Do animals have free Will?

[Rokcet Scientist]

[genkaus]

[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.