The firing squad will shoot you when the officer says "Fire!", and not until. Arguments about magical thinking will not affect them, but the order will. Humans that suffer the abuse of army training can be 'triggered' by a shouted word to react like a machine. Such manipulative abuse is a commonplace feature of human relations.

Pointing a gun cannot cause someone to hand over the money, but it can make them afraid and decide to obey. Likewise, a charging lion cannot cause a man to run, but... Magical thinking in such cases is not magical at all, but a shorthand for a causal chain that includes a sensitive, responsive, motivated organism. There is no reason to expect complex causal chains to be fully deterministic; even the properties of an inanimate object such as an iron beam cannot be made consistent, as microscopic variations in the material will change the bending and breaking points for example.

Conditions are connections now? I don’t think so.

The birth of Will Smith caused the slap on Chris Rocks face. You heard it hear first.

I’ve said Will Smith caused each of his movements. There is no transfer of energy from any other circumstantial object to Will Smith, and therefor no other causal force animating his movements. — NOS4A2

What does this have to do with anything? This isn't what any of us mean when we talk about someone's actions being influenced by the things other people say or do. You're arguing against a strawman.

I think the idea of “influence” is the sort of magical thinking I’m talking about. — NOS4A2

There's nothing magical about psychology. Social influence is a real thing with a mundane (albeit very complicated) explanation.

Conditions are connections now? I don’t think so.

The birth of Will Smith caused the slap on Chris Rocks face. You heard it hear first. — NOS4A2

I'm not debating the semantics of "cause", and I said that already. You agreed that the circumstances are a necessary condition. How do you rationalize the claim that a necessary condition is not a connection?

It’s not connected to anything.

Influence: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence

Are we not talking about the same word?

Necessary conditions to an event do not comprise a connection to that event?!?!

Correct.

Are we not talking about the same word? — NOS4A2

I'm talking about the ordinary, common-sense understanding of the word that even you use:

It is our first amendment right to petition, to influence the government. It’s one of the most important ways to do so. It worked in the case of slavery, for instance. — NOS4A2

America wants to know if the former vice-president was abusing his power for reasons of corruption, and if the DNC colluded with Ukraine to influence the 2016 election. — NOS4A2

The reach and influence of the left is profoundly large. — NOS4A2

But the prevalence of left-wing academics and their influence on the growth of political correctness I think deserves a fair hearing. — NOS4A2

And in fact further proves the naked partisanship, how this is a ploy to influence the next election, and how the case is already doomed in the senate. — NOS4A2

Last ditch deep-state effort to influence the Senate trial. — NOS4A2

The capricious and political use of their labelling and anti-Trump sources, all of whom endorse opposing candidates, makes plain their motives, which seems to me to score points against Trump and to influence the election. — NOS4A2

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign sourced actual disinformation from actual Russian spies and used it to influence the election and any subsequent investigation, thereby putting a democratic election in doubt for years to come. — NOS4A2

For the simple reason that there is no known way of gauging the future influence of rhetoric on human action — NOS4A2

Western conceptions of suicide, I fear, are so much influenced by religion, that the aesthetic, romantic, and interesting qualities have all been stripped away. — NOS4A2

And on the word "incite":

“Fascism” is thus used in the Orwellian sense, as a pejorative, but even worse, as a means to dehumanize and incite violence against political opponents. — NOS4A2

While they openly hate America and incite anti-Americanism they gobble its most ridiculous ideologies. — NOS4A2

No one has ever said nor implied such an idea, and such a dangerous straw man is an incitement to violence. — NOS4A2

You call Americans “fascists” and, like a ghoul, cry foul when your incitement comes home to roost. — NOS4A2

cause
noun
us
/kɔz/
cause noun (REASON)
[ C/U ]
something without which something else would not happen:

Are we not talking about the same word?

There is no transfer of energy from any other circumstantial object to Will Smith — NOS4A2

This is false. A transfer of energy is how hearing works.

There seems to be a nexus between the comments in this thread and the replies, despite the fact that all replies are voluntary and not coerced.

What this means is that it is correct for me to claim that someone's post caused me to reply, even if someone has trouble realizing that "cause" is defined as all words, within a particular context.

Cause can mean as little as "persuaded" to as much as "forced." It just depends. Fascinating stuff.

Chris Rock caused Will Smith to slap him, but he didn't have to slap him. Wrap your head around the "could have done otherwise" idea. Head exploding emoji here.

Don't bring a fact to a feeling fight.

Chris Rock caused Will Smith to slap him, but he didn't have to slap him. Wrap your head around the "could have done otherwise" idea. Head exploding emoji here. — Hanover

NOS4A2 agreed that the circumstances were a necessary condition for the slap: had Chris Rock not been on stage, and had he not made the joke, Smith would not have been in position to choose to slap Rock. Of course this has no bearing on blame or moral accountability. I don't insist he label these circumstances as "cause" or "a causal factor", although at least some philosophers would do so, but it's absurd to say there is no connection between necessary conditions and the event.

Therefore, I conclude NOS4A2 is being irrational, because he insists there is no connection. I'm happy to hear some defense of NOS4A2's claim, but all he's given me is his unsupported judgment ("no connection").

I don't think this is really an issue of ignorance on NOS's part but some kind of political positioning. Best just to leave it imo as he seems wedded to the incoherency.

I don't think this is really an issue of ignorance on NOS's part but some kind of political positioning. Best just to leave it imo as he seems wedded to the incoherency. — Baden

I won't pester him again to justify his denying a "connection", but his political positioning was shattered when he admitted that circumstances were a necessary condition. For example, access to guns is a necessary condition to most mass killings.

I never said I don’t use the word. It’s that I’m suspicious of the physics of it.

All I remember of counterfactual causation is the lectures I attended on it over 20 years ago, much of it criticizing Lewis’ idea (Suzy or Lucy and the glass window, etc.)

Myself, I don’t have a theory of causation, so I appreciate the debate.

I wonder if NOS has the self-awareness enough to at least wonder why he’s often seen as either an imbecile, disingenuous, or incoherent. I wonder this sincerely.

I guess feedback from others is irrelevant in this worldview. Anything critical is fake news.

I wonder if NOS has the self-awareness enough to at least wonder why he’s often seen as either an imbecile, disingenuous, or incoherent. I wonder this sincerely. — Xtrix

I honestly don't think he read my posts thoroughly. He keeps going on about use of the word "cause", when I'm talking more generally about there just being a "connection".

Yall need to stop debating fascists and start just treating them badly. The good faith you have in them is misplaced. NOS is neither an imbicile, nor disingenuous, nor "not reading properly". He just likes people to be dead. The faster you understand this the less time you will waste.

You said they were a part of the cause and played a causal role. You also brought up counterfactual causation.

“Chris played a causal role.”

“…the circumstances were a necessary condition for the act of hitting to take place - that means it is part of the cause.”

Now we’ve moved to “connections”. It’s too confusing, friend.

This is false. A transfer of energy is how hearing works.

Finally, something physical! Sound waves do affect people. Words are not sound waves, though.

Finally, something physical! Sound waves do affect people. Words are not sound waves, though. — NOS4A2

I never said I don’t use the word. It’s that I’m suspicious of the physics of it. — NOS4A2

Psychology might not be as rigorous a science as physics but things like therapy have been shown to work.

Words can – and do – affect people, whether it be as encouragement, persuasion, teaching, criticism, insults, etc. There is sufficient empirical evidence of this.

The "physics" of it is the transfer of energy via sound in the case of speech or light in the case of writing. Our brains are predisposed (in part via habit/learning) to respond a certain way to certain kinds of sounds and images – a response which elicits the associated mental phenomena (e.g. understanding or emotion) which in turn factors into decision making.

I’m sure it’s the other way about. People act upon words. We hear them, read them, learn them, write them, speak them, use them. They do not affect us more than any other sound from the mouth or any other scribble on paper because they are hardly different in physical constitution and energy.

As you said yourself, we are predisposed to act upon certain sounds and images because we’ve learned and trained ourselves to do so.

Now we’ve moved to “connections”. It’s too confusing, friend. — NOS4A2

We started with "connections":

Bullets can tear through a person’s body. Shooting someone is justifiably a criminal act. Words possess no such force, have zero connection to another’s actions, and thus speaking cannot be justified as criminal act. I think your view is magical thinking.
— NOS4A2
I'm sympathetic to your position, but it's false to claim that one person's words have zero connection to another's actions. — Relativist

They do not affect us more than any other sound from the mouth or any other scribble on paper — NOS4A2

Of course they do. Random noises aren't going to affect me in the same way as a doctor saying "I'm sorry, but your wife died on the operating table." In this specific case, my subsequent grief certainly wouldn't be a choice I make but something triggered by the doctor's words.

As you said yourself, we are predisposed to act upon certain sounds and images because we’ve learned and trained ourselves to do so. — NOS4A2

Yes, and because of such learning and training our decisions are influenced by the things we hear and read. I'm not going to be influenced (much) by a phrase I don't understand, but I will by a phrase I do understand, regardless of how I came to understand the phrase.

Was the point that Trump isn't responsible for Jan 6?

All that soundwaves trigger is the delicate biology of the inner ear. After transduction it’s all you. The biology—you—does all the work. It causes your hearing; and if any aspect of the biology is messed up along the way, it doesn’t.

All that soundwaves trigger is the delicate biology of the inner ear. After transduction it’s all you. The biology—you—does all the work. It causes your hearing; and if any aspect of the biology is messed up along the way, it doesn’t. — NOS4A2

This is like saying that because plastic melts in fire and tungsten doesn't then it's not the fire that causes the plastic to melt but the plastic causing itself to melt.

In other news:

Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI, in blow to Durham investigation

Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.

The verdict is a major defeat for Durham and his Justice Department prosecutors, who have spent three years looking for wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia probe. He claimed Sussmann lied during a 2016 meeting in which he passed a tip to the FBI about Donald Trump and Russia.

Some additional commentary from this article:

The prosecution hung its case on the testimony of one FBI official, James Baker, based entirely on his recollection of a conversation. Baker, however, was foggy on many of the specifics of his interactions with Sussmann, and even testified to Congress that he couldn’t remember if he knew who Sussmann was working for.

...

The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI.

...

Durham tried to use his charge against Sussmann as a hook for the larger conspiracy theory that he, Trump, and Barr have been expounding: that investigation was ginned up in order to smear Trump in the media before the election. “You can see what the plan was,” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis told the jury. “It was to create an October surprise by giving information both to the media and to the FBI to get the media to write that there was an FBI investigation.”

There are several flaws with this theory. The first is that the Russia investigation was already underway before Sussmann approached the FBI with his suspicions about the server.

The second is that the FBI never leaked its investigation until after Trump was elected. The only reporting on the whole matter before the election was in a New York Times report that the FBI “saw no clear link to Russia.” Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton investigation had sprung leaks all over the place. So the Trump-Barr-Durham theory somehow posits that the FBI set up a phony investigation in order to leak it and then forgot to leak, instead doing the opposite by telling the Times that the Bureau did not suspect the Trump campaign.

Indeed, the Sussmann trial revealed that the Clinton campaign did not want the FBI to open a probe into the Alfabank server because it feared an investigation would make it less likely that the media would write about the story at all. So to the extent Durham deepened the public understanding of Trump’s conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, he inadvertently undermined it.

And also:

Michael Flynn's Identity Was Not Improperly Revealed By Obama Officials, Secret DOJ Report Finds

In May 2020, Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr, ordered an investigation into the practice of unmasking. That review, conducted by John Bash — at the time the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas — was finished the following September without finding any evidence of wrongdoing.

...

“My review has uncovered no evidence that senior Executive Branch officials sought the disclosure of” the identities of US individuals “in disseminated intelligence reports for political purposes or other inappropriate reasons during the 2016 presidential-election period or the ensuing presidential-transition period,” Bash’s report said.