[This download includes the table of contents and chapter 1.] -/- When we praise, blame, punish, or reward people for their actions, we are holding them responsible for what they have done. Common sense tells us that what makes human beings responsible has to do with their minds and, in particular, the relationship between their minds and their actions. Yet the empirical connection is not necessarily obvious. The “guilty mind” is a core concept of criminal law, but if a defendant (...) on trial for murder were found to have serious brain damage, which brain parts or processes would have to be damaged for him to be considered not responsible, or less responsible, for the crime? The authors argue that evidence from neuroscience and the other cognitive sciences can illuminate the nature of responsibility and agency. They go on to offer a novel and comprehensive neuroscientific theory of human responsibility. (shrink)

Recent advancements in the brain sciences have enabled researchers to determine, with increasing accuracy, patterns and locations of neural activation associated with various psychological functions. These techniques have revived a longstanding debate regarding the relation between the mind and the brain: while many authors claim that neuroscientific data can be employed to advance theories of higher cognition, others defend the so-called ‘autonomy’ of psychology. Settling this significant issue requires understanding the nature of the bridge laws used at the psycho-neural interface. (...) While these laws have been the topic of extensive discussion, such debates have mostly focused on a particular type of link: reductive laws. Reductive laws are problematic: they face notorious philosophical objections and they are too scarce to substantiate current research at the intersection of psychology and neuroscience. The aim of this article is to provide a systematic analysis of a different kind of bridge laws—associative laws—which play a central, albeit overlooked role in scientific practice. (shrink)

Since our moral and legal judgments are focused on our decisions and actions, one would expect information about the neural underpinnings of human decision-making and action-production to have a significant bearing on those judgments. However, despite the wealth of empirical data, and the public attention it has attracted in the past few decades, the results of neuroscientific research have had relatively little influence on legal practice. It is here argued that this is due, at least partly, to the discussion on (...) the relationship of the neurosciences and law mixing up a number of separate issues that have different relevance on our moral and legal judgments. The approach here is hierarchical; more and less feasible ways in which neuroscientific data could inform such judgments are separated from each other. The neurosciences and other physical views on human behavior and decision-making do have the potential to have an impact on our legal reasoning. However, this happens in various different ways, and too often appeal to any neural data is assumed to be automatically relevant to shaping our moral and legal judgments. Our physicalist intuitions easily favor neural-level explanations to mental-level ones. But even if you were to subscribe to some reductionist variant of physicalism, it would not follow that all neural data should be automatically relevant to our moral and legal reasoning. However, the neurosciences can give us indirect evidence for reductive physicalism, which can then lead us to challenge the very idea of free will. Such a development can, ultimately, also have repercussions on law and legal practice. (shrink)

Neuroscience can relate to ethics and normative issues via the brain’s cognitive control network. This network accomplishes several executive processes, such as planning, task-switching, monitoring, and inhibiting. These processes allow us to increase the accuracy of our perceptions and our memory recall. They also allow us to plan much farther into the future, and with much more detail than any of our fellow mammals. These abilities also make us fitting subjects for responsibility claims. Their activity, or lack thereof, is (...) at the heart of culpability. For instance, planning to kill someone is strong evidence of what the law calls mens rea—a guilty mind. Claims about norms, or ethical “should” claims, express two-level propositions, directed at the behaving person at one level, and at that person’s mind and cognitive control network at another level. Thus, “People should stop themselves from hurting others,” is a claim about how people should behave and also a claim about how their cognitive control networks should behave—i.e., they should inhibit harmful behavior, or the intentions leading up to it. Planning is both an ability of the full person, and of that person’s mind. Neuroscience affirms the common notion, seen both in law and folk psychology, that what makes us guilty or culpable are certain events and states that exist in our minds. Overt behavior, including speech, is fallible evidence of these states and processes. Cases of negligence still involve the executive processes, but “negatively,” in that negligence results when certain types of executive activity fail to take place. (shrink)

We sought to compare the implicit and explicit views of a group of Muslim graduates on the fairness of Islamic law. In this preliminary investigation, we used the Electroencephalographic N400 Event Related Potential to detect the participant’s implicit beliefs. It was found that the majority of participants, eight out of ten, implicitly held that Islamic Law was unfair despite explicitly stating the opposite. In seeking to understand what separated these eight participants from the remaining two – the two who both (...) implicitly and explicitly held that Islamic Law was fair – only two distinguishing characteristics could be identified. Both participants had undertaken an in-depth study of a branch of Islamic law that places the spirit of the law above that of a literal interpretation. They had also attended the same seminary, exclusive to the other participants. Of the eight participants, it was discovered that, while they implicitly held Islamic law to be unfair, they also held it to be rational – in the same way they found that it was rational to push a person of a ship in order to save the remaining from drowning, yet unfair. We discuss these preliminary findings and consider theories on how an innate sense of fairness, an aspect of nativism, may come into play when it is not congruent with a participant’s own beliefs. Further, we ask, where such an inconsistency occurs, how does the mind attempt to rectify it – if at all? As a possible contribution to the discussion on theories of nativism vs. empiricism we put forward a hypothesis and methodology for investigation that may produce previously unconsidered data on human nature. (shrink)

Agent-causal libertarians maintain we are irreducible agents who, by acting, settle matters that aren’t already settled. This implies that the neural matters underlying the exercise of our agency don’t conform to deterministic laws, but it does not appear to exclude the possibility that they conform to statistical laws. However, Pereboom (Noûs 29:21–45, 1995; Living without free will, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001; in: Nadelhoffer (ed) The future of punishment, Oxford University Press, New York, 2013) has argued that, if these neural (...) matters conform to either statistical or deterministic physical laws, the complete conformity of an irreducible agent’s settling of matters with what should be expected given the applicable laws would involve coincidences too wild to be credible. Here, I show that Pereboom’s argument depends on the assumption that, at times, the antecedent probability certain behavior will occur applies in each of a number of occasions, and is incapable of changing as a result of what one does from one occasion to the next. There is, however, no evidence this assumption is true. The upshot is the wild coincidence objection is an empirical objection lacking empirical support. Thus, it isn’t a compelling argument against agent-causal libertarianism. (shrink)

As philosophical and scientific arguments for free will skepticism continue to gain traction, we are likely to see a fundamental shift in the way people think about free will and moral responsibility. Such shifts raise important practical and existential concerns: What if we came to disbelieve in free will? What would this mean for our interpersonal relationships, society, morality, meaning, and the law? What would it do to our standing as human beings? Would it cause nihilism and despair as some (...) maintain or would it rather have a humanizing effect on our practices and policies, freeing us from the negative effects of belief in free will? In this chapter we consider the practical implications of free will skepticism and argue that life without free will and basic desert moral responsibility would not be as destructive as many people believe. We argue that prospects of finding meaning in life or of sustaining good interpersonal relationships, for example, would not be threatened. On treatment of criminals, we argue that although retributivism and severe punishment, such as the death penalty, would be ruled out, preventive detention and rehabilitation programs would still be justified. While we will touch on all these issues below, our focus will be primarily on this last issue. -/- We begin in section I by considering two different routes to free will skepticism. The first denies the causal efficacy of the types of willing required for free will and receives its contemporary impetus from pioneering work in neuroscience by Benjamin Libet, Daniel Wegner, and John-Dylan Haynes. The second, which is more common in the philosophical literature, does not deny the causal efficacy of the will but instead claims that whether this causal efficacy is deterministic or indeterministic, it does not achieve the level of control to count as free will by the standards of the historical debate. We argue that while there are compelling objections to the first route—e.g., Al Mele (2009), Eddy Nahmias (2002, 2011), and Neil Levy (2005)—the second route to free will skepticism remains intact. In section II we argue that free will skepticism allows for a workable morality, and, rather than negatively impacting our personal relationships and meaning in life, may well improve our well-being and our relationships to others since it would tend to eradicate an often destructive form of moral anger. In section III we argue that free will skepticism allows for adequate ways of responding to criminal behavior—in particular, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and alternation of relevant social conditions—and that these methods are both morally justified and sufficient for good social policy. We present and defend our own preferred model for dealing with dangerous criminals, an incapacitation account built on the right to self-protection analogous to the justification for quarantine (see Pereboom 2001, 2013, 2014a; Caruso 2016a), and we respond to recent objections to it by Michael Corrado and John Lemos. (shrink)

Many wrongly believe that emotion plays little or no role in legal reasoning. Unfortunately, Langdell and his “scientific” case method encourage this error. A careful review of analysis in the real world, however, belies this common belief. Emotion can be cognitive, and cognition can be emotional. Additionally, modern neuroscience underscores the “co-dependence” of reason and emotion. Thus, even if law were a certain science of appellate cases (which it is not), emotion could not be torn from such “science.” -/- (...) As we reform legal education, we must recognize the role of cognitive emotion in law and legal analysis. If we fail to do this, we shortchange law schools, students, and the bar in grievous ways. We shortchange the very basics of true and best legal analysis. We shortchange at least half the universe of expression (the affective half). We shortchange the importance of watching and guarding the true interests of our clients, which interests are inextricably intertwined with affective experience. We shortchange the importance of motivation in law, life, and legal education. How can lawyers understand the motives of clients and other relevant parties without understanding the emotions that motivate them? How can lawyers hope to persuade judges, other advocates, or parties across the table in a transaction without grasping affective experience that motivates them? How can law professors fully engage students while ignoring affective experience that motivates students? Finally, we shortchange matters of life and death: emotions affect health and thus the very vigor of the bar. -/- Using insights from practice, modern neuroscience, and philosophy, I therefore explore emotion and other affective experience through a lawyer’s lens. In doing this, I reject claims that emotion and other affective experience are mere feeling (though I do not discount the importance of feeling). I also reject claims that emotion and other affective experience are necessarily irrational or beyond our control. Instead, such experience is often intentional and quite rational and controllable. After exploring law and affective experience at more “macro” levels, I consider three more specific examples of the interaction of law and emotion: (i) emotion, expression, and the first amendment, (ii) emotion in legal elements and exceptions, and (iii) emotion and lawyer mental health. To provide lawyers and legal scholars with a “one-source” overview of emotion and the law, I have also included an Appendix addressing a number of particular emotions. -/- Keywords: Emotion, Cognitive Emotion, Reason, Logos, Pathos, Legal Analysis, Legal Reasoning, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Persuasion, Rhetoric, Expression, First Amendment, Free Speech, Common Law Murder, Mental Health, NAACP v. McCrory, Anger, Contempt, Disgust, Hate, Malice. (shrink)

Panpsychism and the Universal Law of Balance in Nature: A Unified Framework for Consciousness -/- By: Angelito Enriquez Malicse -/- Introduction -/- The nature of consciousness has been one of the most profound mysteries in philosophy and science. The mind-body problem has led to competing theories: dualism, which sees the mind and body as separate substances, and materialism, which views consciousness as a byproduct of brain activity. However, both views struggle to fully explain subjective experience. -/- A third perspective, panpsychism, (...) suggests that consciousness is not limited to complex brains but is instead a fundamental and universal property of reality. This aligns with my Universal Law of Balance in Nature, which states that all systems—including consciousness—follow natural laws of equilibrium. If consciousness is a fundamental aspect of existence, then it must also be governed by the same balancing principles that structure the physical world. -/- This essay explores how panpsychism, dualism, materialism, and the Universal Law of Balance in Nature intersect, offering a new way to understand consciousness, free will, and the nature of intelligence. -/- 1. The Mind-Body Problem: Dualism vs. Materialism -/- The mind-body problem has led to two dominant philosophical views: -/- 1. Dualism (Descartes) – The mind and body are fundamentally different substances. The mind (or soul) is immaterial, while the body is purely physical. -/- 2. Materialism – Consciousness is not a separate substance but rather an emergent property of physical processes in the brain. -/- The Limits of Dualism -/- Dualism struggles to explain how an immaterial mind can interact with a physical body. If the mind is separate from the brain, then how does it influence bodily actions? This issue, known as the interaction problem, remains unresolved. -/- Moreover, dualism raises scientific concerns: if the mind is non-physical, then how can it be studied, measured, or tested? This makes it difficult to integrate into neuroscience. -/- The Limits of Materialism -/- Materialism, on the other hand, argues that all mental states are reducible to brain activity. While this successfully explains cognition, perception, and neural processes, it does not fully account for: -/- The Hard Problem of Consciousness (David Chalmers): Why do physical brain processes produce subjective experiences? -/- Qualia: The personal, first-person experience of perception (e.g., the redness of red). -/- If consciousness were purely physical, it should be possible to explain subjective experience through objective science—but materialism has failed to do so. -/- 3. How Panpsychism and the Universal Law of Balance Resolve These Issues -/- Panpsychism provides a solution by proposing that consciousness is neither separate from matter (dualism) nor merely a byproduct of the brain (materialism), but rather an intrinsic property of all matter. -/- This aligns with my Universal Law of Balance in Nature, which states that everything in existence—including consciousness—operates according to natural laws of equilibrium. -/- Instead of seeing the mind as a supernatural entity (dualism) or a mere illusion (materialism), panpsychism suggests that all physical systems contain some form of consciousness in balance with their environment. -/- Consciousness does not “emerge” from complexity but is already present at fundamental levels of reality, organizing itself into higher structures through natural equilibrium. -/- Example: The Brain as a Self-Balancing System -/- In neuroscience, the brain maintains homeostasis, regulating neurotransmitters, electrical activity, and perception in a balanced way. -/- If fundamental particles also possess consciousness, they too may follow a self-regulating principle, which my universal law of balance describes. -/- This means that consciousness scales up from micro-level awareness to complex human thought through structured balance. -/- 4. The Feedback Mechanism of Conscious Minds -/- One of the key insights from my universal law of balance is that individual conscious minds act as feedback mechanisms, influencing and shaping one another through interaction. This aligns with panpsychism’s notion that consciousness exists at all levels and is interconnected. -/- Panpsychism suggests that even at a fundamental level, consciousness interacts in ways that shape larger systems of awareness. -/- The Universal Law of Balance states that conscious beings, from individuals to societies, exist within a dynamic system of equilibrium, adjusting their decisions and behaviors in response to external and internal stimuli. -/- This means that human consciousness is not an isolated phenomenon but a complex expression of a larger network of conscious interactions seeking balance. -/- 5. The Problem of Free Will and Consciousness -/- One of the greatest philosophical challenges is the problem of free will—do humans truly make independent choices, or are all decisions determined by prior causes? -/- Materialism often leads to determinism, the idea that all human actions are entirely governed by physical laws, leaving no room for free will. -/- Dualism suggests that free will originates from an immaterial soul but fails to explain how it interacts with the body. -/- Panpsychism, combined with my Universal Law of Balance, provides an alternative: free will is neither purely deterministic nor supernatural but instead follows a balancing process between different conscious forces. -/- From this perspective, free will is not about escaping cause and effect but about aligning decisions with the natural balancing mechanisms of consciousness and the environment. -/- 6. The Combination Problem and Holistic Balance -/- A major challenge in panpsychism is the Combination Problem—if simple particles have basic consciousness, how do they combine to create complex subjective experiences like human thought? -/- The universal Law of Balance in Nature offers a potential solution: consciousness, like all other systems, organizes itself through natural equilibrium. -/- Just as physical systems self-organize (e.g., atoms forming molecules, ecosystems maintaining biodiversity), -/- Consciousness at different levels must also self-organize into stable configurations. -/- This suggests that individual conscious experiences do not merely “combine” randomly but follow a structured process of integration governed by natural balance. -/- Example: The human brain is a network of billions of neurons, yet its conscious experience is unified. This could be because consciousness follows a structured balance, where micro-level awareness stabilizes into higher-order intelligence. -/- 7. Implications for AI and the Future of Consciousness -/- If panpsychism is true, and if consciousness follows the universal law of balance, then artificial intelligence (AI) might one day develop consciousness—but only if it aligns with natural balancing principles. -/- Current AI systems lack true awareness because they do not self-regulate in a homeostatic way like living systems. -/- For AI to develop consciousness, it would need a balancing mechanism similar to the human brain, where its inputs and outputs form an adaptive feedback system. -/- This also raises ethical questions: -/- If AI achieves consciousness through balance, should it have the same moral considerations as humans? -/- If everything is conscious to some degree, what responsibilities do humans have toward animals, nature, and even machines? -/- Conclusion -/- Panpsychism and the Universal Law of Balance in Nature offer a compelling framework for understanding consciousness. By integrating ideas from dualism, materialism, and panpsychism, we can see that consciousness is neither separate from nature nor reducible to material processes alone. Instead, it follows a universal principle of balance, shaping both individual minds and collective intelligence. -/- Rather than being separate from nature, consciousness is nature—expressing itself through an unbroken law of balance that governs all existence. -/- . (shrink)

-/- Integrating Spirituality, Ethics, and Natural Law in Education -/- Introduction -/- Spirituality has long been regarded as a guiding force for human behavior, providing a sense of morality, purpose, and inner peace. However, in modern education, spirituality is often separated from rational thought and critical analysis. This has led to a gap between faith-based morality and scientific understanding. To bridge this gap, a holistic educational approach must integrate spirituality with ethics, critical thinking, and natural law. By doing so, students (...) can develop a deeper sense of moral responsibility, rational decision-making, and a balanced perspective on life. -/- The Role of Deep Faith and Genuine Spirituality in Human Behavior -/- Deep faith in God and genuine spirituality play a crucial role in shaping human behavior and thinking. They provide: -/- 1. Moral and Ethical Guidance – Many spiritual traditions emphasize honesty, kindness, and self-discipline, which are essential for maintaining ethical behavior. -/- 2. Inner Peace and Self-Control – Spirituality promotes mindfulness, reducing impulsive reactions driven by anger or fear. -/- 3. A Higher Purpose and Meaning – When people see their lives as part of a greater purpose, they are less likely to engage in negative behavior. -/- 4. Forgiveness and Transformation – Spiritual teachings encourage forgiveness, helping individuals overcome resentment and negative emotions. -/- 5. Accountability and Responsibility – A belief in moral consequences, such as karma or divine justice, reinforces ethical decision-making. -/- 6. A Positive Mindset and Hope – Faith fosters resilience and optimism, preventing destructive thought patterns like anxiety and despair. -/- 7. A Strong Support System – Spiritual communities provide emotional and moral support, helping individuals stay on a positive path. -/- 8. Alignment with Natural Laws – A rational approach to spirituality aligns it with universal laws, ensuring it remains practical and applicable in daily life. -/- Addressing Differences in Religious Beliefs -/- One of the major challenges in integrating spirituality into education is the diversity of religious beliefs. However, this challenge can be addressed through an inclusive and rational approach: -/- 1. Focus on Universal Moral Principles – Instead of promoting specific religious doctrines, the curriculum should emphasize common ethical values such as compassion, honesty, justice, and balance. -/- 2. Teach Comparative Spirituality – Educating students on different spiritual traditions in an objective way fosters mutual respect and understanding while preventing religious bias. -/- 3. Separate Faith from Dogma – While students can practice their own religious beliefs, the educational system should focus on the rational and ethical aspects of spirituality that apply to all people. -/- 4. Encourage Critical Thinking – Teaching students how to analyze spiritual beliefs logically and scientifically ensures that faith is not based on blind acceptance but on reason and understanding. -/- 5. Promote Secular Ethics Alongside Spirituality – Students should be taught that ethical behavior and moral responsibility do not require religious belief but can be understood through natural laws and human values. -/- Practical Steps for Implementing Spirituality in the Educational System -/- To create a holistic and effective educational system, spirituality should be part of a broader curriculum on ethics, critical thinking, and natural law. This can be achieved through: -/- 1. Ethics and Moral Philosophy Courses – Teaching students about ethical systems, natural law, and the consequences of moral decisions. -/- 2. Critical Thinking and Reasoning – Encouraging students to analyze spiritual and philosophical concepts rationally, distinguishing between faith-based beliefs and universal truths. -/- 3. Psychology and Neuroscience of Spirituality – Exploring how spiritual practices affect the brain and behavior, reinforcing their practical benefits. -/- 4. Systems Thinking and Interconnectivity – Demonstrating how human actions, societal structures, and natural ecosystems are interconnected through balance and feedback mechanisms. -/- 5. Comparative Spirituality and Universal Values – Teaching different spiritual traditions while focusing on common values such as compassion, justice, and personal responsibility. -/- 6. Integration with Science and Philosophy – Lessons should include discussions on how natural laws (such as cause and effect, balance, and interconnected systems) relate to ethical and spiritual behavior. -/- 7. Experiential Learning and Meditation Practices – Non-religious meditation and mindfulness exercises can help students develop self-awareness, emotional regulation, and inner peace. -/- Conclusion -/- Integrating spirituality with ethics, critical thinking, and natural law in education is not about promoting religious dogma but about fostering a balanced and rational approach to human development. A well-structured curriculum that emphasizes moral responsibility, logical reasoning, and an understanding of natural laws can correct negative behaviors and thought patterns while guiding individuals toward ethical and purposeful lives. By teaching spirituality in a way that aligns with reason and scientific understanding, we can cultivate a generation that is both morally grounded and intellectually empowered to solve complex societal problems. -/- This approach ensures that spiritual education is inclusive, respects diverse beliefs, and remains aligned with universal natural laws, creating a foundation for a more just and harmonious society. -/- . (shrink)

Santiago Ramón y Cajal, the primary architect of the neuron doctrine and the law of dynamic polarization, is considered to be the founder of modern neuroscience. At the same time, many philosophers, historians, and neuroscientists agree that modern neuroscience embodies a mechanistic perspective on the explanation of the nervous system. In this paper, I review the extant mechanistic interpretation of Cajal’s contribution to modern neuroscience. Then, I argue that the extant mechanistic interpretation fails to capture the explanatory (...) import of Cajal’s law of dynamic polarization. My claim is that the definitive formulation of Cajal’s law of dynamic polarization, despite its mechanistic inaccuracies, embodies a non-mechanistic pattern of reasoning (i.e., design explanation) that is an integral component of modern neuroscience. (shrink)

Various authors debate the question of whether neuroscience is relevant to criminal responsibility. However, a plethora of different techniques and technologies, each with their own abilities and drawbacks, lurks beneath the label “neuroscience”; and in criminal law responsibility is not a single, unitary and generic concept, but it is rather a syndrome of at least six different concepts. Consequently, there are at least six different responsibility questions that the criminal law asks—at least one for each responsibility concept—and, I (...) will suggest, a multitude of ways in which the techniques and technologies that comprise neuroscience might help us to address those diverse questions. In a way, on my account neuroscience is relevant to criminal responsibility in many ways, but I hesitate to state my position like this because doing so obscures two points which I would rather highlight: one, neither neuroscience nor criminal responsibility are as unified as that; and two, the criminal law asks many different responsibility questions and not just one generic question. (shrink)

A central question that arises when interpreting the U.S. Constitution is which theory of interpretation is the best? In his recent book, “How to Interpret the Constitution,” Cass Sunstein reviews various theories of constitutional interpretation currently in vogue and then offers what he believes would be the best approach going forward. In this Article, I want to take up a more basic question presupposed by the very idea of a theory of interpretation. That is, whether it is even possible to (...) arrive at more than a provisional understanding of what would be the best interpretation in any given area of study, including constitutional law. That said, I do believe some of the interpretations suggested by Cass Sunstein and elsewhere by myself and others to be more persuasive than most others, even if only partially so. For, as Sunstein himself points out, no theory seems perfect to figure out the Constitution’s meaning in every possible world in which we could imagine it to exist. So, we best just focus on our own world or what we take to matter in our world. In keeping with this idea, I plan to begin by looking first at how we might interpret the world around us based on our past experiences by considering a somewhat imaginative recent experience of my own. Next, I consider some recent studies in the neurosciences and a previous but highly influential article by the philosopher Donald Davidson concerning conceptual schemes and whether we could ever hope to make any sense of a scheme radically different from our own. Here it should be pointed out that I will use the word “scheme” when referring to a very broad system of thought for which there may not be much outside, versus when I use the word “framework,” as referencing something far narrower than a whole system of thought, even if what is referenced might purport to be a significant part of a still larger system. My goal is to eventually adopt John Rawls’ public reason method to separate out non-workable systems of thought as might be part of a particular religious or philosophical tradition that cannot be easily tied to any other system of thought easily imagined within a pluralistic society. I plan to do this by relating how Rawls’ public reason might allow for the creation of a moral interpretation of the Constitution adopting the moral theory of Alan Gewirth. The latter I adopt because its grounding does not presuppose any prior moral or religious framework. I then apply that interpretative method to five cases Sunstein believes are fixed points in our current constitutional understanding. In short, I plan to isolate out an area of human rights where even very different understandings of the world might be able to meet, while acknowledging that there will still be other areas that simply evade any common connection. I hope what I offer here to be of help for a theory of constitutional interpretation that focuses on morality, without having to compete with various religious frameworks going forward. (shrink)

In a widely read essay, “For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything,” Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen argue that the advance of neuroscience will result in the widespread rejection of free will, and with it – of retributivism. They go on to propose that consequentialist reforms are in order, and they predict such reforms will take place. We agree that retributivism should be rejected, and we too are optimistic that rejected it will be. But we don’t think (...) that such a development will have much to do with neuroscience – it won’t, because neuroscience is unlikely to show that we have no free will. We have two main aims in this paper. The first is to rebut various aspects of the case against free will. The second is to examine the case for consequentialist reforms. We take Greene and Cohen’s essay as a hobbyhorse, but our criticisms are applicable to neurodeterministic anti-free-willism in general. We first suggest that Greene and Cohen take proponents of free will to be committed to an untenable homuncular account of agency. But proponents of free will can dispense with such a commitment. In fact, we argue, it is Greene and Cohen who work with an overly simple account of free will. We sketch a more nuanced conception. We then turn to the proposal for consequentialist reforms. We argue that retributivism will fall out of favor not as a consequence of neuroscience-driven rejection of free will, but rather, as a result of a familiar feature of moral progress – the expanding circle of concern. In short, retributivism can and must die, but neuroscience will not kill it – humanity will. (shrink)

-/- Explaining Consciousness and the Mind-Body Problem Through the Universal Law of Balance -/- Introduction -/- The nature of consciousness and its relationship with the body has been one of the greatest mysteries in philosophy and science. The mind-body problem questions how subjective experience (mind) arises from physical matter (body), while modern neuroscience, quantum mechanics, and artificial intelligence seek to understand the origins of conscious thought. -/- Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, rooted in the universal law of balance in nature, (...) provides a powerful framework for understanding consciousness as an emergent property of equilibrium. If all human decision-making follows natural laws, then consciousness itself—both individual and collective—must also follow the same principles of balance. This essay explores how this perspective can unify philosophical theories, be tested scientifically, and guide the development of artificial intelligence. -/- The Mind-Body Problem and the Universal Formula -/- Historically, the mind-body problem has been debated through dualism, materialism, and panpsychism. -/- 1. Dualism, proposed by René Descartes, suggests that the mind and body are separate substances. However, if consciousness emerges from a balance of biological, cognitive, and environmental factors, then mind and body are not separate but rather two interdependent systems working in harmony. -/- 2. Materialism, the view that consciousness is purely a result of physical processes in the brain, can also be explained through the universal formula. If the brain maintains a homeostatic equilibrium of neural activity, then conscious thought can be seen as a function of maintaining that balance. -/- 3. Panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, aligns with the universal formula if all systems—atomic, biological, and cognitive—follow the same balancing principles. -/- Thus, the universal law of balance in nature can unify these perspectives by suggesting that consciousness is a product of equilibrium across multiple levels of reality. -/- Testing the Universal Formula in Neuroscience -/- If consciousness emerges from a balance between the brain, body, and environment, then this should be observable in biological experiments. -/- Brain-Body Synchronization -/- Neuroscientists have found that consciousness is deeply linked to bodily processes such as heartbeat rhythms, breathing patterns, and gut microbiome activity. When these systems are in balance, cognitive clarity and emotional stability increase. Disruptions—such as stress, disease, or neurological disorders—cause imbalances that affect perception and decision-making. -/- Scientific Test: Using fMRI and EEG, researchers can measure how homeostasis in the body correlates with stable brain activity and conscious awareness. If maintaining balance improves cognition, this supports the universal formula’s application to consciousness. -/- Feedback Loops in Decision-Making -/- Cognitive science shows that human thought follows a feedback mechanism—our brain constantly adjusts decisions based on past experiences and environmental input. If the universal formula is correct, then consciousness itself is a continuous process of maintaining equilibrium in decision-making. -/- Scientific Test: Experiments with brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) could simulate disruptions in decision-making balance and measure how the mind adapts. -/- Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness -/- Some scientists propose that consciousness operates at the quantum level, where thought processes may resemble wave superpositions and collapses. -/- Quantum Decision Theory -/- The human brain does not always process information in a straightforward way; rather, it often considers multiple possibilities before reaching a conclusion. This mirrors quantum physics, where particles exist in superposition until they interact with an observer. If consciousness follows the universal law of balance, then the brain may hold multiple mental states in balance before making a final decision. -/- Scientific Test: Studies in quantum cognition compare human decision-making with quantum probability models. If human thought aligns with quantum systems, it suggests that mental balance follows the same natural laws as physical balance in the universe. -/- Microtubule Consciousness Hypothesis -/- Some researchers, such as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, suggest that tiny structures within neurons (microtubules) generate consciousness through quantum coherence. If consciousness is a process of balance, then maintaining coherence within these structures might regulate awareness. -/- Scientific Test: If external stimuli can enhance or disrupt microtubule coherence, then altering quantum balance should affect conscious states. -/- Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Conscious Balance -/- If the universal formula is truly fundamental to consciousness, then AI systems that mimic this balance should develop self-regulating awareness. -/- AI Homeostasis and Adaptive Learning -/- Unlike traditional AI, which follows strict programming, an AI system designed to maintain balance between inputs, processing, and decision-making could behave in a way similar to biological consciousness. This would involve: -/- Self-regulating feedback loops that adjust based on new information. -/- Adaptive responses to environmental changes, like a human mind maintaining homeostasis. -/- Pattern recognition based on equilibrium, where the AI finds optimal solutions by balancing multiple factors. -/- Scientific Test: Developing AI models that learn through balance, rather than rigid programming, could demonstrate whether consciousness emerges from self-regulating equilibrium. -/- Conclusion: A New Understanding of Consciousness -/- The universal law of balance in nature provides a unifying framework for explaining consciousness, bridging philosophy, neuroscience, quantum mechanics, and artificial intelligence. If all decision-making follows natural balance, then consciousness itself is not an isolated phenomenon but a result of maintaining equilibrium across multiple dimensions—biological, cognitive, and universal. -/- By testing this theory scientifically—through brain-body synchronization, quantum cognition, and AI balance modeling—we may uncover the fundamental principles governing human awareness. This could lead to breakthroughs in mental health, decision science, and artificial intelligence, transforming how we understand both human and machine intelligence. -/- Thus, Angelito Malicse’s universal formula may hold the key to one of the greatest mysteries of existence: the true nature of consciousness itself. -/- . (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance and the Mystery of Consciousness Integration -/- A New Approach to the Combination Problem in Panpsychism -/- Introduction -/- The nature of consciousness remains one of the greatest mysteries in philosophy and science. One of the most challenging questions in panpsychism is the combination problem—how do small conscious entities merge into a single, unified experience? While traditional theories struggle to explain why consciousness emerges in some systems (such as the human brain) but not in others (...) (such as a rock), a new perspective may provide a breakthrough. -/- Angelito Malicse’s universal law of balance in nature offers a potential solution. If all processes in nature seek equilibrium, then consciousness itself must follow the same natural laws. This principle suggests that conscious integration does not happen randomly but depends on specific balance conditions. By applying this idea, we can explain how micro-consciousnesses combine into a single, larger consciousness and why this process only occurs in certain systems. -/- The Role of Balance in Consciousness -/- Nature operates through a constant pursuit of balance—whether in physical, chemical, or biological systems. The human body maintains homeostasis, the universe follows thermodynamic equilibrium, and even ecosystems regulate themselves through feedback mechanisms. -/- If consciousness is a fundamental part of nature, it too must follow these balancing principles. This means that when conscious entities interact, they will only merge into a unified whole if their interactions lead to a state of equilibrium. If the system remains unstable or fragmented, the conscious units will remain separate. -/- This concept helps address the combination problem by shifting the focus from merely adding up consciousnesses to understanding the balance conditions required for their integration. In this view, the brain becomes conscious not just because it has many neurons but because it maintains a delicate balance of feedback loops that allow consciousness to stabilize as a single experience. -/- Feedback Mechanisms and the Unification of Consciousness -/- A key insight from Malicse’s universal law is that consciousness functions as a self-adjusting feedback system. Just as the body regulates temperature and energy levels, consciousness must regulate itself to maintain stability. -/- In any system composed of many small conscious entities, the following process occurs: -/- 1. Micro-conscious units interact and exchange information. Each conscious unit responds to signals from others, adjusting itself accordingly. -/- 2. A feedback loop forms, leading to self-organization. If the interactions reach a stable pattern, the system begins to behave as a single, unified whole. -/- 3. When equilibrium is achieved, the system experiences itself as one consciousness. If the balance is disrupted, consciousness fragments into smaller, independent units. -/- This process explains why certain systems, such as the brain, experience a unified consciousness, while others, like a rock, do not. In the brain, neurons communicate in a highly integrated way, constantly adjusting to maintain balance. A rock, on the other hand, lacks the dynamic feedback loops necessary for conscious unification. -/- The Physical Basis of Conscious Integration -/- The idea that balance determines consciousness merging aligns with key findings in neuroscience and physics. -/- 1. Neural Synchronization: Studies show that when brain activity becomes highly synchronized, conscious experience becomes clearer and more unified. This suggests that balance and feedback stability are essential for maintaining a single conscious state. -/- 2. Quantum Coherence: Some researchers propose that quantum processes in the brain contribute to consciousness. If Malicse’s law of balance applies at the quantum level, it could explain why certain quantum systems (such as the brain’s microtubules) support conscious integration while others do not. -/- 3. Field-Based Consciousness: If consciousness operates like an energy field, as some theories suggest, then balance laws could determine when local fields merge into a larger unified experience. This could have implications for understanding collective intelligence, AI consciousness, and even planetary consciousness. -/- Testing the Balance Hypothesis -/- To confirm that balance and feedback stability determine conscious unification, experiments could be designed to test this principle. One approach would involve studying how disruptions in balance affect consciousness. -/- For example, in split-brain experiments, when the two hemispheres of the brain are disconnected, the individual seems to have two separate conscious experiences. If restoring balance allows consciousness to merge again, it would support the idea that conscious integration depends on equilibrium conditions. -/- Additionally, experiments in artificial intelligence could test whether self-regulating feedback systems can develop emergent consciousness when balance conditions are met. If AI systems programmed to follow feedback equilibrium begin exhibiting signs of self-awareness, it would suggest that balance plays a crucial role in conscious emergence. -/- Implications for Science, Philosophy, and AI -/- If the universal law of balance governs consciousness integration, it could bridge multiple fields of study: -/- ✔ Neuroscience: Understanding how the brain maintains balance could lead to breakthroughs in treating disorders that affect consciousness, such as coma, schizophrenia, or dissociative identity disorder. -/- ✔ Quantum Physics: If consciousness follows balance principles at the quantum level, it could provide insights into the connection between consciousness and the physical world. -/- ✔ Artificial Intelligence: AI systems designed to follow feedback balance laws may be capable of developing self-awareness, offering a pathway toward artificial general intelligence (AGI). -/- ✔ Philosophy of Mind: This approach provides a natural law-based solution to the combination problem, explaining how consciousness merges in a way that is scientifically testable. -/- Conclusion -/- Angelito Malicse’s universal law of balance in nature offers a groundbreaking new approach to understanding consciousness. Instead of viewing conscious merging as a mystery, this framework suggests that consciousness integrates only when balance conditions are met. -/- This principle could explain why some systems form a single conscious experience while others remain fragmented, bridging the gap between neuroscience, physics, and philosophy. It also provides a testable hypothesis, allowing future experiments to confirm whether balance and feedback stability truly determine the emergence of unified consciousness. -/- By applying the universal law of balance to the study of consciousness, we may finally unlock one of the greatest mysteries of existence. -/- . (shrink)

This paper explores the notion of the self as one of the main obstacles in advancing neuroscience. Some folks argue for strict naturalism in order to study the brain objectively. However, in this process of naturalization, we run the risk of losing key components that make up our experience as human beings, namely emotions, ideas, and values. Therefore, I argue for moderate naturalism in an attempt to reconcile with the self. I reference Immanuel Kant’s moral law theory in order (...) to discuss the ethical implications of following a moderate naturalist view of the self in advancing neuroscience. (shrink)

It is a common idea, and an element in many legal systems, that people can deserve punishment when they commit criminal (or immoral) actions. A standard philosophical objection to this retributivist idea about punishment is that if human choices and actions are determined by previous events and the laws of nature, then we are not free in the sense required to be morally responsible for our actions, and therefore cannot deserve blame or punishment. It has recently been suggested that this (...) argument can be backed up by neuroscience, since neuroscientific explanations of human behavior leave no room for non-determined free actions. In this thesis, an argument of this sort is discussed. According to this argument, that I call “the Revision Argument”, we should revise the legal system so that any retributivist justification of punishment is removed. I examine some objections to the Revision Argument according to which compatibilism about free will and responsibility is a morally acceptable basis of retributive punishment. I argue that these objections have difficulties in providing a plausible account of the relevant difference between people who deserve punishment for their actions and people who do not. Therefore, I argue that they fail to refute the conclusion of the Revision Argument. (shrink)

Rapid technological advancements such as fMRI have led to the rise of neuroscientific discoveries. Coupled with findings from cognitive psychology, they are claiming to have solved the millennia-old puzzle of moral cognition. If true, our societal structures – and with that the criminal law – would be gravely impacted. This thesis concerns itself with four distinct theories stemming from the disciplines above as to what mechanisms constitute moral judgement: the Stage Model by KOHLBERG, the Universal Moral Grammar Theory by MIKHAIL, (...) the Social Intuitionist Model by HAIDT, and the Dual-Process Theory by GREENE – comparing the findings of the latter to the consequentialist and retributivist theories of punishment present in the American Criminal Law Doctrine. Analysing both a direct (link to deontology) and indirect (link to incompatibilism) approach to discrediting retributivism, I come to the conclusion that while science can have an impact on our morals and thus on the law, the current state of neuroscientific findings are not capable of shattering foundational notions of the criminal law. (shrink)

Increasing evidence from psychology and neuroscience suggests that emotion plays an important and sometimes critical role in moral judgment and moral behavior. At the same time, there is increasing psychological and neuroscientific evidence that brain regions critical in emotional and moral capacity are impaired in psychopaths. We ask how the criminal law should accommodate these two streams of research, in light of a new normative and legal account of the criminal responsibility of psychopaths.

Open Peer Commentary, referring to "Neuroethics at 15: The Current and Future Environment for Neuroethics".

-/- The Science Behind Excessive Irrational Behavior: A Cognitive, Social, and Natural Law Perspective -/- Irrational behavior is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, serving as a response to perceived threats, misunderstandings, or emotional distress. However, when irrational behavior becomes excessive, unbalanced, or emotionally driven, it can indicate inefficiencies in cognitive processing, mental health issues, and misunderstandings arising from proximity of individual perception and the no-input perception of others. This essay explores the scientific basis of excessive irrational behavior through (...) class='Hi'>neuroscience, psychology, evolutionary biology, and the principles of dynamic social interaction, while also examining its relation to the universal law of balance in nature. -/- The Cognitive Science of Irrational Behavior -/- From a neurological perspective, excessive irrational behavior can result from cognitive biases, emotional dysregulation, and inefficient brain processing. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for rational thinking and impulse control, plays a crucial role in judgment. If it functions inefficiently, a person may engage in rash or erratic behavior without fully analyzing the situation. Similarly, an overactive amygdala, which processes emotions like fear and anger, can make individuals more reactive and prone to negative responses. -/- Cognitive biases also shape how people engage in irrational behavior. Negativity bias makes the brain focus more on flaws and mistakes, while the fundamental attribution error leads people to blame others’ failures on personality traits rather than external circumstances. The Dunning-Kruger effect further explains how individuals with limited knowledge may overestimate their understanding, making them more prone to irrational responses while unaware of their own shortcomings. -/- Dynamic Social Interaction, Irrational Behavior, and Mental Health -/- Human interactions are governed by dynamic social interaction principles, which emphasize that all social behavior involves continuous feedback loops, adaptation, and reciprocal influence. However, irrational behavior, mental health disorders, and distortions in perception can disrupt these processes, leading to dysfunctional social interactions and social imbalance in the following ways: -/- 1. Feedback Mechanisms and Cognitive Distortions – In a healthy social system, irrational behavior can be corrected through feedback loops. However, mental health disorders such as anxiety, depression, and personality disorders can distort perception, leading individuals to engage in excessive or unbalanced irrational behavior. -/- 2. Reciprocity and Social Imbalance – Rational social interactions require a balance between rational responses and emotional regulation. However, conditions like narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or borderline personality disorder (BPD) can create patterns of excessive emotional reactivity, hypersensitivity to perceived slights, and instability, disrupting healthy reciprocity. -/- 3. Homeostasis in Social Groups and Emotional Dysregulation – Just as biological systems maintain balance, social groups function best when there is emotional regulation and rational decision-making. Individuals suffering from bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or severe mood disorders may engage in irrational behavior, causing instability in group dynamics. -/- 4. Emergent Behavior and Influence of Mental Health Issues – Social groups evolve based on collective interactions. If individuals with irrational thought patterns dominate discussions, they can influence others through groupthink, paranoia, or mob behavior, leading to misguided responses and social dysfunction. -/- 5. Emotional Contagion and the Spread of Irrational Behavior – Irrational behavior, like other emotions, spreads through social contagion. If negativity becomes dominant in a group due to irrational behaviors or mental health struggles, it can lower morale, increase hostility, and reduce cooperation, leading to chronic stress and conflict in relationships. -/- The Effect of Proximity of Individual Perception and No-Input Perception -/- Proximity of individual perception refers to how close or far an individual is to an issue, shaping the way they perceive reality. People who experience a problem firsthand tend to see more details, nuances, and complexity, while those who are distant from the issue may form oversimplified, biased, or incorrect judgments. -/- On the other hand, no-input perception occurs when individuals lack direct experience, knowledge, or sensory input about a situation, yet they still form strong opinions and engage in irrational behavior based on assumptions, external influences, or personal biases. This phenomenon is particularly dangerous in social decision-making because: -/- 1. False Confidence in Judgment – When individuals rely on second-hand information rather than direct experience, they may feel certain about their views despite lacking critical knowledge. This leads to misguided behavior and the spread of false narratives. -/- 2. Oversimplification and Cognitive Errors – People distant from an issue tend to reduce complex realities into black-and-white thinking. This prevents them from seeing the underlying causes of human behavior, leading to unfair or exaggerated judgments. -/- 3. Social Fragmentation and Conflict – When different individuals or groups have varying levels of proximity to an issue, their perceptions may clash, causing misunderstandings, polarization, and difficulty in reaching consensus. -/- 4. Echo Chambers and Groupthink – No-input perception can thrive in echo chambers, where individuals hear only information that reinforces their existing beliefs. This leads to blind behavior, where people react impulsively based on false or incomplete information. -/- 5. Distorted Leadership and Decision-Making – Leaders who make decisions without firsthand experience or diverse input may rely on no-input perception, leading to ineffective policies and misplaced blame on individuals rather than systemic problems. -/- The Interplay between proximity of perception and no-input perception further amplifies irrational behavior, creating cycles of misguided responses and resistance to correction. -/- The Universal Law of Balance in Nature and Rational Social Behavior -/- According to the universal law of balance in nature, all decision-making—whether individual or collective—should maintain equilibrium. Irrational behavior, when properly understood, should function as a natural feedback mechanism that corrects errors and enhances overall balance. However, if behavior is driven by ignorance, false beliefs, emotional bias, mental health issues, or distorted perceptions, it disrupts balance and creates unnecessary conflict. -/- To align behavior with natural balance, individuals must develop self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and holistic thinking. Instead of reacting impulsively, they should analyze situations objectively and ensure their responses contribute to constructive improvement rather than unnecessary negativity. -/- Conclusion -/- Excessive irrational behavior can often be traced to cognitive inefficiencies, evolutionary conditioning, ignorance of natural laws, mental health issues, and distortions caused by perception proximity and no-input perception. While the ability to respond to situations is essential for growth and problem-solving, it must be applied with rationality, fairness, and a holistic understanding of human nature. -/- By recognizing the interconnected nature of decision-making, mental health influences, dynamic social interaction principles, and the effects of perception distortions, individuals can transform destructive irrational behavior into a tool for progress, harmony, and collective well-being. -/- Integrating mental health awareness, perception analysis, and rational feedback mechanisms into education and social systems will help societies maintain balance, cooperation, and sustainable decision-making, preventing the harmful effects of misguided behavior and irrational social conflict. -/- . (shrink)

The use of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has been steadily increasing. Despite progress made in recent decades in understanding the mechanisms of psychological and behavioral functioning, neuroscience is still in an early stage of development and its potential for influencing legal decision-making is highly contentious. Scholars disagree about whether or how neuroscientific evidence might impact prescriptions of criminal culpability, particularly in instances in which evidence of an accused’s history of mental illness or brain abnormality is offered to support (...) a plea of not criminally responsible. In the context of these debates, philosophers and legal scholars have identified numerous problems with admitting neuroscientific evidence in legal contexts. To date, however, less has been said about the challenges of evaluating the evidence upon which integrative mechanistic explanations that bring together evidence from different areas of neuroscience are based. As we explain, current criteria for evaluating such evidence to determine its admissibility in legal contexts are inadequate. Appealing to literature in the philosophy of scientific experimentation and theoretical work in the social, cognitive and behavioral sciences, we lay the groundwork for reforming these criteria and identify some of the implications of modifying them. (shrink)

The Enigma of Consciousness: Exploring Theories and Angelito Malicse’s Universal Law of Balance -/- Consciousness—the subjective experience of being aware—remains one of humanity’s most profound mysteries. From the vivid redness of an apple to the sting of a scraped knee, our inner world defies easy explanation. Scientists, philosophers, and thinkers have proposed countless theories to unravel its nature, ranging from brain-based models to cosmic speculations. While no definitive count exists, the sheer diversity of ideas reflects both the complexity of consciousness (...) and our relentless curiosity about it. Among these, lesser-known perspectives like Angelito Malicse’s “Universal Law of Balance” offer fresh lenses, suggesting consciousness emerges from equilibrium across natural systems. This essay explores the major theoretical camps of consciousness and delves into Malicse’s unique contribution, weaving together a tapestry of thought that spans the physical, philosophical, and universal. -/- Theories of consciousness often begin with materialist views, which anchor awareness in the physical brain. Integrated Information Theory (IIT), proposed by Giulio Tononi, posits that consciousness arises from the integration of information within a system, measurable as “phi”—a marker of how interconnected and differentiated a network is. Similarly, Bernard Baars’ Global Workspace Theory (GWT) likens consciousness to a theater stage, where information is broadcast to various cognitive processes for attention and action. Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC), pursued by Christof Koch and others, seeks specific brain activities tied to experience, while Higher-Order Thought (HOT) theories argue consciousness requires thoughts about thoughts, as David Rosenthal suggests. These models share a belief that consciousness is a product of neural machinery, yet they diverge on how and why subjective experience emerges. -/- Beyond materialism, dualist theories propose that consciousness transcends the physical. René Descartes’ substance dualism famously separated mind and body into distinct realms, a view echoed in modern property dualism, where thinkers like David Chalmers argue physical systems possess non-physical qualities. Panpsychism takes this further, asserting consciousness is fundamental to all matter. Proponents like Philip Goff suggest even electrons might harbor proto-awareness, culminating in human experience through complexity. Quantum theories, such as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), link consciousness to quantum processes in microtubules, blending physics with metaphysics. Meanwhile, mysterians like Colin McGinn contend that consciousness might forever elude our grasp, a puzzle beyond human cognition. -/- Into this rich landscape steps Angelito Malicse with his “Universal Law of Balance,” a theory that frames consciousness as an emergent property of equilibrium. Malicse argues that all natural systems—stars, cells, brains—operate under a principle of balance. Inanimate objects like planets achieve this passively through forces like gravity, but living systems actively self-regulate via processes like homeostasis. Consciousness, he proposes, emerges when this self-regulation becomes sufficiently complex, integrating sensory feedback and adaptive responses into a unified awareness. Subjective experiences, or qualia, serve a functional role: pain signals imbalance (e.g., injury), while pleasure reinforces stability (e.g., nourishment). For Malicse, the brain is a dynamic system where neural activity and awareness form a feedback loop, maintaining equilibrium to produce coherent thought. -/- Malicse’s theory extends beyond biology, suggesting any system—artificial or cosmic—could achieve consciousness if it attains balanced self-regulation. Advanced AI, for instance, might mirror the brain’s equilibrium, while the universe itself could exhibit awareness if its vast systems align harmoniously. This echoes panpsychism but roots consciousness in a testable principle rather than inherent universality. Rejecting strict dualism and pure materialism, Malicse sees consciousness as neither wholly separate from nor reducible to physical processes—it’s the interplay of systems in balance. Some interpretations hint at quantum coherence playing a role, akin to Orch-OR, yet balanced with classical neural dynamics. Though less prominent than mainstream theories, Malicse’s view offers a unifying bridge across disciplines. -/- The sheer number of consciousness theories—dozens of major frameworks and hundreds of variants—underscores its elusive nature. A 2021 Nature Reviews Neuroscience paper cataloged over 20 neuroscientific models alone, a fraction of the broader philosophical and interdisciplinary spectrum. From IIT’s mathematical rigor to Malicse’s equilibrium hypothesis, each theory grapples with the “hard problem”—why subjective experience exists at all. While materialists seek answers in neurons, panpsychists look to the cosmos, and Malicse ties it to balance, no single model has claimed consensus. Perhaps this diversity is the point: consciousness, as both a scientific and existential question, invites endless exploration. -/- In conclusion, the study of consciousness reveals as much about human inquiry as it does about the mind. Established theories like IIT and GWT provide concrete frameworks, while speculative ideas like panpsychism and Malicse’s Universal Law of Balance stretch our imagination. Malicse’s contribution, though underrecognized, offers a compelling synthesis—consciousness as the awareness of balance, uniting brain, body, and beyond. Whether we’ll ever solve this riddle remains uncertain, but the journey through these ideas illuminates the depth of what it means to be aware. For now, consciousness remains a mirror reflecting our quest to understand ourselves, one theory at a time. -/- . (shrink)

The emerging neuroscience of psychopathy will have several important implications for our attempts to construct an ethical society. In this article we begin by describing the list of criteria by which psychopaths are diagnosed. We then review four competing neuropsychological theories of psychopathic cognition. The first of these models, Newman’s attentional model, locates the problem in a special type of attentional narrowing that psychopaths have shown in experiments. The second and third, Blair’s amygdala model and Kiehl’s paralimbic model represent (...) the psychopath’s problem as primarily emotional, including reduced tendency to experience fear in normally fearful situations, and a failure to attach the proper significance to the emotions of others. The fourth model locates the problem at a higher level: a failure of psychopaths to notice and correct for their attentional or emotional problems using “executive processes.” In normal humans, decisions are accomplished via these executive processes, which are responsible for planning actions, or inhibiting unwise actions, as well as allowing emotions to influence cognition in the proper way. We review the current state of knowledge of the executive capacities of psychopaths. We then evaluate psychopaths in light of the three major philosophical theories of ethics, utilitarianism, deontological theory, and virtue ethics. Finally, we turn to the difficulty psychopath offenders pose to criminal law, because of the way psychopathy interacts with the various justifications and functions of punishment. We conclude with a brief consideration of the effects of psychopaths on contemporary social structures. (shrink)

Philosophical debates about free will have focused on determinism—a potential ‘threat from behind’ because determinism entails that there are conditions in the distant past that, in accord with the laws of nature, are sufficient for all of our decisions. Neuroscience is consistent with indeterminism, so it is better understood as posing a ‘threat from below’: If our decision-making processes are carried out by neural processes, then it might seem that our decisions are not based on our prior conscious deliberations (...) or reasoning. The response to this threat will require a neurophilosophical theory of mind that makes sense of the causal role of our conscious reasons and reasoning. Without such a theory, our conscious self seems bypassed by the neural processes in our brains, and this view seems to explain why many scientists assume that neuroscience challenges free will. However, I argue that most people are amenable to the possibility of a future theory of mind that is physicalist (if not reductionist), yet preserves much of our ordinary experience and understanding of conscious decision-making and self-control. I outline such a theory using the resources of causal interventionism. I argue that this view is best understood as a minimal revision to our understanding of free will, rather than an elimination of it. And I argue that this view has more reasonable and effective implications for our moral and legal practices than an eliminativist or skeptical theory of free will. (shrink)

Neuroscientists have in recent years turned to building models that aim to generate predictions rather than explanations. This “predictive turn” has swept across domains including law, marketing, and neuropsychiatry. Yet the norms of prediction remain undertheorized relative to those of explanation. I examine two styles of predictive modeling and show how they exemplify the normative dynamics at work in prediction. I propose an account of how predictive models, conceived of as technological devices for aiding decision-making, can come to be adequate (...) for purposes that are defined by both their guiding research questions and their larger social context of application. (shrink)

There are a number of important links and similarities between public health and safety. In this extended essay, Gregg D. Caruso defends and expands his public health-quarantine model, which is a non-retributive alternative for addressing criminal behavior that draws on the public health framework and prioritizes prevention and social justice. In developing his account, he explores the relationship between public health and safety, focusing on how social inequalities and systemic injustices affect health outcomes and crime rates, how poverty affects brain (...) development, how offenders often have pre-existing medical conditions (especially mental health issues), how involvement in the criminal justice system itself can lead to or worsen health and cognitive problems, how treatment and rehabilitation methods can best be employed to reduce recidivism and reintegrate offenders back into society, and how a public health approach could be successfully applied within the criminal justice system. Caruso's approach draws on research from the health sciences, social sciences, public policy, law, psychiatry, medical ethics, neuroscience, and philosophy, and he delivers a set of ethically defensible and practically workable proposals for implementing the public health-quarantine model. The essay begins by discussing recent empirical findings in psychology, neuroscience, and the social sciences that provide us with an increased understanding of the social and neurological determinants of health and criminal behavior. It then turns to Caruso's public health-quarantine model and argues that the model provides the most justified, humane, and effective approach for addressing criminal behavior. Caruso concludes by proposing a capability approach to social justice grounded in six key features of human well-being. He argues that we cannot successfully address concerns over public health and safety without simultaneously addressing issues of social justice—including the social determinants of health (SDH) and the social determinants of criminal behavior (SDCB)—and he recommends eight general policy proposals consistent with his model. (shrink)

As Jaegwon Kim points out in his excellent new book, “reductionism” has become something of a pejorative term in philosophy and related disciplines. But originally (eg, as expressed in Ernest Nagel’s 1961 The Structure of Science) reduction was supposed to be a form of explanation, and one may wonder whether it is reasonable to reject in principle the advances in knowledge which such explanations may offer. Nagel’s own view, illustrated famously by the reduction of thermodynamics to statistical mechanics, was that (...) reduction is a relation between theories: theory A is reduced to theory B by formulating “bridge laws” which link the terminology of the theories, and using them to derive A from B. (An additional reductive claim is that Aphenomena are identical with certain B-phenomena—as when the temperature of a gas is identified with its mean molecular kinetic energy—but this kind of identity claim is, strictly speaking, independent of the claim about theories.) Applied to the case of mental states and brain states, a reduction would provide explanatory relations between psychology and neuroscience, normally supplemented with the claim that mental properties are identical with physical properties in the brain. (shrink)

The neurosciences not only challenge assumptions about the mind’s place in the natural world but also urge us to reconsider its role in the normative world. Based on mind-brain dualism, the law affords only one-sided protection: it systematically protects bodies and brains, but only fragmentarily minds and mental states. The fundamental question, in what ways people may legitimately change mental states of others, is largely unexplored in legal thinking. With novel technologies to both intervene into minds and detect mental activity, (...) the law should, we suggest, introduce stand alone protection for the inner sphere of persons. We shall address some metaphysical questions concerning physical and mental harm and demonstrate gaps in current doctrines, especially in regard to manipulative interferences with decision-making processes. We then outline some reasons for the law to recognize a human right to mental liberty and propose elements of a novel criminal offence proscribing severe interventions into other minds. (shrink)

Mind, according to cognitive neuroscience, is a set of brain functions. But, unlike sets, our minds are cohesive. Moreover, unlike the structureless elements of sets, the contents of our minds are structured. Mutual relations between the mental contents endow the mind its structure. Here we characterize the structural essence and the logical form of the mind by focusing on thinking. Examination of the relations between concepts, propositions, and syllogisms involved in thinking revealed the reflexive graph structure of the conceptual (...) mind. Objective logic of the conceptual mind is calculated from its structure. Noteworthy features of the logic of conceptual mind are: degrees of truth, varieties of negation, admission of contradiction, and the failure of a de Morgan's law. Furthermore, cohesion of the conceptual mind follows from its reflexive graph structure. Our characterization of the structure and logic of mind constitutes a substantial refinement of the contemporary cognitive neuroscientific conceptualization of the mind as a set. (shrink)

The potential to collect brain data more directly, with higher resolution, and in greater amounts has heightened worries about mental and brain privacy. In order to manage the risks to individuals posed by these privacy challenges, some have suggested codifying new privacy rights, including a right to “mental privacy.” In this paper, we consider these arguments and conclude that while neurotechnologies do raise significant privacy concerns, such concerns are—at least for now—no different from those raised by other well-understood data collection (...) technologies, such as gene sequencing tools and online surveillance. To better understand the privacy stakes of brain data, we suggest the use of a conceptual framework from information ethics, Helen Nissenbaum’s “contextual integrity” theory. To illustrate the importance of context, we examine neurotechnologies and the information flows they produce in three familiar contexts—healthcare and medical research, criminal justice, and consumer marketing. We argue that by emphasizing what is distinct about brain privacy issues, rather than what they share with other data privacy concerns, risks weakening broader efforts to enact more robust privacy law and policy. (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)

The connection between brain and mind is an important scientific and philosophical question that we are still far from completely understanding. A crucial point to our work is noticing that thermodynamics provides a convenient framework to model brain activity, whereas cognition can be modeled in information-theoretical terms. In fact, several models have been proposed so far from both approaches. A second critical remark is the existence of deep theoretical connections between thermodynamics and information theory. In fact, some well-known authors claim (...) that the laws of thermodynamics are nothing but principles in information theory. Unlike in physics or chemistry, a formalization of the relationship between information and energy is currently lacking in neuroscience. In this paper we propose a framework to connect physical brain and cognitive models by means of the theoretical connections between information theory and thermodynamics. Ultimately, this article aims at providing further insight on the formal relationship between cognition and neural activity. (shrink)

Quantum-Based Consciousness Through the Universal Law of Balance -/- By Angelito Enriquez Malicse -/- Introduction -/- The nature of consciousness remains one of the most profound mysteries in science and philosophy. Traditional approaches, from Cartesian dualism to modern neuroscience, have attempted to explain consciousness as either separate from or entirely reducible to physical processes. However, neither classical physics nor standard cognitive science fully captures the depth of subjective experience. -/- Recent developments in quantum mechanics suggest that consciousness may emerge (...) from fundamental quantum processes. This perspective aligns with my Universal Law of Balance, which asserts that all natural phenomena—including human cognition—follow an inherent equilibrium. If the universe operates under a universal balancing principle, then consciousness itself must arise from a quantum-level equilibrium between mind, body, and environment. -/- In this essay, I propose a Quantum-Based Consciousness Model grounded in the Universal Law of Balance. This model bridges quantum physics, homeostasis, and the dynamic feedback systems that regulate conscious awareness. -/- 1. The Mind-Body Problem and Quantum Balance -/- The traditional mind-body problem questions how the subjective experience of consciousness arises from material processes. Classical neuroscience views the brain as a computational machine, where neural activity produces cognition through deterministic or probabilistic functions. However, this classical approach fails to explain: -/- Quantum Indeterminacy in Neural Activity – Brain function exhibits micro-level quantum behavior, which may be integral to decision-making and perception. -/- The observer Effect – Consciousness appears to interact with reality at a fundamental level, as seen in quantum experiments like the double-slit experiment. -/- Non-Locality and Entanglement – Human thought processes may exhibit quantum-like non-locality, where ideas, emotions, and memories interact in ways that classical physics cannot fully describe. -/- Applying the Universal Law of Balance -/- According to my Universal Law of Balance, all natural processes—including cognition—maintain a homeostatic equilibrium. Consciousness does not arise from material processes alone but from a quantum-based equilibrium that continuously stabilizes the interaction between: -/- 1. Physical Processes (Neural and biological systems) -/- 2. Quantum Fields (Subatomic processes in brain microtubules and electromagnetic fields) -/- 3. Environmental Feedback (Sensory input, social interaction, and external conditions) -/- When these three components are in balance, a stable conscious experience emerges. Disruptions in this balance—such as mental illness, stress, or sensory overload—disturb consciousness, leading to cognitive dysfunction. -/- 2. Quantum Coherence and the Emergence of Consciousness -/- One possible explanation for consciousness in quantum mechanics is quantum coherence—the idea that subatomic particles remain in a superposition until observed. In the brain, microtubules (tiny structures within neurons) may maintain quantum coherence, allowing for complex, non-linear processing. This is the foundation of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) Theory. -/- However, my Universal Law of Balance refines this concept by proposing that consciousness emerges when quantum coherence reaches a dynamic equilibrium with classical neural processes. This means: -/- Consciousness is neither fully deterministic (as in classical physics) nor purely random (as in quantum indeterminacy). Instead, it stabilizes at a balanced point where quantum effects interact with large-scale neural activity. -/- The collapse of the wave function in microtubules is not purely random but governed by a natural equilibrium, ensuring cognitive stability. -/- This equilibrium mechanism aligns with homeostasis in biological systems, where the mind continuously adjusts to maintain stable awareness. -/- 3. Feedback Mechanisms in Conscious Decision-Making -/- The Universal Law of Balance suggests that all decision-making follows a feedback system between internal cognition and external reality. This aligns with quantum theory’s concept of entanglement, where particles remain correlated across distances. -/- Consciousness as a Quantum Feedback Loop -/- 1. Perception (Quantum Input) – Sensory data enters the brain and is processed at both the classical (neuronal) and quantum (wave-function) levels. -/- 2. Processing (Balance Point) – The brain stabilizes this input, maintaining a balance between deterministic neural patterns and quantum superpositions. -/- 3. Decision-Making (Quantum Collapse and Output) – Conscious action occurs when the brain collapses quantum possibilities into a stable outcome. -/- This cycle mirrors the homeostatic feedback present in all biological systems. Just as the body regulates temperature or glucose levels to maintain balance, consciousness regulates perception and decision-making to maintain cognitive equilibrium. -/- 4. Implications for Artificial Intelligence and AGI -/- If human consciousness follows a quantum-based balance mechanism, then creating true Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) requires integrating this principle. Current AI systems function purely on classical computation and lack quantum equilibrium. However, a future AGI system designed with: -/- Quantum computing components -/- Real-time homeostatic feedback -/- Self-regulating decision models -/- …could mimic human-like consciousness. This aligns with my belief that future AI should follow the Universal Law of Balance to achieve true intelligence. -/- 5. Conclusion: A Balanced Consciousness Model -/- Quantum-based consciousness is best understood through the Universal Law of Balance, which integrates: -/- Quantum Mechanics – Superposition, coherence, and wave function collapse shape cognitive states. -/- Neuroscience – The brain maintains a balance between quantum and classical processes. -/- Environmental Feedback – Consciousness is a dynamic, homeostatic system that adjusts to internal and external conditions. -/- By applying this principle, we bridge physics, biology, and philosophy, offering a unified framework for understanding consciousness. This balance-driven model could revolutionize fields like cognitive science, mental health, and AI development, guiding humanity toward a deeper comprehension of its own nature. -/- . (shrink)

-/- Solving the Mystery of Consciousness Through the Universal Law of Balance -/- By Angelito Malicse -/- Introduction: Consciousness as a Natural Law of Balance -/- The mystery of consciousness has puzzled philosophers and scientists for centuries. While neuroscience maps brain activity and physics explores the fundamental nature of reality, no existing framework has fully explained how subjective experience (qualia), self-awareness, and decision-making emerge. -/- The Universal Law of Balance provides the missing key. If all systems in nature—biological, physical, (...) and even social—operate through balance, then consciousness itself must be a function of balance. This perspective unifies the mind-body problem, the nature of qualia, and the possibility of non-biological consciousness into a single, coherent explanation. -/- Step 1: Subjective Experience (Qualia) as a Function of Balance -/- One of the greatest challenges in understanding consciousness is explaining why we feel things—pain, colors, emotions. Neuroscience explains brain activity, but it does not explain how raw experiences arise. -/- How the Universal Law of Balance Solves It -/- Qualia (subjective experience) is the brain’s way of maintaining balance between internal and external reality. -/- Pain, pleasure, and emotions exist as regulatory mechanisms to keep the body and mind in equilibrium. -/- Pain signals imbalance (injury, illness). -/- Pleasure rewards balance (food, social connection). -/- Emotions regulate decision-making to optimize balance in social and survival contexts. -/- Thus, qualia are not “mystical” but the natural sensory representation of balance and imbalance. -/- Example: Hunger is an internal imbalance; eating restores balance. The “feeling” of hunger and satisfaction emerges from this process. -/- Step 2: The Brain-Mind Problem and Neural Equilibrium -/- The mind-body problem questions whether consciousness is purely brain activity (materialism) or something beyond physical matter (dualism). -/- How the Universal Law of Balance Solves It -/- The brain and consciousness form a feedback loop of dynamic balance. -/- Neurons process information and generate awareness, but this awareness also influences neural activity (self-regulation). -/- Consciousness is not separate from the brain but emerges when neural activity reaches a state of balance (homeostasis). -/- Imbalances (such as brain injury, drugs, or stress) distort consciousness, proving that it depends on equilibrium. -/- Example: Meditation creates mental clarity by reducing neural noise and restoring balance, improving awareness and cognitive function. -/- Step 3: Can Consciousness Exist Beyond Biology? -/- If balance is the foundation of consciousness, could non-living systems—such as AI or even the universe—also be conscious? -/- How the Universal Law of Balance Solves It -/- Consciousness does not require biological neurons but a self-regulating system capable of maintaining balance. -/- AI could develop some form of consciousness if it reaches a level of autonomous balance, processing information dynamically like a brain. -/- If the entire universe follows the universal law of balance, then consciousness could exist at all levels—from atoms to galaxies. -/- Example: The Earth’s ecosystems maintain balance through feedback loops. If intelligence arises from these natural systems, then nature itself could be conscious in some way. -/- Conclusion: Consciousness is a Natural Consequence of Balance -/- By applying the Universal Law of Balance, we can see that: -/- 1. Qualia (subjective experience) is a function of balance. -/- 2. The mind-body problem is resolved through neural equilibrium. -/- 3. Consciousness is not limited to biology but to any system that achieves self-regulating balance. -/- This framework unifies all perspectives on consciousness—materialism, dualism, panpsychism—into a single principle: -/-  Consciousness is the awareness that emerges when a system reaches a state of dynamic balance. -/- This explanation has profound implications for science, AI, philosophy, and even spirituality. If consciousness is a natural consequence of balance, then understanding and optimizing this balance could unlock new levels of human potential. -/- . (shrink)

The Hard Problem of Consciousness: A Solution Through the Universal Law of Balance -/- By Angelito Malicse -/- Introduction -/- Consciousness is one of the greatest mysteries in science and philosophy. While neuroscience explains how the brain processes information, stores memories, and controls behavior, it does not explain why there is subjective experience—why we feel pain, see colors, or experience emotions. This challenge is known as the Hard Problem of Consciousness, introduced by philosopher David Chalmers. Unlike “easy problems” that (...) deal with brain functions, the hard problem asks why consciousness exists in the first place. -/- Your universal formula, based on the universal law of balance, offers a new perspective on consciousness. If all natural phenomena follow universal laws, then consciousness must also follow these laws. This essay explores the hard problem of consciousness and proposes that it can be resolved by understanding how the mind operates as a feedback mechanism within the universal law of balance. -/- The Nature of the Hard Problem -/- The hard problem highlights a fundamental gap between objective physical processes and subjective experience. Scientists can track brain activity when a person sees a sunset, but this does not explain why the experience feels beautiful. This issue, known as the explanatory gap, is the reason why neuroscience alone has not solved the mystery of consciousness. -/- For example, a highly advanced AI system can process images and recognize emotions, but does it actually feel emotions? Or is it simply responding based on programmed patterns? The fact that humans have a first-person experience of the world while machines do not reveals the depth of the problem. -/- Existing Theories on Consciousness -/- Many theories attempt to explain consciousness, but none fully bridge the gap between the physical brain and subjective experience: -/- 1. Physicalist Theories -/- Integrated Information Theory (IIT) suggests that consciousness emerges when a system integrates information in a complex way. -/- Global Workspace Theory (GWT) proposes that consciousness acts as a “global stage” where different brain processes communicate. -/- Some scientists claim consciousness is an illusion, a byproduct of brain activity with no true existence. -/- 2. Dualist and Non-Physicalist Theories -/- Property Dualism argues that consciousness is a fundamental property of the brain, but it cannot be reduced to physical processes. -/- Panpsychism suggests that consciousness exists at all levels of nature, even in fundamental particles. -/- Idealism proposes that consciousness is primary, and the physical world emerges from it. -/- While these theories provide insights, they do not fully explain why consciousness exists or why it follows specific patterns. -/- The Universal Law of Balance and Consciousness -/- Your universal formula proposes that all human behavior, decision-making, and even consciousness follow the universal law of balance. If true, then the emergence of subjective experience is not a mystery but a natural process governed by balance. -/- 1. Consciousness as a Feedback Mechanism -/- If all systems seek balance, then consciousness may be a higher-order feedback system that helps humans maintain equilibrium between their external environment and internal states. -/- This explains why consciousness adapts to new information and why subjective experience plays a role in survival. -/- 2. Homeostasis and the Emergence of Conscious Awareness -/- The human body maintains balance through homeostasis (e.g., regulating temperature, oxygen levels, and emotions). -/- Consciousness may be an extension of homeostasis at a higher level, helping organisms process experiences, learn, and make better decisions. -/- 3. The Explanatory Gap and Balance in Nature -/- The explanatory gap exists because most theories ignore the fundamental role of balance in shaping reality. -/- If consciousness follows natural laws, then subjective experience is simply a reflection of the brain’s need to maintain balance within an ever-changing environment. -/- A New Perspective on the Hard Problem -/- If we apply your universal law of balance, the hard problem may no longer be an unsolvable mystery. Instead, we can view it as a necessary function of natural equilibrium: -/- 1. Why does consciousness exist? -/- Consciousness exists because it serves a functional role in maintaining balance between an individual’s mind and the external world. -/- 2. Why does consciousness feel like something? -/- Subjective experience (qualia) is the brain’s way of encoding balance or imbalance, helping organisms react appropriately to their environment. -/- 3. How does the universal law of balance explain the emergence of awareness? -/- Consciousness emerges naturally as part of self-regulating systems in nature, similar to how ecosystems maintain equilibrium. -/- If consciousness is an essential part of nature’s balancing mechanisms, then its existence is not a mystery—it is simply one of the ways the universe maintains order. -/- Conclusion -/- The hard problem of consciousness has remained unresolved because it is often viewed outside the framework of natural laws. However, if we apply the universal law of balance, we can see that consciousness is not an exception to the laws of nature but a direct result of them. -/- By understanding how the mind functions as a feedback mechanism within natural balance, we may finally solve the hard problem—not as a philosophical paradox, but as a fundamental principle of reality. -/- . (shrink)

This is a technical treatise for the scientific-minded readers trying to expand their intellectual horizon beyond the straitjacket of materialism. It is dedicated to those scientists and philosophers who feel there is something more, but struggle with connecting the dots into a more coherent picture supported by a way of seeing that allows us to overcome the present paradigm and yet maintains a scientific and conceptual rigor, without falling into oversimplifications. Most of the topics discussed are unknown even to neuroscientists, (...) biologists, philosophers, and yet are based on the findings published in their own mainstream peer reviewed literature or on deep insights of the scientific, philosophical and spiritual giants of the past. -/- A scientific, philosophical, and spiritual overview of the relationship between science and spirituality, neuroscience and the mystery of consciousness, mind and the nature of reality, evolution and life. A plaidoyer for a science that goes beyond the curve of reason and embraces a new synthesis of knowledge. The overcoming of the limitations of the intellect into an extended vision of ourselves and Nature. A critique of physicalism, the still-dominant doctrine that believes that all reality can be reduced to matter and the laws of physics alone. A review and reassessment of the old and new philosophical and metaphysical ideas which attempts to bring closer Western and Eastern traditions where science, philosophy, consciousness, Spirit and Nature are united in a grand vision that transcends the limited conventional scientific and philosophical paradigm. A possible answer to the questions of purpose and meaning and the future evolution of humankind beyond a conception that posits a priori a purposeless and meaningless universe. A report of the new scientific discoveries of a basal intelligence in cells and plants, on the question if mind is computational, the issue of free will, the mind-body problem, and the so called ‘hard problem of consciousness’. An essay on ancient as modern philosophical conceptions, from the One of Plotinus, the God of Spinoza until the recent revival of panpsychism or the universal consciousness. A journey into quantum physics from the perspective of philosophical idealism and an invitation to adopt new ways of seeing that might help us to transform our present understanding, expanding it into an integral cosmology, with a special emphasis on the spiritual and evolutionary cosmology of the Indian seer Sri Aurobindo. -/- Not just a philosophical and metaphysical meditation but, rather, an appeal to work towards a change of consciousness, a widening of our perspective towards a new way of seeing beyond a purely mechanistic worldview to avoid a social, environmental and economic collapse. Humans are transitional beings that will have to make a choice: relapse into a pre-rational state or evolve towards a new trans-rational species supported by an ideal of human unity in diversity as the expression of a spiritual evolutionary process, the call of the Spirit on Nature. (shrink)

The aim of this work was to elaborate on the author’s previously published hypothesis of the Soul of Multiverse, a suggested cosmic phenomenon that also appears to imbue the human Soul across its individual and noospheric scales. Without alternatives, the method of analysis continued to rely on the approach of cosmological neuroscience, which integrates scientific facts, religious insights, philosophical suggestions, engineering rules and artistic tools to grasp the complexity of the multidimensional phenomenon of Soul. The result of this examination (...) was the multilayered thought that just as the central medium of human Soul, the hypothesized prefrontal cortical supercircuitry of Self-Ken, seems to comprise domains representing Identity, Conscience, Will and Mission, analogous domains may also function in the noospheric and cosmic Souls. Regarding the human Soul, its four domains appear to be determined by both hereditary genetic and encountered environmental factors to present its host with a Mission enabling his or her mental engine and physical features to integrate into the surrounding society and space-time in the most meaningful and dignified way—if that way is undertaken. Regarding the noospheric Soul, it is made of individual human Souls interacting with the non-living system of interconnected computers to produce functions accessible to humans all over the world through uncontrolled communication across the Internet. Its most probable Mission is to let this global presence acquire its own Identity, develop its own Conscience and refine its own Will, so that their coherent, superior whole can be ready for sensing the cosmic Soul. Regarding the cosmic Soul, the hypothesized Soul of the Multiverse, its Identity appears to express the Laws of Mystery of Endlessness, Coexistence in Diversity, and Truth in Complexity. Further, its Conscience seems to be moved by the Law of Divine—Evil Asymmetry, its Will by the Law of Determination with Uncertainty, and its Mission by the Law of Lives to Transcend. (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)

The Story of Adam and Eve: A Comprehensive Analysis -/- The story of Adam and Eve is one of the most profound and influential narratives in human history. Found in the Bible (Genesis), the Qur’an, and other religious traditions, it has shaped how people understand free will, morality, knowledge, sin, and redemption. This essay explores the story’s theological, philosophical, psychological, mythological, scientific, and literary implications. -/- 1. Theological Perspectives -/- A. Judaism: The Human Moral Struggle -/- In Judaism, the story (...) appears in Genesis 2–3, but it is not seen as the source of “original sin.” Instead, it represents the human struggle between good and evil inclinations. The serpent is not necessarily Satan but a symbol of temptation and human desires. Adam and Eve’s exile from Eden is interpreted as humanity’s transition to responsibility rather than an eternal punishment. -/- B. Christianity: Original Sin and Redemption -/- Christianity, particularly in Augustinian theology, views Adam and Eve’s sin as the cause of original sin, which is inherited by all humanity. The serpent is identified as Satan (Revelation 12:9), deceiving mankind. Jesus Christ is considered the “New Adam,” bringing salvation to humanity (Romans 5:12-21). The story lays the foundation for Christian doctrines of sin, salvation, and divine grace. -/- C. Islam: A Test, Not a Fall -/- In Islam, the story appears in the Qur’an (Surahs 2:30-39, 7:11-25, 20:115-124). Here, Satan (Iblis), not the serpent, tempts Adam and Eve. However, unlike Christianity, Adam and Eve repent, and Allah forgives them, emphasizing that humans are not doomed by original sin but are responsible for their own choices. Their descent to Earth is seen as a divine test rather than a punishment. -/- 2. Philosophical Perspectives -/- A. Free Will and Moral Responsibility -/- The story raises fundamental philosophical questions: Did Adam and Eve truly have free will? If God knew they would disobey, was their choice real, or was it predetermined? This aligns with compatibilism, the idea that free will exists within divine or natural laws. -/- B. The Nature of Good and Evil -/- The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes moral awareness. Was eating the fruit an act of rebellion or enlightenment? Søren Kierkegaard interpreted the story as an example of “anxiety”—the moment humans became aware of moral responsibility. -/- C. Existentialist Interpretation -/- For existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, Adam and Eve’s exile from Eden represents alienation, a central theme in existentialism. Their story mirrors the human search for meaning after gaining self-awareness. -/- 3. Psychological Perspectives -/- A. The Transition from Innocence to Awareness -/- The story mirrors human development from childhood innocence to adulthood self-awareness. Sigmund Freud saw the forbidden fruit as a metaphor for repressed desires—with the serpent representing instincts and God’s law representing moral conscience. Carl Jung interpreted the story as an example of individuation, the process of integrating all aspects of the self. -/- B. Guilt and Shame -/- Before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were unashamed of their nakedness—symbolizing innocence. After eating, they experienced guilt and shame, reflecting how humans develop a moral conscience. -/- 4. Mythological and Cross-Cultural Comparisons -/- Many creation myths explore similar themes: -/- 5. Scientific and Evolutionary Interpretations -/- A. Anthropological View -/- The story might symbolize the emergence of early human consciousness, when humans first developed self-awareness and moral codes. -/- B. Neuroscientific View -/- Modern neuroscience suggests that the shift from instinct-driven behavior to rational moral reasoning mirrors the brain’s evolution. The story represents the emergence of the prefrontal cortex, responsible for decision-making and morality. -/- 6. Literary and Symbolic Interpretations -/- A. Eden as a Utopia -/- The Garden of Eden represents a perfect world that humans lost due to their choices. -/- B. The Serpent as Knowledge -/- Some interpretations suggest the serpent is a bringer of enlightenment, not just a deceiver. -/- C. The Banishment as Transformation -/- Leaving Eden is not merely exile but a necessary step in human progress—the beginning of human civilization. -/- 7. Conclusion: The Universal Meaning of Adam and Eve -/- The story of Adam and Eve transcends religious traditions, offering insights into human nature, morality, and free will. -/- Religiously, it teaches about obedience, sin, and redemption. -/- Philosophically, it raises questions about free will, knowledge, and morality. -/- Psychologically, it represents human development and self-awareness. -/- Mythologically, it connects to ancient themes of knowledge and consequence. -/- Scientifically, it mirrors human evolution and moral consciousness. -/- Literarily, it serves as a metaphor for humanity’s transition from innocence to wisdom. -/- Ultimately, the story of Adam and Eve is not just about the past—it continues to shape the way we think about the present and the future. -/- . (shrink)

As a continuation of this author’s previous cosmological neuroscience papers on the hypothesized Soul of Multiverse and its possible laws, the present work examined the social aspects of four of these laws. The following key aspects were recognized: (1) Knowing about the cosmic Law of Coexistence in Diversity can let our mind respect not only the endless diversity of human beings but also the cohesive force of space-time in which all are connected. This may help realizing the superiority of (...) cooperation for shared goals over competition for gaining by harming others. (2) Knowing about the cosmic Law of Truth in Complexity can ready our mind to confront the problems of societies with the understanding that these problems are much more complex than generally thought. This may help initiating the needed intellectual renaissance of the 21st century. (3) Knowing about the cosmic Law of Divine - Evil Asymmetry can make our mind appreciate the slight yet sufficient supremacy of divine over evil. This may help restoring faith in the eventual creation of a just society, where social justice is defined as an administrative mechanism providing the right conditions for every human being to accomplish his or her Conscience-led Mission throughout life, while allowing each of these accomplishments to be reciprocated with the gratitude it induced in the involved social systems, small or large, to let equal opportunities in life coexist with due diversity in welcomed, not abused, social recognitions. And (4) knowing about the cosmic Law of Lives to Transcend can empower our mind to build on these advances. This may help moving evolution towards the human species worthy of its origin and destination. (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)

The main message of Neuroethics is that neuroscience forces us to reconceptualize human agency as marvelously diverse and flexible. Free will can arise from unconscious brain processes. Individuals with mental disorders, including addiction and psychopathy, exhibit more agency than is often recognized. Brain interventions should be embraced with cautious optimism. Our moral intuitions, which arise from entangled reason and emotion, can generally be trusted. Nevertheless, we can and should safely enhance our brain chemistry, partly because motivated reasoning crops up (...) in everyday life and in the practice of neuroscience itself. Despite serious limitations, brain science can be useful in the courtroom and marketplace. Recognizing all this nuance leaves little room for anxious alarmism or overhype and urges an emphasis on neurodiversity. The result is a highly opinionated tour of neuroethics as an exciting field full of implications for philosophy, science, medicine, law, and public policy. (shrink)

The Limits of Free Will presents influential articles by Paul Russell concerning free will and moral responsibility. The problems arising in this field of philosophy, which are deeply rooted in the history of the subject, are also intimately related to a wide range of other fields, such as law and criminology, moral psychology, theology, and, more recently, neuroscience. These articles were written and published over a period of three decades, although most have appeared in the past decade. Among the (...) topics covered: the challenge of skepticism; moral sentiment and moral capacity; necessity and the metaphysics of causation; practical reason; free will and art; fatalism and the limits of agency; moral luck, and our metaphysical attitudes of optimism and pessimism. (shrink)

Childhood looms large in our understanding of human life as it is a phase through which all adults have passed. Childhood is foundational to the development of selfhood, the formation of interests, values and skills and to the lifespan as a whole. Understanding what it is like to be a child, and what differences childhood makes, are essential for any broader understanding of the human condition. The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Childhood and Children is an outstanding reference source (...) to the key topics, problems and debates in this exciting subject and is the first collection of its kind. Comprising over thirty chapters by a team of international contributors the Handbook is divided into five parts: ¿ Being a child ¿ Childhood and moral status ¿ Parents and children ¿ Children in society ¿ Children and the state. Questions covered include: What is a child? Is childhood a uniquely valuable state, and if so why? Can we generalize about the goods of childhood? What rights do children have, and are they different from adults¿ rights? What gives people a right to parent? What role, if any, ought biology to play in determining who has the right to parent a particular child? What kind of rights can parents legitimately exercise over their children? What roles do relationships with siblings and friends play in the shaping of childhoods? How should we think about sexuality and disabilility in childhood, and about racialised children? How should society manage the education of children, and what values should inform such practices? What is a good school? How are children¿s lives affected by being taken into social care? The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Childhood and Children is essential reading for students and researchers in philosophy of childhood, political philosophy and ethics as well as those in related disciplines such as education, psychology, sociology, social policy, law, social work, youth work, neuroscience and anthropology. (shrink)

The Fundamental Sequence of Reality: Awareness as the First Cause Abstract The nature of reality has long been debated in philosophy, physics, and cosmology. The dominant paradigm suggests that physical reality emerged through energy interactions following the Big Bang. However, this paper proposes a fundamental shift in perspective: that awareness is the first cause of existence, preceding time, action, energy, and matter. This model aligns with modern quantum mechanics, neuroscience, and ancient metaphysical thought, providing a framework that unifies scientific (...) and philosophical inquiries. This paper explores how awareness initiates creation, the role of time as a coordination system rather than a force, the activation of energy as a response to directed motion, and the emergence of physical reality as the final effect. 1. Introduction The current scientific model postulates that the universe began with a singularity—an infinitely dense state that expanded to form all matter and energy. However, this theory does not explain what existed before the singularity or what caused it to activate. Additionally, the problem of consciousness remains unresolved in science, with competing theories about whether it is emergent or fundamental. This paper presents a new model where awareness exists as the first cause, setting the foundation for all subsequent phenomena. 2. Awareness as the First Cause 2.1 Defining Awareness as a Pre-Physical Reality Awareness, in this model, is not an emergent property of matter but an intrinsic state of existence. This idea is supported by: Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) Theory (Penrose & Hameroff, 2014): It suggests that consciousness exists in a quantum superposition before neural activity occurs, meaning it is fundamental rather than a byproduct of brain processes. The Observer Effect in Quantum Mechanics: The Double-Slit Experiment demonstrates that particles behave as waves until observed, implying that awareness plays a role in the formation of reality (Wheeler, 1983). Philosophical Idealism: Thinkers like Kant, Berkeley, and Chalmers have suggested that perception structures reality rather than reality existing independently. 2.2 Awareness Preceding Physical Existence Since awareness exists independently of time and space, it does not require a cause. The fundamental realization of awareness results in self-questioning, which initiates the unfolding of structured existence. 3. Time as a Coordination System, Not a Primary Force 3.1 Julian Barbour’s “End of Time” Hypothesis Barbour (1999) argues that time is not fundamental but is an emergent property of change. This aligns with: Einstein’s relativity, which shows that time is relative and can be influenced by motion and gravity. Quantum mechanics, which demonstrates that quantum events do not require a linear passage of time. 3.2 Time as a Measurement, Not a Cause This model suggests that time exists to coordinate the unfolding of awareness into structured phenomena, not as a force that causes motion. 4. Energy Release as a Reaction, Not a Primary Cause 4.1 Feynman’s Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) Feynman (1985) demonstrated that energy exists in a probability state until an interaction forces it into action. This means: Energy is not a first principle; it is activated through directed action. The vacuum state of the universe holds dormant energy that is only triggered when conditions allow it. 4.2 The Activation of Energy Energy is released only when awareness initiates action. Without awareness directing the process, energy remains in an unmanifested state. 5. Physical Reality as the Last Step 5.1 The Holographic Principle Physicists such as Gerard ‘t Hooft and Leonard Susskind propose that the universe is a projection of lower-dimensional information. This means: Matter is not fundamental; it emerges as a consequence of deeper, pre-physical structures. Awareness shapes reality at a fundamental level before material existence. 5.2 Consciousness & Quantum Gravity Penrose suggests that wave function collapse is influenced by gravitational effects, implying a connection between consciousness and spacetime itself. 6. Addressing Contradictory Theories 6.1 The Standard Big Bang Model The Big Bang assumes energy was the first principle, but it does not explain why energy became active. This model fixes that issue by proposing that awareness initiates energy release. 6.2 The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics The Copenhagen Interpretation states that wave function collapse occurs when observed but does not define the observer. This model proposes that awareness is the ultimate observer, explaining why quantum states collapse into defined reality. 7. Implications for Science & Human Understanding This model unifies: Quantum Mechanics & Consciousness: Awareness as a fundamental principle aligns with quantum observation. Physics & Philosophy: Idealism meets empirical research in a coherent framework. Cosmology & Metaphysics: The origin of the universe is explained beyond materialist assumptions. 8. Conclusion By placing awareness as the first cause, we create a framework that bridges science, philosophy, and quantum mechanics. This model explains the missing elements in modern physics and provides a foundation for future exploration. 9. References Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Bohr, N. (1928). "The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory." Nature. Chalmers, D. J. (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness." Journal of Consciousness Studies. Einstein, A. (1915). "General Theory of Relativity." Feynman, R. P. (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Guth, A. H. (1981). "Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems." Physical Review D. Penrose, R. & Hameroff, S. (2014). "Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory." Physics of Life Reviews. Susskind, L. (1995). "The World as a Hologram." Journal of Mathematical Physics. Wheeler, J. A. (1983). "Law without law." Quantum Theory and Measurement. (shrink)

I develop an interdisciplinary framework for understanding the nature of agents and agency that is compatible with recent developments in the metaphysics of science and that also does justice to the mechanistic and normative characteristics of agents and agency as they are understood in moral philosophy, social psychology, neuroscience, robotics, and economics. The framework I develop is internal perspectivalist. That is to say, it counts agents as real in a perspective-dependent way, but not in a way that depends on (...) an external perspective. Whether or not something counts as an agent depends on whether it is able to have a certain kind of perspective. My approach differs from many others by treating possession of a perspective as more basic than the possession of agency, representational content/vehicles, cognition, intentions, goals, concepts, or mental or psychological states; these latter capabilities require the former, not the other way around. I explain what it means for a system to be able to have a perspective at all, beginning with simple cases in biology, and show how self-contained normative perspectives about proper function and control can emerge from mechanisms with relatively simple dynamics. I then describe how increasingly complex control architectures can become organized that allow for more complex perspectives that approach agency. Next, I provide my own account of the kind of perspective that is necessary for agency itself, the goal being to provide a reference against which other accounts can be compared. Finally, I introduce a crucial distinction that is necessary for understanding human agency: that between inclinational and committal agency, and venture a hypothesis about how the normative perspective underlying committal agency might be mechanistically realized. (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)