On 6/18/2012 11:16 AM, 1Z wrote:

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?
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 
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.

Compatibilist allow that one could do otherwise if determinism is not true and so one's actions could be random.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to