FREE WILL - A Comparison

What is free will? This concept is unclear, especially when associated with humans, animals, and plants, raising questions like: do animals have free will?

Here, we need to examine it from the foundational dimension while relying on realistic - empirical evidence, then combine these into an almost complete understanding.

When talking about freedom, it means "unrestricted". This is a neutral understanding, and we take this to avoid slipping into unreasonable interpretations.

"I am free" means "I am not restricted within certain limits." An animal is free because it is not restricted by others.

This is a universal understanding of "freedom". We have not yet reached the stage of understanding "will".

Will

So how do we understand will? It is an impulse from within. A turmoil, a desire resulting from biological demands.

Concept: There is another level of will, where will arises not from biological urges but from logical consequences.

Hope. So, logical consequences trigger desires. It is possible for logical consequences to trigger biological urges and then desires. However, here the logical consequences do not trigger biological urges because the desire arises not due to biological influences or past experiences, but is triggered to will something not based on experience. This is a form of hope.

Spontaneity Although animals may seem to have a latent hope to retaliate, it is still triggered by direct events that sequentially trigger memories leading to retaliation. There is a basis in past experiences.

• >>> For rational beings, hopes can arise not based on experience, even though they are also based on comparisons with experiences, but the hopes are better (yet to happen compared to what was experienced).

At this point, there is a striking difference, where animals cannot hope without a basis in experience, while humans can will something never experienced. This is a far leap compared to animals.

DNA Structure & Differentiation

It does not matter if our DNA structure is considered slightly different from certain animal species, but there is one thing that makes a significant difference. A small thing, even if it is only 0.1% of the 99% similarity, that small thing can lead to a higher dimension, making two similar things entirely different.

Like a simple ladder leading to a superior state, the existence of that small ladder indicates a striking difference which becomes a notable differentiator as well.

Similarities vs. Differences

So, are there similarities and differences? Which one should be held onto? The similarities or the differences?

Simple. When talking about distinguishing between animals and humans, do not get trapped by scientific classifications that categorize humans as thinking animals or rational animals. They do not even realize the difference between thinking (tracing cause-effect relationships) and reasoning which involves contemplation tracing cause-effect relationships differently - broadly, not in detail.

• >>> We are talking universally.

Consistency

What distinguishes between different forms of life universally is its consistency. If something is consistent, that consistency explains its nature.

If there is a similarity in consistency, then where is the difference that can be a benchmark? Or does the consistent similarity itself become the measure?

Hierarchy

The benchmark is not where the similarity or difference lies, but where the superiority is.

Because when we classify universally, the foundation is not on similarities or differences but on hierarchy.

Because hierarchy is the foundation of similarities and differences.

So, you may assess from a scientific, psychological, or any other perspective, but I am coming from the perspective of universality - hierarchy in this context.

Territory

When talking about hierarchy, there is territory there. There is a broader perspective, a broader territory, superior authority there.

And this is not recognized by animals through concepts. Animals cannot recognize territory through concepts. Animals cannot recognize territory through hope.

All forms of impressions of longing, hope, or revenge from animals, impressions of thinking, all are based on past experiences responded to spontaneously.

Animals cannot hope for something abstract beyond experiences. And this is just one (not the only one) that distinguishes how far an animal's will compares to a human's will.

✅ THAT ANIMAL WILL CANNOT REACH AN ABSTRACT TERRITORY (WITHOUT BASED ON EXPERIENCE), CAN ONLY BE WILLED BY HUMANS (WILLING SOMETHING NEVER EXPERIENCED).

Relative

So how do you define "free will"? If you direct it to an unrestricted drive, then animals and humans have unrestricted drives not in the sense of unlimited, but free (within limited reach).

Absolute

But if free will is defined as the will to choose? Then the will must be freely unrestricted to reach (choose) the dimension of experience and the abstract dimension never experienced.

Why? Because choosing is not just unrestricted or unguided but tends to be directed. Even though human nature directs itself too, there are times when humans can break free from constraints and elevate their position beyond their human dimension (expansive spiritual personality).

In the language of the faithful, the human soul can descend to the level of animals or ascend to the level of angels.

In animals, the so-called free will is only free as in unrestricted but directed consistently by their inherent nature.

Whereas a truly free human will can break away from the consistency of similarity between animals and humans towards a consistency that differentiates them.

And this difference changes the hierarchy of humans above animals. And because I view it from the universal perspective which in this case emphasizes hierarchy, then understanding "free will" between animals and humans, is not seen from their similarity, but from their difference, which means:

✅ An animal's will is free in the context of being unrestricted but still within its nature as an animal,

✅ Whereas a human's free will is not limited by its nature but can break free from its initial consistency towards something different from itself back and forth. This is multi-dimensional freedom and not a mere direction.

🔰 From this comparison, it confirms that the freedom of animals and humans is not just similarly unrestricted but there is a striking difference that allows human will to optimize itself to reach a higher hierarchy state, with broader expansiveness and superior territory.

So fundamentally, even though there is an extraordinary DNA similarity between humans and other living beings, still viewed from the perspective of differences, that difference is where only human potential can elevate to a higher hierarchy territory. Meaning:

❇️ Freedom is not merely the absence of constraints (even if free on one side but constrained on another), but rather, freedom means

〰 The ability to develop one's potential through conceptual consideration, in order to achieve a higher hierarchy that is understood conceptually.

👉 AND THIS IS ONLY CHARACTERISTIC OF BEINGS WHO CAN WILL NOT BECAUSE OF BIOLOGICAL IMPULSES OR MERELY ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES, BUT WILL ARISING FROM LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES (A CONCEPT).