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 it’s physically impossible. There are an immeasurable number of things that are physically possible but that I haven’t done.

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

You said it was an empirical fact that we do so, nothing about it being possible or impossible. I’ve quoted it in full numerous times. I’ve corrected your strawman. Despite this you remain unpersuaded. That’s just more evidence to me.

But now it is in the realm of possibility; words both can and cannot persuade, incite, provoke. Before it was an empirical fact that they do, yet we no mention that it is an empirical fact that we don’t. And now it has to do psychology, a property of the listener, not a property of words and symbols. It’s a complete breakdown of the superstition at this point.

Thanks for the info.

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

Aren’t words an effect of the understanding? One must understand the language in order to know what the symbols mean, for example. If understanding was an effect of the symbols, one could know what a language means just by hearing it.

1. Words can't persuade
2. Words can persuade, but never do
3. Words can persuade, and sometimes do
4. Words can persuade, and always do

Throughout this discussion you have been arguing for (1) and I have been arguing for (3).

Me not having persuaded you is not evidence against (3), and so does not falsify (3). Your suggestion that it does is a non sequitur. It would be evidence against (4), and so would falsify (4), but I have never made that claim. Either way, it isn't evidence for (1).

The emprical evidence supports (3). The laymen and the psychologists and the neuroscientists who talk about persuasion are not engaging in superstition or magical thinking. It is nothing like ghosts or goblins or gods.

Speech causes the ear to release neurotransmitters to the brain, causing certain neurons to behave in certain ways — and assuming eliminative materialism, "understanding" and "being persuaded" and "deciding to do something" are all reducible to certain neurons behaving in certain ways.

The fact that the human body "uses its own energies" does not refute this, and is, again, a non sequitur. The Apple device "uses its own energies" but it is still caused to do so by my touch and my words. If anything in the human body avoids the physics of causal determinism then it's not because it "uses its own energies" (or because it's organic matter) but because interactionist dualism is correct.

And so we circle back to the (almost) start of this discussion two months ago:

So either speech can influence behaviour or eliminative materialism is false. Pick your poison. — Michael

Chiming in on the topic, using a point of departure from a different thread...

The question boggles me, too. Thoughts and verbal or written expressions are perhaps the least consequential and harmless actions a person can make in his life time. So it is a conundrum why people get so worked up about beliefs and words and often respond with some very consequential and harmful actions, like censorship, ostracization, or even violence.

Can such an inconsequential act, like the imperceptible movements of the brain and making articulated sounds from the mouth, be evil? I don’t think so. I believe the reactions to acts of speech, though, undoubtedly are, and represent some sort of superstition of language, though I no argument for it yet. — NOS4A2

Sorry, I forgot about this reply.

For my part, I am not convinced that speech is an inconsequential act. This is why free speech always becomes a difficult issue. If speech were inconsequential then no one would worry about free speech and we would need no civil right to free speech.

To give a very blasé example, suppose the captain orders his troops to kill the women and children. That is a consequential speech act, albeit a command. Its causal power is manifest. Other acts of speech, such as persuasive speech, can also be consequential. If someone traveled back in time to kill Hitler, they may very well aim to off him before he starts giving his big speeches, given what a powerful orator he was. — Leontiskos

Further, we could also try to avoid all doctrines of causality and just think about counterfactual reasoning, namely by holding that an event is impactful if it has a counterfactual effect.

For example, was Hitler's speech impactful? On the counterfactual approach we look at what would have happened had Hitler been born mute, unable to speak (and presumably also unable to write). If this would have had an impact on the historical events, then apparently Hitler's speech played a role in shaping events, regardless of any particular causal doctrine.

I think that if we accept the counterfactual approach to assessing impact, then speech must have an impact.

Given your claim to some empirical fact it should be easy to devise some empirical test of it or some demonstration that anyone can observe. If words can persuade or otherwise move someone to some other behavior, then it should be easy to get me to agree. Yet I am not persuaded, and you have abjectly refused to persuade, incite, or provoke me into some behavior, as you have claimed to be able to do. No demonstration of your empirical fact is forthcoming.

So now that you’ve added your weasel words you have admitted the corollary that words sometimes cannot persuade someone. In those instances, where have the causal powers of your words disappeared to?

an event is impactful if it has a counterfactual effect — Leontiskos

This is how the concept is used in law. It's a bit more complicated than this, but essentially its the "if but for..." rule.

If but for y then the crime, x, would not have happened. Therefore, y is, in some sense, culpable. Whether this means reducing the actor's culpability, or introducing a third party to either share of just diminish the culpability, it's a well-understood concept.

And thanks - i didn't even think to bring that up. Seems far too... childish... to be putting to an assumed adult.

So now that you’ve added your weasel words you have admitted the corollary that words sometimes cannot persuade someone. In those instances, where have the causal powers of your words disappeared to? — NOS4A2

Oh my God. It may be that your determination to ignore the fact of persuasion is due to your inability to read?

The emprical evidence supports (3). The laymen and the psychologists and the neuroscientists who talk about persuasion are not engaging in superstition or magical thinking. It is nothing like ghosts or goblins or gods. — Michael

Guess what (3) is??

3. Words can persuade, and sometimes do — Michael

This has been proved, empirically, time and time and time and time again. In this thread, through examples, and in your own life (obviously. Otherwise you'd not be replying here). Your refusal is just your stupidity being writ large. There are no versions of this than can be boiled down to an argument. You are ignorant. Plain and simple.

, one must hear/read the words from someone before one can (mis)understand them, yes?

This is how the concept is used in law. It's a bit more complicated than this, but essentially its the "if but for..." rule. — AmadeusD

Yes, exactly. :up:

I was thinking about the way that the legal context tries to avoid over-committing to metaphysical or causal doctrines by using "but-for" reasoning.

This has been proved, empirically, time and time and time and time again. In this thread, through examples, and in your own life (obviously. Otherwise you'd not be replying here). Your refusal is just your stupidity being writ large. There are no versions of this than can be boiled down to an argument. You are ignorant. Plain and simple.

I’ve given you countless opportunities to demonstrate your powers and move me with your words and you haven’t been able to. There is really no excuse except that you’re projecting your mindlessness onto others.

Given your claim to some empirical fact it should be easy to devise some empirical test of it or some demonstration that anyone can observe. — NOS4A2

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

Yet I am not persuaded, and you have abjectly refused to persuade, incite, or provoke me into some behavior, as you have claimed to be able to do. No demonstration of your empirical fact is forthcoming. — NOS4A2

Each of my posts has provoked you to respond. See the counterfactual theory of causation, coupled with the fact that eliminative materialism is true and that causal determinism applies to all physical objects and processes (whether organic or not, and whether "using its own energies" or not).

In those instances, where have the causal powers of your words disappeared to? — NOS4A2

They haven't disappeared. They caused your eyes to release neurotransmitters to your brain, causing certain neurons to behave in certain ways. It just happens to be that this neural behaviour is not the neural behaviour referred to by the phrase "understanding the words and being persuaded" but instead by the phrase "understanding the words and being stubborn".

If words can persuade or otherwise move someone to some other behavior, then it should be easy to get me to agree. — NOS4A2

This is another non sequitur. That words can persuade isn't that there's some specific sequence of words that can unavoidably cause any listener or reader to be persuaded. The human brain is far too complex for that.

You might not be persuaded by my words but it is an undeniable fact that many people throughout human history have been persuaded by others' words. Your persistent refusal to accept this is just willful ignorance.

This whole thread for many pages has been many people trying to get a lightbulb to go off in NOS’s head.

If any such light did ever shine, NOS would say it was caused by his own head, thus refuting the fact that the lightbulb ever actually went off or discoloring the light. He’s got the perfect position to remain in his lonely world where another person’s words can have no impact.

How does he think censorship works? Is it accomplished by a muzzle? Or do words and court writings cause people to shut up? It makes no sense for him to care at all about censorship laws. End of discussion. We can’t penetrate the thick skull of NOS.

The sheer volume of people who disagree with him, from all sides of many other arguments doesn’t in itself give him pause. He’s waiting for someone’s words to smack him in the face. And pleased with himself that words don’t work that way. But not aware for some reason that words don’t work at all if they can’t cause physical effects.

At this stage, all you have done is denied reality. No one (and this clear from your responses) takes your points seriously - we have all provided proof positive of the opposite of your position.

If I stand infront of a fire and tell you it's not hot, what do you do? laugh? Probably.

Luckily for me you're responding to my posts. Which is proof in itself.

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

Yes, it’s obvious various brain regions light up when we read and come to agree with something.

How about you persuade me that the universe revolves around the earth? Should be a simple matter of arranging the symbols in various combinations and putting letters and numbers in your arguments.

Each of my posts has provoked you to respond. See the counterfactual theory of causation, coupled with the fact that eliminative materialism is true and that causal determinism applies to all physical objects and processes (whether organic or not, and whether "using its own energies" or not).

I’ve outright ignored countless people, even you. Did they provoke me not to respond, then? Did they cause me to ignore them?

This is another non sequitur. That words can persuade isn't that there's some specific sequence of words that can unavoidably cause any listener or reader to be persuaded. The human brain is far too complex for that.

You might not be persuaded by my words but it is an undeniable fact that many people throughout human history have been persuaded by others' words. Your persistent refusal to accept this is just willful ignorance.

People have said they were persuaded by another’s words. I don’t doubt that at all. That sort language has been in the western lexicon for thousands of years. The sophists of Ancient Greece actually treated words as if they were drugs, and the sophists of today carry on that superstitious tradition.

But none of that means the words moved or animated the brain, which is impossible, and for the reasons I’ve already stated. The words don’t make the eyes move over them. The words don’t force you to understand them. The words don’t cause you to agree just as they don’t cause you to disagree. They physically cannot move the brain in that way. Symbols do not nor cannot gain causal powers when they become words. It’s impossible and absolutely nothing has shown that it is possible.

Trying the logic again...

How about you persuade me that the universe revolves around the earth? — NOS4A2

Suppose that @Michael persuaded you thereof, then what would that show?
That words can persuade, sometimes they do, not that they always do.

Suppose that @Michael didn't persuade you thereof, then what would that show?
That words sometimes don't persuade, they don't always, not that they never do.

Are you looking for any of those implications perchance...?
It seems like you instead demand proof that there are words that will persuade you of whatever.

By the way, what'd you make of my comment yesterday (if anything)?

If any one of the people claiming to have the power to animate human beings with words animated me with words, it might show that they possess the powers they claim to possess. But a simple demonstration of the one requested is not forthcoming. So it raises the question, why can’t any of those who claim to be able to animate others with words animate their interlocutors with words?

one must hear/read the words from someone before one can (mis)understand them, yes?

Yes

Yes, it’s obvious various brain regions light up when we read and come to agree with something — NOS4A2

What do you think it means to be persuaded if not the appropriate areas of the brain being active in response to hearing or reading some words?

I’ve outright ignored countless people, even you. Did they provoke me not to respond, then? — NOS4A2

The counterfactual theory of causation says that A causes B if B would not have happened had A not happened. So their comments would have caused you to not respond to them if you would have not not responded to them (i.e would have responded to them) had they not been posted, which isn’t possible.

So no, the comments that you didn’t respond to didn’t cause you to not respond to them, but the comments that you did respond to did cause you to respond to them.

But none of that means the words moved or animated the brain, which is impossible, and for the reasons I’ve already stated. The words don’t make the eyes move over them. The words don’t force you to understand them. The words don’t cause you to agree just as they don’t cause you to disagree. They physically cannot move the brain in that way. Symbols do not nor cannot gain causal powers when they become words. It’s impossible and absolutely nothing has shown that it is possible. — NOS4A2

Your reasoning is:

a) A causes B only if B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy
b) the brain's behaviour is not the immediate effect of the kinetic energy of speech or writing
c) therefore, the brain's behaviour is not caused by speech or writing

When you say “[words] physically cannot move the brain” you mean it in the sense of (b), which is irrelevant given that (a) is false. This is the mistake you keep repeating ad nauseum.

Smoking can cause cancer, droughts can cause famines, I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and I can turn on the lights by flicking a switch, pulling a chord, pushing a button, clapping my hands, or saying “Siri, turn on the lights”. These common sense examples are not metaphors or analogies or superstitions or magical thinkings, but are literal and prove that (a) is false. There is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy.

The impasse is that you insist on saying that all of these examples are false because (a) is true. You commit to the absurd implications of (a), which is evidently unreasonable.

Luckily for me you're responding to my posts. Which is proof in itself. — AmadeusD

I’ve outright ignored countless people, even you. Did they provoke me not to respond, then?
— NOS4A2 — Michael

Yes they did.

Directly in response to Amadeus’ post, in an effort to persuade us all with his words (ironically and contradictorily to his position), NOS has not responded to Amadeus.

It was a nice try. But the impact of Amadeus’ words is too apparent by NOS’ inaction.

What do you think it means to be persuaded if not the appropriate areas of the brain being active in response to hearing or reading some words?

I believe it means we come to agree with an argument by assessing it with our own reasoning and judgement.

The counterfactual theory of causation says that A causes B if B would not have happened had A not happened. So their comments would have caused you to not respond to them if you would have not not responded to them (i.e would have responded to them) had they not been posted, which isn’t possible.

So no, the comments that you didn’t respond to didn’t cause you to not respond to them, but the comments that you did respond to did cause you to respond to them.

Great, a new theory of causation.

I can give you the answer. What caused me to both respond or not respond to these comments was me in both cases. I read, ignored, dismissed as stupid, or took seriously each argument and at my own discretion. The influence of this activity was my own interest and desires. The force behind the reading, response, and each keystroke was my own. The comments themselves had no causal power, for the simple reason that they do not possess the kind of energy to impel such actions.

Your reasoning is:

a) A causes B only if B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy
b) the brain's behaviour is not the immediate effect of the kinetic energy of speech or writing
c) therefore, the brain's behaviour is not caused by speech or writing

When you say “[words] physically cannot move the brain” you mean it in the sense of (b), which is irrelevant given that (a) is false. This is the mistake you keep repeating ad nauseum.

Smoking can cause cancer, droughts can cause famines, I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and I can turn on the lights by flicking a switch, pulling a chord, pushing a button, clapping my hands, or saying “Siri, turn on the lights”. These common sense examples are not metaphors or analogies or superstitions or magical thinkings, but are literal and prove that (a) is false. There is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy.

The impasse is that you insist on saying that all of these examples are false because (a) is true. You commit to the absurd implications of (a), which is evidently unreasonable.

Then you should be able to cause my brain state and any subsequent activity with your words, as if you were turning on a light. Let’s see it.

I believe it means we come to agree with an argument by assessing it with our own reasoning and judgement. — NOS4A2

And you think that this is mutually exclusive with "his argument persuaded me"?

Great, a new theory of causation. — NOS4A2

It's not new. I first mentioned it a month ago.

What caused me to both respond or not respond to these comments was me in both cases. I read, ignored, dismissed as stupid, or took seriously each argument and at my own discretion. The influence of this activity was my own interest and desires. The force behind the reading, response, and each keystroke was my own. — NOS4A2

And you think that this is mutually exclusive with the comments causing you to respond?

The comments themselves had no causal power, for the simple reason that they do not possess the kind of energy to impel such actions. — NOS4A2

You keep repeating the same non sequitur ad nauseum. There is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. Smoking can cause cancer, droughts can cause famines, I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and I can turn on the lights by flicking a switch, pulling a chord, pushing a button, clapping my hands, or saying “Siri, turn on the lights”.

Then you should be able to cause my brain state and any subsequent activity with your words, as if you were turning on a light. Let’s see it. — NOS4A2

You being able to read and understand them is proof that they causally affect your sense organs and brain, and you responding to them is a causal consequence of that, as per both the counterfactual theory of causation and causal determinism (given that eliminative materialism is true).

It's not new. I first mentioned it a month ago.

The problems with counterfactual reasoning are not new either.

You keep repeating the same non sequitur ad nauseum. There is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. Smoking can cause cancer, droughts can cause famines, I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and I can turn on the lights by flicking a switch, pulling a chord, pushing a button, clapping my hands, or saying “Siri, turn on the lights”.

You don’t believe the transfer of energy has any effect? So the transfer of momentum from one billiard ball to another doesn’t cause it to move? So the transfer of heat to water doesn’t cause it to boil?

You don’t seem so sure either with your steady application of weasel words. Not all smokers get cancer. Not all droughts cause famines. People can fall off cliffs and live.

You being able to read and understand them is proof that they causally affect your sense organs and brain, and you responding to them is a causal consequence of that, as per both the counterfactual theory of causation and causal determinism (given that eliminative materialism is true).

Words do not cause reading and understanding. In every case it is me moving my eyes, focussing on the words, reading them, and so on down the line.

You don’t believe the transfer of energy has any effect? So the transfer of momentum from one billiard ball to another doesn’t cause it to move? So the transfer of heat to water doesn’t cause it to boil? — NOS4A2

I didn't say that. I said that there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. All of your examples are examples of causation, but so too are all of mine.

Not all smokers get cancer. Not all droughts cause famines. People can fall off cliffs and live. — NOS4A2

I have never claimed otherwise. That A can cause B isn't that A always causes B (and so that some particular A didn't cause B isn't that A can't cause B).

Smoking can cause cancer, droughts can cause famines, I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and I can turn on the lights by flicking a switch, pulling a chord, pushing a button, clapping my hands, or saying “Siri, turn on the lights”. None of this is superstition or magical thinking. And neither is being persuaded by another's argument.

In every case it is me moving my eyes, focussing on the words, reading them, and so on down the line. — NOS4A2

And you think that this is mutually exclusive with the words causally affecting your body and brain?

The physical existence of the printed words physically cause light to reflect the way it does, physically causing your eyes to release the neurotransmitters they do, physically causing the neurons in your brain to behave the way they do ("understanding").

I didn't say that. I said that there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. All of your examples are examples of causation, but so too are all of mine.

You believe turning on the stove causes the water to boil. I believe the transfer of heat causes the water to boil. The problem is there isn’t always a pot of water on the stove. Siri doesn’t always understand. The bulb needs to be changed. There is a body of water below the cliff. It’s such a flimsy account of causation.

Smoking can cause cancer, droughts can cause famines, I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and I can turn on the lights by flicking a switch, pulling a chord, pushing a button, clapping my hands, or saying “Siri, turn on the lights”. None of this is superstition or magical thinking. And neither is being persuaded by another's argument.

It is superstition to believe words have causal powers above and beyond the immediate effects of their physical structure. It is superstition to believe in telekinesis. We know this because you transfer no more measurable physical energy to a listener using persuasive or provocative language than you would if you were speaking gibberish or writing nonsense. We know this because writing begets varying responses, as is apparent in your own writing. Same words, varying responses. The only thing that could account for that variability is the listener. The responses are not a result of the words, but of the person reading them. No Rube Goldberg devices, no post hoc fallacy, no false analogies, nor weasel words required.

And you think that this is mutually exclusive with the words causally affecting your body and brain? The physical existence of the printed words are what physically cause light to reflect the way it does, which is what physically causes your eyes to release the neurotransmitters they do, which is what physically causes the neurons in the brain to behave the way they do ("understanding").

Your words cannot move my eyes. Your words do not transduce light into electrochemical energy. Your words do not send neurotransmitters. The words have not forced me to understand them. All of that activity is the result of and caused by my body, as is the response.

I can write a sentence in a different language and the words will never cause you to understand them. You’d have to first go out of your way learn what the words mean, whether through association or immersion. Understanding needs to be there before your cause, not after. That is why it cannot be an effect unless you believe in backwards causation.

You believe turning on the stove causes the water to boil. I believe the transfer of heat causes the water to boil. — NOS4A2

And you think that these are mutually exclusive?

The problem is there isn’t always a pot of water on the stove. Siri doesn’t always understand. The bulb needs to be changed. There is a body of water below the cliff. — NOS4A2

So? It's still the case that I can boil the water by turning on the stove, turn on the lights by flicking a switch or saying "Siri, turn on the lights", and kill someone by pushing them off a cliff.

It is superstition to believe words have causal powers above and beyond the immediate effects of their physical structure. — NOS4A2

No it isn't, because there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy.

It is superstition to believe in telekinesis. — NOS4A2

Being persuaded by another's argument doesn't require telekinesis. Turning on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" doesn't require telekinesis. This is an absurd strawman.

We know this because writing begets varying responses, as is apparent in your own writing. Same words, varying responses. The only thing that could account for that variability is the listener. — NOS4A2

Yes, and different computers can have different responses to the same input, but it's still the case that the input causes the output.

Your words do not transduce light into electrochemical energy. Your words do not send neurotransmitters. — NOS4A2

My words cause your eyes (or your ears if I'm speaking) to transduce energy and emit neurotransmitters. You are misrepresenting my claim.

I can write a sentence in a different language and the words will never cause you to understand them. You’d have to first go out of your way learn what the words mean, whether through association or immersion. Understanding needs to be there before your cause, not after. That is why it cannot be an effect unless you believe in backwards causation. — NOS4A2

You're conflating active and passive understanding (compare with knowing how to play tennnis and actually playing tennis).

Given that you already (passively) understand English, and assuming that you don't already understand Serbian, the words "it is raining" cause the neurons in your brain to behave in a way that the words "пада киша" don't. I describe this kind of neural activity as "understanding my words". This neural activity did not occur apropos of nothing and was not caused by some uncaused cause within the human body (e.g. a non-physical mind). So as per both the counterfactual theory of causation and causal determinism, the existence of these words caused this neural activity (described as "understanding my words") to occur.

No it isn't, because there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy.

Then what is this “more”? Counterfactual dependence? After this therefore because of this?

Yes, and different computers can have different responses to the same input, but it's still the case that the input causes the output.

Unlike computers, humans control the inputs. Humans can pick up books, open them, read them, generally without assistance. Humans control the focus and movement of their eyes as they scan words, for instance. All of this visible, measurable behavior in a single act of reading and it cannot be said the words have caused any of it.

No one will give us a demonstration of their powers so we’re unable to really confirm the veracity of their claims with the simplest of experiments. So in order to discover what behavior you claim to have caused with your words I’m relegated to examining flickers of “brain activity”, and other invisible movements. You won’t mention how much of that activity is the direct result of the physical structures that have formed over years of growth and development, I just need to know that this or that flicker is an indirect effect of those symbols out there on the screen because a counterfactual chain of causation makes it so. Therefor you caused my behavior. I just can’t swallow it.

You seem to be confused about what I have been arguing, so I'll spell it out more clearly:

There are three independent arguments:

Argument 1
There is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. This is proven by the facts that smoking can cause cancer, droughts can cause famines, I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and I can turn on the lights by flicking a switch, pulling a chord, pushing a button, clapping my hands, or saying “Siri, turn on the lights”. With respect to speech and biological (whether animal or human) listeners, spoken words cause a listener's ears to transduce energy and emit neurotransmitters, in turn causing the activation of certain neurons.

Argument 2
If eliminative materialism is true then agent-causal libertarian free will is false, as agent-causal libertarian free will requires a non-physical mind capable of acting as an uncaused cause of (some) bodily behaviour. All physical phenomena (which is all phenomena), including the behaviour of machines, plants, animals, and humans, is causally explained by antecedent physical phenomena in an unbroken chain (some of which may involve stochastic rather than certain outcomes, e.g. if quantum indeterminancy is not explained by hidden variables). This then entails either that we do not have free will or that free will is compatible with causal determinism.

Argument 3
It is possible to be persuaded by another's words, and this does in fact sometimes happen. This is possible even if interactionist dualism is true and we have agent-causal libertarian free will.

---

Note specifically that Argument 1 only talks about bodily behaviour that almost all of us can accept is involuntary bodily behaviour (e.g. the chochlea's response to being stimulated by sound and the brain's response to receiving neurotransmitters).

So-called voluntary bodily behaviour is instead addressed by Argument 2.

And here are my arguments and objections.

There is more to causation, but you cannot quantify what that “more” is. That’s a problem to me. So I’ll stick with the quantifiable and measurable causation, whereby one object imparts a measurable physical property like energy or momentum onto another.

Whether voluntary or involuntary, the ear has the structure, spends the energy, and does all the work of hearing. It guides the sound wave, amplifies it, converts it, and so on. The wave itself does none of this. Therefore the human is the cause of hearing, not the soundwave.

Words and other sounds may appear in your chains of counterfactual causation but they cannot be shown to cause hearing or reading, and I’m not going to concede that. Further, words cannot be shown to possess any provocative, persuasive, or inciting properties. We could stare at words for days, record them, and we will never see them perform the acts of persuading, provoking, or inciting. Therefor they are not provocative, persuasive, or inciting. I cannot be persuaded to believe otherwise, incited to believe otherwise, provoked to believe otherwise.

If they cannot cause hearing or reading or understanding, can neither provoke, incite, nor persuade anyone into those actions, they cannot indirectly cause any following actions or emotions such as agreement, violence, hate, all of which depend on the temperance, hardiness, development, growth, psychology, history—the biology— of the listener or reader.

There is more to causation, but you cannot quantify what that “more” is. That’s a problem to me. So I’ll stick with the quantifiable and measurable causation, whereby one object imparts a measurable physical property like energy or momentum onto another. — NOS4A2

That’s the impasse. I say that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and so therefore there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. You say that there is nothing more to causation than the immediate transfer of kinetic energy, and so therefore I can't kill someone by pushing them off a cliff.

You embrace what I consider to be a reductio ad absurdum.

Whether voluntary or involuntary, the ear has the structure, spends the energy, and does all the work of hearing. It guides the sound wave, amplifies it, converts it, and so on. — NOS4A2

All of which is compatible with causal determinism.

Therefore the human is the cause of hearing, not the soundwave. — NOS4A2

These are not mutually exclusive.

By analogy, both me typing on the keyboard and the computer are causally responsible for the words appearing on the screen as I type.

Further, words cannot be shown to possess any provocative, persuasive, or inciting properties. We could stare at words for days, record them, and we will never see them perform the acts of persuading, provoking, or inciting. Therefor they are not provocative, persuasive, or inciting. — NOS4A2

This is another non sequitur. Being persuasive is not some isolated physical property that strings of symbols have, just as being toxic is not some isolated physical property that atoms with 33 protons have. You've constructed a strawman of what it means for an argument to be persuasive.

Someone is persuaded by an argument if they read it, consider it, and change their mind. This occurs even if causal determinism is false. There are countless examples of this happening, and we've even measured the neurological changes that occur when it does.

Hence the impasse. I say that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, and so therefore there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy. You say that there is nothing more to causation than the immediate transfer of kinetic energy, and so therefore I can't kill someone by pushing them off a cliff.

You embrace what I would consider a reductio ad absurdum.

I think you embrace the reductio ad absurdum. The push killed him, with nothing to say regarding the impact with the ground. For me and medical doctors the cause of death would be the injuries produced by the impact, something like spinal injuries and head trauma. For you, it’s the push.

And you think that this is mutually exclusive?

I do.

None of which is a problem for causal determinism. Do you actually understand what causal determinism is, and how it differs from something like agent-causal libertarian free will? Some object "spending the energy and doing the work" does not prove that it has agent-causal libertarian free will, else plants and computers have agent-causal libertarian free will, and no reasonable person believes this.

True, but I’m not just speaking of any object. I’ve long specified my application of agent-causal free will strictly to biological organisms. There are plenty reasonable people who can differentiate between machines and biological organisms. But for some reason you can’t, or refuse to.

Unlike biological organisms, machines are not autonomous. They’re heteronomous. They cannot self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, nor maintain themselves. I think you intuitively know this. That’s why I think you wish to use analogies involving machines and other devices designed, programmed, and engineered to be causally determined by forces outside themselves, so as to confuse the reader.

This is another non sequitur. Being persuasive is not a physical property that strings of symbols have in isolation, just as being poisonous is not a physical property that atoms with 33 protons (arsenic) have in isolation, and so you're obviously not going to see such things if you simply stare at them (under a microscope if needed); rather, someone's argument is persuasive if someone hears it and changes their mind. That's just what it means for an argument to be persuasive, and there are countless examples of it throughout human history — and we've even measured the neurological changes that occur when this happens.

You've constructed a strawman of what it means for an argument to be persuasive.

You might not have been persuaded by another's argument, but I have. I'm not superstituous and I don't believe in gods or ghosts or gremlins; I simply understand the normal, everyday meaning of English words and have a little understanding of human psychology.

Right, there is no physical or magical property in the words that changed your mind. In other words, there is no detectable property or force in those symbols that you can point to that caused any physical changes in your body. Yet you implore me to believe they changed your mind. If not through the physical properties in symbols or biology, how can words change, alter, or do anything to your mind? What has changed and how have they been changed?

I do. — NOS4A2

Well, they're not mutually exclusive. By analogy, both me typing on the keyboard and the computer are causally responsible for the words appearing on the screen as I type them. It isn't just coincidence or correlation.

I think you embrace the reductio ad absurdum. The push killed him, with nothing to say regarding the impact with the ground. For me and medical doctors the cause of death would be the injuries produced by the impact, something like spinal injuries and head trauma. For you, it’s the push. — NOS4A2

As above, this isn't mutually exclusive. It is both the case that head trauma is the cause of death and the case that I killed him by pushing him off the cliff.

Are you honestly going to argue that to be justly convicted and imprisoned for murder one must have either strangled someone or beaten them to death with one's bare hands, and that for everything else "I didn't do it" is true?

Unlike biological organisms, machines are not autonomous. They’re heteronomous. They cannot self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, nor maintain themselves. I think you intuitively know this. That’s why I think you wish to use analogies involving machines and other devices designed, programmed, and engineered to be causally determined by forces outside themselves, so as to confuse the reader. — NOS4A2

This is equivocation. If by "autonomous" you mean "has agent-causal libertarian free will" then in saying that biological organisms are autonomous you are begging the question. If by "autonomous" you don't mean "has agent-causal libertarian free will" then your reasoning is a non sequitur; you are missing a step that gets you from "is autonomous" to "has agent-causal libertarian free will".

As for "autonomous machines" that "self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, and maintain themselves", what of von Neumann probes? Would such things have agent-causal libertarian free will?

I honestly don't think you actually understand much about physics or determinism. As I referenced in an earlier comment – that you ignored – agent-causal libertarian free will requires a non-physical substance capable of acting as an uncaused cause. It certainly isn't proven true by the mere existence of plants.

There are plenty reasonable people who can differentiate between machines and biological organisms. But for some reason you can’t, or refuse to. — NOS4A2

I can differentiate them. I use machines in my analogies to show that your reasoning is invalid. If “X uses its own energy and does the work, therefore its behaviour is not causally influenced by stimuli” is a non sequitur when X is a machine then it’s a non sequitur when X is a biological organism.

Your retort that “biological organisms aren’t machines” is special pleading.

Right, there is no physical or magical property in the words that changed your mind. In other words, there is no detectable property or force in those symbols that you can point to that caused any physical changes in your body. Yet you implore me to believe they changed your mind. If not through the physical properties in symbols or biology, how can words change, alter, or do anything to your mind? What has changed and how have they been changed? — NOS4A2

I've been over this so many times. Speech causes the ears to release neurotransmitters to the brain causing certain neurons to behave in certain ways. Given eliminative materialism, certain neurons behaving in certain ways just is what it means for someone's mind to have been changed.