do dogs have free will?

[dusken]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs I fail to see how selfishness contradicts free will.

If the choices you make are always with the same motivation then the idea of free will is non-existent.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs I fail to see how selfishness contradicts free will.

If a person cannot choose to behave altruistically, but must always act out of self-interest, whether or not he is aware of it, then he is not free.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken Central nervous system? Am I missing something? Last I checked, birds have brains and spinal chords.

Euglena is a freshwater protist. Anabaena is a cyanobacterium. They possess neither brains nor spinal cords.

[sSsflamesSs]

I guess we are organic machines after all, huh?

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname Euglena is a freshwater protist. Anabaena is a cyanobacterium. They possess neither brains nor spinal cords.

Yes, I know, but you are using that as a proof that her birds do not have free will. I am not saying they do or not but microorganisms are not a tool for comparison here.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken Yes, I know, but you are using that as a proof that her birds do not have free will. I am not saying they do or not but microorganisms are not a tool for comparison here.

You guys are missing the point. I'm not trying to compare the two. I'm using the example to illustrate the fact that just because two things behave differently, they are not necessarily free. Intelligent or not, it just makes them different. It takes more to qualify as free.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs I guess we are organic machines after all, huh?

No one has come to that conclusion. Well, I won't speak for dusken, but I certainly haven't. Now do you want to actually discuss this, or are you just going to dismiss what is said because it contradicts your preconceived worldview?

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname You guys are missing the point. I'm not trying to compare the two. I'm using the example to illustrate the fact that just because two things behave differently, they are not necessarily free. Intelligent or not, it just makes them different. It takes more to qualify as free.

In that case, making comparisons among species is wrong as well.

Plus she did not assert that it was freewill when mentioning her birds.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken In that case, making comparisons among species is wrong as well.

Do you mean to say among members of the same species? Yes, different approaches to solving similar problems does not by itself prove freedom, but it is a necessary qualification, for if any creature behaves in a fully predictable way that is very obviously nothing more than instinctual, then free will can be dismissed in that creature right off the bat. That way, we can determine which species are even candidates to be considered for free will.

Plus she did not assert that it was freewill when mentioning her birds.

I know.

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname Do you mean to say among members of the same species?

Actually I meant an interspecies comparison, not an intraspecies comparison.