FWIW, the lawyers in this thread tuned out at this point. Nothing is very simple in law, but the ambiguities of criminal conspiracy are reasonably distant from

FWIW, the lawyers in this thread tuned out at this point. Nothing is very simple in law, but the ambiguities of criminal conspiracy are reasonably distant from the situation you've described. Conspiracy requires communication in order to agree to commit a crime. Positing a kind of thought that communicates doesn't really muddy the waters much. I don't think the philosophers engaged, either. Redefining thought to be imperceptible denies everything we actually do know about the biological process of thought, so it's not clear the discussion leads anywhere worth going.