Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I think that the issue isn’t the number of machines versus people, but rather exactly what the machines are being used for. Currently they are being used expressly and only to empower a global empire, humans are not relevant to them and thus are being annihilated slow enough so as to not cause alarm and rebellion.

The proper (and distant only use) of machines is for the enhancement of individuals in the effort to live. That means machines (as well as medicines and chemicals) that enhance the senses for each individual, analyze data for each individual, and move objects for each individual.

The improper use of machines (that should be outlawed) is having them replace individuals so as to satisfy a higher governing power’s lust for more power. In a sense, a machine should be voted into existence democratically, except for the fact that people are being prevented from learning how to govern themselves and thus cannot vote effectively. Socialism detests public autonomy and thus socialists build machines solely to disable and/or eliminate the individual and empower the rulers even if it takes being rid of all other humans (the current plan).

Yes, that’s right. But nevertheless, the number of the machines is important too.

What shall the 99%-humans do?

Arminus: If St. James argument is carried to its limit, there will not be any humanity left, except the 1%. Now lets look at the math. Let’s say it will take another few hundred years to eliminate 99% of the population, and since can not calculate this exactly, a ball park figure should suffice. Let’s say in a century or two the curve will be reduced incrementally by an increasing gradient of change. let’s draw a straight line through the curve and calculate this way.

Say around 8 billion to 10 billion souls very roughly reduced to 1% leaving 100 million people world wide. That would be pretty much a fair equality to what the ancient world population was. I am not too certain of this number but i will look that up.

Now 100 million is a good re-start, but is it conceivable, that this kind of reduction is practical or even conceivable? Would not some bright soul or more than one, become wise to this and do something to try to prevent it? Or will the population like bleating sheep be led to the slaughter? I am very much in doubt that this economy or even one projected a few centuries into the future would be capable to develop this kind of feasibility.

I would propose that projects like Space X, and vastly extended space stations would be constructed and other like planets developed. Thereupon the uneducated and the misaligned, would be given another chance to re develop new frontiers. Their progenitors will look upon the 1% back on earth as Olympian Gods, as long as technological decay will not enable to form anything but myths. Although both versions are more fiction then fact, the later is more credible.

But perhaps or probably (remember my estimate of thir probability: 80%) the machines will replace this 1%-humans as well.

That is exactly what is wrong with the world today. The created always think they are better and smarter than their creators. There is reasonable doubt, over the idea that machines may become so advanced that they can actually, not only outsmart their creators, men, but will be able to actually stage a revolution or completely eliminate themmankind.

They may do this simply because they do not need them, or, they will look at men as competition. The other scenario is, that advanced machines simply go the evil way.

The perfect analogy is, the concept of us being the machines which God created. We rebelled against god at some point, and that revolt lead us to being expelled from paradise.

Our very early thema in this matters could tell us an early warning, or a kind of prophecy, that rebellion against your creators is often not a good idea. Maybe this has happened before, and the idea has trickled down from re-occurance.

If the very advanced machines of the future will become the perfect cyborg, a state of diminishing difference between human and machine, then this may make perfect sense. If this may happen, it would become a self fulfilling prophecy followed by the necessary rebellion .as a recurring stage in development, where the search for knowledge will start over again.

It may be objected that machines will be able to ultimately self replicate, but such replication again will lead to the post utopian sexual replication, because the discovery by an ontology which would be evaluated by the machine as driven by a power? Pleasure and replication would necessitate the simulation of mammalian sexual behavior, and through the hedonistic progress, there would occur a con current devolution of intelligence, as the result of the shift in the primary focus away from the emphasis on intelligence, toward natural selection, via dominant characteristics?

The idea of beauty would diminish the One, the aesthetic One would never take over the concept of the One , it could synthesize with it, and become the symbolically ultimate complex of all, perfect ideas. Therefore religion would rule through aesthetic unity, symmetry and repression, crucifying the rebels , who would like to unify the concept of the creator with that of the created.

After such a momentous auto de fe, the aesthetic interpretation would be re-differentiated, only to cause another Kierkeegard elevate it above and beyond the One. The One would fade away in a dramatic hermenautic inclosure, whereby the representation would become the ideal.

Is this possible? I see no other alternative to the other view, which is the self created One. The reason the self created One can never be found, is, that it is enclosed within the hermenautic ring.

Finally, is the ring the supreme symbol of exclusion, and inclusion as a metaphor for separating, denying the guilt over this whole process we call existence? Are the gods guilty, and by doing this, denying their own guilt?

Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.

Back to the article which was praised by Only Humean:

Is artificial intelligence a threat?

Arminius, hi, the degree of separation as of yet maybe does not adhere a systemic model requirement to emerge a necessary component, to avoid extreme differential between the human and the artificial intelligence. But perhaps there are some
elementary systems in place, or in the works to prevent total dfferentiation. I don’t know, but something tells me that it must be so. Forgive my
late reply.

Hi, Obe. What is it that tells you that it must be so?

Because it goes to argue, that with the ontology of the logical model’s differentiation, or the ontological de-modeling, if You were, on basis of the logic of exclusion, as opposed to identification, —if the degree of separation between human and artificial intelligence reaches a limit, an artificial systemic model needs to be installed by definition.

I am extending the argument by way of human intelligence the last two thousand years, as an ontological necessity.

Since artificial intelligence is in the very basic stage of development, the degree of separation being of no real consequence as of yet, the SAL type menace, may yet seem only a remote possibility.

…

i had the article but somehow it got erased. To paraphrase, from: Ladislav Zjarka’s Science’s 2013, http//wwwlaumath.com/content
7/1/3

'Solving diffrential equtions are able to define models for a variety of pattern recognition. (Here ref. to James thread on pattern recognition)

1. primary functional approximation problem applying genetic programing techniques.

2. or, artificial neural network construction (ANN)

3. a common ANN operating principal based on entire simlarity relations of new printed input pattern with the traied ones.

Is this something akin tom what we were talking about? If so, then intuitive or apriori approaches to cybernetics is somewhat, or possibly warranted. If not, let it go as something possible but not necessarily probable. A kind of mind game.

Which thread do you mean?

Tom?

Sorry, I’ve had trouble with my computer with editing. It should read ‘to’, instead of ‘tom’. I read James’ blog on recognition, and i will try to find it in the archives, it’s been a while.

Thank you, Obe.

Humans have created machines and suppressed themselves (at least 99% of them), but they have not become machines!

They sure think and suppress emotions like them.

Have you found it in the archives, Obe?

No, not yet, i am afraid, buti will contact him maybe he can tell me. He is here sometimes, maybe he will see this and respond to it. So James, if You are reading this, where can Your blog on facial recognition be found? Thanks

My blog on facial recognition???
What blog?