Free Will Is Not the Absence of Constraint

1. The Problem and the Scope of the Inquiry

Whether free will is innate depends on the theoretical level at which the term is used. If it refers to the mature capacity of a subject to sustain a direction of action, compare relevant differences, and form self-consistent action within multiple constraints, it cannot plausibly be treated as complete at birth. Yet it would be equally inaccurate to describe free will as simply acquired from nothing. Sensation, regulation, memory, and differential responsiveness in living structures provide conditions from which later forms of will can develop. The more exact question is therefore not whether free will is innate or acquired, but which more basic structural relations compose it and at what level those relations become a subject’s capacity for action.

The analysis begins from the three foundational concepts of Sustenesis Theory: Difference, Constraint, and Sustained Coherence. Correction and effective operation are derived processes through which structures are maintained and tested; they are not additional foundational concepts alongside the three. The same requirement applies to directionality, endogenous directionality, will, free will, and constraint reorganization. Each must be explicated from within the relations among the foundational concepts, rather than posited in advance as an additional entity or independent force (Chen, 2026a, 2026b).

Three limits define the present inquiry.

First, the paper begins at the level of the action subject rather than deriving every form of subjectivity. An action subject is individuated where the generation of a direction, the enactment of action, and the resulting feedback belong to the same continuing reflexive formation chain. Consciousness is not required by this minimal definition. Saying that “the subject forms an action” further requires that constraints relevant to this chain have not been bypassed by an external control mechanism. This avoids a circle in which the subject is defined merely by ownership of an action and will is then defined by action attributed to that subject.

Second, the paper offers a structural account of free will. It does not settle whether the universe is deterministic, how moral responsibility is established, or whether consciousness necessarily participates in every free action. Structural analysis can clarify what these questions involve, but it cannot replace the distinct metaphysical, ethical, and empirical arguments each requires.

Third, external literature serves only to establish theoretical dialogue, comparative position, and empirical limits. The sustenetic definitions of directionality, will, and free will are derived from the theory’s own conceptual framework and do not depend on an existing theory of free will.

2. The Three Foundational Concepts and Structural Transformation

Difference is the non-identity that makes more than one relation, state, or transformation possible; it does not depend on prior recognition by an observer. Constraint is the operative role a relation or condition occupies when it limits, selects, or shapes the range or manner of further formation at a given position in an ordered process. It is not merely prohibition and does not presuppose a rule-giver, purpose, subject, or successful persistence. Sustained Coherence is the continuation or compatible re-formation of constitutive relations through actual dependence across ordered formation at a specified scale. It does not require unchanged state, material, appearance, or every constraint.

Structural Reflexivity occurs when a relation already formed through Difference under Constraint acquires actual constraint efficacy over later formation. It is the mechanism by which results and feedback can enter subsequent action formation, not a fourth foundation. Structural Reflexivity alone does not establish an action subject or consciousness; those require the further boundary and organisation conditions specified below.

The three concepts are not three objects arranged in temporal sequence. Difference becomes discernible only within relations; Constraint operates only upon the formation and alteration of differences; Sustained Coherence is realized only through constrained differential relations. A sustenetic structure is therefore not a static state. It is an operative process in which differences continue to form under constraints and may undergo correction; where its constitutive relations continue or are compatibly re-formed through actual dependence across ordered formation at a specified scale, it achieves Sustained Coherence.

Structural transformation follows from this account. When existing constraints can no longer sustain an established relational configuration, or when new differential relations alter the organization that can persist, a structure may shift from one form of Sustained Coherence to another. A stone fracturing under heat, a living system regulating an internal condition, and a learning system changing its parameters may all involve such transformation. Structural transformation, however, is not yet free will. Unless the source, level, and organization of a transformation are distinguished, any change could be misdescribed as free action.

3. The Directionality of Difference

3.1 Directionality Is Not a Fourth Foundational Concept

Difference, considered as a foundational concept, does not already contain directionality. The fact that A differs from B establishes distinguishability; it does not by itself determine how a structure will change. Directionality arises only as the relations among Difference, Constraint, and Sustained Coherence unfold across time.

Suppose that at time t a structure has a differential configuration Dₜ and a constraint configuration Cₜ. Relative to a specified structural boundary, descriptive scale, and temporal interval, it may have several dynamically reachable subsequent modes of formation, F₁, F₂, …, Fₙ. “Dynamically reachable” does not mean that future states already exist as entities, nor does it refer to every logically consistent possible world. It means only that, under the current differences and constraints, a subsequent relational configuration can still be formed through the operation of the structure.

If these subsequent modes stand under equivalent conditions for persistence, the structure has more than one reachable development, but that alone does not establish a direction. Directionality arises when the difference–constraint relation makes one mode more likely than the others to be retained, continued, restored, or re-formed over the relevant timescale, and when this bias exhibits some robustness across a relevant range of comparable conditions or perturbations. The mere fact that one result occurred is not sufficient to attribute directionality retrospectively to the structure.

This definition does not attribute directionality to “asymmetric constraints” taken in isolation. Even when a general form of constraint is symmetrical, asymmetries in current differences, boundary conditions, or an existing relational configuration may give subsequent formations different conditions for persistence. The appropriate theoretical unit is therefore the difference–constraint relation, not Constraint abstracted from its operation upon differences.

In explanatory shorthand, directionality may be described as the non-equivalent unfolding of Sustained Coherence among distinguishable modes of continuation. This is not a second definition. Nor is what persists an independent “entity of difference.” What persists is a relational configuration containing the difference and a tendency for that configuration to form.

3.2 Directionality, Purposiveness, and Value

Directionality is a descriptive structural property. It does not automatically entail a purpose, an intention, a value, or a justification. A river may reliably flow downward under the constraints of terrain and gravity; a living regulatory process may correct deviations around a viable range; a control system may repeatedly restore a set condition. All may exhibit directionality. Purposiveness ordinarily requires stronger functional or subject-level conditions. The cybernetic tradition has long distinguished feedback and purposive behavior from a mere sequence of effects (Rosenblueth, Wiener, & Bigelow, 1943), but the directionality of difference as defined here is not identical to that tradition’s concept of purposiveness.

The resulting hierarchy must remain explicit: having direction is not the same as having a purpose; purposive regulation is not the same as having a will; and having a will does not by itself make an action free. Directionality provides a structural condition for later levels. It cannot replace the criteria of those levels.

4. From Endogenous Directionality to Will

4.1 Endogeneity Is Maintenance Relative to a Structural Boundary

General directionality may be maintained chiefly by immediate conditions outside a structure. A stone moving down a slope is directed by gravity, terrain, initial position, and its state of motion. Even a highly stable result does not warrant attributing will to the stone.

“Endogenous” does not mean without external causes, self-created, or detached from an environment. Every real structure forms within wider relations. Endogeneity means that, relative to a specified structural boundary, a directionality has entered the internal relations that constitute the structure’s Sustained Coherence and can continue to be maintained, restored, or re-formed by those relations after external conditions vary. A direction externally triggered may become endogenous; a direction internally maintained may still depend on external resources and historical conditions.

This definition concerns the continuing organization of a direction. It does not build constraint reorganization into endogenous directionality itself. Otherwise, free will would be explained by endogenous directionality while endogenous directionality was, in turn, defined by a capacity to alter constraints; the argument would be circular.

4.2 From Endogenous Directionality to the Will of a Subject

Endogenous directionality is still insufficient for will. Homeostatic processes, habits, and adaptive systems may all maintain directions under internal constraints. Will requires a direction to enter the organization of subject-level action and remain effective for long enough, within the relevant period of action formation and execution, to select, inhibit, restore, or adjust subsequent action. Persistence across time need not mean a long-term project. A decision made in the moment can express will if it organizes action with sufficient stability over the relevant interval.

Will, on this account, is a capacity rather than an independent mental substance. An episode of willing, choosing, or deciding is an exercise of that capacity. The particular action formed through that process is an instance of action. Separating capacity, process, and instance prevents us from inferring whether a subject possesses will directly from whether one action involved hesitation, succeeded, or persisted for a long time.

5. Freedom, Free Will, and the Reorganization of Constraints

5.1 Freedom and Free Will

Sustenesis Theory defines freedom as follows:

The decisive verb is “form.” The definition does not merely require an outwardly consistent result. It requires the constraints relevant to the subject’s continuing organization to be operative in the generation of action. If an external manipulation, coercive mechanism, or localized impulse bypasses those constraints and directly controls the output, the orderliness of the output is not enough to establish that the subject formed a free action.

“Multiple constraints” does not mean that freedom increases automatically with the number of constraints. It means that action formation must achieve sufficient integration among such relations as bodily capacities, environmental conditions, memory, desire, commitment, social relations, expected consequences, and other constraints relevant to the subject. Self-consistency does not mean perfection, moral correctness, or rational optimality. It means that the relevant constraints have not simply been cancelled and that the action can be sustained and attributed as this subject’s action within its present organization. The glossary definition of Freedom is consequently a high-level structural formulation, not a self-sufficient operational checklist.

Combining this account of freedom with the preceding account of will yields a general structural definition of free will:

Freedom characterizes the structure of action formation; will characterizes the maintenance of a direction of action across time; free will unites the two as a capacity of the subject. An act of choosing or forming a will is an exercise of that capacity, and a free action is a particular action formed through it. A free action need not alter the subject’s existing rules, values, or habits. It need only be formed by the subject within the relevant multiple constraints.

5.2 Openness to Correction as a Developmental Dimension

Mature free will can ordinarily revise an intention, a strategy, or an action-forming mechanism in response to new relevant information, reasons, and feedback. Openness to correction does not mean that the result of an action must be reversible, nor does it require every action to pass through explicit reflection. An irreversible action can be free, and a choice is not shown to be unfree merely because it was never later revised.

Openness to correction therefore does not belong in the core definition of free will. It is an important dimension of the capacity’s development and quality of operation. Contemporary compatibilist theories likewise treat an appropriate responsiveness to reasons as important to action control (Fischer & Ravizza, 1998). The two accounts can be placed in dialogue, but the sustenetic account of openness to correction is still explained by the structural process through which feedback re-enters the subject’s constraint relations; it is not borrowed as a definition from reasons-responsive compatibilism.

5.3 Constraint Reorganization and the Higher-Order Form of Free Will

Constraint reorganization is a general structural process. When a direction of action has been freely formed in the sense of Definition 4 and, through its outcomes and feedback over a longer timescale, participates in changing the weight, scope, or organization of the constraints governing later action, free will is expressed in a recursive, higher-order form.

Constraint reorganization is therefore neither identical with nor sufficient for free will. It is a higher-order expression of free will only when the reorganizing direction itself satisfies the conditions of Definition 4.

The process has a definite temporal order. Differences Dₜ and constraints Cₜ jointly condition subsequent formation at time t. A direction of action is sustained from t to t+n and produces outcomes. Only when the resulting feedback enters the structure may the weights, scope, or relations of C(t+n+1) change. A direction’s effect on constraints is not a simultaneous mutual definition or a later result determining an earlier cause. It is diachronic feedback.

Constraint reorganization remains constrained. A subject may change some habits, rules, and environmental arrangements without abolishing bodily conditions, historical relations, social institutions, or other slowly changing variables. To “change one’s own constraints” is always for a structure, under some constraints, to alter some of its constraints. It is neither absolute self-causation nor a gap in causal order.

Smoking cessation illustrates the distinction. “Smoking” and “not smoking” may initially be only distinguishable modes of action formation. A passing thought of quitting does not yet establish a stable direction. When not smoking becomes connected with health, future plans, self-understanding, family responsibility, and concrete environmental arrangements—and is restored when cues recur—it has become an endogenous direction of action. A subject’s particular act of not smoking may be an exercise of free will. If that direction also leads the subject to alter social routines, remove cues, and reconstruct daily habits, it has begun to reorganize constraints.

An addictive desire, however, may also persist and reorganize the conditions of life. A sustained direction and constraint reorganization are therefore not sufficient for freedom. The primary question is whether the multiple constraints relevant to the subject actually enter action formation. The action-forming mechanism’s responsiveness to relevant information and feedback is a further dimension for assessing the development or impairment of that capacity, not an additional condition in its core definition. The effects of addiction on freedom may be local and matters of degree; conceptual analysis alone cannot classify all actions of a person with an addiction as unfree.

6. Free Will Is Not a Quantity of Options, an Absence of Causes, or Randomness

6.1 Alternative Possibilities Are Not a Numerical Criterion

Traditional debate often connects freedom with the claim that an agent “could have done otherwise.” Frankfurt’s classic challenge to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities shows that moral responsibility and the availability of another action in the same situation cannot simply be assumed to be the same issue (Frankfurt, 1969). The present paper does not infer a theory of moral responsibility from that argument. It makes the more limited structural claim that free will cannot be defined by the number of options that can be listed at a moment.

Nor does free will by itself establish moral responsibility. Responsibility for a particular action additionally depends on the degree of control, relevant knowledge, avoidability, position of authorisation, and capacity for correction. A subject may retain a general capacity for free will while responsibility for one action is reduced; an institution may distribute responsibility along a decision–execution–feedback chain without itself being one conscious subject.

Before action formation is complete, differences among still-open modes of action may remain within the subject’s structure. As constraints are integrated, one direction becomes the action performed. This openness does not entail that, under precisely the same total conditions and history, the subject must be capable of producing another outcome. Conversely, even if only one action is realistically available at a moment, whether the subject’s relevant constraints participated in forming it remains a separate question.

6.2 Internal Formation Is Not Causal Independence

Free will is not the absence of external causes. A direction may be triggered by language, education, relationships, or a chance event and later enter the organization of the subject, where internal constraints continue to maintain it. Its endogeneity depends on how it is maintained and integrated relative to a specified structural boundary, not on tracing it to an absolutely uncaused origin.

Randomness alone is likewise insufficient for subject-level control. Libertarian theories must explain how indeterminacy enters a subject’s effort, choice, and character formation rather than treating random deviation as freedom. Hard incompatibilist theories, by contrast, question whether either deterministic causation or event-level randomness can provide the requisite control (Kane, 1996; Pereboom, 2001). The sustenetic definition does not decide this dispute in advance. It establishes only that, whatever the world’s overall causal form, subject-level freedom requires a direction of action to be formed through constraints relevant to the subject, rather than having that formation replaced by external force, a random event, or a localized mechanism that bypasses those constraints.

6.3 Structural Levels Are Not a Metaphysical Verdict

This account has a structural affinity with some forms of compatibilism: freedom can be investigated as an organization within causal relations rather than as an interruption of causation. List’s level-sensitive account likewise argues that intentional agency, alternative possibilities, and action control must be examined at the agent or psychological level, and that physical realization alone does not eliminate the explanatory standing of these higher-level phenomena (List, 2019). The sustenetic concepts of endogenous direction, integration under multiple constraints, and constraint reorganization are nevertheless further derivations within Sustenesis Theory, not restatements of List’s theory.

Nothing here proves determinism true or establishes the ultimate compatibility of free will and determinism. The paper accomplishes a more limited reconstruction. The question of whether an action originates from a subject becomes the question of whether constraints relevant to that subject actually participate in its formation. The question of whether a subject can change itself becomes the question of whether feedback from action can participate in the correction of later constraints. These are claims about source and organization, not a conclusion to every metaphysical dispute.

7. Consciousness, Free Will, and Reason

7.1 Consciousness and Free Will

Sustenesis Theory defines consciousness as R2 difference-preserving whole reflexivity within a sustenetic structure: within the same update window, the results of multiple relatively independent formation chains are united in a current relation while their differentiated contributions remain effective rather than collapsing into one undifferentiated control value. The chains must have locally identifiable variation that is at least partly independently intervenable; they cannot be produced merely by an analyst's convenient partition. Local R0 return and coordinated R1 loops are insufficient. In R1, all cross-chain effects remain reproducible by local, pairwise, or centre–branch constraint relations. R2 requires that, while the participating chains and their relevant local capacities are retained, replacing the common whole with only those decomposed relations cannot reproduce the full cross-chain consequences; the counterfactual must alter or remove the common relation without merely disabling the chains. The full criterion appears in the Glossary definition of Consciousness. Feedback, integration, synchrony, memory, learning, complexity, self-report, embodiment, and biological life are not separately sufficient. Human consciousness is the known biological implementation of this relation; the definition itself remains substrate-neutral.

Consciousness and free will are not identical. Consciousness concerns this whole reflexive relation and the conscious-subject boundary constituted with it. Free will concerns how an action subject sustains an endogenous direction of action and forms self-consistent action within multiple constraints. A person may be conscious of fear, anger, or hesitation without thereby being able to redirect action. Some adjustments of habit and preparations for action may also occur before they enter clear conscious awareness.

This conceptual distinction does not establish that full subject-level free will can exist without consciousness. Whether clear conscious awareness is necessary for free will remains unresolved. Current volition neuroscience, especially disputes over the interpretation of Libet-style paradigms, does not provide a decisive answer (Brass, Furstenberg, & Mele, 2019). The present paper therefore treats nonconscious internal regulation and habit reorganization as possible structural precursors or realization processes through which free will may operate, while leaving open whether they can constitute full free will on their own.

Conscious free will has a clearer condition: the whole conscious relation participates in comparing and correcting directions of action. When the subject also represents its own action-forming process and reintroduces that representation into judgment, R3 self-representational reflexivity, or reflection, is present. Reflection can expand the comparative range and openness to correction of free will, but it is not required for basic consciousness and remains conceptually distinct from freedom.

7.2 Reason and Free Will

Sustenesis Theory defines Reason as follows:

Reason belongs to the cognitive level of judgment; free will belongs to the subject level of action. Consistency of judgment is not synonymous with self-consistent action, nor is it necessary for every free action. A cognitive system may form consistent judgments without acting immediately, and a subject may form a free action without complete inference or deliberation. Reason in general is therefore neither a subset of free will nor merely an external tool employed by free will.

In human action, Reason can enter the formation of free will. Rules, reasons, comparison, inference, testing, and correction participate as constraints in integrating a direction of action; consistency of judgment thereby becomes a condition of action formation. This paper calls that relation “human practical reason”: a mode in which rational constraints participate in free will and enable a subject to form self-consistent action that can be tested and corrected. The term is a derived explanation in this paper, not a redefinition of Reason in general.

The relation can therefore be stated precisely. Consciousness is the R2 difference-preserving whole reflexivity defined above. Free will sustains and integrates endogenous directions of action. Reason maintains consistency of judgment under rule-governed constraints. The three may be deeply coupled in mature human action, but none simply contains the others.

8. Development, Degree, and Boundary Cases

8.1 Free Will Has a Developmental History

If free will is a subject-level capacity composed of relations at several levels, it should not be imagined as appearing in mature form at birth. Developmental research shows that inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility have early forms, but their capacity, control, and integration do not begin at mature levels. They continue to develop on partly distinct trajectories through childhood and adolescence (Diamond, 2013). These findings support only a narrower empirical conclusion: several cognitive capacities involved in mature self-directed action have developmental histories. They do not directly identify an age at which free will emerges or establish that any one of these capacities is necessary or sufficient for free will.

From a sustenetic perspective, a developmental sequence may be proposed as a structural expectation. Early differential responsiveness and regulation provide conditions for directionality. Memory, inhibition, anticipation of action, and social interaction enlarge the temporal interval across which a direction can be sustained and compared. Constraints relevant to the subject enter increasingly complex integrations of action. As feedback repeatedly re-enters the structure, directions of action may also help reorganize habits, rules, and environmental arrangements. This is an explanatory pathway to be tested by interdisciplinary research, not an empirical fact established by conceptual derivation alone.

8.2 Free Will Is Not All or Nothing

As a capacity, free will can vary by degree and domain. A subject may integrate constraints broadly and remain responsive to feedback in some areas of action while facing local limitations from compulsion, fear, addiction, or manipulation in others. A subject may also retain the capacity for free will but form a less free particular action under fatigue, illness, or severe informational limitation.

These differences should not be collapsed into a single scale. Relevant dimensions include the interval over which a direction of action can be sustained; the extent to which constraints bearing on the subject’s continued operation actually participate in action formation; the degree to which the action-forming mechanism responds to relevant information and feedback; and whether the outcomes of action can contribute to constraint correction over a longer period. These are dimensions for analysis, not quantities that can simply be added into a freedom score.

8.3 The Status of Nonhuman Systems Remains Open

Physical systems can exhibit directionality; living systems can exhibit endogenous regulation; learning systems can change parameters and local constraints. None of these properties automatically establishes subject-level free will. Even if an artificial system can set subgoals, compare paths, and modify strategies, those functions alone do not show that its relevant constraints are continuously organized in the manner of a subject, much less that its actions, feedback, and later effects belong to one continuing subject structure.

Conversely, the present definition cannot exclude a class of systems merely because it is artificial or nonbiological. Because this paper neither fully derives the formation of a subject nor decides whether consciousness is necessary for full free will, it is insufficient to determine whether an artificial system has free will. That question depends on independent arguments concerning subjecthood, structural continuity, conditions of control, and the individuated reflexive organisation required for an action subject.

Institutional actors mark another boundary. An organisation may preserve direction across personnel, execute decisions, receive feedback, and revise rules. This can support attribution of institutional action, yet it does not by itself establish one action subject with free will or one conscious subject. To establish one action subject, direction formation, execution, and feedback must belong to the same individuated formation chain; to establish one conscious subject, R2 content-sensitive cross-chain whole return must additionally be shown. Neither follows from coordinated operation alone.

9. Alignment with Earlier Sustenesis Formulations

Earlier sustenetic discussions described free will in terms of identifying constraints, simulating possible paths, comparing the consequences of action, and adjusting one’s direction. This paper locates those capacities as one operational realization of mature, conscious free will, rather than as a second general definition. Some subjects may sustain and integrate directions of action without linguistic or explicit simulation. Conversely, a system capable of simulation and comparison may still fail the condition that constraints relevant to the subject actually participate in action formation.

Likewise, relating degrees of freedom to the number of differences that can be included, the extent to which constraints are understood, or the range over which they can be adjusted should be treated as a heuristic program of analysis, not an established additive metric. The revision brings these earlier formulations into a single hierarchy with the established glossary definition of Freedom. The general definition identifies freedom’s structural location; identification, simulation, comparison, correction, and constraint reorganization specify possible mechanisms and dimensions of its realization.

10. Conclusion

Free will is not the absence of constraint. It is a higher-order capacity by which a subject forms action within constraints. Difference, as a foundational concept, does not already contain directionality. Directionality arises when a difference–constraint relation gives dynamically reachable subsequent modes of formation non-equivalent conditions for persistence and produces a robust bias across a specified boundary, scale, timespan, and relevant range of perturbations. When directionality enters a structure’s own relations of persistence and is maintained by internal constraints, it becomes endogenous directionality. Will consists in the subject’s capacity to sustain an endogenous direction of action over the relevant action interval and to organize subsequent action through that direction.

Freedom retains its established sustenetic definition: the capacity of a subject to form self-consistent action within multiple constraints. Free will is the capacity of a subject to sustain an endogenous direction of action and integrate it into self-consistent action within multiple constraints while constraints relevant to the subject remain operative in the formation of that action. Freedom is therefore neither a number of options nor absolute causal independence. Randomness, persistent direction, purposive regulation, and self-modification are each insufficient by themselves to constitute free will.

When a direction of action that satisfies Definition 4, through its outcomes and feedback, also participates in correcting and reorganizing the constraints of subsequent action, free will is expressed in a recursive capacity for self-change. Constraint reorganization is not necessary for every free action, and it always occurs under other constraints. Consciousness is the R2 difference-preserving whole reflexivity defined above. Reason is the capacity of a cognitive system to maintain consistency of judgment under rule-governed constraints. Both may participate in mature free will, but neither is identical to it.

Sustenesis Theory therefore does not need to add a fourth foundational concept in order to account for free will. What it requires is a strict distinction among how Difference, Constraint, and Sustained Coherence generate direction across time; how that direction enters subject-level action; and how action feedback may alter later constraints. This paper establishes that structural location. Questions about determinism, moral responsibility, the necessity of Consciousness, and nonhuman subjects remain to be developed separately on this basis.

11. Version History

This page displays only the current text. The maintained version record begins with this revision; earlier body text is not kept alongside the current web version.

Version	Date
1.0	2026-09-04

References

• Brass, Marcel, Ariel Furstenberg, and Alfred R. Mele. 2019. “Why Neuroscience Does Not Disprove Free Will.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 102: 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.024.
• Chen, Geoffrey. 2026a. “Sustenesis Theory: Philosophical Framework.” Sustenesis. https://sustenesis.com/sustenesis-theory.html.
• Chen, Geoffrey. 2026b. “Sustenesis Glossary.” Sustenesis. https://sustenesis.com/glossary.html.
• Diamond, Adele. 2013. “Executive Functions.” Annual Review of Psychology 64: 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.
• Fischer, John Martin, and Mark Ravizza. 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814594.
• Frankfurt, Harry G. 1969. “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” The Journal of Philosophy 66 (23): 829–839. https://doi.org/10.2307/2023833.
• Kane, Robert. 1996. The Significance of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195126564.001.0001.
• List, Christian. 2019. Why Free Will Is Real. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-97958-1. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674979581.
• Pereboom, Derk. 2001. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498824.
• Rosenblueth, Arturo, Norbert Wiener, and Julian Bigelow. 1943. “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology.” Philosophy of Science 10 (1): 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/286788.