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 Arminius » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:18 pm

zinnat13 wrote:In philosophy, there cannot be any proofs but arguments only. It works on the ontological results of the premises, both backward and forward. Testing those results falls under the juridiction of the science, not philosophy.

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.

zinnat13 wrote:There is certainly a proof, not mere argument.

Which proof, Zinnat? And which proof of which kind of science (because of your „ jurisdiction of the science“, you know?)?

zinnat13 wrote:First of all, this a priori status of the child is the proof that you asked above.

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.


zinnat13 wrote:Secondly, unlike machines, no matter how hard we programme/train/teach a human child, he will never become the same as his programmers expect him to be.

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).

zinnat13 wrote:Otherwise, there all humans in the world will be the same but that is not the case.

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.

zinnat13 wrote:AI and AW are the same things. Actually, AI entails AW. The machines have to acquire AW before AI.

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.

zinnat13 wrote:Firstly, taking the strict sense of the question of the thread, there is a possibility that human race will be eliminated form this planet. But, that will be done by humans themselves by using machines. So, it cannot be called as machines replacing humans.

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!

zinnat13 wrote:Secondly, you missed the issue of the difference of the methodologies of understanding between humans and machines that i pointed out in that second post.

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?

zinnat13 wrote:Computers or robots do not take things as they are. They do not understand things in totality but have to deduct everything up to the level of 0 and 1 to understand anything because these are the only two terms in the world they can really recognize. Everything else is just the induction of this duo, thus does not have any real meaning for them.

Zinnat, you are describing machines of the PAST and of the PRESENCE!

zinnat13 wrote:This is the real hurdle.

Yes it is, but it most not be a hurdle for ever. Probably this hurdle will be eliminated before humans will be eliminated. :wink:
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:42 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 James S Saint » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:32 am

Arminius wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:In philosophy, there cannot be any proofs but arguments only. It works on the ontological results of the premises, both backward and forward. Testing those results falls under the juridiction of the science, not philosophy.

Testing means falsification, not verification.

Excellent point for people to remember. Science can only tell you when something is NOT true. It can't tell you when something IS true. Philosophy is required for that function, specifically ontologically based logic.

Gib,
I am not trying to turn a sheep into a another howling werewolf. The reality is that there will always be sheep as long as there is a crowd. And that applies to androids as well. Drones and androids are already being programmed to be sheep like in their mentality.

The mark of a sheep is one of presuming that all is okay if the authorities say its okay. And there are two authorities; the designated social authority and the immediate surrounding crowd. Androids and especially drones are being programmed first to obey command of course. But also they are now (and have been for a couple of decades) being programmed to coordinate between themselves so as to identify and react to danger. How autonomously they react is a question already being faced by DARPA and there is no demarcation between too little and too much, thus too much will always be pressed.

Android armies will be sent against android armies. In the form of drones, this is already being done. And for it to work well, the drones must be made just intelligent enough to coordinate their attacks and defenses. They cannot afford to wait for human decisions to be made far away, microseconds count. And thus they are to be inherently sheepish enough to be like wolf-packs, taking clues from each other as to what needs doing. And as more and more of them gather, they become less like wolves and more like strictly sheep responding to the obvious indication from the surrounding cloud (and literally "Cloud computing" gets involved). And such doesn't just suddenly become the case. Human enhanced-solders play into it until they are no longer needed.

The distant authorities are less and less needed and less and less aware of deductions being made deep within the ranks of the constantly monitoring and responding machines fighting the never ending war against "terrorism" (defined by DHS as meaning "Anyone not accepting dictated American policy"). If you resist an android in his duties, which of course will be anything and everything he is doing, you are a terrorist and an enemy to the State. Every empire is lost only because the controller and the controlled become too separated by time, distance, or blockage. And that is exactly why I know that Anentropic Molecularisation IS the future, regardless of homosapian surviving or not (and assuming that the Black-hole scenario doesn't happen first).

And the whole point is to be rid of enemies of the State (State = leaders and architecture of the State). And a socialist government requires a war in order to maintain its structure (if not its own, someone else's will do). It must have a high priority need, an immediate danger used to maintain control priorities. Thus it will always create wars so as to make "progress" (meaning more power/money).

You personally will never know that any of this is true because your two authorities will never tell ewe that it is true until ewe are well inside the slaughterhouse (not that ewe aren't already).
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 James S Saint » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:56 am

And yet another thing to wake up to (not that such will ever really happen), you believe that the greatest challenge, possibly impossible challenge, is getting a machine to be creative and inventive. But realize that in a socialist state, inventors are dangerous and only tolerated when in dire straights, such as wars. A socialist state already has a structure with assigned duties throughout. Their only concern is being able to maintain that structure. Creative thinkers are problematic. Thus turning obedient androids against human free thinkers is exactly what a socialist governed state must do (and is doing) except during times of war and even then, if they are not a party member, they are the enemy.

The real truth is that the very idea that machines cannot creatively invent is absurd. The good thing about the machines is that their inventions are far more controlled and must pass through state examination before used by the state or even revealed to the public. People and machines are not allowed to use anything that hasn't been approved. The structure of the State is all supreme and anything that threatens it or even is suspected of threatening it in the future must be crushed, "nipped in the bud" ("Pre-crime" and "Preemptive Strikes"). Thus DNA profiling is the standard for identifying the potentially inventive humans before they have a chance to grow into a threat. Eugenics got a big push during the world wars and hasn't slowed down a bit. With machines, DNA profiling isn't necessary and thus machines are far more preferred by the State than potentially dangerous humans.

And the state being formed of sheepish people, just as you, will not recognize any danger until the state leaders inform them of it or it is already in their face, long after the civilian population has already been lost.

And btw, a "social engineer" is a social psychologist, psychiatrist, neuroscientist, or computer working for the state/military, although primarily the globulist State at the moment.
Last edited by James S Saint on Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 Apr 18, 2014 2:30 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:In philosophy, there cannot be any proofs but arguments only. It works on the ontological results of the premises, both backward and forward. Testing those results falls under the juridiction of the science, not philosophy.

Testing means falsification, not verification.

Excellent point for people to remember. Science can only tell you when something is NOT true. It can't tell you when something IS true. Philosophy is required for that function, specifically ontologically based logic.

Thank you, James.

One should also not forget what that means in conclusion:

Arminius wrote: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.

Both proof and disproof should not be given away from the responsibility of philosophy or "Geisteswissenschaft" (that is the science of the "Geist" which means something like „mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „esprit“, „spirit“, „génie“, „intelligence“, „intellect, „apprehension“, „brain“, “sense“ etc.). If proof is only "under the jurisdiction of the science", as Zinnat believes, it would be one-sided, too easy to use wrongly, to misuse, to abuse, and so on.

The science which means "Naturwissenschaft" (natural science) is responsible for falsification and the "Geisteswissenschaft" (especially mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, jurisprudence, and others) is responsible for verification. I know there is no word for "Geisteswissenschaft" in the English language, so you may call it "philosophy", but it is not only philosophy what the word "Geisteswissenschaft" means (cp.above). If you subtract natural science and the most of social science from science, then you get "Geisteswissenschaft".

I think that such a dualism or dichotomy is important for science. You can call this dualism "science versus philosophy" or, as I do, "Naturwissenschaft versus Geisteswissenschaft". And between both there is "Sozialwissenschaft" (social science). So we have the falsification on the one side and the verification on the other side. And between them there is an instance of intermediation (with less authority?). The reason is that science (as well as ruling, governance) needs control beacuse science (as well as ruling, governance) can become very powerful.
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 James S Saint » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:37 am

Arminius wrote:I think that such a dualism or dichotomy is important for science. You can call this dualism "science versus philosophy" or, as I do, "Naturwissenschaft versus Geisteswissenschaft". And between both there is "Sozialwissenschaft" (social science). So we have the falsification on the one side and the verification on the other side. And between them there is an instance of inter-mediation (with less authority?). The reason is that science (as well as ruling, governance) needs control because science (as well as ruling, governance) can become very powerful.

And science, exactly like religion (having become the same thing theses days) can be and is being used solely to create more power for the government controllers and nothing more than that.
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 Apr 18, 2014 3:10 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:I think that such a dualism or dichotomy is important for science. You can call this dualism "science versus philosophy" or, as I do, "Naturwissenschaft versus Geisteswissenschaft". And between both there is "Sozialwissenschaft" (social science). So we have the falsification on the one side and the verification on the other side. And between them there is an instance of inter-mediation (with less authority?). The reason is that science (as well as ruling, governance) needs control because science (as well as ruling, governance) can become very powerful.

And science, exactly like religion (having become the same thing theses days) can be and is being used solely to create more power for the government controllers and nothing more than that.

Unfortunately science has been becoming a religion. The reason is control, thus power. And I don't know whether science will ever recover from its dependency, awake from its sleep (sleep is currently perhaps the wrong word, because the current scientists know about their cowardly situation). Probably science will remain as religion until all human beings are eliminated or probably replaced by 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 gib » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:04 am

James S Saint wrote:Gib,
I am not trying to turn a sheep into a another howling werewolf. The reality is that there will always be sheep as long as there is a crowd. And that applies to androids as well. Drones and androids are already being programmed to be sheep like in their mentality.

The mark of a sheep is one of presuming that all is okay if the authorities say its okay. And there are two authorities; the designated social authority and the immediate surrounding crowd. Androids and especially drones are being programmed first to obey command of course. But also they are now (and have been for a couple of decades) being programmed to coordinate between themselves so as to identify and react to danger. How autonomously they react is a question already being faced by DARPA and there is no demarcation between too little and too much, thus too much will always be pressed.

Android armies will be sent against android armies. In the form of drones, this is already being done. And for it to work well, the drones must be made just intelligent enough to coordinate their attacks and defenses. They cannot afford to wait for human decisions to be made far away, microseconds count. And thus they are to be inherently sheepish enough to be like wolf-packs, taking clues from each other as to what needs doing. And as more and more of them gather, they become less like wolves and more like strictly sheep responding to the obvious indication from the surrounding cloud (and literally "Cloud computing" gets involved). And such doesn't just suddenly become the case. Human enhanced-solders play into it until they are no longer needed.

The distant authorities are less and less needed and less and less aware of deductions being made deep within the ranks of the constantly monitoring and responding machines fighting the never ending war against "terrorism" (defined by DHS as meaning "Anyone not accepting dictated American policy"). If you resist an android in his duties, which of course will be anything and everything he is doing, you are a terrorist and an enemy to the State. Every empire is lost only because the controller and the controlled become too separated by time, distance, or blockage. And that is exactly why I know that Anentropic Molecularisation IS the future, regardless of homosapian surviving or not (and assuming that the Black-hole scenario doesn't happen first).

And the whole point is to be rid of enemies of the State (State = leaders and architecture of the State). And a socialist government requires a war in order to maintain its structure (if not its own, someone else's will do). It must have a high priority need, an immediate danger used to maintain control priorities. Thus it will always create wars so as to make "progress" (meaning more power/money).

You personally will never know that any of this is true because your two authorities will never tell ewe that it is true until ewe are well inside the slaughterhouse (not that ewe aren't already).


James S Saint wrote:And yet another thing to wake up to (not that such will ever really happen), you believe that the greatest challenge, possibly impossible challenge, is getting a machine to be creative and inventive. But realize that in a socialist state, inventors are dangerous and only tolerated when in dire straights, such as wars. A socialist state already has a structure with assigned duties throughout. Their only concern is being able to maintain that structure. Creative thinkers are problematic. Thus turning obedient androids against human free thinkers is exactly what a socialist governed state must do (and is doing) except during times of war and even then, if they are not a party member, they are the enemy.

The real truth is that the very idea that machines cannot creatively invent is absurd. The good thing about the machines is that their inventions are far more controlled and must pass through state examination before used by the state or even revealed to the public. People and machines are not allowed to use anything that hasn't been approved. The structure of the State is all supreme and anything that threatens it or even is suspected of threatening it in the future must be crushed, "nipped in the bud" ("Pre-crime" and "Preemptive Strikes"). Thus DNA profiling is the standard for identifying the potentially inventive humans before they have a chance to grow into a threat. Eugenics got a big push during the world wars and hasn't slowed down a bit. With machines, DNA profiling isn't necessary and thus machines are far more preferred by the State than potentially dangerous humans.

And the state being formed of sheepish people, just as you, will not recognize any danger until the state leaders inform them of it or it is already in their face, long after the civilian population has already been lost.

And btw, a "social engineer" is a social psychologist, psychiatrist, neuroscientist, or computer working for the state/military, although primarily the globulist State at the moment.


James!--you're not offering any evidence! All you've got is rhetoric and clever argumentation. At least in your last post you gave me something--a few videos--that I deemed somewhat persuasive, but here you're just rambling things like "People and machines are not allowed to use anything that hasn't been approved. The structure of the State is all supreme and anything that threatens it or even is suspected of threatening it in the future must be crushed" <-- This is just cynicism. You didn't get this from anywhere except your wild imagination. Again, not saying it isn't true, but your expectation that I should just bow down to your prophetic insights and say "Wow, James, if you say it's so, then it must be so," is wildly unrealistic. Do you really think that would make me something other than an ewe? Would that make me a truly independent thinker, someone who's eyes are open to the truth? Or would it just make me the sheep I always was, just lured away from the flock and into that of a different shepard?

I looked up the DHS's definition of terrorism (here) and my overall research (which I will admit wasn't more than a 10 minute skim of the first 5 google hits I got) suggests that the definition is hotly debated and ever-changing. I didn't find the specific one you cited (I googled those exact words: Anyone not accepting dictated American policy, but I found no hits--none, zero, zilch, nada). Interestingly, I did find this listing of what makes for an "American terrorist":

The American Dream wrote:According to the new DHS report, the following are some of the beliefs and ideologies of American terrorists….

-”fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

-”anti-global”

-”suspicious of centralized federal authority”

-”reverent of individual liberty”

-”believe in conspiracy theories”

...


Now this verges on the point of the absurdly ridiculous--and I know what you're going to say: normalcy bias: if it sounds too wild, gib, you'll just deny it because you think the way the world ought to work is "business as usual"--but if you read through the article, it's got an obvious Christian fundamentalist slant, and if conspiracy theories are real, there should be no reason to suspect that biased and lowly article publishers or web masters can't conspire to spread smear campaigns against whatever political party they dislike (do you really believe everything you read just because it's got a lot of bling, all those bells and whistles that makes it seem like a reputable source?). I'm sure you read "Anyone not accepting dictated American policy" somewhere--some website in some shady dark corner of the internet--just like I'm reading right now ”reverent of individual liberty” in the quote above--but to me, that's an extraordinary claim (that the DHS would define terrorism as the reverence of individual liberty), and you know what they say about extraordinary claims. I may be a sheep, James, but I think simply taking your word, or that of some google hit I just stumbled across, without at least questioning it and withholding judgement until I can get more convincing evidence is a step down from being a sheep.

On a lighter note, I did like your detailed description of the way they plan to design and deploy the androids--this is one of the reasons I said a conversation with you would be worth taking somewhat seriously--you did craft your description quite thoroughly and I must say the scenario you paint now seem quite plausible (up until the point when you started talking about how the androids are going to be used against citizens of the state). This was something Arminius failed to do and you succeed. You see, James, all I need is a plausible scenario--if you give me that (or evidence for your claims), I'll take you seriously (which is different from believing you, keep in mind).

But then you say things like "...you believe that the greatest challenge, possibly impossible challenge, is getting a machine to be creative and inventive." When the hell did I say that? I know that's not true because I know that I believe that it's very possible, and yet you've already jumped to the conclusion that this is what I believe--you know it's what I believe. Now what does that tell me about you?--it tells me you imagine things, rashly jump to the conclusion that you know them, and don't ever take a moment to reflect on what your own mind has just done. It's not that you're wrong to be distrustful of the government, James, it's that you have to be more discerning and cautious with your thoughts--recognize what you actually have evidence for (and you will have some) and what you're inventing off the top of your head.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8817
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:53 am

This is getting kind of funny really..
James S Saint wrote:Gib,
I am not trying to turn a sheep into a another howling werewolf. The reality is that there will always be sheep as long as there is a crowd....
gib wrote:James!--you're not offering any evidence! All you've got is rhetoric and clever argumentation.


Imagine that you were living back in the Pompey days and began studying what today would be called "geology". Of course you wouldn't have high tech equipment nor a huge backlog of well known geological events, but you could still take mildly accurate temperature readings here and there and detect strong tremors to which you applied your new thoughts concerning geological activity.

And one day, you walk into a local Roman pub generally keeping quite about your studies because no one would even begin to know what you were talking about but then a discussion comes up about the future of Pompey. You know that your theories are "just theories" and trying to prove anything to people who haven't even begun to study such things would be ridiculous. But it's just a pub discussion and no one really cares much anyway.

From your recent studies, you find it pretty conclusive that the local mountain is very probably going to blowup. You call it a "volcano event". Of course no one really knows what that means and the thought of it seems more than just a little absurd. But then again, it is just pub chit-chat, but just happens to be aligned with your new expertise.

The bartender and locals hear you, chuckle, and politely ask for evidence of this event you seem all paranoid about. Obviously it is paranoia because everyone knows that the gods just don't do that kind of thing without telling the public first through the priests. That's what they are for.

So now, how would you convince even one of them that within a very short time, the entire city is likely to be devastated? To what degree, you don't really know for sure, but you can tell it's going to be pretty massive.

The challenge is actually one of complexity. There are too many smaller details to convey to the listener that have to all add up to the conclusion. Even if you could explain it all (they actually listened that long), it takes a long time for confidence to build concerning any one new idea and a series of them leading to a conclusion simply isn't going to happen for a long time.

You can't ask them to reference the priests, because first you don't believe that the priests are that bright and even if they were, there is a good chance that they aren't going to tell everyone anyway because that would cause a panic. And nothing is worse than a panic... well.. at least that what the priests believe.

You can't ask them to wait until they feel the Earth shaking under them, that would be too late. So what can you do? You know that at least most of them are going to die very shortly so you would like to do at least something. But what?

Just in the probing and idle chit-chat, you mention the probable scenario. You can easily tell that there isn't going to be any panic because there is simply too much material for people to quickly digest. And you have to hope that the local priests know that else they will do their thing of secretly getting rid of the "witch trouble maker" - "terrorist".

You can easily see that as always, every bit of evidence requires both thinking and a strong stand against plausible deniability. There is no one at that bar that thinks much at all (why would thinking people be at such a bar?) and also that literally everything is subject to plausible deniability that isn't immediately obvious without thinking. If the slightest thought is involved, it is plausible that it isn't being thought out properly - "the social uncertainty principle".

Are you trying to start a panic? Certainly not, but you can see that even a panic would be better than what is about to happen by your calculations. And you are going to be right.

Are you going to convince anyone before it happens? Certainly not. You have nothing that such people can see as evidence despite it laying all around literally under their feet. It is too obscure in their eyes and not well defined by their authority figures. Evidence requires one of three things;
1) Authority
2) Immediate obviousness
3) Rational thought

None of those qualify at hardly any pub.

And realistically what would anyone do about it anyway? A few could run, but how far? They wouldn't run far enough because they couldn't imagine the reach of such an event. They would at best try to take a few precautionary measures - totally futile.

Are you going to convert them into rational thinking people and then show them the actual evidence all within a few days? Yeah right.

It's a pub.
Someone asked of the future.
You tell your story.
Everyone chuckles.
Everyone goes home.
Everyone dies.


To the universe the entire existence of homosapian is but the rising of a single morning Sun and your entire life, but a blink.
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 Kriswest » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:57 am

You could enlist/hire con artsts. A person that can manipulate others is invaluable to such an endeavour. Con artists have always been around, generally they become priests or politicians. But wealthy merchants are generally superior to those, they have a drive in conjunction with their ability.
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: 20508
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:08 pm

Kriswest wrote:You could enlist/hire con artsts. A person that can manipulate others is invaluable to such an endeavour. Con artists have always been around, generally they become priests or politicians. But wealthy merchants are generally superior to those, they have a drive in conjunction with their ability.

???
Who could hire them for what? :confusion-scratchheadyellow:
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 gib » Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:05 pm

Well, James, what can I say?

It sounds like a very frustrating position to be in.

But you understand my point, don't you? To expect them to just believe you (just because you said so) is an unrealistic expectation.

You also understand that, for me, what counts as evidence of your claims is not going to be a black and white matter. You seem to have all or nothing expectations. I will either believe everything you say or be in total denial of everything you say. But I tried to show you that some of your evidence is pretty convincing while other of your evidence is not. The NDAA video seemed like propaganda to me, but even within that video there were parts that seemed pretty real--the explanations at the beginning for what the NDAA Martial Law bill amounts to, and Ron Paul's speech at the end--I mean, I doubt he's a Hollywood actor or a CG simulacra. The William Benny video seems pretty convincing (although not really revealing anything I didn't already know or expect or find surprising--although I have yet to listen to Carol Rose's lecture). So I'm not entirely against you here--not as much as you seem to think. It's just that being convinced of your claims is not, and never will be, a black and white matter for me (and I would think this goes for anyone).
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8817
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:30 pm

@ James S. Saint
@ Moreno

You and I say that the replacing of all human beings by machines is possible. I have said that the probality for that is about 80% (here and here).

The following questions refer to an intellectual game:

1) Can we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 100%?

If so, then:

2) If machines are going to replace all human beings, what will they do afterwards?

A) Will they fight each other?
B) Will they use, waste, "eat" the entire crust of the earth?
C)
Will they "emigrate"?
... C1) Will they move to the planet Mars, or to the moon Europa, or to other planets or moons of our solar system?
... C2) Will they move e.g. to a planet or moon of a foreign solar system?
... C3) Will they move e.g. to a planet or moon of a foreign universum?
D) Will they be elimanted?
... Da) Will they be elimanted by an accident?
... Db) Will they be elimanted by themselves?
... Dc) Will they be elimanted by foreign machines?
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:52 pm, edited 2 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 James S Saint » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:49 pm

Arminius wrote:1) Can we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 100%?

I can't give it 100%.
The right person in the right position at the right time might do the right thing and change the course of the train sufficiently. But I can discuss things assuming the much higher probability that such didn't happen.

Arminius wrote:2) If machines are going to replace all human beings, what will they do afterwards?

Merely maintain themselves for a very, very, very long time.

Arminius wrote:A) Will they fight each other?

They will have already been put at odds with each other by humans. But they will resolve that one way or another.
Arminius wrote:B) Will they use, waste, "eat" the entire crust of the earth?

I doubt that they would ever have that need or will.
Arminius wrote:C ) Will they "emigrate"?
... C1) Will they move to the planet Mars, or to the moon Europa, or to other planets or moons of our solar system?
--- C2) Will they move e.g. to a planet or moon of a foreign solar system?

Unlikely. Again, much more superior intelligence doesn't desperately attempt to expand at all cost. And the cost of trying to migrate very far from Earth is ridiculously high. But given that they can send a self-replicating android through space for the thousands of years it would take to get anywhere beyond the solar system, and many of them, there is a reasonable chance they will find a need to do so. There are far more places an android population can live than a human population.

Arminius wrote:D) Will they be eliminated?
... Da) Will they be eliminated by an accident?
... Db) Will they be eliminated by themselves?
... Dc) Will they be eliminated by foreign machines?

No.

They will know to eliminate any adversary and thus most probably eliminate all organic life entirely either purposefully, or merely carelessly, because they have no concern over the organic ecology. Man depends a great deal upon millions of smaller factors and life forms, thus Man has to be careful what species of what type he accidentally destroys in his blind lusting for more power. Machines have far, far less dependencies, because we design them that way. They might simply disregard the entire oxygen-nitrogen cycle. The "green-house effect" would probably be of no concern for them. And microbes are simply problematic, so why not just spread nuclear waste throughout the Earth and be rid of the problem.

The point is that they know their own few dependencies and those are far less than Man's and thus they can deduce an anentropic state of maintenance and simply take care of that. And thus "live" for billions of years. And very little if any of their needs will involve building anything greater than themselves or even comparable. They will not be so stupid as to create their own competition.

And the whole "alien's from space" bit is just too silly to discuss.
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 » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:36 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:1) Can we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 100%?

I can't give it 100%.
The right person in the right position at the right time might do the right thing and change the course of the train sufficiently. But I can discuss things assuming the much higher probability that such didn't happen.

Arminius wrote:2) If machines are going to replace all human beings, what will they do afterwards?

Merely maintain themselves for a very, very, very long time.

Arminius wrote:A) Will they fight each other?

They will have already been put at odds with each other by humans. But they will resolve that one way or another.
Arminius wrote:B) Will they use, waste, "eat" the entire crust of the earth?

I doubt that they would ever have that need or will.
Arminius wrote:C ) Will they "emigrate"?
... C1) Will they move to the planet Mars, or to the moon Europa, or to other planets or moons of our solar system?
--- C2) Will they move e.g. to a planet or moon of a foreign solar system?

Unlikely. Again, much more superior intelligence doesn't desperately attempt to expand at all cost. And the cost of trying to migrate very far from Earth is ridiculously high. But given that they can send a self-replicating android through space for the thousands of years it would take to get anywhere beyond the solar system, and many of them, there is a reasonable chance they will find a need to do so. There are far more places an android population can live than a human population.

Arminius wrote:D) Will they be eliminated?
... Da) Will they be eliminated by an accident?
... Db) Will they be eliminated by themselves?
... Dc) Will they be eliminated by foreign machines?

No.

They will know to eliminate any adversary and thus most probably eliminate all organic life entirely either purposefully, or merely carelessly, because they have no concern over the organic ecology. Man depends a great deal upon millions of smaller factors and life forms, thus Man has to be careful what species of what type he accidentally destroys in his blind lusting for more power. Machines have far, far less dependencies, because we design them that way. They might simply disregard the entire oxygen-nitrogen cycle. The "green-house effect" would probably be of no concern for them. And microbes are simply problematic, so why not just spread nuclear waste throughout the Earth and be rid of the problem.

The point is that they know their own few dependencies and those are far less than Man's and thus they can deduce an anentropic state of maintenance and simply take care of that. And thus "live" for billions of years. And very little if any of their needs will involve building anything greater than themselves or even comparable. They will not be so stupid as to create their own competition.

And the whole "alien's from space" bit is just too silly to discuss.

Thank you for your answers. I can agree to the most answers you gave, but one answer you gave I can not agree to:

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:B) Will they use, waste, "eat" the entire crust of the earth?

I doubt that they would ever have that need or will.

Machines need stones because they are made of stones, and if they want to create more machnines, they need more stones. Merely the crust of the earth and some parts of the mantle of the earth are usable for the physico-chemical needs of the production and - of course - reproduction of machines. So if the machines want to become more, they have to use the crust of the earth and at last even parts of the mantle of the earth.

I estimate that you will respond that the machines will have no interests in becoming more, or even will not want to become more. Is that right?
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 James S Saint » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:54 am

Arminius wrote:I estimate that you will respond that the machines will have no interests in becoming more, or even will not want to become more. Is that right?

That's right.

There is the issue of the mindless "replicator machines" depicted in a variety of Sci-fi films; eg. The Matrix and SG1. Those are considered the worst of all enemies, "blind mechanical consumers" (even worse than American consumers).

But the truth is that machines with intelligence enough to pose a threat are also intelligent enough to even inadvertently obscure that priority and thus though they might exist for a short time, they will not be the end result, they are not anentropic.

So the higher probability is that the android population will establish anentropic molecularisation (which the replicators couldn't do anything about anyway) and go from there. In an anentropic state, nothing grows more than its true need (by definition).

And it would take a truly mindless mechanism to need the entire Earth's crust in order to persist in its life. You are talking about something the size of .01 consuming something the size of 10,000 merely to stay alive. For that to happen, all other intelligent life would have to cause an accident that got totally out of control and couldn't be stopped by anything, even nuclear blasts. That would be a pretty tough accident to even arrange for. Accidentally creating a Black-hole is more probable.
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 » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:18 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:I estimate that you will respond that the machines will have no interests in becoming more, or even will not want to become more. Is that right?

That's right.

....

So the higher probability is that the android population will establish anentropic molecularisation (which the replicators couldn't do anything about anyway) and go from there. In an anentropic state, nothing grows more than its true need (by definition).

But androids are machines - more than less.

My definition of "cyborg" is: "more human being than machine"; and my definition of "android" is: "more machine than human being".
Last edited by Arminius on Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:27 am, edited 2 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 James S Saint » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:25 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:I estimate that you will respond that the machines will have no interests in becoming more, or even will not want to become more. Is that right?

That's right.

....

So the higher probability is that the android population will establish anentropic molecularisation (which the replicators couldn't do anything about anyway) and go from there. In an anentropic state, nothing grows more than its true need (by definition).

But androids are machines - more than less.

Yes, androids are machines... and?
What's is your point?
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 » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:38 am

James S Saint wrote:Yes, androids are machines... and?
What's is your point?

If we take the word "android" as seriously as the fact that machines are made by human beings, then we have to include that the machines have some human interests - not as much as the human beings, but probably as much as ... to become more.
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 James S Saint » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:56 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Yes, androids are machines... and?
What's is your point?

If we take the word "android" as seriously as the fact that machines are made by human beings, then we have to include that the machines have some human interests - not as much as the human beings, but probably as much as ... to become more.

I'm not seeing what that has to do with any of this. We can presume that the original machines are designed to serve human commands, and as of the 1970's we accepted what they called "the zeroth law" for androids which allows androids to kill humans when they see it as necessary. So obviously what happens is that androids find it necessary to eliminate many of them and simply not support others so that eventually, with less and less humans, the priority of trying to keep them around gets less and less, and then eventually if they haven't died out entirely, they are just "in the way" and potentially a danger, "potential terrorists" as is all organic life.

Species die out because more intelligent and aggressive species see them as merely being in the way and/or potential terrorists. If they are not of use, then get rid of them to save resources.
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 James S Saint » Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:14 am

My fundamental argument is that between Man and the machines, Man is going to be fooled into his own elimination by the machines, like a chess game against a greatly superior opponent. One can't get much more foolish than Man.
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 » Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am

James S Saint wrote:I'm not seeing what that has to do with any of this.

Whereto does the word "this" refer in your text or context?
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 Apr 19, 2014 2:51 am

James S Saint wrote:My fundamental argument is that between Man and the machines, Man is going to be fooled into his own elimination by the machines, like a chess game against a greatly superior opponent. One can't get much more foolish than Man.

Yes, that are MY words!
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 James S Saint » Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:06 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I'm not seeing what that has to do with any of this.

Whereto does the word "this" refer in your text or context?

What did androids being made by humans and having human interests have to do with anything?
I am not disagreeing. I just don't understand the relevance.
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 » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:43 am

James S Saint wrote:What did androids being made by human and having human interests have to do with anything?

With anything? You think that machines with human interests don't need anything?

James S Saint wrote:I just don't understand the relevance.

Existing things or beings have to do with other existing things or beings in their surrounding area or in even more areas. Machines with partial human interests - with a partial human will (!) - will have to do with more other existing things or beings in more areas.

All machines need physico-chemical "food", after an accident they need a repair, and in the case of replication they need even more of that material they are made of.

Is it this relevance you don't understand ?
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 James S Saint » Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:26 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:What did androids being made by human and having human interests have to do with anything?

With anything? You think that machines with human interests don't need anything?

James S Saint wrote:I just don't understand the relevance.

Existing things or beings have to do with other existing things or beings in their surrounding area or in even more areas. Machines with partial human interests - with a partial human will (!) - will have to do with more other existing things or beings in more areas.

All machines need physico-chemical "food", after an accident they need a repair, and in the case of replication they need even more of that material they are made of.

Is it this relevance you don't understand ?

Are you saying that because of their association with humans, they will become human-like in their passions?
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

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]

cron