The Reality of Free Will - To Be Who You Are

I've been reading plenty of books.  Not as much as I'd like, because I am a wage labourer.  To get the most out of what little time I have to read I tend to read academic non-fiction rather than fiction, although I'm trying to catch up on the classics right now.  I found The Three Musketeers on my new smart phone and I've found it rather enjoyable - better than playing some game app, at least.  I've also read 1984 recently and picked up a copy of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which I chose over book Eating Animals that was recommended by the staff at Chapters. I skimmed the Jonathan Safran Foer offering and found it too biased in favour of veganism and full of guilt trips to sacrifice my money or time on.  I've found this choice to be rewarding, so far, as I'd rather follow the Mark Twain character as he struggles for survival on the Mississippi River than suffer through passages of a book that provide a slanted view of an complex issue that I've already made up my mind on.  If I want to read nitwits, I'll at least do it online where I can talk back to them; it's less frustrating.

Now, was this choice to consume a classic piece of American literature over a semi-intellectual non-fiction piece really a choice?  Or was I compelled to do it by my utter disdain for vegetarians and my realization that the book was going to argue factory farming, animal cruelty and environmental issues are somehow proof that we would all be better off eating just plants when I know that animal fat is biologically necessary for most human being to be healthy.  I'd rather spend my time reading about how leprochans are the new clean energy source than be guilted into thinking the wrong way about diet.
Still, I returned the book to the place I found it and noticed Huckleberry Finn there on the Recommended Titles display.  It roused an emotional reaction, (the carefree, barefoot boy holding a make-shift fishing rod on the riverbank awoke something primal in me) twinged with guilt for somehow avoiding this work although I hold a degree in literature.  ITh did not have to walk over to the counter and wait in line - my wife was already ringing up the children's books we were purchasing.  There was certainly a compulsion, but I made this choice of free will, knowing that I could probably pick up an e-book version for free.
In his book The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris argues, as do many in academia, that free will is an illusion. 

Our belief in free will arises from our moment-to-moment ignorance of specific prior causes.  The phrase "free will describes what it feels like to be identified with the content of each thought as it arises in consciousness. Trains of thought like, "What should I get my daugher for her birthday? I know, I'll take her to a pet store and have her pick out some tropical fish," convey the apparent reality of choices, freely made.  But from a deeper perspective (speaking both subjectively and objectively), thoughts simply arise (what else could they do?) unauthored and yet author to our actions. (p. 105)

 Earlier:

We are conscious of only a tiny fraction of the information that our brains process in each moment.  While we continually notice changes in our experience - in thought, mood, perception, behavior, etc. - we are utterly unaware of the neural events that produce these changes. In fact, by merely glancing at your face or listening to your tone of voice, others are often more aware of your internal states and motivations than you are. And yet most of us still feel that we are the authors of our own thoughts and actions.

All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion. (p. 103)

 Basically, our brains are pre-wired to feel and think a certain way and it is doing so without our knowledge.  Our thoughts are formed before we are aware of them, so we are not acting upon our own free will, but under the control of our biological processess within the brain.  Basically, our state of mind is not a choice, but determined by our circumstances and our breeding.  As an intelligent person under pressures of the culture of which I am a part, I was compelled to pick up the copy of Mark Twain, cleverly placed there by store staff who knew that someone like me would want to own it sooner or later and that there was a good chance I would decide that now is the time to own it leading to a sale (ka-ching).  I was like compelled to pick up a book called Eating Animals as it is a subject I hold dear (I love*∞ eating animals) and I am always eager to explore the moral and dietary dilemas as the book claimed to do objectively.  Alas, I had time to skim it and concluded that it was not so objective, at least was more concerned with animal welfare than human health (viz. no sale).


So, how can I determine that free will exists even though I cannot help but feel hungry as the noon-hour approaches (although, the paleo diet has helped me control my need for snacking) and this inveriably leads to thoughts of slicing animal parts into bite-size morcels, chewing and swallowing them until satiated?  Note, that I am taking it one step further than Sam Harris, because our stomachs act like a second brain that sometimes take precedence. As Odysseus said when disguised as a beggar, everyone is ruled by their stomach.  Quite simply, the same way that Harris has proven his point - by semantics.

Harris seems to think that true free will would be free of interference from the very factors that make us who we are. He ignores the fact that our biology is our essence and has been trained by various social and environmental factors to create our sense of self.  While it is true, that I cannot help but feel remorse for mistakes that hurt a loved one or want to help others when they are in need, each instant of my life offers a choice of action.  I can hit publish right now despite the fact that this post is incomplete, or I can continue to write this sentence.  While it is true that it would not make sense and it would go against all my instincts which compell me to write a coherent and complete blog post on this important matter, it is entirely within my control.  I could walk away from the computer right now, or just hit save and leave this in my ever-growing list of unpublished posts, but I don't think I will, even though the real world compells me quite strongly right now to leave the office (it's a nice day outside, my children are home and it's well past lunch-time now).

Harris uses the word "inscrutable" in a sentence and then muses that he had no choice but to use that word because it was the one that came to mind.  Even after debating the merits of using the word "opaque" instead.  Am I free to feel that "opaque is a better word, when I just do not feel that it is the better word? Am I free to change my mind? Of course not. It can only change me. Such as it is, that is correct. But, to say that choosing a less-apt word despite his preferences would be free will is absurd.  Free will is actually the ability to act upon ones preferences.  Say that some editor had forced him to use "opaque" or that some regulator had outlined the acceptable uses of the word "inscrutable" and his sentence did not comply.  Despite his desire to use the word, he would not be able to use it.  He would not be able to act of his own free will.  He has internalized the concept of free will to the point that our own impulses and desires are not our own.  As if the brain is not a part of us.  We own our emotions, even as they own and control us.

I want to eat tenderloin steak or prime-rib from grass-fed beef every day.  I cannot stop wanting this, despite the fact that it would be extra-ordinarily expensive and even if I could afford it, I'd be better off mixing some salmon and other meats in once in awhile (eating plenty of greens as well).  Just because I can't stop my desires, does not mean I will go broke and ignore all other priorities to get my fix of beef.  My children still need clothes and shelter and desire to live in a fairly nice neighbourhood.  I choose which desires take priority.  All these thoughts and desires arise on their own because of my evolutionary instinct for survival and my conscious and sub-concsious assessments of my environment.  The more I am aware of them and their purpose the better I am able to meet those desires and control the desires that cannot be met.  If I can subdue my desires for a period of time (future time orientation), I am more likely to become rich and then meet more of my desires.

Why do I blog when I'd probably be better off honing skills I use at work to earn money?  Well, I'm compelled by my nature.  If you blocked my ability to blog, I'd have no avenue to express my desire to express myself.  That would be denial of free will.  Why did I study Literature when I would have been better off studying something more economically practical?  Well, I thought it would make me happy.  Of course, it was also because I realized that I did not possess the correct state of mind or discipline to study science as I had hoped, although I know I had the brains.  I found that science was not giving me the pleasure I thought it would so I wound up in Literature (too bad for my future self, but here I am).

Harris seems to argue from the point of view that free will must not arise from any base urge or unconscious thought in order to be genuine.  Of course, there is no such thing as a thought or desire that does not arise first from a biological process somewhere deep in a brain.  Unless you believe in God, there is no such thoughts in the universe.  I do not believe in God, however, I believe that the notion of free will that some believe was endowed upon man by God is not that you can do or think anything.  If that were the case, than to truly have free will, you would be able to turn yourself into a chicken and then think like a chicken one day and turn yourself into a lion the next day and think like a lion.  The fact is that lions think like lions and chickens think like lions and they have free will because they can act like lions and chickens until something stronger imposes its will upon them and prevents them from acting as they please - say by cutting their heads off and roasting them.

Lion and chicken thoughts are much less complex than human thoughts, as far as we can tell. Speaking as a human, I can tell you that many, many thoughts strange and wonderful vie within my brain for attention and action.  Somehow, I choose which of those thoughts I act upon.  The biblical meaning of free will was that God showed man the proper way to behave and each individual had a choice whether to act upon his desire to attain primal satisfaction in a way that pleased God or in a way that angered him.  Or, in the face of eternal damnation, would it be wiser still to deny all efforts to attain primal satisfaction and live like a monk, guaranteeing entry to heaven?  It's his choice - free will.

As an atheist, and I am strongly influenced by Sam Harris's thoughts on morality, I see it a little differently. I am aware of my primal desires and speculate on the reasons I feel them.  The more aware I am of them and the more I can reason, the better able I am to act of my own free will.

It is true that if you punch me in the nose, that I will feel angry and desire retribution.  However, I have to weigh the advantages and risks of open combat.  I may decide that you are much stronger and I will be better off swallowing my pride and succumbing to your will.  I may decide that I can take retribution now and win in the fight.  I may also decide that although you are stronger, I am better off fighting and taking another punch or two until I am thoroughly defeated, just to save face and potentially avoid being the target of others who would want to fight me if they witnessed me backing down.  All three of these thoughts, and more, would arise in my head as I debated the best course of action.  Once I was aware of all of the possibilities, I would choose what I thought would most likely lead to my happiness - or the least misery.  I cannot help but feel these feelings, but once I am aware of them, I can determine what I would most like to do.

****
I bring up this point, only to show what the origins of sub-conscious thought really are: assessments of reality. They arise only from external and internal stimuli. So, a punch in the nose (external stimuli) causes messages to be sent to my brain (internal stimuli) and my brain reacts in various ways causing a cascade of internal stimuli, adrenalin for example, to speed up assessment of external and internal stimuli to choose the required fight or flight response. How bad am I hurt? Who is my attacker(s)? What routes of escape exist? Are there openings for attack?  I am thinking these things because they are appropriate for the reality of the moment.These thoughts are mine, even though I cannot stop thinking them. I assess my own skills and strength versus my assessment of the reality of the situation, possible because of my fight/flight response and act accordingly.

To deny that our sub-conscious thoughts are the result of internal and external stimuli would be to argue that any thought is possible at any time and thoughts arise into the conscious mind randomly and only illicit our attention when they are needed. In the seconds after being punched in the nose, I might have a thought about whether a meatball sub would be a good choice for lunch and have to push it out of the way to deal with the amount of blood being lost and ducking the next incoming punch. If that were the case, I would imagine most fights would end up in a turtling response as the number of thoughts bouncing around in the brain would be debilitating.

So it goes with all thoughts from the emergency response in times of crisis to the slow deliberate assessment of nature that goes on in philosophy. Reality causes stimuli and brains process stimuli consciously and unconsciously. But regardless, the thoughts belong to the thinker and it his perogative to contemplate them.

****

I believe that Harris's dislike for the concept of God and religion has biased him.  He desires to separate man from religion, so he would like to denounce free will since it is such a basic concept in the hearts of religious believers.  While rhetorically, he is correct - no individual thought can be initiated of one's own free will, he ignores the fact that the human mind is conscious of many competing thoughts - all originating from the same internal part of the body which the individual owns.  Once the human mind is aware of the the many thoughts it holds, it can truly use free will to decide which thoughts to champion and in which actions to partake.

****
Edit: I thought this section was the main point, skipped over in haste. Added Nov 27, 2012

Our Sports Prove That Humans Are Predators

Perhaps proof is a strong word.  Sports are very powerful evidence in support of the theory that our species has evolved to survive primarily by hunting for food.

Think about the way most of our sports are played.  Baseball, football (football), soccer (football), hockey (ice and field), basketball, tennis and lacrosse to name a few all involve tracking a fast-moving playing object (ball or puck) with the eyes to chase down and catch or strike, much like our ancestors tracked down prey of various sizes.  Some involve various forms of struggle to gain control over the playing object which adds another twist mimicking the competition between hunters.  All this activity simulates the activity of hunting for prey.  Throwing demonstrates from the quintessential human adaptation of hunting with arm-flung projectiles.  Anyone who has ever played sports knows the deep seated drive to chase after any moving ball – it’s pure instinct.

Compare our sports to other members of the animal kingdom.  The only obvious examples of similar, chase-the-ball type of play are our two most common pets – dogs and cats.  Both are obligate carnivores whose primary method of obtaining food is hunting. The instinct we share is obvious if you’ve ever picked up a ball near a loose dog or dangled a string near a cat.  It is hard to think of another animal that plays in a similar fashion, but you can see hunting roots of certain dolphin behavior. See how this dolphin artfully plays with rings of bubbles.  I do not know whether the dolphin was trained to do that, but it appears to be having fun independent of human interference, as does this dolphin playing with a ball.

Contrast these carnivores to the apathetic reactions of these baby elephants to a soccer ball. Witness this playful demonstration of skillful manipulation by a young pachyderm.  Notice how unlike hunting this behavior is. They treat the ball like an animal might treat an inanimate piece of fruit, say a coconut.  Strike or bite it until you are satisfied that it is inedible then ignore.  Witness also, fully grown animals playing an actual game of soccer.  Notice the riders guiding their mounts to the ball and proper position.  The point to be gained from this comparison is that nobody has to train a dog to chase a ball.  Retrieving, of course, is another matter entirely. 

Elephants and other large herbivores have contests of dominance with each other and I have to include this one of hunters freeing two bucks with their antlers entangled).  Parrots can be trained to play with balls and bicycles, but only predatory birds can be trained to track down and tackle flying objects.  I’ve never had a pet rabbit, but I can imagine how a rabbit would react to a ball – with complete indifference.  The same goes for gerbils and other rodents.  Basically, if herbivores developed intelligence and developed an Olympic style contest, unlikely if you read gnolls, you would expect to see sports involving one-on-one team battles, racing games and probably some unexpected sports that we would never think of, but few, if any, sports with surrogate prey like a soccer ball or hockey puck.  Just imagine what sport a herding animal like sheep might develop.  There is almost no pressure on herding animals to develop high-IQ individuals, but what if some DNA experimenter created some intelligent sheep and they started playing sports?  Perhaps they would play team sports whereby the team navigates a course in the tightest formation.  Maybe jumping games would develop.  I just could not see sheep manipulating a prey-like object.  Of course, sheep don’t use tools at all.  Why would they?  They are not hunters.

Sports are driven by instinct.  Humans are imbued with hunting instincts.  Our eyes are positioned in the front of the head to enable 3-dimensional tracking of moving objects, like most predatory animals.  We have an instinct to chase to acquire food.  Watching players chase a soccer ball along the field, you could easily imagine them chasing an animal in a similar manner.  We have abandoned hunting as the main source of food, but our evolved instincts remain as evidenced by the thrill of chasing down a fly ball or a tennis serve.  Think about this the next time that you hear someone spout some nonsense about evolution and vegetarianism.

Links Old and New

Adrian Coyne discusses Quebec election debates in full utopian dream mode.  Imagine a place and time when ideas are discussed fully and openly.  Who has time for that?  One day, elections will be preceded by frank, in-depth discussion of the issues in a variety of formats that foster thoughtful insights to find the best course of action for government.  I do think that the one-on-one format could be an improvement on the usual 3,4 or 5-way formats often used in Canada, but keep dreaming Adrian.  It's a good dream.  Perhaps we could use blogs and Internet forums to discuss issues and find consensus.  I just don't think human nature is built for honest, open discussion - not from what I've seen so far.

Transgendered mother (trigger warning: creepy bearded lady) thinks that it's not enough to breast feed while sporting a goatie, but must become a breast-feeding leader for LeLeche League, or become a victim of "old-fashioned" human rights violations.  Strange Sentence: Mr. MacDonald said in an interview regarding mothering and fathering as two distinct concepts is “old fashioned.”
Culdesachero says:  This lady made a choice to have her body altered and to take hormones  to appear more like a man.  Then she changed her mind temporarily to give birth.  She needs supplemental milk fed through a tube to "breast feed" her child, but she thinks she'd be an ideal candidate for breast feeding coach.  I'm not certain, but, if I was a new mother seeking help for breast feeding (the epitome of female power), I don't think I would choose someone who has rejected her femininity.  Perhaps she should become a breast feeding consultant for other transgendered mothers (that position could require travel and long periods of unemployment).
I guess I'm dating myself by saying that my two children have ONE FATHER and ONE MOTHER (both wonderful people).

Economist blogge W.W. on social responsibility and corporations (i.e. Chick Filet). Interesting point: Doesn't the demand that corporations act responsibly in the interests of society, in ways other than profit-seeking, directly imply that corporate leaders who find same-sex marriage socially irresponsible should do something or other to discourage it?

London 2012: Choreo-Gasm-A-Delic

I'm watching the closing ceremonies and I feel lie puking.  I've never-never-never been one for glossy, feel-good, highly choreographed entertainment.  The opening and closing ceremonies is always so full of this cheerful atmosphere that it becomes sickening to the cynical like me.

The London opening and closing ceremonies were more enjoyable than most, because of the focus on the music.  A lot of my favourite classic rock artists were highlighted in the mish-mash of music and dance.  Much of the music, however, is actually rather dark - unbecoming an extatic event like the Olympics.  No matter, they just choreograph the whole thing to with a few skipping, jumping dancers and everyobody feels ok.  The Who provided a brief medly for the finaly, graciously cutting out the chorus of "teenage wasteland" from Baba O'Reilly.  We're not introducing the image of drugged out mods on this scene featuring the world's top athletes.  But acts such as Pink Floyd, Paul McCartney (too hippy) and Muse(too dark and edgy) don't really fit the scene either.

Nevermind.  This is the Olympics and everything (I mean EVERYTHING) is wonderful(especially if it is British).  Criticism not welcome.  Everybody smile and be happy.

It would be fine if this lack of criticism was only extended to the ceremonies.  Britain gets to showcase the best their culture has to offer, past and present.  However, the Olympic spirit is also taking this one step further into the realm of the athletics.

Nobody seems to be asking questions about mechanically enhanced athletes.  I don't mean to belittle the feat of a double amputee running as the fastest athletes in the world.  I think it's a great achievement of engineering and personal will.  In a word, it is awesome.  But, you cannot tell me that this Oscar Pistorius is participating in the same sport as the other runners in this race.

Read one reporter's fauning op-ed about the heart of this athlete.

The Wikipedia article mentions the struggle he endured to be approved.

After a two-day hearing, on 16 May 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld Pistorius's appeal and the IAAF council decision was revoked with immediate effect. The CAS panel unanimously determined that Dr. Brüggemann tested Pistorius's biomechanics only at full-speed when he was running in a straight line (unlike a real 400-metre race); that the report did not consider the disadvantages that Pistorius suffers at the start and acceleration phases of the race; and that overall there was no evidence that he had any net advantage over able-bodied athletes.

So, the test to prove whether an advantage was gained was pushed aside because it did not take into account certain disadvantages.  Here is the biggest question that nobody wants to ask.  What will happen when those disadvantages are eliminated through developments in the technology?  If Pistorius is given an advantage at full speed and can start just as well as a regular runner, would the entire apparatus not be considered advantageous?  Human ingenuity will eventually overcome all of the short comings and allow amputees to run faster than anyone else; this is absolutely inevitable and likely happening sooner than later - 2016 perhaps?
Here, then, we are brought to a cross-roads.  Either, ban all limb replacement devices and mechanical assistance in running sports or regulate them to provide no apparent advantage.  It is no easy task to determine some level of advantage gained by replacement legs.  Considering that without any mechanical apparatus, he would not be able to run at all, any apparatus is an advantage.

But ignoring that fact, as the IAAF seems to do, officials would have to determine some standard by which any apparatus could be judged and accepted.  The mechanical advantage would have to be similar to the human body and engineers would basically have to calibrate it as such.  The question would be, to what kind of human should it be calibrated.  Usain Bolt is the worlds fastest human.  Would it be fair, then, to provide a leg that provides as much energy return as a Usain Bolt leg?

This is where it gets morally sticky.  Amputees would be given Usain Bolt legs (or whatever standard is decided upon), while everyone else would get the legs that they're born with.  In that context, would not mechanical legs be considered an unfair advantage?  If you take 100 amputee athletes, you could simply customize a leg for each one and have half of them running the 100m in 10 seconds, albeit with hard training.  You could random pick 100 able bodied athletes and no mater how hard they trained, you'd be lucky to find one to run near 10 seconds.  Again, I can't deny Pistorius heart and desire, but it is simply unfathomable, that he his anything more than a good athlete.  Good is fine, but the competition at the Olympics MUST be elite.  If you can take a good athlete and attach an apparatus to his body and make his run about as fast as elite athletes it is called cheating.  Why can we allow this if we are so upset at the mere allegation of drug enhanced performance?

How long before the first person has his legs replaced on purpose to allow for faster replacement legs to be attached?  How long before it is a common practice, like Tommy John's surgery is for baseball pitchers?

One day Usaine Bolt's records will be broken. If it is by a man who has his legs amputated and is wearing similar devices, will people be able to honestly look him in the eye and that it is the same as what he did?  Or, will our Very-Nice People in charge of the Olympics with their feel-good politics and inability to speak truth when it might hurt go into overdrive as we gush for the all-wonderful Olympic Dream?

Marketing Newspeak in Everyday Conversations: Playpen or Play Yard

I recently had a conversation with some friends that went basically like this:

Friend: "My baby is outgrowing the bassinet. I think it's time to put him in a crib."
Culdesachero: "I guess he's growing."
F:"Yeah, it's a lot sooner than with our first. We didn't move her until she was X months old."
C: "Oh really, interesting."
F:"Of course, with her we didn't move her directly into the crib."
C: "Where did you move her?"
F:"Well, she moved to the play yard first."
C: "You had her sleeping, like, on the floor?"
F: (Slightly indignant) "No, of course not. It was in the play yard."
C: "I'm sorry, what do you mean by play yard?"
F:"It's a square thing you put the kid in so they don't get hurt. But this has extra sleeping and change table attachments."
C: "Oh, so it sounds just like the playpen we had for ours."
F:"Yeah, but they're also called play yards."
"Sorry, when I think of a play yard, I think of those little fences with gates where you just go in." making little gate-swinging motion.
F:"No. A play yard has a floor..."
C: "I guess a couple of years makes a big difference in the language."
F: Scoffs.
C: "It's still called a playpen. No matter what the marketing geniuses try to rebrand their product as. It sounds like they're just trying to separate the idea that you're penning your child in there like a dog."
F: "huh? That's just what they call it."
C: Cheekily, "It's CALLED a playpen. You don't have to invent new words. The word already exists."
F: "Well, at least you're open minded about it."
C: Laughing, "That's me, Mr. Open-minded."


Inside, I was facepalming like mad. If I hadn't deflected the conversation in a lighthearted, self-deprecating, "I'm-so-stuck-in-my-ways" manner to let everyone know that I understand that it's not really a big deal, this could have gotten pretty heated. Still, the point was made, although, I'm sure some participants and observers are of the opinion that I'm just a jerk.

Child exercising in "The Yard"

Do I take life too seriously? It amazes me how people accept corporate re-branding and renaming things that have existed for centuries with so little thought. Am I the only one bothered by this? Three years ago, nobody would have equated the terms playpen and play yard. Now, because my friends either read about play yards somewhere in some corporate-sponsored articles or talked to a slick saleperson who insisted on calling them play yards instead of playpens, they've completely erased the term playpen with this newspeak term play yard at the behest of marketing executives. (Yes, I really think about these things.)
I've never looked at one of these things and said, "Wow, look at that yard for babies to play in". I've never met a baby who liked to play in one regardless of the term used to describe it, but that's besides the point. The definition of yard means basically, a tract of ground next to, surrounding, or surrounded by a building or buildings, ofen enclosed. Whereas, a pen is defined as a fenced enclosure for keeping animals. This does not mean that pens have floors, but the definition of yard specifically mentions the word ground. So, pen may or may not have a floor, while a yard can not have a floor (other than the ground). Therefore, play yard is an incorrect term for a device with a floor designed to safely, temporarily confine and hopefully entertain small children while mom and dad are busy, but within earshot. But, you say, this is for indoors. Ah, I guess I'll give you that, but if you were to extend the definition of yard to an enlosed indoor area, the floor of the room would become proxy for the ground in that case, meaning you can call an enclosed area of floor could rightly be called a pen or a yard, a playpen that keeps the child off of the floor could not be called a yard.

Wikipedia currently has the following definition:

A playpen is a piece of furniture in which an infant or young toddler (typically those less than 35" tall and 30 lbs) is placed to prevent self-harm when her/his parent or guardian is occupied or away. The earliest use of the word "playpen" cited in the Oxford English Dictionary is 1902. More recently they have also been called "playards".

Recently(?) they have also been called playards????  Try, recently, a marketers have tried to remove the negative connotations of penning children like pigs, replacing it with the notion that they can be let "out" into the "yard" as if for fresh air.  I'm sure Lenore Skenazy could have some spin on this.  I mean, parents are being reported to police for letting their children play unattended in their own back yards.  Could this be the "yard" of the future?


I can picture the smarmy salesman speaking to the soon-to-be parent:
Mom-to-be: "But, I would never confine my child in a pen like a pig or a dog!"
Smarmy Salesman: "Of course not, madam, that's why you should consider our newest line of play YARDS for your precious ones. They'll enjoy the yard while you do their laundry or heat up their Kraft Dinner."
Mom-to-be: "Oh, well if you put it that way."

Makers of playpens have always had to deal with the notions of these insensible people who can't decipher between keeping an animal in a pen and confining your child to a safe place for short periods of time while you take care of important personal and household matters. The term pen always holds these connotations and, in the mind of marketers, prevents sales from reaching their full potential. So, they've invented a new word and are doing their best to wipe the old, more accurate, term off the face of the earth. When I google playpen, I get over 6,000,000 hits and images are fairly uniformly of playpens. "Play Yard" in quotes gets just under 3,000,000 and images vary widely between playpens and outside yards suitable for play. What we are witnessing is a corporate sponsored shifting point between these two terms. Nobody is much bothered by it except people like me who actually feel meaning behind words is important and who resist new expressions that loose accuracy. Granted, PLAYpen is using the word "play" fairly liberally, since all most kids do in them is scream to be let out.

Since the PC cleansing of our language that replaced such horrible terms as fireman, manhole cover and retarded with more inclusive or pleasant sounding firefighter, maintenance hole cover and developmentally delayed, we have become primed for such language adjustments. Strangely, it bothers me less that fireman has been changed to firefighter because at least the term does not conflict with its meaning. I'll still say fireman or firefighter interchangeably, but, I will not say play yard for a child containment device that has a raised floor.

Such conflicting terms have always bothered me, even before I finally completed Orwell's 1984 and learned more about the purpose and origin of Newspeak. It bothers me regardless of the motivations (power, money, goodwill). But, what truly disturbs me, is the ease with which the new words are accepted by people. I have this alarm in my brain that goes off whenever I see or hear something that conflicts with my previously held truths. If you tell me that something is blue and opaque and it is obvious to me that it is clear and yellow, my internal-conflic alarm will go off and I'll be forced to call you on your misconception. You cannot then say to me, "Let's agree to compromise and meet half-way. Perhaps it is green and transluscent." There is no perhaps about it. I can see that it is yellow and I can see through it clearly. There is no discussion. Your assessment is incorrect. As Winston Smith said, 2 + 2 = 4.