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. — Michael

Only because you are using the force of gravity as a metaphor for the force of speech. Gravity can't be resisted. Speech can. This is why your example is flawed.

If one example shows that pushing someone off a cliff did not kill them then it stands that pushing someone off is not a guarantee that someone will die.

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. — Michael

Which leads to a slippery slope. It isn't a non sequitur when I can show that there are instances where A did not cause D. A is only a cause of B, B is a cause of C and C is a cause of D. A cannot be the cause of D when B and C have the power to negate A as a cause. This is shown in your 2nd Scenario. Did you pushing Jane off cause Jane to not die? You're the one dealing in non sequiturs.

I can kill people by pushing them off a cliff or by shooting them. The fact that some people can survive being pushed off a cliff or shot does not refute this. Your reasoning is so bad that I think @AmadeusD is right in accusing you of trolling.

You and NOS4A2 are just so wrong about all of this it beggars belief and I honestly can't believe that you believe what you're saying.

It just isn't worth responding to at this point.

I can kill people by pushing them off a cliff or by shooting them. The fact that some people can survive being pushed off a cliff or shot does not refute this. Your reasoning is so bad that I think AmadeusD is right in accusing you of trolling. — Michael

You can only kill people by pushing them off a cliff or shooting them if other things happen besides you pushing them or shooting them. So A alone cannot be the cause of C. That is your problem.

So A alone cannot be the cause of C. That is your problem. — Harry Hindu

It's not my problem because I didn’t claim that A alone can cause C. I only claimed that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff.

100%. This isn't an actual conversation anymore.

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.

My literal argument was: “The obvious falsification of your theory is that you’ve persuaded and influenced precisely no one.”

Your literal argument was: “ I simply acknowledge that it is an empirical fact that we do persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. with our words.”

And

“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?”

Now we get to watch the deception as the goalposts widen.

At any rate, the words you’re using are a class of verbs which suggest that you’re literally causing the behaviors of others, in some way, which is evident by your false analogy that you’re causing the lights to turn on by talking to Siri. But your urge to use an analogy of a device that is programmed and engineered to obey your commands is a tell, to me, because human beings don’t operate like that. Someone might come to agree with you or believe as you do, but it isn’t because your soundwaves hit their eardrums setting off a domino effect in their skull.

I’m just one data point against your theory, but there are no doubt countless more.

If we don't let people say what they wish, we won't know the terrible things they plan on doing or inciting other to do. We'd be living in the dark. Let everyone say what they want and treat those that say what isn't right be judged by the masses. It seems quite black and white to me.

It's not my problem because I didn’t claim that A alone can cause C. I only claimed that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff. — Michael

Sure you did:

But it is still the case that A caused C — Michael

You have never said A and B caused C.

But your urge to use an analogy of a device that is programmed and engineered to obey your commands is a tell, to me, because human beings don’t operate like that. Someone might come to agree with you or believe as you do, but it isn’t because your soundwaves hit their eardrums setting off a domino effect in their skull. — NOS4A2

Exactly. His use of gravity as another irresistible force in his other example is the same. People cannot generally resist gravity, but people can resist speech. My focus has always been on what makes some people resist speech and others not. It is also possible that a listener already agreed with what was said prior to it being said (the speech they hear reinforces their own beliefs), so their reaction may appear to be caused by speech when it wasn't. The listener is just blaming their actions on another's speech to absolve themselves of their own guilt.

Words literally cause mindstates, when heard in certain contexts. Those mindstates are considered irresistible in some circumstances. Those mindstates are either supervenient or overwhelmingly causative of the actions in question. This is a causal chain which is morally brought back to the inciter.

He doesn't get this. It's hard to see where 'reason' would come in if so.

“In certain contexts” and “in some circumstances”—the weasel words keep piling on

You could write a whole page of inciting and coercive language and in every case my “mind-state” wouldn’t change in the slightest. Why is that?

This is simply because words cannot cause “mind-states”. My biology in combination with what I know and understand about what you’re saying and what is going on in my immediate environment causes all of my “mind states”: I know you’re no threat; I don’t want to do what you’re trying to coerce me to do; you have nothing over me or anything to threaten me with; and I have zero respect for most of what you type. In each and every case it is me causing my “mind state”. Poof, there goes your magic powers.

But then you bring a gun into it, and appear a little unhinged, so within limit I do what you request of me. You are guilty of coercion, sure, but it is not your words that force or cause me to act. It is my understanding and fears of what might happen if I don’t obey that determines my action. These are the “certain contexts” and “some circumstances” you guys continually leave out.

As for causal chains, numerous scenarios call it into question. Consider a comedian telling you a joke you do not understand, but later you do come to understand it and laugh. Or if it was told to you in a different language and you didn’t get it until you first learned the language. Or if you come to agree later in life with a book you read much earlier in life. Applying your causal chain theory would imply that the chain reaction suddenly stopped in your brain, as if frozen, until suddenly and without cause it goes on moving things around in there until an effect occurs. Or maybe the words just keep banging around in there until your effect occurs. It’s an incoherent theory based on magical thinking and superstition.

My literal argument was: “The obvious falsification of your theory is that you’ve persuaded and influenced precisely no one.” — NOS4A2

P1. You have persuaded and influenced precisely no one
C1. Therefore, your theory is falsified

This is a non sequitur.

At any rate, the words you’re using are a class of verbs which suggest that you’re literally causing the behaviors of others, in some way, which is evident by your false analogy that you’re causing the lights to turn on by talking to Siri. — NOS4A2

You are misunderstanding the purpose of that example. Your argument was:

P1. Symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, cannot affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.
C1. Therefore, incitement is physically impossible ("superstitious, magical-thinking").

The example of turning on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" is simply a refutation of P1. It's not meant to be anything more than that. Given that P1 is false you need to either offer a better justification for C1 or (which you now seem to have done) acknowledge that incitement is not physically impossible.

But your urge to use an analogy of a device that is programmed and engineered to obey your commands is a tell, to me, because human beings don’t operate like that. Someone might come to agree with you or believe as you do, but it isn’t because your soundwaves hit their eardrums setting off a domino effect in their skull. — NOS4A2

Again, you are misunderstanding me. I'll refer you back to this comment from a month ago:

You somehow seem to want something like libertarian free will whilst also denying anything like a non-physical mind. These positions are incompatible. So, once again, you need to pick your poison and abandon one of these two positions. — Michael

I am not claiming that causal determinism is true. I am only arguing that agent-causal libertarian free will is incompatible with eliminative materialism, and so that your positions are inconsistent. If you want to argue against the "domino effect" then you must argue for something like interactionist dualism, because the domino effect is an inevitable consequence of physicalism (even counting quantum indeterminacy), applying to artificial machines, natural (inanimate) phenomena, and biological organisms.

Sure you did — Harry Hindu

No I didn't.

All I am saying is that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff or by shooting them. This is irrefutable. And I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights".

But I showed you that you did:

But it is still the case that A caused C — Michael

What you should have said is, "it is the case that A is a cause of C" because it appears that you were walking back your statement that there are other causes with the statement you actually used.

All I am saying is that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff or by shooting them. This is irrefutable. And I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". — Michael

Exactly. You can kill someone by pushing them off, but not necessarily so. Other causes have to line up perfectly for someone to die from you pushing them off a cliff. The examples you have provided make it easy for these other causes (gravity and the level of certainty technology provides) to line up with your intent (hence the straw-man). Now if you want to make the examples applicable to the theme of the thread then you would replace gravity and technology in your examples with other humans.

I don't know why you continue to misrepresent my claims. I'm not going to repeat myself in correcting you.

P1. You have persuaded and influenced precisely no one
C1. Therefore, your theory is falsified

This is a non sequitur.

Yet this evidence completely contradicts your claim that “it is an empirical fact that we do persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. with our words”. Our mutual inability to persuade and convince each other is evidence against your claim that you can “influence their free decisions and behaviours by persuading, convincing, provoking, inciting, coercing, tricking, etc.”.

Given these statements your fact ought to be easy to prove with a simple demonstration, but for some reason you won’t.

You are misunderstanding the purpose of that example. Your argument was:

P1. Symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, cannot affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.
C1. Therefore, incitement is physically impossible ("superstitious, magical-thinking").

The example of turning on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" is simply a refutation of P1. It's not meant to be anything more than that. Given that P1 is false you need to either offer a better justification for C1 or (which you now seem to have done) acknowledge that incitement is not physically impossible.

It wasn’t much of a refutation because you haven’t shown how you affected and moved anything beyond the diaphragm in the microphone.

Nonetheless, the other phases of matter I was speaking of were human beings. Human beings are not designed and engineered to operate according to your commands. So the question becomes: why aren’t you able to use a human being in your refutation instead of a device designed and engineered to move according to your commands?

I am not claiming that causal determinism is true. I am only arguing that agent-causal libertarian free will is incompatible with eliminative materialism, and so that your positions are inconsistent. If you want to argue against the "domino effect" then you must argue for something like interactionist dualism, because the domino effect is an inevitable consequence of physicalism (even counting quantum indeterminacy).

I just don’t understand how they’re inconsistent. And of course neither of them are really relevant. We can argue about the domino effect implied by your arguments with basic biology and physics, and without invoking free will, determinism, or non-physical entities.

With a domino effect, the energy required to move each piece in a standard set of dominos is provided and transferred by the fall of the preceding piece. But the body provides the energy required to both maintain the structure and function of all cells in the body, including in the ear and the subsequent parts involved in hearing. It also provides the energy required to transduce signals, to move impulses, and to respond to them. The body does all the work of hearing, thinking, moving etc. using exactly zero energy provided by the sound wave, and therefore completely unaffected and moved by it. In other words, all the energy required to move the body comes from the body, not the soundwaves, not from other speakers, and so on.

Yet this evidence completely contradicts your claim that “it is an empirical fact that we do persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. with our words” — NOS4A2

No it doesn't. Yet another absolutely inane non-sequitur.

I am not claiming that causal determinism is true. I am only arguing that agent-causal libertarian free will is incompatible with eliminative materialism, and so that your positions are inconsistent. — Michael

That’s what I tried to say a while ago.

Everyone here seems to agree there is a such thing as freedom of speech and that laws should not restrict it (with some exceptions, which caused the disagreement).

@NOS4A2 however, seems to forget that laws are government speech.

If speech can’t become a cause in the causal chain, laws can never effect anyone’s actions either.

So if NOS wanted to really stay consistent with the idea the words cannot cause actions in others, then he should say he could care less what the government says is “law” (speech).

But he isn’t saying that.

He (and you, though this more an addition than critique) are also missing that government speech by way of legislation is clear, highly-effective coercion.

Yet this evidence completely contradicts your claim that “it is an empirical fact that we do persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. with our words”. Our mutual inability to persuade and convince each other is evidence against your claim that you can “influence their free decisions and behaviours by persuading, convincing, provoking, inciting, coercing, tricking, etc.”. — NOS4A2

No it doesn't. This is a non sequitur.

It wasn’t much of a refutation because you haven’t shown how you affected and moved anything beyond the diaphragm in the microphone. — NOS4A2

I turned on the lights.

But the body provides the energy required to both maintain the structure and function of all cells in the body, including in the ear and the subsequent parts involved in hearing. It also provides the energy required to transduce signals, to move impulses, and to respond to them. The body does all the work of hearing, thinking, moving etc. using exactly zero energy provided by the sound wave ... In other words, all the energy required to move the body comes from the body, not the soundwaves, not from other speakers, and so on. — NOS4A2

The same is true of the Apple device responding to me saying "Siri, turn on the lights", yet you referred to this as a domino effect. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I just don’t understand how they’re inconsistent. — NOS4A2

See the Wikipedia article on libertarian free will:

Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.

Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior.

...

In non-physical theories of free will, agents are assumed to have power to intervene in the physical world, a view known as agent causation.

If (a) physics is deterministic and if (b) nothing non-physical explains an agent's behaviour then (c) an agent's behaviour is deterministic.

Agent-causal libertarians deny (c) by denying (b), whereas eliminative materialists accept (b) – hence why your positions are inconsistent.

An eliminative materialist must either accept (c), and so be either a hard determinist or a compatibilist, or deny (a).

I never said law isn’t coercive. It is. Government speech (law) needs to be highly restricted by a constitution and the power of people to rewrite the law and the constitution. Government is for people to be kept free.

As I say, this was not a critique. I just add to your comments.
I shall further add that these other elements are also coercive, of the enforcement apparatus, as to what they coerce the populous into.

There is a clear circularity to the idea that the power of the people controls what coerces tehmselves.

There is a clear circularity to the idea that the power of the people controls what coerces tehmselves. — AmadeusD

Yes - I personally don’t need a government and am basically a libertarian. I’d be one of the good guys in Lord of the Flies. But I would rather there be some other options besides just “live free or die”.

Ah yep, fair enough. Yes, the whole 'death or taxes' mentality seems ridiculous to me.

No it doesn't. This is a non sequitur.

You claimed “it is an empirical fact that we do persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. with our words”.

So then persuade, convince, provoke, incite, teach, trick, etc. me into agreeing with you.

I turned on the lights.

Proof by assertion.

See the Wikipedia article on libertarian free will:

No thanks.

If (a) physics is deterministic and if (b) nothing non-physical explains an agent's behaviour then (c) an agent's behaviour is deterministic.

An agent’s behavior is determined by the agent, which I’ve been saying all along. Agents are physical. Wikipedia isn’t going to help with this one.

No it doesn't. Yet another absolutely inane non-sequitur.

Did someone convince you to say that, or do you have a mind of your own?

So then persuade, convince, provoke, incite, teach, trick, etc. me into agreeing with you. — NOS4A2

I did way back - I tricked, incited, coerced, and provoked you into responding to me here on the forum. Remember? You are my slave now.

You keep posting as if you have a choice, but you don’t. My words are the cause, not you or your mind. I’m pretty sure if you posted some copyrighted material here I would be sued and you wouldn’t, because everyone knows you are just posting because I said so AND because you don’t understand how speech, like copy written material, can cause others to take physical action, like suing me.

The odd thing is, only if you have a mind of your own is there a possibility of words causing action. You seem to believe in a mind of your own. How is such a mind possible?

Did someone convince you to say that, or do you have a mind of your own? — NOS4A2

Isn’t that something you can only ask yourself? Your words, according to you, will never be able to prompt someone to answer you. You should ask yourself that - because if you don’t think words can cause action, it makes no sense to say you have a mind of your own, unless words never cross your mind either.

I did way back - I tricked, incited, coerced, and provoked you into responding to me here on the forum. Remember? You are my slave now.

You keep posting as if you have a choice, but you don’t. My words are the cause, not you or your mind. I’m pretty sure if you posted some copyrighted material here I would be sued and you wouldn’t, because everyone knows you are just posting because I said so AND because you don’t understand how speech, like copy written material, can cause others to take physical action, like suing me.

The odd thing is, only if you have a mind of your own is there a possibility of words causing action. You seem to believe in a mind of your own. How is such a mind possible?

Maybe you can teach me your magic. How can I compel you to do what I want?

compel — NOS4A2

That’s the rub for you.

What is compelled, and what is free.

I don’t think you can explain either consistently.

That’s the rub for you.

What is compelled, and what is free.

I don’t think you can explain either consistently.

Do I have to put the words in a certain order or something?

Do I have to put the words in a certain order or something? — NOS4A2

Depends on what effect you want them to have in others.

So maybe you do.

I would like you to admit that everything you’ve been writing is nonsense. How would I go about that?