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.

You speak of 'multiple personality disorder', which is a rare diagnosis. It is the extreme end of splits in personality and will, but it is likely that many people do experience degrees of splits, which may trigger some underlying mental health problems and imbalances.

The idea of schizophrenia as being about a split personality were a gross caricaturistic overgeneralisation. Nevertheless, it is likely that divisions in thinking are the source of psychotic breakdown. This was suggested by RD Laing in, 'The Divided Self'. He spoke of contradictions in socialisations which give rise to internal conflicts. His writings were part of the antipsychiatry movement, which is not predominant now, but the idea of 'the divided self' is still a useful metaphor or idea for considering divisions and split in the psyche and will.

I can see the weaknesses you mention in my line of argument. I guess that I am coming from the angle of seeing determinism as fatalistic.

Also, a few months ago, I read John Gray's ' The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom' (2015), which connects the concept of freedom and free will. It goes as far as questioning to what extent do human beings wish to be free. Gray suggests,
'Many people today hold to a a Gnostic view of things without fully realising the fact. Believing that human beings can be understood in the terms of scientific materialism, they reject any idea of free will. But they cannot give up hope of being masters of their destiny. So they have come to believe that science will somehow enable the human mind to escape the limitations that shape its condition.'

Gray argues that the illusion of lack of freedom and free will enables people to be 'like fairground puppets', escaping the 'burden of choice'. In that respect, determinism is an ideology.

The coexistence of determinism and free will makes sense. I subscribe to a biopsychocial model of influence in life. Factors from genetics, socialisation and the environment have a determining role. The physical laws and the weather have a determining effect on thinking and behaviour. The variables always come together and interact.

Free will, as the deliberate art of innovation is more likely as an act of rebellion against pain and suffering. If one is comfortable and content there may be no need to make changes at all. In this respect, the existence of pain and discontent may break cycles of repetition. This may be evolutionary as ongoing evolution of human consciousness, with free will as the mover towards creativity on a personal and cultural level.

The gap between what a person seeks in their intent and finding the means to reach that end is central to human agency. It is where human choice makes deliberate acts to bring about chosen ends consciously.

I do believe in the existence of free will. It is not absolute because we are affected by so many variables outside of oneself. I may even go a stage beyond the position of free will as such. That is to say that one's conscious and subconscious will, apart from affecting one's actions can have a determining effect in leading to the circumstances which manifest in one's life. Intention is so powerful.

The balance between reading others' ideas and usage of language alongside a unique personal or independent opinion is tricky, but important. It is possible to get lost in the labyrinth of thoughts of others, especially in thinking of the issue of free will. This is because it is a philosophy problem throughout history. Ultimately, each person arrives at a unique personal perspective through sifting through ideas in conjunction with experience of life. It is an issue which can be explored for a lifetime, and what matters most is how it contributes to living life with the greatest freedom.

Doubts may be experienced so often by an individual. I certainly feel in a maze, or even a fog of confusion of possibilities on a frequent basis. That is often because it is difficult to see the larger picture, especially of the unknown future. What I like about Watson and Skinner's picture of rats iand mouses n mazes isn't the actual deterministic picture of behaviorism but the metaphor of the creatures within the maze.

Behaviorism certainly paints a picture of determinism. However, the later development of cognitive behavioral approaches may alter this. That is cognition plays a part in making sense of it all, including the mazes, even if there are not any easy solutions.

The question of what 'I' is a big one in thinking, especially in relation to free will. In her volume on consciousness, Susan Blackmore thought that acknowledging perplexity was important.

With the idea of willing in the moment, there is the contrast with sustained will. In particular, a feeling of intent may arise in a situation or as an ongoing aspect of the establishment of goals. The momentary aspects of choice and the longer term ones may compete.

As far as where the will comes from it is likely to be complex, including nature and nurture as well as in connection with factors in the social environment. A person is a system within the context of larger systems. The individual is both acted upon and acts upon other systems. The elusive 'I' could be viewed as the narrative author weaving all this together in a personal context.

The strategy which Dispenza suggests for coping with conflicts of will is mental rehearsal. Personally, I do find that visualisation and imagining a situation in advance can be helpful for desired outcomes. It is far from absolute because life has so many unpredictable variables. However, imagining scenarios mentally is a potential way of preparation for affirmation of intent and will.

The link which you provided on compatabilism is useful. That is because the idea has a history and I have found when reading about it that various authors use the idea differently.

The coexistence of the empirical aspects of neuroscience and the questions of philosophy may be complementary. One without the other may be insufficient. Many of the important thinkers were speculating about the nature of 'mind' and free will. In the understanding of consciousness there can be an opposite tendency to see neuroscience as replacing this. The philosophy of the question of the
hard problem of consciousness and free will do not go away and it may be possible to build bridges between the findings of neuroscience and the underlying philosophical ideas.

With the idea of a strong will to eat chocolate there may be conflict between the conscious and subconscious aspects of will. A person may enjoy chocolate but realise a need to not do so, especially for health reasons. This may create a complex dynamic and subconscious aspects, such as comfort, may be a stumbling block.

The other part of this may be where an intention or aspects of will fit in within the larger system of one's motivation and gratification. If one is trying to make change in one area of life a certain amount of stability in various other aspects may be important. That is because to deal with too much conflict and change at once may be too difficult.

Strangely, or by synchronicity, we are both interested in the prefrontal cortex because I was writing about that in a thread on free will as yours appeared on the forum.

As far as your idea of the significance of the chimpanzee recognising his or her image in the mirror, it may suggest a form of personal identity based on an image of one's bodily appearance. The recognition of oneself in the mirror is an important point in a child's awareness. Of course, the existence of mirror images may be a detrimental factor in human identity insofar as it creates the potential for narcissistic tendencies and body image issues.

Compatanilism makes sense because it involves both the physical and mental aspects of agency. Dispenza looks at the way the neurochemistry involves the pleasurable aspects of behaviour. He suggests that this is what hinders change because we are addicted to the chemical aspects of certain patterns of behaviour and thinking.

There is probably a continuum of strong and weak wills. This is likely based on the degree of strength which a person has learned. Also, it is possible to be weak in some areas but strong in other aspects. For example, a person may be strong in resisting violent impulses, but be weak in bingeing on chocolate.

The area of freedom of will is likely to be interconnected to the examination of values. In this respect, it is connected to the nature of 'the examined life', as opposed to robotic automatic functioning.

Our thoughts are us, although there is more than just than that' is worth thinking about in relation to the idea of free will. It is possible to identify with the flow of thought completely, that is the basis of uncritical belief. It may involve a sense of almost unconscious basis for action. The 'more than' our thoughts is ambiguous, but may involve being able to observe thoughts, analyse and reflect on them, which may be a basis for mental freedom or the development of free will. In that respect, philosophy may enable the art of cultivating free will.

Yes, a person can steer thoughts to some degree. Of course, thoughts can be intrusive, especially negative ones in conjunction with mood. It is complicated because mood affects thinking and, at the same time, thought affects mood and may be the factor which can be a determining factor in altering patterns of mindset.

Yes, I would agree that the will.is a central aspect of change in the process. It may be viewed as the depths of motivation. Perhaps; that is why choices to make changes from addictions, unhelpful relationships and other situations fail. They may be too superficial and change may require a dramatic shift at the subconscious level. Conscious thoughts may be part of this, probably on a cumulative basis, but will itself is likely to be stubborn, hard to change aspects of automatic thinking and behaviour.

There is probably an interplay of determined aspects of thought and behaviour, as well as reflective choices. Complete free will would be impossible because it would be beyond the scope of causality itself. The reflective aspect is that part of critical thinking which can seek new patterns and innovation on the basis of awareness of past 'mistakes'.

The idea of 'self' as 'pre-exists' may be problematic because it would mean that no change or modification is possible. This would be contrary. Wlll is not separate from the self but part of its core basis as motivation. Of course, there are different theories of motivation. The deterministic view would see the scope of modification as limited whereas more cognitive based models would see change as possible through the role of cognition.