I have to laugh every time I see an article in which someone is purported to have determined what makes humans superior to all other creatures. First it was tools, until we discovered that even some species of birds make and use tools, then it was self awareness, until we found that porpoises recognize themselves, and that cetaceans actually identify with names. So now it's "free will", loosely described as the ability to make choices and communicate those choices. I hate to break it to everyone, but the crows and ravens have demonstrated the ability to make choices, develop situation-dependent solutions to problems, and pass that discovery to others of their species. Maybe what makes us unique is our obsession with continually trying (and failing) to justify our claim to "superiority" instead of just enjoying being at the top of the food chain?

Interesting.

Greetings all, this is my first post.
To the subject at hand: Has anyone here read Julian Jaynes's "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? I think the "focus" and "introspection" mentioned is addressed by his definition of consciousness. He also shows how learning and decisions are possible without being conscious of them, and does account for the differences between us and other animals.

$5Au is in favor of any gold standard.

When comparing human intellectual capability to that of the "lower" animals are we looking at a difference of degree or a difference of kind. Is there some sort of threshold that is passed when we move from simple sentience, the ability to feel, to sapience, the ability to reason. Does the presence of both sentience and sapience in man suggest some form of higher power or influence or do they exist simply because they are the evolutionary driven essential parts of a survival mechanism? Is man limited to finding out what the rules of existence are or are we free to make the rules by reason of our sapience?

An interesting article -- caused me to sign up for Kurzweil's newsletter from the link. After he talks about the technical discoveries he says "Consciousness is actual. It has its own nature. It cannot be equated with, reduced to, any movements of neurons, however complex—even if my consciousness, which I readily admit, may depend for its existence on these brain processes." But that's just his opinion without any support in the material.

We are interacting via computers and the internet which relies on very low level hardware steps just as simple and yields incredibly complex activities. Such complex activity can make it seem disconnected from the underlying simple operations, but it CAN be reduced to them -- a very very large number of them.

So may it be with the brain. The key question, of course, is whether we are mechanistic, with incredibly complex but entirely physical characteristics or if there is something non-physical in the mind. Here we move into the realm of spirituality, an area that I'm uncomfortable relying on.

I suspect it all can be reduced to the individual steps -- or at least we must assume that it can until we have proof otherwise.

As to free will, my old boxer who finally died this last summer and I would go out for walks every night. We had two courses we followed, one slightly shorter and one slightly longer -- the longer one with a hill. On pleasant nights when I wasn't in a rush I would let him decide. He would sometimes sit at the corner and look both ways for several seconds before deciding which way to go. It sure looked like free will to me.

THANKS for the many insightful, intelligent comments on my article for "Savvy Street." Interesting that the discussion seemed to turn to whether or not humans are "superior" to other species, or are the only species with free well, and evidence that perhaps other species "make choices." I say "interesting" because I had not thought of the article as about that, but more about the remarkable conviction of scientists that some day, however long it takes, we will have discovered on the most fundamental level the physical basis for all aspects or acts of consciousness. A few asserted that the claim that consciousness is irreducible to any physical process, even if those processes give rise to consciousness, is "unproven," "undemonstrated," just a belief. As I understand her, Ayn Rand said that existence and consciousness are self-evident, axiomatic, and so not needing and capable of "proof." Any attempt to argue against their existence, their reality, would have to assume them. Consciousness is awareness of existence, as she said, and such awareness is a fundamental, not reducible to anything else.Harry Binswanger wrote an interesting thesis arguing that there must be some "spirit" entity that has an existence apart from the brain... There is a very, very persuasive case for this. That does not give us "God," of course, or anything like it.

Some seemed to argue here that other species, like dogs, do have choice. Of course dogs have choice; when I call to Fido to come and my wife calls to Fido at the same time, Fido can't respond to both. But he doesn't free in place. He makes a choice. The point at issue is whether or not this choice is undetermined, genuinely "free," and there is no reason to believe that it is. In any case, the only evidence we can obtain about such matters, as of now, comes from introspection reported in language and, for that, humans are the only game in town. Thanks again for all the comments, friends. I would like to respond in more detail, but duty calls. Thanks very much for following "Savvy Street." By now, I have published some 50 articles, there.

I agree with a number of writers the there are a number of mammalian species that that show signicant levels of consciousness. I have two mixed breed dogs. Their mother was a Pit Bull. We got them from an local rescue group.The male is black and whiite the oddest thing when he was a puppy that he had an enormous head compared to his body.We also adopted the female littermate which had a proportional body and head. (We still have both). I decided to train the male to develope his own vocal way to let me know when he wants to go out or a treat. But also he will come an get me to show me something he is not familiar with inside the house. Unfortunately the female has a very limited vocal ability but her is funny to listen to.
The male has multicolored irises and pigmentations on the corneas of his eyes. When you look into his eyes you get the the most disconcerting feeling that there are thoughts pervading his mind.

When you come right down to it, the "breakthrough" doesn't tell much that wasn't already thought about and acted on. It is hard to discern whether creatures other than man have volition, because in their own way, their sensory input is so different. Take a dog, for example. To my beagle the world revolves around smell. Her eyes are good for attention but not much detail But odor, ah odor is to her as Technicolor is to us. As homo sapiens we cannot begin to comprehend what the world is like to her. Take a frog, for example. It's paradise is a pond filled with algae half of which is rotting and swarming with flies. Can we comprehend what the mind of a frog is? Volition is the key to the existence of man. Without it, his big brain is no better than that of an elephant whose brain is even bigger than man's. As to consciousness, I suspect that when science unravels the mystery, it will be as revolutionary as Einstein's changing of the entire thinking about the universe and how it works. It is still unknowns within unknowns. I don't want to get all mystical on you, but science is becoming wilder than was ever imagined just a few short years ago.

Nice article. Thanks for sharing. I like the approach: start simple and work up from there.

I think Donway is referring to Allan (not Allen) Blumenthal, and he is a psychiatrist (not a psychologist), who, if memory serves, was part of the inner circle (not merely the “original circle”) with Ayn Rand and he is a cousin of Nathaniel Branden (whose birth name was Nathan Blumenthal).

All this trivia aside, and as interesting as it is to learn how the brain functions, the issue of free will is established in that any attempt to disprove free will requires the use of free will, thus qualifying it as an axiom.