Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

Would you please name the other three levels?

0) Reality itself; determining how the entire universe behaves.

1) Ontological Architects; choosing which concepts are going to be allowed into the minds of men, "which angels are allowed on Earth", choosing the "gods" of Man, and providing for that void between above and below, doing all things indirectly. Sometimes referred to as the "ascended" or "lords".

2) Religious Architects and Leaders; choosing how the "gods"/principles are to be obeyed through governing/maintaining thoughts and emotions, regulating the Perception of Hopes and Threats through subtle methods; value assignments ("money"), pestilence/diseases, and communication; "Media Networks", "Social Networks", "Rumor Mills", "Secret Orders", "Banking", and "Medical Treatments".

3) Government Architects and Leaders; governing/maintaining actions, militarily regulating constraints and freedoms, the "Laws of the Land".

4) Masses; suffering in ignorance of what is going on above and around them, blinded in the confusion and on occasion, saved by the order.

When (2) and (3) are combined, you get a Pharaoh King and lustful "Godwannabe" having far too much power for his degree of discipline and understanding.

Note that I didn't say that any of them are particularly good at what they do. Frankly I prefer that the top and bottom get stitched a lot closer together so as to quail and prevent the malignancy that leads to so very much needless suffering.

You mentioned a "0"-level: "Reality itself; determining how the entire universe behaves." It doesn't belong to the "four levels of intelligence in society" which you mentioned before. Thderefore: "0)".

According to Hans Peter Raddatz those "four levels" are:

1) world "nobility" (upper "nobility"),
2) state "nobility" (middle "nobility"),
3) dressage "nobility" (lower "nobility"),
4) Masses.

Interestingly the governmental Politicians are not a part of the state "nobility" (middle "nobility"), but merely a part of the "nobility" (lower "nobility").The state "nobility" (=> 2) and the dressage "nobility" (=> 3) shall unite to one "nobility"; both shall become one dressage "nobility" because states shall vanish.

[James S Saint]

According to Hans Peter Raddatz those "four levels" are:

1) world "nobility" (upper "nobility"),
2) state "nobility" (middle "nobility"),
3) dressage "nobility" (lower "nobility"),
4) Masses.

Interestingly the governmental Politicians are not a part of the state "nobility" (middle "nobility"), but merely a part of the "nobility" (lower "nobility").The state "nobility" (=> 2) and the dressage "nobility" (=> 3) shall unite to one "nobility"; both shall become one dressage "nobility" because states shall vanish.

Well, I'm sure they love to fantasize about being "The Nobility", so paint themselves into that picture.

But I thought of an interesting ethical question concerning this whole, "Last Humans" scenario.

In the long run, only the most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian, responsible for the creation of machines, will be left. Now "should" those people be allowed to inherent the Earth as their kingdom? Or "should" the machines go ahead and get rid of the fowl vermin that they are?

[Arminius]

In the long run, only the most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian, responsible for the creation of machines, will be left. Now "should" those people be allowed to inherent the Earth as their kingdom? Or "should" the machines go ahead and get rid of the fowl vermin that they are?

In that case it would be better that the machines "get rid of the fowl vermin".

What do you think?

[James S Saint]

In the long run, only the most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian, responsible for the creation of machines, will be left. Now "should" those people be allowed to inherent the Earth as their kingdom? Or "should" the machines go ahead and get rid of the fowl vermin that they are?

In that case it would be better that the machines "get rid of the fowl vermin".

What do you think?

Good question. I'm not sure that I know the answer to that one... yet.

I have always held a devotion to homosapian... but... hmm....

[Arminius]

In the long run, only the most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian, responsible for the creation of machines, will be left. Now "should" those people be allowed to inherent the Earth as their kingdom? Or "should" the machines go ahead and get rid of the fowl vermin that they are?

In that case it would be better that the machines "get rid of the fowl vermin".

What do you think?

Good question. I'm not sure that I know the answer to that one... yet.

I have always held a devotion to homosapian... but... hmm....

The most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian?

That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!

[James S Saint]

The most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian?

That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!

For what purpose?

[Arminius]

The most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian?

That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!

For what purpose?

The purpose is that that penalty can prevent the mass murder!

[James S Saint]

The most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian?

That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!

For what purpose?

The purpose is that that Penalty can prevent the mass murder!

Not if the assailant believes that he can't be penalized if no one is left to carry out the prosecution (currently the USA is fully involved in killing all witnesses so as to avoid court trials, calling them "murder-suicides"). He would see the proposal as an empty threat. He has killed off not only all witnesses, but all prosecutors as well. And after he succeeds, he will certainly see it that way. So at that point, what "should" be done (even though we cannot say who would be doing it)?

[Arminius]

The mass murderers can believe what they want; if there is such a law, then they will be punished. Merely if laws allow mass murderers to act as they want, and the whole judiciary, the state, and the society are corrupt, then there is no possibility (anymore) to punish them.

[James S Saint]

The mass murderers can believe what they want; if there is such a law, then they will be punished. Merely if laws allow mass murderers to act as they want, and the whole judiciary, the state, and the society are corrupt, then there is no possibility (anymore) to punish them.

Oh I could arrange such punishment.
But I have to believe it is "the right thing to do" (and I have seriously high standards for such things).

If I accept that they really "should be" punished, it can be arranged that only the machines survive.
But what is the limit to forgiveness?

[Arminius]

The mass murderers can believe what they want; if there is such a law, then they will be punished. Merely if laws allow mass murderers to act as they want, and the whole judiciary, the state, and the society are corrupt, then there is no possibility (anymore) to punish them.

Oh I could arrange such punishment.
But I have to believe it is "the right thing to do" (and I have seriously high standards for such things).

If I accept that they really "should be" punished, it can be arranged that only the machines survive.
But what is the limit to forgiveness?

No, this was meant generally. Mass murderers have to be punished. End.

[James S Saint]

Mass murderers have to be punished. End.

My version of that is that mass murders "should be" given incentive to not do so.
"Punishment" or the threat of it might or might not be the path involved.

So the question is, if there is no one left to protect with the threat of punishment, "should" the punishment be carried out anyway? They already have lost the incentive to continue, because there is no one left.

[Arminius]

Which "incentives" would you give mass murderers, James?

[James S Saint]

Which "incentives" would you give mass murderers, James?

ALL behavior is controlled via PHT. But that is going to be different for every person. The single greatest mistake Man has ever made (and still is making) is presuming "generalization", trying to treat all people with simple minded rules.

So I would tend toward the lines of "reprogramming" the former mass murderer, "converting enemy to friend" (just making damn sure that I did it right).

[Arminius]

So I would tend toward the lines of "reprogramming" the former mass murderer, "converting enemy to friend" (just making damn sure that I did it right).

"Reprogramming" and "converting enemy to friend": isn't that too trustful, too naive?

[Arminius]

Please tell me what you think about the following text:



Take a good look
I know what you see
Shrouded in black
and all life's debris

Shot in the back
live through the day
ain't no remorse
you do as they say

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i've seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

victims for life
Slaves to the end
rooted and sick
How it's always been

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Built to destroy
one can't deny
the hole that becomes
the hand in the sky

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i've seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i've seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh
I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh
I wish I was done
Yeah, I wish I was done ohhh

ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
ohhhhhhhh,
ohhhhhh,
Now that i've seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i've seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i've seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine
Now that i've seen whats come & past
forget all thats pure; it never lasts
inside a mass murder machine

[James S Saint]

So I would tend toward the lines of "reprogramming" the former mass murderer, "converting enemy to friend" (just making damn sure that I did it right).

"Reprogramming" and "converting enemy to friend": isn't that too trustful, too naive?

Not any more complicated than particle physics. You trust them to make "safe" nuclear weapons, don't you?

The issue is being precise.

[Arminius]

So I would tend toward the lines of "reprogramming" the former mass murderer, "converting enemy to friend" (just making damn sure that I did it right).

"Reprogramming" and "converting enemy to friend": isn't that too trustful, too naive?

Not any more complicated than particle physics. You trust them to make "safe" nuclear weapons, don't you?

No, I don't trust them!

[James S Saint]

No, I don't trust them!

Yes, but risks must be taken.

If you had one kingdom all about how to destroy people and another all about how to save people, both with risky weapons to suit their agenda, which kingdom would you want to be standing closer to?

[Arminius]

No, I don't trust them!

Yes, but risks must be taken.

If you had one kingdom all about how to destroy people and another all about how to save people, both with risky weapons to suit their agenda, which kingdom would you want to be standing closer to?

Are we not discussing the theme "machines and mass murder" at the moment?
I said:
The purpose is that the death penalty can prevent the mass murder!
Mass murderers have to be punished.
And my questions were:
Which „incentives“ would you give mass murderers?
Reprogramming‹ and ›converting enemy to friend‹: isn't that too trustful, too naive?

[James S Saint]

Yes, but risks must be taken.

If you had one kingdom all about how to destroy people and another all about how to save people, both with risky weapons to suit their agenda, which kingdom would you want to be standing closer to?

Are we not discussing the theme "mass murder"?
I said:
The purpose is that that penalty can prevent the mass murder!
Mass murderers have to be punished.
And my questions were:
Which „incentives“ would you give mass murderers?
Reprogramming‹ and ›converting enemy to friend‹: isn't that too trustful, too naive?

"Too naive" concerning what purpose? The effort to destroy "bad people" (the murdering, which is eventually ALL people) or the effort to save "all people"?

Eventually ALL people get destroyed because eventually in the concern of efficiency, ALL people are bad. Humanity itself and in fact all organic life is "bad" with respect to absolute efficiency in maintaining "the social order".

So back to my question;

If you had one kingdom all about how to destroy people and another all about how to save people, both with risky weapons to suit their agenda, which kingdom would you want to be standing closer to?

It isn't exactly a "who's side are you on" type of question, but rather a "which one would you rather suffer from by being closest to the necessary risks involved?

[Arminius]

"My kingdom is not of this world."

Okay, I'm on your side, James. Which side is it?

[James S Saint]

"My kingdom is not of this world."

I'm on your side, James. Which side is it?

I prefer to stand closer to the side that takes the risk of trying to save someone and perhaps not succeeding, rather than the side of those trying to destroy someone and taking the risk that it was the wrong someone.

"They" are always going to screw up. So err on the side of minimum risk.

The "right side" is the side that uses machines only for the purpose of trying to save EACH and EVERY life. The "wrong side" is the side that tries to use machines for the purpose of destroying "the bad people". The wrong side has a greater risk in two ways; it has to first accurately choose "good" from "bad" but also compounding the risk, choose who to certainly kill rather than possibly save. Killing is easier, thus easier to ensure your mistake.

The choice really shouldn't be hard for an intelligent person, but then that tells you something about the intelligence of homosapian.

[Arminius]

Yeah. But nevertheless: the "policy of deterrence" and the "policy of cuddling" can be successfully used by both sides, and in the case of mass murder the death penalty has to be a very valid law, even then, if all human beings are bad and accomplices of the mass murders, so that all laws are merely a formality and the anarchy an everyday occurrence.

In the long run the real libertarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real egalitarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real synthesis of libertarianism and egalitarianism is anarchy, but called humanitarianism.

But you will get the anarchy sooner, if there is no "policy of deterrence" at all.

[James S Saint]

Yeah. But nevertheless: the "policy of deterrence" and the "policy of cuddling" can be successfully used by both sides, and in the case of mass murder the death penalty has to be a very valid law, even then, if all human beings are bad and accomplices of the mass murders, so that all laws are a formality.

The death penalty is irrelevant to those who believe they are not going to be caught (which is most of them).

Fear scatters.
Hope gathers.

If you represent the fearful judge, you scatter people away from you as they try to hide from merely the suspicion that you might judge them in err. You become the inspiration for chaos, disharmony, and thus the inspiration for people to fight for themselves by their own wits and deceptions. You inspire the "darkness". And from that darkness comes the need to have machines that pierce the darkness to not merely see into it, but also to prejudge what they suspect for sake of efficiency because there is so much of it. You inspire the end of homosapian.

On the other hand, if you represent the hopeful saving, you gather people toward you as they try to expose their true needs, not hiding, but revealing through the hope that you might be able to help and won't do harm if you can avoid it. They honor you and hope for your success. They defend you even when you aren't looking. They "love" you (assuming they believed you in the first place).

And from that gathering, when you say that "we need ... whatever", they want to help and thus comply rather than try to cheat and get around the request. The efficiency is much greater and thus the power to accomplish is much greater. And the need for machines is much less.

Punishment brings machines replacing all of mankind.

Conversion brings machines aiding to the eternal existence of mankind.

I prefer that second thing. Call me "old-fashion".


And believe me, you very seriously don't want one of my kind judging you in condemnation rather than assessing you for salvation.