[376] about the existence of the artificial brain ^aand who do something else very foolish: they interpret man's USE of HIS brain, man’s creativity^b which always uses the human brain, in terms of the artificial brain. They derive the creator from the creation. They derive that which is completely mechanized, and can be mechanized, from that which makes the mechanization possible, namely man’s inventive analysis of reality and synthesis of technical tools.

This means that we don’t need to be afraid about a dissolution of man’s creativity in calculable functions. This is never possible because the functions are always the product of a creative center. This difference is decisive. But of course the CONSEQUENCES for man's interpretation of himself as an object are tremendous in the moment in which this confusion is maintained and in which creator and creation, in which man's freedom^c and the tool which he produces in the power of his freedom, are confused.

Another of these objectifying powers is something which you meet in your psychological studies. I was in a school in New York two days ago where the president told me that by far his biggest department is the department of psychology^d, although it is a school, mostly an evening school, for people who are in business or [the] professions. And I asked him how is that understandable? The answer was that all the industrial enterprises needed psychologists who are able to use the mechanized methods of test psychology. This means that much of what belongs to man is now subjected to the method of mechanical connections and dependences. Let me say something about this test method. Test in itself is nothing objectifying.