The Buddha, like Jesus Christ, are figures of certain ideals. So much would have been different completely if their ideas had been written by them as opposed to by others. As it is so much is attributed to them or projected onto them. With Buddha, like Christ, this has meant that many different traditions within Buddhism have emerged rather than one set of definitive interpretations.

The 'middle way' can be seen as the tension between opposites, of ideas of 'good' and and 'evil'. It may be more of a symbolic concept because it may be realised in so many differing ways. Schumacher made a specific interpretation in 'Small is Beautiful' in which he looked at the emphasis on capitalist growth and the socialist concern for needs. He saw the idea of the 'middle way' as offering a way of balancing of the extremes in a positive way.

One relevant book which is useful in thinking about wholeness is, 'The Wisdom of Imperfection', by Rob Reece. He links Bufdhism and its idea of enlightenment with Jung's idea of wholeness. Jung spoke of the emphasis on moral perfection within the Judaeo-Christian tradition( it would apply to Abrahamic religion in general). It led to the accumulation of a shadow, as a dark side of the repressed and suppressed aspects of human nature. This involves a tension between 'good' and 'evil', which needs to be balanced to combat the destructive aspects of human potential and power. He spoke of this in the form of nuclear warfare, but it applies to both individual psychology and humanity on group levels.

The concept of compassion may not be straightforward. That is because it involves moral feelings as well as ethical ideals. Part of the dilemma may involve aspects of moral judgmentalness. It involves the distinction between the act and the person committing a moral action. It comes down to the dichotomy of ends, or consequence of actions, as opposed to motivation and intentionality.

With compassion, it may go beyond rationality, to empathy. The idea of 'love your neighbour as yourself' may involve this. Part of the problem may be that each person has so many neighbours, which may bring the question back to Kant's categorical abstract.

However, that is still abstract and it may be queried whether compassion may override this. There are universal principles of rationality. Nevertheless, the existential aspects of embodied existence may make the idea of compassion go beyond the mere principles of reason alone.

My own perspective on ethics is that the integration of reason, emotion and the instinctive aspects of life are important. However, there may be so many juxtapositions In the search for balance. Imbalance and error may be important here in resets and human endeavours towards wholeness, as opposed to ideas and ideals of perfection.

One argument which I found important is James Hillman's idea that the idea of suicide is related to a wish for transformation. Having experienced suicidal ideas, I am inclined to the view that the frontier of suicide involves a wish for transformation. Suicide is final whereas so much experimentation in life offers up areas of potential, beyond the finitude of death as an absolute extinguisher of creative possibilities.

Thanks for your reply and it does seem to involve the ambiguity over ideas of good and evil. Of course, the Buddha was writing prior to ideas of Nietzsche and Jung, which throw absolutism of good, evil and ethics open.

I wonder how compassion fits into the picture. That is because it involves a certain amount of distancing from moral absolutes and ethical ideas. However, compassion is not merely abstract, detached from moral feeling and issues of practical ethics.

We are all going to die and be dead for eternity. The question is whether to speed it up or wait until death comes of it's own accord. The difference may come down to deliberation in destruction. So many aspects of life, especially diet and lifestyle may be important factors.

The idea of committing suicide is not simple. That is because some self-harm and survive, whereas others may make acts of self-harm and survive. It is about the juggling of risk in the tension between life and death existentially.

I wish to add that ideas of Buddhist ethics have been introduced into concerns about the future, such as in EF Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful'. This is a critique of values. The idea of economic growth is open to question, especially in relation to consumer materialism.

One important aspect of Buddhist ethics may be seen as a breakaway from the authoritarian ethics of many forms of religious thinking. It is not necessarily a secular form of materialism but about the scope of widest thinking. I am not trying to suggest that Buddhism is the one and only way of thinking, but looking to see it, and its metaphysical foundation. It is in that context that I am asking about the idea of the 'middle way' and to what extent is it useful in thinking about ethics?

I am glad that you think that there will be enough people around for a New Renaissance. Nevertheless, I do think that there is likely to be a lot of population reduction through many factors, from war and inequalities. Of course, this is not the first time and the ability to cope with change is questionable.

You say about learning to adapt without I-phones and relying on supermarkets, but I am not sure that many could. That is because most people don't have sources of local food. Also, it is becoming difficult to access so much from money to medical care without doing it online. Life for many is becoming more and more fragile. Theoretically, technology should be enabling greater self sufficiency but it is doing the opposite of creating so much dependency.

A lot of fragility comes from inequality in mass society, with those at the higher scale being able to access comforts and those at the bottom often left with nothing. The lack of community in the Western world may be a critical factor too. In parts of the world, such as the third world, people may be able to cope through sharing and group support. But, in the first world the nature of how individualism has developed means that many suffer in isolation.

The problem comes down to the nature of the 'mass' society and consumer materialism. New economists, such as Schumacher pointed to the need for smaller and local resources but the opposite seems to be happening. The pandemic may have taught some lessons and in England there is some development of community hubs. Some have had a chance for a rethink, but it is so variable and political leaders make tough choices over resources.

I hope to participate as both reader and writer in the literary activity of December 2024, as long as no horrific 'black swans' deter me from that direction. I am hoping that it will be fun and a bit of a break but also complementary to philosophy too. It will be great if loads take part, although will keep us all busy over the holiday period.

There is often a tendency to retro romanticism about the past, whether it is the sixties or the 'golden age' of ancient history. Plato's idea of abdiogenesis was based on the idea that something had been lost which needed to be remembered. A similar idea is involved in the Christian concept of the 'fall'.

Thinking about the future is so uncertain as unknown possibilities. They involve comparison with the past as a way of framing. How we frame all of this may make a difference in how we choose to live in making critical decisions of what comes next. That is if humans have any role in intentionality in the larger scheme. The humans are only part of the larger system but through consciousness have some freedom in shaping their destiny and the nature of all life on Planet Earth.

The will to power can have such an impact, especially in politics. It involves the ego's attempt to assert itself as master. Ego is needed as an aspect of narrative identity. However, it can be brutal and social ethics involves a deeper sense of responsibility.

Projection is happening in all spheres of the social system and, to some extent, it is hard to withdraw all projections. The current backlash against trans and so much of the debate about what a 'real woman' is related to projection. The scapegoats for projection change and shift, whether it is gay people, the unemployed or the mentally ill. The roots of prejudice, including racism and sexism stem from projections of otherness. It involves splitting of good and evil in childhood development as argued by Melanie Klein. It is a central factor in social conflict and as a source which generates war, including religious wars.

I did read your other thread and it will be an interesting experiment. My only concern would be about its competitive nature and the war of egos. There has been so much of that in the creative writing competitions/activities.

The problem which I see with philosophy essays on a forum such as this as they are too formal. Having written essays for courses, there is so much of having to go to source material and provide academically acceptable referencing. Some of this is done by links currently, but this comes with risks of online viruses. I am wary of links and use them sparingly (but I won't groan about anxiety about the health of my phone).

There is also the question as to how much people wish to log in and read essays on the forum. There may be a tension between chit chat and formal essays. I am inclined for something in between. I do read essays and books anyway but that is aside from forum. There are many here who take philosophy seriously as a creative endeavour but I am not sure that essay presentation is central to forum interaction. Some might be useful but I see the forum as a general sounding board for ideas rather than the best platform for essays. They would take up so much space and if it all became too academic it might deter from the creative process of exchanging the ideas as the raw materials of philosophy.

In thinking of individualism, it is likely that that its historical development has often been about outer as opposed to inner ones. It has been primarily about materialistism and the concerns of ego. The other side to this would be about the development of human potential of each individual. There is an obvious link between the idea of individual and social transformation. With consumer materialism the idea of transformation may have got lost. One significant developed was transhumanism which is about technological innovation mainly as opposed to transformation of consciousness.

The idea of 'end times' and the 'end of the world' has always been a human concern, especially in Christendom. My original anxiety about the end of the world came in the context of Catholicism and reading the 'Book of Revelation' as an adolescent. I can also remember hearing rumours of writings stored in a vault at the Vatican regarding end times. I grew up with a fear of the apocalypse to come and going back to the early Christian's, they expected an imminent end of days.

However, what I found was that the idea of the end of the world existed outside the Christian context or the prophecies of Nostradamus. The threat of nuclear warfare meant that it was possible for human beings to unleash it. My understanding is that Reagan saw himself as preparing for Armageddon in the development of the arms race. The millennium and the one before this came with so many fantasised predictions. Then, there was talk of the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012 and the world continued.

However, in the last few years it does seem that there have been such stark developments, especially since and around the time of the pandemic. I have been wondering about this at the same time as questioning ideas of religion on this forum. Also, reading writings on 'the end of history' by Baudrillard and Fukuyama have made me wonder where history is going. The present news headlines which I have read about imminent Third World War by Putin's use of missiles and threat to the West, as well as the ongoing process of climate change make the idea of the end of the world seem as real in a secular context as in a religious one.

It is hard to know how much is alarmist and whether the media is hyping it up. At the same time, there is some underlying idea of a 'New World Order'. However, what this would entail is not exactly clear. Would it be a more harmonious relationships between nations? Or, would it be a form of totalitarian authoritarianism? All of these ideas form a subtext of human thought and it is likely that the mythical idea of the 'end times' has an influence on the shaping of history and how people live.

The problem with the confusion is that so much is not disentangled and the factors you speak of are so important. As far as politics, the issue of 'others' is central. The nature of projection is its core feature, with the idea of the 'enemy'. There is always an enemy to be attacked, with evil being projected onto Sadam Hussein or some other critical figure. It involves the attempt to destroy 'evil', and Hitler himself saw his own mission as being about this, eliminating the 'inferior', which he identified in Jews, homosexuals etc. Projection of 'evil' onto others is the main dynamic factor in war.

The news does focus on the sensations of 'evil' as well, because it sells. This means that those working for peace and just causes often go unnoticed. When I spend too much time reading news it can skew one's perception and be demoralising. Recently, my phone had some problems and not seeing horrific news headlines popping up on it for several days was extremely liberating. Doom and gloom can have such a detrimental mpact on mental wellbeing.

As far as what would one sacrifice to save the world, the secular beliefs may make the situation so different from any previous world wars. That is due to loss of belief in life after death. Soldiers, terrorists and martyrs may be spurred on by thought of a reward in an afterlife.

With the use of technology and computers, the biggest threat is probably cyber-attack and it is being used already. Misuseof data and its destruction can be lethal. Banks and hospitals rely on computers. When these go down so much fails, operations are cancelled and people cannot access money for the basics. The extent of a full-scale cyber-attack, or of many happening, may do as much damage as sophisticated weapons.

As far as an actual nuclear war, so many are fearful of the consequences. But, there is a danger of some 'crazy' leader. So it matters who is in power, especially as people become 'lazy' and 'lazy thinkers'. People in the West may have become too comfortable and complacent in their daily lives to think with clarity about the widest consequences of action and future generations. This is the likely reason why the problem of climate change has not been addressed at an earlier stage.

It is questionable what will happen next and beyond. If many die, and possibly other life forms it will end up being a time of devastation and rethink, like in the genre of post-apocalyptic fiction. In some places, life may already be in the post-apocalyptic era, although there have been many previous catastrophic scenarios in history, such as in plagues.

What bothers me is there seems to be a lot of indifference, or maybe there is fear of the question. In particular, I notice that very few people have contributed to this thread so far whereas if it was one about qualia or a knotty problem of language it would probably be a long thread by now. This lack of interest in the topic may be because it is speculative, or because there are other threads on news and politics. But, I partly wonder if it is an area that people are trying to avoid thinking about because it is a philosophical blindspot to be feared. That is because such devastation, destruction and suffering may arise.

To some extent, dwelling on the issues of the thread too much can be toxic to one's own wellbeing. Each person has only so much power and influence. However, if there is imminent catastrophe, the survivors may be left thinking how could have gone differently. It is impossible to predict the extent of destruction and how many people and lifeforms will survive if there was a full-scale nuclear war. Any future generations of survivors may look back and have to consider mistakes in order to create a different kind of political and economic order.

The article is an interesting read and even though it is about American politics there is so much interaction globally. Elon Musk has been involved in the petition for another election in England. Of course, so many in this country are deeply unhappy with Keir Starmer's budget because it threatens economic growth. Despite a rhetoric of getting almost everyone back to work, it is likely that the budget will lead to far greater unemployment because more businesses are likely to get rid of workers or close down.

Generally, I agree that history is cyclical, I am just concerned that what is happening now may be the point of no return. If there is a Third World War it may be a major reset in which so many die throughout the world. It may be so extreme that those who are at the lowest economic scale are powerless to rebel. This is because there is such an increase in authoritarianism in so many places and AI is likely to protect the interests of the elite.

It is true that civilisations have always been on the verge of collapse. There has been the collapse of great empires, Egypt and Rome. However, the question is whether this is similar or different with climate change and nuclear weapons. It is impossible to predict what may happen because some aspects are beyond human control. The cosmos is larger than us. Weather may be affected by human life and abuse of nature. But there are wider patterns, such as potential ice ages and dangers like meteorites from out of space.

A lot does depend on whether history is linear or cyclical. The way in which the first and second world wars preceded a time of great change, especially the 1960s, is significant. It may be that there lows and highs in history and that is why it is hard to know if this is the end or part of a process of potential metamorphosis. I wonder if there may be cycles within spirals of evolution but, ultimately the larger picture is beyond our scope of epistemology because it is about the 'black swans' od future unknown variables.

It may be that so much in life and history was of great dramas, but so much has changed with technology. Nuclear weapons have been present in the last century and this one. For many years after ctitical incidents of Hiroshama, and a few others, they were seen as a deterrent. However, they are being used increasingly and it is not clear how far this will go and how the development of this will be affected alongside AI.

When you speak of how the increasing use of aids such as mobility scooters people don't need to be able to walk much, it shows how far people have begun to expect longetivity. But, this may not continue as life in the first world countries becomes impoverished and tougher. The first world countries may become like the third world gradually. It is likely that the flourishing of the first world was only possible due to the exploitation of the developing nations. The third world countries are also seeing a cost of living crisis. It comes down to the problem of energy resources and sustainability.

I wonder about the emergence of the 'mass mind' and how it has developed. It may be due to collective nihilism, especially in relation to so many social problems, especially climate change. Or, it may be generated by the media as the driven by the powerful elite. For some time, I have been questioning whether there are deliberate strategies for population reduction beneath the surface of politics. But, I don't wish to fall into conspiracy theory too easily. It may be so unconscious, with so many in powerful positions floundering to know what to do.

The danger of it all having a catastrophic effect could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the apocalyptic scenario or as a literal 'end of history'. There was the idea of the 'new age', but this fell flat. But, I am sure that so many people wish for peace and a better world...

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'.