I was not aware Russell had said that. Thanks :)

Quote from book or essay?

It’s an essay.

On The Notion of Cause

https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/notion-of-cause/br-notion-of-cause.html

A life of suffering suggests the absent of its opposites, such as pleasure, joy, or flourishing. But the countless reports of the experiences of these feelings or states suggests their existence. If life can entail the opposite of suffering, life is not suffering.

I see you won’t or can’t take up any of my arguments, which shows that what you call effects are actions performed by an agent.

Cheers.

Another trade deal, this time with the EU. It might be too early to say but it looks like the Euros get the short end of the stick on this one.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/28/eu-us-trade-deal-tariffs-european-union-five-key-takeaways

You can find that one in the anti-Trump trophy case, with all the other Supreme Court losses. It appears abusing the courts and weaponizing the justice system is unconstitutional.

You’ll never get anywhere in understanding the origin or purpose of these beliefs by dismissing them as personality defects (status-seeking on the part of the economically privileged). If I introduced you to non-affluent woke activists who have sacrificed personally for the sake of their social justice aims would you try to poke holes in their sincerity, or make an effort to accept their ethical intent and try to understand why they think their approach is superior to more conservative politics?

I would never dismiss anyone’s beliefs and concerns so long as he was talking about them. But activism is not conversation. It is anti-social, ill mannered, and unethical behavior, in my view, no matter the intent, no matter the politics. I would likely dismiss it and ignore it.

At any rate, the phrase “luxury beliefs” is narrow enough to exclude the marginalized.

I have no reason to doubt the media reports on it. As for you, you want to believe it, as one who has spent the last 8 years defending and supporting Trump.

You have no other choice because believing media reports is how you form your beliefs. How could you operate without them?

For BlueAnon, making such statements before all the facts are out is the going rate, these days.

Good points, and I think that if we want to look at the foundations of what is happening with wokeness we will find that it stems from a morally robust culture combined with increased leisure. Or in other words, you have a morally conscious population of busybodies.

Whenever a group of people find more leisure time, they tend to become more involved in cultural and political issues. They wish to extend their influence into these areas. When such people are morally charged, and morally charged in the particular direction of identity politics, you get wokeness.

I think the increasing leisure is going to produce all sorts of similar phenomena going forward, even though the particular determination of wokeness will not be the inevitable outcome.

I think the phrase “luxury beliefs” coined by commentator Rob Henderson encapsulates some of the psychology and dynamics. These are beliefs and activities that seek to confer a certain status and halo upon those that express them, while damaging those who they claim to support.

The “defund the police” phenomenon a few years back is a prime example. It was largely expressed by the affluent and well-educated, who were insulated from the consequences of that movement, but their activities negatively affected the lower classes who were then subject to more crime in their areas. And, like luxury apparel, it eventually became unfashionable. They could easily dispense with that belief while the less-affluent were left to live in their consequences.

Causation in general is a fraught notion itself. It's been discussed for thousands of years and the theories as to what it is or means still vary to this day. Some even doubt its usefulness in science. Bertrand Russell's famous quote goes so far as to relegate it to the status of folk science, not fit for physics and the like:

The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.

- On the Notion of Cause

The Senate Intelligence Committee report relied on the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017 and the testimony of its drafters, all of which left out the contradictory evidence as reported in the newly unclassified HPSCI report. This report, found locked away in a safe-within-a-safe in a hidden room at CIA headquarters, illustrates damning evidence regarding its failures. It also illustrates how Putin probably had kompramat on Clinton. Why do you think the drafters of the ICA report would actively hide and misrepresent this evidence?

You might want to give it a read and judge for yourself.

https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

No I like that, that's fair. But. Remember. There are close to 200 countries in the world today. Yet the chart pairs 11 (ot of 200) against 1. Does that seem standard or fair to you? I'm sure if you sample any random group of 20 people 1 of them will be awful people who should not exist. Is that really supposed to mean anything though?

Venezuela banned the private ownership of guns and ammunition in 2012. They stopped issuing firearm licences and confiscated thousands of guns. Ten years later it’s still pushing 43.65 violent gun deaths per 100000k people, the second highest in the world.

Agreed. My mom almost got kidnapped when she was pregnant with me. Without her gun threatening the guy off, it's very possible she, my younger siblings and I might not be here. It's honestly wild to me that some people are so excited by the idea of making sure the most vulnerable among us have no personal protection in exchange for some nebulous idea of safety.

That’s right, and guns are great equalizers of power. A small woman can drop a very large man. Unfortunately, leaving everyone defenceless is a by-product of prohibitionism.

There are three types of people who wish to keep guns away from citizens and to limit the right to self-defense: criminals, tyrants, and gun prohibitionists.

It may be effective to ban weaponry, but is it unjust? I believe so. It's a brute fact that not every gun owner is a potential murderer, and not everyone is going to shoot someone if they happen to legally own a gun. Yet, the innocent are prohibited from owning guns.

But here is an argument.

• The right of self-defense is an important right.
• A firearms prohibition would be a significant violation of the right of self-defense.
• Therefore, a firearms prohibition would be a serious rights-violation.

I agree with the premises and conclusion. Though it may be effective to prohibit guns, it's a rights violation, and those that prohibit guns are violators of rights. This is dangerous. I mean, the UK police will knock on your door for social media posts. There is no way to reverse course on that road to serfdom, as the tyrants posses all the guns.

One of greatest myths perpetuated by the Russia hoax is that the Russian “developed a clear preference for candidate Trump”, “aspired to help his chances of victory”, and that “Russian leaders never entirely abandoned hope for a defeat of Secretary Clinton”. This is listed as a fact at the top of this thread, for example. But an HPSCI report from 2020 released yesterday by the Director of National Intelligence reveal this to be nonsense based on "significant tradecraft failures".

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

This particular piece of misinformation is by now so deeply embedded in many minds, that it will be interesting to see if that conviction can be changed, and maybe we can unite and hold to account those that lied to them for all these years. That would be the honorable thing to do. Yet, doubling down and distorting the media landscape with distractions might be their modus operandi. Last night I saw a clip of a CNN host speaking over the DNI’s allegations as she went live, in what appeared to be an attempt to censor and distort for their viewers her most damning claims. The state media in my own country, which pushes that narrative to this day, went so far as to call it all lies.

So-called wokism is the same old racism, injustice, and tribalism dressed in another garb. Beneath the strange arguments and complex surface-level manifestations lies the perennial epistemology and logic at work.

Sociologists have come up with a decent enough theory called Social Categorization (or self-categorization). It’s the process through which we group individuals based upon superficial information, such as age or race or class and so on. The quick mental trick of dissolving the target’s individuality into the soup of our social categories is supposed to shape downstream evaluation and behavior by providing prewritten judgements in the form of stereotypes and assumptions. It’s a way for the abstract-minded to better deal with the concrete complexities and diversity of life. But it is also the impetus for in-group/out-group dynamics, hierarchies, discrimination, and—as we always see with this stuff—racism, injustice, and tribalism.

Do you agree with the core premise? I’ve noticed that this theory has taken on new dimensions today due to the nature of our information environment.

I don’t agree with it.

We should recall that in the mouths of Nazis and their critics, the claim of The Big Lie is used to smear their enemies as cheats and liars. Hitler claimed the Jews employed the Big Lie, Goebbels claimed the Brits did, and the Allies and their historians claimed the Nazis did (and sooner or later, the Soviets).

It doesn’t look like it was used as an actual propaganda technique as is often accused, at least according to what I’ve read. I could be wrong.

So, if looked at in this way, it doesn’t look like the idea has taken on new dimensions, since it is still commonly used today as a smear tactic and argument for censorship. Beware those who use it.

We write/read speak/hear words/sentences.
All part of our social practices, like this comment to you (the reader).
Such socializing can go via light (to eyes), touch, soundwaves (to ears), doesn't matter much which, and the reader/listener may (mis)understand, presumably with an awareness of some writer/speaker, at which point the words/sentences have already had an effect.
Without the writer/speaker and their words/sentences, it wouldn't have happened.

I read your words if and when I want to. I focus my eyes, move them along the sentence, think about them, consider whether I should bother responding, and do so according to my own whim and fancy. Frankly, it’s ridiculous to think that your words sat there for hours, causally frozen until someone looked at them, and then suddenly and without cause go on affecting people. When in fact I turned on the light of the screen, went to the website, scrolled to your post, and by reading the words you left there I literally caused them to go into my eyes. All you’ve done is put them in the ether, affecting a couple inches of space on a website.

Whether machine, plant, or human, the involuntary behaviour of any sense receptor is causally influenced by external stimuli according to the laws of nature, which may be either deterministic or, if quantum indeterminacy is a factor and is not explained by hidden variables, stochastic. These stimuli are causally responsible for (even if not exclusively) subsequent steps in the causal chain — ended only if something like a non-physical mind interferes.

So there is more to causation than just the immediate transfer of kinetic energy and I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights".

As such your defence of free speech absolutism fails.

That’s all I have left to say on the matter.

If it worked all the same you wouldn’t have had a problem discussing human beings, but you invariably chose machines engineered by human beings to be controlled by the voices of human beings. Counterfactual thinking, before this therefore because of this, and false analogies, all of it founded on superstition.

Thank you for the lengthy discussion.

Tulsi making some serious allegations. Inserted here for historical record.

How so? You might be incorrigible, for example.

Either way, once you've (mis)understood words/sentences that you read or heard, then they've already had an effect.

It’s the other way about. We affect words. We direct the soundwaves, transduce the signal, interpret the vibrations and electro-chemical symbols. What can you say that they do to you? That’s why you keep putting words in the object position of the sentence, which is the proper way to do it by the way.

Other than your use of the term "spontaneously", which I didn't take to be literal given that you previously denied that uncaused causes occur in the body, nothing here is incompatible with the causal determinist's claim that everything that happens is caused to occur by antecedent events according to the laws of nature.

The common incompatiblist argument is that if you have no control over the past and the laws of nature, you have no control of the consequences of the past and the laws of nature. If determinism is true, free will is false and vice versa.

But I'm curious, if plants do not have free will and if their behaviour is not causally determined, then what is going on with them? Is there some third option?

I’m not sure. The behavior of plants is so limited that I don’t think any satisfying account of their will could be made.

I value brevity. So I often re-read my comments and then re-write them to slim them down if nobody has replied.

But you removed any references to the human body and reverted back to plants. It’s a shame; we almost had an opportunity to discuss the actual subject matter.

Unfortunately they didn’t have access to those files. More to come, too. Buckle up.

Verbal nouns inevitably lead to ambiguity. But in this case the answer is relatively easy. A painting is “that which is painted”, the combination of paint applied to medium.

It’s a criminal referral for what DNI Gabbard called a “treasonous conspiracy”. The DOJ has taken up the referral. What’s the trivial part?

Plants are biological organisms. Therefore if plants do not have agent-causal libertarian free will then your comments above are a red herring, and your conclusion a non sequitur. Autonomy as you've defined it is compatible with causal determinism.

I don’t know how biological autonomy is compatible with causal determinism.

Yesterday you made some interesting comments about human beings and it all being too complex, but I see you’ve changed your mind and deleted them. Which external forces caused that behavior?

Strawman. I didn’t say it was. I said that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff, which is true.

And what would a medical examiner say killed him? Is their answer a reduction to the absurd?

Deflection. I assume because you recognise the absurdity of your position and are just unwilling to admit it.

No, you equivocate between “kill” and “murder”. I think you realized your mistake and, once again, we can watch the goalposts widen.

Non sequitur. That something is possible and sometimes happens isn’t that it’s easy.

Then what is the difference between words that compel agreement and those that do not?

Red herring. Plants do not have agent-causal libertarian free will, and neither the existence of plants nor the possible existence of von Neumann probes disprove causal determinism.

It’s just one fallacy after another with you, along with absurd misinterpretations of “cause”, “determinism”, “agent-causal libertarian free will”, and “persuasion”.

I never said plants have free will. You just can’t talk about human beings for some reason. Why is that?

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?

They are mutually exclusive because the push didn’t cause the death. Medical examiners can examine the body and find out exactly what did. Maybe they found he had a heart attack on the way down, or was dead before you pushed him. One thing they will not find is that the push was a death blow.

I’m not speaking of law here.

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.

No, by autonomous I mean organisms can self-govern, self-produce, self-differentiate, and maintain themselves. They are capable of creating their own components and structures, continually renewing and reproducing themselves. They can spontaneously create and maintain their complex organization from simpler components. They can maintain their integrity and functionality through ongoing processes of internal regulation and repair, counteracting degradation and external degradation like disease. No need for non-physical entities at all.

If you want to use spaceships from science fiction as an analogy, go ahead, but it doesn’t help your case in my view. Maybe stick with something more grounded.

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.

Then it should be easy to demonstrate. Use your words to change my mind.

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 wasn’t aware of the whistleblower information, or that Obama and his crew ordered a reassessment after they lost the election. Is that old news?

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.

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.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, the BlueAnon dupes of Russiagate are in for some more surprises. DNI Gabbard just dropped some frightening info.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Russia-Hoax-Memo-and-Timeline_revisited.pdf

Apparently a lot more is to come, which they might even use to build a criminal conspiracy case. Yikes.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/07/16/exclusive_secret_meeting_opens_document_floodgates_on_trumprussia_hoax_1123108.html

On the other hand, one argument for keeping children away from voting might be that it gives them the opportunity to live their formative years without being inured to state dependency, serfdom, and the utter farce that is electoral politics and representative government. They can learn to form their own bonds and organizations rather than having them hoisted upon them by some oligarchy. Sure, the desensitization to that power dynamic begins early enough in public education, but not having the fetish of representation and the fantasy that we can vote ourselves to a better world might help foster the self-governance required to do what's right in such a deranged system.

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.

Not so much of a democracy then.

Let everyone vote. Cradle-to-the-grave government requires cradle-to-the-grave participation, so why not?

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.

I'm just waiting when @NOS4A2 will come here to enthusiastically defend Trump. :lol:

You disappeared for a couple weeks there. Did you finally find a little angle to exploit?

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.