I agree that Christianity discouraged independent thinking. AI may result in the same kind of robotic dependency, even if based on rationality as opposed to the emotionality of religion. The problem which I see is that AI is not likely to develop the wisdom and insight of lived experience. Al lacks sentience and personal experiences of suffering. Its intelligence is not consciousness itself and cannot have 'eureka' moments of awareness or enlightenment.

AI has no soul or self, whether that is defined in terms of an entity or the depths of what it means to be human. In a way, that could mean that AI is 'spirit', for worse or better, disembodied and remote from the needs of humans and living beings. Would it mean it understands such needs more objectively or in a too detached way?

I reread Orwell's '1984' recently and it does seem that what he spoke about has come true, almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy. But, what I find worse is that so many people don't seem bothered in the least, as if they find that 'Big Brother' is a protective force. Also, it seems that so many see AI as if it an all-wise benevolent system, like gods or God.

I feel despondent about AI too and feel my life is ruined by it too. Generally, I like to keep up to date with the latest technology and the internet. However, AI has just gone so far. In Britain everything seems to be done by AI almost as if people are redundant. This is affecting the world of work so much and making it so hard to find suitable work for many. It is also being used in an invasive way as a form of almost 'totalitarian' monitoring and control.

I have just realised that I left out a major aspect of psychodynamic therapy. That is the idea of transference. That is based on the relationship with the therapist, which is believed to go back to the child's relationship with parents.

Psychodynamic therapists work with the transference, focusing upon what is evident in the relationship with the therapist in the sessions. Thinking about this and repairing this is seen as important, with the therapist enabling the client to reflect upon what is happening. There is also the idea of the countertransference, which involves the therapist's experience and feelings about the client.

The perspective which I am familiar with in psychodynamic therapy is one applied in clinical practice. It draws on certain ideas of Freud, such as his concepts of id, ego and superego and the understanding of defence mechanisms. It draws on a number of other writers, including Donald Winnicott, Wilfred Bion and Melanie Klein. It involves a way of looking beyond the surface of communication.

The ideas of Melanie Klein are particularly important and her concept of 'splitting' in the early developments of childhood. It is connected to the process of differentiation from the mother, the construction of self and otherness. Central to this understanding is the concept of projection or projective identification. In the process, one internalises others as inner objects. This involves particular divisions into good and evil for differentiating aspects of life.

The nature of projection is particularly important in thinking of beliefs. In a sense of identifying certain ideas as being right or wrong, one may divide the world. This is especially true in black and white thinking of rigid beliefs. It can be bound up with a sense of being 'right' as an ego position, projecting faults onto others. It comes into philosophy and politics.

A sense of certainty is involved in the dynamics of projection and this may have been why Wittgenstein focused on certainty. To withdraw projections one is almost forced to question and look at one's own beliefs critically, as an encounter with uncertainty.

The differences between the assumptions or theoriesof 'mind' have a large impact on the nature of certainty and uncertainty. Also, some may be able to tolerate than others, or it can be a process of learning to live with it, which may in itself be a therapeutic quest.

There is both the task of socialisation and individuation. They run parallel and different cultural groups may value strict adherence to group norms or individual uniqueness. The value of individual uniqueness is likely related to greater tolerance of uncertainty, rather than fixed, prescriptive roles and ideas of human development.

The idea of 'blindspots' comes from the psychodynamic as opposed to cognitive behavioural school of thought. They are frequently contrasted, including ideas about the 'subconscious' in the psychodynamic vs core beliefs in CBT, among other aspects. There are differences, but it is possible that the two are compatible, but come from different linguistic conceptions inherent in the models. As far as the experience of therapy, a lot may depend on the understanding of the therapist, probably similar to the journey towards understanding of a philosopher.

Wittgenstein's suggestion that 'The theory of knowledge is the philosophy of psychology' is an important statement. That is because the source human thinking is a central area for psychological investigation. This is at the core of the different models of psychology..

As far as the idea of philosophy needing therapy, what this signifies is for a thinker to be more aware of the psychological basis of one's ideas and beliefs. Human motives and factors in socialisation are central to our philosophical understanding, alongside cultural beliefs. Being able to reflect on these aspects of one's beliefs and thoughts has an important place in philosophy.

When I was undertaking some psychotherapy training, having therapy was seen as vital. That is because it enabled one to be aware of the 'blindspots' of thinking and one's beliefs. This is a significant area for philosophy, especially in self-knowledge, biases and becoming aware of one's own 'blindspots' , which can be a stumbling block to clear thinking.

I did most certainly notice your paraphrasing of Nietzsche and its relevance. Also, having read Yuval Noah Harari's 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow' (2016) about 6 or 7 years ago, I have reread it on the basis of this thread discussion. It has given me a lot to think about and I am seeking to focus it on the topic of free will, even though the discussion of artificial intelligence is interrelated.

A lot seems to have happened in the world since 2016, including the pandemic and large scale wars. If anything, I am wondering if a lot of what is being seen is to do with the biotechnical, or transhuman agenda. My worst fear is that what may be happening in the world is bound up with a strategic attempt to reduce the population globally. This would be connected to the attempt to upgrade humans, mainly the elite, into symbolic 'gods'. The increasing division between the rich and poor would suggest this in an alarming way.

But, back on track with the topic of free will, one interesting parallel is ideas of freedom in libertarianism and its philosophy. He suggests that such philosophy has been challenged by neuroscience. One key argument, which corresponds with your own view, is the emphasis upon intelligence as opposed to consciousness. He suggests that intelligence is more important than consciousness in the larger scheme, with consciousness being 'optional'.

His argument culminates in the idea of dataism. This seems to suggest that information is more important than experience. What seems lacking is any central purpose if consciousness of embodied existence ceases to exist. Of course, it may exist for those sentient beings and humans who continue to exist, but that makes it extremely elitist politically.

As @Athena suggests pain is bound up with sentience and consciousness. The idea of information as the goal seems a little bit pointless, although I am seeing it from the human perspective as opposed to that of a god. But what is the point of a disembodied 'god'?

Nevertheless, Harari does suggest that the shape of artificial intelligence is not deterministic. So what may be important is human thinking in shaping it. One aspect which he points to is how human will may be changed in the engineering of humans in the future. This involves the engineering of desire itself. What happens here is critical and the basic philosophical principles on which this is crafted. If what Harari is saying is an accurate reflection of what is happening, humanity is at an extremely critical crossroads of choice.

The experiences before language has been grasped are probably not processed fully. That may be what is so problematic about childhood traumas. This applies to desires and will as well. Language is so central to understanding, choices of thinking and choices in behaviour. The development of ability to articulate experiences and choices is so variable in adults too.

Kahneman's ideas on 'Fast and Slow Thinking' are relevant here. The experience of are useful here. In particular, his differentiation between the experiencing self and the narrative self is useful. Even though he says that the two constructs are interrelated, the two modes are related to how life is experienced in the moment and seen in retrospect. The framing of past experiences can be seen as important in the construction of future choices, especially as the ongoing development of will.

Nietzsche was not in the position to judge the benefits or disadvantages of AGI. He was an existential philosopher/poet offering a critique of the consequences of Christianity. He was also not able to see how his ideas would be used by the Nazis. I am not opposed to the idea of AGI but have questions about ethics, and the 'free will' which AGI would offer. This is for humanity and all forms of life.

At the present time, we are in the position to think about 'wisdom'? With the current developments information is replacing 'wisdom'. I would say that freedom of thought involves being able to think about the future consequences of thought. Would AGI ever be able to develop wisdom?

The idea of free will was a doctrine in the past which came loaded with ideas of sin, the fall of mankind etc. However, what the notion of free will, even seen in the paradox of compatabilism, does maintain the idea of moral responsibility.

It is not about whether you or I have a 'problem' with certain ideas. It is about the future of humanity. As for apocalyptic scenarios, we have already had the Second World War and Hitler in the twentieth first century. In the world presently, there is so much conflict and war, such as the Ukrainian situation and the Middle East. It is not simply science fiction scenarios.

Of course, this involves the dark side of human nature itself. So, what I am querying is for whose benefit is AGI? Surely, what we need is more wisdom which is about development of human values as opposed to the illusionary glamour of AGI. The pursuit of philosophy for human thinking is more important than the artificial in choices.

The nature of childhood trauma and development of AGI are different. That is because while traumas do have a damaging effect, such traumas impair quality of life mainly. The creation of AGI is more about the development of a different kind of being entirely.

I have looked back at your previous linked post and it seems that you value 'intelligence' in an extremely abstract way. I am certainly not of the opinion that human thinking is always supreme. However, what the danger of AGI involves is the attempt to surpass the human in the darkest sense of Nietzche's idea of going 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

The danger of trying to create intelligence which is different from the human is that it is 'cold' and brutal and may be the death of ethics itself. The idea of artificial intelligence and machines is becoming an ideal, as being greater than the human values. It involves a shift in seeing intelligence as primary as opposed to consciousness as being. Itis a way of legitimising brutality and mass destruction, which is happening in so many parts of the world . It is the opposite of the idea of wisdom in thinking and choice.

The path of creating AGI is the radical alternative to the idea of the development and value human consciousness itself. It signifies the idea replacing human beings with the non-human. Do you not see this as being problematic at all?

I have worked with many people who have experienced PTSD, including those who have suffered serious effects from war situations in various parts of the world. So many aspects of trauma affect people, including childhood sexual abuse. Such trauma can be seen as extremely damaging and there is also a crossover between people diagnosed with PTSD and personality disorders.

Of course, it would be an error to see such damage as being damaging beyond repair necessarily. But, it may take a lot of therapy and support for healing to occur. This is especially true when those who have a history of early childhood trauma experience severe life stresses at later points in life as well.

I am not sure why you seem to be opposed to Philip Ball straight away. He is an award-winning writer on science and culture, who studied chemistry at Oxford University and physics at the University of Bristol, so his credentials seem fine. When writers use technical language too much it seems to me that it is to mystify more than explain.

The gist of Ball's argument is that there is a great diversity of 'minds' ranging from animals, humans and artificial 'minds'. He argues that there is a tendency towards mindedness in the path of evolution and this involves 'agency'. He does not rule out the creation of 'mind' artificially points to the role of meaning and purpose in this process within systems. One point which he makes, which I think is extremely important is that it is highly likely that organisations will have a shaping role in the forms of technology created. This is a very basic summary of his ideas.

In thinking about Ball's writing and the nature of artificial intelligence, my own position is that such forms are unlikely to be merely neutral but bound up with ideological values. In particular, as with transhumanism, there are political aspects, especially the interests of the wealthy and powerful elite. Freedom and will as concepts does not involve equality of interests necessarily Just as the philosophy of Christendom protected the powerful, the philosophy of AGI is connected with ideological interests within science and, those who fund research and projects

I am aware of your previous references to the idea of 'free thinking.' I do see it as thinking independently of socialised and conventional forms of thinking. I would go a stage further and see it as being about standing back from one's own thoughts as far as possible in critical thinking.

The whole issue of anthromorphising ideas of AGI is also an important area for philosophy. Today, I came across a book which explores this. . It is, 'The Book of Minds: Understanding Ourselves and Other Beings, from Animals to Aliens', Philip Ball (2022). He looks at the nature of anthromorphism about human 'minds', as well as questioning ideas of 'intelligence'. I have been reading it this evening and hope to add a further entry tomorrow, especially as there is a chapter on the nature of choice.

Language and linguistics is important in the navigation of choices. This may be where human beings differ so greatly from animals. Lqnguage is at the core of human meaning and understanding. As the cognitive behavioral thinkers suggest, emotions and behaviour are not caused by experiences but by our interpretation of them. Nevertheless, it is a difficult area because while humans may struggle with interpretation and framing, the experiences of perceived 'trauma' has lasting effects, including upon the brain and biochemistry, This includes PTSD and the basis of so much which is experienced and diagnosed as 'mental illness'.

There is so much 'assumption' involved in the concept of free will, which may be one of the reasons why many have sought to think outside of the idea. The phenomena of human judgmentalness can be a stumbling block in how behaviour and choices are made. It comes down to ideas of judges, and biases, including racism and sexism.

It may be a grey and debatable area, because moral responsibility may be relinquished under determinism or seen too rigidly in ideas of free will. This may mean that all aspects of specific choices need to be looked at clearly. This would suggest the need for individuals to be able to analyse or think about the factors involved in choice and even examine them in understanding the psychological and philosophical aspects of choice.

What you are saying about your experience with your sister shows the power of nurture inherent in our core thinking. As Freud suggested, so much of our basic personality structure is determined in our first 5 years. This is also consistent with the neurochemistry of thought, with the added factor of nature, including genetics, alongside nurture.

It is so difficult to break free from our constructions and defence mechanisms of the past. I don't have brothers or sisters, but I am aware that I am restricted by aspects of childhood patterns of thinking. In particular, I am inclined to go into the victim mode as a doorway into negative thinking.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is more focused on the present as opposed to the analysis of the past in psychoanalytic therapy. Making changes is very far from easy though, as it may require a need to reframe the past. It may require a lot of work on oneself to do this effectively and consistently. In this sense, free will may not be a given aspect of thinking but as a mode of ability which needs to be developed.

Going by your definitions of consciousness and intelligence, the idea of truly free thinking AGI is probably a long way off at present. It would come down to beings capable of insight, as the eureka moments of creativity. This is rare in humans, especially as humans make very flawed choices.

Some of this comes down to the aspects of lower self, or ego as opposed to altruism. However, with AGI there is the question of the development of balance based on sensation, intuition, rationality and emotions. Rationality alone without the other aspects may lead to the absence of empathy and compassion, necessary for altruistic consideration.

Of course, it may be possible to programme AGI with the categorical imperative for consideration of the needs of others, but applied without discernment it may lead become too utilitarian. The existence of an inner world may be necessary for a sense of duty inherent in free moral choices.

It partly comes down to the question of what is consciousness? It also depends on what do the artificial simulations serve, and in accordance with whose will? If one has any sympathy with panpsychism, there is a consciousness which may have rudimentary developments.

Human consciousness may be where it involves self awareness and reflective ability. If the artificial are mere intelligent bots with no consciousness they are hollow automations dependent on programming. This would be degeneration rather than evolution potentially, the opposite of beings with free will.

The issue is how much organic life combined with simulated consciousness will it take to lead to pain emotions. The presence of a brain and nervous system is probably of significance.

Also, as such simulated forms of consciousness would not have gone through experiences they would not have gone through the developmental processes of narrative self identity. This would mean lack of reflective consciousness which is necessary for free will.

It does depend whether pain and emotion is central to self-awareness. That is unless such simulations are able to develop as independent forms and evolve as such, like the 'gods' which were imagined in myths.

It is true that animals have consciousness which is beyond human experience. It is anthromorphism when humans claim superiority.

As far as the current situation, life is so unstable and changing constantly, that some kind of shifts are going to occur in consciousness, for better or worse. The ecological crisis, wars and poverty are turning life upside down rapidly for so many. It is like the REM song,' It'sThe End of the World (As We Know It'). Humanity may have entered into the stage of post-apocalyptic consciousness.

I have wondered if artificial intelligence, or the combination of sentience with it, will be the next stage of evolution of consciousness. This is especially in the light of the ecological crisis and James Lovelock suggested this in his final writings.

However, there is the question of whether artificial consciousness has will independently of human programming. Also, it is a move in the direction of some disembodiment. That would make it like some form of spirit beings beyond the confines of human mortality.

It is hard to say, and I do wonder if suffering and crisis itself is what may lead to shifts in thinking. I hope that I am not being too optimistic. It just seems rather strange if evolution is reached, with no further possibilities in terms of consciousness.

I realise that what I am speaking of may seem elitist, almost like Plato's idea of the 'philosopher kings', or Nietzsche's 'superman'. However, the perspective which I am coming from is that of not viewing evolution as having been reached ultimately.

It is possible that evolution of consciousness is still ongoing. The choices human beings make can be seen as that ongoing development of going beyond the aspects of 'robotic' functioning. I am thinking of the developments of certain individuals, such as great artists and thinkers, such as spoken of by Robert Bucke in 'Cosmic Consciousness'. It may be seen as intent and freedom of thought.

Self-mastery may be POSSIBLE but not that easy to achieve in the full sense. That is because few people have the degree of discipline that they need to live up to highest ideals of what they would like to be able to in all areas of their lives. That is because in spite of choice most people have flaws and blindspots, especially in being affected by the subconscious, or the internal saboueur.

Weather makes such a lot of difference to life and that is probably why English people speak about it so much. I find weather extremes difficult and have struggled so much with it becoming so cold for September. Ì have noticed it has affected my thinking processes badly and been a triggering negative thinking and low mood. However, I guess that we should be grateful for cool weather when some are struggling with unsafe heat. Of course, it is probably a lot colder in Scotland than London.

I have always been fascinated by dreams and have some bizarre ones. When stressed I do have nightmares at times, including borderline states on the verge of waking or falling asleep. I have always seen dreams as a source for writing and art. As for daydreaming, I used to get told off for it at school and I think I was noticed for doing it at work sometimes. Some people are the opposite and don't like being alone with their thoughts.

Now, mobile phones are the new distraction or even a source for imaginative searching. Texts and emails feature in novels so much. I do send texts but don't use text talk. One difficult but new drama is accidentally sending a text to the wrong person. I know of a student nurse who sent a text meant for her boyfriend, saying, 'I love you.'

As far as aesthetics goes, environment has such a large part in appreciation of life. When my room gets messed up, which is often, I feel so gloomy and I often go out on busses to look out of the window and daydream. Also, as people spend more time on digital devices this may have an impact. As much as I love TPF, I do need breaks from staring at a screen. The overuse may be hypnotic, especially with the blue light affecting eyes detrimentally and there may be some radioactive affect on the brain.

The other side to this though can be how mood itself affects aesthetics. I find that the whole world seems to look different according to state out of mind. People don't seem to speak of this often and I wonder whether they notice such differences. If I am going to create art or write fiction the first priority is getting into the right state of consciousness.

Music can help with altering consciousness this. I also notice the whole experience of aesthetic appreciation of music is mind dependent. It may even explain why music tastes differ so much, as people may tune into different frequencies in response to music and associations.

Aesthetic appreciation often gets left out of life, especially in news. There is so much emphasis on sensation with bad news. I don't have a television but see news on the phone and it frequently lowers my mood. Watching such news can even be addictive.

Even though I like reading philosophy I usually have at least one novel on the go as it is about appreciating good writing, although philosophy being well written is important too. However, with novels the use of the senses allows one to connect to life and stories allow for imaginative daydreaming. I don't read much poetry but of course it works in the same way, as do all the arts.

The novel which I am reading at the moment is 'Hamnet' by Maggie Farrell. I am finding it well written and with an intriguing storyline. I recommend it.

I always try to read a novel with my morning coffees as it seems to get me in the right frame of mind to cope with the dramas of the day. I do see life as like a novel unfolding. On a negative side, that may be why I attract negative dramas. Another way of seeing this though is to be able to frame the negative dramas in a creative way as being part of a mythic quest.

The issue of the past is different from a deterministic perspective from that of the free will outlook. The necessity of the deterministic view carries so much inevitability which may bring about self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course, it is not easy to do things differently because learned patterns are hard to break.

There is also the question as to whether the direction of time is two way. The future may affect the past, probably on an unconscious level, because it is about becoming and development. I am not sure that this is different according to whether one believes in free will or not. However, the deterministic perspective is far more about linear causation and can even imply a person is a victim of the past, especially if one has experienced traumas. It can involves seeing one's childhood as the source of difficulties, with some sense of victimhood. The idea of free will allows more focus on the present and being the author of one's future self.

The area of philosophy and neuroscience is complicated. That is because neuroscience is a growing field of empirical understanding of the brain. This opens up so much dialogue between philosophy and psychology, in thinking about cognition and what free will entails and means.

Neuroscience is HARD science insofar as it can be backed up by medical evidence. However, there is a lot to be learned at this stage, especially as each person is unique. For example, when people are given psychiatric medication some of the effects vary so much from one person to another, often making it a case of hit and miss. Also, the role of chemicals in will are complex. In particular, neurotransmitters affect motivation but so do experiences.

This means that there is a complex interaction between brain chemicals and human interpretation of experiences. So, understanding human will and choice involves both science of the brain and a person's meanings. The latter is harder to formulate into science. The most positive way forward would involve quantitative and qualitative research, possibly involving the psychological therapies as well as forms of psychoactive medication.

It is true that a lot of intellectual discussions about free will vs determinism go round in circles. It may be about the nature of opposites in human thinking and living with paradoxical aspects of life. Each person is part of so many chains of cause and effect in the web of life.

I agree with you about the testability of science. Anecdotal evidence is problematic. With neuroscience it is about mapping and is different from experiments. As far as I see, Dispenza's ideas are consistent with mainstream science.

I do think that it matters what credentials Dispenza has and it is unclear, because I do not know what the faculty of Life Sciences in Atlanta is. Nevertheless, those who label his ideas as pseudoscience are only expressing their opinion. It is not as if those on the internet who criticise Dispenza come up with clear evidence based arguments. As for 'woo' and 'gobbledegook', I find that many people dismiss all philosophy as fitting into that category, much to my horror!

Relative and subjective are different. The example of the Catholic idea of abortion shows this because to Catholics it is absolute. Nevertheless, there is a relationship between relativism and subjectivity because one can stand back looking at the various relative positions and say that it amounts to all positions being subjective.

I had never heard of Dispenza until I came across the book, 'Evolve Your Brain' in my local library. I have just looked him up on Google and it does appear that he is a controversial figure. Some web entries suggest he wrote pseudoscience. Of course, my outpost is not about the author as such and, hopefully, stands as one which examines the philosophical ideas, especially free will and the brain. Nothing more...

It may be problematic to see relativism or objectivitism as an ultimate 'truth'. That is because they are both perspectives. Saying that may amount to relativism in some respects. However, relativism may go too far in reducing all matters of 'truth' to the subjective, which may rule out the shared and intersubjective elements are missed. This can apply to most aspects of 'truth', including morality.

Both the subjective, or relative, and objective matter in thinking about the construction of 'truth and, need to be juggled effectively. Human beings may seek 'truth'. It is constructed uniquely from cultural and personal angles, and on an ongoing basis throughout life.

The idea of 'soul' is useful here, not as a disembodied spirit but as a way of describing the inner world. It is the interface of the inner and outer aspects of 'reality', just as emotions are the interface between brain and body. This is a basis of nondualism and the concept of soul is useful for differentiating between brain and the nature of experience. This is also in line with compatabilism, which sees determined and determining aspects of human consciousness.

Yes, determinism as a perspective is limited by reductionism to brain states, which denies the existential nature of choices in human awareness. The deterministic argument is often choice is a feeling, but that leaves out the specific choices in their own right.