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

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

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

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?

I think we're in agreement but I don't like the way you use "control"

Imagine "you" as a house and individual neurons the bricks. Did the house "control" where the bricks were laid or what their colors were? Is it really fair to say that? I'd say the bricks controlled what the house looks like and the house in turn didn't do shit to the bricks.

It sounds to me you're saying the house changed the bricks somehow

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

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

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

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

The "bunch of neurons" called "you" deciding something IS controlling something--namely, the probability biases of the options available to you. — Terrapin Station

Ok phew. We're in agreement. But the language you use for it just seemed weird to me. Does the hot pan speed up the particles in it? No, the pan is hot because the particles are sped up. Do "you" control your choices, no, the randomness of your choices results in the feeling of control.

as if you're something other than the "bunch of neurons," which isn't the case. — Terrapin Station

That's what it sounded like to me

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

Yes but it sounded to me like you said that "AND the system of 2 electrons may very well control the probabilities that the electrons are in one state rather than another in another effect exclusive to the first because voodoo magic"

Now. Where were we?

Ah yes. "With free will it's not something random". I'll just say this "With free will, one can control their choices."

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

Can you explain why you believe this?

because you are a bunch of neurons. A bunch of neurons controls what a bunch of neurons does (according to you)

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

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. Because I defined control differently, as that mysterious "third way" of causation that we agree doesn't exist called "free". Control to me meant "free". You only would have "control" if the decision was not random or deterministic

PS: I don't actually believe some of this because I'm still not sold on the idea that "you are a bunch of neurons" totally but that's a topic for another day

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?

Right. So, for example, you don't believe that you can control your thoughts at all? — Terrapin Station

Notice the past tense.

Ah, so you're not saying now that neurons can't control neurons. So I'm back to asking why you're NOW saying that you don't control your choices?

So I'm back to asking why you're NOW saying that you don't control your choices? — Terrapin Station

Again. Notice the past tense. Also this

Ok phew. We're in agreement — khaled

In short: we control our choices. Now moving on.

Okay (although I don't get where the past tense was in "Do 'you' control your choices, no, the randomness of your choices results in the feeling of control." That's not something I agree with.)

I had a different definition of the word control in mind that made it impossible to happen.

Now, you were saying

With free will it's not something random. — khaled

Sure it's controlled then turns determined at the moment the decision is being made. Now what.

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.

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?

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

You realize that the two examples are not at all alike first, right?

They’re not alike in many ways yes.

Right, so my comments in this thread have been in context. We're talking about person's actions, and whether hate speech can be (known to be) causal to someone else's actions.

. 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). They think this off the back of decades of research. I've presented some of that research in a summary paper saying exactly that.

That is what 'showing' it is. What more could it possibly constitute that isn't already way above the standard of evidence you accept for the vast majority of your other beliefs. Do you demand an explanation of the entire history of physiological research before allowing the hospital to put your broken leg in a cast? Do you require the stress measurements and a brief outline of materials science before crossing a bridge? No.

Notwithstanding the above, another matter you've refused to engage on. It has certainly been suggested by experts, which means it must at least be a small possibility. A small possibility of mass harm usually outweighs a strong possibility of trivial harm - and not being allowed to speak hateful things is a trivial harm.

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

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?

Which of those two are you referring to? — Terrapin Station

Both. The one which summarises the conclusions of numerous psychologists and cites their decades of research (which you are perfectly free to follow up if you doubt them), and the other which demonstrates a correlation. A perfectly normal and standard indicator that there is a reasonable probability of causal relationships.

Remind me again which papers you're citing to support your theory that decisions are not caused by external factors.

No wait, I forgot, you just get to make your woo up, its only us lower intellects who have to provide evidence.

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. Sure they are correlated. But it cannot be said his own posts caused him to commit violence or harmed anyone else.

It seems obvious that someone with anti-immigrant Facebook posts is more likely to be violent towards immigrants. — NOS4A2

The claim isn't that. The claim being made is that the Facebook posts cause other people, people who didn't make the posts, to be violent.

Sorry, I accidentally replied to you while quoting someone else.

I'm trying to find the links to the papers again. This stupid thread is so long it's a pain finding them.

Okay, the first paper you cited says, for example, "Similarly, demonstrating the causal effects of media or political rhetoric on people’s prejudiced attitudes or conduct is fraught with methodological difficulties and few convincing studies exist. "

Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

I don’t know if you’ve read this article, When is Speech Violence, but it seems a stronger case for their position than anything linked here. It caused a bit of an uproar at the time, garnering some high profile responses.

The idea is that abusive speech causes stress, stress causes physical damage, therefor speech is violence.

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. (Implicature just in case anyone is not familiar with it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/)

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.

And again, the cause of the stress and the process of stress is the individual’s biology, not the words.