Will machines completely replace all human beings?

That’s the point, yeah.

Even those people who currently do not accept the truth, the facts, will have to practise accepting, because they soon will have to accept the truth, the facts.

@ Arminius and James

If it is possibe that all human beings can be completely replaced by machines (and I don’t doubt that it is possible) what is there to set against it? Is there something to set against it? How would you encourage young people to get children at all if they have to assume that they are just producing more ‘human material’, ready to become designed and eventually replaced?
I can see - also on this forum - that people don’ t want to hear that humans can be replaced, not even that they are directed. I’m also referring to the End-Of-History-thread. Is that a self-protecting reaction and the only precondition that evolution can go on?

What is coming is so vast and momentous, there is only one thing that can be done (that I can think of) - Anentropic Molecularisation. People cannot be stronger, faster, or more intelligent. They only choice left is to be wiser.

The point is to stop human sexuality entirely.
They are already developing an anti-virus that alters the DNA so as to change a homosapian into an aphrodite. But they will insist that any reproduction must be by authority of the State only, thus there will be a dependency built in that is State controlled. What that means is that all citizens, human or not, will be the females and only the state will be male (eternally fucked by the State).

It is a reaction that has been programmed into them utilizing ego-defenses to ensure its stubbornness.

We have a probabilty of about 20% to stop the procees which will lead to the fact (!) that all human beings are completely replaced by machines. I merely see a possibility to stop it, if there will be an accident which will lead to that stop. There will have to be a coincidence like an accident in order to get that possibility. The „human reason“ by itself and the „human emotion“ by itself will never stop, but accelerate that process in favour of the machines.

I would not encourage all „young people to get children at all“, I would favor and support a policy which means just the contrary to the current policy, thus the contrary to the irresponsible mindlessness or abandon concerning (1) culture / civilisation, (2) education, (3) demographics / reproduction / sexuality, (4) ethics / custom / morality / religion, (5) economics / ecology, (6) technique / technology, (7) science, and so on. This policy as the contrary to the current policy would lead to more responsibility at all, thus also when it comes to get children. Not the irresponsible, but merely the responsible human beings would have childen then.

Concerning to the topic of this thread I once made the following interim balance sheet:

I don’t know, whether one can surely interpret this interim balance sheet to represent the will of all people, but I also think that people or at least most people don’t want to be completely replaced by machines and that their „arguments“ are merely self-protecting reactions and also reactions because of the fact that they are operated by remote control.

That was done well. :sunglasses:

That means that there is nothing left than waiting for the unpredictable incident. I cannot imagine what could cause such an accident and it depends on the state of the technological development by then, if it’s possible for human beings to get back to a human life (if they are still human beings).
I’m interested to learn something about an active way, about something that can be done.

I read your concept of Anentropic Molecularisation, which you started to reveal on Humanarchy. Would you like to present it here as well, on a new thread?

Actually I do not think they will replace humans. I can understand why I ended up where I did on the balance sheet, however. It seems to me the modern atheist basing his or her beliefs on science looking out at what is happening should draw the conclusion that humans will be replaced by machines, or at least, there is a very good chance they will be. It is a logical extension of what is already happening and how the technocrats/corporations view us and the nature of the world/universe. I can’t see an objection from that camp and I cannot see a force to oppose the replacement that they would consider real. So in a sense I was trying to highlight this and this may have seemed like identification with the belief it will happen.

I have considered that, but there are SO very many questions in the minds of people to answer and everyone wants them all answered first so they can decide whether to love it or hate it before reading more. So… dunno.

The challenge is that due to AM being so different, even though actually very similar to a great many things, people need to see it functioning, not merely discuss the possibility of it. If you were to first discuss how effective Science would be before anyone every heard of such a thing, you would get no support because no one would believe that your “science” would ever change anyone’s mind about anything

Do you have any suggestions?

Replacing humans by machines has two sides, and the „good“ side covers the „bad“ side.

You want to keep out of the evaluation, right?

|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
|
|_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|

||__ Arminius |__ Dan | Obe |
|
|
James S. Saint | Mr. Reasonable | Lev Muishkin |
|
|
| Fuse | Kriswest |
|
|
| Esperanto | Moreno |
|
|
| Only Humean ||
|
|| Gib ________||
|
|
|Uccisore ||
|
|
| Zinnat (Sanjay) |_____|

|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]2[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] _| [size=150]4[/size] ______|

Do you like it this way?

James, what do you think about that?

???
What do you mean?

I think those are what we have been talking about for 10 pages.

And that reflects Normalcy Bias. Normalcy bias is the result of the mind wanting for (hoping for) normalcy and thus willing to interpret things to favor normalcy until it is directly confronted.

I would say that I belong in the middle column, though I probably agree most with what you and James are saying. That may seem strange, but that’s the way it is. I see what those with Power want to do, I just Think in the end they actually do not know what is going on, even if they know more than the average person whose energy they are sucking on.

When you walk naked into a dark long unkown alley, all you have is possible knowledge and bravado to get you through it. Science and its possibilities are such an alley and the best are fairly naked.

That’s right ( :laughing: ), but I mean the 105-minutes-film and especially its content ( :smiley: ), what it is talking about ( :slight_smile: ). Interesting is that there - in the second part - is for example “pantheism” mentioned.

I think the first half helps to enlighten those who think that Man’s lust and ability to create a competing species is mere fantasy. The second part involves religious notions and it gets hard for me to listen much to technology people trying to seriously discuss such things. Religion involves things that techy nerds have no knowledge of whatsoever. But then the same could be said about religious people. Generally if you can’t hold something in your hand, even the most elite don’t really grasp it (pun intended :sunglasses:) .

Actually, I think that puts you back into the first list. What I am saying (and I think Arminius as well), is that the leaders are using psychology to trick the population into accepting something that is tricking the leaders into trickery and eventually into even their own extinction. I am not saying that the leaders are intentionally sacrificing themselves, although as insane as they are, that is always possible too.

So you are saying that you “probably agree most with what” I “and James are saying” and nevertheless that you do not agree with what I and James are saying because you are saying that you “belong in the middle column”. That is a contradiction (e.g. “it’s raining and it’s not raining”). :-k

That is approximately what I have been saying since the 1990s.

So there can not be a great difference between your statement and my statement.

:-k

Or do you want to “belong in the middle column” because you love the people of the middle column more than the people of the left and right column? :laughing:

The second part is at least the more meaningful part because there is a lot of apology, exculpation, thus much rhetoric in it.

Agreement - generally speaking.

So Moreno is put back:

|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
|
|_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|

||__ Arminius |__ Dan | Obe |
|
|
James S. Saint | Mr. Reasonable | Lev Muishkin |
|
|
__ Moreno |_ Fuse | Kriswest |
|
|
| Esperanto _____||
|
|
| Only Humean ||
|
|| Gib ________||
|
|
|Uccisore ||
|
|
| Zinnat (Sanjay) |______|

|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]3[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] _| [size=150]3[/size] ______|

Excuse me, Moreno.

James,

I cannot say on the behalf of others but at least i am not affected by narmalcy bias.
That is not my reason to dismiss AI.

Let me try it once more in a different way.

My opposition to AI is based on a very simple premise - Consciousness creates complexity.
While you are suggesting - Complexity creates consciousness.
That is the real difference.

May i ask you a simple question?
Did you ever notice why all robots are created just similar to humans?
Is there any logical necessaity for a robot to give such a shape?

That is done purly for the reason to fool people.

Secondly, if only adding more and more information is the only requirement of the AI, they would have not done that in the form of something like Asimo. There may be better alternatives.

Think of the severs of Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Orkut, Gmail, MSN and all other likewise companies. And, add govt classified organizations like Nasa, Nato and many unknown others also to it. I do not think that a normal person like me cannot even imagine how much information is stored there within the grasp of US govenment as 70% of the servers of the world are located in US, besides its own.

James, that is the right place to try for AI. All they have to do it to synchronize all that information and put it systematically in a big super computer and connect it with internet as to get the latest feed. In that way, that single entity would come close to having almost whole of the information that the humankind has been earned so for. Then, they have to watch it or connect it with something like Asimo to see how it performs.

If there is any possbility of AI, that is only way to do it, not something like a tiny human shape robot.
Though, i do not have any means to know, but i am sure that they would have done with something like that i proposed but failed.

James,
To develop AI or AW, any entity must have its own feeling senses, not infused ones. Then, everything can be built upon it.
But, AI suggests that let us first have information, Intelligence would come later by default.

You can give information to machines, not the sense to feel it at the different levels. The all that a robot understands or feel in real sense, is nothing but merely 0 and 1. To be more precise, computers do not understand even 0 and 1, but this or that, this this, that that, this that, this that. That is their actual understanding. They do not understand the induction or multipication of this and that in real sense.

Let us imagine that a film is playing on TV and a human is watching it and he is getting emotionally infuenced by it.
Now, if you put some anlyzing type of machine before it, it will tell you all about the techncical detalis of the radiation that is omitting from the screen. And, even having more detailed and precise detail of the subjuct, machine is going to miss the actual message of the trasmission, simply becasue it has to deduct the film to its level of understanding in the first place, before analyze, and that is again 0 and 1.

The real change is required at initial level, not the top.

Let me put it in a different way.
Think of electomagnetic radiation. As we all know that it operates in differnt bands. Some portion of it can be traced by our eyes and that is called as light by us. But, some artificial bands of the same radiation can be traced by our ears as a sound. So, technically, there is no difference between light and sound but still we need different organs to comprehend those. Why?

That is point i want to make.
The more levels of comprehension an entity would have, the more it would evolve. Complexity comes later by default.You may consider it a religious argument if you want, but the fact of the matter it that no physical matter can ever create feelings, and that is essential both for AW and AI.

And, it is not my assumption. I know that.

with love,
sanjay

That is your belief. I believe that you do not “know it”.

  1. Zinnat, what do you believe is required for AI to be intelligent?
  2. Do you understand the difference between consciousness and “sensing”?