How to deal with people who deny free will?

[Kirran]

You would ignore emotions because you don't look at your own decisions, nor anybody else's, and emotions are what makes the decisions turn out the way they do. It makes the contact whack, it feels like being used, like an insult.

Now you say to make choices, but then you agreed with the explanation of choosing as sorting. In contact you are using my emotions, to sustain your sorting, calculating, your false idea of choosing.

All very well to say. But I don't ignore emotions. So there's something wrong with your hypothesis.

An aspect of my worldview is an insult to you? Or just my interacting with you?

To repeat: I do not ignore emotions anymore than most people who believe in free will.

There is no interest in discussing how free will is looked upon in Islam, one would just straightforwardly accept free will is real, as it is in common discourse, or one rejects free will. One is straightforward, or one is really rejecting.

Well I find it of interest. Interest is subjective.

OK, so where does free will spring from in Islam?

Also, if free will does exist, does this mean people who say 'Allah chose that this would happen thousands of years ago' are wrong?

There may be some uncertainties in how choosing works, that can happen. But what I see is hubris, arrogance, and fantasy in dealing with the issue of how choosing works. Basically it should be just the same as any other issue of fact, you look at evidence, you have some schoolish discipline in following the evidence.

Now I see here you don't like the idea of not having free will, or rather of people disbelieving in free will.

But I ask you - where does free will come from?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

All very well to say. But I don't ignore emotions. So there's something wrong with your hypothesis.

An aspect of my worldview is an insult to you? Or just my interacting with you?

To repeat: I do not ignore emotions anymore than most people who believe in free will.



Well I find it of interest. Interest is subjective.

OK, so where does free will spring from in Islam?

Also, if free will does exist, does this mean people who say 'Allah chose that this would happen thousands of years ago' are wrong?



Now I see here you don't like the idea of not having free will, or rather of people disbelieving in free will.

But I ask you - where does free will come from?

The interaction is insulting, with people like you.

The answers how free will works are plainly provided in common discourse. To ask the question is to ignore common discourse, and start fantasizing. Your attitude is not disciplined to at least try to understand common discourse.

When you take a different stance from common discourse, then you might see that there could be an issue that you treat emotions differently from other people, and that the difference is, that you are ignoring emotions.

In saying that you don't ignore other people's emotions, or your own, you used your possibly false idea of decisionmaking to check if or not you do that.

 

[Nakosis]

I ignore my emotions often. I ignore the emotions of others sometimes. Mostly "negative" emotions. Sometimes emotions have no basis in reality.

Sometimes it seems prudent to ignore emotions.

 

[Nakosis]

But I ask you - where does free will come from?

If this is an open question,
Free will comes from you. You ability to make a choice according to whatever goal you wish to accomplish.

 

[Kirran]

The interaction is insulting, with people like you.

Well, I don't suppose there's anything I can do about that.

The answers how free will works are plainly provided in common discourse. To ask the question is to ignore common discourse, and start fantasizing. Your attitude is not disciplined to at least try to understand common discourse.

None of this is apparent to me. So, let's assume I've been too undisciplined to pay attention to something which is common sense. I will now pay attention to what you have to say. Tell me, if you would, why free will is obvious. Really, I want to know, because I may well be wrong.

When you take a different stance from common discourse, then you might see that there could be an issue that you treat emotions differently from other people, and that the difference is, that you are ignoring emotions.

No, no, see, I keep telling you. I do not ignore emotions. I don't put this emphasis on emotions being an issue tied in with free will and so forth as you seem to do.

Is what you're saying that by virtue of holding a belief outside the mainstream, I am ignoring emotions?

Would it follow that all, shall we say philosophical minorities, are ignoring emotions, because they're different to 'normal' people?

In saying that you don't ignore other people's emotions, or your own, you used your possibly false idea of decisionmaking to check if or not you do that.

If my idea of how decision-making works if possibly false, doesn't that mean yours is too?

 

[Kirran]

If this is an open question,
Free will comes from you. You ability to make a choice according to whatever goal you wish to accomplish.

Of course, an open question.

So it comes from me. But how does it come about? Say that I'm in a situation where I go to buy cabbage, and there are two left. How do I have free will as to which cabbage I will buy? Where does that ability come from?

 

[Nakosis]

Of course, an open question.

So it comes from me. But how does it come about? Say that I'm in a situation where I go to buy cabbage, and there are two left. How do I have free will as to which cabbage I will buy? Where does that ability come from?

From the ability to make a decision based on whatever you feel is appropriate.

The ability to make decisions varies from individual to individual. Some people make emotional decisions, some make reasoned/logical decisions, some make random ones. Your will becomes freer as you gain more control over the decision making process.

Some decisions exercise a lot less free will then others. I actually suspect most exercise little control over their decisions. Control over one's choices requires practice/discipline.

 

[Nakosis]

No, no, see, I keep telling you. I do not ignore emotions. I don't put this emphasis on emotions being an issue tied in with free will and so forth as you seem to do.

This is interesting...
I believe in free will, but I treat emotions perhaps different then others. I see emotions as sometimes manipulating my choices. If someone uses emotions to affect your choices are your choices really free?

We obviously use emotions to control each other.
I don't know how you are being insulting. Sometimes I think people feel I am insulting when they can't manipulate my choices using emotions.

Maybe it is insulting because you believe a person can't choose to be accountable/responsible/good? Like they are not capable of accountability?

In some cases I think that is true anyway. People often can't help themselves. If I try to explain they don't have to let their emotions be manipulated they feel insulted. I'm just trying to be helpful, but have given up mostly.

I can't control other people's choice to feel insulted by honesty. Lie to them. Then they'll feel better about it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Of course, an open question.
So it comes from me. But how does it come about? Say that I'm in a situation where I go to buy cabbage, and there are two left. How do I have free will as to which cabbage I will buy? Where does that ability come from?

I like your ^above ^ illustration about which cabbage to choose.
Why would a person have a free-will choice concerning a cabbage purchase if lacking free will.

For a person confessing to be a pre-destined Christian, how could they ' work out their salvation with fear and trembling ' - Philippians 2:12 - if they had No choice in the matter ?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, I don't suppose there's anything I can do about that.



None of this is apparent to me. So, let's assume I've been too undisciplined to pay attention to something which is common sense. I will now pay attention to what you have to say. Tell me, if you would, why free will is obvious. Really, I want to know, because I may well be wrong.



No, no, see, I keep telling you. I do not ignore emotions. I don't put this emphasis on emotions being an issue tied in with free will and so forth as you seem to do.

Is what you're saying that by virtue of holding a belief outside the mainstream, I am ignoring emotions?

Would it follow that all, shall we say philosophical minorities, are ignoring emotions, because they're different to 'normal' people?



If my idea of how decision-making works if possibly false, doesn't that mean yours is too?

Sure, everything is possibly false in principle, but if you just go fantasizing..... Common discourse is what people use to...live life, to take care of each other. Sure it could be wrong, but wouldn't people care to some extent to make sure it was right? And if you don't investigate what the common discourse is, then do you care to be right?

I am very sure I have already explained to you basic logic of how choosing works, more than once. I have your concept about choosing in mind, and the common discourse concept, I compare them, and common discourse is better. You only have your own idea about choosing in mind, and any other concept, you magically do not comprehend it, so as that no assessment between them can take place.

Why would emotions not be related to free will? Is that idea a result of study, or is that just some idea you put out there, and then debate for it. Gaming the issue, or studying?

If I explain to you again how common discourse works, you will just argue prejudicially against it. Better if you tell me how common discourse works. I am sure you would find the boring facts of the matter. That's the right attitude to have, it's likely going to be boring. And then you will have the boring facts, of what you already know implicitly, because you also use common discourse in daily life. Investigate your own words.

 

[David M]

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

No, none of these people deny that free will exists at all. What has become abundantly clear is that a subset of things we previously thought resulted from free will are in fact not truly governed by free will.

And no, its also nothing to do with evolution theory, its neuroscience that has established some of the limitations of free will.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

It's not knowledge you are interested in. You are interested in preaching your belief and looking down on others.

Sorry , my friend.
We humans have a brain and we call the mind
When we use our minds well we can know the truth
1. Keep the teachings of religions at stake
2. compare them
3. In which we can know better education
4. Leave You Find You
5. I believe in freedom and free to make
6. Christian faith is based on a single word ( love )
7. That is no education last support this strategy
Respected and met with him intellectually and humanly
Even if a pagan or atheist

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Christian says ( God is love )
Are these words are contrary to the faith of the human
It's a fact of human
God is not the enemy of the human
Wi- religion declares enmity between God and man is to teach void

 

[Kirran]

From the ability to make a decision based on whatever you feel is appropriate.

The ability to make decisions varies from individual to individual. Some people make emotional decisions, some make reasoned/logical decisions, some make random ones. Your will becomes freer as you gain more control over the decision making process.

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.

This is interesting...
I believe in free will, but I treat emotions perhaps different then others. I see emotions as sometimes manipulating my choices. If someone uses emotions to affect your choices are your choices really free?

We obviously use emotions to control each other.
I don't know how you are being insulting. Sometimes I think people feel I am insulting when they can't manipulate my choices using emotions.

Maybe it is insulting because you believe a person can't choose to be accountable/responsible/good? Like they are not capable of accountability?

In some cases I think that is true anyway. People often can't help themselves. If I try to explain they don't have to let their emotions be manipulated they feel insulted. I'm just trying to be helpful, but have given up mostly.

I can't control other people's choice to feel insulted by honesty. Lie to them. Then they'll feel better about it.

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.

I like your ^above ^ illustration about which cabbage to choose.
Why would a person have a free-will choice concerning a cabbage purchase if lacking free will.

For a person confessing to be a pre-destined Christian, how could they ' work out their salvation with fear and trembling ' - Philippians 2:12 - if they had No choice in the matter ?

Well I've gone to town on it in this post, above :L

As for Christians believing in pre-destination - I don't exactly not believe in free will, I just don't quite think the concept makes sense. A Christian still makes choices about whether to help people, and still gets scared, or whatever else, it's just that those things happen as a result of what happened before, rather than being divorced from them in such a way they could do whatever.

Sure, everything is possibly false in principle, but if you just go fantasizing..... Common discourse is what people use to...live life, to take care of each other. Sure it could be wrong, but wouldn't people care to some extent to make sure it was right? And if you don't investigate what the common discourse is, then do you care to be right?

I am very sure I have already explained to you basic logic of how choosing works, more than once. I have your concept about choosing in mind, and the common discourse concept, I compare them, and common discourse is better. You only have your own idea about choosing in mind, and any other concept, you magically do not comprehend it, so as that no assessment between them can take place.

Why would emotions not be related to free will? Is that idea a result of study, or is that just some idea you put out there, and then debate for it. Gaming the issue, or studying?

If I explain to you again how common discourse works, you will just argue prejudicially against it. Better if you tell me how common discourse works. I am sure you would find the boring facts of the matter. That's the right attitude to have, it's likely going to be boring. And then you will have the boring facts, of what you already know implicitly, because you also use common discourse in daily life. Investigate your own words.

How am I fantasising by not grasping the origins of free will, and you're not by asserting its existence?

Where is this book of common discourse which seems to be near-universal? I've found that lots of people have different views on life. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many philosophical points which were near-universal globally.

All I can recall of your common discourse concept - we have the ability to actualise different futures based on our current decisions. But where does this choice come from? Why is it that it is genuinely possible for alternative realities to come into existence at a given decision? How are we making a choice based on anything other than circumstance. Honestly, I'm eager to know, because I may be wrong.

I'm not saying emotions aren't related to free will, I'm just saying there are emotions, there's the idea of free will, which strikes me as an abstraction. Why does the denial of one lead to the denial of the other? Gaming the issue? I don't think so.

Now, a few points here I really don't know where you're getting from. 'Magically don't comprehend' and 'argue prejudicially against it' are key examples. Where are you getting the idea I'm so close-minded about this from? I am attempting to explain my reasoning behind not grasping the concept of free will and how it relates to how we live our lives, and understand how it is that you think the alternative.

I do not think I'm rejecting idea of free will out of hand. In fact, over time I've put a lot of thought into this before coming to my current opinions on the matter. I also feel I comprehend the points presented on either side quite well, although I feel you haven't really raised many points to me, only the point about actualising different futures and about common discourse.

I'd appreciate it if you were a bit more civil.

 

[Bunyip]

I'd love to be able to disprove all of those people who disbelieve in free will - but can't make myself do it.

 

[Jumi]

It's pretty obvious from the OP and his writings that he doesn't want to be civil with people who don't understand him. I think I'll use my free will and choose to ignore him from now on.

 

[Kirran]

It's pretty obvious from the OP and his writings that he doesn't want to be civil with people who don't understand him. I think I'll use my free will and choose to ignore him from now on.

Or is your choice to do that in effect predetermined by the OP's actions and by the events leading to the development of your character to act like this in response? Hehe

 

[Jumi]

Or is your choice to do that in effect predetermined by the OP's actions and by the events leading to the development of your character to act like this in response? Hehe

Perhaps, but after I realized he wasn't just trolling I felt like I made the choice to try to understand his point multiple times by asking questions. I guess he feels questions are a form of hostility.

 

[Kirran]

Perhaps, but after I realized he wasn't just trolling I felt like I made the choice to try to understand his point multiple times by asking questions. I guess he feels questions are a form of hostility.

I guess a question is also a challenge in this situation.

I never meant to insult. Of course, if by interacting with him I am automatically insulting him by virtue of my philosophical opinions, there we are.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.



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.



Well I've gone to town on it in this post, above :L

As for Christians believing in pre-destination - I don't exactly not believe in free will, I just don't quite think the concept makes sense. A Christian still makes choices about whether to help people, and still gets scared, or whatever else, it's just that those things happen as a result of what happened before, rather than being divorced from them in such a way they could do whatever.



How am I fantasising by not grasping the origins of free will, and you're not by asserting its existence?

Where is this book of common discourse which seems to be near-universal? I've found that lots of people have different views on life. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many philosophical points which were near-universal globally.

All I can recall of your common discourse concept - we have the ability to actualise different futures based on our current decisions. But where does this choice come from? Why is it that it is genuinely possible for alternative realities to come into existence at a given decision? How are we making a choice based on anything other than circumstance. Honestly, I'm eager to know, because I may be wrong.

I'm not saying emotions aren't related to free will, I'm just saying there are emotions, there's the idea of free will, which strikes me as an abstraction. Why does the denial of one lead to the denial of the other? Gaming the issue? I don't think so.

Now, a few points here I really don't know where you're getting from. 'Magically don't comprehend' and 'argue prejudicially against it' are key examples. Where are you getting the idea I'm so close-minded about this from? I am attempting to explain my reasoning behind not grasping the concept of free will and how it relates to how we live our lives, and understand how it is that you think the alternative.

I do not think I'm rejecting idea of free will out of hand. In fact, over time I've put a lot of thought into this before coming to my current opinions on the matter. I also feel I comprehend the points presented on either side quite well, although I feel you haven't really raised many points to me, only the point about actualising different futures and about common discourse.

I'd appreciate it if you were a bit more civil.

What you say doesn't add up. You feel you understand points from the other side, yet you cannot repeat accurately what the other side is.

Your idea is that there is no common discourse, that diverse people use a different meanings with the word choosing.

That is arguing prejudicially. You don't understand various concepts, and assess them, you fight for your own concept in disregard of other concepts. It is just convenient for you to say there is no common discourse, it is prejudice.

It is only indicated that there is no common understanding of choosing, when it leads to misunderstanding among people when they use the word, or when they have to explain the sense in which they are using the word. But that is not the case, a newsreader on TV does not have to explain himself when he uses the word choosing, it is commonly understood.

You have said you understood choosing as sorting. You confront me with calculations, and sorting processes, while I bring emotions with which to make an alternative future the present. That doesn't work out in socializing, you ignore emotions.

Still you write nothing what I would consider studying the issue. One can compare choosing as meaning sorting, and choosing as meaning to make an alternative future the present. Machines can sort very efficiently, do machines have free will, is free wil forced according to common discourse?

You ask where does the decision come from. 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. That is the formal logic that is in common discourse, that it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.