Do animals have free will?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Then is instinct completely a moot point when discussing the free will of animals?

Instinct is something of a moot point anyway.
All animals, including us, appear to Inherit some underlying knowledge in their genes.
This is always in the nature of a benefit for their survival.
In this respect it seems to be an evolutionary advantage to be able to pass on knowledge this way.

It has nothing at all to do with free will, as it is to some extent existent in all animal life. It in no way down grades their ability to think or comprehend.
Free will and / or free choice is available to all Animal life that has advanced enough to use it. There are no lines of demarcation.

 

[kmkemp]

You are only considering the case of an instinct as being a survival mechanism, though. What about the case of the instinct for all beings to pursue pleasure?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That is ridiculous. Answer these questions:

1) Do you believe that some beings have free will?
2) Do you believe that some beings do not have free will?

If you answered yes to both, which I presume almost everyone would, then you have a problem if you also wish to say that there is no dividing line.

Quote.....
All life capable of exercising it, has free will. There is no imposed dividing line.....

I said there is no imposed Dividing line.
Any line you could care to draw would be purely arbitrary ... It would not be fixed.... it would change with evolutionary influences;
The position of any line we might draw would change with our growing knowledge about the thought processes of other animals.
For all intents and purposes there is no line.

 

[kmkemp]

Quote.....
All life capable of exercising it, has free will. There is no imposed dividing line.....

I said there is no imposed Dividing line.
Any line you could care to draw would be purely arbitrary ... It would not be fixed.... it would change with evolutionary influences;
The position of any line we might draw would change with our growing knowledge about the thought processes of other animals.
For all intents and purposes there is no line.

Again, by saying a vague statement such as that, you have only succeeded in changing the question to "which beings are capable of exercising free will?".

 

[lilithu]

Are you saying that a plant has free will for example? What about one celled organisms? Even simple organisms?

I'm saying that *if* we have free will, then all other beings have free will. (I believe that we have free will but I don't know.)

There may be a gradient but THERE IS NO LINE. Anywhere you drew the line would be arbitrary, based on one's own biases.

On what basis do you think that we humans are so special anyway?

If you want to say yes, I would like to know of an action that they exhibit that indicates that they do.

Actually, having watched paramecia a fair amount, they swim one way or the other. They go forwards or backwards. They stay in one place (more or less) or they move. They ingest something that they encounter or they don't. Those are all ACTIONS.

Are they really making choices? I don't know. But then again, I'm not sure that we really are either. All I know is that THERE IS NO LINE.

 

[kmkemp]

I'm saying that *if* we have free will, then all other beings have free will. (I believe that we have free will but I don't know.)

There may be a gradient but THERE IS NO LINE. Anywhere you drew the line would be arbitrary, based on one's own biases.

It wouldn't be based on my own biases, but evidence that a being either exhibits whatever you wish to associate with free will or does not. How is that arbitrary? There must be some reason that some beings are capable of realizing free will while others are not, if that is even the case, no?

On what basis do you think that we humans are so special anyway?

We have special insight in only one being on the planet and that is us. We know that we make conscious choices. That is not to say that we have free will, necessarily, though. I guess it all depends on your definition of free will. Still, even if we were an unbiased observer (impossible, I know, but bare with me), we would still likely come to the conclusion that humans exhibit behavior that other organisms do not that seem, at least at a glance, to not be based on forms of instinctual behavior found in "lesser" beings. Then there is the Bible.

Actually, having watched paramecia a fair amount, they swim one way or the other. They go forwards or backwards. They stay in one place (more or less) or they move. They ingest something that they encounter or they don't. Those are all ACTIONS.

Are they really making choices? I don't know. But then again, I'm not sure that we really are either. All I know is that THERE IS NO LINE.

Reacting based on instinct has nothing to do with a free will. I don't know why you would draw the conclusion the because a being is capable of making an action that said action is necessarily a free choice (insofar as is also the case with us, at least).

If you do not even know if we have free will, I would really like to know how you can be so certain that there is no line. Many believe that freedom of the will comes at a certain stage of intelligence (similar to theories of consciousness). What good evidence do you have to refute these theories?

 

[lilithu]

If you do not even know if we have free will, I would really like to know how you can be so certain that there is no line.

1. Biology says there is no line.

2. Buddhism/Hinduism says there is no line.

3. My own reason based on the evidence says there is no line.

4. My own experiences of interconnectedness says there is no line.

Many believe that freedom of the will comes at a certain stage of intelligence (similar to theories of consciousness). What good evidence do you have to refute these theories?

That's not evidence. That's an arbitrary definition. Why do I need to refute someone else's definition?

I don't believe there's a diving line for consciousness either. There may be varying "levels" of awareness, but there is no line. All of life is a continuum. All of it.


You say we have some special insight that other animals do not have. How do you know this?

 

[kmkemp]

1. Biology says there is no line.

2. Buddhism/Hinduism says there is no line.

3. My own reason based on the evidence says there is no line.

4. My own experiences of interconnectedness says there is no line.

Oh really? I wasn't aware that biology had determined who has free will. Your own reason is not any more evidence that anyone else's. Still, most others aren't claiming to know, which you have (even though you aren't sure if we actually have free will, curious).

That's not evidence. That's an arbitrary definition. Why do I need to refute someone else's definition?

I don't believe there's a diving line for consciousness either. There may be varying "levels" of awareness, but there is no line. All of life is a continuum. All of it.

Because it's in direct contradiction to your own position? That's what debates are all about: defending your position.

You say we have some special insight that other animals do not have. How do you know this?

I didn't say that we have a unique insight. Simply that we have an insight into our own consciousness that other animals do not have. They *might* have an insight into their own consciousness (or lack thereof) that we are not privy to. Still, I don't think that this consciousness is something that is altogether unobservable. It manifests itself in reflection and deeper concern with nontangible ideas like the reason for our existence and the meaning of life... even this very debate.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Again, by saying a vague statement such as that, you have only succeeded in changing the question to "which beings are capable of exercising free will?".

No... I made a very exact statement.
All life capable of exercising it( free will), has free will. There is no imposed dividing line.....

You are the one wanting to draw lines not me.

This statement applies equally to Us and to a virus ( if a virus can be said to be alive which some dispute)

There is nothing special about the degree to which we have moved along the path of evolution. There is no Line drawn in the sand, that says other life forms may not surpass our abilities either now or in the future.
Man is Just another animal.

 

[kmkemp]

Wow. You say it is an exact statement, but yet it tells us nothing about which beings are actually capable of exercising free will. You give us one single criteria for a being to have free will. That is the capability of exercising it. Yet you don't say anything about why or how a being would attain that capability or even if other beings haven't attained that capability. That is vague by my definition. Perhaps you can clear up those questions?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Wow. You say it is an exact statement, but yet it tells us nothing about which beings are actually capable of exercising free will. You give us one single criteria for a being to have free will. That is the capability of exercising it. Yet you don't say anything about why or how a being would attain that capability or even if other beings haven't attained that capability. That is vague by my definition. Perhaps you can clear up those questions?

You want a list??? I don't think so....
As to criteria... we have no Idea how to measure such an ability, let alone how to recognise such an ability, or even agree it in scientific terms.

My statement remains an exact statement; even if no living creatures including man can be proved to have attained free will yet.
Such logical statements, do not require quantifying.

 

[kmkemp]

No, I am well aware that you wouldn't be able to provide one. The only point here is that "the capability of exercising free will" could extend to any number of beings from 0 to the full set of all beings and, therefor, has no practical value.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No, I am well aware that you wouldn't be able to provide one. The only point here is that "the capability of exercising free will" could extend to any number of beings from 0 to the full set of all beings and, therefor, has no practical value.

It is clear that not all life forms exercise free will now...
how many or which? is not clear...
all have the potential at some point in their evolution to exercise free will.

That is saying there is no class of living beings that may never be able to exercise free will in later stages of their evolution.

As we can not prove that even we have Free will now, though I believe we do, It is impossible to limit what might have free will.

This answer is only unsatisfactory to you because you want an answer that is definitive. Unfortunately no such answer exists.

Even if you obtained such information it would be of no practical value.
as it is constantly changing.

 

[kmkemp]

It is clear that not all life forms exercise free will now...
how many or which? is not clear...
all have the potential at some point in their evolution to exercise free will.

That is saying there is no class of living beings that may never be able to exercise free will in later stages of their evolution.

As we can not prove that even we have Free will now, though I believe we do, It is impossible to limit what might have free will.

We can't prove a lot of things, but we still believe them to be true.

This answer is only unsatisfactory to you because you want an answer that is definitive. Unfortunately no such answer exists.

You're right, it is unsatisfactory because it doesn't really say anything. You might as well say something like "only those pens that have tips can be used to write". It's already obvious that only something capable of exercising free will can possess free will.

Even if you obtained such information it would be of no practical value.
as it is constantly changing.

Surely it would. Evolution is not a process that occurs overnight. The list would remain relatively unchanged throughout our lifetimes and probably for the next few thousand years as well.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Surely it would. Evolution is not a process that occurs overnight. The list would remain relatively unchanged throughout our lifetimes and probably for the next few thousand years as well.

You are right ... it is continuous...
Even in a given species not all members arrive at a new state all at once...
it takes time to spread through the genes.
For this reason one should expect significant steps to be taken by some species continuously. It would not come to our notice until it was widespread; and then only if we were looking for it.
The same will be true of the ability to take advantage of free will.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You're right, it is unsatisfactory because it doesn't really say anything. You might as well say something like "only those pens that have tips can be used to write". It's already obvious that only something capable of exercising free will can possess free will.

It does indeed say something.
It says all species have the potential for free will.

 

[lilithu]

Oh really? I wasn't aware that biology had determined who has free will.

I didn't say that biology had determined who has free will. You specifically asked me how I'm so sure that THERE IS NO LINE. Biology does not draw a magical line between one life form and another.

My own reason was only one of four reasons that I listed.

Because it's in direct contradiction to your own position? That's what debates are all about: defending your position.

That's ridiculous. No one is required to argue against definitions in a debate. They're required to argue against logical fallacies that stem from those definitions. If define free will one way and I define free will another way there is no point in debating who has free will and who doesn't.

The only useful argument here is that THERE IS NO LINE.

I didn't say that we have a unique insight. Simply that we have an insight into our own consciousness that other animals do not have. They *might* have an insight into their own consciousness (or lack thereof) that we are not privy to. Still, I don't think that this consciousness is something that is altogether unobservable. It manifests itself in reflection and deeper concern with nontangible ideas like the reason for our existence and the meaning of life... even this very debate.

You don't know whether we have insight into our own consciousness that other animals do not have. And your whole basis for drawing your dividing line is the assumed truth of this assumption.

 

[kmkemp]

I didn't say that biology had determined who has free will. You specifically asked me how I'm so sure that THERE IS NO LINE. Biology does not draw a magical line between one life form and another.

Biology also hasn't determined what free will even is, much less what organisms are capable of possessing it (if that is even possible). What is the purpose of pointing at it, then, to show that it has proven there is no line? All a diving line would do is show which species possess free will and which do not.

My own reason was only one of four reasons that I listed.

I addressed those as well besides the one that didn't make any sense.

That's ridiculous. No one is required to argue against definitions in a debate. They're required to argue against logical fallacies that stem from those definitions. If define free will one way and I define free will another way there is no point in debating who has free will and who doesn't.

OK. So, I am curious, why did you start this dialog with me if we cannot debate?

Even more curiously, you describe all of life as a continuum but repeatedly argue against a line, which is a necessity of a continuum.

You don't know whether we have insight into our own consciousness that other animals do not have. And your whole basis for drawing your dividing line is the assumed truth of this assumption.

I don't understand. Our own consciousness is the only being's consciousness that we have special insight to, since, after all, we are ourselves. We have access to our own state of consciousness. Similarly, an animal has this same knowledge (assuming that he is indeed self aware). I don't see where you are saying anything contradicting that, but it seems that you wish to say it's false.

 

[lilithu]

It is clear that not all life forms exercise free will now...
how many or which? is not clear...
all have the potential at some point in their evolution to exercise free will.

That is saying there is no class of living beings that may never be able to exercise free will in later stages of their evolution.

Terry,

first of all, sorry for misunderstanding you and thus misrepresenting you.

second, at least in biology, classes of living beings do not evolve into later stages. They cease to exist, while a new class (or classes) takes its place. (Or doesn't.)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Terry,

first of all, sorry for misunderstanding you and thus misrepresenting you.

second, at least in biology, classes of living beings do not evolve into later stages. They cease to exist, while a new class (or classes) takes its place. (Or doesn't.)

That is not always and not necessarily the case.
One species branches from another True... But it it does not mean the other must die out .
Nature has no concept of species ... that is just our way of making sense of things.
What you call later stages, another may call a new species. but there may be many small changes to a species until it should be defined as a new one.
A new species is usually defined as when a species has changed to the extent that it can no longer reproduce with the species it was derived from.