Then you would desire meaning.

You may have misunderstood my intention. Studying the plant for sure gives you understanding of nature, but it's impossible to confirm that the plant works the way you think it does without knowing everything else (or at least having some kind of theory to compare it to). — TogetherTurtle

I don't think that is necessarily so.
You can always confirm that the plant works the way you think it does, and broaden your view thereafter.
It's a step by step process, and with the lower steps acting as a base for the higher ones - they can't be negated.

To clarify my point a bit more, sure you would be learning of the cake, but how do you know its ingredients until you have studied every other cake and all of the ingredients you believe to be in those cakes? — TogetherTurtle

Well, you don't need to study every other cake - merely enough similar cakes.
You derive matches from comparison, and study the ingredients that match.
Soon enough you should be figuring out the cake in question.

You can always confirm that the plant works the way you think it does, and broaden your view thereafter.
It's a step by step process, and with the lower steps acting as a base for the higher ones - they can't be negated. — Shamshir

But in practice "broadening your view" tends to involve completely throwing out everything that was believed before. We know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, but we came to that almost completely different conclusion through completely new methods. I don't think its 100% safe to say we know how plants work until we know at least think we know about everything else too. Of course, I don't advocate telling botanists that they're morons, in fact, I think they are probably on the right track, but I also don't think that we should consider everything they say the absolute truth just because the small amount of understanding we have now matches up with what they say.

Well, you don't need to study every other cake - merely enough similar cakes.
You derive matches from comparison, and study the ingredients that match.
Soon enough you should be figuring out the cake in question. — Shamshir

But what if the cakes you don't know about give you a completely new perspective? Don't get me wrong, what we know about cakes and how we think they work is probably good enough to make them now, but I don't think it's safe to say we know everything about cakes, not until we know every cake and everything related to them.

Then you would desire meaning. — Willyfaust

And what if you were free from the desire for meaning?

But in practice "broadening your view" tends to involve completely throwing out everything that was believed before. — TogetherTurtle

Sure, in a way. It's not completely throwing it away, but of course going up a step requires that you remove yourself from the current step.

I don't think its 100% safe to say we know how plants work until we know at least think we know about everything else too. — TogetherTurtle

I get what you're saying - that you'd need to know all the relative factors, to understand the object.
Something akin to puzzle pieces and where they fit?

But you don't really need to know everything else, all that does is add more depth and hence more parts.
You can always know the plant and how it works, with less than all parts - merely enough parts.

But what if the cakes you don't know about give you a completely new perspective? — TogetherTurtle

Sure they will. Comparing a sweet cake to a salty cake, will give insights in to cake creation.
But it won't really influence a Garash recipe, will it? Merely give you a renewed appreciation, for what was already obvious.

Don't get me wrong, what we know about cakes and how we think they work is probably good enough to make them now, but I don't think it's safe to say we know everything about cakes, not until we know every cake and everything related to them. — TogetherTurtle

That has more to do with cuisine than cakes, though.

So you think more about what you don't have to do, as opposed to what you now can do. That's interesting. I'd like to hear what you have to say after you think about it more. — TogetherTurtle

It’s not so much about things I don’t have to do.

It’s the freedom of being left alone, of living my life unimpeded, free from interference, which can come from so many quarters: government, schools, employers, people in general.

I’ve reached a stage where I don’t answer to employers, the government generally leaves me alone, the law has no interest in me, no one comes knocking at the door.
I live in a reasonably civilised democratic country. Except for taxes, voting, the census, jury service and local government charges they pretty much leave me alone.

The things I want to do, or like to do, have very little impact on others. I don’t ask anything from others. I know my life is a compromise between what I want and the world at large.

Freedom is choosing to grow unimpeded by others, that does not mean not being influenced by others.

There are many kinds of freedom. — luckswallowsall

Yes, but the question was what does it mean to ‘you’?

Freedom is the ability to exercise any activity that doesn't impede upon anyone else's freedom.

well, probably not blindfolded. — TogetherTurtle

Why is that? Is it because you are then aware of where you can and cannot go as you set off? When you’re blindfolded, you can initially feel free - perhaps even more free than in the same position not blindfolded - but only until you wish to move or do anything.

So someone in a particular position in their life can feel free if they’re unaware of what lies in any direction beyond their current circumstances. As long as they have no desire to move from that position, they can retain that sense of freedom in ignorance. But the moment they desire to move in any direction, any unforeseen obstacle will undermine their freedom because they’re essentially blind to a way around it. Likewise if something changes their circumstances, then their sense of freedom is lost as they fumble around in unfamiliar territory.

A sense of freedom, then, is not so much dependent on what obstacles there are as what we understand about our ever-changing relationship to the environment and participants in general, including how we can navigate a path of least resistance in the general direction we want to go, as well as any help we can get along the way.

Like parcour, it helps to interact with everything not as an obstacle to avoid or overcome, but rather as a potential partner in achievement. This often means adjusting our plans to accommodate, even in the midst of executing them. We lose our sense of freedom when we fail to understand how a relationship has the potential for achievement from multiple perspectives.

Sure they will. Comparing a sweet cake to a salty cake, will give insights in to cake creation.
But it won't really influence a Garash recipe, will it? — Shamshir

But what if what we learn about a sweet or salty cake helps us make a better Garash?

That has more to do with cuisine than cakes, though. — Shamshir

The big picture I suppose. If we maintain our metaphor, what we know about cooking effects cakes, and what we learn about cakes influences what we know about cooking. Nothing is free from outside influence, especially arbitrary categories that we invent for ourselves.

Freedom is choosing to grow unimpeded by others, that does not mean not being influenced by others. — Brett

But what of the subconscious? Even subtle gestures can influence how you live your life without you even knowing.

Freedom is the ability to exercise any activity that doesn't impede upon anyone else's freedom. — Pelle

Well, I can imagine some grey areas, but it is for sure a definition.

Why is that? Is it because you are then aware of where you can and cannot go as you set off? When you’re blindfolded, you can initially feel free - perhaps even more free than in the same position not blindfolded - but only until you wish to move or do anything. — Possibility

Like parcour, it helps to interact with everything not as an obstacle to avoid or overcome, but rather as a potential partner in achievement. This often means adjusting our plans to accommodate, even in the midst of executing them. We lose our sense of freedom when we fail to understand how a relationship has the potential for achievement from multiple perspectives. — Possibility

So there are two approaches to freedom then, one where you eliminate anything that can hurt you and then put on the blindfold, and another where you use your obstacles to get where you want to go?

So there are two approaches to freedom then, one where you eliminate anything that can hurt you and then put on the blindfold, and another where you use your obstacles to get where you want to go? — TogetherTurtle

The first approach assumes a controlled environment: that you CAN eliminate anything that might hurt you, and that the environment will remain free of obstacles or active oppression. This is an illusion. There is no way in real life to maintain this situation, so any sense of freedom is only temporary.

The second approach, rather than ‘use your obstacles to get where you want to go’, is about negotiating a path - understanding that you’re in a relationship with everything in the universe, and that there is always more than one way to get from here to there. Where you want to go isn’t more important than where everyone (and everything) else wants to go, and you’re capable of adjusting your own plans more efficiently than you can change someone else’s.

Assuming a static world, the first approach to freedom seems the most attractive option - but is it even possible? It requires us to have achieved independence and autonomy, as well as have our path to success already cleared. In a changing world, however, the second approach is more effective long term, and certainly more realistic, but it requires us to always be aware, interconnected and prepared to help others. And it doesn’t really look like ‘freedom’ from the outside - it just looks like life.

I have determined that this is the appropriate definition, although I agree that sometimes it's extremely difficult to determine when an action infringes on someone's freedom.

It requires us to have achieved independence and autonomy, as well as have our path to success already cleared. — Possibility

Perhaps something like this could be possible near or after the heat death of the universe (if we’re right in predicting it would happen anyway). I recall some speculation that we might be able to siphon Hawking radiation from black holes and live off of that for a while or even forever, so maybe a path to this kind of freedom would be to hold out until we can do that. Or collect all of the energy and matter in the universe and keep it in a controlled system, but assuming that the universe expands infinitely and faster than we can catch up, that might just be impossible.

This only proves that the first approach appears more attractive - that we expend so much energy and effort towards the first approach, but it’s a largely fruitless exercise. Why is the second approach ignored?

What a day it will not be
When I am finally free
And all the clocks are broken

Why is the second approach ignored? — Possibility

Because the first choice is a large upfront investment but by nature requires no upkeep. The second choice requires constant upkeep because you must constantly negotiate with your environment until you die or reach the first option. The second approach definitely seems more practical right now but I think it's natural to want to work towards the first one. And if the second method makes the first impossible (via restricting our actions so that extinction would result from making our way toward the first approach). then I suppose we just have to settle with negotiating with the universe.

So do you genuinely believe that the first method is realistically achievable?

Many different things.

Just as the word "jackass" can mean both a donkey and a fool... and I don't have to insist that it only has one meaning.

Those of us who are informed certainly do know that incompatibilist free will does not exist.

So do you genuinely believe that the first method is realistically achievable? — Possibility

To put it frankly, I don't know. We've pulled off some pretty ridiculous things in the past that just seem normal now, so I definitely think it's possible. I wouldn't put all of my money in it ever happening though. I think it's probably ideal, but if it isn't possible, I wouldn't be too disappointed.

Those of us who are informed certainly do know that incompatibilist free will does not exist. — luckswallowsall

None of us can see the whole picture. A good rule of thumb is to go with what seems to make sense at the time, but be willing to change if the evidence says otherwise. I just can't help but think that completely ignoring a possibility is detrimental.

Perhaps something like this could be possible near or after the heat death of the universe (if we’re right in predicting it would happen anyway). I recall some speculation that we might be able to siphon Hawking radiation from black holes and live off of that for a while or even forever, so maybe a path to this kind of freedom would be to hold out until we can do that. Or collect all of the energy and matter in the universe and keep it in a controlled system, but assuming that the universe expands infinitely and faster than we can catch up, that might just be impossible. — TogetherTurtle

We've pulled off some pretty ridiculous things in the past that just seem normal now, so I definitely think it's possible. I wouldn't put all of my money in it ever happening though. I think it's probably ideal, but if it isn't possible, I wouldn't be too disappointed. — TogetherTurtle

I understand your reluctance to dismiss possibilities - I’ve been there. But all of science points to process as the underlying reality of our universe. This means that, despite thousands of years of denial and wishful thinking, we do NOT live in a static world. And the sooner we accept this reality and find a way to ‘roll with it’ rather than try to ‘control’ everything, the sooner we will achieve this sense of freedom we long for. To continue to believe we can put the brakes on the universe and make it first conform to our desires and then remain in that state is precisely what prevents freedom, not what contributes to it.

I understand your reluctance to dismiss possibilities - I’ve been there. But all of science points to process as the underlying reality of our universe. This means that, despite thousands of years of denial and wishful thinking, we do NOT live in a static world. And the sooner we accept this reality and find a way to ‘roll with it’ rather than try to ‘control’ everything, the sooner we will achieve this sense of freedom we long for. To continue to believe we can put the brakes on the universe and make it first conform to our desires and then remain in that state is precisely what prevents freedom, not what contributes to it. — Possibility

Which is why I support "rolling with it". The only place that our views differ is in the possibility the future holds. I think that if we find ourselves in a time and place in the future where creating a static world habitable to us is possible, we should surely do it. If anyone in the present says that they know we for sure can or cannot do this, they must surely be lying. No one knows enough about the universe to say that for sure. All we can do is live with the present and use all we know to make the future better than the present.

So where you would say-

we do NOT live in a static world — Possibility

I would say-

we do NOT live in a static world (presently)

Logically impossible things that you think you believe in don't actually seem the way you think they seem. Somebody may live their life thinking 2+2=5 and act on behalf of that ... but that doesn't mean that that's actually a concept that they can make sense of or really believe in.

Incompatibilist will isn't only logically impossible it's not even logically coherent. It's not even possible to give a coherent definition of it. It would require you to be able to determine yourself but it would also require determinism to be false. And it would require you to be able to cause yourself to infinity despite the fact that you would never be able to end that regress and actually gain control.

All of that assumes you know for sure that 2 means what we think it means. All I’m saying is that 2+2=4 certainly seems correct, and absolutely everything we currently know points to it being correct, but we don’t know everything. I guess what I’m trying to say is that you can come to a seemingly logical conclusion that is false because you don’t have all of the information.

That being said, if people believe that the Earth is flat, I think they should be able to believe that, but they shouldn’t be considered right unless they can effectively convince a majority of the population. After all, if the situation was flipped, wouldn’t you want the benefit of the doubt? If you don’t have it, the truth may never come out. Or both sides are wrong. At the end of the day, the only reason we pursue science at all is that we wish to know. If people really believe something insane, I welcome them to prove it, and if they make a convincing argument while also disproving the current working theory, I don’t think jumping ship is shameful.

For me freedom is to not be pointed at by lesser men.

I’m joking of course. Freedom for me is a word related with economics. It is the state of being free from poverty and other cares of life that having money solves.

Oo

Just as the word "jackass" can mean both a donkey and a fool... and I don't have to insist that it only has one meaning. — luckswallowsall

I wasn’t actually asking you to come up with one meaning. My post might have been a bit clumsy. What I was thinking of was how so many of us, when asked such a question, suddenly address it as some sort of application to mankind as a whole, some idea that will make the world a better place, instead of turning inward and addressing their own very small and very personal life and what freedom means to them right now, on a daily basis, as something real and not theoretical, which we’re all very good at, and seems to me a like hiding from ourselves a little.