/lit/ - Literature

>>9866920
The thing is that you're starting with the idea of the machine and then looking for ways to get to it. Or not necessarily a machine, but whatever implication came from the question. Questions don't arise innocently. They're there to fulfill a need of some sort.

>Humans can learn and use languages. No other animal can.
Wasn't there research going on with dogs and artificial voice implements? I'm asking non-rhethorically here.

Regardless, imagine that was the case, that we were capable of establishing language outside the human organism, and either another lifeform or machine got ahold of language. With language alone it would have access to most of our science unless some biological component was lacking. Still there's nothing stopping the ongoing process of improvement and efficiency that we live in today. So then suppose whatever thing is there that has access to our science turns out to be "better" and more efficient than humans. There's nothing to stop them from wiping the whole human race even if slowly.

So tell me, what are we aiming at with this research? The complete mastery of all dimension. Instantaneity and efficiency. The removal of all that is unnecessary. The proscription of the unique and unequal. And you might think these are all good things, and they are in the right measure and moment, but left wild as they have been, they're creating a world of pure release, in which humans are obligated to be pure energy. We must compete with that which we created to be better than us. I'm not going to tell you I'm certain of how this ends, but from what I see, it's either humans not existing or living a purely symbolic life. A world made of kernels, at best.

This *is* a harsh charge to drop on Chomsky, and really it is a social fault and not only a personal one of him. The thing is that there's no Chomsky the linguist and Chomsky the political commentator. There is a continuity between the two things. The methodology Chomsky uses, I assume, is the same in both cases, or he would enter in a contradiction, which I take him to be too smart to do so glaringly. The ideological values he's operating on are the same.

So it comes down to me not wanting to accept the authority of such a person unless I don't have a choice. I'm not about to let myself be coerced by the efficiency of whatever machines people can concoct because they don't want to deal with each other and instead think of millions of people who they depend on and live with as puppets. I don't care how many stacks of paper some idiot politician put secretly on their pockets if what's motivating you is even worse and has lead to worse. And I'm not going to consider reevaluating myself for people who clearly won't reevaluate themselves.