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

Yep, so there is no crime of instigation or conspiracy. A totally new take on criminal law by none other than our very own NOS4A2.

People act upon words. We hear them, read them, learn them, write them, speak them, use them. They do not affect us more than any other sound from the mouth or any other scribble on paper because they are hardly different in physical constitution and energy. — NOS4A2

Hmm, if it is all energy, then why do different words do different things? Hell even the same word does different things depending on context. The yes in respect to the question "does it rain now", is a very different yes from the 'yes' in response to 'will you marry me?'. It is not only legally bollocks it is philosophically quite untenable too. I should not be surprised though.

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

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

To speak is to act. And, in many cases the crime is in the intent behind the words. Whether or not the words have causal efficacy is irrelevant. That's what "conspiracy" is all about.

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

It’s nothing like saying that. Do you think mechanical soundwaves convert themselves to nerve impulses?

It is not only legally bollocks it is philosophically quite untenable too. I should not be surprised though.

I guess it’s a good thing I don’t respect your opinion.

It’s nothing like saying that. Do you think mechanical soundwaves convert themselves to nerve impulses? — NOS4A2

I think that mechanical soundwaves are causally responsible for the subsequent nerve impulses.

But hair cells transduce vibration into impulses.

But hair cells transduce vibration into impulses. — NOS4A2

So? The sound waves cause the hair cells to move which cause the nerve impulses to fire.

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

The irony here is that your account of causation would entail that it is guns, not people, which are responsible for murder because it is the internal mechanics of the gun that cause the bullet to fire, not me pulling my finger on the trigger, and that the gun wouldn't fire if something inside it was broken.

I guess it’s a good thing I don’t respect your opinion. — NOS4A2

It's not easy to respect an opinion you don't understand.

There's also no abuse at all if I tell my kids they're ugly little motherfuckers that will never amount to anything because it's their choice to actual listen to me and believe it. I didn't do anything.

EDIT: also the verbal contract no longer exists! Nothing to enforce because words can't cause a contract to come into existence. Wait a minute. A written contracts is just words too that form into sounds in my head upon reading so that isn't binding either! Fuck yeah!

So? The sound waves cause the hair cells to move which cause the nerve impulses to fire.

The movement of hair cells. That’s the extent of the causal power of words.

The irony here is that your account of causation would entail that it is guns, not people, which are responsible for murder because it is the internal mechanics of the gun that cause the bullet to fire, not me pulling my finger on the trigger, and that the gun wouldn't fire if something inside it was broken.

Biology isn’t a machine or built like a gun, though. Guns aren’t conscious or able to control their actions.

The movement of hair cells. That’s the extent of the causal power of words. — NOS4A2

Right, so I'm not causally responsible for breaking the window when I kick a ball into it. The extent of the causal power of my kick is the ball moving; anything that happens after that is the responsibility of the ball.

Biology isn’t a machine or built like a gun, though. — NOS4A2

Why does that matter? It's the same principle whether the material is organic or metal.

Guns aren’t conscious or able to control their actions. — NOS4A2

Neither are the hair cells in my ear. I don't know what you're trying to argue here.

Right, so I'm not causally responsible for breaking the window when I kick a ball into it. The extent of the causal power of my kick is the ball moving; anything that happens after that is the responsibility of the ball.

The ball broke the window. You kicked the ball. Sure.

Why does that matter? It's the same principle whether the material is organic or metal.

It was designed for someone to pull the trigger and set off the mechanisms which ultimately shoots the bullet.

Neither are the hair cells in my ear. I don't know what you're trying to argue here.

The cells in your ear are a part of you and I’m pretty sure you’re conscious.

The ball broke the window. You kicked the ball. Sure. — NOS4A2

And I broke the window.

It was designed for someone to pull the trigger and set of the mechanisms which ultimately shoots the bullet. — NOS4A2

So? According to your account of causation as explained above, I pulled the trigger, the gun fired the bullet, and the bullet killed the target.

If I didn't cause the window to break in the previous example then I didn't cause the target to die in this example. But if I did cause the target to die in this example then I did cause the window to break in the previous example.

The cells in your ear are a part of you and I’m pretty sure you’re conscious. — NOS4A2

I don't consciously control the actions of the hair cells in my ear. Their actions are determined by the sound waves that reach them.

So? According to your account of causation as explained above, I pulled the trigger, the gun fired the bullet, and the bullet killed the target.

If I didn't cause the window to break in the previous example then I didn't cause the target to die in this example. But if I did cause the target to die in this example then I did cause the window to break in the previous example.

Well yeah, a bullet tears through flesh, ceasing bodily function, which kills the target. So you’re right.

I don't consciously control the actions of the hair cells in my ear. Their actions are determined by the sound waves that reach them.

The cells transduce the waves to nerve impulses. The cells are a part of you. So you transduce the waves to nerve impulses. Consciously or not, you do it.

The cells transduce the waves to nerve impulses. The cells are a part of you. So you transduce the waves to nerve impulses. Consciously or not, you do it. — NOS4A2

And consciously or not, the gun fires the bullet. But it's still the case that I, being the one who pulled the trigger, caused the bullet to fire. And it's still the case that the sound waves, being the thing that stimulated the hair cells, caused the subsequent nerve impulses.

Whether it's a gun or an ear, the physics of causation is the same.

The cells are a part of you. So you transduce the waves to nerve impulses. Consciously or not, you do it. — NOS4A2

If the cells are a part of me, and if sound affects the cells, and if speech is sound, then speech affects me.

I guess it’s a good thing I don’t respect your opinion. — NOS4A2

That really made me laugh! :rofl: See, NOS, words do do something after all! :party:

I picture NOS in court as a defense attorney in a war crime trial.

Prosecutor: Did your client order his troops to train their guns on the innocent villagers and did he then utter the words "Shoot! and spare no one"?
Attorney: Yes he did, that is exactly what he said.
Pro: So, your client is ready to rescind his not-guilty plea is he then?
Attorney: Oh, no on the contrary! My client wishes to join the families of the victims in asking for indemnification from the soldiers! Yes, he uttered those words, but how could he foresee that these depraved men would actually train their guns on the innocent villagers and shoot them, sparing no one? If we look at it from an energy perspective, the amount of energy dissipated is similar to saying "Give each other a group hug!". My client relied on the good sense of his soldiers, but became bitterly disappointed in them, bitterly your honor! Those sound waves themselves do not do anything, they are interpreted by the men in question and they did interpret his sounds in the most heinous of ways. Obviously my client simply needed not imagine words could have the influence to cause otherwise upright men do such a thing! Acquittal I say, Not guilty I say. Do make sure you proclaim your not guilty verdict loudly your honor, especially the 'not' part. Otherwise, the similarity in energy is just too big. Those words get misinterpreted and who knows what might happen. My client has suffered enough from this kind of mishap as it is!

Guys, if you ever have a bad run in with the law. Do not consider NOS as your defense attorney. I do hope these words manage to reach you well, because after all they are just blots of ink, stimulating your retina... maybe you interpret those words as "please hire NOS"... We just learned that what words mean and do is solely up to your discretion my dear readers.

Coincidentally on reading your post my body decided to shake itself and laughter decided to happen.

Wrong. You chose to laugh.

It’s nothing like saying that. Do you think mechanical soundwaves convert themselves to nerve impulses? — NOS4A2

:lol:

We just learned that what words mean and do is solely up to your discretion my dear readers. — Tobias

No no — what you choose to DO with those words is up to your discretion. Because we have free will and we’re conscious entities blah blah.

Whether it's a gun or an ear, the physics of causation is the same. — Michael

If the cells are a part of me, and if sound affects the cells, and if speech is sound, then speech affects me. — Michael

Obvious to anyone not trying desperately to defend an indefensible political position.

It’s based entirely on emotion, ultimately. In this simplistic Ayn Randian world, everything we know about physics and causality have to suspend.

All to defend the “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” philosophy. It always seems to boil down to Nickelodeon principles with plutocracy-loving, anti-social narcissists.

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

Exactly. That’s what all this bullshit is about.

If the cells are a part of me, and if sound affects the cells, and if speech is sound, then speech affects me.

Hah, nice.



Censors throughout history have pretended words have the sorts of causal effects you pretend they do, and used it as justification to murder and maim. It’s no surprise you are of that ilk.



If I was a lawyer I wouldn’t show my face, especially with any sort of pride.

:rofl:

Censors throughout history — NOS4A2

…followed by the usual bullshit. :lol:

Please expound more on your sticks and stones theory. It’s riveting.

Show us on the doll where the capitalist touched you.

↪Xtrix

Censors throughout history have pretended words have the sorts of causal effects you pretend they do, and used it as justification to murder and maim. It’s no surprise you are of that ilk.

↪Tobias

If I was a lawyer I wouldn’t show my face, especially with any sort of pride. — NOS4A2

Yes, the question is, why not? Lawyers act as a bulwark against state power, one of the very few we have. They are generally opposed to censorship as it deprives lawyers of the information they need to accurately defend or judge their case. Especially a libertarian or a conservative, like Antonin Scalia was, should favor the law. You are neither, I guess you are a populist for lack of a better word. You seem to hold on to the maxim "what my gut feeling says is the truth, is the truth". That mentality leads to the same censorship and the perversion of justice you criticize.

Show us on the doll where the capitalist touched you. — NOS4A2

In the stomach and the soul.

What a shocker that he brings it back to pedophilia again. Extreme right wingers do seem obsessed with it. It's strange. :chin:

In the stomach and the soul. — ZzzoneiroCosm

As if NOS's laughable rantings on causality has something to do with capitalism.

My (and others) interpretation of him must be fake news. It's because I'm a communist. Or because I'm anti-American. Etc. Whatever it takes not to examine oneself.

Yeah, it's a clowncar of absurd self-serving slogans. That's why I only drop in for the occasional disparagement. :smile: