How to deal with people who deny free will?

[Kirran]

I never said I do not think choosing can occur.

What makes sense to me, is that the outcome of a choice is based upon the situation within which it arises. I ask you, directly - is this not the case? Is my deciding to buy a bottle of water not predicated upon my level of thirst, the cost and inconvenience of getting the bottle of water, and my past experiences relating to buying bottles of water? If not, why not?

I'm breaking this down into points so that it's easier to examine. I'm not saying I break things down like this when making a decision in my life. Emotion comes into it.

Also, I never once said I understand choosing as sorting. I don't really understand what that means, but you have nevertheless accused me of it several times.

If it's the case that you don't think I've studied the issue sufficiently - you may be right. To me, you don't seem to have done so.

OK, so 'We can simply say X is what makes the decision turn out the way it does, and it is a matter of opinion what X is.' Why can't X = the situation, including all contributing factors.

This is such a vague definition as to assert little to nothing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

OK, so 'We can simply say X is what makes the decision turn out the way it does, and it is a matter of opinion what X is.' Why can't X = the situation, including all contributing factors.

This is such a vague definition as to assert little to nothing.

It is the way the logic works in common discourse. There is no studying on your part at all, you just dismiss other concepts, without actually comparing concepts. When you say it is "vague" you are just burping a prejudice, it is totally meaningless commentary to the issue of what concept of choosing is used in common discourse.

And when you dismiss this, as you have done, then it is right to say that you ignore emotions, because the logic is the basis of all subjectivity.

Again, this is all quite useless when you don't simply try to accurately reflect how the logic of choosing works in common discourse. Spare me all of your excuses, and all your ideas which serve your point of view, and simply accurately reflect the logic in common discourse, like a student must do. Don't put it on me to explain how common discourse works, explain it yourself.

Is it in line with common discourse that sorting out the cheapest cola, or sorting out cabbage according to weight, is choosing? Would a machine not be able to do that sorting? Wouldn't that in principle be forced?

 

[Kirran]

I do not disagree with this definition of choosing. I am in full agreement with you that the definition you put forward describes choosing as I understand it. It's just our definitions of 'X' which differ. I don't think my assertion that it is vague is burping a prejudice. I agree with it. So do you. Our beliefs on this matter are otherwise very different. So that means it is vague, to me. It is not specific. I did not dismiss it.

Is that definition what constitutes common discourse? If so, I agree with it. However, I don't think that it is up to me to come up with an explanation for something you are asserting. That isn't how debates tend to work. It is up to you to explain it if you want it to be a part of the discussion.

Sure, a machine could be programmed to sort cabbages by size. But I'm not talking about sorting them, I'm talking about choosing the one which I want to buy, based on my own experience, and so on.

What makes sense to me, is that the outcome of a choice is based upon the situation within which it arises. I ask you, directly - is this not the case? Is my deciding to buy a bottle of water not predicated upon my level of thirst, the cost and inconvenience of getting the bottle of water, and my past experiences relating to buying bottles of water? If not, why not?

Please answer this question.

 

[YmirGF]

It is the way the logic works in common discourse.

But logic often has no place in common discourse. In common discourse, one is almost always beset with entrenched opinions that may or may not have any basis in facts.

When you say it is "vague" you are just burping a prejudice, it is totally meaningless commentary to the issue of what concept of choosing is used in common discourse.

Common discourse, is just that, it is not a formal debate where logic is a more prominent feature.

And when you dismiss this, as you have done, then it is right to say that you ignore emotions, because the logic is the basis of all subjectivity.

Oh, codswallop. I think you are deftly ignoring the nature of emotions and how they play on opinions that are not fact based.

Is it in line with common discourse that sorting out the cheapest cola, or sorting out cabbage according to weight, is choosing? Would a machine not be able to do that sorting? Wouldn't that in principle be forced?

What? This doesn't strike me as being particularly logical.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do not disagree with this definition of choosing. I am in full agreement with you that the definition you put forward describes choosing as I understand it. It's just our definitions of 'X' which differ. I don't think my assertion that it is vague is burping a prejudice. I agree with it. So do you. Our beliefs on this matter are otherwise very different. So that means it is vague, to me. It is not specific. I did not dismiss it.

Is that definition what constitutes common discourse? If so, I agree with it. However, I don't think that it is up to me to come up with an explanation for something you are asserting. That isn't how debates tend to work. It is up to you to explain it if you want it to be a part of the discussion.

Sure, a machine could be programmed to sort cabbages by size. But I'm not talking about sorting them, I'm talking about choosing the one which I want to buy, based on my own experience, and so on.

Please answer this question.

When you say the outcome is based on the situation, then it looks like cause and effect logic. Situation x then result y. Could option z have been realized? No it could not have, except if the situation x were different.

Before you said there was no common discourse meaning, now you say to agree with common discourse. Honestly, you are all over the place.

I don't agree that stating in terms of formal logic, with an X, is vague, it makes the logic quite plain, where with what you say it is very vague if the logic you use of the situation leading to a result, is logic of being forced or not.

If you were not talking about sorting, then why did you note one cabbage is bigger than the other? There are simply 2 fundamental concepts of choosing on offer, one is based on sorting, the other based on making an alternative future the present. Which of these is in line with common discourse? Common discourse would only metaphorically say that a machine sorting is choosing, it is not really choosing.

 

[Kirran]

When you say the outcome is based on the situation, then it looks like cause and effect logic. Situation x then result y. Could option z have been realized? No it could not have, except if the situation x were different.

That's what I think.

Before you said there was no common discourse meaning, now you say to agree with common discourse. Honestly, you are all over the place.

I am referring to what you call the 'common discourse meaning'. And, now that you have defined it, I accept it as being near-universal, because it is close to being a definition of the word 'to choose'.

I don't agree that stating in terms of formal logic, with an X, is vague, it makes the logic quite plain, where with what you say it is very vague if the logic you use of the situation leading to a result, is logic of being forced or not.

Let me be clearer. It does make the logic very plain. However, by virtue of not establishing what X is, it doesn't actually make an argument for or against free will.

If you were not talking about sorting, then why did you note one cabbage is bigger than the other? There are simply 2 fundamental concepts of choosing on offer, one is based on sorting, the other based on making an alternative future the present. Which of these is in line with common discourse? Common discourse would only metaphorically say that a machine sorting is choosing, it is not really choosing.

The size of the cabbage was one of the many variable involved.

If common discourse is defined as your previous statement - 'We can simply say X is what makes the decision turn out the way it does, and it is a matter of opinion what X is' - then I don't see that this carries across. Is there more to your idea of common discourse than said statement?

I don't really see a fundamental difference. A human choosing something is still making a decision based on all their knowledge, experience, the situation etc. This is far more complicated than a machine running a program enabling it to choose particular cabbages or whatever, but doesn't seem fundamentally different. Obviously a human is complex enough to include emotion in this.

 

[Nakosis]

Certainly, I'm open to the idea. But for me, the idea's still a bit of an abstraction.

Let's go back to cabbages. So there are two cabbages, one is a little bigger than the other. Based on all these facts such as how much cabbage I usually eat, how long a cabbage lasts, how long I tend to keep a cabbage before eating it all, where I have to store the cabbage, the cost of a cabbage, whether somebody is jostling you on one side making it hard to reach one of the cabbages, etc, I choose a cabbage. So my choice of cabbage emerges from the situation.

Existing, this self, whatever is the repentant of perception, controller of my emotions/desires/will seems an abstraction. Yet I have to accept that whatever it is that I am exists.

I look at the self as a black box. What goes on inside is, for lack of actual knowledge metaphysical. So here you are, existing, this self. You as a "self" are unique. Everything that goes on in making the actual is internalized. So you, your "self" is the agent of the decision.

Whatever came about to create you, whatever forces are involved, we can't really say. So you can believe whatever you want to believe. We still have to accept that you as a unique agent exists.

So you made a choice. Whatever it is that you consist of made a choice and made an action occur as a result. A different unique self in the same position has no obligation to make the same choice you did. You existing, being there to make a choice of which cabbage, determined the next moment which occurred. It makes you the agent responsible of what happens next.

Until you've as a unique agent made a decision through this internal process the next moment was not determined. A different unique agent could have made a different choice, altering the next moment.

I phrased it badly when referring to this separation of emotions and free will. I was trying to say something like that I don't get why somebody who doesn't understand where free will ought to come from, such as myself, wouldn't be involved in emotions.

Yes, me either. I guess neither of us has an answer for that.

Still really curious to find out how your existence insults people. Personally I don't feel insulted, can't fathom why anyone would.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That's what I think.



I am referring to what you call the 'common discourse meaning'. And, now that you have defined it, I accept it as being near-universal, because it is close to being a definition of the word 'to choose'.



Let me be clearer. It does make the logic very plain. However, by virtue of not establishing what X is, it doesn't actually make an argument for or against free will.



The size of the cabbage was one of the many variable involved.

If common discourse is defined as your previous statement - 'We can simply say X is what makes the decision turn out the way it does, and it is a matter of opinion what X is' - then I don't see that this carries across. Is there more to your idea of common discourse than said statement?

I don't really see a fundamental difference. A human choosing something is still making a decision based on all their knowledge, experience, the situation etc. This is far more complicated than a machine running a program enabling it to choose particular cabbages or whatever, but doesn't seem fundamentally different. Obviously a human is complex enough to include emotion in this.

Now you say to agree with common discourse, yet there is no such thing in common discourse that a forced result would be choosing. Again, what is the logic actually used in common discourse?

And talking about many variables being involved only dilutes the logic. It does not matter for the logic if 1, or 1 million sortingcriteria apply, it is simply still sorting. And the logic of what you are arguing is simply cause and effect, being forced. It is inconsistent with making one of alternative futures the present, or making a possible future the present or not. So there are 2 concepts of choosing on offer, and then evaluate which one is in line with common discourse, and which one is not.

And the one that is in line with common discourse, that would be the concept of choosing the newsreader refers to in using the terms "choosing", while the other concept would not be referred to. That would just be a concept you invented yourself, and there is no reason to call this concept "choosing", now is there.

It is ofcourse a feature that it isn't established what X is, by not establishing what X is, room is provided for making an opinion on what X is. If it was just a matter of fact what X is, then there would be no room for opinion. And that is where you are now, you leave no room for opinion, subjectivity, emotions, and that is the trouble in dealing with you.

 

[Kirran]

Existing, this self, whatever is the repentant of perception, controller of my emotions/desires/will seems an abstraction. Yet I have to accept that whatever it is that I am exists.

I look at the self as a black box. What goes on inside is, for lack of actual knowledge metaphysical. So here you are, existing, this self. You as a "self" are unique. Everything that goes on in making the actual is internalized. So you, your "self" is the agent of the decision.

Whatever came about to create you, whatever forces are involved, we can't really say. So you can believe whatever you want to believe. We still have to accept that you as a unique agent exists.

So you made a choice. Whatever it is that you consist of made a choice and made an action occur as a result. A different unique self in the same position has no obligation to make the same choice you did. You existing, being there to make a choice of which cabbage, determined the next moment which occurred. It makes you the agent responsible of what happens next.

Until you've as a unique agent made a decision through this internal process the next moment was not determined. A different unique agent could have made a different choice, altering the next moment.

How I take this is that a different agent in the situation would mean it was a different situation.

Basically, if I chose the small cabbage, then somebody hit rewind and I went back to the exact situation before I chose a cabbage, I'd choose the small cabbage again. And again, every time.

As I say, I don't find the concept of free will to entirely make sense, so I don't exactly refute it or accept it.

Still really curious to find out how your existence insults people. Personally I don't feel insulted, can't fathom why anyone would.

To be fair, I think it was my interacting with somebody that was insulting rather than my existence

Now you say to agree with common discourse, yet there is no such thing in common discourse that a forced result would be choosing. Again, what is the logic actually used in common discourse?

Well I don't know, you're the one who brought it up as a concept. I agree with that statement you made. It's not forced. It's just what makes sense as a choice.

And talking about many variables being involved only dilutes the logic. It does not matter for the logic if 1, or 1 million sortingcriteria apply, it is simply still sorting. And the logic of what you are arguing is simply cause and effect, being forced. It is inconsistent with making one of alternative futures the present, or making a possible future the present or not. So there are 2 concepts of choosing on offer, and then evaluate which one is in line with common discourse, and which one is not.

If you maintain that this is sorting even when emotion, personality traits etc are involved in this process, then sure, I guess it is. The word used doesn't strike me as hugely important.

Do you maintain that the concept in line with 'common discourse' is right by virtue of that fact, or coincidentally?

And the one that is in line with common discourse, that would be the concept of choosing the newsreader refers to in using the terms "choosing", while the other concept would not be referred to. That would just be a concept you invented yourself.

Which concept did I invent?

It is ofcourse a feature that it isn't established what X is, by not establishing what X is, room is provided for making an opinion on what X is. If it was just a matter of fact what X is, then there would be no room for opinion. And that is where you are now, you leave no room for opinion, subjectivity, emotions, and that is the trouble in dealing with you.

So we both agree on that statement. Very well. We have differences in opinion based on what X is.

You leave no room for opinion in your view that free will exists, and that those who don't share that opinion are aemotional, and insulting to even deal with.

I leave plenty of room for opinion, subjectivity, emotion, both in life in general and in the concept of free will. These are major factors in how we perceive things. Also, I don't maintain that I am necessarily correct. This is the version of things I accept, but there's nothing making it more valid than anybody else's beliefs. Do you agree as regards your own beliefs?

I have gone through your points individually and discussed them. I would appreciate it if you would do the same, rather than launch general attacks.

 

[Nakosis]

How I take this is that a different agent in the situation would mean it was a different situation.

Basically, if I chose the small cabbage, then somebody hit rewind and I went back to the exact situation before I chose a cabbage, I'd choose the small cabbage again. And again, every time.

As I say, I don't find the concept of free will to entirely make sense, so I don't exactly refute it or accept it.

Well, yes. Can't really prove/disprove determinism. So my point, why make a determination on something unproven. Kind of like a God of the gaps theory. Why base the truth on what we don't know?

Still I know I have decisions and make choices based on the options in front of me. I wouldn't bother which the process of choosing unless I believe I could choose otherwise. Just people who want to believe in something that's not proven who push this idea that choice is an illusion. I'll stick with the apparent reality of making choices until it's proven otherwise.[/quote]

To be fair, I think it was my interacting with somebody that was insulting rather than my existence

Sorry, my mistake. However I'm not offended by you interaction either.

I think being offended is a choice as well. One can always, if they are cable of it, choosing not to feel offended.

I think we can develop a "consciousness" that can act independent of causation. Just not ever consciousness has it developed to the same degree.

 

[Kirran]

Well, yes. Can't really prove/disprove determinism. So my point, why make a determination on something unproven. Kind of like a God of the gaps theory. Why base the truth on what we don't know?

That's a very interesting point.

Having considered, I think of free will as being a positive assertion. I don't see anything which brings me to accept free will, therefore I don't assume its existence.

In reply to some of your other points. Yeah, I agree you can choose not to be offended, and learn to separate your consciousness from the raw reactions etc.

I don't think I act any different as a result of my non-belief in free will. I still feel like I'm making a choice when I do something. And I am

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How I take this is that a different agent in the situation would mean it was a different situation.

Basically, if I chose the small cabbage, then somebody hit rewind and I went back to the exact situation before I chose a cabbage, I'd choose the small cabbage again. And again, every time.

As I say, I don't find the concept of free will to entirely make sense, so I don't exactly refute it or accept it.



To be fair, I think it was my interacting with somebody that was insulting rather than my existence



Well I don't know, you're the one who brought it up as a concept. I agree with that statement you made. It's not forced. It's just what makes sense as a choice.



If you maintain that this is sorting even when emotion, personality traits etc are involved in this process, then sure, I guess it is. The word used doesn't strike me as hugely important.

Do you maintain that the concept in line with 'common discourse' is right by virtue of that fact, or coincidentally?



Which concept did I invent?



So we both agree on that statement. Very well. We have differences in opinion based on what X is.

You leave no room for opinion in your view that free will exists, and that those who don't share that opinion are aemotional, and insulting to even deal with.

I leave plenty of room for opinion, subjectivity, emotion, both in life in general and in the concept of free will. These are major factors in how we perceive things. Also, I don't maintain that I am necessarily correct. This is the version of things I accept, but there's nothing making it more valid than anybody else's beliefs. Do you agree as regards your own beliefs?

I have gone through your points individually and discussed them. I would appreciate it if you would do the same, rather than launch general attacks.

We don't have differences of opinion on what X is, you exclude opinion, and establish it as a matter of fact, forced by evidence, what X is. You reject the concept of subjectivity, in favor of measuring factors in the environment etc. which determine the result.

And to be sure, how this works out in a real life situation where I am dealing with you, you have these calculations going on, these sortingcriteria, and then you will know as fact what is good and bad.

Say we are neighbours and my tree hangs over your garden, and leafs of my tree fall in your garden. Then you would go calculating, that it is not optimal for you for the leafs of my tree to fall in your garden. And that you arrive at the conclusion through calculation, disregarding emotion, means you will be furious, that leafs from my tree fall in your garden. Or in any other matter, when you calculate it is not optimal using the sortingcriteria, then you will quickly be furious. Isn't that basically a correct typification of how you deal with people?

 

[Kirran]

-snip-
Isn't that basically a correct typification of how you deal with people?

No, none of that is in any way an accurate description of how I go about my life. I'm not cold and calculating like you seem to think. My choices are just as based on opinions and emotions as everybody else's. I even have a sense of humour

Please, take my word for this. I wouldn't get angry at you over the leaves. I'd react with compassion, I like to think.

EDIT: Also, as a non-dualist, I don't ascribe to the ideas of good and bad

 

[Quintessence]

There is no such thing as a human being who is not governed by emotion (the deceased, comatose, and mentally disabled notwithstanding).

 

[leibowde84]

Stereotype much?! Everybody's different, buddy. Try not to assume they all have the same negative character traitss.

 

[Nakosis]

There is no such thing as a human being who is not governed by emotion (the deceased, comatose, and mentally disabled notwithstanding).

What about the individual which governs their emotions? People may not exercise this option very often. Some maybe never, but I certainly think humans are capable, have the potential for this.

 

[Quintessence]

What about the individual which governs their emotions? People may not exercise this option very often. Some maybe never, but I certainly think humans are capable, have the potential for this.

Let me rephrase. There is no such thing as a human for which emotions are not a factor in informing, guiding, or determining that person's behaviors and thoughts. Emotion is fundamental to the human condition it is impossible for humans to lack emotion. That's what I meant by "governing." Whether or not the emotions are elicited by a primarily internal or external source isn't unimportant with respect to the point I wanted to make.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, none of that is in any way an accurate description of how I go about my life. I'm not cold and calculating like you seem to think. My choices are just as based on opinions and emotions as everybody else's. I even have a sense of humour

Please, take my word for this. I wouldn't get angry at you over the leaves. I'd react with compassion, I like to think.

EDIT: Also, as a non-dualist, I don't ascribe to the ideas of good and bad

How nice. But reality doesn't work that way, reality works in such a way that your beliefs are relevant to the way you act. You comprehend choosing as sorting, calculating, you will sort and calculate. You expressly rejected subjectivity, without argument, so I am not optimistic about how you would engage with people.

Ofcourse interaction is all very complex, and for the most part you will follow common discourse, which has the correct logic in it. But for the intellectual part, you do something quite different.

Ofcourse the possiblity of doing any science about decisionmaking is out the window based on your ideas about it. That's kind of bizarre, maybe seeing that will make you think again about what you are doing, although really the motivation should just be to accept subjectivity is valid.

 

[Kirran]

How nice. But reality doesn't work that way, reality works in such a way that your beliefs are relevant to the way you act. You comprehend choosing as sorting, calculating, you will sort and calculate. You expressly rejected subjectivity, without argument, so I am not optimistic about how you would engage with people.

I don't think of it as calculating, that's not what I'm doing.

I've broken down decisions for the purposes of this discussion, perhaps making them appear calculating and heartless, but I don't recall ever having made a decision like that in real life

I do not reject subjectivity. I have not said that. This is what you think I must do, but it is not.

Ofcourse interaction is all very complex, and for the most part you will follow common discourse, which has the correct logic in it. But for the intellectual part, you do something quite different.

No, I don't.

Ofcourse the possiblity of doing any science about decisionmaking is out the window based on your ideas about it. That's kind of bizarre, maybe seeing that will make you think again about what you are doing, although really the motivation should just be to accept subjectivity is valid.

Subjectivity exists. It is part and parcel of my decision-making process.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't think of it as calculating, that's not what I'm doing.

I've broken down decisions for the purposes of this discussion, perhaps making them appear calculating and heartless, but I don't recall ever having made a decision like that in real life

I do not reject subjectivity. I have not said that. This is what you think I must do, but it is not.



No, I don't.



Subjectivity exists. It is part and parcel of my decision-making process.

You don't want to study the structure used in common discourse, and instead invent stuff yourself, like some oracle, and then you end up rejecting subjectivity. You think you haven't rejected subjectivity, because you redefined subjectivity as well as you redefined choosing.