Free speech plan to tackle 'silencing' views on university campus
The government has announced plans for a "free speech champion" to ensure universities in England do not stifle freedom of speech and expression.
The champion will regulate matters such as "no-platforming" of speakers by universities or student unions.
But groups representing the sector are cautious, saying universities need to keep their "institutional autonomy".
The National Union of Students says there is "no evidence" of a freedom of speech crisis on campus.
Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist, said the plan for a free speech tsar was part of a "cynical culture war" to use "hot-button culture issues" to secure political advantage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979
The champion will regulate matters such as "no-platforming" of speakers by universities or student unions.
But groups representing the sector are cautious, saying universities need to keep their "institutional autonomy".
The National Union of Students says there is "no evidence" of a freedom of speech crisis on campus.
Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist, said the plan for a free speech tsar was part of a "cynical culture war" to use "hot-button culture issues" to secure political advantage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979
Comments (306)
Short version: freedom of speech is allowed within the accepted views of the current political narrative. So students are free to speak as along as they support the mainstream views. However free that is. Speak against it and the speaker will be labeled as the closest fitting "ist" that can be applied to them. Depending on how loud, or how off narrative the speech is, one could be looking at academic probation, having funding removed, for students who are attending on grants, or being removed from the school. The last time I attended university I was advised to "Go to class, shut up, and keep your head down. If you speak up you paint a target on your chest; then you're done." I learned a great deal in university about covering my ass, how to assess weaknesses, and that every encounter must be documented accurately for when (not if) an instructor or student decides to take you down. None of that was in the official academic program, but was required learning in order to make it through.
If the government has decided that universities need a "free speech champion" then free speech has been being stifled for a long time. When was the last time a government did anything quickly? That isn't really what they are known for.
:grin: Hilarious! Ah, have to love the 2020's...
I thought the questions would form themselves. Your example is terrifying, and presumably precisely what these measures are intended to prevent.
Quoting Book273
How can any university worth the name - presumably for fear of offence, restrict freedom of speech, and so restrict freedom of conscience, opinion, academic enquiry, and scientific investigation? The damage done to academic reputations will be profound if any Canadian research can be dismissed as cookie cutter dogma.
The universities do not believe they are stifling free speech, so they are objecting to having a government oversight committee formed to regulate them. It'd be like if we formed a committee to be certain you did not lie, your objection would be that it's unnecessary because you don't lie, and there's a certain amount of insult in suggesting you do. That at least explains why they would not welcome such an oversight committee.
Obviously though the government disagrees and thinks the problem has risen to a level that it needs to be corrected.
My own view is that everything anyone wants to say seems to get said, even if certain forums close their doors to certain opinions. I'm not dismissing the significance of those instances when a university suppresses certain forms of speech, but let's not pretend that that suppression has the actual effect of keeping people from speaking. The net result of that suppression seems to be exactly as you've said, which is that it makes universities look bad for trying to control speech they don't want to hear. Ultimately though, they control nothing and the speakers speak, and then there's added speech about how the universities suck.
And now they are gong to actively, governmentally champion stifling free speech!
Current political narrative in the universities doesn't go hand by hand by those in political power.
There is a loud minority in the academia made by activist students and their supporters in academia who see as their obligation to "defend" the institution from something like rightwing extremism, racism and intolerance, who lurk under the veil of "freedom of speech". And then there's the vast majority who are in the university to either study or to work on their fields and fear to be the target of the activist crowd or simply don't care about what the fuss is about, so they opt not to engage in any political discussion. And why do that? Someone might cancel you. And finally there's the few that think that the above means that the universities have been overtaken by Cultural Marxists.
Just like in the 60's, it's actually hard to understand that the majority of students back then were far more conservative than the hippies that are now described as to be the dominant group back then. But those who are the loudest dominate the scene, I guess. Or those most successful in their cancel culture, I might add.
Anyway, the government getting itself into this mess won't solve anything. Don't get into a mess that isn't for you. The likely outcome is that everybody is annoyed of the government. A loosing proposition, I'd say.
I don’t trust that a “free speech champion” should compel people to advocate for free speech under fear of fine and sanction. That seems to me the opposite of free speech.
Under the plans, universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech and the OfS would have the power to impose fines on institutions if they breach this condition. This would also extend to student unions, which would have to ensure that lawful free speech is secured for members and visiting speakers. Individuals would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties - like being expelled, dismissed or demoted - under a new legal measure. The Department for Education said the next steps for legislation would be set out "in due course".
It seems there would be a legal obligation on academic institutions to promote free speech; which presumably would undermine those who seek to take offence as a means to power. If the answer to - 'I'm offended' becomes 'So what?' - they are forced to engage on meaningful ground, and defend their arguments on merit. I think that's healthy. I don't imagine there will be some free speech monitor in every seminar - but rather, the measures seem designed to provide a free speech defence for the university against these professional complainers.
Immediately, she was demonised and twitter mobbed. Had it been anyone but an independently wealthy author, she might have been drummed out of her job - because the employer doesn't want the negative publicity. This same kind of politically correct terrorism is going on in academia. So where you say:
Quoting Hanover
I think you're mistaken. The effects are somewhere between difficult and impossible to quantify, but look into the case of Lindsay Shepard. How can you claim there's academic freedom under those conditions?
How Kafkaesque! Always on trial for a crime you might commit by saying something someone else might find offensive.
Quoting Book273
I'm offended by people who seek to take offence. I hope these measures remove the superstitious power of offence taking - and force these people out into the open to defend their arguments on merit.
Isn't all that 'speech'? Wouldn't preventing it require some kind of restriction on free-speech?
Why would they have any fear? The new rules have only so far been communicated with speech and apparently speech has no effect whatsoever on other people...so if these people fear fines as a result of some speech, that's their problem.
No. There's no free speech defence for closing down others. You don't get to delegitimise, shout down, drown out and de-platform other people - and claim that doing so is only exercising your right to free speech. If you appeal to free speech you have to respect that right for others.
Yes. It's called "being civilized".
Quoting baker
If that's what you think then you're either a dupe - or a fraud, out to dupe others.
It's not possible to do so anyway, so the whole idea is a non-starter. Deplatforming would be possible if there would exist neutral communication avenues, a no-man's land where everyone would equally belong and not belong. But there is no such place.
Every newspaper, every tv and radio station, every website, every youtube channel, every physical space fit for any kind of communication is owned by someone, and that person or organization gets to call the shots on what can be said there and what can't.
That's why, for example, Twitter closing down someone's account is not an act against free speech: because Twitter is a private company, and it is fully in their right to decide whose posts they will publish and whose they won't.
So there are limits to free speech. On what grounds?
I live in a society where a man on a TV politics talk show was told by a member of the audience that his opinion was illegitimate because of his skin colour; and that woman thought she was in the right - because the man was white. I live in a country pervaded by a form of reverse identity politics - that clothes itself in the garb of moral righteousness while stereotyping people, and discriminating against them on that basis. It needs to stop, and key to that is freeing people from the threat of academic sanctions for opposing this vile dogma.
No, they don't. For online publishers in particular, there are legal requirements, and platforms like twitter are legally responsible for the content posted by their users. I don't agree with this policy at all - and don't believe platforms would be so jittery about the opinions expressed were it otherwise. This is the next policy that needs to change.
Of course there can be debate as to what is true in some cases, but generally, Universities are places to establish the truth and are certainly more likely to have a handle on things than political appointees. Or if not, then abolish them and save some money.
The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre without cause. It would cause panic, and unambiguous harm. It's not controversial to accept this would have no free speech defence. Any advocate of free speech would accept this limitation. Child pornography is another accepted limitation. Accepted limitations generally revolve around the harm principle.
I don't know anyone who thinks it does.
I didn't reply to unenlightened's comment for the same reason universities would ignore flat earthers. This isn't about arguments that lack academic merit. It's about legitimate views de-platformed for political ends.
Hm. So we ought socialise the free market of ideas when the stuff we want said gets ignored?
The law, at least in the US, is that the government cannot suppress one's speech. That's really as far as I'd go with that. The question then becomes who is a government actor and who's not. If the county sheriff locks me up for calling the mayor a mother fucker, then that seems a clear violation of my right to free speech, even if the mayor has not once fucked his mother.
How much these universities are government controlled in your example, I don't know, but I'm not completely comfortable with the government telling the provost of the privately funded Moron University that he cannot limit his professors from professing moronic viewpoints. Fundamentally, folks get to spend their hard earned money how they see fit, even if it's for something stupid.
But should we posit that State University is truly controlled by the state, then there should be some protection for students and I suppose teachers, who on their free time wish to pontificate their various viewpoints without government interference. That being said, the university need not abandon its mission to spread accurate knowledge just so it can be sure the sacred right to free speech be protected. I personally would be relieved to know that professors not be permitted to profess idiocy if those in charge of the university tell them not to, and I'd think the market would favor non-idiotic universities over idiotic ones and the former would be sought out and favored and would win this Darwinian contest.
I would not be relieved to know, however, that inaccuracy be permitted over the objection of the university administration because the good representative from the 10th district got pissed off and decided he needed a committee to decree how the professors at the university ought be instructed to profess. That is not how I wish curriculum be decided at any university, public or private.
I will also go back to what I said initially, and that is I find it highly doubtful that any professor or any student is actually not saying whatever he wants. It's just a matter of where he gets to say it.
Quoting Banno
Free speech doesn't bypass academic merit. It bypasses politically correct censorship.
I'm at a lose to see what your point is.
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting Banno
Quoting counterpunch
One can listen to a speech and fear what he comes to understand are the intentions of the speaker. This is a rational deliberation, not something forced into the mind by words.
Oh dear, you may be referring to my post, not Hanover's. But as more than a brief glance at it would reveal, I was making no argument for or against free speech, whatever that is supposed to be. I was wondering what might be meant by the anticipated legal obligation to "promote" free speech referred to as being part of this law. I exaggerated because I'm inclined to mischief, but think it a legitimate and interesting question. Just how is a university supposed to promote it? Promotion would involve an affirmative effort to foster free speech. Does that mean inviting those with unpopular views to campus; providing them with special venues or forums at which they may declaim; suppression of those who seek to keep them from speaking? Or would merely posting signs encouraging free speech be adequate? I'm interested in how the law would be drafted. It's a lawyer thing, perhaps.
You’re right: it is stupid. One would be hard-pressed to find flat-earthers and fools among the growing list of disinvited speakers.
There's a plan - who are we talking about?
In the US the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has a database of “disinvitations”. I’m not aware of any such database in the UK, but I’m sure some examples (such as Flemming Rose and Sir Tim Hunt) are available.
I was thinking maybe you could give us something with a bit more grit.
There are plenty examples there, spanning decades. The point, though, is that I am unable to find many fools among them. And it’s not a question about whether a university ought to give a platform to fools, but weather a university should bend to the pressure of protesters and deny both the rights of a speaker and those who wish to see him.
Personally I think the government, especially one as censorial as the UK, should not compel universities to promote free speech with the threat of sanction. I believe universities should be able to do what they want. If people need a little safe-space university, where scary ideas are verboten, let them have it.
Freedom of thought has not always depended on the existence of the university: it (the former) surreptitiously maintained itself through the dark ages, often by men attached to ecclesiastical institutions.
Only when Machiavelli and his followers won the war waged by the state against the philosophers, and universities became generally accepted as places where smart men could come up with ideas that materially benefitted the citizenry, did the two institutions, that of the university and that of the government, unite in a common goal.
If a bunch of people show up to listen to a speaker, especially one invited, why does some mob of haters get to decide for me that Im not going listen to them today?
Also, it’s very disappointing to see such a sad lack of self awareness on the part of those arguing against Counter Punch. Their use of free speech as a defence against shutting down someones ability to speak to people is shameful. The spirit of free speech is being mutilated there, whatever technicality, semantic style arguments you try and make it’s clear to anyone not using free speech as an argument tool to promote (force?) their views on others that free speech and shutting down a speaker are contradictory.
You are correct. I was a student at a midwestern state college in the 1960s. The student body of my midwestern state college had no hippies; it was conservative--socially as well as politically. We were also politically inert. There were no protests to speak of. A sociology professor who began his sociology 101 classes with provocative readings was lucky to get a weak reaction, let alone outrage.
My guess is that a lot of colleges are still fairly placid places. There are outstanding exceptions of course, where everyone is on somebody else's thin ice.
One thing I don't quite understand is why college administrators are so vulnerable to small hot-headed gangs with a burr up their butt about transphobia, homophobia, incipient fascism, racism, et al. Have the administrators inadvertently believed their own bullshit? It seems like they would have the wherewithal to deal with a dozen students who wanted to deplatform an instructor in the 1-member Kyrgyzstan Studies Program for offending some twit in campus Antifa gang.
Yeah. Let's keep an eye out for those!
:lol:
Unfettered freedom of speech is a dangerous, potentially world-ending thing.
I can see some logic in your argument, but you do not acknowledge the problem - which is, to use the crude vernacular: "cancel culture." The idea that cancel culture creates safe spaces is as false as the claim political correctness promotes harmony. Things have never been less safe or less harmonious.
These people are wolves in sheep's clothing - pretending to moral righteousness as a means to power. Handing over universities to this mob of post modernist neo marxist yahoos - would do serious damage to the UK's academic reputation. Freedom of thought and expression are essential to academic freedom.
And then, think of the children - indoctrinated with this insidious dogma in place of an education, inducted into the ranks of a 5th column that despise themselves, are ashamed of their history, and reject the values of the most successful human civilisation yet to have existed.
So why the song and dance about free speech? The issue clearly has nothing to do with that. You think the speech in question does not cause sufficient harm, others (in the universities) think it does. So what's needed is statistically significant evidence of the harm in either case to make an informed choice (or reasoned speculation in the case that such evidence is unavailable). You've given nothing but a single anecdote in evidence of harm for your case and mentioned nothing whatsoever about the harm against which it is to be weighed. Is that the really scientific method as you understand it?
Well then he ought rationally deliberate the opposite, it would be far less problematic. Unless, of course he couldn't, in which case the words would have inevitably caused him to think that way...but since words can't do that apparently, he's free to deliberate whatever he chooses to in response to those words.
What I would prefer is what I've labeled as freedom of expression and by that I mean allowing people to find something they're good at, everyone has a nascent talent that just needs the proper environment to flourish, and let them go to town with it. This is a much more healthier form of freedom for it, as far as I can tell, encourages personal development and, at the same time, enriches society. Yes, there are risks in such a policy too and we must not forget matters of feasibility but if it achieves anything it must be a readjustment of people's focus on the crux of the matter - we want to express ourselves, speech is only one way of doing that and if we provide the right setting for expression in the many ways it can be achieved, I'm sure we'll all be better off.
No. It's called being silenced by a mob.
I think there's probably something to Peter Tatchell's claim that these measures are in some part adopted for political advantage; but the reason insisting on free speech constitutes a political advantage is because, to use the well worn term, political correctness has gone mad. It's false and hypocritical - and seeks to cause division, outrage and distress.
Quoting Isaac
What speech in question? Does the word "blackmail" cause you distress? Because there are calls emanating from universities to censor all words using the term "black" in any negative way, even though the etymology of the word blackmail is Gaelic - bla-ich, and has nothing whatsoever to do with black people. Do you think that a reasonable limit on free speech?
On a more practical note, do you think it reasonable to impose the kind of cognitive burden on everyone, required to be aware and conscious of the ever growing mountain of verboten verbiage - lest some delicate little flower be offended?
We can bat these questions around all day, but I'm going to cut to the chase. What it comes down to is this, from Rawls A Theory of Justice:
"Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all."
Imposing an obligation on me not to offend you, is not consistent with the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. Rather, the obligation is on you to grow the fuck up!
I'm not actually commenting with the intention of discussing the matter with you, you've shown yourself to be completely uninterested in any empirical facts or rational argument therefrom and I've certainly no interest in hearing a fifth reading from your 'Stuff I Reckon'.
My comment was only aimed at showing how the use of polemical terms like 'free speech' is unhelpful when what we're really talking about is just balancing harms, like any other question of social activities.
Quoting Isaac
A forgettable remark, admittedly - but you could at least pay attention to what you wrote. Given your question; and given that we both agree that free speech does not imply absolute free speech, it's entirely reasonable for me to ask what you consider to be a reasonable limit on free speech. So, again:
Quoting counterpunch
I reckon it is not reasonable, because of the principle of equal liberty.
p.s. I feel obliged to take this opportunity to point out that your previous post was a complete waste of time in that it didn't move the discussion forward one iota. The "stuff I reckon" thing was pretty good, but otherwise, a complete bust. Try and make the next one better.
I didn't say it was unreasonable of you to ask, I said I had no interest in answering.
Quoting counterpunch
Which depends on the extent to which it restricts liberty...which is an empirical question about reality (real people having real liberties, actually restricted). Since you've no interest in establishing what is empirically the case, there's little point in pursuing that line is there?
So the proposal is, that because academics are politically biased, politicians should interfere in the freedom of academia to shape it in a more politically unbiased way. Really? Academics are politically biased and politicians not?
We already have climate change deniers paraded year after year in the name of free speech all over the media, speaking of political correctness gone mad; and now we are to have it imposed on universities too, because it quite suits Putin to thaw out Siberia and open up his Northern coastline. And it's political, so academics all shut up and listen!
Freedom imposed by law with legal penalties for not obeying its strictures is tyranny in double-think.
There's no need to establish what is, empirically the case. That's the point. It's impossible anyway, because it's a policy about how people conduct themselves in future - not in some small and distorted reflection of the past derived from survey questionnaires by an institutionally marxist sociology department!
Rawl's has done the work for us. If it is justice you seek then, when all the possible permutations of conflicts of interests in justice are settled, they arrive in the end at the principle of equal liberty.
Political correctness is anything but a principle of equal liberty. It's identity politics in reverse - demanding, at the same time that we shouldn't stereotype people, while stereotyping people on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, suggesting that the individuals interests are defined by these arbitrary characteristics - and suggesting that everyone who belongs to an identity group has the same interests, and the same power relations to every member of another identity interest group. It's intellectually inane, hypocritical, and very obviously politically motivated.
No, the proposal is to protect freedom of speech in universities. It's not unreasonable to ask questions about what that means, and how it will be achieved, but the specific measures have not yet been published, so at this stage - we can only really look at the problem. I know you're absolutely desperate to distract attention away from the rampant post modernist, neo marxist, politically correct censorship spewing forth from the humanities departments of universities; but there's no paradox in protecting freedom of speech from those who want to close it down in the name of tolerance.
Quoting unenlightened
What has protecting freedom of speech in universities got to do with climate change deniers in the media? I should probably say, at this point - that while I'm obsessed with sustainability - the left wing approach is completely wrong. Having less and paying more won't work. There is no limits to resources. Resources are a consequence of the energy available to create them, and so we need massively more energy - not less. Wind and solar are insufficient to meet our needs. They will cost a fortune to install, last 25 years - impose the same costs again, while producing a mountain of tech scrap, and barely take the edge of carbon emissions. To compensate for this inadequacy, dictatorial government would have to undermine living standards with taxes that would fall unequally on the poor who spend a greater proportion of their incomes on energy, food and travel. The rich would hardly feel it. The poor would be crushed. That's a left wing idea of sustainability and you complain that government is mandating free speech?
Quoting unenlightened
Everything but the kitchen sink!
You need to think this through. The argument submitted is not disingenuous nor stupid. It goes to the heart of your belief that you want to protect free speech. You're openly admitting that it's completely proper to deny a professor the right to freely state the earth is flat. Upon what principle can a professor deny the earth is flat with impunity, but he can't deny climate change is occurring, that vaccines don't work, that masks don't stop covid, that the 2020 US election was stolen by the Democrats, that life begins at conception, or that there is an organization of rich liberal pedophiles running the world?
That is to say, if you're going to deny the right to free speech to those claims you find outlandish, how are you going to define what is outlandish? And how are you going to do this without allowing a political agenda to creep in?
No. I'm not. As I've said several times - freedom of speech does not bypass academic merit.
Quoting Hanover
If a Professor wants to pin any or all of those positions to his resume - he's quite welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't take his class, but...
Quoting Hanover
In academia there are various measures of success. A full lecture hall, publishing papers and books, peer review, all of which feed into employment prospects, seniority and pay. I'm not about to deny freedom of speech to positions I find outlandish, even if I could. Let's not lose sight of the reality; that government is proposing to protect freedom of speech in universities.
I know you're a fuckwit.
Quoting unenlightened
I wish! But sadly, at present, no fuck and very little wit!
So the problem is "rampant post modernist, neo marxist, politically correct censorship spewing forth from the humanities departments," apparently, and not at all the pressures of commercial interests or governments domestic and foreign, or wealthy individuals using donations to influence. It's people like me, a retired hotel porter, who are distorting the minds of the young. That must be why you're a fuckwit.
Did you notice how you just called me a fuckwit, and I didn't take it personally? That's because I know that you don't know me; and get hardly a glimpse of the person I am, or fathom the range of reasons for my views - among the multitudes on this forum. If I have ascribed to you - a motive you in fact don't have, there's really no need to get upset about it.
But I do seem to recall, you made a poor argument on the first page - that seems quite mischievous, and whether deliberately intended to distract attention from discussion of the problem these measures are intending to address, has nonetheless derailed the argument, and burdened me with a fatberg of posts claiming universities will have to give platforms to:
Quoting unenlightened
Even if there's a problem with:
Quoting unenlightened
I do not see how that relates to measures intended to protect free speech. Whereas,
Quoting unenlightened
...does describe the problem these measures are intended to address.
I suspect that the free speech clause in the US might have been actually motivated in a similar way as freedom of religion.
Namely, I once heard the opinion, which I find plausible, that the constitutional clause on the freedom of religion in the US was intended to get the various Christian factions to stop fighting with eachother for supremacy (because they were causing general unrest and collateral damage with those fights). It wasn't out of some deep appreciation of religious diversity or notions of equality.
I think this goes for free speech as well. Imposed equality is one of the government's ways to get people to watch their words, talk less, or to shut up altogether.
It's the same as getting a bunch of children to stop fighting over toys: give them all the same type of toy. Or even better: make them earn their toys by cleaning toilets.
And back when it was only the elites who had access to higher education. It seems that the elites somehow figured out what is proper to say and what isn't and didn't make much of a fuss about it, or settled it with a duel.
Troubles began when higher education became open to plebeians who didn't have the necessary class prowess required to handle social issues gracefully. And when duels became officially illegal.
Quoting unenlightened
Plebeification on steroids.
Yet the world has worked that way for millennia.
Do you recall a day of life when you didn't walk on eggshells? Honestly?
Quoting counterpunch
This is simply small town mentality, it has been around for millennia. It just seems more egregious when it's broadcatsed on tv and the internetz.
The concept employed against this man was "white privilege." His name is Lawrence Fox - and the programme was Question Time on BBC One.
The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and insight the very racism sentiment it is purportedly intended to address.
The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. It's like taking drag queens into primary schools in Birmingham to read to children. These people get off on stuffing their political correctness down other people's throats, and dare them to object - and then decry them as bigoted.
This is a pernicious, post modernist, neo marxist strategy. Everything, in their philosophy is a power game. They have no moral values, recognise no truth, have no belief in progress - all that is a smokescreen to disguise the naked pursuit of power. It is what Orwell warned us about in 1984:
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever!”
No. I'm a straight white male - which is to say, the very last in the politically correct line. Back of the bus with no 'ism' cards to play. I'm not allowed to pursue my interests. I'm not worthy of political representation, because of my skin colour, my sexuality and my gender.
Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, nor the benefits of acquiring such knowledge. So many people equate privilege to being wealthy. It's not about being wealthy.
Karma for what?
I know exactly what the concept of white privilege is about, but it's not apparent - from the words, is it? The words used don't describe the phenomenon. They are designed to provoke exactly the sort of misapprehension from which you think I suffer, but no. I don't. And I don't need you to give me a lecture on the subject - and no doubt get that warm virtue signalling tingle in your extremities from doing so.
No, I do not think that you do. If you did, you wouldn't have said the things that you have.
Quoting creativesoul
The apparent meaning of the words is offensive to people struggling to make ends meet. My grandfather worked down a coal mine from age 11, and was then conscripted to fight in the war. My father was in construction - and work was intermittent. Sometimes there was money - sometimes none. You coin the term "white privilege" - with no apparent attention paid to the connotations, and in the next breath tell me I can't use the word "blackmail" because it might be offensive? Are you fucking mental?
There's an older thread called Privilege. I suggest you have a look.
Quoting creativesoul
Rolls eyes. Sighs in condescending manner.
Yeah, get fucked. I know exactly what you think it means, and what it appears to mean. Don't pretend that's an accident. You people are sensitive to the apparent meaning of words - so why use this term?
My participation begins on page 7. Take a look. you might be surprised at what I say.
Here
Why not post a link? Or better yet, copy and paste the passage, you think would further this discussion. Seem like you're deflecting. You've been called out - and that's precisely what will happen when universities have an obligation to protect free speech. You're not going to be able to get away with this kind of thing anymore.
I did.
You’re right. Cancel culture is a huge problem, and it is forging a generation who fear ideas. I just think there are better ways to defend free speech than let the state violate it.
If you threatened me with fines for not promoting free speech, using the exact same words as the government, I’d laugh in your face. Same words, different result. How do you square that circle?
What an incredibly racist thing to say.
Before you start telling other people what the story is, you might want to spend a few more years learning about people and the world and how it works.
Oh dear, yet another person who doesn't know what racism is. Gawd help us.
Isn't it funny how it's everybody else? I know what racism is when I see it, and it is you.
And certainty too?
My, my, my...
Have a look at the link I offered above. My position is clear.
I don't have any trouble with the notion that words have effects, so it's not a difficulty for me. I'm not arguing that words are the sole cause of any event in which they play a part. I'm just pointing out how laughably transparent your 'argument' is that words don't have effects. Honestly I think you'd get more respect if you just had the guts to stand by your convictions. Not...you know...much, as those convictions are pretty repulsive, but better than this joke of presentation.
You said it was a balance of harms. How do you propose to establish harms if not empirically? Guesswork? Shall we do an augury? I'll get the sheep's entrails...
Then what events are words the cause of exactly? I know when you’re struggling when you begin to pad your arguments with ridicule.
For a few reasons, the discussion here could become vague and unproductive.
Without the exact context, the current government vs. universities confrontation can easily be framed as a brute political intervention: the government tries to impose its own arbitrary rules on universities and knock down their autonomy. Also, it may look obvious that it intends to determine the content of applying the freedom of speech.
So, could you briefly outline your vision of the actual context of the current collision?
Due to the Brexit and the COVID pandemic, the UK would’ve currently experienced an intensification of the spectrum of social and political conflicts.
I said the harm principle is a generally accepted limit on free speech, but sought to make clear we were talking about the unambiguous harm of people being trampled to death, because someone screams fire when there is no fire. I did not say it was a balance of harms. You said that, and I do not entirely follow your logic. Assuming reasonable limitations, like shouting fire in a crowded theatre - where is the harm in an equitable right to freedom of speech?
I suggested, that when we argue this out, we will ultimately arrive at the principle of greatest equal liberty as described by John Rawl's in A Theory of Justice. When everyone's interests and rights are taken into account and averaged out, that's what we end up with. So there's no need; even if it were possible - which for all kinds of reasons it isn't - to empirically establish the facts. That's required by what you said - a balance of harms, which is not my idea. It's yours.
Thanks. I wish I could say the same. But I still don't get how the state is violating free speech by protecting it. You say this:
Quoting NOS4A2
Fair enough, but then you also say this:
Quoting NOS4A2
Surely these measures are about giving the university a legal obligation to stand up to such protestors demands, and so ensuring freedom of speech. I don't see how that's violating free speech.
There's nothing arbitrary about free speech. It's a human right, a cornerstone of western civilisation, and fundamental to academic integrity. What academic arguments do universities fear cannot be pursued under the rubric of free speech? I would ask if those are legitimate arguments, and if they are worth pursuing?
I don’t know much about the UK education system, so I’m not quite sure what their measures would exactly entail, or how much the government gets to decide curriculum. But I don’t like the idea that universities should be legally required to actively promote free speech for the same reason I don’t think they should be legally required to actively promote Marxism. When the state compels people to promote a certain stance under the threat of sanction we have entered the realm of censorship.
That's a concern to me as well, as I noted previously, at least as a matter of definition. What will constitute promotion of free speech under the law? It happens defining "promotion" will involve defining "free speech" as well.
Quoting counterpunch
Well, just what does it mean to say free speech is a "human right"? Does it mean the state should be prohibited from restricting it? Does it mean that other people should be prohibited from restricting it, by the state? Does it mean that institutions, as opposed to individuals, should be prohibited from restricting it? What would constitute a violation of the human right of free speech? What would be the exercise of the human right of free speech?
If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting unenlightened
I'm always worried when agreement comes from unexpected quarters.
Great point. As their sanctions suggest, I think we can trust that their version of free speech extends only to views they agree with.
...that it has become so in our day is evidence that they were not prescient; that they were unaware that their political views would result in the democratization of the university, and the dilution of the idea of free speech into the notion that Everyman ought to be able to say what he will.
There was a contract made b/w the philosophers and the citizenry: “Let us say what we want,” the former proposed to the latter, “and, though what we say offend your beliefs, nevertheless, we will profit you through the application of our theoretical investigations to your material lives, by making you wealthier and healthier”, etc.
That, my friends, was the modern social contract.
The ancient notion was that the tension b/w philosopher and citizen was unresolvable, something that just had to be suffered or dealt with.
If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one.
Huh? In what way are we unable to define free speech as a human right? There's a massive literature on the subject. Acquaint yourself with it and you'll have answers to your questions.
I understand that free speech is a Constitutional right in the US - and held to be near absolute. Also, I'm led to understand that the US is not a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's not the case in the UK. The UK does not have a written Constitution, but is a signatory to the UNDHR - at least at present. Until recently, the UK was affiliated with EU human rights instruments, the ECHR. I think that resides in the Council of Europe - and so is outside the EU, but don't know if the UK is still part of the Council of Europe because of brexit. So it's all a bit up in the air.
A British Bill of Rights has been mooted on more than once occasion by this government, and there have been worries about what exactly that means - given that brexit was as crooked as a dog's back leg. Consequently, for me, this determination to protect free speech is a welcome commitment by the brexit government, because it has seemed very much like the walls are closing in of late, sandwiched between radical brexiteers and the even more radical political correctness mongers - it's been a struggle to maintain a centre ground, sane and independent mindset.
On how these measures would play out, all we've heard so far is an intention to impose a legal obligation on universities to ensure they do not stifle freedom of speech and expression. Specific measures are yet to be announced, but it seems unlikely to me government would involve itself in the academic content of university courses, or go so far as to require mandatory free speech training! That would be oppressive, I agree!
If I give you the wrong directions to the pub, and you go that way, my words have caused you to do so. It's not that hard.
Quoting NOS4A2
It wasn't ridicule, it was insult. You should recognise the difference.
Quoting counterpunch
Yes, and I asked how you are to measure liberties lost and gained in populations far removed from your own without any empirical information about them.
Quoting counterpunch
Again, how to you measure the interests of populations far removed from your own without any empirical information about them?
You're basically just suggesting that you should sit in your ivory tower and pronounce "We shall ban speech A because I've had a bit of think about it and I reckon it will have the effect of removing liberties to too great an extent, but we shall allow speech B because (after a coffee) I had another little think and it seems to me that it won't have that effect". I know this will come as a deep shock to you, but we're all just a bit reluctant to run the world based on effects an uneducated layman reckons might come about...
Have you not read John Rawl's A Theory of Justice? Or John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. The principle of greatest equal liberty isn't something I came up with. And it's not a state secret that the politically correct left are "claiming linguistic territory" as a means to power, restricting people's liberties, and undermining academic freedom.
Here's some wikipedia entries you could read, just to give you an idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice#The_greatest_equal_liberty_principle
You're arguing that that there are two apples in one bag and two in another, therefore four apples altogether, and when I challenge that claim you direct me to Peano's axioms. I'm not challenging the method by which you added the two quantities, I'm challenging your method of establishing those quantities in the first place.
In order to ensure equal liberty you must a) measure the liberty each party has, and b) establish how much liberty the action in question removes/gives to each party. Both are empirical matters.
The equal liberty principle is a consequence of the fair rights of each individual, in respect to the fair rights of every other. There's no need for empirical data - that could not in any case be gathered in any reliable way.
Also, I didn't direct you to Peano's axioms. You must be confusing me with someone else...someone who's never even heard of Kurt Godel.
Quoting Isaac
How do you propose to measure liberty?
How do you propose to ensure equality of you don't? What would equality mean in an un-quantified variable?
I can only take that to mean you have no answer. It's your assertion empirical data is required. I say it's not possible to reliably gather such data. This is a theoretical problem to which we have a ready answer. Ensure everyone has freedom of speech. Why is that a problem for you?
Because ensuring it clashes with many of the other liberties we want to ensure everyone has.
There is no right to not be offended in the declaration of human rights.
Who said anything about being offended?
You didn't say anything. I can only assume what you mean by:
Quoting Isaac
OK - I'll ask. Many other liberties? What do you mean by that?
The argument against the sort of language that is being opposed it that it creates an environment in which the subjects of that language are less free to pursue their lives than they would be in the absence (or at least less pervasive use) of that language. That, for example, someone expressing racist views at a university has the effect of making those views seem more legitimate, which in turn encourages more open expression of those views in people's actions which in turn restricts the liberty of the subjects of those views.
This either does happen or it doesn't. Whether it does or doesn't is an empirical matter.
I don't see it that way. Firstly because I think free speech is a matter of principle, and cases in which it is at issue need to be judged on merit, on an ongoing basis. The individual circumstances of any particular case make it different from every other. Secondly, I don't expect ensuring free speech means abandoning hate speech legislation. Thirdly, I don't think it's possible to gather objective data on such issues.
If as you say, it's an empirical matter, explain how you would gather such data.
So? What has what you think is a matter of principle got to do with the laws of the democracy in which you happen to live?
Quoting counterpunch
I agree, yet every time I mention it you seem to think that their individual merits are unmeasurable and so I'm confused as to how you propose to do such judging. Oh yes, I forgot the solomonesque wisdom of what you personally reckon might be the case.
Quoting counterpunch
Again, I agree, yet you seem to be saying that we do not need any empirical data about the individual circumstances of each case, that you can simply judge them tout court.
Quoting counterpunch
Well it does - I mean literally hate speech legislation is a restriction of free speech for exactly the reasons universities are claiming exist to restrict the speech they're now restricting - ie the harm (the reduction in liberties) it causes the communities affected by it. If you agree with hate speech legislation then you agree on principle that speech which has the effect of causing such harms should not be 'free'. This means that your entire distinction hinges on the empirical matter of whether or not the speech concerned causes the harms claimed.
Quoting counterpunch
Then why do you support hate speech legislation? Maybe the speech thereby banned doesn't cause the harms claimed. If there's no way of gathering the data, how would we know?
Quoting counterpunch
It's not that complicated - sociological research, interviews, questionnaires, measures of equality in segregated communities, historical analysis...there's tons of ways we can gather data. Maybe not very robust data, but a damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork.
Quoting Isaac
But it is complicated - and not just because sociological investigation is methodologically suspect in the very best of conditions. There would necessarily be an awareness that the data gathered would inform government policy on universities - with regard to freedom of speech, a fundamental human right that - institutionally marxist sociology departments are politically opposed to. The last thing post modernist, politically correct neo marxist left wing academia wants is free speech. They've dedicated the past 60 years to gradually closing it down, and that's who you want to conduct this research?
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Then we've arrived at last at the conclusion of this discussion. If all you've got left in your teeny tiny knacker sack is restatement of an already over-used insult, I take it you're spent.
Meanwhile, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls remain robust! And free speech remains a human right as defined by the UNDHR. It doesn't reflect well on you that you do not embrace these rights, or respect these freedoms. People died for these freedoms. People die for want of these freedoms and you would carelessly dispense with them because someone might be offended. I find you offensive.
Even those places that where people "are on thin ice" likely are fairly placid places, I would think.
Let's remember that in the US there are 4000 colleges and universities and these protests, cancellations or student activity likely has happened in a fraction of universities and colleges. And all takes is some tweet or a tiny group of "activist" students to protest and the video to go viral, and everybody is commenting about it. This creates a false impression of the mood in the country. Yet on the other hand, some places like Portland have indeed have had their share of "activism" under the radar with the last protests happening just few days ago with a small group of demonstrators braking windows and quarreling with the police. Hence even the cold weather hasn't gotten them (30 to 50 people) of the streets.
In what way? You've provided an example of a way of doing so, haven't you? And I even went to the trouble of asking questions which, had you responded to them, might have assisted in disclosing what you think that "right" entails.
But I understand it's difficult to do, though you apparently don't. The consideration of questions which arise in considering possible situations can tell us something of the beliefs of those asked.
Let's consider the human right of free speech (let's call it "the HROFS" for convenience) as you seem to think it exists, specifically with reference to the halls of the academy. We can at least thereby determine what questions you decline to answer. And, for good or ill, I know J.S. Mill well enough to know he wrote far more than On Liberty and that consistency wasn't one of his strong points.
Would a student's refusal to attend a class taught by a professor because he/she/whatever is a Marxist (or Objectivist--by which I mean a follower of the L. Ron Hubbard of philosophy, Ayn Rand--or Libertarian, etc.) be an exercise of the HROFS?
Would a professor's insistence on teaching the Marxist (or Objectivist or Libertarian) view of a particular subject be an exercise of the HROFS?
Would a student or professor's refusal to attend a speech by the proponent of a particular ideology be an exercise of the HROFS?
Would a student or professor's non-violent protest of a speech being given a person on campus (you know, "singing songs and a-carrying signs") be an exercise of the HROFS? Would it be a violation of the speaker's HROFS?
Would a university's refusal to invite a person to speak because it disapproves of what that person may be expected to say be a violation of that person's HROFS?
Your just skip a variety of preceding causes to the event you described—hearing, understanding, trusting etc.
Appealing to ridicule to disguise a shit argument. Not that hard.
Do you really not know the difference between proximate and ultimate causes, between sufficient and necessary causes?
No, I could care less about jargon. The only thing you or your words have caused is the movement of some air and some sound waves.
Alright then. Without the 'jargon'. In order to make tea I must boil the kettle, add the tea leaves and add the milk. Each of those things cause tea to be made. Without one of them there's no tea. But with only one of them, there's still no tea. All three are required for tea. If we say then that boiling water is not a cause of tea, we must say that too of the other elements (since none have primacy over the others). Thus we reach the absurd conclusion that tea has no cause. Since that option is absurd, we label them all causes, and divide them in those which are necessary (without which there'd be no tea - all of them in my example), and those which are sufficient (the group which, when all present will cause tea).
It's flat out wrong to say "The only thing you or your words have caused is the movement of some air and some sound waves." Had I not written my previous post, you would not have posted your reply, so my previous post was a necessary cause, without it your response absolutely would not have happened.
If you want to go about using words Humpty-Dumpty like to mean whatever you want them to mean, then you crack on, but it's stupid to post on a public forum and not adhere to the public meanings of the words you use.
Well said.
I appreciate the analogy. But who or what is making the tea? The milk? The tea-leaves? The kettle? Not a single one of these, or any combination of these ingredients, can cause tea.
It’s true; I would not respond to something that is not there, but I would also not respond had I not looked at my screen, taken the time to read, and chosen to respond. I could do the exact opposite: not respond. This is because your post isn’t the cause of me responding anymore than it is the cause of no one else responding. The causal chain of your language ended wherever you have left your words, and there they will sit until some agent comes across and chooses what to do with them.
Leaves don’t cause us to rake them. Rocks don’t cause us to pick them up. Your post doesn’t cause me to respond to it, and so on.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
So you wanted answers to those questions? That wasn't just a demonstration that there are a lot of questions? You must really enjoy my writing, because if I'd tried to answer those question I'd still be there now!
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
It's utterly easy to do until you try to do it; that's the point.
A: Is that true?
B: Yes, it's true!
C: What do you mean by true?
All: Oh fuck off!
Look here - another long list of questions. Am I on trial? I don't think I'm on trial. Might I be on trial anyway? They are not your proposals. So you are almost certainly not on trial.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I plead the fifth!
Is that a HROFS? Discuss!
Instead, why don't we discuss the need for these measures. What is going on in universities that government has to step in to ensure free speech?
Always read between the lines with these changes.
A "champion" (non plural) is a singular corruptible, bribable centralized point of power to determine what free speech is. The goal is irrelevant.
Also, never look at what the proposition fs something is from its implied purpose, look at who or what decides that it is the 'champion' and why. Would Adolf Hitler make a great champion selector?
Untangle what enforcement and agenda is behind it and you quickly see what its essence is - centralization of free speech enforcement.
That it should be enforced is scary, that is should be enforced centrally is scarier.
The point of free speech is that nobody enforces if its free or not. It's just free. Your lungs don't decide whether they can breathe or not, they just breathe. If you need to enforce your lungs breathing, then they are not breathing freely.
No, they are not sufficient causes, they are necessary causes. Another necessary cause is a human tea-maker, or a machine. It doesn't make them not causes, otherwise nothing could ever be caused.
Quoting NOS4A2
Exactly. So, in terms of speech legislation, if I wanted to stop you responding, then removing one of the necessary causes (my post) would do that. Of course, in the real world we must usually talk about minimising chances rather than outright prevention because the number of sufficient causes is very large.
Quoting NOS4A2
You've just ignored what I previously said rather than counter it. That is not the public meaning of the term 'cause'. You'll not find such a meaning in any dictionary. It is not necessary for a cause to be sufficient in order for it to be a cause. My post was not sufficient to result in your reply, but - this is the important bit - nothing is. So if we reserve the word 'cause' for only those factors which are sufficient we have to accept the absurd conclusion that nothing has any causes.
Leaves are a cause of us raking them. They're just not a sufficient cause, they are a necessary one.
Again, the importance for free speech legislation - remove the leaves and you remove the raking, because they are a necessary cause.
You see, whether the government has to step in, and whether it should step in, and what it should do about it if it has to or should step in, all depend on what the "right to free speech" means. But you're clearly unable or unwilling to address that.
So, just to be clear - you are in favour of free speech, but not in favour of government measures to protect free speech?
Would I be correct in assuming you're an American with an innate suspicion of federal government?
In the UK free speech is not a Constitutional right; it's not an automatic assumption in the background. Here, there's an increasingly stultifying stranglehold on free speech being imposed under the auspices of political correctness - that implies students are being indoctrinated with an anti-western, anti capitalist, anti white education - that's immune from cross examination. That's why these measures are necessary.
I suppose flour is the necessary cause of bread, and hops the necessary cause of beer. I’m not going to use such language. No matter what word you use to modify “cause”, and no matter how easily we can drift into the passive voice when we describe tea-making, none of these ingredients can gather and mix themselves with other “necessary causes” to create the end product.
If you wanted to stop me responding you would have to stop yourself from responding. In both cases, the words did not cause any of these actions. These are the decisions of an agent, the only being with the capacity to act in such a manner.
Again I don’t care about the jargon or arguments by gibberish. We can quibble about definitions of “cause” and variations of “cause” forever. But I still feel that you’re raising the ingredients of tea into the cause of tea by sheer act of rhetoric, nothing more.
We do not have to accept that nothing has any cause unless we extirpate the causal agent from your examples, as you have done above. The one thing that gathers the ingredients, boils the water, and combines the ingredients to form tea hardly makes an appearance in your analogy, or is relegated to the same species of cause as boiling water.
Leaves are not the cause of us raking them just as they are not the cause of us refusing to rake them. The very beginning of the raking process, starts in only one place and in one object.
But how can you remove the leaves if not by raking? Cut down the trees? I suggest we teach people to not fear leaves so that we need not resort to such measures.
That's exactly what I meant, yes. It's an oxymoronic position to endorse government to protect free speech. Free speech is derived from free will. I do not need the government to regulate when I can go to the bathroom. Or what I can say. But again, I look at the agenda and the origin, not the claim.
Quoting counterpunch
I don't plan on discarding the anonymity this site offers me. I value free speech, and principles such as whistleblowing which have free speech at their core.
Quoting counterpunch
If it's the case that you can confidently state that you believe such measures are necessary, then I wouldn't be convinced that you were genuinely willing to discuss the matter. Your view appears to be matured and you are seeking emotional support. No offence.
In my opinion, such measures are useful only to those who seek power. My mind is as decided as yours appears to be. I would consider myself a strong free speech advocate.
Do you accept that it's not necessarily polite to encourage your level of free speech rights in the UK as a guide for how other countries should view such rights?
I don't think an exhaustive definition of free speech is possible in any reasonable time frame; or necessary in that a common sense definition will do for most practical purposes. If you want to go open a thread entitled 'What is free speech anyway?' I'd be glad to contribute, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread, I'd hoped would be about why it's necessary for government to step in and protect free speech in universities.
I want to give an example. Recently, statues of slave owners were torn down by outraged teens - signalling their virtue. One man, Colston - was born in 1636, which - someone might have pointed out were free speech a protected right, was about 200 years before slavery was ended.
Slavery, at this point in time - had existed forever. It was how the world worked. Yet, because of political correctness - it's impossible to say, hang on a minuet, slavery existed all around the world since the dawn of time, it was perfectly normal in Colston's era, and btw - it was Western civilisation that developed the philosophy, politics and economics based on freedom, (including freedom of speech) that ultimately allowed slavery to be ended.
But because of political correctness - and the aggressive, twitter mob, de-platforming tactics used, that was impossible, and so the perception persists that slavery was some particular cruelty white people invented because they're racist. And it's just not true.
When you consider those dynamics, the need for intervention becomes clear. We cannot have the proliferation of a dogma that's not open to question - or else!
You are conflating condition with cause; a common mistake.
I think the problem here is that you do need government to protect you from the consequences of exercising free speech - against an extremely aggressive politically correct left. Take what happened to JK Rowling recently. She made some fairly innocuous remark on twitter, gently mocking politically correct verbiage - and was attacked in a hugely disproportionate and vicious manner.
That's the problem. The politically correct dogma is not open to question, and that's unhealthy in all sorts of ways. It's a bandwagon you are required to jump on, and so a very unstable blind force - not unlike the witch hunt hysteria in the middle ages. Which is ironic because... Harry Potter!
Quoting Paul S
Fair enough. I wasn't asking for your date of birth, social security number and your inside leg measurement, but... whatever dude!
Quoting Paul S
You have committed the gravest of all possible crimes - you've...offended someone! Oh dear me no! Relax. It takes a lot more than that to offend me. I can confidently state that something needs to be done about the run-away train of political correctness, and yes, I am willing to discuss that.
Quoting Paul S
Difficult question. On the one hand, I believe in free speech as a universal right. On the other hand, it's not my culture. I suppose it resolves itself in the fact that people in distant lands almost certainly don't care what I think, and as such - I'm quite free to disapprove of regimes that persecute citizens for saying the wrong thing. After all, that's why I disapprove of political correctness.
I find it much more useful to address circumstances than abstracts, especially when it comes to considering the appropriateness of laws and government action.
Quoting counterpunch
If the statute was one of Edward Colson, he was deputy governor of the English Royal African Company, which held a monopoly on England's African trade slave.
I suppose the erection of statues could be considered a form of free speech. If so, I think tearing them down could be as well.
Here in the U.S., the First Amendment applies only to laws and government action. So, teens toppling statutes wouldn't be considered a violation of the legal right of free speech. It would be considered vandalism or destruction of property, however. Government agents arresting or penalizing the teens for doing so could raise First Amendment issues, I think, which may be why there seems to be little effort to punish those who destroy or deface certain statutes.
Now, clearly there could be and are people who think destroying or defacing statutes of heroes of the Confederacy or other statues is improper, and even violates the right of free speech. I, personally, wouldn't weep if there were no such statutes. But there is no legal right of free speech that's violated in the U.S. in those circumstances. Thus, the importance of defining "the right of free speech." In the U.S., the government has no obligation to protect speech by some from others, except to the extent other law is violated (e.g., laws prohibiting disorderly conduct).
Much as people may object to the use of boycotts or protests by other people to restrict speech, this isn't a legal issue in the U.S. generally unless it becomes violent, or some law other than the First Amendment is violated. Otherwise, people may debate whether such conduct is or is not proper or moral, but law isn't a consideration. So unless the law changes very significantly, the government here won't become involved in claims of violation of the non-legal right of free speech. Nor will people who aren't associated with government be subject to claims they've violated the legal right of free speech. The government may be subject to claims it has violated the legal right itself, as may state owned/operated universities, however.
It seems that in the U.K. they're considering making or have made speech a right protected by the government; in other words, government would enforce the right of free speech at least in some circumstances, and even require it be "promoted." That would be interesting, and I think very difficult to do.
Colson. He was born in 1636; 200 years before slavery was ended. Sure, we look back on the past in horror - but it is not a few hundred years of European history. It is the entire history of human civilisation, all around the world - right back to Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt and beyond.
The implication is slavery hasn't been defeated by our enlightened moral attitudes. It is endemic to the human condition, and only held in check by rights and freedoms. Yet, for the sake of political correctness, that fact is disguised to suggest that slavery equates to racism. Political correctness makes it impossible to dispute - for fear of being branded racist, and at the same time as the left are constructing this authoritarian dogma in opposition to free speech, they are using climate change as an anti-capitalist battering ram.
Do you not see how dangerous all that is - given that slavery is an ever present threat, only held in check by the philosophies, politics and economics of freedom?
Then how do you suppose bread and beer are made? I've already said that human mixer is one of the necessary causes. Put all those necessary causes together and you get bread an beer. Take any one away and you don't. No amount of enthusiastic human mixer is going to make bread without flour, are they? So why does the human get primacy, or some special label of their own?
Quoting NOS4A2
So what? No one is talking about sufficient causes and I've already explained why we can't remove the term 'cause' from all factors which are not alone sufficient causes. The words are insufficient to make me respond. So is my will to respond (without the words I'd have nothing to respond to). I need both the will to respond, and the words to respond to. Two necessary causes. On what grounds are you selecting one of them for special labelling and dismissing the other as barely even relevant?
Quoting NOS4A2
That one thing might be a teas-maid, a robot. Does it get special treatment then? Or is it just humans. Do animals count? What's the boundary for this special labelling you want to apply? Are you going to tell me gravity does not cause the stone to fall now because gravity has no will? Was it God did it?
Quoting NOS4A2
Why. You've two options remove the speech which is one necessary cause of the harm (without the speech there's be no harm). Or remove the response which is another necessary cause of the harm (without the response there'd be no harm). You've not given any reasons at all for your choice of which necessary cause to remove.
Change the terms all you like, the fact remains that these two factors result in the harm and that removing either one will remove the harm, so it's insufficient to simply say that your preference for the removal of one over the other is because the other is not something you'd call a 'cause'. What does your idiosyncratic labelling system have to do with it?
Really? How?
As usual, the right are victim role-playing snowflakes who peddle fake news and they should all get fucked. Whole debate is a charade and anyone who takes it seriously is a clown and probably some kind of post-modern neofascist or somesuch.
Glad I'm a centrist; and also glad that you acknowledge "victim role-playing snow-flakes peddling fake news" - is a thing!
Gotta love that one!
:kiss:
Quoting creativesoul
You should. It's a compliment that's mostly undeserved.
Quoting Isaac
Isn't it obvious? Leaves do not cause us to rake them; our desire to rake them does. Unless you understand causation in some kind of weird Aristotelian way, saying that leaves cause us to rake them makes no sense.
Leaves are a necessary condition of our raking them, though; because if they weren't there we couldn't rake them.
Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as rights afforded to any and all individuals simply because they are human?
Leaves are elemental constituents of the process of raking leaves. A link of existential necessity. Where there have never been leaves, there could have never been leaf-raking.
Leaves are to leaf-raking as some speech is to certain individual action taken.
Aristotle would have probably classed leaves as material causes of the act of raking. Personally I think it's better to reserve the notion of causation for efficient or proximate causation, and I think of the existence of leaves merely as being one of a set of conditions necessary for the existence of the activity of raking. A rake would be another. But neither leaves or rake cause you to rake leaves, to my way of thinking.
Ah, the old "isn't it obvious", argument.
Tell me, how is it, do you think, that it is both "obvious" and "a common mistake"?
So leaves are not a cause of us raking them...because it's obvious that they're not?
Ask Ciceronius. He said it on page 4. It may have been misattributed by the quote button, but that's definitely not my claim.
Did either of you have a look at the earlier link provided?
Since I've been called a racist here, do I not get my speech protected? You know... the speech that led you to believe I'm racist?
Yes, it was another who charged me with being racist. Have you looked at the link I provided? It's about privilege, and much of it is about the notion of white privilege in particular.
I notice you like to attempt to dismiss your interlocutor's arguments by trying to frame them as some cliched, unargued response.
The distinction between cause and condition is obvious to those who think about, their conflation is a common mistake of those who don't. No contradiction there except for the simple-minded.
It is obvious to me that leaves don't cause me to rake them, because I don't rake them unless I feel like it, have some reason to and so on. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to just how leaves cause you to take them.
Quoting counterpunch
You said:
Quoting creativesoul
Why? If you agree that the term is a misnomer - that it doesn't describe the phenomenon, why did you suggest that I don't know what it means? Why did you deliberately misunderstand my argument - to suggest I'm ignorant of this basic idea? And also, it was synthesis that called you racist - so why bring it up with me and book273?
I do not.
Yes. My apologies.
It's not a frame. You literally presented a cliched and un-argued response.
Quoting Janus
Wow. So now we've moved on to "anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusion as me simply hasn't thought hard enough"
Quoting Janus
What causes you to 'feel like' raking them? What causes there to be a 'reason' to rake them in your mind? In both cases - the leaves.
The leaves (their particular molecular properties) reflect light, sound etc which triggers a long and complex chain of neural reactions which, together with signals from other unrelated neural chains, ends up starting the long complex chain of signals which move your body in the manner of 'raking the leaves'
The leaves are therefore a necessary cause (you cannot be 'raking the leaves' without leaves to rake), but they are not a sufficient cause (you also need many other such neural chains to fire, such as knowing how to rake leaves, predicting what might happen if you don't, experiencing a negative affect in response to that prediction...etc).
So the problem is, if none of these are 'causes' simply because they are not sufficient, then raking the leaves has no cause, it is an uncaused event. Not a conclusion I think any of us want to come to. So we have to let non-sufficient causes into the definition of 'cause'
Now we have a list of non-sufficient causes. You want to give primacy to one in that list. Not (as you claim) the most proximate one - that would be the release of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junctions in your arms and legs. No, you've picked one group of non-sufficient causes, somewhere in the long chain of events leading to raking the leaves and decided that it requires, not just an identifying label, but a label so unique that all other stages in this long chain of events must be relegated out of 'causes' and into some other term.
Why?
If you agree that the term is a misnomer...
— counterpunch
Quoting creativesoul
Well, there you are then. I did try to warn you against vaguely waving in the direction of some other thread - when you could easily have copy and pasted the passage, you think is apt. I read that you think the term white privilege is bollocks. Now you don't. What fun you're having with me!
White privilege is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is injury suffered because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. It is the exemption from the liability of being non white. It's not a misnomer at all. Some folk misuse it, but some folk run stop signs and misuse free speech as well. The former president's team of attorneys has recently done precisely that, which is hypocritical on it's face given the former president's own speech and actions taken against peaceful demonstrations and Critical Theory.
As white privilege pertains to matters of free speech in academia...
Do you find anything at all wrong with universities teaching extensive in depth classes about the plight of Black people in America, with a particular focus upon the civil war era and afterwards? Dred Scott? Black Code in the south? Redlining? Segregation? Frederick Douglass? The lack of a path to American citizenship for black people(even those born here)? The sustained demonization of public assistance policies? The creation of mythical creatures like 'welfare queens'? The continued demonization of black men?
It is quite possible to do both, talk about the injustices/plight of poor whites while noting that even poor whites do not have to worry about being shot and killed because they are black, unless that is, they are mistaken as such, which does happen. Poor whites do not get stopped and harrassed for walking black at night, do not get immediately overlooked for a job because their name is unusual, etc.
There's an intersection here of being treated unfairly. Discussion of white privilege does not require ignoring the plight of poor working class whites. It's actually quite sad that so many poor white take immediate offense to the notion as well as Black Lives Matter.
That's not what white privilege is. It's not an idea. It does not require being named. The name "white privilege" is used to pick out something that existed in it's entirety prior to being picked out by the name. Whites do not typically think about the fact that they are not treated unfairly because they are non white, because they are not... treated unfairly as a result of being non white. Whites are exempt from the liability of being non white in America. Being exempt from that liability is white privilege. There's no intent to cause offense. There's no intent to divide people. There's no purpose to offend poor whites.
The intent, the purpose, is to shed some much needed light upon the ongoing mistreatment of non whites in America that stems from the racist foundations that America was built upon.
White privilege is something that requires being discussed because it is something that is ingrained in American culture and needs to be corrected. Such discussions will enlighten those who do not realize the historical extent of the suffering that non whites have been forced to bear simply because they are not white. It brings to light the fact that racism still plays a pervasive role. It forces us to decide whether or not we will look the other way, or at the very least, take a stand against the unfair treatment of others. Make the conversation happen on all the levels that will effect/affect the necessary change.
Trump tried to cancel such free speech, such academic teachings, by executive order nonetheless. It's an American history lesson that needs to be taught to each and every American, not just at the university level.
No, not the leaves. I am not compelled to rake leaves everywhere I see them, or even most places. What causes me to rake particular leaves is the thought that they look untidy, or that they will rot down and contaminate a hard surface with organic material. or that they will stain the driveway or verandah if I leave them there.
It seems to me that people generally use the term 'cause' in expressions of the form "X caused Y" when Y must happen when X obtains. 'He pointed a gun to my head, and ordered me to rake the leaves': in that case I would probably say that having a gun pointed at my head and being commanded to rake the leaves caused me to rake the leaves (or alternatively, I might deny this claiming that I still had a choice).
Or, other examples where choice does not come into it like 'falling from the roof, and landing badly on my left leg caused it to break', or 'being hit by a car caused her death' and so on. The point is, it seems to me that most people say they or someone or something else were caused to do something or to change in some way, when they think there was no choice involved.
You accuse me of appealing merely to how things seem to me, but in the practice of philosophy that applies to all. What authority do you imagine you are appealing to when you say 'leaves cause me to rake them' beyond how it seems to you?
They get harassed for being white in the wrong area of town, at the wrong time. And they don't get over looked because their name is unusual, they get over looked because of the distinctly white name, and not allowed into certain programs as they are immediately disqualified due to being white.
All lives matter, each as much, or as little, as the next. Anything else demonstrates discrimination.
Not if black lives don't.
Quoting Book273
Are you denying that what I've said is true, or are you just wanting to change the subject?
That, of course, is different than being harassed by police or turned down for a job or followed around in the store or the other innumerable racist things that happen to POC's in this country by the white ruling class.
Yes, programs that benefit a historically oppressed minority are going to displace/not benefit some members of the dominant culture, who will rail about the injustice of it all. I agree with you, it's not fair that some poor white kid has points taken away on a college application for being white, but I know of no other way to help a group try to get back on its feet after centuries of de jure racial discrimination that people still remember. People seem to forget a salient point: it was OK for the state to treat blacks as second class citizens all the way up to the 1950's (the era, by the way, a lot of white Americans are nostalgic for, but America's not a racist country, not at all).
When someone says "Black Lives Matter" and someone responds "All Lives Matter", what they're saying is "your concerns are equal to mine". They're not. The average black person has much more to fear from the cops than the average white person.
Also, all lives matter means ALL lives, EQUALLY. Any further distinction applied suggests those doing the application are also doing the discrimination.
Consider the message "Anti-violence against women and children day". I do not support violence, domestic or otherwise, except in special circumstances. However, having a day specifically identified as being against violence against women and children suggests that, as they are specifically NOT mentioned, violence against men is ok. I guess men don't matter that much eh, so hurting them is, not really suggested, but meh, who really cares? Kinda like rolling through a stop sign at 2 am, sure it's illegal, but really, how many people actually come to a complete stop and wait the allotted 3 seconds before proceeding?
The ridiculous part is that, by saying, "Hey, violence against men isn't cool either eh!" I am apparently demeaning the previous message about violence against women and kids, suggesting that violence MUST be done to someone, and must discrimination, we can't seem to say, maybe it's not right to do to ANYONE, so let's not do that eh.
That is seriously flawed.
Since men are the ones doing 80+% of the violence and killing against other men, I think complaining that we carve out a day to recognize victims of our own violence is really pathetic. Especially the one for children. How can you possibly have an objection over an anti-violence day for children???
Also, WAY off topic! Campus free speech remember?
I explained the difference between a necessary and a sufficient cause, did I not? Are you claiming that there are no such things as necessary but not sufficient causes, that all causes must be sufficient ones - that's a very tall order. I'd even go as far as to defy you to give me a single cause that is truly sufficient?
Quoting Janus
So every single time you have one of those thoughts you're compelled to rake leaves, even if there aren't any leaves to rake?
Quoting Janus
Not always, but let's see...
Quoting Janus
...and immediately what follows is an example where the word is used in a situation where Y needn't follow. Do you actually have an example of this manner you claim most people use the expression. In what example of "X causes Y" in normal conversation is it the case that Y necessarily follows because X?
Quoting Janus
Only it didn't, because lots of people fall from roofs and land badly without breaking their leg (unless you're defining 'landing badly' as 'landing in such as way as to break a leg', in which case your argument is just tautological, not causal). So some other factors must also have been necessary.
Quoting Janus
Same as above. Being hit by a car does not always cause death. You claimed above that leaves could only be a cause if you are "compelled to rake leaves everywhere I see them", so for "being hit by a car caused her death" to be judged by the same standard it must be that every time anyone is hit by a car, they die. Which is not true.
If you allow 'being hit by a car' to be a cause of 'death' even though it does not cause death every time, then why are you not allowing 'leaves' to be a cause of 'raking leaves' on the grounds that they do not cause raking leaves every time?
Quoting Janus
No authority. Just what I anticipated would be common assumptions - laws of physics, logical thought processes...the usual assumptions we make when discussing things rationally. Basically your position is inconsistent with the laws of physics (it has thought (an immaterial thing) cause action (a material thing) which defies the laws of conservation of momentum, and it appears inconsistent (one minute a necessary but not sufficient cause is labelled 'cause' - the car hitting someone, but a different factor with the same properties - necessary but not sufficient, is denied that label) That goes against normal methods of rational thought. I merely assumed that you shared assumptions like the law of conservation of momentum and logical consistency. If not, then there's not much point discussing matters as these are really the only tools of persuasion I have available to me.
I think that's true, but what I'm leading up to is the assumptions that the ordinary language use carries. I didn't want to prejudice any alternative explanation Janus might have given, but essentially what I'm seeing is a rejection of direct physical causes when they pass through a human mind.
Me pushing a cup off a table causes it to break. We're quite happy with that use of cause despite the numerous other factors which are necessary in that causal chain.
Seeing the cup broken causes me to swear is more problematic. No greater number of missing factors in the causal chain. In fact nothing logically different at all between the two scenarios. Except that in the latter, a human mind is in the causal chain, and we just don't like determinism when it comes to humans.
I was just trying to draw that out.
Uses of causation are varied and messy. People have proposed theories of causation, but at most they succeed in some special domains, or capture some aspects of use. And yes, some uses - and corresponding theories - are more mentalist than others. The disparity that you point out makes more sense if you think of causation as manipulation than if you think of it as contribution. In this example causation also gets mixed up with responsibility, which confounds the issue even more.
I think that's true, but, as you say, domain-specific. It causes problems in contexts which cross domains (were there's both a physical causal chain and a 'free-willed' manipulator). We often end up using 'cause' in the same proposition with a different meaning attached to each use. Generally not a problem in day-to-day language, we're quite adept at disentangling such complexities on the hoof, but when we try to draw knowledge out of such use we'll stumble.
With free-speech the decision is about the extent to which speech 'causes' the harms associated with it. Here, with a question of policy, I think we need to be very careful not to mistake our colloquial use of 'cause' in the sense of 'application of will', with the very material sense in which social policy either works or does not.
Quoting SophistiCat
Absolutely. Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but I sense, in the arguments of free-speech absolutists like nos, that they're not merely 'confounded' but deliberately use the confusion as a smokescreen for promoting the use of language to suppress minorities. That's really the only reason I got involved here, to point out that assuming a hard disconnect between the speech of one and the response of another is a political, not a logical decision.
Your sense is way off in my own case. Throughout history censorship has been used against minorities of all types: religious, racial, political, the individual. Censorship suppresses minorities; free speech liberates them. Frederick Douglass, who was once a slave, reasoned as much.
No greater excuse has been used to justify censorship than this action-at-a-distance, the magical thinking that words cause adverse effects on groups of people or society as a whole, as if it was poison, pollution, or a natural disaster. Examples of this are myriad. Whether expression is “corrupting the youth” in the case of Socrates, “adversely affect public health, safety, and morals” in the censorship of Bertrand Russel, or it leads to “disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith” in the case of Galileo. In each case some fearful authority attempts to raise expression to a species of dangerous sorcery somehow capable of manipulating matter.
So I tend to oppose that type of thinking and don’t want to see our children taught to believe it, not only because I believe it is metaphysical nonsense, but because it disarms them against hatred, cruelty and bullying.
The language of necessary and sufficient causes has been yours, not mine. I would rather refer to necessary and sufficient conditions, which for me is a whole different context than what people generally think about in relation to causation. It seems to me that when people think of causes they think of agency, direct action, in other words in terms of efficient cause.
Quoting Isaac
Now you're just being silly! It's when seeing a particular lot of leaves brings such thoughts to mind, that I may feel compelled to rake them. I still may fail to rake them, so if there is an efficient cause of my raking them it must be my decision to rake them. I say "if" because the notion of efficient cause is not without its problems, which becomes apparent when it is analyzed.
Quoting Isaac
Sure, Y needn't follow, but it seems to be taken for granted that almost everyone, if told to rake leaves, or do anything not too unpleasant (that is, not things like 'kill your baby daughter') or be shot, would rake leaves or whatever if they took the threat seriously. Even if someone killed their child under such circumstances it is the person with the gun who would usually be held responsible.
Quoting Isaac
You are being pedantic now. The impact of hitting the ground at a certain speed and angle would actually be the efficient cause of course. But if you fell off a twenty story building you would almost certainly be injured, and probably killed. Anyway, you are trying to analyze these kinds of situations to identify the ambiguity which exists in the idea of efficient cause, and I'm not disagreeing with that at all, not denying that there are such ambiguities. I've just been concerned with how people usually talk about causation.
Quoting Isaac
People generally aren't concerned with the "laws of physics" when they attribute causation. Again this shows your misunderstanding of what I've been arguing. As to the "thought (an immaterial thing) cause action (a material thing) which defies the laws of conservation of momentum" that is only inconsistent or incoherent if you try to marry considerations of physics with the ways people think about agency; and this is an impossible union; they are two very different ways of looking at things. Why do you assume they must be unified or one or the other eliminated? To me that seems like a baseless presumption.
I think you nailed it!
Nice examples of unwarranted censorship. Do you find all censorship unwarranted?
Is it okay - on your view - to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example? Is it ok to spread falsehood after falsehood as a means to effect/affect deliberately taken action, say to... oh, I don't know... how about... stop the certification process of an American presidential election by virtue of taking over the building in which the elected officials certify the aforementioned results on the day of certification? Is that protected under free speech? Seems like that speech was an instrumental element, without which, the insurrection attempt would not have even been attempted.
Trump did everything in his power to convince his followers that the election was stolen from him, and that if no one in the government would stop that from happening, that the people would have to stop it from happening.
Do you find that Trump's words over the previous year regarding the election are protected under free speech?
You're not fooling anyone. You know that, right? This is a good example of when words don't have an effect. When I disbelieve the person speaking them.
Quoting NOS4A2
We've been through this argument and you bailed, not me. Don't start it up again like nothing was said last time. If you have a non-magical means by which physical neurons are caused to fire without prior signals then lay it out. Otherwise shut up. I've no objection to you believing in magic/religion/yet-to-be-discovered science. But it's pitiful to try and paint that belief as knowledge and the current science as the fantasy. Again, if you have a non-magical means by which physical neurons are caused to fire without prior signals then just lay it out. Otherwise it's your notion of uncaused reactions which is nonsense here.
Quoting NOS4A2
What rubbish. If there are two necessary causes of an event, how does legislating against one prevent us from teaching defense against the other? So, by your logic here we should not have laws against violent attack because in doing so we somehow make self-defense lessons impossible? Bullshit.
So the sentence "last week's heavy rains caused the landslide" makes no sense to you? Or "The cold summer caused a drop in ice-cream sales"? These are all you uses of 'caused' you think are odd and not generally used?
Quoting Janus
Why must it? You decision to rake them could still be frustrated by physiological failures in your arms, or you finding you forgot where you put your rake. The efficient cause, as I said earlier, is the release of acetylcholine into the synaptic cleft attached to your muscle cells. You're picking an arbitrary point in the chain and giving it a special label. I'm asking why.
Quoting Janus
What's 'almost certainly' got to do with it? Is 'cause' to you some kind of probability threshold - is that what you're trying to say? That once we're past something like 90% chance of the thing being consequent we call the last point in the chain that got us there the 'cause'. Otherwise I can't see what 'almost' certain is doing here?
Quoting Janus
What you were 'arguing' was not the matter of what people are generally concerned about. Had you opened with 'people aren't generally concerned about certain categories of necessary causation' I wouldn't have any disagreement with you. But you didn't. You started by telling me I'd make a 'common mistake' in my language use, not by telling me that people aren't generally concerned with the matter I raised. That was pretty much my reason for raising it.
Quoting Janus
Because - as per free speech arguments - opponents of free speech legislation oppose it on the grounds that speech does not cause the response, as NOS is doing right now. That is an empirical statement (because it's saying that removing the one factor will not have the physical effect claimed). I didn't start the mixing of agency-talk with physical-talk.
We can talk about agency - who has responsibility for their actions, and we can talk about consequences - broad patterns of neurological reactions to external stimuli. I've no objection to that. What I object to is the idea that we cannot, should not, make legislation on the basis of sound scientific knowledge about broad patterns of neurological reactions to external stimuli but on the basis of some cultural assumptions about agency, just because they're infused into our language.
In the first case it's in accordance with ordinary usage. In the second case we are talking about a statistical phenomenon, not an individual decision (like whether to rake leaves or not) so I don't see the relevance of the examples.
Quoting Isaac
Not true, I was talking about what I think is the general logic behind ordinary usage of the term "cause". I was telling you how it seems to me, which is pretty much all we can tell each other.
Quoting Isaac
People are just generally considered to be responsible for their actions in ways that are not compatible with the idea that their actions are wholly driven by neurological processes beyond their control. The two paradigms are incompatible. What basis do we have for priveleging one over the other (which in practice means eliminating one or the other)? They are simply suited to different contexts in my view.
I'm not asking what is and isn't in accordance with ordinary use. I'm talking about the assumptions entailed by ordinary use.
The point I'm making is...
We ordinarily use 'cause' to mean any reasonably high significance physical necessary factor "the heavy rains caused the landslide".
We ordinarily use cause to apply to some preceding factor even when it is only statistically likely "the cold summer caused a drop in ice-cream sales"
Yet when human agency is involved, we refuse to accept either significant physical factors of statistically likely factors in as 'causes'. We have different rules when one chain in the link is a human brain. that's what I'm trying to explore.
Quoting Janus
I haven't heard anything about the logic yet. I've only heard protestations about how it not what people mean. What logic are you imputing here? What is the 'logic' of calling the human decision the' cause' of leaf raking when it is neither sufficient, nor efficient, nor proximate?
Quoting Janus
Scientific fact. We can all believe what we want privately, but government policy should really be based on that which is common between it's citizens (I think) rather than favouring some over others. Science is the closest we have to such a common model.
But it is. If I decide to take leaves, and no person or condition stops me then I will rake leaves. Leaves simply being there are a necessary condition for my being able to rake them, but if I don't make the decision to rake them they will not be raked.
Then it is neither sufficient, nor efficient, nor proximate is it?
The proximate and efficient cause would be the tines of the rake dragging the leaves. I wouldn't talk in terms of "sufficient" cause but rather sufficient conditions, which are multifarious, even arguably up to everything else that exists.
I think you mean "scientific theory". Science is not the best way to understand human behavior in my view. If you want to understand why people do things you need to ask them, and it helps if people are educated enough to ask themselves why they do what they do. Explanations in terms of neurology are useless if you want to understand the reasons people behave as they do, in my view.
I do. When I think about the sum total of linguistic expression, it pains me to think of all the history, knowledge, and art that has been stolen, suppressed, and destroyed because someone could not bear to look at it. I don’t envy the censors; they will forever be tied to what they stole from posterity.
I do think, however, that if someone owns their own means of discourse they can censor at their whim and fancy, ironically, on free speech grounds.
Yes, it is all protected under the principle of free speech, in my view. I am not so fearful of falsity nor doubtful of truth as to require someone such as yourself to pick and choose what I am allowed to read and say. What I am fearful and doubtful of are your abilities and moral superiority to make these decisions. In fact, I cannot think of any man or group of people in history with the ability and moral superiority to decide what others cannot say and read. Can you?
I do.
I don't care if you believe me or not. I think what you believe is stupid, so you asserting what is opposite of the case is no surprise. You evoked my name to spread a malicious falsehood in what I suppose was an attempt to "suppress" me with your magical words. It didn't work because it cannot. So here I am, in good faith, correcting you and stating what I actually believe.
I mistakenly tried using your deterministic language in an effort to explain it in a way that might be helpful. I regret doing so, and I apologize.
I have never believed nor stated that sound and light doesn’t have an effect on the body, so there is no need to pretend I did. I am merely opposing the idea that words, whether spoken or written, have a different, more powerful effect on the body than gibberish or arbitrary marks on paper. I am opposing the idea that some words, certain combinations of letters or articulated guttural sounds, are more dangerous than others. I oppose the idea that certain combinations of letters or articulated guttural sounds should be banned, thrown to the fires, while others are venerated. I am saying the words as they exist in the world are wholly innocent of everything we usually blame them for.
I am willing to defend this belief if you care to argue the point.
Would you say that words can influence actions? Or would you consider that to be the same thing as words causing things?
I wouldn't characterize your having written that as "ironic". I'd say it was, is, and will forever remain self-contradictory, untenable, inconsistent, irrational, illogical, unacceptable rhetorical bullshit.
If all censorship is unwarranted, then none is warranted. <-------that points out the self-contradiction and/or untenability of what you've offered here.
It's really pretty simple and easy to understand...
If all censorship is unwarranted then even in situations when an individual owns the means of discourse - say television, radio, or other social media outlet - that ownership does not provide warrant for them to censor.
A theatre owner yells "fire" in their own theatre and is somehow not responsible for what happens as a result, because... they own the theatre.
Yeah, I'm not finding much moral/ethical value in your beliefs about free speech.
It's the subsequent actions taken as a result of learning about the dangers that are criminal. Defrauding the American public is certainly a criminal act. When that fraud played an instrumental role in a few hundred thousand(and still counting) unnecessary deaths, then the perpetrator must be held responsible for the harm caused as a result of their behaviour. There are hundreds of thousands of dead Americans that would still be alive had their lives and livelihoods been put first.
In or around February of the year 2020, upon beginning to understand the horror of what was about to happen to US citizens - even if we took every possible precaution to mitigate the harm - this foolish man, this so-called leader, this crass inconsiderate fuck of a president of The United States of America deliberately and knowingly misrepresented the danger that he had just learned lie immediately ahead in Americans' future.
He lied about covid19 in every conceivable way that one can lie. Stating known falsehood. Omitting relevant information. Saying stuff that he himself did not believe. He also immediately attacked all others who said anything to the contrary of what he said publicly. Anyone who Trump did not believe had his back was undermined in the public arena. Again, all this is a matter of public record.
Instead of doing everything in his power to reduce the amount of harm suffered by American citizens as a result of covid19, he became more and more concerned with how the pandemic was effecting/affecting American voters. He was, in fact, beginning to believe that the pandemic was going to work against him by playing an influential negative role in an upcoming election. He strongly believed that taking the necessary actions to minimize the unnecessary harm that Americans would suffer would have negative effects upon the stock market. Given that the stock market(the 'American economy') was one of Trump's favorite things to point out and use for his own self-aggrandizement(an ace in the hole, so to speak), and given that Trump now needed to remain in the office of the presidency to avoid his own prosecution, that fat fuck would stop at nothing to remain in power long enough to disseminate all the evidence of his own wrongdoings both prior to and after winning the 2016 election.
Trump did not expect to win the first election(that much is clear and is also a matter of public record), and publicly pronounced genuine regret for having done so in an interview not long after(again, a matter of public record). Nonetheless he most certainly needed to win the second, because he knew damned good and well that the aforementioned regret was very well grounded. He had good reason to worry. While that attention whore loves being loved and focused upon, he's also quite particular about the kind of attention he gets. He did not like the attention of the law. He did everything in his own power to stop any and all investigations into him and/or his election campaign. Again, this is all a matter of public record.
Make no mistake about it though, the pandemic could rightfully be called a blessing in disguise, because had things been different, it could've been much worse. Hell, had that dumb fucker even considered the praise that would have been given to him had he just put American lives and livelihoods first instead of being paralyzed by the fear of losing the upcoming election, the uncontested incumbent re-election success rate of the office of the presidency of The United States of America would probably not have been tarnished. No, to quite the contrary, he was poised to win. In fact, he nearly did anyway, despite knowingly and deliberately defrauding the American public in very specific ways that had the very clear result of exponentially increasing the risk of unnecessary financial, physical, emotional, and/or biological harms to all Americans. Despite saying some of the stupidest possible shit one could say about potential treatments for the pandemic, he almost fucking won anyway.
How?
Because people believed him and nothing - evidently - could be done to stop him from dominating the discourse by defrauding the American public.
So...
I've a little different take on the notion of unfettered free speech.
Yes, I'm gathering that. What's not clear is what the difference is between a cause and a conditions, which you thought so 'obvious' at the start. So far, the differences you've offered don't stack up to normal use.
Quoting Janus
I think all human-based sciences rely on asking people. We just correlate that with other facts. Are you suggesting that we should ignore supplementary data? If a defendant says they had no intention of murdering the victim we should just take them at their word, despite the earlier gun purchase?
Then why post? If it's irrelevant what people take away from your doing so?
Quoting NOS4A2
Then how does sound and light affect the body, if different sounds and lights don't have a different effect?
Quoting NOS4A2
I just have. You ignored it, in favour of your magic. For clarity, I'll repeat.
1. Neurons firing are the proximate cause of all action and speech.
2. Sound patterns (which might be spoken words) and light patterns (which might be written words) cause different neurons to fire depending on very fine details of the exact sound pattern and the exact light pattern.
3. Nothing we know of causes neurons to fire apart from sensory or interocepted signals, or other neurons. Our current best physics determines that it is impossible for a chain of neurons to fire without having been physically stimulated to do so.
So. Words (as either sound patterns or light patterns) trigger specific neurons to fire, which form part of a chain of reactions, the end of which is some speech or action in response. Of course other factors also contribute to that chain, but to deny that the specific sounds are one of those factors is to deny everything we know about neurology and physical causation.
If you want to deny that, be my guest. People deny the earth is round, stupidity exists. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you do.
Sound and words are not the same thing. You used “sounds” in your argument and then changed it to “words” in your conclusion. Verbal sleight of hand which I’ll assume was an error and not intentional. Just fyi, enjoying following the discussion.
But why? Why did so many people vote for Trump despite all his lies?
Quoting creativesoul
One of the widespread approaches to the freedom of speech has a few premises. First, there is a set of apparent, obvious basic facts. Second, one can possess a reliable access to what constitutes
a safe and credible reference. Third, it is possible to exercise the responsible and correct interpretation of 1) and 2) to deduct a set of ultimate judgments. Finally, the resulting indisputable truth and the sense of rightness allow to clearly separate information from misinformation and to assert the benefits of the restrictions of the free speech.
In normal parlance causes for actual events are generally thought in efficient, mechanical terms. There is a clear distinction between this conception and the idea of the general conditions necessary for any event to occur. I've tried to explain it to you; if you still cannot see it, or will not admit that you do, then there's little further to say.
Quoting Isaac
Surprise, surprise, you're distorting what I've said again; I said we should listen to people if we want to understand them, not believe everything they say.
The question doesn't lead to anything remotely useful.
When we ask "why" someone votes for Trump despite all his lies, we will not likely receive an accurate causal explanation of their actions.
Well you'd better take that up with world around you, because it contradicts your belief about it.
Good... because, when discussing a representative form of government such as the one The United States of America is supposed to be, a well informed electorate is necessary for free and fair elections.
Quoting NOS4A2
Not very good at history, I see...
:brow:
Um....
Errrrr....
Sigh.
All of 'em.
Thanks - edited for clarity.
I seek expression for its own sake. I also find it healthy and beneficial to hold my ideas to the grindstone of criticism and disputation. It get’s me thinking.
I see no disagreement in the biology, so I won’t deny it. And I would not say certain sounds are not a factor in hearing certain sounds. It’s true that light can fall upon photoreceptors and vibrations can move eardrums. There is undoubtedly a direct interaction between the body and the environment. But that’s where your chain ends for me.
After that the events are generated by, sustained by, governed by, performed by, and therefor caused by the human being. It is true that light falls upon photoreceptors, but photons enter the eye only to the extent that the body allows it. It seems to me that the body, the “other factors”, is the reason why the eyes are open, why light is focused in such a way, absorbed rather than reflected, activating the necessary nerve cells, and so on. It is doing the work.
The same with words. We seek them out, focussing on them, reading them, listening to them, speaking them, understanding them, ascribing meaning to them, becoming aroused or anxious or offended by them, venerating some and banning others. Again, in my admittedly common sense understanding, these are the activities of a human being. At each step we control what we do with these sights, sounds, or whatever form words may take in our environment. And I believe these actions are not just the immanent reactions to word themselves, but of the entire organism as it exists a long process of language development and acquisition.
Basically, I believe people overestimate the power of words while underestimating their own power over words. Words are beautiful, useful, important, valuable—but they are not powerful.
What do you mean by 'efficient' and 'mechanical' because the explanations given so far have been flawed.
To be 'mechanical' something must cause the decision and so render the decision itself just an arbitrary point in the chain.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'efficient' cause. I thought you might be referring to Aristotle's four causes, but you rejected material, formal and final causes are being 'causes', so that's not quite where you're at. If you mean to say that only efficient causes are what we call 'causes' of actual events, then that's plain wrong as the example I gave earlier show.
If what you mean to say is that when humans are involved, the only causes we're willing to allow is the efficient cause, then I entirely agree - that's the point I'm trying to make. Such an assumption is entirely ideological and has no ground in either logic or science. Conversationally, I wouldn't care. I understand what people mean perfectly well so it doesn't matter. Policy-wise it matters a great deal. We absolutely should not be making policy decisions which will affect the lives of millions of people on the basis of a religious leftover concept, just because it's seeped into our language.
Quoting Janus
You said...
Quoting Janus
So if you're not going to believe everything they say, but science is not the best tool, then what tool is the overarching judge? It's not science, it's not what people actually say... what is it?
I never said censorship was warranted. I said that they can censor if they wanted to. This is because it is their property. To deny or punish them for publishing what they want on their own property is to infringe on both their property and free speech rights, which I fully grant them and defend. That doesn’t mean they did the right thing.
But that's not going to happen if you simply ignore people who disagree with you. All that's going to happen is you'll re-affirm the ideas thus presented. So either you ought to care what I think or your stated objective is going to fail.
Quoting NOS4A2
So denying all the evidence from every single neurological study demonstrating the opposite then?
Quoting NOS4A2
So defying Newton's first law of thermodynamics then.
Quoting NOS4A2
All true. As I said words coming in are one element, our reaction to them is another.
Quoting NOS4A2
I agree. So what's the problem with banning certain words? They're basically useless and have no effect anyway.
Edit - just to be absolutely clear - this is the grounds on which I don't believe your false virtue signalling about 'free speech'. If you really believed words were powerless, then banning all of them would be a trivial matter, like banning hats. Stupid, pointless, but ultimately harmless. We'd all just get used to wet heads and have done with it. No. The reason why you don't want certain words banned is because (despite your phoney nonsense to the contrary) you know perfectly well that words have the power to influence people and you don't want influence in your chosen direction to be taken away from you.
You did answer "I do" earlier when asked if you found all censorship unwarranted.
So, on pains of coherency alone...
If all censorship is unwarranted then even in situations when an individual owns the means of discourse - say television, radio, or other social media outlet - that ownership does not provide warrant for them to censor.
More importantly, they also should not be granted completely unrestricted freedom to say whatever they so chose for whatever reasons they deem necessary, simply because they own the means of discourse, unless of course, they also bear responsibility for the effects/affects of what's said.
A good point to make...
That’s a silly analogy and conclusion. Your claim to understand what I know and want is fabricated from thin air, projected, just like the power you ascribe to words.
Here’s a thought experiment. Take two pieces of paper and two inkwells with a small but exact amount of ink in them. On one piece of paper, scribble gibberish and random symbols until all the ink is applied to the page. On the other, write something, maybe a letter to a loved one, a song or whatever, until all the ink is applied to the page. There should now be the same amount of paper, same amount of ink, same mass, same velocity, same potential energy, same forces acting on each. So how is the power of one different than the power of the other?
Yes, all censorship is unwarranted in my view. It is for this reason that I refuse to deny or punish someone’s choice to publish what they wish, and censor what they wish, on their own platforms. I can hold that their censorship is unwarranted while refusing to censor them at the same time without any contradiction.
I hadn't realized you didn't understand the notion of efficient or mechanical causation. Put simply it is understood to consist in a transfer of energy. Something applies a force to something else causing it to it change in some way; it's that simple.
Quoting Isaac
It's not a "religious leftover concept". It's based on everyday experience. I feel the sun on my skin causing me to feel hotter, or the wind pushing me, the stone crushing my finger etc, etc: the examples are endless. Also I can do things with my body; I can lift things, smash things, start fires, etc, etc.; again the examples are endless. This experience of natural forces acting on me, and my ability to act on things is the basis of the notion of efficient causation.
I don't know what policy changes you have in mind, but if they are based on rejection of the idea of human agency and responsibility, they won't fly, in my opinion; and nor should they.
Quoting Isaac
I thought it should have been clear; but apparently it wasn't clear to you. perhaps I should have said "question them" instead of "ask them": How could you possibly find out why people do things if you don't question them as to why they do things? You don't have to believe everything they tell you, but if you don't question them, you won't find out where blind spots as to their own motivations may be operating.
That said, in simple straightforward cases, people often can simply be believed. "Why did you go to the shops/" " To buy a hamburger". They didn't go to the shop because they were determined to do so by neurological activity which is beyond their control. What possible evidence could there be for such a conclusion?
Do you think that people ought be held responsible for the effects/affects of their speech?
Why do you ask?
Because the ink is in a different arrangement and so fires different neurons. We scan images (like paper with writing on it) in saccades looking for salient information and building up the image that way. The location of the first and second ink marks we see determines where we look for the next and so on until we build up the picture. The relevant part (in terms of effect) is the very first dot of ink, which in one case is present and the other not.
To see how ridiculous your argument here is, transfer the unit to a keypad security lock. you press 4,5,6, nothing happens. You press 6,5,4 the door opens. How do you explain that when exactly the same mass velocity and energy is involved in the system (the pressing of three keys)?
All you're saying is that the sum of the energy within the arbitrary boundary you've chosen (the paper and ink) is the same, so the sum of the energy in that which it causes will be the same. Yes. You're absolutely right about that. So?
I was asking about the idiosyncratic way you were using the terms. It's obviously not the definition you've given above. The thing applying force to your arms and legs to cause you to rake the leaves is the ion gradient across the membranes of your muscle cells. Yet for you, that's not the cause.
Quoting Janus
This just seems like a bizarre raising of 'folk science' to a level above actual science. Just because you personally can feel the sun's heat causing you to get hotter, it's OK to call that a cause, but when a neurologists sees exactly the same level of connection between neurons we're not allowed to call that a cause?
Quoting Janus
Newton's first law of thermodynamics, for a start. Plus most of physics, all of neuroscience, everything we know about cells...what more do you need by way of evidence?
You're granting exclusive censorship rights to owners of media platforms(which is to say that ownership is adequate reason to grant censorship rights), and simultaneously claiming that all censorship is unwarranted(which is to say that there are no adequate reasons for censorship).
Either you know this or not. Either way, it's unacceptable even before getting into all of the absurdity of granting exclusivity of censorship rights only to owners of means of discourse; even before getting into the absurdity of the very idea that anyone owns a means of discourse.
And...
You're claiming that there is no power in freedom of speech.
:brow:
Why then, is it so important???
I once picked up an Arabic newspaper and my eyes went immediate to the top-left of the page and I followed the script left-to-right. Had I known Arabic went right-to-left I might have started on the other side. That wasn’t determined by the symbols, which are completely blameless. It was the consequence of me not being able to read Arabic.
As for your keypad, the code opens the door because it is programmed to do so, and is able to do so through mechanical forces and means. It certainly doesn’t open the door because 654 is more powerful than 456.
Right. So how can one be more powerful than the other? You’ve already said “because the ink is in a different arrangement”. That to me is sorcery. Witches inscribe runes on objects and recite incantations premised on the same belief.
That’s right. I will respect someone’s property rights while simultaneously holding the belief their censorship is unwarranted. No matter how many times you speak my position back to me, sooner or later you might have to come up with an argument against it or drop it altogether.
No, it's not because that neurological process would not occur if I didn't want to rake the leaves.
Quoting Isaac
Human experience is "above science"; the latter is secondary and derivative. To put science above ordinary human understanding is scientism; a baseless diminishment of the human. It's just another unwarranted ideological dogma we don't need.
Quoting Isaac
I doubt we'll agree that scientific theories constitute any reason to reject our ordinary understandings of human freedom and responsibility. To say they do is nothing more than an act of faith; if you decide to accept determinism, or are determined to do so (If you are right) that is up to you (or not up to you if determinism is the case).
Your position is self-contradictory.
You make it sound like the two explanations are contradictory.
As for what evidence: The fact that we have never seen the mind causing any physical change. No, you raising your arm shortly after intending to raise your arm is not evidence of causation. Just evidence that the intent precedes the act.
It literally does. 654 exerts a power on the system which unlocks the door, 456 loses all the mechanical power in waste heat. It's basic physics. If 654 physically switches a switch but 456 doesn't then 654 has more power (within that system) than 456 (whose power is lost to that system as waste heat). You can't make things happen without power - basic laws of thermodynamics.
So why bring up efficient mechanical causes then. You keep changing the criteria for what constitutes a 'cause', it's like grasping an eel. So now you're saying that the efficient mechanical cause is not the cause after all, it's your decision (an entirely mental event with no mechanical component at all). Why the distraction about...
Quoting Janus
Where is the energy transfer in you making a decision?
Quoting Janus
So when science determined that the earth was not flat as it seemed we should have ignored it?
Quoting Janus
No, this is a weak line levied against scientific explanations all the time. It's not 'faith' it's biology. You will accept scientific explanation when you understand them, we're hard-wired to expect such a causal relationship in the world. We don't believe the various scientific approaches explain things better out of faith, we do so because it's the way our brains work already. From birth we experiment with the world, make predictive models and test them. It's not faith, it's the overwhelming success of the approach at helping us navigate the world from the moment we're born.
The keys exert power, no matter what’s written on them. The numbers on the keys exert none. This beginning to get ridiculous.
The symbol of the number on the key corresponds to an actual electronic process specific to those particular numbers. You aren’t recognising the connective tissue between what you are referencing as “powerless” and what you are recognising as “empowered”. That’s his point, that 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.
The power of the written word is shown in it's effects/affects.
There have been wars over words. There have been sustained assaults on entire groups of individuals based upon words. Civilizations thrive based upon the power of the written word. Knowledge is both lost and gained via the power of the written word. Civilizations can also self-destruct based upon the power of words. People have openly espoused to be fighting a holy war based upon words. People on opposing sides of a war have shed each other's blood all in the name of the same god. That god remains pervasive due to the power of words.
The written word is a vehicle... by virtue of which meaning transcends time and individual language users. Words make people cry. Words make people rejoice. Words stoke emotions, memories, desires, fears. Words build civilizations, uphold dignity, offer condolence, cause confusion, add clarity, make promises, offer a bit of kindness, express gratitude, offer greetings, bestow namesakes, etc.
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.
I am not ignorant of neurological processes. My point is that neurons and neurological processes are at the mercy of my own biology and not some abstract symbol out in the world. Yes, we recognize symbols, not because there is something in the symbols, but because we already know what they mean.
Heiroglyphics don’t cause you to understand them. We cannot understand or recognize a language by virtue of it being spoken. We have to refer to our own knowledge, understanding, language in order to do so.
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.
Quoting khaled
The two explanations are obviously contradictory. If I go to the shop because I decided to for whatever reason, then I am in control. If I go to the shop because i am determined by neurological processes beyond my control, them I am not in control. There is a contradiction there between being in control and not being in control.
My going to the shop could be determined by a neurological process (my decision) which is under my control, though, which would obviously not be in contradiction to my being in control.
As to evidence; 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.That said, it could indeed be all correlation for all we know (as Leibniz supposed) in which case determinism would be a fantasy and there would be no problem for human freedom.
Quoting Isaac
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.
Quoting Isaac
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.
Quoting Janus
There's seems to be a problem with holding a speaker responsible for the effects/affects of their speech if we also claim that the listener acted on their own free will, as if they were not influenced by the speech.
However, clearly you acknowledge the influence. How then do we draw the line between holding one responsible for the effects/affects of their speech and not?
Being in a position of "great influence" seems to need a bit more unpacking in terms of what warrants that as bearing responsibility. I'm inclined to agree in general that the responsibility one bears ought be determined by the harmful effects/affects of their speech. However, I'm just uncertain of your stance on matters of free speech, free will, and responsibility regarding who ought be held accountable for one's actions(or a group of people should they follower a leader).
I presume that people are (in principle, or if they are sufficiently thoughtful) free to choose whether to be influenced or not by what others say. On the other hand many people don't seem to be sufficiently thoughtful, which means that in practice what other's say may have unwarranted (i.e.,not rationally chosen) influence. Political leaders know this and they can cynically and effectively appeal to people's insecurities, paranoias, feelings of entitlement and so on to gain influence. If that influence turns out to lead to criminal acts then the instigators should be held accountable.
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?
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 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.
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?
Quoting 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?
Quoting 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?
Quoting 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.
Glad we're clear on that then.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Is your own brain something “else”? That’s the question. You seem like you’re treating your own brain as a stranger.
Quoting Janus
So, are you proposing that you can make some decision without neural processes? How would that work? Telekinetically moving your hand?
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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:
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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?
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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'?
Quoting 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?
"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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
In what way 'misplaced'?
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.
Quoting 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”?
Quoting 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.
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.
Oh, I didn't know that. So what's the non-deterministic account of decision-making in neurological terms?
You tell me, if one day you manage to peek outside your religious blinders.
What? You said...
Quoting 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?
Because I studied physics, chemistry and biology, and those foundational sciences are currently underterministic.
Now, if you can prove that modern neurology is on the whole deterministic, please do.
OK then, let's have the nearest thing. What's the undeterministic theory of active transport across a cell membrane?
It's the theories you know of, I guess. None of them pretends that one can always predict any and all active transport.
Inability to predict is not lack of determinism. It's lack of sufficient modelling accuracy. Lack of determinism would need to propose a randomising mechanism.
A model which does not predict individual events, but instead predicts the aggregate outcome of many events in a statistical manner, is not a determinist model. Period. Now you can say that it does not preclude some deeper, unknown deterministic outcome pathways, but that's like saying that unicorns may exist, but they are invisible to us.
Err... Quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, what else?
Yes, I'm allowing that the intelligence which makes decisions may not be determined by any antecedent processes. Obviously that cannot be proven just as it's denial cannot. We all choose to believe what seems most obvious to us given our presuppositions.
To me the most obvious thing is that we are free and morally responsible. That cannot be reconciled with the idea that our decisions are wholly determined by physical processes regardless of whether those physical processes are themselves deterministic or random.
So I accept that the two paradigms are correct in their own contexts, and make no demand that the irreconcilable be reconciled. Instead I simply accept that there are irreconcilable truths and that it is human presumption that demands that they must be reconcilable.
The demand for one overarching truth of the matter across all domains leads inexorably to reductionism and eliminativism; one or other of the paradigms must be reduced to the other which amounts to eliminating it.
Is exactly where I'd disagree with you. It just requires a definition of freedom and moral responsibility that makes any sense.
Quoting Janus
The way you defined freedom doesn't just make them irreconcilable. It makes them contradictory. You are proposing that something mental can affect a physical system. That's an empirical claim. That telekinesis is possible.
If it isn't then what exactly do you mean by "My decision caused me to go to the candy store" or whatever your first example was?
False.
Yes, if 'physical' means 'non-mental', as is often conceived including by Khaled. But if one considers the mind itself as a cause, as a force in the world, then I think it follows that mental events ought to be regarded as 'physical'. They must have some materiality. The mind maters.
I usually hear it the other way around. That the mental is non physical. Physical is whatever physicists study. People don’t want to associate with their own brains for some reason.
Quoting Olivier5
This is one way to reconcile them. But people say this is “reductive”. Something about minds being described as forces makes people cringe for some reason.
The other, keeping the “mental is not physical” premise would force one to admit that the mental runs parallel to the physical but doesn’t interfere with it.
Usually people try to sit somewhere in the middle. The mind matters but also the mind has nothing to do with “mere physical processes”. Which just makes no sense.
I'd gladly talk to those people, if they ever come forward, and review those reasons, if they are ever provided. In the meantime, you'd agree with me that many other people think of their mind as a kind of captain of their body. Hence they assume minds have causal force.
Like the sophists of old, some believe words can harm the human body, and if they rid the world of the words their pain will end.
:up: Yes, I haven't been arguing that the mind is non-physical in any substantive sense; I am not a dualist. But people, apparently including Khaled, find this hard to understand and come up with objections based on presuppositions I am not making.
Oh. My bad then.
If you were not a dualist just say so sooner.
Sure. Problem is when they also think that the mind is completely divorced from physical systems. That it’s entirely non-physical.
My point entirely: the mind must be physical in some way. It exists, it works, it does things.
Told you that you were not paying attention...
Okay but then, there is no contradiction between your two paradigms. The mind is just one of many things that matter, and it is free to the exact extent that it is self-determined.
Of course it can. We've never, ever encountered any macro-scale physical event which is without physical cause despite many thousands of years searching for it. That is what we call proof in science. You can't prove anything at all to any higher degree than that (pace Hume). Not only that but there's no plausible mechanism. You seem to be suggesting that every single concept, idea, or theory is on an exactly equal footing with every other (regardless of evidence or plausibility) simply because none can be proven outright.
Quoting Janus
What has what seems obvious to you got to do with it? Why do so many people expect the actual nature of the universe to be revealed to them by their introspection? We're not Gods.
Indeed. If we go by the definition of objective, physical reality 'that which doesn't go away when you want it to', 'that which exists, whether you like it or not', then the mind fits the description. One cannot stop to think at will. One cannot make one's mind 'blank'. Sometimes it's even hard to find sleep. And those of us who would want to become philosophical zombies cannot actually do so.
It's about the effects/affects of free speech, and responsibility for behaviours of listeners... such as the recent insurrection attempt.
Some claim that free will precludes a speaker being held responsible for listeners' actions.
Yeah the guy who shot McKinley, wasnt he at a meeting with some hotshot anarchist celeb before shooting the Hawaii stealer? If I remember correctly that guy who held that meeting got some serious flak from media afterwards?
That's true, but some things such as human behavior are understood in terms of reasons and other things such as physical processes are understood in terms of mechanical causes. I am saying the two paradigmatic ways of explanation are incompatible not contradictory.
I think they are compatible, eg a computer playing chess is applying a limited form of reason (rules and logical inferences) written down on silicon. In fact, reason seems to be the easiest thing to communicate to computers, as compared to emotions. We understand reason, it's possible to formalize it into 0 and 1, but emotions are the big enigma to me.
I know, right? I mean can you believe such people?
:smirk:
They are almost as stupid as those who believe that words are completely powerless...
I've no idea.
Quoting Janus
Agreed.
I agree that radically different explanations can coexistent as two perspectives, from very different angles on the same thing; but then the "same thing" is being seen as two very different things to begin with. We might be looking at a human being as a moral agent, a cluster of interacting cells, a molecular or atomic structure, in terms of physiology or anatomy.
By "incompatible" I only meant that the different descriptions or explanations cannot necessarily be translated into each other's terms. So, we can't understand moral agency in terms of QM, or even neurology, for example.
It is a tendency to think of some explanations as more "fundamental' than others, and so, if, as per this example, moral agency cannot be understood in terms of QM or neurology, then it might be eliminated or considered an illusion or epiphenomenon.
From a monist standpoint, these different explanations must be coherent, at least in theory: they describe one unique world. It's like the story of the blind men and the elephant. One feels the foot and say "it's a tree", another gets at the trunk and concludes "it's a snake", etc.
I believe that epiphenomena are a hoax, and that no such thing as an epiphenomenon can logically exist. Minds are real and causal, like everything else, almost by definition.
All levels are compiled (so to speak) in one reality and I agree that they are all equally real. I also agree that in practice, it is yet impossible to derive the laws of chemistry from those of physics, or the laws of biology from those of chemistry, or those of psychology from biology, or socio-economics from psychology. In fact it may never be possible. Each new level appears to us as emerging somehow from a lower level but with a degree of autonomy and creativity. Each new level creates its own rules to a degree, and higher levels can also manipulate lower ones.
Life, for instance, does not contradict chemistry nor physics of course, rather it uses them. It makes them do wonderful things (living species, and their biological processes), things that even the smartest daemon would not be able to predict from the laws of chemistry because they are not contained in chemistry, only made possible by it.
Cathedrals are made of stone, but one cannot derive their architecture from a knowledge of geology.
I agree with the jist of what you say here, but I am not a monist. I tend to think more in terms of ontological pluralism, so I don't think in terms of one world, or one reality; I have come to think that the idea that there is one world, one reality, is just that: an idea, nothing more, and that there is nothing existent that corresponds with this idea. I've been groping towards this conclusion for some time, and it was reading Markus Gabriel that brought it into focus for me. @180 Proof recently mentioned Nelson Goodman's "irrealism" in this connection, although I haven't looked into that yet.
For me too, the different narratives cannot always be reconciled. But sometimes they can. Einstein famously said that "it would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” I think he was too dismissive of air pressure graphs, which come handy to reproduce Beethoven's work on vinyl and digital formats...
:up: :lol: