Does free will exist?

[Cavebear]

Whoa buddy!...  Are you talking about personal free will as a human determinate or religious free will as in "god controls all"?  Because if that is where you are going (or coming from) that is not what I thought we were discussing.

And I'll offer reasons for my concern...

You suddenly mentioned "a common Christian perspective".   And "spirit or soul".  And "can't be governed by any laws of science".  That made things kind of obvious.  

I'm sorry, I've just got some other things on my mind and I was a bit stressed, so that post was a bit more abrupt than it needed to be.

What I was basically trying to say was to the extent you're talking about self-awareness in animals and what that implies about their conscious states - which you call free will, but I would at best call the 'the experience of free will' - is maybe interesting in its own right, and something I might want to talk about in another time and another conversation, but it's not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about free will, and not what I came into this thread hoping to discuss.

What I mean by free will, is well, free... will, that is will that is undetermined by any causal process. Such as the type of free will that many Christians seem to propose, where consciousness, or at least the will in consciousness, is considered above and beyond the physical world; a magical spiritual entity... a spirit or soul... that makes decisions independently of the physical world. I don't believe in any such concept as a soul or spirit, and consider all conscious choice to be deterministic, ie a mechanistic process governed by scientific laws of one kind or another, whether emergentism turns out to be true or not (as was my realisation in the last post).

I mean it's pretty clear from what you've said here that that's not what you mean by free will, but basically what I was saying was that what you do seem to mean by it, ie just conscious decision making, is to me just psychology or consciousness, but not a discussion about free will as I understand it, or entered this thread looking to discuss.

And I apologize slightly myself. Philosophical discussions are not my forte. Facts involving such discussions are hard to get at sometimes.

If I understand you correctly, free will "can only exist internally without outside cause"? I have some difficulties with that, as it seems to disallow the mere possibilty of free will. Struggle with the idea as I may, I simply cannot image an existence without some degree of self-choice. It would make me a robot responding to the universe from the non-thoughtful world of quarks and energy.

Considering the thought further, a collection of quarks wrote this and I had no choice in the matter? Why would I bother to live?

[Dom]

I don't call that free will. At all. It's just a difference in evolutionary necessity.

Could you allow that "free will" is an "evolutionary necessity" for humans to be "humans"?  I sometimes think that is what differentiates us from our fellow animals.  What else separates us from all the other mammals?  And it may just be a slight matter of degree.  What if dolphins had hands?  What if chimps were bipedal?  While there are differences among our species, it might be less than some people think.  Just a few MYA, we were just bipedal apes and food for lions like all other mammals...

That's what separates us, hands, fingers, limbs, wings, ways of surviving. Processing the environment is bound to be different among all species, we are no different from that. We do what suits our survival, they do what suits theirs. We cannot perceive what they can and vice versa. 

I don't see us better than any other animal, other than being superior killers.

[Cavebear]

Could you allow that "free will" is an "evolutionary necessity" for humans to be "humans"?  I sometimes think that is what differentiates us from our fellow animals.  What else separates us from all the other mammals?  And it may just be a slight matter of degree.  What if dolphins had hands?  What if chimps were bipedal?  While there are differences among our species, it might be less than some people think.  Just a few MYA, we were just bipedal apes and food for lions like all other mammals...

That's what separates us, hands, fingers, limbs, wings, ways of surviving. Processing the environment is bound to be different among all species, we are no different from that. We do what suits our survival, they do what suits theirs. We cannot perceive what they can and vice versa. 

I don't see us better than any other animal, other than being superior killers.

Well it was a long hard way up the food pyramid... But I haven't seen a chimp or dolphin yet that could deliberately sketch a right triangle much less understand A square + B square = C square. If god didn't tell us that or our bodily microbes didn't, how did we, without free will?

[emjay]

I'm sorry, I've just got some other things on my mind and I was a bit stressed, so that post was a bit more abrupt than it needed to be.

What I was basically trying to say was to the extent you're talking about self-awareness in animals and what that implies about their conscious states - which you call free will, but I would at best call the 'the experience of free will' - is maybe interesting in its own right, and something I might want to talk about in another time and another conversation, but it's not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about free will, and not what I came into this thread hoping to discuss.

What I mean by free will, is well, free... will, that is will that is undetermined by any causal process. Such as the type of free will that many Christians seem to propose, where consciousness, or at least the will in consciousness, is considered above and beyond the physical world; a magical spiritual entity... a spirit or soul... that makes decisions independently of the physical world. I don't believe in any such concept as a soul or spirit, and consider all conscious choice to be deterministic, ie a mechanistic process governed by scientific laws of one kind or another, whether emergentism turns out to be true or not (as was my realisation in the last post).

I mean it's pretty clear from what you've said here that that's not what you mean by free will, but basically what I was saying was that what you do seem to mean by it, ie just conscious decision making, is to me just psychology or consciousness, but not a discussion about free will as I understand it, or entered this thread looking to discuss.

And I apologize slightly myself.  Philosophical discussions are not my forte.  Facts involving such discussions are hard to get at sometimes.  

If I understand you correctly, free will "can only exist internally without outside cause"?   I have some difficulties with that, as it seems to disallow the mere possibilty of free will.  Struggle with the idea as I may, I simply cannot image an existence without some degree of self-choice.  It would make me a robot responding to the universe from the non-thoughtful world of quarks and energy.

Considering the thought further, a collection of quarks wrote this and I had no choice in the matter?  Why would I bother to live?

Well basically from my POV, I indeed don't believe free will is possible, unless you believe in some sort of spirit or soul. I don't but you may, but basically I can't see any other way you could propose an 'undetermined will'.

As for why to bother to live? Because this is about the grand scheme of things; ie from our conscious perspective we have the experience of free will, we deliberate, we reason etc... and it's all accompanied by this feeling of free will. If that process is ultimately determined, doesn't really take away from how it's experienced. And indeed you may find it a depressing thought, but I personally find it quite comforting philosophically; no matter what happens I can always say to myself (barring quantum randomness) 'it could have been no other way'. So like you said before, I do believe that this whole conversation we're having, right down to the buttons I'm pressing etc, is fully determined, so could have been no other way, but it's not depressing, it's often comforting, and in any case not something I dwell on.

[Cavebear]

And I apologize slightly myself.  Philosophical discussions are not my forte.  Facts involving such discussions are hard to get at sometimes.  

If I understand you correctly, free will "can only exist internally without outside cause"?   I have some difficulties with that, as it seems to disallow the mere possibilty of free will.  Struggle with the idea as I may, I simply cannot image an existence without some degree of self-choice.  It would make me a robot responding to the universe from the non-thoughtful world of quarks and energy.

Considering the thought further, a collection of quarks wrote this and I had no choice in the matter?  Why would I bother to live?

Well basically from my POV, I indeed don't believe free will is possible, unless you believe in some sort of spirit or soul. I don't but you may, but basically I can't see any other way you could propose an 'undetermined will'.

As for why to bother to live? Because this is about the grand scheme of things; ie from our conscious perspective we have the experience of free will, we deliberate, we reason etc... and it's all accompanied by this feeling of free will. If that process is ultimately determined, doesn't really take away from how it's experienced. And indeed you may find it a depressing thought, but I personally find it quite comforting philosophically; no matter what happens I can always say to myself (barring quantum randomness) 'it could have been no other way'. So like you said before, I do believe that this whole conversation we're having, right down to the buttons I'm pressing etc, is fully determined, so could have been no other way, but it's not depressing, it's often comforting, and in any case not something I dwell on.

Me "spirit or soul"? You should read more posts...

[Dom]

Well basically from my POV, I indeed don't believe free will is possible, unless you believe in some sort of spirit or soul. I don't but you may, but basically I can't see any other way you could propose an 'undetermined will'.

As for why to bother to live? Because this is about the grand scheme of things; ie from our conscious perspective we have the experience of free will, we deliberate, we reason etc... and it's all accompanied by this feeling of free will. If that process is ultimately determined, doesn't really take away from how it's experienced. And indeed you may find it a depressing thought, but I personally find it quite comforting philosophically; no matter what happens I can always say to myself (barring quantum randomness) 'it could have been no other way'. So like you said before, I do believe that this whole conversation we're having, right down to the buttons I'm pressing etc, is fully determined, so could have been no other way, but it's not depressing, it's often comforting, and in any case not something I dwell on.

Me "spirit or soul"?  You should read more posts...  

Doesn't really matter how one calls it, it all refers to a conscious part to the computer that is your brain. Psychology calls it super ego for example. It's all talking about the same thing - something that can over-ride the computer that is your brain's decisions. I don't really care how the different schools of thought call it. Spirit isn't as bad as soul, since the soul describes a fairy tale thing that can leave a body, taking the content of the brain with it.  That's just totally nuts.

[Cavebear]

Me "spirit or soul"?  You should read more posts...  

Doesn't really matter how one calls it, it all refers to a conscious part to the computer that is your brain. Psychology calls it super ego for example. It's all talking about the same thing - something that can over-ride the computer that is your brain's decisions. I don't really care how the different schools of thought call it. Spirit isn't as bad as soul, since the soul describes a fairy tale thing that can leave a body, taking the content of the brain with it.  That's just totally nuts.

Botched a Max Headroom image. Sorry...

[Rhythmcs]

We have some ability fundamentally different from a cat?  Is this free will simply mislabeled ape will?

I had to think about that.  I always hate it when news people say "great question" (in the obvious).  But that is a a great question...

I'm an ape of the apex type.  I think and ask questions.  I assume free will.

My cats do not see the world as I do.  There are surely ways they see the world differently.  They aren't stupid.  But they see the world the way they need to.  Cats are perfect at being cats.  For their evolutionary success, they see it in terms of food and shelter, mostly.  It is what they do and they are are very talented at that.  But what they do not have much of is "free will".  

They can't, for example, not grab a bird that hits the glass door to make a decision of luring more.  They have no concept of "tommorow".  They can't recognize themselves or others in a mirror.  Their decisions are mostly instinctual,  It got them to a high place on the food chain (considering the Big Cats) and they stay with what got them there,

I, an apex ape, can consider questions my cats can't.  And I can consider issues my cats can't.  When to feed them is one way.  Now or 30 minutes later.  Well, they just ate.  They would eat more but that is not good too soon,  I decide after some thought.  If they have out running in the back yard, "sooner"  is OK.  If they have just sitting in sunpuddles, not so soon.

I, the ape. "The Big Thing", make those decisions.  And I call that "free will".

Well it was a long hard way up the food pyramid...  But I haven't seen a chimp or dolphin yet that could deliberately sketch a right triangle much less understand A square + B square = C square.  If god didn't tell us that or our bodily microbes didn't, how did we, without free will?

A similar question to the last - is this free will a mislabeling of being good at communicating math to each other?  I think, ultimately, that no one doubts that we make selections, or that we have our own little niches like any other animal might - but it's hard to feel like this addresses the point of contention.  Cats are sentient.  They don't work like light switches anymore than we do.  They do seem to make selections, they do seem to have preferences, they do seem to be good at judging relative velocity and distance and vector.  They can, certainly, employ self control - and they plan..so...whether or not they understand tomorrow is more an issue of horizon than of an ability different in kind, no? They have a superior body model and greater body control than we do. How do they do all of this without free will, if this is what free will is, fundamentally?

Considering the thought further, a collection of quarks wrote this and I had no choice in the matter? Why would I bother to live?

I think a fully committed determinist can grant you some form of existential nihilism. It' becomes another potential demonstration of our lack of true volition. That we can understand such thoughts, genuinely believe that we have no particular reason to live, be right about that on it's own grounds.... and still feel powerfully compelled by life. In essence, asking "yes, so then why do we bother?"

[Cavebear]

I had to think about that.  I always hate it when news people say "great question" (in the obvious).  But that is a a great question...

I'm an ape of the apex type.  I think and ask questions.  I assume free will.

My cats do not see the world as I do.  There are surely ways they see the world differently.  They aren't stupid.  But they see the world the way they need to.  Cats are perfect at being cats.  For their evolutionary success, they see it in terms of food and shelter, mostly.  It is what they do and they are are very talented at that.  But what they do not have much of is "free will".  

They can't, for example, not grab a bird that hits the glass door to make a decision of luring more.  They have no concept of "tommorow".  They can't recognize themselves or others in a mirror.  Their decisions are mostly instinctual,  It got them to a high place on the food chain (considering the Big Cats) and they stay with what got them there,

I, an apex ape, can consider questions my cats can't.  And I can consider issues my cats can't.  When to feed them is one way.  Now or 30 minutes later.  Well, they just ate.  They would eat more but that is not good too soon,  I decide after some thought.  If they have out running in the back yard, "sooner"  is OK.  If they have just sitting in sunpuddles, not so soon.

I, the ape. "The Big Thing", make those decisions.  And I call that "free will".

Well it was a long hard way up the food pyramid...  But I haven't seen a chimp or dolphin yet that could deliberately sketch a right triangle much less understand A square + B square = C square.  If god didn't tell us that or our bodily microbes didn't, how did we, without free will?

A similar question to the last - is this free will a mislabeling of being good at communicating math to each other?  I think, ultimately, that no one doubts that we make selections, or that we have our own little niches like any other animal might - but it's hard to feel like this addresses the point of contention.  Cats are sentient.  They don't work like light switches anymore than we do.  They do seem to make selections, they do seem to have preferences, they do seem to be good at judging relative velocity and distance and vector.  They have a superior body model and greater body control than we do.  How do they do all of this without free will, if this is what free will is, fundamentally?

I think you have answered your own question. The ability to make decisions not forced upon us by the physical universe is what "free will" is.

[Rhythmcs]

Which decisions would those be? Is there some other universe? In what way would this qualification differentiate what we do from what cats do?

[Cavebear]

Which decisions would those be?  Is there some other universe?  In what way would this qualification differentiate what we do from what cats do?

Anything we chose to do. My point it that cats don't "choose" much. They react as evolution has developed them for success.

We, on the other paw (so to speak) sometimes engage in thoughtful decisions contemplating the consequences, harm, and rewards. Too few of us sometimes, but we have the ability to decide about actions.

[Rhythmcs]

These statements seem to me to apply to cats and humans in each instance.. Let's assume that cats don't "choose" much, though. Those things they do "choose" would demonstrate that they too possess a free will, would they not? Maybe we "choose" more, so it's not really that we have a free will and a cat doesn't, but that we have a freer will than a cats free will?

[Dānu]

[Cavebear]

These statements seem to me to apply to cats and humans in each instance..  Let's assume that cats don't "choose" much, though.  Those things they do "choose" would demonstrate that they too possess a free will, would they not?  Maybe we "choose" more, so it's not really that we have a free will and a cat doesn't, but that we have a freer will than a cats free will?

Possibly. Even I don't understand cats all the time and I've lived with them nearly all my life. I do know that if they were larger enough they would probably kill and eat me.

[Dom]

That's what separates us, hands, fingers, limbs, wings, ways of surviving. Processing the environment is bound to be different among all species, we are no different from that. We do what suits our survival, they do what suits theirs. We cannot perceive what they can and vice versa. 

I don't see us better than any other animal, other than being superior killers.

Well it was a long hard way up the food pyramid...  But I haven't seen a chimp or dolphin yet that could deliberately sketch a right triangle much less understand A square + B square = C square.  If god didn't tell us that or our bodily microbes didn't, how did we, without free will?

What would a dolphin do with a drawn triangle? All life perceives, and cares to perceive, everything that is relevant to the world they live in. Dolphins evolved in a different direction, experiences differently and processes differently. It is very likely a ton better than us at perceiving and evaluating things that are relevant to its life, and maybe looks down on us for not having those capabilities. 

You can no more understand what they know than they understand what we know. Species are specialized. That is what makes nature so amazing - and so easy to destroy.

We think ourselves better than others. They may see us as simply being able to kill and destroy indiscriminately.

[Alan V]

I read over most of the posts from the last several days, and have a few comments.

Determinists too often try to cut the conscious self out of any causal loop by saying, in so many words, that everything is ultimately determined by physics. I became convinced early on by reading John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment (among other things) that consciousness is qualitatively different in how it causes events than the laws of physics, with their strictly material causes. As Searle pointed out, consciousness operates by meanings, or by what I have referred to as reasons. I argue in favor of free will to preserve this important, even critical, distinction.

Many events on the macro level are statistical rather than strictly causal. They are caused as much by chance factors as by the laws of physics. It is the job of our consciousness to try to bias what would otherwise be chance events in our own favor. We do this without even knowing our chances of success or failure in many cases, so to me the mere fact that the odds are against us in any given situation is not a determining factor in our behaviors, only in their results. We are much more influenced by our own thoughts and emotions than by external factors in most cases.

How is that internal environment built up over time? Not just by determined factors but also by previous and sometimes quite random choices. We are involved in building up our own habits, however automatic they look as we monitor them later for their successful execution. We also change our internal environment by seeking and learning new information, some forced on us but much of which is selective. So what we are calling free will is on a continuum with determined factors -- yet another complexity.

It is a principle of emergentism that new rules evolve which supplement the laws of physics. From the emergent perspective, there literally can never be a Theory of Everything in physics. We simply do not know enough yet to exclude this possibility.

Here is a short list of some of my reasoning, which I have asserted in my various posts:

1) I consider the perception of volitional decisions to be observational evidence which must be explained by science, not illusions.
2) I consider meanings to be qualitatively different than material causes.
3) I think chance events could have evolved emergent properties with what I call top-down causation, with selves in the loop.
4) I see the field of biosemiotics to be promising in explaining how such evolution likely happened. (Matter can self-organize by meanings in addition to chemistry. The extra rules controlling this become embodied in the DNA of life and the brains of selves. Human brains have the ability to create their own information, by which we often act.)

People will continue to disagree with me for their own good reasons. Scientists are certainly making important progress in this area of inquiry, but what I have read from the experts is that they still consider this an open question, with different experts arguing for different perspectives.

[Dom]

  Human brains have the ability to create their own information, by which we often act.)

You don't think other animals have this also?

How then do they learn in real time and adjust innate behaviors to more useful ones?

[Rhythmcs]

This is something I run into in these discussions, and never find my way around. It's not just that we think human brains can create information, we understand that comparatively simple..and...certainly....... "purely physical" machine systems can do the same. The ability to operate within some set of parameters, the consideration of inputs, the processing of data and refinement of parameters and the creation of internal and external models...the potential for control in all of this. These are things not just common to much "higher order" life - but common between machines and life as well.

What I'm often left wondering, and this is after assuming that..yeah..I think, something like the thing being described does exist..is what sense it makes to then exclude everything else that does all this stuff we take be indicative of, or take to simply be, free will?

[Alan V]

This is something I run into in these discussions, and never find my way around.  It's not just that we think human brains can create information, we understand that comparatively simple..and...certainly....... "purely physical" machine systems can do the same.  The ability to operate within some set of parameters, the consideration of inputs, the processing of data and refinement of parameters and the creation of internal and external models...the potential for control in all of this.  These are things not just common to much "higher order" life - but common between machines and life as well.  

What I'm often left wondering, and this is after assuming that..yeah..I think, something like the thing being described does exist..is what sense it makes to then exclude everything else that does all this stuff we take be indicative of, or take to simply be, free will?

So, you think humans had a creator like such machines did?

[Dom]

This is something I run into in these discussions, and never find my way around.  It's not just that we think human brains can create information, we understand that comparatively simple..and...certainly....... "purely physical" machine systems can do the same.  The ability to operate within some set of parameters, the consideration of inputs, the processing of data and refinement of parameters and the creation of internal and external models...the potential for control in all of this.  These are things not just common to much "higher order" life - but common between machines and life as well.  

What I'm often left wondering, and this is after assuming that..yeah..I think, something like the thing being described does exist..is what sense it makes to then exclude everything else that does all this stuff we take be indicative of, or take to simply be, free will?

So, you think humans had a creator like such machines did?

Yes, they call it evolution.

[Rhythmcs]

You don't think other animals have this also?

How then do they learn in real time and adjust innate behaviors to more useful ones?

When arguing in favor of free will, I try to point out the most obvious examples.  In the case of animals, it is uncertain whether they imagine contingencies or act by instincts alone.  There are certainly cases when behaviors look more intelligent than they really are.  In the case of humans, we have the additional information of introspections from which to draw our conclusions.  Dream reports are a good example in this case.

This is something I run into in these discussions, and never find my way around.  It's not just that we think human brains can create information, we understand that comparatively simple..and...certainly....... "purely physical" machine systems can do the same.  The ability to operate within some set of parameters, the consideration of inputs, the processing of data and refinement of parameters and the creation of internal and external models...the potential for control in all of this.  These are things not just common to much "higher order" life - but common between machines and life as well.  

What I'm often left wondering, and this is after assuming that..yeah..I think, something like the thing being described does exist..is what sense it makes to then exclude everything else that does all this stuff we take be indicative of, or take to simply be, free will?

So, you think humans had a creator like such machines did?

Whether or not human beings would have had a creator isn't expressly important to whether or not we possess abilities shared with other forms of life and with machines.  It's conceivable that a range of human, non-human, and even non living things might possess - or not possess,  the described abilities with or without a creator™.

But, yeah, sure, I think the environment created us? If it were different, we would be different. Would we be more or less free - whatever that is, if it were different, or if the environment didn't create us? Alot of the things people go to the mats for seem like sidelines, at best, to me. Such as saying free will is x y and z, but these other things that do x y and z don't have it. I wonder if we're more compelled, in these discussions, to assert our indivioduality somehow or to describe a range of actual functions. Is free will the thing only we have, which defines us, or is it a thing that is happening whenever and wherever such conditions as stated are met?

In the case of the latter, I see it all over the place. In the case of the former - thin on the ground.

[Alan V]

Human brains have the ability to create their own information, by which we often act.)

You don't think other animals have this also?

How then do they learn in real time and adjust innate behaviors to more useful ones?

When arguing in favor of free will, I try to point out the most obvious examples. In the case of animals, it is uncertain whether they imagine contingencies or act by instincts alone. There are certainly cases when behaviors look more intelligent than they really are. In the case of humans, we have the additional information of introspections from which to draw our conclusions.

Dream reports are a good example of this. Our brains are obviously generating their own information in such cases, though most likely using the same mental abilities learned from waking.

I am currently reading underlined selections from The Scientific Study of Dreams by G. William Domhoff. Domhoff offers evidence supporting a neurocognitive approach to dreaming based on careful content analysis. Among the evidence he cites are the studies that children learn to dream as their cognitive abilities mature, and that they do not, in fact, dream as more mature humans do until they are at least 5 to 7 years old. This suggests that even if animals experience physiological sleep, they likely do not dream in the same way humans do, if at all. They may not be generating information as our brains do, or at least not the same amount or type.

I could apply the same critique to machines. Do they experience the kinds of subjective states which humans evolved to experience? I doubt it. Why should they?

[Dom]

You don't think other animals have this also?

How then do they learn in real time and adjust innate behaviors to more useful ones?

When arguing in favor of free will, I try to point out the most obvious examples.  In the case of animals, it is uncertain whether they imagine contingencies or act by instincts alone.  There are certainly cases when behaviors look more intelligent than they really are.  In the case of humans, we have the additional information of introspections from which to draw our conclusions.  

Dream reports are a good example of this.  Our brains are obviously generating their own information in such cases, though most likely using the same mental abilities learned from waking.  

I am currently reading underlined selections from The Scientific Study of Dreams by G. William Domhoff.  Domhoff offers evidence supporting a neurocognitive approach to dreaming based on careful content analysis.  Among the evidence he cites are the studies that children learn to dream as their cognitive abilities mature, and that they do not, in fact, dream as more mature humans do until they are at least 5 to 7 years old.  This suggests that even if animals experience physiological sleep, they likely do not dream in the same way humans do, if at all.  They may not be generating information as our brains do, or at least not the same amount or type.

I could apply the same critique to machines.  Do they experience the kinds of subjective states which humans evolved to experience?  I doubt it.  Why should they?

Animals dream, and they learn real time. They experiment until they find a correct solution. They even double check to make sure they got it right. Of course, they don't process the same info, their interests differ from ours most of the time, as do their perceptions. They did not evolve to be interested in the same things we are, and they gather different types of information. Maybe you don't know much about animal behaviors, I sure do. It's been one of my most prevalent interests for as long as I can think back, even as child. And it still is. Truth is, no one knows whether they dream in the same way, but you can watch a sleeping dog and can tell they are running in a dream, or scared, or angry etc. You do know that they dream.

[Rhythmcs]

You don't think other animals have this also?

How then do they learn in real time and adjust innate behaviors to more useful ones?

When arguing in favor of free will, I try to point out the most obvious examples.  In the case of animals, it is uncertain whether they imagine contingencies or act by instincts alone.  

That's just the the thing.  It' isn't.  No more or less so than in our own case for a great many animals.

There are certainly cases when behaviors look more intelligent than they really are.  

The question of free will, even in this limited context, is whether or not human behaviors are among those cases.

In the case of humans, we have the additional information of introspections from which to draw our conclusions. 

So, right here, is the impasse I'm talking about.   Humans may not actually possess unique ability or competence in this or any other regard....but supposing we do - then it's not that only we have free will - we're just better at free willing, no?

Dream reports are a good example of this.  Our brains are obviously generating their own information in such cases, though most likely using the same mental abilities learned from waking.  

Cats dream. Dreaming goes all the way down to birds, in a diagram of common descent, at least? Supposing, ofc, that dreams are an example of creating our own information™ in the first place - this being free will, it would seem that free will is a widely distributed trait.

I am currently reading underlined selections from The Scientific Study of Dreams by G. William Domhoff.  Domhoff offers evidence supporting a neurocognitive approach to dreaming based on careful content analysis.  Among the evidence he cites are the studies that children learn to dream as their cognitive abilities mature, and that they do not, in fact, dream as more mature humans do until they are at least 5 to 7 years old.  This suggests that even if animals experience physiological sleep, they likely do not dream in the same way humans do, if at all.  They may not be generating information as our brains do, or at least not the same amount or type.

 
- as more mature humans do, doing alot of work.  Children don't dream..as more mature humans do.  I would suppose that other animals also do not dream...as more mature humans do - here again, it seems like a description of us doing something better, not something different.

I could apply the same critique to machines.  Do they experience the kinds of subjective states which humans evolved to experience?  I doubt it.  Why should they?

If machines and other animals experience these kinds of states, then what does that say about our perception of the human instantiation of said states?

[Alan V]

From my perspective, arguing in favor of free will is difficult enough without resorting to such speculations.