Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

Both cases bring the machines, but the first case with punishment, which is the more "traditional" case, wins time by procrastination, while the second case with cuddling, which is the more "modern" case, wins some people by "reprogramming", as you call it. As a "chief accountant" I would say that the first case is more efficient. So I prefer that first case. Call me "old-fashion".

[James S Saint]

Both cases bring the machines, but the first case with punishment, which is the more "traditional" case, wins time by procrastination, while the second case with cuddling, which is the more "modern" case, wins some people by "reprogramming", as you call it. As a "chief accountant" I would say that the first case is more efficient. So I prefer that first case. Call me "old-fashion".

The lust for efficiency is what annihilated all organic life (why do you think they ensure to sterilize components of computers). Which is more efficient, an accountant, or a computer?

So are you "certain" efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?

[Arminius]

So are you "certain" efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?

Relating to those two cases there is no "best aim", James, because the differences between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.

[James S Saint]

So are you "certain" efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?

Relating to those two cases there is no "best aim", James, because the difference between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.

That is why I said, "Which do you prefer standing closest to?" I am not asking which you prefer to be, but rather which you would rather have nearer to you as they do their thing (which is real, btw).

[Arminius]

So are you "certain" efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?

Relating to those two cases there is no "best aim", James, because the difference between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.

That is why I said, "Which do you prefer standing closest to?" I am not asking which you prefer to be, but rather which you would rather have nearer to you as they do their thing (which is real, btw).

Yes, I know. And because of those small differences I said: "As a 'chief accountant' I would say ...". One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences.

[James S Saint]

Yes, I know. And because of that small differences I said: "As a 'chief accountant' I would say ...". One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences.

So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).

[Arminius]

Yes, I know. And because of that small differences I said: "As a 'chief accountant' I would say ...". One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences.

So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).

I could say the same to you:

So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).

[James S Saint]

???

I thought that I chose B... ?

[Arminius]

???

I thought that I chose B... ?

No. You chose "the second thing" (=> 2), the second case, and not "B".

[James S Saint]

???

I thought that I chose B... ?

No. You chose "the second thing" (=> 2), the second case, and not "B".

Ermmm...

Punishment brings machines replacing all of mankind.

Conversion brings machines aiding to the eternal existence of mankind.

I prefer that second thing. Call me "old-fashion".

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).

Learning is being "converted". The "second thing" ("Conversion") is (B).

[Arminius]

I say:

That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse.

The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

You don't want to learn?

But before we quarrel we should note that our aspects or viewpoints are very close. So why shouldn't I agree to the reprogramming and you to the punishment of mass murderers? So why shouldn't I come on your side (b.t.w.: I've already said: „I'm on your side“) or you on my side? You don't want to learn? Okay, then I will do it for you. Why are you so positive about „reprogramming“? Because of „SAM“, I know, and you „are“ SAM, I also know, but why are you so sure that you will be successful?

[James S Saint]

I'm just going to have to chalk this one up to miscommunication. And we have drifted a bit off topic anyway.

[Arminius]

How many machines are in the "humanised (mechanised) world"?

[James S Saint]

How many machines are in the "humanised (mechanised) world"?

"approximately 1,966,514,816 computers" (2 billion).

"As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth's roads just 8 years earlier in 2004."

The number of "machines" is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.

[Arminius]

How many machines are in the "humanised (mechanised) world"?

"approximately 1,966,514,816 computers" (2 billion).

"As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth's roads just 8 years earlier in 2004."

The number of "machines" is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.

From whom (human/s) or what (machine/s) have you got that numbers?

Golem.de: "Roboter - Mensch: fast 1:1 " ("robot - human: almost 1:1"), that means at least 7 billion robotics ( ).

[James S Saint]

How many machines are in the "humanised (mechanised) world"?

"approximately 1,966,514,816 computers" (2 billion).

"As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth's roads just 8 years earlier in 2004."

The number of "machines" is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.

From whom (human/s) or what (machine/s) have you got that numbers?

Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.

[Arminius]

Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.

And Ask.com, right?

[James S Saint]

Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.

And Ask.com, right?

I didn't do an exhaustive search. I just picked a couple that first sprang up. The others that I could see didn't seem to disagree. If you want an accurate count, you have to ask the question with far more detail. "Machines" is too ambiguous of a word. Do iPhones count as computers? Hell, I don't know and it isn't worth finding out.

[Arminius]

It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.

The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?

[Arminius]

Post from another thread:

If the sense of history will be lost, then it will make no sense to have history at all, because there will be no one who knows anything about both the sense of history and the history itself. There will be no historian, no one who knows what history and ist sense is, probably even no one with a sense for the meaning of the past for both the present and the future.

If history will totally become also a part of a modern ideology like any other cultural phenomeneon, then it will be merely part of a religious system, although a modern one, and no longer be its own system - provided that some other historical existentials will also be lost -, so the ideological (modern religious) system and its language (media) will be able then to "sweep" history under the ideological (modern religious) "carpet" and afterwards nnihilate it. That will be done, if the chance will be there - certainly. We have been seing this bad development because it has been becoming more and more obvious. Interestingly it has been having a correlation with the modern development of the machines and all the other modern developments. Thus: amongst others the machines are strongly involved in that process.

[Moreno]

It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.

The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?

Machines that make other machines or themselves
or machines made by humans?

[James S Saint]

If the sense of history will be lost, then it will make no sense to have history at all, because there will be no one who knows anything about both the sense of history and the history itself. There will be no historian, no one who knows what history and ist sense is, probably even no one with a sense for the meaning of the past for both the present and the future.

If humanity continues doing what it is doing, they will simply write a new history now and then in order to give that "sense of history" significance. Socialist regimes require a cause to be fighting for and against (manufactured terrorism). And that cause cannot be viewed as never changing, else there is no perceived hope. So a new history that presents the idea of "hope on the horizon" has to be written and instilled into the minds of people from time to time = revolving history.

[James S Saint]

According to Hans Peter Raddatz those "four levels" are:

1) world "nobility" (upper "nobility"),
2) state "nobility" (middle "nobility"),
3) dressage "nobility" (lower "nobility"),
4) Masses.

Interestingly the governmental Politicians are not a part of the state "nobility" (middle "nobility"), but merely a part of the "nobility" (lower "nobility").The state "nobility" (=> 2) and the dressage "nobility" (=> 3) shall unite to one "nobility"; both shall become one dressage "nobility" because states shall vanish.

Speaking of nobility, The SAM Corp. is the very peak of nobility. Nobility doesn't get any higher.

Nobility is an issue of trustability or reliability. The Nobles can trust each other, but to do what? The SAM Corp brings trustability far above historical barriers and exposes all agendas.

The SAM Corp is too Noble for most noblemen.

[Arminius]

It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.

The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?

Machines that make other machines or themselves
or machines made by humans?

Both machines that make other machines or themselves and machines made by humans.

[Arminius]

If humanity continues doing what it is doing, they will simply write a new history now and then in order to give that "sense of history" significance. Socialist regimes require a cause to be fighting for and against (manufactured terrorism). And that cause cannot be viewed as never changing, else there is no perceived hope. So a new history that presents the idea of "hope on the horizon" has to be written and instilled into the minds of people from time to time = revolving history.

A "new history" can also be no history, but merely a so called one, i.o.w. an ideological (modern religious) myth, a mythological propaganda.