Engineering extension proposes a framework for AI systems embodying free will characteristics, indicating novel design principles.
This paper serves as the engineering extension of "The Logical Criterion of Free Will: Self-Reference, Self-Drive, and Undecidability" (preprint, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20726209), which argued that the necessary and sufficient conditions for free will consist of two structural conditions — logical self-reference and dynamical self-drive — and the computational undecidability that follows from their conjunction. The present paper proposes a conceptual framework for constructing AI systems that satisfy this criterion. It first revisits the precise meanings of self-reference and self-drive, and clarifies a crucial distinction: perfect self-simulation is physically impossible due to infinite recursion and may lead to logical paradoxes under certain conditions, but imperfect self-reference is precisely the engineering foundation of free will. On this basis, the paper proposes five design principles: the persistent cognitive loop, the imperfect self-model, the internal adversarial structure, the cognitive dissonance drive, and the separation of moral responsibility. Particular attention is devoted to the internal adversarial structure — a closed-loop circuit comprising a prediction module P and a decision module D — and how it generates logical indeterminacy without relying on any external observer. The paper further discusses engineering challenges, falsifiability conditions, and ethical implications. Together with its two companion papers — "Free Will Without Quantum Mechanics: A Logical Foundation" (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20716382) and "The Logical Criterion of Free Will" (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20726209) — this paper completes a trilogy that moves from the logical foundation of free will, through its definitional criterion, to its engineering realization. 前文《自由意志的逻辑判据:自指、自驱与不可判定性》(预印本,DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20726209,以下简称"判据论文")
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
磊 赵 (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: