It is physical. Spoken words are heard via physical vibrations. Written words are obviously written on something physical. BTW, are you intentionally leaving my post regarding emotional abuse unanswered?

So are all other sounds from the mouth. Unintelligible scribbles are also written on something physical. What I want to know is what makes speech and words more powerful. I explicitly stated this: "Speech possesses no actual, physical power, insofar it lacks the capacity to transfer more energy than any other sound from the mouth."

I did intentionally leave your post unanswered. That some people beg to differ with my view is not compelling enough to change my mind, and I could not follow the argument much further.

But if it is not physical in nature, how can this “power” have physical consequences? — NOS4A2

Consider this scenario: my wife leaves me, takes her things and goes to live somewhere else. I assume you would consider this a physical consequence of some previous action, for she removes her physical person and possessions from the premises and takes them physically elsewhere...obviously for some reason, and one you would insist must be physical in nature; as a stationary billiard ball, struck by another such moving one, acquires a velocity thereby and direction of movement that conform to the laws of physics. The previous action in this case is the striking of the stationary ball by the one moving...

...but in the case of my wife’s departure, what is the previous action? There are many possibilities. She may have decided to move in with her invalid parents, to take care of them. What is the causative action in this case? Doesn’t it lie in the change of the physical circumstances of her parents? Not that alone: it also lies in her piety. Both that change of circumstance, and the presence of piety in her soul must obtain for her to do what she does...

...she may have been ordered by a court of law to remove herself from the premises. What is the causal factor here? Is it the brute force of the cops who grab her by the arm and lead her out? Is it the force of the judge’s edict that moves the hands of the cops? Is it her unfitness as a mother that sways the mind of the judge, or is it rather her addiction to drugs that results in such unfitness?

Finally, she may have decided that she doesn’t want to be my wife anymore. What previous action caused this? Was it because I struck her (a very physical action)? Or because my words “I cheated on you” struck her ears? Did the striking of her ears by these words impel her physical departure, like one billiard ball striking another?

What I want to know is what makes speech and words more powerful. I explicitly stated this: "Speech possesses no actual, physical power, insofar it lacks the capacity to transfer more energy than any other sound from the mouth." — NOS4A2

If the data transferred from my computer to my SSD is no more energetic than random bits, how come I can store files with high fidelity?!? :O Your move, scientists!

Speech is information. Brains are information processors. How much energy the medium requires is largely irrelevant. It's what's encoded and how it's processed that is important. If you instruct your computer to download fake nudes of Trump, as I expect you have, the energy requirements of this aren't what makes your instruction work: it is how your instruction is encoded ("cute puppy videos" won't work) and what system you are instructing (trying to get your microwave to do it won't work).

The issue with Trump is that he was encoding information that, while meaningless nonsense to microwave people (systems not prone to storming government buildings because an idiot told them to), was easily parsed by internet people (violent paranoid morons who'd walk off a cliff if a particular idiot told them to). That was the "power" (not the physical variable Joules per second but rather "influence") of Trump's speech: he spoke moron extremely well.

It's not about silencing people who think differently, — Judaka

Frequently it is exactly that. Those of us that think in a more outlier fashion are frequently silenced because we question the foundation of "obvious", mainstream thoughts or values. Not because we are inherently bad people, but we are looking for a more robust answer than "because it's obvious."

I get banned all the time for asking these sorts of questions. Uncomfortable? it's ok, ban that guy!

I do not believe that we have control over our emotional reaction to words, and it should be clearly obvious that our particular emotional states are quite often strongly correlated with our actions. — Pinprick

We are emotionally affected by the words of those whose words we have allowed to emotionally affect us. Therefore, we have control over our emotional reaction to words, inasmuch as we empower those whose words can affect us emotionally.

Some random person tells me they are disappointed in me: no reaction at all. Hearing the same from my wife would have a far different effect. Equally true with positive feedback. Although I acknowledge that most people like positive feedback, regardless of the source, but that is usually just ego-stroking.

Even if I did believe in the computational theory of mind (I don't), we've avoided entirely how a subsection of sounds from the mouth or scribbles on paper possess more power than others. Now they have "influence", which according to the dictionary is "the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something". It's magical thinking all the way down.

"It's what's encoded and how it's processed that is important". If I try to translate this back to biological terms, I find only one type of object that encodes and processes speech: the human body. When I search around for a reason you might keep bringing up Trump, I see only one culprit.

The reason you can't get Trump out of your mouth is because you've developed through conditioning the requisite neural connections surrounding that man and his name. I could just as easily blame Trump for the state you find yourself in, but that's too superficial, and doesn't explain how others have come to vastly different conclusions under the same conditions. I cannot blame propaganda for an act of belief that you yourself commit, any more than I can blame it for my disbelief. The reason you orientate yourself around Trump in such a fashion is you, yourself, your body, achieved via the methods, principles and means of understanding that you've spent a lifetime developing. So it's almost a tragedy that the output rarely rises above mediocrity.

I rest on the sensible fact that, until she is struck by something like a billiard ball or kinetic energy, every move she makes begins and ends with her. So unless something forcers her to move against her will there could be only one cause to her actions. There are probably a vast array of external and environmental factors she may be considering, of course, but the choice and the action itself comes from only one being.

Even if I did believe in the computational theory of mind (I don't) — NOS4A2

What theory of mind do you ascribe to? How does an intention form, and how does it then get to have physical results, and how do these then in turn again travel "into" the mind?

Feel free to give basic descriptions, I'm not expecting you to write a book here.

I rest on the sensible fact that, until she is struck by something like a billiard ball or kinetic energy, every move she makes begins and ends with her. So unless something forcers her to move against her will there could be only one cause to her actions. There are probably a vast array of external and environmental factors she may be considering, of course, but the choice and the action itself comes from only one being. — NOS4A2

So, connected with what I wrote above, when does "she" begin? Does her mind rest somewhere fully formed for all eternity, or is it temporal, and if it's temporal, what causes it to change?

...every move she makes begins and ends with her. — NOS4A2

That is, whatever she does is not attributable to any outside influence, but only to her will. A human being is assumed to have independence from all outside influences, unless those influences are physically coercive.

So unless something forcers her to move against her will there could be only one cause to her actions. — NOS4A2

And that cause is her individual will. The human will is something free of outside influence, able to make decisions and take actions that sometimes fly in the face of what its circumstances appear to dictate. It is Cato, thrusting a sword into his own guts rather than surrender to Caesar; it is Diogenes, breaking his drinking-cup after watching a slave-boy drink from his cupped hands; it is Socrates abiding by Athens’ death penalty rather than scurrying off into exile, urged by his aristocratic friends willing to put up the money; it is a widow woman putting all she owned, two mites, into Jerusalem’s coffers...

...it is certainly not someone, hearing that toilet paper will be in short supply, running off to the supermarket to purchase a closet-full of it; nor is it a mother who fears snakes and poison-ivy forbidding her children go down to the creek to play; nor is it someone storming the Capitol because he heard from his president that his country was being taken away. These sorts of ppl must not have a truly individual will. Their actions must be attributable to external circumstances, for what they think and what they do conform to their fears...

...but let me ask you: which of these sorts best describes the human will? The sort that is rare and immortally inscribed in the annals of history, the one that does outstanding deeds and makes decisions worthy of lasting recognition, that stand as models of exalted human behavior? ....or the sort that is commonplace and expected of most everyone?

What theory of mind do you ascribe to? How does an intention form, and how does it then get to have physical results, and how do these then in turn again travel "into" the mind?

Feel free to give basic descriptions, I'm not expecting you to write a book here.

I believe mental states are really body states. I’m not one to say we should eliminate the concept of mind altogether, just that we should never forget the object it abstracts. Embodied cognition is somewhat appealing, but I prefer biology to philosophy when it comes to mind.

What do you believe?

So, connected with what I wrote above, when does "she" begin? Does her mind rest somewhere fully formed for all eternity, or is it temporal, and if it's temporal, what causes it to change?

She probably begins at conception.

I believe mental states are really body states. I’m not one to say we should eliminate the concept of mind altogether, just that we should never forget the object it abstracts. Embodied cognition is somewhat appealing, but I prefer biology to philosophy when it comes to mind. — NOS4A2

It would be irreproachable to consider psychology a subset of biology—if the phenomena of the soul could be deduced from those of the brain; alas, they cannot, just as the phenomena of biology cannot be understood solely by applying the principles of chemistry to them. That is why different sciences have been developed to explain the different categories in nature.

Your mistaken belief that nature is homogeneous in this respect rather than heterogeneous blinds you to the peculiar workings of the human soul, which has laws and phenomena that must be understood on their own merit, without being reduced to the more basic elements that are its mere infrastructure.

What I want to know is what makes speech and words more powerful. — NOS4A2

They have meaning, which unintelligible sounds/scribbles lack.

That some people beg to differ with my view is not compelling enough to change my mind, and I could not follow the argument much further. — NOS4A2

The argument was that speech does have power; hence the ability to suffer as a result of it, which victims of verbal abuse is an example of. Do you deny that these victims truly suffer? If not, then how do you explain their suffering?

We are emotionally affected by the words of those whose words we have allowed to emotionally affect us. Therefore, we have control over our emotional reaction to words, inasmuch as we empower those whose words can affect us emotionally. — Book273

I don’t entirely agree with this. If that were the case, then why would we ever “allow” another’s words to upset us? At best, I would say that the effect of other’s words can decrease due to either desensitization from prolonged exposure to such comments, or something like a tolerance being built up over time, but I believe (although I could be mistaken) that physiologically all sense data is processed emotionally prior to cognitively. That’s why our first reaction to some stimuli is usually an emotional one. So, I’m not sure how you could make the case that somehow we have control over our emotional reactions. That would seemingly require some sort of thought, which doesn’t occur until after our emotional reaction. Now, we certainly can control our actions after we’ve had whatever emotional response, but that’s entirely separate. Although, there is some evidence that our behavior also affects our mood, so suffice to say it’s more complex than I’m making it out to be, but regardless I think our emotions are somewhat involuntary.

We are emotionally affected by the words of those whose words we have allowed to emotionally affect us. Therefore, we have control over our emotional reaction to words, inasmuch as we empower those whose words can affect us emotionally.
— Book273

I don’t entirely agree with this. If that were the case, then why would we ever “allow” another’s words to upset us? — Pinprick

It depends on whether we perceive our emotion to be justified. First comes the emotion (as you have suggested); then, the rational part of the soul weighs in and either condemns or justifies the emotion. If the former be the case, that reason condemns the emotion, then she as though says to it, “I can see these words caused you upset, but they are not true, and so you need not be upset”, or reason says to the stirred-up emotion, “do not be so angry and hurt: maybe the words said against you are true, in which case they were correctly spoken. Let’s consider whether this is the case before we take action”, etc.

Whenever reason is absent from the economy of the soul, the emotions feel what they feel and act on that feeling and justify whatever action they take. Or rather, since reason is the only element that can cast judgement, they hold her hostage, and force her to agree with whatever they do.

Even if I did believe in the computational theory of mind (I don't), we've avoided entirely how a subsection of sounds from the mouth or scribbles on paper possess more power than others. Now they have "influence", which according to the dictionary is "the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something". It's magical thinking all the way down. — NOS4A2

It makes sense to me that you don't think your brain in an information processing system.

It sounds like you don't believe in things like rhetoric which is precisely about making speech more effective. I'm guessing you think that preachers don't get crowds, that no one would pay to see a poet, that no one ever turned up to Dickens' readings. Braveheart was just making a series of sounds no more potent than random squawks.

Or, at least, it seems perfectly reasonable to pretend for the sake of argument. Personally I'm an empiricist and will look to Martin Luther King Jr, Winston Churchill, even Adolf Hitler for empirical evidence of the power of speech. But these are only facts, not blind ideology, so take it with a pinch of whatever it is you're on.

"It's what's encoded and how it's processed that is important". If I try to translate this back to biological terms, I find only one type of object that encodes and processes speech: the human body. — NOS4A2

Really? That's incredibly ignorant. Have you never seen any nature documentaries at all?

I believe in rhetoric, I just don't believe it works how you say it does. I also believe that some language is far more appealing and beautiful, some ugly, that people enjoy some language more than others, that MLK and Winston Churchill were great orators, and so on. I'm just trying to be clear where these feelings are coming from. One doesn't need to believe speech has power to note the genius of Shakespeare's writing, simply because the feelings and ideas one gets when reading it isn't generated in the ink and pages.

There is no empirical evidence that some combinations of sounds and marks on paper have more power than others. There is no instrument that can measure it, no hypothesis to account for it, no formula to describe it.

The danger of this superstition is that it weakens people and justifies tyranny. It teaches them to treat symbols, words and the people who speak them as the cause of their pains, and the only way to protect themselves is to excise the speaker and the language from the environment. Such thinking leads the censor to pretend that an execution for the crime of blasphemy is the consequence of the blasphemer's words, and not the consequence of the superstitious and barbaric laws that bind them. Socrates wasn't executed because his words floated around the marketplace corrupting the youth, but because people like Anytus and the Athenian statesmen couldn't deal with what he was saying.

Anyways, I know we won't agree, but I appreciate the ear nonetheless.

They have meaning, which unintelligible sounds/scribbles lack.

They don't have meaning. Meaning is generated in and provided by the person who views the symbols. Meaning does not exist outside any human being. We can't understand a foreign language just by listening to it, for example. We must learn what the words mean and learn to associate them with the sounds and symbols, and forever be ready to provide meaning to them.

The argument was that speech does have power; hence the ability to suffer as a result of it, which victims of verbal abuse is an example of. Do you deny that these victims truly suffer? If not, then how do you explain their suffering?

I do not deny their suffering. All I know is neuroplacticity suggests the brain wires itself. If someone is consistently in an abusive environment the brain adjusts itself in a certain way. It is only through training—whether through cognitive therapy or meditation, perhaps medication—that it can readjust and be undone.

There is no empirical evidence that some combinations of sounds and marks on paper have more power than others. — NOS4A2

Yes there is.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304395909004564

There is no instrument that can measure it — NOS4A2

Yes there is.

https://www.gosh.nhs.uk/conditions-and-treatments/procedures-and-treatments/functional-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fmri/

no hypothesis to account for it — NOS4A2

Yes there is.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/books/words-can-change-your-brain-12-conversation-strategies-to-build-trust-resolve-conflict-and-increase-intimacy

no formula to describe it — NOS4A2

Yes there is.

https://www.compoundchem.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Neurotransmitters.pdf

At least do the bare minimum of research before vomiting up whatever version of reality happens to support your preferred brand of sociopathy.

Only someone beholden to the superstition would try pass off evidence of the power of the brain as evidence of the power of words without irony. In fact, I've been saying the brain is the cause all along, and you present the brain imagining techniques and investigations into neural mechanisms as a refutation. So thanks for providing even more evidence, not only of the power of the brain, but also of your own sociopathy.

Well, not sure why you’re talking about souls, but my only point is that we can’t prevent our emotion from occurring. We will feel angry, sad, etc. no matter what. But definitely we have some control over whatever actions come next.

They don't have meaning. Meaning is generated in and provided by the person who views the symbols. Meaning does not exist outside any human being. We can't understand a foreign language just by listening to it, for example. We must learn what the words mean and learn to associate them with the sounds and symbols, and forever be ready to provide meaning to them. — NOS4A2

Same difference. The point is that we recognize and accept words to mean something, whereas we don’t with unintelligible scribbles.

I do not deny their suffering. — NOS4A2

Ok, do you deny that their suffering is caused by the words said to/about them? If so, then words have power; the power to affect our emotions.

It is only through training—whether through cognitive therapy or meditation, perhaps medication—that it can readjust and be undone. — NOS4A2

Therapy also works because of the power of words.

I could not follow the argument much further. — NOS4A2

You don't even follow it to the right person.

MLK and Winston Churchill were great orators, and so on. I'm just trying to be clear where these feelings are coming from. One doesn't need to believe speech has power to note the genius of Shakespeare's writing, simply because the feelings and ideas one gets when reading it isn't generated in the ink and pages. — NOS4A2

You do have to believe in the power of speech to believe there can be great orators. It's rather confused to think you can have powerful speeches but no powerful speech. The medium isn't irrelevant, but it's not the most relevant attribute of speech, which is the power of words on human minds.

Only someone beholden to the superstition would try pass off evidence of the power of the brain — NOS4A2

I don't know what you could possibly mean by 'the power of the brain' in this context. Are you the kind of person who insists that it's not the gun that kills you it's the bullet? Do you really go through life as if you don't understand the difference between proximate and non-proximate causes?

"The high demand for wheat's going to cause a rise in prices"

"No, actually I think you'll find, the high demand for wheat isn't going to actually cause anything, the key presses on the stock exchange computer is going to cause the price rise, anything else is one step removed and so irrelevant"

I bet you're a hoot at parties.

You do have to believe in the power of speech to believe there can be great orators. It's rather confused to think you can have powerful speeches but no powerful speech. The medium isn't irrelevant, but it's not the most relevant attribute of speech, which is the power of words on human minds.

I’m not sure how you get from “MLK and Winston Churchill were great orators” to “it’s rather confused to think you can have powerful speeches but no powerful speech”. Oration is an action they perform and I like the way they do it. None of that means or implies that they have powerful speech.

I don't know what you could possibly mean by 'the power of the brain' in this context. Are you the kind of person who insists that it's not the gun that kills you it's the bullet? Do you really go through life as if you don't understand the difference between proximate and non-proximate causes?

"The high demand for wheat's going to cause a rise in prices"

"No, actually I think you'll find, the high demand for wheat isn't going to actually cause anything, the key presses on the stock exchange computer is going to cause the price rise, anything else is one step removed and so irrelevant"

I bet you're a hoot at parties.

From the resting metabolic rate we can understand the rate of work of the brain and how much power it requires. We can even view its activity with brain scanning technology. We have a general idea of what it does and how it effects the rest of the body.

Can you do the same with words? We can measure the intensity of sound and understand how that effects the body, sure, but do words come with more intensity? If they do not, then how do they affect you different than other sounds from the mouth? Do words on paper possess more mass and energy than arbitrary scribbles? If not, then in what way are they more powerful?

“Words have power.”

“How?”

“Look at these images of the brain! [insert appeal to ridicule]”.

@NOS4A2
Oration is speech.

If you consider oration powerful then?

The oration is speech. Speech is an act. Speech is powerful.

What are you thinking here?

Oration is speech.

If you consider oration powerful then?

The oration is speech. Speech is an act. Speech is powerful.

What are you thinking here?

Speech is a noun, which is a person, place or thing. To "give" a speech, or "speaking", is the act. I mistakenly nominalized "orate" with the suffix "tion", which only served to confuse things.

@NOS4A2
OK,so speaking can be powerful?

So spoken words do have effects.

Oration is an action they perform and I like the way they do it. None of that means or implies that they have powerful speech. — NOS4A2

Well it was powerful enough to inspire a lot of people, irrespective of your confusions.

Well, not sure why you’re talking about souls, but my only point is that we can’t prevent our emotion from occurring. We will feel angry, sad, etc. no matter what. But definitely we have some control over whatever actions come next. — Pinprick

That’s exactly why I’m talking about souls.

When I was a child I learned that the soul is the part of you that flies off to heaven after you are dead; when I grew up (and got some liberal education) I learned that it is rather the term that describes the immaterial part of you that exists down here on earth, that comprises the rational and irrational sides of a human being. I learned that the rational part of this economy or polity is one: reason; and that the irrational part, the one prone to the multifarious vices of the emotions, fear and pride and ambition, etc, are many; but that they all, reason and the emotions, make up this one thing: the soul...

...it all depends on who rules for his little economy; whether it be reason, or the passions.

We can measure the intensity of sound and understand how that effects the body, sure, but do words come with more intensity? — NOS4A2

Yes. Obviously. The sequence of pitch, timbre and rhythm is different for different words and our neurons are capable of responding differently to these variations. Why would you think otherwise? Do you imagine that all words are physically identical and we just make up the difference between them?