[wasabi991011]

Why do you think it's a bad definition?

Not for fridges, I think that was a bad example. But it seems accurate at the level of geopolitics, where e.g. Iran shows it controls Hormuz by closing it with mines and other weaponry.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Why do you think it's a bad definition?

It presumes a sentient, rational counterparty. Being able to shoot a horse isn't the same as being able to ride it.

[willis936]

It only requires agency from the party assuming control. There are other definitions of control in contexts other than power dynamics that are important. Like a PLL can control an oscillator frequency without the philosophical question of agency needing to be applied. That is a closer definition of control for riding a horse. You control the horse when you pull the reigns. You also control the horse when you decide when it is put down. Two different controls.

[JumpCrisscross]

> only requires agency from the party assuming control

It's a political concept. It requires agency from the actor recognising the threat. We're pretty close to being able to hurl a giant rock at Mars. That doesn't by a long shot mean we "control" it.

If there were a human settlement on it, on the other hand, being able to credibly threaten Armageddon does give the thrower control.

[willis936]

I see your point.

In the original context of Dune Paul controls the spice because he can destroy it and his will would survive but it would destroy the way of life of the other cultures. So saying "Paul controls spice" only makes sense because another entity needs it and what's really meant is "Paul controls society".

[yetihehe]

It's closing, not destroying. If you can stop and start a refrigerator, but can't destroy it, does it mean you don't control the refrigerator? If you can only stop it, but not start, do you control it?

Alternative definition of control: You do some actions and it changes state. It's used by a field called "control theory". A lot of people agreed on this definition. Destroying something is "end of control, because there is no more things to control". You can control something UNTIL you destroy it. That's why I think "you control what you can destroy" is invalid, because it captures only one small aspect of controlling things, and also the least usable one.