The Value of Money

Ah yes, well if we succeed then indeed i think machines will replace human beings in the workplace and wherever we want them to do the shit we don’t want to [most jobs].

That’s not the same as ‘completely’ replace humans though.

Perhaps we will find a way to transpose our consciousness into a better vehicle, but is that replacing humans or replacing our bodies/brains?

You mean this:

That’s right.



Yes but without the emotions and angst that image suggests. If people want to work e.g. In service to others, they may do it because they like doing it and being around people. In short, humans will have the choice.

Why will humans get the choice?.. Because long before we have AI, we will have ultra light robots composed of an empty ‘skin’ or shell of nano-machine-cells, WITHOUT AI! Humanity doesn’t want robots that you can program with a mobile phone app e.g. To go kill someone or steal etc. So we must create chips which are physically impossible to program in such ways; the physical logic paths of the chips or artificial neurons would be configured [some gates locked open & some closed] such that certain operations are locked e.g. Firing a gun, taking a marked item.

How about the black market created by the evil genius? Descartes predicted it

I don’t know that prediction, please expand. I infer that an ‘antiseptically clean future’ is not what it sees [or wants?].

That would only be possible if we don’t control the creation of the hardware and maybe software too, in which case chaos will ensue. On the other hand, given that your mobile phones already give out an id, killing someone with a robot would leave a calling card. It’s likely that criminals will find a way to use other peoples robots to commit crime, and such things are the reason why things will have to change.

The problem of duality is behind doubt, Descartes doubted everything other then the fact that he was absolutely certain of,mind that is that he is a thinking being. he based this in the assumption, that perhaps,met here is some evil genius, who created a world, where, everything around one, is perhaps nothing but chimera. but regardless, he could not create a world , where, he could deceive men into thinking, that their own thoughts were not real. the sense that thought is absolutely certain, coincides with the ontological proof of God, and the subsequent cosmological, because if God exists absolutely, and he is an all perfect being, then it would take an evil Genius to try to argue that God Would create an imperfect world, where men could not believe in
him,-God-by deceiving men to think, that God would create men who did not think of their thought that God was perfect. So doubt was created, and evil was behind doubt. God-men retained their original premise, in the inherent goodness of God-thought-Man.

But here what is significant, to claim this, is to set in duality as a modum operans, and what the death of god represents, is this very notion of de differentiating one from the other, and the demigod reoccurs as a being both good and evil, with the only way to re present its being , by exercising his will to reseed it’s being, into the vacuousness, the nothingness of his new belief. Only a few can really embrace a nihilism so stark and naked, and be able to deal with the nakedness into which they were thrown, to create or seed such a being, without belief in the coming genitive sense. it comes to behoove a total reliance on the Natural processes of a de differentiated hell, out of which only Kierkegaard was wise enough to attempt to leave out of. he was talking about the regressed and ontologically primitive duality become nuanced with the natural processes. here is where we are today. In crisis, despair, and existential angst.

thanks for detailed reply.

Did he doubt if there was a time prior to the existence of him as a thinking being? If sure of that you must assume;

A, that the thinking being came into existence without there being the property of thought/thinking/being/consciousness/existence, prior to it.

B, or/ it came into being as a product or otherwise result of a world prior to it.

‘A’ doesn’t make any sense, so ‘b’ should be the natural outcome. In which case ‘Descartes the thinking being’ is in a relationship with its preceding world [is mind, following something else which is mind].
Can we not call this reasonably a relationship come connection and correlation between the two parties? If not we have to give an integer of cardinality denoting what the specific duality is.

Does he give any reasoning for such a leap? As my above sentiment, does he mean that there is a previous mental world to his/our existence? [ergo god] If so why did he draw the opposite conclusion to my reasoning; why did he think our thoughts don’t connect with the external world? Which means the world is certain and his original notion is false by his own account. This dude seems logically inconsistent or is it me.

If i may, in terms of mind/thought, i wonder how you get singularity [God] rather than as where i always end up with the [divine [pure balanced formless transparent thought]] infinite and non cardinal ~ i assume singularity is or has cardinality by its very nature? This is fundamental problem needed to be resolved prior to otherwise ‘believing’ there to be God as singularity of mind. For me is confused/ill-conceived?
When we see past this, then evil genius is not required. You just need infinity which manifests its opposite [perhaps because it is unlimited] in the cardinal, and when that occurs it goes boom with cardinality because its dualistic nature of dividing and continuing to divide thence forth exponentially. We then simply have a world with an infinite basis, no need for gods nor evil geniuses.

Angst [as to the latter part of your post] is a product of ignorance, or an inability to do anything about our situation [also ignorance]. Forming a belief system/philosophical-worldview from that is possibly also ignorance?


That image suggests sadness but not angst.

Humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive!

This thread is about the value of money, and i.e. “too expensive” means that more money is needed for paying, whereby the value of money changes, if no other measures are taken.

The chap being dismissed by the robots appears anxious and shocked to me = impression of angst. It could be subjective of course?

What is expense when you can produce any product with a 3D carbon printer and food printers of the near future? I can foresee potential problems with limits, but i think humans should be paid for in perpetuity ~ namely because there needs to be a reason not to do that? and one which humans agree on, given that neither humans nor robots should have the upper hand/say over things.

In my example, I was not speaking about “any product” but about humans themselves, although they are also products.

I wosh I had a computer, not just a pad, so that imcould attempt a point by point analysis. Aristoteles’De Anima’ played a successive sequence through Saint Augustine, to define reason as God, or an image of God. There need no correlation between the two, between essence, existence and being, since these were singular ideas equivocated on the level of identity. The difference began to be seen by Descartes time, as his meditations reflect this growing doubt over the identity of God’s tripartite nature. Descartes does not leap he, merely reaffirms a ground from which, doubt of reason could be supported. Cardinality and singularity as God’s attributes, served well the time of his own thoughts, and the trinity became an schoolgirl foundation into the rising protestations which seemed to inpinge within an arising doubt. that doubt became associated with evil, and evil seen as a threat to God’s reason, is convincingly minimized by St. Anselm, who equivocated a reasonable existence of God by the very power of reason given to him by the God, through the spirit, or the soul. it is a time of at ept at reintegrating schism, and as such, it’s based on devolved sense of essence, being, and existence, whose roots are classically oriented.

Humans should be paid in perpetuity, in spite of foreseeable limits, and some kind of harmony, post existential, rather then pre existent, SHOULD be put in place, because it’s reasonable?

This observation, followed by a question mark, casts doubt, the same kind of doubt in postmodern clothes, which Descartes originally posed. is the evil genius really put away, done with, with all reasonables, as has been suggested above? The question mark is very telling, that it has not been put to rest. it is not very reasonable to assume, that the ,limits will totally devalue and inflate money to the point, where human beings will only be worth a couple of bucks, the money that could be procured from selling the chemicals which compose the human body, which is mostly water.

There will be things with no expense [printable], but there will still be things with worth. There are only so many cottages by the river, works of art and skills, these things will always have greater value to those desiring them. I expect things which have value will go up in price, because people wont be using their money to buy generic products and foods. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is far more money in the future than presently.

Those things which have ‘irreplaceable value’ are valued by humans, their value is what we think they have. Surely this means that to a robot/AI nothing has value, hence it would not see human survival as an ‘expense’.

A logical robot/AI would see this as reasonable as i see it. Things only have worth because we think they do, an AI only exists because we give them value, such to build them and use resources for that.

Humans designed and design machines, and machines were and are better, less emotional, less egoistic, … and cheaper than humans. Humans gave and give them value. Humans did, do and will commit a fault. Machines also konw (because they have learned it from the humans) that machines are better, less emotional, less egoistic, … and cheaper than humans. And at the end of this process the humans will be replaced. I estimate that this probability is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).

Machines perform simple tasks ‘better’, and an intelligent AI would surely see that as equally their limit!

What humans are; if AI had built all the machines man has including AI bots, it would naturally see that and all its other achievements as something more than any particular aspect of the equation. If AI is to be truly better, it would need to be better at art, poetry, music, physics, inventing etc.

My first challenge to AI

Write and perform a better LP than dark side of the moon! [of its genre]

Then invent a new genre equally special and peculiar ~ because how are you going to do that if you have no ‘chaos element’? A logical reasoned computer wouldn’t have an edge nor a deviant-like nature. So AI would surely give itself randomisers, it would notice that e.g. two teams of robot footballers would cancel out one another patterns of movement. A devious human would think of something random to break all that up, and it would do that in each instance.

Your turn; how is AI ‘better’ than human intelligence?!!! :slight_smile:


I don’t know whether you are of the opinion that I said that “machines are better than humans” - I never said that, but now I say: machines can many things better than humans - otherwise there would be no single machine.

Do you know any current human being who is able to build a gothic cathedral without machines? There is no one. Humans are not able to do things what humans of the past were able to do. Humans have been making themselves dependent of machines. And we can alraedy foresee that they will be not able to produce music without machines.

it is just a sad story that humans have been destroying themselves in this way.

The main point is - like I often said in my first machine thread - that machines do not have the negative aspects that human beings have, especially when it comes to work effectively, economically, thus in a profitable and frictionless way.

Hence I posted the following image (amongst aothers) several times:

Except when it comes to design. that machines can not yet do, absolutely. the aesthetic qualities built into the Cologne cathedral for one, may not as yet be duplicated by machines, well pardon, that’s not quite right. machines can duplicate but not yet originate. there is no machine artist yet, and probably never will be, unless a cyborg with that kind of capacity evolves, if, and that is a big if, if humanity survives the coming cataclysm. I am very optimistic it will, but machines have to be put into their place, they have to learn a dear lesson we have not quite mastered, that Al’s need to be checked for imperfections of character.

My text and even the picture in my last post are not meant pessimistically. I think pessimism and optimism have nothing to do with this theme. We only have to see what happens and consequently extrapolate what will probably happen in the future. Additionally, most human beings will probably not notice their extinction.

pessimism and optimism have something’s to do with this. In fact the whole idea behind the ancient digress between Aristotle and Plato forbears this difference. two strains of thought and then skip to the future w and zam. Scopenhauer and Nietzche.
Overcoming the depressive thought of letting go of the Romantic Period. The Romance has been sustained as do fairy tale illustrations of a long past
world of castles, heroe Knights, and magic. what has
happened is that machines have taken the place of magic, but a too real magic, leaving not much to the imagination. We have overcome this to a degree, but
the casualties are enormous. And led us into a
nihilistic blind alley , which has to be, now, replaced by machine thinking, in place of magical thinking. the ultimate question is , can an absolute Merlin machine be developed say in a few generations, to save us from the abyss? This will surely be a hybrid of some kind, this is probably possible and not too far in the future, either.

The Romantic period had nothing to do with depression. Depression is merely your interpretation. The Romantic period was a different period to the period of today. Now we have to “judge” anything and everything “optimistically” - it is like it was and is in all communistic and other socialistic societies. The period of Romantic was very much different to what happened after it. I do not want a commanded pessimism or a commanded optimism (besides: pessimism and optimism are convertible) or any other kind of depression of communistic and other socialistic societies. The Romantic period has very much to do with irony and also self-irony. Don’t confuse your situation with the situation of the people during the Romantic period.