Do animals have free will?

[kadzbiz]

Why do you think that free will is necessarily linked to knowledge of the bible? I wouldn't say they don't.

I don't think it is linked to the knowledge of the bible at all, you're the one who brought up consciousness of God and I'm saying that there were people who had no consciousness of God until missionaries etc came to them and told them of God and the bible.

I don't believe in the God of the Bible, or the Bible, but I believe in free will.

And to have consciousness, you'd have to have a mind.

 

[lilithu]

I don't think it is linked to the knowledge of the bible at all, you're the one who brought up consciousness of God and I'm saying that there were people who had no consciousness of God until missionaries etc came to them and told them of God and the bible.

I don't believe in the God of the Bible, or the Bible, but I believe in free will.

And to have consciousness, you'd have to have a mind.

I brought up "consciousness of God" as a summary of what others were saying. In my mind, free will simply means the ability to choose. And I see no reason to believe that other animals do not have that ability. I see no reason to believe that other animals do not have consciousness.

If, as biology suggests, we are all related in a continuum, then I see no rational reason to believe that humans have some special thing called free will while other animals do not.

 

[Papersock]

I should have made this thread a poll. Oh well.

 

[kadzbiz]

.... In my mind, free will simply means the ability to choose. And I see no reason to believe that other animals do not have that ability. .....

I had to laugh Lilithu. After all that banter we discover we're agreeing!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Neither humans nor animals have free will. They are slaves of probability and chance.

 

[Aqualung]

How do you mean? If you're following someone's lead, it's because there are possibly negative consequences if you don't, so you are making a choice to follow the leader or suffer those consequences.

Yes, that's certainly one reason why one would follow a leader. Good job pointing that out. But another reason is simply because it is instinctual to follow the one who appears more powerful or smarter or whatever, irrespective of the actual consequences of disobeying.

 

[Aqualung]

An animal learns to follow a pack leader the same way we do ... they are punished as cubs when they don't ... as adults they are punished and cast out.
This is not instinct it is learned response.

I never said they didn't. I said what if it was instinct to follow a pack leader. How many times have I found myself pointing out that debate threads are all about hypotheticals!

 

[lilithu]

I never said they didn't. I said what if it was instinct to follow a pack leader. How many times have I found myself pointing out that debate threads are all about hypotheticals!

You didn't present it as a "What if."

And if debates were all about hypotheticals with no accountability to reality, then everyone could just come up with a hypothetical that suits their needs to "win" the argument.

 

[Aqualung]

You didn't present it as a "What if."

I'm pretty sure I did. I'm pretty sure I said:

You do if the instinct IS doing what a leader tells.

and now I'm not sure (I'm not wearing my glasses), but I think there's an if in there somewhere.

And if debates were all about hypotheticals with no accountability to reality, then everyone could just come up with a hypothetical that suits their needs to "win" the argument.

That's true. I'm not trying to win an argument, or even "win" one. I entered the debate, read some interesting comments, and wondered what people would think IF (there's that word again) animals acted in such-and-such a way. I'm sorry if that has offended you so much, but that was my intention.

 

[kadzbiz]

Neither humans nor animals have free will. They are slaves of probability and chance.

That's a strange thing to say. Sure there is a probability or chance for anything, but a choice is still being made. Even if you believed that humans and animals do have free will, you latter point still is relevant IMO.

Yes, that's certainly one reason why one would follow a leader. Good job pointing that out. But another reason is simply because it is instinctual to follow the one who appears more powerful or smarter or whatever, irrespective of the actual consequences of disobeying.

I know you've already covered the hypothetical point, but I doubt there is an instinctual nature to follow a leader where an animal has cognative ability. In young animals, there reason to obey and follow probably stems from the fact that the cognative ability isn't developed enough to decide to do anything different, and that's not to say anyway that the animal will follow in any case.

 

[Aqualung]

I know you've already covered the hypothetical point, but I doubt there is an instinctual nature to follow a leader where an animal has cognative ability. In young animals, there reason to obey and follow probably stems from the fact that the cognative ability isn't developed enough to decide to do anything different, and that's not to say anyway that the animal will follow in any case.

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

 

[lilithu]

I'm pretty sure I did. I'm pretty sure I said:

and now I'm not sure (I'm not wearing my glasses), but I think there's an if in there somewhere.

Yes, that's what you said. But it still doesn't read as a hypothetical to me. Perhaps it's a problem of not having tone of voice.

That's true. I'm not trying to win an argument, or even "win" one. I entered the debate, read some interesting comments, and wondered what people would think IF (there's that word again) animals acted in such-and-such a way. I'm sorry if that has offended you so much, but that was my intention.

I'm not sure what make I said to make you think I was offended.

 

[kmkemp]

No, the original question was is there a dividing line between humans and other animals. Terry is saying that there is no dividing line. He didn't change the question to "where" is the line. There is no line.

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.

 

[lilithu]

That is ridiculous. Answer these questions:

OK.

1) Do you believe that some beings have free will?

Yes.

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

No.

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.

Um.. I didn't answer yes, to both. I don't think that Terry would answer yes to both, GIVEN WHAT HE WROTE. And I don't know why you presume that almost everyone would answer yes to both.

If there is the ability choose, there is free will. If there is not the ability to choose, then the question of whether something has free will is MOOT.

 

[lilithu]

That's a strange thing to say. Sure there is a probability or chance for anything, but a choice is still being made.

It's not that strange. Depends on what you mean by "choice" and "free will." If I am presented with more than one choice, and the reason for my picking one and not the others is determined by the synapses firing and summating in my brain, and the pattern of summation depends entirely on wiring, other pre-existing conditions, or chance, have *I* really made a choice? My conscious awareness says, "I think I'll choose the red pill." But according to the studies, the activity pattern that corresponds to that choice has already happened before you are ever aware of making a decision. Your conscious awareness is just along for the ride. It has no real control over anything.

Therefore:
If one truly is an absolute reductionist, then one does not believe in free will, as most people understand free will.

 

[kadzbiz]

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

I think the two are separate abilities. When one does something from instinct, IMO one does the act without thinking about it. In other words, one is not contemplating a choice. Eg. If a child is about to put their hand on a hot stove top car, one would instinctively pull the child's hand out of the way. IMO each person's instinct could vary. Eg. When I see one of my kids playing on the playgym outside and perhaps their activity could lead to an accident, I might watch them for a moment to evaluate what they are doing before taking action, but someone else, for various reasons, may scream at the child immediately or rush out and grab them from the playgym.

instinct
n. 1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

adj. 1. Deeply filled or imbued: words instinct with love.
2. Obsolete Impelled from within.


free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

 

[Aqualung]

I think the two are separate abilities. When one does something from instinct, IMO one does the act without thinking about it. In other words, one is not contemplating a choice. Eg. If a child is about to put their hand on a hot stove top car, one would instinctively pull the child's hand out of the way. IMO each person's instinct could vary. Eg. When I see one of my kids playing on the playgym outside and perhaps their activity could lead to an accident, I might watch them for a moment to evaluate what they are doing before taking action, but someone else, for various reasons, may scream at the child immediately or rush out and grab them from the playgym.

instinct
n. 1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

adj. 1. Deeply filled or imbued: words instinct with love.
2. Obsolete Impelled from within.


free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Ah, so you define your philosophical terms by dictionary. Well, I guess that's that, then, eh?

 

[Sunstone]

Ah, so you define your philosophical terms by dictionary. Well, I guess that's that, then, eh?

It is perfectly acceptable in formal philosophy to use a dictionary definition of a term.

 

[kadzbiz]

Ah, so you define your philosophical terms by dictionary. Well, I guess that's that, then, eh?

Actually, I defined my own as you can see in the post. I dunno why, but I just added those definitions to show the difference.

 

[kmkemp]

OK.

Yes.
No.

Um.. I didn't answer yes, to both. I don't think that Terry would answer yes to both, GIVEN WHAT HE WROTE. And I don't know why you presume that almost everyone would answer yes to both.

If there is the ability choose, there is free will. If there is not the ability to choose, then the question of whether something has free will is MOOT.

Are you saying that a plant has free will for example? What about one celled organisms? Even simple organisms? If you want to say yes, I would like to know of an action that they exhibit that indicates that they do.