Do animals have free will

[Ion]

Also, if animals had somewhat higher intelligence and could talk or at least be understood by Adam and Eve, perhaps the snake (which had legs at the time, and is usually shown up in a tree in artwork), perhaps the snake consented to tempting Eve, by Satan. That might be why God cursed the snake to crawl on it’s belly.

Or, perhaps, more likely, God did this as a reminder to US of the penalty for disbelief and disobedience, just as the rainbow is a sign of the rewards for belief and obedience!!

Remember, a great many snakes are poisonous, are able to hide in very small places and certainly will kill a human who approaches their lair.

Since they have no higher intelligence, and perhaps never did, only that Adam & Eve could understand their limited and simple language, then God didn’t do the snake any great harm by causing it to crawl on it’s belly - it is after all, very well adapted to it’s mode of transport, and well able to survive as it is.

But, it is a very visible reminder to us of the penalties of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve, just as every rainbow is a reminder (or ought to be) of the consequences of belief and obedience (and a reminder of how many did not live to see the rainbow, due to their abandonment of belief and their joy in sinning).

The snake dreamed to prove Eve unworthy and take it’s part in the humanity, or whatever name would have been appropriate for the resulting hybrid. That makes crawling a punishment.

 

[wanstronian]

You would soon find out to your cost in a court of law! Do you reject the presumption of innocence or guilt?

Okay, well you’re jumping around a little here. Your comment doesn’t make sense in the context of humans as superfluous to the universe. So I can only answer the question in the context of itself. Guilt or innocence are not related to whether or not we have free will. One either did a bad thing or one didn’t. Whether or not that bad thing was a consequence of free will or a deterministic universe is a different matter.

What the acceptance of the evidence would do is change, for the better, our concept of how we treat the guilty. Currently our justice systems are built around the concept of retribution; although this might have a deterrent effect which would form an (name removed by moderator)ut for the deterministic operations of our brain, it is arguably a rather primitive reaction.

It has been shown that retributive reactions make little or no difference to the likelihood of any particular individual to re-offend, so maybe we’re approaching this all wrong. Maybe the thing to do is accept the evidence and start to consider what will actually work. The long we continue to deny the evidence and posit free will, the longer we delay the point where we can actually start to address the real problem.

Belief in free will does **not **imply that we are uniquely important and special in the universe

No - but I was addressing your sidebar regarding superfluity. If you believe we are not superfluous as a species, then you by default imbue us with some special quality.

A remark applicable to those who reject free will because it lets them off the hook!

Do you really believe that? It seems remarkably short-sighted, as well as being a generalised ad-hominem. I don’t reject free will because it lets me off the hook - in fact it quite clearly doesn’t. I reject free will because otherwise I need to posit all kinds of supernatural phenomena for which there is no evidence… and I also need to reject the evidence that does exist. I reject it for reasons of empiricism and parsimony.

Only if one is a materialist who regards life as absurd and meaningless.

Not at all. I don’t regard life as absurd or meaningless. I just regard it as inconsequential for the universe. I don’t believe the universe is sentient and needs humans in it. I don’t believe there is some higher intellect that would care if we all died out. Because there is neither evidence nor logic, for such an intellect.

How can life based on self-deception be fulfilling? Please explain why a lack of free will doesn’t lead to fatalism.

People self-deceive all the time - they don’t all lead fruitless, desperate lives. I genuinely don’t believe in free will. I’m not a fatalist, I still enjoy life, my friends and family, reading a good novel, listening to good music. Rejecting free will doesn’t entail “letting life happen to you” as you sit there, a hopeless observer. I think this misconception is what drives the fatalism notion.

Do cogs in a machine affect its output? If so how?

Sorry, you’ve lost me. What’s the relevance?

In this context emotions are irrelevant because they are supposedly uncontrollable.

Okay, apart from the weasel words, this is true. But emotions are not irrelevant just because they are not selected. It doesn’t mean you don’t feel them, and that they don’t feel real.

Consistency of output** without insight** does not suffice to generate correspondence to reality.

You’re still refusing to take the point, although I suspect you understand it perfectly.

If we couldn’t choose what to think we would be far more likely to bark up the wrong tree because our thoughts would be caused by factors** totally **beyond our control. Why haven’t the great apes produced anything comparable to art, science, music, literature and philosophy? Because their DNA differs by about 1% from ours? Is that the sole reason?

Yes. Ultimately. And “great apes” includes humans.

If objective experiments strongly indicated that free will does not exist legal systems throughout the world would have been (and should be) discarded and the UDHR abandoned because they cease to make sense if no one is responsible for anything.

Research is still new in this area, and change takes time. However, I suspect the main reason for any delay to the court system will turn out to be the overwhelming number of people who will, like you, continue to reject the evidence, in preference for their own desire to believe they have free will.

 

[wanstronian]

Purpose implies thought about non-existent actions and situations. How do neural impulses in the brain take the future into account?

Past experience drives future expectations. It’s called “learning.”

Science would certainly not be as successful as it has been if scientists were purposeless machines incapable of originality and creativity.

Quite true. Thankfully, they’re not.

The experiments do not show the actual decision but the effects of the decision.

Well okay - how do you explain the experiment where researchers are able to see, on a computer screen, which option a subject has chosen, several seconds before the subject him/herself is aware? And to a far higher degree of accuracy than predicted by chance? That’s what the research shows.

To equate the two makes the mind superfluous and merely shorthand for “brain functions” [snip]

Yes, this is what the mind is. The mind is what the brain does. We have no evidence of any other phenomenon at work.

There is nothing extraordinary about the time lapse because rational decisions are not ordinary events!

What makes you say that? You don’t make dozens of rational decisions each day?

Why is there nothing extraordinary about the time lapse? About the fact that researchers can tell a decision has been made - and which decision - before the subject? Are you now saying that some people have a form of prescient telepathy?

If they were, the distinction between persons and animals would be false.It would be merely a matter of unrealistic and unjustified favouritism for our own species.

I don’t know how you’ve managed to infer that. Humans have a higher brain function than most, if not all, other animals. That distinguishes us as a species. But it’s only a question of degree. It doesn’t make us fundamentally different to other animals. We’re not special.

If the mind were merely what the brain does it wouldn’t be an entity but a collection of events related solely by spatial and temporal proximity without a control-centre or enduring identity.

On what do you base that assertion? Is this your “purposeless particles” canard rephrased?

I think you haven’t troubled to familiarise yourself with the work of those who have dedicated their lives to the subject, e.g:

amazon.com/Philosophy-Mind-A-Beginners-Guide/dp/1851684786

It has online extracts which are worth glancing at.

Well, I suppose I could read everything that’s ever been written on the subject by anybody. I’ll admit I’m naturally more inclined to believe what the science shows, than what a Catholic philosopher (not a scientist) might have to say. I’m sure Prof. Feser’s work is excellent, but when it comes down to it, his credentials are lacking. Philosophy didn’t get us to the moon. We didn’t eradicate polio in the Western world by thinking philosophically about it.

The thing is, it’s one thing to criticise the science that appears to demonstrate the non-existence of free will. Doubtless some of the criticism is more or less valid, and the science might be wrong - it wouldn’t be the first time, and this area of research is relatively young.

BUT. Refuting the science doesn’t automagically reinstate free will. For free will to exist, there has to be a “ghost” either in or outside the machine. And there has to be a way for that ghost to override the physical processes that are occurring in that machine. So my question for you, as you seem so sure, is: where is that ghost? And how does it override our physical world? And how come, if the ghost is non-physical (as it must be), our personalities, decisions etc. are all affected by altering the physical make-up of the brain, either by drugs, or damage?

To claim free will is not simply to reject the science; it’s to posit an alternative explanation. And to provide plausible evidence for that explanation. Are you able to do that?

 

[wanstronian]

. . . in the sense that if you destroy the brain, you apparently destroy the mind.
On the other hand, what the brain does makes sense only if you understand the mind.

I think this is a tautology.

And if there were one thing mind/brain and it is our intellect that splits the two orders/structures of one reality: the person, it would explain both scenarios.

Okay, I’m not sure what you’re saying here - that the mind is physical and resides in/alongside the brain, but performs a different but complementary function? Or have I missed your point!?

 

[tonyrey]

How do neural impulses in the brain take the future into account?

Why don’t animals establish abstract principles of conduct, formulate theories, devise plans of action, invent machines and create works of art? Why do they lack insight?

Science would certainly not be as successful as it has been if scientists were purposeless machines incapable of originality and creativity.

Quite true. Thankfully, they’re not.

Another nail in the coffin of materialism.

Well okay - how do you explain the experiment where researchers are able to see, on a computer screen, which option a subject has chosen, several seconds before the subject him/herself is aware? And to a far higher degree of accuracy than predicted by chance?

Interaction between the mind and the brain doesn’t entail dependence of the mind on the brain. Hypnosis and everyday experience demonstrate the power of abstract thought over physical events. Nor does a time lapse imply that we are not responsible for our decision. The implementation is swifter than our perception but why does perception have to be instantaneous? “Making up our mind” is a continuous, complex and abstract process that cannot be analysed like biochemical reactions. In fact we often “change our mind” very quickly which shows that decisions are not as cut and dried as EEG machines suggest.

The mind is what the brain does

The mind often tells the brain what to do. Interaction is a far more plausible explanation than a slave-to-the-body mentality.

We have no evidence of any other phenomenon at work.

We have no **direct **evidence of any other phenomenon at work than our mind itself. The rest of our knowledge is inferred from our sense perceptions.

There is nothing extraordinary about the time lapse because rational decisions are not ordinary events!

What makes you say that? You don’t make dozens of rational decisions each day?

Frequency does not imply parity. If it did rational decisions would be no more mysterious or significant than instinctive decisions. Why bother to differentiate them? They would all be irresponsible events in an irresponsible machine.

Are you now saying that some people have a form of prescient telepathy?

Prescience is irrelevant. The researchers cannot tell us the details of the decision or how it is made. They don’t have insight into our mental processes but simply observe signals.

Humans have a higher brain function than most, if not all, other animals. That distinguishes us as a species. But it’s only a question of degree. It doesn’t make us fundamentally different to other animals. We’re not special.

Do you treat persons like animals? If not why not?

If the mind were merely what the brain does it wouldn’t be an entity but a collection of events related solely by spatial and temporal proximity without a control-centre or enduring identity.

On what do you base that assertion?

On the biological fact that the brain has no control-centre or** enduring identity and the body is not regarded as a person.**

I’ll admit I’m naturally more inclined to believe what the science shows, than what a Catholic philosopher (not a scientist) might have to say.

Inclinations are very often deceptive.

Philosophy didn’t get us to the moon. We didn’t eradicate polio in the Western world by thinking philosophically about it.

Modern medicine wouldn’t exist without the metascientific principles on which it is based.

Refuting the science doesn’t automagically reinstate free will. For free will to exist, there has to be a “ghost” either in or outside the machine. And there has to be a way for that ghost to override the physical processes that are occurring in that machine. So my question for you, as you seem so sure, is: where is that ghost? And how does it override our physical world? And how come, if the ghost is non-physical (as it must be), our personalities, decisions etc. are all affected by altering the physical make-up of the brain, either by drugs, or damage?

To claim free will is not simply to reject the science; it’s to posit an alternative explanation. And to provide plausible evidence for that explanation. Are you able to do that?

The derogatory term “ghost” loses its impact if it is replaced by “mind”. A person is not usually considered to be a biological puppet. Overwhelming evidence of free will is present in the way every reasonable person thinks and behaves, in every legal system throughout the world and in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - which are otherwise meaningless. As Kant observed, “ought implies can”… Why complain about being a slave if free will is a fantasy? To be brainwashed is far worse than being on a sugar plantation…

 

[wanstronian]

Why don’t animals establish abstract principles of conduct, formulate theories, devise plans of action, invent machines and create works of art?

Some animals do. Humans.

Most non-human animals don’t, for the same reason turnips don’t. They lack the processing power. Some non-humans animals do some of those things.

Another nail in the coffin of materialism.

Not unless you can explain why. And I mean explain, not just assert!

Interaction between the mind and the brain doesn’t entail dependence of the mind on the brain.

No, not if you can provide a plausible hypothesis of how the immaterial mind affects the material brain.

Hypnosis and everyday experience demonstrate the power of abstract thought over physical events.

I don’t see how. Hypnosis provides an (name removed by moderator)ut into the recipient’s brain, via the sense organs of sight, hearing, touch. These are physical phenomena.

Nor does a time lapse imply that we are not responsible for our decision. The implementation is swifter than our perception but why does perception have to be instantaneous?

So we make our decisions before we’re aware of those decisions? For once we agree. However, what I don’t see is how we can claim control of those decisions if we’re not aware of them until after the fact.

“Making up our mind” is a continuous, complex and abstract process that cannot be analysed like biochemical reactions. In fact we often “change our mind” very quickly which shows that decisions are not as cut and dried as EEG machines suggest.
The mind often tells the brain what to do. Interaction is a far more plausible explanation than a slave-to-the-body mentality.

“Interaction” is just a word - can you explain?

We have no **direct **evidence of any other phenomenon at work than our mind itself. The rest of our knowledge is inferred from our sense perceptions.

And we also have direct evidence of our “mind” being tampered with by drugs, physical damage etc. All of which demonstrate that our “mind” is affected by the physical state of our brain.

As for the inference of all knowledge, you’re right, but consistency of results adds credence to those inferences, to the point where we can rely on those perceptions 99.9% of the time.

Frequency does not imply parity. If it did rational decisions would be no more mysterious or significant than instinctive decisions. Why bother to differentiate them? They would all be irresponsible events in an irresponsible machine

I just wondered why you considered rational decisions to be extraordinary events.

Prescience is irrelevant. The researchers cannot tell us the details of the decision or how it is made. They don’t have insight into our mental processes but simply observe signals.

Which is enough to make some initial inferences and continue the study. This isn’t yet slam-dunk science, and I haven’t pretended that it is.

Do you treat persons like animals? If not why not?

You’ve asked me this before. My answer is unchanged. I treat all animals appropriately, including human animals. I don’t discuss the kids’ education with my dog, because he’s more interested in running around in a field or eating. Therefore I take him for walks and feed him. I don’t bother interacting at all with insects.

On the biological fact that the brain has no control-centre or** enduring identity and the body is not regarded as a person.**

Oh right - so X is true because X is true. In that case I’ll let Christopher Hitchens retort: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Inclinations are very often deceptive.

Quite true. But an inclination towards a process which has proven manifestly successful over centuries seems a pretty safe bet.

Modern medicine wouldn’t exist without the metascientific principles on which it is based.

That’s simply false. It’s like saying that unless the wheel had been invented exactly when it was, it never would have been. Modern medicine is based on results, not philosophy.

The derogatory term “ghost” loses its impact if it is replaced by “mind”.

It’s not intended to be derogatory. I’m happy with “mind” - as long as we agree that we are talking about a non-physical sentience.

A person is not usually considered to be a biological puppet.

No. Because a puppet is controlled by an intelligence. We are biological machines, operating according to the “laws” of physics.

Overwhelming evidence of free will is present in the way every reasonable person thinks and behaves, in every legal system throughout the world and in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - which are otherwise meaningless.

And here’s where we disagree - I would rephrase as, “The illusion of free will is present…” It’s a convincing illusion, but not supported by either direct evidence or what we currently believe about the way the universe works.

As Kant observed, “ought implies can”… Why complain about being a slave if free will is a fantasy? To be brainwashed is far worse than being on a sugar plantation…

I think this is where supporters of free will make their mistake. Abandoning the concept of free will is not the same as being forced to do something against one’s will (that would be slavery). Nor is it to helplessly observe as your body does things you didn’t ask it to do. Such viewpoints are paradoxical, because they intrinsically maintain free will in order to express outrage at having free will taken away. It’s like imagining your kids had never existed - personally the thought fills me with despair, even though logically I know that if they had never existed I wouldn’t miss them.

 

[tonyrey]

Why don’t animals establish abstract principles of conduct, formulate theories, devise plans of action, invent machines and create works of art?".

Why not all?

Not unless you can explain why. ".

The power of the mind over the body is evident in every civilised person’s behaviour.
Interaction between the mind and the brain doesn’t entail dependence of the mind on the brain.".

No, not if you can provide a plausible hypothesis of how the immaterial mind affects the material brain.".

Considering that our primary datum is our mental activity the onus is on the materialist to explain how the brain affects the mind. Do you believe you cannot control yourself?

Hypnosis and everyday experience demonstrate the power of abstract thought over physical events.".

Hypnosis provides an (name removed by moderator)ut into the recipient’s brain, via the sense organs of sight, hearing, touch. These are physical phenomena.".

The (name removed by moderator)ut is intangible and unobservable by the sense organs.

So we make our decisions before we’re aware of those decisions? "

Before we are physically aware.

However, what I don’t see is how we can claim control of those decisions if we’re not aware of them until after the fact.

Everyone knows from direct experience that we are aware of them when we make them.

Interaction is a far more plausible explanation than a slave-to-the-body mentality.

“Interaction” is just a word - can you explain?

I don’t claim to be able to explain the mind. Do you?

And we also have direct evidence of our “mind” being tampered with by drugs, physical damage etc. All of which demonstrate that our “mind” is affected by the physical state of our brain.

It merely demonstrates that our power of expression is curtailed, not that the mind ceases to exist.

As for the inference of all knowledge, you’re right, but consistency of results adds credence to those inferences, to the point where we can rely on those perceptions 99.9% of the time.

Our knowledge of physical objects remains indirect - in contrast to our direct knowledge of mental activity.
I

just wondered why you considered rational decisions to be extraordinary events.

Can you explain them scientifically?

This isn’t yet slam-dunk science, and I haven’t pretended that it is.

Therefore it is based on act of faith in the power of science.

I treat all animals appropriately, including human animals.

“appropriately” implies a fundamental difference between persons and animals - unless you consider the term “person” to be superfluous.

I’ll let Christopher Hitchens retort: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Do you deny that we have the power of self-control and an enduring identity? If not how do you explain them?

But an inclination towards a process which has proven manifestly successful over centuries seems a pretty safe bet.

Manifestly successful in a restricted area of knowledge which doesn’t solve our personal problems.

Modern medicine is based on results, not philosophy.

Modern medicine is based on the principles of knowledge formulated by Plato, Aristotle and their successors, e.g. the intelligibility of the universe and the validity of reasoning.

I’m happy with “mind” - as long as we agree that we are talking about a non-physical sentience.

The mind is not merely sentience but a rational entity with a capacity for emotion and decision-making.

We are biological machines, operating according to the “laws” of physics.

Are your beliefs, thoughts, emotions, values and decisions explained by physics? If so how?

Overwhelming evidence of free will is present in the way every reasonable person thinks and behaves, in every legal system throughout the world and in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - which are otherwise meaningless.

And here’s where we disagree - I would rephrase as, “The illusion of free will is present…” It’s a convincing illusion, but not supported by either direct evidence or what we currently believe about the way the universe works.".

It is supported by our direct experience of forcing ourselves to control our emotions, acting against our instincts, reasoning objectively and behaving according to moral principles.

As Kant observed, “ought implies can”.

I think this is where supporters of free will make their mistake. Abandoning the concept of free will is not the same as being forced to do something against one’s will (that would be slavery). Nor is it to helplessly observe as your body does things you didn’t ask it to do. Such viewpoints are paradoxical, because they intrinsically maintain free will in order to express outrage at having free will taken away. It’s like imagining your kids had never existed - personally the thought fills me with despair, even though logically I know that if they had never existed I wouldn’t miss them.".

You are smuggling free will into your argument because your statements imply that you are capable of reaching objective conclusions regardless of your instincts, feelings or inclinations. In other words you assume you are not dominated by genetic and environmental factors but are an impartial, detached and independent observer of events.

 

[tonyrey]

Your comment doesn’t make sense in the context of humans as superfluous to the universe.

Why do you think humanity is superfluous? What isn’t superfluous?

Guilt or innocence are not related to whether or not we have free will.

In that case other species are also innocent or guilty.

One either did a bad thing or one didn’t. Whether or not that bad thing was a consequence of free will or a deterministic universe is a different matter.

So one can be guilty simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Currently our justice systems are built around the concept of retribution; although this might have a deterrent effect which would form an (name removed by moderator)ut for the deterministic operations of our brain, it is arguably a rather primitive reaction.

It is far more primitive to believe we are impotent spectators.

It has been shown that retributive reactions make little or no difference to the likelihood of any particular individual to re-offend, so maybe we’re approaching this all wrong. The longer we continue to deny the evidence and posit free will, the longer we delay the point where we can actually start to address the real problem.

In other words persons have to be conditioned like rats…

Belief in free will does not imply that we are uniquely important and special in the universe

No - but I was addressing your sidebar regarding superfluity. If you believe we are not superfluous as a species, then you by default imbue us with some special quality.

Unlike you I don’t regard life as superfluous:

O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is as cheap as beast’s.

• King Lear

I reject free will because otherwise I need to posit all kinds of supernatural phenomena for which there is no evidence…

That is to say, on principle - even though it undermines every legal system throughout the world.

… and I also need to reject the evidence that does exist. I reject it for reasons of empiricism and parsimony. I don’t regard life as absurd or meaningless. I just regard it as inconsequential for the universe.

Inconsequentiality and impotence are identical with absurdity and meaninglessness.

I don’t believe the universe is sentient and needs humans in it. I don’t believe there is some higher intellect that would care if we all died out. Because there is neither evidence nor logic, for such an intellect.

The immense complexity, organisation, efficiency, versatility, creativity, power and beauty of life obviously count for nothing in your scheme of things.

How can life based on self-deception be fulfilling? Please explain why a lack of free will doesn’t lead to fatalism.

People self-deceive all the time - they don’t all lead fruitless, desperate lives. I genuinely don’t believe in free will. I’m not a fatalist, I still enjoy life, my friends and family, reading a good novel, listening to good music. Rejecting free will doesn’t entail “letting life happen to you” as you sit there, a hopeless observer. I think this misconception is what drives the fatalism notion.

In other words you pretend to yourself you are influencing events even though you believe everything we think and do is the result of forces beyond our control.

Do cogs in a machine affect its output? If so how?

Sorry, you’ve lost me. What’s the relevance?

Do biological cogs in a natural machine affect its output? If so how?

In this context emotions are irrelevant because they are supposedly uncontrollable.

Okay, apart from the weasel words, this is true.

" weasel words" and “this is true” are contradictory.

But emotions are not irrelevant just because they are not selected. It doesn’t mean you don’t feel them, and that they don’t feel real.

Feelings are not indicative of innocence or guilt.

Consistency of output without insight does not suffice to generate correspondence to reality.

You’re still refusing to take the point, although I suspect you understand it perfectly.

Logical consistency alone does not yield the truth. If we couldn’t choose what to think we would be far more likely to bark up the wrong tree because our thoughts would be caused by factors totally beyond our control.

Why haven’t the great apes produced anything comparable to art, science, music, literature and philosophy? Because their DNA differs by about 1% from ours? Is that the sole reason?

Yes. Ultimately. And “great apes” includes humans.

The question remains unanswered. Why haven’t other species produced anything comparable to art, science, music, literature and philosophy?

If objective experiments strongly indicated that free will does not exist legal systems throughout the world would have been (and should be) discarded and the UDHR abandoned because they cease to make sense if no one is responsible for anything.

Research is still new in this area, and change takes time.

Unrealistic faith in the universal scope of science reappears without any justification for the self-refuting assumption that no one is responsible for anything - including one’s conclusions. In practice no sane person would allow computers to control society.

However, I suspect the main reason for any delay to the court system will turn out to be the overwhelming number of people who will, like you, continue to reject the evidence, in preference for their own desire to believe they have free will.

Ad hominem - which could be applied to those who ardently desire free will to be an illusion which removes the burden of responsibility for their actions and decisions.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

Hi Area Man,
Animals do have the ability to freely make choices, example; Pet-food companies maintain dogs and cats so that controlled trials can be conducted on their preference for one brand of dog or cat food compared to the opposition’s product. They also exhibit vestigial instinctive behaviour such as walking in a circle and scratching at the ground before bunking down for the night. All domestic dogs originated from Siberian wolves, it was a survival instinct to make a protective nest of leaves and twigs to protect themselves from the arctic wind. Those that didn’t have the instinct to carry out this ritual became extinct, that’s why the behaviour persists today. I asked myself many years ago as a youngster raised as a Catholic…Do humans also exhibit redundant vestigial instinctive behaviour…The answer was like the proverbial light-bulb…Superstition…of course it is referred to now as religion but we are all a product of our superstitious pagan ancestors, skeptics were called blasphemers and heretics and culled from the tribe. The result is that the genetic predisposition for skepticism has almost entirely been eliminated from the gene-pool.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

There is a scientific explanation for everything…those who are blinded by superstition fail to see it…
Rex Mundi.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a scientific explanation for everything…those who are blinded by superstition fail to see it…
Rex Mundi.

So there is a scientific explanation for scientific explanations… and another scientific explanation for that explanation… ad infinitum… Hmmm…

Those who are blinded by science fail to see they are blinded by science.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I think animals have free will in a compatibilistic rather than a libertarian sense.