/lit/ - Literature

>>16062050
Nigger, how dumb are you? That's precisely the point I was trying to make. There IS NO essential difference from a certain rearrangement of words and a rearragement of images etc. that can create a new word. You're so stubborn in your stupidity it's unbelievable. There IS NO essential difference. If a machine can write just as well as a human, then what does it matter if the machine "understands it" or not? There is NOTHING to understand beyond the words. You might actually be one of those idiots that think that there is a "soul" to the art beyond what is written, but then you're just straight out stupid.

>>16061999
>Language is the process of how we invent rules.
No. Language has have to hold down a certain set of rules to make it sensible. We have a determinate way of speaking which has to make sense depending on the language. That's why AI in writing devices has been continually improving to the point that it can detect syntax of words very efficiently, while back then it used to be absolute shit and couldn't even understand what basic grammar was. It is not only a completely adequate comparison, but it is the only one. What you have basically done so far is to create that stupid and honestly naive impression that "art" is a separate idea from the resulting creation which simply is not true if you think of it analytically.
Machines rearrange things to create something new - but people do the SAME EXACT THING. Pic related person who "does not exist".

>>16062048
>If I drew this sequence of items: [hand making a peace sign] [unfolded cube] "+1" [banana], would an AI "figure it out" or not?
It doesn't matter. Here's the thing : there IS no reductioning "thing" that can make that thing "understand" it. There is absolutely no such thing; here's what you haven't been understanding so far. Human language has always worked in such a way that we understand are able to imply content from the words WITHOUT having to know what they mean beforehand; that's LITERALLY what happens. Do you think the writer first has the precise meaning without the language or he first comprehends a certain rearrangement of words in his head, writes it down, and then gets the full meaning of it?

>>12225663
The libidio can actually subverted through conscious identification with the intelligible self. This much was already explained in the Bhagavad Gita, or "Celestial Song", when Krishna teaches Arjuna that actions can be reduced to ashes by knowledge. Once desires are washed away by the illumination of the mind, and subjectivity is thereby overcome, the female form is no longer an erotic object--the allure which once infatuated the man has vanished without a trace. With his newfound independence and lucidity, he is free to enter into the contemplative life dominated by understanding, since the blind sensuality of the lower centers of soul no longer entices him. Acutely following the eyes and expressions of others, he identifies the very subjectivity which he lately overcame, finally understanding that others project their desires onto him, only seeing him as a potential actor for the roles that remain unfilled in their stage play. Liberated from the endless cycles of time, he no longer unwittingly caters to the will of the self-devouring world serpent, feeding itself on the karmic actions of the multitudes.

>>11140162
I unironically think this book should have been burned. Seriously, I read some parts of it while I was at a really bad stage in regards my sexuality and it made me sick to my stomach and disturbed to the brink. I don't know why I tortured myself like that. This book brings absolutely nothing of value and is just utter rubbish, should have been burned.