How to deal with people who deny free will?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

MNS, Right! You are not interested in a dialogue concerning free-will. You are wanting a monologue and a turning over of one's will for your control.

Oh! the Creator GOD doesn't coerce one to Love HIM; and the prophets were given plenty of information for all to have a conformed "choosing" of/by the "will" to decide the now/future of many things.
What is chosen today may not be valid in the future----Why? Because of many varied factors.
One's Will may change as well. Most people do not live moment to moment, nor even day to day. One's free-will comes into play with decisions exercised/changed often and daily--on a varied number of situations.
Of those varied situations subject to one's Free-will, what specific are you designating "common discourse"? Since so far in the posts, there is only generalities.

You are an oracle on free will, that is forcing your fantasies on everybody else. When you try to look at how people use the word choosing in daily life, you are not forcing your views on people, but just copying them, investigating them.

 

[Jared Jammer]

If they're unwilling to listen to reason, then my suggestion would be to viciously mock them with the hopes of shaming them into accepting the fact of free will. It may seem cruel at first, but denying free will is irrational and dangerous, thus, the end justifies the means.

 

[Pudding]

Because of science, evolution theory mainly, there are presently lots and lots of people about who deny free will is real.

Basically these people are like a stereotype of Mr Spock, coldhearted and calculating. They ignore my emotions, they ignore their own emotions, and the focus is on some practical matter at hand. They have this calculating, measuring, attitude about them, and they are extremely perfectionistic.

Where is your proof?

How should we practically deal with these people in a social setting in daily life?

1. Avoid like the plague
2. Make it clear that you don't like them, cause a scene
3. Go along with it, and curse them in thought only
4. Try to sabotage the conversation, causing it to fail as if it was an accident
5. Pay mind to what they are calculating, and calculate with them. Act as them.
6. other

Please show your proof of how they deny free will first.
And please explain your understanding of definition for 'free will'.

Meaning of 'free will' i find in google.
free will
noun
noun: free will; noun: freewill
1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

=========
Here added a list of current influential intellectuals promoting denial of the common concept of free wil of people (the common concept in the sense of having alternative futures available one of which can be made the present)

Susan Blackmore
Daniel Denett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Joshua Greene
Jonathan Cohen
Derk Pereboom
Will Provine
William S. Robinson

Please explain what you mean "common concept of free will".
Please show your proof of how these people "promoting denial of the common concept of free will of people".

Some of these intellectuals will still use the words free will, by which they mean that the result was forced by a preceding cause. They use a logic of sorting to mean choosing. So for example if the brain sorts out what is the cheapest cola per liter, and then you act upon this sorting process by buying the cheapest cola, then this is what these intellectuals would call choosing. The result is simply forced by the initial conditions, the prices of the different cola's and the rules by which they are sorted, and it couldn't have turned out in any different way.

I think you've complicate the words 'free will', and the example you give is inappropriate incompatible and irrelevant.

Here is the meaning of free will - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Please show your proof and evidence when making a claim/proposition.

 

[Sees]

...

That meme is hilarious

 

[Stevicus]

Because of science, evolution theory mainly, there are presently lots and lots of people about who deny free will is real.

Basically these people are like a stereotype of Mr Spock, coldhearted and calculating. They ignore my emotions, they ignore their own emotions, and the focus is on some practical matter at hand. They have this calculating, measuring, attitude about them, and they are extremely perfectionistic.

How should we practically deal with these people in a social setting in daily life?

1. Avoid like the plague
2. Make it clear that you don't like them, cause a scene
3. Go along with it, and curse them in thought only
4. Try to sabotage the conversation, causing it to fail as if it was an accident
5. Pay mind to what they are calculating, and calculate with them. Act as them.
6. other


=========
Here added a list of current influential intellectuals promoting denial of the common concept of free wil of people (the common concept in the sense of having alternative futures available one of which can be made the present)

Susan Blackmore
Daniel Denett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Joshua Greene
Jonathan Cohen
Derk Pereboom
Will Provine
William S. Robinson

Some of these intellectuals will still use the words free will, by which they mean that the result was forced by a preceding cause. They use a logic of sorting to mean choosing. So for example if the brain sorts out what is the cheapest cola per liter, and then you act upon this sorting process by buying the cheapest cola, then this is what these intellectuals would call choosing. The result is simply forced by the initial conditions, the prices of the different cola's and the rules by which they are sorted, and it couldn't have turned out in any different way.

I don't know that I would outright "deny" free will, as I believe in the freedom of choice and the rights of individuals. But the process that humans go through to make a choice, what influences those choices, etc. is quite complex. Apart from the physiological/neurological processes, there are also social and emotional factors involved.

One might cite the Asch conformity experiments as an example of how free will might be unduly influenced. (I didn't read all the posts in this thread, so my apologies if someone else brought this up.) That might also differentiate between those who are strong-willed versus those who are weak-willed. That may be a matter of upbringing and culture; possibly other factors. Some people are tough-minded and won't take any guff from anybody, while there are other people who are total marshmallows and fold up under even the slightest pressure.

Looking at it from the viewpoint of a possible "Creator," if we assume that there was a "God" who created humanity, then we might also have to assume that all of our physical weaknesses, vulnerabilities, emotions, desires, and thought processes were part of the design.

If I could choose to never be hungry, tired, thirsty, or vulnerable to illness/aging (among other things), then that would be genuine free will. If I could choose to make my body bulletproof or live at the bottom of the ocean without the need for heat or air, then I could see someone making a case for "free will." But without that, what kind of "free will" do we actually have?

 

[JRMcC]

Free will and determinism can coexist.

 

[SomeRandom]

How should we practically deal with these people in a social setting in daily life?

1. Avoid like the plague
2. Make it clear that you don't like them, cause a scene
3. Go along with it, and curse them in thought only
4. Try to sabotage the conversation, causing it to fail as if it was an accident
5. Pay mind to what they are calculating, and calculate with them. Act as them.
6. other

Mate, your suggestions on how to "deal with these people in a social setting" sound like they came from a 4 year old who was just pushed into the mud whilst playing. Spoilt brat syndrome much?

I have some advice on how to "practically deal with (insert whatever group of people here) in a social setting in daily life."

It's best not to act like a complete and utter ********.

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

[philbo]

I did. I am a huge fan of The Princess Bride so I took the opportunity to express exactly what you said via a quote from the movie. I was trying to agree with you and compliment you at the same time.

As you wish

 

[Yerda]

You could perhaps give a coherent account of how free will would work or even a clear definition of the term. Most people who I know that dispute whether we have free will are troubled by the conceptual difficulties that arise when trying to use it in any sensible way.

In anticipation of a further reference to common discourse, I would ask what is common discourse on free will is and is it coherent enough to talk about without generating nonsense?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Free will and determinism can coexist.

How would that work, exactly?

 

[JRMcC]

How would that work, exactly?

Easy, you just have to include your decisions in the unfolding of history. We make decisions and they sometimes influence the way everything unfolds, but it only unfolds one way. Looking back into my childhood, for example, I can see all the decisions I made. But I don't feel like I shaped my past, I feel like it happened to me.
I don't know it probably depends on your perspective and what you take determinism and free will to mean.

 

[Marisa]

Please, do avoid me like the plague. Knowing me would only burst your preconceived notions about me based on speculation and the need to self-validate.

 

[Nakosis]

How would that work, exactly?

Compatibilism defines free will in a manner were it has no relationship to whether determinism is true or not.
The ability to do what you want to do.

Incompatibilists define free will in a manner which is not compatible.
The ability to make a choice other then the one that was made.

Generally Incompatibilists claim the Compatibilist uses the wrong definition. Compatibilists claim the definition used by the Incompatibilist is incoherent.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Compatibilism defines free will in a manner were it has no relationship to whether determinism is true or not.

That is not correct. Compatibilism says that determinism is true, and that free will operates deterministically. That simply means to use the logic of sorting to mean choosing.

As mentioned in the example, this cola is cheaper than the other one, therefore I buy this cola. This is what a comatipibilist calls "choosing". The higher priced cola cannot be bought, because the rule is to sort out the cheapest.

In the traditional concept of choosing one could buy either cola, and the emotions or spirit decides the issue. What is incomprehensibe to an incompatibilitst is that the existence of the emotions is a matter of opinion, while the existence of the cola and the result of the decision is a matter of fact. However, it works out perfectly consistently, without any logical contradiction, and this structure is actually in line with common discourse.

 

[Curious George]

While I understand the concept of determinism, I think it is folly to extrapolate as they do, when the extrapolation is so counterintuitive and one which undermines a well documented motivation(cause) of action.

To deal with them I would suggest that you ask them to prove cause exists without begging the question. Since such is impossible, I would then ask them to state the reason why we should accept cause (Largely because inductive reasoning is essential and ubiquitous in everyday life). I would then ask why freewill also essential and ubiquitous in everyday life, is not to be accepted on the same terms when our actual evidence against freewill is really only evidence that choice is limited and choice is effected by subconscious factors.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because of science, evolution theory mainly, there are presently lots and lots of people about who deny free will is real.

Basically these people are like a stereotype of Mr Spock, coldhearted and calculating. They ignore my emotions, they ignore their own emotions, and the focus is on some practical matter at hand. They have this calculating, measuring, attitude about them, and they are extremely perfectionistic.

How should we practically deal with these people in a social setting in daily life?

1. Avoid like the plague
2. Make it clear that you don't like them, cause a scene
3. Go along with it, and curse them in thought only
4. Try to sabotage the conversation, causing it to fail as if it was an accident
5. Pay mind to what they are calculating, and calculate with them. Act as them.
6. other


=========
Here added a list of current influential intellectuals promoting denial of the common concept of free wil of people (the common concept in the sense of having alternative futures available one of which can be made the present)

Susan Blackmore
Daniel Denett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Joshua Greene
Jonathan Cohen
Derk Pereboom
Will Provine
William S. Robinson

Some of these intellectuals will still use the words free will, by which they mean that the result was forced by a preceding cause. They use a logic of sorting to mean choosing. So for example if the brain sorts out what is the cheapest cola per liter, and then you act upon this sorting process by buying the cheapest cola, then this is what these intellectuals would call choosing. The result is simply forced by the initial conditions, the prices of the different cola's and the rules by which they are sorted, and it couldn't have turned out in any different way.

step 1 is to assume they are right.
Step 2 is to assume you have no idea what you are talking about
Step 3 is to stop assuring that you are right when all defensible positions are apart from you.

 

[Nakosis]

That is not correct. Compatibilism says that determinism is true, and that free will operates deterministically. That simply means to use the logic of sorting to mean choosing.

yes it actually is correct, but the point was not what compatibilists says but how they define free will.

In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism. Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As mentioned in the example, this cola is cheaper than the other one, therefore I buy this cola. This is what a comatipibilist calls "choosing". The higher priced cola cannot be bought, because the rule is to sort out the cheapest.

In the traditional concept of choosing one could buy either cola, and the emotions or spirit decides the issue. What is incomprehensibe to an incompatibilitst is that the existence of the emotions is a matter of opinion, while the existence of the cola and the result of the decision is a matter of fact. However, it works out perfectly consistently, without any logical contradiction, and this structure is actually in line with common discourse.

How would you define free will in common discourse? I think the compatibilist view works here however maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by common discourse.

It seems no different than your example, being motivated by cost. The individual wants to buy the cheaper cola.

 

[Nakosis]

#6 - Treat them like ordinary people. To disagree about something so insignificant shouldn't cause rancor.

I'd say the same thing about God, but it does provide a bit of entertainment occasionally.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

While I understand the concept of determinism, I think it is folly to extrapolate as they do, when the extrapolation is so counterintuitive and one which undermines a well documented motivation(cause) of action.

To deal with them I would suggest that you ask them to prove cause exists without begging the question. Since such is impossible, I would then ask them to state the reason why we should accept cause (Largely because inductive reasoning is essential and ubiquitous in everyday life). I would then ask why freewill also essential and ubiquitous in everyday life, is not to be accepted on the same terms when our actual evidence against freewill is really only evidence that choice is limited and choice is effected by subconscious factors.

Ockham said, there are no causes without effects. So we should see causes as instantaneously together with their effects.

How to deal with people who deny free will is the same as asking how to deal with people engaged with the sin of knowledge of good and evil. They use the facts about what is good and evil to calculate a course of action, rather than choosing by expressing their emotions. That is why they reject free will is real.

So how to deal with such people besides throwing up all over them?

 

[Nakosis]

Ockham said, there are no causes without effects. So we should see causes as instantaneously together with their effects.

How to deal with people who deny free will is the same as asking how to deal with people engaged with the sin of knowledge of good and evil. They use the facts about what is good and evil to calculate a course of action, rather than choosing by expressing their emotions. That is why they reject free will is real.

So how to deal with such people besides throwing up all over them?

Feelings? Are you saying people who believe in determinism are no longer guided by their feelings/emotions?

Every choice becomes a calculation without love or compassion?