Animal life clearly outnumber humans on this planet. Therefore, if they were created by an almighty god, it had to be for a reason! My question, therefore, is, do animals have the same freewill as humans? Can animals sin?

Christians have an (weak) explanation for this. According to them, what differentiates humans from animals is self-awareness and reason. Since animals cannot reason, they are not responsible for their actions. Thus the notion of freewill does not apply to them. In my opinion, this is a fail.

These presumptuous people fail to explain why almost all animals are protective of their young, why that dog refused to leave his companions side during the Fukushima nuclear crisis, why my dog can instantly sense suspecting behaviour from some strangers and bark them away while being cool with other strangers, etc. Clearly animals can reason!

On the same note, do humans born with insanity still have freewill? Are they responsible for their actions? Some bible thumping folks have an incredibly idiotic explanation for this. They often quote Psalm 116:6 to explain this, ("The LORD protects simple folk; he saves me whenever I am brought down.") simply meaning that people born with insanity do not have to undergo the "free-will" test. They automatically qualify for heaven .

My question is simple. Why create insane people in the first place? Is this just another example of an imperfect creator? What is their purpose? Are they examples for fellow sane people to follow?

Latter will, nevertheless, defeat the purpose of free-will, because god is using insanity as a tool for people to believe in him, thus employing a form of "dictatorial force". Remember, freewill is defined by Christians as a total submission to god and his powers on our own accord without being influenced by outside factors.

---

And don't give the stupid cliché that god has indeed created insane people as an example for fellow humans; its up to you to accept him or deny him after observing his demonstration.

That's not my definition of free will. I define it as the ability or discretion to choose. In my opinion animals can mimic, learn and imitate, possibly even reason. They learn and act yes, but do they choose? Can they choose something other than their nature? If they can then they have freewill if they can't they don't. I havne't really studied it enough to make a decision.

As far as the mentally ill, if they are ill to where they have no choice at any time, then they would also be exempt from having free will. Those without free will (animals or humans) would be insutments of God or the devil and in no control of their decisions. However here in the physical world we punish based off of action, so animals (human or otherwise) can be justly punished for their actions.

"other than their nature"

What is that supposed to mean? How can anyone (or anything) do something other than their nature? Can you give an example of something humans do that is "against their nature".

sure we can rehash that arguement. At the time of action it is against my chosen nature to kill my wife. I could, by choice, choose to kill my wife. I could also have my emotions overwhelm my logic and irrationally not choose to kill my wife, but kill her. It is arguable that it was always in my nature to kill my wife. But following that logic train we are all capable of anythin and that is a useless train that of thought to follow. I opt that prior to my decision it is not in my nature. I conceed though that once the decision is made it then become part of my nature through experience.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:20 am)tackattack Wrote: we are all capable of anythin

Yep.

Yes Tack, animals make conscious decisions. That's how ambush predators hold off spooking an animal, or let animals pass by until one gets close enough. They weigh the situation, and make a decision to ambush or not. I only use that as an extreme example of how calculating animals can be, and how much their lives hinge on the choices they make. Other examples that might be helpful would be animals and communication, where choices are made as to what they communicate, how they socialize and with whom....you're not seriously on the fence about whether or not there's a moment in the day when an animal is sitting there wondering what it wants to do next are you? Do you have pets? Animals are not automatons (unless we're willing to call all animals...including ourselves...automatons). Take a look down the branches of your own taxonomy Tack, you are Animalia....

Sigh, sigh, sigh....I would be incredibly surprised if you could come up with parameters for freewill that excluded every animal except human animals without explicitly saying "only human beings have free will because we say so".

(February 9, 2012 at 10:35 am)Rhythm Wrote: Yes Tack, animals make conscious decisions. That's how ambush predators hold off spooking an animal, or let animals pass by until one gets close enough. They weigh the situation, and make a decision to ambush or not. I only use that as an extreme example of how calculating animals can be, and how much their lives hinge on the choices they make. Other examples that might be helpful would be animals and communication, where choices are made as to what they communicate, how they socialize and with whom....you're not seriously on the fence about whether or not there's a moment in the day when an animal is sitting there wondering what it wants to do next are you? Do you have pets? Animals are not automatons (unless we're willing to call all animals...including ourselves...automatons). Take a look down the branches of your own taxonomy Tack, you are Animalia....

Sigh, sigh, sigh....I would be incredibly surprised if you could come up with parameters for freewill that excluded every animal except human animals without explicitly saying "only human beings have free will because we say so".

Interesting observation. I had never thought of it in this way.

Here;s my two cents. Animals are certainly not automatons, but they are not on the same level as humans either. While animals are able to make decisions, the template for those decisions are hardwired. Th ekey difference between humans and animals is the process of conceptualization. Specifically, the process of abstraction.

Humans are capable of taking in percepts, that is, raw input of the senses, identify and categorize its properties and then retain it as an abstract principle separately from the its representative concrete.

Its because of this advanced capacity of conceptualization, humans can have what can conceivably called free-will. I prefer to call it "volition".

Since humans are capable of creating abstract concepts separate from but representing concretes, they can create an abstract notion of "I" - of themselves - separate from, but representing their mind and body. This idea of self is crucial for volition because it is the necessary requirement for self-awareness, awareness of once actions, motivations and the capacity for introspection. Essentially, I would say that it is our prior actions and motivations that form the template for the choices we make, just as it does for other animals. The difference is that once we become aware of them, we can conceivably alter them. Acting according to the template is no longer essential to our nature. That is what I consider to be free-will.

A caveat here. I do not believe that every member of human species is capable of it. Nor do I believe that no other animal apart from humans is capable of this level of conceptualization. In fact, I consider many mammals such as other great apes, elephants, dolphins etc to be quite capable of it. Whether they actually are or not, and what other species out there is capable of it as well, is a question for science to answer. I simply use this as a general rule of thumb to separate humans from animals.

So..human beings have "more" free will than animals do? (We've got quite a bit of hard-wiring ourselves). Setting the bar for free-will as an action that only human beings do and then declaring that because of this, human beings have free will whereas others do not (or more free will) is anthropic bias. In effect, we've made the criteria for free will "to be human", and then declared that because only human beings are human beings, only human beings have free will.

I think the ability to conceptualize is certainly an area where humans excel way beyond other animals. But I don't think that is central to the free will issue. For me, free will is the ability to delay automatic or instinctual response in order to modify behavior in a way that reflects prior learning. Apparently it is the frontal cortex that makes this possible and boy do we ever have a big one. But all mammals have it too to various degrees and many animals are able to learn.

The ability to conceptualize can widen the scope of perceived options but it is the mighty frontal cortex holding back the onslaught of instinctual response that makes it possible to act on those options.

Here's the problem. This argument is not subject to levels of free will. Either all animals have free will or they do not. Saying a crocodile is more controlled by his instinct than a human is a moot fucking point. More or less, it does not matter. If animals have free will, which they clearly do, the free will hoopla perpetuated by Christians flies out the window.