4 ms·

I agree that my dog is less "free" than myself, but only because he is less self-aware. I like the philosophy that one is "free" to the extent one understands

by xapata 6y ago

I agree that my dog is less "free" than myself, but only because he is less self-aware. I like the philosophy that one is "free" to the extent one understands the various causes that constrain and motivate one's choices, because it sidesteps the need to answer the question of how much free will is possible given all the influences we face. Going back to the story's protagonist, using this definition of "free" it's not clear how much the protagonist is aware of these kinds of influences, and therefore we don't know where on the spectrum of freedom they'd be. I don't think Stockholm syndrome is relevant to the experience of a dog. First, Wikipedia says there's a bit of disagreement as to whether the phenomenon is real. Second, my guess is the mechanism for it relies on a human's sense of society and shame.

godelski 6y ago
I don't actually like that definition and believe it is rather naive. Referring back to the cult example (extremes are easier to denote boundaries) we agree that a cult member is not free. Yet if you ask them they will say that they believe that they are free (many will insist that it is in fact you who is not free). This dictates that our usage requisites the ability to make this determination from outside one's own understanding of one's self. So either that cult member is free or freedom can't be based purely on one's understanding. I think sidestepping is an apt description, because it just ignores the nuance, which is what we're getting into here.
- xapata 6y ago
  It may be a naive philosophy, but my choice of it is studied. If you're curious about the literature, check out discussion of Liebniz' view of free will. I didn't agree that the cult member was not free in a binary sense, because I don't believe freedom is binary. The cult members are free to the extent they understand the causes of their choices, which presumably is very little. If you're looking for nuance, then let's avoid binary definitions. One isn't either free or not free. Even 2-state transistors are actually only 2-state by approximation.
  - godelski 6y ago
    Sorry, I may have misinterpreted. I thought you were making the case for a binary distinction. I thought it was clear that I believe it is a spectrum when I started calling it fuzzy (introduced in my second comment and reinforced thereafter). I certainly think this continuum is essential to the nuance of the discussion. As for Liebniz, I don't think anything I've said is inconsistent with his beliefs. According to Liebniz, if an actor only has one or a small limited set of available options then they are not free (spontaneity). In the case of your dog, it depends highly upon you for its own basic needs: food, water, shelter. It also depends on you for its higher needs: companionship and a sense of purpose (or role). Because of this I do not think Liebniz would consider your dog free. It does not have much of a choice. But if we are talking about the spectrum, well your dog does have a choice to run away and attempt to survive on its own. We know it wouldn't make it far, but it might not know that (about things like the pound, leash laws, or human civilization norms). But the dog does have some freedom because you do give it some reign. Probably moreso than the member of the cult. Similarly I'd say that you are more free than your dog. You can go on vacations and travel. You can eat different food and you can choose what food. It may be influenced by others, but that is different than dictated. But still you are beholden to having a job and living in society which does limit some sense of freedom. Similarly this story is about questioning who is more free by presenting the Huxleyesk lifestyle. In A Brave New World people are able to have all their desires, so why do we not consider them free?
    - xapata 6y ago
      Ever watch an ad that's so good, you can feel yourself being manipulated? I equate freedom in the Huxleyworld to be like that. So long as you're aware that your choices are, through overwhelming convenience, limited to whatever the machine allows, you're free. The implication is that you can, with enough effort, choose something outside that range. Perhaps as a hobby, the way some people today brew their own beer or make their own furniture.
      - godelski 6y ago
        But the limiting or manipulating of your set of choices does limit your freedom. At least according to Leibniz. > Ever watch an ad that manipulated you? I think the question comes down to this, as opposed to what you wrote. The problem is not when you know you are being manipulated, but when you don't. It would be naive to think you're above this, considering that ads do work, considering that they've been a worthwhile tool for companies for hundreds of years and have been the basis for trillion dollar companies that exist today. It certainty warrants questioning if you have gained or loss freedom with this system in place. This clearly limits your choice or maybe more accurately heavily influences the weights on the decision set. I believe Leibniz would consider this a reduction of freedom (as do I).

by xapata 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

I don't actually like that definition and believe it is rather naive. Referring back to the cult example (extremes are easier to denote boundaries) we agree that a cult member is not free. Yet if you ask them they will say that they believe that they are free (many will insist that it is in fact you who is not free). This dictates that our usage requisites the ability to make this determination from outside one's own understanding of one's self. So either that cult member is free or freedom can't be based purely on one's understanding. I think sidestepping is an apt description, because it just ignores the nuance, which is what we're getting into here.

xapata 6y ago
It may be a naive philosophy, but my choice of it is studied. If you're curious about the literature, check out discussion of Liebniz' view of free will. I didn't agree that the cult member was not free in a binary sense, because I don't believe freedom is binary. The cult members are free to the extent they understand the causes of their choices, which presumably is very little. If you're looking for nuance, then let's avoid binary definitions. One isn't either free or not free. Even 2-state transistors are actually only 2-state by approximation.
- godelski 6y ago
  Sorry, I may have misinterpreted. I thought you were making the case for a binary distinction. I thought it was clear that I believe it is a spectrum when I started calling it fuzzy (introduced in my second comment and reinforced thereafter). I certainly think this continuum is essential to the nuance of the discussion. As for Liebniz, I don't think anything I've said is inconsistent with his beliefs. According to Liebniz, if an actor only has one or a small limited set of available options then they are not free (spontaneity). In the case of your dog, it depends highly upon you for its own basic needs: food, water, shelter. It also depends on you for its higher needs: companionship and a sense of purpose (or role). Because of this I do not think Liebniz would consider your dog free. It does not have much of a choice. But if we are talking about the spectrum, well your dog does have a choice to run away and attempt to survive on its own. We know it wouldn't make it far, but it might not know that (about things like the pound, leash laws, or human civilization norms). But the dog does have some freedom because you do give it some reign. Probably moreso than the member of the cult. Similarly I'd say that you are more free than your dog. You can go on vacations and travel. You can eat different food and you can choose what food. It may be influenced by others, but that is different than dictated. But still you are beholden to having a job and living in society which does limit some sense of freedom. Similarly this story is about questioning who is more free by presenting the Huxleyesk lifestyle. In A Brave New World people are able to have all their desires, so why do we not consider them free?
  - xapata 6y ago
    Ever watch an ad that's so good, you can feel yourself being manipulated? I equate freedom in the Huxleyworld to be like that. So long as you're aware that your choices are, through overwhelming convenience, limited to whatever the machine allows, you're free. The implication is that you can, with enough effort, choose something outside that range. Perhaps as a hobby, the way some people today brew their own beer or make their own furniture.
    - godelski 6y ago
      But the limiting or manipulating of your set of choices does limit your freedom. At least according to Leibniz. > Ever watch an ad that manipulated you? I think the question comes down to this, as opposed to what you wrote. The problem is not when you know you are being manipulated, but when you don't. It would be naive to think you're above this, considering that ads do work, considering that they've been a worthwhile tool for companies for hundreds of years and have been the basis for trillion dollar companies that exist today. It certainty warrants questioning if you have gained or loss freedom with this system in place. This clearly limits your choice or maybe more accurately heavily influences the weights on the decision set. I believe Leibniz would consider this a reduction of freedom (as do I).