Do animals have consciousness?

[Wesrock]

I’ll add that your dog is not just a blind machine. It has an experience. It has feelings. It has preferences. The idea that animals are just like machines and nothing more is something that was really popularized by Cartesian philosophy. The idea that animals are conscious and have emotions would not have sounded odd to Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Dan_Defender]

To the OP: Depends on your definition of consciousness. Regardless, animals do not have free will.

 

[Freddy]

To the OP: Depends on your definition of consciousness. Regardless, animals do not have free will.

So I ask my buddyTaffy if he wants to come out with me. He gives every indication that he’s amenable to that proposal. Then he discovers that it might involve a little more effort on his part than he originally thought. So he changes his mind and decides to stay at home. Fair enough. ‘I’ll see you later, mate’.

I think Taffy, based on an understanding of the options available to him, has made a free will decision. Who could possibly disagree?

 

[Freddy]

I’ll add that your dog is not just a blind machine. It has an experience. It has feelings. It has preferences. The idea that animals are just like machines and nothing more is something that was really popularized by Cartesian philosophy. The idea that animals are conscious and have emotions would not have sounded odd to Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas.

At what point would you say a child would start to exhibit signs of an intellect as opposed to simply intelligence?

 

[Dan_Defender]

I think Taffy, based on an understanding of the options available to him, has made a free will decision. Who could possibly disagree?

If you want to believe that, fine but to me it is a poor example, your dog is a pet so humans have modified its original purpose. Better example is, animals in the wild (without human intervention) will always reproduce, it is an instinct they cannot escape. Only humans can choose not to reproduce for whatever reason. True free will is only human.

 

[Wesrock]

At what point would you say a child would start to exhibit signs of an intellect as opposed to simply intelligence?

I’m not an expert on child development. But signs? Definitely within the first few years.

Anticipating your point, it’s important to emphasize that the essence of a thing isn’t a bundle of properties. The properties follow from the essence, yes, but the manifestation of those properties may develop over time or never develop due to some impairment, not because the essence isn’t there. We see through observation that human beings manifest intellectual properties which require rationality. We see that some human beings never manifest those properties or even lose them to some injury, not because they are something different than human beings but because there was some impairment in their development. And this is apparent by observation of many people.

Dogs being dogs under no circumstances are ever observed to ever manifest properties that would suggest they are rational animals (capable of intellection, understanding by mentally expressing universal forms abstracted from the conditions of matter).

 

[Wesrock]

As to whether a dog has free will, I think we need to be careful. Dogs lack intellective appetites and a capacity for intellection to begin with, so they don’t have what we’d call a will at all. They still move to their ends, though, by intrinsic principles to them, such that they are the agents in bringing about their ends. They’re more than billiard balls bouncing around a table. They’re not puppets, and what they move towards comes from them based on their nature. Their actions are brought about by immanent (to them) causes, motivated by sensitive appetites.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think Taffy, based on an understanding of the options available to him, has made a free will decision. Who could possibly disagree?

If you want to believe that, fine but to me it is a poor example, your dog is a pet so humans have modified its original purpose. Better example is, animals in the wild (without human intervention) will always reproduce, it is an instinct they cannot escape. Only humans can choose not to reproduce for whatever reason. True free will is only human.

Who said he was a dog?

All the information showed that Taffy exhibited free will. No doubt about it. You can’t say: ‘Well he did if he’s a friend of yours but he didn’t if he’s your dog’.

 

[Freddy]

At what point would you say a child would start to exhibit signs of an intellect as opposed to simply intelligence?

This is a get-out-of-jail card. It’s the same principle that would allow you to class an embryo as a rational person because that emryo has the ‘potential’ to be a rational person. It allows for no gradation. It’s a nice bright line.

It’s the same argument that doesn’t allow for a gradual development of rational thought in parallel with our evolution. Some have even argued (this or another thread?) that it happened almost immediately at some point. A verson of ‘Tuesday afternoon-ism’.

If your argument holds then surely we could go back to your great great etc grand father a few million years back and say that it had the potential for rational thought so should be considered a rational animal.

 

[Wesrock]

This is a get-out-of-jail card. It’s the same principle that would allow you to class an embryo as a rational person because that emryo has the ‘potential’ to be a rational person. It allows for no gradation. It’s a nice bright line.

An embryo is just a human being at a different stage of development. I was once an embryo. I am the same organism as that embryo, just more developed.

Intellection is necessarily an immaterial operation by which a human being takes on in an intelligible manner the same form as the object known and not a property of matter, and so rationality as such isn’t something that isn’t present in an organism at one point and present at another. Material explanations are insufficient to explain in what way the object known (or even an intentional representation of it) can be in the knower. It’s ultimately therefore a faculty of the soul, but that in itself sounds mysterious, so I could go on and explain in a more contemporary sense that this is just something belonging to human beings qua human beings, something they do as a whole not reducible to any given part or organ.

But at this point I am becoming too involved in the topic and so need to cut out. My goal tonight was to finish a work project and then get back to that other topic I’m involved in (on the Fifth Way). Once I get too involved I have to ignore it until I have time to devote to it. Otherwise it becomes consuming, which is a fault of mine. So, with that, I’ll try and say adieu (for now).

 

[Paddy1989]

Paddy1989:

An animal behaving in accordance with it’s biological makeup does not imply free will. For example an animal may defend itself rigorously if it feels threatened but it is merely acting exactly in accordance with it’s makeup. Your dog may have realized that such a long and hard route would lead to it end up feeling very uncomfortable which it naturally will try and avoid. Free will is the ability to act in a way that leads to the common good.

Free will is what? Something that leads to the common good?

I have seen quite a lot of arguments along these lines recently. If a question is asked who has free will or rationality or conscious thoughts then very often someone will define the term in question is such a way so that is only applicable to humans.

So how is free will the ability to act in a way that leads to the common good? If I decide to massacre my neighbours and I am not coerced in any way but simply exercise my free will, then does that lead to the common good? Or are you really suggesting that if I kill them so I can steal everything in their house I can get my hands on then I am not acting freely?

And that if my pooch literally makes a rational decision that he would rather lie on the couch than run a few kays with me then he is not exhibiting a free will choice?

Free will is associated with morality. Of that there is no doubt. But free will decisions do not have to be associated with it.

The very nature of free will is to be used for the common good, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be used that way. By us having the power of free will we are able to participate in God’s love which is itself an act of the will. Love has to be freely chosen which means it can also be denied in favour of our ego which as you listed above may involved us murdering people for our own gain. The reason we are held morally culpable is because in accordance with our nature that is not how things ought to be. We are all created with intrinsic value and dignity and rebelling against this for our own again often ends up in one being apprehended and being held to justice in accordance with the law.

Animals only perceive what is good in relation to their senses. Man perceives what is objectively good using his reason even if it means going against his senses at times. Man’s will therefore is rooted in reason, animals do not have the ability to reason never-mind to think of the why behind their senses, they just act upon it. Your dog decisions are rooted in it’s senses which direct how it behaves, being however that you are it’s master, the alpha, it’s decisions will also be subject to your will which is why we can train a dog in the first place to act in a way we perceive to be rational

 

[Freddy]

This is a get-out-of-jail card. It’s the same principle that would allow you to class an embryo as a rational person because that emryo has the ‘potential’ to be a rational person. It allows for no gradation. It’s a nice bright line.

This is where we differ substantially of course. Good luck with the project.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Paddy1989:

An animal behaving in accordance with it’s biological makeup does not imply free will. For example an animal may defend itself rigorously if it feels threatened but it is merely acting exactly in accordance with it’s makeup. Your dog may have realized that such a long and hard route would lead to it end up feeling very uncomfortable which it naturally will try and avoid. Free will is the ability to act in a way that leads to the common good.

Free will is what? Something that leads to the common good?

I have seen quite a lot of arguments along these lines recently. If a question is asked who has free will or rationality or conscious thoughts then very often someone will define the term in question is such a way so that is only applicable to humans.

So how is free will the ability to act in a way that leads to the common good? If I decide to massacre my neighbours and I am not coerced in any way but simply exercise my free will, then does that lead to the common good? Or are you really suggesting that if I kill them so I can steal everything in their house I can get my hands on then I am not acting freely?

And that if my pooch literally makes a rational decision that he would rather lie on the couch than run a few kays with me then he is not exhibiting a free will choice?

Free will is associated with morality. Of that there is no doubt. But free will decisions do not have to be associated with it.

The very nature of free will is to be used for the common good, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be used that way.

On that we agreed. So if I have a choice in doing something that’s either going to cause me discomfort or result in me being in a relaxed and peaceful state of mind, I assume we could agree that I could make a choice about such a matter. And that choice would not be coerced in any way - other than I have a preference. In other words a free will choice.

 

[Paddy1989]

Paddy1989:

Freddy:

Paddy1989:

An animal behaving in accordance with it’s biological makeup does not imply free will. For example an animal may defend itself rigorously if it feels threatened but it is merely acting exactly in accordance with it’s makeup. Your dog may have realized that such a long and hard route would lead to it end up feeling very uncomfortable which it naturally will try and avoid. Free will is the ability to act in a way that leads to the common good.

Free will is what? Something that leads to the common good?

I have seen quite a lot of arguments along these lines recently. If a question is asked who has free will or rationality or conscious thoughts then very often someone will define the term in question is such a way so that is only applicable to humans.

So how is free will the ability to act in a way that leads to the common good? If I decide to massacre my neighbours and I am not coerced in any way but simply exercise my free will, then does that lead to the common good? Or are you really suggesting that if I kill them so I can steal everything in their house I can get my hands on then I am not acting freely?

And that if my pooch literally makes a rational decision that he would rather lie on the couch than run a few kays with me then he is not exhibiting a free will choice?

Free will is associated with morality. Of that there is no doubt. But free will decisions do not have to be associated with it.

The very nature of free will is to be used for the common good, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be used that way.

On that we agreed. So if I have a choice in doing something that’s either going to cause me discomfort or result in me being in a relaxed and peaceful state of mind, I assume we could agree that I could make a choice about such a matter. And that choice would not be coerced in any way - other than I have a preference. In other words a free will choice.

Yes we agree on that. The only point i’d make is that animals do not have free will and are merely determined by instinct. Free will implies reason which is used to will the good. The animal has no ability to reason, it’s perception of good is always what it’s senses tell them, it cannot rationalize

 

[Freddy]

Yes we agree on that. The only point i’d make is that animals do not have free will and are merely determined by instinct. Free will implies reason which is used to will the good. The animal has no ability to reason, it’s perception of good is always what it’s senses tell them, it cannot rationalize

There are zero implications of reason in the matter of free will. There may well be reason employed in making such a decision but I may make a free will decision based on nothing more than an instinctive feeling that I might prefer one option over another. I still make that choice. Of my own free will. Chocolate or vanilla? Well, I don’t know…they both taste great…whatever, I’ll take the chocolate.

Now that is the definition of a free will decision. I made a choice (no argument there), I was not coerced (it was made with a free will) and I made no rational determination (no reason was employed).

Notwithstanding that free will decisions are not necessarily used to will the good. I may make a decision to do wrong. Morality doesn’t come into determining if free will is being exhibited at all.

 

[Paddy1989]

Paddy1989:

Yes we agree on that. The only point i’d make is that animals do not have free will and are merely determined by instinct. Free will implies reason which is used to will the good. The animal has no ability to reason, it’s perception of good is always what it’s senses tell them, it cannot rationalize

There are zero implications of reason in the matter of free will. There may well be reason employed in making such a decision but I may make a free will decision based on nothing more than an instinctive feeling that I might prefer one option over another. I still make that choice. Of my own free will. Chocolate or vanilla? Well, I don’t know…they both taste great…whatever, I’ll take the chocolate.

Now that is the definition of a free will decision. I made a choice (no argument there), I was not coerced (it was made with a free will) and I made no rational determination (no reason was employed).

Notwithstanding that free will decisions are not necessarily used to will the good. I may make a decision to do wrong. Morality doesn’t come into determining if free will is being exhibited at all.

Actually even for something so simple you may subconsciously have used reason to calculate what choice you make and it would never solely be based on instinct devoid of reason, that’s impossible for us, even the hedonist understands this. Is it safe to eat, will i gain weight if i eat it, do i really need it, is it too cold for ice cream and is the pleasure of eating it worth it etc. At the root of man’s will is reason, in everything he does, even the simplest of things, only if we reflect on this can we dissect how much reason we use for each decision.

For something as simple as ice cream or any other pleasure food the instinct for the pleasure of it will have been calculated many times over in our minds using reason to justify it. Man’s will therefore is rooted in reason, we are not merely slaves to instinct nor could we try to be. It is true that one can use free will to act in a morally neutral manner, this i do not dispute however what divides us from the animals is our Free will which is the root in how morally culpable we are in any action we make, without free will there is no moral culpability

The catechism states **[1731] Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude

**[1733] The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

 

[Gorgias]

Of course animals make decisions.

That isn’t what @Larquetta posited. Take a look back, again. It wasn’t “do animals make decisions?”, but “do animals have the ability to deliberate on decisions?”

Important distinction.

Yes, animals make decisions all the time. I’m not sure that we can suggest that it’s based on a deliberative process, though.

I don’t know what form his thought processes were

“‘Left’ feels good. ‘Right’ hurts. No ‘right’.”

That’s not rational deliberation. Heck, lab rats do the same thing – do we credit them with rationality?

I think Taffy, based on an understanding of the options available to him, has made a free will decision. Who could possibly disagree?

You’re coming at this from the wrong angle, I’m afraid. We know that humans have rationality and therefore, free will. We know that we deliberate. We know that we make choices.

Watching an animal make a choice, and inferring ‘deliberation’ and ‘free will’ is an invalid extrapolation.

You can’t say: ‘Well he did if he’s a friend of yours but he didn’t if he’s your dog’.

By the same token, you can’t project human capacities onto dogs, just because there are behaviors that you correlate between the two.

There are zero implications of reason in the matter of free will.

I’m going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that the reason we’re disagreeing is based on varying definitions of what “free will” is. So, if you don’t mind: with the present context in mind, what do you mean by “free will”? Is it just “making a choice”?

(That’s not free will, per se, by the way, in the way it’s generally defined. If it’s your definition, however, it would make sense why you hold that animals have it.)

 

[LovelyLadybug]

Animals have consciousness, but they do not have souls. If animals didn’t have consciousness, they couldn’t feel pain. Why do you think a rabbit being chased by a tiger will run for it’s life? I hope this helps!!!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Paddy1989:

Yes we agree on that. The only point i’d make is that animals do not have free will and are merely determined by instinct. Free will implies reason which is used to will the good. The animal has no ability to reason, it’s perception of good is always what it’s senses tell them, it cannot rationalize

There are zero implications of reason in the matter of free will. There may well be reason employed in making such a decision but I may make a free will decision based on nothing more than an instinctive feeling that I might prefer one option over another. I still make that choice. Of my own free will. Chocolate or vanilla? Well, I don’t know…they both taste great…whatever, I’ll take the chocolate.

Now that is the definition of a free will decision. I made a choice (no argument there), I was not coerced (it was made with a free will) and I made no rational determination (no reason was employed).

Notwithstanding that free will decisions are not necessarily used to will the good. I may make a decision to do wrong. Morality doesn’t come into determining if free will is being exhibited at all.

Actually even for something so simple you may subconsciously have used reason to calculate what choice you make and it would never solely be based on instinct devoid of reason, that’s impossible for us, even the hedonist understands this. Is it safe to eat, will i gain weight if i eat it, do i really need it, is it too cold for ice cream and is the pleasure of eating it worth it etc.

I see. It could be based on a simple preference. ‘Do I go for a long run or do I lie on the couch?’

Got it.

 

[Freddy]

Gorgias:
I’m going to take a wild guess here, and suggest that the reason we’re disagreeing is based on varying definitions of what “free will” is. So, if you don’t mind: with the present context in mind, what do you mean by “free will”? Is it just “making a choice”?

(That’s not free will, per se, by the way, in the way it’s generally defined. If it’s your definition, however, it would make sense why you hold that animals have it.)
[/quote]

In this case it’s the basic ability to make a simple decision not governed by instinct. One where two or more options have been presented and there has obviously been a thought process involved to make a conscious decision on a preference.

We’re not trying to delve too deep into what free will could actually mean in the context of ‘man being a rational animal’ and what Aquinas might have said or how the catechism uses free will as it relates to anything. Look at the op again. It’s pretty simple. And pretty simple to answer. Yes, of course animals have consciousness. Does it exactly map to human consciousness? In some cases it might, especially in higher primates. But that’s not the question.

I see an all too obvious tendancy in threads like this to deny anything that would connect us to animals in any way. 'We have consciousness/free will/rationality therefore animals cannot have it. When obviously they do to some degree.

One only has to consider that we have a direct line of descent back to times when we were most definitely not rational animals. When we acted purely on instinct. And back even further to a point where we weren’t even conscious. And this isn’t a theoretical proposal conjured up to undermine any religious beliefs. It’s a simple fact.

So it is plainly obvious that unless you believe consciousness and rationality were granted by God at one specific instance, then you must accept that these aspects of man evolved. That is, they gradually became more prominent. From no rationality to full rationality and every degree between.

So it’s plain that at least one animal (us) had some degree of rationality that wasn’t exactly what we have now but still could be considered as such. To deny that other animals also exhibit some degree of it seems almost perverse.