Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Would you mind describing the „world of pure joyous harmony“ between humans and machines?

If i may interject for a moment Arminus, and forgive Zinnat, i think we are getting to the crux of this argument. The Black Hole, or holes, are certain keys of some type. It is arguable whether the holes or life are the stronger force, on a teleological or an ontological level. I say let’s do both.
Vygotsky and Piaget have a very diametrically opposed view of autism. Piaget argues that internal (solopsistic) speech precedes audible ‘public utterance’ (George Steiner, On Difficulty)
Vygotsky proposes otherwise. He proposes that internal language is a ‘late borrowing from external discourse’. The final word between these two views is still out, so actually there is no ‘solution’ to whether one or the other is the correct view.

What does this have with the larger , posed question at hand? If Vygotsy may be proved to be the correct view, it has enormous implication toward clarifying not only the very broad questions posed by the forum, but tangential questions such as cited above. Solipsism, if interpreted in the light of an evolving relationship if stretched to it’s teleological limit, could reduce the problem of the black hole/evolving life differentiation as simply a dynamic relationship in re, where one has no distinct polarity from the other. Various physical interpretations of black holes have already been shown to cast doubt of previous thoughts, namely that black holes impinge on all matter getting into it’s range of influence, or that they are actual cosmological ‘things’ in the traditional astronomical sense. These have all been debunked in favor of describing them as sort of giant transformers, where they at certain energy levels throw back converted mass-energy. There is a sort of giant cosmic relationship going on , and the black hole seems to have shifted it’s ontological meaning on basis of it’s function. This function has like all cosmological elements , relatedness as it’s primary teleological focus, they are related to the light and dark forces as some sort of intermediary.

There is no positing of either life, nor the darkness, and darkness is not a constant maker. It evolves, in an eternal hybrid between the relational two, where there never is a pure either/or, of either. Where there is one, there is another. In the primordial form they are perhaps undifferentiated, and as life forms and evolves out of it, the teleological differentiation separates them.

Like i indicated earlier to James, , i really think that the either/or problem has never been a problem, it’s a phase in human development, where the understanding separates the two, but is yet not able to make a third. Cosmology and ontology are separately thought entities, and have not yet been unified. Now i know that it is very early to declare that a unified field theory has been successfully arrived at on basis of inadequate information, however it seems very likely that the cosmic egg idea will win out.

As far as men and machines are concerned, if the relational aspect is stressed, than the self fulfilling , sought after harmony will no longer be a problem to be solved, but a work in progress.
At that point, concerns about an evil machine taking over, will no longer be a concern, and machines will not allow themselves to completely replace human beings, because they will realize that they need human beings, if they are to survive. The cyborg, men, and robots, will concurrently work toward a common cause, realizing their essential co=dependence.

As an addendum , to achieve unification, correlations, bridges have to be built, quantum connections, between the ontological and the teleological. These bridges already exist, of course, but it is the unveiling of them, which is difficult. The difficulty is astronomically high, and science is progressing on a sharply parabolic tangent , as if instituting the likewise parallel growth of severely increasing entropy. It’s like playing catch up, and here one, then the other is ahead, by quantum existential jumps. In the end, they both finish at the very same instant, because they were always identical spheres .

Cyborgs or androids will have no dependency on homosapian, nor on any organic life.

…and a “black-hole” is merely a “mega-particle”, nothing more.

Obe,

As you know that i am not well versed with conventional philosophy and philosophers, i am not aware of these two gentlemen, thus unable to comment on them.

[b]My simple assertion is that everything starts from feeling/sensation. It is the root cause and nothing can happen without that. If one does not have the feeling capacity within, how can he ever emulate anything from the outside?

And, our invented languages reside outside, not inside. Thus, there must be some a priori system/language placed in the mind to learn those. That a priori system is the primary language of the mind. And, we all know that is our sensing capacity.
Any evolvement/emulation come later[/b].

I do not see any confusion or complication in that.

Obe, why do you not have a look at this -
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=186176

Perhaps, you will find something to comment upon.

with love,
sanjay

 Dependency on human beings no, James, but a high level realization of the alpha and omega, as a survival function?  Perhaps?  Definitely?  I would guess the latter.  The ethical formula has yet to be distilled.
Sanjay, Wygotski claims exactly, that language is 'outside', , whereas Piaget does claim the opposite, that it is a-priori?  So, So, You are taking contradictory positions, unwittingly but wisely. That is exactly my point and (Kant's)  How are a priori-synthetic propositions possible?  You are a Kantian!

Wygotski is (partly) wrong, Piaget is (partly) wrong. Do you agree to that statement, Obe?

 They are neither right or wrong.  They are only trying to define a a conceptual schema, while it is a relation they are seeking.  A relation which as of yet is beyond definition. I have just come upon a book i had stored in my garage for years, and recently i had a visitor, to whom i wanted give away some of my books.  Came upon Piaget's ' The Child's Conception of Time' I have started a re read, for i have no recollection of any of it, yet i am sure to find some very keen insight and relevance there. The whole thing can be distilled from the last part of his conclusion, :

       'Operations in psychological time would therefore seem to be mainly of a qualitative kind.  Does this mean that there is no such thing as quantitative inner time? Bergson borrowed most of his imagery from music and, whenever this master of introspection wished to show that creative duration involved irreducibly intuitive and anti-rational factors, he did so in terms of melody, rhythm and symphony. But what else is music then an inner type of mathematics?  Long before Pythagoras discovered the numerical ratios which determine the principal musical intervals, ancient shepherds, singing their songs or playing an air on their pipes, busily constructed musical scales and realized,without being able to put it into so many words, that a minimum equals two crotchets and a crotchet equals two quavers. Musical rhythm is, in fact, the most intuitive of all time measurements and is most certainly not imposed from outside.  .......  .....
 
 All this points to the common nature of temporal operations in all spheres, and to the close relationship between psychological and physical time..........'

 Holderlin says, speech, as distinct from mere noise, can only exist, 'wenn die Stille kehrt.'  For him, homecoming to internal roots implicates the 'intricate equilibrium between utterance and the unsaid'. 

   The Umnachtung,m or mental derangement, to which Holderlin succumbed. -or took upon himself (Sterner, On Difficulty) - the aetological classifications being in such a case wholly naive (childlike), is relevant, no doubt. But, in what way?'


 For Wygotsky, speech is not an interiorization of extemporaneous thought, for him it is a process, 'where, words die, as they bring forth thought.  It is thinking in pure meanings.  "It is a dynamic , shifting, unstable thing, fluttering between word and thought.'

 I retract my earlier argument with Zinnat, and withdraw from the purely positivist  approach of no thought without words, since the changes which are inherent between usages are shared by both psychologists. But then, what is the nature of a wordless thought?  Is it the many shades of grey between the the literal and figurative, between the qualitative and quantitative?  Are these the mere products of immediate exposures to phonemes instantly connected and abandoned to phenomena?  this may be it.

Are humans already machines to begin with?

I take a child and program his or her brain, from an early age, through preschool to college. I am the teacher and professor. I can fill this child’s head full of truth or lies. Does anybody care? Does the child have a defense? Or won’t the child take to my programming without doubt? What if I am most trusted and the position of highest authority? What if the child is loyal to my truth, or my lies? What if I program a computer? What’s the difference between programming a human, using human language, and programming a computer, using computer language? Is human language any different than computer language? It’s all electrons, isn’t it? What is the nature of information?

How should children be programmed?
How should computers be programmed?
What’s the difference, if any?
Aren’t humans already machines to begin with?

Both Wygotski and Piaget claim to speak about something that nobody knows what it actually is: psychology (see also here).

 All hypothesis are delusive to a certain extent, they are intuitive encapsulations of gross unrealized substratum of knowledge.  They elude clarification , and co-exist with fleeting illusions, of prescribed artistic illustrations, before they can be subjected to mathematical, physical and semantic tests. The psyche, is a term often use to describe some thing, event, occurrence, a hypothetical construct,   that has no existence apart from the need to bridge the void created by the very act of invention, creation, and definition.  It is the creative force, which knows, but needs to unveil the intricate subterranean chambers of it's constitution.  It is not a persona, it is an urge.

Of course: human language and computer language are different.

Incorrect, computer hardware converts electronic impulses into computer language, nearly exactly, or completely exactly, to how the human brain also converts perception into sense data, through the bio electrical impulses of the human brain.

The brain acts as a CPU.

 Not only that, both, the human mind and the computer function on  similar schema, of dia-logue. Pairs of yes/no schema tied together in intricate accept/reject flows, where the flow chosen is the most situationally appropriate , most probable both qualitatively and quantitatively.

There maybe thousands or even tens of thousands of possible flows from which to choose from, on a changing matrix of possibility .

That’s no argument that these two languages ​​are the same. :slight_smile:

Please notice that I’m not saying that this two languages have no common ground(s), but I am saying that they are just not the same.

That’s right, and (not only therefore) they are wrong.

Hi, Arminius, opposites are not right or wrong, they are simply opposites. they may synch. And i am sure on some level they do. We are just not there, yet.

Hi, Obe, opposites are indeed “simply opposites”, but each of them can be wrong anyway.

i would like to leave it at that, but the problem with Your last statement here, is that currently, the above cited 2 views are the leading contenders for the ‘right’ approach. So, although they may be right/wrong as any theoretical viewpoint, so far they both have workable constructs, and leading child psychologists are using them in working with children. Psychology today is one of multi phasic approach where it is not a question of the right or wrong approach, rather, it is trying differing approaches and see which merits the best result