On 02 Aug 2012, at 21:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
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?
It seems to me that you answered the question in the question. If it
is the 1p which makes the decision, the one in control is the 1p
itself (that is, with other name, the inner god, the unnameable self,
the subject, the (first) person). It is a mixture of truth and beliefs.
Bruno
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-
l...@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-
l...@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
.
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.
