The point is, you were using the point that a fly’s movements were complex to argue that a fly has internal agency. But, a leaf floating on the wind also has complex movements. To me, that makes it seem like complex movements aren’t a solid indicator of agency.
If you’re now talking about dissection, that’s a whole different argument.
a fly’s movements were complex to argue that a fly has internal agency
A fly has the ability to observe its surroundings and adjust its position in response to outside stimulus. A leaf does not. That, alone, adds a dimension of activity that the first possesses and the second doesn’t.
You can argue that the fly is still a deterministic agent, but the ability to observe and respond adds a dimension of activity that’s more complex than a leaf, which can only move based on the surrounding wind currents.
It’s difficult to predict the path of a leaf floating in the wind, but I don’t think anybody would say a leaf has agency.
Orders of magnitude less difficult, as the leaf can’t glean your intent and respond accordingly.
Can you prove that?
That the movement of a leaf in the wind is less complex than the electro-chemical processes of a human brain?
With enough time and math, certainly.
The point is, you were using the point that a fly’s movements were complex to argue that a fly has internal agency. But, a leaf floating on the wind also has complex movements. To me, that makes it seem like complex movements aren’t a solid indicator of agency.
If you’re now talking about dissection, that’s a whole different argument.
A fly has the ability to observe its surroundings and adjust its position in response to outside stimulus. A leaf does not. That, alone, adds a dimension of activity that the first possesses and the second doesn’t.
You can argue that the fly is still a deterministic agent, but the ability to observe and respond adds a dimension of activity that’s more complex than a leaf, which can only move based on the surrounding wind currents.