Free Will

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

Source: Wikipedia

The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not — determinism versus indeterminism — and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not — compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, 'hard determinists' argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.

In Western philosophy

The basic philosophical positions on the problem of free will can be divided in accordance with the answers they provide to two questions:

  1. Is determinism true?
  2. Does free will exist?

Determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are causally necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature. Neither determinism nor its opposite, non-determinism, are positions in the debate about free will.[1]

Compatibilism is the view that the existence of a concept of free will and the assumption of determinism are compatible with each other; this is opposed to incompatibilism which is the view that there is no way to reconcile a belief in a deterministic universe with a belief in a concept of free will beyond that of a perceived existence.[2] Hard determinism is the version of incompatibilism that accepts the assumption of determinism and rejects the idea that humans have any free will.[3] Metaphysical libertarianism topically agrees with hard determinism only in rejecting compatibilism. Libertarians accept the existence of a concept of free will along with an assumption of indeterminism to some extent. Some of its proponents reject physical determinism and argue for some version of physical indeterminism that is compatible with freedom[4]; whereas others appeal to mind body dualism to argue a special case for sentient beings.

Moral responsibility

Society generally holds people responsible for their actions, and will say that they deserve praise or blame for what they do. However, many believe that moral responsibility requires free will. Thus, another important issue in the debate on free will is whether individuals are ever morally responsible for their actions—and, if so, in what sense.

Incompatibilists tend to think that determinism is at odds with moral responsibility. It seems impossible that one can hold someone responsible for an action that could be predicted from (potentially) the beginning of time. Hard determinists say "So much the worse for free will!" and discard the concept.[40] Clarence Darrow, the famous defense attorney, pleaded the innocence of his clients, Leopold and Loeb, by invoking such a notion of hard determinism.[41] During his summation, he declared:

What has this boy to do with it? He was not his own father; he was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay.[41]

Conversely, libertarians say "So much the worse for determinism!"[40] Daniel Dennett asks why anyone would care about whether someone had the property of responsibility and speculates that the idea of moral responsibility may be "a purely metaphysical hankering".[14] Jean-Paul Sartre argues that people sometimes avoid incrimination and responsibility by hiding behind determinism: "... we are always ready to take refuge in a belief in determinism if this freedom weighs upon us or if we need an excuse".[42] However, the position that classifying such people as "base" or "dishonest" makes no difference to whether or not their actions are determined is quite as tenable.

The issue of moral responsibility is at the heart of the dispute between hard determinists and compatibilists. Hard determinists are forced to accept that individuals often have "free will" in the compatibilist sense, but they deny that this sense of free will can ground moral responsibility. The fact that an agent's choices are unforced, hard determinists claim, does not change the fact that determinism robs the agent of responsibility.

Compatibilists argue, on the contrary, that determinism is a prerequisite for moral responsibility, and that society cannot hold someone responsible unless his actions were determined by something. This argument can be traced back to David Hume. If physical indeterminism is true, then those events that are not determined are scientifically described as probabilistic (either probable or improbable, for example random). It is therefore argued that it is doubtful that one can praise or blame someone for performing an action generated randomly by his nervous system (without there being any non physical agency responsible for the observed probabilistic outcome). Instead, it is argued that one needs to show how the action stemmed from the person's desires and preferences—the person's character— before one can hold the person morally responsible.[10] Libertarians may reply that undetermined actions, although scientifically probabilistic, are not philosophically random at all, and that they result from a substantive will whose decisions are undetermined. This argument may be considered unsatisfactory by compatibilists, as although it moves the problem from being a scientific question to a philosophical question, the question of what metaphysical agent is actually responsible still remains. Libertarians have responded by trying to clarify how undetermined will could be tied to robust agency.[43]

St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans addresses the question of moral responsibility as follows: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"[44] In this view, individuals can still be dishonoured for their acts even though those acts were ultimately completely determined by God.

A similar view has it that individual moral culpability lies in individual character. That is, a person with the character of a murderer has no choice other than to murder, but can still be punished because it is right to punish those of bad character. How one's character was determined is irrelevant from this perspective. Hence, Robert Cummins and others argue that people should not be judged for their individual actions, but rather for how those actions "reflect on their character". If character (however defined) is the dominant causal factor in determining one's choices, and one's choices are morally wrong, then one should be held accountable for those choices, regardless of genes and other such factors.[45][46]

One exception to the assumption that moral culpability lies in either individual character or freely willed acts is in cases where the insanity defense—or its corollary, diminished responsibility—can be used to argue that the guilty deed was not the product of a guilty mind.[47] In such cases, the legal systems of most Western societies assume that the person is in some way not at fault, because his actions were a consequence of abnormal brain function.

Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen, researchers in the emerging field of neuroethics, argue, on the basis of such cases, that our current notion of moral responsibility is founded on libertarian (and dualist) intuitions.[48] They argue that cognitive neuroscience research is undermining these intuitions by showing that the brain is responsible for our actions, not only in cases of florid psychosis, but even in less obvious situations. For example, damage to the frontal lobe reduces the ability to weigh uncertain risks and make prudent decisions, and therefore leads to an increased likelihood that someone will commit a violent crime.[49] This is true not only of patients with damage to the frontal lobe due to accident or stroke, but also of adolescents, who show reduced frontal lobe activity compared to adults,[50] and even of children who are chronically neglected or mistreated.[51] In each case, the guilty party can, they argue, be said to have less responsibility for his actions.[48] Greene and Cohen predict that, as such examples become more common and well known, jurors’ interpretations of free will and moral responsibility will move away from the intuitive libertarian notion which currently underpins them.

 

In Eastern philosophy

In Hindu philosophy

The six orthodox (astika) schools of thought in Hindu philosophy do not agree with each other entirely on the question of free will. For the Samkhya, for instance, matter is without any freedom, and soul lacks any ability to control the unfolding of matter. The only real freedom (kaivalya) consists in realizing the ultimate separateness of matter and self. For the Yoga school, only Ishvara is truly free, and its freedom is also distinct from all feelings, thoughts, actions, or wills, and is thus not at all a freedom of will. The metaphysics of the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools strongly suggest a belief in determinism, but do not seem to make explicit claims about determinism or free will.[90]

A quotation from Swami Vivekananda, a Vedantist, offers a good example of the worry about free will in the Hindu tradition.

Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here.[91]

However, the preceding quote has often been misinterpreted as Vivekananda implying that everything is predetermined. What Vivekananda actually meant by lack of free will was that the will was not "free" because it was heavily influenced by the law of cause and effect – "The will is not free, it is a phenomenon bound by cause and effect, but there is something behind the will which is free."[91] Vivekananda never said things were absolutely determined and placed emphasis on the power of conscious choice to alter one's past Karma: "It is the coward and the fool who says this is his fate. But it is the strong man who stands up and says I will make my own fate."[91]

Similarly, Vivekananda's teacher Ramakrishna Paramahansa, using an analogy said that man is like a cow tied to a pole with a rope - the karmic debts and human nature bind him and the amount of free will he has is analogous to the amount of freedom the rope allows; as one progresses spiritually , the rope becomes longer.

Mimamsa, Vedanta, and the more theistic versions of Hinduism such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, have often emphasized the importance of free will. The doctrine of Karma in Hinduism requires both that we pay for our actions in the past, and that our actions in the present be free enough to allow us to deserve the future reward or punishment that we will receive for our present actions.

In Buddhist philosophy

Buddhism accepts both freedom and determinism (or something similar to it), but rejects the idea of an agent, and thus the idea that freedom is a free will belonging to an agent.[92] According to The Buddha, "There is free action, there is retribution, but I see no agent that passes out from one set of momentary elements into another one, except the [connection] of those elements."[92] Buddhists believe in neither absolute free will, nor determinism. It preaches a middle doctrine, named pratitya-samutpada in Sanskrit, which is often translated as "inter-dependent arising". It is part of the theory of karma in Buddhism. The concept of karma in Buddhism is different from the notion of karma in Hinduism. In Buddhism, the idea of karma is much less deterministic. The Buddhist notion of karma is primarily focused on the cause and effect of moral actions in this life, while in Hinduism the concept of karma is more often connected with determining one's destiny in future lives.

In Buddhism it is taught that the idea of absolute freedom of choice (i.e. that any human being could be completely free to make any choice) is foolish, because it denies the reality of one's physical needs and circumstances. Equally incorrect is the idea that we have no choice in life or that our lives are pre-determined. To deny freedom would be to undermine the efforts of Buddhists to make moral progress (through our capacity to freely choose compassionate action). Pubbekatahetuvada, the belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous actions, is considered a wrong view according to Buddhist doctrines. Because Buddhists also reject agenthood, the traditional compatibilist strategies are closed to them as well. Instead, the Buddhist philosophical strategy is to examine the metaphysics of causality. Ancient India had many heated arguments about the nature of causality with Jains, Nyayists, Samkhyists, Cārvākans, and Buddhists all taking slightly different lines. In many ways, the Buddhist position is closer to a theory of "conditionality" than a theory of "causality", especially as it is expounded by Nagarjuna in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.[92]

In Kashmir Shaivism

The concept of free will plays a central role in Kashmir Shaivism. Known under the technical name of svātantrya it is the cause of the creation of the universe - a primordial force that stirs up the absolute and manifests the world inside the supreme consciousness of Śiva.

Svātantrya is the sole property of God, all the rest of conscious subjects being co-participant in various degrees to the divine sovereignty. Humans have a limited degree of free will based on their level of consciousness. Ultimately, Kashmir Shaivism as a monistic idealist philosophical system views all subjects to be identical - "all are one" - and that one is Śiva, the supreme consciousness. Thus, all subjects have free will but they can be ignorant of this power. Ignorance too is a force projected by svātantrya itself upon the creation and can only be removed by svātantrya.

A function of svātantrya is that of granting divine grace - śaktipāt. In this philosophical system spiritual liberation is not accessible by mere effort, but dependent only on the will of God. Thus, the disciple can only surrender himself and wait for the divine grace to come down and eliminate the limitations that imprison his consciousness.

Causality in Kashmir Shaivism is considered to be created by Svātantrya along with the universe. Thus there can be no contradiction, limitation or rule to force Śiva to act one way or the other. Svātantrya always exists beyond the limiting shield of cosmic illusion, māyā.

In other theology

The theological doctrine of divine foreknowledge is often alleged to be in conflict with free will, particularly in Reformed circles. For if God knows exactly what will happen, right down to every choice one makes, the status of choices as free is called into question. If God had timelessly true knowledge about one's choices, this would seem to constrain one's freedom.[93] This problem is related to the Aristotelian problem of the sea battle: tomorrow there will or will not be a sea battle. If there will be one, then it seems that it was true yesterday that there would be one. Then it would be necessary that the sea battle will occur. If there won't be one, then by similar reasoning, it is necessary that it won't occur.[94] This means that the future, whatever it is, is completely fixed by past truths—true propositions about the future.

However, some philosophers follow William of Ockham in holding that necessity and possibility are defined with respect to a given point in time and a given matrix of empirical circumstances, and so something that is merely possible from the perspective of one observer may be necessary from the perspective of an omniscient.[95] Some philosophers follow Philo of Alexandria in holding that free will is a feature of a human's soul, and thus that non-human animals lack free will.[96]

Jewish philosophy stresses that free will is a product of the intrinsic human soul, using the word neshama (from the Hebrew root n.sh.m. or .נ.ש.מ meaning "breath"), but the ability to make a free choice is through Yechida (from Hebrew word "yachid", יחיד, singular), the part of the soul which is united with God, the only being that is not hindered by or dependent on cause and effect (thus, freedom of will does not belong to the realm of the physical reality, and inability of natural philosophy to account for it is expected). In Islam the theological issue is not usually how to reconcile free will with God's foreknowledge, but with God's jabr, or divine commanding power. al-Ash'ari developed an "acquisition" or "dual-agency" form of compatibilism, in which human free will and divine jabr were both asserted, and which became a cornerstone of the dominant Ash'ari position.[97] In Shia Islam, Ash'aris understanding of a higher balance toward predestination is challenged by most theologists[98] . Free will, according to Islamic doctrine is the main factor for man's accountability in his/her actions throughout life. All actions taken by man's free will are said to be counted on the Day of Judgement because they are his/her own and not God's.

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard claimed that divine omnipotence cannot be separated from divine goodness.[99] As a truly omnipotent and good being, God could create beings with true freedom over God. Furthermore, God would voluntarily do so because "the greatest good ... which can be done for a being, greater than anything else that one can do for it, is to be truly free."[100] Alvin Plantinga's "free will defense" is a contemporary expansion of this theme, adding how God, free will, and evil are consistent.[101].

 

Notes:

  1. McKenna, Michael, "Compatibilism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),((online))
  2. Ginet, C. 1983. "In Defense of Incompatibilism" in Philosophical Studies 44, pp. 391–400
  3. Koons, J.R. "Is Hard Determinism a Form of Compatibilism?" in The Philosophical Forum. 33:1
  4. Strawson, G. (1998, 2004). "Free will". In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved August 17, 2006, ((online))
  5. Vihvelin, Kadri, "Arguments for Incompatibilism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),((online))
  6. Suppes, P., 1993, “The Transcendental Character of Determinism,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 18: 242–257.
  7. Fischer, John Martin (1989) God, Foreknowledge and Freedom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 1-55786-857-3
  8. Watt, Montgomery (1948) Free-Will and Predestination in Early Islam. London:Luzac & Co.
  9. Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan (1968 edition). London:Penguin Books
  10. Hume, D. (1740). A Treatise of Human Nature (1967 edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-87220-230-5
  11. See Bricklin, Jonathan, "A Variety of Religious Experience: William James and the Non-Reality of Free Will", in Libet (1999), The Volitional Brain: Toward a Neuroscience of Free Will (Thorverton UK: Imprint Academic).
  12. James, W. (1907) Pragmatism (1979 edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  13. Frankfurt, H. (1971) Freedom of the Will and the Concept of the Person in "Journal of Philosophy"
  14. Dennett, D., (1984) Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Bradford Books. ISBN 0-262-54042-8
  15. Watson, D. 1982. Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Fischer, John Martin, and Mark Ravizza. 1998. Responsibility and Control: An Essay on Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Dennett, D. (2003) Freedom Evolves. Viking Books. ISBN 0-670-03186-0
  18. Kane, R. The Oxford Handbook to Free Will. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513336-6.
  19. van Invagen, P. (1983) An Essay on Free Will. Oxford:Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-824924-1
  20. Pereboom, D. (2003) Living without Free Will. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Fischer, J.M. (1983) "Incompatibilism" in Philosophical Studies. 43:121-37
  22. Kane, R. (1996) The Significance of Free Will, Oxford:Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512656-4
  23. Campbell, C.A. (1957) On Selfhood and Godhood, London: George Allen and Unwin. ISBN 0-415-29624-2
  24. Sartre, J.P. (1943) Being and Nothingness, reprint 1993. New York:Washington Square Press. Sartre also provides a psychological version of the argument by claiming that if man's actions are not his own, he would be in bad faith.
  25. Fischer, R.M. (1994) The Metaphysics of Free Will, Oxford:Blackwell
  26. Bok, H. (1998) Freedom and Responsibility, Princeton:Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01566-X
  27. Ginet, C. (1966) "Might We Have No Choice?" In Lehrer, 1966: 87–104.
  28. Van Inwagen, P. and Zimmerman, D. (1998) Metaphysics: The Big Questions. Oxford:Blackwell
  29. Inwagen, P. (n.d.) "How to think about free will", p. 15.
  30. Lewis, D. "Are We Free to Break the Laws?" in Theoria, 47:113–21
  31. "Naturalistic, Libertarian Free Will". Peter Ells. http://cms.brookes.ac.uk/staff/PeterElls/FreeWill/NaturalisticFreeWill.rtf. [dead link]
  32. Lewis, C.S (1947). Miracles. 
  33. Locke, J. (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1998, ed). Book II, Chap. XXI, Sec. 17. Penguin Classics, Toronto.
  34. Hume, D. (1765)An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Indianaplolis: Hacket Publishing Co. Second edition. 1993. ISBN 0-87220-230-5
  35. Schopenhauer, Arthur, The Wisdom of Life, p 147
  36. Schopenhauer, Arthur, On the Freedom of the Will, Oxford: Basil Blackwell ISBN 0-631-14552-4
  37. Rudolf Steiner. "Arthur Schopenhauers sämtliche Werke in zwölf Bänden. Mit Einleitung von Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Stuttgart: Verlag der J.G. Cotta'schen Buchhandlung Nachfolger, o.J. [1894-96"]. http://www.pitt.edu/~kafka/k_s_bibII.html. 
  38. Steiner, R. (1964). Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1964, 1970, 1972, 1979, 230 pp., translated from the 12th German edition of 1962 by Michael Wilson. ((online))
  39. Honderich, T. "Determinism as True, Compatibilism and Incompatibilism as Both False and the Real Problem" in The Free Will Handbook , edited by Robert Kane of the University of Texas, published by Oxford University Press in 2001.
  40. Benditt, Theodore (1998) Philosophy Then and Now with eds. Arnold and Graham. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. ISBN 1-55786-742-9
  41. Darrow, Clarence, 1924, “The Plea of Clarence Darrow, in Defense of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, Jr., On Trial for Murder” page reference is to the reprint in Philosophical Explorations: Freedom, God, and Goodness, S. Cahn (ed.), New York: Prometheus Books, 1989.
  42. Sartre, J.P. (1943) Being and Nothingness, reprint 1993. New York:Washington Square Press.
  43. O'Connor, Timothy ed. Agents, Causes, & Event: Essays on Indeterminism and Free Will, 1995 Oxford University Press.
  44. St. Paul, "Epistle to the Romans", 9:21, King James Bible Tennessee:The Gideons International
  45. Vuoso, G. (1987) "Background Responsibility and Excuse," Yale Law Journal, 96, pp. 1680–81
  46. Cummins, R. "Culpability" and Mental Disorder", p. 244
  47. Goldstein, A. M., Morse, S. J. & Shapiro, D. L. 2003 "Evaluation of criminal responsibility". In Forensic psychology. vol. 11 (ed. A. M. Goldstein), pp. 381–406. New York: Wiley.
  48. Greene, J. Cohen, J. (2004). "For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 1775–1785.
  49. Brower M.C. and Price B.H. (2001). "Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction in violent and criminal behaviour: a critical review". Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 71: 720–726.
  50. Steinberg, L., Scott, E. S. (2003). "Less guilty by reason of adolescence: developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty". American Psychologist 58, 1009–1018.
  51. Teicher, M. H., Anderson, S. L., Polcari, A., Anderson, C. M., Navalta, C. P., and Kim, D. M. (2003). "The neurobiological consequences of early stress and childhood maltreatment". Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 27: 33–44.
  52. for example in the thought of Democritus or the Cārvākans
  53. Boniolo, G. and Vidali, P. (1999) Filosofia della Scienza, Milan: Mondadori. ISBN 88-424-9359-7
  54. Hoefer, Carl (2008-04-01). "Causal Determinism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/. Retrieved on 2008-11-01. 
  55. Vedral, Vlatko (2006-11-18). "Is the Universe Deterministic?". New Scientist 192 (2578). "Physics is simply unable to resolve the question of free will, although, if anything, it probably leans towards determinism.". 
  56. Honderich, E. Determinism as True, Compatibilism and Incompatibilism as Both False, and the Real Problem
  57. Loewer, Barry (1996). "Freedom from Physics: Quantum Mechanics and Free Will". Philosophical Topics 24: 91-112. 
  58. Infidels. "Metaphysical Freedom"
  59. Kane, Robert. 1996. The Significance of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512656-4
  60. Pinel, P.J. (1990) Biopsychology. Prentice Hall Inc. ISBN 88-15-07174-1
  61. DeFries, J. C., McGuffin, P., McClearn, G. E., Plomin, R. (2000) Behavioral Genetics 4th ED. W H Freeman & Co.
  62. Morris, D. (1967) The Naked Ape. New York:McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-385-33430-3
  63. Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford:Oxford University Press. ISBN 88-04-39318-1
  64. Pinker, S.(2002) The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London:Penguin. p.179 ISBN 0-14-200334-4
  65. Lewontin, R. (2000)It Ain't Necessarily So:The Dream of the Human Genome and other Illusions. New York:NYREV Inc. ISBN 88-420-6418-1
  66. Libet, B., Gleason, C.A., Wright, E.W., Pearl, D.K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain. 106 (3):623–642. PMID 6640273
  67. Libet, B. (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8: 529–566.
  68. Dennett, D. (1991) Consciousness Explained. The Penguin Press. ISBN 0-7139-9037-6 (UK Hardcover edition, 1992) ISBN 0-316-18066-1 (paperback)
  69. Dennett, Daniel C and Marcel, Kinsbourne (1992)Time and the Observer. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15(2), 183–247.
  70. Haggard, P. and Eimer, M. (1999). On the relation between brain potentials and the awareness of voluntary movements. Experimental Brain Research 126, 128–133. PMID 10333013
  71. Trevena, J.A. and Miller, J. (2002). Cortical movement preparation before and after a conscious decision to move. Consciousness and Cognition 11, 162–190. PMID 12191935
  72. Haggard, P. (2005). Conscious intention and motor cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 6 : 290–295. PMID 15925808
  73. Banks, W. P. and Pockett, S. (2007) Benjamin Libet's work on the neuroscience of free will. In M. Velmans and S. Schneider (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness. Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-6000-1 (paperback)
  74. Ammon, K. and Gandevia, S.C. (1990) Transcranial magnetic stimulation can influence the selection of motor programmes. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 53: 705–707. PMID 2213050
  75. Brasil-Neto, J.P., Pascual-Leone, A., Valls-Solé, J., Cohen, L.G. and Hallett, M. (1992) Focal transcranial magnetic stimulation and response bias in a forced-choice task. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 55: 964–966. PMID 1431962
  76. Libet, (2003). "Can Conscious Experience affect brain Activity?", Journal of Consciousness Studies 10, nr. 12, pp 24–28.
  77. Velmans, M. (2003) "Preconscious free will", Journal of Consciousness Studies 10, nr. 12, pp 42–61.
  78. Tourette Syndrome Association. Definitions and Classification of Tic Disorders. Accessed 19 Aug 2006.
  79. Zinner S.H. (2000) Tourette disorder. Pediatric Review, 21(11):372. PMID 11077021
  80. Doody RS, Jankovic J. (1992). The alien hand and related signs. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 55:806–810. PMID 1402972
  81. ^ Scepkowski, L.A., & Cronin-Golomb, A. (2003). The alien hand: cases, categorizations, and anatomical correlates. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 2(4):261–277. PMID 15006289
  82. ^ Bundick, T., Spinella, M. (2000). Subjective experience, involuntary movement, and posterior alien hand syndrome. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 68:83–85 PMID 10601408
  83. ^ Schneider, K. (1959). Clinical Psychopathology. New York: Grune and Stratton.
  84. ^ Frith CD, Blakemore S, Wolpert DM. (2000). Explaining the symptoms of schizophrenia: abnormalities in the awareness of action. Brain Brain Research Reviews. 2000 Mar;31(2-3):357-63. PMID 10719163
  85. ^ a b c d Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). "Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms." Psychological Review, 2003 Jan;110(1):3–28. PMID 12529056
  86. ^ a b c Epstein J.M. and Axtell R. (1996) Growing Artificial Societies - Social Science from the Bottom. Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
  87. ^ Wolfram, Stephen, A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media, Inc., May 14, 2002. ISBN 1-57955-008-8
  88. ^ a b Wegner, D.M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  89. Wegner, D.M. & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist, 54, 480-491.
  90. Koller, J. (2007) Asian Philosophies. 5th ed. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-092385-0
  91.  Swami Vivekananda (1907) "Freedom" from The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. vol. 1.
  92. Gier, Nicholas and Kjellberg, Paul. "Buddhism and the Freedom of the Will: Pali and Mahayanist Responses" in Freedom and Determinism. Campbell, Joseph Keim; O'Rourke, Michael; and Shier, David. 2004. MIT Press
  93. Alston, William P. 1985. "Divine Foreknowledge and Alternative Conceptions of Human Freedom." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 18:1, 19–32.
  94. Aristotle. "De Interpretatione" in The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1984.
  95. Ockham, William. Predestination, God's Knowledge, and Future Contingents, early 14th century, trans. Marilyn McCord Adams and Norman Kretzmann 1982, Hackett, esp p. 46–7
  96. H. A. Wolfson, Philo, 1947 Harvard University Press; Religious Philosophy, 1961 Harvard University Press; and "St. Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy" in Religious Philosophy
  97. Watt, Montgomery. Free-Will and Predestination in Early Islam. Luzac & Co.: London 1948; Wolfson, Harry. The Philosophy of Kalam, Harvard University Press 1976 and [1][dead link]
  98. Man and His Destiny
  99. Jackson, Timothy P. (1998) "Arminian edification: Kierkegaard on grace and free will" in Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
  100. Kierkegaard, Søren. (1848) Journals and Papers, vol. III. Reprinted in Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1967–78.
  101. Mackie, J.L. (1955) "Evil and Omnipotence," Mind, new series, vol. 64, pp. 200–212.
  102. Life is unpreditable get used to it article in New Scientist.