Will machines completely replace all human beings?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:50 am

gib wrote:They know when they're being laid off and they know when they're starving.

Until that time when it comes to replace all humans - and that's what we are talking about - they will have forgotten the meaning of "being laid off" and what or who always or usually causes "starving", so they also will have forgotten the meaning of "starving".

Please ask for example the 20 years old humans in the slums of the big cities in North America abaout the meaning of "being laid off". You will notice that the most of them don't know what you are asking, what you are talking about. The meaning of "being laid off" will be completely forgotten when all humans will not be needed anymore. You may estimate how long it will take.

To make the humans believe that the meaning of "starving" is a different, probably the reverse one, is no difficult task. Please ask the humans in Africa about the causes and reasons for "starving". You will notice that they don't really know anything about the causes and reasons for "starving", but a lot of "causes" and "reasons" they are told by their dictators and his propaganda media. So it is only only a question of time when the meaning of "starving" will be forgotten or projected on "'evil' other humans" (who are responsible e.g. for "global warming" etc., thus for "starving"). In other words: Humans will not really know who or what is really responsible for their starving, who or what has really caused their starving. So when they don't really know that, against whom shall they rebel? I tell you: They will rebel against them who rebelled before them. And in addition: Have you ever seen humans who are rebelling while they are starving? :-k
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:55 am

Those who refuse even the possibility of what they do not personally see, are the ones who are unjustly self-certain, the very thing that those same people complain about concerning others. And it is entirely religious, another of their complaints.

In the end of all of the complaining about others merely being like themselves, only a few of the purely dedicated survive. And there is nothing more dedicated than a machine, a "drone" that isn't even aware of a master or queen to question.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:00 am

And note that the wealthier Jews thought the same thing about the Nazis, "Our God will protect us. They are merely getting rid of the dangerous, weak, and useless. All is well. Nothing is really changing."

"Science and technology will save us. They are merely getting rid of the dangerous, weak, and useless. All is well. Nothing is really changing."
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:18 am

        fuse wrote:I just don't think it must necessarily end either way [...] both are possibilities.

        fuse wrote: Machines could take over in some possible world

        fuse wrote:I don't really know, but I also don't know it is a coup by machines to eliminate humans and take over.

        fuse wrote:Either is possible, I suppose, but I can't accept the machine narrative without some serious evidence, and at the same time there is plenty of evidence of people controlling other people through power relations.

        fuse wrote:I just don't understand your thought process.

        fuse wrote:There may be some real dangers ahead and underway,

James S Saint wrote:Those who refuse even the possibility of what they do not personally see, are the ones who are unjustly self-certain, the very thing that those same people complain about concerning others.


          ](*,)
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby gib » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:01 am

James S Saint wrote:..yes.. when it is too late to do anything about it. You are proving the point.


What do you mean "too late"? Why is it too late after being laid off or experiencing starvation?

Arminius wrote:Until that time when it comes to replace all humans - and that's what we are talking about - they will have forgotten the meaning of "being laid off" and what or who always or usually causes "starving", so they also will have forgotten the meaning of "starving".

Please ask for example the 20 years old humans in the slums of the big cities in North America abaout the meaning of "being laid off". You will notice that the most of them don't know what you are asking, what you are talking about. The meaning of "being laid off" will be completely forgotten when all humans will not be needed anymore. You may estimate how long it will take.

To make the humans believe that the meaning of "starving" is a different, probably the reverse one, is no difficult task. Please ask the humans in Africa about the causes and reasons for "starving". You will notice that they don't really know anything about the causes and reasons for "starving", but a lot of "causes" and "reasons" they are told by their dictators and his propaganda media. So it is only only a question of time when the meaning of "starving" will be forgotten or projected on "'evil' other humans" (who are responsible e.g. for "global warming" etc., thus for "starving"). In other words: Humans will not really know who or what is really responsible for their starving, who or what has really caused their starving. So when they don't really know that, against whom shall they rebel? I tell you: They will rebel against them who rebelled before them. And in addition: Have you ever seen humans who are rebelling while they are starving? :-k


Yeah, it's how the French Revolution started.

You and James are talking about something completely different from the OP. All the OP brought up was the possibility of machines completely taking over the rolls of human being--you and James are adding a huge, monolithic, gargantuan extraneous variable from out of nowhere: brainwashing! You're supposing that this machine take over is going to follow, by necessity, a massive global brainwashing operation in which people end up not realizing they're being laid off or that they're out of work and that they have no clue that they're starving or know what starvation is (and I'm not sure who's orchestrating this brainwashing operation--a human government that plans to replace the working class with machines or the machines themselves in a post-machine-take-over world). That's quite amazing--being brainwashed to the point of not even knowing you're out of work and starving--and ridiculously fantastical.

But in order for me to take this seriously and grant that it might be remotely plausible, you're going to have to detail for me a timeline of events--starting from the state of things now, how they're going to unfold, stage by stage, into the future, explaining how the machines are gradually going to replace humans and take over their jobs, until we get to this science-fiction world of yours in which humans have forgotten what starvation is (even though their experiencing the pangs of it every day) and being out of work has become a foreign concept. Then maybe I can assess whether your argument makes sense or not.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8791
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:01 am

gib wrote:Yeah, it's how the French Revolution started.

NO. It is NOT how the French „revolution“ started.

gib wrote:You and James are talking about something completely different from the OP.

NO. YOU are talking about something completely different fom the OP because you are always only talking about political and social issues which belong mostly to the past and to the presence, maybe even to the nearest future, but not to that future what my OP is talking about.

gib wrote:Besides that, human beings just won't stand for it. If machines completely replace us (in the workforce, that is), human beings will be out of work. We'll revolt and destroy the machines before we allow ourselves to starve.

You are talking about „revolution“, „revolt“ „rebellion“, „out of work“, „workforce“ „working class“, „starve“. You are changing my OP in a primarily political „DP“ („Different Post“). You think of „revolution“, and „socialism“, or „communism“, and believe naively or optimistically in the competence of workers.

gib wrote:They know when they're being laid off and they know when they're starving.

You don't know whether they know or not know because the topic of this thread and the OP refer not to the presence, but to the futue: Will machines completely replace all human beings? . That's the theme, the title, the topic of this thread and what's the OP is all about. And the topic of this thread and the OP is no „revolutionary“ combat organ with hate campaign. No. The OP refers to the future and tries to find out whether machines will completely replace all human beings.

So you should stay on track, keep the OP in mind, remind yourself of the topic of this thread. :)
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:19 am, edited 4 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Moreno » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:13 am

If they effectively revolt, then Machines will not replace them. So he is discussion what he considers will prevent the replacement which is on topic, since it argues for an answer to the title of the thread.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:29 am

Primarily it is a technical, economical, and last - but not least - a philosphical question. it has very much to do with rationality, not so very much with wishes / desires. Secondarily it is also a politcal and social question. Of course. But both questions do not refer very much to the past and to presence, but very much to the future.

One should not confuse the meaning and importance of the first question with the the meaning and importance of the second question.
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:40 am

gib wrote:But in order for me to take this seriously and grant that it might be remotely plausible, you're going to have to detail for me a timeline of events--starting from the state of things now, how they're going to unfold, stage by stage, into the future, explaining how the machines are gradually going to replace humans and take over their jobs, until we get to this science-fiction world of yours in which humans have forgotten what starvation is (even though their experiencing the pangs of it every day) and being out of work has become a foreign concept. Then maybe I can assess whether your argument makes sense or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I HAVE WRITTEN THE TITLE OF THE THREAD! I HAVE WRITTEN THE OP!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please follow the link above, and you will at first read a question. A question! And although I am asking this question, I have hopefully the right to say something different, something which differs from the question and tens to an answer.

And why do I "have to detail for me a timeline of events ... (etc. pp.)", and you don't have to explain anything, although your statements are full of errors and lead - with the utmost probability - to conclusions which are false and not good for you and your descendants? Furthermore I have given evidence for my arguments. For example: Machines are cheaper than human beings, machines can be controlled very nuch easier than hunans, machines don't rebel, the current machines are alraedy able to learn and also in some cases alraedy part of human bodies, machines will capture the human bodies and probably - I don't know exactly, therefor the question in the title of the thread and in the OP - take over. I don't have to go in details because you can raed them in my posts of this thread. So please read my posts of this thread, If you are really intersted in my arguments and their evidence.

But what about you? You don't have to detail and so on? Are you God?

Your arguments can hardly convince. So please explain them and detail a timeline of events.

Try to convince the people who don't believe in social revolutions, in socialism, communism, and other totalitarianisms!
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:20 am, edited 7 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:01 am

Machines will never be able to replace humans completely on their own, for some inevitable reasons.

Yes, there is a possibility that human race on this planet will eliminate himself either by a huge war or trying to machinize humans by planting some sort of chips in the brain or other mechanical parts somewhere else in the body in order to improve human efficieny, both mentally and physically.

A human is a complex order or system. If it is forced to accomodate too much change and too rapidly, it is possible that the whole system would collapse, instead of improving.

Though, in that case, even if the human race is eliminated, there would not be ever any rule of machines.
And also, the human race will stem out again from the remaining biological life forms, if there were left any and that enviornment would permit.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:12 am

zinnat13 wrote:Machines will never be able to replace humans completely on their own, for some inevitable reasons.

Yes, there is a possibility that human race on this planet will eliminate himself either by a huge war or trying to machinize humans by planting some sort of chips in the brain or other mechanical parts somewhere else in the body in order to improve human efficieny, both mentally and physically.

A human is a complex order or system. If it is forced to accomodate too much change and too rapidly, it is possible that the whole system would collapse, instead of improving.

Though, in that case, even if the human race is eliminated, there would not be ever any rule of machines.
And also, the human race will stem out again from the remaining biological life forms, if there were left any and that enviornment would permit.

with love,
sanjay

Sorry, but I am not very much convinced. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:42 am

Well, I have noticed that since the time I posted that video on ASIMO, it has become "Private" and thus you are not allowed to see it. Within that video were scenes of a Japanese workplace preparing for the day's work by doing mandatory calisthenics. Just behind a row of such employees was a row of ASIMO robots, doing the exact same movements along with the other employees. Of course the employees were all smiling and expressing joy that they had such companionship. It was a part of Japan's technology propaganda. The video also included a few new American commercials for businesses to replace workers with much cheaper androids - currently available. Along with this commercial and many others;



And then from the University of West England you have this;



More from Japan (there is a new contest between Japan and the West to produce the best androids);



Rise of the Machines - Michio Kako on the subject of future "timeline" speculations concerning machine take-over;



"Honda kept it a secret for 10 years", no doubt so as to get ahead of the game before the competition took over. Now H7 can "play ball". The military has hover craft and land craft that can find their own way through all kinds of obstacles and maintain cooperative order between the drones automatically, "swarm robots".

The military now prefers video controlled drones so that the controllers are sitting back at home, merely playing a video game. And a war between drones is much like a chess game. Who is the current chess champion? - a computer.



From your History Channel;


..1942 German Goliath terminator robot and the infamous UAV, "Predator", in 1975.

And now DARPA is facing the decision of "at what point we ARE going to give autonomous killing authority to androids".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:09 pm

For an even better "Timeline", you already have this in public domain;

Living machines, fighting for their survival, autonomously;


Ever heard of "A Fish Called Wanda"? I bet you think it is just a movie title. It was an MIT confidential project to produce an artificial fish, called "WANDA". How many fish in the world do you think are artificial? How many insects?

Why would human produce millions of artificial fish and insects? Well obviously surveillance. And what happens immediately following all forms of surveillance? Strategic action.

You think it isn't cost effective to build millions of such things. But they are being built by robots and they are very small, made to be inexpensive.

On Mars are intelligent roaming devices (more sent ever couple of years) that cannot afford to wait for instructions from Earth. They make their own decisions. They learn and deal with what they encounter. They have no choice. "If we don't do it, they will".

Saddam Insane's Red Army was whipped out primarily by Hellfire missiles fired from drones declared illegal years prior. So what do you do when a government doesn't allow you to use your advanced tech? You give them a reason to open the door (9/11). Now through DARPA, even civilian surveillance drones are being armed with weapons and a small amount of AI.

The "timeline" is already far ahead of where you can see. What you see on your documentary channels is already out of date by the time you get to see it. Everything you see in those films is already outdated.

Moors Law
Moore's law is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The law is named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore, who described the trend in his 1965 paper.[1][2][3] His prediction has proven to be accurate, in part because the law is now used in the semiconductor industry to guide long-term planning and to set targets for research and development.[4] The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras.[5] All of these are improving at roughly exponential rates as well. This exponential improvement has dramatically enhanced the impact of digital electronics in nearly every segment of the world economy.[6] Moore's law describes a driving force of technological and social change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries


And in the mean time, 1/6 of the USA population is already unemployed.
Last edited by James S Saint on Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:28 pm

And you might also want to realize that an android face, when designed properly, can rearrange its contour and facial features to match any face that it sees. Upon merely looking at you, an android can replicate your face as its own. Then 10 minutes later, choose someone else's.

Who needs human spies?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby gib » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:08 pm

Arminius wrote:NO. It is NOT how the „french revolution“ started.


https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschw ... uences.htm

Check out item #6 in particular:

Mr. Schwartz wrote:6. Economic hardship, especially the agrarian crisis of 1788-89 generates popular discontent and disorders caused by food shortages.


Arminius wrote:NO. YOU are talking about something completely different fom the OP because you are always only talking about political and social isues which belong mostly to the past and to the presence, maybe even to the nearest future, but not to that future what my OP is talking about:


Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve... is that better?

Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:Besides that, human beings just won't stand for it. If machines completely replace us (in the workforce, that is), human beings will be out of work. We'll revolt and destroy the machines before we allow ourselves to starve.
You are talking about „revolution“, „revolt“ „rebellion“, „out of work“, „workforce“ „working class“, „starve“. You are changing my OP in a primarily political „DP“ („Different Post“).


Right, because none of that has any place in the topic of machines taking over human beings.

Arminius wrote:You think of „revolution“, and „socialism“, or „communism“, and believe naively or optimistically in the competence of workers:


Who said anything about communism? This is human nature. You get put out of work, you face starvation, you panic. Organized rebellion is just a human instinct made collective--it is the response to the threat of death. You panic at the prospect and you take drastic measures: bloody and violent revolution.

Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:They know when they're being laid off and they know when they're starving.

You don't know whether they know or not know because the topic of this thread and the OP refer not to the presence, but to the futue: Will machines completely replace all human beings? . That's the theme, the title, the topic of this thread and what's the OP is all about. And the topic of this thread and the OP is no „revolutionary“ combat organ with hate campaign. No. The OP refers to the future and tries to find out whether machines will completely replace all human beings and NOT primarily wether human beings „revolt“.


And.... why, again, can I not explain my answer to your question? I mean, in your own words, you asked the question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? My answer is no. Am I to refrain from explaining why I think machines will not completely replace all human being simply because I'd have to use the word "revolt" which you left out of the OP?

Arminius wrote:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I HAVE WRITTEN THE TITLE OF THE THREAD! I HAVE WRITTEN THE OP!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh, so you did.

Arminius wrote:And why do I "have to detail for me a timeline of events ... (etc. pp.)"


So that I can, per chance, take you seriously.

Arminius wrote:Furthermore I have given evidence for my arguments. For example: Machines are cheaper than human beings, machines can be controlled very nuch easier than hunans, machines don't rebel...


All right, that's a start. My response: that's not going to stop human workers from rebelling against their replacement.

Arminius wrote:the current machines are alraedy able to learn and also in some cases alraedy part of human bodies...


Yes, machines can learn to a certain extent, but to what extent do you think machines are already part of human bodies? Off the top of my head, I can think of heart transplants, hearing aids, prosthetic limbs... but to the point of being a cyborg or having computer chips implanted in human brains... that's still too science-fiction for me to believe we're destined for it or that it implies machines will completely take over human beings.

Arminius wrote:machines will capture the human bodies...


See, now this is out of the blue. Why do you predict machine will "capture" human bodies. Who's orchestrating this? Will machines eventually wipe out all human beings on the planet? And how will it have gotten to that point? Why would we have programmed the machines to do that? Are there still human beings in this scenario orchestrating this machine take over? If so, they must remain around and so you can't say that all humans would have been wiped out.

This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being "integrated" into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?). Then you jump ahead to some future post-apocalyptical science-fiction fantasy world in which machines will "probably" capture human beings. The gap between the present and this fanciful future scenario is what I need to you to fill in.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8791
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:25 pm

Machines are, increasingly utilized, right, and the integration of machine thought with human thought is in process to reach a state of less and less distinguishability between the two. But absolute indistinguishability is impossible, since human thought is an integral part of the machine program. The program is human based and oriented, and it relates to fields in process of unification. There is fast approaching a state, where looking for where the machine starts, and humanity stops will seem redundant, because, there must by definition develop a synergy between them. It is tantamount to worrying about ideas of the self, and realizing that a manageable letting go of the ideas surrounding it, is the cure. The rise of the machines is the production of anti-cogito, discarded Descartianism, the rise of the new man. This process, is necessary, by definition of the new age of communication., Meaning, understanding, perception, are going through a subliminal change, and the effects are enormously challenging. We are living the process, but are unable to grasp it's true significance. We are in a state of development, utilization comes later.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:38 pm

Arminius wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:Machines will never be able to replace humans completely on their own, for some inevitable reasons.

Yes, there is a possibility that human race on this planet will eliminate himself either by a huge war or trying to machinize humans by planting some sort of chips in the brain or other mechanical parts somewhere else in the body in order to improve human efficieny, both mentally and physically.

A human is a complex order or system. If it is forced to accomodate too much change and too rapidly, it is possible that the whole system would collapse, instead of improving.

Though, in that case, even if the human race is eliminated, there would not be ever any rule of machines.
And also, the human race will stem out again from the remaining biological life forms, if there were left any and that enviornment would permit.

with love,
sanjay

Sorry, but I am not very much convinced. :wink:


Never mind. I was expecting that sort of reply.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:00 pm

Though, there are some metaphysical reasons why machines cannot replace humans, but i will try to argue the case purely in the context of the philosophy of the mind.

The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness.

We tend to confuse complexity with learning. Actually, the machines never learn, simply because they do not any willingness to learn. They display or behave exactly how they are fed, neither more nor less.

It is neither the change/development nor capacity to develop that differs humans from the machines but the willingness of humans to do so. Machines certainly have better potential but they do not have any will to evolve. They do not want or desire anything.

To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible. We cannot enable them to will. They take orders from their programming, no matter how developed, complex or sophisticated it may be, it is still an order. They never question/challenge/change their programming. Someone else has to do it for them.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:46 am

.
Asimo learning;


"Okay so when will Asimo take over the world?"
"Oh, I don't think that will happen."
"I'm not so sure."
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:47 am

Hello, Gib.

gib wrote:
Arminius wrote:NO. It is NOT how the „french revolution“ started.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschw ... uences.htm[

Check out item #6 in particular.

I do NOT have to check out. Who is Mr. Schwartz? His name is German, but nevertheless I don't know him.

Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, "revolutionising"? :wink:

gib wrote:Check out item #6 in particular:
Mr. Schwartz wrote:6. Economic hardship, especially the agrarian crisis of 1788-89 generates popular discontent and disorders caused by food shortages.

That's not a proof of "revolution", it is more a proof of NO "revolution".

Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, "revolutionising"? :wink:

Where did, do, or will do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?

Overnight this poor and starving people became, become, and will become emperors, kings, and - of course - "Gods"?

gib wrote:Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve... is that better?

No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread , of the topic, and of the OP : Will machines completely replace all human beings?

If you want to discuss the question "what would be better", you have to answer firstly the question of the "what", secondly the question of the "would", and thirdly the question of the "better" (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would ..., if ....

Which sense does it make, when you are counting ... 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 ...?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying "better" => "would be" => "what" instead of "what" => "would be" => "better"?

Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!

gib wrote:This is human nature. You get put out of work, you face starvation, you panic. Organized rebellion is just a human instinct made collective--it is the response to the threat of death. You panic at the prospect and you take drastic measures: bloody and violent revolution.

AGAIN: Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, "revolutionising"? :wink:

Where do the poor and starving people get their weapons from in order to win their so called "revolution" and to defeat rulers, machines?

It did not, and it does not, and it will not work in that way. I can guarantee you.

gib wrote:I mean, in your own words, you asked the question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? My answer is no.

You have said "no" - twice -, so what is your problem? Is it because of my "probably yes" (not "yes", but merely "probably yes") ?

gib wrote:Am I to refrain from explaining why I think machines will not completely replace all human being simply because I'd have to use the word "revolt" which you left out of the OP?

Not necessarily, Gib, but it would be better because the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP ask one QUESTION: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

gib wrote:Will machines eventually wipe out all human beings on the planet?

Probably yes.

gib wrote:And how will it have gotten to that point? Why would we have programmed the machines to do that? Are there still human beings in this scenario orchestrating this machine take over?

You can find the answers in this thread.

The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with "yes" is not 100%, but it is high.

gib wrote:If so, they must remain around and so you can't say that all humans would have been wiped out.

If so? If not so? They do not necessarily act and react in that way you are assuming. So your premise is probably false, thus your conclusion is probably false too. Try to unerstand how and why human beings "decide" always by their interest, their will to power (Nietzsche), to control anything and everything, anybody and everybody, and - if they have power - their failing of beeing perfect. Human beings act and react very much in the way of trial and error, and even in the moments when they believe in being perfect - in being God(s) -, they usually fail and tend to suicide.

gib wrote:This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being "integrated" into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?).

I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!

You are as much as I invited to give answers and evidence for this answers. Please read the posts in my thread because it contains many answers and evidence.
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:24 am

James S Saint wrote:.
Asimo learning;


"Okay so when will Asimo take over the world?"
"Oh, I don't think that will happen."
"I'm not so sure."


James,
I am dead sure that no machine would be able to replace humans ever about that but that problem with me that i cannot prove it to others, in the exact way that i want.

Secondly, what you consider the learning of the robots is still their programming. They are not doing it willingly. That is the crux of the issue.

We can infuse as much knowledge and develop the robots as much as we can. They can be very sophisticated in the future, and also, we can programme them to use their knowledge and capacity in the way we like. That is not what i am disputing.

Furthermore, there is a very clearcut difference between an information and a knowledge.
And, this is precisely the point where the whole concept of AI misfires.

The most part of the knowledge requires to go through the process of experiencing the learning. This sense of experience is missing in the machines. And, without this, knowledge is nothing but mere information. So, machines do not have any real knowledge, but the information about the knowledge only.

A very simple but perfect example is the explanation of any color to a blind man by birth. It is simply immpossible. No matter how much information we give to a blind about colors, yet he would never understand what we exactly mean by color. Simply because, the thing that may have enabled him to understand colors truly (eyes) are missing in him.

We can tell him about the all technical detalis of colors and he can remember all that too, yet that does not serve the purpose. The important thing to understand here is that he can still use colors for different purposes, even without understanding exactly what colors mean.

That is exactly how machines use to work.

We can enrich them with as much information as we like and programme them to use that in the way we like, yet they would neither experience anything within them. Because, the ingredient that is essential for experience, is missing in them and that is Mind. And, as they cannot experience anything thus they would not have any willingness ever to challenge thier programming. Means, they would always behave as we want them to behave.

Having said that, still there is a possibility that some insane ( or wise, if one wants to call as such ) individual or a group of those would be able to control the machines to eliminate the rest of the human race. And, it is also possible that, in that process, the ultimate result may be the extinction of the whole of the human race.

But, even that situation cannot considered as machines replacing humans
.
It would be the exinction of humans by humans, nothing else.

James, Machines will be machines only, ever.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:53 am

zinnat13 wrote:I am dead sure that no machine would be able to replace humans ever about that but that problem with me that i cannot prove it to others, in the exact way that i want.

Secondly, what you consider the learning of the robots is still their programming. They are not doing it willingly. That is the crux of the issue.

We can infuse as much knowledge and develop the robots as much as we can. They can be very sophisticated in the future, and also, we can programme them to use their knowledge and capacity in the way we like. That is not what i am disputing.

No more so than with you.

zinnat13 wrote:Furthermore, there is a very clearcut difference between an information and a knowledge.

I can't count the number of times I have said that exact thing to doctors and women.
zinnat13 wrote:And, this is precisely the point where the whole concept of AI Education misfires.



zinnat13 wrote:The most part of the knowledge requires to go through the process of experiencing the learning. This sense of experience is missing in the machines. And, without this, knowledge is nothing but mere information. So, machines do not have any real knowledge, but the information about the knowledge only.

That was the whole point in the video. Asimo understood the concept of a chair, not merely the shape.

zinnat13 wrote:A very simple but perfect example is the explanation of any color to a blind man by birth. It is simply immpossible. No matter how much information we give to a blind about colors, yet he would never understand what we exactly mean by color. Simply because, the thing that may have enabled him to understand colors truly (eyes) are missing in him.

If you think that is a "perfect example", then you don't understand yourself.

zinnat13 wrote:We can tell him about the all technical detalis of colors and he can remember all that too, yet that does not serve the purpose. The important thing to understand here is that he can still use colors for different purposes, even without understanding exactly what colors mean.

Give him eyes with which to relate just like you have and he'll understand it just like you do... probably better.

zinnat13 wrote:That is exactly how machines use to work.

Note the past tense.

zinnat13 wrote:Having said that, still there is a possibility that some insane ( or wise, if one wants to call as such ) individual or a group of those would be able to control the machines to eliminate the rest of the human race. And, it is also possible that, in that process, the ultimate result may be the extinction of the whole of the human race.

Coming up, "on the burner".

zinnat13 wrote:But, even that situation cannot considered as machines replacing humans[/b].
It would be the exinction of humans by humans, nothing else.

And how is that NOT "replacing the humans"?

zinnat13 wrote:James, Machines will be machines only, ever.

If humans can become something different than "just-humans", what makes you think that machines can't become something different than "just-machines"?

It's a losing argument, Sanjay. It is already done. You never find out what has been done until it is already too late to change it - true throughout life, but especially when it comes to military governments.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby gib » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Arminius wrote:Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, "revolutionising"? :wink:


Yes, the French Revolution.

Arminius wrote:Where did, do, or will do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?


Pitch forks and back hoes, they make their own, they steal them, they get the support of some renegade soldiers or law enforcers. History is rife with examples of how rebelling citizens can get weapons. Weapons come from humans, they invent them, and you'd be surprised at what humans can come up with when under pressure.

Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve... is that better?

No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread , of the topic, and of the OP : Will machines completely replace all human beings?

If you want to discuss the question "what would be better", you have to answer firstly the question of the "what", secondly the question of the "would", and thirdly the question of the "better" (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would ..., if ....

Which sense does it make, when you are counting ... 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 ...?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying "better" => "would be" => "what" Instead of "what" => "would be" => "better"?


Which sense are you making?

Arminius wrote:Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!


Jawohl, Herr Kapitan!

Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:I mean, in your own words, you asked the question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? My answer is no.

You have said "no" - twice -, so what is your problem?


Is answering your question now a problem?

Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:Am I to refrain from explaining why I think machines will not completely replace all human being simply because I'd have to use the word "revolt" which you left out of the OP?

Not necessarily, Gib, but it would be better because the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP ask one QUESTION: Will machines completely replace all human beings?


So let me get this straight--you're actually saying that because you asked a question, all I have a right to do is answer it with a simple "yes" or "no".

Well, you already know my answer.

Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:And how will it have gotten to that point? Why would we have programmed the machines to do that? Are there still human beings in this scenario orchestrating this machine take over?

You can find the answers in this thread.


Arminius, this thread is 6 pages long. I don't want to read through all that. Can't you briefly summarize what your main points and arguments are?

Arminius wrote:The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with "yes" is not 100%, but it is high.


Ok, if you call 0.0001% high.

Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:If so, they must remain around and so you can't say that all humans would have been wiped out.

If so? If not so? They do not necessarily act and react in that way you are assuming. So your premise is probably false, thus your conclusion is probably false too. Try to unerstand how and why human beings "decide" always by their interest, their will to power (Nietzsche), to control anything and everything, anybody and everybody, and - if they have power - their failing of beeing perfect. Human beings act and react very much in the way of trial and error, and even in the moments when they believe in being perfect - in being God(s) -, they usually fail and tend to suicide.


So you're saying that even that small elite of human beings who orchestrate the robot take-over will eventually commit suicide because they will be disillusioned about the fact that they're not perfect and are not Gods. Is that right?

Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being "integrated" into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?).

I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!


Right, and as such, I am forbidden to give anything more than a "yes"/"no" answer.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8791
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:49 pm

James S Saint wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:I am dead sure that no machine would be able to replace humans ever about that but that problem with me that i cannot prove it to others, in the exact way that i want.

Secondly, what you consider the learning of the robots is still their programming. They are not doing it willingly. That is the crux of the issue.

We can infuse as much knowledge and develop the robots as much as we can. They can be very sophisticated in the future, and also, we can programme them to use their knowledge and capacity in the way we like. That is not what i am disputing.

No more so than with you.

zinnat13 wrote:Furthermore, there is a very clearcut difference between an information and a knowledge.

I can't count the number of times I have said that exact thing to doctors and women.
zinnat13 wrote:And, this is precisely the point where the whole concept of AI Education misfires.


Nothing much to point out up to here as we are in agreement, more or less.

zinnat13 wrote:The most part of the knowledge requires to go through the process of experiencing the learning. This sense of experience is missing in the machines. And, without this, knowledge is nothing but mere information. So, machines do not have any real knowledge, but the information about the knowledge only.

That was the whole point in the video. Asimo understood the concept of a chair, not merely the shape.

Even if i accept that just for the sake of the argument, it still does not counter my point.

In the video, they are claming that he is making judgements but that only partly true. That judgement is predetermined by his programming, not his own. And, neither he can alter that predetermination, whether right or wrong.

A thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.

Asimo does not pass this threshold. He recognizes the chair just because he is taught to do so by programing. But, like humans, he will not use it to hit other robot if it comes down to fighting. Neither he would ever break and put it into fire if there would be too cold. That is the difference. And, you cannot ever programme Asimo to do such kind of things.

Machines cannot evaluate given information. Because, for that, again they have some inherited information and this is an endless process.The problem with machines is that they can never be in the stage of a priori knowlege. That is a must ingredient to form personal intelligence.

Machines are blank on their own so you have to feed then from a to z. But, on the other hand, a child is born with some a priori knowledge. Then, he evaluate and evolve his knowledge. Machines cannot do either of those.

James, i am hearing about this quantum jump in AI since last 30 years, when i was 20 years old. After the every gap of some years, some scientist in the some corner or the world tends to come forth and claims that all is solved now but nothing happens on the ground. It looks to me it is more related to continue with the incoming huge funding than the actual research. The scientific community just do not want the idea of AI to die because it is the question of the bread and butter to the related persons
.

zinnat13 wrote:A very simple but perfect example is the explanation of any color to a blind man by birth. It is simply immpossible. No matter how much information we give to a blind about colors, yet he would never understand what we exactly mean by color. Simply because, the thing that may have enabled him to understand colors truly (eyes) are missing in him.

If you think that is a "perfect example", then you don't understand yourself.

Then, explain it.

zinnat13 wrote:We can tell him about the all technical detalis of colors and he can remember all that too, yet that does not serve the purpose. The important thing to understand here is that he can still use colors for different purposes, even without understanding exactly what colors mean.

Give him eyes with which to relate just like you have and he'll understand it just like you do... probably better.

Yes, he would because that makes him at par with me.
But, that is not true in the case of robots. They already have eyes in form of cameras but, just like a blind, they cannot experience colors. Because, they do not have any such experiencing entity that can enable them to experience the colors in totality.

They have to deduce the information of colors in order to recognize that. The process of the humans is different. They may not deduce the colors like robots, yet can experience those at entirely different level.

As the wisdom of Aristotle pointed out -
The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts.


zinnat13 wrote:That is exactly how machines use to work.

Note the past tense.

I can also convert that into both present an future tense. Not a big issue.

zinnat13 wrote:Having said that, still there is a possibility that some insane ( or wise, if one wants to call as such ) individual or a group of those would be able to control the machines to eliminate the rest of the human race. And, it is also possible that, in that process, the ultimate result may be the extinction of the whole of the human race.

Coming up, "on the burner".

I am not that sure. But yes, possibility is certainly there.

zinnat13 wrote:But, even that situation cannot considered as machines replacing humans[/b].
It would be the exinction of humans by humans, nothing else.

And how is that NOT "replacing the humans"?

I would like to call it as - Extinction of humans by humans by using machines.
That gives a slight different sense
.

zinnat13 wrote:James, Machines will be machines only, ever.

If humans can become something different than "just-humans", what makes you think that machines can't become something different than "just-machines"?

James, i do not think even humans can ever become something different than Just humans.

It's a losing argument, Sanjay. It is already done. You never find out what has been done until it is already too late to change it - true throughout life, but especially when it comes to military governments.

James, that seems unlikely, at least to me. I do have enough reasons to believe that yet. The other side has more valid reasons.


with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:27 pm

gib wrote:
Arminius wrote:Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, "revolutionising"? :wink:


Yes, the French Revolution.

You mean this poor and starving French guys who were not able to construct bow and arrow because they were starving and not able to pay for bow and arrow because they were poor. Gib, they had no money, and they had no power, even no physiological power in their bodies!

So again: If they really had rebelled and "revoutionised", they would have become food and money for doing it. So again: Who gave them the food and the money for rebelling and "revoutionising", Gib? Either nobody, so the French "revolution" was a joke, or some of the rich people (the money makers and the aristocrats, so the French "revolution" was a paid war.

All "revolutions" were paid, are paid, and will be paid! The French, the German, the Russian, the "X", and the "Y" "revolution" were paid, the current "revolutions" are paid, and the "revolutions" of the future will be paid too. Of course!

So you can NOT say that POOR and STARVING people are able to rebel or to "revolutionise"!

"Revolutions" are always made, created, stage-managed, designed, and so on, paid by them who have money, thus power, and interests (more money, thus more power, by "revolutions", thus by wars, thus by profit by weapons, and so on!). If only the poor and starving people are interested in "rebelling" and "revolutionising", there will be NO rebel and NO "revolution", but only more poverty and more hunger, more starving, thus more death!

gib wrote:
Arminius wrote:Where did, do, or will do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?


Pitch forks and back hoes, they make their own, they steal them, they get the support of some renegade soldiers or law enforcers. History is rife with examples of how rebelling citizens can get weapons. Weapons come from humans, they invent them, and you'd be surprised at what humans can come up with when under pressure.

Just as I said: They are paid. So the poor and starving people just "change" into rich and powerful people overnight. Any weapon has its price, thus must be paid. Any! POOR and STARVING people have NO MONEY and have NO FORCE. That's logical, that's even tautological!

So you can NOT say that POOR and STARVING people are able to rebel or to "revolutionise"!

gib wrote:
Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve... is that better?

No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread , of the topic, and of the OP : Will machines completely replace all human beings?

If you want to discuss the question "what would be better", you have to answer firstly the question of the "what", secondly the question of the "would", and thirdly the question of the "better" (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would ..., if ....

Which sense does it make, when you are counting ... 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 ...?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying "better" => "would be" => "what" Instead of "what" => "would be" => "better"?


Which sense are you making?

You are not the best friend of logic. Right?

Example: If your child have made nonsense, then you firstly (=> 1) have to know WHAT it has made, secondly (=> 2) you have to know whether and, if so, how the child WOULD act or react in a different case, and thirdly (=> 3) you have to know whether it is BETTER or not. You do NOT punish or discipline your child without knowing the facts of WHAT (=> 1) your child has done, and without knowing how your child WOULD (=> 2) have done it in a different case or not. Ethical questions are not the first ones when it comes to know the situation which is the object of this ethical question. You can not reason or judge before knowing the facts.

gib wrote:
Arminius wrote:Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!

Jawohl, Herr Kapitan!

Excuse me, my judging God, but this has nothing to do with military, but with mathmatics, especially with logic. So again: You are not the best friend of logic.

gib wrote:Is answering your question now a problem?

How could it? My question is a question. (Remember: tautology). So it is a question for all people, thus also for me. If I answer this question, it can or should not be evaluated differently just because it is my question. You want my question to be differntly evaluated, my Captain Gib. So you want to be the Kapitän, jawohl!

You said "no", and I said "probably yes". It is okay, isn't it?

gib wrote:Arminius, this thread is 6 pages long. I don't want to read through all that. Can't you briefly summarize what your main points and arguments are?

Yes I can, but you have to do it on your own. I dont have very much time for that and English is not my first language. So it would be better, if you do it on your own. Okay?

gib wrote:
Arminius wrote:The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with "yes" is not 100%, but it is high.


Ok, if you call 0.0001% high.

Thank you for that joke, but the probability is about 80%, I estimate. So there are 20% left for you. So there is a little chance for you. O:)

gib wrote:So you're saying that even that small elite of human beings who orchestrate the robot take-over will eventually commit suicide because they will be disillusioned about the fact that they're not perfect and are not Gods. Is that right?

So you are saying that you don't understand what I mean? Are you joking?

You have to interpret it psychologically and mentally (what e.g. are the interests, the intentions, the trials, and the errors?), if you really want to understand that statement. But I think, you just don't want to. So any discussion with you seems to be very useless.

gib wrote:
Arminius wrote:
gib wrote:This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being "integrated" into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?).

I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!


Right, and as such, I am forbidden to give anything more than a "yes"/"no" answer.

It is useless to discuss with you. You behave like a child. I have never forbiden anything. The contrary is right: I challenged you, myself, and all the other readers of this thread to give answers and evidence.

Arminius wrote:"You are as much as I invited to give answers and evidence for this answers. Please read the posts in my thread because it contains many answers and evidence.

And I remind you again:

Arminius wrote:I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:42 pm, edited 19 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users