On Jun 18, 6:44 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 6/18/2012 10:34 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote: > > >>>>> About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could > >>>>> mean. I tend to agree > >>>>>> > with John on this. > >>>>> It seems pretty clear. It's an ability to make decisions in a spirit > >>>>> realm and have them > >>>>> implemented in the physical realm. > >>> No: it;'s the ability to have made a difference but still rational > >>> decision under the > >>> same circumstances. > >> What does 'same circumstances' mean? Does it mean the same physical state > >> down to the > >> lowest level, or does it just mean the same at the level of description of > >> a police report? > > >> Brent > > > Good question. If you get very fine grained, then FW does start to > > look random or even "contra > > causal". I think for FW to be feasible we need to mean external > > circumstances but not internal > > states. I call that the doughnut theory. > > OK, that comports with my understanding that 'free will' is social/legal > level concept > just meaning roughly "not coerced", where there are degrees of coercion.
I'm not sure about "comporting with". The requirement to be able to have done otherwise is supposed to be explicitly incompatibilist. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.