I admit to having a problem deciphering some of the meanings in your post.
When you say " Without statistics one can say that the intelligence is sinking - that is a fact." I think you meant to say “Without statistics no one can say…”, and from a purely “statistical” point of view you would be right. The problem is it excludes too many other factors to make it realistic. The credibility of the Intelligence Quotient has problems of its own. I must have missed something but what dictatorship are we talking about? Sorry! but I’m somewhat here!
How long does it take to research “Human” linguistically or philosophically before a host of meanings and definitions become clear? How often do we have to reinvent the wheel before the meaning behind the word human reveals itself. It’s as tedious as that typical and perennial question, “What is the meaning of life?” The definition of Human is NOT described through metaphysics where virtually anything goes. It does not amount to a God variable incessantly probed but never yielding to any conclusion. Haven’t we been here long enough and considered that question to gain some comprehension of what it means to be human?
I don’t understand how this sentence comes together based on what I said or meant to infer, so I can’t comment.
In that text it is because of my question in the title of my thread and the Title of my OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? Obe asks whether you belong to those who answer that question neither with “yes” nor with “no”; so he asks whether your name is or should be in the “Abstention” column in my 3rd interim balance sheet
You do not have an alternative. You disagree partly, but you have no argument, not to mention an evidence. Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions? It doesn’t very much matter how long it takes because it takes no longer than the alternatives, if there really is any.
You who have read so many books have no better answer than that. Do you find it so difficult to explain yourself or are you just so arrogant?
No! I merely countered your argument with my own which of course, you are not in favor of so I have no argument…the perennial response to any opposing view. As for “evidence” if such were even applicable to this subject - which it is not - why didn’t YOU supply any in your favor? What is Evidence and how is it to be established in this case? Do you think there can ever be any definitive evidence on what it means to be human based on philosophical or linguistic approaches? Do any of your guide books lead you to believe that there can be such a solution?
As to “Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions?” is an absolutely ludicrous question! I for one, don’t find it useful to regurgitate the same questions and responses to them over and over again. It seems the more books you read the more uncertain you are about the qualities which uniquely denote humans. I know you don’t agree but the mystery is not as great as you make it out to be.
Honestly, i don't know. The statistics is interesting from the point of view of what certain IPL members take re: this issue, and equally interesting it it, to see how attitudes toward various positions and counterpositions seem to change. However, i wonder, how representative these views are, as proportionate to general societal expectations.
As far as the dichotomy of metaphysical/linguistic approaches, and Monad's irresolution toward it, it is interesting to note, that his comment pretty well undermines the intent of showing any conclusion in terms of meaning, i.e., what it means 'to be a man', and whether such an approach can make any kind of in road into the this analysis.
The most critical level into this inquiry is that which concerns cybernetics, the composure of which blends both: human and artificial intelligence. Hopefully, cybernetics will continue to be developed as to be of benefit to mankind , and since it is man's cognitive facilities which both consist of the content of artificial intelligence, and the object of it's processes, the differences between the intent, content and object of artificial intelligence will continue to be of an negligible concern. I am fairly confident, Arminus, that the 3rd breakdown is fairly generally is fairly representative , although it's interesting to note, how and why they do change.
“Human” literally means “the hue of, or most basic element of, Man”.
So using that definition, they will eventually be able to say that androids are human.
They love to be able to play word games on simple minded people.
You already indicated it. I’m in the abstention column simply because I can’t categorically say Yes or No.
I think eventually when its found to be more feasible, humans will become a fusion of the two. Of course, it will take time. This kind of evolution has already started and may even become essential for space travel which is expected to be evermore common.
Do any of your disagreements “lead you to believe that there can be such a solution”?
And b.t.w.: Which “guide books” do you mean? The books I mentioned - indirectly - in this thread do not have to be my “guide books” just because you want them to be my “guide books”.
Because you have a “better” one: Disagreement! How absolutely ludicrous!
I don’t think that linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions are the only possibilities.
But your regurgitated disagreements are not useful at all.
Why don’t you offer at least a few suggestions. Nothing - except disagreements. Okay, disagree how much you can - I don’t care -, but your disagreements are no solutions.
Which “books” do you mean?
Then please say what “the mystery” is for you and how you can get a solution.
Disagreement without any argumentation and evidence is the typical behaviour of internet users. And it’s “cool” too. It does never bring on a conversation, not to mention a solution of a problem. Bummer! That’s too bad.
Note: “Yes (by trend)” means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%. " No (by trend)" means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.
Your are clearly free to think what you want. I made my arguments and reasons for them. That’s the best I can do especially on philosophy forums where there are NO solutions only discussions of problems which is why the same ones get mentioned over and over again with never a solution in sight. Opinions, including mine, do not constitute solutions or proof.
“Them”? What or whom do you mean with the word “them” in that sentence?
Does anybody of the members of this forum know which “arguments” and “reasons” Monad means?
“That’s the best …” What’s the best, Monad?
That’s honest, Monad. But I don’t think that your last sentence is absolutely right, and because of the fact that it is at least relatively right we should use the rest of possibilities and try to constitute solutions or proofs.
I mean: You are also writing in this forum, so you confirm my statement that your sentence - “opinions … do not constitute solutions or proof” - is notabsolutely right.
That’s the whole point of philosophy forums, is it not, that there’s fun in trying. But philosophy by it’s nature is not amenable to solutions and proofs; that’s in the science department. Do you know of any philosophy as true based on solutions or proofs? Every philosophy derives from one man’s thought and how he visualizes whatever he’s contemplating.
Inserting solutions and proofs into philosophy as if it were math or science usually destroys the conversation or one must know in what sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy.
Yes, those philosophies are based on scientific solutions or rules (“laws”), they are the “crowns” of what they are based on. This “crowns” can and should be criticised; many of them exist only because of personal credit, regard, publicity. Science is already partly enslaved. So what can we do in order to prevent that this all increases more and more, so that the end effect will be merely stupidity, absurdity, “dementia”, and ignorance?
You are against statistics, science, philosophy, and that is okay, but I also think that it is too much “against”. And the fact that you are a member of this philosophy forum and write posts on philosophy indicates that some of your statements are contradicted by some of your statements.
I don’t think that it “destroys the conversation”, because philosophy is not merely a conversation. One should “know in what sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy”. We are human beings - fortunately or unfortunately -, so we have no choice, if we want to know, to recognise, to philosphise, to be wise.
I gave no indication that I’m “against” any of these fundamental human activities. How does one even describe a person who is against philosophy and science? Statistics are also essential but, I repeat, one must know it’s limitations; in some cases as in IQ, they can be severe, damaging and misleading. As for science, I don’t recall having said anything negative about it but that doesn’t mean one can’t depending upon what aspect of it is put up for discussion.
The upshot being, a criticism of anything does NOT imply a negation! One can criticize, analyze in a hundred different ways depending on “perspective” and how its discussed. It all depends on how and in what manner references are made. Is this not also one of the main functions of philosophy? as a kind of “Perspectivism” a la Nietzsche? Taking things out of context yields nothing but distortions. Your “against” statements are examples of that. As such, there is no purpose in further posting responses to each other since neither of us is going to be happy.
I’m still a no. I just think if you have the modern, realist, consensus science centered belief system then it is the best conclusion and would find it odd if someone in that broad paradigm would not think so unless they were in some kind of denial. I am not in that category and do not believe it is what will happen.
here!