I do not want to suggest a definition, but have a question concerning comp frame. When I improvise, often in Jazz or Rock context the free will question becomes fuzzy in this way:
Sometimes you hit a point where all the patterns/formulas you've learned; i.e. the kind of stuff you can play in your sleep, all the pre-calculated, time-proven stuff, runs out... at which point you risk repeating yourself in redundancy. At this point, I am forced to take a risk and plunge into the icy waters of all things I haven't played yet. When it works, it feels like magic as instant composition; but even when it doesn't, which makes up the great majority of these situations, and a technical error results from forced decision, as Brent says, out of time constraint, you can "ride the mistake". And on some occasions it can change the whole musical situation and take the band in a different direction: like we wanted to close after so many choruses, but we extend "because somebody found that weird thing" and riding it was pretty nice and it echoes into coda and ending, everybody quoting it. So from 1p perspective the technical error is not intended. Not a free decision and rather embarrassing, taken out of context. But this can reverse from point of view of the band/audience after the mistake has proven a fruitful input for some new groove. Then everybody agrees it was cool, and that we fully intended and meant that to happen in a "that's what music is about" kind of way. But then it can also be a random bullshit mistake; not fruitful at all. Strangely, even though I decide to "take the plunge", I don't really feel like I'm in control of this. But if venue, band, audience is cool; I definitely control it more, than when a bunch of professors are evaluating me. So my question for weak comp frame: who/what else is in control when 1p makes a forced, time-constrained decision? On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 01 Aug 2012, at 18:23, Brian Tenneson wrote: > > We may be overthinking things here. What's wrong with defining it as the > capacity to make choices when more than one option is available? > > > ... from the point of view of the knowing subject. I am OK with that > definition. You have to add "from the point of view of the subject" to > prevent the idea that a God, or the Physical Theory makes it like at some > (low) level, only one option exists. Yet, it is not because some God or > some Supermachine, or just your friends, can predict if you will drink tea > or coffee that you will not exercise free will by choosing the option which > satisfies you the most. > Two options can be enough. Free will is the ability to choose between > drinking tea or not drinking tea. > > Bruno > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 8/1/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> Yes - and rationality often does not help much. In such situations, it >>> is often better to make a fast decision than a good one. Only >>> irrational agents can make fast decisions. >>> >> >> Almost all real decisions (even in chess) are time constrained. How can >> it be rational to wait too long for your decision to matter and irrational >> to make a quick decision on incomplete information, on incomplete analysis? >> >> >> >>> > From the responses I've received on this list, I don't think people >>> are using the term rational in the same way it is used in >>> economics. Flipping a coin is never rational, although it may well be >>> the best thing to do. >>> >> Random moves are optimum in many games and provably so. What meaning of >> 'rational' are you using? >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> -- >> 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<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >> . >> >> > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
