Will machines completely replace all human beings?

James_S_Saint · June 25, 2016, 2:15am

They will eventually be granted superior rights to organic persons.

102177 is a lot of views for one thread.

Arminius · June 28, 2016, 11:54am

That is very likely.

Yes, it is. Now the number of the views is 102507.

James_S_Saint · June 28, 2016, 12:25pm

No. It’s 102516.

Arminius · June 28, 2016, 12:30pm

No. It’s 102517.

James_S_Saint · June 28, 2016, 1:06pm

Sorry, I must have read it wrong. Now it says 102531.
It must be a site software problem.

Arminius · June 28, 2016, 2:26pm

A machine problem.

Now it is 102552.

Arminius · July 14, 2016, 5:47pm

Then I ask you, Anomaleigh: Do you think that machines will completely replace all human beings?

Arminius · August 16, 2016, 8:06pm

James S Saint:

jerkey:

To my mind the closest analogy I can give, to the first question (out of which the other three flow), is that of a seed. Cosmologically, the consciousness of the world must arise out of the brute, inert matter, unable to realize it’s self without the development of higher consciousness. In a sense, nothing really exists, which can not be perceived. Existence here in Sartre’s vocabulary passes the cogito ergo sum, into the esse est percipii, to exist is to perceive, and that means perception is the predicate to existence.

It can be said both ways, ‘to exist is to perceive’ and existence is the predicate, because existence and perception are so closely bound to each other, embedded into each other.

The really interesting question is, whether there may be inorganic perception, or, preception, where the difference will take maybe another thousand years to unravel.

The fact that microchips are made of inorganic material, but may advance to organic material, shows the narrowing of that difference. Both may be used as analogues, however, and the time for that may be fairly near.

“Perception” requires a degree of complexity beyond being merely affected or affecting. Affect is a “predicate” to existence. Perception is a predicate to consciousness.

And “organic” is merely a class of chemical makeup. It does not necessitate the existence of any other particular attribute or function. The function of perception and the consequential consciousness can be emulated by many things, organic or non-organic. Being organic is merely having carbon and oxygen as the base molecules. Silicon and oxygen can perform the same basic functions and thus can be used to form a living being with perception and consciousness. Many computers certainly perceive and are already conscious to a small degree, ever growing.

I know that we already had this discussion in this thread, but my question is again: How can we currently know for sure that they are already conscious to a small degree?

James_S_Saint · August 16, 2016, 8:33pm

Define “consciousness”. Look at the exact details required of something for it to be called “conscious”. Once seen in concept, they can be seen right in front of you.

Arminius · August 16, 2016, 8:48pm

Being aware or conscious of thoughts or knowledge is already a tautological description, because if you know that there are thoughts or knowledge, then you also know that there is a consciousness.

James_S_Saint · August 16, 2016, 9:12pm

True, thus would make a poor definition. Get an exacting unambiguous, informative, meaningful definition.

As you know, I define it as:
Consciousness == The property of remote recognition.

Arminius · August 16, 2016, 9:33pm

Yes, I know.

Only_Humean · August 18, 2016, 12:13pm

Does that not move the discussion to the definition of recognition?

Is a television conscious? A radio-controlled car? A heat-seeking missile?

Arminius · August 18, 2016, 11:09pm

Yes, at least partially.

A televison is not conscious, a radio-controlled car is not conscious, a heat-seeking missile is not conscious; but what about certain machines with an artificial intelligence?

Meno2 · August 19, 2016, 12:15am

James, how do You understand remote recognition? As a pre thought -verbal recognition at and before the limit of sensation, as in a primary process, or with a conceptual inclusion sans some elements which can differentiate between human beings and animals?

James_S_Saint · August 19, 2016, 12:25am

“Recognition” is easy to define:

An example of remote recognition in mechanisms would be the little android that hears a voice, identifies it as the young girl, turns in her direction, and says, “Good morning, Pretty”.

Arminius · August 19, 2016, 12:50am

If I may answer:

Hearing a voice is already a remote recognition because of the relatively remote distance between the perceiving one and the perceived one. If that distance is relatively near(by / close), then it is not a remote recognition. The question is just what “relatively” means in this case.

Meno2 · August 19, 2016, 5:11am

Thanks for that, part I understand. But could you elaborate, as to how is ‘conscious-ness’ a defining entity, within in the relative remote recognition concept? I would guess, it has to do with limits somehow?

James_S_Saint · August 19, 2016, 8:07am

When I said “remote recognition”, I didn’t mean far remote. Actually any distance beyond direct touching would count as being conscious of the entity.

To sense being touched is different than sensing what is doing the touching. An ice cube could touch a thermostat and the thermostat would respond. But would the thermostat be able to distinguish that ice cube from a cold piece of metal? Not likely.

A conscious recognition involves an identification process such as would distinguish various possible items responsible for the sensations involved. To be conscious is to be conscious of something.

A simple PC can identify which kind of printer, modem, mouse, or monitor that gets plugged into it. Along with the identification comes an understanding of how to communicate with that particular item. If the PC cannot recognize the device, it cannot know how to communicate with it. To a small degree, that is a mechanism being conscious of its peripheral surroundings. And even though those particular items require touch (such as a USB connector), what is being recognized, is not the touch, but the item doing the touching even though the whole item didn’t touch the PC. That is also what I mean by “remote recognition”. The item is being recognized as a particular type of item causing the sensation. The PC is conscious only to the degree that it can identify items around it by their affects upon it.

I don’t think that I understand the question. Conscious-ness is a property of something/one, like redness or largeness. Consciousness is not a thing, but a property of a thing. Being conscious is a state of being and a process, like being noisy or being smart. Being conscious is an active process.

Arminius · August 19, 2016, 1:49pm

What do you think about that limits? Where (in which realm) can they be found?