Hi all, > dmb says: > I just don't understand how your mind works. It's simple, Steve. Free will is > just another way to say that you could have acted differently. Free will is, > as my dictionary puts it, "the ability to act one's own discretion". As I > have already said many times, that is all I mean by free will. Every > dictionary and encyclopedia backs this claim and I don't see any reason why > the MOQ would defy the english language. Unlike yourself.
Steve: I agree with dmb that free will traditionally defined is a "just another way to say that you could have acted differently," but I think dmb is asserting a conception of free will when he says that "could have acted differently" is the same as Pirsig's formulation of freedom as the extent to which we follow DQ. He is trying to slip the old "free will" in the back door of the MOQ, but I could be wrong. I see "could have acted differently" and following DQ as very different ideas. One is Pirsig's description of freedom. The other is free will as it is usually defined. dmb thinks these concepts cash out to the same thing, but I don't see how that works. What I think would help me most would be to understand what the past conditional "could" refers to in this context. "Could" if only _what_ were true? I've asked a couple times, but for some reason, dmb doesn't think "could have acted differently" needs any explication. For me there is a clear dependence on some conditional, some "if only," inherent in the word "could." I just can't make sense of "could have acted differently" without a "could if _what_ were true?" Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
