[Dr Van Nostrand]

If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.

As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.

The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.

Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?

Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.

In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice. There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people. The problem is that I've met some people who were only dimly aware of their own existence and I've met some animals that seem very aware of themselves.

It makes sense. I'll enjoy the company of a smart animal over a dumb person any day (assuming the animal isn't a large predator thinking about lunch.)

Do you think that people had free will when they were stardust, or that they have free will now and have the ability to give it up?

Personally, I'm starting to think that all our decisions (including the decision to abandon freewill) were made back in our stardust days. However, those arguing against free will will say it was not actual decisions we made in stardust times but simply the way the molecules stacked up before the big bang. Whether you are a doctor or murderer is said to be the sum of the influences during your life and all the preexisting conditions before your life.

I want to believe in free will. There were times I made the conscious choice not to be an asshole and I think my life is better for it. I want some credit for not being an asshole (not a total asshole anyway.)

[Imheretoo]

If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.

As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.

The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.

Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?

Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.

In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice. There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people. The problem is that I've met some people who were only dimly aware of their own existence and I've met some animals that seem very aware of themselves.

It makes sense. I'll enjoy the company of a smart animal over a dumb person any day (assuming the animal isn't a large predator thinking about lunch.)

Do you think that people had free will when they were stardust, or that they have free will now and have the ability to give it up?

Personally, I'm starting to think that all our decisions (including the decision to abandon freewill) were made back in our stardust days. However, those arguing against free will will say it was not actual decisions we made in stardust times but simply the way the molecules stacked up before the big bang. Whether you are a doctor or murderer is said to be the sum of the influences during your life and all the preexisting conditions before your life.

I want to believe in free will. There were times I made the conscious choice not to be an asshole and I think my life is better for it. I want some credit for not being an asshole (not a total asshole anyway.)

So would you say that we did make actual decisions as stardust? If so, why? And if not, then why call it free will.

[Dr David Thork]

A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.

You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.

No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.

In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice.

This is a narrative you are ascribing to the animal.  For all you know, it could be having purely a physiological reaction to a hormone.

Animals make choices all the time. There was a gorilla once, that could do sign language. It loved tomatoes and was allowed one every day. But only one. It had its daily tomato, and when the keepers swapped shifts she asked "have you had your tomato today?". And that sneaky motherfucking gorilla replied "no". It knew it was allowed one tomato. It made the choice to lie about that to get a second tomato. Animals make all kinds of choices. Sometimes to share things, sometimes to be selfish, sometimes to just to play. Whatever their mood ... they choose. You can't make a racehorse jump a fence. It weighs 5 times what you do. It can stop and just throw you off and sometimes they do. But mostly they enjoy racing and they choose to do it.

There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people.

Many animals likely are.  There is little reason to think that we sit in some preferential tier of the consciousness hierarchy.

So animals do have a sense of freewill. You just contradicted yourself.

I want some credit for not being an asshole

[Rushy]

Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?

Free will is having a non-zero influence on your own actions.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.

We can literally destroy peoples agency by destroying a part of their brain.  Our subjective perception of free will often does not match up with what is objectively happening in our brain.

Yes, we can reduce someone to a vegetable that has no free will. They may be dreaming that they are free and partying under their own free will but we see them laying there. Relative to us they have no free will.

In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice.

This is a narrative you are ascribing to the animal.  For all you know, it could be having purely a physiological reaction to a hormone.

There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people.

Many animals likely are.  There is little reason to think that we sit in some preferential tier of the consciousness hierarchy.

I think consciousness is relative and can vary among individuals. I think generally we have a higher level of consciousness than animals but on an individual level not so sure sometimes...

[Imheretoo]

Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?

Free will is having a non-zero influence on your own actions.

So do you believe that you can exert control over the thoughts that shape your actions?

[Imheretoo]

Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.

We can literally destroy peoples agency by destroying a part of their brain.  Our subjective perception of free will often does not match up with what is objectively happening in our brain.

Yes, we can reduce someone to a vegetable that has no free will. They may be dreaming that they are free and partying under their own free will but we see them laying there. Relative to us they have no free will.

In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice.

This is a narrative you are ascribing to the animal.  For all you know, it could be having purely a physiological reaction to a hormone.

There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people.

Many animals likely are.  There is little reason to think that we sit in some preferential tier of the consciousness hierarchy.

I think consciousness is relative and can vary among individuals. I think generally we have a higher level of consciousness than animals but on an individual level not so sure sometimes...

Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?

[Imheretoo]

A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.

You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.

No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.


I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?

I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious  or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.

Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .

[Dr David Thork]

A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.

You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.

No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.

I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.

That is nonsense. We have domesticated animals because they fit the rules for domestication. If an animal doesn't meet the criteria it won't domesticate well.

1) Fast growth rate. Animals that grow and mature quickly are easier to breed selectively, and are more profitable for farmers.
2) Hardy/flexible. Humans aren't always reliable caretakers, so domestic animals are usually capable of surviving in a wide range of conditions, eating garbage and going without food or water for some time.
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.

Pets have other ones ... able to feel human moods, lick themselves clean, can be house trained etc

I think consciousness is relative and can vary among individuals. I think generally we have a higher level of consciousness than animals but on an individual level not so sure sometimes...

I think you are either conscious or you aren't. I saw Conan the Barbarian knock a horse unconscious. Ergo their usual state must be consciousness. You are conflating the number of emotions a creature can feel vs whether it is sentient or not. An ant might not feel envy. A dog might. But a dog might not feel melancholy. But a human might. ... list of emotions rather than 'states of consciousness'. Conscious is binary. Animals ... conscious. Plant ... not conscious. Conan's horse ... unconscious. 

[Imheretoo]

A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.

You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.

No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.

I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.

That is nonsense. We have domesticated animals because they fit the rules for domestication. If an animal doesn't meet the criteria it won't domesticate well.

1) Fast growth rate. Animals that grow and mature quickly are easier to breed selectively, and are more profitable for farmers.
2) Hardy/flexible. Humans aren't always reliable caretakers, so domestic animals are usually capable of surviving in a wide range of conditions, eating garbage and going without food or water for some time.
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.

Pets have other ones ... able to feel human moods, lick themselves clean, can be house trained etc

You have just listed all of the things that are the predictable behaviors the animals have which wild animals do not. There are probably more too though.

[Imheretoo]

Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?

I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious  or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.

Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .

I can agree that a conscious reality implies a non conscious one, and vice-versa, but you have still not explained what it means to be more or less conscious.

[Rushy]

Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?

Free will is having a non-zero influence on your own actions.

So do you believe that you can exert control over the thoughts that shape your actions?

That depends on what you define as "control".

[Imheretoo]

Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?

Free will is having a non-zero influence on your own actions.

So do you believe that you can exert control over the thoughts that shape your actions?

That depends on what you define as "control".

The power to direct them.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?

I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious  or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.

Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .

I can agree that a conscious reality implies a non conscious one, and vice-versa, but you have still not explained what it means to be more or less conscious.

I think it is the distance between the conscious and the unconscious that make one more or less conscious. A virus particle is just a few molecules from inert matter so it would be a 'low form.' An bacteria is 'farther' from inert molecules so it would be higher. The hierarchy would progress as more complex organisms sustain more complex awareness. It takes a certain level of complexity to sustain full-on free will.

If I can make this theory work, I'm thinking of starting my own religion.

[Dr David Thork]

A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.

You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.

No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.

I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.

That is nonsense. We have domesticated animals because they fit the rules for domestication. If an animal doesn't meet the criteria it won't domesticate well.

1) Fast growth rate. Animals that grow and mature quickly are easier to breed selectively, and are more profitable for farmers.
2) Hardy/flexible. Humans aren't always reliable caretakers, so domestic animals are usually capable of surviving in a wide range of conditions, eating garbage and going without food or water for some time.
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.

Pets have other ones ... able to feel human moods, lick themselves clean, can be house trained etc

You have just listed all of the things that are the predictable behaviors the animals have which wild animals do not. There are probably more too though.

Please learn how to use the quotes.

Yes, birds tend to fly. People tend to walk. I would not expect a migrating swallow to walk from Africa any more than I'd expect you to swim to Europe to go on holiday. Animals aren't stupid. But a cow can choose to sit down or it can choose to stand up, depending on how it feels. It might be stood up, whilst some of the other cows are sat down.

To say only making stupid choices shows free will is silly.
Behold ... stupid horses choosing to do something stupid because they want to.

[Rushy]

The power to direct them.

What I'm getting at here is you seem to think of "control" as a binary. That you are either in control, or that you are not, which is a false interpretation of free will. We have a non-zero influence on our own actions, but us, as a system of cells, can only influence so much. There are plenty of natural processes in the body that occur and we cannot control them. There are also others which push their influence on us as we push it on them. e.g. addiction is a force that will push on you, and, if you do not push back, then it will completely control you.

[Imheretoo]

Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?

I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious  or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.

Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .

I can agree that a conscious reality implies a non conscious one, and vice-versa, but you have still not explained what it means to be more or less conscious.

I think it is the distance between the conscious and the unconscious that make one more or less conscious. A virus particle is just a few molecules from inert matter so it would be a 'low form.' An bacteria is 'farther' from inert molecules so it would be higher. The hierarchy would progress as more complex organisms sustain more complex awareness. It takes a certain level of complexity to sustain full-on free will.

If I can make this theory work, I'm thinking of starting my own religion.

Okay, my issue was understanding how a conscious reality could be more or less filled. If the hierarchy is based on complexity then I need to warn you that complexity as a concept is extremely subjective and one could easily argue that a consciousness may rank higher based on complexity of sensory input, where an eagle or dog would rate higher than us.

[Imheretoo]

A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.

You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.

No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.

I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.

That is nonsense. We have domesticated animals because they fit the rules for domestication. If an animal doesn't meet the criteria it won't domesticate well.

1) Fast growth rate. Animals that grow and mature quickly are easier to breed selectively, and are more profitable for farmers.
2) Hardy/flexible. Humans aren't always reliable caretakers, so domestic animals are usually capable of surviving in a wide range of conditions, eating garbage and going without food or water for some time.
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.

Pets have other ones ... able to feel human moods, lick themselves clean, can be house trained etc

You have just listed all of the things that are the predictable behaviors the animals have which wild animals do not. There are probably more too though.

Please learn how to use the quotes.

Yes, birds tend to fly. People tend to walk. I would not expect a migrating swallow to walk from Africa any more than I'd expect you to swim to Europe to go on holiday. Animals aren't stupid. But a cow can choose to sit down or it can choose to stand up, depending on how it feels. It might be stood up, whilst some of the other cows are sat down.

To say only making stupid choices shows free will is silly.
Behold ... stupid horses choosing to do something stupid because they want to.

In your list you put:

3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.

These are behaviors that domestic animals are more likely to exhibit than wild ones. It would be impossible for us to know this if they were unpredictable. Also, have you ever made a stupid decision on purpose? Probably not, because it would be stupid. Every decision you make is made based on reasoning and the smartest decision you could come up with is made. This fits very nicely into determinism.

[Imheretoo]

The power to direct them.

What I'm getting at here is you seem to think of "control" as a binary. That you are either in control, or that you are not, which is a false interpretation of free will. We have a non-zero influence on our own actions, but us, as a system of cells, can only influence so much. There are plenty of natural processes in the body that occur and we cannot control them. There are also others which push their influence on us as we push it on them. e.g. addiction is a force that will push on you, and, if you do not push back, then it will completely control you.

I don't think that you can say it is a false interpretation of free will based on the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations of free will and they all claim to be correct.
I am getting at the idea that if my actions are determined by decisions made by the thoughts I experience in my head, and I have no control over these thoughts, I therefor have no control over the actions I commit. This is why I don't believe in free will.