0817

"Computers are useless. They only give you answers."—Picasso, 1964.

No more. AI is the metastatic integration of "human" questions as an intersubjective field, i.e., the disintegration of personal parameters and "the singularity," namely, "transce" emergency.

Re. the technological transcendentalist, Kevin Kelly https://kk.org/.../With-AI-Answers-Are-Cheap-But...

On the third page:

"While answers become cheap, our questions become valuable. This is the inverse of the situation for the past millennia, when it was easier to ask a question than to" answer it. Pablo Picasso brilliantly anticipated this inversion in 1964 when he told the writer William Fifield, “Computers are useless. They only give you answers.”

“The answers you get, depend on the questions you ask” — Thomas Kuhn

"I thought that the Kuhn quote was rather similar to the Socratic method of questioning the questioner to bring out the answer from within their own parameters. An unanswerable question will not have an answer.

"Now I am wondering whether anyone's answers come from anywhere other than from within their own parameters. And how do questions fit in?

"Doesn't it partly depend on whether you believe in some sort of dialectical synthesis in human thought? A parallel problem is that of inspiration in the Arts."

— Richard Soloway

"'Some sort', yes. But this is too pat an answer. Lots to say on that.

"It's a wonderful topic, as is the parallel problem."

— Ronald Green

The word "wonder" (awe), "wonder at" or "wonder about" is nearly synonymous with the word, "question" (valued like gold), because it is a rendering of the subject by the perpetual confirmation bias of being awfully or awesomely incomplete together, i.e., awestruck at "the cosmological vacuum" in here as out there. Not even humor is enough. Only the bliss of tearful fusion apologetically presumes to fill the void.

1429

Thought is all in terms of words.

Not only are images absolutely in terms of words, so are indices. As such symbols, indices and images are not signs, but word. The explanation, "existence" is the error. The belief "existence" is incapable of grasping that it itself is the belief system by which questioning existence as the belief system is necessarily misconstrued as its opposite inside that system, namely "death."

Point-i is not against life within that belief system. It is against that system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcA5TotAkhs