Do animals have free Will?

[Rokcet Scientist]

I may have to revise that 'cerebral capacity' part after having watched the BBC's 2-part series "Super Smart Animals" (381MB).
The presenter didn't hurt either.

+1 for this programme - Excellent 2 parter and very relevant to this thread.

That's what I thought.

The Bonobo at the end of part 2 was just incredible, holding conversations using the pictogram - She understood concepts of past, present and future, and had a cheeky sense of humor.

And how about them dolphins being creative! Together!

Why do we kidnap these intelligent, emotional beings – apes, dolphins/whales – from their families/social environments and the freedom of vast jungles or wide open oceans, and lock them up for life in tiny cages or ponds? What did they do to us to deserve that kind of treatment? Are they murderers?

Who the fuck do we think we are, doing that to intelligent and emotional individuals, even if they are of other species?

We shouldn't be surprised, and least of all offended, if one day we find a place where dolphins keep humans as lifelong prisoners, teaching 'm tricks for donuts!

[genkaus]

Based on what do you say the more conceptually capable, the more genuinely free are the will? It seems to me that the more conceptually capable, the more might be the capacity to conceptualizing a will as being free. But that does not actually make the will free.

It takes quite a bit of power of conceptualization to coneptualize the sky as a dome sitting over a flat earth, and this concept may even have some degree of explanatory power, but that does not make the concept correct.

Not exactly. I'm saying that the more conceptually capable, the greater the possibility of the will being free. For example, I wouldn't consider fundies to have free-will if all their thoughts, actions, beliefs and motivations are dictated by the bible. And yet, I wouldn't consider them conceptually inferior to me either.

---

Np, if that's your definition then a very large number of creatures on this planet have free will.

No they won't. How could they act with reference to their thoughts and actions if they are not aware of them?

If your definition hinges on levels of this ability that increase on a scale towards human beings before being classified as "free will", then yes, that's rigging the game.

Your read my definition. you tell me if that is the case.

Let me ask you this. In relation to a wolf, just how competent are you at hunting deer by making "decisions with reference to knowledge, motivations, thoughts and actions"? Is this game rigged in favor of the wolf?

That depends. I'm not certain if the wolf makes its decisions after considering its own motivations and thoughts or if the behavior is innate or ingrained. If its the former, then the wolf is more competent, if latter, I am.

Can you demonstrate that our own relative level or grade of "free will" is not "a necessary consequence of its(our) biology and conditioning"?

By not acting according to biological impulses or learned behavior.

If you're referring to relative ability (and our measure for that is our brains ability and stage of development) then I don't see how you could avoid marking down human beings as creatures that act according to a necessary consequence of our own biology and conditioning. Since that's exactly how we understand our brains to operate (by consequence of biology and conditioning)

If that was true, then we'd never gain any new knowledge. Our knowledge is not given to us by our biological make-up and all conditioning is repetition according to per-existing knowledge. For new knowledge to develop, there needs to be capacity for thought independent of either.

---

I believe the real problem in this discussion is choice vs. freewill. I train dogs to obey certain commands, yet at times they will refuse to do so, this is a deliberate choice. As for what the reasons, I'm not always sure, I do not see it as freewill. Min added to Tack's analogy that animals kill for a reason (survival), and man kills for a reason (war, hate, self defense, law enforcement and ect.) or for no reason (mentally ill).
Rhythm wrote that animals such as the chimps and domesticated cats kill for no reason, I disagree. The domesticated cat will kill mice, birds, rabbits and ect. and leave them lying around uneaten, they do this out of instinct, an instinct that's been altered because of their domestication and thus will leave a kill uneaten. As for the chimps no one has proven they kill other chimps for no reason, the video he posted shows chimps in cooperation which IMO shows they had a reason.

The above shows all had a choice except for the mentally ill person, thus choices were made both by animals and man. The difference that I see in this, that man made moral choices and animals made instinctual choices. Moral choices = freewill Instinctual choices = no freewill

Instinctual choice is a contradiction in terms. If you are acting according to instinct, you are not acting by your choice.

---

Some animals are also self aware.EG dolphins and some apes can recognise their image in a mirror as themselves. Virtually no other animals have that ability,as far as I'm aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

I don't think that the mirror test is a reliable confirmation of self-awareness.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Some animals are also self aware.EG dolphins and some apes can recognise their image in a mirror as themselves. Virtually no other animals have that ability,as far as I'm aware.

Awareness update: elephants also recognize their mirror images as themselves. As do Orcas, Belugas, Bonobos, Chimps, Orangs, and Gorillas. The jury is still out on Gibbons (also primates) and other whales. But since we discovered a couple years ago that whales have 5 times as many spindle cells in their brains as humans do – spindle cells govern emotion – it looks like it's only a matter of time before we will have to accept that all whales are self-aware too.

[AthiestAtheist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Lol, I love this line: "Pigs are able to the use information seen in a mirror but do not show evidence of self-recognition. In an experiment, 7 of the 8 pigs tested were able to find a bowl of food hidden behind a wall using a mirror. The eighth pig looked behind the mirror for the food."

[The Grand Nudger]

No they won't. How could they act with reference to their thoughts and actions if they are not aware of them?

Wouldn't that be more an instinct than a thought (if they were having some activity in their heads they were unaware of)?

That depends. I'm not certain if the wolf makes its decisions after considering its own motivations and thoughts or if the behavior is innate or ingrained. If its the former, then the wolf is more competent, if latter, I am.

Many predators success rates are very much dependent on their ability to determine when it is time to chase and when it is not, or when to ignore their hunger (in some cases literally starving) to avoid blowing an ambush, or to single out a better target. This again seems to be an issue of creating criteria that favor human beings and then declaring us the winner. We have absolutely no idea how "rich" the inner lives of animals is, (because of barriers to communication), but anytime their actions would seem to imply something that we would recognize as thought it is immediately dismissed as innate, or ingrained. Well, I'm going to start dismissing all human thought or the effects or actions taken as a consequence of those thoughts as innate, and ingrained.

By not acting according to biological impulses or learned behavior.

The wolf above then, not acting on it's impulses (when it is starving and yet forgoes the chase)? Problem solving cephalopods that open jars or escape their containment despite being in a completely alien environment interacting with completely alien objects? Don't biological impulses and learned behaviors cover a pretty wide range of the human experience as well?

If that was true, then we'd never gain any new knowledge. Our knowledge is not given to us by our biological make-up and all conditioning is repetition according to per-existing knowledge. For new knowledge to develop, there needs to be capacity for thought independent of either.

Our biology allows for curiosity, reason, and memory, our conditioning compels us to leverage them (except when it doesn't). How exactly, would this not allow for new information to be developed? I'm perfectly willing to concede that we are superior to other animals in this regard. That's the niche we've devolped to fill. Do we have a capacity for thought that is independent of our biology? How have you determined this?

If a qualifier is "self awareness" then maybe we should take a dispassionate view of self awareness and propose that it may not express itself in other species in the same way that it expresses itself in us (anthropic bias). For example, is some level of "self awareness" required for social interaction and communication? I would say so. Again, if we're talking about levels of this or that, then we're talking about levels of "free will."

"Yes, animals have free will(insert whatever you like here in place of free will with regards to mental capacity), but not as much free will as us, based upon metrics that are favorable to us".
or
"No, animals do not have free will(again, substitute whatever you like), based on metrics that are favorable to us".

As I've said, it may be that these are valid metrics, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the strong possibility that we're playing fast and loose with the rules of the game we've created.

[genkaus]

Wouldn't that be more an instinct than a thought (if they were having some activity in their heads they were unaware of)?

Not necessarily. Humans too have a lot of activity in their brain that they are unaware of. Usually, we refer to them as conditioning or subconscious thought.

Many predators success rates are very much dependent on their ability to determine when it is time to chase and when it is not, or when to ignore their hunger (in some cases literally starving) to avoid blowing an ambush, or to single out a better target. This again seems to be an issue of creating criteria that favor human beings and then declaring us the winner. We have absolutely no idea how "rich" the inner lives of animals is, (because of barriers to communication), but anytime their actions would seem to imply something that we would recognize as thought it is immediately dismissed as innate, or ingrained. Well, I'm going to start dismissing all human thought or the effects or actions taken as a consequence of those thoughts as innate, and ingrained.

You do realize that I accept that some animals do have free-will?

I wouldn't dismiss all animal behavior as instinctual or learned. And yes, communication is a barrier. But your point is well-taken. We have no idea about an animal's inner life, whether it is rich or not. The scientific knowledge is simply not there yet.

The wolf above then, not acting on it's impulses (when it is starving and yet forgoes the chase)? Problem solving cephalopods that open jars or escape their containment despite being in a completely alien environment interacting with completely alien objects? Don't biological impulses and learned behaviors cover a pretty wide range of the human experience as well?

In the case of the wolf, I'm withholding judgement based upon lack of knowledge. Its actions may not be instinctual, but they may still be conditioned.

In case of cephalopods, I had not considered them before. But based on the evidence I have found, I've decided to include them in the list of animals who can be considered to have free-will.

And in case of humans - pretty wide range - yes. The complete range - no. It is that gap in which free-will can exist.

Our biology allows for curiosity, reason, and memory, our conditioning compels us to leverage them (except when it doesn't). How exactly, would this not allow for new information to be developed? I'm perfectly willing to concede that we are superior to other animals in this regard. That's the niche we've devolped to fill. Do we have a capacity for thought that is independent of our biology? How have you determined this?

Biology allows for curiosity, reason and memory but does not compel it. And conditioning does not always compel us. The both together are not causally sufficient.

If a qualifier is "self awareness" then maybe we should take a dispassionate view of self awareness and propose that it may not express itself in other species in the same way that it expresses itself in us (anthropic bias).

I do.

For example, is some level of "self awareness" required for social interaction and communication? I would say so. Again, if we're talking about levels of this or that, then we're talking about levels of "free will."

I wouldn't. A great amount of social interaction in the animal kingdom is purely instinctual, without any need for self-awareness.

"Yes, animals have free will(insert whatever you like here in place of free will with regards to mental capacity), but not as much free will as us, based upon metrics that are favorable to us".
or
"No, animals do not have free will(again, substitute whatever you like), based on metrics that are favorable to us".

As I've said, it may be that these are valid metrics, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the strong possibility that we're playing fast and loose with the rules of the game we've created.

That is so not what I said. What I said is

"Yes, all animals have consciousness, but not at the same advanced level as us. However, only a particular level is required for free-will and all animals above that level would have free-will. Whether is "as much" free will as us, I have no idea, since I don't know how to measure free will".

[The Grand Nudger]

Fair enough. We're still flirting with anthropic bias, but it's very difficult to avoid. I suppose I could pick at the causally sufficient statement..but I'm afraid we'd veer into unfriendly territory....If our biology (our brain) and our conditioning (our experiences) are not sufficient....just what, exactly...are you proposing?

[genkaus]

Fair enough. We're still flirting with anthropic bias, but it's very difficult to avoid. I suppose I could pick at the causally sufficient statement..but I'm afraid we'd veer into unfriendly territory....If our biology (our brain) and our conditioning (our experiences) are not sufficient....just what, exactly...are you proposing?

I don't equate our brain with biology, nor do I equate conditioning with experiences. I mean I agree that a lot of thoughts originate automatically due to basic biological structure of the brain, but our consciousness can be considered as a curious mechanism within the brain itself by which it can alter or attach weight to these automatic impulses. Similarly, while conditioning is programmed behavior simply connecting a particular cause to an effect, we can actually analyze and desiccate the experience and pick and choose what we retain from it. Which is why I've been insisting that for this to be possible (and I believe that free-will is a name given to this particular mechanism of the brain), before we analyze our experiences or attach weight to our actions, we must be aware of them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can be considered or can be demonstrated to be? I'm partial to the latter.

[genkaus]

Can be considered or can be demonstrated to be? I'm partial to the latter.

We don't have the latter right now.So we just have to go with the best guess.