Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?

Personally, I think that it’s very unlikely that humans will be entirely replaced by machines. In order for machines to do that, they’d probably have to be conscious, self-willed, purposeful entities like ourselves. Consciousness is (to put it mildly) poorly understand; my own view is that it’s linked to the self-organizing properties of life. In this analysis, a conscious machine would look an awful lot like an artificial organism, and might well not count as a machine at all.

What seems much more plausible is some kind of post-humanism. That is: humans as they are now will be replaced (wholly or partly) by entities that are partly biological human and partly machine, with the biological part being substantially genetically engineered. Such entities wouldn’t be machines, but they wouldn’t be humans in any meaningful sense either- they wouldn’t think like humans, and if they looked like humans it would be because they were designed that way rather than through necessity.

Yes, that is one of the possibilities wih a high probability. The other is that the machines will do it. I estimate that the probability that machines will completely replace all humans is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

The real reason for the difference, is, that the former poll asked a logically determinative question, a yes/no type, where the binary system predominated.

In the current poll, it is based on an inductive type of logic, because as soon as you put a question in terms of ‘how likely is something to occur’, then probability functions set the stage for evaluation. In this type of inquiery, the range will include far more variables such as brought up by including hybrids of many kinds, perhaps even cyborgs into the equation. There will be lower numbers caused by the number of possibilities being higher, and spread out on a more extended matrix. The number of people viewing them also effects the difference, but, that may also be due to the attraction to the difference in titles.

I wrote: “the question ‘Will machines completely replace all human beings?’ is not like the question ‘Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?’.Both questions are yes/no types. The first question refers to a possibility or probability in the future (“will …”), and the second question refers to a possibility in general (“is it possible that …”), thus accentuates the possibility.

You probably should have worded that as;
“Is it possible for machines to replace all of human?”

I did and do not want to ask whether it possible for machines to replace all of human, because that is already a specific question. I wanted and want the question to be a general one. If I had asked more specifically, then the answers would also be more specifically, and that was not what I intended with my question.

If machines will have taken over, then the answer to the question why it was possible that machines completely replaced all humans will not only be “it was because of the (ability of the) machines” but also and mainly “it was because of the (ability or/and unability of the) humans”.

Perhaps the fololwing pictures can illustrate what is meant:

[size=170]Friendly (?):[/size]

Humans need not apply …:


From nother thread:

1.) Humans have been having enough time for it for so long (see above) and have been being decadent for so long.
2.) Many (probably all possible) things came, come and will come together in that case.
.__ So the machine replaced the rest, replace the little rest, and will replace the very little rest of human arts.