So he isn't just arguing that some B is the "more immediate" cause of C; he's also arguing that A doesn't cause C. It is the "A doesn't cause C" that I take issue with. Nowhere have I denied that there are "more immediate" causes. — Michael

And what I'm saying is that your analogy does not take into account that the B can override A.

And what I'm saying is that your analogy does not take into account that the B can override A. — Harry Hindu

A = I pushed John off a cliff
B = John hit the ground at high speed
C = John dies

What does it mean for B to "override" A?

A = I pushed John off a cliff
B = John hit the ground at high speed
C = John dies

What does it mean for B to "override" A? — Michael

Hello? Is this thing on? That is what I'm telling you - your analogy is flawed and does not represent the the nature of speech and its influence on others.

I adjusted your analogy to better represent the nature of speech but you didn't answer the question of who would be responsible for your death.

If you say something and I shoot you because I didn't like what you said, who is at fault for you being shot? Did you coerce me into shooting you?

That is what I'm telling you - your analogy is flawed and does not represent the the nature of speech and its influence on others. — Harry Hindu

This isn't an analogy. It is a single, standalone argument.

A = I pushed John off a cliff
B = John hit the ground at high speed
C = John died

I claim that both A and B caused C. NOS4A2 claims that only B caused C.

This demonstrates that NOS4A2 has a flawed understanding of causation. He thinks that "X causes Y" is true only if Y is the immediate effect of X's kinetic energy. This is wrong.

I don't know how much clearer I need to be.

I claim that both A and B caused C. NOS4A2 claims that only B caused C. — Michael

B is the more immediate cause of C precisely because B has power to override A. Your argument does not show that, so is a straw-man.

B is the more immediate cause of C — Harry Hindu

I agree, and always have. But it is still the case that A caused C. NOS4A2 disagrees.

B has power to override A. — Harry Hindu

Again, what does it mean for "John hit the ground at high speed" to 'override' "I pushed John off a cliff"?

Your argument does not show that, so is a straw-man. — Harry Hindu

It's not a strawmen because NOS4A2 is literally and explicitly saying that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I didn't cause their death. He is wrong.

It's not a strawmen because NOS4A2 is literally and explicitly saying that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I didn't cause their death. He is wrong. — Michael

It is a strawman precisely because you have abandoned what it is we are actually talking about - speech and its impact on others behavior and the power a listener has, to find a more easily defensible position that does not include the power a listener has. Abandon talk about cliffs and being pushed off of them and answer this question:

If you say something and I shoot you because I didn't like what you said, who is at fault for you being shot? Did you coerce me into shooting you? — Harry Hindu

I have only ever been addressing this claim:

Physically speaking, speech doesn't possess enough kinetic energy required to affect the world that the superstitious often claims it does. Speech, for instance, doesn't possess any more kinetic energy than any other articulated guttural sound. Writing doesn't possess any more energy than any other scratches or ink blots on paper. And so on. So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.

He claims that transduction in the cochlea is not caused by auditory stimulation. He claims that I can't cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". He claims that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I didn't cause them to die.

It's a fundamentally flawed understanding of causation. "A causes B" doesn't just mean "B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy".

So I don’t know why you keep asking me about moral responsibility given that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have been arguing.

I just don’t know what “cause” means in the context of a discussion regarding moving other human beings with words. Philosophers have debated the nature of causation for millennia, and no one really seems to know what it means either. So I’m not only trying to be difficult, I’m also struggling with the use of the term.

If you’d define what you mean by “cause” I could try to adhere to your definition of it if you’d like. But it might be better to use the language of something like dynamics to discuss the things we can move with our voice and our writing, and weather a human being is one of those things.

I don’t have a definition. I just have the ordinary, everyday understanding of the word. Pushing the button caused the light to turn on, pushing someone off a cliff caused their death, the drought caused the famine, smoking causes cancer, breaking up with my girlfriend caused her to cry.

Do you really need a definition of “cause” to understand and either accept or reject these claims?

I don’t even think you need to believe in determinism to accept all of the above.

And as for the specific topic hand, it’s perfectly reasonable to be both a free will libertarian and accept that we can persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, etc. with our words. There’s just nothing superstitious or magical about any of this.

And as for the specific topic hand, it’s perfectly reasonable to be both a free will libertarian and accept that we can persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, etc. with our words. There’s just nothing superstitious or magical about any of this.

Then how do you persuade or convince or incite with some symbols, or soundwaves, but cannot with others? What physical, measurable property is in those symbols and soundwaves that the other symbols and soundwaves lack?

Yet I showed that in that moment of duress I made a decision that did not play into the terrorists intent. — Harry Hindu

No. No you didn't. As explained above, and dismissed by yourself. Again, this comes across so intensely removed from what's happening in this conversation that you must be trolling. I don't suggest you are - but i do suggest you perhaps review your repsonses to avoid seemingly like a totally out-of-touch interlocutor. Aside from this, what you hypothetically think has zero bearing on the actual situation of coercion being real. If you could please quote where it was somehow requisite that coercion worked in every case, that would be helpful. But you wont, because I've already noted that some are resilient to coercion and would rather die than acquiesce. So much is true, and has nothing to say about the existence and reality of coercion. If you do not understand this basic delineation, you are inept for this conversation, sorry to say (and not to be mean, but to let you know that you aren't making any sense).

I will simply ignore the totally irrelevant parts going forward, after elucidating above.

Those two sentences contradict each other. — Harry Hindu

They quite clearly, and obviously, do not. Coercion is a use of force or threat to obtain behaviour from another person. If you do not think this can be done, you may need to see a psychologist (or an historian, at the very least). It happens. It constnatly happens. Its a social and legal norm. You are out of step with literally everything in the world relevant to the topic. That you are metaphysically capable of making other decisions is the entire basis for coercion. The dilemma caused is that you could choose otherwise, at risk of a much worse outcome.

If you did not mean "force" as a synonym for "coerce", then what do you mean? — Harry Hindu

The absolute irony:

The force would be whatever is causing the dilemma. — AmadeusD

This, because you asked this question:

What "force" would their words have if they spoke in a language I did not understand? — Harry Hindu

Showing me clearly that you do not know the difference between emotional weight, and force. That is not something (other than pointing it out, which I did) I can help you with. Emotional weight and coercive force are very different things that do not rely on how i am using the word. So... This becomes an obvious troll:

I did what I wanted in the moment of duress, so you have failed to show that coercion is real, or at least not as "forceful" as you claim. — Harry Hindu

False. You made an unlikely hypothetical declaration that doesn't touch on either of your purported conclusions. If you making a truly random, and unlikely hypothetical up constitutes proving coercion doesn't exist, you're not in the realm that critical thinkers are. I haven't made a claim about how forceful coercion is. I have claimed that it is real, serious and social/legal norm. It is. I have also said it is effective. It is. . This is also a decent (I wont say good) read.

What does "highly effective" mean in this context? — Harry Hindu

It means it is effective, to a high degree. It can cause otherwise 'good' people to do extremely bad things, in order to avoid what they perceive to be worse outcomes threatened in lieu.

Separately, you can have a read of this if you like. It's a pretty good overview and explains why most people take this very seriously, as against your responses that quite frankly don't engage the issues, and often aren't sensible.

When does speech become coercive - only when people respond in the way you intend? — Harry Hindu

Assuming you mean the person trying to coerce someone?? Because what i think is not relevant. I am running hte facts by you to gauge your reaction. You are not disappointing, I can tell you that.

On this basis: yes, obviously. I cannot see that you aren't trolling here. That is the definition of a success, in this context. Asking this is like asking "So, why is water wet then?".

What makes some people respond in the way you intend and some not? — Harry Hindu

I would assume their moral fortitude (or, that they have a better risk assessment mechanism than those who don't). But, in reality, it is the degree to which the threat outweighs the requested action. If you are to kick a puppy in the head, or have your entire family tortured**, and you choose the latter, you can simply sit down for the rest of time and never make a moral comment again, in my view.

**You made a point earlier about doubting whether the threatner would make good(here, to torture your family - let's say to death, to make it juicy). That is not your decision; it is theirs and you must make a dice-roll with regard to that factor. However, if you doubt, resist, and you're wrong - your family are all tortured to death while you watch - I presume you will wish you made the other choice (i.e gave in to coercion). That's, in some respects, how it works. Again, if you would not, and are happy with your choice to have your family tortured to death in front of you because you wanted to doubt a strong man's conviction, well... I repeat: Sit down and never make a moral comment again (obviously im not seriousl.. this is hyperbole).

What percentage of the people that hear the speech and respond as intended qualifies as "highly effective"? — Harry Hindu

This is not the correct way to think of it. Let's pick an example where A addresses some crowd of supporters. He is, using serious and credible threats, requesting this group assassinate lets say three opposition leaders in order to... whatever, really.
Ok. A single person can carry out that request. That single person is the success, if they do it due to the coercion. As noted earlier, this would be a definition for success here. Over-determined success is just a piling up of successful instances. It's not an accumulative issue. 'Effective' must be read as 'effected it's intended outcome'. What you're trying to do is play a numbers game, which is intuitively fine, but that's not how this works at all in the world.

Suffice to say you are at odds with basically all theorists worth their weight, the actual history of humanity and possibly the functions of the human brain (this one I say less-strongly, as I can only somewhat understand the neuroscience here, but there are clearly situations of neurologically irresistible requests from those in power to those without. Further than this, I won't comment).

Then how do you persuade or convince or incite with some symbols, or soundwaves, but cannot with others? What physical, measurable property is in those symbols and soundwaves that the other symbols and soundwaves lack? — NOS4A2

You're asking me how persuasion works? That will require a more in-depth account of psychology and neurology than I am capable of providing.

I simply acknowledge that it is an empirical fact that we do persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. with our words. It's not magic, it's not superstition, and it happens even if determinism is false.

And you're really trying to argue that all of these things are impossible? It beggars belief. Much like your unwillingness to accept that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff.

I’m asking you what physical properties words in the form of sound waves or written symbols have that other soundwaves and symbols don’t, so that you can make other people behave the way you want them to.

I’m asking you what physical properties words in the form of sound waves or written symbols have that other soundwaves and symbols don’t, so that you can make other people behave the way you want them to. — NOS4A2

This is like asking what physical properties the words "Siri, turn on the lights" have that the words "Siri, play Despacito" don't have such that the former causes the Apple device to turn on the lights but the latter doesn't. Suffice it to say, there is a physical difference (else they’d sound identical), and the Apple device (deterministically) responds differently to these physical differences due to the nature of its hardware and software.

And determinism aside, I don't make anyone do anything. Nowhere has there been any suggestion of anything like verbal "mind control" or "puppeteering". I influence their free decisions and behaviours by persuading, convincing, provoking, inciting, coercing, tricking, etc. Do you just not understand what any of these words mean? All of this is compatible with agent-causal libertarian free will. As an example that’s already been mentioned, duress is a legitimate legal defence and not just some fantasy concocted to avoid accountability for one’s actions.

And as for the specific topic hand, it’s perfectly reasonable to be both a free will libertarian and accept that we can persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, etc. with our words. There’s just nothing superstitious or magical about any of this. — Michael

Of course it is, but you've only focused on the "persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce" part and left out the "free will" part. Your argument that A causes C implies that B has no culpability in the crimes that were committed. B is the more immediate cause to C and is why B receives a more robust punishment than A.

Aside from this, what you hypothetically think has zero bearing on the actual situation of coercion being real. If you could please quote where it was somehow requisite that coercion worked in every case, that would be helpful. But you wont, because I've already noted that some are resilient to coercion and would rather die than acquiesce. So much is true, and has nothing to say about the existence and reality of coercion. — AmadeusD

So your argument is just because you haven't been able to show an example of coercion (god) existing doesn't mean coercion (god) does not exist. Showing that someone would rather die that acquiesce is evidence, not proof, of coercion not existing. In this case, you would need to come up with another example, not make more assertions without providing evidence of your claims. It was your example of coercion that I shot down, and now you are saying that wasn't an example of coercion anyway. And you're calling me a troll? Give me a break.


Earlier, we spoke about the level of punishment one receives compared to the person that was "coerced". It was the "how" people are coerced that I was focusing on, and how we determine if someone was coerced into doing something they would not have, or if they were merely using coercion as an excuse to do bad things.

If someone makes a speech that misinforms me and manipulates me into thinking my rights are threatened when they actually aren't was I responsible at all for acting on this information? I was made to believe that my life was in danger or threatened. You said that I would not be held accountable for torturing my wife under duress. Would that not be the same in the example I just provided?

It means it is effective, to a high degree. It can cause otherwise 'good' people to do extremely bad things, in order to avoid what they perceive to be worse outcomes threatened in lieu. — AmadeusD

Which seems to be equivalent to your example of good people acting under duress and should not be held accountable for their actions. But you then agreed that the people that performed the action under duress should receive the harshest punishment. So the question remains, how do we determine the level of culpability between the inciter and the incited?

**You made a point earlier about doubting whether the threatner would make good(here, to torture your family - let's say to death, to make it juicy). That is not your decision; it is theirs and you must make a dice-roll with regard to that factor. However, if you doubt, resist, and you're wrong - your family are all tortured to death while you watch - I presume you will wish you made the other choice (i.e gave in to coercion). — AmadeusD

In other words, we are all going to be tortured and die regardless of whether we do what the terrorist says or not, so why not put up a fight? Not to mention that the terrorist could be getting orders from a superior, so is the terrorist now absolved of all guilt because they were just following orders and threatened to be beheaded and their families stoned to death, if they didn't? How far up the chain does it go, and how does one determine the level of culpability for each actor in the chain?

You claim that coercion exists, but not always, yet you seem to be saying coercion exists when it exists, without providing a why it exists in some cases and not in others and how that might show that what you call coercive might not be because you have acknowledged that some people shouldn't be blamed for being coerced and some should when our laws are not hard-wired. It is the reason we not only have law-makers but law-interpreters (judges) that determine the applicability of the law to the current situation and who is more or less culpable for the crimes committed.

Of course it is, but you've only focused on the "persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce" part and left out the "free will" part. Your argument that A causes C implies that B has no culpability in the crimes that were committed. B is the more immediate cause to C and is why B receives a more robust punishment than A. — Harry Hindu

You really need to read what I have been writing and not this imaginary argument you think I'm making.

You really need to read what I have been writing and not this imaginary argument you think I'm making. — Michael

I have been reading what you wrote: A causes C except when it doesn't.

I have been reading what you wrote: A causes C except when it doesn't. — Harry Hindu

Yes, which is factually true. If I push John off a cliff and he falls to his death then I caused his death, but if I push Jane off a cliff and she doesn't fall to her death then I didn't cause her death. What is so difficult to understand or accept about this? It's common sense.

More importantly, I haven't once commented on moral responsibility. I have never said that if I persuade Jill to push John to his death that Jill is not morally responsible for John's death. So I don't know why you keep asking me about moral responsibility.

But to hopefully shut you up; it is both the case that Jill is morally responsible for John's death and the case that I persuaded Jill to push John to his death. Which, again, is common sense, and it's honestly crazy that you and NOS4A2 are so unwilling to agree with this.

Persuading someone to do something is not a physical impossibility, it's not "superstition" or "magical thinking", and there are good, practical reasons to make it a criminal offence to persuade someone to kill another, hence why free speech absolutism is a thoughtless position.

Yes, which is factually true. If I push John off a cliff and he falls to his death then I caused his death, but if I push Jane off a cliff and she doesn't fall to her death then I didn't cause her death. What is so difficult to understand or accept about this? It's common sense. — Michael

Exactly. But you fail to address where B is when A causes C. We know that B exists when A does not cause C, but where is B when A causes C? How do we know if B agreed with A and therefore caused C?

Exactly. But you fail to address where B is when A causes C. We know that B exists when A does not cause C, but where is B when A causes C? How do we know if B agreed with A and therefore caused C? — Harry Hindu

What are you talking about? Are you forgetting what the letters stand for?

A = I push John off a cliff
B = John hits the ground at high speed
C = John dies

There are just two people involved in this scenario; me and John.

I claimed that in this scenario I killed John. NOS4A2 claimed that in this scenario I didn't kill John; that hitting the ground at a high speed killed John.

That's it. And his position is just absurd. It's an impoverished understanding of what it means for X to cause Y.

**You made a point earlier about doubting whether the threatner would make good(here, to torture your family - let's say to death, to make it juicy). That is not your decision; it is theirs and you must make a dice-roll with regard to that factor. However, if you doubt, resist, and you're wrong - your family are all tortured to death while you watch - I presume you will wish you made the other choice (i.e gave in to coercion).
— AmadeusD
In other words, we are all going to be tortured and die regardless of whether we do what the terrorist says or not, so why not put up a fight? — Harry Hindu

I wanted to add to this. Given the situation that you have laid out with terrorists threatening death and torture if you do not do as they demand, ANYONE would come to the same logical conclusion that the terrorists are not likely to keep their word and fight back. It seems to me that only those that have some kind of want to torture their family would do so rather than fight back.

What are you talking about? Are you forgetting what the letters stand for?

A = I push John off a cliff
B = John hits the ground at high speed
C = John dies

There are just two people involved in this scenario; me and John. — Michael

Your example only shows when A causes C. By only providing an example of how A causes C you imply that you only believe that A causes C. How about an example of where A does not cause C? You agreed that we have free will, so how does free will play into your examples?

I am trying to get at how we know when it is A that causes C as opposed to B causing C. You seem to be saying that A causes C when A causes C an B causes C when B causes C. How is that helpful?

Your example only shows when A causes C. By only providing an example of how A causes C you imply that you only believe that A causes C. How about an example of where A does not cause C? — Harry Hindu

Jesus Christ, Harry. I literally just explained it above. I swear to God you must have reading difficulties.

I am going to try this one more time in baby steps and then I'm done. This is tiresome.

Scenario 1
A. I push John off a cliff
B. John hits the ground at high speed
C. John dies

Scenario 2
A. I push Jane off a cliff
B. Jane hits the ground at high speed
C. Jane doesn't die

I killed John by pushing him off a cliff but didn't kill Jane by pushing her off a cliff. This is common sense and it's insane that this has to be explained so many times.

what caused Jane to not die? Isn't doing the same thing and expecting the same result the definition of insanity? If a different result occurred then you obviously weren't doing the same thing. You're missing something in Scenario 2. And I'm also asking what happened to that thing in Scenario 1. In showing that there are different outcomes to A and B means that there is another cause between B and C. What is that cause?

what caused Jane to not die? — Harry Hindu

She's tougher or landed differently (e.g. not on her head).

In showing that there are different outcomes to A and B means that there is another cause between B and C. What is that cause?

Yes, there are plenty of other causes in between.

But it's still the case that I killed John by pushing him off a cliff.

Your apparent suggestion that if B is a "more immediate" cause than A then A isn't a cause is a non sequitur. A causes B causes C causes D ... causes X. Therefore, A causes X.

I know what those words mean. I even wrote a thread on them, and each of them have a metaphorical sense in their etymology. Influence, for instance, was once a kind of liquid that flowed from celestial bodies which determined human destiny. In Latin it came to mean “imperceptible or indirect action exerted to cause changes”. So you use words steeped in superstitious folk science and metaphor to explain which you struggled to prove earlier. But as we know you cannot cause any changes or move anything with words beyond the immediate changes in an ear drum or diaphragm.

The obvious falsification of your theory is that you’ve persuaded and influenced precisely no one. This is because words cannot exert the type of action and cause changes people pretend they do.

But as we know you cannot cause any changes or move anything with words beyond the immediate changes in an ear drum or diaphragm. — NOS4A2

Yes I can. I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". The fact that your understanding of causation leads you to reject this, and to reject the claim that I can kill John by pushing him off a cliff, is proof enough to any reasonable person that your understanding of causation is impoverished.

I even wrote a thread on them, and each of them have a metaphorical sense in their etymology. Influence, for instance, was once a kind of liquid that flowed from celestial bodies which determined human destiny. In Latin it came to mean “imperceptible or indirect action exerted to cause changes”. So you use words steeped in superstitious folk science and metaphor to explain which you struggled to prove earlier. — NOS4A2

Okay. It's still the case that we can, and do, persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, trick, etc. others with our arguments, rhetoric, insults, propaganda, threats, lies, etc.

The obvious falsification of your theory is that you’ve persuaded and influenced precisely no one. This is because words cannot exert the type of action and cause changes people pretend they do. — NOS4A2

This is like arguing that because I failed to kill anyone during my shooting spree then my claim that we can kill people by shooting a gun is falsified.

Your reasoning is such an obvious non sequitur. Nobody in the history of the world has ever suggested that if persuasion is possible then it's impossible to fail to persuade.

Yes I can. I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". The fact that your understanding of causation leads you to reject this, and to reject the claim that I can kill John by pushing him off a cliff, is proof enough to any reasonable person that your understanding of causation is impoverished.

You’re telling Siri to turn on the lights. The device is turning on the lights.

Okay. It's still the case that we can, and do, persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, trick, etc. others with our arguments, rhetoric, insults, propaganda, threats, lies, etc.

Sure, but it isn’t the case that you cause changes and behaviors in others.

Your reasoning such an obvious non sequitur. Nobody in the history of the world has ever suggested that there is some foolproof manner to convince absolutely everyone.

I never said that’s anyone has suggested. What I’ve said, and have been saying, is that words cannot exert the type of action and cause changes people pretend they do. Case in point is yourself.

You’re telling Siri to turn on the lights. The device is turning on the lights. — NOS4A2

"People don't kill people, guns do".

It is both the case that I turn on the lights and the case that the Apple device turns on the lights.

I never said that’s anyone has suggested. — NOS4A2

Your literal argument was:

1. You failed to persuade anyone
2. Therefore, your claim that persuasion is possible is falsified

It has never been suggested that if persuasion is possible then it's impossible for me to fail to persuade someone. Therefore, the above argument is a non sequitur.

Sure — NOS4A2

"Sure" as in "Yes, I agree that we can, and do, persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, trick, etc. others with our arguments, rhetoric, insults, propaganda, threats, lies, etc"?

but it isn’t the case that you cause changes and behaviors in others. — NOS4A2

You seem to be confusing arguments. There have been a number of them:

1. If eliminative materialism is true then determinism is true
2. If determinism is true then our behaviour is causally determined by antecedent conditions
3. Even if determinism is false and we have libertarian free will, symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols
4. Even if determinism is false and we have libertarian free will, involuntary bodily behaviours such as transduction by the sense organs is causally determined by external stimuli
5. Even if determinism is false and we have libertarian free will, we can be persuaded, convinced, provoked, incited, coerced, tricked, etc. by others' arguments, rhetoric, insults, propaganda, threats, lies, etc.

If by "it isn’t the case that you cause changes and behaviors in others" you just mean to say that determinism is false and that we have libertarian free will then I don't necessarily disagree. I'm not committed to eliminative materialism and am open to interactionist dualism.

Regardless, it's still the case that (1)-(5) are all true.