I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
I think the emotive facial expressions are key (and kids pick up on these early). The difference between a bald Lego man and a Lego robot is the curve of the mouth.
ReplyDeleteThe mind is not a blank slate. We have inbuilt circuits for recognizing human-like features, and for "detecting" humanness. False positives are unavoidable.
ReplyDeleteThis is impossible to turn off I find. I watch Murray Rothbard on Youtube and despite knowing better think I am watching a human being!
:-)
DeleteYes, but what I am after is really about modeling in general: how do we see, say, an Edgeworth Box diagram as a "model" of a choice situation?
Delete