Page 37 of 87

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 1:35 am
by 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". :wink:

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 1:49 am
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote: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". :wink:

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?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:00 am
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote: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.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:02 am
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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).

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:24 am
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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. :)

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:34 am
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote: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).

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:46 am
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote: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).

:lol:

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).

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:49 am
by James S Saint
???

I thought that I chose B... ?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 3:10 am
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:???

I thought that I chose B... ?

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

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 3:18 am
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:???

I thought that I chose B... ?

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

Ermmm...

James S Saint wrote: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".

James S Saint wrote: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).

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:34 pm
by 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?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:42 am
by James S Saint
:lol:

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

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:48 pm
by Arminius
How many machines are in the "humanised (mechanised) world"?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:59 pm
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote: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.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:29 pm
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote: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 ( :!: :o :!: ).

Image

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:39 am
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote: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.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:17 am
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.

And Ask.com, right?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:21 am
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:17 am
by 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?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:33 am
by 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.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:31 am
by Moreno
Arminius wrote: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?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:33 am
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote: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.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:42 pm
by James S Saint
Arminius wrote: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.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:10 pm
by Arminius
Moreno wrote:
Arminius wrote: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.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:19 pm
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote: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.