Your opinion: Do animals have souls?

[Helcaraxë]

OK, premise 1 is right, I think. Animals truly are alive.
Premise 2 however is debatable. You can not be sure whether animals are in control of themselves. At least not with all animals. The degree of control may differ. A chicken in a factory that is not wallowed to walk free and is just provided some food that makes it grow faster is not really in control of itself.

The chicken still controls itself. It causes the beating of its heart, the churning of its stomach, and the electrical signals transmitted by its neurons. All these things are accomplished through the agency of the chicken (not the chicken's free will, but the chicken). No finite thing can have absolute control over itself, but as long as some measure of control is achieved, it can still be said that the thing controls itself.

But the premise 'only animate objects can control' (I would rather make Premise 3 of it) is right.
But Premise 3 is not right. as I explained before, this assumption is bare of any proof or rational base. It lacks any logic. Possession is not equal to control. There are many examples of possession without control and of control without possession. Therefore premise 3 is wrong.

I gave you the definition from a dictionary. If you don't like it, prove why it is wrong. Why do you think that the alledged occupation of a being by a foreign intelligence is called "possession?" I'll give you the definition again: "the act of having or taking into control." The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. And another definition from "dictionary.com": "Self-control." There you have it. If you disagree, demonstrate possession without control. If you have absolutely no control over something, your "possession" is purely nominal.

The conclusion would be logically correct. It really descends from the three premises. But because premise 3 is incorrect, the conclusion may be wrong, too. And it is wrong in my opinion. Animals do not possess themselves. unless they are born free.

Premise 3 is correct. And why do you say that animals do not control themselves? Again, they are in control of their own bodily processess. You could just as easily say that a slave does not possess himself.

A word of advice before anything else, Helcaraxë: all misunderstandings -- ALL misunderstandings -- in a debate (written or live) are the fault of the speaker. It's a good rule of thumb. It also encourages precise wording.

Possibly. Let's just stop this pointless bickering and get on with the debate, shall we? :)


See how precise wording helps. Now we can examine your full argument instead of refuting part of it just to see the unstated premise come to help.

Now we need a definition of "animate". In its primary sense it would mean "having a soul" and then the pan-animist speculation that gives souls to water and coins would defeat you. So you probably mean "able to move". But water moves. Perhaps it means "able to move purposefully". But then you'll have to prove purpose in the animal movements. Water goes down; why does this movement lacks purpose and the movement of animals doesn't?

Even if the world has a soul (I believe it does), it is not animate. First off, animation requires movement in relation to surroundings, and the universe has no surroundings. But I do not mean able to move per se. I mean able to move of one's own accord as an entity separate, partially, from an environment.

Anyway, it's better if you define your words instead of me.

Note that evolutionary ethology can explain the "purposeful movement" of animals without any reference to a soul or to a free will. And that's what matters. There is no "control" without a "controller". If the movements of animals are the results of deterministic clash of particles, then they are nothing more than Descartes' automata and your argument fails.

I'm not sure what evolutionary ethology is. But even if animal movement was caused by the deterministic clash of particles (I think that's an oversimplification), it would the deterministic clash of particles with regards to the animal; it would be the deterministic clash of the particles that are of the animal and in the animal. The particles that make up the animal would be the cause of it: the particles that are the animal cause the movements, and hence the animal itself.

So, this is the challenge now: to define "animate" and to define "control" in a way that excludes purely deterministic phenomena (such as a waterfall) but includes animals and humans.

The water moves because there is an incline in the rock that the it is flowing over. The water cannot move of it's own accord. It only moves because the rock it shaped in a certain way. It itself does not really move, it itself. Rather, it moves only because it conforms to the rock. It's movement is entirely dependent on the environment in which the water flows. The environment controls the movement, and not the entity itself. An animal or a human moves because of factors that are present in the animal or human itself; it's movement is not entirely dependent on the environment. The envrionment is not the primary cause of the movement. To some extent it is, because environments impose limitations. But a person or an animal can walk uphill; water cannot flow uphill unless there is an external force to cause it. So essentially, animals and humans move partially independent of the environment; they move of their own accord, and not the accord of the envionment.

~Helcaraxë

[Eriol]

I mean able to move of one's own accord as an entity separate, partially, from an environment.

The water moves because there is an incline in the rock that the it is flowing over. The water cannot move of it's own accord. It only moves because the rock it shaped in a certain way. It itself does not really move, it itself. Rather, it moves only because it conforms to the rock. It's movement is entirely dependent on the environment in which the water flows. The environment controls the movement, and not the entity itself. An animal or a human moves because of factors that are present in the animal or human itself; it's movement is not entirely dependent on the environment. The envrionment is not the primary cause of the movement. To some extent it is, because environments impose limitations. But a person or an animal can walk uphill; water cannot flow uphill unless there is an external force to cause it. So essentially, animals and humans move partially independent of the environment; they move of their own accord, and not the accord of the envionment.

~Helcaraxë

The claim that evolutionary ethology makes (ethology = the study of behavior) is precisely that the behavior of animals can be completely explained by a reference to genetic and environmental factors. This would put animals in the same category as water. I'm not talking about "regulation" by genes and environment, I'm talking about full determinism. The behavior of any animal can be fully predicted from the genetic makeup of the animal, the life history of the animal, and the environmental of the animal. In other words, it has no control.

Just like water.

I hate invoking scientific authority in this kind of talk, but you'll have to research for scientists' opinions to the contrary of what I stated here before the claim that "animals have control" can be considered as possible. You'll have to find evidence for free will in animals.

[Helcaraxë]

The claim that evolutionary ethology makes (ethology = the study of behavior) is precisely that the behavior of animals can be completely explained by a reference to genetic and environmental factors. This would put animals in the same category as water. I'm not talking about "regulation" by genes and environment, I'm talking about full determinism. The behavior of any animal can be fully predicted from the genetic makeup of the animal, the life history of the animal, and the environmental of the animal. In other words, it has no control.

Just like water.

I hate invoking scientific authority in this kind of talk, but you'll have to research for scientists' opinions to the contrary of what I stated here before the claim that "animals have control" can be considered as possible. You'll have to find evidence for free will in animals.


First off, could you provide some proof as to why I should accept the claims of evolutionary ecology as true? It's fine if you invoke scientific authority, but make sure that it is clear how this supports your argument. I tried googling, but I didn't find much pertinent information.

On with the soup: the claim that an animal has absolutely no control separate from the environment doesn't seem very credible. Even if all organisms are controlled ultimately by determinsitic clashes of particles, it would still be controlled by the being; I mean that's what physical entities really are: clashing particles. To say it is controlled by clashing particles isn't incompatible with saying that it is controlled by the animal; in many cases, clashing particles are the same as the animal. But surely if animals are controlled by deterministic clashes of particles, so are humans? There is no ontological distinction between humans and animals. So is that all free will boils down to? It can't be argued that free will is removed from this, because free will in the material world is a material thing. It may have some transcendent existence, but as long as the entity dwell in the physical world, free will is limited by surroundings. Perhaps a mentally disabled person is highly intelligent in a transcendent realm, but their mind is, as of the moment, limited by the world of the physical. Perhaps at death they will be liberated of this impairment. But while they exist in the world of matter, intelligence is limited by the brain, and if the brain is damaged, physical intelligence is damaged, until the entity is freed from the limitations imposed by the material substratum. Even if free will does exist, it is temporarily contained in an earthly prison and thus must temporarily acknowledge earthly limitations. But anyway, how can the movement of an organism be entirely dependent on the environment? The reason water does not spontaneously flow uphill is because it is under the complete jurisdiction of its environment. A person or an animal may walk uphill because they are capable of (partially) independent volition. Jumping is defying gravity, for a time. How is it possible to move in a way that seems to conflict with the environment? Because organisms that control themselves are partially independent of surroundings. Not entirely, of course. But there is some degree of separation.

Second: (Free will is not relevant to our argument, but that doesn't matter) there is evidence of some degree of free will in animals. In one experiment, a a dot of white paint was placed on the forehead of a chimpanzee. It was shown itself in a mirror. Instead of wondering at the apparent "other chimp" in the mirror, it started touching to marking on its forehead. It understood that it itself exists. It is somewhat self-aware. Surely self-awareness is factor in free will. How can one make choices if one does not understand that one exists to make those choices? And that's what free will is, in essence: choice. But the point is this: animals are not driven enitirely by instinct. To say that they have no free will is to say that they never has a choice. Animals make choices all the time.

[Eriol]

First off, it is evolutionary ethology.

Try checking the names of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and some others to see stuff about the absolute determinism of ALL beings, including humans.

Also, Hamilton's Law is about sociobiology; eminent writers about this kind of thing would be E.O.Wilson and Richard Wright (I'm almost sure that's the name, his book is "The Moral Animal").

Now, these guys believe that determinism embraces all beings. I think they are mistaken because determinism is self-contradictory with argument and truth. Since we (humans) can detect truth, there can't be full determinism at play in humans. But this reasoning does not absolve animals from full determinism, and the data they present are VERY cogent; so cogent that they suppose even humans lack free will. (This is a self-contradictory claim, but the point here is that the evidence is good, and that this is NOT self-contradictory as regards animals).

You say free will is not relevant. I can't fathom that. If there is no free will, there is full determinism; there is no middle ground. Full determinism is exactly the same thing as the behavior of water. To claim that our free will is "restricted by our bodies" is to claim that it is not free, and therefore to claim that we can't reach truth -- self-contradiction. Our free will is bound to a limited body, but it is not limited, itself.

Self-awareness is a pre-requisite to free will, but I can't see how self-awareness would forcefully indicate the presence of free will. And neither can all of those guys mentioned above, they don't deny self-awareness in humans. How is it that self-awareness proves free will? You say "how can one make choices if one does not understand those choices?" Well, that is addressed at free will, but the position in the paragraph makes it seem as if you believe that self-awareness implies making choices. Is that so? Why?

"Animals make choices" is exactly what you have to prove, against the evidence of all cognitive science and sociobiology and evolutionary ethology. Hehe. Those guys are denying that humans make choices! What to say of animals then? Sure, they may be wrong (they obviously are wrong in the case of humans), but the point is that "animals make choices" can't be taken for granted.

[Tarlanc]

I gave you the definition from a dictionary. If you don't like it, prove why it is wrong. Why do you think that the alledged occupation of a being by a foreign intelligence is called "possession?" I'll give you the definition again: "the act of having or taking into control." The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. And another definition from "dictionary.com": "Self-control." There you have it. If you disagree, demonstrate possession without control. If you have absolutely no control over something, your "possession" is purely nominal.
Ah, got your error. It is a problem of language. 'taking into control sth.' and 'taking over control over sth.' really are synonymes of taking sth. into possession. In this phrase the word 'control' can bey a systonyme.
But 'to control sth.' is not a synonyme to 'to possess sth.' In this phrases the words are different. And that's the crux. In the english language these words unfortunately are the same. But their meaning is different. 'control' is not equal to 'control'.
'taking over control' does need free will and self-awareness. Only if you are aware of yourself you can be able to take over control. I can not take over control if there is no me.
But 'to control sth.' does not require free will. It just requires the ability to give a feedback.

Practical example: An Auto Pilot can control the plane. It was programmed to control it. It can control its engines and the life sustaining systems. But a terrorist can take control over the plane he can decide to take the plane into his personal possession. He does not own it by right then, but he has the plane in his control. However, the terrorist may not be able to control the plane. He needs the pilot to control the plane. Even if he has taken it into his control.

I hope, i made my point clear. There is a difference between 'controlling' and 'taking over control'.
(It probably would't have occurred to me if I spoke english. But in German these two words are distinct. 'take over control over sth.' is called 'etwas übernehmen' in german and 'control sth.' is 'Etwas kontrollieren'. So, this error could not have happened in other languages)

And there is a difference between the usage of control in Premise 2 (An animal is in control of itself) and the usage of 'control' in 'taking over control', which would be synonymous for taking sth. in possession.
The usage in premise 2 speaks of the control a chicken has over its body functions. It can make noise, can extrete feces, can lay eggs, thus it controls its body. But that does not mean that no framer ma take control over the chicken, put it into a cage and letting it work for him. It still controls its boy, but someone else took it in possession. And there your argumaentation is misleading.

I think, the discussion about possession can not be solved by a definition over 'control' because control is never absoulte. It's always a question fo the degree of control one has over sth.
Possession is more likely to be approached by 'self awareness'. Only if I am aware of myself I can possess something. I think, this is a Hypothesis that suits even you.

Approaching it like this, we'd have to find out whether an animal is aware of itself. It it is, then it may possess something.
Chimps, for example, do recognize their images in the mirror, can respond to a name and even use this name in sentences (in gestures only, because of their lack of speech) and respond to their name. Thus we can assume that Chimps ate truly aware of themselves. Thus they are able to possess something.
And, for real, Chimps are able to understand the principles of possession. You can give them a ball for themselves, and they know it is theirs. They will recognize their ball and they can tell their fellows that it is their property and that they must not take it away. The can defent their possessions.

Cows however, as they are animals, too, are not able of self-awareness. Though they do have traces of social behaviour they do not recognize themselves in the mirror and will not answer to their name, their personal sign or something else. And they are not able to possess something. You can give them something (may it be a ball, a private room or something else) and they have no relation to this thing. They will use it eventually, but they will not interfere if another cow uses the ball as well or you take it away from them. They will not realize it is exchanged. They are not able to possess something.

You can make this game now with any animal and human. As soon as there is the ability of self-awareness, the subject is able to understand the sense of possession.

For, as Eriol said, even animals are just reacting to their environment. Sometimes it may seem to us as if they showed intelligent behaviour, but it is still a question of instincts and reactions. There were many experiments with animals that show that they are just following their instinct. And do the most nonsensical things if you set up their environment in the right way. If you don't believe it, read Konrad Lorentz' books about behaviour. It's astonishing how many behavioural pattrens of geese and fishes are even recognizable in humans :)
We all are animals. Some of us a little more complex, some even self aware and able of speech, but animals nontheless.

[Sarde]

Tarlanc, I think my dogs also have a sense of possession. They have toys and will defend those against one another. Sometimes they will even refuse to give them to me. They seem to have some sense of ownership over their toys.

[Tarlanc]

Tarlanc, I think my dogs also have a sense of possession. They have toys and will defend those against one another. Sometimes they will even refuse to give them to me. They seem to have some sense of ownership over their toys.
Yes, that's right. Dogs seem to have a sense of possession, too. And they also are aware of themselves to some degree. They may answer to a call of their name. But I am not sure how strong these senses are. If you exchange the favourite toy of your dog with a similar looking one with another colour and another shape, will the dog notice the exchange? (Of course you'd have to put his saliva on the toy)

Probably the dog just defends the things that smell like him. The thing that belong to his territory. But you'd have to test it.

[Sarde]

Hm, I don't think I feel like replacing their 10 toys with 10 other toys. Too expensive. :D

[Eledhwen]

A lion has a 'sense of possession' over its kill. Dogs have had all their natural instincts bred out of them; they behave more like cubs than grown beasts. Their wild ancestors, for instance, never barked once they were adults. A dog who is possessive over soft toys is 'playing' at meat. Just watch the behaviour of domestic pet dogs when they get in a pack, or are let loose among a flock of sheep.

[Tarlanc]

A lion has a 'sense of possession' over its kill.
Not really. A lion will defend his kill at any rate. But not because he thinks he owns it but because his instinct tells him to do so. In the same way many animals defend their territory or their sexual partners.
It is an instinct to protect the things you need for the survival of your kind. A lion would not notice if you took his zebra away from him and gave him an antilope. As long as he has the meat. But as soon as someone approaches him while he eats, he attaks the intruder. It's just a reflex. In the same way a Chicken will attack anyone that is furry and approaches her little chicks unless it makes the sound of a chick. It is just a reflex. You can bind a tape recorder on a skateboard that makes the sound of little chicks and the Chicken will let it approach her young ones and eventually sit on the tape recorder. It does not have a sense of motherhood or possession. It's just an instinct to attack intruders.
And in the same way a lion will attack anyone that approaches his kill. Even if it is the warden that brings some more meat. It does not matter who or what it is. Trespassing will be prohibited :)

[Helcaraxë]

First off, it is evolutionary ethology.

I know, that was a typo.

Try checking the names of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and some others to see stuff about the absolute determinism of ALL beings, including humans.

Also, Hamilton's Law is about sociobiology; eminent writers about this kind of thing would be E.O.Wilson and Richard Wright (I'm almost sure that's the name, his book is "The Moral Animal").

Now, these guys believe that determinism embraces all beings. I think they are mistaken because determinism is self-contradictory with argument and truth. Since we (humans) can detect truth, there can't be full determinism at play in humans. But this reasoning does not absolve animals from full determinism, and the data they present are VERY cogent; so cogent that they suppose even humans lack free will. (This is a self-contradictory claim, but the point here is that the evidence is good, and that this is NOT self-contradictory as regards animals).

It is not self-contradictory. It could be argued that arguing is not a demonstration of free will at all, but entirely deterministic. Where is the contradiction? Argument isn't necessarily a demonstration of free will. Arguing is merely a type of speech geared toward persuasion. But this can be achieved through the agency of deterministic clashes of particles. Not that I am supporting evolutionary ethology. But you didn't listen to my argument. Animals are controlled by deterministic particles, according to evolutionary ethology. But animals and humans are clashing particles, so they can still control themselves. Free will is not necessary in control. The reason animals can control and water cannot is because water's movement is entirely dependent on the environment. Surely even an evolutionary ethologist wouldn't argue that animal have some measure of independent volition that water lacks. Even if the movement of water and animals are both controlled by the same thing (clashing particles) the clashing particles of the animal allow it to move more independently than the water, while the water's clashing particles only allow it to move entirely in accord with the environment.

You say free will is not relevant. I can't fathom that. If there is no free will, there is full determinism; there is no middle ground. Full determinism is exactly the same thing as the behavior of water. To claim that our free will is "restricted by our bodies" is to claim that it is not free, and therefore to claim that we can't reach truth -- self-contradiction. Our free will is bound to a limited body, but it is not limited, itself.

If there is a contradiction, demonstrate it. And I never claimed that we cannot reach truth. But you misunderstand me. The fact that free will is bound temporarily to physical existence does not mean we cannot make choices, only that these choices are limited by the material substratum. But that's not the point. Free will is not necessary in possession. I demonstrated this many times. If you would like me to prove (again) that there can be control without free will, I will.

Self-awareness is a pre-requisite to free will, but I can't see how self-awareness would forcefully indicate the presence of free will. And neither can all of those guys mentioned above, they don't deny self-awareness in humans. How is it that self-awareness proves free will? You say "how can one make choices if one does not understand those choices?" Well, that is addressed at free will, but the position in the paragraph makes it seem as if you believe that self-awareness implies making choices. Is that so? Why?

No, that was merely a side-note. Free will is irrelevant in possession.

"Animals make choices" is exactly what you have to prove, against the evidence of all cognitive science and sociobiology and evolutionary ethology. Hehe. Those guys are denying that humans make choices! What to say of animals then? Sure, they may be wrong (they obviously are wrong in the case of humans), but the point is that "animals make choices" can't be taken for granted.

The problem is, I don't have to prove that at all. :) Choices are not necessary in possession. If this was true, you could not control the beating of your heart. But you do. Note: you do. Your free will does not. However, this does not mean that all things can control. As I said before, control cannot be achieved when all movement is dependent on the environment. The rock does not control the water, because the rock is not the reason that water flows over it. Movement and animation (semi-independent movement) is the only thing that is necessary in possession. Determinism does not negate the fact that animals have some degree of independent voliton, and neither does evolutionary ethology, for reasons I stated above.

[Helcaraxë]

Ah, got your error. It is a problem of language. 'taking into control sth.' and 'taking over control over sth.' really are synonymes of taking sth. into possession. In this phrase the word 'control' can bey a systonyme.
But 'to control sth.' is not a synonyme to 'to possess sth.' In this phrases the words are different. And that's the crux. In the english language these words unfortunately are the same. But their meaning is different. 'control' is not equal to 'control'.

Control is not equal to control. That's a violation of the principle of non-contradiction, unless I misinterpreted you. This paragraph was quite confusing. Could you elucidate it?
'taking over control' does need free will and self-awareness. Only if you are aware of yourself you can be able to take over control. I can not take over control if there is no me.

Yes you can. You can 'take over control' in involuntarily. Here's the key point: you cannot take over control if there is no you, but you are not your free will; free will is merely a part of you. Other parts (involuntary parts) can take control. ;) Anyway, you have not provided any evidence that supports this claim. I cannot really dispute it until you have shown why it is true.

But 'to control sth.' does not require free will. It just requires the ability to give a feedback.

What does feedback have to do with it? If you make assertions like these, please provide reasons. :)

Practical example: An Auto Pilot can control the plane. It was programmed to control it. It can control its engines and the life sustaining systems. But a terrorist can take control over the plane he can decide to take the plane into his personal possession. He does not own it by right then, but he has the plane in his control. However, the terrorist may not be able to control the plane. He needs the pilot to control the plane. Even if he has taken it into his control.

But the terrorist is in control of the plane. Not absolute control. But control. He can tell the pilot where to take the plane. He can even control the plane himself; he controls it badly, but he (like any other person) can shift the controls this way and that. But anyway, he controls the plane through the agency of the pilot, but he still controls is.

I hope, i made my point clear. There is a difference between 'controlling' and 'taking over control'.
(It probably would't have occurred to me if I spoke english. But in German these two words are distinct. 'take over control over sth.' is called 'etwas übernehmen' in german and 'control sth.' is 'Etwas kontrollieren'. So, this error could not have happened in other languages)

Could you support the assertion that taking over control requires free will, while controlling does not?

And there is a difference between the usage of control in Premise 2 (An animal is in control of itself) and the usage of 'control' in 'taking over control', which would be synonymous for taking sth. in possession.
The usage in premise 2 speaks of the control a chicken has over its body functions. It can make noise, can extrete feces, can lay eggs, thus it controls its body. But that does not mean that no framer ma take control over the chicken, put it into a cage and letting it work for him. It still controls its boy, but someone else took it in possession. And there your argumaentation is misleading.

Wait, where did a boy come in? This is all very confusing. The farmer may to some extent control the chicken, but the chicken retains the greater control. And even if the farmer mind-controls the chicken, and is the major controlling factor in the chicken, he would not rightfully possess the chicken because he took control be force.

I think, the discussion about possession can not be solved by a definition over 'control' because control is never absoulte. It's always a question fo the degree of control one has over sth.

Degree of control is not relevant, as absolute control can never be achieved. Of course no animal or person is in complete control of their body, but they are the primary factors in the control of themselves, and obviously the primary factors supercede the lesser. If someone became the primary factor in the control of an organism, than yes, they would be the actual controller of the thing, the real possessor, though their possession would not be rightful.

Possession is more likely to be approached by 'self awareness'. Only if I am aware of myself I can possess something. I think, this is a Hypothesis that suits even you.
Not really, as this is the point I have been contesting for the past six posts. ;) I have shown many times that consciousness is not necessary in free will. Animate objects can control things even if they have no consciousness.

Approaching it like this, we'd have to find out whether an animal is aware of itself. It it is, then it may possess something.
Chimps, for example, do recognize their images in the mirror, can respond to a name and even use this name in sentences (in gestures only, because of their lack of speech) and respond to their name. Thus we can assume that Chimps ate truly aware of themselves. Thus they are able to possess something.
And, for real, Chimps are able to understand the principles of possession. You can give them a ball for themselves, and they know it is theirs. They will recognize their ball and they can tell their fellows that it is their property and that they must not take it away. The can defent their possessions.

Cows however, as they are animals, too, are not able of self-awareness. Though they do have traces of social behaviour they do not recognize themselves in the mirror and will not answer to their name, their personal sign or something else. And they are not able to possess something. You can give them something (may it be a ball, a private room or something else) and they have no relation to this thing. They will use it eventually, but they will not interfere if another cow uses the ball as well or you take it away from them. They will not realize it is exchanged. They are not able to possess something.

You can make this game now with any animal and human. As soon as there is the ability of self-awareness, the subject is able to understand the sense of possession.
Well said, but irrelevant because consciousness does not matter.
For, as Eriol said, even animals are just reacting to their environment. Sometimes it may seem to us as if they showed intelligent behaviour, but it is still a question of instincts and reactions. There were many experiments with animals that show that they are just following their instinct. And do the most nonsensical things if you set up their environment in the right way. If you don't believe it, read Konrad Lorentz' books about behaviour. It's astonishing how many behavioural pattrens of geese and fishes are even recognizable in humans
We all are animals. Some of us a little more complex, some even self aware and able of speech, but animals nontheless.
Eriol said that, but it is a point that I would contest. Any animate object, including animals, is animate by virtue of it's partial degree of independence from the absolute control of the environment. But again, the only criterion necessary for control and possession is some degree of independent volition. :) So the behaviour of animals is irrelevant; only the fact that they are animate objects matters.

[Eriol]

Arguing is merely a type of speech geared toward persuasion.

Only in politics :D. Arguing is in fact an action between two persons (not "a kind of speech" -- it requires two persons) that is geared toward truth, not persuasion. We don't argue to see who is the best arguer, we argue to reach truth.

But animals and humans are clashing particles, so they can still control themselves.

That is impossible. Particles can't control themselves if they lack free will. And if they have free will they are more than just "clashing particles".

The reason animals can control and water cannot is because water's movement is entirely dependent on the environment.

But if animals are particles, they are also entirely dependent; if they are not particles, they have free will. If you deny free will, you are forced to equate them with particles.

Surely even an evolutionary ethologist wouldn't argue that animal have some measure of independent volition that water lacks.

That's precisely what he would argue. They have no independent control. They are shaped by genes, life history and environment. These guys even believe humans are like that too, Helcaraxë; I don't think this has sank into you deep enough. They have data -- lots of data -- in their favor. I would be compelled to agree with them in the case of humans if it was not contradictory; and I am compelled to agree with them in the case of animals. Animals lack free will; therefore, they are (mere) particles.

Even if the movement of water and animals are both controlled by the same thing (clashing particles) the clashing particles of the animal allow it to move more independently than the water, while the water's clashing particles only allow it to move entirely in accord with the environment.

Though animals are more sophisticated than water, ultimately they are just as deterministic -- i.e., non-free. As regards freedom, there is no difference between water and animals. They are both "reduced to physics". I'm sure you are aware that this is one of the prominent goals of science, the reductionist program. They are quite advanced along that path as regards animal behavior.

If there is a contradiction, demonstrate it. And I never claimed that we cannot reach truth. But you misunderstand me. The fact that free will is bound temporarily to physical existence does not mean we cannot make choices, only that these choices are limited by the material substratum. But that's not the point. Free will is not necessary in possession. I demonstrated this many times. If you would like me to prove (again) that there can be control without free will, I will.

I'd like you to use the word "proof" with rigor ;). Not "proof to a degree", but proof only. I'd like that word to mean the same thing when you use it than when I use it, hehe.

The problem is, I don't have to prove that at all. :) Choices are not necessary in possession. If this was true, you could not control the beating of your heart. But you do. Note: you do.

What is "you" in that sentence? Can it be said that water controls the fall of water? No? But then why can't we say that the exchange of sodium and potassium controls my heartbeat? And that the balance of these elements are controlled by the food I eat? And that the food I eat are controlled by my dietary choices? And that my dietary choices are controlled by genes and environment?

If you go deep enough you will always reach "genes and environment" in the case of animals; and you won't reach that in humans. That's the barrier you have to break. When you say "you control your heartbeat", you posit an entity - "you", my ego -- that is unwarranted in the case of water (obviously) and is also unwarranted, according to science, in the case of animals (less obviously).

Movement and animation (semi-independent movement) is the only thing that is necessary in possession.

Please show the difference between the movement of water, of an amoeba, of a microalgae, of an earthworm, of a dog, and of a chimp. (just some examples here). And show that at some point, something which is not absolutely determined by genes and environment appears.

Determinism does not negate the fact that animals have some degree of independent voliton, and neither does evolutionary ethology, for reasons I stated above.

Nope. That's exactly what evolutionary ethology negates. Have you googled some on it? And determinism denies the fact that humans have independent volition!

It may be hard to swallow, but that's what determinism entails; and science entails determinism as regards animals. Sorry about that.

[Tarlanc]

Control is not equal to control. That's a violation of the principle of non-contradiction, unless I misinterpreted you. This paragraph was quite confusing. Could you elucidate it?
I DID
I explained it in two languages, gave an exapmle and tried to be as clear as possible. But once more:
The problem of language is, that words don't have absolute meanings. The meaning of a word is defined by it's use (comp. Wittgenstein). And unfortunately there are two different uses of the word 'control' which mean different things. On one hand there is the use of 'control' as in 'to control something'. A computer, for example can control a plane. A simlep chip my control the water level at a dam. The pancreas controls the glucose Level in the blood. All you need for this kind of control is the ability to give a feedback. To read the state of the environment and react to it. Yo don't need self-awareness or whatever you think 'free will' is.
The other use of 'control' is 'taking control over something' or 'taking into control something'. In this use of the word you don't need to be able to control the thins you have in control. You just take it into possession. It can be controlled by others. But if you take control over something you possess it. And this action does need self-awareness. You do have to know there is a you to be able to take something for yourself. A computer, a chicken, water, coins and so on are not awaer of themselves. Thus they can't take control over something. But they can in some cases control something.

And now don't come with th platonic idea that suggests that words do have an absoulte meaning. It is not the case. And it is proven by that many details.
just an example: 'To count on someone' is equal to 'To rely on someone' But that does not mean that 'count' and 'rely' are meaning the same thing. They can be replaced in this one sentence but you can not rely to ten. You can not count a signal to a reciever to far away. The words are not meaning the same thing.
The same applies to 'control' and 'possession'. In the sentence 'Take something into control' they may be exchanged without problem. The sentence 'take something into possession' means the same thing.
But your idea that in this case the premise 'possession is control' must be true, is a fatal error. Because 'I control an airplane' and 'I possess an airplane' do have different meanings.
This is a problem of language. But one you have to be aware of in such discussions.

you cannot take over control if there is no you, but you are not your free will
define 'free will'
This is just another word which may mean different things. I would be glad if you could define it clearly.

What does feedback have to do with it? If you make assertions like these, please provide reasons. :)
I did. Just because Eriol showed you that most of your 'proofs' are assertions, you mustn't be touchy ;)
Feedback is the key ability which something needs to control something. Feedback is the process of reading the state of your einvironment and react to it by activationg processes that affect this state. There are many feedback-systems in nature. and all of them control something. Even computers that are controlling airplanes, power plants, traffic lights and air condition are just feedback-systems. A thermostat for example checks the temerature of the room, compares it with the temerature wished for and gives a signal to the air condition to cool down or heat up the room. It's just a feedback. But by this feedback it controls the temerature in the room.
An Autopilot reads the altitude, speed, course, weight... of the plane and then gives signals to the engines and the hydraulic systems to keep the plane on the programmed course. By these feedbacks it controls the plane.
So, the only ability something needs to control is the ability of feedback. It does not need a will, self-awareness or anything like that.

]But the terrorist is in control of the plane.(...) He can even control the plane himself;
There you are. You use the two terms in different situations without noticing :) It is absolutely correct like this. He is in control and he can even control it, if he wishes. It is not the same thing. The fact that he is in control does not mean that he controls it. But it means that he can even make the decision to control it. After he took it into control.

Could you support the assertion that taking over control requires free will, while controlling does not?
the part with '..while controlling does not' I did in the eyplanation of feedback above.
But taking over control does require that you want to take over control. You need to have the will to take this thing into control. The terrorist won't go to the cockpit to hijack the plane unless he has the will to do so. Something that does not want to possess someting will take nothing into control. So you need the ability to want something. A kind of free will.
Of course, this is a hypothesis. If you can show me evidence to falsify it, bring it on. But as far as I see this hypothesis is correct.

Wait, where did a boy come in?
Typing error. I meant 'body'

The farmer may to some extent control the chicken, but the chicken retains the greater control.
Yes, the chicken still controlls the body. That is, where the organs don't control themselves. It still controlls the sceletal muscle and is able to pick at corns. And this control cna never be taken away from him unless by killing the chicken. For as long as it lives it controlls its body. But it is not in control if the chicken. It just controlls the body. The farmer is in control of the chicken. He possesses it. He can put it into a cage, he can feed it what he wants, he can take its eggs and he can kill it. He is in control of the chicken.
The chicken just controlls some muscles in the body.

If someone became the primary factor in the control of an organism, than yes, they would be the actual controller of the thing, the real possessor, though their possession would not be rightful.
So, the autopilot possesses the plane? Because it is the actual controller of the plane.
You really should not mix up the uses of 'control' it just results in nonsense.

I have shown many times that consciousness is not necessary in free will.
Give me one evidence for your assumption that consciousness is not necessary in free will. One small example of something without consciousness that has a free will. Then I'll accept it. But I did't see any of these in your posts. You just declare. There is not piece of evidence for your hypotheses.

Little excurse to scientific working:
Proof: A proof is an unmistakeable logical course which leads to the verification of a hypothesis in deductive systems. That is, in Mathematics for example. You can proof thet 1+5 euals 6. By logical conclusions which arise of the dogmata of Mathematics.
Fact: A fact is an observed and observable piece of truth. It is something that is the case, as Wittgenstein explained it once. 'A am sitting on a chair' is a fact. 'The taxi driver waers a red hat' is a fact, too. Anything that can be observed is a fact.
hypothesis: A hypothesis is an intellectual structure composed by a human on the base of facts. A hypothesis can never be verified (or proven). It can only be falsified by a fact that contradicts the Hypothesis. And it can be founded by pieces of evidence.
Evidence: A fact that supports a hypothesis.

A practical example: I do only see taxi drives with blue hats. Thus I construct the hypothesis that taxi drivers only wear blue hats. This hypothesis is supported by all the drivers with blue hats (which are the evidence). But suddenly I see a taxi driver with a red hat. This fact contradicts my hypothesis and thus it is wrong. It is falsified and must be refined or dropped. A rifinement could be the hypothesis that taxi drivers wear hats. This hypothesis, however, will be falsified by the first taxi driver that does not wear any hat.
But no matter how I construct my hypothesis, there can never be a proof for it. There can be no proof for hypotheses. There can only be evidence. There can be awfully much evidence, as in the hypothesis that all things fall down on earth, but there my never be a proof.

This little system of hypothesis, fact, and evidence is the base of all empirical sciences. And it is very useful to stick to this system in such discussions.

So, if you make the hypothesis, that consciousness is not necessary for free will, it would be the least to give an evidence for this hypothesis. For elseways no one will take it serious. But as soon as you have found an evidence, it can be tested. By looking for contradictioning facts.

So the behaviour of animals is irrelevant; only the fact that they are animate objects matters.
Water is an animate object, too. As mentioned several times now.

[Helcaraxë]

Only in politics :D. Arguing is in fact an action between two persons (not "a kind of speech" -- it requires two persons) that is geared toward truth, not persuasion. We don't argue to see who is the best arguer, we argue to reach truth.

Well, now we get into formal vs. informal reasoning. Most discussions are informal and thus try to persuade. Formal logic attempts to reach truth. Our debate is only partially formal, and those occurances of formal logic are used in order to persuade.

That is impossible. Particles can't control themselves if they lack free will. And if they have free will they are more than just "clashing particles".

Argument by assertion. I have been arguing that free will is not a prequisite for control. If I am wrong, please demonstrate why. Even if there is full determinism, there is still a difference between the kinds of motion. ;)

But if animals are particles, they are also entirely dependent; if they are not particles, they have free will. If you deny free will, you are forced to equate them with particles.

Hmm...I didn't quite understand that paragraph. If they are particles, they are more dependent on the particles that make up themselves than other particles. I don't know if that was what you were getting at.

That's precisely what he would argue. They have no independent control. They are shaped by genes, life history and environment. These guys even believe humans are like that too, Helcaraxë; I don't think this has sank into you deep enough. They have data -- lots of data -- in their favor. I would be compelled to agree with them in the case of humans if it was not contradictory; and I am compelled to agree with them in the case of animals. Animals lack free will; therefore, they are (mere) particles.

You haven't yet addressed my argument as to why it is not contradictory. :) But I do understand the claims that evolutionary ethology makes. You mentioned genetics. The DNA in an animal is certainly part of it, so it still controls istelf. But if they are controlled by the environment, how can the environment alone allow them to move in ways that go against what the environment would allow if it was in full control? I'll say it again: animals may be entirely controlled by clashed of particles, but this does not mean they cannot control themselves. Animals may lack free will (or they may not), but what they don't lack is a degree of control over themselves.

Though animals are more sophisticated than water, ultimately they are just as deterministic -- i.e., non-free. As regards freedom, there is no difference between water and animals. They are both "reduced to physics". I'm sure you are aware that this is one of the prominent goals of science, the reductionist program. They are quite advanced along that path as regards animal behavior.

They may not be free, though this is debatable. But even an entity that is not free may still control itself, as I said above. So freedom is not a requirement for control, and neither is free will. But I don't think it can credibly be argued that the environment entirely controls the organism, because the organism moves in ways that they environment would not permit, unless there were another controlling factor besides the environment.


I'd like you to use the word "proof" with rigor ;). Not "proof to a degree", but proof only. I'd like that word to mean the same thing when you use it than when I use it, hehe.

Alright, if it will help you understand me, than I will do it, since you asked me nicely. :D

What is "you" in that sentence? Can it be said that water controls the fall of water? No? But then why can't we say that the exchange of sodium and potassium controls my heartbeat? And that the balance of these elements are controlled by the food I eat? And that the food I eat are controlled by my dietary choices? And that my dietary choices are controlled by genes and environment?

The "you" means "you, but not your free will, as you are not your free will." You, as in, your body, is the main factor in the control of your heartbeat. Your heart is influenced by environment, but it is not solely controlled by the environment, for reasons I demonstrated above (a.k.a. the necessity for another factor to move in ways that environment would not permit). Your heart beats in part because you eat, but your heart also beats because of an alternating contraction of the muscle that pump blood out through your aorta, ect. Even if all this, the contractions in the cardial muscle, the pumping of blood, even thinking and thought, even if this is controlled by deterministic clashes of particles, this does not mean that an animal or a person cannot have independent volition, and control.

If you go deep enough you will always reach "genes and environment" in the case of animals; and you won't reach that in humans. That's the barrier you have to break. When you say "you control your heartbeat", you posit an entity - "you", my ego -- that is unwarranted in the case of water (obviously) and is also unwarranted, according to science, in the case of animals (less obviously).

Well, I think that's something of an oversimplification. But even if we accept that, "environment" cannot be the sole factor, and control by "genetics" is still control by the animal.

Please show the difference between the movement of water, of an amoeba, of a microalgae, of an earthworm, of a dog, and of a chimp. (just some examples here). And show that at some point, something which is not absolutely determined by genes and environment appears.

Amoebas, chimps, dogs, earthworms; how do they move differently from water, you ask? There is another controlling factor besides environment: themselves. They may be controlled by determinsitic clashing particles, but they are clashing particles, and these particles allow them to have a second controlling factor besides environment.

Nope. That's exactly what evolutionary ethology negates. Have you googled some on it? And determinism denies the fact that humans have independent volition!

No, only choice, not independent volition. All independent volition is, is motion that is controlled not entirely by environment, but also by a secondary factor that allows it some separation from environment.

It may be hard to swallow, but that's what determinism entails; and science entails determinism as regards animals. Sorry about that.

How should I interpret that "sorry about that"? Anyway, determinism entails nothing about independent volition, as it is not reliant on choice. :)

[Helcaraxë]

I DID

Um, to elucidate something is (in this context) to make it clear to the other person what you mean, and you certainly haven't done that. :)

I explained it in two languages, gave an exapmle and tried to be as clear as possible. But once more:
The problem of language is, that words don't have absolute meanings. The meaning of a word is defined by it's use (comp. Wittgenstein). And unfortunately there are two different uses of the word 'control' which mean different things. On one hand there is the use of 'control' as in 'to control something'. A computer, for example can control a plane. A simlep chip my control the water level at a dam. The pancreas controls the glucose Level in the blood. All you need for this kind of control is the ability to give a feedback. To read the state of the environment and react to it. Yo don't need self-awareness or whatever you think 'free will' is.

Well, it does not necessitate reading the environment. An object may control another thing without measuring how it should control it. So it is not really "feedback," because feedback implies that information was previously received.

The other use of 'control' is 'taking control over something' or 'taking into control something'. In this use of the word you don't need to be able to control the thins you have in control. You just take it into possession. It can be controlled by others. But if you take control over something you possess it. And this action does need self-awareness. You do have to know there is a you to be able to take something for yourself. A computer, a chicken, water, coins and so on are not awaer of themselves. Thus they can't take control over something. But they can in some cases control something.

And yet you still have not proved why this requires free will. It does not need self-awareness (which is different from free will ;) ), it only needs a change in the factors that control the object.

And now don't come with th platonic idea that suggests that words do have an absoulte meaning. It is not the case. And it is proven by that many details.
just an example: 'To count on someone' is equal to 'To rely on someone' But that does not mean that 'count' and 'rely' are meaning the same thing. They can be replaced in this one sentence but you can not rely to ten. You can not count a signal to a reciever to far away. The words are not meaning the same thing.


Well, it can be debated that absolute meanings are possible, but it's not pertinent to this debate.
The same applies to 'control' and 'possession'. In the sentence 'Take something into control' they may be exchanged without problem. The sentence 'take something into possession' means the same thing.
But your idea that in this case the premise 'possession is control' must be true, is a fatal error. Because 'I control an airplane' and 'I possess an airplane' do have different meanings.
This is a problem of language. But one you have to be aware of in such discussions.

Unfortunately, despite what you say, you haven't demonstrated the difference between these two words, other than provided word in German. ;) To do so you must demonstrate why free will is necessary, rather than just saying it is.

define 'free will'
This is just another word which may mean different things. I would be glad if you could define it clearly.

Free will is tricky, but I think an adequate defintion would be "the ability to make conscious choices."

I did. Just because Eriol showed you that most of your 'proofs' are assertions, you mustn't be touchy

Eriol has not shown that most of my proofs are assertions. I have provided much evidence in favor of my position, though you have not. And I am not being touchy. I have provided evidence for all my statements, and the only time Eriol claimed I was arguing by assertion was when he disagreed with my evidence, at which time I provided more evidence to support that evidence, thus eliminating any claim to argument by assertion. You musn't abdicate the Burden of Proving Assertions. ;) If you feel that I have done so, I apologize, but you have made many unsupported statements and called them proofs. At least I provided evidence beforehand, and it was the evidence that was considered assertion.

Feedback is the key ability which something needs to control something. Feedback is the process of reading the state of your einvironment and react to it by activationg processes that affect this state. There are many feedback-systems in nature. and all of them control something. Even computers that are controlling airplanes, power plants, traffic lights and air condition are just feedback-systems. A thermostat for example checks the temerature of the room, compares it with the temerature wished for and gives a signal to the air condition to cool down or heat up the room. It's just a feedback. But by this feedback it controls the temerature in the room.
An Autopilot reads the altitude, speed, course, weight... of the plane and then gives signals to the engines and the hydraulic systems to keep the plane on the programmed course. By these feedbacks it controls the plane.
So, the only ability something needs to control is the ability of feedback. It does not need a will, self-awareness or anything like that.


The reason feedback is not necessary for control is that many things that control do not "read" the environment at all. Some control can be spontaneuos. Such as: if a plant dies, it does not die because it takes information from the environment that tells it it needs to die. It merely dies. It dies because it's cells die and fall apart, and it can no longer sustain itself. It "reads" nothing; neither from itself nor from the environment. Let me give you another example: a person grows their hair. Obviously, they are unconsciously the cause of the growth. But their hair does not grow because of a response to information that is gained from the outside. In fact, I doubt if hair follicles are even capapble of receiving information from the environment. The point is: control by feedback is one method of control, but there are others, such as spontaneuos control.

There you are. You use the two terms in different situations without noticing It is absolutely correct like this. He is in control and he can even control it, if he wishes. It is not the same thing. The fact that he is in control does not mean that he controls it. But it means that he can even make the decision to control it. After he took it into control.

"The fact that he is in control does not mean he controls it." Yes it does. "In control" merely means the state of controlling. One can hardly be in control and not control; if that were true, you would not be in control at all. So they are actually interchangable. There is no difference between the state of being in control, and to action of controlling, as to be in control one must also control.

the part with '..while controlling does not' I did in the eyplanation of feedback above.
But taking over control does require that you want to take over control. You need to have the will to take this thing into control. The terrorist won't go to the cockpit to hijack the plane unless he has the will to do so. Something that does not want to possess someting will take nothing into control. So you need the ability to want something. A kind of free will.
Of course, this is a hypothesis. If you can show me evidence to falsify it, bring it on. But as far as I see this hypothesis is correct.

It is entirely possible to "take control" unconsciously. Creeper vines have a tendency to "take control" of trees, by wrapping themselves around it and strangling it. The creeper vine certainly has gainded a degree of control (gained through action, not innately, mind you) of the tree. Is the vine conscious?

Yes, the chicken still controlls the body. That is, where the organs don't control themselves. It still controlls the sceletal muscle and is able to pick at corns. And this control cna never be taken away from him unless by killing the chicken. For as long as it lives it controlls its body. But it is not in control if the chicken. It just controlls the body. The farmer is in control of the chicken. He possesses it. He can put it into a cage, he can feed it what he wants, he can take its eggs and he can kill it. He is in control of the chicken.
The chicken just controlls some muscles in the body.

As I said before, absolute control isn't necessary. But the chicken has a far greater degree of control over itself than the farmer does. The chicken controls the beating of its heart, the churning of its stomach, the expanding and contracting of its lungs...all of these things are determined by the chicken. As far as I can see, the only way to gain a degree of control sufficient to be said that you actually "control" the chicken is some method of mind-control.

So, the autopilot possesses the plane? Because it is the actual controller of the plane.
You really should not mix up the uses of 'control' it just results in nonsense.

No, as I said many times, inanimate objects cannot control. The autopilot does not control the plane, unless it has independent volition. But the volition of autopilots is entirely dependent on the volition of people.

Give me one evidence for your assumption that consciousness is not necessary in free will. One small example of something without consciousness that has a free will. Then I'll accept it. But I did't see any of these in your posts. You just declare. There is not piece of evidence for your hypotheses.

That was a typo. I meant "consciousness is not necessary in control." Sorry about that.

[Helcaraxë]

Little excurse to scientific working:
Proof: A proof is an unmistakeable logical course which leads to the verification of a hypothesis in deductive systems. That is, in Mathematics for example. You can proof thet 1+5 euals 6. By logical conclusions which arise of the dogmata of Mathematics.
Fact: A fact is an observed and observable piece of truth. It is something that is the case, as Wittgenstein explained it once. 'A am sitting on a chair' is a fact. 'The taxi driver waers a red hat' is a fact, too. Anything that can be observed is a fact.
hypothesis: A hypothesis is an intellectual structure composed by a human on the base of facts. A hypothesis can never be verified (or proven). It can only be falsified by a fact that contradicts the Hypothesis. And it can be founded by pieces of evidence.
Evidence: A fact that supports a hypothesis.

Er, I already knew all that. :) I don't need those defitions, even though some of them are wrong. A fact is not something that is determined by observation. A bee sees in ultraviolet, and thus would observe a hat of a wildy different color than you. Thus the fact of a bee and a person would differ. Strange, that.

A practical example: I do only see taxi drives with blue hats. Thus I construct the hypothesis that taxi drivers only wear blue hats. This hypothesis is supported by all the drivers with blue hats (which are the evidence). But suddenly I see a taxi driver with a red hat. This fact contradicts my hypothesis and thus it is wrong. It is falsified and must be refined or dropped. A rifinement could be the hypothesis that taxi drivers wear hats. This hypothesis, however, will be falsified by the first taxi driver that does not wear any hat.

Facts do not conform to senses and observations. Then all facts would be dependent on how it is observed and what is used to observe it.
But no matter how I construct my hypothesis, there can never be a proof for it. There can be no proof for hypotheses. There can only be evidence. There can be awfully much evidence, as in the hypothesis that all things fall down on earth, but there my never be a proof.

Yes, I know; what are you getting at?

This little system of hypothesis, fact, and evidence is the base of all empirical sciences. And it is very useful to stick to this system in such discussions.

And I have, seeing as that was a typo. But you have not provided adequate evidence for many of your assertions as well. The only time I have "argued by assertion" is when the evidence that I use is questioned, at which point I justfiy it and it no longer becomes argument by assertion. The statements you made are no longer assertions because you provided evidence, but it's good to provide evidence right off the bat.

So, if you make the hypothesis, that consciousness is not necessary for free will, it would be the least to give an evidence for this hypothesis. For elseways no one will take it serious. But as soon as you have found an evidence, it can be tested. By looking for contradictioning facts.

You know, I feel rather guilty that you had to write all that because of a typo. :o

Water is an animate object, too. As mentioned several times now.

Um, no it has not been mentioned at all. It has been mentioned that water moves, but it was never implied that water is an animate object. And water is not an animate object, and if you disagree, prove it, rather than saying that is has already been proven, when it hasn't.

[Eriol]

Argument by assertion. I have been arguing that free will is not a prequisite for control. If I am wrong, please demonstrate why. Even if there is full determinism, there is still a difference between the kinds of motion. ;)

Shouldn't you be demonstrating the difference? I can't very well demonstrate that there is no difference before you tell me what you are calling "the difference". I don't know what that is.

Animals may lack free will (or they may not), but what they don't lack is a degree of control over themselves.

There are no "themselves", Helcaraxë. They are not there. No "selves" are involved. That's what determinism entails. You could call water "a self" with the same justification. Do you? What constitutes "a self" so that you can assert that an amoeba has it and water doesn't?

the organism moves in ways that they environment would not permit, unless there were another controlling factor besides the environment.

?

I never saw an organism moving in ways which the environment "did not permit"; not even humans. I don't know what you mean.

Even if all this, the contractions in the cardial muscle, the pumping of blood, even thinking and thought, even if this is controlled by deterministic clashes of particles, this does not mean that an animal or a person cannot have independent volition, and control.

And why does not water has independent volition and control? What is the difference? You haven't demonstrated that, yet. You call upon the notion of "self" when you haven't defined it, and I don't know why amoebas have it and water doesn't.

Well, I think that's something of an oversimplification. But even if we accept that, "environment" cannot be the sole factor, and control by "genetics" is still control by the animal.

And control by molecules is still control by water. Your point is not that the animal controls the beats, but that there is a "self" there doing the control. And I have seen no evidence for that. "Environment" can't be the sole factor because it is multiple -- there are thousands of environmental factors at play. But no matter how many there are, what you have to show is that there is a non-environmental factor in effect here, this "self". Have you?

Amoebas, chimps, dogs, earthworms; how do they move differently from water, you ask? There is another controlling factor besides environment: themselves. They may be controlled by determinsitic clashing particles, but they are clashing particles, and these particles allow them to have a second controlling factor besides environment.

Water also is clashing particles. Since you distinguish them from water, the characteristic that allows them to have control -- this "self" -- can't be the result of "a clash or particles", since water would also have a self. What is it, then?

No, only choice, not independent volition. All independent volition is, is motion that is controlled not entirely by environment, but also by a secondary factor that allows it some separation from environment.

Exactly. What is this secondary factor?

Anyway, determinism entails nothing about independent volition, as it is not reliant on choice. :)

Determinism refutes the concept of choice itself... there is no choice if all is determined by the clash of particles. And that's what determinism means.

[Helcaraxë]

Shouldn't you be demonstrating the difference? I can't very well demonstrate that there is no difference before you tell me what you are calling "the difference". I don't know what that is.


That was quick. I have a feeling you are prowling the forsaken inn and waiting for my responses... :D . The difference between motion dependent on environment, and motion with another factor involved; that is the difference I was talking about. I already demonstrated why they are different. I'll do it again, if you like.

There are no "themselves", Helcaraxë. They are not there. No "selves" are involved. That's what determinism entails. You could call water "a self" with the same justification. Do you? What constitutes "a self" so that you can assert that an amoeba has it and water doesn't?

"Self," from dictionary.com: "The total, essential, or particular being of a person; the individual."

Also from there: "Oneself; itself: self-control."

So "self" implies individuality, which necessitates distinction between environment and the object, which would boil down to the object's independence from the environment.

But, to adress determinism, there can still be independent movement. Determinism only deals with the lack of choice, and there can be independent volition without choice, as I will show in a moment.


?

I never saw an organism moving in ways which the environment "did not permit"; not even humans. I don't know what you mean.

Have you ever walked uphill? Or jumped? If your movement were restricted by environment, you could not do this. If there was no separation between you and the environment, you could not escape gravity, not even for a moment.

And why does not water has independent volition and control? What is the difference? You haven't demonstrated that, yet. You call upon the notion of "self" when you haven't defined it, and I don't know why amoebas have it and water doesn't.

I have defined it many times. Water is not animate. It's movement is dependent on the environment. Water cannot do anything that is not consistent with the demands imposed by the environment. Amoebas can move of their own accord.

And control by molecules is still control by water. Your point is not that the animal controls the beats, but that there is a "self" there doing the control. And I have seen no evidence for that. "Environment" can't be the sole factor because it is multiple -- there are thousands of environmental factors at play. But no matter how many there are, what you have to show is that there is a non-environmental factor in effect here, this "self". Have you?


I believe that I have. The many thousands of "environmental factors" are just that: environmental factors. Without another factor, the many environmental factors would cause an animate object to conform entirely to these factors. And independent motion cannot be caused by environment; it would be a contradicition. Now for the notion of the self: I defined it above. But what makes a "self" an individual? A separation from the environment. What is the separation from the environment? Independent movement.


Water also is clashing particles. Since you distinguish them from water, the characteristic that allows them to have control -- this "self" -- can't be the result of "a clash or particles", since water would also have a self. What is it, then?

Apparently, water's clashing particles are in the complete control of the environment. Why do some things move as single entities distinct from the environment? Because some organisms have evolved methods to allow them to have a measure of self-control that other things lack. These entities can move on their own by virtue of the fact that they are capable of generating energy for separate movement. They are distinct in their movement because they are entities that are to some degree self-sufficient. That is what truly makes them separate from the environment. A degree of self-sufficiency.


Exactly. What is this secondary factor?

The secondary factor is, as I said before, a degree of self-sufficiency. If an organism is semi self-sufficient, than they are capable of diverging from the environment, almost as if they were themselves little environments within the whole.

Determinism refutes the concept of choice itself... there is no choice if all is determined by the clash of particles. And that's what determinism means.

And I'm not arguing that point. What does control have to do with choice?

[Eriol]

That was quick. I have a feeling you are prowling the forsaken inn and waiting for my responses... :D . The difference between motion dependent on environment, and motion with another factor involved; that is the difference I was talking about. I already demonstrated why they are different. I'll do it again, if you like.

No, I just arrived from the movies :D. And as a humorous sidenote, aren't you cracked to see that the "similar thread" at the bottom of the page is "Everyone's opinion of Peter Jackson"?

:D ;)

Does PJ have a soul? Does he have rights? Is he animate?

I want a description of the "other factor involved", and an explanation of why it is not, itself, controlled by the environment.

So "self" implies individuality, which necessitates distinction between environment and the object, which would boil down to the object's independence from the environment.

Yes. And you have to show that the "secondary factor" is independent from the environment.

Have you ever walked uphill? Or jumped? If your movement were restricted by environment, you could not do this. If there was no separation between you and the environment, you could not escape gravity, not even for a moment.

You didn't say "restrict", you say "permit". Gravity allows me to jump. It restricts my jumping, but it allows me to jump.

I have defined it many times. Water is not animate. It's movement is dependent on the environment. Water cannot do anything that is not consistent with the demands imposed by the environment. Amoebas can move of their own accord.

Seemingly. But what determines the amoebas movement? Food and enemies. How can it detect those? Chemistry. How does it now what is food and what isn't? It doesn't. It is programmed to react to stimuli. The program is in the genes. The same thing all the way to dogs (and perhaps chimps).

I believe that I have. The many thousands of "environmental factors" are just that: environmental factors. Without another factor, the many environmental factors would cause an animate object to conform entirely to these factors. And independent motion cannot be caused by environment; it would be a contradicition. Now for the notion of the self: I defined it above. But what makes a "self" an individual? A separation from the environment. What is the separation from the environment? Independent movement.

All you have to show now is that the movement of animals is what you call "independent". Just because they go uphill is not enough. Water goes up if you put a string in a pool; as a result of chemical attractions. All animal movement is a result of chemical attractions.

The secondary factor is, as I said before, a degree of self-sufficiency. If an organism is semi self-sufficient, than they are capable of diverging from the environment, almost as if they were themselves little environments within the whole.

And all of its movements are explained by genes and environment. I don't see how can you call it "self-sufficient" if ALL of its movements are controlled by external factors. Compare it with us. We may have inclinations to one thing, genetic or environmental inclinations, but WE have these inclinations, and they are inclinations -- not commands. We can avoid sex if we think it is wrong. We can avoid food if we think it is poisoned. And so on.

[Tarlanc]

Unfortunately, despite what you say, you haven't demonstrated the difference between these two words, other than provided word in German. ;) To do so you must demonstrate why free will is necessary, rather than just saying it is.
OK, how many examples of the two completely different meanings of 'control' do you need? I slowly start to lose my nerves.
All control-mechanisms you see around you. All the mechanic door-openers, the autopilots, the thermostats, the gizmo that shuts off your oven when it has reached the wished temperature, all of these do control something. And none of them takes anything into its control. Non of them possesses anything. Because they are nothing but machines.
But you can buy or stel a plane or some other complicated thing you cannot control. So you take something into control which you cannot control. Or you can take something into control and decide not to control it. Let it run free. Or you can take something like a cruise ship into control and hire someone who controls it.
In all these cases 'control something' is not equal to 'take something into control'. Finally got the pint or shall I draw it for you in colors?

Of course you can, in some cases choose to control something you took into control. If you take a screwdriver into control and choose to control it in order to repair something. But in many cases you can not control the thing you took into control because it controls itself. As shares, animals (to some degree), plants or complicated machines.

Free will is tricky, but I think an adequate defintion would be "the ability to make conscious choices."
Thanks. From now on this is the meaning given to 'free will' in this discussion.

The reason feedback is not necessary for control is that many things that control do not "read" the environment at all.
Show me one and i'll regard my hypothesis as falsified.

if a plant dies, it does not die because it takes information from the environment that tells it it needs to die.
If a plant dies it is either someone plucking it out and tearing it apart, which is clearly an environmental information or it is controlled death.
In the case of someone destroying the plant deliberately (or a cow eating it) the plant can't control her death. Thus there is no feedback recognizable. There need not be because there is no control, either.
But in the case of controlled death, such as in monocarpous plants, it is information from the environment which causes the plant to initiate controlled cell-death. Most grasses, for example, just live to throw their grains off. They grow, build up grains, release them and if they are released, the plant reads the information that the grains are free and starts to kil itself so other grasses may grow. Wheat, Rye and other grains are good examples of that.
this mechanism of controlled death is controlled by a feedback-mechanism.

a person grows their hair. Obviously, they are unconsciously the cause of the growth. But their hair does not grow because of a response to information that is gained from the outside.
wrong again. The follicles that control hair growth (it is not the person but the follicles that control this process!) do recieve information in shape of hormones and nutritients which they read and grow hair or inhibit hair growth. The follicles just read information and give a feedback, which is 'grow hair' or 'stop growth' or 'die'. The death of follicles just occurs if a multitude of hormones, including testosterone, make it to do this. In this case the hair falls off. But it is again a matter of feedbacks.

control by feedback is one method of control, but there are others, such as spontaneuos control.
Give me one evidence for this hypothesis and I believe it. In the moment it is jus an assumption. And one I tend not to believe because I do not see any form of sponaneous control in the real world.

One can hardly be in control and not control;
Yes, one can. You can be in crontrol of a plane (as its owner) ant not control it, because the pilot is controlling it.
Q.E.D.

as to be in control one must also control.
No, as the above example shows. And many more, if you need more evidence.

It is entirely possible to "take control" unconsciously. Creeper vines have a tendency to "take control" of trees, by wrapping themselves around it and strangling it. The creeper vine certainly has gainded a degree of control (gained through action, not innately, mind you) of the tree. Is the vine conscious?
The creeper vine does not take the tree into control. It just creeps up the bark and sinks its roots into the phloem of the tree to get nutritients. It is not in control. It just eats from the tree. But the vine neither takes the tree into control nor does it control the tree. HTe tree still controls itself. And it is in control of the one that owns the ground on which the tree stands. Because that's the legal owner.

As far as I can see, the only way to gain a degree of control sufficient to be said that you actually "control" the chicken is some method of mind-control.
So you say chicken have a mind? :)
But you don't need to control the chicken. It can well control itself. It would be hard to control a whole cage of chicken. Tell every muscle when to move. So, controlling chicken is nothing to wish for. At least not for me.

No, as I said many times, inanimate objects cannot control. The autopilot does not control the plane, unless it has independent volition.
The auotpilot does control the plane. It makes the plane go higher, it makes it curve, it makes it land, it conrols every movement of the plane. It controls the plane until a pilot chooses to interfere. Auto pilots are made to control airplanes.
But it can only control it by means of feedback. It can not take over control of the plane, because this would require a consciousness, a self-awareness.

A fact is not something that is determined by observation. A bee sees in ultraviolet, and thus would observe a hat of a wildy different color than you. Thus the fact of a bee and a person would differ. Strange, that.
I did not say 'observation with your own eyes', because that would exclude blind people from recognizing facts. And it would disqualify color-blind people from making true observations. I said that facts are observable. By which means you observe them does not matter. But it must be possible to observe them. You may observe that bacteria move towards nutritients. But nobody was ever able to boserve a bacteria with own eyes. You need microscopes and markers to make this observation. But it is observable. In the same way the world a bee sees may be visualized by specialized cameras. Thus my definition remains. Facts are observable.

The hypothesis that 'take something into control' and 'control something' mean different things is just a hypothesis. But it is supported by evidence that is observable. The fact, for example, that an auto pilot controls a plane whereas the owner of the plane is in control of it. This is a fact. You may observe it by going into a cockpit.

But of you bring me one fact that contradicts this hypothesis, it is falsified. So bring it on, if you think, it is wrong.

[Helcaraxë]

No, I just arrived from the movies :D. And as a humorous sidenote, aren't you cracked to see that the "similar thread" at the bottom of the page is "Everyone's opinion of Peter Jackson"?

:D ;)

Does PJ have a soul? Does he have rights? Is he animate?

Ha! Absolutely brilliant! And by "cracked" I am assuming you mean insane. We backward Americans don't use such subtle linguistic devices. ;) Although I have read a great deal of foreign literature, and I am beginning to pick up some mannerisms. :D

Anyway, he went a little too far after the middle of The Two Towers, with the whole Aragorn falling off the cliff, and the much extended role of Arwen, and Faramir taking them to Osgiliath. And don't even get me started on the Return of the King. A shame, since he did such a good job on the Fellowship. But to answer your question, I think he is all too animate. :D

I want a description of the "other factor involved", and an explanation of why it is not, itself, controlled by the environment.

Hmm...I thought I did this, but perhaps I have not made my argument sufficiently clear. The other factor involved is a factor that is not contained in the environment, but in the object. See my demonstration below.




Yes. And you have to show that the "secondary factor" is independent from the environment.

To move in ways that seem to contradict the environment, and still be entirely dependent on the environment, the reason must be second environmental factor. But when we differentiate between the environment and the object (that is, animate objects), we see that not all of the movements can be attributed solely to factors in the environment. There is no secondary environmental factor that causes people to walk uphill. The environment obviously permits it, or else you couldn't do it at all, but this does not mean that the environment is the cause of the movement. Note that the string causes the water to move upwards. Nothing causes (I mean acutally causes, not merely permits) you walking uphill. The water moving uphill is caused by the string, but there is nothing causing you to move uphill except you. It is crucial to understand the difference between causes of movement that reside in the environment, and those that reside in the object.



You didn't say "restrict", you say "permit". Gravity allows me to jump. It restricts my jumping, but it allows me to jump.

If the environment had its way, you wouldn't jump at all. You would remain on the ground unless you were influenced by another factor that resides in the environment. Gravity may allow you to jump, but only by virtue of the fact that you are capable of temporarily defying gravity.


Seemingly. But what determines the amoebas movement? Food and enemies. How can it detect those? Chemistry. How does it now what is food and what isn't? It doesn't. It is programmed to react to stimuli. The program is in the genes. The same thing all the way to dogs (and perhaps chimps).

Possibly. But the amoeba's genes are factors that reside in the Amoeba.


All you have to show now is that the movement of animals is what you call "independent". Just because they go uphill is not enough. Water goes up if you put a string in a pool; as a result of chemical attractions. All animal movement is a result of chemical attractions.

That does not prove that water moves of its own accord. I don't know the physics of why it moves up the string, but it obviously has something to do with the string. I've never seen water spontaneously flow uphill. Any movement of water in a direction that the environment would otherwise not permit is because of another factor, but this other factor does not reside in the water, but is merely another environmental factor.

It might be true that people and animals move because of chemical attractions. But this is the same argument that you made earlier, which is that animals and people are controlled by determinsistic clashing particles. But I said that the determinsitic particles that control the animal mostly are those that constitiute the animal. If everything is controlled by these particles, and all matter is made of these particles, you are back were you started from, as things can still control themselves, and there must be a difference between how some particles work and how others do to account for the secondary factor.

And all of its movements are explained by genes and environment. I don't see how can you call it "self-sufficient" if ALL of its movements are controlled by external factors. Compare it with us. We may have inclinations to one thing, genetic or environmental inclinations, but WE have these inclinations, and they are inclinations -- not commands. We can avoid sex if we think it is wrong. We can avoid food if we think it is poisoned. And so on.

But all of the movements are not controlled by external factors. This is my point. The water moves up the string not because of a factor in the water itself, but because of an extra environmental factor. If the only factors controlling people and animals are external, than any movement that is not in accord with the environment must be attributed to other environmental factors; but people do not need to have a string attached to them to walk uphill. Not literally of course, but you take my meaning.

By the way, according to evolutionary ethology, inclinations are in the end commands. ;) We just think they are inclinations. We may say we had a choice, but evolutionary ethology says that there are no choices, only interplays of different chemical factors.

But let's examine your argument for a minute. The only proof that you have provided is that it is a contradiction to argue against life because in arguing one is establishing the desirability of life. I would argue your statement that it is a contradiction, but I explained that in an earlier post, when I said that one can approve of murder but still live. But suppose for moment that the statement it true, even though I would contest it. All this establishes is that it is contradictory to state that life is undesirable. It proves nothing about inherent rights. One may say that people ought not be alive, but all that they are establishing by arguing is that life is desirable. One may believe that life is desirable and still argue that we should not be alive. To desire something is not to have the right to it.

I'll cite your argument from before:

- that arguing is meaningful (the arguer is trying to communicate something)
- that arguing can improve their being (the arguer is doing this in preference to some other thing)
- that arguing is an improvement on silence or violence (the arguer is trying to persuade the listener instead of ignoring him or beating him into submission)

this would establish the desirability of arguing (which is a given in any human action).

Since arguing is desirable, the arguer also accepts the following corollaries:

- life is desirable (you can't argue without life)
- freedom is desirable (you can't argue without a free will)
- truth is desirable (you can't argue without a way to detect truth -- the point of arguing is to reach truth)

Life may be desirable, and you are totally correct in saying that one cannot argue that life is not desirable, and that is a contradiction. But desiring life and having the right to live are two very different things.

Any argument that denies any of these truths is self-contradictory. Of course, you and I have heard dozens of arguments that deny these truths. But they are self-contradictory nonetheless, and therefore wrong.

If one denies that life is desirable to them, then they are contradicting themselves. But one may say they do not have the right to live, but they still may desire life.

The rights of the arguer derive from these three "desirables", life, freedom and truth. They can't be denied. And so neither can the rights of the arguer as an arguer. You can shoot an arguer, but you can't argue in favor of your action without contradicting yourself.

But you make the mistake of saying that rights derive from "desirables." Rights cannot be equated with desirables; one may strongly desire to kill someone, but they still do not have the right.

[Helcaraxë]

OK, how many examples of the two completely different meanings of 'control' do you need? I slowly start to lose my nerves.

I need more than examples, I need connections between examples and what you are trying to prove. And it is not my fault that you are losing your nerves. It is your responsibility to make sure your argument is clear enough, not mine. If it is apparent that I do not see how these examples prove what you say, than you must elucidate them. There is absolutely no call for you to lose your nerves, as it is entirely your responsibility to make sure that you are clear.
All control-mechanisms you see around you. All the mechanic door-openers, the autopilots, the thermostats, the gizmo that shuts off your oven when it has reached the wished temperature, all of these do control something. And none of them takes anything into its control. Non of them possesses anything. Because they are nothing but machines.

But you can buy or stel a plane or some other complicated thing you cannot control. So you take something into control which you cannot control. Or you can take something into control and decide not to control it. Let it run free. Or you can take something like a cruise ship into control and hire someone who controls it.
In all these cases 'control something' is not equal to 'take something into control'.

All "taking something into control" means is gaining control that was not inherently present beforehand. It means establishing control that was not previously established. To establish control, one must be able to control after the control has commenced. This is preposterous.

If you take something into control which you do cannot control in any degree at all, than you cannot take it into control. You may steal a plane, but you have indirect control over the plane or you could not "take it into control." If a terrorist cannot the plane in the sense of steering it where he wants, he can control it by forcing the people who can into doing it. In all of these cases some measure of control is still present. If you take something into control and then set it free, you were, at one point, controlling it. You take a cruise ship into control and have someone actually move it around and drive it for you, but you would not be in control unless you could do with the cruise ship what you wanted, or perhaps fire the person who you hired to control it.


Finally got the pint or shall I draw it for you in colors?

Cut the sarcasm. It is a blatant contradiction to say that someone cannot establish control without having control over it after one establishes control.

Of course you can, in some cases choose to control something you took into control. If you take a screwdriver into control and choose to control it in order to repair something. But in many cases you can not control the thing you took into control because it controls itself. As shares, animals (to some degree), plants or complicated machines.

In all cases you have to control something you take into control, or there wouldn't even be any control to take in the first place! How can you take control if there is no control that is possible to establish?

If a plant dies it is either someone plucking it out and tearing it apart, which is clearly an environmental information or it is controlled death.
In the case of someone destroying the plant deliberately (or a cow eating it) the plant can't control her death. Thus there is no feedback recognizable. There need not be because there is no control, either.
But in the case of controlled death, such as in monocarpous plants, it is information from the environment which causes the plant to initiate controlled cell-death. Most grasses, for example, just live to throw their grains off. They grow, build up grains, release them and if they are released, the plant reads the information that the grains are free and starts to kil itself so other grasses may grow. Wheat, Rye and other grains are good examples of that.
this mechanism of controlled death is controlled by a feedback-mechanism.

That's an oversimplification. A plant can die not because of outside influence, and certainly plants do not always "control" their death. Death can merely occur because the plant can no longer sustain itself. The plant, consciously or consciously, dies not decide when it is time to die, in deaths like these, although certainly controlled death is possible. So are you saying that all plants either have a controlled death or die from outside influence? No, some die for neither of these reasons.

wrong again. The follicles that control hair growth (it is not the person but the follicles that control this process!) do recieve information in shape of hormones and nutritients which they read and grow hair or inhibit hair growth. The follicles just read information and give a feedback, which is 'grow hair' or 'stop growth' or 'die'. The death of follicles just occurs if a multitude of hormones, including testosterone, make it to do this. In this case the hair falls off. But it is again a matter of feedbacks.

Wrong. The folicle does not ultimately control the hair growth, the brain does, as it tells the folicle to grow the hair. You've got it backwards: the controller does not receive feedback (it sometimes does, but not always), the controlled does. The brain does not receive messages from the folicle telling the brain that it needs to grow a hair, the opposite is true. The hair receives a message from the brain. Now, I am not saying that all control does not need feedback from the controlled object, just that it is possible.

No, as the above example shows. And many more, if you need more evidence.

This is riduclous. How can one take control if there IS no control?

The creeper vine does not take the tree into control. It just creeps up the bark and sinks its roots into the phloem of the tree to get nutritients. It is not in control. It just eats from the tree. But the vine neither takes the tree into control nor does it control the tree. HTe tree still controls itself. And it is in control of the one that owns the ground on which the tree stands. Because that's the legal owner.

It does. Not rightfully, but it does. The vine causes the tree to die. The tree no longer controls itself because the vine kills it. The vine has control over whether the tree lives or dies. It wrests the control of the tree's life away from the tree. And it is not in control of the one who owns the ground unless the person actively attempt to control the growth of the tree or some such, in which case the vine and the tree would still mostly be in their own control unless the man cut them down.

So you say chicken have a mind?
But you don't need to control the chicken. It can well control itself. It would be hard to control a whole cage of chicken. Tell every muscle when to move. So, controlling chicken is nothing to wish for. At least not for me.

I agree. Your point?

The auotpilot does control the plane. It makes the plane go higher, it makes it curve, it makes it land, it conrols every movement of the plane. It controls the plane until a pilot chooses to interfere. Auto pilots are made to control airplanes.
But it can only control it by means of feedback. It can not take over control of the plane, because this would require a consciousness, a self-awareness.

You have demonstrated no reason why consciousness is necessary to take control but not to control. This is an assertion. But the plane is mostly controlled by the captain, even when autopilot is on. Yes, you are correct in saying that the autopilot can temporarily have some measure of control over the plane, but it's the captain who has real control; he can turn off the autopilot, tell the autopilot where to go, and do all sorts of things that make him far more in control than the autopilot.

[Helcaraxë]

I did not say 'observation with your own eyes', because that would exclude blind people from recognizing facts. And it would disqualify color-blind people from making true observations. I said that facts are observable. By which means you observe them does not matter. But it must be possible to observe them. You may observe that bacteria move towards nutritients. But nobody was ever able to boserve a bacteria with own eyes. You need microscopes and markers to make this observation. But it is observable. In the same way the world a bee sees may be visualized by specialized cameras. Thus my definition remains. Facts are observable.

No, that's wrong. Fact: "something that has actual existence." M-W dictionary. There are facts that cannot be observed. What about all of this talk about "dark energy" that alledgedly makes the universe expand? We may never observe it, and it may still be a fact. Even if we are, at some point, able to observe it, thins means that the the facts of one one time change when new technology is created. You may say that the facts are present anyway, but if all facts are observable, facts simply appear each time we develope new ways of observation. They were not present before, because before they were not observable. Seeing with microscopes was not a fact seven hundred years ago, because seven hundred years ago it could not be observed. Now it is a fact, but it wasn't then. Since facts are observable, facts phase into existance when we can observe them. So from your definition, facts are, despite what you say, dependent on the observation; but this contradicts the definition I gave as facts having independent truth.


The hypothesis that 'take something into control' and 'control something' mean different things is just a hypothesis. But it is supported by evidence that is observable. The fact, for example, that an auto pilot controls a plane whereas the owner of the plane is in control of it. This is a fact. You may observe it by going into a cockpit.

I am repeating myself. The captain is a far greater factor in the controlling of the plane than the autopilot, as he can shut the autopilot off, tell it where he wants it to turn, ect. It is preposterous to say that it is possible to take control where there can be no control to take; then they could not take control.
But of you bring me one fact that contradicts this hypothesis, it is falsified. So bring it on, if you think, it is wrong.

I have a fact. Your statement is a blatant contradiction. The only difference between the two is that in one case the control is not previously established and has a point of commencement.

[Tarlanc]

If you take something into control which you do cannot control in any degree at all
Of course you can. You can take a car into control by towing it away. Without the keys you can not control the car. It won't start. But you can tow it away and thus take it into control.
There are two different levels of control. Why don't you see this?

If a terrorist cannot the plane in the sense of steering it where he wants, he can control it by forcing the people who can into doing it.
Yes, he can do this. But at first he has to take the plane into control. Then he can order someone to control it. So, he is not the one that controls it. He just gives commands on how it is to be controlled. But he is notheless in control of the plane.
This is the big difference between 'taking into control' and 'control'.

It is a blatant contradiction to say that someone cannot establish control without having control over it after one establishes control.
I never said a word about 'having control' oder 'estblishing control'. These are just two other formulations containing the word 'control' which do mean eve different things.

In all cases you have to control something you take into control, or there wouldn't even be any control to take in the first place!
No, you don't have to control it. You can take it into control without controlling it. Because taking into control a car or a plane, means just that your will now decides over the car or the plane. It is in your possession. But it can be controlled by someone else to fulfill your will.
Taking over control is on a higher level than controlling. Of course you have a degree of control about whatever you take into control. But you do not have to be the one to control it yourself.
And on this higher level it is necessary to have a will. A conscousness. For this degree of control you do not have to know how to control the object. You just have to tell someone who knows what to do.
You can take a plane into control and tell someone you want it to fly somewhere. And this one controls the plane. He pushes the buttons, moves the wings, starts the engines.... He controls it. But you are the one in control.
Of course you are the commanding instance but the controlling instance may be a computer or a pilot.

And just because the pilot is able to control the plane he is not the one that is in control. He may not decide on where to fly. Except he hijacks th plane himself and takes it into control like this.
Just because the thermostat controls the heating of your room it is not in control of your heating systems. It only controls the heating system so it does what you, as the one in control, want it to do.

And these two levels, or distinct menaings of control must be distinguished. Because if you don't distinguish between them, then you get into absurdity. In a world where an autopilot owns a plane.

Death can merely occur because the plant can no longer sustain itself.
This is regarded as 'outside influence'. But if the plant controls its death. As several plants eventually do, then they do it by the way of a feedback-mechanism. That was my point. So, there is no control without feedback. Not even in dying plants.

So are you saying that all plants either have a controlled death or die from outside influence? No, some die for neither of these reasons.
Tell me one such reason. Only one.

Wrong. The folicle does not ultimately control the hair growth, the brain does, as it tells the folicle to grow the hair.
Nope. The brain does not control hair growth. This is one of the few body functions that are not controlled by the nervous system. One striking evidence for this hypothesis:
After dead, when the brain already dissolves, the hair still grow. Hair growth does not stop after death. It stops when the hair follicles run out of energy. As long as there are nutritients in the tissue and some inhibitors are not present in too high concentrations the follicles will do their work. They control the hair growth on thier own.
You can even cut a piece of skin off an animal and put it into a fluid containing all the nutritients and hormones necessary for the follicle to grow hair and the hair will grow in a petri-dish.

Thus, even in this example, the only thing necessary for control is the feedback-mechanism in the follicle itslef. If the environment is proper it will grow hair.

The vine causes the tree to die. The tree no longer controls itself because the vine kills it. The vine has control over whether the tree lives or dies.
The vine does not control anything. It causes the tree to die sometimes. But it has no control over the tree. The vine does not kill the tree willingly. It would be stupid of the vine to do so, because it would lose its habitat.
The vine does nothing but suck the nutritients from the tree. And if the tree lacks the nutritients it may starve, lose its leaves and eventually die.
But there is no control.

Or you could as well say that the water controls the stones that are brought down a mountain by a river. But the water does not control them. It causes them to go down the river.

And if I have to explain you the difference between 'cause' and 'control' I'll definitely lose my nerves.

You have demonstrated no reason why consciousness is necessary to take control but not to control.
OK: first the reason why consciousness is not needed to control:
An autopilot controls a plane. It has no consciousness.
A Thermostat controls the heating system. It has no consciuosness.
Thus consciosness is not needed to control. If it were, these machines would not work.

Then the more difficult: Why consciuosness is needed to take something into control:
If you take something into control, this is a conscious act. You actively take something. Yu take it willingly.
evidence: If you take a plane into control, there is a will behind this. You want or have to do it.
And besides I can think of nothing in the world that has no consciousness or self-awareness and takes something into control. Not a single example occurs to me.

If you have one, bring it on. Elseways the hypothesis that taking something into control needs consciousness remains unfalsified and therefore true.

Fact: "something that has actual existence." M-W dictionary. There are facts that cannot be observed. What about all of this talk about "dark energy" that alledgedly makes the universe expand?
funny dictionary :)
'dark energy', 'expansing universe' and other theories are no facts. These are theories and hypotheses. They are true until they are falsified as everything in empirical sciences.
But the definition 'something that has actual existence' is not too bad. Because everything that has an actual existence can theoretically be observed. It is observable, as I said in my definition.

I have a fact. Your statement is a blatant contradiction.
This is no fact. 'Your statement is a blatant contradiction' is a hypothesis for which I have not seen any evidence up to now.

[Eriol]

But when we differentiate between the environment and the object (that is, animate objects), we see that not all of the movements can be attributed solely to factors in the environment.

This is the moment where the cliché must come out: "Hold it right there". How do you differentiate? That is my question, don't gloss over it :).

There is no secondary environmental factor that causes people to walk uphill. The environment obviously permits it, or else you couldn't do it at all, but this does not mean that the environment is the cause of the movement. Note that the string causes the water to move upwards. Nothing causes (I mean acutally causes, not merely permits) you walking uphill.

I thought everything had a cause. You said that once. How come you are claiming that "nothing causes my walk"? The only way out of that is to posit free will. In humans this is absolutely necessary to avoid contradiction, but not so in animals. So you can't state that "nothing causes the movement of the dog uphill" without first establishing free will; you can't use its movement to prove free will since there are other explanations, more in accordance with Ockham's Razor.

The water moving uphill is caused by the string, but there is nothing causing you to move uphill except you. It is crucial to understand the difference between causes of movement that reside in the environment, and those that reside in the object.

The dog moves uphill moved by causes completely outside his control, unless he has free will. Why does it matter whether these causes are intrinsic (genes) or extrinsic (environment)? The point is, he's a puppet. He doesn't do anything. He's not a self.

If the environment had its way, you wouldn't jump at all. You would remain on the ground unless you were influenced by another factor that resides in the environment. Gravity may allow you to jump, but only by virtue of the fact that you are capable of temporarily defying gravity.

Not really. A jump does not "defy gravity". Gravity is still valid before, during and after the jump. We can't "defy gravity". I don't know what you mean by that.

In fact, if we tried to jump and by some spooky reason couldn't, this would be a rebuttal of science. According to science, once the energy in the muscles is released through a downward push in the legs, a jump must result. I don't know what it means to "defy the environment".

Possibly. But the amoeba's genes are factors that reside in the Amoeba.

But location is not control ;). That the genes are inside the amoeba does not mean that it makes any decisions, that it does anything. The engine of a car is inside the car (and so is the driver's wheel), but that doesn't mean the car can start on its own or go anywhere. Unless it's that marvellous racing beetle of the Disney movies.

That does not prove that water moves of its own accord. I don't know the physics of why it moves up the string, but it obviously has something to do with the string. I've never seen water spontaneously flow uphill. Any movement of water in a direction that the environment would otherwise not permit is because of another factor, but this other factor does not reside in the water, but is merely another environmental factor.

The point there is "spontaneously", Helcaraxë. Let me make a bold claim here: I've never seen any spontaneous movement by any being except me, strictly speaking. I believe (because I believe in logic) that people's movements are spontaneous, sometimes. But I see no reason to believe that of animals. They just move. Like water. They are governed by outside factors. There is just as much "spontaneity" there as in a self-defense killing, or in a reflex when you touch the hot oven -- i.e., no spontaneity at all.

It might be true that people and animals move because of chemical attractions. But this is the same argument that you made earlier, which is that animals and people are controlled by determinsistic clashing particles.

I never said that. Ethologists say that.

But I said that the determinsitic particles that control the animal mostly are those that constitiute the animal. If everything is controlled by these particles, and all matter is made of these particles, you are back were you started from, as things can still control themselves, and there must be a difference between how some particles work and how others do to account for the secondary factor.

Only if you posit the secondary factor. I see no reason for it. In this last post, the secondary factor is apparently "location" -- if the factor is located inside the being, it is different than if it is located outside. But I see no reason for the distinction. The amoeba is still controlled, i.e., it does not control anything. You attribute a self to it when you say "it controls", but this would be as reasonable as claiming that the car controls the engine. The reverse would be more accurate, don't you agree? The engine controls the car.

But all of the movements are not controlled by external factors. This is my point. The water moves up the string not because of a factor in the water itself, but because of an extra environmental factor. If the only factors controlling people and animals are external, than any movement that is not in accord with the environment must be attributed to other environmental factors; but people do not need to have a string attached to them to walk uphill. Not literally of course, but you take my meaning.

The question is not external vs. internal factors; it is factors under the control of the self vs. factors outside this control. Does the car control the engine or the engine control the car?

By the way, according to evolutionary ethology, inclinations are in the end commands. ;) We just think they are inclinations. We may say we had a choice, but evolutionary ethology says that there are no choices, only interplays of different chemical factors.

That's why I think they're dead wrong when it comes to humans :). This paragraph above is contradictory. If it is right, then it is wrong, because it is the result of the interplays of different chemical factors and therefore it may change tomorrow if you eat something different. In other words, this theory denies that we can achieve truth while claiming to be true.

But you make the mistake of saying that rights derive from "desirables." Rights cannot be equated with desirables; one may strongly desire to kill someone, but they still do not have the right.