Posted by
jon zingale on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/alternative-response-tp7597063p7597204.html
An attempt to steelman via wingman:
The idea that Glen is proposing is to highlight a sweet spot in one's
experience where unfamiliarity competes with habit. Glen advocates
for bracketing questions of a prime mover or that which happens in
pathological limits. Instead, he wishes to constrain the scope of free
will to a question of free versus bound with respect to some arbitrary
component/scale/neighborhood (the free will zone). I will try not to
fight this as I still think of this interpretation of *free will* as being a
discussion of will, determined or not. For instance, I may be willful
and determined. The value I see in Glen's perspective is that we can
develop a grammar for discussing deliberate action, perhaps involving
a Bayesian update rule to an otherwise evaporative memory or local
foresight. He is advocating to not concern ourselves with whether or
not Charles Bukowski was *predestined* to be a drunk, but rather with
determining where the *choice* to do otherwise may have been.
--
Sent from:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comarchives:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/