Are you not able to explore an issue without judging it? — frank

Of course. I was trying to explore your apparent contradiction.

Are you not able to explore an issue without judging it? An disenfranchised person could be white if they live in Kentucky and their community has been decimated by drug abuse. Just think about the generic struggling person. The issue is: which does more to help:

1. Alter their environment so that they are receiving positive recognition.
2. Alter their environment so they can get their share of the economic pie. — frank

Neither. It would seem to me that a person dealing with drug abuse is dealing with other issues - neither of which is recognition (most drug addicts won't admit they have a problem when others offer help), or economics (they can afford the their habit, it's just they have different priorities on what they spend their money on, including the case of minorities buying celebrity merchandise). There is already access to free rehabilitation and assistance for drug addicts. They just have to want to recover. It can be very difficult to do so, which is why I see it more as a mental disorder than a criminal act.

An advocate of identity politics would say that focusing entirely on economic realities fails to account for the fact that some people won't take advantage of the opportunities they have if they have a negative sense of identity. They won't excel in school, they won't go to college, they won't start small businesses. — frank

It seems to me that if you are offered an opportunity - that is a type of recognition. It is up to you whether you take advantage of it or keep blaming others for not giving you an opportunity.

My personal opinion, based on things I've seen, is that a capitalist society bestows recognition on anyone who has money. Make the money available, and they'll get recognition. — frank

Sure, especially those that came from a lower income upbringing to invent something awesome for the rest of society to use. We don't typically recognize lottery winners.

I agree. But I would say that lacking a clear sense of identity isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yes, it poses an obstacle to self-advocation, but a person like that is basically what a Buddhist is trying to figure out. — frank

What does one mean by, "identity"? If you already see your genetics as a defining characteristic - something that you did nothing to acquire - then you are simply being lazy with your identity, or see it as something that will get you benefits in certain societies. If you live in a society that shits on certain groups based on skin color, I could see you trying to hide your skin color. In a society that favors certain skin colors, you would want to flaunt your skin color. It seems that today's climate favors one being black (or any minority) and disfavors being white (the majority). If you are publicly proud of being a certain skin color then you don't live in a society that discriminates negatively upon that skin color, but positively. I want to live in a society where no one is proud or reluctant to be a certain skin color. They should be proud or shameful of their actions.

Again, I don't know. I would say an economic focus is more important that identity politics because to the extent that Hollywood panders to minorities, it's doing that because minorities buy tickets and merch. On the other hand, notice the next time you see a hospital advertisement. If they're depicting one of their awesome doctors, they'll be showing you an old white dude. Possibly Jewish. Why do you think they're doing that? — frank

But I thought you said it wasn't about money:

Identity politics is saying that what the oppressed need is not more money. — frank

If minorities are able to afford celebrity merchandise then they must not be doing to bad economically.

I don't know - is the doctor they are showing a doctor that actually works at that hospital, or did they find a Jewish person - maybe a family member of the producer - to act as a doctor? This is why I was asking about how much of what we show is reality vs. theatre? This is not to say that images of reality can't be shown out of context, though.

For instance, a poor student who works hard may still have fewer opportunities than a wealthy legacy student at Harvard, and a blacknman with the same resume as a white man is 50% less likely* to get a callback (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023). — Joshs

How was that percentage determined? Don't whites outnumber blacks more than 2-1? Speaking of percentages - what percentage of black should be represented on TV and in movies? They are only 15% of the population but some seem to think that every other person on TV and in movies should be a black person. What about other minorities? What about the disproportionate representation of whites? It seems that being black gives you a leg up in this industry.

As for school funding disparities, my wife is an elementary school teacher in a hispanic neighborhood. The neighborhood is middle class. Prior principals have failed the school where the school grade was a C for years. After a new principal took over the school has now been an A school for the past three years. It's not just money - administration has a lot to do with it.

You argue that modern identity politics is a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme of historical racism/sexism, but most modern identity-based movements seek equity, not supremacy. Reparations or diversity initiatives aim to reduce disparities, not establish a new hierarchy. — Joshs

We already live in a country with laws against discrimination. If you feel you were discriminated against, then you have paths you can take - there is even financial legal aid available for those that qualify.

It may be that to some extent, but we're looking at realist physics-and-matter-compliant phenomena exampling non-locality; the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics went to three researchers with something to say about the universe not being locally real. I understand this means, at least in part, that the reality immediately before us is not discretely mind-independent. That it appears to be, as explained by some researchers, stands due to the fact the environment, which includes sentients, measures material systems, thus cancelling their quantum effects. From this viewpoint, I can say that discrete mind-independence results “from a certain constrained view of ignorance.” — ucarr

If it's not locally real (what does "real" mean in this sense?) then why do physicists talk about electrons and photons being in a state of superposition? To talk about these things indicates that these things have some boundary that separates them from other electrons and photons, even when in a state of superposition - as if they have an existence independent of other things even in a state of superposition. What makes a thing an electron of photon and what makes one electron or photon separate from other electrons and photons? Physicists talk about electrons and photons as if they are real - even when in a state of superposition. Decoherence appears to simply change the states of electrons and photons - not make them real, as physicists use of language indicates that they are already real - even in a state of superposition.

Sentients haven't always existed. What was the world like before sentients existed? How did sentients come to exist? How is it that multiple sentients seem to come to the same conclusion about what is in the environment and even use each other to validate scientific theories by performing the same experiments from their own position in space-time.

Yes, the third state affords an exponential increase in info processing. Regarding improbabilities, earth being friendly to carbon-based life forms might be an example of an extreme statistical bias towards emergence of consciousness. — ucarr

But Earth is only only one of trillions, upon trillions of planets in the universe. It was just statistically possible given all the time and space that at least one planet would end up in a stable star system with the just right distance and chemistry for life. There may be other planets in which life evolved but not conscious life. It does not seem that the universe was fine-tuned for consciousness. Of course it seems like we are lucky being the beneficiaries of these purposeless natural causes. You might think you are lucky winning the lottery, but it was just a statistical reality that someone will win because millions are playing, and this time it was you. Luck becomes even less of a thing if there are trillions (or an infinite number) of other universes. The more time and space you have, the more likely you will get something unique occurring. How much time and space does one need for consciousness to have a chance to evolve? If there was a creator, it seems to me that it would require much less space than we have, and it is the mind-numbing expanse of space and time that is evidence that we are outcomes of purposeless processes, not a purposeful one.

I think the radicalism of QM is rooted in its intentional focus upon the strategic and useful confusion of the map with the territory. Were this confusion not useful, the memory lobes of your brain would not keep you connected to your childhood. — ucarr

I don't see how confusion could be useful, other than informing you that you don't have something quite right about your interpretation of reality, and to keep trying.

Before sentience, there were no boundaries. Dimensional extension defining the physics and materiality of things is rooted in cognition. Absent brain_mind, matter and its physics are a jumbled outpouring of potential states possibilities. Have you ever seen a computer monitor try to display the graphics of a program that requires a higher info-processing video card than the one installed in the computer? The screen shows a technicolor morass of jumbled, overlapping distortions unintelligible. This is my conjecture about the physics of the world independent of the organizing principles of cognition. — ucarr

I think of it more as the world is like an analog signal that minds digitize into discrete objects for the purpose of thinking and solving problems. The question is how much of the digital object is a mental construct and how much is a representation of the signal before being digitized. Does it even matter? Is that even a relevant question?

What defined the boundaries between sentient minds? What makes your mind "other" than mine?

Yes, my perception of the world is an approximation of same. The tricky thing that QM has taught us, is that the interpreting_approximating is bi-directional. The supposedly mind-independent world is not hardened into discrete system states, just as my ability to perceive and understand mind-independent world is not hardened into discrete system states. There is a dance between observed and observer. The adventure of living lies in the fact that while there are constraints upon what the dance steps can be, how they are attacked supports many, perhaps infinite variations. An example paralleling this is the keyboard of a piano. The number of notes provided by the keyboard are limited, but that number nonetheless supports many variations. We don't know exactly what the pianist will play. — ucarr

Well, the pianist is just another part. If we know the history of the pianist and what they know how to play and what they like to play, and what they have played most often, you don't really need to count the keys on the piano, do you?

I don't know. Is a strong will and the range by which we need confirmation from others to define ourselves an inborn trait (natural) or something that is the result of one's upbringing (nurtured)? While I will agree that our upbringing has a large impact on the person we are today, there are some that appear to develop in stark contrast to their upbringing. Maybe they were raised in a home that did neglect them but found a true friend that encouraged and supported them, and it still is the nurturing, I just can't say. We would have to study the details of each case.

The way this plays into identity politics is that a person who only sees negative images of people like themselves (say a black child only sees blackness depicted as being gang related, or enslavement) — frank

What black child today lives in such informational isolation?

Identity politics is saying that what the oppressed need is not more money. They usually aren't actually looking for that. What they want is recognition, which is a basic requirement of a psyche that can advocate for itself. — frank

I think that "recognition" isn't the right word here. It's "representation". To constantly be represented in a negative light can have a negative impact on one's sense of self. Some might say, that for a celebrity, any publicity is good publicity. That may be true for celebrities who make money by being in the spotlight, but not for the rest of us.

The question is do we bring down one group to raise another, or simply stop representing one group only in a negative light? And when are we representing a group in a negative light as opposed to merely pointing out facts? Is the answer that when talking about or showing images of gangs and slaves we show a majority of whites? Is the answer that we just stop talking about and showing images of gangs and slaves? If you know you are not in a gang and not a slave, isn't that clear evidence that the images do not define you as an individual?

Identity politics focuses on the characteristics of individuals that the individual, nor society, had no hand in making - genetics. People that criticize identity politics focus more on defining people by the characteristic of their actions, not their biology. One might say that a racist nation, like the U.S. in the later 18th and early 19th centuries, was a society based on identity politics - treating people differently based on the color of their skin and their sex. The U.S. has evolved since then, but it appears that there are some that want to take us backwards by pushing the pendulum back to the opposite extreme - where another group receives special treatment at the expense of others to make up for the way things were while ignoring how things are now.

Speculation: Math paradox the result of calculations points toward a higher dimensional object that resolves the paradox with an additional existential extension, i.e., with another dimension. Looking in the reverse direction, the paradox is the higher dimension in collapsed state. Example: If the statement, "If the set of all sets not containing themselves doesn't contain itself and thus does contain itself and thus..." oscillates between two contradictory states made equivalent, then this undecidable state of the system is hunting for a higher dimensional matrix in which to unfold itself. — ucarr

In other words, it is only a paradox from a certain constrained view of ignorance.

The pertinent question pertains to the existence of mitigation strategies for quantum error correction. Yes, (QECC) is employed with quantum computing; also, quantum processors are kept in vacuum chambers and shielded from electromagnetic interference. — ucarr

How does information get out if it is shielded? How are the states of the processors known if not by some interaction? What about:

Nothing exists in pure solitude—reality resists isolation. It is a web, not a wall (shield). — Alonsoaceves

?

There has been no first decoherence event because QM laws underlie the natural world. QM systems and Newtonian systems aren't isolated from each other. A quantum system loses its quantum phase relations (decoherence) through entanglement with it's surrounding environment. Isolation of a quantum system enables quantum coherence. Although quantum system phase relations have always been possible, only recently has humanity been able to perceive and then detect QM systems in isolation through math and super-colliders. — ucarr

In other words, an environment (space-time) has to exist for decoherence to occur. One might say it is the medium in which decoherence occurs. QM systems in isolation only exist on paper (math) or in extreme environments that only last a tiny fraction of a second (super-colliders and the Big Bang) - going back to what Alonsoaceves said - nature abhors solitude. The fact that we are even able to get information about sub-atomic particles being in a state of superposition means that information went in and came out in some way, and that superposition is simply one kind of state and "off" and "on" are other states. It seems to me that while nature abhors solitude, it also abhors being put into our mental categorical boxes.

So, the particle/wave duality is more effect of the processing limitations of human cognition than ontic state of physical systems? And yet, nevertheless, discrete objects are more at realism than at solipsism? — ucarr

Haven't scientists also said that we don't see the world as it is? How do they square that with their claims about how the brain works and how quantum systems work? Scientists have ignored consciousness as an integral part of how we do science in the first place. Are we talking about the world, or our view of the world? Are we confusing the map with the territory?

Since you seem unable to locate the whole university beyond the vaguely axiomatic language you've been using, you attack the messenger instead of the message by implying math is a human invention containing fabrications and distortions? — ucarr

So you don't agree that there is a distinction between the clear boundaries invented by humans and their language as opposed to "boundaries" that preceded human's and their languages existence? Crossing the border illegally is only a problem when borders are clearly defined. A human crossing that same piece of land 100,000 years ago would not have this to worry about. One might even say that the overlay of political maps on top of physical maps is another dimension itself - the dimension of the mind.

Should there be ambiguity of causation, would you understand it as another instance of contrived uncertainty rooted in the misuse of language? — ucarr

No because language depends on causation and realism. The fact that we have language at all is evidence that causation and realism are the case. There is a cause that preceded my observation of your scribbles on this screen. You had to have the intent to convey information and a computer and internet access as a means to relay the message. It took time for you to convert your visual constructs of the world to scribbles and then type them out and submit your post. If you had no visual construct that you converted to scribbles, and/or your visual construct is not representative of some aspect of reality, then what are the scribbles about? What are you referring to when using scribbles - more scribbles (a solipsist answer) or something in the world that is not more scribbles, and might not even be visible from your perspective - hence the use of language to inform others of things that they were not already aware of (mind-independent) (a realist answer)?

I am talking about the Mind, not God. There is a beginning for time. Either the stuff (the physical, for example) existed at the beginning of time and evolved to form life, or there was a God who created what was necessary. What was necessary is the subject of discussion. I have an argument about "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" (which can be found here), so the first case is discarded; therefore, there is a God. — MoK

I thought you were talking about the Mind, not God. What is the difference anyway? What is the nature of God, or Mind, if not physical themselves? How does something non-physical interact with the physical?

Yes, mixing, as it relates to blue paint and yellow paint, is an important part of the analogy. But like we aren’t really talking about paint, or blue, or yellow, when we use them to analogize something else, we aren’t really talking about mixing necessarily either. — Fire Ologist

But we are. We are talking about mixing causes to produce a new effect. An effect only occurs as an integration of prior events. An apple only rots when it interacts with bacteria. An apple cannot rot on its own, and bacteria need attach themselves to something for it to rot. An apple does not rot in the vacuum of space.

I still think it is interesting how such a simple analogy can help us see som many different ideas. — Fire Ologist

I think that information is a fundamental part of reality and is the relationship between causes and their effects. The analogy can describe evidence, or reasons (the blue and yellow paint), reasoning (the mixing), and a conclusion (the green paint).

No. A person who invests themselves fully in the identity of Democrat or MAGA probably didn't experience neglect, whether they accept that categorization enlarges the pixels is a different matter. — frank

I don't see it that way at all. There is a difference between being raised to think independently (either by accident or on purpose, depending on the type of parenting) and being neglected.

I think that those that either received too much attention as a child and those that received very little are the same ones that invest their time on social media for the sole purpose of receiving likes - confirmation of their beliefs, because they expect it (because they've always received it), or they need it (because they never had it).

Those that fully invest themselves into a political party have given up their freedom to think for themselves, probably because they haven't had to think for themselves most of their life.

You say paradox = misuse of language. If I understand misuse in our context here as some type of violation, then I can ask, "What is being violated by language that expresses paradox?" For example, "Does paradoxical language violate the rules of inference?" If so, how so? — ucarr

It appears to violate the rules of semantics - what in the world is the paradox about? Using your example of inference, what observable evidence proves the paradox points to any real aspect of reality? Einstein's theories had to be proven by observation. Where do we observe the paradox in nature independent of the relationship between some scribbles on a computer screen or sheet of paper? You've mentioned QM...

It is said that the qubits of quantum computing possess categorically higher computing capacity vis-à-vis the bits of classical computing. The basic explanation for the quantum leap upward in computing power is the superposition of one qubit in two positions simultaneously. These qubits are physical entities, not abstractions resulting from twisting verbiage into language games resulting in paradoxes. How do you reconcile your denial of the reality of quantum physics with quantum computers? — ucarr

I don't deny that we have descriptions of nature that work. In what state is the quantum computer when not looking at it? The issue with QM does not seem to explain decoherence in a sensible way. If decoherence requires interaction with other decohered (classical) systems, how did the first decoherence event happen? What started the chain? Didn't space-time have to exist prior to allow decoherence?

There exists a Mind that is omnipresent in space and time, responsible for change in matter everywhere. — MoK

This seems to be part of the same problem. If minds are needed to change matter, what got the first mind going? It's a infinite regress of minds, just as we have an infinite regress of decoherence.

Do you think the principle of non-contradiction is the security checkpoint blocking the entry of paradoxes into the realm of mind-independent reality? — ucarr

Yes, but this does not deny that the extremes are the only kind of existence. In fact, I think it is the extremes that are mental constructs. We tend to perceive the world in discrete states, even black and white sometimes, when the world is a process, and it is the relative frequency of change of the external world processes relative to the processing speed of our sensory-brain system that seems to have an effect on which processes we perceive as discrete, stable, solid objects as opposed to other processes with no discrete boundaries. To say that something is neither this or that seems to mean that it is something else, which is logically possible and empirically provable.

Above you describe some details of the part/whole relationship. I take from it your belief the whole self is a gestalt emergence from its parts and, as such, it’s partially distinct from the parts and thus not completely local to said parts. This, again, is a non-local but attached whole that is a part and yet not entirely a part of itself. Note how you say, “Your whole self is not part of itself.” in a context wherein the reader notices the repetition of “self.” If my whole self is not part of itself, how is it a self? — ucarr

I think that the emergence you speak of is really a particular view, not something mind-dependent. We use particular views of nature for certain purposes, whether it be at the atomic, molecular, genetic, organism, species, etc. level. The discrete gestalts are mental constructs used to solve problems at that level (like how to treat organisms at the molecular level for diseases or how to treat organisms at a cultural/moral level). I think that it is goal-oriented, executive cognitive functions that form these discrete objects to solve problems - almost like a quantum computer.

As you add up the parts of the university towards a sum of the whole of the university, is there a discrete boundary line marking a division between the region housing an accumulating sum to a whole and the region where the whole resides?

If we suppose there's no such boundary line, must we admit there's no verifiably whole university, but instead only a forever-accumulating collection of parts? — ucarr

Sure, call a surveyor and they will tell you what the boundary is. There seems to be a distinction between artificial/arbitrary boundaries defined by human beings as opposed to natural boundaries where they seem more vague.

Have you seen the world "as it is" in distinction from having seen the world? — ucarr

My mind is part of the world. I experience it as it is. I am a realist (not a direct or indirect realist, as I see them as a false dichotomy) so I believe that my mind informs me of the way the world is via causation. Effects inform us of the causes and allow use to make accurate predictions of future effects.

I think you internalize external world within isolated mind in order to give it the power of reasoning to conclusions. How could such internalization occur if world and mind have no connection? Also, you seem to be assuming both mind and external world, with both independent. Isn't this how you've been defining mind-independent reality? — ucarr

One might ask how logic/reasoning comes about without an external world as input to work with. What happens when we put someone in a sensory deprivation chamber for an extended period? They tend to go insane and hallucinate (one might start thinking in paradoxes), but they don't cease to exist.

I do not mean that mind and world are separate, only that there are processes that are not mind-processes and processes that are. An apple is a process (it ripens and rots), but not a mental one. Mental processes are complex interaction of new sensory information, stored sensory information and a goal-directed central executive. Natural selection is not just a purposeless process as natural selection is not just how the climate and geology steer evolution but other organisms (other minds) play a role on the evolution of other organisms. Humans are the ones that have made the leap of shaping the world and other organisms more than any other lifeform before. Nature is being shaped purposefully for human needs and wants. Technology appears to blur the lines of a mind-independent world as technology are effects of purposeful, goal-directed behavior - minds, or mental processes.

Consider the phrase, "I am politically nonbinary.". Do you discern the speaker's intent differently if they are liberal or conservative? — David Hubbs

Which version of "liberal" are you using here - The leftists/socialists version that uses the term in a manipulative way as cover for their authoritarian ideals, or the classic liberal (libertarian)?

As others have said, it's a strange way of saying you have no party affiliation or are apolitical. The use of "binary" seems to indicate that it would only be meaningful in a two-party system - that their political views lie outside of the two primary parties, or that a number of ideas from each side are shared almost equally.

Today, the "nonbinary" term carries an extra connotation for many people implying some aspect of gender within it. Does this mean that they are politically fluid as well? If the person calling themselves "politically nonbinary" also believes they can tell others what kinds of words they can or can't use within and outside their presence, then they would be definitely be sharing the authoritarian ideals of both extremes equally, and not be liberal, by definition.

If the person simply means that they are moderate/independent/apolitical, that would indicate to me that they would anti-authoritarian - libertarian (liberal). If that is what they meant without any extra connotations, then there are better ways to say it.

But I showed you that you did:

But it is still the case that A caused C — Michael

What you should have said is, "it is the case that A is a cause of C" because it appears that you were walking back your statement that there are other causes with the statement you actually used.

All I am saying is that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff or by shooting them. This is irrefutable. And I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights". — Michael

Exactly. You can kill someone by pushing them off, but not necessarily so. Other causes have to line up perfectly for someone to die from you pushing them off a cliff. The examples you have provided make it easy for these other causes (gravity and the level of certainty technology provides) to line up with your intent (hence the straw-man). Now if you want to make the examples applicable to the theme of the thread then you would replace gravity and technology in your examples with other humans.

Your sentence in bold makes a declaration about a phenomenon pertaining to language usage: paradox. This usage happens, it's real, it exists. This fact gives us reason to believe paradoxical language exists and therefore should be included in a collection of everything. — ucarr

Here you seem to be making a distinction between what "everything" refers to and what "paradox" refers to. Yes, paradoxes exist. Paradoxes are a misuse of language. Misuses of language are real events. They are part of everything, but everything is not part of everything.

QM has a high rate of verification in nature, so the question of paradoxical physics is unresolved. — ucarr

QM reveals paradoxes in our descriptions and understanding of the universe, and is not representative of a fundamental nature of reality, but is representative of our ignorance. QM does not fit into our everyday experience of the world. The paradox just means that we haven't been able to reconcile classical physics with QM, but I think we eventually will, and I believe it will come with a better description of consciousness than the ones we currently have. What does QM say about the existence of other people and their minds (observers/measurers)? Isn't Schrodinger's cat an observer?

Logicians saw nothing wrong with unrestricted comprehension for set theory until Russell's Paradox. To me this indicates pre-Russell logicians believing a set containing itself permissible in nature at the level of abstract thought. — ucarr

Ok, at the level of abstract thought - yes, but not at the level of fundamental reality. If solipsism is the case then abstract thought is the fundamental reality. If solipsism is the case then paradoxes are an inherent part reality. Realism implies that we can be wrong about reality - that we can misunderstand and create conceptual paradoxes that are not representative of a mind-independent reality. These logicians appear to be too focused on syntax at the expense of semantics. Just because you followed the rules of some language does not necessarily mean you have actually said anything about the world. Just ask lawyers and computer programmers. They understand that words mean things and is why they try to be exact (non-paradoxical) in their use of language. Logic is only useful when it can be applied to the world and not merely a focus on the relationship between some scribbles.

Our general question here pertains to how a thing is related to itself. This relationship is a fundamental part of consciousness because it's rooted in self-awareness. In my being aware of myself, am I not wholly aware of my whole self? If my whole self is not a part of myself, my thinking to the contrary seems to example Ryle's category error: I'm walking around on the university campus looking for the university which, wholly speaking, is not a part of the campus. I'm duped by my own fallacy of putting the university into the wrong category, itself. Let's see now, there's a physics building that's part of the university; to that I can add the biology building, and then the English department; when does the growing aggregate of parts reach the point where the calculus segregates the parts from the whole of the university? If my whole self is not part of itself, then that's a non-local distribution of the whole self beyond itself, and thus necessarily the self cannot be complete and self-contained, and thus we're back to the superposition of one thing two places at once. QM tantalizes us with the moot possibility of the reality of self-contradiction and thus identity fundamentally non-local. — ucarr

Reading this made me dizzy. I have no idea what it means for a thing to be related to itself. A thing is a relation between its parts, and the boundaries of the thing are defined by the present goal in the mind. Are we attending ourselves, or a particular organ of ourselves, or our relation with other humans, or our relation with nature, etc.,? The answer lies within the current goal. Your whole self is not part of your self. It IS your self - that is what "whole" means. Your whole self is not part of itself. It is part of a society and species.

When you say you are self-aware, what are you attending - your mind, your body, etc.? What is the self that you are aware of, to even say you are aware of it? Their body is an "external" object to the mind, so we would be attending external processes. But we can turn our attention back upon itself - attending our attention, thinking about thinking, aware of awareness, kind of like how a feedback loop is created when we turn a camera-monitor system's view back upon itself, or a microphone-speaker's system back upon itself.

What is a university if not the aggregation of buildings, professors and students? The university is not part of the university, unless you're saying the idea of the university in the mind of a professor or student is part of the university. The physical university is not part of the physical university just as the abstract idea of a university is not part of the abstract idea of a university. When talking about a university or ourselves we are talking about the unity of parts that constitute these things, or we could be talking about these things are parts of a larger whole - as in the university is part of the city or state that is part of the university's name, or you are part of a society or species.

Regarding the possibility of mind-independence, picture yourself placing a phone call to a close friend. You hope the friend will answer, thus making a conversation you deem important immediately possible. If solipsism is real, and thus no mind-independence, then why doesn't your mind know whether or not your friend will answer at a given moment in time? If the phone conversation is but a product of your mind, shouldn't your mind know when to call for an answer? Beyond that, why doesn't your mind, all-powerful in creating what you perceive as real, create everything exactly as it wishes? Why should your mind ever tolerate any degree of uncertainty? — ucarr

Yes, I have thought of these same types of questions that if solipsism is the case then why can't I merely will myself to fly and be invisible to others? Why do I perceive myself always in the same position of being at the top of this same pedestal I call my body? Why do I wake up to the same world each morning that continues where I left off when I went to sleep? It seems that the will has no bearing on the rest of the current contents of my mind, and only makes sense if there is an external world that has a "will" (or wills as in other minds) separate from my own.

If, by these arguments, we lean towards belief in mind-independent reality, then how does the mind of the observer of the what undermine the brute fact and independence of the what? — ucarr

To a certain degree, we can. We have the power to change the world but there are obvious limits to our power and current understanding and descriptions of the world - that our understanding of the world is not the same as the world as it is.

On the flip side, if the self of the mind is one with its context of reality, and no subject/object separation is possible, how is consciousness possible? — ucarr

It wouldn't be. This is why solipsism ultimately resolves down to there being no mind - only a reality where "reasons" that lead to "conclusions" would be the only type of cause and effect. There would be no external causes that lead to the effect of the mind and the mind would not be a cause of changes in the external world.

Suppose I argue that you know the what you perceive exists beyond your perception because you question whether or not it might exist in independence? Isn't your ability to question the what's independence contingent upon your general uncertainty about many things? If your mind projects all of reality, how could it ever want for anything it has capacity to conceive of? — ucarr

I often bring up the idea of object permanence as a cognitive milestone that develops naturally within humans and other large-brained organisms. I think that we are born solipsists and through experience and reasoning we naturally conclude that realism is the case.

I think you are thinking about the terms of the analogy too literally. The blue paint would represent all kinds of different inputs. The yellow paint represents the processing of the imputs, and the green is the output. We aren’t mixing paint anymore; we are using the concept “mixing paint” as an analogy for generating output by data processing. But it was your idea, so maybe I just don’t follow how blue, yellow green will be enough to analogize data processing if you use up the blue and the yellow to both represent input data. If you want blue and yellow to both be different data inputs, it seems to me you need more elemental pieces be added to the analogy to take those inputs, process them and cause outputs, so my simpler analogy doesn’t actually work (unless maybe you use it as data input blue, processing yellow, data out green.) — Fire Ologist

Then I don't understand how you get green paint without mixing blue and yellow. Mixing seems to be a very important part. It seems to me that blue and yellow would represent multiple inputs (we could add more colors if we wanted and we'd get a different output). Maybe your thinking of yellow as the actual program, or algorithm, and the blue as the input. The program exists but it is inert until it receives input. Mixing here would be the action the program takes with the input.

By saying this you imply everything is not part of itself and thus you imply everything is not everything; this is a replication of Russell's Paradox. — ucarr

This is not what I'm implying when I use those words, and I don't know anyone that does imply that when using the term, "everything". It is only a misuse of language that allows one to create the paradox. "Everything" is not a thing and therefore would not be included in "all things". A theory of everything would be able to predict why there is a theory of everything.

"Everything" could be implying "infinity" and "eternity" here. Everything does not imply either a closed or open system. It merely refers to all things. By definition, "everything" does not include "everything", it is merely a scribble that refers to everything that exists - whether we are aware of it's existence or not is a different matter.

It's not my problem because I didn’t claim that A alone can cause C. I only claimed that I can kill someone by pushing them off a cliff. — Michael

Sure you did:

But it is still the case that A caused C — Michael

You have never said A and B caused C.

But your urge to use an analogy of a device that is programmed and engineered to obey your commands is a tell, to me, because human beings don’t operate like that. Someone might come to agree with you or believe as you do, but it isn’t because your soundwaves hit their eardrums setting off a domino effect in their skull. — NOS4A2

Exactly. His use of gravity as another irresistible force in his other example is the same. People cannot generally resist gravity, but people can resist speech. My focus has always been on what makes some people resist speech and others not. It is also possible that a listener already agreed with what was said prior to it being said (the speech they hear reinforces their own beliefs), so their reaction may appear to be caused by speech when it wasn't. The listener is just blaming their actions on another's speech to absolve themselves of their own guilt.

I can kill people by pushing them off a cliff or by shooting them. The fact that some people can survive being pushed off a cliff or shot does not refute this. Your reasoning is so bad that I think AmadeusD is right in accusing you of trolling. — Michael

You can only kill people by pushing them off a cliff or shooting them if other things happen besides you pushing them or shooting them. So A alone cannot be the cause of C. That is your problem.

Yes, there are plenty of other causes in between.

But it's still the case that I killed John by pushing him off a cliff. — Michael

Only because you are using the force of gravity as a metaphor for the force of speech. Gravity can't be resisted. Speech can. This is why your example is flawed.

If one example shows that pushing someone off a cliff did not kill them then it stands that pushing someone off is not a guarantee that someone will die.

Your apparent suggestion that if B is a "more immediate" cause than A then A isn't a cause is a non sequitur. A causes B causes C causes D ... causes X. Therefore, A causes X. — Michael

Which leads to a slippery slope. It isn't a non sequitur when I can show that there are instances where A did not cause D. A is only a cause of B, B is a cause of C and C is a cause of D. A cannot be the cause of D when B and C have the power to negate A as a cause. This is shown in your 2nd Scenario. Did you pushing Jane off cause Jane to not die? You're the one dealing in non sequiturs.

what caused Jane to not die? Isn't doing the same thing and expecting the same result the definition of insanity? If a different result occurred then you obviously weren't doing the same thing. You're missing something in Scenario 2. And I'm also asking what happened to that thing in Scenario 1. In showing that there are different outcomes to A and B means that there is another cause between B and C. What is that cause?

What are you talking about? Are you forgetting what the letters stand for?

A = I push John off a cliff
B = John hits the ground at high speed
C = John dies

There are just two people involved in this scenario; me and John. — Michael

Your example only shows when A causes C. By only providing an example of how A causes C you imply that you only believe that A causes C. How about an example of where A does not cause C? You agreed that we have free will, so how does free will play into your examples?

I am trying to get at how we know when it is A that causes C as opposed to B causing C. You seem to be saying that A causes C when A causes C an B causes C when B causes C. How is that helpful?

**You made a point earlier about doubting whether the threatner would make good(here, to torture your family - let's say to death, to make it juicy). That is not your decision; it is theirs and you must make a dice-roll with regard to that factor. However, if you doubt, resist, and you're wrong - your family are all tortured to death while you watch - I presume you will wish you made the other choice (i.e gave in to coercion).
— AmadeusD
In other words, we are all going to be tortured and die regardless of whether we do what the terrorist says or not, so why not put up a fight? — Harry Hindu

I wanted to add to this. Given the situation that you have laid out with terrorists threatening death and torture if you do not do as they demand, ANYONE would come to the same logical conclusion that the terrorists are not likely to keep their word and fight back. It seems to me that only those that have some kind of want to torture their family would do so rather than fight back.

Yes, which is factually true. If I push John off a cliff and he falls to his death then I caused his death, but if I push Jane off a cliff and she doesn't fall to her death then I didn't cause her death. What is so difficult to understand or accept about this? It's common sense. — Michael

Exactly. But you fail to address where B is when A causes C. We know that B exists when A does not cause C, but where is B when A causes C? How do we know if B agreed with A and therefore caused C?

You really need to read what I have been writing and not this imaginary argument you think I'm making. — Michael

I have been reading what you wrote: A causes C except when it doesn't.

The "you" is a sentient being with an enduring point of view evolving as a personal history and a capacity for abstract thought preserved in memory.

The “you” and the “what” both occupy spacetime in a relationship allowing the “you” to have an empirical experience perceiving the “what.” — ucarr

But isn't all this a "how" of the "what"?

By "realism" I understand you to refer to an aspect of empirical experience that I define thus: If you know what a thing is (you know the measurements of its dimensions) and where it is (you know where a thing is positioned by measuring the relationship of its spatial dimensions to the spatial dimensions of things around it), then you know the reality of the thing. — ucarr

By realism, I mean the idea that there is a mind-independent world - a "how" to the "what". In other words, "the what stands before the you" is a statement made only after one has provided a type of "how" to the "what". The "you" would also be a "how" in trying to make sense of the "what". Another type of "how" would be solipsism. If solipsism were the case, there would be no you with a what standing before it. You and the what would be one and the same if solipsism were the case.

Since solipsism assumes sentience, and therefore self-awareness and its attendant self-objectification, then the sentient maintains a view of itself. I think your, "...reality itself with the only continuity being the loop of causation within itself." excludes sentience and therefore precludes solipsism. This state of reality reads like Kant's noumenal realm, a realm that strikes me as the set of axiomatically real things, i.e., brute existential facts. — ucarr

Exactly. Solipsism is a possible "how" to the "what". The way I interpreted your "what" is simply an acknowledgement that something exists (axiomatic), and the "how" is an explanation as to the nature of what and the why it exists in the first place (solipsism and realism are possible explanations of the "what" - the thing that exists). Whether the "what" is a mind (solipsism) or a world (realism) is all laid out by the "how". So talking about awareness and sentience already assumes that the "what" is a mind. What I meant by, "reality itself with the only continuity being the loop of causation within itself" was that if solipsism is the case, then the "what" is all that exists and all continuity would be contained within it. Realism is the notion that the "what" is not all that exists.

Firstly, I respond by repeating my argument directly above. Secondly, I respond by invoking Russell's Paradox. The upshot of this paradox is seeing that for set theory, the scope of comprehension cannot logically support itself without restriction. There is no set that contains everything. There can be no unification of everything into oneness. Perhaps you say the universe is not a set. Well, I too say it's not a set. I justify my claim by saying existence is incomplete. Moreover, I say existence, by its nature, preserves its incompleteness strategically. For these reasons, I claim there is no complete continuity. Were that possible, there could be unification of everything into oneness. — ucarr

What does "everything" mean if not putting all things under one category - everything? And doesn't "everything" imply that there are no things external to it because it includes ALL things - everywhere and everywhen. If existence is eternal, "existence" would simply be synonymous with "everything". Doesn't solipsism imply that the "what" is all there is? Isn't this why the "you", and by extension "self-awareness" (awareness of "you") in solipsism is really just part of the "how"? Solipsism is simply trying to make sense of the "what" and uses terms like "you" and "self-awareness" as the "how" to explain the nature of "what". The issue is in the instinctive, axiomatic nature of explaining the "what" in the first place. Explanation appears to be an inherent part of the "what". Maybe I'm wrong and it is part of the "how".

That's the heart of strategic incompletion. The world is a story always approaching The Now but never arriving, and that's a good thing. — ucarr

I don't really understand how it's a paradox. Everything is all things and would be illogical to include everything as part of itself. Everything, by definition, is all things so would be an improper use of language to then assert that everything is part of something rather than all things, or that everything should refer to itself. It seems to me that the paradox is really the result of a misuse of language.

And as for the specific topic hand, it’s perfectly reasonable to be both a free will libertarian and accept that we can persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, etc. with our words. There’s just nothing superstitious or magical about any of this. — Michael

Of course it is, but you've only focused on the "persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce" part and left out the "free will" part. Your argument that A causes C implies that B has no culpability in the crimes that were committed. B is the more immediate cause to C and is why B receives a more robust punishment than A.

Aside from this, what you hypothetically think has zero bearing on the actual situation of coercion being real. If you could please quote where it was somehow requisite that coercion worked in every case, that would be helpful. But you wont, because I've already noted that some are resilient to coercion and would rather die than acquiesce. So much is true, and has nothing to say about the existence and reality of coercion. — AmadeusD

So your argument is just because you haven't been able to show an example of coercion (god) existing doesn't mean coercion (god) does not exist. Showing that someone would rather die that acquiesce is evidence, not proof, of coercion not existing. In this case, you would need to come up with another example, not make more assertions without providing evidence of your claims. It was your example of coercion that I shot down, and now you are saying that wasn't an example of coercion anyway. And you're calling me a troll? Give me a break.


Earlier, we spoke about the level of punishment one receives compared to the person that was "coerced". It was the "how" people are coerced that I was focusing on, and how we determine if someone was coerced into doing something they would not have, or if they were merely using coercion as an excuse to do bad things.

If someone makes a speech that misinforms me and manipulates me into thinking my rights are threatened when they actually aren't was I responsible at all for acting on this information? I was made to believe that my life was in danger or threatened. You said that I would not be held accountable for torturing my wife under duress. Would that not be the same in the example I just provided?

It means it is effective, to a high degree. It can cause otherwise 'good' people to do extremely bad things, in order to avoid what they perceive to be worse outcomes threatened in lieu. — AmadeusD

Which seems to be equivalent to your example of good people acting under duress and should not be held accountable for their actions. But you then agreed that the people that performed the action under duress should receive the harshest punishment. So the question remains, how do we determine the level of culpability between the inciter and the incited?

**You made a point earlier about doubting whether the threatner would make good(here, to torture your family - let's say to death, to make it juicy). That is not your decision; it is theirs and you must make a dice-roll with regard to that factor. However, if you doubt, resist, and you're wrong - your family are all tortured to death while you watch - I presume you will wish you made the other choice (i.e gave in to coercion). — AmadeusD

In other words, we are all going to be tortured and die regardless of whether we do what the terrorist says or not, so why not put up a fight? Not to mention that the terrorist could be getting orders from a superior, so is the terrorist now absolved of all guilt because they were just following orders and threatened to be beheaded and their families stoned to death, if they didn't? How far up the chain does it go, and how does one determine the level of culpability for each actor in the chain?

You claim that coercion exists, but not always, yet you seem to be saying coercion exists when it exists, without providing a why it exists in some cases and not in others and how that might show that what you call coercive might not be because you have acknowledged that some people shouldn't be blamed for being coerced and some should when our laws are not hard-wired. It is the reason we not only have law-makers but law-interpreters (judges) that determine the applicability of the law to the current situation and who is more or less culpable for the crimes committed.

It's not a strawmen because NOS4A2 is literally and explicitly saying that if I push someone off a cliff and they fall to their death then I didn't cause their death. He is wrong. — Michael

It is a strawman precisely because you have abandoned what it is we are actually talking about - speech and its impact on others behavior and the power a listener has, to find a more easily defensible position that does not include the power a listener has. Abandon talk about cliffs and being pushed off of them and answer this question:

If you say something and I shoot you because I didn't like what you said, who is at fault for you being shot? Did you coerce me into shooting you? — Harry Hindu

I claim that both A and B caused C. NOS4A2 claims that only B caused C. — Michael

B is the more immediate cause of C precisely because B has power to override A. Your argument does not show that, so is a straw-man.

A = I pushed John off a cliff
B = John hit the ground at high speed
C = John dies

What does it mean for B to "override" A? — Michael

Hello? Is this thing on? That is what I'm telling you - your analogy is flawed and does not represent the the nature of speech and its influence on others.

I adjusted your analogy to better represent the nature of speech but you didn't answer the question of who would be responsible for your death.

If you say something and I shoot you because I didn't like what you said, who is at fault for you being shot? Did you coerce me into shooting you?

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. — Michael

And what I'm saying is that your analogy does not take into account that the B can override A.

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.

Good one, although I’d say blue represents the input, yellow represents the processing, and green represents the output…It could work. — Fire Ologist

That doesn't make sense. What makes the blue the input and not the yellow when they both exist in equal terms prior to mixing them? What role does mixing the two colors play because you don't get green until blue and yellow are mixed? It is the mixing that is the process. A process is the interaction of two or more causes (colors) that produces a (single) output.

So, maybe the answer is, there is no “color” absent the eyeball and brain that receives light and processes it. Once processed, we perceive the color now constructed by the brain as the light reflected off of some object, now “seen” as whatever color our eyeball can make of whatever light it receives. Right? — Fire Ologist

Sure. Just as there is no you in this moment absent your mother and father having sex, giving birth to you and raising you.

Colors are the effect of prior causes - of light reflecting off an object, into your eye and processed in a way that informs an organism of the nature of the object the light was reflected off of, the nature of the light in the environment and the state of our eyes and brain. Because all of these things are within the causal chain that precedes the existence of a color, color can be used to inform us of the causes that preceded it. If I don't experience color, the issue could be that the object absorbs all light, or there is something different about the light in the environment (no light or the presence of a light filter on the light source, etc.), or my eyes and/or brain are not functioning properly.

I'm not sure that I would say that we perceive colors. We perceive the characteristics of the causal chain by way of the effects it leaves - color. I would only say that we perceived color when we start thinking about thinking, or perceiving perceptions - when we turn our mind back upon itself, like turning a camera back upon the monitor, or the microphone to the speaker, it is connected to.

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 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.

The "what," ultimately, is axiomatic. There it is before you. No analysis can justify it being there before you. Logic might justify how it came to be there before you, but the fact of its presence before you lies beyond the reach of continuity. So, Heisenberg and Gödel alert us to the incompleteness of continuity.

The "how" is a narrative that distributes the "what." Herein lies meaningful continuity. When we seek answers, we seek a story that supplies those answers. The greatness of a story lies within the "how," not within the "what." A great story about mediocre things is more momentous than a mediocre story about great things. — ucarr

What is the "you" in this explanation, and what is the relation of "stands before it" - spatial, temporal, etc.? If you are describing a view doesn't that mean realism is the case? If solipsism is the case, then it would not be proper to call it a view, but reality itself with the only continuity being the loop of causation within itself. Continuity would be complete if solipsism is the case.

If solipsism is the case, then why does the "what" appear as the view of an external world if it isn't? It appears that way axiomatically. I respond to the "what" instinctively in a way that treats it as an external world. The instincts become part of the "what". The instinctive analysis and logic (integrating the "what" with another part of the "what" (memories (retained "whats")) (why do similar "whats" axiomatically integrate with similar memories) is part of the "what" as well.

How can one say that there is an incompleteness of continuity when one can predict which direction the causal continuity will go within one's own mind (perceiving, reasoning, etc. reasons precede and support conclusions) by using logic that can be applied to there being continuity beyond the mind that produces predictable "whats" in the same way that using logic to explain only the continuity of the mind will produce predictable results - conclusions will always follow reasons, etc.?

If I fail to apply logic to only the continuity of the goings on within the "what" then I fail to achieve predictable results within the "what" itself.

I think this distinction between the what and the how is very important. It is what allows us to see that meaning is finite. It is not just that, as Gödel asserted, each axiomatic system grounds itself within a more encompassing system ad infinitum, but that the changes over time in the stories and narratives we use to interpret experience aren’t logically derivable from each other. They dont fit one within the other in an infinite regress, but follow one another as a change of subject. — Joshs

I think the more important distinction that needs to cleared up is the "you" and the "what stands before it".

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?

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 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?

What other areas, things, concepts, experiences, might it depict? — Fire Ologist

Information and information processing? Input-output? Blue and yellow the input, mixing them together is the process, and green the output?

What color is the paint when the lights are out? We don't see paint. We see light.

I’ve come to the conclusion that most media portrayals of AI developing "its own motives" are based on flawed reasoning. I don’t believe that machines—now or ever—will develop intrinsic motivation, in the sense of acting from self-generated desire. This is because I believe something far more basic: not even human beings have free will in any meaningful, causally independent sense. — Jacques

That's because AI hasn't been programmed to acquire information for its own purposes. It is designed to acquire information only from a human and then process that information for a human. If we were to design a robot AI like a human - with a body an sensory organs (cameras for eyes, microphones for ears, chemical analyzers for taste and smell, tactile sensors for touch, etc.) and program it to take in information from other sources, not just humans, and use it to improve upon itself (it can rewrite its code, like we rewire our brains when learning something) and others, then it would develop its own intrinsic motives.

In this case, humans would simply be part of the naturally selective process promoting a design that allows the robot-AI to develop its own intrinsic motives. With humans and their minds now part of the environment, natural selection has become purposeful.

To me, human decisions are the inevitable product of evolutionary predispositions and environmental conditioning. — Jacques

Evolutionary predispositions and environmental conditioning determine our genes, but our genes have the current environment to deal with which could be different than the conditions prior (like having an over abundance of sugar in our diet). So our decisions are more of a product of our genes interacting with our current environment.

It appears to me that evolutionary selective processes would favor organisms that adapt more quickly to dynamic environments and approach new situations with an open mind to learn new things that might be advantageous or a detriment to one's fitness. It would also be helpful to have a good memory and an ability to pick out the finer details (have a higher resolution) of reality.

Our ancestors left the forest to live on the savannah. Just as an ostrich repurposes its wings, our ancestors repurposed our hands. Instead of being primarily used for climbing our hands became primarily used for tool-making, and that is what set off a chain of events in our brains over the past three million years (a very brief period evolutionarily speaking). If organs can be repurposed, why can't the brain, as in repurposing it for things other than just survival and reproduction.

I also reject the idea that humans possess some irreducibly mysterious cognitive abilities. Qualia, intuition, consciousness—they are all real phenomena, but I see no reason to believe they’re anything but products of material data processing. The brain, though vastly complex, is just a physical machine. If that machine can experience qualia, why not a future machine of equal or greater complexity? — Jacques

While I would agree with your last point, I don't know how a "physical" machine would experience qualia. The visual experience of a brain and its neurons, and of a computer and its circuits, is information. It is information because it is an effect of prior causes and the effect informs us of the causes - the environment's interaction with my body. While the world is not as it appears, it is as we are informed it is, and "informed" is not what just one sense is telling you, but includes integrating all sensory information (why else would we have multiple senses?)

This idea reminds me of Turing’s Halting Problem: the impossibility of writing a general program that determines whether any arbitrary program halts. — Jacques

This appears to simply be a projection of our ignorance of what can happen in the future. We can design an algorithm for a specific system that never interacts with an external system and it works. The problem is there are other external systems that interact. Our solar system is a complex interaction of gravitational forces and has been stable and predicable for billions of years, but an external object like a black hole or a brown dwarf could fly through the system and disrupt the system. It seems to me that every system halts at some point except reality itself (existence is infinite in time and space or existence is an infinite loop).


.

Sympathy is applied empathy as wisdom is applied intelligence.

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"?