I’m not in the mood for picayune word games. Sentience is one of the criteria for free will to exist.
That is sounding a little circular. What is an ‘action’? An action is something that is caused by a Free Will Choice. WHat is Free Will- something in a sentient being that causes and action.
Where did this definition come from?
It is not a word game. If sentience has meaning, we need to be able to supply empirical criteria and then decide who/what has this ‘sentience’. Then we need to decide whether having sentience is enough to explain free will or is merely necessary for free will to exist.
I would say that sentience falls somewhat lower in the thesaurus than consciousness or self consciousness. I would also argue that although it is probably necessary to have ‘sentience’ to exhibit free will, that is not enough- I think that in all probability many mid level animals have sentience but have highly prescribed rote behaviors which are as mechanical as any automaton.
Based on what we can observe and understand, no, they are not.
Who here said it was?
Human ‘action’ is thought to require Agency, Agency requires Free Will.
I am struggling to understand what these constructs mean and how they relate to each other.
I do not believe in them as real objects in the world, so this is difficult for me.
However, I would expect people who freely use the concepts of action, agency, and Free Will as if they were objects in the real world, to be able to define them in a non-tautological manner!
You did:
I asked:
"Please supply criteria for when Free Will enters the world:
Rocks
Plants
Bacteria
Reptiles
Mammals
Apes
Chimpanzees
Early hominids
Pre-classical Homo sapiens sapiens"
You replied:
“sentience”
What differentiates the Ant Hill from the Minnesota bridge?
Sorry, I had to do something in real life. I meant to say “sentience, to begin with.” It is rather obvious that sentience couldn’t be the only criteria.
Action, specifically human action - willful body movements.
Agency - the capacity to act, and to make the choice to act.
Free will - the freedom to act according to one’s determined motives.
Agency and free will are closely related, though not synonymous. Agency doesn’t require free will, just that humans make and enact choices in the world by some means. Free will is just one possible explanation.
There seems to be a reluctance to addressing the very important issues of when phylogentically and ontogenetically this ‘Free Will’ becomes part of an organism.
What further criteria would be necessary and/or sufficient for Free Will to be an object in the world?
I quite agree. Agency is something that is possessed by complex organisms where input/output is increasingly difficult to explain in simpler terms. I certainly include most humans, many animals and even certain features of plants and inanimate objects in the class of objects that are agents.
Free will however is another matter.
Agency is compatible with Laws of Science as we understand them, Free Will may well not be so compatible.
Ants appear to be hard-wired to make ant hills, and will attempt to do so as soon as they are physically capable. The mounds they make will be of the same form (varying only by species), whether or not any ant in the colony has ever seen a hill.
Humans, by contrast, while they are hard-wired with some instincts, bridge-building isn’t among them. Isolate groups of humans, and confront them with rivers, and you’ll be confronted by dissimilar bridge designs. Over time, a society might settle upon a highly effective design, but isolate their next generation, and you’ll see them have to start the process over.
I am quite happy with the concept that humans are determined by nature to be complex problem solvers of a type previously unknown in the universe. I do not see that Free Will is necessary for this to occur.
That’s very “soft” determinism, though. If we are determined to be complex problem solvers, what determines the individual choices that make up the process of solving a problem?
How is it ‘soft’ determinism. Soft determinism is another way of saying compatibilism. Compatibilism requires the acceptance of Free Will along with scientific causation. I deny Free Will. I believe that we are complex agents, capable of wondrous tasks, but that such tasks do not require any alteration to the determinism of the real world. Our awareness makes us posit (hallucinate) many non-material objects as causes- gods, demons, spirits, drives, urges, emotions- all of these describe human experience rather than any real causation- they are descriptors not causers.
No, that is not soft determinism!
Positing that we have a determined nature, or inclinations, or attributes, as a species, is very different from saying that every choice made by every individual human is determined. The former is just rejecting (rightly) tabula rasa.
So, I ask again: what determines the individual choices that make up the process of solving a problem? Why might I reach for a Friedman book instead of a Niebuhr one for reading materal on my lunch break?
It is more than positing that we have a determined nature. I am suggesting that unless we can come up with a convincing explanation for why human behavior is outside the laws of physics (which elsewhere we accept as either determined or random with no call on spirits, or ghosts or other ethereal non-physical causes, why does a Human (a result of descent from animals, descended from plants, descended from single celled organisms) suddenly require something non physical to explain the behavior?
What is this ‘free will’? How does it subvert the laws of nature? When and where does it have its traction?