“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.”

Quoted in full. It’s fine to admit that you were wrong, therefore your widening of the goalposts and your inclusion of other weasel words.

"You haven't done X to me, therefore X is impossible" is a non sequitur. This is such basic reasoning.

I never said that, though. What does your basic reasoning tell you about misrepresented arguments?



A complete lie.

I do know what a non-sequitur is but you have been unable to explain why the evidence against a claim (that I am not moved by your words) does not falsify your claim that it is a fact “people are moved by words”. If your fact is unfalsifiable, it is pseudoscience. If it can be falsified by observation, what can falsify your claim other than the direct evidence that I am unmoved by your words?

So either you don’t have a mind of your own, and live according to your claim that you are moved by another’s words, or you have a mind of your own and you are moved according to your own reasoning. So which is it?

Language, laws, government, and other products of the imagination change with the rise and fall of custom and usage, but the biology from which they are derived has hardly evolved since anyone started speaking them into existence. So it’s a matter of what it is we’re looking at, the people or their artifacts. The shifting veil of the artificial and abstract gives the impression of progress, or to some, of decadence and decay; but beneath the thread-bare language under which human history attempts to disguise itself is the same superstitious and tribalistic mammal that was there since the beginning.

I also mean that ideals such as “peace” or “prosperity” are so empty that we wouldn’t even know it if they manifested. Unfortunately, that is one of philosophy’s problems: it is often an exercise in multiplying nouns or playing with synonyms. Abstractions are a necessary fixture of language and thought, but when they cannot be tethered to the world by way of concrete example, or are stuffed solid with equally floaty terms, it becomes impossible to know what we are speaking about, let alone to know how to reach them.

I suspect that one who claims he and others can be moved by words is in some way is tacitly admitting guilt, namely, that he isn’t able to think for himself. This is now the fifth time someone has said my statement is a non-sequitur without explaining why that is so.

Clearly they’re not. But who knows? Someone might come to agree.

I never thought any demonstration of your powers was forthcoming. They never are, despite the claims.

Given your powers, it should be easy to trick, persuade, incite, or provoke me into tricking, persuading, inciting, or provoking you into this admission.

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Trump ends sanctions against Syria. Hopefully they can utilize the moment for reconstruction and prosperity.

Make Syria great again!

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/world/video/make-syria-great-again-trump-billboards-ward-vrtc

The system that receives the kinetic energy is capable of dampening or amplifying the kinetic energy and redirecting it for its own purposes.

I’m.not so sure about that. But then again Michael can’t define cause. So I guess anything goes.

Yeah, you’re not convincing me, that’s for sure. Just another reason to show you can’t move anything above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of your symbols.

And you understand that Rwandan military and the M23 are two different entities and that DRC is fighting mainly the M23 and that the agreement was between Rwanda and the DRC?

And you understand that the UN Security Council and other western nations found that the Rwandan military were supporting M23, and actively participating with them in the DRC, despite their denials?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/4/rwanda-backing-m23-rebels-in-drc-un-experts
https://press.un.org/en/2025/sc16004.doc.htm

You did notice that Trump attacked Iran, didn't you?

You didn't comment much then, when the strikes were still happening. Noticed your silence.

Yeah he attacked their nuclear capabilities after diplomacy failed, then essentially ended the war between them and Israel. I noticed haven’t mentioned any of that.

I think my forecast was quite accurate, if it just went on for 12 days. And btw, even Trump talked about a 12-day war. Hence it's very telling that you are trying to deny any war happened. At least, I was very accurate week ago just what your reply would be. :grin:

Right, he was going to annex Greenland, Panama, start a war with the cartels, and strike Iran; a recession and the collapse of the FBI—and something about tacos. You’re on a winning streak. Very accurate!

So I turned on the lights but not really? Is "I turned on the lights" just a metaphor and not literally true?

I’m not sure what you’d call it, but it certainly doesn’t describe all the interactions involved.

Either something causes A to do B or A does B spontaneously and without cause. The latter is inconsistent with physics.

What does “cause” mean?

You’ve been equivocating between using “cause” as a verb and noun. So which is it? Is it a person, place, or thing, or is it what things do? If it isn’t spontaneous, maybe you can describe what else in the universe causes you to cause the lights to turn on.

And this is where it's important to not miss the trees for the forest. Yes, John turned his head towards the sound. But what caused the muscles in his neck to contract? What caused his brain to release neurotransmitters to the muscles in his neck? What caused his ears to release neurotransmitters to his brain? Transduction does not occur spontaneously and without cause; it is a causally determined response to external stimulation.

Hearing begins in the womb and we don’t live in a vacuum. So to me it’s a mistake to imply the ears are lying dormant until a soundwave comes along and causes it to start responding, presumably by doing transduction. Hearing is not a response to a single stimulus; it’s a continual, active process. Soundwaves are not discreet units of moving and unmoving medium. The ears are transducing the movements of the medium from the moment they are able to do so until the moment they are unable to do so. I just can’t fathom a stimulus causing a process or action that began long before the stimulus itself had existed.

As I have been trying to explain for several weeks now, this is an impoverished understanding of causation. If I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I caused their death – I didn't just cause them to fall off a cliff.

And your untenable reasoning is that the kinetic energy required to break someone's bones and crush their organs is greater than the kinetic energy imparted by my arm when I pushed them, and so therefore I didn't cause their death?

Clearly, them hitting the ground at a certain speed caused them to die. Or maybe it was a stone penetrating their brain, and he was dead before the body was fully crushed. Maybe he had swallowed poison earlier on and died mid flight. The problem is you’re pretty loose with the time interval between cause and effect, lengthening it or shortening it suit your argument. Then you actively avoid other contributing factors.

It's not just an analogy; it's also a standalone argument. I am saying that a) I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" and so therefore b) "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".

If (a) is true then (b) is true, and if (b) is true then your claim that (b) is "superstitious, magical thinking" is false.

But even as an analogy it's not false. Causal determinism applies to both organic and inorganic matter. The subsequent behaviour of both a cochlea and a microphone is a causally determined response to soundwaves. Even the typical interactionist dualist can accept this, restricting agent-causal libertarian free will to voluntary bodily behaviours (of which transduction is not an example).

If you can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols, then we could remove the diaphragm in the microphone and see what happens. But we both already know that that is all you can move with your voice, and so it follows that that is all you can do with words, the rest of the device designed, engineered, and built to complete the task for you.

It is a false analogy because such devices are designed and built to perform the specific tasks you wish to say you caused. My guess is by doing so you can dismiss the agency and autonomy of the organism and make a better case for your “causal influence”, which still appears to be magical thinking.

But even so, if causal determinism applies to both organic and inorganic, both devices and human beings, it should be no problem using stand alone arguments involving human beings rather than devices.

I have done something else; I turned on the lights. You accepted this before, so why the about turn?

Yes, in ordinary language you’ve turned on the lights. I accept everyday ordinary speech. But you haven’t ignited the filament. You haven’t sent a current from the panel to the fixture. You haven’t converted analog sounds to digital signals for the purposes of possessing.

Then what does it mean for some A to be the "genesis" of act B if not for A to be the uncaused cause of B?

By law of excluded middle, your “genesis” is either caused or uncaused. If it’s uncaused then it’s inconsistent with physics. If it’s caused then it’s consistent with causal determinism, and so consistent with compatibilism (although the term “genesis” an evident misnomer).

What’s the difference to you between a “caused” object and an “uncaused” object? Because what I am saying is object A does act B. Act B is not infinite, so it begins and ends. By observations we can watch object A begin his act B. This can be confirmed empirically and is consistent with physics. So what evidence can you provide that some other object C, caused or uncaused, starts and ends act B?

The structures, energy, and movements of the Apple device cause the release of electrical signals. But it's also the case that I cause the release of these electrical signals by saying "Siri, turn on the lights." These are not mutually exclusive.

But your soundwave doesn’t do anything beyond moving the diaphragm. Neither you nor your soundwave convert analogue sounds to digital. That’s what the device does. In other words, your words have caused none of that to happen.

I cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights." You accepted this before, so why the about turn?

It was a false analogy. I was hoping to just drop it altogether so that we could discuss words and human beings.

Another win in the Supreme Court, this time in regards to birthright citizenship and “nation-wide injunctions”.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna199742

This whole time the rinky-dink lower court judges were abusing their power and acting unconstitutionally, as anti-Trumpists are prone to do. But also Justice Jackson has appeared to pick up the No Kings rhetoric, revealing her own streak of radical anti-Trumpism, which may later prove disastrous for the country.

Yes, I was talking about the conflict between the DRC and Rwandan-backed rebels. Of course you’d pooh-pooh such efforts because your folk devil Trump is a part of it and, once again, your EU overlords are absent. Sure, it could all collapse, but the penalties are clear enough.

What war in the Middle East? You’re starting to sound like Khamenei. I know you were praying for a war in order to prove to yourself that your utterings were not just the fantasies of routine anti-Trumpism. But no war, one precision strike, and an extraordinary de-escalation brokered once again by the US, while the EU leaders and your failed international institutions did nothing. Trump play in Iran was nothing short of brilliant. Everyone is saying it. Sorry.

Another US brokered peace agreement, this time between the Democratic republic of Congo and Rwanda.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e0ggw7d43o.amp

None of this stuff will net him a peace prize, of course, because he doesn’t have the gift of hopey-changey rhetoric which the chattering class falls for.

I don't start it there. I'm only saying that I cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". If this is true, which it is, then "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" and so your argument fails.

All you’ve done is vibrated a diaphragm in the microphone. You’ve caused that movement, sure, but you haven’t moved or affected anything else.

So no, you haven’t affected nor moved any other phase of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy you’ve used to move the diaphragm in the microphone.

You also said that my arm's movement finds its "genesis" in me. What does it mean for some A to be the "genesis" of a causal chain if not for A to be an uncaused cause? If some B caused A then surely A isn't the "genesis" of a causal chain?

I agree that I cause my arm to move. I just also understand that causal determinism is true. These are not mutually exclusive. Hence why I am a free will compatibilist.

I’m not using causal chains, and I’m not sure why anyone would, especially in a thermodynamic system full of feedback-loops. I said the genesis of a behavior or act, not the genesis of a causal chain.

I don’t understand it because if something else causes you to cause your arm to move, you are not the source of your action, and therefore have no free will.

The soundwaves that cause the ear to release neurotransmitters to the brain (causing certain neurons to activate, causing certain muscles to contract, etc.) are inhuman.

The structures, energy, and movements of the ear cause the ear to release neurotransmitters. The structures, energy, and movements of the ear cause the ear to transduce sound. The structures, energy, and movements of the body cause all subsequent behaviors. Soundwaves do none of the above, nor could they.

I don't need to provide more. I only need to show that the causal power of speech extends beyond just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". This is a sufficient refutation of your accusation of "superstition" and "magical thinking".

You haven’t shown it. You’ve provided no evidence that speech possesses any “power” above and beyond the mechanical energy in the vibration. We know this because we have the devices, measurements, and formulas to prove it. We can measure the power of a soundwave, and never once have any of them measured energy or power over and above the mechanical energy inherent in the wave. The hydraulic and electrical energy required for hearing are properties of the body, provided by the body, generated by the body, caused by the body, not the soundwave. Only superstition and magical thinking will try to say otherwise.

I'm not arbitrarily beginning any chain. I'm saying that I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights." Nowhere have I said that I am the beginning of this causal chain.

Then why are you choosing yourself as the cause and not your mother, or the Big Bang, or Siri? Turning on the lights doesn’t take an infinite amount of time, so of course it has a beginning, and you keep putting yourself right there at the start of it as the thing that initiates it. It’s just interesting that you start it there all the while maintaining that you are not the source of your actions.

Which requires the existence of an uncaused cause within the human body which is incompatible with known physics.

No one said human bodies are uncaused causes. If causal reasoning is all you understand, I’m saying the body causes the arm to move, by which I mean you move your arm. Does that imply that bodies are uncaused causes? Of course not. And all of this can be shown empirically. If nothing else can be shown to move your arm, you are the “cause” of moving your arm, the source of your arm movement. This shouldn’t be controversial.

You will understand this if you don't ignore the trees for the forest. It's not enough to just say "the human causes his arm to move." You need to ask; what caused the muscles to contract? What caused the neurotransmitter to be delivered to the muscles? What caused these neurons to release a neurotransmitter? What caused these neurons to activate? Continue along this chain and you realize the reality that many of the body's behaviours are a causal response to stimulation and thus some stimulus.

.

None of the links you mention are inhuman, though. So the answer to all your questions of what causes which is still “the human”. The problem for me is you’ll list these numerous human things and actions which you call “causes” until you arbitrarily reach an external and inhuman force along your causal chain, and for some reason I need to include that in the process of arm moving or I’m ignoring the forest for the trees. If I were to add the sum total of causes you mention, human vs. inhuman, 4 out of 4 are human. And if we deny your oversimplification, your portrayal of human bodies as Rube Goldberg machines, and measure each ignored object and movement included in the entire process, we get an uncountable amount of causes and effects more than you’re willing to provide.

I cause many things. Your claim that A causes B only if A is uncaused is false, as is your claim that there are uncaused causes within the human body.

I never made such a claim. It is you who is arbitrarily beginning causal chains and events despite saying there is only one beginning. What I claimed was that you begin the process of your actions.

Symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols. I can use speech to cause the lights to turn on and I can use speech to cause your ears to send neurotransmitters to your brain. This is the reality of physics; not superstition or magical thinking. Your attempt at a defense of free speech fails.

Also, you treat human bodies and computer devices like Rube Goldberg machines or dominos. And you won’t account for any other intervening forces or objects in your events. That’s not how either work, I’m afraid.

There may be more, this time in Bahrain. Perhaps also UAE. The mullahs might not be done yet.

"Air raid sirens sounded in Bahrain, a Gulf State very close to Qatar, several resident have confirmed. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered Bahrain. The country’s interior ministry has asked citizens and residents to “remain calm and head to the nearest safe place,” according to a statement posted on X.'

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/23/world/iran-trump-israel-news

"Iran coordinated the attacks on the American air base in Qatar with Qatari officials and gave advanced notice that attacks were coming to minimize casualties, according to three Iranian officials familiar with the plans. The officials said Iran symbolically needed to strike back at the U.S. but at the same time carry out in a way that allowed all sides an exit ramp; they described it as a similar strategy to 2020 when Iran gave Iraq heads up before firing ballistic missiles an American base in Iraq following the assassination of its top general."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/23/world/iran-trump-israel-news/82bf4cc2-e1b6-52cf-be4f-18c58b88975c?smid=url-share

Looks like we were right. It was all just symbolic.

Iran strikes are apparently imminent, perhaps headed towards the US base in Qatar. I guess we’ll see what sorts of mettle and munitions Iran has left. Recall that when Solemeini got destroyed their bark was proven bigger than their bite, and they blew up a civilian plane.

The only beginning is the Big Bang because there are no uncaused events in physics. This is causal determinism:

And here we have it. The Big Bang begins the process of raising your arm and turning on the lights. So you’ve caused nothing, really.

So I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."

Therefore, I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."

Therefore, "symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols."

You can turn on the lights. You cannot move the components of the device, the energy within the system, or heat the filament in a bulb with your voice. In other words, you cannot affect or move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of your symbols.

Then what do you mean by "an agent's action originates within the agent" and "Your 'causal chains' begin within the agent”?

I mean simply that you begin the process of your actions, that your actions find their genesis in you and nowhere else.

For any given physical event A, either some physical event B caused A to happen, in which case A is not the beginning of a causal chain, or A is an uncaused event.

I’m still not sold on causal reasoning in general. When does physical event A begin and when does physical event B end? At what point in your temporal series does the cause occur?

As an example, consider the hair cells in the inner ear converting mechanical energy into electrical signals. This is not an uncaused event. It is not the beginning of a causal chain. It is a causally determined response to that mechanical energy. And this mechanical energy is not an uncaused event. It is not the beginning of a causal chain. It is a causally determined response to soundwaves interacting with the ear drum. And so on.

Humans have been hearing for the better part of their lives, even in the womb, and so the process of hearing begins as soon as the organism forms and begins to function in such a way. It doesn’t stop and then begin again in discrete temporal units and at the discretion of external sound waves. You’re speaking of chain reactions and treating organisms like Rube Golberg machines or dominos.

The agent controls the arm.

I am saying that x can have control over a even if x is not the "ultimate source" of a.

As an example, Siri has control over the lights even though its control over the lights is causally determined by other things (such as my commands and an energy supply).

So then what object or force begins the process of lifting your arm?

With Siri or by clapping my hands or by flicking a switch or by pulling a chord. There are many ways to turn on the lights.

But I can turn on the lights. So causal influence doesn't end at "mov[ing] diaphragms in microphones and flick[ing] switches" as you claim.

Yes, you can turn on lights, but it doesn’t mean you’re in there “causally influencing” the inner workings of a device.

If physicalism is true and if hidden-variable theory is true then determinism is true. There's no avoiding this. So if determinism is false then either physicalism is false or hidden-variable theory is false. Which is it? If the latter then that just means that some things are random.

I don’t know the answer. I know nothing of quantum mechanics and I’m not sure I’m a physicalist, so will reserve judgement.

So you want an uncaused cause occurring within the human body. This is incompatible with physics. Your position on free will requires a non-physical agent/non-physical agency yet you endorse eliminative materialism. You must relinquish one of these to avoid contradiction.

Uncaused cause? No. The agent is the source of all actions. I don’t need to relinquish anything because it can be demonstrated on empirical grounds. Try raising your arm and then tell me from where else in the universe it comes from.

I disagree with "x has control over a only if x is the ultimate source of a."

Then what besides the agent controls the agent’s arm?

In Canada the provincial and federal leaders are negotiating with each other about lowering the steep and stifling provincial trade barriers, fast-tracking projects that would otherwise take decades to get through the red tape, cutting spending, lowering taxes, diversifying trade relationship, and other goodies. Last month King Charles gave the throne speech to open parliament, the first time the true Canadian sovereign has done so in around 50 years.

All of it is a complete reversal from previous domestic policy of the last half century, and now we all know that every thing the Canadian governments have done over the past few decades were complete nonsense. My god, and all it took was a few Truth Social posts.

We now know from the royals being included in our politics once again that the rhetoric about Canadian sovereignty is also bullshit, with their satellite monarch reigning from a little island across the ocean.

And just last week the so-called G7 met here to absolutely zero fanfare, except when Trump arrived and then quickly left, of course. After all, there is a crisis going on in the Middle East and all these big Euro leaders from the post-war consensus, who remained signed on to the Iran Nuclear deal, were left doing photo-ops and drinking champagne in the Rockies.

Everything that’s going in the world is the direct and indirect result of the kind of leadership you hope and pray for, and an old playboy and reality-tv show host is out here exposing how effete and obsolete it all is.

Thanks Trump!