Sort of, and without divine intelligence. And we won’t even mention solid intuition and wisdom.
The same minds creating those puffy artificial lips for women will terraform the earth.
Sort of, and without divine intelligence. And we won’t even mention solid intuition and wisdom.
The same idiots, I mean, sorry, minds, creating those puffy artificial lips for women will terraform the earth.
That is the issue right there … “Hubris”.
That are important questions which are answered in this thread. The most (about 80%)members of this forum think that machines are not able to learn empathy, ethics and morals. They are wrong.
The “yes”-sayers are those who answer the question of the topic of this thread (“Will machines completely replace all human beings?”) with “yes” by trend, that means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%. This “yes”-sayers also say “yes” to the question wether machines are able to learn empathy, ethics and morals.
The superior species is the one that does that which more greatly supports/enhances itself, not that which replaces itself with something even greater than itself (I suspect even Nietzsche knew that much). The “final species”, the “Ubermensch” is the one that knows the difference.
If you explain to a man with a drug addiction that it will kill him, does he quit? Very seldom. Technology, creating machines, androids, and cyborgs is an addition to modern day governments. They can’t stop even when they believe that they really need to.
“We should all join together and change the world!” That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward.
The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!
Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can’t stop even when they believe that they really need to.
Yeah, that’s the point. It isn’t up to “them” any more. It is an addiction, out of their control = “technology”. Homosapian ran into a substance of an addiction that killed him, “technological power”.
What is the goal of stoppng change? (some change, change per se, all change?)
What is the goal in staying alive?
A goal could be the protection of nature, or the right and the duty of fair production and reproduction, but as you could and can see: each attempt of stopping change was, is, and will be answered with more change.
A similar question. One answer: The will, the will to power, the will to be accepted or at least respected, … etc., or to reach the anentropic harmony. 
The good thing about anentropic harmony is that once attained, there is neither need nor desire to change from it. Of course, it is a type of changing already, but never away from its essence.
The anentropic harmony is something like a paradise, a paradise for the “last men”.
“Seht! Ich zeige euch den letzten Menschen. Was ist Liebe? Was ist Schöpfung? Was ist Sehnsucht? Was ist Stern? – so fragt der letzte Mensch und blinzelt. Die Erde ist dann klein geworden, und auf ihr hüpft der letzte Mensch, der Alles klein macht. Sein Geschlecht ist unaustilgbar, wie der Erdfloh; der letzte Mensch lebt am längsten. ‘Wir haben das Glück erfunden’ – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.” (Friedrich W. Nietzsche, “Also sprach Zarathustra”, 1. Teil, 1883, S. 13).
Translation:
“Look! I show you the last man. What is love? What is creation? What is desire? What is star? - so asks the last man and blinks. The earth has then become small, and on it the last man jumps, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest. ‘We have discovered the happiness’ - say the last men and blink.” (Friedrich W. Nietzsche, “Thus spoke Zarathustra”, Part 1, 1883, p. 13).
The last man jumps, where? So as to become first, again?
The last man jumps on the Earth. First I wanted to write “upon” instead of “on”, but then I decided to write “on”. Is that okay, Obe?
Actually not. But who knows? What do you think, Obe?
I think…ahhhm…Yes? Nietzsche really admired Christ, the Man, and Jesus did say,
“those who love their life, will loose it, and those who hate their life will find eternal life”
“the last will be first, and the first, last”
this may reflect on whether Nietzsche had any idea of a connection between himself and Christ, but the fact is, it is more probable than not, maybe even more than 80%, that there was, either conscious, or otherwise.
That’s really interesting isn’t it. That Nietzsche wasn’t against Jesus or what Jesus symbolized, but against what he traced to be a perversion of Jesus’s memory – the history of Christianity – starting with St. Paul. I’m thinking of starting a thread in religion about it.
As far as we know (but also not for sure), Nietzsche admired Paulus.
We really do not know for sure whether Nietzsche wasn’t against Jesus. Nietzsche in his “early times as philosopher” was not against Jesus, Nietzsche in his “middle times as philosopher” was not very much against Jesus, and Nietzsche in his “late times as philosopher” was against Jesus, although not always. It is really difficult to find the truth about Nietzsche’s relationship with Jesus and Christianity because the whole Nietzsche has to be considered.
That is precisely the problem with him that nobody knows exacty what he is proposing.
Some people may criticise me for this, but whatever more or less i undersood of him, he seems to be a confused person.
This is not to say that he is a dumb person. He was intelligent and investigative but not much sure about his own ideas.
Like some other intellectualls, he was suffering with TMI syndrome; Too much information without conclusion.
Any philosopher, who uses such poetic prose in his narration, instead of crystal clear language, that anyone can interpret as he likes, is the indicaton that philosopher is not sure about his perception. As far as the philosophy is concerned, the use of artistic languange is nothing but a escape route to hide one’s confusion.
They try to do a Shakespeare, as you like it.
FC once told me that i misread him and advised me to read The Birth of Tragedy. I downlowded and start reading it but many chapters passed i was still unable to understsand what his referred subject it, much less his opinion, thus stopped.
Philosophers are supposed to reduce confusion, not add to it.
It is as simple as that. Any philosopher, who adds to the confusion, is cheating the very object of philosophy, in the first place, no matter how intelligent he may be.
with love,
sanjay
I guess what I meant was why is stopping change good and change problematic. I may have misinterpreted but in the post I responded to, it seemed like the two were valued this way. Perhaps you see too much change, so less change is likely the right direction and I have some sympathy with this. A way to clarify would be to point out that nature changes. Also it would take change to stop humans from making all these changes, many of them both destructive and benefitless.