But this isn’t “cancel culture”. This is government pressure.

The general public are well within their rights to “demand” that someone be fired, and threaten a boycott otherwise, because the general public are under no obligation to buy some business’s goods or services. That’s a legitimate expression of free speech.

But the president and government agencies threatening to revoke their critics’ licenses is a different matter entirely. — Michael

Well, yeah. The decline of late-night comedy shows due to the lack of comedy and alternate viewpoints is effectively "cancel culture".

Most Americans are tired of the bias and hypocrisy. We want open debate with all sides being represented.

The legacy media is also being canceled because they only promote the two-party system by having only left and right talking points.

Why does the media even interview Democrats or Republicans anymore? We already know what they are going to say on some issue - bashing the other side's stance while propping up their own all while never directly answering a direct question.

I want to hear more from Independents - the largest political group now - and free-thinkers and not political party group-thinkers and group-haters. There are more than just two points of view on an issue. Why are Independents not getting proportional representation in the media considering there are more Independents than Democrats or Republicans? Because the media is part of the two-party system and thrives and profits off conflict. The best solutions lie somewhere between the two extremes of left and right.

The point is that both sides are to blame for "cancel culture" and for using political power to limit free speech.

The problem wasn't what Kimmel said. The problem was that he didn't have anyone on his show to provide an alternate view or argument to what he said.

The side that is the minority tends to embrace free speech and then acts to limit when they are in the majority.

Free speech is the capacity to question and argue against authority, not the capacity to say what you want without repercussions. Only a totalitarian would expect to be able to speak without any consequences. In a free society, everyone has the right to free speech - the right to question authority and argue against what has been said.

The left thought cancel culture would keep them in power. Now that the tables have turned, they cry “hypocrisy” when the right uses the same weapon. But let’s be honest—both parties are guilty. They scream when cancel culture is aimed at them, and they celebrate when it’s aimed at their enemies.

This is the rotten heart of the two-party system: hypocrisy, corruption, and endless division. They play you against each other, while nothing ever changes.

How much longer will you put up with this? Do you want real freedom? Real accountability? Then stop voting for the same two broken parties that have sold you out again and again.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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

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

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

So, within your brain is the if/then directive. If you the glove does not fit, you must acquit. The glove does not fit, so you acquit. Explain how that was a choice. You had to acquit. You lacked the ability to do otherwise. — Hanover

What is a choice? It seems to me that you are not simply saying that free choice doesn't exist, but that choices don't exist.

The glove not fitting was only one aspect of the "evidence" (information) provided. There was other evidence (information) available. And OJ murdering his wife and the cops planting evidence can both be true. So, given all this you must deliberate on the information provided. That period of time when you have been provided the evidence and are going through it all and determining its value in reaching a conclusion of guilty or innocent is the moment of choice.

If "the glove doesn't fit" was the only evidence (information) provided, then yes, you are right, but it wasn't. That is why there was a choice - a deliberating process. The jurors had to pour over all the information and discuss the value of each in determining the innocence or guilt of OJ. It took time.

The more time it takes is relative to the amount of information one has. It also equates to more freedom, but if you don't like using that term to refer to this state-of-affairs that exists where an individual has more information to go through to make more refined decisions and that improves their individual fitness, that's fine - just as long as you agree that having more information at hand is better for an individual when making decisions and we should strive for us all having access to more relevant (less misinformation) information. I would like to live in a more informed (free) society than an less informed one, and if determinism determined that for me - I'm just fine with that.

This is why I am determined to inform others of this very fact - so that my voice might influence others to gather more information before making a decision (especially moral and political decisions), and to demand the media be less biased and simply report the facts, or that we have access to more and more varying sources to triangulate the truth - to spread the idea of freedom of thought and choice and speech.

Then you agree that having more information allowed her to make a more informed decision. You agree that more information gave her a choice whereas before there wasn't a choice to either accept that God is benevolent or not, which may lead to other choices like choosing to become an atheist or not.

No, she didn't have a change of environment. She still lived in the same house in England with her parents. She just chose to read her parents' Bible instead of her own due to curiosity about the adult version of the Bible. — Truth Seeker

Ok, then her environment did not change, but the information she had did.