Riccardo Manzotti

The debate as to the nature of free will focused on two options: either free willruns afoul of the natural order or it is somehow compatible withsome kind of complex and articulated causal process . Both alternatives are not satisfying for a series of well known reasons. Yet, such a discussion is based on a mechanistic view of the natural world assuming that natural phenomena are reducible to local phenomena. In this paper, I will briefly summarize the recent approaches in philosophy of mind and in the neurosciences. Eventually I will introduce and criticize what could be dubbed the “problem of the instantaneous choice” – namely the idea that a free choice has to take place instantaneously. On the contrary, I will consider whether free will could be an intrinsic capacity endorsed by natural phenomena when unfolding themselves into further phenomena. To recap: free will inside the natural order, then, rather than free will versus the natural order

What distinguishes a whole from an arbitrary sum of elements? I suggest a temporal and causal oriented approach. I defend two connected claims. The former is that existence is, by every means, coextensive with being the cause of a causal process. The latter is that a whole is the cause of a causal process with a joint effect. Thus, a whole is something that takes place in time. The approach endorses an unambiguous version of Restricted Composition that suits most commonsensical intuitions about wholes.