Much of cognitive science reinvents wheels that had been established in the 1920s and 1930s already, namely in sociology of knowledge and related fields. fRMI actually often confirms what had been already observed in a psychoanalytic context. (I don't think it's a good general advice to totally ignore what is already known.)
Well, if you're in need of an established theory of (semantically driven) talking machines and what derives from this, and what this may mean for us in terms of freedom, look no further.
Can you recommend a specific work of his? What Lacan I have leaves me bemused by his brilliance but not informed. Dennett provides both without the fireworks.
Generally, don't start with the "ecrits" (writings), they are hermetic and you really have to have some head start on this. From the seminars, Livre XI, Les quatres concepts fondamentaux de le psychoanalyse (1964) may be a start, as it – in parts – aligns itself with the cybernetic research of the day. However, do not expect too much from a single reading or a single of the seminars.
(Mind that this is trying to talk about what's beyond/below language, necessarily using language just the same, which is – at least according to (the early) Wittgenstein – somewhat an impossibility. You can only show these things, so it takes several approaches from several directions. But there is actually something like a concise corpus of theory eventually emerging from this. Moreover, this – being transcripts of seminars – addresses an audience that is already familiar with Freud, in order to reframe this. – This is also one of the major issues with Lacan and his reception: it takes some serious investment to get into this, and this also used to have some worth on the academic markets. On the other hand, this (academic) value became indeed inflated and eventually devalued, to the point of those, who never bothered to invest, happily triumphing. Think the Great North-American Video Game Crash. But this really shouldn't be the end to what may be one of the major approaches towards what language actually means to us. The expectation that everything can be addressed directly and without prerequisites, regardless of the complexity, may actually not be met. On the other hand, there will be also never be a single "master", who is always right and without failure, bearing always the most distilled emanation of truth in their very word. – I'm also not arguing that everybody is now to become a scholar of Lacan. Rather, we may have an informed expert discussion, what may gained from this from a current perspective. E.g., if Lacan actually had something to say about an impulse-like directional vector emerging from attention (as a form of selectional focus on a semantic field), is there something to be learned from this, or, to be aware of?)
Thanks much for great pointers and precautions on reading Lacan. Even Rorty finds Lacan, Foucault and friends difficult and he read in French rather than in translations.
I was browsing in the medical school bookstore in Berlin (Humboldt/Charité) looking through the psychiatry section and (not joking) a third of the books were by Lacan. Will try with residual trepidation.
The reading list is already too deep and broad for this mortal. But G. Buzsaki, P. Churchkand, A. Damasio, D. Dennett, M. Donald, J. Hawkins, D. Hofstadter, C. Koch, R. Llinas, M. Minsky, Tommasi, J. Panksepp, Piaget, E. Pöppel … do find good traction for those of us who are neuroscientists interested in levels of compute that lead to language generation by human wetware.
