How to deal with people who deny free will?

[Nietzsche]

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.

I apologize, I just woke up.

I appreciate you wishing me to feel I am doing well, though.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

Well, I guess if you don't have any good, sound arguments against their ideas, you can take the route of attacking the people themselves.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I apologize, I just woke up.

No need. You just woke up, and I have not slept. I deem that my post was more confusing than it ought to have been, and I owe you an apology.

I appreciate you wishing me to feel I am doing well, though.

I take it as a compliment that you would deem my views worthy of such consideration.

 

[apophenia]

I apologize, I just woke up.

I appreciate you wishing me to feel I am doing well, though.

No need. You just woke up, and I have not slept. I deem that my post was more confusing than it ought to have been, and I owe you an apology.

I take it as a compliment that you would deem my views worthy of such consideration.

 

[apophenia]

freakin ergoloids !

I'm losin' it man !

 

[Nakosis]

The argument regarding free will is more philosophical then scientific.

I don't know you what you can do about people who argue against free will since they believe they have no choice in believing as they do. They are incapable of choosing to believe otherwise.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let me think, so are you made at those who believe there is no free will and say they are denying it exists?

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.

 

[viole]

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.

You seem to disagree with people who think that our will is forced by preceding causes. You are perfectly free, well, sort of, to think that. Lol.

But let me ask you a question. If our will does not depend from preceding causes, are you ready to admit that there is something that can begin to exist without (preceding) causes?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Let me think, so are you made at those who believe there is no free will and say they are denying it exists?

This topic is just about how to deal with the sort of people free will deniers have become. There's some studies also suggesting that denying free will can manipulate personality. You know the sort of people I'm talking about, or not?

 

[Quintessence]

This topic is just about how to deal with the sort of people free will deniers have become. There's some studies also suggesting that denying free will can manipulate personality. You know the sort of people I'm talking about, or not?

See, here's the problem: there's no "sort of people" that free will "deniers" have become. It seems to me that this whole "free will denier" thing is a big red herring for what is really bothering you. So what is that? What's got you so upset? As I asked before, why all the anger?

You don't have to answer in open forum. Just think about it. Introspective reflection is a good teacher.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, no, honestly. Someone who does not believe in free will (rather than deny) may believe everything happens for a purpose. Nothing is spontaneous (say nothing is outside of God's plan, for example)...so free will is from the human perspective... but from God, as an example, He wouldn't disconnect Himself from His Children to let them do as they please (be egotistic).

Not all people who don't believe in free will deny it. I though can't see how not believing it can change someone's personality for the worst, though.

This topic is just about how to deal with the sort of people free will deniers have become. There's some studies also suggesting that denying free will can manipulate personality. You know the sort of people I'm talking about, or not?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Actually, no, honestly. Someone who does not believe in free will (rather than deny) may believe everything happens for a purpose. Nothing is spontaneous (say nothing is outside of God's plan, for example)...so free will is from the human perspective... but from God, as an example, He wouldn't disconnect Himself from His Children to let them do as they please (be egotistic).

Not all people who don't believe in free will deny it. I though can't see how not believing it can change someone's personality for the worst, though.

Such a quibble about denying or not believing has no significance for how somebody deals with decisions in daily life. They both amount to generally ignoring decisions being made, and the spirit in which they are made.

As I said, there was some research done showing disbelief in free will, manipulates the way people behave. But one can just use common sense, and practical experience, to see that such people who ignore emotions generally, abound.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Such a quibble about denying or not believing has no significance for how somebody deals with decisions in daily life. They both amount to generally ignoring decisions being made, and the spirit in which they are made.

You'd have to rephrase this.

As I said, there was some research done showing disbelief in free will, manipulates the way people behave. But one can just use common sense, and practical experience, to see that such people who ignore emotions generally, abound.

Here is the thing, though. I always put myself in the other person's shoes. I do not believe in free will. I believe that there is a pattern to life (be it from God or so have you), and we are in motion within how life wants us to go. I guess you can call it karma.

However, I do not manipulate the way people behave. As such, many people do not either. Research can show many things; but, asking people themselves--those who do not believe in free will--do they manipulate others and so forth most likely (from an extreme perspective) they will say no.

Research can only show so much without asking the person him/herself. I say this because everyone who does not believe in free will has different beliefs. We can't dump everyone in the same category because dictates the people they studied manipulates people. That is generalization. That is not a fact.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

are you ready to admit that there is something that can begin to exist without (preceding) causes?

Apart from this specific topic, the answer to this question as it would be given by those in the natural sciences is "duh". EPR dates to the 30s, Bell's inequality to the 60s, and the empirical test by Aspect et al. to '82. The standard model not only posits acausality but the existence of systems ex nihilo. The antiquated notion of linear causality is a century outdated at the very least.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You'd have to rephrase this.

Here is the thing, though. I always put myself in the other person's shoes. I do not believe in free will. I believe that there is a pattern to life (be it from God or so have you), and we are in motion within how life wants us to go. I guess you can call it karma.

However, I do not manipulate the way people behave. As such, many people do not either. Research can show many things; but, asking people themselves--those who do not believe in free will--do they manipulate others and so forth most likely (from an extreme perspective) they will say no.

Research can only show so much without asking the person him/herself. I say this because everyone who does not believe in free will has different beliefs. We can't dump everyone in the same category because dictates the people they studied manipulates people. That is generalization. That is not a fact.

Sure, practical reality is much more complicated. Somebody who naturally pays attention to how people decide, and intellectually denies free will is real, or viceversa. People are full of contradictions.

That said it is the intellectual denial of free will which manipulates the game of life to a large extent. Because that is the most willful, while at deeper levels of personality, one cannot easily change it.

One can see for instance how the flow of information to conscience would be inhibited if decisions were actually denied to take place.

Do you never meet people who measure you, calculate you, and totally disregard your emotions?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you never meet people who measure you, calculate you, and totally disregard your emotions?

Yes. I don't see how that relates to free will, though. I have a choice to skip breakfast, that is my free will to do so. What I consider not free will, is that my choosing and what I do...the pattern of life, in itself, is not spontaneous. Actually, having the free will to choose can be dangerous because people choose to murder and rape. If one is in tuned and aware of how life has patterned them to be (by knowing their calling, for example), that person wouldn't see it as "denying free will" but acting within God's plan, if you like. Doing how life wants you to act rather than how you want to.

Having free will can sometimes cause a high ego. I don't see how denying free will causes any problems. That's just saying, I chose to do things, yes..however, it is not in my overall plan--its from God, Nature, Life, or so have you.

It's taking the ego out of the situation and thinking of others. Without free will (acknowledging that we are not in the center of the universe--aka no egotism), we are free to do whatever is within the will of, if you like, Allah.

You'd have to condense the examples you gave as to how not believing or denying free will affects people negatively and contrast that as to why having free will does the opposite.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do not believe that God programs us in any way, he does not decide things for us.
people often argue that every thing follows cause an effect, so that our choices are not our own, but are influenced by what has gone before.

Cause and effect might influence our choices but it never is the sole deciding factor. The influences on a simple yes no question can be virtually infinate, so much so that it verges into the realm of chaos.

It is almosr impossible to rationalise the difference between choice and free choice

 

[Jumi]

You seem to define free will differently than most people, isn't that right? And you told me I deny free will when I don't know what you mean by it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You seem to define free will differently than most people, isn't that right? And you told me I deny free will when I don't know what you mean by it.

No I follow common discourse in defining free will. Do you follow common discourse in defining free will?

 

[Jumi]

Do you follow common discourse in defining free will?

If you don't know, you may have attacked me as denying free will without reason on other threads.