Research Projects

SAS relies on interdisciplinary research teams integrated into global academic networks; structurally, these teams replace traditional disciplinary departments and ensure intensive communication among faculty members within and across disciplines.

Current Research Projects

About Project

We live in a time of crisis, at once ecological, political, conceptual, and imaginative. While global technocrats concentrate on limited aspects of the crisis taken in isolation and pursue managerial approaches to mitigate the current state of affairs, politicians disregard the advice of the scientific community  (Folke et. al. 2021) and keep disagreeing on the measures to take (Glasgow Climate Change conference). With the notion of the Anthropocene entering into everyday parlance, our research project tackles the current paralysis by fostering the imaginative and conceptual tools necessary to address the interrelated multiplicity of natural, social, political, and aesthetic aspects characterizing the contemporary crisis.

Our project is defined by a commitment to the futures to come. To anticipate the future is to await and make room for the polymorphous social, political, and ecological life lying ahead of us. By pursuing systemic stability, managerial rationality forcefully reduces the spectrum of anticipation and undermines the valorization of the new. Contrary to common-sense reductionism, we want to embrace the notion of crisis in its productive ambivalence as a window of opportunity for radical change. According to the etymological meaning of the word, “crisis” refers to a choice, a decision. System theory and philosophy also support the idea that crises are singular states entailing a bifurcation of possible outcomes. In this sense, we look at the current crisis not only as a global catastrophe, but also as the possible inception of something radically new.

What distinguishes our research project is a methodology based on dialectical ways of abstraction. We approach this state of total crisis holistically and dialectically, meaning that we consider the subject of our analysis not as a finite, static thing but as developing processes. According to the dialectical method, the main factors that determine change lie within a system. This aspect is also related to identifying the future within the present in the form of positive as well as negative potentialities. Following Bertell Ollman (2003), we consider extension, level of generalization, and vantage point as the key elements of our method of abstraction. “Extension” refers to setting the limits of the phenomena to be analyzed in space and time. “Level of generalization” concerns the analyses of particulars. Its purpose is to identify not only the apparent objective similarities between individual elements (mere generalizations) but to treat the whole to which the particular under analysis belongs. In other words, it is related to identifying the general in the particular – the law that explains the unity in identity or the cell/unit that is constitutive of the whole, the analysis of which reveals the totality of the essential attributes of the whole. Finally, “perspective” (or “vantage point”) refers to the place within the relationship from which to view, think, and piece together the other components of the relationship itself; this refers not only to the subject’s specific standpoint, but also signifies how the particular phenomenon under scrutiny is related to other phenomena and its position within the hierarchy of objective phenomena. Thus, on the one hand it concerns the horizontal relationship between phenomena, while on the other hand it concerns their vertical or hierarchical relationship. Meanwhile, the combination of the aforementioned three elements also functions as a vantage point for analysis and comprehension of  the larger system to which the relationship belongs and is constituent of. Our project thus aims at mobilizing a dialectical imagination that can overcome the limitations of conventional totalizing pictures and localized, symptomatic representations. We seek to explore viable ways to conceptualize, model, and visualize relationality, multi-scale phenomena, and system dynamics. In short, the purpose of our project is to imagine the Anthropocene in its becoming.

Our primary disciplinary affiliations are  philosophy (Siyaves Azeri),  film and media studies (Peter Lešnik), and ecology (Liz Pásztor).  We welcome academic researchers (including artists and moving image makers) who would like to work on the project based on shared principles.

Research Team

film and media studies

About Project

The “problem of free will” (What is free will ? Do we really have free will ?) is a classic of philosophy; a staggering number of “great minds” have expressed their opinion on this topic, virtually from all disciplines, including Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Spinoza, Tolstoy, and Einstein. While philosophy was the mother discipline from which the topic sprang, in recent times several other disciplines have joined the debate, in particular neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, computer science and physics. Both in professional and broad-public texts the link between free will, consciousness and (in)determinism is often immediately made. For instance, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy starts its entry on free will thus1: “Most of us are certain that we have free will, though what exactly this amounts to is much less certain. According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is ‘the most contentious question of metaphysics.’ If this is correct, then figuring out what free will is will be no small task indeed. Minimally, to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. […] This article considers why we should care about free will and how freedom of will relates to freedom of action. It canvasses a number of the dominant accounts of what the will is, and then explores the persistent question of the relationship between free will and causal determinism […].” The typical human capacity referred to in this passage, not shared by animals, is usually considered to be consciousness or (other) cognitive capacities.

In recent years, a strong impetus has been given to the theoretical philosophical research by experimental advances in neurobiology, and by an increasing interest in humanoid functions and capacities that could be realized by robots, in general systems steered by artificial intelligence (AI). For instance, in 2008 neuroscientists have reported, based on the measurement of brain activity by fMRI, that ‘free’ choices of test persons (namely the choice to lift their left or right hand) could be predicted up to 10 seconds (!) before the test person consciously made the decision to pick one or the other hand2. To many researchers, notably neurobiologists, scientific results as these put free will in question. As another example among the many, in 2017 cognitive neuroscientists published an article in Science entitled “What is consciousness, and could machines have it?”3 – an example of the exponentially rising interest in machine-based forms of consciousness. In physics too, the question of free will has been discussed in 2018 and linked to one of the key problems of physics, i.e. the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity theory – namely by Nobel laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft4.

In this project, we start from the assumption that there is a clear case for studying free will and its link with consciousness and (in)determinism by a resolutely interdisciplinary approach. In particular, we intend to scrutinize the topic from the angle of philosophy, computer science / IT, economics, neurobiology and physics. Some of the topics and questions we are interested in  

  • What is the scientific basis of free will and consciousness? What are interesting philosophical issues discussed in the contemporary literature? What lessons can be learned from philosophy and natural science for the formal and social sciences? And v.v.?
  • Artificial consciousness: what are the prospects for emulating consciousness (and free will) in AI-systems and robots? Is this even conceivable, and if yes, under which conditions? How could neuroscience inform this research? How can philosophy (of science, of mind) inform this research? Which approaches and tools from IT and computer science are relevant in this research?
  • Compatibility issue: Are free will and determinism compatible? Are free will and (quantum) indeterminism compatible? Explore the link with the Einstein-Bohr debate on the ultimate deterministic or indeterministic (= probabilistic) nature of physical reality. Can this topic meaningfully be linked to the unification program in physics? 
  • Distinguishing the various types of consciousness (e.g. rational consciousness [our emphasis until now], subjective or experiential consciousness, unconsciousness,…). Link between consciousness and cognition. How do people think? How to upgrade AI systems in order to approach (enhanced) human cognition?
  • Is retrocausality a metaphysical and/or a physical possibility? If so, how would it affect the notion of free agency and deliberation? Is quantum mechanics (especially the superdeterminism interpretation) compatible with retrocausality?
  • Human-AI interactions: ethical concerns, trust in AI, AI-based decision-making (e.g., personnel management including employment and dismissals)

1 Cf. internet website, retrieved 14.10.2019.

2 Chun Siong Soon et al., Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain, Nature Neuroscience 11, 543 - 545 (2008)

3 Stanislas Dehaene et. al, What is consciousness, and could machines have it?, Science 27, Vol. 358, Issue 6362, pp. 486-492 (2017).

4 Gerard ‘t Hooft, Free Will in the Theory of Everything, arXiv:1709.02874 [quant-ph] (2018), cf.

Research Team

philosophy, physics

Past Research Projects

About Project

What are the social and individual implications of the manipulation of human natural characteristics and abilities related to sensory perception? The construct of society is determined by what members of that society perceive and how they interact in both competitive and cooperative manners. While nature and evolution selected a certain range of capabilities that imposed limits to the human capacity to perceive and perform, culture and technology have modified such abilities and changed the way we understand and interact with the environment.

Sensory perception evolved biologically as a network of neuro-mechanisms ensuring the survival and reproductive success of Homo sapiens. The sensitivity of the sensory systems was selected to favor the range of interactions that humans could physiologically respond to through autonomic and cognitive reactions. The evolution of advanced cognitive capabilities and the consequential evolution of culture propelled humanity into an area of sensory perception beyond that of those derived through genetic evolution. Humanity began hence to seek ways to manipulate sensory perception through conscious intervention in all steps along the operational chain of sensing—from stimuli to reception to neural processing, to obtain desired behavioral outputs.

The continuous pattern of such interventions through history suggests an innate desire to expand the boundaries of human neurobiology. By examining the history of modification, enhancement, compensation, and control of human physiological and psychological capabilities, this project will evaluate the impact of these manipulations so that causal relationships and predictive models can be conceptualized and studied.

Research Team

anthropology, GIS
Corinne Doria (external member)