I would like you to admit that everything you’ve been writing is nonsense. How would I go about that? — NOS4A2

You would have to form a persuasive argument.

But words only work inside rational people. So, what gives you the impression I even speak English? I hope I haven’t caused confusion or misunderstanding to fire off in between your causally linked brain cells. Do you think I speak English? Have I caused you to reply back to me in English without you even knowing that makes no sense to me? What gives you that impression?

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 choose to leave you thinking that you have a free mind that is unable to affect others with words. Enjoy!

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

, something's off here. By offering these wordy arguments, are you trying to show that words can't convince?

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

If you can, carefully, and as if i am five, explain why you asked this double-sided question, I might be able to answer you.

Currently, this doesn't make any sense as a response to noting your non sequitur (given you have no done anything to dissuade me from your plentiful non sequiturs, i am confident enough in that assessment anyway).

On a "totally unrelated" type of basis, both of those things are true.

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.

Perhaps you don't understand what a non sequitur is. That is a shame, because it is literally the crux of most of your responses. I actually did explain why, also. I can elaborate:

Your responses are not in line with the questions asked of you, or the points put forward. They are AOC type prevarications that do not relate, and do not follow, from what was said or asked. That is the nature of a non sequitur.

This is why I gave an opportunity for you to explain slowly, and like i'm five, why you asked the question, If the above is supposed to answer that question, it does not. It is some unrelated gripe you have with some unnamed person with an amorphous view you're not pinning down vis a vis the actual position being put forward. Non sequitur. Your complaint about your own bad wordings is not anyone elses problem. That's something to either reflect on, or in good faith understand and reject. Up to you.

The fact is people are moved by words. There is literally not an argument you can make against the demonstrable, historical and extant fact that this is so. Your rejections of reality are just not taken seriously, and perhaps that's hurtful. So be it. We do this with anyone who is purporting to claim something which is demonstrably false (the earth is flat, for instance).

Proof by assertion. — NOS4A2

Proof by a common sense example from everyday life. I can turn on the lights, whether that be by flicking a switch, pulling a chord, pushing a button, clapping my hands, or saying "Siri, turn on the lights".

An agent’s behavior is determined by the agent, which I’ve been saying all along. Agents are physical. — NOS4A2

This is compatibilism, not agent-causal libertarian free will. The latter requires interactionist dualism.

As you don't like Wikipedia, let's use SEP:

A number of incompatibilists have maintained that a free decision ... must be caused by the agent, and it must not be the case that ... the agent’s causing that event is causally determined by prior events.

...

An agent, it is said, is a persisting substance; causation by an agent is causation by such a substance. Since a substance is not the kind of thing that can itself be an effect ... on these accounts an agent is in a strict and literal sense ... an uncaused cause of [her free decisions].

The emphasized parts are false if agents are physical.

Your rejections of reality are just not taken seriously — AmadeusD

He even denies that we can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff. His understanding of causation is just so fundamentally absurd.

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?

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”. — NOS4A2

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

You're still simply not addressing any of hte points put to you. Once again,

Your rejections of reality are just not taken seriously, and perhaps that's hurtful. So be it. We do this with anyone who is purporting to claim something which is demonstrably false (the earth is flat, for instance). — AmadeusD

Apart from that, I did. Explicitly. You didn't provide what you're claiming. That is factual.

I will not continually repeat myself when it is clear to everyone but you. The situation is clear as day.

"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.

, does this stuff work?

1. a person can (often enough) understand words from another person
2. understanding another person's words is an effect
3. words can (often enough) have an effect

1. a person can misunderstand words from another person
2. misunderstanding another person's words is an effect
3. words can have an effect

This isn't even apt to be a 'lie'. Misunderstanding perhaps, but that's not happening either - evidenced by everyone but you being on the same page.

I never said that, though. — NOS4A2

I claimed that people can, and do, persuade one another. You claimed that because I have not persuaded you then my claim is falsified.

This is a non sequitur because "Michael has not persuaded NOS4A2" being true does not entail that "people can, and do, persuade one another" is false.

“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.

Yes, that was my claim. And you claimed that me not having convinced you falsifies my claim. This is a non sequitur.

Yes, that was my claim. And you claimed that me not having convinced you falsifies my claim. This is a non sequitur.

Then what would falsify your empirical fact if not the empirical fact that you’ve persuaded no one?

there's a big difference between not having convinced anyone at all, and not having convinced you in particular

Then what would falsify your empirical fact if not the empirical fact that you’ve persuaded no one? — NOS4A2

"Michael hasn’t persuaded anyone therefore persuasion is physically impossible" is a non sequitur.

That aside, I've persuaded many people in my life, and many others have persuaded many people, too.

Persuasion (Wikipedia)

Persuasion (Britannica)

The Neural Correlates of Persuasion: A Common Network across Cultures and Media

Persuasion is real, turning on the lights is real, and killing someone by pushing them off a cliff is real. That your reasoning entails that they’re not suffices as a refutation of your position. There is more to causal influence than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy, as these common sense examples from everyday life prove.

Then what would falsify your empirical fact that you persuade people with words? It’s a simple question.

Then what would falsify your empirical fact that you persuade people with words? It’s a simple question. — NOS4A2

"What would falsify your empriical fact that we swear with words" is also a simple question. I don't really know how to answer either.

All I can do is point out that we do persuade and swear with words, and that your argument that because I haven't persuaded "anyone" then my claim is falsified is a non sequitur.

If there is no way to test or observe your theory and contradict it with evidence, it’s pseudoscience, I’m afraid. But a question remains: if your words persuade, why aren’t they persuading?

If there is no way to test or observe your theory and contradict it with evidence, it’s pseudoscience, I’m afraid — NOS4A2

I didn't say it wasn't falsifiable. Try reading my words.

That we persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. isn’t pseudoscience. It's an emprical fact about psychology.

But a question remains: if your words persuade, why aren’t they persuading? — NOS4A2

We went over this a while ago. That words can, and do, persuade, isn't that they always persuade. You're just continuing with non sequiturs. It's tiresome. Your position throughout this discussion has been found absurd and now you're just floundering. I should have stopped when you refused to admit that we can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff.

I didn't say it wasn't falsifiable. Try reading my words.

That we persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. isn’t pseudoscience. It's an emprical fact about psychology.

But you refuse to say what would falsify it. Nor can you give us a demonstration of your powers.

We went over this a while ago. That words can, and do, persuade, isn't that they always persuade. You're just continuing with non sequiturs. It's tiresome. Your position throughout this discussion has been found absurd and now you're just floundering. I should have stopped when you refused to admit that we can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff.

It’s not a non-sequitur to note that the evidence against a claim contradicts a claim. It’s why you widened the goalposts and included more weasel words, so you can keep trying to wiggle out of it.

It’s not a non-sequitur to note that the evidence against a claim contradicts a claim. — NOS4A2

It’s not evidence against the claim. That’s why it’s a non sequitur. That I haven’t done something just isn’t evidence that that thing is physically impossible.

The evidence for the claim is all of human history and psychology.

But you refuse to say what would falsify it. — NOS4A2

... because what you ask is illogical.

verified an existential claim — there is persuasion etc by words — which you then requested to falsify.

In general, the logic is more or less... Existential claims are verifiable and not falsifiable. Universal claims are falsifiable and not verifiable. Persuasion by words exists — a verified existential claim. All swans are white — a falsified universal claim.

On another note, did my word-effect reasoning work?