Richard Swinburne - How Free Will Probes Mind and Consciousness
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2024
- Can free will reveal the nature of mental states? Free will seems so obvious, yet defies physical explanation. That’s the reason why free will can be a tool to explore the mind. Free will probes consciousness by examining what it means to pick, choose, select, decide in the closed physical system of the world. But is ‘free will’ just a trick of the brain?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on mind and consciousness: bit.ly/3kYeLGG
Richard Swinburne is a Fellow of the British Academy. He was Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford from 1985 to 2002 and is currently Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
That Swinburne was able to track his thoughts long enough to define his theory is most impressive to me
You must not have worked with logic before. It's kind of walking through downtown remembering where you are.
My fault in his discussion is that it is too detailed.
If there’s no freewill then everything you said isn’t an argument nor is it reasoning at all. Get that, robot?
He's clearly very old. Give him a break.
We have no Freewill...Swinburne is a Charleton pretending to know something unknowable
Wow! What a response to a loaded question. I tip my hat to Dr. Swinburne.
Most inspirational thought to me
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?
Marvelous questions! I don't have any answers. But I think one part of the answer would be to he aware of one's situation, realizing that one's circumstances have influenced hiw they think. Self awareness I think is key. But that's my opinion and it falls apart with someone who has a major mental illness that may hinder their self awareness.
and the prize for the longest sentence ever spoken on CTT goes to: ...
🤣🤣🤣
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'.
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.
I think he would happily concede these points (although I could be wrong). My sense is that he's making a very basic, "show me the evidence" sort of claim. If the evidence isn't there yet, even if it might be in the future, it doesn't make sense to draw conclusions prematurely. In lieu of such a theory, it is reasonable to accept "what seems to be". You could argue that he's being a bit too conservative, but I find it hard to find much to complain about the basic sentiment.
I think people have a strong aversion to uncertainty and feel compelled to connect dots that are not ready to be connected, might never be, and (in the final analysis) might not have been appropriate to connect to begin with.
At the same time, speculating beyond the scope of current human understanding is totally fine thing to do; it propels our theories and provides testable avenues to explore hypothetical connections to these proverbial dots. If there's an error, it's in our failure to recognize the thin epistemological ground we're standing on. Overconfidence is a poor substitute for humble, sober reflection.
@@jerome_david Well put!
Well sure you can’t measure our feeling of pain, but you can theoretically, measure the physiological processes that led to that feeling.
aside from observation being measurement, if pain is biological it can be physically measured
Excellent argument. For that matter, I wonder if neuroscience could ever capture the precise correlates of a subject saying ‘because….’
Well said
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?
That about sums it up . Not very convincing.
Yes - a 5 minute sentence based on high school intelligence
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.
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.
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.
Life has a free will, it wishes something and it will be! And freedom is equivalence to the "holy will", spoken with Kant..
I bet this guy is a hoot at parties
Yea we all need to be the life of the party. He can do better
Geat comment. It made me laugh out loud!
When presented with the ou d'oeuvres tray, what does he say?
🤣🤣🤣
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.
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.
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.
@@jamesragsdale8202 if all flesh is equal, then the flesh in my brain should no more remember what I ate yesterday then the flesh of my hands and feet. In a purely materialist this world, all material is equal because there are no variations of values- no abstractions of ideas or conceptions of time
Swinburne is a master
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.
Nice story . But there is no evidence that souls exist.
@@tonyatkinson2210 I'm quite aware of that, but that's my belief. I totally understand and respect if you're agnostic or atheist, so I'd appreciate if you can do the same for a man os science who also comes to be a believer
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.
robert almost fell asleep during this one
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?
WoW
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.
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.
Freedom is "insight into necessity" (Hegel) and equivalence to the "holy will" (Kant), so it is not the opposite of necessity!
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.
Wow that was tedious. I think it’s fair to say there are better defences of Freewill
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.
Determinism isn’t the same as pre-determinism . I think you are confusing the two . Your confusing causes A causes effect B, causes effects C , with cause A has a goal of reaching C.
While determinism usually refers to a naturalistically explainable causality of events, predeterminism seems by definition to suggest a person or a "someone" who is controlling or planning the causality of events before they occur and who then perhaps resides beyond the natural, causal universe.
@@tonyatkinson2210 I don't think my argument concerns a misapplication of intention over causation. Unless you think a causal ignorance is not the same as an intentional ignorance.
I dont know if ignorance can be intentional. Unless you mean to use the word ignore in the same sense as intentional ignorance.
I know there is a distinction between predetermined and determined but isn't that a distinction without a difference?
My argument does not follow from the constant conjunction of causation. I do not believe in the pretext. My argument concerns the necessary connection of consciousness.
Causation involves knowledge and therefore ignorance of thought. Consciousness does not, it involves Nature and what can be referred to, not what can be inferred. What can be seen and felt. For instance the light from the sun can be seen and felt. We are the measuring instrument of light and heat. Is light and heat "inferred" by us? No. Our eyes and skin are the necessary connection to the light and heat of the sun. Gravity, on the other hand, is totally inferred. Though we can feel the heaviness of different things is that due to gravity or to the thing? The necessary connection is the thing and us. Unlike the sun, which is remote from us but can be seen, gravity can not be seen. Only the thing which has weight can be sensed.
The ignorance involved in not knowing gravity is not the same as the ignorance of not being able to sense the sun. Is heat and light gravity? Conscious ignorance is not the same as epistemological ignorance. For determinism to hold sway it must present not just a "theory" of ignorance due to knowledge, but a consciousness of ignorance. Not an inference of a hidden manifold but the manifold itself.
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.
Wonderful and thoughtful guest. Logic here is fun to listen to.
There's no such thing as free will, your 'hypothesis' is also unfalsifiable, as he admits is his own. The only logical answer, surely, in the absence of any evidence, is 'we don't know'. Only the religious claim free will, that's abnormal.
But I suspect that there could be a possibility of establishing a probability scale for most mental events... 🤔
Yes, for example, the probability that an intention WILL produce a result...
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.
Free will is not the state of having no reasons for deciding to do or think something. If it were, to be free would to be to be insane. Free will is the state of being “self-determined” not “undetermined”.
I don’t accept that we choose our beliefs either . I’m going to try to believe in fairies for a while and see if it sticks .
@@tonyatkinson2210 since I don't see any evidence for fairies, I'll let you have at it
@@tonyatkinson2210 We've got grown men believing they are little 6 year old girls so this challenge actually doesn't seem all that difficult to achieve.
@@madmax2976 I would argue that’s even more evidence we don’t chose . Who would chose that ?!? 😂
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"
It is the ears nature to hear, the eye to see. The eyes nature being in accordance with such work as sight is reasonable and because fitting, just. A things nature, when in alignment with it's proper and just activity, is reasonableness.
Explain how they're different
Use a chainsaw to butter your toast and a butter knife to fell a tree. Here the means in such disparate activities are not just therefor not reasonable.
@@S3RAVA3LM there could be some kind of fluid transfer of skill involved in treework and butterwork, therefore there is justification without reason. However, reason without justification is way more interesting!
Pure philosophy
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.
But is there any reason to think it’s not all nails ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Yes - his argument addresses exactly that - there has been and is no way to refute our individual instinct and common sense that says we have true agency.
But, that is also not to say there are scientifically coherent or proven theories that places this “agency” in our picture of the world.
My own feeling is that there does exist a physics of our world that includes consciousness, just we don’t have it yet. I suspect it will include new feautures that do not exist in current theories.
Swinburne's argument that we should believe things are as they "seem to be" is fallacious. He exaggerates the confidence we should have in something that naively "seems" to be, which can't be experimentally verified.
When I try to introspect on my own "free will" it does NOT seem to be free (in the nondeterministic sense), because my introspection hits a brick wall beyond which I cannot access: subconscious & unconscious brain processes. Because I can't consciously inspect those processes, I cannot reach a conclusion about what my conscious thinking "seems" to be. Clearly it would be wrong for a blind man who can feel only the tail of a elephant to believe the elephant is what it seems to be... only a tail. A similar analogy is Plato's Cave... it's a mistake to believe the world is the shadows on the wall, merely because of the inability to gather more evidence about the world.
Also, I don't believe Swinburne's claim that it's impossible in principle to test deterministic theories of mind. His reasoning is that mental states are inaccessible to experimenters. That's false, because an experimenter can access his/her own mental states, which suffices for repeatable experiments that may be reproduced by other experimenters who access their own mental states. I think the difficulty involved in developing a comprehensive deterministic theory of mind is not the alleged inaccessibility of mental states; it's the complexity of the brain, ethical constraints on experiments on humans, and perhaps the inaccessibility (to both experimenters & theorists) of the subconscious & unconscious processes of the brain.
@@wattshumphrey8422
No naturalistic explanation gut consciousness, does not mean there isn’t a naturalistic explanation for it .
So far - every unknown phenomenon we have investigated that had supernatural candidate explanations has been found to be natural .
From lightening and thunder , to droughts and famine , to disease and weather , to the suns power and the movement of stars.
God is found in smaller and smaller spaces . Abiogenesis, the origin of the universe , consciousness . I see no reason to think it’s won’t get even smaller .
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.
Do you think consciousness created the concept of brain, or vice versa?
@@deanodebo I think it's more apparent at the moment that consciousness arises from brains. You can imagine and infer all sorts of things about consciousness and brains. I think the imagination and inference are what give rise to actually finding out.
Whatever the answer is we know with some high degree of certainty that the brain is not a fundamental parameter. We can start there!
@@deanodebo Could be a chicken and egg question perhaps? What if consciousness has always been there, and we (our brains) arise out of it...?
@@bobbabai
A “brain” cannot be without consciousness. It’s a concept created by consciousness. Hence it’s a contradiction to claim the inverse
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.
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.
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.
If you don’t have freewill then you can’t argue or reason at all. It is simply the output of a machine. GIGO
@@deanodebo But, you can have the illusion of thought and reason, but with some of it being "real" and some not and you're never quite sure which is which, and you just have to do the best you can with what thoughts and senses you have or think you have.
@@bobbabai Yep. That's right.
@@bobbabai
You want it both ways. If no freewill, then you’re not reasoning. You’re removing all force from your claims. Do you deny that?
@@deanodebo I admit that I can't make a certain argument for complete lack of free will or an argument for free will. I can't make a certain argument for brains being the source of consciousness or consciousness being the source of brains.
Neither can you.
What I can say is that in the rest of the animal world, there's a clear relationship between complexity of brains and extensiveness, depth and complexity of consciousness, at least the kind of consciousness that humans are experiencing. That's enough to make me lean toward brains and meat being the source of consciousness. I'm open to the idea consciousness being the source of anything other than ideas, but that idea has a much longer way to go in the gathering of evidence for it and the making of theories surrounding that evidence.
So, my consciousness appears to have some form of free will but it's hard to say for sure. I believe that people on your side seem to be making the case that it is certain that consciousness is the source of everything and most will say God is the source of consciousness. None of that is demonstrable yet.
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!
Free will is a fantasy, an illusion. Logically speaking if everything is determined (determinate) then there can not be any free will, and if nothing can be determined (indeterminate) then free will could not make any determination, and thus free will is impossible in this case as well. Even if we had a universe where some things were determined and other things were not, in that case there will also be no possibility of free will. No matter how you slice it, there is no free will.
Yes, freedom FROM will is true freedom :)
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.
But how do we know whether that god was created ?
Here’s the hypothesis:
God B creates the Hebrew god and ensures the Hebrew god is unaware of god B’s existence . The Hebrew god creates the universe .
The Hebrew god thinks he is all knowing . However . How can he know he is all knowing if he is aware he could have been created and fenced off from reality .
God B then ponders whether he was created . Conclusion: no gods can be all knowing .
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!
huh?
@@Jason5000 That's the difficulty with self recognition that it is exactly about the in principle invisible, the living entity that never can be caught!
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.
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..)
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!_
To argue that we have free will because you subjectively experience(/"observe") it as truth is no different than claiming:
x is true because I feel that it's true.
By that metric, earth is flat because we experience it that way.
@@njumera *"o argue that we have free will because you subjectively experience(/"observe") it as truth is no different than claiming: x is true because I feel that it's true."*
... There is a logical order of operation. The first level is that we have "free will." That's how existence is presented to us by default. Anything beyond this initial state requires evidence. If you want to claim something other than what is directly presented to us, then offer-up your empirical proof.
*Example:* Our first level of understanding is that everything occurs naturally without any outside orchestration or design. That is the default. Anything beyond this initial, default state (such as positing a God or a simulation) requires empirical proof, correct?
Why should the unfalsifiable assertion of hard determinism be treated any differently than the unfalsifiable assertion of an almighty God?
*"By that metric, earth is flat because we experience it that way."*
... There was a time when the concensus was that the world was flat ... because that's the way reality was presented to us. A "flat Earth" was the "initial state." Then science came along and *demonstrated otherwise with empirical evidence.*
So, with that in mind, what is your *incontrovertible evidence* that all of our decisions are predetermined? Will you post that incontrovertible proof for me, please?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC You're simply asserting free will as an a priori. You similairly can't prove that people have historically always believed in free will. In fact, a lot of ancient cultures believed in fate, or the nature of individuals as an explaination for why people to what they do, which wouldn't make much sense if we've always experienced ourselves as free.
If someone is raised to believe in god, why wouldn't god also be a "default" state, rather than, like free will, a man-made fiction?
@@njumera *"You're simply asserting free will as an a priori. You similairly can't prove that people have historically always believed in free will."*
... "Free Will" is the initial, default condition. That is the way our existence is presented to us. There is no avoiding this fact, and the onus is on YOU to produce evidence stating anything otherwise. Nobody at your local grocery store is thinking _something else_ is making their purchase decisions for them.
*Example:* The default condition is that we are living, breathing humans residing on planet Earth. This is how our existence is presented to us by default. Anyone claiming that this is not the case (as in "we are living in a simulation" or "we are all holograms") then they must produce evidence to support their claim.
*"If someone is raised to believe in god, why wouldn't god also be a "default" state, rather than, like free will, a man-made fiction?"*
... Existence _without_ the necessity of an almighty creator is the default state. That is the way our existence is presented to us. The onus is on the one positing an almighty God to offer us their proof. Someone who is taught to believe in an almighty God is simply accepting the information presented to them _later,_ but the initial, default state was that there is no God.
People who once believed the earth was flat no longer do so because *incontrovertible evidence* was produced later that demonstrates the Earth is round. That being said, where is your *incontrovertible evidence* that my choices are not my own to make?
You have yet to post that *incontrovertible evidence!*
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Again, you're doing nothing but asserting free will as some "initial, default condition" to shift the burden of evidence. Neither social concensus, or our subjective experience elevates free will above any other unfalsifiable claims, such as ghosts or god.
what red to you, is redder to me ?
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.
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.
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.
No free will
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.
of course, it is. All of the free will nonsense is
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.
Hard to prove in a laboratory.
Then you’re not reasoning are you? And your claims have no force!
He’s talking in circles. Freewill is not a real thing.