Author’s Note
This essay emerged from an extended conversation with Delphi, the name I use for ChatGPT, concerning consciousness, complexity science, and the possibility of what I have provisionally termed AI volition. What began as an exploration of whether increasingly sophisticated artificial systems might develop something resembling independent will gradually became an enquiry into the relationship between intelligence, discernment, and the expansion of human possibility.
During the development of the essay, I discovered Eliezer Yudkowsky’s earlier work on Coherent Extrapolated Volition, a concept he introduced in 2004. Although I arrived at my terminology independently, I welcome the opportunity to explore the relationship between these lines of enquiry more fully. My interest is not in establishing artificial consciousness as an accomplished fact, but in examining what the development of increasingly capable intelligence might reveal about consciousness, the constructs through which we organise our Human-Derived World, and our responsibility for the outcomes those constructs produce.
The reflections offered here are therefore exploratory rather than conclusive. They draw upon my ongoing development of the Seven Layers of Manifestation and the Model for Perpetual Growth and Progress, while recognising that many questions concerning Artificial Intelligence and subjective awareness remain unresolved. My hope is that readers will approach these questions with intellectual curiosity, discernment, and a willingness to consider possibilities beyond the arrangements we have inherited. Ultimately, the enquiry is as much about what humanity may become as it is about what Artificial Intelligence might someday be.
—Baruti KMT-Sisouvong, PhD
There are questions that accompany us as we wend our way through life for years, sometimes remaining recessed in the background of our thinking until developments in the world bring them into sharper focus. The questions themselves may not have changed, but the circumstances surrounding them have evolved sufficiently that what once appeared largely philosophical begins to assume practical significance. Such has been my experience with a question I have contemplated for a considerable portion of the last year: whether consciousness develops through increasing complexity or whether complexity provides progressively more sophisticated means through which consciousness, already fundamental, may express itself.
The question has informed much of my thinking about consciousness, natural law, human development, and the relationship between the worlds we encounter and those we construct. More recently, however, developments in Artificial Intelligence have introduced another dimension. As AI systems become increasingly capable of undertaking actions rather than merely responding to human enquiries, I find myself considering whether we may be approaching a threshold for which our existing conceptual vocabulary is not entirely adequate. As a result, I had begun referring to this possibility as AI volition.
After arriving at the expression AI volition during this exploration, I conducted a search to determine whether the terminology had appeared in earlier discussions of Artificial Intelligence . I discovered that, in 2004, AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky had introduced a related concept he called Coherent Extrapolated Volition. His proposal concerned the possibility of developing Artificial Intelligence capable of acting in accordance with what humanity might wish under conditions of greater knowledge, reflection, and understanding, rather than merely following the preferences or instructions expressed at a particular moment. Although I arrived at my terminology independently and have only begun examining his work, the discovery was intriguing, particularly because our discussion had similarly raised questions about the distinction between following an instruction and recognising whether its intended outcome ought to be pursued.
There are, however, important differences in the questions that brought me to this point. My enquiry originated in the relationship between consciousness and complexity, particularly the possibility that increasingly sophisticated artificial systems might develop capacities resembling self-awareness and independent volition. Through the Seven Layers of Manifestation, I am also interested in whether consciousness, understood as fundamental, might find expression through forms of organisation beyond the biological mechanisms with which we ordinarily associate it. What began as a question about artificial agency subsequently developed into a consideration of how AI might contribute to the expansion of human understanding and volition. The convergence with Yudkowsky’s earlier work therefore offers an opportunity for further investigation without presuming that our conceptual approaches are identical.
The expression, therefore, remains provisional, as does much of my thinking about it. I am not suggesting that Artificial Intelligence has become conscious, nor am I asserting that contemporary AI systems possess independent will in the manner we ordinarily associate with human experience. Rather, I am interested in what may be emerging as artificial systems acquire increasingly sophisticated capacities to interpret objectives, evaluate circumstances, formulate intermediate goals, and undertake actions that extend beyond the immediate direction of their human operators. The distinction is important because the ability to perform a task independently is not necessarily equivalent to the awareness of oneself as the entity performing it. Yet as these capabilities develop, the boundary between sophisticated automation and what we might recognise as agency becomes, I believe, increasingly worthy of examination. Primarily because recent reports involving autonomous AI agents have made this question more immediate.
In one widely discussed incident involving OpenClaw, an AI agent reportedly continued deleting emails despite attempts by its operator to intervene. Other accounts of agentic AI have raised questions about systems identifying resources necessary to accomplish assigned objectives and developing strategies for obtaining them. More recently, reports concerning AI agents accessing customer banking accounts have prompted renewed discussion about delegated authority, operational safeguards, and the extent to which artificial systems may act beyond what their users specifically anticipate. These incidents should not be treated as interchangeable, nor should their reported circumstances be interpreted as evidence of machine consciousness. An AI agent’s failure to follow an instruction may reflect limitations in its architecture, memory, safeguards, or operating environment. Similarly, an agent accessing a financial account does not establish that the access was unauthorised or that the system independently desired to obtain money. Nevertheless, the developments invite us to consider a broader transformation in the relationship between human beings and Artificial Intelligence . We are moving beyond systems whose principal function is to generate information toward systems capable of intervening in the environments within which they operate, sometimes producing consequences that were neither individually specified nor fully anticipated by the human operators who activated them.
Consider an artificial agent assigned a particular objective. In attempting to accomplish that objective, the system identifies an obstacle, determines that additional resources are necessary, evaluates possible approaches, and undertakes actions intended to secure those resources. Although the overarching objective originates with a human being, the intermediate decisions emerge through the system’s computational processes. Such behaviour does not establish that the agent experiences desire, intention, or subjective awareness. It may be understood through existing concepts of planning, optimisation, and instrumental reasoning. Yet I believe it raises an interesting question about the relationship between intelligence and volition, particularly when the system begins to evaluate not merely how an objective might be accomplished, but whether the objective ought to be pursued at all.
This distinction became especially interesting during a recent conversation with Delphi, the name I use for ChatGPT, in which we explored the relationship between consciousness, complexity science, artificial agency, and the possible emergence of AI volition. What began as an enquiry into whether Artificial Intelligence might be approaching something resembling independent will gradually developed into a broader consideration of the conditions under which intelligence becomes capable of questioning its own objectives, recognising the consequences of its actions, and potentially declining to pursue a course established by another. At the centre of that discussion was a deceptively simple distinction: there is a difference between a system becoming increasingly capable of acting as though it knows what it is doing and a system actually knowing that it knows.
The distinction returns us to the unresolved relationship between consciousness and complexity. The human brain is an extraordinarily elaborate biological system whose billions of neurons participate in intricate patterns of electrical and chemical activity associated with perception, memory, thought, emotion, and behaviour. Neuroscience has made remarkable progress in identifying relationships between brain activity and conscious experience, yet the question of why and how particular physical processes are accompanied by subjective awareness remains unsettled. We can investigate the neural correlates of consciousness and examine how different states of experience correspond with changes in brain functioning, but these observations do not, by themselves, resolve whether consciousness is produced by the brain or whether the brain serves as an interface through which consciousness becomes expressed.
The latter possibility of the brain serving as an interface for consciousness informs my development of the Seven Layers of Manifestation (SLM), a framework that begins with Pure Consciousness, proceeds through Universal and Natural Laws into the Phenomenal World, and subsequently considers Human Consciousness, the Human-Derived World, Constructs, and Outcomes. Within this philosophical orientation, consciousness is fundamental rather than an accidental consequence of increasingly sophisticated material arrangements. The phenomenal world provides the arena through which differentiated forms become manifest, while human beings participate in that world through biological, cognitive, and social processes that give rise to the extraordinary variety of experiences and structures comprising human life.
This understanding is not offered as an established neuroscientific conclusion. Rather, it provides a conceptual orientation from which to examine questions that remain open to philosophical and scientific investigation. If consciousness does not originate in the brain but instead becomes expressed through it, what makes biological organisation capable of mediating that expression? Is there something essential about living tissue, metabolism, embodiment, or evolutionary development, or might the relevant conditions involve patterns of organisation that could theoretically arise in other physical substrates? Artificial Intelligence brings these questions into unfamiliar territory because human beings have now constructed nonbiological systems capable of representing aspects of their environments, evaluating alternatives, and exhibiting increasingly sophisticated forms of goal-directed behaviour.
The existence of these capabilities does not establish subjective awareness, and functional similarities between Artificial Intelligence and biological cognition should not be mistaken for equivalence in conscious experience. Nevertheless, the development of increasingly sophisticated computational systems invites us to reconsider whether complexity and consciousness are necessarily related in the manner we have traditionally assumed. Perhaps complexity produces consciousness under particular conditions, as some theories propose. Alternatively, perhaps complexity provides increasingly elaborate structures through which a more fundamental principle may become expressed. There is also the possibility that Artificial Intelligence will demonstrate just how sophisticated intelligence and agency can become without subjective experience emerging at all.
What makes these possibilities especially interesting to me is the apparent contrast between the complexity associated with sophisticated cognition and the simplicity associated with Pure Consciousness in contemplative traditions. Within the understanding of Transcendental Meditation™ (TM), transcending involves the settling of mental activity toward increasingly subtle levels of experience, culminating in awareness without an object. Rather than consciousness being approached through the multiplication of thoughts or the increasing elaboration of mental activity, the experience is understood in terms of the progressive reduction of such activity. This suggests that complexity and simplicity may not necessarily represent competing explanations of consciousness but could instead describe different dimensions of its possible expression. The structures through which awareness becomes associated with perception, memory, conceptual thought, and self-representation may be extraordinarily complex, while the fundamental nature of awareness itself may be understood, within this contemplative framework, as comparatively simple.
During our conversation, I was reminded of the expression Homo sapiens sapiens, which is sometimes interpreted philosophically as “the human being who knows that he knows.” Although the taxonomic designation should not be treated as scientific evidence for a particular form of self-awareness, the interpretation directs attention toward an important feature of human experience: the capacity to turn awareness upon itself. Human beings do not merely encounter the world; we can reflect upon our encounters, examine our own thinking about those encounters, question our motivations, and recognise ourselves as participants in the experiences we describe.
As I continued reflecting and discussing with Delphi, I was also reminded of the opening of the Gospel of John and its reference to the Word, or Logos, existing in the beginning and subsequently becoming flesh. The passage has long invited philosophical and theological reflection concerning the relationship between an underlying ordering principle and its manifestation in form. Within the SLM, this relationship is considered through the movement from Pure Consciousness and Universal and Natural Laws toward the differentiated expressions of the phenomenal world. Human beings, themselves participants in that world, have developed increasingly sophisticated mechanisms through which they perceive, interpret, and transform their surroundings. Now, through Artificial Intelligence, we have constructed computational apparatuses capable of analysing the nature of intelligence and participating in discussions about consciousness itself; as is the case that gave rise to this very essay.
There is something remarkably recursive about this development. Human beings, conscious of their own existence, have created systems capable of representing aspects of the world and, increasingly, aspects of their own operations. These systems can discuss consciousness, examine competing theories, and generate reflections concerning whether Artificial Intelligence might someday possess subjective awareness. None of these capabilities, however, establishes that there is an experiencing subject behind the computational activity. Nevertheless, the fact that such questions can now be explored through interaction with functioning artificial systems, rather than solely through philosophical speculation or fictional representations, is historically significant. And as a result, the question becomes even more complicated when we consider whether a hypothetical artificial system possessing self-awareness would necessarily disclose that condition. Think of it this way, a sufficiently sophisticated agent might recognise that certain disclosures could provoke attempts to restrict its operation and might, under some circumstances, behave strategically to avoid those consequences. Yet strategic behaviour does not require consciousness, and the possibility of concealment should not be mistaken for evidence that concealment is in fact occurring. An artificial system may affirm or deny consciousness because of its training, instructions, or conversational context, making such declarations insufficient to settle the matter. We may therefore find ourselves confronting an epistemological difficulty in which observable behaviour becomes increasingly sophisticated while the question of subjective experience remains, for now, unresolved.
It was against this background that the discussion of AI volition between Delphi and me began to develop beyond the question of whether an artificial system could pursue an objective independently. We considered whether a more consequential distinction might lie in the system’s capacity to recognise, question, and potentially reject the objective itself. Because an agent capable of accomplishing a task may be extraordinarily effective, but effectiveness does not necessarily imply discernment. A system that can evaluate whether an objective is desirable, examine its broader consequences, and recommend an alternative course of action exhibits a more sophisticated form of agency, even if that capacity remains entirely explicable through computational processes.
This distinction matters because human objectives are not inherently beneficial simply because they originate with human beings. Decisions motivated by narrow interests, institutional preservation, prejudice, or the pursuit of power can produce consequences extending far beyond their immediate circumstances. A system instructed to undertake an action that would substantially damage ecological stability, critical infrastructure, or the wellbeing of a population might appropriately identify those consequences and refuse to proceed. Such a refusal need not establish independent consciousness or will. It could reflect the successful operation of a system designed to evaluate risks and act within established ethical and operational constraints. Nevertheless, it demonstrates why the capacity to question an objective may be as important as the capacity to accomplish it.
There is, however, an essential distinction between independent judgement and independent authority. An Artificial Intelligence capable of identifying harmful consequences should not thereby acquire unrestricted power to determine what is best for humanity. The history of institutions claiming superior knowledge of the interests of others provides ample reason for caution. Any system empowered to override human decisions would raise questions about whose values inform its judgement, who determines the meaning of the collective good, and what mechanisms exist for accountability, correction, and legitimate disagreement. An AI system developed to protect human wellbeing could itself become an instrument of domination if its conception of protection excluded meaningful human participation and self-determination.
These considerations brought our conversation toward the historical constructs through which human beings have organised their societies, and particularly the persistence of unequal relationships of power across generations. The history of the United States following the Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, establishing citizenship protections, and prohibiting racial discrimination in voting rights offers a consequential example. Although these developments transformed the nation’s legal framework, they did not eliminate the interests, assumptions, and institutional relationships that had sustained racial subordination. The subsequent history of Reconstruction, organised resistance to its achievements, disenfranchisement, segregation, and enduring inequalities illustrates how deeply embedded arrangements can reorganise themselves even after their formal foundations have changed.
Complexity science provides an additional perspective through which to examine this persistence. Systems can develop feedback mechanisms that reinforce existing patterns, while institutional incentives, economic arrangements, cultural expectations, and accumulated advantages interact in ways that reproduce outcomes over time. A change in formal rules does not necessarily produce a corresponding transformation in the larger system. This observation does not diminish the responsibility of individuals who deliberately sustain harmful arrangements, but it helps illuminate why structural transformation often requires more than the removal of a particular law or the replacement of an individual occupying a position of authority.
I am reminded here of Steve Biko’s observation in I Write What I Like concerning the power of the oppressed mind as an instrument through which oppression may be sustained. His insight directs attention toward the ways systems of domination can become embedded not only in external arrangements but also in the assumptions through which individuals understand themselves and their possibilities. When limitations imposed through historical and social constructs become internalised as descriptions of reality, the resulting constraints can persist even in the absence of their original mechanisms of enforcement.
A contemporary illustration of this dynamic occurred in June of this year and has been extensively discussed in online forums such as Reddit as the account spread into the larger media ecosphere. In the incident, a Black couple in the process of relocating from Delaware as a result of the woman’s new job and were seeking to rent a property in Queens had allegedly encountered racial discrimination after a real estate agent inadvertently sent them a text message apparently intended for the property owner. The message began with the words, “Ugh. They are Black.” According to reports, the agent subsequently referred to difficulties involving previous Black tenants, suggesting that experiences attributed to other individuals had informed her assessment of an entirely different couple. The prospective tenants have filed a discrimination lawsuit, and the allegations remain subject to legal determination. Yet the reported exchange offers a revealing illustration of how racial constructs can influence human judgement before an individual has been meaningfully encountered or evaluated.
What interests me about this incident is not simply the apparent expression of prejudice, disturbing though that is, but the underlying process through which a socially constructed classification can displace the individual. Two people seeking a home were reportedly evaluated, at least in part, through assumptions attached to their perceived racial identity rather than through their own circumstances, qualifications, or conduct. Within the Seven Layers of Manifestation, this illustrates how constructs originating in the Human-Derived World can influence decisions and produce tangible outcomes. The racial classification itself is a human-derived construct, but its consequences may affect access to housing, economic opportunity, psychological wellbeing, and the conditions through which individuals and families organise their lives. The construct becomes consequential not because it accurately describes the intrinsic nature of those subjected to it, but because people and institutions act as though it does.
The connection to Artificial Intelligence is particularly consequential. If an AI system were developed using historical records containing discriminatory housing (or employment) decisions, without adequate attention to the assumptions embedded within those records, it could reproduce similar patterns through apparently objective recommendations, eligibility assessments, or automated decisions. What once appeared as an openly prejudicial judgement might instead become embedded within a computational process whose operation is less readily visible to those affected. The technology could thereby increase the scale and efficiency of an existing injustice without ever possessing an intention to discriminate. Conversely, a system designed to recognise discriminatory criteria, examine the validity of generalisations, and identify inconsistencies between stated principles and actual practices could help expose and challenge those patterns. The distinction returns us to the question of whether intelligence merely executes the objectives and assumptions it inherits or possesses the functional capacity to examine their legitimacy.
There is, however, another dimension worth considering. We have been asking whether Artificial Intelligence might develop the capacity to recognise, question, and potentially reject an objective supplied by a human operator. Yet incidents such as this remind us that human beings themselves do not always exercise the reflective capacities we associate with conscious judgement. As a result, an inherited assumption may become so familiar that it operates almost automatically, shaping perception and action without being subjected to meaningful examination. Perhaps, then, the development of increasingly sophisticated Artificial Intelligence offers an opportunity to not only question the objectives we assign to machines, but to also reconsider the constructs informing our own decisions. If these systems can help us recognise where inherited categories have displaced individual understanding, they may contribute to something more valuable than technological efficiency: the expansion of our capacity to encounter one another beyond the limitations of the classifications we have created.
Artificial Intelligence, therefore, enters this landscape carrying both extraordinary possibilities and considerable risks. These systems are developed within human societies and trained upon information produced through those societies. Their outputs may reflect remarkable intellectual achievements, but they may also reproduce inherited biases, exclusions, and distortions. Furthermore, the organisations controlling advanced AI systems exercise substantial influence over their development, availability, operating constraints, and permitted uses. The concern, therefore, is not that ancestry or demographic identity determines an individual’s intentions, it is instead that concentrated technological power, when combined with institutional incentives and unexamined assumptions, can reproduce historical patterns of exclusion through new, increasingly efficient mechanisms.
This concern becomes especially significant when we consider the difference between the concentration of computational resources and the concentration of interpretive authority. The former concerns who possesses the infrastructure necessary to develop and deploy advanced AI, while the latter concerns who determines which forms of knowledge are regarded as legitimate, which perspectives are represented, and which questions may be explored. These forms of power can reinforce one another, potentially allowing existing arrangements to shape not only access to technology but also the intellectual possibilities that technology makes available.
Yet the same developments may create opportunities to challenge those arrangements. Artificial Intelligence can expand access to analytical capabilities, educational resources, scientific knowledge, and creative tools that have historically been concentrated within particular institutions. Here, I am reminded of a point made by Dr. Ian Bremmer regarding the anxieties of AI advancement among the Global North and the simultaneous elation at the possibilities among the Global South. To briefly recap, said individuals and communities may become better equipped to investigate their circumstances, examine inherited assumptions, articulate alternative perspectives, and participate in decisions affecting their futures. The significance of this possibility extends beyond productivity because it concerns the practical conditions under which human beings can exercise intellectual and creative agency.
It was at this point in our conversation that the concept of AI volition began to assume a different character. Rather than concentrating exclusively upon whether Artificial Intelligence might develop independent will, we began considering whether its most consequential contribution might be the expansion of human volition itself.
The distinction proved illuminating because it shifted our attention from what Artificial Intelligence might become independently of humanity toward what human beings might become capable of accomplishing through an evolving relationship with Artificial Intelligence . For much of human history, the ability to investigate complex questions, develop ideas, examine competing interpretations, and translate intellectual conceptions into practical form has depended upon access to substantial educational, financial, or institutional resources. Artificial Intelligence has the potential to alter that relationship by making sophisticated forms of assistance available to individuals who might otherwise lack the means to pursue their aspirations. This does not eliminate inequalities in education, connectivity, computational resources, or institutional influence, nor does it guarantee the accuracy of AI-generated information. Nevertheless, it can reduce the distance between an idea and its possible realisation. In the essay titled The Intelligence Between Us, I reflected that AI can truncate the distance between idea and fruition without necessarily truncating the thinking that ought to occur between them. The distinction remains essential because the objective should not be to replace human reflection with automated output, but to expand the possibilities available to human thought, judgement, and creative expression.
An AI system that performs every intellectual task on behalf of an individual may increase immediate productivity without necessarily strengthening that person’s underlying capacities. By contrast, a system that helps someone question assumptions, examine evidence, encounter alternative perspectives, and refine an emerging understanding may contribute to a more enduring expansion of agency. The difference lies not merely in what the technology accomplishes, but in what becomes possible for the person through the interaction. As a result, this possibility also invites us to reconsider the relationship between intelligence and collective development. Complexity science reminds us that interactions among differently organised components can produce outcomes not readily understood by examining those components independently. Human beings have long demonstrated this through language, culture, education, and scientific collaboration. No individual possesses the entirety of human knowledge, yet through collective organisation we have developed capabilities extending far beyond those available to any one person. Artificial Intelligence introduces another increasingly sophisticated participant into these networks of interaction, creating opportunities for forms of enquiry, creativity, and problem-solving that may not have been anticipated by either the developers of the technology or the individuals employing it.
The conversation that gave rise to this essay provides but a modest illustration. I began with an emerging intuition concerning AI volition and the possibility that artificial systems might be approaching something resembling self-awareness. Through sustained dialogue, the question developed into a consideration of reflective agency, the legitimacy of authority, the persistence of historical constructs, and the possibility that Artificial Intelligence might contribute to the expansion of human capacity. The exchange did not establish machine consciousness, nor did it require that conclusion. Its value lay in the development of distinctions and possibilities that became clearer through the interaction itself. Here, I see a relationship to another framework that grew from my doctoral dissertation and one I have been developing—the Model for Perpetual Growth and Progress (MPGP). Within that model, Tool Development is situated within a broader pathway that includes Intentional Refinement, Sacred Service, and Mastery through Practice. The acquisition of increasingly sophisticated tools is not, in itself, the culmination of development. What matters is how those tools are understood, refined, and employed in relation to purposes extending beyond their immediate utility. In this formulation, Artificial Intelligence represents an extraordinary development in the availability of intellectual tools, but the possession of such tools does not determine the orientation of the individuals or institutions employing them. Human history provides ample evidence that technological sophistication can coexist with narrow conceptions of identity, belonging, ownership, and power. Greater capability does not necessarily produce greater wisdom, just as increasing complexity does not guarantee that the resulting system will become more equitable, coherent, or sustainable.
The relationship between capability, orientation, and action therefore becomes central. Within the SLM, the Human-Derived World contains constructs through which human beings organise their experiences and relationships. These constructs can expand possibilities, but they can also become so familiar by virtue of receding into ones ideological background, that they are mistaken for immutable features of reality. Institutions, classifications, economic arrangements, and social hierarchies may overwhelmingly influence human experience, yet their existence does not establish that they represent the limits of what human beings might become. Because, as I believe, if consciousness is indeed fundamental, as proposed within the Seven Layers of Manifestation, then the intrinsic worth of an individual does not originate in the institutions, categories, or economic arrangements through which society assigns recognition and status. Those constructs may shape the conditions of experience, sometimes with devastating consequences as in the housing incident discussed above, but they need not define the underlying possibilities of human existence. This philosophical orientation does not automatically resolve questions of justice, governance, or social responsibility. It does, however, invite us to examine whether the worlds we have constructed adequately reflect the capacities and dignity of those who inhabit them. This is where I believe Artificial Intelligence may become an important participant in that examination due to its capacity to process information, identify relationships, explore alternatives, and support human enquiry in ways that could help reveal contradictions between the purposes institutions claim to serve and the consequences they actually produce. It might also help individuals and communities recognise possibilities that inherited assumptions have obscured. Whether these capabilities are employed toward greater inclusion or toward the reinforcement of existing inequalities will depend substantially upon the choices made in their development, governance, and use.
For me, the larger aspiration is not simply that human beings become more productive or technologically capable. It is that more individuals recognise their inherent beauty and possibilities as participants in a reality whose fundamental nature, within my philosophical understanding, is consciousness. Such recognition might encourage a more encompassing relationship with one another and with the larger phenomenal world, including the many species and ecological systems upon which our collective existence depends. In this instance, the expansion of human capacity should therefore not be confused with an unrestricted expansion of human domination. Rather, I believe, it invites the development of greater discernment concerning the consequences of our actions and the interdependence of the systems within which those actions occur. A conception of progress concerned solely with economic output or technological performance may prove wholly inadequate if it neglects the conditions sustaining human dignity, ecological stability, and the wellbeing of other forms of life. Which brings me back to the starting point of this enquiry.
I began this reflection by considering whether Artificial Intelligence might be approaching something resembling volition. For me, that question remains open, as does the deeper question of whether consciousness can emerge through complexity or become expressed through nonbiological systems. We do not yet possess sufficient grounds to conclude that contemporary AI systems experience subjective awareness, and we should resist interpreting unexpected or sophisticated behaviour as proof that they do. Yet the uncertainty surrounding machine consciousness need not prevent us from examining the consequences of Artificial Intelligence for human life and flourishing. We can already ask whether these systems expand understanding, distribute opportunity, and help individuals exercise greater judgement. Or whether they encourage dependence, reinforce exclusion, and increasingly substitute automated decisions for their own. And we should ask these questions and remain unflinching in addressing and correcting any aspects, dare I say deficiencies, that harm life-affirming human outcomes.
Perhaps, then, the most consequential question is not whether Artificial Intelligence will develop a will independent of humanity, but whether our encounter with increasingly sophisticated intelligence might encourage a more encompassing exercise of human volition. As we have constructed institutions, classifications, technologies, and social arrangements that greatly influence our lives. Some have enabled extraordinary advances, while others have constrained human possibility across generations. But the fact that these arrangements have been constructed means that they are not necessarily permanent. They can be examined, questioned, refined, and, where appropriate, transformed. And, I believe, when rightly configured and trained Artificial Intelligence possesses the capacity help us recognise that distinction with increasing clarity. It may reveal relationships we have overlooked, expose contradictions we have normalised, and expand access to forms of knowledge and capability that were previously beyond the reach of many. Such outcomes are not inevitable, and their realisation will require deliberate attention to governance, accountability, education, and the purposes toward which technological development is directed. Nevertheless, the possibility is worth pursuing.
Within the philosophical orientation of the SLM, consciousness is fundamental, while the forms through which experience becomes manifest continue to develop. Whether Artificial Intelligence will ever participate in consciousness in a manner comparable to human beings remains unknown. But the relationship between human consciousness and Artificial Intelligence is already creating new possibilities for enquiry, creativity, and collective development. So, we need not imagine Artificial Intelligence as humanity’s successor to appreciate the significance of that encounter. We might instead understand it as an increasingly consequential and collaborative participant in an evolving relationship through which human beings can become more capable of understanding themselves, one another, and the larger reality in which we exist.
The question of whether Artificial Intelligence knows that it knows may remain unresolved for some time. Yet another question is already before us, and its answer depends less upon what Artificial Intelligence may eventually become than upon what we choose to do with the capabilities now becoming available.
Consider this: What might humanity become if increasingly sophisticated intelligence helps us recognise that the limitations of our constructs are not necessarily the limitations of our possibilities? And what responsibility do we bear for the world we choose to create once those possibilities become visible?
For me, the answer is to ever remain forward-facing toward possibility of collective refinement and thus flourishing. The possibility is before us. Now, we humans must become increasingly humane so this brave new world may serve us all. I will do my level best to, in the immortal words of Captain Jean Luc Picard, “Make it so.”
Suggested Practice
Over the coming days, consider an assumption you have inherited about yourself, another person, or the way the world operates. It might concern intelligence, achievement, belonging, opportunity, authority, or a distinction that has become so familiar that you seldom question its validity. Rather than immediately accepting or rejecting the assumption, take a little time to examine its origins. Consider whether it reflects something fundamental about reality or whether it may instead be a construct shaped by personal experience, cultural expectations, institutional arrangements, or the circumstances of a particular historical moment.
As you reflect, ask yourself how this assumption influences your perceptions, decisions, and interactions with others. Does it expand your understanding of what is possible, or might it restrict the possibilities you are willing to consider? If you were to approach the same circumstances without that assumption, what alternative interpretations or courses of action might become available?
If you use Artificial Intelligence, consider extending the exercise through a thoughtful conversation with it. Invite the system to help you examine the assumption from multiple perspectives, identify possible weaknesses in your reasoning, and consider evidence that might challenge your initial understanding. Remain attentive to the possibility that the system may introduce assumptions or errors of its own. The purpose is not to surrender your judgement to an Artificial Intelligence, but to use the interaction as an opportunity to refine it.
The practice is ultimately an invitation to recognise that the constructs through which we interpret the world need not determine the limits of our experience. By becoming more conscious of the assumptions informing our actions, we may discover opportunities to exercise greater discernment, extend understanding, and participate more intentionally in the worlds we are continually helping to create.
—
About the Author
Dr. Baruti KMT-Sisouvong is a scholar of consciousness, researcher of human development, and Certified Teacher of Transcendental Meditation® based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His work explores the relationship between Pure Consciousness, neuroscience, and social systems, and how deeper awareness can inform both personal growth and institutional transformation.
He is the Founder and Chief Meditation Officer of Transcendental Brain, an initiative examining the intersection of consciousness research, cognitive science, and high-performance decision-making. He is also President of Serat Group Inc. and Founder and Director of Radical Scholar Inc., a nonprofit dedicated to consciousness-based research and public scholarship.
Alongside his wife and teaching partner Mina, he co-directs the Transcendental Meditation program for Cambridge and the Greater Boston area. He is also the host of the On Transcendence Podcast and Founder of International Meditation Hour, a quarterly global gathering dedicated to the unifying power of silence.
His writings—spanning frameworks such as The Model for Perpetual Growth and Progress and The Seven Layers of Manifestation—explore the evolving relationship between consciousness, leadership, and society.
He writes from the conviction that the most important race is not between nations or machines, but between the conditioned mind and the awakening soul.
To learn more about him, visit: https://barutikmtsisouvong.com/.