15 of 70
15
Do non-human animals have free will?
Posted: 28 November 2012 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 211 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4521
Joined  2007-08-31

“Everything is meaningless” is a meaningful sentence.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 12:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 212 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
GdB - 28 November 2012 12:16 PM

these process

Processes. It’s plural.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 213 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 28 November 2012 12:30 PM
StephenLawrence - 28 November 2012 12:19 PM

But your version of choice is meaningless

Everything is meaningless, Stephen.

smile


The point is we make choices unless you add some weird metaphysics about being able to do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances to the meaning of choice.

What you are saying is choice means libertarian free choice.

But choice is just the word for things like my example, or the process you go through when you look at a menu and then order.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 214 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3071
Joined  2011-11-04
StephenLawrence - 28 November 2012 11:53 AM

Had to do it means could not do otherwise in the (same circumstances)

So, IOW, do you effectively mean ALL behavior that has ever occurred?

StephenLawrence - 28 November 2012 11:53 AM

So if the same circumstances arise in the future he will have to do it again.)

If you count one’s experiential history as part of the “circumstances”, then the same “circumstances” cannot arise again.  The experiential history has changed.

Let’s say you commit a crime today. (You do not have libertarian free will, so you could not do otherwise.) 
Tomorrow turns out to be an identical sort of day, and you find yourself in the exact same situation, as you were yesterday when you committed the crime.

Q: How likely are you to commit the crime again?

A: You are less likely to commit the crime again, if your experiential history, now, includes having been punished after you committed the crime the first day.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 215 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
StephenLawrence - 28 November 2012 12:52 PM
George - 28 November 2012 12:30 PM
StephenLawrence - 28 November 2012 12:19 PM

But your version of choice is meaningless

Everything is meaningless, Stephen.

smile


The point is we make choices unless you add some weird metaphysics about being able to do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances to the meaning of choice.

What you are saying is choice means libertarian free choice.

But choice is just the word for things like my example, or the process you go through when you look at a menu and then order.

Stephen

Of course, I forgot about the “other” choice. The choice Andromeda made to collide with the Milky Way. The other choices on its menu included NGC 2419, Boötes Dwarf, Barnard’s Galaxy and Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte. Whatever, Stephen.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 216 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
TimB - 28 November 2012 12:57 PM

If you count one’s experiential history as part of the “circumstances”, then the same “circumstances” cannot arise again.  The experiential history has changed.

Right. The point is when we talk about the same circumstances we are not talking about exactly the same circumstances. And when we are talking about the circumstances we are not talking about the actual circumstances.

It’s the illusion that we are which is the problem.

It’s this illusion that causes George to say we have no choice and to not understand why we are interested in what else a person could have done.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 217 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6139
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 28 November 2012 01:02 PM

Of course, I forgot about the “other” choice. The choice Andromeda made to collide with the Milky Way. The other choices on its menu included NGC 2419, Boötes Dwarf, Barnard’s Galaxy and Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte. Whatever, Stephen.

It had those options in a broad sense. But whether it collided with those or the Milky Way didn’t depend upon it’s evaluation of the options.

So it didn’t choose.

This dispute is little different to a dispute over whether sport exists for instance. Because some things don’t count as sport, doesn’t mean there are no sports.


Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 218 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
GdB - 23 November 2012 10:14 AM
VYAZMA - 23 November 2012 09:45 AM

This is why I wrote that you are indirectly implying a soul, or magic.
“New Phenomena”

Yes. New phenomena. Not a new substance, with magic capabilities. A heap of iron, coal, and water cannot move itself along a railtrack. A steam locomotive can. What you are saying is that a train is just a heap of iron, coal, and water.

Great, first what does your personal(and Write’s)observation of this “special phenomena” entail? 
This phenomena does transcend causality and determinsm?
This phenomena does NOT transcend causality and determinism?
Or, do you just enjoy having long rambling discussions with no point?
By the way, what’s new about the phenomena?
I said you are implying a soul or special magic!! Your rebuttal consisted of explaining how trains operate. Do you actually have a stance in these threads, or do you just like typing messages to othger people?
My point is clear. All functions and systems of life are causally determined.  Do you disagree with this or not?
This includes the minds eye viewing the reactions of said systems and functions as they happen in real time.(consciousness)

VYAZMA - 23 November 2012 09:45 AM

It can be understood on an atomic level.  Mainly through chemistry.  Here again you are implying a special phenomena.

No, I am pretty sure that we will never be able to understand humans from the atomic level. We need different levels like DNA-transcription (did you ever see an atom producing other atoms?), neural circuits (ever seen an atom send messages to other atoms?), evaluation of future actions (ever seen an atom thinking what to do next?) to understand humans. On every level new categories arise, that did not exist on the lower levels. The scientific view on this is that we know for every level, that it can be translated to the level below. I assume that is what you mean, but you have not thought deep enough to see it. Yes, nature is conglomerate of moving particles, partially bound into bigger structures that can be quite complex (ever seen the stable spiral arms of atoms that galaxies can have?). So there is a perfect natural translation from one level to the next. But it is impossible to understand the highest levels from the atomic level. That is just plain silly, VYAZMA.

The only thing silly is your obfusgation.  By atomic level, I meant that all biological processes are determined by molecular chemistry and electro-chemical responses. We already understand humans fairly well on the atomic level actually GdB. So your refuting that is kind of moot. I think you should examine the syntax and grammar as well as the context of a statement like yours above: “We need different levels like DNA-transcription, neural circuits, evaluation of future actions to understand humans.”
Your showing your hand here. What do you think they will find?  Something that causes us to act freely against determined causality? What would cause that?
DNA transcription…been around for thousands of years!(animal husbandry and agriculture. Yes now it’s done with an electron microscope…so what?) Neural circuits…..just that! Circuitry!
Evaluation of the future?  Your stuck on broken record mode. You’re starting to remind me of Psikeyhackr. We’ve gone over consciousness and it’s relation to the future.  Keep up please.

VYAZMA - 23 November 2012 09:45 AM

WTF.  You tell me I don’t read, then I have to come back and dig up quotes you either forgot about, or didn’t understand when you yourself wrote them.

You don’t want them to understand.

I’m up to date on everything here. I’m fast. My statements are solidified and you can easliy address them and refute them. Go ahead, pick a statement or a position I have taken and refute it.
Your statements are unclear, ambigiuos, shifty, and waveringly off-topic.
By atomic level, I meant that all biological processes are determined by molecular chemistry and electro-chemical responses—This is an example of a statement I made just above. Clear, concise, and it had an extension.  I’ll include that right here:
This includes the minds eye viewing the reactions of said systems and functions as they happen in real time.(consciousness)There you go. Simple, direct and ready for you to disagree with. Can you stick with that? Try that out for a minute.

VYAZMA - 23 November 2012 09:45 AM

Just because we don’t fully understand the chemistry or the mechanics of evolution fully doesn’t mean it isn’t determined.

Why are you saying this again and again? Didn’t you read that I said again and again that we are determined? Of course we are determined, because we are on the lowest level. But that does not mean I cannot act according to my wishes and beliefs! It is just that my wishes and beliefs are determined themselves. Some people might refuse to call that ‘free will’. I prefer to keep it in, because people might conclude from this that we then are not responsible for our actions at all.

Obviously I had to. You mentioned special phenomena above in the last post.  Your observation of yourself acting makes you think you have wishes and beliefs. Your memory also makes you think you have wishes and beliefs.
I thought you were the one who didn’t wish to judge people?  Then why is it so important for you to assign blame and responsibility?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 219 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
George - 28 November 2012 01:02 PM

Of course, I forgot about the “other” choice. The choice Andromeda made to collide with the Milky Way. The other choices on its menu included NGC 2419, Boötes Dwarf, Barnard’s Galaxy and Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte. Whatever, Stephen.

“making a selection based on values” is a perfectly good definition of “choice”. A very simple computer program can do it, but a galaxy (so far) can’t.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 220 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Lois - 28 November 2012 11:26 AM
GdB - 28 November 2012 03:33 AM
isaac - 28 November 2012 03:01 AM
GdB - 27 November 2012 11:22 PM

If you suppose that ‘we’ exist, you get free will for free.

huh?

‘we’ are many ‘selves’. If there is a self there is free will (or coercion of course).

Do non human animals have selves? Are they conscious? Do they have free will?

.....

Yes many animals are conscious. Maybe all of them are. Maybe plants even have consciousness, who knows.
But No. None of these sentient beings have free-will.  That includes us humans as well.
It gets confusing here, because many people here are obsessive-compulsive about discussions concerning morality and judgement and responsibilty and freedom.
You don’t need to include any of these items in a direct, conclusive discussion about free-will.
I’d be happy to dispel any notions you may have about yourself or others having free-will.
It’s already written by several members in the posts above and the other threads above. It should take just a few pages to easily and concisely explain this. But alas, as I mentioned, the relevant parts get buried in mountains of irrelevant material.
The little snippets above in quotes are a perfect example.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 221 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3071
Joined  2011-11-04

Just for a moment, setting the compatibilist version of free will aside, do we all (George, Stephen, Vyazma, GdB, Lois, Isaac) agree on the following?:

1) no one has libertarian free will
2) it seems unfair to assign blame or responsibility, because no one has libertarian free will
3) it is necessary within a functioning society for attributions of blame or responsibility to be assigned

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 222 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
TimB - 28 November 2012 01:39 PM

Just for a moment, setting the compatibilist version of free will aside, do we all (George, Stephen, Vyazma, GdB, Lois, Isaac) agree on the following?:

1) no one has libertarian free will
2) it seems unfair to assign blame or responsibility, because no one has libertarian free will
3) it is necessary within a functioning society for attributions of blame or responsibility to be assigned

I applaud your attempt here TimB. I will answer directly.
1-yes, no one has free-will.
2-see number 3.  I don’t think it seems unfair, unless someone is obviously, objectively being blamed or rewarded unfairly.
3-yes it is necessary. And evolution has propagated these attributes of our minds for the continuation(or evolution) of our species.

[ Edited: 28 November 2012 01:52 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 223 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
isaac - 28 November 2012 01:15 PM
George - 28 November 2012 01:02 PM

Of course, I forgot about the “other” choice. The choice Andromeda made to collide with the Milky Way. The other choices on its menu included NGC 2419, Boötes Dwarf, Barnard’s Galaxy and Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte. Whatever, Stephen.

“making a selection based on values” is a perfectly good definition of “choice”. A very simple computer program can do it, but a galaxy (so far) can’t.

I don’t know, but it seems to me that a knight in a computer game of chess will never decide to jump all the way across the board, just like Andromeda will never decide to stop in order to prevent a collision with us. If you could see all the little zeros and ones inside the computer, they would look just like the big stars and planets of Andromeda moving wherever they have been determined. No choice.

Plus, the computer doesn’t have wishes, so how can its decisions be anything but “libertarian decisions?”  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 224 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3071
Joined  2011-11-04

Vyazma, thank you for your direct reply.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2012 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 225 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
TimB - 28 November 2012 01:39 PM

Just for a moment, setting the compatibilist version of free will aside, do we all (George, Stephen, Vyazma, GdB, Lois, Isaac) agree on the following?:

1) no one has libertarian free will
2) it seems unfair to assign blame or responsibility, because no one has libertarian free will
3) it is necessary within a functioning society for attributions of blame or responsibility to be assigned

1. Agree
2. I don’t know what “unfair” has got to do with any of this. Shit happens, be it “fair” or “unfair.”
3. Again, “necessary” plays no real role in our deterministic universe. This word only belongs in our just-so story. Sometimes shit happens and some animals blame others, like us for example, and at other times shit doesn’t happen and animals don’t blame others, like the platypus for example.

You might as well replace “unfair” and “necessary” with “should.” Should Andromeda collide with our galaxy?

Profile
 
 
   
15 of 70
15
 
‹‹ Destiny..?      Babies are bigots ››