Citation for this page in APA citation style.           Close


Philosophers

Mortimer Adler
Rogers Albritton
Alexander of Aphrodisias
Samuel Alexander
William Alston
Anaximander
G.E.M.Anscombe
Anselm
Louise Antony
Thomas Aquinas
Aristotle
David Armstrong
Harald Atmanspacher
Robert Audi
Augustine
J.L.Austin
A.J.Ayer
Alexander Bain
Mark Balaguer
Jeffrey Barrett
William Belsham
Henri Bergson
George Berkeley
Isaiah Berlin
Richard J. Bernstein
Bernard Berofsky
Robert Bishop
Max Black
Susanne Bobzien
Emil du Bois-Reymond
Hilary Bok
Laurence BonJour
George Boole
Émile Boutroux
F.H.Bradley
C.D.Broad
Michael Burke
Lawrence Cahoone
C.A.Campbell
Joseph Keim Campbell
Rudolf Carnap
Carneades
Ernst Cassirer
David Chalmers
Roderick Chisholm
Chrysippus
Cicero
Randolph Clarke
Samuel Clarke
Anthony Collins
Antonella Corradini
Diodorus Cronus
Jonathan Dancy
Donald Davidson
Mario De Caro
Democritus
Daniel Dennett
Jacques Derrida
René Descartes
Richard Double
Fred Dretske
John Dupré
John Earman
Laura Waddell Ekstrom
Epictetus
Epicurus
Herbert Feigl
Arthur Fine
John Martin Fischer
Owen Flanagan
Luciano Floridi
Philippa Foot
Alfred Fouilleé
Harry Frankfurt
Richard L. Franklin
Michael Frede
Gottlob Frege
Peter Geach
Edmund Gettier
Carl Ginet
Alvin Goldman
Gorgias
Nicholas St. John Green
H.Paul Grice
Ian Hacking
Ishtiyaque Haji
Stuart Hampshire
W.F.R.Hardie
Sam Harris
William Hasker
R.M.Hare
Georg W.F. Hegel
Martin Heidegger
Heraclitus
R.E.Hobart
Thomas Hobbes
David Hodgson
Shadsworth Hodgson
Baron d'Holbach
Ted Honderich
Pamela Huby
David Hume
Ferenc Huoranszki
William James
Lord Kames
Robert Kane
Immanuel Kant
Tomis Kapitan
Jaegwon Kim
William King
Hilary Kornblith
Christine Korsgaard
Saul Kripke
Andrea Lavazza
Christoph Lehner
Keith Lehrer
Gottfried Leibniz
Jules Lequyer
Leucippus
Michael Levin
George Henry Lewes
C.I.Lewis
David Lewis
Peter Lipton
C. Lloyd Morgan
John Locke
Michael Lockwood
E. Jonathan Lowe
John R. Lucas
Lucretius
Alasdair MacIntyre
Ruth Barcan Marcus
James Martineau
Storrs McCall
Hugh McCann
Colin McGinn
Michael McKenna
Brian McLaughlin
John McTaggart
Paul E. Meehl
Uwe Meixner
Alfred Mele
Trenton Merricks
John Stuart Mill
Dickinson Miller
G.E.Moore
Thomas Nagel
Otto Neurath
Friedrich Nietzsche
John Norton
P.H.Nowell-Smith
Robert Nozick
William of Ockham
Timothy O'Connor
Parmenides
David F. Pears
Charles Sanders Peirce
Derk Pereboom
Steven Pinker
Plato
Karl Popper
Porphyry
Huw Price
H.A.Prichard
Protagoras
Hilary Putnam
Willard van Orman Quine
Frank Ramsey
Ayn Rand
Michael Rea
Thomas Reid
Charles Renouvier
Nicholas Rescher
C.W.Rietdijk
Richard Rorty
Josiah Royce
Bertrand Russell
Paul Russell
Gilbert Ryle
Jean-Paul Sartre
Kenneth Sayre
T.M.Scanlon
Moritz Schlick
Arthur Schopenhauer
John Searle
Wilfrid Sellars
Alan Sidelle
Ted Sider
Henry Sidgwick
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
J.J.C.Smart
Saul Smilansky
Michael Smith
Baruch Spinoza
L. Susan Stebbing
Isabelle Stengers
George F. Stout
Galen Strawson
Peter Strawson
Eleonore Stump
Francisco Suárez
Richard Taylor
Kevin Timpe
Mark Twain
Peter Unger
Peter van Inwagen
Manuel Vargas
John Venn
Kadri Vihvelin
Voltaire
G.H. von Wright
David Foster Wallace
R. Jay Wallace
W.G.Ward
Ted Warfield
Roy Weatherford
C.F. von Weizsäcker
William Whewell
Alfred North Whitehead
David Widerker
David Wiggins
Bernard Williams
Timothy Williamson
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Susan Wolf

Scientists

Michael Arbib
Walter Baade
Bernard Baars
Leslie Ballentine
Gregory Bateson
John S. Bell
Mara Beller
Charles Bennett
Ludwig von Bertalanffy
Susan Blackmore
Margaret Boden
David Bohm
Niels Bohr
Ludwig Boltzmann
Emile Borel
Max Born
Satyendra Nath Bose
Walther Bothe
Hans Briegel
Leon Brillouin
Stephen Brush
Henry Thomas Buckle
S. H. Burbury
Donald Campbell
Anthony Cashmore
Eric Chaisson
Jean-Pierre Changeux
Arthur Holly Compton
John Conway
John Cramer
E. P. Culverwell
Olivier Darrigol
Charles Darwin
Richard Dawkins
Terrence Deacon
Lüder Deecke
Richard Dedekind
Louis de Broglie
Max Delbrück
Abraham de Moivre
Paul Dirac
Hans Driesch
John Eccles
Arthur Stanley Eddington
Gerald Edelman
Paul Ehrenfest
Albert Einstein
Hugh Everett, III
Franz Exner
Richard Feynman
R. A. Fisher
Joseph Fourier
Philipp Frank
Lila Gatlin
Michael Gazzaniga
GianCarlo Ghirardi
J. Willard Gibbs
Nicolas Gisin
Paul Glimcher
Thomas Gold
A. O. Gomes
Brian Goodwin
Joshua Greene
Jacques Hadamard
Mark Hadley
Patrick Haggard
Stuart Hameroff
Augustin Hamon
Sam Harris
Hyman Hartman
John-Dylan Haynes
Donald Hebb
Martin Heisenberg
Werner Heisenberg
John Herschel
Art Hobson
Jesper Hoffmeyer
E. T. Jaynes
William Stanley Jevons
Roman Jakobson
Pascual Jordan
Ruth E. Kastner
Stuart Kauffman
Martin J. Klein
William R. Klemm
Simon Kochen
Hans Kornhuber
Stephen Kosslyn
Ladislav Kovàč
Leopold Kronecker
Rolf Landauer
Alfred Landé
Pierre-Simon Laplace
David Layzer
Benjamin Libet
Seth Lloyd
Hendrik Lorentz
Josef Loschmidt
Ernst Mach
Donald MacKay
Henry Margenau
James Clerk Maxwell
Ernst Mayr
John McCarthy
Ulrich Mohrhoff
Jacques Monod
Emmy Noether
Abraham Pais
Howard Pattee
Wolfgang Pauli
Massimo Pauri
Roger Penrose
Steven Pinker
Colin Pittendrigh
Max Planck
Susan Pockett
Henri Poincaré
Daniel Pollen
Ilya Prigogine
Hans Primas
Adolphe Quételet
Jürgen Renn/a>
Juan Roederer
Jerome Rothstein
David Ruelle
Tilman Sauer
Erwin Schrödinger
Aaron Schurger
Claude Shannon
David Shiang
Herbert Simon
Dean Keith Simonton
B. F. Skinner
Lee Smolin
Roger Sperry
John Stachel
Henry Stapp
Tom Stonier
Antoine Suarez
Leo Szilard
Max Tegmark
William Thomson (Kelvin)
Giulio Tononi
Peter Tse
Vlatko Vedral
Heinz von Foerster
John von Neumann
John B. Watson
Daniel Wegner
Steven Weinberg
Paul A. Weiss
John Wheeler
Wilhelm Wien
Norbert Wiener
Eugene Wigner
E. O. Wilson
H. Dieter Zeh
Ernst Zermelo
Wojciech Zurek
Konrad Zuse
Fritz Zwicky

Presentations

Biosemiotics
Free Will
Mental Causation
James Symposium
 
Mark Hadley

Mark Hadley is a physicist on the academic staff at the University of Warwick.

His 2018 research essay in the Journal of Consciousness Exploration an Research is titled "A Deterministic Model of the Free Will Phenomenon." It challenges the evidence for indeterminism and develops a deterministic model of decision making.

Hadley writes:

The relation between free will and physics is contentious and puzzling at all levels. Philosophers have debated how free will can be explained with current scientific theories. There is debate about the meaning of the term free will, even leading to questions about whether or not we have anything called free will. A key focus of the philosophical debate is compatibility of free will with deterministic physical theories. Philosophers who argue against determinism, suggest a fundamental role for quantum theory in models of our decision making. It is the supposed link to quantum theory first attracted my interest. The literature extends from philosophy journals to science publications (Conway and Kochen 2006, Libet 1985, Nichols 2011).

This work takes a unique approach to the problem, looking for evidence, building models and making predictions. It is critically important to recognise two different uses of the term free will. An abstract concept, and a known property of human decision making, they are distinct and require different approaches, but they are often confused. Searle (2007) points to the lack of progress on the free will problem over centuries and suggests that the way forward will be to recognise a false supposition. We identify that false supposition that: the phenomenon of free will provides evidence and relevance for the abstract concept of indeterministic free will. It does not.

There is an abstract concept of indeterministic free will. It is the concept of a decision making process not governed by classical deterministic laws of physics. Because this is an abstract concept, it makes sense to ask ‘Do we have free will?’ If we understand the concept then we can design tests to answer the all-important question ‘Do we have free will?’ The answer might be expected to depend on exactly how we define the conceptual form of free will. For the abstract concept called free will we ask what its properties would be and how we could test for its existence or measure it.

This paper also recognises a phenomenon of free will that we possess as a characteristic of human decision making - a belief and common experience that we could do otherwise. It is widely accepted, almost universal, and crosses cultural divides (Sarkissian et al 2010). It underpins theological, legal and moral systems (Nahmias et al 2007), (Nichols and Knobe 2007). The overwhelming majority of philosophers and commentators ascribe the property to humans, generally not to animals, and most definitely not to computers. We will try to characterise and model the phenomenon and then test the model against the facts. Note that the phenomenon of free will (the phenomenon) exists, it is up to us to accurately model the phenomenon. We will do exactly that.

This is not a review paper. Philosophical and other references are given to respected sources to illustrate the debate, rather than as a comprehensive review. This paper is exclusively about the decision making process. Some debate is about the ability or otherwise to enact a decision, where an agent freely makes a decision but is impaired from acting on it by one form or other of constraint (Frankfurt 1969). What happens after a decision is reached seems relatively free from paradoxes and does not challenge the interface between the mind and the laws of physics.

In the literature the same term, free will, is used for the abstract concept of indeterministic decision making and also for the phenomenon that we can do otherwise, which is a cause of substantial confusion and is at the heart of most assertions that quantum theory is required to explain free will. Some authors recognise the assumption they are making (Searle 2007), others seem to make it unwittingly. Arguments along the lines of: free will [the concept] is incompatible with deterministic laws; we have free will [the phenomenon] therefore it must be due to non-deterministic theories, of which quantum theory is our prime example. Confusing the two also takes away any motivation to look for evidence of the concept, because the phenomenon is taken as that evidence. The confusion also undermines the search for models because decision making that is indeterministic is equated to free will (the concept) without explaining why that gives rise to perceived freedom to do otherwise, which is the phenomenon of free will.

Hadley participated in a debate on free will at an organization called VVoIP_Physics_Debates. They are a non-profit, non-governmental organization formed to organize VVoIP (Voice and Video over IP) video-panel debates (seminars, colloquiums, workshops, and schools) supported by free of charge internet and paper publications of proceedings to facilitate progress in physics and related subjects.

Hadley's contribution to the debate was "The False Presupposition and a Testable Model of the Free Will Phenomenon"   YouTube Video   Power Point Slides

His most recent idea is what Hadley calls his "challenge model."

The challenge model of free will aims to model the phenomenon of free will – the perception “that we could do otherwise”. Unlike two stage models it has nothing to do with determinism or indeterminism. The author, Mark Hadley, claims that there is no role for either determinism or indeterminism in explaining human free will. Not only is there no evidence for either, but any pattern of decision making could be replicated using either deterministic or indeterministic mechanisms.

The challenge model, is constructed from a standard goal seeking agent as commonly used in a variety of disciplines. A goal of “independence” is added. Independence is satisfied when the agent responds to a challenge. A challenge like “could you do otherwise” results in a probabilistic change in behaviour (the actual response depends upon all the other goals and states of the agent).

Furthermore, the agent can generate its own challenges “I wonder if I could do ….?” And therefore builds up a history of being able to do otherwise. That gives the perception to the agent, and to third parties, that they could do otherwise.

The clearest test of the challenge model is the way a very predictable action can be reversed in response to a challenge. Such as “could you write with your left hand?” “Could you put your hand near that flame?”

The VVoIP Debate on Free Will included Nicolas Gisin's idea that free will is a necessary precondition for science itself..

Normal | Teacher | Scholar