An attempt to steelman via wingman: The idea that Glen is proposing is to highlight a sweet spot in one's experience where unfamiliarity competes with habit. Glen advocates for bracketing questions of a prime mover or that which happens in pathological limits. Instead, he wishes to constrain the scope of free will to a question of free versus bound with respect to some arbitrary component/scale/neighborhood (the free will zone). I will try not to fight this as I still think of this interpretation of *free will* as being a discussion of will, determined or not. For instance, I may be willful and determined. The value I see in Glen's perspective is that we can develop a grammar for discussing deliberate action, perhaps involving a Bayesian update rule to an otherwise evaporative memory or local foresight. He is advocating to not concern ourselves with whether or not Charles Bukowski was *predestined* to be a drunk, but rather with determining where the *choice* to do otherwise may have been.
-- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
