutism goes.

Reply to Outlander

You raise solid points and don't worry, I didn't feel anything you wrote as a personal attack. Scrutiny is always welcome.

You made me reconsider my stances somewhat, and for that I thank you. I think I know where my position is coming from. I envision an intrinsically good and empathetic society, where every single human is taught to care for both themselves and each other with the same amount of love, wisdom, and empathy. A world so fair that acting unjustly, even things like telling lies or slandering, is so preposterous, we don't even consider the possibility. Now, obviously, our world (right now) is the total opposite. I'd argue we already live in a free-for-all society, it just has the illusion of being nice and consistent.

I live in a rich Western nation, and the standard of living here is quite high. However, even within my nation, millions of people live at the poverty level. I've experienced this all too well. If you are poor, you are discarded by the system and even your 'friends'. Capitalism is competition, and if you are poor or have a low-status job, or perhaps a poor reputation on top of that, you 'lose'. And if you lose, you may as well go die in a gutter. Is that justice? Where's the community?

Hopefully, I haven't digressed too far. This is about free speech of course, I am simply exploring my own stances. I think the truth is that I have lost faith in most of my fellow humans (even if I don't consider them evil or corrupt, just misguided) and that's where most of this comes from. And I distrust the system the most, having witnessed the soulless evil of a government entity first-hand.

Reply to AmadeusD

See, I don't think that is absurd. You are correct that in our world, and especially the USA, most people would do exactly that. As Donald Trump famously stated: "I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."

Most people right now still have a strong desire to follow and to conform. This is why things like norms, traditions, and laws are so effective. The average person fears repercussions much more so than they have the desire and courage to be different and authentic. This is obvious, as we couldn't have a society at this scale if every single person was free and there was no such thing as the rule of law.

I simply envision a different world, one where everyone lives with the core virtues (wisdom, courage, justice, temperance, stillness, and piety) and from that, we would create such a meaningful, beautiful, and joyful world that it goes beyond our realm of comprehension, since our dystopia right now is simply the complete opposite. At least I still have my cat.

Quoting Samlw

If I was passing by a school on the street and I started screaming really threatening stuff to the children on the other side of the gate, should I be arrested?

I think there is a fundamental difference between an assault and broadcasting ideas (even very unpalatable ideas)

Reply to Samlw

Free speech absolutism is a common tactic to shift goalposts and slowly adjust people to follow something that they wouldn't outright do. It's a commonly used tactic within neonazi groups for example.

You draw the line at free speech, you are for free speech, but those people on the other side are against free speech, so we need to oppose them and be against them and... limit their use of speech.

The ones proclaiming to be free speech absolutists are actually the ones who want to limit free speech. They're acting from the perspective of allowing THEIR speech, not free speech.

And because of this, free speech runs into the tolerance paradox. That if we tolerate everything, then we will tolerate the intolerable, and thus invite in the thing that will limit tolerance and free speech.

It is obvious that in order for anyone to benefit free speech it needs limitations in order to guardrail it from being corrupted by the corrupt.

Basically, using a Kantian perspective, to universalize the concept. If what you say communicates the will to restrict other's rights to speech, then it's not universal and should be restricted. If you say that a certain group in society doesn't have the same rights as you, then you are essentially advocating for restrictions of their right, including free speech. Now, are you saying that certain groups in society shouldn't have the same rights as you based on who they are, or based on what they, specifically have done or said? Because if they are the ones who've started out saying other's rights should be restricted, then you are in the right to restrict them since that's able to be universalized. It is universal to restrict those who want to restrict others as that will remove the intolerance. But restricting people based solely on which group they belong to is not universal as that could just as easily be turned around against yourself.

Quoting Christoffer

Now, are you saying that certain groups in society shouldn't have the same rights as you based on who they are, or based on what they, specifically have done or said?

No, I believe it is the contents of the message that needs to be looked at, you can be black, while, gay, straight, it doesn't matter, if what you are saying is deemed in a court of law to be an incitement of violence, defamatory, abusive etc. then I believe there needs to be consequences.

Quoting Malcolm Parry

I think there is a fundamental difference between an assault and broadcasting ideas (even very unpalatable ideas)

I know, I was seeing what @NOS4A2 had to say about that as he believes:

Quoting NOS4A2

No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever.

Quoting Samlw

You have to assume that some people are going to be gullible and stupid,

So the problem is that some people are gullible and stupid, not free speech. The problem is that one view was allowed to fester without being challenged. The solution seems to be more free speech, not less of it.

Quoting Samlw

the UK experienced numerous violent riots targeted towards minority communities due to large-scale disinformation being purposefully spread,

What was the source of this "large-scale" disinformation? If it were large-scale then I would expect that there would be large-scale opposition if it were known at the time that it was disinformation. Where were the gullible and stupid receiving their information? If we were to pop the bubbles that the gullible and stupid live in by abolishing bias in the media, then would that solve the problem? This is not to say that the media can no longer express certain points of view, but that those views must be expressed in the context of other views and we have a competition of ideas in front of the entire population.

Quoting Samlw

No, I believe it is the contents of the message that needs to be looked at, you can be black, while, gay, straight, it doesn't matter, if what you are saying is deemed in a court of law to be an incitement of violence, defamatory, abusive etc. then I believe there needs to be consequences.

Yes, but I don't think you're taking what I said to the logical conclusion. Any form of incitement that negates the rights of someone else without a reason that is able to be universalized, falls under the need for consequences that restrict that person's freedom of speech.

If someone calls out for violence onto someone else without a reason that is able to be universalized, then that person should be shut up and feel the consequences. If someone says that we should kill a person because of the socioeconomic background they come from, that is intolerant. If someone says we should kill the person who called out for that killing, that is calling out for a defense of others and can be universalized. Disregarding the morality of killing in this example, one act is more morally justified than the other as one is calling out for killing in the name of intolerance and personal preferences of who gets human rights, and the other is a call to protect tolerance and other people.

A court of law does not operate on universal laws, it's why we have philosophy and moral philosophy in the first place; to research and study morality for the purpose of producing laws that improve society. We cannot use the courts of law as the source, but find the logic in moral behavior to be the fundamentals of how we conclude things like this and then form laws based on it.

Quoting Harry Hindu

What was the source of this "large-scale" disinformation? If it were large-scale then I would expect that there would be large-scale opposition if it were known at the time that it was disinformation. Where were the gullible and stupid receiving their information? If we were to pop the bubbles that the gullible and stupid live in by abolishing bias in the media, then would that solve the problem? This is not to say that the media can no longer express certain points of view, but that those views must be expressed in the context of other views and we have a competition of ideas in front of the entire population.

You aren't from the UK so I will try and paint the picture. You had members of parliament such as Nigel Farage, prominent far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson and very popular voices such as Andrew Tate saying that the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It spread like wildfire across all social media platforms in the UK. He wasn't an illegal immigrant, the reason his personal information was not released to the public was because he was under 18, but because of this disinformation spreading across all anti-immigration circles, far-right protests were arranged in every city across the country lasting 2-3 weeks. These "protests" which were actually riots were violent, they caused major property damage as they set cars on fire and threw bricks at mosques and set a divide that we still experience today. When his information did get released he was a second generation legal immigrant born in Wales into a Christian family.

Let me say that again, CHRISTIAN... He wasn't even Muslim so all the hatred, violence and destruction against our Muslim communities can be entirely blamed on the disinformation that was spread. People in the UK have been arrested for their role in inciting violence which in turn, stopped the riots.

Reply to Christoffer

I understand what you mean, If it shouldn't be up to a court of law and a Jury of peers who should it be up to?

Quoting Samlw

I know, I was seeing what NOS4A2 had to say about that as he believes:

No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever.
— NOS4A2

I see. It is interesting. I don't think any words that could be uttered would upset me in any way unless there was an imminent threat of violence and then it wouldn't be the words, it would be the violence that was the alarming thing.
Any slander wouldn't bother me if there were no consequences but the fact that there could be consequences would mean there should be redress for any damage done. I'm an advocate for not suppressing thoughts but some untruthful words do have direct impact on the recipient and cannot be allowed to be said unchallenged. IMHO.

Quoting Samlw

If it shouldn't be up to a court of law and a Jury of peers who should it be up to?

The court of law, any laws does not come from nowhere. They are formed by people thinking about morality. It's moral philosophy that defines how we guard society from itself and informs what laws we have and how courts should decide.

What I mean is that if you ask the philosophical questions around free speech and where we restrict it in order to protect itself, society and democracy, then we need parameters that operate on moral logic, rather than on any court of law. The conclusions of this moral logic... is what should define how courts of law operate.

What we see in society is people uprooting the moral definitions on the subject of free speech, transforming them into methods to radicalize people into corrupted interpretations of it. Rather than universalizing the concept to something that has a solid foundation for actual laws.

Free speech is mostly protected in constitutions in many nations, but many constitutions have bad and unclear paragraphs on how to protect free speech itself from self-corruption through the intolerance paradox.

In the most primitive form of the law, it should be illegal to argue for restrictions of free speech when the reasons for it is not for the purpose of protecting everyone's right to free speech. When someone is acting out hate speech, they're also calling out for restrictions on free speech for the groups they act that hate speech against.

Basically, if I criticize Islam as a religion I could argue that many islamic states are fascistic in their control of information and limits of free speech and that there are individuals who call out for limits to free speech because of these arbitrary religious reasons and hate of certain topics and people. This is not hate speech, but a criticism of a systemic problem that limits human rights. If I instead were to criticize muslims as a human group and argue that we should not let them say any religious things, regardless of message, because islamic nations also talk about limits to free speech and that they shouldn't be allowed to spread anything they say because of this genetic fallacy I'm making, then I'm actually arguing through similar hate speech patterns for a restriction of free speech not out of criticism of systemic problems that are legitime reasons, but from racism.

-The problem is that society seem unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios, and it can cause problems for how free speech is being used in hateful rhetoric, moving goal posts by extremists, and even influence how courts interpret laws.

Reply to Samlw

I find it hilarious that you think that the best way to combat slander and defamation is to call someone a liar and let them carry on the rest of their lives... living with themselves. What if you wronged me and I didn't care? I could make up so much terrible stuff about you and completely ruin your life and wouldn't miss a second of sleep about it, if I disliked you that much it may even help me sleep at night knowing that I ruined your life... You simply cannot allow someone to do that with no repercussions.

I’m sure you could come up with some terrible stuff and wouldn’t miss a wink of sleep. But it’s your word against mine, and I don’t think you’d be that convincing.

Can I ask what you think about NDA's? Surely you don't think a piece of paper can stop you from speaking as well. What about Classified information? should there be repercussions for breaching these?

I don’t think so, no.

I find that Free speech absolutists ignore the damage you can do with words.

Technically speaking you are correct, words cannot cause harm and the harm comes through reactionary actions.

This is a similar justification with gun violence, "Guns don't kill people, people do". I feel like both are absolving the blame on one factor and piling it all on another factor simply because it fits their narrative. Speech can be used as a tool to: Incite violence, Abuse people, Cause fear, Slander, defamation and much more... Can I ask why you think that you are within your right to do these things and why your rights supersede the victims rights to not have these things happen to them?

If I was passing by a school on the street and I started screaming really threatening stuff to the children on the other side of the gate, should I be arrested?

I understand I am peppering you with questions, I am just seeing how far your absolutism goes.

It’s magical thinking. You can’t cause me harm or make me do things with your words. To believe that is to believe in sorcery.

We can run a simple test. You can try it on me. I will be your willing participant. Make me commit violence with your words, or make me fearful. Abuse me, or whatever. According to you your words should be able to cause me to do things, maybe feel pain. Let’s try it and see if that is true.

Quoting NOS4A2

I’m sure you could come up with some terrible stuff and wouldn’t miss a wink of sleep. But it’s your word against mine, and I don’t think you’d be that convincing.

So, you're simply unable to imagine any sort of reality or situation where all of a sudden you're not in the position you have become accustomed to? Not even a little bit? No empathy or ability to sympathize with other people who aren't like yourself? Mate... that's not just illogical. It's inhuman.

Reply to NOS4A2 2/10 rage bait

Reply to Outlander

So, you're simply unable to imagine any sort of reality or situation where all of a sudden you're not in the position you have become accustomed to? Not even a little bit? No empathy or ability to sympathize with other people who aren't like yourself? Mate... that's not just illogical. It's inhuman.

Where do you get that from what I wrote? Odd.

Reply to Samlw

You don’t want to test your magical theory?

Reply to NOS4A2 I think you are unable to say that you are incorrect or even give an inch even after we point out your stupidity.

Reply to Samlw

How am I incorrect? It’s quite easy to prove me wrong: make me feel fear with your words. Incite me to violence. You won’t because you know you cannot do any such thing, despite claiming the opposite.

Reply to NOS4A2 Is it hard to believe that you may not represent the entirety of the population?

Reply to Samlw

I don’t represent anyone. No illusions here.

Quoting NOS4A2

Where do you get that from what I wrote? Odd.

Eh, perhaps that was a bit of a reach on my part. But nonetheless, simply because "[one's] word against [yours]" happens to stand and seems to be of utmost permanence, or at least, prominence, is unique to your specific situation. What if your word (reputation) is no longer of such standing, does that change anything as far as the nature of truth and accuracy of either you or the other party's claim? It shouldn't. Yet, it does. That's the point I believed you to have overlooked.

Basically saying "well it's my word against yours and I don't think people would believe you", even if true in most situations, isn't really grounds for any sort of factual basis now is it (Edit: At least, not in and of itself)? :chin:

Reply to NOS4A2 I was hoping this would not be necessary: It is hard for me to see how you're not trolling.

The question is obviously and clearly about speech. So, can you have another go and see what kind of speech I might be talking about?

Reply to Martijn Fair enough - thanks for the comments. I think hoping for Utopia is absurd on it's face unfortunately.

Quoting Christoffer

Free speech absolutism is a common tactic to shift goalposts and slowly adjust people to follow something that they wouldn't outright do. It's a commonly used tactic within neonazi groups for example.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF.

Quoting AmadeusD

This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF.

Is it well poisoning to mention how “free speech absolutism” is used by extremist groups as a rhetorical tactic? How it is actually a very common tactic by people to justify their hate speech? And often later using the rage-bait from the reaction of that rhetoric to gather people behind them as champions of free speech against those criticizing their hate speech. Radicalizing incrementally. How much do you know about extremist radicalization psychology?

How do you avoid the tolerance paradox when these groups use the “absolute” to change a society from a tolerate to an intolerant one?

If you can’t answer that, don’t lecture anyone on what is a “bad” discussion.

Reply to AmadeusD

I was hoping this would not be necessary: It is hard for me to see how you're not trolling.

The question is obviously and clearly about speech. So, can you have another go and see what kind of speech I might be talking about?

I’ve already argued that speech cannot cause harm. So maybe you can tell me what harms you’re speaking about.

Quoting NOS4A2

I never said anything about allowing murder.

What about inciting people to murder then? Or even inciting them to persecute others? To anticipate a likely objection: you might argue that people make up their own minds what to do, in which case you would be hopelessly naive.

Quoting Christoffer

but from racism.

Islam is not a race my friend. Quoting Christoffer

Is it well poisoning to mention how “free speech absolutism” is used by extremist groups as a rhetorical tactic?

Yes. Obviously. Hitler loved dogs.

Quoting Christoffer

Radicalizing incrementally. How much do you know about extremist radicalization psychology?

Quite a lot. You're caving into a fear of someone else's mental state. Ridiculous.

Quoting Christoffer

How do you avoid the tolerance paradox when these groups use the “absolute” to change a society from a tolerate to an intolerant one?

There is no paradox when it comes to speech. In any case, I am not an absolutist so you're asking the wrong person. I wasn't defending absolutism, I was criticising a clear dumb argument against it. There are better arguments (some on this page).

Reply to NOS4A2 Ahh. Dammit, I was sure you could do this one.

The harm of speech, is that when it is aimed at and intended to cause harm it often will.
If you can't see this, it's a tough go talking about it. Let's just make it simple.

An Iman proclaims that true believers must now, at that moment, leave their homes and kill all infidels.

Fair game? Yes or no will do. We can go from there.

Quoting AmadeusD

Islam is not a race my friend.

You saying that just proves my point that many in society are unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios I described.

And I wonder why you use the same rhetoric there as I've heard so many times used by right wing extremists; with a clear dismissal of the fact that muslims is a group of people who are very much targeted not because the religion affiliation, but rather by their brown skin, even to the point that Siks are being branded muslims because they fit the "archetype" within the racist mindset or that christian people from the middle east are still treated as muslims. Muslims have just become the "name" of that group of people being racially targeted and as I mentioned, the difference in how you address the cultural problems within islamic nations is different between saying it comes from the people or saying that it comes from the systemic problems produced by islamic authoritarian figures.

A point that clearly went over your head.

Quoting AmadeusD

Yes. Obviously. Hitler loved dogs.

Stop strawmanning. And you're the one trying to lecture on standards of discussions on this forum. Just because you don't understand the subject I'm describing doesn't mean it's well-poisoning. And no, you're not understanding the thing I've describing, by the very nature of the the first thing you wrote above.

Quoting AmadeusD

Quite a lot. You're caving into a fear of someone else's mental state. Ridiculous.

So a short sentence is all it takes to describe an entire societal behavior from extremists groups that has plenty of research papers to fill whole volumes of books? Including all the methods and tactics used? And when I describe a common such tactic and rhetoric you counter with just telling me you know "quite a lot".

If you try to lecture others on the standards of this forum, then remember what "low quality" posting means. You've made no substantial counter-argument here, neither understood my point at all, or answer in a way that builds on a discussion that is able to be continued. Telling people "Islam is not a race" as an answer to a description on the difference between hate speech against muslims and criticism of islamic states just shows how little you know of what I'm talking about or that you engage in the discussion in such a sloppy and dishonest way that it falls under breaking actual forum rules of conduct. This is not the lounge and if you want to lecture on forum discussion standards, then people should expect more than "I know quite a lot" as your elaboration on a subject.

Quoting AmadeusD

There is no paradox when it comes to speech.

So you clearly don't know what I'm talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Educate yourself on the philosophy before you speak again. This is a philosophy forum, so act accordingly. Especially if you try to tell others the level of quality their writing should have on this forum. There's a lot of irony to how you act here.

Quoting Samlw

You aren't from the UK so I will try and paint the picture. You had members of parliament such as Nigel Farage, prominent far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson and very popular voices such as Andrew Tate saying that the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It spread like wildfire across all social media platforms in the UK. He wasn't an illegal immigrant, the reason his personal information was not released to the public was because he was under 18, but because of this disinformation spreading across all anti-immigration circles, far-right protests were arranged in every city across the country lasting 2-3 weeks. These "protests" which were actually riots were violent, they caused major property damage as they set cars on fire and threw bricks at mosques and set a divide that we still experience today. When his information did get released he was a second generation legal immigrant born in Wales into a Christian family.

Let me say that again, CHRISTIAN... He wasn't even Muslim so all the hatred, violence and destruction against our Muslim communities can be entirely blamed on the disinformation that was spread. People in the UK have been arrested for their role in inciting violence which in turn, stopped the riots.

This is what I was thinking, and is a typical argument made against free speech, made by people that don't understand what free speech is, and make this straw-man argument.

It was not free speech that caused the riot, but a lack of it. If only one side gets to make their case and all others are silenced, then you have something more like fascism and communism, not a free society where the ideas and information of all sides get to make their case on a fair playing field.

Free speech is not letting one side make their case while silencing all opposition. Free speech is the ability to criticize and question all sides.

If all the citizens heard all sides of the issue and were provided evidence to support one side or the other, and intellectually honest debate occurred, who would be to blame for engaging in violence, if not the people that had access to all the information and evidence yet still engaged in violent behavior?

This is the problem with the media today - they have become political, and have an agenda that is not to inform citizens but to manipulate them. Media should not have the same rights as individual citizens. Their job is to inform us of all angles and views of every story.

Quoting AmadeusD

This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF.

Your are correct in saying Free speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view but foolish if you believe that absolutism isn't used by extremists to tolerate the intolerable and as @Christoffer said "Shift the goal posts".

Free speech absolutists just want to spout hateful stuff and get no repercussions for it. .

Reply to Harry Hindu As I said, the perpetrator of the crime was under 18 therefore his details were not able to be released to the public. Should we start releasing sensitive information about minors so that racists don't riot?

Reply to Janus

What about inciting people to murder then? Or even inciting them to persecute others? To anticipate a likely objection: you might argue that people make up their own minds what to do, in which case you would be hopelessly naive.

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish.

Quoting Samlw

Your are correct in saying Free speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view but foolish if you believe that absolutism isn't used by extremists to tolerate the intolerable and as Christoffer said "Shift the goal posts".

Free speech absolutists just want to spout hateful stuff and get no repercussions for it. .

Exactly, I've never said that absolutism isn't "a thing", but that it's so corruptable as an ideal that it basically always lead to manipulatory rhetoric used by the most extreme.

It's the core problem at the heart of the tolerance paradox, which is the philosophical idea that talks about the very topic of free speech vs restrictive.

Quoting NOS4A2

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish.

See, now this is a fair counter-argument or reasonable challenge in support of your point. More or less. Most would find it hard to even fathom an example of such actions described occurring.

But here's one (and while it's not a clear-cut, open and shut "see you're wrong" example, it's certainly relevant and shows that we can be influenced to do things in even the subtlest of ways): Advertising is one of the largest if not the largest industries in the world due to several factors including: the "mere-exposure effect", "illusory truth effect", thought-action correlation or "thought action fusion". Now this in and of itself is more forming the grounds for an argument as opposed to an argument itself. But answer me this honestly after reading the fact below:

"Globally, advertising spending is estimated to have reached around $917 billion in 2024, with a projected rise to $1.17 trillion by 2028. In the United States, total ad spending is estimated to be $389.49 billion for 2025."

Do you really think some of the most educated people in the world with hundreds of think tanks, scientists, studies, financial experts, psychologists, and so many others are really just wasting all that time and money? Really? These are people much smarter than you or I (or at least with advisors who are) and as a result much more efficient and likely much more greedy. To me, as well as to most rational people, that would be doubtful. In short, they know a thing or two when it comes to money and what works and what doesn't.

See, now the burden of proof is on you. How do you respond? :grin:

Reply to Outlander

All you’d have to do is compare the amount of advertisements you see to the amount of those products you buy. I don’t know about your case, but in mine the result is near nil, and I see advertisements almost on a daily basis.

It is likely that my case is similar to many; but perhaps there are people who buy the products of every advertisement they see. In any case, the sheer amount of advertisements one sees in comparison to the amount of those products one buys ought to provide a sufficient data-set of whether it is the case, or is logically falsified.

Reply to NOS4A2

Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? As far as the question of: "Do advertisements work or are near trillions of dollars a year and unfathomable levels of resource both intellectual and physical being wasted?"

It's not always as simple as "Oh look a nose hair trimmer for $10. Honey, it's been years since we replaced our old one. Let's order now!" It's often a tangential concept, need, or desire that is aroused, reminded, or otherwise placed in one's head as the result of an advertisement. You might see an advertisement for Pizza Hut, feel hungry, and end up going to a Subway or an Applebee's instead, for example. Or, you might see an ad for a pet supply company, end up missing your deceased dog and go out and buy a cat or a tank full of fish. Or perhaps even be angered at the fact your dog perished at the hand's of a neighbors dog and go out and buy a gun or hire a fencing company. Or something. Point being, most all advertisements invoke a sense of primal necessity (food, drink, shelter) or desire (love, companionship, convenience, etc.). More so than not. And these things are what drive just about every action man has ever committed or performed.

While I await your answer I will refer you to (or rather introduce into the general debate) another more concrete, actually legally codified set of examples for your consideration. Police entrapment laws. I.E. an undercover detective outside a "bait house" (run down, broken window but actually covertly monitored and set up for the illusion) who comes up to you and is like, "Hey man, these guys have been out of town for weeks, they got all kinds of jewelry in there. I need a car to unload it all, and we'll split 50/50. Meet me here tomorrow at 8." ... or something more realistic... what's the classic example... asking a person who doesn't buy drugs to buy drugs for say three times the value, knowing they need the money, then arresting them as a result, where the otherwise non-criminal who if the person did not use their free speech to entice them to perform an illegal act would otherwise have not.

So riddle me that. If people can't be coerced into doing things they otherwise wouldn't by free speech alone, why is police entrapment against the law in all 50 states? Just another needless ordinance, I suppose? Speaking of entrapment. Gotcha. :wink:

That's fine if you're "Mr. All That", of his own mind and will, unbreakable all time eternal. But not everybody is. Some people are less intelligent (perhaps more susceptible?), some people have moderate to severe disabilities that result in much of the same, some are just young, naive, and inexperienced, some people are just struggling from drug and alcohol addiction and have weaker wills as a result. While I'm sure your response will be along the lines of "well that's their fault" or "that's not my problem", your particular view and circumstance does not dictate the will of society. We look out for those who are otherwise unable or at a lessened capacity to do so themselves. If that's not an important concept for you, that's fine. But if that be the case you ought know your place as a social outlier and eternal subordinate to the greater will of human compassion.

Reply to Outlander

Advertising works. I don’t think advertising is a waste of money. How else can someone know what you’re trying to sell, or that you exist if you don’t tell them that you do?

It’s not magic, though. When people keep treating words and symbols as magic spells, as if they can animate someone to do this or that, I object to that, and I don’t know why it is so controversial.

It has nothing to do with my unbreakable will. It’s simple physics and biology. You cannot control another’s motor cortex with words. You cannot cause someone to buy a thing any more than you cause them to forget the advertisement of the thing altogether. I cannot cause you to agree with me and vice versa.

You’re placing nothing in my head. My desires, fears, beliefs, thoughts, concepts—they all find their genesis in me and me alone. All of your examples about pets and Subway all fall prey to post hoc ergo proctor hoc, after this therefor because of this. None of them show any causal factors between one or the other.

Quoting Samlw

As I said, the perpetrator of the crime was under 18 therefore his details were not able to be released to the public. Should we start releasing sensitive information about minors so that racists don't riot?

It appears that you are agreeing with me, if only the person wasn't under 18?

How were they able to determine that it was disinformation if the "personal" information was never released?

Your race and sex are not personal information. That is information available to anyone with eyes. Name, birthdate, social security number, etc. - these things are personal information.

Reply to Samlw No, they clearly don't. That is simply a way to silence that position, by poisoning the well. "it comes from bigots!" Well, no. Hitchens was probably the loudest absolutist of the last 30 years. The position you hold is one of fear.

Quoting Christoffer

You saying that just proves my point that many in society are unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios I described.

No, it doesn't. It just proves that you think racism is a catch-all for any kind of specialized discrimination. Which is exactly what that passage illustrates. You are just wrong - this is something which lives in your head. Not the people you are so badly trying to demonize for reasons unknown *yes, extremists exist. Yes, largely they lack nuance to say anything of worth. No, "right wing" does not = extremist. Good GOD.

Quoting Christoffer

Stop strawmanning.

Not a single straw to be seen. You said something absurd. I gave you a reductio. Your bed, mate.

Quoting Christoffer

So a shor

It is beyond comprehension why you thought this paragraph would be relevant. It is pure prevarication and an attempt to insult.

Quoting Christoffer

You've made no substantial counter-argument here, neither understood my point at all

That is one way to avoid engaging with anything, whatsoever. Feel free, i guess.

Quoting Christoffer

So you clearly don't know what I'm talking about?

I know exactly what you're talking about. If you didn't understand what I said, that's fine. Its easier to say that than make it patently obvious you'd rather whistle dixie.

Quoting Christoffer

Exactly, I've never said that absolutism isn't "a thing", but that it's so corruptable as an ideal that it basically always lead to manipulatory rhetoric used by the most extreme.

But that is patently untrue. So, it doesn't really matter. I got that this was your point, and that is what I responded to. It is absolutely nothing but a fear of a small sliver of hte 'other side's mental state. Which is what i said (in briefer terms). Nothing about "free speech absolutism" gives us what you want it to.

Quoting NOS4A2

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish.

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing.

Quoting Janus

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing.

Have you ever been incited? If not, then is that not evidence that saying words does not necessarily incite others? Could it not be possible that those that are incited already have hate within them and are looking for any excuse to unleash it?

Quoting AmadeusD

No, it doesn't. It just proves that you think racism is a catch-all for any kind of specialized discrimination.

What are you talking about? I used an example to demonstrate the difference between hate speech rhetoric and valid criticism of Islam. On both the side of Islamic extremism and the side of right-wing extremism, they take advantage of this societal confusion to gather more supporters for their causes.

Quoting AmadeusD

Not the people you are so badly trying to demonize for reasons unknown *yes, extremists exist. Yes, largely they lack nuance to say anything of worth. No, "right wing" does not = extremist. Good GOD.

Who am I demonizing? Who are you so desperate to defend here? You just sound so confused and your extreme inability to understand the philosophical points I'm talking about makes you drive the whole topic off road.

Quoting AmadeusD

Not a single straw to be seen. You said something absurd. I gave you a reductio. Your bed, mate.

Your reductio, "yeah, Hitler loved dogs", as an answer to me mentioning the well-documented use of free speech absolutism by extreme groups, is the strawman since there's no "absurdum" it leads to. The risks of freedom of speech absolutism that Popper and others have been making arguments about is not an reductio argument just because you feel triggered by it.

And stop with the childish tone of language. No on thinks you're cool.

Quoting AmadeusD

It is beyond comprehension why you thought this paragraph would be relevant. It is pure prevarication and an attempt to insult.

No, it is relevant, just look at the tone and way you're arguing. It's not befitting of the standards of this forum. You don't argue in honesty or you don't care to grasp the points being made before charging in to attack. You're the one who's constantly acting like an asshole and then you try to play an innocent victim when people get fed up with that tone. It's childish.

Quoting AmadeusD

That is one way to avoid engaging with anything, whatsoever. Feel free, i guess.

What is your substantial counter-argument? All you do are these short-burst arrogant twitter-esque answers. Vague, angry, arrogant attempts to combat an argument with writing that in anyone else's eyes just looks like confused misunderstandings of what is being discussed. I can't make any substantial counter-arguments to your counter-arguments if there are non being made on your side. You're failing at basic philosophical discourse here while sitting on a high horse trying to bully your way forward. You think I haven't seen this type of rhetorical behavior before?

Quoting AmadeusD

I know exactly what you're talking about. If you didn't understand what I said, that's fine..

Again, you're just saying that you understand, without actually demonstrating it, and then trying to turn that around into me not understanding you, with the rhetorical weapon of "just saying so".

Quoting AmadeusD

Its easier to say that than make it patently obvious you'd rather whistle dixie.

In what possible way have I an overly optimistic view... and of what? What are you on about? You make so little sense in your attempts to sound edgy that I think you're getting lost in your own train of thought.

And did you even care to engage with the further reading material attached to that? The stuff that I've been talking about all this time?

Quoting AmadeusD

But that is patently untrue. So, it doesn't really matter. I got that this was your point, and that is what I responded to. It is absolutely nothing but a fear of a small sliver of hte 'other side's mental state. Which is what i said (in briefer terms). Nothing about "free speech absolutism" gives us what you want it to.

It's not untrue, what are you talking about? Free speech absolutism is exactly the thing that Popper and other's are referring to in their paradox of tolerance. And I agree with them that there is a tolerance paradox that needs to be overcome in society in order to sustain tolerance.

What's your argument in opposition to their argument? Just saying that it's untrue does not make it so... You need to get off your imaginary high horse and make your case for why its untrue, act like you're on a philosophy forum rather than some twitter brawl to sound edgy. You're not cool, you're not winning anything through it and no one takes you seriously if you act like this. If anything, it rather seems like you're defending extremism, which I hope is just the misunderstanding that happens because you're unable to actually make your case and formulate a counter-argument against Popper's concept.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Could it not be possible that those that are incited already have hate within them and are looking for any excuse to unleash it.

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash it? I don't think this logic holds.

Quoting Christoffer

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash them? I don't think this logic holds.

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives.

Yes, yes, and yes. We need to revamp our education system, the way the media disseminates information and abolish political parties (group-think and group-hate).

And the poll is misleading. Free speech is NOT saying what you want to say without consequences because we ALL have the right to free speech - which INCLUDES disagreeing with what someone says.

You have the right to say what you want, but so does everyone else. This is the misconception about what free speech is. It is not "say what you want without consequences". It is the "the ability to disagree using logical alternatives and to question authority, not submit to it without question (being incited)".

Quoting Harry Hindu

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument.

You are not looking at how it is used. You are just looking at it's position when a state have become authoritarian. It's not the final state that has the problem with the tolerance paradox, it's the formation of such states:

Quoting Benno Nietzel

The Germans’ ambivalent relationship to propaganda was also evident in politics: while the Weimar governments displayed uneasiness towards propaganda, the Nazi movement called for its unscrupulous use. In this way, the Nazis not only prepared for the destruction of democracy, but also stood for a different understanding of ‘Germanness’.

- They used the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly change the perception of the population into a position that later restricted freedom of speech. This is at the heart of the tolerance Paradox, that an absolute tolerance leads to intolerance. And with the backing of psychological research over the course of the post-war period up until today, we can clearly see how people's perception is easily changed and having no guardrails on freedom of speech it opens up the doors to this intolerance establishing itself and easily spreading.

Quoting Harry Hindu

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard.

Not true, people can be shown facts and counter-arguments but will still oppose the rational if their conviction of the narrative they've been led to believe is strong enough. Just look at fanatical religion or any debate going on in the modern climate of debates online. Just look at anti-climate science beliefs; have you seen any of them change their mind because of logical, rational and sane scientific counter-arguments being showed to them?

Quoting Harry Hindu

You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives.

Alternative media is no better, it's even worse. While the state of the US media being awfully corrupted by billionaire influence, the alternative is not to abandon institutions which operate on journalistic ethics in favor of alternative sources of information, it's to champion neutral institutions who aren't owned by billionaire's influencing the content and information being broadcasted. And alternative media has even less visible "follow the money": https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election-influencers-youtube

Putting trust in "alternative media" is a clear path to being radicalized in the exact way we're talking about here. To think that such voices have less of an agenda than legacy media is extremely naive to the point of being dangerous.

Quoting Harry Hindu

And the poll is misleading. Free speech is NOT saying what you want to say without consequences because we ALL have the right to free speech - which INCLUDES disagreeing with what someone says.

You have the right to say what you want, but so does everyone else. This is the misconception about what free speech is. It is not "say what you want without consequences". It is the "the ability to disagree with logical alternatives and to question authority, not submit to it without question (being incited)".

Or it's simply about the tolerance paradox. To foster a tolerant society that champions freedom of speech, there has to be limits to that freedom which does not tolerate speech that promotes intolerance.

Reply to Janus

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing.

The term “incite” comes from Latin, “incitare”, meaning “to put into rapid motion”. It’s a member of a class of words that has a literal beginning, explainable by physics, but gains a figurative sense over the course of its life they are used unscientifically and in superstitious cultures to explain how words can physically move people.

Another example would be to “stir”, which meant literally “to move”, as in stirring food with one’s hand.

Another one would be to “rouse”, which began as a technical hunting term for hawking, literally “to shake the feathers of the body”.

There is nothing wrong with speaking figuratively. But when figurative language is taken literally and is used to make literal acts illegal, that’s a problem. The fact remains: one cannot put into rapid motion, move, or shake the feathers of another’s body with words.

Quoting Christoffer

On both the side of Islamic extremism and the side of right-wing extremism, they take advantage of this societal confusion to gather more supporters for their causes

I understood what you were saying. I disagree, and think the reason you're saying this is disingenuous, whether that's actually your internal state or not. It comes across that way. Though, the point you're getting across is totally reasonable. To be more direct, what i am "talking about" is this, above.

Quoting Christoffer

Who are you so desperate to defend here?

Everyone who is thrown under the bus for a vague association with some group you (and many others - me included, don't get me wrong) have deemed unacceptable. I would, almost surely based on our exchanges, come under some similar description for you (if not, fine, that's what comes across in our exchanges, though).

Quoting Christoffer

You just sound so confused and your extreme inability to understand the philosophical points I'm talking about makes you drive the whole topic off road.

Well, if that's what you see it's what you see... I think perhaps she doth protest too much.

Quoting Christoffer

just because you feel triggered by it.

Quite frankly, you are not being a reasonable person using phrases like this, and the following line. "No one thinks you're cool" is honestly one of the most ridiculously childish things anyone has ever said to me on this forum.
The silliness of your position is writ large with the example I gave. Hitler loved dogs, therefore, we should probably demonize people who love dogs - is literally the exact same logical throughline as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist should be demonized because some number of them are POS's". Free speech isn't a dog, but it is as neutral, without some fear-driven qualification as to it's negative potential.

Quoting Christoffer

just look at the tone and way you're arguing.

Are you 'triggered'? ;)

Quoting Christoffer

You don't argue in honesty or you don't care to grasp the points being made before charging in to attack.

Yes, that's right. I dishonestly approach conversations by refusing to even read your posts before commenting. When I do comment, its pure luck that things I say i directly relevant and cause us to continue exchanging. Mhmm, Totally reasonable position.
You are just constantly attacking the person in these exchanges, so I don't care to shy from sarcasm.

Quoting Christoffer

short-burst

Are you referring to the thorough walls of text I consistently lay out in response to most exchanges I have here? Because this is utterly bullshit, my friend. Do a quick search of my posts... I get fed up with others sometimes, and so i become terse or curt. That is exactly how everyone in the world with a brain responds when things are going no where. I simply do not care what your moral assessment of me is. I would expect you to feel the same in reverse.

Quoting Christoffer

without actually demonstrating it

When you cannot read clearly, or understand what someone is saying, you will certainly fall back on claims such as this. Common. My posts speak for themselves, though.

Quoting Christoffer

attempts to sound edgy

This is in your head. I cannot possibly pretend to take this seriously.

Quoting Christoffer

anyone else's eyes

Your eyes, Christoffer. Yours. And I do not care about your assessment there, because in my eyes, you're doing exactly what you've charged me with. So be it..

Quoting Christoffer

Free speech absolutism is exactly the thing that Popper and other's are referring to in their paradox of tolerance. And I agree with them that there is a tolerance paradox that needs to be overcome in society in order to sustain tolerance.

I've responded to this. That you did not get it should have had you asking for clarification, not attacking me and devolving into an angry teenager because I didn't accept your views. You do know that your idols can be wrong, right? Like Popper is probably wrong here? LOL. I fully undertsand that you're taking those positions on board and feel they're correct. I do not. I have no idea how its even vaguely possible that you're having this breakdown in understanding given how direct I was on this point.


Quoting Christoffer

What's your argument in opposition to their argument?

"free speech absolutism" does not allow for the outcome you want it to. It is a fugazi of discourse about free speech that it leads to intolerance. It is patently untrue. Only force could do this. Free speech absolutism means no one has the ability to change society on their say-so (i.e using their "speech rights" as it were). The claim made by Popper et al... isn't reasonable in any way. it is a fear-driven expectation that might will overcome the right. But, an absolutely free society (speech-wise) does not have that door open becaues every opposition has the exact same rights.

if you could, perhaps (and not using Popper as your template) come up with an example where you think this could be relevant, I can get on with that. in the abstract, it is patently false.

Quoting Christoffer

it rather seems like you're defending extremism

Given I have out-right said that I'm not - at what point would you tell someone to piss off when they wilfully misrepresent you to support insane passages like this:

Quoting Christoffer

you're on a philosophy forum rather than some twitter brawl to sound edgy. You're not cool, you're not winning anything through it and no one takes you seriously

??? For me, it's getting very close. This has become an exercise in watching how badly I can be talked past. It is not interesting. So either dispense with the personal garbling in your response, or accept that you wont get replies.

Reply to NOS4A2 Presenting etymologies and alternative words is not an argument.Reply to Harry Hindu Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule?

Reply to Janus

Presenting etymologies and alternative words is not an argument.

The argument, which you dodged, is below the etymologies and alternative words. Avoiding the issue is not a counter argument; it’s a fallacy.

Reply to NOS4A2 The point is that you're wrong. That is what incitement is, in the law.

Reply to NOS4A2 No argument just synonyms. People can be spurred to action by another's words. If you want to deny that you are either stupid or dishonest.

Reply to Janus

No argument just synonyms. People can be spurred to action by another's words. If you want to deny that you are either stupid or dishonest.

There you go using another synonym. You’re incapable of showing cause and effect, hiding behind figurative language.

Spur, a spiked metal implement worn on the heel to goad a horse. No one is spurring another to do anything unless someone is using spurs on another.

Quoting NOS4A2

You’re incapable of showing cause and effect,

Mate, this is so bizarre.

There is a legal doctrine known as "If but for". This means that "if but for X, Y would not have happened". This applies to behaviours. "If but for your father's advice to beat the intruder to death with a candlestick, he would still be alive. Your culpability is therefore reduced" is one way this washes out.

If someone tells you there is a good reason to believe your wife is cheating on you, and you investigate - thus causing some other outcome negative to her (perhaps inadvertently running her off the road when you were under the impression its the other man's car), you were acting in good faith on the bad faith say-so of another. That is incitement. Actions which are rational in the face of certain advice are less culpable than those which are not rational. There are entire literatures on this..

Can you make it explicitly clear why you think this does not obtain?

P.S You'll love this passage, i'm sure:

[i]Perhaps the causal connection from inciter to incitees shouldn’t be thought of as direct, having
only one link as it were: strong or weak. We might try to envision incitement as requiring a
complex causal connection with several steps. First, the inciter utters language intended to
cause certain beliefs and emotions in the incitees. (The inciter might but need not hold these
beliefs or experience these emotions.) Next, once the incitees accepts the beliefs and
experiences the emotions, this mental state causes the incitees to commit wrongful actions.
The recent example that seems to fit this model is that of former President Trump’s
impeachment for inciting the crime of insurrection. Trump addressed his supporters and
convinced them that his loss of the 2020 Presidential Election was actually a case of theft; his
audience accepted the belief that a Second Term Presidency was stolen from Trump. Trump
then used language intended to cause anger in his listeners that the election was stolen from
someone (Trump) they supported. Once their mental state was sufficiently strong, it caused his
listeners to act criminally: they violently attacked the Capitol Building trying to stop the Senate
process for officially making Biden US President[/i]

Reply to AmadeusD

Can you make it explicitly clear why you think this does not obtain?

I’m not speaking about law. Law is often wrong. It’s punishable by death to practice sorcery in Saudi Arabia, for example. There are entire literatures on it.

I’m speaking about physics and biology. At least your link makes a decent attempt to square the circle. He says correctly that the incitee’s mental state causes him to commit the action. In other words, he causes himself to commit the action.

But for some reason he adds in another step, more magical thinking and figurative language: the inciter causes beliefs and emotions to arise in the incitee, completely removing the autonomy of the listener. The inciter causes that mental state. How? What’s the causal chain? Do the words swirl around in the head and push a bunch of buttons in the brain?

Sorry. Not good enough. The only cause and source of beliefs and emotions is the one who holds them.

Reply to Samlw It doe not matter what anyone thinks or believes. What you say and do has consequences.

Quoting Christoffer

You are not looking at how it is used. You are just looking at it's position when a state have become authoritarian. It's not the final state that has the problem with the tolerance paradox, it's the formation of such states:

I am looking at the examples you and others have given - which is always of an authoritarian state.

Quoting Christoffer

They used the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly change the perception of the population into a position that later restricted freedom of speech.

They did not use free speech to change the perception. They limited opposing viewpoints to change the perception of the population. I guarantee that the idea of Fascism does not have solid logical ground to stand on when there is a level playing field governed by logic and reason.


Quoting Christoffer

Not true, people can be shown facts and counter-arguments but will still oppose the rational if their conviction of the narrative they've been led to believe is strong enough. Just look at fanatical religion or any debate going on in the modern climate of debates online. Just look at anti-climate science beliefs; have you seen any of them change their mind because of logical, rational and sane scientific counter-arguments being showed to them?

Sigh. You're not taking into account everything I have said in my post to you. Like Vera Mont, you fail to put all the pieces together, even when they are all right there in one post - either because you lack the awareness or are being intellectually dishonest.

I said that we need to revamp our education system and the way the media disseminates information, remember? - that part that you did not quote in your response to me, which just makes your response a straw-man? If you're going to respond then make sure you are taking into account everything I have said, or you're wasting your time typing. You are exhibiting those traits you are ranting about - being manipulated by your those in power to diminish the free speech right of others with illogical arguments. You are participating in the very thing you claim you are advocating against.

Quoting Christoffer

Alternative media is no better, it's even worse.
Putting trust in "alternative media" is a clear path to being radicalized in the exact way we're talking
about here.

Again, that was not my proposed solution - you know - the part you left out of my post that you are responding to. I said that we need to change the way the media (all media) disseminates information. All these straw-men are wasting my time.


Quoting Christoffer

Or it's simply about the tolerance paradox. To foster a tolerant society that champions freedom of speech, there has to be limits to that freedom which does not tolerate speech that promotes intolerance.

Now you have to define what intolerance means - and who gets to define it. If you are saying that one part of the political spectrum gets to define what "intolerance" means then you are no different than the fascist you claim to be fighting against. It appears to me that we could imprison many people on these forums for being "intolerant" of other's views and use of words.

Quoting Janus

Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule?

I fail to see your point. Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not?

Reply to Samlw

A healthy body of law and regulation depends on moral realism, and in a culture where moral realism is waning the body of law becomes unhealthy. Like all natural rights, the right to speech requires moral realism. Nevertheless, because the value of speech is more perspicacious than most values, it is easier for the moral non-realist or the morally non-realistic culture to support the right to speech. In the case of speech it is easier for the moral non-realist to have his cake and eat it too.

When you have a culture that tends towards moral non-realism, free speech absolutism becomes more intuitive (i.e. the idea that there are no values which compete with speech becomes more intuitive). Even so, this merely a stage in a destabilizing process, for the moral non-realist can’t actually justify the value of speech in any significant way, and those who wish to oppose speech absolutism also have no sound arguments to hand, deprived as they are of moral realism. So it becomes the culture of Thrasymachus or Nietzsche, where the power of might makes right. You can actually see this same thing in my thread, “Beyond the Pale,” where the majority of participants said that there simply is no rational justification for prohibiting things like racism (or in this case, racist speech).

Quoting NOS4A2

In other words, he causes himself to commit the action.

Then you're simply ignoring the other half, given your objection below this is entirely hollow.

Quoting NOS4A2

completely removing the autonomy of the listener

That is, roughly, the point. We do this with mentally incapacitated people. What's the difference in your eyes?

Quoting NOS4A2

Do the words swirl around in the head and push a bunch of buttons in the brain?

All stimuli do. Words are stimuli. This is obvious biological fact.

Quoting NOS4A2

The only cause and source of beliefs and emotions is the one who holds them.

Then I guess you can just choose to never be angry, upset, pining or any other uncomfortable emotion then. Nice.

Quoting Leontiskos

A healthy body of law and regulation depends on moral realism, and in a culture where moral realism is waning the body of law becomes unhealthy.

Not so, and there's no good evidence for it.

Quoting AmadeusD

Not so, and there's no good evidence for it.

That's a good example of a complete non-argument.

Reply to Leontiskos So was the quoted passage from yourself :)

Reply to AmadeusD

Then you're simply ignoring the other half, given your objection below this is entirely hollow.

What other half would that be?

That is, roughly, the point. We do this with mentally incapacitated people. What's the difference in your eyes?

One is mentally incapacitated, the other is not.

All stimuli do. Words are stimuli. This is obvious biological fact.

All soundwaves are stimuli. Soundwaves stimulate the ear drum, and that’s about where their work ends. It is the listener who tranduces that stimuli into other forms of energy for the purposes of listening, understanding, etc.

Then I guess you can just choose to never be angry, upset, pining or any other uncomfortable emotion then. Nice.

I’m human. But human emotion begins and ends in the human being, with his biology—genetics, brain chemistry, hormones, blood pressure etc.—being the direct cause.

I understand I’m stubborn on this issue, so thanks for putting up with it and giving me a fair shake.

@NOS4A2

If Biden, when he was President, were to have instructed the Department of Justice to arrest his political opponents and hold them in prison without trial, and if they were to then do so, would you place (some) responsibility on Biden, and argue that this warrants impeachment and removal from office (and perhaps also arrest), or would you blame only the individual officers who carry out the instruction?

Should I be punished for hiring a contract killer to kill my spouse? I didn't kill her; I just asked someone else to and promised him money.

Many of us believe in free will, and argue against hard determinism, and so deny the claim that speech can have some irresistible, compulsive force on others, but still accept that encouragement and persuasion are very real psychological phenomena, and that speech that encourages or persuades others to engage in (certain) unlawful activity ought itself be unlawful.

Reply to Harry HinduQuoting Christoffer

cor

They later revealed the information legally once he had been convicted.

Quoting Michael

If Biden, when he was President, were to have instructed the Department of Justice to arrest his political opponents and hold them in prison without trial, and if they were to then do so, would you place (some) responsibility on Biden, and argue that this warrants impeachment and removal from office (and perhaps also arrest), or would you blame only the individual officers who carry out the instruction?

Biden would not be impeached because he spoke, but because he acted in ways that are unconstitutional.

Quoting Michael

Should I be punished for hiring a contract killer to kill my spouse? I didn't kill her; I just asked someone else to and promised him money.

You would be punished for conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime of action, not speech.

How about this example:
If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance?

It seems you are confusing actions with speech.

Let me ask you this: Is it always the case that when violence occurs and the suspect points to another person and says, "But he told me to do it!", that the person they are pointing is guilty of some crime? If not, explain to me the process you would determine the other's guilt at the expense of the one that actually committed violent acts.

Quoting Michael

Many of us believe in free will, and argue against hard determinism, and so deny the claim that speech can have some irresistible, compulsive force on others, but still accept that encouragement and persuasion are very real psychological phenomena, and that speech that encourages or persuades others to engage in (certain) unlawful activity ought itself be unlawful.

It only persuades the weak-minded and uninformed, which is not a problem of an abundance of free speech, but a lack of it - a problem of how we educate citizens and how the media disseminates information.

Quoting Harry Hindu

It seems you are confusing actions with speech.

How do you distinguish between action and speech in the cases mentioned?

Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General.

I'm not physically placing a gun in John Smith's hand and pulling the trigger; I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him.

Quoting Harry Hindu

How about this example:
If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance?

This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives.

A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't?

I would like to see how you answer this because of what you said:Quoting Harry Hindu

It seems you are confusing actions with speech.

Reply to Michael

I think they’re guilty of doing what you described, but for different reasons. Speaking or instructing is not the criminal act and the reasons those acts are evil.

The officer’s who carry out arrests due to a superior’s orders have to obey or face repercussion. It’s that dynamic, not the words, that convinces him to follow those orders. The superior ought not to abuse that power and the officer ought not to follow those orders. If I were to try to persuade or convince or encourage the officers to arrest my political opponents using the exact same instructions, but without the power to threaten his employment, the officer wouldn’t listen to me and would probably laugh in my face. Exact same words and instructions, but two different results. Why? Because It’s not the words or the fact of speaking that convinces an officer to follow such orders.

Hiring someone to kill your wife in exchange for cash has a similar component. If you made the exact same request but didn’t exchange any cash, the contract killer wouldn’t kill. The exact same request, but one does not convince. Why? The exchange of money, not the request, is the reason a contract killer would kill your wife.

Quoting Michael

Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General.

I'm pretty sure there would be much more involved than just making sounds with his mouth.

Besides, this misses the point that what you are describing actually a lack of free speech, where a dictator tells people what to do and no one is allowed to question the orders.

Quoting Michael

I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him.

Again, there is more involved than just making sounds with your mouth. You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word.

Quoting Samlw

This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives.

You missed the point entirely. I never said they should go to jail for smoking it. I was asking if the one telling them to smoke it should go to jail or not?

It seems to me that throwing people in jail for saying things ruins peoples lives.


Quoting Samlw

A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't?

What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts?

What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said.

It is illogical to define free speech as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", as free speech includes the rights of others to say what they want, which could be disagreeing with and criticizing what another says, which are repercussions to what one has said. So in a free society that values free speech - EVERYONE has the right, not just a select few (as that is the antithesis of free speech), to speak their mind, which includes questioning authority and criticizing and questioning what others have said.

Quoting Harry Hindu

What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts?

In no way am I saying that and you know that. Such a non-argument.

Quoting Harry Hindu

What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said.

The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"?

Your answer will probably be nonsensical in your efforts to defend predators right's to groom children along as they don't do anything with it.

Quoting NOS4A2

Hiring someone to kill your wife in exchange for cash has a similar component. If you made the exact same request but didn’t exchange any cash, the contract killer wouldn’t kill. The exact same request, but one does not convince. Why? The exchange of money, not the request, is the reason a contract killer would kill your wife.

There's not always the exchange of money, it might only be the promise of money, and surely a promise is just a speech-act? But there might not even be a promise; there might simply be a request of one friend to another. If I beg John to kill my wife, and he does, ought I be punished?

Quoting NOS4A2

The officer’s who carry out arrests due to a superior’s orders have to obey or face repercussion. It’s that dynamic, not the words, that convinces him to follow those orders.

You question the physics of my words inciting you to commit a crime but don't question the physics of some nebulous "dynamic" between me and you inciting you to commit a crime? That doesn't seem very consistent.

Surely if your fear of being punished by me "compels" you to commit a crime then that's entirely the responsibility of you and your psychology?

Quoting Samlw

The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"?

Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.

If you have another example then give it. It seems that this is all you have - some nebulous example that can be construed as both action and speech, or speech over weeks, and I'm sure grooming involves more than just saying words.

I'm waiting on an example that shows a clear distinction between action and speaking where the speaking is clearly the cause of the violent act of another. There isn't one.

So, you can ignore my main point all you want, but that is a response all in itself.

Quoting Harry Hindu

You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word.

Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my involvement in the (conspiray to) murder?

Quoting Michael

Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my wife's murder?

Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?

Even if we were to suspend reality for the sake of your example, you still need to explain how the idea of free speech defined as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions" is reconciled with the idea that everyone has the right to free speech, which includes questioning authority and criticizing what others say because your examples are all of those in some authoritative position dictating to others, or manipulating others (in your new example) that lack the correct information. The solution to all of your examples it to have a more informed population - where all views are free to be expressed and criticized, not less free speech.

Reply to Michael

There's not always the exchange of money, it might only be the promise of money, and surely a promise is just a speech-act? But there might not even be a promise; there might simply be a request of one friend to another. If I beg John to kill my wife, and he does, ought I be punished?

No, I do not think you ought to be punished in this instance because you made no obligation to John and did not help him with the planning or execution of the act.

You question the physics of my words inciting you to commit a crime but don't question the physics of some nebulous "dynamic" between me and you inciting you to commit a crime? That doesn't seem very consistent.

Surely if your fear of being punished by me "compels" you to commit a crime then that's entirely the responsibility of you and your psychology.

In my defense it’s difficult to explain. By “dynamic” I mean hierarchical relationship with expectations.

Absolutely if my fear of being punished compels me to commit the crime, then that is my responsibility—I could have done otherwise— but you are guilty of something like abusing your position. The point is, other reasons besides the speech and act of speaking convinces one to commit the crime.

Reply to Harry Hindu

I have just given you an exact example and then you go, "no that doesn't count name another one"?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.

This is an extremely ignorant view. An intelligent adult would be able to groom your 8 year old child no matter how you much you are going to inform them. Can I also ask what your young child will know about that will be able to protect your child from being groomed, because it is all good telling them don't go in a van but what else are children going to absorb that will prevent this? Please elaborate because I am genuinely curios.

Plus, that is entirely irrelevant and doesn't prove anything. Just because YOUR kids may not be the victims of grooming, what about the actual victims? are they considered miss-informed?

"Yeah sorry you got groomed. Next time, make sure to confront the perpetrator and get more informed" Would this be your advice? Victim blaming 101.

Reply to Samlw Still hiding behind straw-men. Answer the question you keep ignoring.

Reply to Harry Hindu What question?

Quoting NOS4A2

Absolutely if my fear of being punished compels me to commit the crime, then that is my responsibility—I could have done otherwise— but you are guilty of something like abusing your position.

How have I abused my position? You obeyed, so I didn't punish you, and I might not have even threatened to punish you for disobeying. The only thing I've done is uttered the phrase "throw Trump in prison". You may (correctly or incorrectly) believe that you would be punished for disobeying, but I haven't done or said anything to that effect.

So this doesn't work unless you want to say that, by virtue of my position, the very utterance "throw Trump in prison" is the abuse of power and ought be punished, in which case you accept the principle that some speech acts ought be restricted, even if the restriction depends both on content and the relative "positions" of the speaker and the audience (whereas others might think that content alone is sufficient).

Quoting AmadeusD

I understood what you were saying. I disagree

You are disagreeing with something that's been reported on and dissected for a long time. You're not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Popper and you have to make an actual counter-argument. This is not a forum where you just say "I disagree" and leave it at that.

Quoting AmadeusD

and think the reason you're saying this is disingenuous

What about this is disingenuous? It's an observation of society through the lens of Popper's stated paradox of tolerance.

Quoting AmadeusD

Everyone who is thrown under the bus for a vague association with some group you (and many others - me included, don't get me wrong) have deemed unacceptable. I would, almost surely based on our exchanges, come under some similar description for you (if not, fine, that's what comes across in our exchanges, though).

What are you talking about? You seem so triggered by the philosophical discourse around free speech that you are unable to argue outside of whatever group you, yourself, has attached yourself to. It's not any of us who've put you in some group, it's you and then you're operating on some anger against others that for us makes no sense, especially not within the context of a philosophical discussion. Philosophy is about the ability to argue outside of such biases and if you are experiencing a cognitive dissonance when involved in a discussion like this, then maybe you should take an introspective breath and ask yourself if you're the one putting people and concepts in simplified boxes rather than other people.

From what I can interpret, you seem to have positioned yourself as a free speech absolutist and you're defending that position not with philosophical arguments, but with arrogance and hostility.

The fact is that Popper and other philosophers of his time recognized through what happened in 1930s Germany, freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand. It was part of a powerful toolset of reprogramming a population's core beliefs and it's still a powerful tool today when the way its used isn't recognized.

So when we speak about freedom of speech absolutism, its history and the philosophy around that subject, that's not an attack on your personal beliefs, it's a deconstruction of the subject. When you lash out in the way you do, that just perfectly shows us the cognitive dissonance at play. The inability to form a proper argument, the constant emotional, arrogant and childish bully-speak... how can anyone take you seriously when that's the level you operate on? If you're unable to form an actual argument and just attack, you're shown you are unable to discuss this topic further and only operate on the low-quality level that this forum have rules against.

Act like an adult or be treated like a child.

Quoting AmadeusD

Quite frankly, you are not being a reasonable person using phrases like this, and the following line. "No one thinks you're cool" is honestly one of the most ridiculously childish things anyone has ever said to me on this forum.

You're just continuing the "you too" rhetoric that children uses. If someone recognizes your behavior as childish, you simply say that back believing you've leveled the playing field. When I say "no one thinks you're cool" it simply means that your style of writing seems to revolve around compensating the lack of an actual argument with snark irreverant comments to try and disguise its obvious argumentum ad lapidems and it comes off as sounding like someone desperately trying to sound cool to mask this inability to actually engage with the philosophical discussion.

Quoting AmadeusD

The silliness of your position is writ large with the example I gave. Hitler loved dogs, therefore, we should probably demonize people who love dogs - is literally the exact same logical throughline as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist should be demonized because some number of them are POS's"

That's your strawman right there. Can you see it? Can you see the fallacy you're making in your reasoning that is the foundation of all your quick emotional remarks? - The inability to understand that when I say that free speech absolutism is used by extremist groups to move goal posts and radicalize people; the same observation Popper made in the 40s, that's not in your strawman simplification the same as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist".

What is telling about all this, is that the way you defend your position is in such a loaded political form that you're not doing philosophy here, you're lashing out a personal belief, an evangelical defense of that belief rather than an examination of what the absolute state of free speech means. This kind of evangelical behavior is also not allowed on this forum. Strawmanning and changing other's arguments in order to make evangelical defenses of your beliefs is not philosophy and belongs in the cesspool of other internet debates that does not have the stricter rules this forum has to cut out that low quality writing.

Quoting AmadeusD

Are you 'triggered'? ;)

No, I'm not, I'm simply observing someone with a bully mentality trying to make some personal win for his beliefs rather than engage the topic in a philosophical way, and not recognizing how futile this behavior is and how the thin veil of this tough guy attitude is transparent for anyone.

Quoting AmadeusD

Yes, that's right. I dishonestly approach conversations by refusing to even read your posts before commenting. When I do comment, its pure luck that things I say i directly relevant and cause us to continue exchanging. Mhmm, Totally reasonable position.
You are just constantly attacking the person in these exchanges, so I don't care to shy from sarcasm.

But you're not though. You've not ever once engaged with the actual argument on free speech absolutism. You've evangelically defended your beliefs, without even attempting to address Popper's tolerance paradox in any meaningful way. That's what I mean with you not engaging with the topic in honesty. And this continued sarcasm just continues to prove my point about your dishonest engagement in the topic. You're not here to discuss it, you're here to defend your personal belief and through an obnoxiously silly and childish behavior avoid any criticism. Again, what are you attempting to do here?

Quoting AmadeusD

Are you referring to the thorough walls of text I consistently lay out in response to most exchanges I have here?

You've not engaged in what I said with philosophical scrutiny, you've lashed out with a strawman simplification and downright inability to understand what I wrote, some emotionally triggered defense that you're just escalating over and over and then try to point out, "no, I'm actually writing good long arguments". Saying something is not the same as actually doing it and you've not once engaged with the core of my argument, you avoid it like a plague and continue with your short-burst snark attempts at edgy counters. It's actually like talking to a child.

Quoting AmadeusD

I get fed up with others sometimes, and so i become terse or curt. That is exactly how everyone in the world with a brain responds when things are going no where. I simply do not care what your moral assessment of me is. I would expect you to feel the same in reverse.

You are on a philosophy forum, with clear rules of engagement. It's meant to keep the people away who "get fed up with others sometimes" because that's not the level a philosophical discussion should be operating on. If you don't understand where you are, and what the rules of conduct is, then that's on you. Grown-ups are able to control their emotions, especially in places that try to focus on intellectual discourse.

It's not a moral observation, it's an observation of someone failing at the very thing this forum is about. It's you who have decided that things go nowhere, yet you've not gone in the direction of the argument I've made, you've invented your own situation in which things go nowhere in order to try and back up not having to engage with the direction a discussion is actually going.

This avoidance behavior informs that you've hit a wall or can't engage with the discussion honestly, not because you can't, but because the cognitive dissonance it triggers puts you in the fear of having to examine your core beliefs. But doing actual philosophy is to always examine and question your core beliefs. If you're not up for it, go to Twitter or similar channels where beliefs are shouted into the void. In here you can't interpret a criticism of something you believe in as some attack on you personally and then expect to be in the right by trying to bully that criticism away.

Quoting AmadeusD

When you cannot read clearly, or understand what someone is saying, you will certainly fall back on claims such as this. Common. My posts speak for themselves, though.

Again, you're trying to just flip the criticism you get back at where the criticism came from. It goes nowhere for you. This kind of behavior just leads to eye rolls as it's an obvious attempt to psychologically win an argument. But it doesn't work on people who've seen this stuff a million times before. It's almost a form of easily recognized rhetorical archetype behavior. And your posts speak for themselves in that emptiness, that's true.

Quoting AmadeusD

This is in your head. I cannot possibly pretend to take this seriously.

I don't think so, I think you genuinely believe that this bully behavior of yours works as a defense, but it doesn't. It just informs on what level you operate in philosophical scrutiny.

Quoting AmadeusD

Your eyes, Christoffer. Yours. And I do not care about your assessment there, because in my eyes, you're doing exactly what you've charged me with. So be it..

Again, you try to flip things around. It's a constant and repeating pattern that just repeats the same empty point over and over. And what I mean by "us" is that you've been criticized for this before, not just in this discussion with me. So yes, more eyes than mine and the way you are being criticized is not in the way you operate. If I deconstruct your rhetoric and behavior, that's not the same as conducting that behavior. I'm doing this in order to push you into making an actual argument rather than continue down this path of low-quality writing that you constantly continue with. But I'm starting to see that you are unable to, since you've demonstrated very little effort to attempt any philosophical scrutiny. Even after constantly being asked for an actual counter argument, you continue to avoid doing so. The proof is in that pudding of your rhetoric.

Quoting AmadeusD

I've responded to this.

You have not. Where can I see this argument in opposition of Popper's tolerance paradox for which I've been talking about as the core premise of what I wrote? Stop saying that you have done so and actually show it? Where is it?

Quoting AmadeusD

That you did not get it should have had you asking for clarification

If you are vague and unclear and being asked to clarify, that's what you should do. This is not a place for you to make plaque statements of your beliefs or anything like that. Again, you don't understand what philosophy is about. This kind of rhetoric is exactly the subliminal "you're too stupid to understand my point" that people who want to avoid a deconstruction of their beliefs make as a form of defense in order to avoid that introspection. You've not made any counter arguments at all and if asked to clarify you should do so on a forum like this, not behave like this is your personal place to shout your beliefs.

Quoting AmadeusD

not attacking me and devolving into an angry teenager because I didn't accept your views.

Again, trying to flip around who's doing what here. You get criticized for acting like a child and then you try to swing that same criticism back. These are such obvious rhetorical tactics that it's getting old. You lashed out with a strawman interpretation of my argument, gets called out for it and then starts to behave like a child would do, trying to bully yourself into respect and when that doesn't work, trying to blame others of doing what you are doing. It's this behavior that is childish, because this is how children acts when emotionally pushed. And you're only indirectly pushed because your core beliefs are criticized within the topic of this thread, leading to a cognitive dissonance triggering this behavior. So you fail at engaging with the topic philosophically, and instead falling back on a rhetoric more fitting of Twitter than this forum.

Quoting AmadeusD

You do know that your idols can be wrong, right? Like Popper is probably wrong here? LOL.

Here you go again, saying something without demonstrating anything. You've not addressed why he is wrong, you're just "LOL"-ing your way out of it... like a child.

Why is he wrong, what's your actual counter argument? How many times do I have to ask you to make a proper argument? It's this simple thing that makes all your avoidance behavior and bullying attempts echo empty.

Quoting AmadeusD

I fully undertsand that you're taking those positions on board and feel they're correct.

Again, here you try to flip things around. You're the one who's behavior out of some core belief because you're not explaining your philosophical argument, you're just in a desperate defensive mode. You're talking about yourself and that's not me saying it, it's the very fact that you avoid making actual counter arguments to the philosophical argument and then just demand to be taken seriously by force.

Quoting AmadeusD

I have no idea how its even vaguely possible that you're having this breakdown in understanding given how direct I was on this point.

Can you point to your counter argument of the tolerance paradox? Other than you just saying "there's no paradox" without any further reference to what that means in opposition to Popper's arguments? You're failing philosophy so bad here that I wonder, why are you even on this forum if you can't engage with these topics honestly?

Quoting AmadeusD

Given I have out-right said that I'm not - at what point would you tell someone to piss off when they wilfully misrepresent you to support insane passages like this:

So what is it that you are defending really? You are obviously arguing for freedom of speech absolutism, so why are you evangelically promoting it without engaging honestly with the criticism of it? You're rhetorically behaving in the very same way as extremists do when championing freedom of speech absolutism and you're not proving to be otherwise.

If you actually had an argument that engages with the problems of that ideal in an honest and philosophical way, there would be no problem, but when you behave and argue in the same hostile way around this topic as those who use freedom of speech absolutism for their own agendas, then what should people think of you and your way of arguing?

Prove you understand the topic, prove that you can argue for freedom of speech absolutism instead of this constant low-quality bully behavior. No one cares about your beliefs and convictions if you can't make a true philosophical argument for it and address the issues raised with it. Do philosophy please, or why should we bother even talking to you otherwise?

Quoting AmadeusD

??? For me, it's getting very close. This has become an exercise in watching how badly I can be talked past. It is not interesting. So either dispense with the personal garbling in your response, or accept that you wont get replies.

Is it "personal" to ask you to behave in line with what this forum is about instead of behaving like a child trying to bully himself to winning an argument?

It's your attitude that spawns the criticism of your behavior. Do you see me engaging with any other in the same manner? No, because they can discuss the topic on the philosophical level appropriate. Maybe you should ask that question instead, why do you get this deconstruction of your behavior and not others? And the reason why I take time to write all this? I don't like bullies and I especially don't like them infecting philosophical discussions.

And since this is the closest you got to an actual argument, I separated it into this as I've said enough about your behavior in the discussion. I will not engage in that discussion anymore since that's not on topic.

---

Quoting AmadeusD

"free speech absolutism" does not allow for the outcome you want it to. It is a fugazi of discourse about free speech that it leads to intolerance. It is patently untrue. Only force could do this.

"Patently untrue" is a rather strong wording for something that literally happened:

The Germans’ ambivalent relationship to propaganda was also evident in politics: while the Weimar governments displayed uneasiness towards propaganda, the Nazi movement called for its unscrupulous use. In this way, the Nazis not only prepared for the destruction of democracy, but also stood for a different understanding of ‘Germanness’.

...and which was the thing that spawned the idea behind the tolerance paradox.

Your strong opposition here leads to a question which answer would form a better context of your opposition; do you not believe that people, a group, can be changed into a new belief through rhetorical means? If such belief can be changed through rhetorical manipulation, do you then consider the way the Nazi's used this unscrupulous use of propaganda and redefinitions of "Germanness" to be of such rhetorical power to radicalize?

And, if so, does that not lead to a tolerance paradox in which the absoluteness enables such use of rhetorical means to radicalize a people until it's not absolute anymore, but restricted by the rules set by the manipulators? I.e absolute tolerance leading to intolerance.

How is this "pantently untrue", you've not demonstrated any valid counter argument to it outside of that remark.

Quoting AmadeusD

Free speech absolutism means no one has the ability to change society on their say-so (i.e using their "speech rights" as it were). The claim made by Popper et al... isn't reasonable in any way. it is a fear-driven expectation that might will overcome the right. But, an absolutely free society (speech-wise) does not have that door open becaues every opposition has the exact same rights.

Do you think that society is operated by a population of people, or by a system that isn't able to be changed by that population? You describe a system, an ideal system, a form of utopian conditions that we've already in history seen easily transformed from such freedoms to no such freedoms, through the means that those freedoms grants individuals to change society.

Society is an ever-changing entity, with guardrails through laws, regulations and culture that define in what ways and what paths it can change. If we have numerous examples of how a population can be psychologically manipulated into beliefs that roll out the carpet for an intolerant society, then absolute freedom of speech is an ideal that does not function to guardrail a free society.

That is the core of the tolerance paradox. It's not out of fear, it's out of historical observation and understanding of group psychology. You can't ignore those aspects.

Quoting AmadeusD

if you could, perhaps (and not using Popper as your template) come up with an example where you think this could be relevant, I can get on with that. in the abstract, it is patently false.

I did, with how the Nazis changed the definitions of Germanness and culture by championing free speech absolutism to enable their manipulation of the population through propaganda that eroded the freedom of speech down to controlled speech based on what the Nazis decided to be allowed, changing the perception of the population into agreeing with that limitation on freedom of speech.

This way of using the idea of championing something good, like freedom of speech, in order to position themselves in opposition of the bad (those who wanted to limit certain speech that promoted the Nazis worldviews) weaponized freedom of speech absolutism in order to form the perception of the Nazis as being champions for good against those who "tried to silence them", while using the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly radicalize the people in a way that any critic would be polarized into being an enemy of the "good side".

This is the path that the tolerance paradox is talking about. That freedom of speech absolutism is an utopian ideal that ignores that over time there will be those who can take advantage of it to begin radicalizing people in a way that is hard to combat as the very nature of its absolute state makes any critics who tries to stop such radicalization an enemy of freedom of speech rather than combating the radicalization of the people.

Quoting Tolerance Paradox

Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

Since we have both historical examples and psychological research on radicalization, you need to include that when arguing that the tolerance paradox is untrue. It's not untrue just because you say so, that's a weak and invalid argument.

Reply to Samlw
Quoting Harry Hindu

Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not?

If so, then how do you reconcile that with the notion that free speech is also :
Quoting Samlw

You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions

Wouldn't disagreeing, questioning, and criticizing what was said qualify as repercussions?

All the examples you and others have given are basically begging the question that free speech entails "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", while forgetting free speech is the capacity to question authority and disagree with what is said.

Reply to Harry Hindu

These are two different things. You can have the ability to question authority and disagree with others AND also face repercussions when you are completely out of line. This is why I outlined a restrictive point of view and a Absolutist point of view.

Whilst people disagreeing and questioning is technically a repercussion, I would consider it more of people exercising their rights as much as you,(and if you are an absolutist you would also agree). I would also not put it on the same level as jail time / community service.

So whilst I understand how it may come across as contradictory if you look at it at face value, I think you have to accept that people disagreeing is going to be a fundamental certainty but it should not mean that you can be extreme or push hatred.

Now that I have answered yours, please respond properly to my previous post:
Quoting Samlw

?Harry Hindu

I have just given you an exact example and then you go, "no that doesn't count name another one"?

Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.
— Harry Hindu

This is an extremely ignorant view. An intelligent adult would be able to groom your 8 year old child no matter how you much you are going to inform them. Can I also ask what your young child will know about that will be able to protect your child from being groomed, because it is all good telling them don't go in a van but what else are children going to absorb that will prevent this? Please elaborate because I am genuinely curios.

Plus, that is entirely irrelevant and doesn't prove anything. Just because YOUR kids may not be the victims of grooming, what about the actual victims? are they considered miss-informed?

"Yeah sorry you got groomed. Next time, make sure to confront the perpetrator and get more informed" Would this be your advice? Victim blaming 101.

Reply to Michael

How have I abused my position? You obeyed, so I didn't punish you, and I might not have even threatened to punish you for disobeying. The only thing I've done is uttered the phrase "throw Trump in prison". You may (correctly or incorrectly) believe that you would be punished for disobeying, but I haven't done or said anything to that effect.

I don’t believe that, nor do I know why anyone would. There is a chain of command, and an expectation that subordinates follow their superior’s orders. All involved are aware of the chain of command, and all involved are aware of the repercussions should the subordinate violate it.

Let’s not equivocate between acts of speech and speech acts. Uttering the phrase isn’t the only thing you’ve done.

So this doesn't work unless you want to say that, by virtue of my position, the very utterance "throw Trump in prison" is the abuse of power and ought be punished, in which case you accept the principle that some speech acts ought be restricted, even if the restriction depends both on content and the relative "positions" of the speaker and the audience (whereas others might think that content alone is sufficient).

I don’t think the utterance is the abuse of power and ought to be punished. If you uttered the same phrase, but were joking or being sarcastic, then that expectation to follow orders might be absent, and in that case the command need not be followed; therefore no one is harmed. If the illocutionary act was a “directive”, under the assumption that one ought not violate his chain of command, then everyone ought to be aware of that before they begin to even think of punishment.

Admittedly “abuse of power” doesn’t outline any real crime. I guess it's just a political term of art. That’s why I believe the only “punishment” for that specific act ought to be decided at the ballot box.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I am looking at the examples you and others have given - which is always of an authoritarian state.

I'm not sure what you mean? Nazi Germany was not authoritarian before it became authoritarian and it's how it became authoritarian where these things happen. It's the erosion of free speech through the absolute tolerance of all speech that enables the radicalization of people to the point of them then standing behind authoritarian restrictions.

Quoting Harry Hindu

They did not use free speech to change the perception. They limited opposing viewpoints to change the perception of the population.

You are still talking about the end game authoritarian state, not how it got to that point. If you had a group in society which just started limiting opposing viewpoints it would rally the people against them, this is not how a free society evolves into an authoritarian state.

Here's what I wrote above to further explain:

Quoting Christoffer

the Nazis changed the definitions of Germanness and culture by championing free speech absolutism to enable their manipulation of the population through propaganda that eroded the freedom of speech down to controlled speech based on what the Nazis decided to be allowed, changing the perception of the population into agreeing with that limitation on freedom of speech.

This way of using the idea of championing something good, like freedom of speech, in order to position themselves in opposition of the bad (those who wanted to limit certain speech that promoted the Nazis worldviews) weaponized freedom of speech absolutism in order to form the perception of the Nazis as being champions for good against those who "tried to silence them", while using the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly radicalize the people in a way that any critic would be polarized into being an enemy of the "good side".

This is the path that the tolerance paradox is talking about. That freedom of speech absolutism is an utopian ideal that ignores that over time there will be those who can take advantage of it to begin radicalizing people in a way that is hard to combat as the very nature of its absolute state makes any critics who tries to stop such radicalization an enemy of freedom of speech rather than combating the radicalization of the people.

Quoting Harry Hindu

You're not taking into account everything I have said in my post to you.

That's not the problem, the problem is that you misunderstand the core premise and confuse the authoritarian state with the pre-authoritarian state that leads to it. Misunderstanding that makes you misunderstand my argument.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I said that we need to revamp our education system and the way the media disseminates information, remember? - that part that you did not quote in your response to me, which just makes your response a straw-man?

Here's the full thing of what you said in response to me:

Quoting Harry Hindu

[i]The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash them? I don't think this logic holds.
— Christoffer[/i]

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives.

Yes, yes, and yes. We need to revamp our education system, the way the media disseminates information and abolish political parties (group-think and group-hate).

First part is a misunderstanding of my argument, focusing on the end-state of the authoritarian state, not how it becomes such a state. Second part is describing how in a free society people would not be fooled or radicalized because there's always access to a counter-point; which I noted isn't how things works as that's not how people operate psychologically. Just having an opposite voice in society does not mitigate radicalization or preventing society to change into authoritarianism.

The reason I didn't quote the thing about the educational system is that it seems disconnected from the argument itself. The first two parts speak of authoritarianism and how the existence of opposite voices would prevent people from being fooled or radicalized. A revamp to the educational system doesn't really have a logical following. And I agree that many privatized media outlets and political parties polarize more than help society, but what revamp to education would help with that I don't follow because that's a bit vague what that entails? As well as the fact that we also have media in the world that do not polarize and that should be championed in opposition to the privatized media who holds agendas. And that there still has to be something instead of political parties if society is to function. So that last part is more confusing to answer as it doesn't really follow the first two premises.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Again, that was not my proposed solution - you know - the part you left out of my post that you are responding to. I said that we need to change the way the media (all media) disseminates information. All these straw-men are wasting my time.

I don't think you use the straw-man here in the correct way. I'm not strawmanning, I just think it's vaguely argued. What revamp should be made to the educational system? What is the problem with how legacy media spread information (all media is not partisan media)? and what will be instead of political parties?

I'm not really sure of what the solution is here? I answered what I could interpret of your argument, that's not a strawman, it may be a misunderstanding of what you argued, but then explain it further then. A strawman is deliberately misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to counter, not misunderstanding an argument because it was too vague in its conclusion.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Now you have to define what intolerance means - and who gets to define it. If you are saying that one part of the political spectrum gets to define what "intolerance" means then you are no different than the fascist you claim to be fighting against. It appears to me that we could imprison many people on these forums for being "intolerant" of other's views and use of words.

I think you need to read up on the tolerance paradox first to get what I'm talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It's not about politics, or which spectrum of politics "gets to decide". You are politicizing it when it's not a political issue at its core, but rather about the nature of a free society regardless of politics. The definition of intolerance is at its core that which tries to limit others freedom of speech, and it's why it's called a paradox since the solution more or less leads to limiting others speech.

But that's why I mentioned it in a Kantian perspective, that if we are able to universalize the first message in a chain of speech, we know if it is in favor of intolerance or tolerance. If an expression under freedom of speech criticize a systemic problem of a group in society, that is universalized as a critique of a system that does not have speech in of itself. If you on the other hand criticize the people themselves in that system as the problem, you are aiming to limit the speech of people and not limit problems of a system. It makes it easier to find out what in speech should be tolerated and what should not be tolerated to protect freedom of speech.

But that's a very simplistic example of it. In general, it's the people who are able to deconstruct what is being said in society who are best able to spot what should be tolerated or not. Which is basically what we've already done in society. It's a process of discerning the morality of rhetoric and topics and continuously updating what we define as hate-speech and intolerance that defends the free society we have.

And that is a direct result out of the philosophies that Popper was part of laying out in the post-war era. There's a reason why many of those, like Elon Musk, who champion free speech absolutism, in the end clearly limits free speech. They use the concept of free speech absolutism to vilify the process of discerning what is intolerance in society, even though our society has become a much better place to live in because of exactly this continuous process to discern what is what. It's a way to enable themselves to say things that we consider hate-speech or to use rhetoric that slowly radicalize without anyone able to stop them as they can then point to such attempts and say "they are the bad guys, not us, we stand for freedom of speech while they want to limit us", as part of their radicalization process of people on their side. This is exactly how it went in Germany before it became a Nazi authoritarian state.

Freedom of speech absolutism does not have limits on anything, that's the core of that ideal. There are no consequences for what you are saying, because it's absolutism. I'm not sure people really understands what the "absolutist" state of it means. It means that someone could say they want to legalize the actions of pedophiles or send be able to send death threats without repercussion. Or... which is the entire point of the tolerance paradox... tell people that "those people should not be able to vote, should not be able to speak up and they should be silenced", effectively eroding freedom of speech. It's this progression of the absolute state of freedom of speech that eventually leads to limiting freedom of speech, absolute tolerance into intolerance, free society into authoritarianism.

@NOS4A2

I deleted my comment from a few seconds ago because I think I misinterpreted you.

Quoting NOS4A2

Uttering the phrase isn’t the only thing you’ve done.

What else have I done?

Quoting NOS4A2

Admittedly “abuse of power” doesn’t outline any real crime. I guess it's just a political term of art. That’s why I believe the only “punishment” for that specific act ought to be decided at the ballot box.

Then let's not consider some elected official. Ought the employee who falsely accuses (and knowingly so) his colleague of theft be fired? Ought the intelligence agent who verbally reveals classified national security information to a stranger in the pub be arrested?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?

Even if we were to suspend reality for the sake of your example, you still need to explain how the idea of free speech defined as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions" is reconciled with the idea that everyone has the right to free speech, which includes questioning authority and criticizing what others say because your examples are all of those in some authoritative position dictating to others, or manipulating others (in your new example) that lack the correct information. The solution to all of your examples it to have a more informed population - where all views are free to be expressed and criticized, not less free speech.

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

We ought be allowed to question authority and criticise what others say, but we ought not be allowed to defame (slander/libel), reveal classified information, or encourage others to commit certain (esp. violent) criminal acts, etc.

A well-functioning society depends on some restrictions on what one can and cannot say. Free speech absolutism (like many libertarian ideals, e.g. "no taxes!") is a naive fantasy that any reasonable person should understand is unworkable (and unethical, if consequentialism is correct).

Quoting Samlw

These are two different things. You can have the ability to question authority and disagree with others AND also face repercussions when you are completely out of line. This is why I outlined a restrictive point of view and a Absolutist point of view.

They are only separate things in an authoritarian society - where a select few get to say what they want without repercussions - when there is no counter to what is being said.

Quoting Samlw

Whilst people disagreeing and questioning is technically a repercussion, I would consider it more of people exercising their rights as much as you,(and if you are an absolutist you would also agree). I would also not put it on the same level as jail time / community service.

Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech.

Quoting Samlw

So whilst I understand how it may come across as contradictory if you look at it at face value, I think you have to accept that people disagreeing is going to be a fundamental certainty but it should not mean that you can be extreme or push hatred.

But it is not a certainty when you are not informed of other views that contradicts what is being said. Essentially what is happening is the suppression of free thought, which is the basis of free speech.

In all the examples provided thus far, would the people be incited if they had access to all the information? If there wasn't a riot, would the speaker still be arrested for what they said?

If children are informed what grooming is, will they not know what to look for when someone is attempting to groom them? One of my children was separated from us while at Disney when they were young. Before this, I explained what they should do if they ever get lost in a large area with a lot of people. They should go inside one of the stores, look for a female employee, not some random stranger, and tell them they lost their parents. This is exactly what my daughter did, and she was 6 or 7 at the time, and we were reunited within an hour. By being informed she made the right decisions and limited her risk of some random malevolent stranger kidnapping her.

Quoting Christoffer

I'm not sure what you mean? Nazi Germany was not authoritarian before it became authoritarian and it's how it became authoritarian where these things happen. It's the erosion of free speech through the absolute tolerance of all speech that enables the radicalization of people to the point of them then standing behind authoritarian restrictions.

The method by which it attained power was by suppressing alternative views - by keeping the citizens uninformed of viable alternatives. The moment they were able to suppress any opposing viewpoints, they held power over the people.

Quoting Christoffer

You are still talking about the end game authoritarian state, not how it got to that point. If you had a group in society which just started limiting opposing viewpoints it would rally the people against them, this is not how a free society evolves into an authoritarian state.

Yet people in society were incited by what someone said, even when opposing viewpoints are available. It was because the information was suppressed that people were incited. If the rioters had the correct information and still rioted, who would be at fault?

Quoting Christoffer

Second part is describing how in a free society people would not be fooled or radicalized because there's always access to a counter-point;

Just look at the political discussions on this forum. Most people on the left and right live in bubbles where they only get information from one side. There isn't always a counter-point if they live in a bubble, hence my solution to change the way the media disseminates information and abolishing political parties. Again, if the rioters had access to the counter-point and still rioted, how would that change the culpability of who started the riot?

Quoting Christoffer

Freedom of speech absolutism does not have limits on anything, that's the core of that ideal

You are confusing freedom of speech absolutism with authoritarian speech - where you are ignoring that free speech entails the ability to question what is said, and the rioters did not have that, and possibly didn't care that they didn't. The only absolutism of free speech is the absolute capacity to question authority. Even then I might not say absolute as any criticism needs to be well founded and logical, but then I might ask, if criticism is not well founded and logical, is it really criticism or a straw-man?

Reply to Christoffer

The fact is that Popper and other philosophers of his time recognized through what happened in 1930s Germany, freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand. It was part of a powerful toolset of reprogramming a population's core beliefs and it's still a powerful tool today when the way its used isn't recognized.

So when we speak about freedom of speech absolutism, its history and the philosophy around that subject, that's not an attack on your personal beliefs, it's a deconstruction of the subject. When you lash out in the way you do, that just perfectly shows us the cognitive dissonance at play. The inability to form a proper argument, the constant emotional, arrogant and childish bully-speak... how can anyone take you seriously when that's the level you operate on? If you're unable to form an actual argument and just attack, you're shown you are unable to discuss this topic further and only operate on the low-quality level that this forum have rules against

Weimar Germany had very advanced speech laws and the Nazis were censored on many occasions. Numerous Nazi and other publications were shut down. Hitler himself was banned from speaking publicly for several years in many parts of Germany.

“He alone of two billion people on Earth may not speak in Germany”, said Goebbels of Hitler in his propaganda posters. He used the censorship of the Nazis as propaganda to great effect. Hitler used his persecution as justification to persecute others, to abuse the very same laws used against him in order to suppress his political opponents. Goebbels was sued for libel by Jewish organizations and the chief of police. Julius Streicher was imprisoned and his anti-Jewish publication Der Sturmer was routinely shut down. So it just isn’t the case that “freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand”. It was censorship all the way down.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

I do not think there is any good censorship just as I do not think there is any good prohibition on drinking water or falling in love. Speaking or otherwise communicating is a basic, non-violent act that humans require to live and enjoy living.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

And you, a free speech absolutist, say yes, shoot him. Which he does. Should you have been censored? Should you be subject to criminal/civil penalties?

Very interested in this, as I have seen compelling versions of an ambulance at the bottom of the hill argument. I noted it earlier in the thread, I think. But I want to know if NOS4A2 is on that page, or whether he thinks that no result of speech acts can be admonishable. I should think that even a free speech absolutist would understand that your speech can cause things to happen.
As example for @NOS4A2 in law, we have "promissory estoppel". This is, essentially, a consequence which is disadvantageous to you, because you siad something that someone else relied on to carry out an action (usually entering a contract, but I digress). Is it your view that this is illegitimate? It is censorship by other means (still by Act, but applies to Lawyers specifically in context of being a lawyer doing law stuff).

Reply to AmadeusD

I should think that even a free speech absolutist would understand that your speech can cause things to happen.

What substances or objects can you move with your speech? What phases of matter can you affect with your voice, your words, or any other symbolic communication? Personally I can’t think of any, save for the measurable, like the expelling of breath, the movement of sound waves, or the scratching of ink into paper. If you can mention any I’m willing to test it out and I’ll report back with my findings. Cheers.

Quoting NOS4A2

What substances or objects can you move with your speech?

The brain states of listeners. You could read up on speech perception for more technical information on the physics of neural activity responding to auditory stimulation.

Unless you believe that the mind is some non-physical substance that can somehow gain information from sound without being causally affected by it?

Reply to Michael

The brain states of listeners. You could read up on speech perception for more technical information on the physics of neural activity responding to auditory stimulation.

Unless you believe that the mind is some non-physical substance that can somehow gain information from sound without being causally affected by it?

I do believe in biology. Brain states and mind? Not so much, though I do not begrudge their application in common use.

I’m fully aware that humans recognize and understand speech and language. My only contention is that the listener is the cause of his listening, his understanding, and his reaction to language. The speaker is unable to cause those acts because each act has its genesis in the listener, not in the speaker.

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.

The human body is not a Rube Goldberg machine and listening and understanding and reacting to speech is not a passive act. So though I would concede that someone can affect another’s eardrums with speech, like any other wave of sound, the cause of all later acts is the listener.

Quoting NOS4A2

But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

This seems to me like saying that if I kick a football through a window then I didn’t cause the window to break, as if I’m causally responsible only for kicking the ball and not also for what the ball does to the window after being kicked.

Your suggestion that this sequence of events is one causal chain, that this subsequent sequence of events is a second causal chain, and that there's no causal connection between the two is both incompatible with physics and a seemingly arbitrary delineation.

Quoting NOS4A2

Brain states and mind? Not so much, though I do not begrudge their application in common use.

A brain state is just the state of the brain, i.e its composition and the behaviour of its neurons. It is the way it is because of a long chain of causal events, both internal to the body and external. Our brains are not isolated systems.

Quoting Christoffer

you have to make an actual counter-argument.

I ... umm... did. There is no paradox about speech and I gave the argument. I am sorry that this isn't landing.

Quoting Christoffer

This is not a forum where you just say "I disagree" and leave it at that.

It certainly is. We can do all sorts of things, and this is one of them. I disagree (in this caes, you've either ignored or not groked the argument anyway - but ignoring that..). No more is needed. You can demand it all you want.

Quoting Christoffer

What about this is disingenuous?

I can't quite recall exactly what I was responding to there, but the point is that I think Popper is wrong. And patently so. I gave the argument (i will dredge it up at some point).

Quoting Christoffer

You seem so triggered by the philosophical discourse around free speech that you are unable to argue outside of whatever group you, yourself, has attached yourself to.

This is so utterly bizarre and childish. I was going to go through both responses, but fuck that lol.

As you were.

Reply to Harry Hindu
That sounds like a straw man argument. You're misrepresenting my position.

Quoting Harry Hindu

where a select few get to say what they want without repercussions - when there is no counter to what is being said.

Not at all am I saying that I only ever want one side of the story to be propagated and I will forever agree that people should be able to question authority

Quoting Harry Hindu

Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech.

Another straw man, I have not once disagreed with this

Quoting Harry Hindu

In all the examples provided thus far, would the people be incited if they had access to all the information? If there wasn't a riot, would the speaker still be arrested for what they said?

This is an extremely entitled view. Why do YOU need all the information, are you that special? Are you going to riot if you don't have all the information? I have already outlined why the initial information wasn't released to the public, should we change the law in place that protects minors because racist people will riot if they are not immediately told EVERYTHING.

This is where absolutism falls apart in my opinion, because you have to defend the indefensible. I am not saying people should not be able to question authority. I think if you were to look at exactly what I would allow and not allow it would probably be you can say 99.99% of things. but that 0.01% is filled with hatred and it doesn't do any favour to society to allow it to exist.

The Issue comes when you have to decide who choses what is acceptable and what isn't, which I completely understand and it is where my argument falls apart. Both sides have a crippling factor in their ideals and I understand why people would rather let everyone say anything rather then risk having their freedom taking away from a governing body constantly moving the goalposts.

Quoting Harry Hindu

The method by which it attained power was by suppressing alternative views - by keeping the citizens uninformed of viable alternatives. The moment they were able to suppress any opposing viewpoints, they held power over the people.

I think you need to look into the entire progression of what happened. You're still looking at the tail-end of the transition into authoritarianism. It began with the Nazis championing absolute free speech in order to paint those who wanted to silence them as the suppressors of free speech, and through their championing of free speech absolutism they could slowly erode the publics perceptions and radicalize people into standing behind their definitions of what is allowed to be said.

This is Hitler in the 20s:

Quoting Hitler

We asked nothing of the world but equal rights, just as we asked for the same rights at home. At home we demanded the right to meet freely, the right which the others possessed. We demanded the right of free speech, the same right as a parliamentary party as the others held. We were refused and persecuted with terrorism. Nevertheless, we built up our organization and won the day....

I don't think you look at the transition into authoritarianism in the logical way it historically and psychologically happens, i.e you have to get the public behind your suppression of free speech in some way before you do it. They have to back you up suppressing society in the way you want, and the best way to do it is to first role play as the good side and then when you start to suppress society you do it in a way that includes all people who supported you. That way these people will feel like they are on the "good side of history". This is radicalization 101.

As you can see in that speech, Hitler positioned himself and his party as being suppressed and as championing free speech to allow them to spread their propaganda which eventually eroded the public into a radicalized state. The power of that rhetoric is that he gained power by putting himself in the position of standing up for free speech, not suppression.

It was only after he was elected that through the Reichstag Fire Decree they changed the Weimar constitution to start suppress society, but people supported them in doing so, because he'd convinced them of him and his party being on the good side. That it was an emergency change to protect society.

You are only speaking of what Hitler and the Nazis did post the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, when they already reached the point of having the people's support in suppressing free speech, it does not happen without the public standing behind you and for that you need a narrative that works. This strategy was what was criticized by Popper and other philosophers as being the absolutist state of free speech that eventually erodes free speech itself.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Yet people in society were incited by what someone said, even when opposing viewpoints are available. It was because the information was suppressed that people were incited. If the rioters had the correct information and still rioted, who would be at fault?

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. I'm saying that if a political party were to suppress freedom of speech directly without anything leading up to it, people would notice and oppose it in much greater numbers. But by eroding who the public think champions free speech, you can place people in the bubble that supports your side because you paint yourself as the champion of freedom in opposition to those who want to limit your speech. That way you gain numbers in followers so that when you tell them that you will suppress what can be said and talked about in society, it is in their best interest and that it's for their protection in order to protect their freedom. This is exactly how it went for Hitler and the Nazis and how they gained true power.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Just look at the political discussions on this forum. Most people on the left and right live in bubbles where they only get information from one side. There isn't always a counter-point if they live in a bubble, hence my solution to change the way the media disseminates information and abolishing political parties. Again, if the rioters had access to the counter-point and still rioted, how would that change the culpability of who started the riot?

This forum consist of people from all over the world. And I would rather say that the forum holds a rather good balance in the debates, disregarding a few very obvious ones. People cannot rid themselves of biases completely and abolishing political parties will do nothing to change the fact that people attach to different biases. Abolishing and ripping something up by the roots in order to replace it with something "better" will always lead to the animal farm scenario if the people doing so doesn't have a deep insight into how biases and psychology play into things and how to oppose those taking advantage of chaos.

But nothing of this has to do with the topic at hand really. Free speech absolutism vs restricted speech is more about the tolerance paradox than biased opinions. Opposing views does not change someone's bias in a straightforward way, and free speech absolutism has more to do with how very specific, radical, and extremist views take root in an open society.

The problem is that people don't think about freedom of speech absolutism towards its logical conclusion, and rather buy into the narratives that extremists use to give themselves free reign to spread hate.

Free speech without the absolutist state of it does not limit free speech. A non-absolutist version of free speech just requires more effort to recognize when the line has been crossed. So it's more about people leaning towards that which requires the least energy and effort, i.e the lazy. Instead of letting freedom of speech be something that is actually defended.

Quoting Harry Hindu

You are confusing freedom of speech absolutism with authoritarian speech - where you are ignoring that free speech entails the ability to question what is said, and the rioters did not have that, and possibly didn't care that they didn't. The only absolutism of free speech is the absolute capacity to question authority. Even then I might not say absolute as any criticism needs to be well founded and logical, but then I might ask, if criticism is not well founded and logical, is it really criticism or a straw-man?

How am I confusing the two? You are placing this into a binary construct that doesn't exist. I'm not really sure what you are arguing here. Free speech absolutism is not what you think it is. It's not "normal" free speech, it's a foundation of giving extremists free reign and a form of free speech that eventually always lead to intolerance and authoritarianism. This is what Popper argued, that the absolute state of freedom of speech leads to limited speech, that's the paradox he talked about. That in order to have free speech there must be limitations specifically on those who try to dismantle or manipulate the public by the means of freedom of speech absolutism.

I don't understand why you keep mentioning strawman all the time when I do understand that you try to juxtapose authoritarianism against freedom of speech absolutism and that the latter would grant the freedom to oppose authoritarianism, but that is a very simplified observation of how society and people works, in the same way you ignore how the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s actually happened and just boil it down to "authoritarianism" as if it just popped into existence from nothing in 1933.

The question is about freedom of speech vs freedom of speech absolutism. Almost all functional societies and democracies today operate on a non-absolutist version of freedom of speech in which society do not tolerate the spread of hate speech and moderate the public sphere to be protected from those who tries to openly radicalize. Though the complexity of radicalization is a topic of its own, free speech absolutism is one of the greatest tools used by extremists.

Quoting AmadeusD

I ... umm... did. There is no paradox about speech and I gave the argument. I am sorry that this isn't landing.

Why did Popper call the concept a paradox of tolerance? You never addressed that (which is the paradox I'm referring to). What's the point in having any discussion with you when you continuously just ignore what is being talked about in a way that is convenient for you?

Quoting AmadeusD

It certainly is.

If you think so, then discussing anything with you is pointless as you will not add anything of value to a discussion. Rather than honestly engaging with the opposing argument, you ignore and just reiterate your original viewpoint. I see now that engaging with your posts will be pointless as you lack the philosophical grit to engage in discussions in honest.

Quoting AmadeusD

I can't quite recall exactly what I was responding to there

How convenient.

Quoting AmadeusD

but the point is that I think Popper is wrong. And patently so. I gave the argument (i will dredge it up at some point).

You didn't address the core premises of his argument or mine, you basically just said "I disagree" wrapped in the appearance of an argument. And it seems like it is pointless to ask for more as I'm not sure you know the actual difference.

Quoting AmadeusD

This is so utterly bizarre and childish. I was going to go through both responses, but fuck that lol.

No, it's you who acts bizarre and childish, and I think most people sees that.

Quoting Samlw

This is an extremely entitled view. Why do YOU need all the information, are you that special? Are you going to riot if you don't have all the information? I have already outlined why the initial information wasn't released to the public, should we change the law in place that protects minors because racist people will riot if they are not immediately told EVERYTHING.

Wasn't it your argument that they rioted BECAUSE they didn't know the race of the person? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

When you see minors out in public, is their sex and race private information or is that public information for anyone with eyes?

Quoting Samlw

this is where absolutism falls apart in my opinion,

Absolute speech is not free speech. Absolute speech is what authoritarians practice. Free speech is the capacity to question authoritarians, thereby placing limits on their absolute speech. This has been the main point I have been making all along.

Quoting Samlw

Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech.
— Harry Hindu

Another straw man, I have not once disagreed with this

Perfect. Then we agree on my main point as stated above.

Quoting Christoffer

As you can see in that speech, Hitler positioned himself and his party as being suppressed and as championing free speech to allow them to spread their propaganda which eventually eroded the public into a radicalized state. The power of that rhetoric is that he gained power by putting himself in the position of standing up for free speech, not suppression.

But if Hitler was really standing up for free speech then alternative views would have an equal amount of play-time on the radio waves. There must have been something that kept citizens from hearing alternative views, or that made alternative views to fascism less desirable. What was that? Would you be enthralled by Hitler's words to commit genocide? There were some that opposed Hitler and hid Jews at their own risk. What makes some people become spellbound by fascism and others not even though they hear the same rhetoric?

Quoting Harry Hindu

But if Hitler was really standing up for free speech then alternative views would have an equal amount of play-time on the radio waves. There must have been something that kept citizens from hearing alternative views, or that made alternative views to fascism less desirable. What was that? Would you be enthralled by Hitler's words to commit genocide? There were some that opposed Hitler and hid Jews at their own risk. What makes some people become spellbound by fascism and others not even though they hear the same rhetoric?

Yes, people spoke up, opposed, etc. but it was exactly that which became easy for Hitler and the Nazis to oppose by using free speech absolutism as a rhetoric. "See they want to silence us". I don't know how much you know about Germany, Hitler and the Nazis before the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, but they didn't argue for genocide but for changes to German politics trying to radicalize people into a new form of thinking about what it means to be German, and which later played into the antisemitism.

It looks more like you have a hindsight bias here, together with just mixing up history into a large mess rather than looking at the progression of politics and the fall into authoritarianism as a long process beginning at the end of the first world war.

Before the1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, nothing of what you think about Nazis and Hitler were true in the world. He was just a chaotic politician that was after the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree viewed as someone "who could become a real danger", in a similar way to how we look at someone like Putin right now. And to some degree Trump as well, seen as how he uses the same exact toolset as the Nazis did before the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree.

You have whole libraries of material to read about the psychology of the German population from the 20s into the 40s. I suggest you go into the details because it will explain why some becomes spellbound and others not. You can ask the same question about Trump and the MAGA movement today. Why are people being spellbound by an obvious narcissist who don't really care about them, yet they still view him as a deity? You have the seeds for a fascist state in the US right now, similar to 20s Germany. How it goes depends on how far Trump and his similars takes it, or how well the good people of the US stands up against it.

What I'm saying in this thread is that the absolute state of freedom of speech is an utopian delusion either by those who don't understand Poppers tolerance paradox, or those with a very simplistic understanding of society and social psychology, or who are simply using it like the extremists, to champion an ideal in which they can say whatever extreme views they have without consequences.

If you champion absolutism in this sense, then you are indeed arguing for no consequences for the speaker. They can say whatever they like without any consequence. If you look at this forum for example, how do you think it would look with an absolutist stance on freedom of speech? Well, Twitter/X gives a hint on exactly what happens. People are generally unable to act civil without laws and regulations and just as we judge morals in justice for actions, why shouldn't there be consequences for immoral speech? We already live in a society which does not operate on freedom of speech absolutism, yet do you feel limited? The only ones feeling limited seems to be those who actually want to spread hate, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other slurred language. Society is better off without them pouring toxics into the social sphere. And I don't think anyone would disagree with that, except those on that side of the fence.

So the question is rather, why would you defend the absolute state of freedom of speech without falling into the consequences that Popper lays out in his tolerance paradox?

Quoting Christoffer

Yes, people spoke up, opposed, etc. but it was exactly that which became easy for Hitler and the Nazis to oppose by using free speech absolutism as a rhetoric. "See they want to silence us".

But was the opposition really silencing them? If the citizens heard them both and the rhetoric from alternative views was not calling to silence anyone else, then the claims of the Nazis was not true and plain for everyone to see. Wasn't it more that the prior government was corrupt and the economic hardships from the depression that made them look for alternatives like the Nazis?

Quoting Christoffer

You have whole libraries of material to read about the psychology of the German population from the 20s into the 40s. I suggest you go into the details because it will explain why some becomes spellbound and others not.

But why couldn't you just post the answer here as to why some people are incited by speech and others are not? That is the critical question and you seem to be avoiding it. If you wrote all this other stuff but ignored the key question then it seems you are trying to play the same game Hitler was.

Quoting Christoffer

What I'm saying in this thread is that the absolute state of freedom of speech is an utopian delusion either by those who don't understand Poppers tolerance paradox, or those with a very simplistic understanding of society and social psychology, or who are simply using it like the extremists, to champion an ideal in which they can say whatever extreme views they have without consequences.

It is your view that is simplistic if you cannot answer how some people are incited by speech and others are not. Popper's paradox is solved by using logic to determine which arguments each side is making are valid or not. Abolishing political parties (group-think and group-hate) and making critical thinking a required course in school would go a long way in preventing things like fascism and communism from taking hold again. Limiting free speech (as the capacity to question and criticize authority) is not the problem. It is the solution.

Reply to Samlw

I see this as asking whether the better society needs enforceable laws setting limits to our speech, or whether the best society should agree there can be no legislated limits on speech.

I’d break speech into two parts:
- what it says, or it’s content, what it is about.
- what it does, or the consequences of the act of “calling out X content.”

My answer is essentially what is the law in America. We can regulate speech based on its consequences, but we can not, with narrow exception, regulate speech based on its content.

Consider libel and slander laws.

Someone goes to the town square and yells: “X is a pedophile and has murdered three people!”
Then X gets fired from his job, loses his home, all because of those words.
X says “that’s not true - I am not a murderer pedophile.”
Now the question is whether the accusations were slander.

So this is four prongs to slander: 1 harm, 2 caused by, 3 words, 4 that are not true. (In court you would probably argue it in the following order: speech, that is untrue, that causes, harm.)

You need all four, but if you have all four, it seems like a legitimate and necessary function of government that, in order to resolve this conflict and make slander illegal, we place certain limits on speech. The court could demand a public retraction, forbid people from saying those words like that again, and make people pay for the money lost and damage caused.

You can say that looking at whether the words are true is looking at the content of the speech. But it can be slander to accuse anyone of anything that is not true. “He was at a MAGA rally.” Then he was fired, his Tesla burned, etc…”. It doesn’t matter what flavor or color the slander takes, it just has to be any words, that are not true, causing damages.

What about straight fraud?
“This snake oil will cure your cancer - give me $1000 and you will be cured.” We can’t let the guy who spends his money based on those words remain without recourse because the salesman says “I have the right to free speech.” Fraud is a type of speech that must be limited by law.

“Fire!” in a crowded building is another case. It’s the stampede that makes the harm because of words of incitement. “Riot starts at the police department!”

So we need laws to address direct harms caused from recklessly false or intentionally false speech, or speech that directly incites crimes.

BUT - laws against the content of speech in itself, regardless of consequences??

That is Orwellian. Newspeak. State controlled media. The end of all possibility of political, societal freedom.

Nevertheless, we still regulate speech based on content, even though it immediately tends towards totalitarianism.

Making pornography illegal for people under 18 years old is regulation of speech based on the content. Only by saying “that is pornography” can we then enforce a law for providing such content to a 12 year old. So with such laws on the books, we are on the slippery slope towards Big Brother telling everyone what they can and cannot read and say to others.

I agree that we want to keep spaces free for audiences of all ages, and that requires content regulation, because not all content is for all audiences. So some minimal type of content based speech limiting laws are permissible. Protect minors is a good guideline to allow for narrow laws.

We want to protect religious speech spaces, and keep public spaces non-sectarian, meaning no specific religious or atheist or other “beliefs” can be favored by law.

Another content based speech limit is the law against threatening the life of the president. I don’t like that law, because a political opponent has to be able to say out loud “we will crush him, and his whole party in the next election!”

But it is probably a matter of how such a law gets enforced, because for someone to threaten the life of the president, if that was someone in the room with him, that might be like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

But anyway, the instant a law limiting speech based on content has the slightest possibility of influencing political speech, or any art, as long as that speech doesn’t also incite actual “fire!!”, that law must not be allowed and the speech must be protected.

In summary, intending to incite nothing but maybe more discussion, fuck off if you don’t like my thoughts on free speech.

@Fire Ologist :ok:

Reply to Fire Ologist I had in mind saying a few of the things you discussed , but you said it all.

I brought the issue of fraud and libel to NOS4A2 in another thread, and he never responded to those points. I'm curious in any free-speech absolutist will try and rebut anything you said.

Reply to Relativist

I brought the issue of fraud and libel to NOS4A2 in another thread, and he never responded to those points. I'm curious in any free-speech absolutist will try and rebut anything you said.

Easily. Acts are not the consequences of speech. I’ve argued this point numerous times, to no avail.

Quoting NOS4A2

Acts are not the consequences of speech

Never?

You and your five sprinting friends are at the track at the starting line. Someone says, “On your marks…Get set….”

What act would follow someone yelling “Go!” at that moment? Nothing? Because acts are not the consequences of speech? Or would running and racing be the consequence of that little speech?

Reply to Fire Ologist

Never?

You and your five sprinting friends are at the track at the starting line. Someone says, “On your marks…Get set….”

What act would follow someone yelling “Go!” at that moment? Nothing? Because acts are not the consequences of speech? Or would running and racing be the consequence of that little speech?

Have you never seen anyone “jump the gun”? If someone leaves before “go” is yelled, is that a consequence of that little speech? No. Running is the consequence of the runner, not the speech.

Reply to NOS4A2

On TPF, in this context, nothing you can say to me, should be limited in any way. I hope you speak highly of me and agree with everything I say, but if you don’t you should be able to say absolutely anything you want in this context (TPF sets some limits but they are so basic who cares, any normal person can basically say whatever they want around here.)

So, in this context, if you told me to murder my wife, or go running naked through the quad, and I did it, no one could hold you accountable for anything - not conspiracy to brake indecency laws, or for plotting a murder.

But in a crowded theater, dark, congested, maybe hot, and for some reason a little smokey, if someone yells “Fire! Fire! Run!” and people start running, his words can be said to have caused the running. If it turns out the smoke was some burned popcorn, but there was no fire, and someone was trampled to death, the law and courts and the US Constitution could hold the person who yelled “Fire” accountable for causing the actions that followed.

That makes sense to me. The pen is mightier than the sword - but we shouldn’t regulate that: but when the pen IS a sword, directly causing bloodshed, we should regulate that.

It’s about context. You don’t get to say whatever you want to whomever you want any time you want.

But at a town hall meeting in a political discussion, or on a philosophy forum like this, you should be able to say whatever you can possibly imagine saying.

Reply to NOS4A2 So...you're saying fraud and defamation are perfectly fine, because the freedom of speech trumps them.

Reply to Fire Ologist

The “fire in a crowded theater” analogy was used by Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes to jail those who were protesting the draft of American soldiers into world war 1. The analogy was used to describe a scenario in which speech created “a clear and present danger”. He too believed speech could cause them losing the war, and any censor will use such claims as they always have (corrupting the youth, for example). At any rate, there was nothing legally binding in that analogy, never described any actual crime, and his “clear and present danger” principle was eventually overturned in the 1960’s. So if American first amendment jurisprudence is your governing principle, you’re a little out of date. Defamation is a civil wrong, or otherwise a state issue, not a federal crime. If there is a certain state standard which we ought to apply, it would be nice to hear which one.

That being said the American standard is the only standard that has any argument worth defending, and for that you hold a higher more enlightened ground than anyone else here. Thank you for that.

If the pen is mightier than the sword then let’s watch a duel, one man with a sword, one man with a pen. But as we know it’s all metaphorical. As philosophers I believe we ought to approach the actual. My only contention is that if speech is a fundamental rights, which I believe it is, it ought not be blamed for things it is incapable of doing.

Reply to Relativist

So...you're saying fraud and defamation are perfectly fine, because the freedom of speech trumps them.

No, they’re completely immoral and unethical acts.

Quoting Christoffer

I think most people sees that.

Perhaps you should focus on yourself. It seems a lack of this has resulted in talking past me, constantly, for a year now.
Quoting NOS4A2

I’ve argued this point numerous times, to no avail.

This may tell you something about your argument, then. If all and sundry are rejecting it for being both impractical, and logically weird (not a knock-down, to be sure) you might want to rethink it. Either you think crimes constituted by speech are not crimes (fraud, perjury, incitement, contract evasion and several other kinds besides) should never been curtailed by law.....

.... or you think they should.

Reply to NOS4A2 Aren't ALL lies (intentional falsehoods) immoral?

Reply to AmadeusD

This may tell you something about your argument, then. If all and sundry are rejecting it for being both impractical, and logically weird (not a knock-down, to be sure) you might want to rethink it. Either you think crimes constituted by speech are not crimes (fraud, perjury, incitement, contract evasion and several other kinds besides) should never been curtailed by law.....

.... or you think they should.

They dodged it. You’ve dodged it. But it’s simple. One cannot control another’s motor cortex with words. What’s impractical and logically weird about that?

Quoting Samlw

Let me start off by saying that the republican censorship is nowhere near the amount of censorship the democratic party underwent in the last 12 years of being in power. However , with the extreme rise of political power that Elon Musk has as he now owns one of the biggest political platforms (X) as well as his very public support of Trump with glowing endorsements and a ton of money. I sense that this is the start of something dangerous,

Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, and we stopped doing this when we replaced an education based on the humanities with education for a technological society with unknown values. This, unfortunately, has led us to anarchy, and because anarchy is not tolerable, a dictatorship follows. Losing freedom of speech is just one step in preventing liberty.

Thomas Jefferson believed that education was crucial for developing a virtuous and informed citizenry, essential for a functioning republic. He saw education as a means to improve both individual character and society as a whole, with morality being a key outcome. Jefferson emphasized that an educated citizenry would be able to make sound judgments about public affairs and participate effectively in democratic processes. AI

Adam Smith, the father of economics, was sure that morality is essential to a good economy. But we are not born knowing morality. It is something we must learn, and leaving moral training to the Chruch is a very bad idea! But that is what we have done. Now, good Christians are screaming they don't want anyone teaching their children morals. Oh really? And how about the boy across town whose parents encourage him to want guns and to use them? You know the student who kills teachers and other students, and the 23-year-old who commits mass murder to make his moral statement, and the copycats to follow.

Bottom line- Jefferson and Adam Smith were right. If we want liberty, we have to learn virtues and good moral judgment. Only then can we have liberty and government by reason, instead of authority above us trying to control things that are spinning out of control.

Reply to NOS4A2 No one dodged it. You are ignoring all the evidence, including neurological evidence, that was put in front of you. Don't be surprised if you're ignored.

Reply to AmadeusD

No such evidence was put in front of me. I’m not surprised when people evade simple arguments, especially when they have none of their own.

Reply to NOS4A2 It was. Your response tells us all we need. All good.

Reply to AmadeusD

I suppose your words couldn’t move much, then. Tells me all I need.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Wasn't it your argument that they rioted BECAUSE they didn't know the race of the person? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Are you justifying the riots? I don't understand "You can't have your cake and eat it too" in this context.

Reply to NOS4A2

Can I ask why you dedicate so much energy into arguing a point that is illogical? What is the point of this if there is no effort to find common ground?

Quoting AmadeusD

This may tell you something about your argument, then. If all and sundry are rejecting it for being both impractical, and logically weird (not a knock-down, to be sure) you might want to rethink it. Either you think crimes constituted by speech are not crimes (fraud, perjury, incitement, contract evasion and several other kinds besides) should never been curtailed by law.....

Couldn't of said it better myself.

Reply to Samlw

Can I ask why you dedicate so much energy into arguing a point that is illogical? What is the point of this if there is no effort to find common ground?

I enjoy arguing about it. What is illogical about it?

@NOS4A2

You may have missed this:

Quoting NOS4A2

But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin.

This seems to me like saying that if I kick a football through a window then I didn’t cause the window to break, as if I’m causally responsible only for kicking the ball and not also for what the ball does to the window after being kicked.

Your suggestion that this sequence of events is one causal chain, that this subsequent sequence of events is a second causal chain, and that there's no causal connection between the two is both incompatible with physics and a seemingly arbitrary delineation.

Quoting NOS4A2

Brain states and mind? Not so much, though I do not begrudge their application in common use.

A brain state is just the state of the brain, i.e its composition and the behaviour of its neurons. It is the way it is because of a long chain of causal events, both internal to the body and external. Our brains are not isolated systems.

----

Also of relevance is causality and the science of human behaviour. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full paper, but as a summary:

In this paper an attempt has been made to show that the arguments advanced against the possibility of a scientific study of man are without foundation. Of course, the truth of either strict determinism or statistico-determinism has not been established conclusively; for this cannot be done by logical analysis alone, but requires actual success in the scientific search for uniformities. Since the important arguments against determinism which we have considered are without foundation, the psychologist need not be deterred in his quest and can confidently use the causal hypothesis as a regulative principle, undaunted by the caveat of the philosophical indeterminist.

The general point is that your claim that speech can't influence behaviour is incompatible with eliminative materialism, which you seem to endorse.

So either speech can influence behaviour or eliminative materialism is false. Pick your poison.

Reply to Michael

Sorry I missed it.

This seems to me like saying that if I kick a football through a window then I didn’t cause the window to break, as if I’m causally responsible only for kicking the ball and not also for what the ball does to the window after being kicked.

Your suggestion that this sequence of events is one causal chain, that this subsequent sequence of events is a second causal chain, and that there's no causal connection between the two is both incompatible with physics and a seemingly arbitrary delineation.

We ought not to treat listeners as passive objects, like a window. You have to switch the position of the subject, with him at the end of the causal chain. A more accurate analogy would be like saying that a football flying at your head can’t cause you to catch it, or kick it, or whatever.

The point is: listeners are subjects and agents too. 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 appears that you treat human bodies as passive receptacles of outside stimulus, and Rube Goldberg devices when it comes to how they operate, and not active agents themselves. That's mainly what I'm objecting to.

A brain state is just the state of the brain, i.e its composition and the behaviour of its neurons. It is the way it is because of a long chain of causal events, both internal to the body and external. Our brains are not isolated systems.

I know what they are I just believe there is no such thing as a brain state. States are imaginary pictures of any given object at any given time. I understand their use in discourse but don’t see how a state of a brain factors into this discussion. The world does not have a frame rate, for one, but living brains are never disembodied. The closest thing we can come to a brain state is a brain floating in formaldehyde in a jar. So perhaps a "body state" would be more useful. That's all I'm saying.

Also of relevance is causality and the science of human behaviour. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full paper, but as a summary:

The general point is that your claim that speech can't influence behaviour is incompatible with eliminative materialism, which you seem to endorse.

So either speech can influence behaviour or eliminative materialism is false. Pick your poison.

I don't see it from your summary. Are you able to explain why one is incompatible with the other?

Reply to NOS4A2

If physics and eliminative materialism are correct then sound waves causally affect sense receptors which in turn causally affect brain activity which in turn causally affects bodily behaviour.

Your talk of “subjects” and “agents” seems to mimic the very folk psychology that you claim to deny. This talk is misleading (according to your own views on the matter). In principle my body is caused to move by speech (and other things both internal and external to the body) in the exact same way that a sunflower is caused to move by sunlight or a Venus flytrap by a fly’s movements. The human body (including the brain) might be far more complex than any plant but it still behaves according to the same physical principles.

Reply to Michael

Right, and we can create a causal chain back to the Big Bang and say the Big Bang causally affects my behavior. I’m not interested.

Subject is a philosophical and grammatical distinction. You put words and soundwaves in the subject position and listeners in the object position. “Agent” is another one, a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment. You reserve agency for words and the environment but not for human listeners. It is these little tricks that are the misleading aspects of your arguments.

Quoting NOS4A2

Right, and we can create a causal chain back to the Big Bang and say the Big Bang causally affects my behavior.

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism.

Quoting NOS4A2

You put words and soundwaves in the subject position and listeners in the object position. “Agent” is another one, a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment. You reserve agency for words and the environment but not for human listeners. It is these little tricks that are the misleading aspects of your arguments.

I haven't done anything like that. I have simply pointed out that – if eliminative materialism is correct – the physics is clear; the wider environment causally influences human behaviour, just as it causally influences animal and plant behaviour, and so your suggestion that another person's speech cannot causally influence my actions is wrong.

You somehow seem to want something like libertarian free will whilst also denying anything like a non-physical mind. These positions are incompatible. So, once again, you need to pick your poison and abandon one of these two positions.

Reply to Michael

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism.

How is that the case?

I haven't done anything like that. I have simply pointed out that – if eliminative materialism is correct – the physics is clear; the wider environment causally influences human behaviour, just as it causally influences animal and plant behaviour, and so your suggestion that another person's speech cannot causally influence my actions is wrong.

You somehow seem to want something like libertarian free will whilst also denying anything like a non-physical mind. These positions are incompatible. So, once again, you need to pick your poison and abandon one of these two positions.

You’ve simply made that assertion, sure. I am not a determinist, however. Unlike you I need neither non-physical minds nor distant events to believe that a human being is the source of his own actions.

You can demonstrate it on your own by moving a part of your body, perhaps your arm. After this you should have all the evidence required to answer the question “who or what moved my arm”. If you can find anything else in the universe that did so, let me know.

Reply to NOS4A2

All physical events are a response to prior physical events. Matter doesn't move apropos of nothing. The human body and brain are material, and behave according to the same principles as all matter. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by something else, often electrochemical signals from the brain, and if these electrochemical signals are sent then it's because they were caused to send by something else – and oftentimes they were caused to send by stimulation of the sense organs. That's just how biology works.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "a human being is the source of his own actions". I think you're equivocating. If you mean by this something similar to "a Venus flytrap is the source of its own actions (e.g. closing its jaws)" then it does not contradict what I am saying, because it is also correct to say that a Venus flytrap's jaws are caused to close by a fly's movements. But if you mean by this to argue that humans (unlike Venus flytraps) have something like libertarian free will then this requires either that physics as we understand it or eliminative materialism are false such that the electrochemical signals sent by my brain to my arm are not a causal response to sensory stimulation but a response to some mental "will".

Reply to Michael

All physical events are a response to prior physical events. Matter doesn't move apropos of nothing. The human body and brain are material, and behave according to the same principles as all matter. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by something else, often electrochemical signals from the brain, and if these electrochemical signals are sent then it's because they were caused to send by something else – and oftentimes they were caused to send by stimulation of the sense organs. That's just how biology works.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "a human being is the source of his own actions". I think you're equivocating. If you mean by this something similar to "a Venus flytrap is the source of its own actions (e.g. closing its jaws)" then it does not contradict what I am saying, because it is also correct to say that a Venus flytrap's jaws are caused to close by a fly's movements. But if you mean by this to argue that humans (unlike Venus flytraps) have something like libertarian free will then this requires either that physics as we understand it or eliminative materialism are false such that the electrochemical signals sent by my brain to my arm are not a causal response to sensory stimulation but a response to some mental "will".

What I mean is nothing else in the universe is source of a human being's actions. The electrochemical signals sent by your brain to your arm, for example, are not foreign to you. A response to foreign stimulus is still such an act, and caused by the only thing that can perform it: you.

Quoting NOS4A2

What I mean is nothing else in the universe is source of a human being's actions. The electrochemical signals sent by your brain to your arm, for example, are not foreign to you. A response to foreign stimulus is still such an act, and caused by the only thing that can perform it: you.

This is like saying that because the electricity in my computer's hard drive is not foreign to the computer then I am not causally responsible for letters appearing on the computer screen as I type on my keyboard.

It's such a ridiculous attempt at a copout.

Reply to Michael

It's not like saying that. Venus fly-traps, sunflowers and computers. See if you can stick to human beings for once instead of evading the arguments with false analogies.

Quoting NOS4A2

It's not like saying that. Venus fly-traps, sunflowers and computers. See if you can stick to human beings for once instead of evading the arguments with false analogies.

They're not false analogies. If eliminative materialism is correct then human organisms are not special. They behave according to the same biological and physical principles as non-human animals which behave according to the same biological and physical principles as plants which behave according to the same physical principles as non-organic matter. Their internal behaviour – be it brain activity, photosynthesis, or electrical currents – can be caused to occur by external stimulation. That is simply an irrefutable fact about how physical systems work.

If you want to continue to argue that human behaviour is somehow exempt from this then you need to bite the bullet and reject the eliminative materialism that you so often endorse.

Reply to Michael

They are false analogies. Human beings are unfathomably different than venus fly traps, sunflowers, and computers. Different physical systems means different behavior. Why can't you stick to the one under discussion?

I still don't require non-physical minds to explain any human behavior, so don't need to bite any bullets. I'm not sure what you're on about.

While it's true that the environment can influence behavior, the genesis of all behavior occurs in the one behaving. The mechanical energy of a sound wave, for instance, is converted into electrochemical energy in a process called "transduction". That behavior, that act—transduction—is an act of the human being and not the sound wave. Do you disagree?

Quoting NOS4A2

Human beings are unfathomably different than venus fly traps, sunflowers, and computers. Different physical systems means different behavior.

The human body might be more complex than a plant and a computer but its internal behaviour is still causally influenced by external stimulation. The human body is not an isolated system.

Quoting NOS4A2

I still don't require non-physical minds to explain any human behavior, so don't need to bite any bullets. I'm not sure what you're on about.

If you want to argue against determinism (whether compatibilist or incompatibilist) and in favour of libertarian free will, then you must reject eliminative materialism, because eliminative materialism entails that human behaviour is a deterministic response to prior physical causes, both internal and external to the body.

Quoting NOS4A2

The mechanical energy of a sound wave, for instance, is converted into electrochemical energy in a process called "transduction". That behavior, that act—transduction—is an act of the human being and not the sound wave.

Yes, and photosynthesis is an act of the plant, not sunlight. But it is still the case that sunlight causally affects plant behaviour and that sound causally affects human behaviour. The soundwaves cause transduction to happen which causes neurons to fire which causes the muscles to contract and relax which causes the ball to be kicked which causes the window to break.

As I said before, your claim that one causal chain ends at this point and that a second causal chain starts immediately after, and that there's no causal connection between the two, is both inconsistent with physics and an arbitrary delineation.

Quoting NOS4A2

They dodged it. You’ve dodged it.

Quoting NOS4A2

But it’s simple. One cannot control another’s motor cortex with words.

It’s simple? So how does one control one’s own motor cortex? That’s called the problem of free will versus determinism. Not simple.

You seem to be saying that words cannot induce actions in others.

How about “no, please wait in the lobby.” If I move at all it’s because I choose to move at all, but if I pick the lobby, it’s at least in part because of the other person’s words. Right?

I see a stop sign. On one level I control my own motor cortex and I can stop or keep driving.

But on another level, the only reason I am considering stopping is because of the “stop” speech posted on the sign.

Words are causing me to make a decision of what to do with my motor cortex - keep the motor rolling or stop the train.

So if I stop, did I stop because the sign said “stop”or because I chose to stop?

The answer is both. I was trying to drive but stopped instead because of my choice to follow what the sign said to do.

Or how about this, what if I jumped up in a theater and ran to the door and left. Everyone around me would be saying “what’s got in to him - what induced him to run?” They would all assume it was my ability to control my own motor cortex, but, they would still be wondering if there was anything more specific that led to the quick exit.

Then someone else yells “Run! Fire!!”

All the other people who were sitting with me might now say, “Ah, now I see why he ran, he must have smelled smoke or something.” “Now it makes some sense - he must not like being burned to death.” “Good inference,” says the other one, as they sit there…

They sit there because they are free to control their own motor cortexes as they see fit.

Then the person yells again “Run you fools, Fire is coming to kill you all - run for the exits! Fire! Fire!!!”

Next, after trampling someone to death, they are outside and can see there is no fire and never was.

So why did they run out of the building?
Why are they standing outside?
Is there any other reason besides their decision to jump up and run?

They all didn’t see the purpose to me running out. Then, they ran out. What caused the change of heart?

So you know, I ran out of the building because I forgot my cell phone and didn’t want anyone around here to think I was dodging any questions.

This is a perfectly good conversation, but I think you are missing something pretty big about language.

Words (immaterial meanings) really do matter (cause effects in others). I don’t know why we would want to think otherwise, especially in the context of questions about political freedom.

I mean if words can’t be the cause of action, what is the point of laws, political rallies, or anything public relating to political speech (or any speech really)?

——

I think you are talking about how we move - motor cortexes and self-determination.

A discussion about regulating speech and movement is more about why we move - what the words reasonably mean and what we can expect to induce in others’ minds as they make their decisions and self-determine the use of their motor skills.

Reply to Michael

The human body might be more complex than a plant and a computer but its internal behaviour is still causally influenced by external stimulation. The human body is not an isolated system.

It’s not an isolated system but it is a different system. Humans don’t use photosynthesis, for example.

If you want to argue against determinism (whether compatibilist or incompatibilist) and in favour of libertarian free will, then you must reject eliminative materialism, because eliminative materialism entails that human behaviour is a deterministic response to prior physical causes, both internal and external to the body.

I still don’t know how eliminative materialism entails that human behavior is a deterministic response to prior physical causes. Further, even if you assume determinism, many of the “prior physical causes” are prior states of the brain and body, which is still the person in question except at an earlier time.

What is an example of prior physical causes external to the body? What else besides yourself causes you to listen?

The soundwaves cause transduction to happen which causes neurons to fire which causes the muscles to contract and relax which causes the ball to be kicked which causes the window to break.

The sensory receptor causes the conversion of the energy in a stimulus into an electrical signal. That is what it does. Only this thing can cause that change. From then on every cause, effect, change, or whatever is under the complete control and influence of the body, which uses a different form of energy to make these conversions, and not any outside kinetic stimulus.

As I said before, your claim that one causal chain ends at this point and that a second causal chain starts immediately after, and that there's no causal connection between the two, is both inconsistent with physics and an arbitrary delineation.

I completely reject that formulation.

It’s not inconsistent nor arbitrary because only one system in the universe is converting that energy into another, and using that energy as it does. The body uses sound waves and other aspects of the environment to extract that information. Soundwaves don’t cause us to listen, to differentiate between one sound and another, to turn our heads or cover our ears, to understand the language spoken or to disregard it entirely.

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. Your efforts to paint it as a kinetic Rube Goldberg device is inconsistent with physics, biology, and is completely arbitrary.

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Michael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irony mode off.

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

In any case, I am more interested in your defense of not making things like contractual lies, slander/defamation, trademark violation, perjury etc... illegal rather than 'private speech' as it were (bad wording, but hopefully says what I want). Is there something for you to say here? Why would we want to allow the chips to fall where they may in these areas?

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks! Good to be back.

Quoting Book273

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting Benkei

Free speech absolutism clings to a libertarian ahistorical fantasy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting Michael

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

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

Quoting Michael

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism.

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

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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

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

Quoting Book273

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

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

Quoting Michael

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

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

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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

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

I constantly have to repeat myself with you:
Quoting Harry Hindu

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

Reply to Harry Hindu

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

Reply to Michael Your response is an example of talking past each other.

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

Quoting Harry Hindu

Is information physical?

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

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

Reply to Harry Hindu

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

Quoting Michael

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

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

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

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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

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

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

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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

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

Quoting Michael

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

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

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

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

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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

Reply to Michael Quoting Michael

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

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

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

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

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

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

So thanks for agreeing with me.

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

I wasn't trying to contradict you. I was just answering your questions.

Reply to Harry Hindu Reply to Michael

Some reactions are common, some reactions are individual.

Every human likes to breath. Not every human likes garlic.

Isn't it that simple?

Reply to Harry Hindu

"there must be some difference in the way the two humans interpret the same input to be able to produce a different output"

I can provide a real life example of this, not limited to 2 individuals, but rather, male and female staff. I had been a manager in an Emergency Department and, in an effort to ensure the best patient care possible and support constant staff education and improve practice, I said to the staff during a staff meeting...

"Just let me know what you need; equipment, training, specialized education, etc. Anything you can think of that would improve your ability to practice and provide care and maximize the patient experience and outcome. If you think it would help I want to hear about it so we can make it happen."

The male staff heard " The manager wants to know how to make the place better and is willing to train and educate the staff and wants us to provide input."

The female staff heard "Everyone is so terrible at their job that I need to retrain everyone and our equipment is terrible and also needs replacing."

The difference in take away messaging from the same message, at the same meeting, was astounding. To this day I have no idea how I should have phrased the message for equivalent positive uptake throughout the staff. That the take away was so immensely different still bewilders me.

I think the male and female interpretations are both correct and both complement each other.

It's logical that improvement is only possible where something is not good enough. Something perfect has no room for improvement. Whether the "imperfect" is "terrible" is just a rhetorical play, I guess. But the logic is correct, isn't it?

Reply to AmadeusD

In any case, I am more interested in your defense of not making things like contractual lies, slander/defamation, trademark violation, perjury etc... illegal rather than 'private speech' as it were (bad wording, but hopefully says what I want). Is there something for you to say here? Why would we want to allow the chips to fall where they may in these areas?

For my own tastes it's because of principle. Namely, I do not think any person nor group of people should have the power to pick and choose what the rest of us can say, write, and think. Far better to let the chips fall as they may than to give anyone that power. I'll outline some other principles below, but there are plenty more.

Speech is a harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others. So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.

But worse, the reason's stated as to why a censor might criminalize speech are entirely superstitious. In fact I would argue that the censor's superstitions are the most prevalent, ancient, and at the same time, most disastrous of superstitions of the entirety of human existence.

The evidence of this is in their reasoning, where they invariably waiver between the actual and the figurative when making their claims (this word literally"triggers" that action, where "trigger" in the literal sense means "to fire by pulling a mechanical trigger". They must be figurative because they cannot explain how it actually occurs). One can read historical accounts of censorship (the trial of socrates for example) to see how this is the case. 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. So in my view, to choose to censor is to tacitly believe in superstition and sorcery. Personally, I refuse to do so. Far better to let the chips fall as they may.

But also I wish to possess knowledge. Speech, and therefore our knowledge of history, is as fragile as the Herculaneum papyri. If we were able to gather the sum-total of human speech into a vast pile of writings, art, and artifacts, imagine if some censor was allowed to have his superstitious way with it. What works have already been robbed from humankind we'll probably never know, but in this sense censorship is a form of robbery, perhaps of the worst kind. (Think of what was stolen from mankind with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria). Knowledge of human history must also include lies, fabrications, insults, hate speech, and anything else that is speech. So far better to let the chips fall as they may than to engage in robbery of that kind. Far better to possess knowledge than to be ignorant.

I have plenty more arguments and could go on ad nauseam but I'll refrain for now.

Quoting NOS4A2

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.

Nobody is saying anything like this at all. It's not just about the immediate kinetic energy of an action. This is such an absurd strawman.

There's very little kinetic energy involved when I click the various keys on my computer, but clicking the appropriate keys begins a causal chain of events that influences the words that appear on your screen. There's no magical thinking or superstition involved in acknowledging this basic fact.

It's not a coincidence that the words that appear on your screen correspond to the words that I type. It's not a mere correlation. There is a very real causal connection between the two.

And there's a very real causal connection between sound stimulating an organism's sense organs and the subsequent neurological activity (which is a physical reaction).

The idea speech does not affect the world and that all these sovereign individuals can just ignore it, is devoid of fact. Speech can be abusive and cause harm. Child abuse can consist of solely verbal abuse. There are plenty of examples of bullied kids committing suicide. To then have people argue words don't harm and that it is apparently the person's choice to commit suicide is a prime example of victim blaming.

Reply to Michael

It is not a coincidence or magical thinking you read my words and respond to them. That’s entirely up to you whether you do or not. It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond.

Quoting Quk

It's logical that improvement is only possible where something is not good enough.

It's not. The females made wild assumptions (based on what we've been told above). The males did not - if anything, there seems a bit of pronoia going on in the males, but it seems more likely that is what the speakers tone intimated. I also notice the same disparity when speaking with colleagues/subordinates.

Quoting NOS4A2

For my own tastes it's because of principle.

I have read the entire response and will make further comments. But I am telling you mate, this is the only reasonable answer you have given. That's fine, but it does absolutely nothing for the arguments you've been presented with, regardless of you either not getting htem, or pretending they aren't there.

Quoting NOS4A2

I do not think any person nor group of people should have the power to pick and choose what the rest of us can say, write, and think

Not entirely unreasonable, but doesn't quite get to what I asked you. My assumption (which was founded) being you'll get deeper as you go...

Quoting NOS4A2

So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.

This is equivalent to saying "Preventing crime is violating people's rights to eat fresh Apples from the corner near my house". Utterly preposterous and non sequitur. There is absolutely no connection between criminalizing speech and the (obviously nonsensical, in context) "sacrifice" or "another's" right to "live and survive with others". These are non-arguments.

Quoting NOS4A2

But worse, the reason's stated as to why a censor might criminalize speech are entirely superstitious. In fact I would argue that the censor's superstitions are the most prevalent, ancient, and at the same time, most disastrous of superstitions of the entirety of human existence.

You've made this claim. It is ridiculous, on it's face, and empirically unsupportable. You've done nothing to support it, or massage it into appearing more reasonable. There is no argument to contend with here.

Quoting NOS4A2

They must be figurative because they cannot explain how it actually occurs

We've already done this for you within this thread. If you do not understand defamation and its follow-ons, you need to just bow the heck out of this before you're left at the gates of an actual conversation.

Quoting NOS4A2

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

They literally do. I've explained this in hte response you have quoted from me. Granted I didn't ask you to address that - you have gone and done so, further showing that you:

A. Do no understand the position you're arguing against;
B. You do not understand hte physics of speech and hearing;
C. You do not understand your own point of view adequately to defend it (plenty can. you're floundering).

I would suggest you have a deep, hard, logical think about what you're doing here. We can all see hte problem here. It's not one of opinion. You have no arguments. You have failures of understanding (or, complete lack of knowledge about a relevant field).

Quoting NOS4A2

So in my view, to choose to censor is to tacitly believe in superstition and sorcery.

You may want to turn this around - your positions are so abjectly stupid and ignorant of that which you pretend to rail against that you aren't off the ground yet. Sorcery would be required for your positions to obtain, particularly because you are yelling at a ghost (it seems other commenters have already pointed this out to you).

Quoting NOS4A2

Far better to let the chips fall as they may.

You have entirely refused to address the issues I put to you.

Tell me why defamation is acceptable? Repudiating contract? Misleading commercial dealings? Politicians lying about their policies? Police lying on their reports? Judges lying about evidence in their command? Perjury? Trademark violations? You truly think these should not be regulated?
If so, you want communism. Plain and simple.

Quoting NOS4A2

It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond.

This is so fundamentally wrong, It is extremely hard to know how to approach this to get you off such a hollow point.

If we couldn't respond to you, that would be true. We can, therefore, your speech causes a response. "If but for" your comment, there would be no response. These aren't legal arguments, to be sure - that's something quite different - but all the legal arguments fall under these heads and are discussed at some fair length.

Your point is we chose to respond. Okay. In most cases, yes, that'll be true. But even reading words can literally cause irresistible chemical urges in the brain and these are known mental conditions. They are simply normal mechanisms gone awry. Because speech can cause action. I have provided several sources and we have, collectively, explained this to you plenty of times.

At this stage, your ignorance can be your own. You have failed to make an argument.

Reply to AmadeusD

I have read the entire response and will make further comments. But I am telling you mate, this is the only reasonable answer you have given. That's fine, but it does absolutely nothing for the arguments you've been presented with, regardless of you either not getting htem, or pretending they aren't there.

I thought I’ve addressed most if not all of the arguments but I’ll be happy to address any that if I’ve missed them.

This is equivalent to saying "Preventing crime is violating people's rights to eat fresh Apples from the corner near my house". Utterly preposterous and non sequitur. There is absolutely no connection between criminalizing speech and the (obviously nonsensical, in context) "sacrifice" or "another's" right to "live and survive with others". These are non-arguments.

Preventing crime? I’m speaking about preventing someone’s speech, which I stated was “harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others”. Is crime “ harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others” in your book? Your equivalence is utter nonsense. I’ll repeat it for you and anyone else you think are moved like a marionette by your sophistry. “Speech is a harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others. So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.”

Tell me why defamation is acceptable? Repudiating contract? Misleading commercial dealings? Politicians lying about their policies? Police lying on their reports? Judges lying about evidence in their command? Perjury? Trademark violations? You truly think these should not be regulated?
If so, you want communism. Plain and simple.

I don’t think any of them are acceptable. The problem is you’re equivocating between illegal, regulated, and acceptable behavior in a dramatic display of complete casuistry. I say none of it should be criminalized so you repeat the question, moving the goalposts, to where you are now asking if they I think they should be regulated. Or if I believe they’re acceptable. Why ask if you can’t handle the answer?

I don’t think your sophistry is acceptable and I think you should have at least enough respect for yourself to regulate your bad faith, but in any case I would never criminalize your behavior, punish you for it, or seek your sanction. It’s much better to let you express yourself so I and others can know what kind of person we’re dealing with, whether I should take you seriously, and so on. As proven, it appears I don’t need to.

But even reading words can literally cause irresistible chemical urges in the brain and these are known mental conditions.

Reading words! Finally, the reader is causing it. As long as you say the writer didn’t cause it, you’re thinking more clearly.

Quoting NOS4A2

It is not a coincidence or magical thinking you read my words and respond to them. That’s entirely up to you whether you do or not. It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond.

"Entirely up to me" and "causally influenced by you" are not mutually exclusive. See compatibilism.

It is a proven physical fact that my brain activity is causally affected by what some external stimulus causes to happen to my sense organs. That's what it means to sense things in the environment.

You're playing word games when you interpret "A causally influences B" as only meaning "B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy". It's ridiculous.

Reply to NOS4A2

One cannot know what's in the text before it's been read.

One cannot know what's in the speech before it's been heard.

Therefore one cannot warn oneself in advance.

Quoting Quk

Some reactions are common, some reactions are individual.

Every human likes to breath. Not every human likes garlic.

Isn't it that simple?

Only if you're interested in effects divorced from their causes. Why doesn't every human like garlic?

Going by what some are saying in this thread, everyone that hears that garlic is delicious and nutritious should be eating garlic. But they don't. Why?

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

If you hear inciting words and are not incited to riot, then why don't you or Reply to Michael take us through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words and why you don't end up rioting?

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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.

Quoting Book273

The difference in take away messaging from the same message, at the same meeting, was astounding. To this day I have no idea how I should have phrased the message for equivalent positive uptake throughout the staff. That the take away was so immensely different still bewilders me.

I like to use the analogy of two cats. One cat has been a pet of mine for years and another is a stray I only recently adopted. When I use the electric can-opener to open a can of tuna, the pet cat comes running toward the sound. The stray runs away from the sound and only learns that the sound means tuna is being served after several instances of this happening. How can two entities of any species react so differently to the same sound and then change when new information is introduced (tuna is being served rather than something loud and dangerous is coming)?

Quoting Michael

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.

I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process, or are you a p-zombie?

Quoting Harry Hindu

If you hear inciting words and are not incited to riot, then why don't you or ?Michael
take us through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words and why you don't end up rioting?

The personality of individuals varies a lot; it consists of many attributes, for example:
• Egoism -- ranging from low to high
• Credulity -- ranging from low to high
• Narcissism -- ranging from low to high
• Introversion -- ranging from low to high
• Social intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Emotional intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Mathematical intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Experience -- having learned from various specific stories
• Political taste -- ranging from right to left, and vertically from liberal to authoritarian
... and a zillion other attributes, scalable from low to high, from down to up.

A certain mix setting within a personality determines or causes a certain reaction; a reaction to certain inciting words or certain invitations or inspirations etc. pp.

(But I'm not saying that everything is determined; I think there are random effects as well.)

So there's much more involved than just a "thought process".

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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.

Quoting Harry Hindu

or are you a p-zombie?

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).

Quoting Quk

The personality of individuals varies a lot; it consists of many attributes, for example:
• Egoism -- ranging from low to high
• Credulity -- ranging from low to high
• Narcissism -- ranging from low to high
• Social intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Emotional intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Mathematical intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Experience -- having learned from various specific stories
• Political taste -- ranging from right to left, and vertically from liberal to authoritarian
... and a zillion other attributes, scalable from low to high, from down to up.

A certain mix setting within a personality determines or causes a certain reaction; a reaction to certain inciting words or certain invitations or inspirations etc. pp.

This is moving the conversation forward at least - something that Reply to Michael seems adverse to.

Some people choose to live in a bubble and in doing so cut themselves off from alternate forms of information, or views. As a result, they end up being easily manipulated.

So, I asked you to take us readers through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words. How do these different things come into play for you, personally, when hearing any words? Why is it so difficult for you or Reply to Michael to do this? Either you're p-zombies and have no idea what I'm talking about when I use the words, "thoughts", or you are being intellectually dishonest. Would it help if I went through my own thought process when hearing some words? I would, but I just need to know whether or not you're a p-zombie so I don't waste my time with my example, as you would never hope to understand it - if you're a p-zombie.


Quoting Quk

(But I'm not saying that everything is determined; I think that are random effects as well.)

Everything is determined and "random" is just a term that stems from our ignorance of the causal process that preceded some effect.

Quoting Michael

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.

You're arguing with me as well that does not assume that eliminative materialism is correct, so you're talking past me. NOS4A2 and I don't exactly share the same views when it comes to the reality of minds, so it would seem to me that an eliminative materialist would have a problem in explaining how there are different reactions to the same stimulus if you don't account for the working memory of the mind where sensory information is interpreted.

No the brain and a thought process are not the same thing. A thought process is one of the functions of the brain. The brain also regulates body temperature, hormone levels in the blood stream, etc. So I'm talking about a specific process the brain performs.

Quoting Michael

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.

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.

Reply to Harry Hindu

I edited my previous comment and added this line:

So there's much more involved than just a "thought process".

I could show you a sample algorithm of a decision process that leads to the acceptance of an incitement. But that sample would be beyond the scope now and tedious. I just want to say there's more involved than just an abstract thought process. There are special tastes and certain emotions and individual temperaments. A flat-earther, for example, cannot be convinced by rational arguments. Flat-earthers insist on their dogma because it's an emotional conviction. Reason cannot beat emotion. Similarly, certain tastes are open to certain offerings. "Thought processes" are just a part of the game.

(Re "random": I think the observations in the quantum mechanics do show that there are random effects -- in the sense of true random and not just pseudo-random with hidden causes. There is no reason to believe that every event has a cause. According to Kant, causality is just a category of our reason that enables our perception. This thesis may be wrong, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.)

Quoting Harry Hindu

A thought process is one of the functions of the brain.

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.

Quoting Harry Hindu

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.

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?

Quoting Quk

According to Kant, causality is just a category of our reason that enables our perception. This theses may be wrong, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.)

Then Kant didn't have reasons for his conclusions? It seems to me that thinking is inherently a causal process. This just pulls the rug out from under the premise that sounds cause certain behaviors in others, like rioting. By asserting that causation is an illusion of the mind means that we can't be sure that some speech caused some behavior.

Quoting Quk

I could show you a sample algorithm of a decision process that leads to the acceptance of an incitement. But that sample would be beyond the scope now and tedious. I just want to say, that there's more involved than just an abstract thought process. There are special tastes and certain emotions and individual temperaments. A flat earther, for example, cannot be convinced by rational arguments. Flat earthers insist on their dogma because it's an emotional conviction. Ratio cannot beat emotion. Similarly, certain tastes are open to certain offerings. "Thought processes" are just a part of the game.

I was asking for something much simpler - and you keep avoiding it. I'm not asking for a sample algorithm. I'm simply asking you for you to explain the process of how you interpret political speech.

I'm a-political, so when I hear political speech I don't accept it at face value, no matter which side of the political spectrum it is coming from. I do research. I listen to what others of varying political persuasions say and then form my opinion about the veracity of what was originally said. I do these things because of my learned history that politicians and those persuaded by them lie. Notice I'm taking about experiences and memories and how they integrate with what is heard or read in the present moment. I don't experience neurons firing and hormones raging when I integrate sensory data with my stored memories. I experience colors, shapes, (of which neurons and brains are composed of and is what we are referring to when we talking about brains and neurons) sounds, feelings, etc.

What you refer to as abstract, I refer to as fundamental. Objects like brains and neurons are the abstraction as everything is process. These eliminative materialists like to talk about brains and neurons without acknowledging that they are using their mind to view them and they are referring to how they appear in the mind. It's like they're saying that the view through the window is true, but the window does not exist.

Quoting Michael

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?

How is that keeping things simple? What's with all the labels?

Just answer the question about what happens when you hear some sound. Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing?

Hearing a sound is the firing of certain neurons.

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Then Kant didn't have reasons for his conclusions?

Reason and cause are two different things.

• Reason is a logical condition.

• Cause is an event along a timeline.

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°. For this there is a reason, not a cause. The reason is independent of time and events. It's not a story.

Rain makes the road wet. Rain occurs, then wetness occurs. This is a story. Rain causes wetness. Rain is not a reason; rain is a cause.

Quoting Harry Hindu

It seems to me that thinking is inherently a causal process.

I think so too -- almost. I don't think the processes are 100 % deterministic as they are accompanied by a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations. A tiny random electron path deviation may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later. I'm not saying our brain is pure chaos. Obviously, it's not. But it's not a plain deterministic computer program or formula book either.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I was asking for something much simpler - and you keep avoiding it. I'm not asking for a sample algorithm. I'm simply asking you for you to explain the process of how you interpret political speech.

Pardon, I'm not intending to avoid your questions. Perhaps I was just misunderstanding your question.

What you are describing here looks like an algorithm to me. So your comment here isn't so much different to mine:

Quoting Harry Hindu

I'm a-political, so when I hear political speech I don't accept it at face value, no matter which side of the political spectrum it is coming from. I do research. I listen to what others of varying political persuasions say and then form my opinion about the veracity of what was originally said. I do these things because of my learned history that politicians and those persuaded by them lie. Notice I'm taking about experiences and memories and how they integrate with what is heard or read in the present moment. I don't experience neurons firing and hormones raging when I integrate sensory data with my stored memories. I experience colors, shapes, (of which neurons and brains are composed of and is what we are referring to when we talking about brains and neurons) sounds, feelings, etc.

Translated to a computer algorithm:
Declaration: Harry is a-political. Harry does research and he listens.
Contradiction:
IF Harry does research THEN Harry is political
Declaration: Harry has listened to a number of politicians that lied.
Program error:
Harry generalizes "a number of politicians" to "all politicians".
Declaration: Harry compares former experiences with current experiences.
Program error:
Harry concludes that former experiences are always "more correct" than current experiences.
IF experience is made THEN keep that valid for all times
Declaration: Harry is free of personal tastes and emotions.
Program error:
Harry is a machine; he has no human attributes.
Contradiction:
IF Harry is political THEN Harry has personal interests
IF Harry claims he is a-political THEN Harry includes a contradiction AND possibly further errors.

Reply to Michael

"Entirely up to me" and "causally influenced by you" are not mutually exclusive. See compatibilism.

It is a proven physical fact that my brain activity is causally affected by what some external stimulus causes to happen to my sense organs. That's what it means to sense things in the environment.

You're playing word games when you interpret "A causally influences B" as only meaning "B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy". It's ridiculous.

The fact is you read the words. You scanned your eyes over them, considered them, and formulated your response. You understand the language, know how to type, reply, quote, use the website, turn on the computer. Your education, your lexicon, your intelligence, your aptitude. Your body, your brain, your lungs, your hormones, your heart, your genes. All of this “causally influenced” your response but for some reason you want to blame the words for what you write. It’s bizarre.

Reply to NOS4A2

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.

Reply to Michael

Who said anything about blame? Enough of 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 human or plant. And causal influence is not to be understood so reductively as surface-level kinetic energy transfer.

We’re talking about speech. How does speech produce a different causal affect and response than any other sound?

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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.

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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.

Reply to Michael

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.

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?

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.

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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?

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.

Quoting NOS4A2

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

They all play a part.

Reply to Michael

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.

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

They all play a part.

Do they all equally play a part?

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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.

Quoting NOS4A2

Do they all equally play a part?

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.

Quoting Michael

Everything that exists – including the "mind" – is physical.

Not al all. Lots of things exist that are non-physical. We acknowledge they exist, not because we can see or touch them, but because we can see, touch, and are effected by their existence. Gravity and magnetic force come to mind (also non-physical, and yet existent). Just pointing out a perceived flaw.

Carry on.

Also, for those claiming that the mind is physical: where is it, how big is it, and if, as you claim, it is physical, how come it does not fill up over a lifetime, as any physical thing would eventually reach the limits of it's physical capacity from constantly absorbing information and thoughts.

Thanks

Reply to Michael

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.

I just don’t see it. Even if I assume your description, I don't see how we can get from this to "words causally influence behavior", or "words incite my action", or any sort of conclusion that words produce any effects beyond causing my ears to send signals.

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.

The rest is fully determined by the body of the listener. This is even more evident with acts of reading.

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.

We could sum up the amount of interactions or “causal influences” on your behavior produced by either the word and the body and find out who had more or less influence on result.

Reply to Book273 The universe is expanding exponentially. You're welcome.

Quoting Michael

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

Hearing a sound is the firing of certain neurons.

Then how do you determine the differences in some sounds if they are all just firing the same neurons?
You're relying to much on Wikipedia to the point where you are failing to think for yourself.

Quoting Benkei

The idea speech does not affect the world and that all these sovereign individuals can just ignore it, is devoid of fact. Speech can be abusive and cause harm. Child abuse can consist of solely verbal abuse. There are plenty of examples of bullied kids committing suicide. To then have people argue words don't harm and that it is apparently the person's choice to commit suicide is a prime example of victim blaming.

No one is saying that speech cannot affect the world. What we are saying is that there are often times where there are other more immediate causes to one's actions than hearing some sounds made my someone's mouth.

Quoting Quk

Reason and cause are two different things.

• Reason is a logical condition.

• Cause is an event along a timeline.

Reason is a type of cause. One could just as well say that a cause is a logical condition as well. Reasoning is an event along a timeline that precedes the conclusion as well as supports the existence of the conclusion.

Quoting Quk

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°. For this there is a reason, not a cause. The reason is independent of time and events. It's not a story.

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180° is the conclusion of measuring the angles of a multiple triangles. If you never measured the angles of a triangle, then how can you even say that the sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°?

Quoting Quk

Rain makes the road wet. Rain occurs, then wetness occurs. This is a story. Rain
causes wetness. Rain is not a reason; rain is a cause.

One could just as easily say that the road is wet because it has rained. A conclusion supported by a reason.

In making a distinction between causes and reasons is to contribute the the dualist's mind-body problem.

Quoting Quk

I think so too -- almost. I don't think the processes are 100 % deterministic as they are accompanied by a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations. A tiny random electron path deviation may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later. I'm not saying our brain is pure chaos. Obviously, it's not. But it's not a plain deterministic computer program or formula book either.

You don't even seem to be aware that you are supporting non-random determinism in explaining how differences in causes (a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations, a tiny random electron path deviation, etc.) can lead to different effects (may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later).

Quoting Quk

What you are describing here looks like an algorithm to me. So your comment here isn't so much different to mine

Exactly. So isn't the algorithm (thought process) the difference in output here? It is the reason we have a difference in how many people respond differently to hearing the same speech.

I am a Libertarian, but my concept of "free will" is probably different than most. To me, freedom = options and will = central executive. The more options one has, the more freedom one has. And you only get more options by having more information - by being informed, and not living in a bubble.

In having more options means that your central executive can make more informed decisions.

So it would be in a Libertarian's best interest to educate the rest of society in critical thinking and encouraging questioning and criticizing authority that tries to limit our options by limiting our access to all information.

Quoting Harry Hindu

The more options one has, the more freedom one has.

I agree. This principle is compatible to mine. There is always at least one option, so the will is not entirely unfree. And the number of options is limited, so the will is never entirely free. So it's not a binary yes-no-question as to whether the will is free or unfree; it's always just a matter of scale, i.e. the number of options. The word "freedom", if it's supposed to make sense, always needs a reference. Can I live forever? In this respect I'm unfree. Can I sing a song? In this respect I'm free. Am I free in general? No, as my lifetime is limited. Am I unfree in general? No, as I can sing a song.

Now that's the specific freedom regarding the options. I think there's another specific freedom which refers to the causes and reasons that influence my decisions. I'd say, this specific freedom doesn't provide a free will since I'm always influenced by something that is not part of my Self.

Quoting NOS4A2

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.

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.

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

They're not firing the same neurons.

Quoting Michael

They're not firing the same neurons.

Ok, Michael the Eliminative Materialst.

Quoting Quk

I agree. This principle is compatible to mine. There is always at least one option, so the will is not entirely unfree. And the number of options is limited, so the will is never entirely free. So it's not a binary yes-no-question as to whether the will is free or unfree;

That's why I spoke about freedom in degrees - as in more options the more freedom. I would say that having only one option isn't an option. An option is a relation between two or more responses. To have an option means you must have an alternative response that you can run through the algorithm and compare the predicted outcomes and choose which outcome one prefers.

Quoting Quk

Now that's the specific freedom regarding the options. I think there's another specific freedom which refers to the causes and reasons that influence my decisions. I'd say, this specific freedom doesn't provide a free will since I'm always influenced by something that is not part of my Self.

Interesting. So do other selves have an influence on you and you on them? How does one claim that others have an influence on others if the selves are themselves some nebulous and vague concept that only exists as a result of "external" forces?

Reply to Michael Reply to NOS4A2

Politics assumes:
- Individual people have bodies with senses enabling them to interact with each other and the world.
- Individual people use language consisting of written and spoken words as they interact with the world and each other.
- Language/words, once written or spoken, is a thing in itself, like the people with bodies are things in themselves.
- Language/words convey meaning from the speaker to the hearer/reader.
- Meanings of words are distinguishable from the words, like words are distinguishable from speakers and speakers are distinguishable from each other.
(When I say “bank” some might hear “river’s edge” and others might hear “building with money”. This is because words are distinct from meanings.)

If we chop any of these things out, politics doesn’t work. This is a conversation about free speech policy.

Maybe politics is an illusion, our senses are useless to sufficiently interact with the world and each other, words are just sounds, meaning is totally invented when sounds are constructed in the brain (which may be physical or we can’t tell…). But if all of that is up for grabs, who can say anyone actually said “fire!”, or whether there was a crowd that ran, or that “fire!” was supposed to mean “shoot” or “stay seated and eat candy” or “you are in danger if you stay seated”.

We can’t divorce the use of words to convey meaning and figure out whether words cause anything. Just like we can’t metaphysically divorce the notion of cause and effect from bodily interactions, and figure out what causes people to do whatever they do with their bodies.

Are we playing politics here or not?

For those arguing words can’t cause action, are you saying there need not be any laws or governments? Because what is the point of saying it should be legal to yell “fire!” in a crowded building - if we write a law “don’t yell fire or you can be held liable” who cares, because words don’t cause action?

We are talking philosophy of mind, mind-body problem, psychology, metaphysics of causality, but for the sake of governmental policy about public speech.

We don’t have to have a government if we don’t want to. But if we think we need one, it’s because people can use their bodies to harm other bodies and people can use words to mean something in others’ minds causing their actions that cause harm.

If we undo the possibility that the meaning of a word can cause an action in another, we undo politics.

When your boss tells you to chop that tree down, and you chop the tree down and it breaks someone’s house, you might not be liable for anything, if you are just acting according to your boss’s words of direction. Your boss might be liable for everything, or maybe not even he is held liable, but the company you both work for is.

Quoting Harry Hindu

How does one claim that others have an influence on others if the selves are themselves some nebulous and vague concept that only exists as a result of "external" forces?

Not sure I understand your question grammatically. Could you express your thought in smaller pieces?

I'm not saying that there is no internal force. I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force.

In the first second of your life, did you already understand English due to an internal genetic program or did you learn English from external sources?

Reply to Fire Ologist

Well said. I was going to write a similar comment.

Quoting Quk

Not sure I understand your question grammatically. Could you express your thought in smaller pieces?

I'm not saying that there is no internal force. I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force.

In the first second of your life, did you already understand English due to an internal genetic program or did you learn English from external sources?

Of course not, but I did have the capacity to learn a language, and some have a better capacity than others, which manifests in the way they use a language. It could also be that some might have had better teachers than others. So, the issue is trying to discern which parts are external influences and which are internal, right?

I have never denied that there are external influences. It is the others that deny that there is anything internal that can process those external influences for its own purposes.

Quoting Fire Ologist

(When I say “bank” some might hear “river’s edge” and others might hear “building with money”. This is because words are distinct from meanings.)

Wrong. No one ever simply walks around and says, "bank". "Bank" is often used with other words and it the other words that provide the context of the meaning of "bank". The issue is in thinking that only individual words carry all the meaning when other words often change, or clarify the meaning of the other words in a sentence. So you probably shouldn't attribute meaning to words by themselves, but to the sentence they are part of. Just as a cell has no meaning on it's own. It's meaning manifests itself in it's relation with other cells, forming an organism.

Reply to Harry Hindu

I guess the "bank" issue was meant as a metaphor for the fact that individuals define certain words differently.

Other examples:

[i]hot
violent
fast[/i]

These adjectives are supposed to describe a certain value range. What does "hot" mean? 30 degrees or 100 degrees? What is violent? A kick in the face or calling someone "idot"? How fast is fast?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Wrong. No one ever simply walks around and says, "bank". "Bank" is often used with other words and it the other words that provide the context of the meaning of "bank". The issue is in thinking that only individual words carry all the meaning when other words often change, or clarify the meaning of the other words in a sentence. So you probably shouldn't attribute meaning to words by themselves, but to the sentence they are part of. Just as a cell has no meaning on it's own. It's meaning manifests itself in it's relation with other cells, forming an organism.

Context helps define meaning, but it defines meaning of a particular word. The fact that you may not be able to tell my meaning by the way I use words doesn’t mean words and meaning (or use/function) are not distinct objects.

What if I’m standing in the doorway of a crowded theater and right across the street is a shooting range. And I decide to yell “fire!” Or I’m standing on a bridge and I point to a building that is sitting against the water has a sign on it Savings and Trust and I just say “bank” and point towards where the building meets the water?

If you want to know what I meant by those words, you would have to ask me for more words or better pointing.

You can undo the point I’m making by living in the real world where not everyone is an ironic comedian like myself, or you can wonder if Wittgenstein really was the last word on meaning and see how meaning is distinguishable from words.

Quoting Quk

These adjectives are supposed to describe a certain value range. What does "hot" mean? 30 degrees or 100 degrees? What is violent? A kick in the face or calling someone "idot"? How fast is fast?

Context is needed in all these instances. We only communicate in one word sentences when no other words are needed to provide context. Words that have more than one definition are used with other words to provide context.

Quoting Fire Ologist

If you want to know what I meant by those words, you would have to ask me for more words or better pointing.

And this proves my point, no?

Reply to Harry Hindu
Maybe. Do you mean words and meaning are distinct?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Context is needed in all these instances.

Individuals may experience a certain thing differently, yet they may describe it with the same word. Yes, you can clarify it by context. But at this starting point the context is unknown until the individuals describe their personal background with further, finer words.

Reply to Fire Ologist
For me, meaning is the relationship between some cause and its effect. The existence of scribbles on this screen would be an effect with the cause being your idea and your intent to communicate it. The scribbles refer to, or mean, your idea.

The tree rings in a tree stump mean the age of the tree because of the way the tree grows throughout the year. So words are not the only way that meaning manifests, but is one way that it does.

Now, if you want me to understand your idea, you have to know certain things, like which language I speak, and the level of understanding I have with that language. You have to use symbols I understand, or else what is the point in drawing scribbles on the page? Do you think I am going to understand you, or do you think it is an efficient use of time and words to just yell, "fire!"?

If you look for a word whose meaning is intuitively clear immediately after your birth, then it's probably this word:

Mama

At first your lips are closed, so your throat causes an "mmm" sound. Then you open your mouth; that causes an "aaa" sound. Genetic programs possibly trigger double actions so that symbols clearly appear as intentional symbols and not as random effects; i.e. when you make a sign, do it twice. So it's clear the sign is intentional. Therefore, when you say mmmaaa, say it twice: mmmaaa mmmaaa

You see a certain object the first time and you want to say something the first time. This object is your mother and the sound you transmit is "mama". This sound now has a meaning.

Reply to AmadeusD So your theory is that the mind is the universe. Way to explain nothing. Care to expand on that or no?

Quoting Quk

I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force.

If you are claiming that there are external forces that act upon an individual against their will, I absolutely agree. If you are saying that an individual can be motivated to action, any action, without internal force essentially being the only force that can initiate that action, I disagree. The only force that can cause anyone to do anything (other than an exterior physical force acting directly on said individual) is an internal force created by that individual. Ultimately the individual has control over the internal force, even if they have long since abandoned any deliberate use of said control.

I cannot motivate anyone to do anything, ever. I can use words to perhaps convince them to motivate themselves to do what I am suggesting, but the motivating factor is not me, nor my words. It is the internal force created by the individual that results in action being done, or not done, as the person decides.

Reply to Michael

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.

Because I think you’re wrong. And your false analogies with machines and computers only illustrate the lengths you will go to continue it. Bombs don’t require language acquisition, education, and communal living to develop language in the first place, let alone to let it affect them. All of this history and growth has much more to do with the response to a word than the shape of a sound wave.

Quoting Harry Hindu

(When I say “bank” some might hear “river’s edge” and others might hear “building with money”. This is because words are distinct from meanings.)
— Fire Ologist
Wrong.

There are words, and separately, there are what the words signify or mean. The context in which a word is used is helpful to know what the word signifies or means. Context helps define the meaning, but the word remains just the word, separate from its meaning. Like “bank” in one context clearly has nothing to do with a river. And words are just scribbles and not even words if we don’t speak the language; and rules of grammar and such are all part of the context which allows words to convey meaning.

But the point is, words are not meanings, and meanings are not equivalent to words. We have two distinct concepts where we understand what a word is and what a meaning is. (Because meaning is most often described with words, people often see them is inseparably bound, but they are separable, and must be, for words to convey meaning.)

Sometimes we try to say something and have trouble, but as we fumble along someone else says “I still see what you mean” and then they prove it by having less trouble with their words and saying for you what you meant, and you say “yes, that is what I was trying to say.” That scenario hopefully helps show you that words and meanings are distinct things we have to juggle and organize when we communicate. The first person here managed to convey meaning without saying the right words, and this was proven when the second person said better words showing he had the meaning despite not being given the words that could convey that meaning by the first person.

Yelling “fire!” to a bunch of English speaking people in a crowded room, on one level is sound effect.

Separately, it also conveys meaning, such as “everyone, you should all understand that fire is burning nearby and may overcome this room so you better leave now!” (Or something similar, you get my meaning.).

A third distinct element here is an effect that follows after words convey meaning. Certain words convey a meaning that reasonably prompts those who understand the words and their meaning to action. Such as yelling “fire.” It is reasonable to assume people in a burning building will want to run out of the building upon hearing someone yell simply “Fire” because the act of yelling fire inside a building conveys the meaning “the the building your are in is burning, so you should get out.”

The point of all of this is make clear that we should be politically free to say whatever words we want to, and to mean whatever we think we mean by those words in the context of adults discussing public policy, civil and criminal law, all things political, all things artistic (again among adults), and really anything in the context of a discussion for the sake of discussion and exchanging our ideas. No law should ever limit that. And government can (and must) let societal influences sort out the parameters of what people end up thinking is appropriate or not. Government should make no laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (ie. The First Amendment.)

But as soon as whatever is meant by whatever we say would reasonably prompt actions, not simply further discussion for the sake of exchanging ideas, like yelling “Fire!” in a crowded room for instance, then the person who yelled “”Fire!” when there is no such fire should be punishable by law for causing any harm that follows the reasonable response of a room full people who now think they are in burning building.

Many words to say “what’s ‘wrong’ about any of that as you say? Words, meaning, and action need to be three separate things.

Quoting Book273

I cannot motivate anyone to do anything, ever. I can use words to perhaps convince them to motivate themselves to do what I am suggesting, but the motivating factor is not me, nor my words. It is the internal force created by the individual that results in action being done, or not done, as the person decides.

I think this statement is full of contradictions.

I mean, if you have convinced a person to do something, you have clearly influenced that person. Yes, that person is responsible. But you are partially responsible too.

If you tell the person something the person didn't know -- nobody knows everything --, then you transfer new decision parameters to that person. The person cannot reliably detect whether you are a liar. Assuming the person trusts you. Now are you still claiming you have no influence? Assuming the person doesn't trust you. Now you can say, right so. Never trust anyone. Just to be on the safe side. But life without any trust is no life.

I claim that every influence is an influence. Influences vary. Small, big. You can't say you're no influence and at the same time say you're not an influence. There are many forces, and you are one of them. Small ones, big ones. We are all participants. You can't isolate yourself and simultaneously participate in the life on earth.

Basically, you're saying a football game is performed by the team, and the coach has no responsibility whatsoever.

Reply to Quk
To be able to even understand the concept of language-use means that you have to be a realist. You have to have reached the stage of development where you obtain a sense of "object permanence". We are all born solipsists, and around 8-12 months we develop the idea of object permanence which is when we convert to realism. It is around this time when we start using words rather than just babble.

So language-use is dependent upon the idea of realism - that there is an external world that your senses only partially acquire. We use language to convey events and ideas to others whose sense's would not allow them to be aware of what it is we are conveying. This is why it would be redundant to convey something in which the listener was already aware of or knew.

Quoting Fire Ologist

There are words, and separately, there are what the words signify or mean. The context in which a word is used is helpful to know what the word signifies or means. Context helps define the meaning, but the word remains just the word, separate from its meaning. Like “bank” in one context clearly has nothing to do with a river. And words are just scribbles and not even words if we don’t speak the language; and rules of grammar and such are all part of the context which allows words to convey meaning.

There are scribbles or sounds, and separately, there are what the scribbles/sounds signify or mean. What makes a scribble/sound a word is the rules of interpretation you learned in grade school. Just look at, or listen to, the "words" of a language you don't know and you will only see scribbles and hear sounds. It is the rules of interpretation that turn those scribbles into words.

You didn't just learn vocabulary, you learned grammar - how to arrange a string of scribbles to convey an idea as opposed to vocabulary which is the rule for deciding which words to use. Both are used in unison to convey an idea. Think about it like this: a word by itself only conveys part of the meaning, whereas the sentence it is used in conveys the whole meaning. This is why you cannot always capture what someone means when they use a single word, but you can when they use more words, as in using the word in a sentence.
Quoting Fire Ologist

But the point is, words are not meanings,

I would need to you define "meaning", but honestly I'd much rather talk about free speech in a Free Speech thread.


Quoting Quk

I mean, if you have convinced a person to do something, you have clearly influenced that person. Yes, that person is responsible. But you are partially responsible too.

How so, when those same words spoken to a different person would produce a different result?

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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.

Quoting Harry Hindu

How so, when those same words spoken to a different person would produce a different result?

The closer the result is in relation to the influencer's intention, the more influence is done.

If the influencer says to the newbie: "Eat six apples a day!", and the newbie eats two, then the influencer's intention agrees with the result by about 30 %. Of course, it cannot really be measured in numbers, but I hope you get the picture.

Quoting Michael

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.

No one is saying that isn't the case. The question is what goes on between the word entering the ear and the response that follows.

Quoting Quk

The closer the result is in relation to the influencer's intention, the more influence is done.

And it logically follows that if different people have different responses to the same stimuli then the influencer's intention is not the closest thing to the response of the listener - the listener's interpretation of the words and the speaker is.

Quoting Harry Hindu

No one is saying that isn't the case.

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.

Reply to Michael

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.

To be clear, I have never denied that the light from writing or the sound waves from spoken words do not “causally influence” the body.

But no, no one has made the case how a spoken word can “causally influence” a human being any differently than any other articulated, guttural sound. No one has made the case how the written word can "causally influence" a human being differently than any other mark on paper. The sound-waves of the spoken word, and light bouncing off the ink, do not possess any special properties, different energies, so it must be assumed that they have similar effects as other similar sounds, similar marks on paper, and with very little variation.

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.

Quoting NOS4A2

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.

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.

Quoting NOS4A2

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.

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.

Quoting Michael

NOS4A2 absolutely is. He says such nonsense as:

You have a history of cherry-picking and straw-manning other's arguments, so I don't trust you haven't done the same here. Your reputation precedes you.

He also just clarified here:
Quoting NOS4A2

To be clear, I have never denied that the light from writing or the sound waves from spoken words do not “causally influence” the body.

Quoting Michael

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.

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

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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.

Quoting Michael

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.

And no one is using the phrase, "immaterial soul" except you, so you are straw-manning.

In the sense that they follow the same natural laws, yes, they are the same, but that isn't what we're talking about, so another straw-man.

You are simply incapable of being intellectually honest.

Reply to Michael

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.

You don’t believe a sensory receptor causes the transduction of the mechanical energy of a soundwave into electrical impulses? Then what converts the mechanical energy of a soundwave into electrical impulses?

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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.

Quoting Harry Hindu

You are simply incapable of being intellectually honest.

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.

Quoting Harry Hindu

But the point is, words are not meanings,
— Fire Ologist
I would need to you define "meaning", but honestly I'd much rather talk about free speech in a Free Speech thread.

Quoting Fire Ologist

The point of all of this is make clear that we should be politically free to say whatever words we want to, and to mean whatever we think we mean by those words in the context of adults discussing public policy, civil and criminal law…

…Words, meaning, and action need to be three separate things.

Words, meaning and action need to be three separate things in order to protect the right to free speech from its being abridged by the government, but to allow the government to punish actions that reasonably follow certain speech in certain context.

Quoting Fire Ologist

What if I’m standing in the doorway of a crowded theater and right across the street is a shooting range. And I decide to yell “fire!”

And let’s say everyone in the theatre panicked, runs and tramples someone to death.

In court, some of the issues would be:
What yelling “fire!” reasonably means?
What did I specifically mean when I yelled it?

If I could prove that I wasn’t thinking about where I was standing or who could hear me in the theatre, and I meant to prompt the guys across the street to “shoot their guns”, I would have a defense against the accusation that I meant “the building is burning” and that people should trample their way out.

Here, in order to adjudicate free speech, you need to separate words, meaning and action.

Wittgenstein should definitely let his lawyer do the talking. I’m not really commenting on meaning versus use versus language versus language games.

I’m saying the law that protects or limits speech based on its content (meaning) versus its consequential acts (where they are physical acts potentially/actually causing harm), such law must distinguish the word from its meaning and from its consequences.

We can’t legislate words and their meanings. That’s what free speech is about. Wittgenstein gets to debate with Aristotle all day long about essences and objective meanings. But where words lead to actions, we need to understand if it is reasonable that such words can be meant to cause such actions (in order to connect those specific consequential actions to the specific speaker whose specific words meant something to the specific listeners who acted in specifically harmful ways).

Reply to Michael

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

Quoting NOS4A2

No one has made the case how the written word can "causally influence" a human being differently than any other mark on paper.

Then what is the point of a constitution or a law? About anything? Such as “free speech?”

On another (but now related) topic, why are you bothering to post here?

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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.

Reply to Michael

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?

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. Man does something to computer; man flicks a switch; man blows people up. That is until it comes to the topic of discussion, where it is words do something to man, soundwaves do something to man. Why do keep pulling this switch?

Reply to Fire Ologist

Then what is the point of a constitution or a law? About anything? Such as “free speech?”

On another (but now related) topic, why are you bothering to post here?

I enjoy posting here. I enjoy thinking and arguing about such topics.

Quoting NOS4A2

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.

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.

Reply to Michael

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.

The reason you won’t make the bomb the agent of causation and put it in the subject position in your event is because it’s absurd. The switch touching your finger does not “causally influence” your behavior any more than any other switch touching your finger.

It’s the same with words. The agent who reads or listens or flips switches has certain capacities that neither soundwaves, scribbles on paper, nor switches have. The words you’re reading don’t causally influence you to read them anymore than they cause you to stop reading them.

Quoting NOS4A2

No one has made the case how the written word can "causally influence" a human being differently than any other mark on paper.

Yet, your words elicited this response, which I wouldn't have written if not for those ? words.

Same for

Quoting NOS4A2

no one has made the case how a spoken word can “causally influence” a human being any differently than any other articulated, guttural sound

They say the printing press is among the most influential inventions in human history.

Quoting NOS4A2

I enjoy thinking and arguing about such topics.

And yet, such arguing wouldn't come about if not for such words.

(Hm Hasn't this stuff come up before?)

Reply to NOS4A2

Ok. So, I am arguing my words can cause a physical impact in the world, such that I can be held responsible, through speech, for causing others to trample someone to death.

So, I sent these words out into the world:

Quoting Fire Ologist

Then what is the point of a constitution or a law? About anything? Such as “free speech?”

And in response you said…

Quoting NOS4A2

I enjoy posting here. I enjoy thinking and arguing about such topics.

So apparently, I may be wrong. :grin:

But I don’t think you answered the question.

Do you think you can be responsible for the actions of others?

If yes, do you think words might help you accomplish such a feat?

If no, I’m glad you enjoy posting, because this seems to be the perfect place to do that.

Trust me, don’t yell “fire!” in a crowded room. Some people might hold you responsible for what other people do, that they will say was based on what you yelled.

I’m just saying “words can’t cause action in others” is not gonna fly in the courthouse.

Speech can be legally determined to be the cause of actions others take.

(I know you know this. But…

If you want to argue that speech causing others to act is metaphysically impossible, or physically impossible, or just not the case, that’s fine, but then what is the point of a constitution, or a law? About anything? Such as “free speech?

Laws are words written to regulate actions. Right?

You might just say “no point to them” and then can get back to posting and arguing the metaphysics.

But then we have just ruled out a discussion about a political issue on a thread about a political issue.

Quoting Harry Hindu

And it logically follows that if different people have different responses to the same stimuli then the influencer's intention is not the closest thing to the response of the listener - the listener's interpretation of the words and the speaker is.

Correct. I'm not saying that the influencer has 100 % control. And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all. Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero. But it's never 100 %.

You were just influencing me to write a reply which took two minutes of my lifetime. You just changed my history. If I missed a certain event in that other room during those two minutes, your influence was one of the many causes. Life is multicausal.

Reply to NOS4A2

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.

Quoting Michael

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.

I never said, nor implied, that we are special. I said we are different, and that is the difference.

Quoting Harry Hindu

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

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.

Quoting Michael

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.

Quoting Fire Ologist

The point of all of this is make clear that we should be politically free to say whatever words we want to, and to mean whatever we think we mean by those words in the context of adults discussing public policy, civil and criminal law…

…Words, meaning, and action need to be three separate things.
— Fire Ologist

Words, meaning and action need to be three separate things in order to protect the right to free speech from its being abridged by the government, but to allow the government to punish actions that reasonably follow certain speech in certain context.

Free speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate with others if you simply decided to use a string a scribbles in a way that the reader or listener is not privy to? What would you hope to accomplish? All you would be doing from the reader's and listener's perspective is drawing scribbles and making sounds - as if you were using a foreign language to them.

Free speech is not even saying anything you want without repercussions. That would be authoritarianism, not free speech, as the state would be able to say whatever they want without anyone questioning it, or to limit access to information that would enable others to make informed decisions and criticisms about what some authority is saying. Free speech is the capacity to question and criticize what others say, and to not simply accept whatever someone says.

Quoting Quk

Correct. I'm not saying that the influencer has 100 % control. And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all. Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero. But it's never 100 %.

What do you mean by "It's never 100%"?

Does 100% of everyone that is not deaf hear spoken words? Yes.

Does 100% of everyone that hears the same words react the same way? No.

Explain the difference.

Reply to Harry Hindu

I can’t tell if you are basically agreeing with me or what you are trying to modify about what I said.

You seem to be disagreeing with me. But you aren’t addressing anything I say specifically. As if we are scribbling at each other without communicating.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Free speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate with others

Take the word “free” out of the above and it is perfectly clearly true, and I think we both obviously agree about it. “speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate.” That makes perfect sense.

But “Free speech” is a political concept and saying “free” in your quote here doesn’t really say anything about the politics of free versus government regulated speech. You may as well have said “regulated speech is not using scribbles in any way you want. If we were to do that, how would you hope to communicate .” That is as true as your sentence regarding how language works, but says nothing about the difference between free and regulated speech (only their similarity as not being scribbles).

Quoting Harry Hindu

Free speech is not even saying anything you want without repercussions

That is not true. Free speech is precisely saying anything you want without governmental, state enforceable, repercussions.

There may be societal repercussions when you say “women should not be able to vote” or “stupid people need to be forced into education camps”, but freedom of speech means we all get to float any stupid idea we want to, and say it publicly and debate it as long as we want.

But if the speech incites harmful acts, the harmful actors can be punished.

And if those harm causing actors can demonstrate that they were incited to act by someone else’s speech, prompting them to trample their way out of a theater and kill someone, the speaker who promoted them may be held responsible for the actions of those who reacted to the speech. In such case, the state isn’t regulating the content of what was said (the content of the speech per se) but instead regulating the harmful effect caused by words said in a certain context to certain reasonable people.

That is the free speech question - when can the state tell someone to shut up? The starting point answer is never, unless that speech clearly incites illegal acts.

When speech has the only repercussion of pissing people off, or making them happy, or prompting more speech, it should never be abridged. No matter what it says or means. That is political freedom.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Free speech is not even saying anything you want without repercussions. That would be authoritarianism, not free speech, as the state would be able to say whatever they want without anyone questioning it

That doesn’t make any sense to me.

You are now talking about the state as a speaker.

Representatives of the state only get to speak on behalf of the state
- in court when the state prosecutes a crime, (which is precisely a debate to see who wins the argument)
- or when a diplomat speaks to a foreign state (in which case we all get to criticize or support what that diplomat said when they return home)
- or when the police arrest somebody, (which is also ultimately adjudicated in court.)

But politically, free speech means precisely everyone gets to say whatever they want, and people in government have to be free to say whatever they want as they are all just citizens - that’s government of the people, by the people, for the people. Candidates for office and elected leaders should be able to say whatever they want in political rallies. Legislators proposing legislation should be able to say whatever they want. All of that should be able to be debated, booed, harrayed, ignored. As long as it doesn’t obviously call for rioting, trampling, destroying private property.

In a free society, we can discuss and debate whether we should abolish private property, but until we change the current law protecting private property, no one gets to physically steal or trample other people and their property. And if my words “go storm the police station and burn it down” lead a frenzied mob to burn down the police station, I have broken the law by my speech. If those words lead to nothing, as me saying on TPF “go burn down your local police station” will lead to nothing, then the government should never be able to for TPF to take these words off the site.

Curfews, rules against yelling “fire!”, rules about inciting riots, rules about fraudulent or slanderous or “dangerous” speech - these are all fraught with the peril of authoritarianism.

But you do not seem to be focused on political speech. I don’t know what you are trying to say to me.

And I think you are a free speech proponent who sees the need to regulate harmful consequences like riots and trampling people running out of buildings because someone yelled “fire” - so I don’t know why you disagree with me so much.

Or are you saying we do have free speech? Or should not have free speech?

Reply to Fire Ologist

Sorry, I thought you asked why I was posting here.

The point of a constitution is to define the founding principles of a state.

Do you think you can be responsible for the actions of others?

No. No one cannot control another’s motor cortex with words.

Trust me, don’t yell “fire!” in a crowded room. Some people might hold you responsible for what other people do, that they will say was based on what you yelled.

As I wrote to you earlier in the thread, the “fire in a crowded theater” phrase was just an analogy, never a binding law. The ruling in which this analogy was used was overturned nearly 60 years ago. The constitution of the US does not forbid it yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Watch Christopher Hitchens dispel this myth at the outset of his delightful speech on free speech.

Reply to Michael

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?

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.

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”?

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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency

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.

No, it appears I don’t need to concede to anything you say because nothing you’ve said has been convincing. 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.

Quoting NOS4A2

Do you think you can be responsible for the actions of others?

No. No one can control another’s motor cortex with words.

Really. How about as a parent. Are you a parent? Do you think a parent can be responsible for the actions of their children? As in “kids, go spray paint the neighbors front door.” Do you think it’s all those kids fault and the parent’s little speech played no role in the paint in the neighbor’s door?

The legal history of the “yelling fire in a theatre case” is a red herring. The state can regulate speech when that speech leads to a crime that others commit or leads to harm caused by the actions of others. Check out Brandenburg v. Ohio if you want to be accurate. It overturned the “clear and present danger” test for regulating speech.

How about conspiracy laws? Mob boss says “go murder that guy.” And mob soldier goes out and murders that guy. Was the mob boss just an innocent speaker? Or part of conspiracy to commit murder and a murderer?

You are not answering my question.

How about laws? Don’t laws affect actions? Or a stop sign?

It’s obvious to me that my words cause others to take specific actions and so I can be held responsible for the outcome of the acts of others because they listened to my words.

Repeatedly talking about motor cortex’s is having no affect on the arguments. Motor cortex’s are how. They are not why. You are not talking politics and the question of free speech is a political one.

Quoting Harry Hindu

What do you mean by "It's never 100%"?

Mavis says to Oscar: "Oscar, eat this pill or you end up in hell."


Example 1:

Oscar hates this pill, but he eats it anyway as he's very naive and afraid of hell.

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar almost 100 %. Almost, not fully, because Oscar still has a brain of its own.


Example 2:

Oscar replies: "No, I won't eat the pill now. Maybe tomorrow."

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar just a little because Oscar obviously declines the instruction, but maybe he'll reconsider tomorrow.


In short: Influence is not a binary matter of "all or nothing". Influence has a variable magnitude. That's what I mean.

Quoting NOS4A2

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.

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?

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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?

Quoting NOS4A2

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.

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.

Quoting Michael

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.

I'm not trying to defy determinism. I'm embracing it. You simply aren't reading.

The difference lies in the reason why we observe a difference in behaviors when multiple people hear the same speech. For determinism to be true, which I believe it is, you have to provide a theory to explain what we observe in that multiple people react differently to the same speech. What is your theory? How do you explain what we observe?

Quoting Quk

Mavis says to Oscar: "Oscar, eat this pill or you end up in hell."


Example 1:

Oscar hates this pill, but he eats it anyway as he's very naive and afraid of hell.

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar almost 100 %. Almost, not fully, because Oscar still has a brain of its own.


Example 2:

Oscar replies: "No, I won't eat the pill now. Maybe tomorrow."

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar just a little because Oscar obviously declines the instruction, but maybe he'll reconsider tomorrow.


In short: Influence is not a binary matter of "all or nothing". Influence has a variable magnitude. That's what I mean.

You forgot the most important example.

Example 3:

Oscar replies: "No, I will never eat this pill because Mavis is full of shit and has a history of lying and manipulating others".

How much influence did Mavis have on Oscar here? Effectively, Mavis just made a bunch a sounds with his mouth as Oscar did not interpret those sounds as representing reality in any way.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Representatives of the state only get to speak on behalf of the state.

Not in a government composed of two political parties where the political parties do not speak on behalf of the state, but on behalf of their party. When the party regulates the speech of their constituents by only providing partial information, your freedom to information is restricted and therefore your ideas would be restricted which effectively limits your speech. The party also regulates speech by ostracizing any party member that questions the party's claims. This is how political parties become a political construct of group-think.

Quoting Harry Hindu

How much influence did Mavis have on Oscar here?

Zero.

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 %. That's what I meant to say.

Quoting Quk

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 %. That's what I meant to say.

Well, you wrote this:
Quoting Quk

And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all.

Isn't that what I just showed that there are times where the "influencer" had no influence at all?

If that is what you meant to say then why did you not include the 3rd example? It seemed to me that you were unwilling to acknowledge that there was a 0%. Michael appears to not recognize this simple fact either.

I would not be influenced by what Mavis said because I don't believe in the existence of hell. If Mavis told you that "If you don't take the pill a unicorn will come and trample you in your bed tonight.", would you be influenced to take the pill, even just 1%?

But the fact that there is variation is trivial. WHY is there a variation? Is there some common theme where those that are influenced more share some common characteristic as opposed to those that are influenced only a little or none at all? I think there is and it is access to all the relevant information regarding some issue or event. The freedom to access all information that enables us to make informed decisions about what is said is what enables free speech.

Quoting Quk

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 %

Now that I think a bit further about it, in what way is there even a variance? Either you take the pill or you don't (whether it's tomorrow or next week). Either you riot or you don't. Either you stampede over people in a theater after hearing "Fire!", or you don't. So it seems more of either 100% or 0%, with no variance.

Quoting Harry Hindu

It seemed to me that you were unwilling to acknowledge that there was a 0%.

I've been acknowledging that 0 % influence can occur as well. I'm quoting myself:

Quoting Quk

Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero.

So, sometimes it's greater than zero -- which implies that sometimes it isn't.

When you say "sometimes it's X" then you imply that "sometimes it's not X." Do you see the dual logic of the word "sometimes"? The word "sometimes" has a different meaning than "always".

Anyway, all I want to say is that in my view influence is gradually variable rather than a hard yes-no-issue. I'm glad to read you agree with my view.

Your example #3 is fine and correct. It's just not essential for the illustration that influence is variable because variability includes the number zero anyway.

Reply to Quk
Ok, but now I've moved on to ask about why there is a difference and to question the validity that there even is a variance. Read the rest of the post you quoted and the post after that.

Quoting Harry Hindu

But the fact that there is variation is trivial.

Yes, it's trivial. But some people don't get it or don't want to get it and rather play rhetorical games; they categorically round any influence down to zero. They do this by saying any free speech is just an "offering". I think this is just a rhetorical shift at the surface while the substance underneath remains the same: Call the emotional Pepsi-advertisement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the false fire alarm an "offering" -- its influence remains; call any incitement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the training program of the football coach an "offering" -- the coach's influence remains.

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be all-knowing, so you can at any time detect whether the message you hear is nonsense or not.

Now who on this forum is all-knowing?

I'll add a second point:

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be -- like a machine -- completely free of emotions, so nobody can make you feel happy or sad; no comedian and no joke can make you laugh, and when your beloved one is dying you can't cry, and no film or music can change your mood.

Now who on this forum is cold as ice?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Not in a government composed of two political parties where the political parties do not speak on behalf of the state, but on behalf of their party. When the party regulates the speech of their constituents by only providing partial information, your freedom to information is restricted and therefore your ideas would be restricted which effectively limits your speech. The party also regulates speech by ostracizing any party member that questions the party's claims. This is how political parties become a political construct of group-think.

You are just talking about how hard it is to be good voter and to determine who there is to vote for, and be a free citizen, and avail yourself of your freedom of speech, to dig deep and make the above observations and stay as free from undue influence as you can.

Reply to Samlw

Voted "other."

I think free speech is a double edge sword no matter how you cut it. Full free speech will end up with the majority shouting down the minority. Restricted free speech gives the government power to decide who gets to speak and create false ideological majorities. Frankly I don't think there is a good answer either way, though I lean more towards free speech than not.

Quoting MrLiminal

Full free speech will end up with the majority shouting down the minority. Restricted free speech gives the government power

Reply to Harry Hindu

Can’t we, in a free society always just ignore the majority if we want? It may take courage, but the majority shouting down the minority is still immensely better than a government silencing the individual and forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do.

Screw the majority! Be bold. And screw the government too. In a truly totalitarian state, you can’t say “screw the government” or really, you can only say what the government and the majority it allows to exist says. Majority and government become a monopoly on speech under a government that regulates speech.

The media sucks. The majority is really loud and intrusive. Those are not the same issue as the government regulating speech.

Reply to Fire Ologist

In a perfect world, yes. But I think the realities of life mean that the majority will always try to impose its will on the minority, and that bad actors will use unrestricted free speech in ways that are actively harmful. Imo, a majority often operates like a single creature that reacts very negatively to things that threaten its power/worldview. As I said, I lean towards free speech more than not, but I also recognize that at a certain point any power that is free to everyone will eventually become concentrated in increasingly small groups through consolidation (intended or otherwise).

I think of the story of the Emperor with No Clothes. Technically everyone is free to point out the king is naked, but the majority disagrees and pressures everyone into silence/agreement.

Quoting MrLiminal

and pressures everyone into silence/agreement

I certainly see what you are saying. I just think there is a sort of categorical, paradigmatic difference between a government that has to respect free speech, and a government that regulates speech. There will always be loud majorities who bully - in a free state, there is recourse, but in a totalitarian state, there is none.

Reply to Fire Ologist

I mostly agree, which is why I lean towards more free speech than not. I just think that, in an environment with totally unrestricted free speech, the end result can end up being similar to a restricted speech environment. And to that end, self-censorship imposed by majority pressure is arguably harder to break than externally imposed censorship from the government, as external censorship is more likely to create direct resistance.

So we conclude: The best solution is a compromise close to "almost unlimited freedom".

Reply to Fire Ologist

It’s obvious to me that my words cause others to take specific actions and so I can be held responsible for the outcome of the acts of others because they listened to my words.

Repeatedly talking about motor cortex’s is having no affect on the arguments. Motor cortex’s are how. They are not why. You are not talking politics and the question of free speech is a political one.

Then let’s try it. Use your words and cause me to take specific actions.

Reply to NOS4A2

Butting in here, but isn't you responding to FO proving their point to a degree? They post, you respond. Obviously as adults we are responsible to how we react to things, but it is also clearly possible to say things that will get people to react in semi-predictable ways. I believe this means there can be some gray areas. An example that comes to mind is how "fighting words" are not legal, as they encourage other people to fight.

Quoting NOS4A2

Use your words and cause me to take specific actions.

NOS4A2, post something, anything, anywhere on TPF.

You are my slave now.

Reply to Quk

That's my stance, more or less.

Reply to MrLiminal Reply to Fire Ologist

Butting in here, but isn't you responding to FO proving their point to a degree? They post, you respond. Obviously as adults we are responsible to how we react to things, but it is also clearly possible to say things that will get people to react in semi-predictable ways. I believe this means there can be some gray areas. An example that comes to mind is how "fighting words" are not legal, as they encourage other people to fight.

NOS4A2, post something, anything, anywhere on TPF.

You are my slave now.

The rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefor the rooster causes the sun to rise.

Like I said earlier, post hoc ergo propter hoc. I respond if and when I want to. Sometimes I do not respond at all, or even read a post for that matter. A series of words, written or spoken, have no special force over and above their mediums, which are themselves not words. So how can you move a human being with words?

Quoting NOS4A2

So how can you move a human being with words?

Ask them a question, like you just did to me.

Reply to Fire Ologist

Can you not do otherwise?

Reply to NOS4A2

Huh? Just because I can do 50 other things doesn’t mean I am not reacting right now to your words.

What does “can you” have to do with it?

Cause and effect can have intervening causes.

One of the intervening causes may be my consent and choices. But I’m responding to NOS4A2 in a way that rationally relates to what you asked me. So you are involved in these words I’m typing right now.

To get back on point, no government should regulate whatever I am saying now and whatever you said or might say in response to me.

But if you and I were conspiring to commit murder, just flinging murderous thoughts and plans at each other, and one of us takes one affirmative step according to those plans, like buying guns or something, then both of us could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and potentially jailed, not for buying the guns, but for the words we shared as the reason for buying the guns.

That would be government regulating speech but because of its consequences, not because of its content.

Etc., etc.

Quoting NOS4A2

I respond if and when I want to.

Yes, this is true. But you don't have 100 % control of your situation. Your situation is partially influenced by yourself and partially influenced by external inputs. You're not the only designer of your situation. There are many designers. You are only able to want to write a reply when there is an input. You don't write the inputs yourself. You don't know when they come in and what will be written in them. You are not all-knowing and not all-mighty. Your reaction depends on the external inputs. You and the external inputs both design your situation. And the situation is the basis for your decisions. Change the situation and it will change your decisions.

Quoting Quk

es, it's trivial. But some people don't get it or don't want to get it and rather play rhetorical games; they categorically round any influence down to zero. They do this by saying any free speech is just an "offering". I think this is just a rhetorical shift at the surface while the substance underneath remains the same: Call the emotional Pepsi-advertisement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the false fire alarm an "offering" -- its influence remains; call any incitement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the training program of the football coach an "offering" -- the coach's influence remains.

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be all-knowing, so you can at any time detect whether the message you hear is nonsense or not.

Now who on this forum is all-knowing?

Quoting Quk

I'll add a second point:

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be -- like a machine -- completely free of emotions, so nobody can make you feel happy or sad; no comedian and no joke can make you laugh, and when your beloved one is dying you can't cry, and no film or music can change your mood.

Now who on this forum is cold as ice?

Wrong and wrong.

I don't need to know the expansion rate of the universe to know if Joe Biden was mentally incompetent while President or not or to know if Trump really is guilty of the crimes he was accused of or if it was political considering the timing and location. I just need access to the relevant information, not all information.

I can influence my computer to perform specific actions, like which letters appear on the monitor by typing specific keys on my keyboard. Does that not qualify as a causal influence?

You failed to address my point about the impact someone's speech has on a specific act, like eating a pill, rioting or stampeding people in a theater, as being an either-or situation rather than a varying situation. So I am now rejecting your assertion that there is variation. Defend that instead of going on about trivial issues.

Quoting Fire Ologist

You are just talking about how hard it is to be good voter and to determine who there is to vote for, and be a free citizen, and avail yourself of your freedom of speech, to dig deep and make the above observations and stay as free from undue influence as you can.

I'm talking about how certain political groups limit our freedom of choice by only telling us part of the story, and part of the story they do tell us is inaccurate. Access to accurate information = freedom. It is access to the relevant information that frees you from being manipulated by propaganda and what provides the ammunition to argue against what someone else is saying. If the only information you have is what someone tells you, are you free to argue against them? Do you believe everything everyone says, or only what certain people say, and is there some common thread among those that you always reject what they say vs always accepting what they say?

Quoting Fire Ologist

Can’t we, in a free society always just ignore the majority if we want? It may take courage, but the majority shouting down the minority is still immensely better than a government silencing the individual and forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to do.

Screw the majority! Be bold. And screw the government too. In a truly totalitarian state, you can’t say “screw the government” or really, you can only say what the government and the majority it allows to exist says. Majority and government become a monopoly on speech under a government that regulates speech.

The media sucks. The majority is really loud and intrusive. Those are not the same issue as the government regulating speech.

What does one mean by the "majority shouting down the minority"? What is a real world example? In a democracy isn't the majority the same as the government? Isn't that why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic where states are both equally represented in the Senate and represented by population in the House?

The ideas of the majority and the minority should be subject to logical criticism. I should have just as much of a right to question the majority as I would have to question the minority.

Speech is regulated not just by having laws saying "You can't say this or that or you go to jail", but by limiting access to information. Less information about an issue means less can be said about the issue.

It seems to me that suppressing information might be easier for the majority than the minority. I see the Democrats/Republican two-party system as the majority and independents as the minority in this respect where alternate candidates are not given the same screen time as the majority when the number of independents is growing and now outnumbers either Democrats or Republicans.

Reply to Fire Ologist

To get back on point, no government should regulate whatever I am saying now and whatever you said or might say in response to me.

But if you and I were conspiring to commit murder, just flinging murderous thoughts and plans at each other, and one of us takes one affirmative step according to those plans, like buying guns or something, then both of us could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and potentially jailed, not for buying the guns, but for the words we shared as the reason for buying the guns.

That would be government regulating speech but because of its consequences, not because of its content.

What consequence? You haven’t murdered anyone. It’s true, you definitely could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, even though your crime is moving your mouth and breath in certain ways as to form sounds called words, which harmed exactly nothing; but that’s indicative of how superstitious man is.

Quoting Harry Hindu

The difference lies in the reason why we observe a difference in behaviors when multiple people hear the same speech. For determinism to be true, which I believe it is, you have to provide a theory to explain what we observe in that multiple people react differently to the same speech. What is your theory? How do you explain what we observe?

I already explained it with the analogy of the computers. How each computer responds to someone pressing the "A" key is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by someone pressing the "A" key.

How the human body (including the brain) responds to some given stimulus is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by the stimulus.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I don't need to know the expansion rate of the universe to know if Joe Biden was ...

Bad example. You need to bring a complex example where your evaluation can fail. Now you can say you've never failed in your life and I won't believe you, or you can provide an example where your evaluation has failed and where you had to correct your opinion afterwards. In such a situation you had not enough data and so you relied on someone else's input.

Quoting Michael

I already explained it with the analogy of the computers. How each computer responds to someone pressing the "A" key is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by someone pressing the "A" key.

How the human body (including the brain) responds to some given stimulus is determined by its internal structure. But its response is still caused by the stimulus.

If that were the case, we would all be responding the same way, but we don't so your theory does not fully explain what we observe. How is saying some words and getting no reaction the same as pressing the "A" key and getting a reaction? Some people do not riot when hearing those words, which is not equivalent to your example of typing "A" on a keyboard and getting some kind of reaction. It would be more like typing an "A" and nothing happens. You might think the computer or keyboard is malfunctioning. Is a person that hears some inciting words and is not incited to participate in a riot malfunctioning?

Quoting Quk

Bad example. You need to bring a complex example where your evaluation can fail. Now you can say you've never failed in your life and I won't believe you, or you can provide an example where your evaluation has failed and where you had to correct your opinion afterwards. In such a situation you had not enough data and so you relied on someone else's input.

You spoke about being "all-knowing", which is what I was responding to.

Now you're talking about access to the proper information, which proves my point that in order to make proper decisions means you need access to the proper information. You only realized you made the wrong decision after you have access to more information.

Now that you and I have had that type of experience of being lied to by another human being, wouldn't that make you more skeptical of what people say? Wouldn't that make you less likely to be manipulated by faulty information in the future?

For members of a political party, they are trained to believe that everything their side says is scripture and everything the other side says is heresy. Political parties are like religions in this regard where you do not question your party or religion or else you are excommunicated (canceled).

Quoting Harry Hindu

If that were the case, we would all be responding the same way

No we wouldn’t because our brains are not identical.

Quoting Harry Hindu

How is saying some words and getting no reaction the same as pressing the "A" key and getting a reaction?

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Is a person that hears some inciting words and is not inciting to a riot malfunctioning?

No.

——————

It’s really not clear what your issue is. Do you just object to physicalism? Do you think that human behaviour is explained by interactionist dualism?

Quoting Michael

No we wouldn’t because our brains are not identical.

Exactly. Our brains do not have the same information.

Quoting Michael

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed.

We're not talking about ANY reaction, just unethical ones, like rioting. If someone tells you to give all your money to a beggar, and you do, should that person win the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, or should you?

Quoting Michael

It’s really not clear what your problem is. Do you object to the claim that every physical event is caused to happen by some prior physical event?

I object to you using the term, "physical", but I do not object to the claim that every effect is followed by a cause, but I am also saying that different effects means that there were different causes at play. This must be the case if determinism is true and you need to acknowledge this if you want to keep using determinism as part of your argument.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Our brains do not have the same information.

What does that mean?

Brains are just a bunch of interconnected neurons sending electrical and chemical signals to one another. There’s nothing above-and-beyond this.

How the brain responds to its environment (e.g signals sent from the sense organs) is determined by the nature of these connections.

Different brains have different connections, and so respond differently to the same stimulus.

Quoting Michael

What does that mean?

Brains are just a bunch of interconnected neurons sending electrical and chemical signals to one another. There’s nothing above-and-beyond this.

How the brain responds to its environment (e.g signals sent from the sense organs) is determined by the nature of these connections.

Different brains have different connections, and so respond differently to the same stimulus.

We agree, we're just using different terms to describe what is happening. So if you want to say that our brains are different and it is because we have different types of connections between our neurons, that is fine. This is not our point of contention. You not taking this understanding that there is a difference in our brains and applying it to the issue, is the issue.

Address the other points I made in the post you cherry-picked.

Quoting Harry Hindu

You not taking this understanding that there is a difference in our brains and applying it to the issue, is the issue.

I am.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Address the other points I made in the post you cherry-picked.

What points? Your question asking me who deserves a medal? I don’t know why you’re asking me that as it has nothing to do with anything I’m arguing.

Reply to Michael
Quoting Harry Hindu

There is always a reaction (unless they’re deaf). It’s just that not all reactions involve the muscles. Just as not all the computer’s reactions involve displaying a character on the screen, e.g for security when typing a password on the CLI nothing is displayed.
— Michael
We're not talking about ANY reaction, just unethical ones, like rioting. If someone tells you to give all your money to a beggar, and you do, should that person win the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, or should you?

We're not talking about people that respond by saying. "No! What you are saying isn't true! You're manipulating these people to incite a riot.", or actively oppose what others are saying, right? We're talking strictly about bad acts that followed a speech, right?

So let's focus now on why some people either riot or they don't, or they stampede or they don't. Is it the differences in our brain? Yes, I agree. So it would follow that their "brain differences" is what directly preceded their actions and it is those "brain differences" that we should focus on changing if we want to limit stampedes and riots in the future.

If you don't agree that the differences in the brain are the direct cause of one's actions then you would be happy to give the person that told you to give all your money to a beggar the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, right?

When a society punishes and awards others for an individual's actions - that's pretty much communism, right?

Reply to Harry Hindu

So what about my argument are you objecting to? You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not.

Quoting Michael

So what about my argument are you objecting to? You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not.

Do I seriously need to hold your hand? You must be a p-zombie or an AI training bot.

It follows that, in a society that values freedom and individualism - not communism - that we punish and award an individual's actions, not what someone said that preceded it.

Reply to Harry Hindu

Okay.

How is that relevant to anything I'm saying?

Reply to Michael :roll: Then I have no idea what you're saying, as usual.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Then I have no idea what you're saying, as usual.

I am saying that NOS4A2's claim that speech has no causal power beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy in the inner ear is a complete misunderstanding of causation.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Now that you and I have had that type of experience of being lied to by another human being, wouldn't that make you more skeptical of what people say?

Yes, but only after you've learned it was a lie. You are diverting from my point. I'm talking about situations where you are being influenced by friend XY because you haven't learned yet that friend XY has lied. You are talking about the situation thereafter. Please refer to my point.

Reply to Michael

I am saying that NOS4A2's claim that speech has no causal power beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy in the inner ear is a complete misunderstanding of causation.

You might be right; I do have issues with causation. But you furtively leave out the body as much as you can. You don’t mention that it is the body that does the listening. In fact, the body does all the work: produces all the components required, converts all the energy, guides the impulses to their destination, directs each and every subsequent bodily movement long after the sound wave has had any impression. Sound waves do none of that stuff.

Quoting NOS4A2

You don’t mention that it is the body that does the listening. In fact, the body does all the work: produces all the components required, converts all the energy, guides the impulses to their destination, directs each and every subsequent bodily movement long after the sound wave has had any impression. Sound waves do none of that stuff.

The same is true of the machine with a radio receiver, but it’s still the case that if I send it a radio signal then I can causally influence its behaviour.

The fact that the human body and sense organs are organic matter does not entail that they don’t follow the same principles of cause and effect.

Reply to Book273 No, it isn't. So, I wont expand on that.

Quoting NOS4A2

I thought I’ve addressed most if not all of the arguments

It's hard to understand this take - you have been consistently told you have not addressed them. You don't really get to claim the opposite to the people who are giving you these arguments. You've not even touched the neuroscientific basis for words causing action. It flies in the face of your entire premise (empirically) and you have failed in any wya to address why you think several extremely harmful crimes should be fully legal, due to not restricting speech.

THose are two you have not touched in any meaningful way. You may think so - you haven't. Onward...
Quoting NOS4A2

someone’s speech, which I stated was “harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others”.

Those forms of speech are crimes (currently). You are not in touch with the issue, it seems. You are wilfully not answering to these charges... Why you do think those things should be allowable? Lets hope theres more further on..

Quoting NOS4A2

Your equivalence is utter nonsense.

This is just you pretending that harmful activities can't be carried out by speech. They can, and I've presented several (which are crimes). You seem to want to ignore this to support a principled approach to something which has empirical import.

Quoting NOS4A2

So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.”

But this is absolute bullshit, isn't it? As it seems you might have to address in your next reply... Onward.

Quoting NOS4A2

The problem is you’re equivocating between illegal, regulated, and acceptable behavior in a dramatic display of complete casuistry. I say none of it should be criminalized so you repeat the question, moving the goalposts, to where you are now asking if they I think they should be regulated

I am sorry, but this is perhaps the most awful, dishonest crap you have ever posted on this forum.
You want to - not criminalize harmful speech - but regulate it. Explain yourself, while maintaining an 'absolute' free speech position? You'll note this isn't possible.

Quoting NOS4A2

Why ask if you can’t handle the answer?

You're a child, it seems, who cannot have a conversation about their clearly contradictory views. That is not an issue for me. I am handling you with aplomb.

Your final two lines are pure irony. You aren't capable of a rational discussion, and I no longer have time for children pretending to speak to adults.

Quoting Michael

I am saying that NOS4A2's claim that speech has no causal power beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy in the inner ear is a complete misunderstanding of causation.

You can say that if you want, but that has no bearing on our conversation, as you have already agreed with me that there are brain differences that are the immediate cause of one's behavior and not what goes on in the inner ear.

Quoting Quk

Yes, but only after you've learned it was a lie. You are diverting from my point. I'm talking about situations where you are being influenced by friend XY because you haven't learned yet that friend XY has lied. You are talking about the situation thereafter. Please refer to my point.

Sure, but there is no law against lying. Are you saying there should be? Have you ever lied - to anyone?

I'll just pose to you the question I posed to Michael but did not receive a response, which just makes Michael proving my point:

Quoting Harry Hindu

If you don't agree that the differences in the brain are the direct cause of one's actions then you would be happy to give the person that told you to give all your money to a beggar the "Selfless Person of the Year" award, right?

Quoting Harry Hindu

You can say that if you want, but that has no bearing on our conversation

Then “our conversation” has only ever been your monologue as I’ve never said anything to the contrary.

Reply to Michael

The same is true of the machine with a radio receiver. But it’s still the case that if I send it the appropriate radio signal, e.g telling it to self destruct, then I am causally influencing its behaviour.

The fact that the human body and sense organs are organic matter and not metal is of no relevance.

But you set up the receiver and bomb. You programmed it to self destruct. It didn’t grow organically and learn to deal with the environment and others through years of experience and learning. It cannot choose to do otherwise should it desire to do so. You have no such influence over human beings as you would over a radio receiver.

Quoting NOS4A2

It didn’t grow organically and learn to deal with the environment and others through years of experience and learning

Why is that relevant? Matter is matter. All physical systems operate according to the same physical laws.

You are engaging in special pleading when you assert that “the entity takes over” applies to human organisms but not machines (and not plants?).

Quoting NOS4A2

It cannot choose to do otherwise should it desire to do so.

Okay, so now we might be getting somewhere.

Firstly, are you arguing against determinism and in favour of libertarian free will? If so, how do you maintain this whilst also endorsing eliminative materialism?

There are in general two types of free will libertarians. One type argues for interactionist dualism and the second type argues.that our “choices” are really just the random outcomes of quantum indeterminacy, which to me doesn’t seem much like libertarian free will at all.

Which are you endorsing? If the latter then we’re still dealing with causal influence, albeit probabilistic causation.

Secondly, where does decision-making occur? In the inner ear? Or later in the “higher-level” brain activity? If the latter then you must at least accept that the causal power of stimuli extends beyond the immediate interaction with the sense organs, being causally responsible for the signals sent to the brain and the behaviour of “lower-level” neurons.

Reply to Michael

Why is that relevant? Matter is matter. All physical systems operate according to the same physical laws.

You are engaging in special pleading when you assert that “the entity takes over” applies to human organisms but not machines (and not plants?).

Physical systems vary in properties and behavior. Why would that be irrelevant?

Firstly, are you arguing against determinism and in favour of libertarian free will? If so, how do you maintain this whilst also endorsing eliminative materialism?

I don’t need to believe in non-physical substances to believe objects can move on their own accord.

Which are you endorsing? If the latter then we’re still dealing with causal influence, albeit probabilistic causation.

I’m inclined towards sourcehood arguments and agent-causation of libertarian free will.

Secondly, where does decision-making occur? In the inner ear? Or later in the “higher-level” brain activity? If the latter then you must at least accept that the causal power of stimuli extends beyond the immediate interaction with the sense organs, being causally responsible for the signals sent to the brain and the behaviour of “lower-level” neurons.

I consider the body to be one holistic system. It is only this system in its entirety that decides, or can decide.

Quoting NOS4A2

No one [s]cannot[/s] can control another’s motor cortex with words.

Control? Like a Manchurian candidate? A magic spell? :)

I don't think that's what's meant. Your comment elicited this response. Which wouldn't have come about if you'd instead posted "Howdy doody partner", "What's down the sink?", "The Moon is a green cheese".

Quoting NOS4A2

I consider the body to be one holistic system. It is only this system in its entirety that decides, or can decide.

You can’t simply assert that because the human organism as a whole can “choose to do otherwise” then the behaviour of its sense organs is not causally influenced by a stimulus and its source.

Even the interactionist dualist accepts that some of the body’s behaviour is not “agent-caused”, e.g our heartbeats and digestive systems.

Quoting NOS4A2

I’m inclined towards sourcehood arguments and agent-causation of libertarian free will.

And how do you maintain this whilst endorsing eliminative materialism? Agents are physical systems and agency is a physical process and like every other physical system and physical process in the universe its behaviour can be and is causally influenced by physical systems and physical processes external to itself, whether that be deterministic causation or probabilistic causation (e.g quantum indeterminacy).

Quoting NOS4A2

Physical systems vary in properties and behavior. Why would that be irrelevant?

Because these differences do not allow it to escape being causally influenced by things external to itself. Organic compounds still react to the environment in deterministic ways. So saying that the internal behaviour of the TV can be causally influenced by an external stimulus because it is a metal machine but that the internal behaviour of a human cannot because it is a living organism is a non sequitur.

You might as well try to argue that because a plant is not a machine then its behaviour cannot be causally influenced by the sun.

Quoting NOS4A2

I don’t need to believe in non-physical substances to believe objects can move on their own accord.

What does it mean to “move on their own accord”? Does the Venus flytrap closing its jaws “move on its own accord”? Does the robot left to its own devices to navigate a maze “move on its own accord”?

You keep throwing around these vague phrases as if they somehow avoid determinism. As it stands I don’t see how this is incompatible with compatibilism.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Sure, but there is no law against lying.

This might be unneeded, but there are plenty of laws against lying. They are just context-specific.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/three-virginia-high-school-students-seeking-10m-in-lawsuit-over-principal-s-accusation-of-racist-harassment/ar-AA1GwJLl?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=6849dd2cbebb4d53bbcda000889c872e&ei=8

An oddly on-point example that just came across my headline widget. This could do well in the Myopia of Liberalism thread too..

Quoting Harry Hindu

Sure, but there is no law against lying. Are you saying there should be?

No, please reread my post. I'm talking about being influenced. You keep deviating from my point. And I now stop this dialog with you.

Reply to Michael

This is a vacuous answer. You can’t simply assert that because the human organism as a whole can “choose to do otherwise” then the behaviour of its sense organs is not causally influenced by a stimulus and its source.

Even the interactionist dualist accepts that some of the body’s behaviour is not “agent-caused”, e.g our heartbeats and digestive systems.

I’m not a dualist. The behavior of the sense organs, the brain, the nervous system etc. is the behavior of the whole. I reiterate this because pretending one and then the other are discreet units outside of the scope and control of the whole is abstract nonsense.

If not the agent, then what causes the heart beat and digestion? Is the Sinoatrial node a foreign parasite or something? Like I said, abstract nonsense.

And how do you maintain this whilst endorsing eliminative materialism? Agents are physical systems and agency is a physical process and like every other physical system and physical process in the universe its behaviour can be and is causally influenced by physical systems and physical processes external to itself, whether that be deterministic causation or probabilistic causation (e.g quantum indeterminacy).

In the case of human sensing, the transduction of one form of energy to another, as in the conversion of outside stimulus to internal chemical and electrical signals, is performed by the human organism. No external system involved in the event of listening performs such an action. And when I look at what changes the force of a soundwave can possibly cause inside the human body the effects are exactly the ones I said the were and no more. Past the transduction, that force is simply no longer present and therefor neither is its “influence”. There is no soundwave or words banging around in there like billiard balls.

All subsequent movements occur due to the potential energy stored in the system itself, in this case the body, as determined by the internal process by which your body expends energy and burns calories. The energy and ability to move, or do the work involved in listening, or speaking, or any activity, is converted, stored, and used by the body and no other system. It determines any and all activity involved, and in fact is physically identical to that activity.

What does it mean to “move on their own accord”? Does the Venus flytrap closing its jaws “move on its own accord”? Does the robot left to its own devices to navigate a maze “move on its own accord”?

It just means autonomy: the energy and force required to move is provided by that which is moving, generated by itself, and wholly determined by the biology, not by external forces.

Reply to AmadeusD If someone makes disparaging remarks about someone else but all listeners know that those remarks are not true, was a crime committed in making those remarks?

Did the left's constant characterization of Trump as a Fascist and Nazi influence more than half of American citizens to not vote for him? Does Trump have a case to sue those that made those claims?

Quoting Quk

No, please reread my post. I'm talking about being influenced.

But I've been talking about influence all along as well but you seemed to reject how I was using it, so I'm now trying to understand how you are using it and you aren't being very helpful.

Quoting NOS4A2

If not the agent, then what causes the heart beat and digestion? Is the Sinoatrial node a foreign parasite or something? Like I said, abstract nonsense.

You're equivocating. It is true that the human organism is responsible for its heart beat and digestion but it is not prima facie true that its heart beat and digestion is an example of agent-causal libertarian free will, comparable to the supposedly could-have-done-otherwise decision to either have Chinese or Indian for dinner.

The point I was making is that even if humans – but not plants and machines – are agents, our agency does not prima facie apply to everything our body does.

You need to do more than simply assert that humans are agents to defend the claim that the behaviour of the sense organs is not a causal reaction to stimuli.

Quoting NOS4A2

It just means autonomy: the energy and force required to move is provided by that which is moving, generated by itself, and wholly determined by the biology, not by external forces.

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a [i]non sequitur[i].

Quoting NOS4A2

I’m not a dualist. The behavior of the sense organs, the brain, the nervous system etc. is the behavior of the whole. I reiterate this because pretending one and then the other are discreet units outside of the scope and control of the whole is abstract nonsense.

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a [i]non sequitur[i].

Quoting NOS4A2

In the case of human sensing, the transduction of one form of energy to another, as in the conversion of outside stimulus to internal chemical and electrical signals, is performed by the human organism. No external system involved in the event of listening performs such an action. And when I look at what changes the force of a soundwave can possibly cause inside the human body the effects are exactly the ones I said the were and no more. Past the transduction, that force is simply no longer present and therefor neither is its “influence”. There is no soundwave or words banging around in there like billiard balls.

All subsequent movements occur due to the potential energy stored in the system itself, in this case the body, as determined by the internal process by which your body expends energy and burns calories. The energy and ability to move, or do the work involved in listening, or speaking, or any activity, is converted, stored, and used by the body and no other system. It determines any and all activity involved, and in fact is physically identical to that activity.

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology). Yet their internal behaviour is still causally influenced by some stimulus and its source. So this reasoning is a [i]non sequitur[i].

Reply to Michael

You're equivocating. It is true that the human organism is responsible for its heart beat and digestion but it is not prima facie true that its heart beat and digestion is an example of agent-causal libertarian free will, comparable to the supposedly could-have-done-otherwise decision to either have Chinese or Indian for dinner.

So even if you want to consider humans – but not plants and machines – as being agents, its agency does not prima facie apply to everything the body does.

You need to do more than simply assert that humans are agents to defend the claim that the behaviour of the sense organs is an application of agency and not simply a causal reaction to stimuli.

I never said it was an application of agency. I used “agency” to distinguish between the human being and your analogies. But the fact remains that the heart beat and digestion is caused by this same agent. So it is with the operation and maintenance with everything else occurring in the body.

And the same is true of the Venus flytrap and the remote control car (albeit with machinery in place of biology).

Venus flytraps, yes, but machines no. Machines are designed, built, and operated by human beings. They cannot change their own batteries or plug themselves in.

Quoting NOS4A2

Venus flytraps, yes, but machines no.

Are you saying that the fly walking inside a Venus flytrap does not cause the Venus flytrap's jaw to close?

Quoting NOS4A2

Machines are designed, built, and operated by human beings.

So?

Quoting NOS4A2

They cannot change their own batteries or plug themselves in.

They can if we build them that way. But also: so?

Quoting NOS4A2

I never said it was an application of agency. I used “agency” to distinguish between the human being and your analogies. But the fact remains that the heart beat and digestion is caused by this same agent. So it is with the operation and maintenance with everything else occurring in the body.

But the heart beat is not an application of agent-causal libertarian free will. And neither is the sense organ's response to stimuli. So there is no good reason to claim that the behaviour of the sense organs in response to stimulation is any less determined than the behaviour of a radio receiver in response to stimulation. You can't simply hand-wave this away by saying that in other circumstances the organism does have agency.

Quoting 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.

Taking a step back for a moment, and re-addressing this, do you at least accept that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight, and so that the above comment of yours is completely misguided?

Reply to Harry Hindu No, because you've conditioned out the context in which that is a crime. Disparaging is also a little weak to reach any kind of a legal benchmark.

He certainly could. But I highly doubt anyone would entertain that argument from someone running for President. But, as I understand the law, yes, he could absolutely sue several outlets and untold individuals for defamation. Musk could do the same. But why would they?

Reply to Michael

Are you saying that the fly walking inside a Venus flytrap does not cause the Venus flytrap's jaw to close?

If the action potential is in the plant, then yes, the biology of the flytrap causes it to close if and when such a stimulus happens.

So?

That means they are not autonomous.

They can if we build them that way. But also: so?

But the fact that we have to build them, program them, etc negates their autonomy.

But the heart beat is not an application of agent-causal libertarian free will. And neither is the sense organ's response to stimuli. So there is no good reason to claim that the behaviour of the sense organs in response to stimulation is any less determined than the behaviour of a radio receiver in response to stimulation. You can't simply hand-wave this away by saying that in other circumstances the organism does have agency.

I can and will hand wave it until you can show that something else in the universe beats the heart. Until then there is nothing else that can be shown to determine the heart beat.

Taking a step back for a moment, and re-addressing this, do you at least accept that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight, and so that the above comment of yours is completely misguided?

I do not accept it.

Quoting AmadeusD

No, because you've conditioned out the context in which that is a crime. Disparaging is also a little weak to reach any kind of a legal benchmark.

He certainly could. But I highly doubt anyone would entertain that argument from someone running for President. But, as I understand the law, yes, he could absolutely sue several outlets and untold individuals for defamation. Musk could do the same. But why would they?

Exactly. Conditioning out the context in which defamation is a crime is having an informed population.

Conditioning out inciting speech would also involve having an informed society. See the connection?

Quoting NOS4A2

If the action potential is in the plant, then yes, the biology of the flytrap causes it to close if and when such a stimulus happens.

And the fly causes it to close. The two are not mutually exclusive. Exactly like with machines.

Quoting NOS4A2

I can and will hand wave it until you can show that something else in the universe beats the heart. Until then there is nothing else that can be shown to determine the heart beat.

You're not addressing what I'm saying. I’m saying that even if we have libertarian free will, this could-have-done-otherwise agency does not apply to our heartbeats and does not apply to our sense organs, and so there’s no good reason to say that the behaviour of our sense organs is not causally determined by some stimulus and its source.

Quoting NOS4A2

I do not accept it.

Why not? Do you reject the claim that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight?

Quoting NOS4A2

That means they are not autonomous.

...

But the fact that we have to build them, program them, etc negates their autonomy.

Autonomous robot.

Every day, every minute, true, semi-true, and untrue news become available. In order to be informed correctly, humans need to decide which news are the true ones. Even smart people cannot filter out all untrue news. It may take days or years until I can see that the information XY at that time was wrong. Until then, I'm believing that the information XY is true and I'll make personal decisions accordingly; I'm relying on information that I got from other humans. During this period my behaviour is being influenced by others (the ones that gave my information XY).

I'm not a doctor. My doctor tells me I should eat more apples. I'll follow her advice. She influenced me.

Her influence on me is possible because I rely on her. I trust her. I trust her not because I have the same medical knowledge as she does. I'm not a doctor and I'm not all-knowing. I trust her because I assume she's right. My assumption may be wrong! Perhaps it's better to stop eating apples. Who knows? Even doctors make mistakes (or want to make more profit). I don't know and therefore I just follow her advice; that's an influence.

Influence is possible in areas where I don't know better. Such areas exist because I'm not all-knowing.

There are countless cases of this kind every minute, every second. To claim it was impossible that speech could influence people is just absurd.

Why are the media full of advertisement? Because ads can influence humans. At least half of all ad producers claim that ads are just "offerings" for humans that can completely decide on their own. Question: Why are ads supposed to evoke emotions? Answer: Because emotions influence better. -- There's the contradiction. They are not "offerings". They are influences.

Why do emotional speeches influence the listeners better than non-emotional speeches? Because emotion attracts and gets more easily into the human memory. So why do influencers generate emotions? Because that's the way influence works.

It's not about "offerings". It's about influence. Be honest!

Reply to Michael

And the fly causes it to close. The two are not mutually exclusive. Exactly like with machines.

I’m not so sure about that.

You're not addressing what I'm saying. I’m saying that even if we have libertarian free will, this could-have-done-otherwise agency does not apply to our heartbeats and does not apply to our sense organs, and so there’s no good reason to say that the behaviour of our sense organs is not causally determined by some stimulus and its source.

The problem is you cannot point to anything else that determines sensing and heart-beating. So I fully dispute and disagree with what you’re saying.

[quote
] Why not? Do you reject the claim that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight?[/quote]

I utterly reject it and for the same reasons I reject it your other analogies.

Autonomous robot.

Again, all of the have been programmed and built by humans, and therefor are dependent on human input.

Reply to NOS4A2

So you don't accept that the fly's movements cause the Venus flytrap to close its jaws and you don't accept that spoken words can cause a voice-activated machine to lift some weight.

This just isn't the "superstitious imply[ing] a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality" as you accuse it of being. It's the truth, and common sense. And if this is your best defence of free speech absolutism then so much the worse for your position.

Reply to Michael

So you don't accept that the fly's movements cause the Venus flytrap to close its jaws and you don't accept that spoken words can cause a voice-activated machine to lift some weight.

This just isn't the "superstitious imply[ing] a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality" as you accuse it of being. It's the truth, and common sense. And if this is your best defence of free speech absolutism then so much the worse for your position.

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

Quoting NOS4A2

I’ve already stated my reasoning. The effects cannot be shown to reach as far as you say they do. The objects, structures, and energies responsible for such movements, responses, and actions are not the same as the ones you claim they are.

And as I have explained, this is a misguided understanding of causation. I cause the bomb to explode by pushing a button, I cause the machine to turn by telling it to, the fly causes the Venus flytrap to close by moving its hairs.

The relationship between each pair of events isn't merely correlation. It's not an accident or happenstance or coincidence. It's causal.

My sense organs send electrical signals to my brain because they have been stimulated. If they do so for any other reason, e.g entirely caused by internal, biological activity, then that's a sign of an injury.

Reply to Michael

And as I have explained, this is a misguided understanding of causation. I cause the bomb to explode by pushing a button, I cause the machine to turn by telling it to, the fly causes the Venus flytrap to close by moving its hairs.

The relationship between each pair of events isn't merely correlation. It's not an accident or happenstance or coincidence. It's causal.

My sense organs send electrical signals to my brain because they have been stimulated. If they do so for any other reason, e.g entirely caused by internal, biological activity, then that's a sign of an injury.

You’re a determinist. The choice to put yourself as the cause in all these events is completely arbitrary and linear, as any and all anterior states caused you to push the button, and therefor explode the bomb. You have no control or will over anything. Isn’t that so?

Your sense organs send electrical signals to your brain. Nothing else in the universe does that. Nothing else is reading the words you’re reading, thinking the thoughts you’re thinking, sending the impulses you’re sending, moving your body, and responding to words the way you do. While I might be misguided about the philosophy of causation, you’re doing, controlling, determining, governing, creating, catalyzing, producing, generating, evoking those acts, and no one else can do so.

Quoting NOS4A2

You have no control or will over anything. Isn’t that so?

No, I'm a compatibilist.

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

Quoting NOS4A2

Your sense organs send electrical signals to your brain.

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

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

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

Reply to Michael

No, I'm a compatibilist.

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

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

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

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

Reply to Relativist

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

That is correct.

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

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

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

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

Quoting NOS4A2

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

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

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

Reply to AmadeusD

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to AmadeusD
Reply to NOS4A2

Reply to Fire Ologist

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