Well it would seem to me that ignorance is not free will. Ignorance is ignorance.
"Belief in free will" is not free will. "Belief in free will" is *belief* in free will. Why do you want to define it in terms of ignorance? What motivates this? And how does that fit with how the term is used with respect to ultimate responsibility for acts committed (good and bad)? Why not just say: "Free will as it is commonly used doesn't exist, but we have this other thing you might be interested in: faux will - which we define in terms of ignorance..." On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > The problem you're making is that, we can't choose (freely) under > deterministics rules and we can't choose (freely) under random rules... > > Because the world is ruled (random or not). I think free will is compatible > to both views. As long as you defined it to be ignorance of the knowing > entities, the burden rest to define what in that context are the knowing > entities (and what knows mean, where I think Bruno is near the truth) ;-) > > Regards, > Quentin > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. > > -- > 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.
