Testing means falsification, not verification. So proofs would not be proofs any more, if they were merely under the jurisdiction of the science. And: It would be a very terrible dictatorship (but maybe it is alraedy one), if there were no more proof.
Which proof, Zinnat? And which proof of which kind of science (because of your „ jurisdiction of the science“, you know?)?
That “a priori status of the child” is NOT a proof, but an assumption (nothing more!). Concerning to the proofs we have already reached the very terrible dicatorship I mentioned. There is no proof, but only order, command, instruction, censorship - and all that comes from them who are powerful enough to order, demand, instruct, censor.
That “a priori status of the child” can NOT be accepted as a proof.
The first problem is the “a priori status of the child” - this premise is false. The second problem are the programmers because of their expectings, wishes, desires, and so on. They all have to do something different, but they don’t want to yet. So they will have to make a mistake, and this mistake will probably lead to the new paradigm I mentioned (e.g. here and here).
Humans have never been the same. That has always been right. The problem is that even that will be changed. I don’t say that because I want this situations come true, but I say it because of my knowledge of human nature, and that development belongs to an anthropological constant. It is not stoppable, but deferrable / suspensible.
No, because it depends merely on the definition by humans - and nothing else. And that definition is false. They will find it out - probably by an accident.
Yes, it can! Of course! You don’t call us monkeys, do you? You know what I mean? Humans create machines, but later, if humans will be eliminated, machines will have replaced humans. Yes. of course.
Remember: My question of my title of the thread, of my topic, and of my OP refers to the future: Will machines completely replace all human beings? This question refers to the future!
No. The premise of the AI is false, the conclusion of the AI is false too, and the “difference of the methodologies of understanding between humans and machines” you mentioned is different from that what it really is, and it is not a “must” for my question in my title of the thread, of my topic, and of my OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? This question refers to the future!
Another question is: How often will I have to say that?
Zinnat, you are describing machines of the PAST and of the PRESENCE!
Yes it is, but it most not be a hurdle for ever. Probably this hurdle will be eliminated before humans will be eliminated.