JUNG LIKE A JORSE

[Anonymous No.11063897]

Where do I start with Jung? I'm interested in the collective unconscious stuff and ideas about esotericism but I also want to know more about him generally. Any recommendations are appreciated.

[Anonymous No.11063899]

What's a yorse

[Anonymous No.11063927]

>>11063897

What the fuck is basilisk compliance, I've been reading the rationalwiki on it and I still don't get it

[Anonymous No.11063930]

You can read Modern Man In Search of a Soul and/or The Portable Jung for an overview.

Then Symbols of Transformation and Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.

[Anonymous No.11063933]

>>11063927
lol faggot

[Anonymous No.11063947]

>>11063927
next-level larping. don't waste any more time on it.

[Anonymous No.11064074]

>tfw you have Man In Search of a Soul but you bought it used and EVERYTHING is underlined...

[Anonymous No.11064119]

>>11064074
That just shows how important everything in this book is.

[Anonymous No.11064322]

>>11063927
basically
>in the future, robot is made to stop all human suffering
>robot kills anyone who didn't actively try to make it, because by not making a robot to stop human suffering they supported human suffering
>thus we should all try to make the robot or we'll be killed by the robot that is inevitable
it's one of the most retarded ideas ever.

[Anonymous No.11064376]

>>11063897
If you want to actually understand the things Jung tries to reduce to psychological phenomena then save yourself some time and just start reading Guenon.

[Anonymous No.11064417]

>>11064376
He didn't try to reduce them, he tried to sneak them into modernity by way of psychoanalysis in order to preserve them in a debased age of materialism

Perennialists misunderstand his grand strategy

[Anonymous No.11064422]

>>11063930
I've heard good things about the first two. I'll probably check them out as an intro. Thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.11064511]

>>11064322
Even more retarded is that the proponents of the idea are more scared that the robot will waste its time by making perfect simulations of the consciousness of the people it kills and torture them for eternity, because that's just how AIs roll

[Anonymous No.11064513]

>>11064322
How is it retarded? It's basically 'wait until your dad gets home', a threat from the future isn't that strange.

[Anonymous No.11064518]

>>11064513
But nobody made the threat except some future AI that will never, ever exist.

[Anonymous No.11064526]

>>11064518
how are you so sure?

[Anonymous No.11064532]

>>11064526
Because I actually know how computers work and am not a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11064565]

>>11064532
it's usually the people in a field that underestimate progress.

[Anonymous No.11064783]

>>11064565
>"I think that in the next ten years we will teach dogs to speak english"
>As a veterinarian I really doubt that
>"You're just too close to the problem, stop doubting progress"

[Anonymous No.11064797]

>>11064783
Don't waste your time arguing with cultists, anon.

[Anonymous No.11064829]

Lets not make /lit/ a Jung board.

[Anonymous No.11064992]

>>11064511
>>11064322
That's Pascal's wager with some technobabble, isn't it

[Anonymous No.11065012]

>>11064829
Lets make /lit/ a Jung board.

[Anonymous No.11065017]

Jung is /lit/'s final form

[Anonymous No.11065434]

>>11065017
/lit/ is Jung's final form

[Anonymous No.11065443]

>>11064783
How do you explain that a lot of people who know how computers work are actually scared of AI?

[Anonymous No.11065483]

>>11063897
>Jorse
Better than /d/orse, probably.

[Anonymous No.11065567]

>>11065443
my nigga nobody in actual "ai" research even talks about "ai" let alone is scared of it. actual "ai" specialists are just people tediously trying to get a shitty ass computer to drive a car or whatever and the idea of their program, which has to be massaged for months just to kinda-sorta do the thing they want it to do suddenly erupting with spontaneous ill will makes about as much sense to them as bricks coming alive and crawling up his ass makes sense to a construction worker. the "authorities" on the singularity are people like bostrom ("philosopher") or kurzweil (snake oil salesman) or yudkowsky (harry potter fanfiction author without a high school diploma). these are people who imagine shit based on bullshit graphs (10 years until we have human-level intelligence in computers! said a cretin 20 years ago and he's still saying it today) and have no connection to the actual reality of doing ai shit (which, for the record, i have done some really basic shit in, which is enough to realize that a neural network is not any more likely to turn into a robot god than an excel spreadsheet).

there is a stupid old computer joke about not leaving your floppy disks in a damp room because that's how you get computer viruses and i whenever i hear people talk about spontaneously erupting computer "superintelligence" i can't help but feel like someone should tell them that was just a joke.

[Anonymous No.11065602]

>>11065567
But what about projects like sophia then?

[Anonymous No.11065676]

>>11065602
it's a crappy chat bot inside a mannequin and if you talked honestly with the people who made it you would hear about all the fucking incredible effort that went into getting it ready even for semi-scripted tv appearances. if you asked them if they were worried about it spontaneously developing new levels of intelligence they would laugh at you because every improvement was bought with a sea of sweat and they would LOVE if any of it happened on its own. actual ai work looks like this: it sucks, then you tweak it for months until it kinda works, then you broaden the problem domain a little and it starts sucking again, repeat. then you need to do a public presentation so you kinda fake it. even the famous win against kasparov was semi-fake: there was a team of engineers there tweaking the parameters of the chess program during the game.

i have no doubt that with enough effort you can create impressive applications of ai algorithms, self-driving cars and automated systems for watching demented old people and talking sex dolls and so on. the thing is that this idea of spontaneous rapid self-improvement that underlies all the singularity/robot god fantasies simply does not appear in real life ai work.

[Anonymous No.11065696]

>>11065676
so you are saying sophia is just cleverbot 2.0?

But as soon as you can create something that can evolve by itself it will continue to do so - like evolution. But you are saying it's still in a cell state and that it will surely be there for a long time?

[Anonymous No.11065701]

>>11063897
The man and his symbols is a good collection of all his ideas

[Anonymous No.11065708]

>>11064322
you forgot the part the basilisk can go into the past/create clones of yourself and will create a psychological torture for you as a form of punishment

[Anonymous No.11065719]

>>11065696
>as soon as you can create something that can evolve by itself it will continue to do so - like evolution
somewhat primitive version of it is going on with some computer viruses

[Anonymous No.11065726]

>>11064992
Yep
Atheists can't get out of the Christian mindset so they just reinvent the wheel with science instead of god. Case in point: the singularity is just the rapture for atheists

[Anonymous No.11065728]

>>11065719
of course its programmed behaviour and not a self-emerging attribute, but its really cool, they rewrite themselves to avoid heuristic analysis and have modules to look for new vulnerabilities, they also work like hydras and "extend their body" through networks

[Anonymous No.11065763]

>>11065728
>"extend their body" through networks
like instead of just reproducing it actually grows like a tapeworm and has different "organs" in different places performing different action depending on the computer specs in question

[Anonymous No.11065838]

>>11065696
>as soon as you can create something that can evolve by itself it will continue to do so

real life ai work isn't really about anything as general as that - it's about specific problems like "how do i detect faces" or "how do i parse human speech" or whatever. you can make a chatbot that delivers somewhat convincing responses to questions but it's just a program that gets some text and shits some out in response. it can get more convincing as you train it on sample question-answer pairs but it's not going to "evolve" beyond that. there is no framework for it to do so. and yes there are algorithms inspired by biological evolution - but again, applied only to a very specific problem. it's appealing to imagine some sort of generalized artificial life project that just runs until it produces intelligence but that's an extremely pie-in-the-sky kind of idea.

[Anonymous No.11065840]

>>11065708
>>11064322
>utilitarians think they aren't retarded

[Anonymous No.11065845]

>>11065838
this guy gets it, but sophisticated malware is where the fronteer of this stuff really is

[Anonymous No.11065955]

Sorry guys if I'd have known this was gonna get derailed because of the meme picture I would have just posted a pic of Joyce.

[Anonymous No.11066538]

>>11065701
Pretty much this. It was largely written by Jungs pupils and much more easily understandable.

[Anonymous No.11066605]

>>11063897
>.9999... =/= 1
what fucking brainlet computer science shithead retard made this fucking shit meme

[Anonymous No.11067639]

>>11066605
Euclid, when he made mathematics

[Anonymous No.11068641]

>>11065955
too late you dingus

[Anonymous No.11068652]

>>11065443
they aren’t. stop listening to popsci

[Anonymous No.11068652,1]

historical post