I cause many things. Your claim that A causes B only if A is uncaused is false, as is your claim that there are uncaused causes within the human body.
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. I can use speech to cause the lights to turn on and I can use speech to cause your ears to send neurotransmitters to your brain. This is the reality of physics; not superstition or magical thinking. Your attempt at a defense of free speech fails.
The only beginning is the Big Bang because there are no uncaused events in physics. This is causal determinism:
So I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."
Therefore, I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."
Therefore, "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."
Then what do you mean by "an agent's action originates within the agent" and "Your 'causal chains' begin within the agent”?
For any given physical event A, either some physical event B caused A to happen, in which case A is not the beginning of a causal chain, or A is an uncaused event.
As an example, consider the hair cells in the inner ear converting mechanical energy into electrical signals. This is not an uncaused event. It is not the beginning of a causal chain. It is a causally determined response to that mechanical energy. And this mechanical energy is not an uncaused event. It is not the beginning of a causal chain. It is a causally determined response to soundwaves interacting with the ear drum. And so on.
The agent controls the arm.
I am saying that x can have control over a even if x is not the "ultimate source" of a.
As an example, Siri has control over the lights even though its control over the lights is causally determined by other things (such as my commands and an energy supply).
With Siri or by clapping my hands or by flicking a switch or by pulling a chord. There are many ways to turn on the lights.
But I can turn on the lights. So causal influence doesn't end at "mov[ing] diaphragms in microphones and flick[ing] switches" as you claim.
If physicalism is true and if hidden-variable theory is true then determinism is true. There's no avoiding this. So if determinism is false then either physicalism is false or hidden-variable theory is false. Which is it? If the latter then that just means that some things are random.
So you want an uncaused cause occurring within the human body. This is incompatible with physics. Your position on free will requires a non-physical agent/non-physical agency yet you endorse eliminative materialism. You must relinquish one of these to avoid contradiction.
I disagree with "x has control over a only if x is the ultimate source of a."
And I can turn on the lights.
Because they're not relevant to the discussion. It should go without saying that I can only turn on the lights if there is a power supply to my house.
The fact that there are multiple causes does not entail that I am not one of these causes.
I don't know what it means to be an "ultimate" source.
But, again, the only way to avoid determinism is by arguing for either quantum indeterminacy without hidden variables (in which case some things are just random, but nonetheless the effect of some physical cause) or interactionist dualism. So which is it?
Well, seems like it's very close that we indeed get a Trump war, now with Iran that was started by Israel.
Demanding unconditional surrender is a quite extreme demand. Talk about an ultimatum. Is it going to be still TACO-Trump or will it be the big sidekick coming to the fight when the opponent seems to be loosing?
Mr. Netanyahu has appealed to Mr. Trump to join the war, and to use powerful weapons Israel does not have to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear sites. Mr. Trump has mused publicly this week about the possibility of bombing Iran, and even of killing Mr. Khamenei. On Wednesday, he said he still had not made up his mind how to proceed, but also said it was not too late for diplomacy.
It's not as far as the causal influence goes. I turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands or by pushing a button.
You seemed to accept this before.
My computer displays these words on my screen as I type them because I type them. It's not a mere coincidence that they correlate. There is a causal chain of events. What is so difficult to understand about this?
But if you want to argue that we have free will and that determinism is false then your only apparent options are interactionist dualism (in which case eliminative materialism, and physicalism in general, is false) and quantum indeterminacy without hidden variables (in which case some things are just random, but still the effect of some physical cause).
I wasn't proposing any responsibility, I was trying to demonstrate that there can be more to the meaning of words than a dictionary can convey. In this case, the full meaning of "child rape" includes the emotion. This is analogous to the full meaning of "red", which includes the qualitative experience of reddness - that cannot be conveyed with words.
I get it, that you don't accept this framework. I hope you can better understand why I do.
If eliminative materialism is true then mental states do not exist and everything is physical. If hidden variables explain quantum indeterminacy then all physical events — including human behaviour — are deterministic. If there are no hidden variables then quantum indeterminacy is true randomness, so all physical events — including human behaviour — are either deterministic or truly random.
If some human behaviour is neither deterministic nor truly random then some human behaviour has a non-physical explanation, and so eliminative materialism is false and something like interactionist dualism is true.
The comment I was addressing did not mention agency. It only mentioned “symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, affect[ing] and mov[ing] other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.” That is precisely what happens when I say “Siri, turn on the lights” or “Siri, open the blinds,” and so it is not "superstition" or "magical thinking."
And you don’t appear to have a consistent response to this. You sometimes appear to accept that speech can causally influence machines and sometimes you don’t, explicitly denying that my speech can cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a weight but accepting that my speech can cause the lights to turn on?
Your reasons do not address the issue at all. It's quite simple; if eliminative materialism is true and if hidden variables explain quantum indeterminacy then determinism is true. If eliminative materialism is true and if determinism is false then either we don't have free will or free will is nothing more than the outcome of stochastic quantum events — events which are nonetheless caused to happen by prior physical events.
But, again, free will has nothing prima facie to do with the involuntary behaviour of our sense organs.
So the causal power of speech extends beyond the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" and I can cause the living room blinds to open by saying "Siri, open the living room blinds". Therefore, your reasoning below is fallacious:
So you accept that the appropriate speech can cause the lights to turn on or cause a voice-activated forklift to lift a heavy weight?
But you also believe that we have free will and are an eliminative materialist. So how do you maintain these three positions? Is it because we could have done otherwise? If eliminative materialism is true then we could have done otherwise only if quantum indeterminacy factors into human behaviour (and only if there are no hidden variables), but does this stochasticity really satisfy your agent-causal libertarian free will? Either way, it's still the case that A caused B to happen, even if A could have caused C to happen, and it's still the case that D caused A to happen, even if D could have caused E to happen, and so on and so forth (eventually involving events external to the body).
There's simply no avoiding this without rejecting eliminative materialism in favour of interactionist dualism. But even then, interactionist dualism would only apply to conscious decision-making, not to the involuntary behaviour of the body's sense organs.
I agree words do not carry a physical force - this is not in dispute. But you didn't respond to my comments about emotive language. Do you reject the view that there is such thing as emotive language?
Before you answer, consider a scenario in which you hear about a 5 year old girl getting raped. Of course, the plain facts of the event will enter your mental memory bank ("Sally G. age 5, raped on day x in town y...). But don't you think you would also have an emotional reaction to the news? This extreme example is just to establish that words CAN sometimes evoke emotions. It's not because sounds are being made and heard, but it's because there is information content, and the information (not the sounds) can trigger emotions.
Understand I'm trying to set aside arguing who's right, I'm just trying to understand your point of view.
I can turn on the lights by saying "Hey Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands or by pushing a button.
Or are you going to argue that no human has ever turned on a light because no human is capable of discharging electricity from his body?
So how do you avoid determinism? Again, as it stands I don't see how your position is incompatible with compatibilism.
Words such as "torture" or "freedom" carry with them something more than a simple description of a concept or an action.They have a "magnetic" effect, an imperative force, a tendency to influence the interlocutor's decisions.They are strictly bound to moral values leading to value judgements and potentially triggering specific emotions. For this reason, they have an emotive dimension. In the modern psychological terminology, we can say that these terms carry "emotional valence", as they presuppose and generate a value judgement that can lead to an emotion
Libertarian free will implies a person chooses which actions he will take. These choices will be made based on his beliefs and his passions. There are both positive and negative passions. A positive passion will tend to influence our choices in positive ways (e.g. acts of charity). A negative passion will tend to influence our choices toward negative behaviors (e.g. hurting others).
When we hear or read words spoken by others, our passions can be evoked. This can lead to negative behaviors. It's true that the perpetator is morally accountable for his actions, but it's also true that the conveyor of the evocative language is a contributing factor or cause. I previously discussed contributing causes with you here.
This is the issue we are confronting, from my perspective. Tell me which portions you disagree with.
And this is a misguided understanding of causation, as I have been at pains to explain. I cause the distant bomb to explode by pushing a button on my phone. Your reasoning is a non sequitur when applied to machines and a non sequitur when applied to biological organisms.
Causal influence doesn't simply end after the immediate transfer of kinetic energy.
Which is a very vague claim. As it stands it's consistent with compatibilism and so consistent with determinism.
Yet you said before that you endorse agent-causal libertarian free will, but that is inconsistent with eliminative materialism. From here:
How can a law possibly limit free speech? A law is just speech from the government. You said speech can’t cause anything so it can’t limit anything.
See? You can’t say that in this discussion.
You have to make your point some other way or just concede you are not making sense saying words don’t cause actions. Right?
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
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.
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?
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).
If war is diplomacy by other means, diplomacy is never finished. While Israel and Iran are in the midst of what could be an extended war that could spread, the possibility of renewed talks to deal with Iran’s expanding nuclear program should not be discounted.
Negotiations are on hold while the war continues, and the future of diplomacy is far from clear. Iran will feel compelled to respond to Israel, and the Israeli campaign could last for days or weeks. For now Washington does not appear to be doing anything to press both sides to stop the violence and start talking again.
But the Iranians say they still want a deal, as does President Trump. The shape of future talks will inevitably depend on when and how the fighting stops.
“We are prepared for any agreement aimed at ensuring Iran does not pursue nuclear weapons,” the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told foreign diplomats in Tehran on Sunday. But his country would not accept any deal that “deprives Iran of its nuclear rights,” he added, including the right to enrich uranium, albeit at low levels that can be used for civilian purposes.
Mr. Araghchi said Israel did not attack to pre-empt Iran’s race toward a bomb, which Iran denies trying to develop, but to derail negotiations on a deal that Mr. Netanyahu opposes.
The attacks are “an attempt to undermine diplomacy and derail negotiations,” he continued, a view shared by various Western analysts. “It is entirely clear that the Israeli regime does not want any agreement on the nuclear issue,” he said. “It does not want negotiations and does not seek diplomacy.”
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.
The pundits are saying Israel doesn't have the ability to disarm Iran by itself. They want the US to join in to finish the job. Trump appears to be bored by the notion.
An Israeli official claimed to Axios that the U.S. might join the operation, and that President Trump even suggested he'd do so if necessary in a recent conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A White House official denied that on Friday. A second U.S. official confirmed on Saturday that Israel has urged the Trump administration to join the war, but said currently the administration is not considering it.
A senior White House official told Axios Saturday that "whatever happens today cannot be prevented," referring to Israel's attacks.
"But we have the ability to negotiate a successful peaceful resolution to this conflict if Iran is willing. The fastest way for Iran to accomplish peace is to give up its nuclear weapons program," the senior official added.
What they're saying: "The entire operation... really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordow," Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter told Fox News on Friday.
Israeli officials have raised the idea of U.S. participation to take out Fordow with U.S. counterparts since Israel's operation began.
An Israeli source said the U.S. is considering the request and stressed Israel hopes Trump agrees.