I'm less inclined to agree that people always have a choice, but I think we both agree that folk bear responsibility for what they do.

The insurrection attempt...

Do you find that all the leaders perpetuating the big lie(that the election was stolen, that there was widespread election fraud, that Trump actually won, etc.) and the individual insurrectionists are responsible?

To deny the power of words could be a defensive stance taken as a means to exonerate someone from bearing the responsibility of the results stemming from their own word use(free speech). It is self-defeating. In order for it work, the defender and/or defendant uses the power of words(free speech) to convince the jury that words(free speech) have no power. The key to defeat such a defense is to point this out to the jury.

Well, yes, that’s the point. It puts responsibility on the listener. Think of Mashal Khan, who was lynched and murdered for posting blasphemy online. Were the actions of the mob caused by his words or was it caused by their own bigotry and superstition?

I’m not sure what you mean by neurological processes being at the mercy of biology...they are part of your biology. This biology is triggered and effected by abstract symbols as well as other biological processes. Symbols we recognise have an effect on our thoughts and actions. You call it sorcery, but it’s only sorcery in the way an ipad is sorcery to a caveman.

I understand your point about knowledge, understanding and language...these are the sorts of biological processes that you referenced right? There are internal things effecting action as well as external. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) the internal things can override the external but saying the external has no effect in the way you are is incorrect. It’s both. It’s dynamic.

Glyphs may not cause you to understand them but they do cause certain neurological outcomes if you do recognise them. The degree to which they do effect action is certainly debatable, but that they do is well established.

I think you can recognise that and still maintain your free speech absolutism but your argument that it’s fanciful, magical thinking to claim words effect action doesn’t hold up.

I don’t deny that the environment effects the body, and that words exist in the environment. My only contention is that it is the biology that causes us to recognize, interpret and supply meaning to symbols, give them “power” so to speak.

One can make a word out of anything, say a pile of sticks, but the light from a symbol made from sticks will hit your eye in the same way, with slight variation, as sticks in any other configuration. It does the same to other mammals, too, and they would be none the wiser despite having a set of mammalian eyes and neurons. This isn’t because the symbol doesn’t effect their eyes or doesn’t fire their neurons. They lack the capacity for recognizing these kinds of patterns and they lack the capacity for language.

And until someone can convince me that words can travel through light and sound, that they can effect humans differently than any other being or phase of matter, I have to chalk up such a belief to magical thinking, because it necessarily leads one to believe that speaker can manipulate another’s biology, matter, with words. That’s sorcery.

I don’t deny that the environment effects the body, and that words exist in the environment. My only contention is that it is the biology that causes us to recognize, interpret and supply meaning to symbols, give them “power” so to speak. — NOS4A2

That’s what I was trying to convey by calling it dynamic. Words are part of the environment that interacts with biology and they change/effect each other and then the changes play out against each other again and so on. Tracking those changes is tracking the causal chains and words are in there somewhere.
I think where we would agree is the degree speech effects action. I wouldn't put the responsibility on the speech in most cases, but on the listener for letting the speech get to them. For example if I call someone a name and they go crazy and stab me the onus for being a bad actor is on crazy stabby guy not the speech but that’s not the same as saying the speech effect isn’t taking place. It is, it’s just that it shouldn’t dictate action. The good actor doesn’t act on speech alone (most of the time). Does that sound like common ground?

My going to the shop could be determined by a neurological process (my decision) which is under my control — Janus

go to the shop because i am determined by neurological processes beyond my control — Janus

What’s the difference? How do you determine if you are “in control” or not?

Does the fact that it is your brain, and that you are doing what you want make you in control? Even if the processes of said brain decide your actions in full and are deterministic?

No evidence of any causation anywhere gets any better than this. — Janus

False. A color change always precedes reaching the equilibrium point in titration. Doesn’t mean the color change is causing the pH change. There are plenty of other cases where A always precedes B yet doesn’t cause it. Would you consider A an efficient cause of B if A always precedes B, yet doesn’t cause it?

in which case determinism would be a fantasy and there would be no problem for human freedom. — Janus

Randomness does not mean freedom. You’re not “more free” upon the discovery that when you want to raise your arm, your arm sometimes rises as opposed to always rises.

To deny the power of words could be a defensive stance taken as a means to exonerate someone from bearing the responsibility of the results stemming from their own word use(free speech). It is self-defeating. In order for it work, the defender and/or defendant uses the power of words(free speech) to convince the jury that words(free speech) have no power. The key to defeat such a defense is to point this out to the jury.

Well, yes, that’s the point. — NOS4A2

Glad we're clear on that then.

What’s the difference? How do you determine if you are “in control” or not?

Does the fact that it is your brain, and that you are doing what you want make you in control? Even if the processes of said brain decide your actions in full and are deterministic? — khaled

Depends on how you think about it I guess. For me being in control entails that your decision is not wholly determined by anything else, regardless of whether that something else is itself random or deterministic. It also entails that the you that makes the decision is not reducible to neural processes, otherwise you would not be free at all.

False. A color change always precedes reaching the equilibrium point in titration. Doesn’t mean the color change is causing the pH change. — khaled

You are misunderstanding me. The point was that it is only the fact that something is always correlated with an event that gives us reason to think it is the cause. For example, a moving billiard ball hits a stationary one and the stationary one moves every time, so we deem the moving ball to be the cause of the stationary ball's subsequent movement. The same thing goes for telling yourself to raise your arm. We cannot prove that our decisions are determined by antecedent events, but we cannot prove they are not either.

Randomness does not mean freedom. You’re not “more free” upon the discovery that when you want to raise your arm, your arm sometimes rises as opposed to always rises. — khaled

If your arm didn't always rise when you told it to, then barring some other constraint, you would not consider your decision to raise the arm the cause, or at least you would have less reason for thinking it was.

I'm less inclined to agree that people always have a choice, but I think we both agree that folk bear responsibility for what they do.

The insurrection attempt...

Do you find that all the leaders perpetuating the big lie(that the election was stolen, that there was widespread election fraud, that Trump actually won, etc.) and the individual insurrectionists are responsible? — creativesoul

Not sure if this is addressed to me. The question of interest to me is whether people ever have a choice. I'd say they are not if they are one hundred percent determined by their neural processes. Are they? How could we ever know? Having got the question clear, then you can choose ( or not) whether you believe you are free or not, or you could suspend judgement in the face of a question which cannot be answered.

I wouldn't call the claim that the election was stolen etc., a "big lie", but it would seem there is no good evidence that it was stolen, etc.. People who believe things just because they are possible are not liars in my book, but fools, conspiracy theorists..They are of course liars if they promote the idea without believing it.

For me being in control entails that your decision is not wholly determined by anything else, — Janus

Is your own brain something “else”? That’s the question. You seem like you’re treating your own brain as a stranger.

It also entails that the you that makes the decision is not reducible to neural processes, otherwise you would not be free at all. — Janus

So, are you proposing that you can make some decision without neural processes? How would that work? Telekinetically moving your hand?

The point was that it is only the fact that something is always correlated with an event that gives us reason to think it is the cause — Janus

Sure but there are also reasons to think the mind isn’t the cause. Such as the laws of the conservation of energy. If your mind causes some movement that would be energy addition, since the cause of the movement is nothing physical. It would look as weird as an astronaut floating in space with a uniform velocity who then suddenly... stops.... using his mind. In other words, telekinesis. Which is precisely moving something with your mind.

We cannot prove that our decisions are determined by antecedent events, but we cannot prove they are not either. — Janus

We have reasons to think it’s either. But I would put “If the mind caused movement then that would go against the law of conservation of energy and momentum” above “It seems that my mind causes movement”.

But you didn’t answer my question:

Would you consider A an efficient cause of B if A always precedes B, yet doesn’t cause it? — khaled

Is your own brain something “else”? That’s the question. You seem like you’re treating your own brain as a stranger. — khaled

Not at all. If my decision is determined by anything else other than my freely making it then I am not in control of the decision. What I'm trying to impart is that I don't buy the idea that all neurological processes are completely determined by antecedent neurological processes. If they were then we would not be in control of our decisions.

So, are you proposing that you can make some decision without neural processes? — khaled

I already said that I think decisions have correlated neural processes. I said the self is not reducible to neural processes and you have jumped to a silly conclusion. If you read more carefully it will save us both time.

Sure but there are also reasons to think the mind isn’t the cause. — khaled

What makes you think the laws you referred to apply to the mind? How do we know that energy all across the universe is conserved?

But you didn’t answer my question:

Would you consider A an efficient cause of B if A always precedes B, yet doesn’t cause it? — khaled

You're asking me whether I would consider something that doesn't cause some event to be the efficient cause of that event? Seriously !? You know what they say: "Ask a silly question and you get...a silly answer". Well in my case it's 'ask a silly question and you won't get an answer'. That's because I don't believe such silly questions can be answered or that it would be worth wasting time answering them, even if they could be answered.

The keys exert power, no matter what’s written on them. — NOS4A2

Obviously not. The keys with the code numbers produce a different response to the ones without, otherwise the lock wouldn't work, if all the keys had the same reaction no matter what numbers were written on them.

there are in fact connections between one recognising symbols and ones actions. This isn’t controversial, there are plenty of studies and research to support that idea. If it seems fanciful and absurd to you it’s because you are ignorant of how these neurological processes interact with words and information. — DingoJones

Exactly.

You have a single neuron (or possibly a cluster - it's not yet clear) which fires in response to the word cat. When it receives signals from the particular ganglion cells to which it is connected, it will fire. The written pattern 'cat' will cause such signals. The written pattern 'car' will not. The same with sound (only a little less direct, but that's not relevant). The sound wave pattern 'cat' will trigger the neuron, the sound wave pattern 'car' will not.

It's irrefutable that the patterns 'cat', in either written or spoken form cause a different physical event (the firing of a neuron) than the patterns for 'car'.

If you want me to refer you to a good text book or pop-science introductory book on this, I'm happy to.

...

Once initiated, that neuron has potential energy in the form of an ion gradient across its membrane. Newtons laws of thermodynamics tell us that this energy cannot be created or destroyed...

...In order to do anything (speak, rake leaves, turn your gaze, even raise your heart rate in anger), you need energy. To make these elements move (muscle cells, other neurons) a similar ion gradient has to be created and, since it's going against the diffusion gradient, it needs energy to initiate. Again, as per Newtons laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created... so from whence does it get this energy?

...remember our loose end from earlier? Our hanging bit of energy which cannot be destroyed?

Nothing mystical or sorcerous about it, just science.

If you want to contest the idea that a word causes a particular set of responses in the brain, you'll have to contest one of those points in the chain that's been established. What you 'reckon' doesn't have a place in that discussion.

I can say to myself "raise my arm" as many times as I like and unfailingly my arm will rise (if nothing is physically restraining it). No evidence of any causation anywhere gets any better than this. — Janus

No you couldn't. And contrary to your ad hoc guesswork, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

For a start, in many cases we can see that the action potential for raising an arm precedes awareness of an intention to do so.

Secondly if the premotor cortex becomes disconnected from the primary motor cortex, you'll move your arm around quite freely and competently but without any feeling of having initiated such movements.

Thirdly, Lesions in the posterior parietal cortex will result in you being able to move your arm with direction but loose any sense that it actually moved (if blindfolded - for example). A consequence of such a condition is often a rejection of ownership over the movement.

Are you claiming that decisions have no physical correlates? If they do, then where is the problem? Accepting that a decision has a physical correlate (which it should given that it is a brain activity) then a decision can be the efficient cause of an act. — Janus

If a decision has a physical correlate, that that physical correlate must sit within a mechanical causal chain (or break Newtons laws of thermodynamics). You cannot on the one hand claim that your decision is the initiating physical cause and then on the other invoke an underlying chain of physical events as correlates. Why are the preceding points in this chain not 'causes'?

The notion of determinism works in understanding (most) observable physical processes, but the assumption that all neural processes (or even all physical processes) are fully determined by antecedent processes is just that, nothing but an assumption; a matter of faith. — Janus

So everything is 'just an assumption' no matter the strength of evidence? Bullshit. Who do you ask for the weather forecast, the Met Office or the soothsayer?

What I'm trying to impart is that I don't buy the idea that all neurological processes are completely determined by antecedent neurological processes. If they were then we would not be in control of our decisions. — Janus

"The laws of conservation are false because I feel like I'm in control of my decisions"

So every other physical process is completely determined by antecedent physical processes, except for neurological processes in the human brain? What makes the brain special?

Unless you're saying that physical processes are not determined by antecedent physical processes in general? But then you'd have to show how that randomness equates to freedom. If I roll a truly random dice and get 3, I did not choose to get 3.

How do we know that energy all across the universe is conserved? — Janus

Because we've never seen an instance when it wasn't. Despite looking. We know it for the same reason we know unicorns don't exist.

What makes you think the laws you referred to apply to the mind? — Janus

They don't. That's the problem.

The laws apply to systems of physical things bumping into each other. So a mind causing any physical change is necessarily invalidating them. What exactly would it look like for a mind to cause something? Say we look at you raising your arm. You decide to raise your arm, then you raise it. You want to make the claim that the decision itself is what resulting in raising the arm. And I'm assuming here that the "decision" is not a physical thing you can hold.

Well that's testable. Check the neurological pathway that leads to the arm rising. At some point there, if the "decision" was the cause, we would expect some reaction or movement that was not caused by a previous reaction or movement. But that would fly in the face of the conservation laws.

I find it far less reasonable to believe that the conservation laws suddenly break once we look under the skull.

You're asking me whether I would consider something that doesn't cause some event to be the efficient cause of that event? — Janus

Yes because otherwise you'd have just said "cause". Maybe what you meant by "efficient cause" is that event A guarantees the occurrence of event B.

If you guys want to buy into misplaced scientistic dogma, be my guest. I'll trust my own experience any day. No point arguing further, we're just going to have to agree to disagree or waste a whole lot more time.

If you guys want to buy into misplaced scientistic dogma, be my guest. I'll trust my own experience any day. — Janus

I would expect something like this from a flat earther. Surprisingly I see it a lot on the forum. People trusting the way things seem over the way things have been found to be.

Why do you think it's misplaced?

I accept science when it comes to things we can observe, but the mind is not an observable object. I don't deny that it has physical correlates, but I don't accept that it is reducible to them. This is something which can in principle never be demonstrated, so choose your preferred presuppositions and go with those. Mine are obviously very different than yours, so we are going to merely continue to talk past one another.

The question wasn't whether or not minds are reducible to brains. It was whether or not minds can cause physical changes. In other words, whether or not telekinesis is possible.

That may have been the question for you, the question for me is whether or not minds can make free decisions. Telekinesis is defined as moving objects with the mind; I have never seen any evidence for that.

whether or not minds can make free decisions. — Janus

For the mind to make a decision it must at least be capable of causing a physical change no? Or else "making a decision" would be completely outside the causal chain.

But I have no idea how you define your terms.

The decision could be a physical process, or at least have neural correlates. But it would need to be a neural process not wholly determined by antecedent neural processes in order for decisions to be free and for us to be morally responsible.

We have no way of knowing whether neural processes are, or always are, wholly determined by antecedent neural processes. The same really goes for physical processes in general. It is a pure presumption either way that cannot be tested.

So indeterminism is enough for freedom for you?

If I toss a dice and it lands on 3 did I choose 3? If we can prove that the movement of the dice was not wholly determined by its previous position is that really all it takes?

I'm treating indeterminism as the equivalent of randomness, or a mix of randomness and determinism.

You're misunderstanding. I am saying that if a decision is not predetermined by antecedent neural process then it can be free. To be free is to be determined by the self, so it is not nondeterministic per se. On this view, the self is determining, but not itself (wholly) determined, in other words. Decisions are not random because there is a purposeful intelligence in play.

You probably won't find this satisfying because it flies in the face of your presuppositions (that all physical, and more relevantly neural, processes must be deterministic. I'm not here to convince you, just to explain to you the way I see things.

If you guys want to buy into misplaced scientistic dogma, — Janus

In what way 'misplaced'?

that all physical, and more relevantly neural, processes must be deterministic. — Janus

I don’t have that presupposition. I don’t know if they’re deterministic or not. I know they’re either deterministic or random. And you define freedom so that it’s not either.

To be free is to be determined by the self — Janus

And what is this “self”? Could this be reworded to “To be free is to do what you want to do without external pressure to do otherwise”?

Decisions are not random because there is a purposeful intelligence in play. — Janus

Ah. So decisions are not deterministic. And also not random. How does that make sense? You’re proposing a 3rd way that things can happen. Not as a result of what happened before (aka not deterministic). And not NOT as a result of what happened before (aka not random). What the heck is that?

Something is either caused by what happened before it or it isn’t. The former is determinism. The latter is randomness. There is no in between. And when I say randomness I don’t mean a 50/50.

In what way 'misplaced'? — Isaac

I totally agree with Janus. The belief in determinism is religious in nature. It's about not allowing your gods to play dice. Modern science has got passed this belief, and is resolutely undeterministic.

Scientific determinism is outdated, and believing in it is therefore misplaced.

Modern science has got passed this belief, and is resolutely undeterministic — Olivier5

Oh, I didn't know that. So what's the non-deterministic account of decision-making in neurological terms?

Even if that were true, does adding randomness into the mix somehow make people more free?

Janus already explained that. As usual, you don't pay attention.

And I responded to that explanation because it makes no sense. Pay attention.

Oh, I didn't know that. So what's the non-deterministic account of decision-making in neurological terms? — Isaac

You tell me, if one day you manage to peek outside your religious blinders.

You tell me, — Olivier5

What? You said...

Modern science has got passed this belief, and is resolutely undeterministic — Olivier5

Now you're saying you've no actual examples of modern science that are nondeterministic in this field? So how have you come to the conclusion you have, without any contributory evidence?