[From Bill Powers (2012.04.23.1410 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2012.04.22.1805) --
RM: While we cannot control successfully by acting in any way we want, we
can only control if we are free to act in those ways that will allow
us to produce the results we intend to produce while protecting those
results from disturbance. That is, we have to be able to vary our
actions in the dimensions of variation that will allow control of the
results we intend to control. The possible dimensions of variation of
actions relevant to control are called degrees of freedom. In order to
control successfully the relevant degrees of freedom relevant to
controlling a particular result have to be free to vary. We can't
control the cursor in a tracking task, for example, if we can't move
the mouse back and forth -- or if moving it back and forth has no
effect on the cursor (because it's not plugged into the computer,
say). But it doesn't help us control the cursor if we are free to act
in other ways that have no effect on the cursor. So what's important
to control is not freedom per se but having the relevant degrees of
freedom available.
BP: Yes, that sounds solid. You can go a little further in that direction. The idea that "it's all perception' sounds like an open door to solipsism, but when you add that we have to learn which actions will have the effects we want on the perceptions we want to control, the Real World suddenly makes an appearance. We can't just make up arbitrary rules and expect them to work. We may not know how Real Reality actually works or looks, but it is definitely there, constraining the possible actions that will have the effects we want.
There's still another side to this 3D coin. The degrees of freedom of the Real World are much more numerous than those we can perceive. This means that there is almost always more than one way to skin a cat. Two people seeking to control the same kind of variable can actually find quite different ways that will work.
RM: This more nuanced view of "freedom" in terms of degrees of freedom can
be stated more easily by saying that what people (and all organisms,
for that matter) need is the ability to control the results that
matter to them; that is, organisms should be able to produce the
results that they want and need to produce. Once control -- rather
than "freedom" -- is seen as what everyone must have then an analysis
of the optimal way to structure a society becomes more coherent
because control theory tell us what prevents control -- insuperable
disturbance (taking away degrees of freedom), lack of skill and
conflict -- and what increases it -- preparation, education and
cooperation.
BP: This "optimal way" still doesn't have to be the same for everyone. There is still freedom to choose among alternatives which are different but which accomplish the same ends. Communism and Capitalism could live peacefully side-by-side if we just tweaked the parameters a little. I don't have to take any particular road to get to Boulder; in fact there would be an infinite number of different paths if I had infinite time to find them. I don't disturb anyone else (usually) by choosing any one of them; I just drive in different traffic.
So there are lots of variations on how to achieve goals and what subgoals to achieve, and which ones we choose matters mainly to ourselves. This takes us to the ultimate constraint on freedom: our own individual natures.
At each level, I am free to choose goals, but they will have to be those which meet the demands of my next level up. It's always the next level up that determines what we are free to do. And at the top, or somewhere, there is a top level, a most important level anyway, that translates billions of years of learning and evolution into the basic perceptual signals that we always try to keep in states dictated by our genes. As Tom Bourbon once put it, a living system will always change itself in ways that matter to it the least in order to keep control of the aspects of itself that matter the most.
We can't choose the intrinsic variables that matter the most to us, can we? Maybe we can. But as soon as we say that, the question arises, "By what criteria do we choose?" Behind all this is our real nature whatever that is. We are born with it. It's the hand we are dealt.
I have a feeling that this doesn't take us to the end of the road.
Best,
Bill P.