Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Here is an example for a constructive contribution to the discussion about the topic of this thread:

What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?


Does this picture illustrate an exaggeration or not?

I would build an android to replace that one. :evilfun:

Arminius,
Are there machines, then, who know 'relative" free will?

That’s - of course - a good question, and I answer it with: in the future machines will probably know "‘relative’ free will".

The will, how Schopenhauer defiend it (as Kant’s “Ding an sich” - “thing in itself”), is a free will, but not the will of the human beings because human beings depend on the will. Since God has been murdered - at the end of the 18th century - his free will has also been murdered. Since then human beings pride themselves to be like God, to have a free will, but that is a false conclusion.

Ah, and by whom or what exactly?

??? “By whom”???
I don’t understand the question.

And yes, machines experience “relatively-free will”.

Would you replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans? And if the former, then by what? And if the latter, then by whom?

You can build an android and replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans.

I thought Ierellus meant his question by referring to his statement that “machines cannot be self aware in the human sense of self-awareness”:

“Self-awareness”, “experience”, “know”? What would you answer?

any number of them can be replaced by either , and no one would notice, and even if they did they would not care. Flash: By the end of the year, driverless cars will be on the road. Some advocates are very against that. Wonder if they will take off like the electric cars. The hybrids are selling pretty good, though.

the fact is, that while we all act like we enjoy being lazy and sitting on our tails thinking about our problems, it is only through continuous habit and ritual, that we actually find happiness, that isnt self-destructive. You may think its the taste and sweetness of ice cream that makes that ice cream cone sooooo delicious, but how good would it taste if you had a fridge full everyday since birth

James,
Did you explain how machines have achieved relative free will? Or do I just have to take your word for it?

The less people need people, the more people suffer and die.

I was accepting the scenario of it having to be an android. If given the choice, I would not build a machine superior to humans except in very specific tasks, still requiring just as many humans as before, merely better equipped.

Explaining it is complicated, just as explaining how your computer works in the first place. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything. But then again, when you don’t know anything, you shouldn’t be making assertions.

“Free-will” is decision-making. As long as the decision is left up to you, you have “free-will” to the degree of the choices. Free-will is not something that either is there or not there. It comes in degrees determined by the number and types of choices allowed. No free-will means no choices. Total free-will means unlimited choices (followed by insanity).

And:

“Free will” is not what human beings or other living beings have, because they are part of the evolution. For example: As a human you can’t decide your origin, your genetic program, your birth, your death. And if you can’t decide about the most important phenomenons of your life, then you have no “free will”.

Market propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting articles, consumer goods, products, so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. Political propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting politicians, their parties (homonym! ), their ideologies (modern religions), so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. They say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting your sex, gender, so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. You can merely choose in a relative way. God, the nature, or Kant’s “Ding an sich” (“thing as such”, “thing in itself”) may have or be a “free will”, but humans don’t know who or what they really are and have killed them, either absolutely (God) or partly (nature, “Ding an sich”).

Human beings who think that they have a “free will” are:

  1. God(s),
  2. nature,
  3. “Ding an sich” (“thing as such”, “thing in itself”),
  4. lunatics.
    Human beings have no “free will”.

It’s called “The illusion of free-will” and is always relative or partial.

Yes, that is what I have been saying for so long too.

So we have the priests, the scientists, and with them we have the increase of illusions and insanity, and at last the products of that all: a high “human civilisation” with its technologie / technique, amongst other things more and more machines and the high probability that they will replace all human beings.

If one had said when human history started that all humans will be replaced by machines one day, no one would and could have understand or even believed that. But the most human beings have been knowing that since the first well-functioning steam-engine was built and the so called “indsutrial revolution” began. And what happened, happens, and will happen? The increasing replacement of human beings by machines.

Yes, I’m a firm believer in global peak oil and energy. It’s only a matter of time until the wheels spin off of technological industrial society.

When this happens never again will humanity experience such a technological industrial society ever again.

We will be forced into what I like to describe as permanent 18th century living standards.

What people want and what people get are very different things altogether.

Once technological industrial society collapses a lot of the current world order is going to go by the wayside rather quickly.

I believe the collapse of industrial technological society to be the best outcome for humanity.

A lot of people are going to die around the globe in the midst of that but humanity will still prevail as it becomes stabilized within the natural equilibrium of the rest of the planet. Compared to the other alternatives it’s an acceptable loss as it could be much worse.

The collapse of industrial technological society is certainly a lot better scenario than total annihilation or enslavement to robotics in the future.

The only problem with my scenario is that it presumes humanity doesn’t destroy itself through war before this transition takes place.

Then there are all those pesky nuclear reactors around the world that left unattended or shut down could definitely pose environmental problems overtime.

Thanks, Arminius, for the good explanation of relative free will. I agree with it and am grateful that you explain without put downs or ad homs. I still see a vast difference between a DNA produced organism, a human, that took millions of years to evolve, and a machine, which is a human invention.

Current world population is seven billion people and growing.

When the collapse of technological industrial society begins I imagine we will see about six billion people dead after all is said and done.

In 1802 the world reached a population of one billion milestone. After the collapse of technological industrial society human global population will probably normalize within natural equilibrium around a billion or less.

Six billion people dead upon the collapse of technological industrial society…that’s a lot of dead people. I don’t think we have enough coffins to put them in.

Where are we going to put them all? :-k

Let nature consume them.

In more ways than just one. :wink: :-"