Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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”).

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.

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?

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”?

I agree that that is what ‘they’ want to do. I agree (though I might see it as more on the Surface) these people have the Power or have had it and the sway to move things in that direction. I agree further because it is a natural extension of modern atheistic reasonism/science groupieism/ technoaddiction and the way people conceive of themselves - most people - and their hubris and confusion in self-relation. So within that paradigm, as I tried to say, there is no reason to Believe it will not happen. It should happen. Unless you Believe in something significant not currently verfied by science, then you should conclude that it will happen. There needs to be some kind of ‘force’ or factor to counter where things are going. As it happens I do Believe in things not currently accepted as verified - some not remotely - by current science. These factor in on this issue, and obviously others, and lead me to Believe it will not happen.

I agree with you and James - though I have only read his in a browsing way where it is quoted in other people’s posts - within the modern reasonist scientism shaped conception of reality way of looking at things. It makes sense within that. But I am not within that. Neither is James, but we likely have different beliefs about what is both true and not accepted by mainstream science.

Right, and that is part of the ‘most’ I agreed with. Another way of putting it is unless those who disagree with you have some extra-curricular beliefs, I Think their belief is based on faith.

Sure, that statement may very well be perfectly in line with what you Believe. But what has been happening need not continue.

LOL, nah. Think of it as my thinking I have reached my conclusion via a sound argument and this conclusion is the same as the conclusion reached by those who I do not Think have a sound argument - given their paradigmns. Don’t take that too literally, but the idea being that we Three would likely make a larger set of similar assertions about what is and what is going on. So I see much of what you both see happening out there. And that is where I end up being able to say I agree most with you guys - a lot of the observations about what is happening what it would lead to and so on.
I disagree with the conclusion however.

I really can deal with the social terror of being in any column and being associated with anybody’s beliefs in a table.

That, however, is not so easy to demonstrate. But in any case I should be in the middle.

No James, believe me or not, i really know it.
And, i would have explained about my knowing, had would be able to interact with you in person, instead of on a public forum.

The existence of an a priori feeling/sensing entity, before infusing information, which can evaluate and evolve on its own, at different levels, instead of one.

Well, that depends how one defines these things.

According to my definition, consciousness is an independent and complete entity, while sensing is its default job/character.
Consciousness is different and independent from will, mind and body.

Sensing is slightly different from mere detection or recognition. It entalis feelings/emotions, besides physical effect.

Like, in the case of any injury, it is not only body that gets affected, but that effect influnces the cosciousness also, going through the brain and mind.

with love,
sanjay

If evolution holds true, or that the rate of change stays constant, it does seem likely all will be replaced. No amount of logic can determine if that will be good or bad. Robots could replace people, then solar flares from the sun short everything electric. After that, humans could reappear. Again hard to know when results are final results, or how to qualify them. If humans are worse than robots, we are still biased to think our legacy simply must persist forever into the future. Humans claim logic, but irrational emotion dominates our thoughts and actions. The pure logic that we claim makes us superior to other animals is better found in computer programs. In that sense, it would be an honor to be replaced.

This thread inspired this other one:

Reforming Democracy

In that sense, it would be an honor to be replaced?

Then please answer my question directly:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?

No. First of all this thread inspired this other one:

Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

Besides:

Democracy has been being reformed since its beginning. It has already become abnormal. This abnormal democracy is called “ochlocracy” (Aristoteles). And currently this “ochlocracy” has already reached a stage which tends to monarchy.

[size=120]If humans will be replaced by machines, who will judge the responsible one(s)?

How can God or how can the humans allow that humans will be eliminated?[/size]

In what sense could a machine replace a human being?

It might be the wording of the question, but if you just want to ask “will machines succeed human beings?” – that’s a different question to me, and more easily tackled.

The obvious cases are those advertised; machines, androids, going into dangerous places, lifting heavy things, calculating for you, envisioning for you, pacing you, and replacing other people for you. But note that it is always merely replace Other people, most notably those who serve in some way - everybody.

I see it as the same question?
What distinction are you making?

I mean, machines replace people in the field (any field) but only so far as they are performing a task with a given set of parameters. I know we’re pretty dependent on machines, but in what way do machines carry on when we’re gone? They don’t seem to be much without us. If every human stopped living today, what would happen to all the current machinery? How long before it would “run out of batteries” and simply stop working? And during the time they still had power, what would machines accomplish in their present states without their users?

They way I see it, machines may very well succeed us, but their future looks pretty trivial to me if you’re going by the current state of technology. I know I’m not privy to all the tech advancement in today’s world, but I don’t think there is any AI that could spawn it’s own civilization or develop into a black hole as per your proposition on the first page of the thread. Perhaps that shows my ignorance, and if so I’m happy to be linked to said technology.

Also, we may die by natural or man-made disaster sooner than such supposed machines take over the world, so there is a lot of room for a future in which machines never even get the chance to “have their day.”

Besides: Fuse has already given an answer (by trend):

So, Fuse, you don’t think (by trend) that all humans will be completely replaced by machines.

Replaced in what way? Human beings are being replaced by machines for many tasks. Machines may even succeed us. That’s not saying much, though, as I explained above.

You merely have to read the question! Please read it one more time!

Arminius,

I’m sorry I don’t know what you’re asking.

I disagree.

Who knows? Perhaps if you tailored your question I could answer it.

I don’t see how you could disagree with that.

People used to do all mathematics without any use of machines.
People used to build toys, furniture, cars, houses, ships, and buildings with minimal use of machines.
Farms are almost completely automated today. Even the tractors, when they even use tractors, are remotely and automatically controlled, merely monitored by humans. Japan has entire factories wherein there are no humans other than monitors looking for anything going wrong. Raw materials go in, and product comes out.

Machines replace people most often by doing something differently and thus not needing people. The drill-press operator gets replaced by the programmable, automated CNC machine. Then the programmer gets replaced with an automatic program assembler/compiler.

The people get replaced by replacing what people do with people-less mechanisms that would cost far too much to make work with highly skilled and talented people.

Behind it all is the terrorism of “We have to have more!!”

James,

There are some things I don’t think people want a machine doing in place of a person, even if it can.

Many people like to drive, for instance, instead of having cars that drive for them. People like to know some things, instead having everything in phone or computer memory/access. People like to live and play, which machines cannot do for them.

And then there are things like art, culture, and philosophy.
…giving birth to a child.

Machines help with these, but they arise in principle because of human biology/psychology.