How to deal with people who deny free will?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Actually it's an attempt to deal with the issue. You harp endlessly about two things especially: "common discourse" and "subjectivity". However, you display an inability to reflect common discourse, and one of the ways in which you do is a failure to use "subjectivity" the way it is in "common discourse".

Too many of your posts involve non-idiomatic English making it hard to understand what you actually mean:


How do I "ignore common discourse in terms of choosing, emotions, in favor of...? That is, given that this statement doesn't make any sense, could you try rephrasing it to make in comprehensible? Try relying on "common discourse" (ok, I admit that last part was smart-alecky).




Apart from this not actually consisting of sentences, I'm not sure how you are deriving the above from anything I've said. But I am particularly curious about my "fantasy idea about love"

Love seldom found but ever sought
Beyond all words yet held in thought
Between a unity of two
Never lost and never through
But always true

You do not try to accurately reflect common discourse, deliberately. I try to, and reasonably I have accurately reflected it. Now you make one smart alecky argument after another without any coherence.

 

[Sha'irullah]

religions spend so much time trying to deny humans free will and when neuroscience turns out to prove that many has no free will all the sudden religions go into a panic. Religions are children's clubs; they can't handle grownup things. When the muftis are gone and the last pope in his grave then the world can progress and ask serious questions

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You do not try to accurately reflect common discourse, deliberately.

"Common discourse" is variable. Just consider dialects. And while we're on the subject, the term "common discourse" isn't common discourse. Neither is the word "discourse". The same is true of subjectivity. You can check this using corpora. You use two technical terms idiomatically while castigating the use of technical terms and emphasizing the importance of not relying on such idiomatic usage.

I try to, and reasonably I have accurately reflected it.

Not only have your descriptions of subjectivity completely failed to reflect anything remotely resembling the actual use, but this lexeme is no more a term in "common discourse" than is lexeme. It's a technical term, not used in common discourse, and you not only repeat it ad nauseum but fail to use it correctly.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Common discourse" is variable. Just consider dialects. And while we're on the subject, the term "common discourse" isn't common discourse. Neither is the word "discourse". The same is true of subjectivity. You can check this using corpora. You use two technical terms idiomatically while castigating the use of technical terms and emphasizing the importance of not relying on such idiomatic usage.

Not only have your descriptions of subjectivity completely failed to reflect anything remotely resembling the actual use, but this lexeme is no more a term in "common discourse" than is lexeme. It's a technical term, not used in common discourse, and you not only repeat it ad nauseum but fail to use it correctly.

How would you know that what I say does not accurately refelect common discourse, when you deny that common discourse exists, and go out of your way to make a point of not investigating it? Your argumentation is incoherent.

You know that my argumentation is valid, that what you say about choosing has no relevance to the way people talk in terms of choosing in daily life. You have fantasized a definition for the word choosing, deliberately unrelated to common discourse, which makes what you say about free will just some mindgame using your own invented language.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How would you know that what I say does not accurately refelect common discourse

Because I can use the BNC, COCA, GloWbE, FrameNet, etc. In other words, I can access carefully hundreds of thousands collected and balanced actual uses of the English language (written and spoken in diverse settings) and check your usage against these.

when you deny that common discourse exists

Quite the contrary. It does exist. You just don't know what it is.

You know that my argumentation is valid

Argumentation is a method, and your argument isn't sound (to simplify, it isn't valid; let's avoid the difference between validity and soundness).

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Because I can use the BNC, COCA, GloWbE, FrameNet, etc. In other words, I can access carefully hundreds of thousands collected and balanced actual uses of the English language (written and spoken in diverse settings) and check your usage against these.


Quite the contrary. It does exist. You just don't know what it is.


Argumentation is a method, and your argument isn't sound (to simplify, it isn't valid; let's avoid the difference between validity and soundness).

You previously discarded common discourse, in favor of your fantasy about how choosing works. You have not done any investigation on how the word choosing is used in common discourse, you know nothing about it. What you say is all just playing debating games, childish. There is no serious effort on your part to accurately reflect common discourse.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You previously discarded common discourse

Actually I affirmed that it was real and that it was a scientific term you were misusing.

in favor of your fantasy about how choosing works.

I never related common discourse to choosing and I have no idea what this would mean. This is some fantasy of yours or some complete misinterpretation, as I can't even begin to understand what it would mean for your claim to be true, and your claim implies that I not only know what it would mean but that I believe it.

You have not done any investigation on how the word choosing is used in common discourse

I've spent years doing this actually. In more than one language. Before my current field, all the way back to my undergraduate studies, I wrote my senior thesis on common discourse in Attic Greek. I've designed and carried out studies to test "common discourse", used massive databases of actual language usage and statistical analysis/mathematical models to ensure that my enormous sample of discourse was "common", and have investigated even the relationship between neurological deficits and common discourse deficiencies. Meanwhile, you refer to this term while being incapable of actually communicating in the English language in a form recognizable as common discourse while insulting those who don't conform to your idiomatic definitions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Actually I affirmed that it was real and that it was a scientific term you were misusing.


I never related common discourse to choosing and I have no idea what this would mean. This is some fantasy of yours or some complete misinterpretation, as I can't even begin to understand what it would mean for your claim to be true, and your claim implies that I not only know what it would mean but that I believe it.


I've spent years doing this actually. In more than one language. Before my current field, all the way back to my undergraduate studies, I wrote my senior thesis on common discourse in Attic Greek. I've designed and carried out studies to test "common discourse", used massive databases of actual language usage and statistical analysis/mathematical models to ensure that my enormous sample of discourse was "common", and have investigated even the relationship between neurological deficits and common discourse deficiencies. Meanwhile, you refer to this term while being incapable of actually communicating in the English language in a form recognizable as common discourse while insulting those who don't conform to your idiomatic definitions.

More playing debating games. You present no argumentation how the word choosing is used in common discourse, eventhough supposedly you have studied this subject for years. You have not studied it, instead you fantasized your own definition of how choosing works, together with a lot of other fantasizers, creating a confusopoly on how free will works.

And meanwhile people are perfectly capable to use the word choosing effectively in common discourse, eventhough your confusopoly on free will implies they would have to have years of higher education to be able to understand it.

Then you also made the lamest argument, that I cannot use a technical term in describing common discourse, because technical terms aren't common discourse terms. Or so to say I cannot identify verbs and adjectives in common discourse, because these terms are not common. Lameness..............

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

More playing debating games.

This is a debate forum.

You present no argumentation

That's because you're misusing the word "argumentation".

And meanwhile people are perfectly capable to use the word

Capable of using the word, not capable to use the word. Again, I wouldn't normally bring attention to this kind of error (as I make such mistakes and I'm a native English speaker), but in this case you are relying on a notion of "common discourse" that you can't adhere to and which every single post you make shows.

choosing effectively in common discourse, eventhough your confusopoly

Pretending you didn't just make up a word, I pointed to the ways in which one can determine what is common discourse. You've relied on an inability to actually use English and a complete ignorance as to any method by which one could determine what "common discourse" is in order to make claims that aren't just incompatible with "common discourse" but are also baseless.

Then you also made the lamest argument, that I cannot use a technical term in describing common discourse

No, you can't reflect common discourse because you aren't familiar enough with the English language.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Capable of using the word, not capable to use the word. Again, I wouldn't normally bring attention to this kind of error (as I make such mistakes and I'm a native English speaker), but in this case you are relying on a notion of "common discourse" that you can't adhere to and which every single post you make shows.

No that is just lameness to divert attention away to some grammatical errors. And the basic logic of choosing is the same in all languages, choosing is not some Englsh invention. Lameness again.

You could have made an investigation of common discourse how the word choosing is used, but you choose not to do it. Instead you come up with all these lame non-arguments.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No that is just lameness to divert attention away to some grammatical errors.

Not just grammar. Language usage. Specifically, "common discourse". You harp on this as being so important but you are incapable of reflecting common discourse (at least when it comes to English). It's not just grammar: you misuse words, you fail to properly reflect common collocations, you improperly use technical terms, you misuse parts of speech, and you in general demonstrate an obvious incapacity to identify common discourse.

I again emphasize that normally your knowledge of English would be impressive, and I wouldn't deign point out your errors. Here, though, you rely on a notion that all your posts demonstrate you can't even adhere to.

And the basic logic of choosing is the same in all languages

This is obviously wrong. If you disagree, explain to me how active languages are somehow logically equivalent to ergative.

There is no serious effort on your part to accurately reflect common discourse.

You haven't defined what this is, you don't know English well enough to reflect it, and you don't understand languages enough to understand what the term really means.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Not just grammar. Language usage. Specifically, "common discourse". You harp on this as being so important but you are incapable of reflecting common discourse (at least when it comes to English). It's not just grammar: you misuse words, you fail to properly reflect common collocations, you improperly use technical terms, you misuse parts of speech, and you in general demonstrate an obvious incapacity to identify common discourse.

Authoritarian lameness overload. Common discourse is also quite a different notion to formally correct English.

And one does not require years of higher education to use the word choosing effectively, and neither does one require years of higher education to investigate how I myself, and people generally are using the word. The evidence is plain, and all around.

You never said anything sensible about how the word choosing is used in common discourse, and you likely never will. You rather write page after page after page, a book maybe, of the lamest authoritarian nonsense instead.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Common discourse is also quite a different notion to formally correct English.

Ignoring the fact that you have again demonstrate an inability to use "common discourse", you have added to your inability to express the clarity you've demanded once again by misusing the term formally.

And one does not require years of higher education to use the word choosing effectively

True. My three year old nieces are able to use it effectively, and you can't.

You never said anything sensible about how the word choosing is used in common discourse

Possibly because \the above isn't idiomatic English but improper English of they type you said should never be used.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ignoring the fact that you have again demonstrate an inability to use "common discourse", you have added to your inability to express the clarity you've demanded once again by misusing the term formally.


True. My three year old nieces are able to use it effectively, and you can't.



Possibly because \the above isn't idiomatic English but improper English of they type you said should never be used.

And how to deal with such impossibly authoritarian people in real life?

This particular authoritarian characteristic comes from asserting as fact what is good and evil, instead of leaving it a matter of opinion. That is related to rejection of free will. He rejects opinion in regards to the issue of what makes a decision turn out the way it does, and then asserts it is a matter of fact issue, making goodness and evil into fact.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And how to deal with such impossibly authoritarian people in real life?

You might try to cease acting like a divine dictator such that any and all disagreement is seen as authoritarian heresy, my liege.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You might try to cease acting like a divine dictator such that any and all disagreement is seen as authoritarian heresy, my liege.

All I ask is some sincere effort to accurately reflect how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life. I would take anybody seriously who has done so, and then we can discuss reasonably about our findings.

What you do instead.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All I ask is some sincere effort to accurately reflect how people talk in terms of choosing in daily life.

Go to this address: CORPORA: 1.9 billion - 45 million words each: free online access
First select the link Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). You can sign up for a free account even without being a researcher (there are three levels of access, if memory serves, and the lowest one still allows you 10 queries or something). Once you have an account (which you can use for all the other corpora) enter the COCA database and first enter the query "choose" in the column on the left (see below) then hit search:

The main screen, which will display the initial results, is divided into 2 frames:

The upper frame gives you information about your query. I order to make that information useful (i.e., to see how the word "choose" is used), check both boxes in the upper-leftmost circled portion. I've also indicated in that frame where you will see your queried term(s) and the information in the upper-right square tells you the number of results. The lower frame, which I've indicated by a large rectangle, contains important information about your account, information, but most importantly links for help/information. Once you've checked the boxes, click on the queried term (again, I've indicated it by circling it in red). You should see something like this:

In the circled portion, I've indicated how you can navigate pages and also how to select the number of results per page. The arrow points to the source (this is a balanced corpus, so they don't just randomly collect examples. Rather, they make sure that they use diverse sources, both spoken and written. You can click to see additional context for any result. In the rectangle I've indicated the first examples you will find for how "choose" is used. As noted, there are over 30,000 results. You can then repeat this process for "choice" (also, you can do wildcard and similar search such that you can search for all words that begin with "choos" so that you get both "choose" and "choosing").

Once you're gone through these, you can go back to the main page by clicking on the main link on the upper right corner of the page:

This will switch the lower frame back to the main/default screen:

If you click on the link I've circled, you will get the list of other corpora. The only two you'll want to use are The BYU-BNC corpus and (maybe) the GloWbe corpus. The first can be searched in the same way I've indicated. The second is a little more complicated in that you have more boxes to click (corresponding to countries)

FYI- as this is global the results for common words are large: "choice" yielded 265,479 results and as for my wildcard "choos*", well:

There's your "common discourse".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Go to this address: CORPORA: 1.9 billion - 45 million words each: free online access
There's your "common discourse".

I don't think it is neccessary to do a years worth of study on it. One can just figure it out by thinking about it, looking at how you yourself talk in daily life, and keeping an open mind to noting any difference with people generally. And look at any newspaper or TV or something.

That the word choosing is used a lot in relation to at least 2 possible futures, one of which is going to be the present, the choosing making it so. The finding seems reliable enough, just by being sincere, honest, making some effort. etc.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't think it is neccessary to do a years worth of study on it.

Years? Within an hour you can obtain more than a representative sample than you could possibly need or use.

One can just figure it out by thinking about it, looking at how you yourself talk in daily life, and keeping an open mind to noting any difference with people generally. And look at any newspaper or TV or something.

These sources use TVs and newspapers, only they are searchable. So you don't have to read lots of articles or dig through archives, as someone has done that for you. More importantly, you can quickly look and see things like how often the word "subjective" and "discourse" is used and in what contexts to realize that every time you use the term "common discourse" or "subjective" you are using academic language (and incorrectly).

 

[jonathan180iq]

My favorite thing about common discourse is that one can read 9 pages of debate about it...