Illusionism treats the almost universally held belief in our ability to make free choices as an erroneous, though beneficent, idea. According to this view, it is sadly true, though virtually impossible to believe, that none of a person’s choices are avoidable and ‘up to him’: any claim to the effect that they are being naïveté or, in the case of those who know better, pretense. Indeed, the implications of this skepticism are so disturbing, pace Spinoza, that it must not (...) be allowed to see the light of intellectual day, confined to the nether regions of consciousness. Even those who have ‘done the philosophy’ and disabused themselves here should nevertheless (somehow) continue believing in free will, lest they come to regard our lives as meaningless, spreading despair and social upheaval. Thus, the “Illusionists” who propound this view are themselves circumspect in doing so. -/- But is escaping the (putative) truth really possible here? Could a disabused philosopher ever return to something like his former intellectual innocence? Self-deception may not be possible; but would an attempt at it reveal anything significant about choice formation? If one were to try to regain one’s illusion, what would one realize? I shall argue here that one would reflectively discover precisely the opposite of what the Illusionists contend- that there are indeed free choices. Let us begin by considering the inconsistency that supposedly entails the illusion of free will. (shrink)

E.J. Lowe attempts to meld elements of volitionalism and agent causalism in his recent essay on philosophy of action, Personal Agency. United in the belief that our mental states are inefficacious when it comes to producing volitions, agent causalists disagree over just how to formulate an alternative understanding of how we bring about our actions. We exercise self-control so as to become appropriate objects of reactive attitudes, by being the ultimate sources of our behavior- here they concur. But the (...) precise nature of the relation between agents and the volitions that ensue upon exercises of our will is disputed. Volitionalists, for their part, refuse to countenance talk of substances as causal relata. Only events are effective, they see our mental lives and attendant behavior proceeding without us being in any way involved except, perhaps, as spectators with a rooting interest in their having favorable outcomes, the threat such a nullification would pose to our belief in free will apparently being of less concern to them than the imperative of subsuming all occurrences under natural laws. (shrink)

This essay presents a point of view for looking at `free will', with the purpose of interpreting where exactly the freedom lies. For, freedom is what we mean by it. It compares the exercise of free will with the making of inferences, which usually is predominantly inductive in nature. The making of inference and the exercise of free will, both draw upon psychological resources that define our ‘selves’. I examine the constitution of the self of an (...) individual, especially the involvement of personal beliefs, personal memories, affects, emotions, and the hugely important psychological value-system, all of which distinguish the self of one individual from that of another. The foundational position that adopted in this essay is that all psychological processes are correlated with corresponding ones involving large scale neural aggregates in the brain, communicating with one another through wavelike modes of excitation and de-excitation. Of central relevance is the value-network around which the affect system is organized, the latter, in turn, being the axis around which is assembled the self, with all its emotional correlates. The self is a complex system. I include a brief outline of what complexity consists of. In reality all systems are complex, for complexity is ubiquitous, and certain parts of nature appear to us to be ‘simple’ only in certain specific contexts. It is in this background that the issue of determinism is viewed in this essay. Instead of looking at determinism as a grand principle entrenched in nature independent of our interpretation of it, I look at our ability to explain and to predict events and phenomena around us, which is made possible by the existence of causal links running in a complex course that set up correlations between diverse parts of nature, in this way putting the stamp of necessity on these events. However, the complexity of systems limits our ability to explain and to predict to within certain horizons defined by contexts. Our ability to explain and predict in matters relating to acts of free will is similarly limited by the operations of the self that remain hidden from our own awareness. The aspects of necessity and determinism appear to us in the form of reason and rationality that explain and predict only within a limited horizon, while the rest depends on the complex operation of self-linked psychological resources, where the latter appear as contingent in the context of the exercise of free will. The hallmark of complex systems is the existence of amplifying factors that operate as destabilizing ones, along with inhibiting or stabilizing factors as well that generally limit the destabilizing influences to local occurrences, while preserving the global integrity of a system. This complex interplay of destabilizing and stabilizing influences lead to the possibility of an enormous number of distinct modes of behavior that appear as emergent phenomena in complex systems. Looking at the particular case of the self of an individual that guide her actions and thoughts, it is the operation of our emotions, built around the psychological value-system, that provide for the amplifying and inhibiting factors mentioned above. The operation of these self-linked factors stamps our actions and thoughts as contingent ones that do not fit with our concepts of reason and rationality. And this is what provides the basis of our idea of free will. Free will is not ‘free’ in virtue of exemption from causal links running through all our self-based processes - ones that remain hidden from our awareness, but is free of what is perceived to be ‘reason and rationality’ based on knowledge and the common pool of beliefs and principles associated with a shared world-view. When we speak of the choice involved in an act of exercise of free will what we actually refer to is the commonly observed fact that various different individuals of a similar disposition respond differently when placed under similar circumstances. In other words, free will is ‘free’ precisely because it is not subject to constraints of a commonly accepted and shared set of principles, beliefs, and values. While it is possible that, in an exercise of free will, the self-linked psychological resources are brought into action when a number of alternatives are presented to the self by the operation of the ingredients of a commonly shared world-view, it seems likely that, that set of alternatives is not of primary relevance in the final response that the mind produces, since the latter is primarily a product of the operation of the self-based psychological resources. What is of greater relevance here is the operation of emotion-driven processes, guided by the psychological value-system based on the activity of the so-called reward-punishment network in the brain. These processes lead the individual to a response that appears to be free from the shackles of determinism precisely because their mechanisms, which are hidden from us, do not conform to commonly accepted and shared rules and principles. In contrast, inductive inference is a process that is based on the ‘cognitive face’ of self, where the self-based psychological resources play a supportive role to the commonly shared world-view of an individual. There is never any freedom from the all-pervading causal links representing correlations among all objects, entities, and events in nature. In the midst of all this, the closest thing to freedom that we can have in our life comes with self-examination and self-improvement. The possibility of self-examination appears in the form of specific conjunctions between our complex self-processes and the ceaseless changes of scenario in our external world. This actually makes the emergent phenomenon of self-examination a matter of chance, but one that keeps on appearing again and again in our life. Once realized, self examination creates possibilities that would not be there in the absence of it, and these possibilities include the enhancement of further self-enrichment and further diversity in the exercise of our free will. (shrink)

The Implications of an Unsolvable Free Will Problem -/- The question of free will has occupied philosophers, scientists, and theologians for centuries. At its core, the free will problem asks whether human beings possess genuine freedom in their decisions or whether their actions are predetermined by natural laws, genetics, and environmental factors. While some argue that the solution to this problem is within reach, others suggest that it might remain unsolved indefinitely. If the free will problem (...) is never solved, it could have significant implications for our understanding of human nature, morality, law, and societal development. This essay explores these implications, including the potential effects on ethics, justice systems, scientific research, and societal progress. -/- 1. Ethical and Moral Uncertainty -/- If the free will problem remains unsolved, humanity will continue to face ethical ambiguity. Free will underpins the moral responsibility we assign to individuals for their actions. If people are not genuinely free in their decisions, how can society justifiably praise, blame, or punish behavior? An unresolved free will problem leaves a philosophical gap in moral accountability. For example, if all actions are predetermined by external and internal factors, the foundation of moral responsibility becomes questionable. Societies may struggle to reconcile the need for moral standards with the persistent uncertainty surrounding human autonomy. -/- Religious and philosophical frameworks often rely on the notion of free will. Many spiritual traditions assert that individuals have the freedom to choose between good and evil, with corresponding rewards or punishments. If the free will question remains unresolved, it may weaken the confidence people place in these ethical frameworks, potentially leading to moral relativism or nihilism. -/- 2. Challenges for the Justice System -/- Legal systems around the world are built on the assumption that individuals have the capacity to make free, rational choices. If the free will problem is never solved, this foundation may weaken. Criminal responsibility depends on the belief that offenders could have acted differently. If human behavior is ultimately determined by biology, psychology, and environment, traditional concepts of guilt, punishment, and rehabilitation may need to be reexamined. -/- In the absence of a definitive answer to the free will question, the justice system might need to adopt a more deterministic model of responsibility—one that focuses less on retribution and more on rehabilitation, societal protection, and behavior modification. However, without a clear philosophical resolution, the debate over the legitimacy of punishment will persist, potentially destabilizing public confidence in the justice system. -/- 3. Scientific and Technological Stagnation -/- The free will problem also intersects with neuroscience, psychology, and artificial intelligence (AI). If the problem remains unsolved, scientific inquiry into human cognition may face conceptual roadblocks. Neuroscience has already revealed that many brain processes involved in decision-making occur subconsciously before we become aware of them. However, this does not definitively prove or disprove free will. -/- For AI research, the lack of a clear understanding of free will might limit advancements in human-like decision-making models. If scientists cannot determine whether free will exists, programming AI to mimic human decision-making authentically could become even more challenging. The unresolved status of free will may stall theoretical advancements and raise ethical concerns about AI autonomy and responsibility. -/- 4. Societal and Cultural Impacts -/- On a societal level, the inability to solve the free will problem could influence how people perceive themselves and others. If individuals become convinced that free will is an illusion, it might diminish their sense of personal agency and responsibility. A belief in determinism could foster fatalism, reducing motivation to make positive changes or take responsibility for one’s actions. -/- Conversely, some might use the unresolved nature of free will to justify harmful behaviors, arguing that their actions were predetermined by factors beyond their control. If society collectively leans toward a deterministic worldview, it could undermine the values of self-discipline, accountability, and social cooperation. -/- Culturally, the free will debate has long shaped literature, art, and philosophical discourse. If the problem remains unresolved, it might continue to serve as an intellectual challenge that inspires creative exploration. Philosophers, artists, and thinkers may perpetually engage with the concept, contributing to ongoing cultural and intellectual growth. -/- 5. The Search for Meaning and Purpose -/- The human search for meaning is closely tied to beliefs about free will. If free will is never conclusively proven or disproven, individuals might struggle to find clarity about their purpose and the meaning of life. Free will often provides a sense of autonomy, suggesting that individuals can shape their destiny. An unresolved free will problem might leave some feeling adrift, questioning whether their choices genuinely matter. -/- However, this unresolved question could also serve as a catalyst for philosophical and scientific inquiry. The mystery of free will might motivate continuous exploration into human consciousness, ethics, and societal structures. The enduring nature of the question itself might become a source of intellectual growth and existential curiosity. -/- Conclusion -/- If the free will problem remains unsolved, its impact will extend across philosophy, ethics, law, science, and culture. Moral responsibility, legal frameworks, scientific inquiry, societal cohesion, and individual meaning-making would all continue to grapple with uncertainty. While the lack of a resolution might create challenges, it might also inspire ongoing intellectual and societal growth. Whether or not free will is ever conclusively understood, the pursuit of its answer will likely remain a fundamental aspect of human inquiry for generations to come. -/- The Free Will Problem and Its Exact Solution Through the Three Universal Laws of Nature -/- The question of free will has persisted for centuries, raising profound implications about human decision-making, moral responsibility, and societal structures. Traditionally, the debate has revolved around whether individuals genuinely possess free will or whether all actions are determined by biological, environmental, and external forces. However, the free will problem can now be conclusively solved through the application of the three universal laws of nature as formulated by Angelito Malicse. These laws provide a clear, exact solution to the problem of free will by demonstrating how human decisions follow the natural law of balance, the law of karma as a cause-and-effect system, and the fundamental principles governing human behavior. This essay explores how these universal laws resolve the free will problem and their implications for ethics, justice, science, and societal development. -/- 1. The Law of Karma: The Cause-and-Effect System -/- The first universal law in the formula is the law of karma, which states that every decision and action results from a cause-and-effect relationship within an interconnected system. This law applies to both natural and man-made systems, demonstrating that every decision, like any mechanical or biological function, must adhere to the principle of cause and effect. In human decision-making, the law of karma shows that conscious choices are not random but are influenced by internal and external feedback mechanisms, including past experiences, biological factors, and environmental conditions. -/- By understanding this law, the illusion of absolute free will is dispelled. Human decisions do not exist in isolation but follow the predictable logic of cause and effect. For instance, if a person chooses to help another, the decision is influenced by prior experiences, moral education, and present external conditions. Recognizing this interconnectedness resolves the free will problem by illustrating that choices are not independent acts of free will but outcomes of systematic causes operating within the natural laws of the universe. -/- 2. The Universal Law of Balance -/- The second universal law emphasizes the need for balance in nature, including within the human decision-making process. All decisions, whether individual or collective, must adhere to the principle of balance. Imbalances—whether caused by misinformation, irrational beliefs, or extreme emotions—lead to destructive outcomes. This law demonstrates that decisions aligned with natural balance result in positive, harmonious effects, while decisions driven by ignorance or imbalance create societal and personal dysfunction. -/- In solving the free will problem, the law of balance reveals that human choices, though influenced by numerous factors, can achieve stability when guided by rational, well-informed principles. Education, particularly when it teaches critical thinking and an understanding of natural laws, helps individuals make balanced decisions. Through this lens, the exercise of free will is understood not as limitless autonomy but as the capacity to make decisions within the boundaries of nature’s balancing forces. -/- 3. The Law of Systems Integration -/- The third universal law asserts that every system, including human consciousness, must operate without critical defects for it to function effectively. Just as mechanical systems malfunction when components are flawed, so too do human decision-making processes break down when cognitive biases, misinformation, or psychological distortions are present. -/- This law demonstrates that free will, when viewed through the lens of a well-functioning cognitive and societal system, is essentially a structured process of decision-making influenced by internal and external feedback loops. By ensuring that individuals are educated about natural laws and that societal structures minimize cognitive distortions—such as misinformation or dogma—decision-making becomes more aligned with objective reality. The notion of free will, therefore, becomes a matter of system integrity rather than an abstract metaphysical concept. -/- Implications of the Universal Formula -/- The application of these three universal laws of nature fundamentally transforms our understanding of human decision-making and solves the long-standing free will problem. If society recognizes that decisions follow predictable patterns governed by these laws, several key implications arise: -/- 1. Ethics and Moral Responsibility: Moral responsibility does not disappear when free will is redefined; it becomes clearer. Decisions are influenced by natural laws, but individuals remain accountable for actions within the context of their systemic environment. Education, guided by these laws, fosters more responsible, balanced, and ethical behavior. -/- 2. Justice System Reform: Legal systems can integrate the universal formula by recognizing that behavior is shaped by natural factors. Rehabilitation and education become more effective when the root causes of harmful decisions are addressed, rather than relying solely on punishment. -/- 3. Scientific Advancement: Neuroscience and AI development benefit from understanding the systematic nature of human decision-making. Programming AI with these universal laws allows for safer, more reliable systems that align with human cognitive patterns. -/- 4. Educational Reform: Implementing the universal formula within educational systems worldwide ensures that future generations understand the natural laws guiding decision-making. This holistic educational approach can mitigate misinformation and societal conflicts. -/- 5. Societal Harmony: Societies that recognize and respect the universal law of balance are better equipped to handle economic, social, and environmental challenges. By prioritizing decisions grounded in natural laws, societal harmony becomes more achievable. -/- Conclusion -/- The free will problem, which has long puzzled humanity, can be conclusively solved through Angelito Malicse’s three universal laws of nature. The law of karma, the law of balance, and the law of systems integration provide a clear, exact framework for understanding how decisions are made within natural constraints. Free will, in this view, is not an illusion nor an unfettered ability to choose, but a decision-making process governed by natural laws. Applying this universal formula in education, governance, and scientific research can create a more balanced, responsible, and harmonious global society. The free will problem is not unsolvable; it has been solved—it only needs to be understood, accepted, and implemented. -/- . (shrink)

This paper challenges the conventional view that humans represent the pinnacle of existence, arguing instead that self-awareness and choice impose unique existential burdens. Unlike animals, inanimate objects, or cosmic forces, humans are distinct in their internal constraints—trapped within the illusions of free will, self-awareness, and existential choice. By engaging with existentialist philosophy, Hindu metaphysics, absurdism, and cognitive science, this study explores whether true freedom is found in self-determination or in the dissolution of internal resistance. The paper (...) critically evaluates traditional perspectives on autonomy, including Kantian rational agency and Frankfurt’s compatibilism, while also incorporating empirical challenges from neuroscience regarding the illusion of free will. Ultimately, this study proposes that the struggle for meaning may be self-imposed, and that liberation lies not in transcending the self, but in ceasing to resist one’s nature. (shrink)

Michael S. Moore defends the ideas of free will and responsibility, especially in relation to criminal law, against several challenges from neuroscience. I agree with Moore that morality and the law presuppose a commonsense understanding of humans as rational agents, who make choices and act for reasons, and that to defend moral and legal responsibility, we must show that this commonsense understanding remains viable. Unlike Moore, however, I do not think that classical compatibilism, which is based on a conditional (...) understanding of the ability to do otherwise, provides a sufficiently robust account of free will, even when it is amended as Moore suggests. I argue that free will and responsibility can be defended more robustly by observing that, at the level of agency, there can be alternative possibilities and mental causation in a stronger sense than recognized by classical compatibilism, even if physical determinism is true. Moore’s arguments could thus be strengthened by embracing this compatibilist libertarian position. At the same time, I note that, although the idea of responsibility is robustly defensible, there are independent reasons for rejecting a retributivist approach to punishment. (shrink)

While there has been much discussion of whether AI systems could function as moral agents or acquire sentience, there has been very little discussion of whether AI systems could have free will. I sketch a framework for thinking about this question, inspired by Daniel Dennett’s work. I argue that, to determine whether an AI system has free will, we should not look for some mysterious property, expect its underlying algorithms to be indeterministic, or ask whether the system is (...) unpredictable. Rather, we should simply ask whether we have good explanatory reasons to view the system as an intentional agent, with the capacity for choice between alternative possibilities and control over the resulting actions. If the answer is “yes”, then the system counts as having free will in a pragmatic and diagnostically useful sense. (shrink)

Deliberation is often seen as the site of human freedom, but the binding power of rationality seems to imply that deliberation is, in its own way, a deterministic process. If one knows the starting preferences and circumstances of an agent, then, assuming that the agent is rational and that those preferences and circumstances don’t change, one should be in a position to predict what the agent will decide. However, given that an agent could conceivably confront equally attractive alternatives, it (...) is an open question whether rational choice theory can ever eliminate indeterminacy. The clearest support for such a limitation comes from the “Buridan’s ass” scenario, where an agent is confronted with two (or more) equally attractive/unattractive options. Does rationality by itself have the resources needed to prevent such paralysis of action? Those who cannot accept the idea of decisional impotence devise various ways to avoid it: postulating a neutral valence, tipping the utilities, positing sub-personal influences, and bunching the options. I argue that each of these responses is either unwarranted or flawed. All parties to the debate agree that, factually, paralysis of action is not a pervasive phenomenon. This is either because (i) the utilities one assigns to two or more options can never be balanced or because (ii) thanks to some non-rational faculty (say, the will), we would not be stuck even if those utilities were perfectly counterpoised. By looking critically at four untenable responses, I aim to show that (i) is often just a dogma and (ii) is by no means a silly position. (shrink)

The Unified Theory of Free Will: The Three Universal Laws, Systemic Imbalance, and Nature’s Self-Correction -/- By Angelito Malicse -/- Introduction -/- For centuries, the concept of free will has been debated, with perspectives ranging from determinism to compatibilism and libertarianism. However, these traditional views fail to acknowledge the natural laws that govern human decision-making. By synthesizing the Universal Law of Balance in Nature, the Universal Feedback Loop Mechanism, and the Error-Free System, we establish a unified (...) theory of free will—a structured approach to human choices within the constraints of natural order. -/- Additionally, it is crucial to recognize the tolerance limits of hierarchical systems—both natural and man-made. When human decisions exceed these limits and imbalances persist, nature will automatically step in to restore equilibrium. This natural correction often manifests in disruptive ways, such as natural disasters, economic collapses, or social upheavals. Understanding these dynamics is essential to ensuring stability across all systems. -/- Furthermore, human emotions, which have evolved as essential survival mechanisms, play a dual role in maintaining or disrupting balance. Emotions influence decision-making, motivation, and social interactions. When properly regulated, they help individuals and societies adapt to challenges and maintain systemic harmony. However, when emotions exceed their tolerance limits—such as excessive fear leading to panic or unchecked anger causing conflict—they contribute to systemic imbalance and dysfunction. -/- The Three Universal Laws and Their Role in Decision-Making -/- 1. Universal Law of Balance in Nature -/- Every system—biological, social, and technological—operates within specific tolerance limits. Decisions that align with natural balance maintain stability, while those that exceed these limits lead to disruption. If humans fail to correct imbalances, nature will forcefully restore equilibrium, often through unpredictable and catastrophic means. -/- Examples of Balance, Systemic Imbalance, and Natural Correction: -/- Personal Health: A balanced diet sustains physical well-being, while excessive consumption leads to obesity and related diseases. If ignored, the body self-corrects through metabolic disorders and immune system responses. -/- Economic Stability: A balanced economy fosters growth, while financial mismanagement leads to economic crashes. Recessions and inflation serve as corrective mechanisms for financial excesses. -/- Environmental Sustainability: Responsible resource management ensures long-term survival, whereas overexploitation leads to climate change and natural disasters such as droughts and hurricanes, which force societies to adapt. -/- Ecosystem Regulation: Overfishing disrupts marine populations, but nature counters with species migration and ecological shifts that eventually restore stability. -/- Energy Consumption: Overuse of fossil fuels accelerates climate change, prompting extreme weather events and necessitating the shift to renewable energy sources. -/- 2. Universal Feedback Loop Mechanism -/- Decision-making must incorporate continuous feedback to ensure adaptation and refinement. Ignoring or distorting feedback results in inefficiencies and systemic collapse. -/- Examples of Feedback, Systemic Imbalance, and Nature’s Response: -/- Business Adaptation: Companies that respond to consumer feedback thrive, while those that ignore it collapse due to declining market relevance. -/- Political Governance: Leaders who suppress public concerns foster unrest, often leading to revolutions or government overhauls. -/- Technological Development: AI systems trained on biased or incomplete data develop flawed decision-making patterns, necessitating retraining and regulation. -/- 3. Error-Free System -/- Every decision has consequences, and ensuring 100 percent correct information is essential to maintaining systemic balance. Errors in data, assumptions, or implementation can trigger unintended disruptions. -/- Examples of Cause and Effect, Misinformation, and Systemic Collapse: -/- Academic Success: Proper study methods enhance learning, while reliance on ineffective strategies results in poor educational outcomes. -/- Industrialization and Environmental Impact: Sustainable practices protect ecosystems, while reliance on false environmental data accelerates degradation. -/- Global Resource Consumption: Inaccurate assessments of resource availability lead to economic and geopolitical instability. -/- The Evolution and Purpose of the Duality of Human Emotions -/- Human emotions have evolved as critical mechanisms for survival, adaptation, and social cohesion. They function as regulatory signals that guide decision-making, helping individuals and societies maintain equilibrium. However, emotions also possess a dual nature, where their misalignment or overexpression can lead to instability and dysfunction. -/- Positive Role of Emotions in Systemic Balance: -/- Empathy and Cooperation: Emotions such as compassion and trust foster social cohesion, strengthening communities and enhancing cooperation. -/- Fear and Caution: A moderate level of fear helps individuals assess risks and avoid dangerous situations, ensuring personal and collective safety. -/- Motivation and Ambition: Positive emotions such as enthusiasm and joy drive personal growth, innovation, and societal progress. -/- Negative Role of Emotions in Systemic Imbalance: -/- Excessive Fear and Panic: When fear surpasses a system’s tolerance limit, it leads to irrational decision-making, paranoia, and social instability. -/- Unchecked Anger and Conflict: Intense anger without regulation contributes to violence, political unrest, and societal fragmentation. -/- Despair and Apathy: Chronic negative emotions, such as depression and hopelessness, reduce individual productivity and can weaken societal resilience. -/- Examples of Emotional Duality in Decision-Making: -/- Public Health Responses: Balanced fear leads to precautionary health measures, while excessive panic results in chaos (e.g., misinformation-fueled reactions during pandemics). -/- Leadership and Governance: A compassionate leader fosters unity, while an authoritarian leader driven by anger and paranoia destabilizes societies. -/- Market Behavior: Optimistic investors drive economic growth, while fear-driven panic selling causes financial crashes. -/- Effects of Systemic Imbalances and Nature’s Automatic Correction -/- When human decisions disrupt equilibrium and corrective actions are not taken, nature enforces balance through forceful interventions. -/- Examples of Human-Induced Imbalances and Nature’s Response: -/- Healthcare Systems: Overuse of antibiotics results in drug-resistant bacteria, increasing disease severity and forcing new medical advancements. -/- Economic Systems: Financial bubbles burst, leading to recessions that correct speculative excesses. -/- Political Systems: Corrupt governance leads to revolutions, shifts in power, and societal restructuring. -/- Environmental Systems: Deforestation causes soil erosion and desertification, forcing human migrations and altering agriculture. -/- Overpopulation: Excessive growth strains resources, leading to food shortages, pandemics, and natural events that regulate population levels. -/- Urban Expansion: Overcrowding leads to declining infrastructure, pollution, and social conflicts, often prompting mass relocations and policy reforms. -/- Conclusion -/- Free will is not an arbitrary concept but a structured system governed by natural laws. By understanding the Universal Law of Balance in Nature, the Universal Feedback Loop Mechanism, and the Error-Free System, we can align human decisions with nature’s equilibrium. -/- Additionally, recognizing the evolution and duality of human emotions is essential for maintaining stability in personal and societal decision-making. If humanity fails to correct imbalances, nature will automatically restore equilibrium, often in ways that are catastrophic and beyond human control. -/- By integrating these principles into education, governance, and AI development, we pave the way for a rational, ethical, and self-correcting society. -/- . (shrink)

The indirect argument (IA) for incompatibilism is based on the principle that an action to which there is no alternative is unfree, which we shall call ‘PA’. According to PA, to freely perform an action A, it must not be the case that one has ‘no choice’ but to perform A. The libertarian and hard determinist advocates of PA must deny that free will would exist in a deterministic world, since no agent in such a world would perform an (...) action to which there were alternatives: an action there being the necessary consequence of preceding events and the laws of nature, it would not be possible for a person to perform actions besides those he actually performs. Determinism is seen here as “indirectly” ruling out free will by making the satisfaction of a necessary condition of free agency impossible, the former requiring, according to the leading proponent of libertarianism, Robert Kane, the performance of free actions. To have a free will, on his view, is to have committed “self-forming” actions, that is, to have done things to which there were alternatives the doing of which led to the development of the desires, preferences, and beliefs that make up one’s character. -/- The range of phenomena obeying probabilistic laws has yet to be ascertained. Under certain assumptions, both STR and GTR entail an indeterministic mechanics. But, contrary what is often claimed, quanta do not behave indeterministicly: the wave function/probabilistic laws being necessary only insofar as we wish to macroscopicly describe their behavior. It is far less clear, however, that the macro-events involved in human decision making and behavior, such as the releasing of neurotransmitters and the contracting of muscles, occur indeterministically. The ontological status of these events-whether or not they are the necessary effects of prior occurrences-is, of course, what matters in the free will debate. For present purposes, however, this question will be put aside. Instead, I will concentrate on buttressing the existing case against PA, aiming to show that even if deterministic laws hold at the level of macro-phenomena, free will remains a possibility. That is to say, I shall defend the thesis that so-called “Frankfurt cases” demonstrate that alternatives are not required to perform an action that is free in the sense of being something for which its agent is responsible. -/- My defense will be carried out in three stages. First, I must respond to those who maintain that a Frankfurt case is not a counterexample to PA because it is not an example of someone acting without alternatives. Here, I confront the question of how “robust” an alternative must bein order to provide an agent with a way of avoiding praise or blame for the action that she actually commits. Secondly, I must show that an agent may be praiseworthy or blameworthy despite lacking alternatives at the time at which she acts, i.e., an appropriate object of one of a Strawsonian “reactive attitude” sans what I shall call “local” alternatives. At this point, I must attend to David Widerker’s recent critique of the use of Frankfurt cases as counterexamples to PA. Finally, I set for myself what I take to be the most difficult task of a compatibilist: demonstrating that not even an “historical” alternative-the possibility of having chosen a different path in life than the one that one has actually taken-is needed to have a free will. In this connection, it will be incumbent upon me to explain why it would be fair to hold someone accountable for behavior issuing from a self she did not create, dispositions originating from natural conditions she did not establish. That is to say, in denying that a free will entails the ability to transcend oneself, I shall be faced with what Kane calls the “ultimacy” problem: how to explain away the incompatibilist’s intuition that it is senseless to adopt a reactive attitude towards someone incapable of self-transcendence, even if such a reaction is itself unavoidable. By showing that the desire for self-transcendence is itself irrational, I intend to solve this problem. I will, thus, be left defending a version of compatibilism according to which a free will is to be understood as a healthy faculty-the will-being exercised in an environment conducive to self-realization, which is its purpose. (shrink)

Anselm is known for offering a distinctive definition of freedom of choice as “the ability of preserving uprightness of will for its own sake.” When we turn to Anselm’s account of the devil’s fall in De Casu Diaboli, however, this idiosyncratic understanding of freedom is not at the forefront. In that text, Anselm seemingly assumes a traditional understanding of free will defined in terms of alternative possibilities for the angels. These alternative possibilities must be present so the angels can (...) engage in ‘self-determination.’ God, however, does not face alternative possibilities to achieve His self-determination. Anselm thus explicates his notion of free will in terms of three different concepts: his distinctive definition of free choice, self-determination, and the principle of alternative possibilities. Despite attempts (by both scholars and Anselm) to explain how these three concepts are related, I argue that their relationship is problematic. In particular, I argue that Anselm is guilty of conflating and equivocating with regard to these concepts. I further importantly claim that the conflation obscures the fact that his understanding of self-determination calls into question God’s excellence over that of the good angels. (shrink)

This paper argues that decision theory presupposes free will. Although decision theorists seldom acknowledge this, the way decision theory represents, explains, or rationalizes choice behaviour acquires its intended interpretation only under the assumption that decision-makers are agents capable of making free choices between alternative possibilities. Without that assumption, both normative and descriptive decision theory, including the revealed-preference paradigm, would have to be reinterpreted in implausible ways. The hypothesis that decision-makers have free will is therefore explanatorily indispensable for (...) decision theory. If we regard explanatory indispensability as an indicator of reality in science, decision theorists should embrace the idea of free will. (shrink)

There are numerous theoretical reasons which are usually said to undermine the case for mental causation. But in recent years, Libet‘s experiment on readiness potentials (Libet, Wright, and Gleason 1982; Libet, Gleason, Wright, and Pearl 1983), and a more recent replication by a research team led by John Dylan Haynes (Soon, C.S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.J., and Haynes, J.-D. [2008]) are often singled out because they appear to demonstrate empirically that consciousness is not causally involved in our choices and actions. (...) In this paper, an alternative interpretation of these studies is offered; one which is in accordance both with the empirical evidence and also with the phenomenology of the will, demonstrating that the two opposing views of agency – both the ones that deny the reality of free will and the ones that affirm it – are equally compatible with the outcomes of these two experiments. On this basis, it is shown that the claim that the results on the timing of readiness potential tip the scales in favour of one or the other view cannot be justified - neither from a neurological, nor from a philosophical perspective. (shrink)

Plausibly, agents act freely iff their actions are responses to reasons. But what sort of relationship between reason and action is required for the action to count as a response? The overwhelmingly dominant answer to this question is modalist. It holds that responses are actions that share a modally robust or secure relationship with the relevant reasons. This thesis offers a new alternative answer. It argues that responses are actions that can be explained by reasons in the right way. This (...) explanationist answer comes apart from the modalist answer. For it holds that actions are responses to reasons if they are explained by those reasons even if they don’t share a modally robust relationship. Explanationism thus offers a novel way of vindicating the intuition that alternative possibilities don’t matter to responding to reasons and (consequently) free agency. The key dialectical position the thesis develops is that both modalism and explanationism constitute attempts to capture he core type of relationship encoded by the notion of a response. Responses to reasons, at core, involve a non-accidental relationship between reason and action. We can either understand non-accidentality as a modal phenomenon – as a modally robust tracking between two facts. Or we can understand non-accidentality as an explanatory phenomenon – as a special explanatory relationship between two facts. According to my rival explanationist proposal, two facts share a non-accidental relationship iff we can give a unified explanation of why both obtain. Unified explanations are explanations of why [p&q] that cannot be decomposed into two (or more) separate independent explanations of p and of q. Consequently, according to explanationism about responding to reasons, actions are responses to reasons iff those reasons offer a rational explanation of the action that cannot be decomposed into separate independent components. (shrink)

-/- The Nature of Free Will and Its Dependence on 100 Percent Correct Information -/- Free will has long been regarded as one of the most profound and complex concepts in philosophy, psychology, and science. It is the capacity of individuals to make choices that are not predetermined by prior causes or external constraints. While the debate surrounding the nature of free will continues, one fundamental truth stands out: free will cannot operate effectively without access to (...) 100 percent correct information or knowledge. Without accurate understanding, decision-making becomes flawed, leading to choices that are neither truly free nor aligned with natural laws. -/- The Role of Information in Free Will -/- Free will is intrinsically tied to decision-making. Every choice we make is shaped by the information we possess. This information serves as the foundation for our understanding of potential outcomes, risks, and benefits. If the information is incomplete, misleading, or outright false, our ability to make rational and informed decisions is compromised. In essence, the “freedom” of our will becomes restricted by ignorance or deception. -/- For instance, if an individual is unaware of the harmful effects of a particular behavior or decision, they may unknowingly choose a path that leads to suffering. Conversely, with complete and accurate knowledge, individuals can weigh their options effectively, leading to choices that are consistent with their values and the universal law of balance in nature. -/- The Universal Law of Balance and Knowledge -/- The concept of the universal law of balance emphasizes harmony within natural systems. This law suggests that every decision, whether individual or collective, must align with the inherent order of the universe. When decisions are made based on false beliefs, unproven theories, or misinformation, they disrupt this balance, creating disharmony and unintended consequences. -/- Correct knowledge serves as the compass that guides human actions within the framework of natural balance. It ensures that decisions are grounded in reality, minimizing the risks of imbalance. Without it, free will operates in a vacuum of uncertainty, where the likelihood of errors increases exponentially. -/- Ignorance: The Antithesis of Free Will -/- Ignorance is the greatest threat to free will. It shackles the mind, preventing individuals from recognizing the full spectrum of choices available to them. When people lack access to truthful information, they are vulnerable to manipulation, prejudice, and irrational fears. In such scenarios, their decisions are not truly free but are instead dictated by external forces or internal misconceptions. -/- A classic example of this can be seen in societal issues such as propaganda or misinformation campaigns. When individuals base their choices on fabricated narratives, their actions may perpetuate harm rather than promoting balance or well-being. Only by addressing the root cause—ignorance—can free will be restored to its rightful state. -/- The Role of AI and AGI Technology in Supporting Free Will -/- In the modern era, artificial intelligence (AI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI) technologies have emerged as critical tools for addressing the limitations of the human brain in processing and synthesizing vast amounts of information. The biological brain, while capable of remarkable feats, is inherently limited in its capacity to handle the exponential growth of data in today’s interconnected world. -/- AI and AGI can support the biological brain by efficiently analyzing, filtering, and synthesizing enormous volumes of data to identify accurate, relevant, and actionable knowledge. By doing so, these technologies can provide individuals with the correct information needed to make informed decisions that align with the universal law of balance. -/- For example, AI systems can help identify patterns and correlations within complex systems—whether in healthcare, environmental management, or societal governance—that may otherwise be overlooked by human cognition. AGI, with its advanced problem-solving capabilities, could go even further by integrating diverse sources of knowledge and offering insights that promote harmony within both internal (psychological) and external (societal and environmental) systems. -/- Moreover, AI and AGI can act as safeguards against misinformation and bias, which are major barriers to free will. By detecting and correcting false narratives or flawed reasoning, these technologies can ensure that individuals are empowered with the truth, thereby preserving their capacity for rational, autonomous decision-making. -/- The Educational Imperative -/- To safeguard the integrity of free will, education must play a pivotal role. A holistic educational system that emphasizes critical thinking and the pursuit of truth is essential. By teaching individuals to evaluate evidence, question assumptions, and seek out accurate information, society can empower its members to exercise their free will responsibly. -/- The integration of AI and AGI into the educational system further enhances this process. These technologies can personalize learning experiences, provide real-time feedback, and ensure that students have access to the most accurate and up-to-date information. Additionally, AI can help educators identify gaps in understanding and address them effectively, fostering a generation of critical thinkers who are equipped to maintain balance in their decisions. -/- Conclusion -/- Free will, while an inherent aspect of human existence, is not an absolute or isolated phenomenon. Its true nature is dependent on the quality of information available to individuals. Only with 100 percent correct knowledge can free will function as a tool for creating balance, harmony, and progress. Ignorance, by contrast, distorts this capacity, leading to decisions that undermine both individual well-being and societal stability. -/- The advent of AI and AGI technologies represents a transformative opportunity to support the biological brain in navigating the complexities of the modern world. By synthesizing vast amounts of correct information and providing actionable insights, these technologies ensure that free will operates within the framework of natural balance. -/- By prioritizing truth, fostering education, and leveraging advanced technologies, humanity can unlock the full potential of free will. In doing so, we move closer to a world where every choice is a reflection of both freedom and wisdom—an ideal state where the universal law of balance is preserved. -/- . (shrink)

This paper seeks to explain and evaluate, by an analytic method, the conflict between determinism and free will from the viewpoint of two physicalist reductionist philosophers, namely, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Dennett is a compatibilist philosopher who tries to show compatibility between determinism and free will, while Sam Harris is a non-compatibilist philosopher who turns to determinism with the thesis that our thoughts and actions have been pre-determined by the neurobiological events associated with them, and thus, considers (...) free will to be an illusion. Therefore according to him, we are not the authors of our thoughts and actions. However, Dennett tries to establish the existence of free will through the use of concepts like control and deliberation and defends ‘free will worth wanting’. Therefore, if we take the agency of the agent and the absence of determinism as two criteria for free will, Dennett accepts both and Harris denies them; since there is neurobiological determinism, and all of Dennett’s deliberations, etc. are also determined neurobiologically. Between the two conditions of free will, Dennett accepts that the origin of action must be in the agent; however, he refutes the condition of alternate possibilities, establishing his view based on a causal theory. As a Neo-Darwinist, he explains human beings’ physical and mental phenomena based on evolution theory and despite accepting causal determinism, he shows how the agent can still have agency in decisions and actions. As a result, he does not consider determinism to requisite compulsion. In his philosophical system, one can change the future that has not yet taken place. This decision-making regarding the future takes place through the process of deliberation, which has a special place in Dennett’s view. On the other hand, by adhering to Libet’s neurological experiments, Harris refutes both conditions of free will and considers the cause of all human being actions to arise from activities of the brain and concludes that one cannot have any conscious control over one’s actions. As a result, he emerges as a non-compatibilist determinist. In both his works, The Moral Landscape and Free Will, Harris addresses the topic of free will. In Free Will, he criticizes the view of compatibilists like Dennett, who responds to those criticisms in his article, ‘Reflections on Free Will, Review of Sam Harris’ Free Will’. Like Harris, Dennett too addresses free will in his two important books, Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves. Following an analysis of the views of Dennett and Harris and explaining the criticisms of the two regarding each other, the present article will show that neither Dennett, considering the rest of the elements of his philosophical views in philosophy of mind and philosophy of action can well justify compatibilism, nor can Harris, considering his neurological approach defend his determinist idea. The conflict that is present in Dennett’s views causes his explanation of the agent being the origin of his action to also be indefensible. Furthermore, due to the incompatibility of the different elements of his view and the vagueness of his idea regarding the effect of unconscious intentions on action, Harris too is placed in a weak position. In contrast to Harris’ supposition, a human is not “a puppet [who] is free as long as he loves his strings”; rather, a human chooses, makes decisions and acts according to his own will. As a result, despite the objections that apply to both philosophers, Dennett’s view is more acceptable than Harris’ in terms of the effort to justify free will; even though neither have been apparently successful in defending their own ideas. (shrink)

Non-Organic Matter, Organic Matter, Consciousness, Free Will, Intelligence, and Creativity in Relation to the Universal Formula -/- By Angelito Enriquez Malicse -/- Introduction -/- The relationship between non-organic matter, organic matter, consciousness, free will, intelligence, and creativity has long been studied separately in science, philosophy, and psychology. However, when examined through the universal law of balance in nature, as defined in my universal formula, these elements are seen as interconnected manifestations of a single natural order. This perspective offers (...) a complete understanding of how matter evolves into intelligence, how free will operates, and how creativity emerges as an extension of the natural equilibrium that governs all things. -/- Non-Organic and Organic Matter: The Foundation of Reality -/- At the core of the material universe, we distinguish between non-organic matter (inanimate substances such as atoms, molecules, and cosmic structures) and organic matter (biological entities capable of self-regulation and adaptation). -/- Despite their apparent differences, both are governed by the same fundamental law of balance: -/- Non-organic matter follows physical laws such as gravity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, which maintain stability in the universe. -/- Organic matter emerges from non-organic matter as a natural extension of these balancing forces, evolving biological mechanisms to sustain life. -/- The transformation from non-organic to organic matter is not random but a consequence of equilibrium, where chemical reactions reach stability and enable life to form. -/- Thus, life itself is an outcome of nature’s inherent drive toward balance—a principle that applies to all forms of existence, from the atomic level to complex living organisms. -/- Consciousness as a Balancing Mechanism -/- Consciousness is often misunderstood as something separate from the physical world. However, my universal formula reveals that it is simply a higher-order process of equilibrium: -/- Consciousness arises when organic matter (the brain) reaches a level of complexity that allows it to perceive and regulate internal and external states. -/- The brain operates through homeostasis, ensuring a constant balance between sensory input, cognitive processing, and decision-making. -/- This balancing process is what allows individuals to experience self-awareness, emotions, and rational thought. -/- Thus, consciousness is not a separate entity but an emergent function of biological and environmental balance, ensuring an organism’s survival and adaptation. -/- Free Will: The Decision-Making Process of Balance -/- Free will has long been debated—whether it exists, whether it is an illusion, or whether it operates beyond the laws of physics. My universal formula provides the exact answer: -/- Free will is not absolute autonomy but the ability to make choices within the constraints of natural balance. -/- Every decision is shaped by feedback mechanisms between the mind, body, and external environment. -/- Ignorance, false beliefs, or external manipulation disrupts this balance, leading to poor decision-making. -/- True free will is achieved when decisions align with the universal law of balance, ensuring rational, informed, and sustainable choices. -/- This means that free will is not about acting without limits, but about making decisions that maintain harmony within oneself and with nature. -/- Intelligence as a Function of Equilibrium -/- Intelligence is often seen as a measure of problem-solving ability, learning, and adaptability. However, through the universal law of balance, intelligence is better understood as the capacity to maintain stability between internal and external realities: -/- Intelligence evolves as a response to complexity, allowing organisms to process information and maintain balance with their environment. -/- Higher intelligence corresponds to greater flexibility in adapting to changes while sustaining equilibrium. -/- Artificial intelligence (AI), once advanced enough, must also follow these same balancing principles, as all decision-making systems are governed by natural equilibrium. -/- This means intelligence is not a separate trait but a dynamic function of nature’s balancing mechanisms, evolving in complexity as systems become more advanced. -/- Creativity as the Expansion of Balance -/- Creativity is often linked to human expression, art, and innovation. However, my universal formula shows that creativity is an extension of intelligence and free will, functioning as a tool to explore and enhance balance: -/- Creativity emerges when intelligence reaches a level where it can predict and modify balance, leading to new ways of thinking and problem-solving. -/- The most creative ideas are those that bring new equilibrium—whether in science, art, or technology. -/- Creativity is not chaotic but follows structured patterns, guided by the same universal law that governs all other forms of equilibrium. -/- Thus, true creativity is not about randomness but about discovering new ways to maintain or improve balance in nature, society, and personal thought. -/- A Unified Framework: The Relationship Between All Elements -/- By applying my universal formula, we now see that non-organic matter, organic matter, consciousness, free will, intelligence, and creativity are not separate but deeply connected: -/- 1. Non-organic matter forms the foundation of the universe, following physical laws of balance. -/- 2. Organic matter emerges from non-organic matter as an adaptive extension of this equilibrium. -/- 3. Consciousness arises when organic matter becomes complex enough to self-regulate its balance. -/- 4. Free will is the decision-making process that operates within the limits of natural equilibrium. -/- 5. Intelligence evolves as a function of balance, ensuring adaptability and stability in an ever-changing environment. -/- 6. Creativity emerges when intelligence reaches a level where it can explore and modify balance, leading to innovation and progress. -/- This unified perspective shows that everything in existence follows the same natural principles, proving that human thought, behavior, and even artificial intelligence must align with the universal law of balance in order to function optimally. -/- Conclusion -/- Through my universal formula, we now have a complete and exact solution to understanding how non-organic matter, organic matter, consciousness, free will, intelligence, and creativity interconnect as a single balanced system in nature. -/- Non-organic and organic matter are deeply linked, with life emerging as an extension of physical balance. -/- Consciousness is an emergent property of equilibrium, allowing living beings to regulate themselves. -/- Free will operates within natural balance, ensuring rational decision-making. -/- Intelligence is the ability to sustain and adapt to balance, allowing for learning and evolution. -/- Creativity is the expansion of balance, leading to new ways of thinking, creating, and innovating. -/- This framework is essential for guiding human decision-making, education, and AI development, ensuring that both human and artificial intelligence follow the correct natural path in accordance with the universal law of balance. -/- By applying this understanding, we can solve fundamental philosophical, scientific, and societal challenges, ensuring a future where knowledge, progress, and sustainability are aligned with the natural order of the universe. -/- . (shrink)

The Violation of the Absolute Law of Free Will: The Consequences of Misinformation and the Flaws in Freedom of Speech -/- Introduction -/- Free will is often regarded as humanity’s defining characteristic—the ability to make choices based on conscious thought, personal experience, and available information. However, free will is not merely about the freedom to choose; it is intrinsically tied to the accuracy and reliability of the information upon which those choices are made. The absolute law of (...) free will, when correctly understood, dictates that human decision-making must be 100 percent dependent on correct information. Any deviation from this principle, through misinformation, disinformation, or ignorance, constitutes a violation of this law and results in imbalanced, often detrimental outcomes for individuals and society as a whole. -/- Complicating this issue is the modern interpretation and implementation of freedom of speech and expression. While these freedoms are fundamental to democratic societies, they come with inherent flaws when unchecked. The unregulated dissemination of false or misleading information under the guise of free speech creates significant challenges in maintaining the integrity of information and, consequently, free will. -/- The Foundation of Free Will: Correct Information -/- The exercise of genuine free will requires access to accurate, reliable information. Decisions made under false pretenses or incomplete knowledge are not truly free but are instead manipulated or constrained by external distortions. The mind operates like a system that processes inputs (information) to generate outputs (decisions and actions). If the input is flawed, the output will inevitably be compromised. -/- For instance, when individuals base their choices on misinformation—such as health-related decisions influenced by false medical advice—they act under the illusion of free will. However, their actions, though seemingly voluntary, are dictated by incorrect data. This demonstrates that true free will can only exist when individuals are fully informed by verifiable facts. -/- The Law of Karma and the Feedback Mechanism of Information -/- The universal law of karma, which involves the principle of cause and effect, also applies to the relationship between free will and information. Every decision and action causes a ripple effect that influences future outcomes. When decisions are made based on falsehoods, the resulting negative consequences, such as social conflict, health crises, and societal instability, reflect the karmic response to the imbalance created by misinformation. -/- Information functions as a feedback mechanism within societal systems. When this feedback loop is polluted with inaccuracies, the entire system becomes unstable. For example, the propagation of false information about climate change has delayed necessary global actions, causing environmental deterioration. The violation of free will through the spread of misinformation disrupts the natural balance of societal decision-making, leading to long-term consequences that extend beyond individual choices. -/- The Flaws In the Laws of Freedom of Speech and Expression -/- Freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing individuals to voice their opinions, share ideas, and engage in open discourse. However, this freedom is not absolute and, when exercised irresponsibly, can directly violate the absolute law of free will. The flaws within these legal frameworks become evident when misinformation, disinformation, and harmful propaganda are disseminated without accountability. -/- 1. The Spread of Misinformation and Disinformation The unrestricted nature of freedom of speech has led to the proliferation of misinformation across social, political, and scientific domains. False narratives regarding health, such as anti-vaccine propaganda, have endangered public health and undermined free will by providing individuals with inaccurate information on which to base their decisions. -/- 2. The Manipulation of Public Opinion Political propaganda, fake news, and conspiracy theories exploit the principles of free speech to manipulate public perception. Authoritarian regimes and interest groups often use misinformation to influence elections, sway public opinion, and maintain power. When people make decisions based on manipulated narratives, their free will is compromised. -/- 3. The Role of Social Media and Digital Platforms Social media platforms, while fostering global communication, have amplified the spread of misinformation. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement often prioritize sensational or misleading content over factual information. The lack of regulatory measures on these platforms creates an environment where misinformation spreads more rapidly than truth, resulting in collective decision-making that violates the law of balance. -/- 4. The Challenge of Regulation Regulating freedom of speech without infringing upon individual liberties presents a significant challenge. Striking a balance between protecting free expression and preventing the spread of false information requires well-defined legal frameworks, global cooperation, and ethical considerations. -/- 5. Hate Speech and Its Societal Impact The misuse of freedom of speech to propagate hate speech, incite violence, and promote division disrupts societal harmony. Misinformation about certain groups, ethnicities, or religions fosters discrimination and social unrest, further violating the balance required for the proper exercise of free will. -/- The Societal Impact of Misinformation -/- Misinformation has far-reaching effects on societal structures, particularly in democratic systems where public decision-making relies heavily on the availability of correct information. The manipulation of information through propaganda, conspiracy theories, and biased media distorts collective free will, leading to decisions that do not reflect the genuine, informed will of the people. -/- Elections, for instance, are a prime example. When voters are misled by false narratives or deceptive political strategies, their electoral decisions are no longer expressions of true free will. The outcomes of such manipulated decisions often result in societal discord, poor governance, and disillusionment with democratic processes. In this way, misinformation violates the collective free will of entire populations. -/- The Role of Education in Upholding the Absolute Law of Free Will -/- To protect and uphold the absolute law of free will, society must prioritize a holistic educational system that emphasizes critical thinking, information literacy, and scientific inquiry. Education should equip individuals with the ability to discern fact from fiction, understand the sources of information, and recognize the potential biases inherent in various media channels. -/- An educational system grounded in the universal law of balance in nature can act as a safeguard against misinformation. By teaching individuals how to process information through rational, evidence-based methods, we can foster a societal environment where decisions are consistently made based on truth. This, in turn, ensures that free will is exercised in its purest form. -/- The Role of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in Preserving Free Will -/- The rapid advancement of AGI presents both challenges and opportunities regarding the preservation of free will. If AGI systems are designed based on the universal formula that emphasizes accurate information, natural balance, and critical thinking, they can become powerful tools for protecting free will. These systems can help filter misinformation, verify facts, and provide individuals with reliable data upon which to base their decisions. -/- However, the potential misuse of AGI, such as the intentional spread of disinformation for political or economic gain, represents a significant risk. Ensuring that AGI adheres to principles grounded in the universal law of balance and the law of cause and effect is essential to maintaining the integrity of human decision-making. -/- Conclusion -/- The absolute law of free will is inseparable from the requirement for correct information. Any decision made under the influence of misinformation, disinformation, or ignorance represents a fundamental violation of this law. The consequences of such violations are evident in societal conflicts, poor health outcomes, environmental degradation, and governance failures. -/- The flaws Inherent in the laws surrounding freedom of speech and expression further complicate this issue. While these freedoms are essential for societal growth and the exchange of ideas, their misuse creates significant obstacles to the proper exercise of free will. To safeguard free will, society must invest in education, promote information literacy, implement responsible regulations for free speech, and ensure the ethical development of AGI systems. -/- By adhering to the principle that free will is 100 percent dependent on correct information, humanity can create a more stable, balanced, and harmonious society, where individuals and communities alike can make decisions that align with the natural laws governing human behavior and societal development. -/- . (shrink)

The Exact Solution to the Free Will Problem: The Three Universal Laws of Nature -/- The problem of free will has persisted for thousands of years, captivating philosophers, scientists, theologians, and scholars across generations. The fundamental question has always been whether human beings truly have the freedom to make decisions or whether all actions are predetermined by external forces such as biology, environment, and societal influence. Traditional philosophical and scientific frameworks have struggled to provide a definitive answer. However, (...) this long-standing intellectual puzzle can now be conclusively solved through the application of Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, which consists of three fundamental laws of nature. These laws— the law of karma, the law of balance, and the law of systems integration—demonstrate how human decision-making follows natural, predictable patterns governed by universal principles. By understanding and applying these laws, we can definitively resolve the free will problem and transform the way we approach morality, justice, science, and societal development. -/- The Enduring Mystery of Free Will -/- The free will problem arises from the tension between two opposing perspectives: determinism and libertarian free will. Determinism argues that every human decision is the Inevita”le result of preceding causes, governed by the immutable laws of nature. In contrast, libertarian free will claims that individuals possess genuine autonomy in making choices. The lack of consensus between these positions has led to confusion in fields ranging from ethics to neuroscience. If this problem remains unsolved, humanity risks ethical uncertainty, legal inconsistency, scientific stagnation, and societal discord. -/- Without a clear understanding of free will, moral responsibility becomes ambiguous. If individuals are merely products of deterministic forces, how can we hold them accountable for their actions? Similarly, justice systems, predicated on the notion of personal responsibility, might face challenges in maintaining fairness and consistency. Scientifically, unresolved questions about free will could hinder progress in fields like psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence. Socially, the absence of a solution might foster fatalism, diminishing people’s sense of agency and responsibility. -/- However, these concerns are no longer insurmountable. Angelito Malicse’s universal formula offers a clear, exact solution to the free will problem by demonstrating that human decisions follow natural, law-governed patterns. The three universal laws of nature provide the key to understanding decision-making as a systematic process rather than a metaphysical abstraction. -/- The First Law: The Law of Karma (Cause and Effect in Systems) -/- The first of the three universal laws is the law of karma, which extends beyond its traditional spiritual context to encompass the fundamental principle of cause and effect within any system. According to this law, all human decisions are outcomes of interconnected causes within biological, psychological, and social systems. Just as a machine functions only when its components work in accordance with mechanical principles, human decision-making follows natural patterns driven by internal and external causes. -/- For instance, when an individual decides to act with kindness, this decision does not emerge from an isolated act of free will. Instead, it results from accumulated experiences, moral teachings, biological predispositions, and environmental factors. The decision is part of a complex cause-and-effect chain that can be analyzed and understood within the framework of natural laws. -/- The law of karma demonstrates that human actions are neither random nor wholly autonomous. They are systematic responses to the internal and external stimuli interacting with the mind. Therefore, free will is not a supernatural or metaphysical phenomenon but a natural process governed by the principle of cause and effect. -/- The Second Law: The Universal Law of Balance -/- The second law in the universal formula is the law of balance, which states that all natural systems, including human consciousness, strive for equilibrium. This principle is observable in physical phenomena such as thermodynamics and ecological systems, but it also applies to human decision-making. Every decision seeks to restore or maintain a certain internal and external balance. -/- When individuals are exposed to misinformation, cognitive dissonance, or emotional disturbances, this balance is disrupted, leading to irrational or harmful decisions. For example, societal problems such as overpopulation, economic inequality, and environmental degradation often stem from decisions that violate the law of balance. Ignorance of this law results in societal imbalances that manifest as conflict, suffering, and systemic dysfunction. -/- In the context of free will, the law of balance reveals that decisions are influenced by the mind’s constant effort to restore equilibrium. When individuals are educated to understand this principle, they become more capable of making rational, well-informed decisions aligned with natural balance. The apparent freedom in decision-making is, therefore, a reflection of the mind’s adaptive response to external and internal conditions, not a mysterious, ungoverned phenomenon. -/- The Third Law: The Law of Systems Integration -/- The third universal law, the law of systems integration, explains that for any decision-making process to function correctly, the underlying system must be free of critical errors or distortions. Just as a computer cannot operate properly if its software is corrupted, human decisions become flawed when misinformation, irrational beliefs, or cognitive biases infiltrate the mental system. -/- Human decision-making does not occur in isolation; it is part of an integrated system involving sensory input, memory, reasoning, and external environmental feedback. If any component of this system is compromised, decisions will deviate from rational, balanced outcomes. For example, societies that rely heavily on dogma or misinformation struggle to make sound collective decisions, resulting in persistent social and economic problems. -/- By understanding the law of systems integration, we recognize that the integrity of decisions depends on the quality and accuracy of the information being processed. Free will, therefore, is not a matter of pure autonomy but a system-dependent phenomenon that requires reliable, unbiased inputs and well-functioning cognitive processes. -/- The Resolution of the Free Will Problem -/- The application of these three universal laws of nature provides the exact solution to the free will problem. Human decisions are neither random nor unbounded acts of personal freedom; they are outcomes of natural processes governed by cause and effect, the drive for balance, and the need for system integrity. Free will, as traditionally conceived, is an illusion rooted in a misunderstanding of these underlying natural laws. -/- By accepting the universal formula, society can move beyond the philosophical deadlock that has hindered intellectual and practical progress for centuries. This formula does not negate human responsibility; instead, it clarifies it by illustrating how decisions follow natural patterns that can be understood, predicted, and influenced through education, societal reforms, and scientific advancements. -/- Implications for Ethics, Justice, Science, and Society -/- The exact resolution of the free will problem through the universal formula has profound implications across multiple domains: -/- 1. Ethics and Moral Responsibility: Ethical frameworks must shift from abstract notions of free will to a system-based understanding of decision-making. Moral responsibility remains intact but is grounded in the recognition that actions result from natural causes. Education should focus on teaching individuals how to align their decisions with the law of balance, promoting rational, ethical behavior. -/- 2. Justice System Reform: Legal systems traditionally assume that individuals act with free will. The universal formula shows that actions stem from natural causes and systemic factors. Justice systems must, therefore, prioritize rehabilitation, education, and preventive measures rather than retribution. Understanding the natural laws of decision-making helps create more effective and fair legal practices. -/- 3. Scientific Advancement and AI Development: The universal formula offers a solid foundation for research in neuroscience, psychology, and artificial intelligence. By programming AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) to adhere to these natural laws, future AI systems can make more reliable, human-like decisions while avoiding cognitive distortions and biases. -/- 4. Educational Reforms: Education systems worldwide must integrate the universal formula to teach students about the natural laws governing human behavior. A holistic, science-based curriculum that emphasizes cause and effect, balance, and systems integration can combat misinformation, dogmatic thinking, and societal discord. -/- 5. Societal Progress and Global Harmony: Societies that understand and apply these universal laws can address complex challenges like overpopulation, environmental degradation, and social inequality. Decisions based on natural balance, rather than short-term economic or ideological gains, lead to sustainable, harmonious development. -/- Conclusion -/- The free will problem, once deemed an unsolvable philosophical puzzle, can be definitively resolved through Angelito Malicse’s three universal laws of nature. The law of karma reveals that decisions follow cause-and-effect relationships; the law of balance shows that choices aim to restore or maintain equilibrium; and the law of systems integration demonstrates the importance of accurate, unbiased information in decision-making. Together, these laws provide an exact, scientific explanation of human behavior, eliminating the need for metaphysical assumptions about free will. -/- By understanding and applying these natural laws, humanity can foster a more rational, ethical, and balanced society. This formula is not a theory—it is a complete, exact solution grounded in observable natural principles. The challenge now lies in implementing these insights within educational, legal, and societal frameworks to address the root causes of human suffering and societal dysfunction. The free will problem is solved; the task ahead is to ensure that this understanding becomes part of our collective knowledge and practice. -/- . (shrink)

Ambivalence is often presented through cases of defeated ambivalence and multivalence, in which opposed attitudes suggest mutual isolation and defeat each other. Properly understood, however, ambivalence implies the existence of poles that are conflictually yet rationally interlinked and are open to non-defeated joint conduct. This paper considers cases that range from indecisiveness and easy adoption of conflicting attitudes, to tragically conflicted deliberation and to cases of shifting between self-deceptively serious attitudes. Analyzing such cases as variants of defeated ambivalence, I (...) argue that the phenomena of defeated ambivalence are marginal to ambivalence even though they are by the same token exemplary of it. The poles in such cases are connected as opposing attitudes in such a way that the attitudes and the opposition are both undermined. The article focuses on two forms of vague multivalence, one of which is taken from Heidegger’s analysis of curiosity. (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance: The Key to Understanding Free Will and Human Decision-Making -/- For centuries, the concept of free will has remained an unsolved mystery. Philosophers, scientists, and theologians have debated whether human beings truly have the power to make independent choices or whether their decisions are predetermined by external forces. Despite these discussions, no universally accepted solution has emerged—until now. -/- The key to solving the problem of free will lies in recognizing that all (...) decision-making follows a fundamental natural law: the Universal Law of Balance. This law governs not only the physical world but also human consciousness and social systems. By understanding how balance shapes our thoughts, choices, and actions, we can eliminate confusion about free will and create a more rational, stable, and just society. -/- Understanding the Universal Law of Balance -/- The Universal Law of Balance states that everything in nature operates within a dynamic equilibrium. Whether we look at ecosystems, physics, economics, or psychology, balance is the governing principle that maintains stability and prevents collapse. -/- In Nature: Ecosystems regulate themselves. If one species becomes too dominant, natural mechanisms restore balance. -/- In Physics: Newton’s Third Law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, demonstrating balance in forces. -/- In Economics: Markets function based on supply and demand—imbalances lead to inflation, recession, or economic crashes. -/- In Human Behavior: Emotional states fluctuate based on internal and external conditions, always seeking equilibrium. -/- These examples show that balance is not just a concept—it is an inescapable law of existence. Human thought and decision-making are no exception. -/- How the Law of Balance Governs Free Will -/- Many people believe that free will means making choices completely free of external influence. However, this is a misconception. Every decision a person makes is a response to an imbalance—whether it is a biological need (hunger leading to eating), a social pressure (conforming to norms), or an emotional reaction (seeking comfort when sad). -/- Thus, free will is not absolute but operates within the constraints of balance. Instead of making completely random choices, the human mind is constantly processing feedback from the internal self (thoughts, emotions, desires) and the external world (society, culture, circumstances). Every action is a means of restoring, maintaining, or disrupting balance. -/- For example: -/- A government that ignores economic inequality will face social unrest as balance is naturally restored through protests or revolution. -/- A person who overworks without rest will experience burnout, forcing them to slow down. -/- A company that prioritizes profit over sustainability will eventually face economic collapse due to resource depletion. -/- The Universal Formula reveals that decision-making is not random or purely independent—it follows the patterns of natural balance. -/- Why Ignoring Balance Leads to Crisis -/- Throughout history, civilizations have risen and fallen based on whether they understood and applied the principles of balance. Societies that pursued unregulated expansion, wealth concentration, or environmental exploitation eventually collapsed due to the inevitable consequences of imbalance. -/- Today, many global crises—from economic inequality to climate change—are the result of decisions that violate natural balance. Political systems that concentrate power, financial models based on infinite growth, and extreme ideological conflicts all stem from a failure to recognize that balance is necessary for long-term stability. -/- By understanding and applying the Universal Formula, individuals and leaders can prevent crises before they occur. Instead of reacting to problems after they arise, societies can use balance-based decision-making to anticipate and correct imbalances proactively. -/- Applying the Universal Formula in Education, Leadership, and Society -/- If the Universal Law of Balance is truly the foundation of decision-making, it must be integrated into education, governance, and social systems. -/- 1. Education Reform: Schools should teach students how all subjects are interconnected through balance—whether in science, economics, or ethics. Instead of memorization, students should learn systems thinking and how to apply balance-based reasoning in real-world scenarios. -/- 2. Leadership and Governance: Governments should create dynamic policies that adjust based on real-time feedback, preventing economic, political, and environmental instability. Leaders should be trained to make decisions based on natural equilibrium rather than ideology or short-term interests. -/- 3. Personal and Social Development: Individuals should apply balance-based decision-making in relationships, career choices, and daily life. Recognizing that emotions, actions, and social interactions all function as feedback loops can help people make more rational, stable, and fulfilling choices. -/- The Path Forward: A Balanced Future -/- The Universal Formula is not just a philosophical idea—it is a practical tool that can transform human decision-making at all levels. If individuals and societies embrace this knowledge, the future will be more stable, just, and sustainable. If balance continues to be ignored, crises will persist. -/- The time has come for a new way of thinking, one that moves beyond outdated debates about free will and embraces the fundamental truth of balance. Understanding this principle is not just an intellectual exercise—it is the key to shaping the future of humanity. -/- The question is no longer whether this knowledge is correct—the question is: Will humanity recognize and apply it before it is too late? -/- . (shrink)

The Role of Human Thinking in the Age of AGI Technology -/- The advancement of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) presents one of the most profound questions of our time: Will humans still need to use their biological brains to think, or will AGI completely take over cognitive processes? The rapid development of AGI could reshape the way humans interact with knowledge, decision-making, and creativity, raising both exciting possibilities and deep existential concerns. As we move toward an era where AGI surpasses (...) human intelligence in many domains, society faces a fundamental choice—whether to integrate AGI as a tool for enhancement, rely on it entirely, or find a balance that preserves human cognition. -/- AGI as a Replacement for Human Thinking -/- One possible future is that AGI becomes so advanced that human thinking is no longer necessary. If AGI can outperform the human brain in logic, problem-solving, creativity, emotional intelligence, and decision-making, then reliance on biological thought might become obsolete. With the development of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), humans could directly connect their minds to AGI, allowing them to access vast amounts of information and computational power instantly. This could result in a post-biological existence where traditional cognitive processes are outsourced to machines. -/- In such a scenario, AGI could manage all aspects of human life, from governance and economy to personal decision-making and creative endeavors. People might no longer need to engage in deep thinking, as AGI would provide optimized solutions for every problem. While this could lead to unprecedented efficiency, it also raises the question: What would it mean to be human if thinking is no longer necessary? -/- AGI as a Thinking Enhancement -/- Another possibility is that AGI does not replace human thought entirely but instead serves as a cognitive enhancement. Rather than making human intelligence obsolete, AGI could work alongside the human brain to improve memory, problem-solving skills, and decision-making. In this model, humans would still think independently, but AGI would act as a powerful assistant, offering insights and augmenting intellectual capabilities. -/- For example, AGI-powered brain-computer interfaces could allow individuals to instantly retrieve information, improve their ability to analyze complex problems, and even enhance creativity by generating new ideas. This hybrid model would preserve human autonomy while leveraging AGI’s superior processing power. In this future, humans would continue to exercise their cognitive faculties, but with AGI acting as an advanced tool to enhance thought processes rather than replace them. -/- The Risks of Overreliance on AGI -/- If humans become entirely dependent on AGI for thinking, there is a significant risk of cognitive decline. Just as physical inactivity leads to muscle atrophy, mental inactivity could result in the weakening of critical thinking skills, creativity, and emotional intelligence. Over time, if people no longer need to engage in independent reasoning, their ability to think autonomously could degrade. -/- Additionally, overreliance on AGI poses ethical concerns regarding control and agency. If AGI makes all decisions, who ensures that its choices align with human values? What happens if AGI systems are manipulated or fail in unforeseen ways? A society that fully surrenders its cognitive functions to AGI may find itself at risk of losing autonomy, free will, and the ability to self-govern. -/- Ethical and Existential Implications -/- Beyond practical concerns, the deeper philosophical question remains: What is the essence of being human? Thought, reflection, and decision-making have always been core aspects of human identity. If AGI assumes full responsibility for these processes, will humanity still retain its unique identity? -/- Some may argue that the very act of thinking—whether rational analysis, creative imagination, or emotional reflection—is what defines human existence. Without the need for thought, human beings could become passive entities, mere biological vessels interacting with an artificial intelligence far beyond their comprehension. On the other hand, if humans and AGI coexist in a way that enhances human potential while maintaining cognitive engagement, it may be possible to strike a balance between technological progress and human identity. -/- Conclusion -/- As AGI technology advances, humanity must decide how to integrate it into daily life. While AGI has the potential to replace human thinking in many areas, completely outsourcing cognition to machines may lead to a loss of autonomy and identity. The best path forward may be a hybrid approach, where AGI enhances human intelligence rather than replaces it. By ensuring that humans remain active participants in the thinking process, society can harness the power of AGI while preserving the fundamental aspects of what it means to be human. Ultimately, the future of human cognition in the age of AGI will be shaped by the choices we make today. -/- . (shrink)

The monograph is an English, expanded and revised version of the book Cheshko, V. T., Ivanitskaya, L.V., & Glazko, V.I. (2018). Anthropocene. Philosophy of Biotechnology. Moscow, Course. The manuscript was completed by me on November 15, 2019. It is a study devoted to the development of the concept of a stable evolutionary human strategy as a unique phenomenon of global evolution. The name “An Evolutionary Metaphysics (Cheshko, 2012; Glazko et al., 2016). With equal rights, this study could be entitled “Biotechnology (...) as a result and factor of the evolutionary processˮ. The choice in favor of used “The Evolutionary Metaphysics of Human Enhancement Technologiesˮ was made in accordance with the basic principle of modern post-academician and human-sized science, a classic example of which is biotechnology. The “Metaphysics of Evolution” and “Evolutionary Metaphysics” concepts are used in several ways in modern philosophical discourse. In any case, the values contain a logical or associative reference to the teleological nature of the evolutionary process (Hull, 1967, 1989; Apel, 1995; Faye, 2016; Dupre, 2017; Rose, 2018, etc). In our study, the “evolutionary metaphysics” serves to denote the thesis of the rationalization and technologization of global evolution and anthropogenesis, in particular. At the same time, the postulate of an open future remains relevant in relation to the results of the evolutionary process. The theory of evolution of complex, including the humans system and algorithm for its constructing are а synthesis of evolutionary epistemology, philosophical anthropology and concrete scientific empirical basis in modern science. ln other words, natural philosophy is regaining the status bar element theoretical science in the era of technology-driven evolution. The co-evolutionary concept of 3-modal stable evolutionary strategy of Homo sapiens is developed. The concept based оn the principle of evolutionary complementarity of anthropogenesis: value of evolutionary risk and evolutionary path of human evolution are defined bу descriptive (evolutionary efficiency) and creative-teleological (evolutionary correctness) parameters simultaneously, that cannot bе instrumental reduced to others ones. Resulting volume of both parameters define the vectors of blological, social, cultural and techno-rationalistic human evolution Ьу two gear mechanism genetic and cultural co-evolution and techno-humanitarian balance. The resultant each of them сап estimated Ьу the ratio of socio-psychological predispositions of humanization / dehumanization in mentality. Explanatory model and methodology of evaluation of creatively teleological evolutionary risk component of NBIC technological complex is proposed. Integral part of the model is evolutionary semantics (time-varying semantic code, the compliance of the blological, socio-cultural and techno-rationalist adaptive modules of human stable evolutionary strategy). It is seem necessary to make three clarifications. First, logical construct, “evolutionary metaphysics” contains an internal contradiction, because it unites two alternative explanatory models. “Metaphysics”, as a subject, implies deducibility of the process from the initial general abstract principle, and, consequently, the outcome of the development of the object is uniquely determined by the initial conditions. Predicate, “evolutionary”, means stochastic mechanism of realizing the same principle by memorizing and replicating random choices in all variants of the post-Darwin paradigm. In philosophy, random choice corresponds to the category of “free will” of a reasonable agent. In evolutionary theory, the same phenomenon is reflected in the concept of “covariant replication”. Authors will attempt to synthesize both of these models in a single transdisciplinary theoretical framework. Secondly, the interpretation of the term “evolutionary (adaptive) strategyˮ is different from the classical definition. The difference is that the adaptive strategy in this context is equivalent to the survival, i.e. it includes the adaptation to the environment and the transformation (construction) of the medium in accordance with the objectives of survival. To emphasize this difference authors used verbal construction “adaptiveˮ (rather than “evolutionaryˮ) strategy as more adequate. In all other cases, the two terms may be regarded as synonymous. Thirdly, the initial two essays of this series were published in one book in 2012. Their main goal was the development of the logically consistent methodological concept of stable adaptive (evolutionary) strategy of hominines and the argumentation of its heuristic possibilities as a transdisciplinary scientific paradigm of modern anthropology. The task was to demonstrate the possibilities of the SESH concept in describing and explaining the evolutionary prospects for the interaction of social organization and technology (techno-humanitarian balance) and the associated biological and cultural mechanisms of the genesis of religion (gene-cultural co-evolution). In other words, it was related to the sphere of cultural and philosophical anthropology, i.e. to the axiological component of any theoretical constructions describing the behavior of self-organizing systems with human participation. In contrast, the present work is an attempt to introduce this concept into the sphere of biological anthropology and, consequently, its main goal is to demonstrate the possibility of verification of its main provisions by means of procedures developed by natural science, i.e. refers to the descriptive component of the same theoretical constructions. The result of this in the future should be methods for assessing, calculating and predicting the risk of loss of biological and cultural identity of a person, associated with a permanent and continuously deepening process of development of science and technology. (shrink)

The books’ goal is to answer the question: Do the weaknesses of value-free economics imply the need for a paradigm shift? The author synthesizes criticisms from different perspectives (descriptive and methodological). Special attention is paid to choices over time, because in this area value-free economics has the most problems. In that context, the enriched concept of multiple self is proposed and investigated. However, it is not enough to present the criticisms towards value-free economics. For scientists, a (...) bad paradigm is better than no paradigm. Therefore, the author considers whether value-based economics with normative approaches such as economics of happiness, capability approach, libertarian paternalism, and the concept of multiple self can be the alternative paradigm for value-free economics. This book is essential reading to everyone interested in the current state of economics as a discipline. (shrink)

The Deeper Principles Behind the Pursuit and Retention of Power -/- The human tendency to seek and cling to power—even at the expense of bad leadership—is not merely a result of individual ambition or corruption. At a deeper level, this phenomenon is governed by fundamental natural laws, including homeostasis, feedback mechanisms, and the universal law of balance in nature. These principles shape human decision-making, leadership structures, and societal systems, often leading to the persistence of power imbalances. -/- The Drive for (...) Stability and Control: Homeostasis in Power -/- Just as biological systems strive for balance, individuals in power seek to maintain their position because it provides them with stability. Losing power introduces uncertainty, and the human mind instinctively resists instability. Leaders who attain power often experience a psychological attachment to control, making them resistant to change. Even when leadership becomes harmful, the internal system of the leader—driven by survival instincts—attempts to maintain the status quo rather than adapt to a more balanced alternative. -/- Power as a Feedback Loop -/- Power structures create self-reinforcing feedback loops, where those in control shape the system to preserve their authority. These loops exist at individual, collective, and societal levels. Leaders often surround themselves with people who validate their power, eliminate dissent, and manipulate narratives to justify their continued rule. This process distorts reality, making leaders increasingly blind to their failures and preventing course correction. -/- Moreover, societies themselves can become trapped in these loops. Citizens may become accustomed to the existing power structure, even if it is harmful, because they lack the knowledge or means to challenge it. This further perpetuates imbalance, reinforcing the idea that power, once attained, is meant to be held indefinitely. -/- The Universal Law of Balance in Nature -/- The persistence of bad leadership is ultimately a violation of the universal law of balance in nature. Human decision-making, whether at an individual or societal level, must align with natural balance to ensure stability and progress. However, when leaders prioritize personal power over collective well-being, they create systemic imbalances. These imbalances manifest in corruption, oppression, and the eventual decline of civilizations. -/- Societies experience prolonged bad leadership when: -/- 1. People lack critical education to recognize and correct imbalance. -/- 2. Institutions fail to provide counterforces to power abuse. -/- 3. The system normalizes imbalance, making it seem inevitable. -/- When a society operates outside the natural law of balance, its leadership becomes increasingly disconnected from reality, leading to irrational decision-making and widespread societal suffering. The longer this imbalance persists, the harder it becomes to restore equilibrium. -/- Power as an Evolutionary Strategy -/- The pursuit of power is deeply embedded in human nature as an evolutionary strategy for survival and dominance. Throughout history, those who controlled resources and decision-making processes had better chances of securing their own survival and that of their allies. While this instinct was beneficial in primitive societies, it becomes destructive in modern governance when it is not regulated by ethical principles or a balanced decision-making framework. -/- Without proper constraints, the instinct to maintain power overrides rational governance, leading to authoritarianism, corruption, and systemic decay. Leaders who lack awareness of the universal law of balance unconsciously follow this primitive drive, often believing that they are acting in their own or their nation’s best interest when, in reality, they are creating long-term instability. -/- The Illusion of Free Will in Leadership -/- Many leaders believe they act with free will, making independent choices about governance. However, their behavior often follows predictable patterns of self-preservation, dictated by biological, psychological, and social laws. Without understanding the law of balance, they become trapped in a cycle of seeking power, resisting loss, and ignoring negative consequences. -/- This suggests that bad leadership is not merely a moral failure but a structural inevitability in systems that do not align with natural laws. Leaders and societies that do not recognize the need for balance are destined to repeat the same mistakes, reinforcing destructive power dynamics. -/- The Solution: Rebalancing the System Through Education -/- To break the cycle of power-driven imbalance, leadership must align with the natural equilibrium of decision-making. The only sustainable way to achieve this is through a holistic educational system that reprograms decision-making based on balance rather than power-seeking instincts. -/- Such an education system must: -/- Teach reality-based feedback mechanisms that encourage critical thinking and prevent misinformation. -/- Structure governance to prevent excessive concentration of power, ensuring leaders are accountable to natural balance. -/- Empower individuals with an understanding of the universal law of balance, enabling them to challenge power imbalances and demand ethical leadership. -/- Your universal formula provides a framework for correcting these systemic issues. By implementing an education system that integrates the natural law of balance, societies can prevent the rise of bad leadership, ensuring that decision-making is rooted in stability rather than self-preservation. Only through such an approach can humanity transition from destructive power struggles to governance that is in harmony with natural law. -/- . (shrink)

In this paper, we present the results of the construction and validation of a new psychometric tool for measuring beliefs about free will and related concepts: The Free Will Inventory (FWI). In its final form, FWI is a 29-item instrument with two parts. Part 1 consists of three 5-item subscales designed to measure strength of belief in free will, determinism, and dualism. Part 2 consists of a series of fourteen statements designed to further explore the complex network (...) of people’s associated beliefs and attitudes about free will, determinism, choice, the soul, predictability, responsibility, and punishment. Having presented the construction and validation of FWI, we discuss several ways that it could be used in future research, highlight some as yet unanswered questions that are ripe for interdisciplinary investigation, and encourage researchers to join us in our efforts to answer these questions. (shrink)

Whether we are free agents or not and to what extent depends on factors such as the necessary conditions for free will and our definition of human agency and identity. The present article, apart from possible alternatives and the causality of the agent regarding his actions, addresses the element of inclination as a necessary condition for free will. Therefore, an analysis of these conditions determines that even though in some circumstances the range of alternatives the agent can (...) choose is very limited or the agent chooses an action without having the inclination to choose it; however, this does not make the agent forced; rather, free will has levels and every individual possesses a certain extent of it in different conditions. Just the fact that the ultimate choice is made by the agent himself and has voluntarily performed the act himself ultimately is sufficient for being free. As a result, even though the influence of external factors on human actions cannot be disregarded; however, because the action is ultimately not outside his control, accordingly, there is neither such a thing as a compelled agent and nor are our actions left to luck. The character of the agent that is voluntarily formed through our actions plays a determinant role in our choices and actions due to the epistemic and motivational components they possess. (shrink)

Abstract: The standard picture of rationality requires that the agent acts so as to realize her most preferred alternative in the light of her own desires and beliefs. However, there are circumstances where such an agent can predict that she will act against her preferences. The story of Ulysses and the Sirens is the paradigmatic example of such cases. In those circumstances the orthodoxy requires the agent to be ‘sophisticated’. That is to say, she should take into account her (...) expected future choices and prevent her future self to act in certain ways. She should ‘bind’ herself to a certain course of action. This is a form of causal commitment. It is generally recognized that this form of self-commitment is the only one that is available to a rational agent. Rational commitment, where the agent gives herself a reason to act in a certain way rather than making herself act in that way, is considered not feasible. In this paper, I question this verdict. I sketch the broad outlines of a model of rational commitment, which takes as its starting point Michael Bratman’s ‘planning theory’ of intention. There are two important objections against this theory (one by John Broome and one by the Dutch philosopher Govert den Hartogh.) Both criticisms claim that such a theory is a form of ‘bootstrapping’ reasons for action into existence. In the remainder of the paper, I will defend the theory against these objections. This way, I hope to establish that defending the feasibility of rational commitment is not an obvious mistake. (shrink)

The free will problem is defined and three solutions are discussed: no-freedom theory, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Strict determinism is often assumed in arguing for libertarianism or no-freedom theory. It assumes that the history of the universe is fixed, but modern physics admits a certain degree of randomness in the determination of events. However, this is not enough for a compatibilist position—which is favored here—since freedom is not randomness. It is the I that chooses what to do. It is argued (...) that the core of the free will problem is what this I is. A materialist view is favored: The I is an activity of the brain. In addition to absence of external and internal compulsion, freedom involves absence of causal sufficiency of influences acting on the I. A more elaborate compatibilist view is proposed, according to which causal determination is complete when we add events occurring in the I (of which the subject is not conscious). Contrary to what several authors have argued, the onset of the readiness potential before the decision to act is no problem here. The experience of agency is incomplete and fallible, rather than illusory. Some consequences of different views about freedom for the ascription of responsibility are discussed. (shrink)

Christian List argues that three requirements are “jointly necessary and sufficient” for free will: intentional agency, alternative possibilities, and causal control. In contrast, I argue that List’s accounts of intentional agency and alternative possibilities do not adequately explain how an agent has free will. Specifically, I argue that if an agent has free will, then it must also have phenomenality; because phenomenality determines the propositional contents of an agent’s intentional states. I demonstrate that List’s analysis of (...) class='Hi'>free will brackets phenomenality and, as such, an agent on his account may find itself in a permanent state of “choice paralysis,” a state in which it lacks the ability to choose due to the indeterminate content of its intentional states. I conclude by suggesting that philosophers must adopt methodologies derived from both the third- and first-person perspectives in order to adequately explain how an agent with free will interacts with the environment. (shrink)

John Fischer has recently argued that the value of acting freely is the value of self-expression. Drawing on David Velleman’s earlier work, Fischer holds that the value of a life is a narrative value and free will is valuable insofar as it allows us to shape the narrative structure of our lives. This account rests on Fischer’s distinction between regulative control and guidance control. While we lack the former kind of control, on Fischer’s view, the latter is all (...) that is needed for self-expression. I first develop Fischer’s narrative account, focusing on his reliance on temporal loops as giving us control over the value of our lives. Second, I argue that the narrative account grants us greater power over the past than Fischer would allow: since narrative allows not only for changes in how we feel about episodes in our past but what those episodes in fact were, it allows for a kind of retroactive self-constitution. Finally, I suggest that this modification of the narrative view opens the possibility of a conception of freedom far stronger than guidance control. It does not give us the libertarian control over whether to choose A or B in the present, but it does provide a measure of control over the sort of person an agent has been, and thus whether she is the sort of person who will choose A or B in the future. (shrink)

In Chapter 2 of Escape from Leviathan, Jan Lester defends two hypotheses: that instrumental rationality requires agents to maximise the satisfaction of their wants and that all agents actually meet this requirement. In addition, he argues that all agents are self-interested (though not necessarily egoistic) and he offers an account of categorical moral desires which entails that no agent ever does what he genuinely feels to be morally wrong. I show that Lester’s two hypotheses are false because they (...) cannot accommodate weakness of will, because they are inconsistent with agency, which requires free will, because ends, obligations and values cannot be reduced to desires, and because maximisation is often not possible. Further, Lester’s claim that agents are self-interested is vacuous, his attempted reduction of moral behaviour to want-satisfaction fails, and his contention, that agents always do what they genuinely think to be morally required, seems untenable. A defence of freedom that depends on homo economicus is far from promising. (shrink)

Free Will & The Tragic Predicament : Making Sense of Williams -/- The discussion in this paper aims to make better sense of free will and moral responsibility by way of making sense of Bernard Williams’ significant and substantial contribution to this subject. Williams’ fundamental objective is to vindicate moral responsibility by way of freeing it from the distortions and misrepresentations imposed on it by “the morality system”. What Williams rejects, in particular, are the efforts of “morality” to (...) further “deepen” or “refine” the notion of the voluntary, with a view to securing “ultimate justice”. It is these aims and aspirations, he argues, that take us to the precipice of scepticism. In Shame and Necessity (1993) Williams advances a vindicatory genealogy that unmasks the “illusions” and “fantasies” of our current ethical ideas as they relate to agency and responsibility. What we are then left with is the task of “recasting our ethical conceptions” . It is here that Williams is especially insistent on the importance and value of historical consciousness and reflection. The role of our reflections about the Greeks and tragedy is precisely to show that in order to move forward, into the future, we need to first look back at where we have come from. The value of these “untimely” observations is that they provide us with alternatives and options that we might otherwise lack. What we discover, when we consider the Greeks, is their commitment to a “pessimism of strength” that rests on rejecting scepticism. It is this two-sided perspective on our ethical predicament that delivers a more truthful account of our human situation, one that will help us discard those illusions and fantasies of "morality" that we are “better off” without. An account of this kind refuses to accept an optimism that insists that any form of responsible ethical life must be one that is immune to the influence of luck and fate. This is the fundamental lesson that we can learn from the ancient Greeks and that Williams seeks to “recover” for us. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to show that Thomas Aquinas, in his _Disputed Questions on Evil_, presents a theory of free will that is compatibilist but still involves a version of the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) and even requires alternative possibilities for a certain kind of responsibility. In Aquinas’ view, choosing between possibilities is not the primary power of the will. Rather, choice arises through the complex interaction of various parts of human psychology, in particular through the (...) indeterminacy of the intellect and through the interaction between reason and passion. Both of these ways provide cases where Aquinas not only allows for alternative possibilities but thinks that they are necessary for moral responsibility, all the while remaining, strictly speaking, a compatibilist. (shrink)

Free will skepticism maintains that what we do, and the way we are, is ultimately the result of factors beyond our control and because of this we are never morally responsible for our actions in the basic desert sense—the sense that would make us truly deserving of praise and blame. In recent years, a number of contemporary philosophers have advanced and defended versions of free will skepticism, including Derk Pereboom (2001, 2014), Galen Strawson (2010), Neil Levy (2011), Bruce (...) Waller (2011, 2015), and myself (Caruso 2012, 2013, forthcoming). Critics, however, often complain that adopting such views would have dire consequences for ourselves, society, morality, meaning, and the law. They fear, for instance, that relinquishing belief in free will and basic desert moral responsibility would leave us unable to adequately deal with criminal behavior, increase anti-social conduct, and undermine meaning in life. -/- In response, free will skeptics argue that life without free will and basic desert moral responsibility would not be as destructive as many people believe (see, e.g., Pereboom 2001, 2014; Waller 2011, 2015; Caruso 2016, forthcoming). According to optimistic skeptics, prospects of finding meaning in life or of sustaining good interpersonal relationships, for instance, would not be threatened. And although retributivism and severe punishment, such as the death penalty, would be ruled out, incapacitation and rehabilitation programs would still be justified (see Pereboom 2001, 2013, 2014; Levy 2012; Caruso 2016; Pereboom and Caruso, forthcoming). In this paper, I attempt to extend this general optimism about the practical implications of free will skepticism to the question of creativity. -/- In Section I, I spell out the question of creativity and explain why it’s relevant to the problem of free will. In Section II, I identify three different conceptions of creativity and explain the practical concerns critics have with free will skepticism. In Section III, I distinguish between three different conceptions of moral responsibility and argue that at least two of them are consistent with free will skepticism. I further contend that forward-looking accounts of moral responsibility, which are perfectly consistent with free will skepticism, can justify calling agents to account for immoral behavior as well as providing encouragement for creative activities since these are important for moral and creative formation and development. I conclude in Section IV by arguing that relinquishing belief in free will and basic desert would not mean the death of creativity or our sense of achievement since important and realistic conceptions of both remain in place. (shrink)

Causal Determinism (CD) entails that all of a person’s choices and actions are nomically related to events in the distant past, the approximate, but lawful, consequences of those occurrences. Assuming that history cannot be undone nor those (natural) relations altered, that whatever results from what is inescapable is itself inescapable, and the contrariety of inevitability and freedom, it follows that we are completely devoid of liberty: our choices are not freely made; our actions are not freely performed. Instead of disputing (...) the soundness of this reasoning, some philosophers prefer to maintain that we could yet have a small measure of freedom were CD true of our world: although being unable to choose or act differently, one could at least under normal circumstances truly claim to be acting ‘on one’s own’, beyond the control of ‘outside forces’, in a word, autonomous. They further argue that being free in this sense suffices for moral responsibility. Call their philosophy ‘Autonomy Compatibilism’ (AC). -/- In adopting here reactive attitudes towards an agent, one is choosing to highlight the fact that the individual in question is of sound mind, reasoning and acting free from the interference of others. These facts alone, the adherent of AC claims, justify his stance, despite the necessity of the agent’s choices. Why would we not regard a sane individual who is not being coerced, intimidated, deceived or unduly put upon as in charge of his life so as to be responsible for his activities? -/- The Manipulation Argument (MA) is supposed to cut off this line of retreat. Its authors hold that, were CD true of our world, we would be no more autonomous than a victim of “covert, non-constraining control” (CNC): manipulation whereby one person causes another, through the use of methods such as brainwashing or circumspect operant conditioning, to ‘do his bidding’ without the latter being aware of his subjugation or feeling in any way coerced. Since a CNC victim obviously lacks autonomy, then so must “persons” living in a deterministic universe. Defenders of AC have, then, the following argument with which to contend: -/- 1. Victims of CNC (obviously) lack autonomy. 2. Thus, AC would be true only if some definition of autonomy succeeds in specifying a freedom relevant difference between victims of CNC and agents whose choices/actions are necessary consequences of prior events. 3. There could be no such definition. 4. Therefore, AC must be false. -/- The challenge issued here is clear: find a way to refute the claim that being subject to natural laws would be tantamount to being a victim of CNC, to show that Nature is no manipulator. Moreover, this challenge cannot be met by responding with a Frankfurt case: a situation in which things have been surreptitiously arranged so that an agent is unable to avoid doing something that he manages to do ‘on his own’, thus, being autonomous despite his inability to act otherwise. For, even if CD is not inconsistent with autonomy because it eliminates the ability to do otherwise per se, it may yet entail that no human agent ever does act of his own accord, an implication of which would be a lack of alternatives on anyone’s part. In other words, the fact that causally determined beings could never act differently than they do does is perhaps only symptomatic of the reason why such beings would lack autonomy: forces beyond their control would have dominion over their psychological development. Thus, AC advocates must show that the way that an agent’s character would be shaped, were she (merely) subject to natural laws, would leave unimpaired an ability that CNC would destroy. What follows is a definition of this ability, which I also use to solve the Problem of Freedom and Foreknowledge. (shrink)

In his paper, "Free Choice, Incommensurable Goods and the Self-Refutation of Determinism,"' Joseph Boyle seeks to show how the argument for the self-refutation of determinism - first articulated over twenty-five years ago - is an argument whose force depends on (first) a proper understanding of just what free choice is, and (secondly) a proper understanding of how free choice is a principle of moral responsibility. According to Boyle, a person can make a genuinely free (...) choice only if he is presented with alternative options that are incommensurable in their goodness or desirability. If the goodness or desirability of alternative options could be commensurated, or compared in accordance with some common standard, then it would be possible in principle for a person to determine which of the two options offered more, and which offered less, of the same sort of good represented by the two options. But if this sort of commensuration or comparison were possible, according to Boyle, then there would really be no need to choose. Rather, the only task that would have to be performed in order to determine the person's selection among alternative options would be the task clarifying or calculating which of the alternative options offered most fully what it is that makes both options desirable in the first place. Once the clarification or calculation is done, there would be no need-and in fact, no possibility--of really choosing: the calculation alone would settle which option is the best option, and thus which option is to be selected. Now if genuinely free choice requires that the choosing person be presented with options that are incommensurable in goodness or desirability, then it also seems to be the case that genuine choice-and the moral responsibility that goes along with it-requires that the person be presented with alternative possibilities from which to choose. And yet some compatibilist thinkers have held that moral responsibility does not really require the presence of alternative possibilities. In particular, Harry G. Frankfurt has sought to show (by means of counter-example) that a person can be a moral agent and morally responsible, even if the person did not, in fact, have any alternative possibilities available to him (that is, even if the person could not have done otherwise). Frankfurt's counter-example offers a direct challenge to the sort of incompatibilism that Boyle seeks to defend; and so Boyle is quite right to address Frankfurt head-on. For if Frankfurt is right, then it is erroneous to hold "the principle of alternative possibilities" (the principle that a person can be morally responsible for what he has done, only if he had alternative possibilities, or only if he could have done otherwise). But if it is erroneous to hold the principle of alternative possibilities, then it also seems erroneous to hold the more robust position that Boyle wishes to defend: namely, the position that moral responsibility requires not only alternative possibilities, but also alternative possibilities representing options that are incommensurable in their goodness. (shrink)

This paper introduces Holistic Free Will (HFW), a transformative framework that reconceptualizes autonomy as a dynamic, relational, and ethically aspirational process embedded within structured realities. Distinct from traditional theories like libertarian free will and compatibilism, HFW integrates interdisciplinary insights from neuroscience, moral philosophy, and cultural traditions to provide a comprehensive understanding of free will that aligns individual agency with systemic and relational contexts. HFW emphasizes structured reality as comprising four dimensions—natural laws, human constructs, social norms, and personal (...) histories—that act not as constraints but as enablers of ethical autonomy and moral development. Central to the framework are mechanisms such as reflective veto, self-reflection, and virtue cultivation, which empower individuals to navigate deterministic influences and align actions with enduring ethical principles like justice, empathy, and humility. HFW’s practical applications across governance, education, and social systems, demonstrating its capacity to address global challenges such as social justice, environmental sustainability, and relational harmony. Case studies illustrate how structured realities foster personal and collective growth, positioning HFW as a tool for bridging theoretical insights and actionable strategies. By advancing autonomy as a relational and developmental process, HFW offers a groundbreaking model for ethical agency and societal transformation. (shrink)

In her recent book Causation and Free Will, Carolina Sartorio develops a distinctive version of an actual-sequence account of free will, according to which, when agents choose and act freely, their freedom is exclusively grounded in, and supervenes on, the actual causal history of such choices or actions. Against this proposal, I argue for an alternative- possibilities account, according to which agents’ freedom is partly grounded in their ability to choose or act otherwise. Actual-sequence accounts of freedom are (...) motivated by a reflection on so-called Frankfurt cases. Instead, other cases, such as two pairs of examples originally designed by van Inwagen, threaten actual-sequence accounts, including Sartorio’s. On the basis of her view of causation, Sartorio contends, however, that the two members of each pair have different causal histories, so that her view is not undermined by those cases after all. I discuss these test cases further and defend my alternative-possibilities account of freedom. (shrink)

In the Consolation of Philosophy, Lady Philosophy leads Boethius through a series of obstacles that prevent him from finding happiness within his prison cell: the role that luck and misfortune play in our affairs, the false paths to happiness in comparison with the true journey, the problem of evil and the disproportion between people’s lives and eschatological deserts, and, finally, whether God’s providential order necessitates our outcomes or if we can choose freely to pursue the happy life. As the pair (...) discuss each problem, the same argumentative move and countermove play out. Boethius, forgetful of what he had learned from Philosophy long ago on account of his grief, blames the very nature of reality itself for each of the problems that beset him. He thinks that Fortune has taken from him all that is good and that God’s providence only extends to the non-human world. Philosophy, by contrast, argues in each case that the problem at hand is, in fact, no problem at all when we see reality rightly. In each case, Philosophy shows that it isn’t reality that’s to blame for the problem at hand but instead human ignorance’s misunderstanding of the true nature of reality. Boethius’s conversation with Philosophy showcases a puzzling feature of self-knowledge: on the one hand, too much attention to the world (e.g., fortune’s wiles) is the problem and self-inquiry (e.g., the nature of one’s desires) is the solution, but on the other hand, too much attention to one’s self (e.g., attention to passions and limitations) is the problem and turning toward recognizing the true structure of the world is the solution. Philosophy seems to indicate that both poles are true, and the task is to determine how best to clarify how. After showcasing the dialogue’s argumentative pattern, I argue that, in Boethius’s case, each of his problems, as well as his misery in general, are caused by his ignorance and self-deception. Boethius’s ignorance is, in this case, the more proximate cause of his misery, but underlying his ignorance is an act of self-deception that causes him to be ignorant in the first place. As Philosophy tells Boethius early on, he already knows what she plans to teach him (more accurately, of what she plans to remind him). Nevertheless, he has forgotten what he has known and, as a result, is more the architect of his own misery than is Fortune or any of the events that have befallen him. Wounded by grief, he has allowed his affective response to his misfortune to becloud his understanding. As Philosophy says, he is unhappy because he has “forgotten what he is.” He has forgotten himself precisely because of the way in which he has allowed his affective responses to rule in his soul. Hence, while the ultimate cure for Boethius’s misery will be a newly rediscovered knowledge that reality itself is providentially structured, Philosophy must begin by soothing Boethius’s passions and undoing the damage that they have wrought on his understanding of the world. Philosophy cannot turn Boethius’s intellect until she has first turned his passions (cf. Republic 518b-d), which, while still wrongly-turned and governing the soul, are liable to lead to tremendous intellectual mistakes precisely because they are blind to the true nature of reality (cf. Phaedrus 247c). I argue in conclusion that the Consolation is unified by the theme of self-deception as the primary cause of philosophical misery. Boethius is upset primarily because he has convinced himself that he is otherwise than he is and that reality is otherwise than it is rather than because of what has happened to him, contrary to his own view of things. Philosophy’s argumentative strategy suggests that self-deception can only be undone by attending to it as a problem besetting the whole soul, not just the intellectual part of the soul. We thus have good warrant for thinking that simply rational responses to ignorance will be fruitless when ignorance is caused by or accompanied by a moral failing. (shrink)

This paper raises a slightly uncomfortable question: are some delusional subjects responsible for their delusions? This question is uncomfortable because we typically think that the answer is pretty clearly just ‘no’. However, we also accept that self-deception is paradigmatically intentional behavior for which the self-deceiver is prima facie blameworthy. Thus, if there is overlap between self-deception and delusion, this will put pressure on our initial answer. This paper argues that there is indeed such overlap by offering a (...) novel philosophical account of self-deception. The account offered is independently plausible and avoids the main problems that plague other views. It also yields the result that some delusional subjects are self-deceived. The conclusion is not, however, that those subjects are blameworthy. Rather, a distinction is made between blameworthiness and ‘attributability’. States or actions can be significantly attributable to a subject—in the sense that they are expressions of their wills—without it being the case that the subject is blameworthy, if the subject has an appropriate excuse. Understanding delusions within this framework of responsibility and excuses not only illuminates the ways in which the processes of delusional belief formation and maintenance are continuous with ‘ordinary’ processes of belief formation and maintenance, it also provides a way of understanding the innocence of the delusional subject that does not involve the denial of agency. (shrink)

Many intelligent, capable, and successful individuals believe that their success is due to luck and fear that they will someday be exposed as imposters. A puzzling feature of this phenomenon, commonly referred to as imposter syndrome, is that these same individuals treat evidence in ways that maintain their false beliefs and debilitating fears: they ignore and misattribute evidence of their own abilities, while readily accepting evidence in favour of their inadequacy. I propose a novel account of imposter syndrome as an (...) instance of self-deception, whereby biased evidence treatment is driven by the motivational benefit of negative self-appraisal. This account illuminates a number of interconnected philosophical and scientific puzzles related to the explanation, definition, and value of imposter syndrome. (shrink)

Derk Pereboom’s Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life provides the most lively and comprehensive defense of free will skepticism in the literature. It contains a reworked and expanded version of the view he first developed in Living without Free Will. Important objections to the early book are answered, some slight modifications are introduced, and the overall account is significantly embellished—for example, Pereboom proposes a new account of rational deliberation consistent with the belief that one’s actions are (...) causally determined and develops a forward-looking theory of moral responsibility con- sistent with free will skepticism. A significant contribution to the field, Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life is destined to become a classic and is essential reading for anyone interested in free will and moral responsibility. (shrink)

Two intuitions lie at the heart of our conception of free will. One intuition locates free will in our ability to deliberate effectively and control our actions accordingly: the ‘Deliberation and Control’ (DC) condition. The other intuition is that free will requires the existence of alternative possibilities for choice: the AP condition. These intuitions seem to conflict when, for instance, we deliberate well to decide what to do, and we do not want it to be possible to (...) act in some other way. I suggest that intuitions about the AP condition arise when we face ‘close calls,’ situations in which, after deliberating, we still do not know what we really want to do. Indeed, several incompatibilists suggest such close calls are necessary for free will. I challenge this suggestion by describing a ‘confident agent’ who, after deliberating, always feels confident about what to do (and can then control her actions accordingly). Because she maximally satisfies the DC condition, she does not face close calls, and the intuition that the AP condition is essential for free will does not seem to apply to her. I conclude that intuitions about the importance of the AP condition rest on our experiences of close calls and arise precisely to the extent that our deliberations fail to arrive at a clear decision. I then raise and respond to several objections to this thought experiment and its relevance to the free will debate. (shrink)

I argue that Kant acknowledges two models of spontaneous self-determination that rational beings are capable of. The first model involves absolute unconditional necessity and excludes any form of contingency. The second model involves (albeit not as a matter of definition) a form of contingency which entails alternative possibilities for determining oneself. The first model would be exhibited by a divine being; the second model is exhibited by human beings. Human beings do, however, partake in the divine model up to (...) an extent, namely, as far as the legislative spontaneity of their law-giving faculties are concerned. I conclude by suggesting that for Kant, the mechanistic principle that we are exclusively determined by natural causes poses a twofold threat for human agency. In one respect (in relation to the second model), it threatens us with the obliteration of contingency, or with the universality of hypothetical necessity. But in another respect (in relation to the first model), it threatens us (and our putative "laws") with the obliteration of absolute necessity, or with the universality of contingency. (shrink)

Libertarian free will and divine foreknowledge at first seem incompatible. Are humans in charge of their own destiny if God knows human agents’ free choices? We also have the related issue of God’s agency concerning foreknowledge of human events. Can God escape divine fatalism and interact with us meaningfully if he knows how humans will act in the future? There are ways to reconcile the three, but one proposal is to utilize the concept of separate divine persons. What (...) if there are two persons, with their difference that one is in time and one outside it? Through an exploration of this potential model one can see how foreknowledge, free will, and agency might fit together. (shrink)

This chapter outlines six distinct reasons for rejecting retributivism, not the least of which is that it’s unclear that agents possess the kind of free will and moral responsibility needed to justify it. It then sketches a novel non-retributive alternative called the public health-quarantine model. The core idea of the model is that the right to harm in self-defense and defense of others justifies incapacitating the criminally dangerous with the minimum harm required for adequate protection. The model also (...) draws on the public health framework and prioritizes prevention and social justice. It is argued that not only does the public health-quarantine model offer a stark contrast to retributivism, it also provides a more humane, holistic, and effective approach to dealing with criminal behavior, one that is superior to both retributivism and other leading non-retributive alternatives. (shrink)

The discussion in this paper begins with some observations regarding a number of structural similarities between art and morality as it involves human agency. On the basis of these observations we may ask whether or not incompatibilist worries about free will are relevant to both art and morality. One approach is to claim that libertarian free will is essential to our evaluations of merit and desert in both spheres. An alternative approach, is to claim that free will (...) is required only in the sphere of morality—and that to this extent the art/morality analogy breaks down. I argue that both these incompatibilist approaches encounter significant problems and difficulties—and that incompatibilist have paid insufficient attention to these issues. However, although the analogy between art and morality may be welcomed by compatibilists, it does not pave the way for an easy or facile optimism on this subject. On the contrary, while the art/morality analogy may lend support to compatibilism it also serves to show that some worries of incompatibilism relating to the role of luck in human life cannot be easily set aside, which denies compatibilism any basis for complacent optimism on this subject. (shrink)

My paper provides a preliminary work towards a theory of freedom and agency which I name "Theory of Procedural Agency (TPA)". Since TPA relies on intuitions which can not be settled into the metaphysical framework of contemporary approaches to freedom and agency, I focus on some reasons which explain why these intuitions should be preferred to the competing ones. My strategy is to argue for my view defending an embryonal version of TPA, that is Berkeley's considerations on free will, (...) agency and determinism. In the first section I deal with Berkeley's treatment of free will. My idea is that his arguments offer clear and evident reasons in support of the first intuition grounding a TPA like approach to freedom. In the second section I move some criticisms to Berkeley's theory of will, claiming that, in order to overcome these, the assumption of the constitution view concerning self-knowledge would help. In the third section I set forth a logical formulation for TPA, showing how Berkeley's consideration on agency provide grounding reasons for that. Finally, in the last section, I plan the work to be done to achieve a consistent and complete version of TPA. (shrink)

The immediate aim of this paper is to articulate the essential features of an alternative compatibilist position, one that is responsive to sources of resistance to the compatibilist program based on considerations of fate and luck. The approach taken relies on distinguishing carefully between issues of skepticism and pessimism as they arise in this context. A compatibilism that is properly responsive to concerns about fate and luck is committed to what I describe as free will pessimism, which is to (...) be distinguished from free will skepticism. Free will skepticism is the view that our vulnerability to conditions of fate and luck serve to discredit our view of ourselves as free and responsible agents. Free will pessimism rejects free will scepticism, since the basis of its pessimism rests with the assumption that we are free and responsible agents who are, nevertheless, subject to fate and luck in this aspect of our lives. According to free will pessimism, all the major parties and positions in the free will debate, including that of skepticism, are modes of evasion and distortion regarding our human predicament in respect of agency and moral life. (shrink)