Zizek is concerned with a fundamental contradiction with which we as subjects have to struggle. In our intuitive self-image we are free, always somewhat detached from the materialistic deterministic world, but at the same time defined in a certain way and able to enter into intimate contact with other people via this “materialistic intermediate world”. Now, what is crucial for our mental life is not what corresponds to Any Kind of objective reality, but rather that in our immediate being as a subject we must permanently exist in these three contradictory categories. These incompatibilities accumulate in the phenomenon of love, which must therefore be transcendent and exceed our ability to articulate (symbolization/imagination according to Lacan). So we have no choice but to hit a barrier. However, an artificial intelligence is not entangled in the “reality of life” in the same way and, regardless of its extent, will never be able to understand us in this regard.

Zizek speaks clearly and naturally (I re-wrote the comment because of harassment)

@RahulSam

22 күн бұрын

I agree he speaks naturally but clearly not so sure, mate, haha! And I say this as a Žižekian myself. Sorry about the harassment. I don't moderate comments.

@fidaner

22 күн бұрын

@@RahulSam By harassment I mean cynicism.

@fidaner

21 күн бұрын

@@RahulSam You are simply unable to appreciate his clarity and cynicism would be the defense mechanism.

@MarcosElMalo2

4 күн бұрын

Those unborn chicken voices are at it again, mate?

Wow, pretty and smart! Though I do want to note that I think that what Zizek was referring to something else. Something along the lines of 'we as humans seem to find beauty and value, both in complex, intuitive, rational Art, (one that maps out psychological intuition), but also simultaneously in the Art that is simple and purposely anti-rational, and thus, how do we program a contradiction to an AI model? Or is it a contradiction to begin with? We seem to like Bach and Beethoven yet also Baby Shark and 00s repetitive pop songs. We seem to enjoy Kubrick but also Marvel films and Amy Schumer romcoms. We seem to enjoy Dostoyevsky and Dante, but also d*ck jokes and fart jokes. Can we enjoy both without a contradiction? My belief is we can, but because there must be something much more abstract that united both beliefs. Such as understanding: we like complex stuff because we it helps us learn, but we like simple, stupid stuff precisely because we recognize it is stupid. And by recognizing it's stupid we have more information than if we hadn't recognized it. And the more the information 'hits home', the more archetypal, the more we feel it, and that archetypal knowledge would (in my view) constitute catharses and epiphanies.

@RahulSam

Ай бұрын

I see where you’re getting at with the concept of contradiction, and especially as a Hegelian, Žižek would never claim a contradiction has to be overcome. Perhaps by the idea of stupidity in us humans, he means how to “program” into the agent, seeing the productive (or creative) aspect of contradiction, negativity, failure, etc. If that makes sense? In short, how does the AI agent know that sometimes the solution lies in the failure (or error) itself.

@manuelrodero8764

Ай бұрын

@@RahulSam yes I agree. But wouldn't the computational input 'achieve success' contradict 'achieve failure'? I'm unsure if there's a way to maintain both.

i just dont understand the awe people have with Slavoj. I've never heard one solid useful point ever made from him. For me atleast.

@jacksonstone246

Ай бұрын

hes mystical but tries to act rational.

@RahulSam

Ай бұрын

Have you read him?

@r.h.biswas8066

Ай бұрын

​@@RahulSam I read his first major writing the sublim Object Of Ideology. It was a fascinating book. I never read such a high complex book. Although sometimes I feel bad because he criticizes a lots of other figures, like umberto eco, dickns, Gorge Orwell. If read all these figures, you will see zizeks criticism at some level are not working. It is not always obviously. But what I mean is that he is struggling too hard to be his points. And at some level his ideas are incapable in practical implications. Mention not he is one of the greate philosopher of our time and I love his works like mad. And I think his deep knowledge is specially because of his selection of subjects material: psychoanalysis, political Ideology and Hegelian philosophy.

@somanshusharma611

Ай бұрын

​@@r.h.biswas8066 I totally agree to this. I am a big fan of him but he often speaks about subjects without actually understanding in depth about that subject and what it actually means. A good example of this is his criticism of budhism. He completely misunderstands the main principles of budhism, and goes even further in his arguments without realizing that he's basing his thoughts on a wrong foundation.

@nifarious

18 күн бұрын

​@@jacksonstone246 You're presumably talking about transcendental philosophy and psychoanalysis when those are the very tools by which one demystifies reality, engages with how it's constructed via fantasy.

Ban social impact bonds crypto and ESG

The advertisement for s*** supplements was a perfect couplings. There's no such thing as a philosopher of AI

@RahulSam

Ай бұрын

I'm not sure what in the world you’re going on about, mate.

@DannyDanny-rn7ck

Ай бұрын

​@@RahulSamget out of school healthcare energy Any thing that matters

@DannyDanny-rn7ck

Ай бұрын

Delete my comments all you want I already posted them to other websites

AI is already outdated. AI has become part of today's landscape of the undead. This lady has no real answers. AI philosophy today reminds me of feminist philosophy of the 1960s and 1970s e.g. a feminist reading of a certain classic literature, or society and the world which went nowhere. And such is the Fate that will be of AI philosophy, whether it's an AI philosophy of intelligence or creativity. It will wind up as a sort of philosophical cul-de-sac or philosophical illusion just as the philosophy of feminism. Ai and female nature have much in common. When you philosophize about the so-called feminine or philosophize about so-called artificial intelligence this is the inevitable conclusion: "Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow." Friedrich Nietzsche Frederick Nietzsche knew that science has no ontology, just like AI today.

@RahulSam

14 күн бұрын

Looks like someone's been watching too many Red Pill and Manosphere videos online while googling for Nietzsche's quotes to sound deep.