A subset of brain functions correct? This subset of brain functions is ultimately just a collection of neurons and other brain matter correct? How can you say that the emergent property "you" CONTROLS the lower level mechanisms? — khaled
At any rate, you're supposing that no physical stuff can control probability biases with respect to other physical stuff because? — Terrapin Station
I didn't say that. Just to confirm, if the bunch of neurons called "you" decides something, even though each neuron has its own life and is just interacting with the others. Did the "you" control the neurons? — khaled
The "bunch of neurons" called "you" deciding something IS controlling something--namely, the probability biases of the options available to you. — Terrapin Station
as if you're something other than the "bunch of neurons," which isn't the case. — Terrapin Station
Something like an electron interacting with another electron may very well control the probabilities that the second electron is in one state versus another. — Terrapin Station
Do "you" control your choices, no, the randomness of your choices results in the feeling of control. — khaled
How are you getting from "You are a 'bunch of neurons'" to "You don't control your choices"? — Terrapin Station
Because I didn't want to say neurons control what neurons do — khaled
Right. So, for example, you don't believe that you can control your thoughts at all? — Terrapin Station
So I'm back to asking why you're NOW saying that you don't control your choices? — Terrapin Station
Ok phew. We're in agreement — khaled
Sure it's controlled then turns determined at the moment the decision is being made. Now what. — khaled
The whole point of that is that it's not at all like the gun example. — Terrapin Station
But there is someone who chose to put the gun there should they be punished? But we can't say putting the gun there was causal to someone getting shot can we? — khaled
. I didn't say that it's impossible for speech to be a cause of violent action. I said that we can't show that it is. — Terrapin Station
Of course we can 'show' that it is. There's a correlation between hate speech and violence which just about every psychologist in the world thinks is causal (as in one of a number of causes, all of which are necessary). — Isaac
Which of those two are you referring to? — Terrapin Station
I'm not querying whether particular other people have concluded something. But what are you referring to there anyway? You presented two papers. One which didn't even give any correlation data, and another which talked about a correlation between Facebook posts and attacks on refugees, and that stressed that correlation does not imply causation in its introductory remarks. Which of those two are you referring to?
It seems obvious that someone with anti-immigrant Facebook posts is more likely to be violent towards immigrants. — NOS4A2
The idea is that abusive speech causes stress, stress causes physical damage, therefor speech is violence. — NOS4A2
One of the many problems with that, by the way, is that any combination of words could be abusive (or not) in a given context. It just depends on the people involved. And for one, a lot of it depends on the relationship between the people involved. A lot of it can be based on implicature, etc.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.