You’re behind the times. It’s not a question anymore.
That questions too, can be successfully negotiated, without an either/or situation of all machines or all men. Cyborgs are the creatures of the future, they will really have no burning need to have an internal cogito into their own constitution, as much as now , we are ‘educated’ to disbelieve in the importance of subjective knowledge.
An example is the differential self approbation between seeing ourselves as a product consisting of tubes, organ systems, circulation flows, oxidation processes, etc, versus psychological reactions of sensing all this machinery within, and thereby for the most part ignoring it, (except doctors, perhaps).
Such cyborgs, being of complex duplicities , will as technology improves abilities to gloss over differences between the technical, psychological, and behavioral models within which they can function, will have no incentive to go backward to differentiate, but only to progressively incorporate and integrate the remaining differences.
I think this discrepancy is but a phase, or stage in this development.
The question posed is an interesting one, of whether the human being already having these traits, that perhaps we are already cyborgs in this respect, perhaps suggests the primordial seed of this evolutionary goal, since artificial intelligence, has so far, not successfully demonstrated a total fusion of cognitive function, system, prediction-predictability through auto-feedback and memory.
When and if that critical stage can be attained and surpassed, the question of whether machines will take over or not, will become mute as a historical relic, however the psycho-philosophical notion will de-emphasize to point to the technical process as a basis of a societal acceptance/understanding. When this point may be reached is a good question, but i would think a minimum of a few more generations would be sufficient, to advance the revision to recent memory (since the beyond history concept will effect this shift, enhancing the relative frames of reference within the changing matrixes mentioned)
All kinds of differing man/machine combinations will de-emphasize the differences, and the simulated machine-sex object robotics, (James brought this into the discussion), with varying proportions or real/manufactured components- will be primary to overcome initial resistance, by depreciating societies’ discontents over obvious natural, versus virtual evolutionary differences.
If, and this is a very big if, this stage is reached in the first place.
I seriously doubt that, but what made you think so? Are you claiming that there are no humans on Earth any more already?
You questioned if natural organics would be replaced by machines.
Nanotechnology is already manipulating atomic particles to the point as to create new materials and elements. This would mean that manipulating natural organic material is already possible.
Manipulation is the essence of artifice. God represents the height and limit of art. To manipulate atoms is to manipulate reality. Man is gaining more power than ever before. Man is acquiring divine powers.
The question is whether ALL (“completely”) humans will be replaced, not if any will be. We all know that many have been in very many ways already (just look at the unemployment stats).
More importantly, do you think the probability is at or above 80% that ALL humans will be replaced (extinction of humans).
Most humans will be replaced. The “survivors” will live in natural wilderness reserves, like a zoo or wildlife refuge.
However these “wildlife refuges” will be like modern towns and cities. The amish is one example of a human group who will be preserved for the sake of historical entertainment.
The other 99% of the human specie will either adapt to new environments, or become extinct. Complete eradication or extinction of a specie is actually very rare, or non existent. Consider apes and gorillas, who have not gone extinct. They simply “quit evolving” whereas humans continued to transcend and improve themselves. Evolution is about “improvement”. Evolution is transcendentalism, the ideological, religious faith, that an individual organism can become “more than” it already is.
Evolution is merely the acquisition of greater powers, quality or quantity doesn’t matter.
So I take it that your answer is “no, ALL humans will not be replaced”.
And realize that to a machine, evolution merely means “a better design”. And what constitutes better is typically more efficient. Humans get in the way of efficiency and serve no purpose as far as machines are concerned. So it isn’t actually an analogy to humans vs apes. Machines are much, much smarter and efficient.
A way takes patience and voice recognition. When you feed the little one stay nearby and talk to him or her. Infact use a name for it, repeating it often. Canned cat chow is a good thing, far better than dry at this point. Keep up what you are doing. Patience and projecting love and good intentions in your voice and thoughts are important. Never move fast be very slow. Fast movement scares the crap out of cats. It may take weeks. Best of luck and do not feel bad if it does not work.
Sort of, and without divine intelligence. And we won’t even mention solid intuition and wisdom.
The same minds creating those puffy artificial lips for women will terraform the earth.
Sort of, and without divine intelligence. And we won’t even mention solid intuition and wisdom.
The same idiots, I mean, sorry, minds, creating those puffy artificial lips for women will terraform the earth.
That is the issue right there … “Hubris”.
That are important questions which are answered in this thread. The most (about 80%)members of this forum think that machines are not able to learn empathy, ethics and morals. They are wrong.
The “yes”-sayers are those who answer the question of the topic of this thread (“Will machines completely replace all human beings?”) with “yes” by trend, that means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%. This “yes”-sayers also say “yes” to the question wether machines are able to learn empathy, ethics and morals.
The superior species is the one that does that which more greatly supports/enhances itself, not that which replaces itself with something even greater than itself (I suspect even Nietzsche knew that much). The “final species”, the “Ubermensch” is the one that knows the difference.
If you explain to a man with a drug addiction that it will kill him, does he quit? Very seldom. Technology, creating machines, androids, and cyborgs is an addition to modern day governments. They can’t stop even when they believe that they really need to.
“We should all join together and change the world!” That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward.
The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!
Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can’t stop even when they believe that they really need to.
Yeah, that’s the point. It isn’t up to “them” any more. It is an addiction, out of their control = “technology”. Homosapian ran into a substance of an addiction that killed him, “technological power”.
What is the goal of stoppng change? (some change, change per se, all change?)
What is the goal in staying alive?
A goal could be the protection of nature, or the right and the duty of fair production and reproduction, but as you could and can see: each attempt of stopping change was, is, and will be answered with more change.
A similar question. One answer: The will, the will to power, the will to be accepted or at least respected, … etc., or to reach the anentropic harmony. 
The good thing about anentropic harmony is that once attained, there is neither need nor desire to change from it. Of course, it is a type of changing already, but never away from its essence.
The anentropic harmony is something like a paradise, a paradise for the “last men”.
“Seht! Ich zeige euch den letzten Menschen. Was ist Liebe? Was ist Schöpfung? Was ist Sehnsucht? Was ist Stern? – so fragt der letzte Mensch und blinzelt. Die Erde ist dann klein geworden, und auf ihr hüpft der letzte Mensch, der Alles klein macht. Sein Geschlecht ist unaustilgbar, wie der Erdfloh; der letzte Mensch lebt am längsten. ‘Wir haben das Glück erfunden’ – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.” (Friedrich W. Nietzsche, “Also sprach Zarathustra”, 1. Teil, 1883, S. 13).
Translation:
“Look! I show you the last man. What is love? What is creation? What is desire? What is star? - so asks the last man and blinks. The earth has then become small, and on it the last man jumps, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest. ‘We have discovered the happiness’ - say the last men and blink.” (Friedrich W. Nietzsche, “Thus spoke Zarathustra”, Part 1, 1883, p. 13).