From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 11:34:40 MST
On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 10:04, Greg Jordan wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Mar 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> > ### I think that many of us would agree on a more rigorous division -
> > roughly, "violence" non-consensually ends life, or causes severe and
> > non-consensual physical suffering. There is a bit of a gray area
> > regarding extreme mental suffering but for the most part it is not a
> > major source of misunderstanding. Therefore, money motivating a hitman
> > is violence, money moving a baker is not.
>
> I wasn't bringing in the issues of consent (or intention or will) because
> I believe the way the mind forms consent is vulnerable to forces just like
> everything else, and of course consenting actions can exert force.
### As I remarked above, violence or "force" (in the meaning of
violence), by definition includes an element of lack of consent. If the
mind does not consent to the use of direct manipulation of the computing
substrate to induce changes in volition, producing such changes and any
actions resulting from them are non-consensual. If I don't want to kill
somebody, but my ruler injects me with drugs to suppress my prefrontal
cortex, and I kill, then violence has been done by the ruler, not by
myself.
------------------------
>
> Does a suicide bomber consent to committing suicide?
### Yes, presently it is so, although in the future it might be possible
to produce suicide bombers by direct neural stimulation.
------------------------
Does he consent to
> adopting the suicide-bomber-philosophy?
### Ditto.
---------------------------
Does he consent to being
> coincidentally exposed to the suicide-bomber-philosophy?
### Partially, by hanging out in the wrong places and listening to false
prophets. This is essentially irrelevant to the two initial
questions,since almost all humans are exposed to
suicide-bomber-philosophy, yet only a very small minority actually
consent to suicide bombing.
-------------------------
Does he consent
> to living in circumstances that favor the adoption of the
> suicide-bomber-philosophy?
### Since a very large number of choices other than suicide bombing
exist for absolutely all humans, one's living circumstances are
irrelevant as explanation for the consent to suicide-bomb.
-------------------
AS you can see, the further you back up the
> analysis, the more "consent" disappears in a cloud of smoke.
### On the contrary, consent is quite clear in the first two questions,
while the two latter ones are not relevant to this matter.
---------------------
>
> The same goes for economic activities: does a person consent to buying a
> product he chooses to buy?
### In a free market - yes.
------------------------
Does he consent to only two products of the
> sort he wants being available?
### Yes.
---------------------
Does he consent to only one product being
> sold practically near to him?
### Yes.
---------------------------------
Does he consent to receiving marketing
> influences?
> gej
> resourcesoftheworld.or
> jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
>
>
### Almost always yes, except in some unusual circumstances (children
exposed to marketing at school, etc.)
----------------------------------------
Does he consent to acquiring the characteristics that make the
> marketing effective?
### Explain?
----------------------
Does he consent to being born with that
> characteristic?
### Explain?
--------------------------
>
> In other words, I think "free will" should enter the analysis only as what> gej
> resourcesoftheworld.or
> jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
>
>
> it is, a kind of mental construct to deal with the fact that human beings
> cannot quickly (in realtime) analyze all the forces operating upon them
> and all the inner processes and external processes affecting the ongoing
> exercise of their personality. The mind's self-mental model is crude, and
> contains this "ghost in the machine" conceit.
### The circuitry we use for determining the subjective feeling of "free
will" and consent is a mental construct, just as all qualia and
concepts. It is not crude, as most humans have the ability to detect
harmful deceit under most circumstances. An individual's feeling of free
will evolved to provide the best chances for reproduction in competition
with similarly endowed individuals. As a result even the least
intelligent persons can only with difficulty be led to self-destructive
acts, and suicide-bombing is quite uncommon. Especially in cultures
upholding the value of the individual freedom, and rigorous definitions
of violence.
--------------------------
>
> > Paying someone to
> > > manufacture a product is parallel to paying someone to murder a person -
> > > just different results of the exercise of force.
> >
> > ### I do not understand.
> gej> gej
> resourcesoftheworld.or
> jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
>
>
> resourcesoftheworld.or
> jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
>
>
> Both are economic activities, or can be analyzed that way. There are
> markets for hits, and markets for clothes hangers, pricing considerations,
> advertising potential, etc.
### Yes, but this doesn't have much relevance to the need of a rigorous
definition of violence, and rejection of the concept of "economic
force".
-------------------------
>
> > ### The construction "to make somebody do something" usually implies the
> > use a threat of violence. A thug threating you with a beating if you do
> > not buy a worthless trinket from him, may be threatened with violence,
> > by reciprocity. Sometimes, however, this expression is used differently
> > - e.g. if a shopkeeper will sell item A only in association with item B,
> > many people will say he "made" them buy it. In this second, sloppy
> > meaning, there is of course no violence or a threat of violence, and
> > accordingly, the buyer's reaction may not include such measures
> > (including the use of state-organized violence).
>
> I still don't think you've defined "violence" rigorously. If you buy
> something because youneed it to live, or crave it helplessly, or require
> it for any minimal comfort, and because the person you are buying it from
> is the only person you can (for whatever reason) buy it from in the
> circumstances in which you need it, then I can analyze any of the>
> scenarios as a play of forces, without aesthetically judging whether it is
> violent or not.
### Go on.
Judgment as to whether an action is violent or not is not aesthetic, it
is an ethical one, and important in deciding whether violent action may
be used in its prevention.
--------------------
If you exercise a perfectly calculated marketing plan on
> the appropriate audience, you can "make" them buy it as if you had
> programmed a robot - without any thugs, baseball bats, or so on.
>
### It is still not possible to program humans. As a result, marketing
does not make anybody to anything - it merely influences choices
non-violently, e.g. by informing about the existence of a product and
price comparisons, and allowing superior choices.
It amazes me that the claim is so frequently made, that humans are mere
marionettes at the tug of dark forces, marketers, and conspiracies.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 11:44:57 MST