That Swinburne was able to track his thoughts long enough to define his theory is most impressive to me

Most inspirational thought to me

Wow! What a response to a loaded question. I tip my hat to Dr. Swinburne.

This is one of the most pragmatic approaches towards the intention and free will that I've ever came across. It also seems quite plausible in terms of the agnostic position it puts forward regarding the argued impossibility of applying the scientific method to derive fundamental laws from mental qualities. Yet the conclusion that we should consider our decisions as the product of our will, is a utilitarian approach in a sense. It tries to preserve the notion of free will, therefore it secures the personal responsibility of the actions.

If our beliefs are formed based on not only experience but also indoctrinated by external forces that limit our movements and choices (ex. Religious beliefs, social norms, etc) which inhibit and condition us to think a certain way not only about the world but also about ourselves, how does one overcome these problems especially if there is an added element of suffering due to medical conditions and/or depression? If I am an epileptic who had difficulty in school because of recurring seizures and had felt unsafe at home, and had few friends throughout his life and was told there were strict restrictions on what he could do (ex. Cannot drive) and never developed close relationships, and thus consequently develops depression, truthfully from childhood, are his intentions/choices/goals determined by himself and only himself? How free is this individual?

Well sure you can’t measure our feeling of pain, but you can theoretically, measure the physiological processes that led to that feeling.

Kudos to Professor Swinburne's gallant effort to explain something similar to the opening phrases of the Tao Te CHING. He probably knows that the Lao Tzu classic is at least partially responsible for earning the descriptor 'inscrutable'.

Well said

If the following is a fair summary of his argument then several issues quickly come to mind: …since you can’t measure consciousness, you can’t develop a scientific theory of consciousness, since you can’t develop a testable theory, one should rely on what seems to be, and it seems as if we are making our own decisions based on our own feelings, desires and beliefs… Problems: 1 “Can’t measure consciousness” maybe not yet, but we can reliably measure some brain states, activity and types of consciousness and measurement capability is constantly improving. 2 Even if we can’t develop a proper theory of consciousness then it’s more reasonable to rely on theories and observations that work everywhere else. Evolution didn’t select for accurately connecting what seems to be with what actually is, it selected for a workable balance between bio/metabolic efficiency and survival. 4 Begs the question as to what causes within our voluntary control lead to those feelings, desires and beliefs.

Closer to Truth, thank you very much for your more than generous input to my life. It is as if Sir Richard is in mind filtering certain spiritual and mental principles that are natural for daily living. I am also glad you both are already in shape to receive and start a brilliant journey of a every given day with the elements of day one and four of biblical creation. Sir Richard Swinburne, I don't think you are English in your last life and those before that. You already know about the applying the theory of knowledge of self. I am very glad I kept watching this channel. I was suppose to see this. Sir Richard, thank you very much too. Now, I am confident i am not alone with such edge of knowledge and application. Once again, I thank you.

and the prize for the longest sentence ever spoken on CTT goes to: ...

Swinburne is a master

Excellent argument. For that matter, I wonder if neuroscience could ever capture the precise correlates of a subject saying ‘because….’

He simplified but "Intention" is a huge topic. Humans are social animals that can be highly influenced by the words and actions of other humans. Many can easily be made tools of humans with bad intentions.

So, his argument is that because we can't measure subjective states of consciousness like we can measure physical phenomena such as velocity or acceleration, then this means the semi-deterministic model of the universe doesn't apply to human behavior and therefore we should go with our first impression that free will exists?

Life has a free will, it wishes something and it will be! And freedom is equivalence to the "holy will", spoken with Kant..

WoW

I think that the body and the flesh can only live in the present space, and Time-whereas the mind and intention transcends the past present and future. The flesh of the brain can’t predict the future , or make long term future plans -only the abstract mind can.

Wishful thinking based on intuition and a desire to believe in free will; an inexplicable autonomy. There is plenty of objective evidence for determinism and a belief in free will relies on intuition.

The status quo isn't 'we have free thought' as claimed, the status quo is 'we don't know'. He himself says his hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so why come down on one side or the other?

I'm going to exert my free will and decide this is a valid argument proving we have free will. How sad would it be to believe your future is purely deterministic.

The concept of free will is closely tied to the idea of the soul. According to this perspective, the soul is the source of our consciousness and the physical brain is merely the vehicle that enables the soul to interact with our four-dimensional reality. Thus, the physical limitations of the brain do not limit the expression of our being. Instead, they simply affect how the soul's intentions are translated into physical actions. This view of the relationship between the soul, the brain, and free will has important implications for the exploration of mental states. While the concept of free will is often thought of as defying physical explanation, free will is not just a trick of the brain but rather a direct expression of the soul's intentions. As such, it can be a valuable tool for examining the nature of mental states. Free will probes consciousness by examining the choices we make and the decisions we take. By studying the way in which we pick, choose, select, and decide, we can gain insight into the workings of the mind. However, it is important to remember that free will is not just a function of the brain. Instead, it is a manifestation of the soul's will, which is independent of physical limitations. To illustrate this idea, we can use the analogy of a race driver. Just as a race driver's performance may differ depending on the car he is driving, our physical brain may limit the expression of our being. However, our soul's skills and intentions remain the same, regardless of the limitations of the physical brain. In this way, the concept of free will serves as a window into the workings of the soul and the mind, helping us to better understand the nature of mental states. In conclusion, free will is not just a trick of the brain but rather a direct manifestation of the soul's intentions. By examining the choices we make and the decisions we take, we can gain valuable insight into the nature of mental states and our consciousness. Through this exploration, we can deepen our understanding of the relationship between the soul, the brain, and free will.

I don't think metaphysical free will is even imaginable. Some considerations lead to some actions, regardless of closed determinism or not. But it's not required either - what we call free choice in our lives is what "free" means. Spiritual traditions shouldn't focus on free will, after all it's the realisation of the limits of freedom that is at their core.

robert almost fell asleep during this one

I bet this guy is a hoot at parties

But I suspect that there could be a possibility of establishing a probability scale for most mental events... 🤔

Science is not only about numerical stuff. We, scientists, have topology, symmetry, phase transitions, etc. There is a theory of complex systems and what not. Psychologists and psychiatrists have a lot to tell on how decisions are made. They use a lot of techniques, numerical or not. Take this: confabulation. It is a memory error defined as the production of fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world. Sometimes I feel like surrounded by confabulationists here.

Freedom is "insight into necessity" (Hegel) and equivalence to the "holy will" (Kant), so it is not the opposite of necessity!

The point is that mind already helps us to identify reasons for doing things. Brain states don't do this - there is a problem of how to identify brain states connected to actions, and components of actions. In effect, looking at brain states just makes this process more difficult. It's far easier to identify relevant beliefs and desires, than particular brain states that might lead to these beliefs and desires. And suppose we do discover a certain brain state linked to a certain belief - that identification is dependent on an association with a belief,, otherwise we wouldn't be able to pick out the relevant brain state. Brain states are superfluous to any knowledge about why we do things, except when there is injury or damage to the brain.

Tangible Constants of the Psyche.

Wow that was tedious. I think it’s fair to say there are better defences of Freewill

Pure philosophy

I dunno about this one. Can this same question be proposed on the world as a giant brain? Therefore, how would ethical and moral laws behave if evidence cannot prove something has happened? ... 🤔idk maybe that's incorrect.

KABOOM! Thank you, Richard Swinburne ! Very coherent argument that should quiet the vehement determinists for awhile. I believe the existence of free will can not in principle be proven or disproven, ever -- for exactly the reasons he outlines. The determinists are a bunch of people with hammers proven remarkably effective at solving material problems who are making a fundamental error in insisting that the world therefore can only consist of nails.

If determinism is to be taken seriously then it must present a coherent theory of how and why ignorance exists. In other words it must define how ignorance turns into discovery and by what pretext determinism requires this to be so. If ignorance is a "tool" of determinism then it must be argued howso. For a claim of necessity ignorance too must be necessary. If that is so then how should ignorance be divided? Are there tiers of ignorance and by what means are these tiers applied and abandoned? For determinism to reign knowledge of ignorance must be complete - there can be no ignorance: probability must be explained out of existence.

The Universe, our Rock included is a vast mechanism to produce sentient life. The very nature of sentient life requires consciousness which creates Free Will. What a sentient species does with their Free Will and how far they overcome their vices through the application of their Free Will determines whether they advance up into the Universe and higher things of fail and must try again. Determinism is an excuse for the lack of Moral Fortitude to use ones Free Will to the greatest possible extent... such things spook too many humans, and just as Materialism locks one into self-justification for avoiding being made uncomfortable, fear of that which cannot be boxed and therefore must require not only acceptance of things beyond our current understanding but requires the leap of faith over to what could be possible.... Will only ensue we do not go Up and Out. The Universe is not only uninvolved as too many wish it was, it also has fundamental rules not yet discovered. Such rules govern Up and Out. Just as we need materialist discovered sciences and maths to get Up and Out, we need other, already mostly or partially well known, but either run from for fear or negated by that humanistic thing that needs conquered. Failure to recognize and accept what is required will ensure Up and Out immolates long before we even colonize our Solar System.

reasonableness and justification are significantly different, justification requires nec quid nec quare distinctions, like Juvenal says in A Woman's Reason: "let my will stand for my reason"

Our belief that our intentions cause our actions isn't more or less intuitive than a belief that fate or our nature cause our actions. That belief is informed by our culture and society's morality, which is evident from looking at history. The debate on free will sounds a lot like the debate on religion: free will/god must exist because otherwise morality couln't exist. Free will/god must exist because science can't disprove that is exists. Free will/god must exist because I experience free will/god subjectively to exist. And everyone secretly knows that free will/god exists, but they deny it because they don't want to accept control/because they want to sin etc.

Amazing. He thinks that our will is a slave to our desires and beliefs but that we are completely free to choose our desires and beliefs. The cognitive dissonance that's required to hold these two views is astounding.

When the mind had nothing but GOOD thoughts, the world just couldn’t stand it. Now that the mind has NEGATIVE thoughts everyone is solemn and okay.

Amazing! He thinks our beliefs and desires stand apart from our brains, which in turn he thinks is the source of our free will, and that free will seems to necessarily revolve around our morality. Now I have to find out what his relentless childhood system of indoctrination and validation was. If I find out he has been a non-believer his entire life, I will be even more intrigued.

The perfect interview of power x time = energy, love = patient and kind, and self-control = boundary. Guard the Deposit Entrusted to You - 2 Timothy 1: 6-7.

Free will can't be measured so it exists independent of deterministic systems. Why not just say I believe in free will because it is obvious?

We use free will all the time non stop - this discussion included. Without it may we shut up right now? We come to these comments with a lot of intuitive assumptions. Conscience, free will, world outside us are all there. Then comes a philosopher and says it is an illusion or something like that. Which means that you are a one curious dolt.

He believes we should take as true the things that seem obvious to us until there is counter-evidence, and then he assumes it's obvious to everyone that we have free will. He clearly hasn't given much objective thought to how people see their own desires and actions and choices. Some of us see very little, if any, free will in our own thinking, let alone the thinking of others.

We will never know through science, because science can in principle not answer this metaphysical question. We need to think both: determination and freedom! And it is the same!

He’s overthinking it. 😅

We cannot find out which god created the universe, because we haven't got enough data. However the Bible tells us that the LORD GOD of the Hebrews created the universe. It is logical to accept that theory until contrary evidence comes to light.

Deterministic theory in philosophy or theoretical physics is the same as predestination in religion and the both concepts are baseless.

The real living entity and subject of knowledge can never appear in science, and so not freedom. Science can only recognize finite and determined things! Freedom is never "in abstracto", it is only in implementation or execution. Freedom is proven in the moment that we can think it, explained with Kant. Mind comes to itself (self recognition = consciousness on its own height) to the same extent as it recognizes what in principle eludes all empiricism and all theory!

what red to you, is redder to me ?

Existence directly presents itself that *we absolutely have free will.* This represents the *default state* that we can subjectively observe. True, there may be things that are out of our control, and we may be forced into situations where options are limited, but at the end of the day, it's our "free will" that's orchestrating our movement through life. There are no mysterious outside agents, simulations, programs, illusions, matrixes, gods, angels, spirits, or anything else that is making your decisions for you. You, and ONLY you, are responsible for your decisions ... _so choose wisely!_

This discussion has a very low practical value for the subject of Full Artificial Consciousness.

X-Files Free Will and Consciousness Earthling human beings (love) think that "free will" means freedom to appreciate this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called "life" that inhabit it. And not be imprisoned and enslaved by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate). But the hostile alien vampires (greed) think that "free will" means freedom to suck the joy out of life and devour the planet like a ravenous cancer. And freedom to imprison and enslave humans. "The perception of beauty is a moral test." Henry David Thoreau. This is the real IQ test. This test also determines of one is human. Light and truth (love) cause vampires (greed) great pain and suffering. That's why the words compassion, understanding, "care for all" and "green new deal" cause the capitalist counting corpses that rule US such misery. But the words sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb are encouraged. Because these ugly words suck the joy out of humans with their ignorance (hate). The hostile evangelical vampires (greed) are inhumane because they are not human. The capitalist counting corpses commit crimes against humanity because they are not human. Unlike earthling poets, artists, musicians, mystics, human beings and creators of joy...the capitalist counting corpses that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are ignorant (dead). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.

No free will

Welcome to Chaos Game Theory At what point is the rain no longer considered part of the ocean? Rain Droplets falling from the sky into a whirlpool. Track the splash of each drop, the ripples it forms, and the other droplets its ripples encounters, before being sucked back up the invisible tube to fall(plasma tubes(barometric vortex math(Quantum∞Choice Vibration Selection))) from the sky again. This is before even calculating in environmental factors such as geographical, theological, or genealogy that are the shores, winds, and rock that influence that now simulated drop in the ocean. While Free Will is Life.. Choice is the copper torch our Lady Liberty carries into each dawn. Serving memento from what seems like the bronze age of generations past, our anchor in time has turned her varnish into an aged peace. (I want to delete this last section... but... fuck it... oh well I guess..)

There is more evidence to suggest a deterministic world than there is for a god. He might want to rethink his belief in an imaginary friend.

Unfortunately, this is one of the weaker interviews. Swinburne, totally lost track of causation during his own thought process. A win for people who are looking for justification to believe fantasy, things, and one back. For those who you’re trying to understand reality.

Deterministic mental reasoning (logic) attempting to prove that a choice is an act of total non-contingent freedom. Swinburne’s logic is a cover for religious faith.

Guys inst correted. Believes Free Will is true when choice or intentions are falacies. Guys not show evidence concern concern Free Will only showing baseless exemple. Any choice or action are limited by Randon. Guys proceedings how Free Will are true though lack intergraty mind.

There is no free will! All thoughts are based on very early teaching & learning, the imposition of social norms & mores, tribal laws & conventions, and so on.

He’s talking in circles. Freewill is not a real thing.