Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Kriswest » Thu May 01, 2014 11:47 pm

Yes but, James, a human can do what machines cannot. Humans/life can stop machines, machines cannot stop life without causing its own destruction.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20553
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Fri May 02, 2014 12:07 am

James S Saint wrote:Fuse is partly right.

"Since machines can be both cheaper and more capable, will they totally replace human beings?" would have been a better way to ask the question (for those who couldn't see the intent).

It is not a formal logic proposal, but a question.

I have studied logic, and there is no problem with the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? It is based on the classical syllogism:

All M are P
All S are M
All S are P

All human beings are mortal.
Sokrates is a human being.
Sokrates is mortal.

Well known, isn't it?

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.


Do you agree or disagree?
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 02, 2014 1:18 am, 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 Eric_The_Pipe » Fri May 02, 2014 12:15 am

Kriswest wrote:Nope not, buying it. Biology naturally self replicates. A machine does not. A machine will require machines to keep it running and those machines will require machines and guess what metals and materials are finite on this world. Machines are not self replicating unlike biology. That is all just the tip, if I was long winded I could cite more things but, as it is I think you get the idea and can build on it. :)
The materials and metals that are finite also put a "natural" limit on the increase of biological organisms. But, I do understand what you are saying. Upkeep on humans is remarkably low, what with the self healing an all. The real problem is when self healing machines are created, or nano tech. The costs to create and upkeep machines will decrease, the Costs of humans will decrease also... But, impart because of the decrease in costs of machines.

I forgot to include emotional costs for humans, loosing a human has a greater emotional cost than that of a machine, it's just stuff after all. Also, the intelligence* that a human has that far exceeds (at this point) robots adds to the value of humans.

Though, the underline argument I made is actual real world application. We use machines in situations we could not use a human. The moment a type writer was used instead of something being written by human hands, machines replaced humans. The moment that a plow machine was used instead of a scythe, machines replaced humans. The Luddites smashed machines for a reason... The reason why is because machines are cheaper than humans and human life, they can be thrown away at a lesser cost than a human. Anytime you buy a new toaster it is because that machine is cheaper than starting a fire and cooking it yourself. More, the replacement of humans for machines has increased (at least to most value systems) the life style of most people. Trust me, you do not want humans to be cheaper than a machine, the results are less enjoyable.

An example: In India, where dowries are acceptable, a newspaper ad once read: Man interested in marriage for tractor. Send pictures of tractor.

If human life is cheaper, than people are thrown away before the machine is, I know from other posts that you do not want this. Children are the cheapest of humans, because they have not had as much energy placed in them.

When sex slavery happens it is because the cost of that human is lower than the costs to, well, a lot of things.

The act of creating the immorality of children being used as labor increases the costs of human life as a whole.

I should probably point out, I was answering a specific question:
Kriswest wrote:I am still trying to figure out how machines could ever be cheaper in the long run. Show me the details.

I have not commented on the OP, nor should my arguments for machines being cheaper be taken as agreement or argument against the OP.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 02, 2014 12:20 am

Arminius wrote:1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

As a formal syllogism, that would be a "non-sequitor" (a disconnect in the logic). You have to have a premise included to say, "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things". And also, "Only machines replace people".
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 » Fri May 02, 2014 12:28 am

James S Saint wrote:
fuse wrote:Thanks for weighing in, James, but I didn't point out the structure of his argument to be trivial. I brought it up because Arminius seems to think that "cheaper things must always replace expensive things" is a statement of logical necessity. He has been assuming it, and I disagree with that assumption.

I understand what you were getting at. But what you need to do is provide the counter argument, much like Lady K is attempting ("cheaper will not replace all else").

And ...? Has anybody provided such a "counter argument"?

James S Saint wrote:In fact, as long as Man is attempting to control all things, he will be eliminated. Life does not tolerate remote control for long.

Has anybody a "counter argument"?

My question is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP.

It is just a question. One can answer this question with "yes" or with "no" (therefore also my interim balance sheet), but one has to justify the arguments or counter arguments, if it is requested.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 02, 2014 3:07 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 Eric_The_Pipe » Fri May 02, 2014 12:30 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Fuse is partly right.

"Since machines can be both cheaper and more capable, will they totally replace human beings?" would have been a better way to ask the question (for those who couldn't see the intent).

It is not a formal logic proposal, but a question.

I have studied logic, and there is no problem with the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? It is based on the classical syllogism:

All M are P
All S are M
All S are P

All human beings are mortal.
Sokrates is a human being.
Sokrates is mortal.

Well know, isn't it?

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.


Do you agree or disagree?
I'm not that good at the logic philosophy, I'm sorry to say. I could move the q's and p's around, but pulling it out of the statements always confuses me. So I am approaching this with a huge dollop of humility.

The underline problem is that if one part is false, the whole thing falls apart, no? Because, Expensive things are not necessarily replaced by cheaper things. We have a whole industry called the luxury market, for one. But mostly, the value of something is not always contained with in a simple matrix. Moral value for one is harder to predict a cost on. In economics there is a statement, bad money chases out good. It is under the idea that people hoard the good money, not that they throw it away. For example: In prisons people use the cheap shitty cigarettes as "cash" but keep the good ones to smoke. The active devalue of machines may just mean that machines become more disposable, and are treated more like slaves... (Though, that may be a loaded term)
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Fri May 02, 2014 1:10 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

As a formal syllogism, that would be a "non-sequitor" (a disconnect in the logic). You have to have a premise included to say, "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things". And also, "Only machines replace people".

No, I don't have to say that because this thraed has already reached an extend of 13 pages and 307 posts. I did the syllogism in the easiest way (as possible) because I had assumed that the most readers are more able to follow the logic in a simple way than in a more complicated way. This 13 pages and 307 posts have proved that. There is no problem because everybody knows the facts (except Fuse, but not really because he has other reasons to "disagree" :wink: ).
          I say: "Cheaper things replace expensive things".
          You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things".
          I say: "Machines replace human beings".
          You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): "Only machines replace people".
After 13 pages and 303 posts, James!
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 02, 2014 3:15 am, edited 6 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 » Fri May 02, 2014 1:46 am

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I'm not that good at the logic philosophy, I'm sorry to say. I could move the q's and p's around, but pulling it out of the statements always confuses me. So I am approaching this with a huge dollop of humility.

The underline problem is that if one part is false, the whole thing falls apart, no? Because, Expensive things are not necessarily replaced by cheaper things. We have a whole industry called the luxury market, for one. But mostly, the value of something is not always contained with in a simple matrix. Moral value for one is harder to predict a cost on. In economics there is a statement, bad money chases out good. It is under the idea that people hoard the good money, not that they throw it away. For example: In prisons people use the cheap shitty cigarettes as "cash" but keep the good ones to smoke. The active devalue of machines may just mean that machines become more disposable, and are treated more like slaves... (Though, that may be a loaded term)

I have never said that it is not possible or not real that people sometimes replace cheaper things by expensive things. But that is not meant in this thread - as evreybody knows in case of understanding the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

    1) If I say "expensive things are replaced by cheaper things", then it is clear that I don't speak about "luxus" and so on - generally machines do not belong to luxuriousness.
    2) If I say "machines are cheaper than human beings", then it is clear that I don't speak about toys and so on - generally machines do not belong to toys.
If we go further with "nitpicking", than we will at last not be able to speak. Speaking and thinking need some gaps or breaks, elsewise there were nothing to speak or think about (because in that case any- and everything were defined for all eternity). All modern totalitarianisms seek definitions for all eternity, and that is very dangerous for all people without power.

Nevertheless we need definitions, but we can not have definitions for all eternity. That's impossible for human beings, but that is possible for machines.
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 Orbie » Fri May 02, 2014 2:09 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

As a formal syllogism, that would be a "non-sequitor" (a disconnect in the logic). You have to have a premise included to say, "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things". And also, "Only machines replace people".

No, I don't have to say that because this thraed has already reached an extend of 13 pages and 307 posts. I did the syllogism in the easiest way (as possible) because I had assumed that the most readers are more able to follow the logic in a simple way than in a more complex way. This 13 pages and 307 posts have proved that. There is no problem because everybody knows the facts (except Fuse, but not really because he has other reasons to "disagree" :wink: ).

          I say: "Cheaper things replace expensive things".
          You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things".
          THAT IS LOGICALLY THE SAME.

          I say: "Machines replace human beings".
          You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): "Only machines replace people".
          THAT IS LOGICALLY THE SAME.

What's that? Nitpicking? Are you a bean counter, James?

Linguistically you are right, but not logically.




I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.
[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 Arminius » Fri May 02, 2014 2:33 am

obe wrote:I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.

Would you - please - explain your last sentence, Obe?
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 Orbie » Fri May 02, 2014 4:36 am

Arminius wrote:
obe wrote:I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.

Would you - please - explain your last sentence, Obe?




Logic, in the traditional sense, has always been thought of in the form of identity and I don't think i have to explain what that entails, suffice with, the above descriptions. However, identity, implies identity with some "thing" and element that is shared by at least 2 "things". This shared thing became the model, the paradigm which served the sameness into which these things fitted, as in a mold. Later, much later, this paradigm became deconstructed. And a different kind of logic came to be the predominant form of apprehending reasoning, vis, difference. The differential calculus was the analytical foreshadowing of of limits, approximations, and literally, the functional use of logic. The point is, discerning the steps (logical) became more and more an exercise in delineating the in between the either/or in any logical problem. In Meno's paradox, the half steps become increasingly small,and the logical limits become approximations. This correlates with the arc of the circle, where increasingly many sided figures of equal sides can be constructed within the circle, where the limit appears to be the figure with infinite sides. However the such a figure, would have sides with no length, only an infinite number of points. The concept of infinity is not accessible to Meno because, it was obvious the turtle would eventually reach the end. This concept was prevalent all through the Middle Ages, when it was thought that the earth's horizon consisted of a drop off point. The language of logic was based here on the paradigm of the perfect circular objects the ideal figure, with which other objects shared identity.

When it was found that the horizon was ever moving away from the point of view of the observer,
the ideal object of circularity changed, from a static point of view of the observer, to that of the moving toward a never ending horizon of circularity. The concept of perfect circularity was destroyed, as in the concept of identity, A=A, and there became no two perfectly identical circles or spheres. Logical difference became the form of reasoning, and the principle of exclusion, made the logical deduction shift toward inductive reasoning, by processes of elimination. If A=B and if B=C, then A could =X,Y,Z, if all other elements are equal. But from premise to conclusion, there may be any number of elements, and any one being indeterminable or variable, could upset the syllogism. This meant, that hypotheses had to be made, on basis of probability, as to what premis(s) could satisfy that hypothesis. Functional analysis does not start at the starting gate of meno's paradox, but guessing at the most probable result and working it back, to a probable starting point by excluding all elements most unlikely to effect change. The fact that those elements were effected by other most probable events, makes this logic verifiable not by simple reductionism but by processes best described by game theory of sets, i believe.

Would like to add, my take is philosophical and am looking at paradox, as a foreshadowing of this coming problem of analytic/synthetic propositions, in classical times.

It is paradoxical that there is no agreement in the OP's assertion, but science has developed by leaps and bounds by virtue of seemingly paradoxical understanding of phenomenon, so there is no clear cut model to understanding, except looking at the OP/ hypothetically, and working it out through game theory.

Obviously we would not want a world to be ruled by machines, and how does this probable future relate to the present? How can certain events be excluded, so as to make that scenario less likely? Or put in another way, what elements can be safely excluded, or safely left undiscovered, so as not to pose as a logical flaw to this objective?(to avoid a machine run scenario).

I was hoping for a neat logical way to point to an answer, but found it impossible without laying some kind of credible foundation. I can't help but to think, though, that this reversal, was meant to imply some kind of test, rather then a serious doubt about what usual syllogisms entail. Since reversibility in logic is not entirely ex-post facto, i have confidence in james' holdout for formal elements. I share those views to an extent, in the effect of "tacit knowledge"(M.Polanyi), has on game theory.
[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 Orbie » Fri May 02, 2014 4:36 am

Arminius wrote:
obe wrote:I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.

Would you - please - explain your last sentence, Obe?




Logic, in the traditional sense, has always been thought of in the form of identity and I don't think i have to explain what that entails, suffice with, the above descriptions. However, identity, implies identity with some "thing" and element that is shared by at least 2 "things". This shared thing became the model, the paradigm which served the sameness into which these things fitted, as in a mold. Later, much later, this paradigm became deconstructed. And a different kind of logic came to be the predominant form of apprehending reasoning, vis, difference. The differential calculus was the analytical foreshadowing of of limits, approximations, and literally, the functional use of logic. The point is, discerning the steps (logical) became more and more an exercise in delineating the in between the either/or in any logical problem. In Meno's paradox, the half steps become increasingly small,and the logical limits become approximations. This correlates with the arc of the circle, where increasingly many sided figures of equal sides can be constructed within the circle, where the limit appears to be the figure with infinite sides. However the such a figure, would have sides with no length, only an infinite number of points. The concept of infinity is not accessible to Meno because, it was obvious the turtle would eventually reach the end. This concept was prevalent all through the Middle Ages, when it was thought that the earth's horizon consisted of a drop off point. The language of logic was based here on the paradigm of the perfect circular objects the ideal figure, with which other objects shared identity.

When it was found that the horizon was ever moving away from the point of view of the observer,
the ideal object of circularity changed, from a static point of view of the observer, to that of the moving toward a never ending horizon of circularity. The concept of perfect circularity was destroyed, as in the concept of identity, A=A, and there became no two perfectly identical circles or spheres. Logical difference became the form of reasoning, and the principle of exclusion, made the logical deduction shift toward inductive reasoning, by processes of elimination. If A=B and if B=C, then A could =X,Y,Z, if all other elements are equal. But from premise to conclusion, there may be any number of elements, and any one being indeterminable or variable, could upset the syllogism. This meant, that hypotheses had to be made, on basis of probability, as to what premis(s) could satisfy that hypothesis. Functional analysis does not start at the starting gate of meno's paradox, but guessing at the most probable result and working it back, to a probable starting point by excluding all elements most unlikely to effect change. The fact that those elements were effected by other most probable events, makes this logic verifiable not by simple reductionism but by processes best described by game theory of sets, i believe.

Would like to add, my take is philosophical and am looking at paradox, as a foreshadowing of this coming problem of analytic/synthetic propositions, in classical times.

It is paradoxical that there is no agreement in the OP's assertion, but science has developed by leaps and bounds by virtue of seemingly paradoxical understanding of phenomenon, so there is no clear cut model to understanding, except looking at the OP/ hypothetically, and working it out through game theory.

Obviously we would not want a world to be ruled by machines, and how does this probable future relate to the present? How can certain events be excluded, so as to make that scenario less likely? Or put in another way, what elements can be safely excluded, or safely left undiscovered, so as not to pose as a logical flaw to this objective?(to avoid a machine run scenario).

I was hoping for a neat logical way to point to an answer, but found it impossible without laying some kind of credible foundation. I can't help but to think, though, that this reversal, was meant to imply some kind of test, rather then a serious doubt about what usual syllogisms entail. Since reversibility in logic is not entirely ex-post facto, i have confidence in james' holdout for formal elements. I share those views to an extent, in the effect of "tacit knowledge"(M.Polanyi), has on game theory.
[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 Orbie » Fri May 02, 2014 4:40 am

double post
[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 Arminius » Fri May 02, 2014 6:19 pm

Again:

The TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP is a QUESTION:

                Will machines completely replace all human beings?
And my given logical implication is valid because of the fact that both premises are known - known in that way which is the usaual way of ILP (only very less threads are opened with a logical implication, for eample Gib's one which is false because he doesn't satisfie the logical implication truth table.

I insist on that because ILP doesn't demand a syllogisms and a logical implication when it comes to open a thread. So, actually, one doesn't have to give any syllogism, one doesn't have to give any logical implication in the OP. (Though I have given them!). If all ILP threads had to be opened by syllogisms and logical implications, then the statistics of ILP would be merely 1-10% of the total posts, and 1-10% of the total topics, and 1-10% of the actual total members.

I have given the syllogism and the logical implication in the easiest way (as possible) because I had assumed that the most readers are more able to follow the logic in a simple way than in a more complicated way. And in that way the syllogism and the logical implication MY OP are not false.

13 pages and 307 posts of this thread (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) have shown or even proved that my given syllogism and my given logical implication are true.

Have I forgotten "emotional 'arguments'"?

fuse wrote:Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:

P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.

But then:

fuse wrote:
Arminius wrote:1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

Yes, this is a valid argument ....

"Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper" IS A CHEAPER THING.
"A worker that is more expensive" IS MORE EXPENSIVE.

There is no problem.

fuse wrote:I disagree with premise 2 ....

Fuse's disagreement has nothing to do with logical arguments, but merely with his emotions!

Fuse doesn't want to answer the question of this thread (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with "yes" or "no", he disagrees to poll, he diagrees to my premise 2, he disagrees ..., okay, he may disagree - I don't care -, but he has no argument.
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 » Fri May 02, 2014 6:46 pm

Again:

I have never said that it is not possible or not real that people sometimes replace cheaper things by expensive things. But that is not meant in this thread - as everybody knows in case of understanding the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

    1) If I say "expensive things are replaced by cheaper things", then it is clear that I don't speak about "luxury" and so on - generally machines do not belong to luxury.
    2) If I say "machines are cheaper than human beings", then it is clear that I don't speak about toys and so on - generally machines do not belong to toys.
If we go further with "nitpicking", than we will at last not be able to speak. Speaking and thinking need some gaps or breaks, elsewise there were nothing to speak or think about (because in that case any- and everything were defined for all eternity). All modern totalitarianisms seek definitions for all eternity, and that is very dangerous for all people without power.

Nevertheless we need definitions, but we can not have definitions for all eternity. That's impossible for human beings, but that is possible for machines.
Last edited by Arminius on Sun May 04, 2014 1:18 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 Orbie » Fri May 02, 2014 7:28 pm

Machines can describe, and identify, but definitions are formed by attributing signs to identified objects. Signs are not a product of invention ad nihilo, but communally developed and recognized symbols of meaning. Can machines ever do this? At the very least, in a totally excluded human world, with only inter-machine communication, machines would need to develop self consciousness. Above that, they would need to develop the ability to communicate with other machines, also conscious as well. For that to happen, the idea of 'consciousness' would have to be solved, first, and then, machines would need to be programmed as such ,by evolving consciousness, just as mankind did. How is the assumption that machines could evolve faster and better then man make sense? Apart from this quirk i see no problem with machines retaining definitions.
[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 Arminius » Fri May 02, 2014 7:54 pm

In order to become more powerful than human beings, machines need a will to power, interests, ..., and so on.
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 fuse » Fri May 02, 2014 8:12 pm

Arminius,

Please don't mischaracterize my statements. Premise 2 differs between the two quoted versions of the argument you posted a few posts above. That cheaper machines will always replace more expensive human workers is not a logical necessity. It may be found to be true empirically and there may be observable trends which lead you to believe it, but it isn't true by logical necessity, which has a certain stipulated meaning in this context.

Ver. 1
fuse wrote:Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:

P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.

Ver. 2
fuse wrote:
Arminius wrote:1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

Yes, this is a valid argument ....


There is nothing wrong with disputing a statement of logical implication if it is not the conclusion of a valid deductive argument. Neither quoted argument has a logical implication as its conclusion. The logical implication is premise 2 in arg. version 1 and premise 1 in arg. version 2. There is nothing absurd about disagreeing with a premise. Obviously it falls on me to provide a reason I don't accept the premise, but even if I didn't it wouldn't make the implication a logical necessity. Really, in this case, the first thing that needs mentioning is the fact that the implication implies there is some reason cheaper workers will always be preferred. So who is doing the preferring? It is us. Human beings. I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper. Who wants to talk to a machine to get tech support; not me or anyone I know. I'd rather talk to a real person who I can relate to and who can better relate to me, and companies know that which is why many still employ human representatives to answer questions and concerns. That is a counter example to the statement Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive. or the other version Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. Human workers have qualities that machines do not currently come near to achieving. There are many jobs where the most fundamentally human qualities are the most important. And we do not know when or even if it's possible to build a machine that is fundamentally human-like. Furthermore, no matter how close, there could still be prejudice, and for good reason. When it comes down to human preference why wouldn't we prefer our own kind, with whom we can relate to on the most fundamental level, especially if we foresee a future in which machines could dominate and eliminate us?
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Fri May 02, 2014 9:16 pm

Fuse.

What you have been saying is not as important for this thread as you probably have been thinking.

I didn't mischaracterise your statements.

Have you read the thread? Have you read my other posts? Probabaly you have not because of some of your interests which have nothing to do with this topic here.

fuse wrote:Cheaper workers will always be preferred.

Not always. But nevertheless: that statement is one of my two true premises because it is generally accepted. I don't have to start with the exceptions. Exceptions prove the rule - anyway. I even don't have to start with syllogisms and logical implications, when I open a thread here in this forum (ILP) - as I repeatedly said (please read it!), and I also don't have to do it, when the title of my thread and the title of my OP is a question, cp.: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

fuse wrote: I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper.

No problem in order to accept. But it is an opinion, your opinion (and probably even my opinion - have you ever thought about that? [so please read the thread!]), it is no counter argument against my arguments.

All what you have been telling in your last posts (adressed to me) contains no arguments, only disagreements, nothing new. That's destructive, thus not constructive.

You have no argument and no counter argument. You always only disagree - without arguments or counter arguments. That's all.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri May 02, 2014 9:57 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 fuse » Fri May 02, 2014 9:52 pm

You're not dealing with my position, you ignored the latter half of my post, and referencing formally structured arguments makes this conversation clearer, especially when you charge me with:
Arminius wrote:You are disagreeing with facts! You are disagreeing with logical truth!

Your disagreement by itself is not the main problem because of the freedom of opinion. The main problem is that you deny facts, you deny logical truth. My premises are logical true, they are facts.

I have refuted this completely, but you're brushing it off. Logical truth has a stipulated meaning, and I've explained that my disagreement is perfectly reasonable. Why is it that you have avoided responding to my main points?

The proposition of machines completely replacing human beings in the future depends on the premises that support it, so why are you ignoring any discussion of the premises? I've given a plausible counter example to your premise in my last post.

fuse wrote:I'd rather talk to a real person who I can relate to and who can better relate to me, and companies know that which is why many still employ human representatives to answer questions and concerns. That is a counter example to the statement Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive. or the other version Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. Human workers have qualities that machines do not currently come near to achieving. There are many jobs where the most fundamentally human qualities are the most important. And we do not know when or even if it's possible to build a machine that is fundamentally human-like. Furthermore, no matter how close, there could still be prejudice, and for good reason. When it comes down to human preference why wouldn't we prefer our own kind, with whom we can relate to on the most fundamental level, especially if we foresee a future in which machines could dominate and eliminate us?
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Fri May 02, 2014 10:48 pm

If you had read more of my my posts, then you would have known that I don't ignore your posts. Even in my last post I mentioned that I porbably also don't want to be replaced by machines. So why are you crying so much?

What you are saying in your last post is no counter argument because that is what I have been saying for about 40 years (cp.: you are 25 years old - according to ILP viewing profile).

Please don't confuse ideality with reality!

Your pseudonym is "Fuse". And your real name? "Confuse"? Your "logical truth" is "disagreeing" or "reversing" the logical truth which is accepted - as logical truth, not as wish, desire, hope ..., and os on - by at least 80%. One can always disagree - that's no mighty deed. So: If you say "Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will NOT replace a worker that is more expensive" or "NO worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive", then you have to argue in that way, but you can merely argue in that way, if you deny the logical truth of the 80 or probably more percent. Because: the fact that nearly all machines are cheaper than human beings is accepted by at least 80 or probably more percent.

Your so called "counter examples" are no counter examples to my examples because they are integrated in my examples, and as I denoted in my last post: I don't want to be replaced by machines as well as you. But that are our opinions - not more.

You didn't refute anything.

Your "logical truth" is at the utmost a "10-20%-truth". So what about the "80-90% truth"? Who ignores? Who confuses? Don't confuse, Fuse!
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 Eric_The_Pipe » Sat May 03, 2014 12:06 am

From my philosophy of Logic teacher: The syllogism is invalid because it has four terms. Valid syllogisms have three terms, the two in the conclusion, and the one in both premises.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat May 03, 2014 12:24 am

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:From my philosophy of Logic teacher: The syllogism is invalid because it has four terms. Valid syllogisms have three terms, the two in the conclusion, and the one in both premises.

In its earliest form, defined by Aristoteles, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise [=> 1]) and a specific statement (the minor premise [=> 2), a conclusion (=> 3) is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Sokrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Sokrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form (without sentence-terminating periods):

The word "therefore" is usually either omitted or replaced by a symbol.

--------------------------------------

B.t.w.: Where is your nice sig?
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 » Sat May 03, 2014 1:10 am

Before I opened this thread I had to decide in which philosophical subforum it should be opened:

    (A) Subforum „Philosophy“?
    (B) Subforum „Science, Technology, and Math“?
    (C) Subforum „Society, Government, and Economics“?
One of the main reasons why I decided to open this thread in the philosophical subforum „Philosophy“ was the syllogism and the logical implication, although I knew that on ILP they are not required, not necessary in order to make clear what the title of the thread and of the OP means: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

So when I wrote the syllogism and the logical implication into the OP, I did it nevertheless - and because of my decision for the subforum „Philosophy“.
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 » Sat May 03, 2014 1:32 am

 
One of my favourite conversations in this thread:

Uccisore wrote:Machines can't replace me because I don't do anything.
fuse wrote:Brilliant.
obe wrote:Brilliant but untrue. You would be the first one to replace. After all, a large percentage of people do nothing or next to it, but they would still have to be replaced, because they are the most voracious of consumers. Consuming machines would need to be invented to offset the supply demand curve, if do nothings would perish, or go on some kind of revolt. Either that, or dump excess supply into the ocean, but that harbors indelicate consequences to the morale.

I compliment Obe.
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