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

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

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

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

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

.

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

It’s just interesting that you start it there all the while maintaining that you are not the source of your actions. — NOS4A2

I don't start it there. I'm only saying that I cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". If this is true, which it is, then "symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols" and so your argument fails.

No one said human bodies are uncaused causes. If causal reasoning is all you understand, I’m saying the body causes the arm to move, by which I mean you move your arm. Does that imply that bodies are uncaused causes? Of course not. And all of this can be shown empirically. If nothing else can be shown to move your arm, you are the “cause” of moving your arm, the source of your arm movement. This shouldn’t be controversial. — NOS4A2

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

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

None of the links you mention are inhuman, though. — NOS4A2

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

we get an uncountable amount of causes and effects more than you’re willing to provide. — NOS4A2

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

I don't start it there. I'm only saying that I cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". If this is true, which it is, then "symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols" and so your argument fails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those mindstates are either supervenient or overwhelmingly causative of the actions in question. This is a causal chain which is morally brought back to the inciter. — AmadeusD

and when the inciter claims that they were incited by another's speech, where does it end? All this does is create a society where no one takes responsibility for their own actions.

All you’ve done is vibrated a diaphragm in the microphone. You’ve caused that movement, sure, but you haven’t moved or affected anything else. — NOS4A2

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

I’m not using causal chains, and I’m not sure why anyone would, especially in a thermodynamic system full of feedback-loops. I said the genesis of a behavior or act, not the genesis of a causal chain. — NOS4A2

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

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

I don’t understand it because if something else causes you to cause your arm to move, you are not the source of your action, and therefore have no free will. — NOS4A2

All I need is for my behaviour to be caused by and consistent with my volition. This is how I distinguish between voluntary bodily behavior – e.g. lifting my arm – and involuntary bodily behaviour – e.g. my heartbeat. It's not clear to me how you distinguish between voluntary and involuntary bodily behaviour. The fact that my volition is a causally determined physical phenomenon is irrelevant.

But again, I cannot see how your position on free will is at all compatible with eliminative materialism. You deny causal determinism and claim ignorance about quantum indeterminacy, but these are the only two options if physicalism is true. I see no way to maintain agent-causal libertarian free will without arguing for interactionist dualism.

The structures, energy, and movements of the ear cause the ear to release neurotransmitters. The structures, energy, and movements of the ear cause the ear to transduce sound. The structures, energy, and movements of the body cause all subsequent behaviors. — NOS4A2

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

The internal behaviour of the Apple device, like the internal behaviour of the ear, is causally determined by some external stimulus. They are not spontaneous, acausal phenomena, and it is not a mere coincidence or correlation that the Apple device releases electrical signals and the ear releases neurotransmitters when stimulated by sound. There is a causal connection between the events.

You haven’t shown it. You’ve provided no evidence that speech possesses any “power” above and beyond the mechanical energy in the vibration. We know this because we have the devices, measurements, and formulas to prove it. We can measure the power of a soundwave, and never once have any of them measured energy or power over and above the mechanical energy inherent in the wave. The hydraulic and electrical energy required for hearing are properties of the body, provided by the body, generated by the body, caused by the body, not the soundwave. Only superstition and magical thinking will try to say otherwise. — NOS4A2

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

The US Supreme Court just issued a ruling dealing with free speech and laws that can limit it.

It can be found here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25985319-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton/

It gets interesting and more readable at page 6 of the opinion, which is page 10 of this online document.

They describe the “level of scrutiny” which is either “strict” or “intermediate” or “rational basis” and why these levels were created. They talk about how “pornography” has been defined and regulated historically. This is where lovers of political freedom (ie most people) should start to pay attention. This is government defining what the content of speech is so they can regulate it. This is where tk court says things like “having no literary or artistic value” about pornography. Most happen to agree with a characterization like that (which is how the Court can make those determinations), and I agree as an adult what porn is and that it is just bad for children if not fairly base for all involved - but we must pause when we let some government official tell us what we are all allowed to actually do and say about anything.

Just to be clear, I don’t see any slippery slope here, and am glad the government regulates pornography to protect the children in society (with what tiny protections they can provide in this area). Just because the government can define what counts as pornography versus what counts as art, doesn’t mean they are going to be able to define other content (like what is good art or what is harmful political opinion) nor develop a law that regulates such content. The court has always been careful here and the voices that oppose legislation have always been well represented.

But the opinion is how the lawyers, judges, and law makers, and free speech coalition, all think about the topic.

Notice the opinion doesn’t get into free agency versus determinism, or whether words can cause actions in others. Debates on those issues would be debates on whether the notion of any government was coherent, which because the constitution exists, they already agree government makes sense , and that all people have liberty and right to their own agency over their speech and thought, but that laws (words) must cause others to act and react in specific ways, and even limit what people can say publicly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, in ordinary language you’ve turned on the lights. I accept everyday ordinary speech. But you haven’t ignited the filament. You haven’t sent a current from the panel to the fixture. You haven’t converted analog sounds to digital signals for the purposes of possessing. — NOS4A2

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

What’s the difference to you between a “caused” object and an “uncaused” object? Because what I am saying is object A does act B. Act B is not infinite, so it begins and ends. By observations we can watch object A begin his act B. This can be confirmed empirically and is consistent with physics. So what evidence can you provide that some other object C, caused or uncaused, starts and ends act B? — NOS4A2

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

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

But your soundwave doesn’t do anything beyond moving the diaphragm. Neither you nor your soundwave convert analogue sounds to digital. That’s what the device does. In other words, your words have caused none of that to happen. — NOS4A2

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

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

It was a false analogy. I was hoping to just drop it altogether so that we could discuss words and human beings. — NOS4A2

It's not just an analogy; it's also a standalone argument. I am saying that a) I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" and so therefore b) "symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols".

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

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

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

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

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

What does “cause” mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not just an analogy; it's also a standalone argument. I am saying that a) I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" and so therefore b) "symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols".

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly, them hitting the ground at a certain speed caused them to die. — NOS4A2

It is both the case that them hitting the ground at a certain speed caused them to die and the case that I caused them to die by pushing them off the cliff.

I'm wasting my time if you can't even accept this simple truth, so I'm going to end my part in this discussion.

No, not at all. Incitement is a one-level relationship. Incitement to incitement isn't a real thing, as best I can tell. It does not create that kind of society, as proven by our incitement laws being in place for about 100 years through most of hte west, no?

Point taken, but who gets charged with a higher crime - the inciter or the person(s) that committed the crime?

The fact that the person that committed the crime gets charged at all is evidence that we realize that people are in control of their own actions to some degree.

The fact that there are others that hear the same speech and are not incited to violence is also evidence that people are in control of their actions and that hate speech only has an effect on the misinformed or those that already had hate within them.

Those that committed the crime. In all cases I'm aware of. Incitement doesn't reduce culpability for the act (other than for minors, i suppose).

Otherwise, I see no disagreement. That there are some who are not incited to violence just evidences the differences in people's ability to deal with various kinds of biographical information in the fact of some novel event. This is also true of what we would call coercion. Some will allow themselves to die before becoming a peeping tom. Others make a reasonable moral trade off. IT says nothing for the inciter/coercive force.

That there are some who are not incited to violence just evidences the differences in people's ability to deal with various kinds of biographical information in the fact of some novel event. This is also true of what we would call coercion. Some will allow themselves to die before becoming a peeping tom. Others make a reasonable moral trade off. IT says nothing for the inciter/coercive force. — AmadeusD

What does "force" mean in this context? The force of one's words is dependent upon the listener as you showed in your first sentence. What "force" would their words have if they spoke in a language I did not understand? When someone that doesn't know you calls you a "selfish ass" as opposed to someone you know well calling you a "selfish ass" - which one has more "force"?

The force would be whatever is causing the dilemma. The classic example is that someone has a gun to your head, and either you commit some heinous crime (say mutilate your wife) or your child dies, and they also have a gun to their head. No one would genuinely fault you for mutilating your wife to save three lives, over losing all three but refusing the coercive force of the guns and demands.

What "force" would their words have if they spoke in a language I did not understand? — Harry Hindu

This is a little stupid. Coercive force doesn't obtain in the way you want. Though, if terrorist were screaming invectives at me (unbeknownst) and indicating what they wanted from me, I can do that, and probably should (given the same example as above or similar).

When someone that doesn't know you calls you a "selfish ass" as opposed to someone you know well calling you a "selfish ass" - which one has more "force"? — Harry Hindu

The latter. But that isn't the type of force being spoken about here. I think what you mean is gravity/gravamen. Someone closer to me would weigh heavier on my heart saying that, as I could assume they have a decent basis. The stranger holds no weight at all as they have no basis to say so.
But again, this isn't coercive in any way.

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

The force would be whatever is causing the dilemma. The classic example is that someone has a gun to your head, and either you commit some heinous crime (say mutilate your wife) or your child dies, and they also have a gun to their head. No one would genuinely fault you for mutilating your wife to save three lives, over losing all three but refusing the coercive force of the guns and demands. — AmadeusD

Why would I believe that someone making such a demand would keep their word? I would rather us all die together quickly by gunshot than torture my wife and then we all die by gunshot anyway. No one would fault me in this response either.


Let's take your analogy and run with it. You intended to elicit a type of response from me in writing what you just did. I could then take this information and instruct my family that if such a situation occurred that I would give a signal that we would then fight our attackers at once. We would all die, some might survive, Etc. But the point is that I did something with your speech that you did not intend. I used it for my own purposes.

This is a little stupid. Coercive force doesn't obtain in the way you want. Though, if terrorist were screaming invectives at me (unbeknownst) and indicating what they wanted from me, I can do that, and probably should (given the same example as above or similar). — AmadeusD

Which I showed I cannot be coerced and would have good reasons to not do what they said.

The latter. But that isn't the type of force being spoken about here. I think what you mean is gravity/gravamen. Someone closer to me would weigh heavier on my heart saying that, as I could assume they have a decent basis. The stranger holds no weight at all as they have no basis to say so.
But again, this isn't coercive in any way. — AmadeusD

Sure it is. In talking about "weight" and "force" of speech, you are talking about its coercive power.

What "force" or "weight" does a known liar's speech have?

Yeah, you’re not convincing me, that’s for sure. Just another reason to show you can’t move anything above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of your symbols. — NOS4A2

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

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

Are you agreeing with his claim that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I didn't cause their death (only hitting the ground did)?

your analogy does not accurately represent what I said. Where in your analogy is the dampening or amplifying the kinetic energy and redirecting it for its own purposes?

Allow me to add it for you:
If the person you push grabs your arm at the last instant and pulls you with them, who is to blame for your death?

your analogy does not accurately represent what I said. — Harry Hindu

?

I claimed that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I caused their death. NOS4A2 disagreed. You responded to his disagreement.

Hence why I asked you to clarify if you were agreeing with him re. not being able to cause someone's death by pushing them off a cliff.

Or was your reply to him unrelated to the context of his comment?

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

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

You intended to elicit a type of response from me in writing what you just did. — Harry Hindu

No, no i didn't. I explained to you the concept of coercion and gave you the leading example. It is a legal and social norm that you seemed to be unaware of. I don't really care what your response is.

I could then take this information and instruct my family that if such a situation occurred that I would give a signal that we would then fight our attackers at once. — Harry Hindu

Feel free. This has precisely nothing to do with what is being discussed. Coercion is real, and in most cases you have no lead-in time whatsoever. That's why its a legal and social norm to expect bad behaviour from those under duress.

But the point is that I did something with your speech that you did not intend. I used it for my own purposes. — Harry Hindu

This makes no sense in light of what's being discussed. You can do whatever you want. Coercion is real.

Which I showed I cannot be coerced and would have good reasons to not do what they said. — Harry Hindu

No you didn't. You didn't even touch on either of these. If you think you did, I have literally no clue what to say. You also, were not talking about this - as explained in the very quote you've used.

Sure it is. In talking about "weight" and "force" of speech, you are talking about its coercive power. — Harry Hindu

Which is not, in any way, represented by your example. I get the feeling you're trolling here? Sorry if not, but this is so far removed from actually engaging the content in this exchange I can't see much else.

What "force" or "weight" does a known liar's speech have? — Harry Hindu

This isn't a sensible question. It also leapfrogs every bit of important content in the previous exchange. So, i wont be engaging that.

Look, the fact is that coercion exists and is highly effective. It is a recognized social and legal norm. Bite the bullet.

It seems to me that HarryHindu and NOS4A2 think that persuasion, coercion, incitement, etc. are only real if speech is able to "puppeteer" people's body's against their will and/or irresistibly force a change of mind. It's such a bizarre understanding of these commonplace psychological notions.

Even the ardent free will libertarian accepts the reality of such things, with many agreeing that coerced behaviour is in a relevant sense "involuntary" (even if, physically and metaphysically speaking, one could have chosen to do otherwise). As a particular example that seems fitting for political libertarians, paying taxes is voluntary in one sense but involuntary in another.

A relevant question to ask them is: are laws that prohibit speech unjust because they coerce people into silence, or is it just the punishment that is unjust? If the former then they accept that external factors can influence our own behaviours, rendering at least one of the arguments presented here in defence of free speech absolutism null and void.

But then again Michael can’t define cause. — NOS4A2

It's just the ordinary, everyday, common sense understanding. I turn on the lights by pushing a button or by pulling a chord or by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". This isn't metaphorical or allegorical or imaginary or hypothetical or superstitious or magical; it's literal and physical.

I find it quite amusing that your reasoning is akin to arguing "people don't kill people, bullets do" rather than the usual "guns don't kill people, people do". I wonder if you'd commit to this if we were discussing gun control.

I claimed that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I caused their death. NOS4A2 disagreed. You responded to his disagreement.

Hence why I asked you to clarify if you were agreeing with him re. not being able to cause someone's death by pushing them off a cliff.

Or was your reply to him unrelated to the context of his comment? — Michael

I was merely showing that your example is flawed as it does not accurately represent what NOS4A2 is saying, nor does it represent what we observe happen when people speak to each other.

I’m.not so sure about that. But then again Michael can’t define cause. So I guess anything goes. — NOS4A2

I see it as him dancing around the issue of what happens between the sound entering one's ears and a behavioral response. He seems to think that there is nothing else, but then how does one explain different responses to the same stimuli? It's the reason why his analogies constantly miss the mark.

No, no i didn't. I explained to you the concept of coercion and gave you the leading example. It is a legal and social norm that you seemed to be unaware of. I don't really care what your response is. — AmadeusD

That was my point - that I did something with what you said that you did not intend.

Feel free. This has precisely nothing to do with what is being discussed. Coercion is real, and in most cases you have no lead-in time whatsoever. That's why its a legal and social norm to expect bad behaviour from those under duress. — AmadeusD

Yet I showed that in that moment of duress I made a decision that did not play into the terrorists intent. I was not coerced. You left that part out of your response (cherry-picking) - the same tactic Michael has been using.

This makes no sense in light of what's being discussed. You can do whatever you want. Coercion is real. — AmadeusD

Those two sentences contradict each other. I did what I wanted in the moment of duress, so you have failed to show that coercion is real, or at least not as "forceful" as you claim.

No you didn't. You didn't even touch on either of these. If you think you did, I have literally no clue what to say. You also, were not talking about this - as explained in the very quote you've used. — AmadeusD

Yes, I did. Go back and read my response, that you seemed to ignore (conveniently), to your scenario of my family being held at gunpoint.

Which is not, in any way, represented by your example. I get the feeling you're trolling here? Sorry if not, but this is so far removed from actually engaging the content in this exchange I can't see much else. — AmadeusD

No. Trolling is cherry-picking people's posts and trying to gas-light me with your use of terms, like "force". You are the one that used the term. I am merely trying to get at how you're using it. If you did not mean "force" as a synonym for "coerce", then what do you mean?

Look, the fact is that coercion exists and is highly effective. It is a recognized social and legal norm. Bite the bullet. — AmadeusD

There you go again. What does "highly effective" mean in this context? It appears that you are begging the question. When does speech become coercive - only when people respond in the way you intend? What makes some people respond in the way you intend and some not? What percentage of the people that hear the speech and respond as intended qualifies as "highly effective"?

I was merely showing that your example is flawed as it does not accurately represent what NOS4A2 is saying — Harry Hindu

I claimed that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I caused their death. NOS4A2 disagreed, claiming that "hitting the ground at a certain speed" caused their death.

I am just asking if you agree with him or with me.

So I don't understand your response.

I see it as him dancing around the issue of what happens between the sound entering one's ears and a behavioral response. — Harry Hindu

I'm not dancing around it because it wasn't the topic of our discussion. NOS4A2 and I were discussing whether or not transduction (the conversion of mechanical waves into electrical signals) in the ear is caused to occur by soundwaves stimulating the eardrum.

I say it is, he says it isn't.

He seems to think that there is nothing else — Harry Hindu

No I don't and I don't know how you can possibly think that I do. I haven't said anything remotely to this effect.

I claimed that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I caused their death. NOS4A2 disagreed, claiming that "hitting the ground at a certain speed" caused their death. — Michael

Sure. Some say it isn't the falling that kills you. It is the sudden impact against the ground that does. So the point is that there are more immediate causes to one's death. That is all we are saying. If you want to go on with the red herring of how you had no choice but to fall because of me pushing you and gravity, etc. - that does not accurately represent what happens when someone speaks, which is why your analogy is faulty. But if your analogy was intended to show the causal chain of events and how there are causes that are more immediate than you pushing them, then you have shown just that and made our argument for us. Anything beyond that would be an inaccurate representation of what it is we are talking about - speech, as opposed to acts. You would effectively be using your analogy as an analogy of apples and oranges.

Speech is filtered through the brain. You pushing me off a cliff is not kinetic energy that is filtered through the brain.

So the point is that there are more immediate causes to one's death. That is all we are saying. — Harry Hindu

That is not all NOS4A2 is saying. See our actual exchange:

If I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I caused their death – I didn't just cause them to fall off a cliff. — Michael

Clearly, them hitting the ground at a certain speed caused them to die. — NOS4A2

It is both the case that them hitting the ground at a certain speed caused them to die and the case that I caused them to die by pushing them off the cliff.

I'm wasting my time if you can't even accept this simple truth — Michael

Yeah, you’re not convincing me, that’s for sure. — NOS4A2

So he isn't just arguing that some B is the "more immediate" cause of C; he's also arguing that A doesn't cause C. It is the "A doesn't cause C" that I take issue with. Nowhere have I denied that there are "more immediate" causes.

The Apple device is the "more immediate" cause of the lights turning on, but it's still the case that I cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". NOS4A2 doesn't accept this, arguing that "all you’ve done is vibrated a diaphragm in the microphone."