Will machines completely replace all human beings?

The point I was making is that there is a process in place that machines are coming to replace humans, and it will take place if nothing is done about it. I made the assertion about defeatism because it seemed like the consensus was forming that humans would be wiped out and that we could not act to change anything. It then appeared from one of James S’s responses that I was wrong and admitted that I may have been mistaken in my position.

It seems that you are the one who can’t stand someone with a differing perspective so you have to compare me to a communist dictator and call all of my assertions bitching. I can see that no fruitful discussion is taking place with me here, so I will leave.

No. Defintely not because that is the point that we were making! You have understood nothing! You have merely bitched.

Yes and because of bitching and wrongly judging our statements.

That is an amusing teenage attempt to be rhetorical.

The following quoted posts are James S Saint’s last three responses:

Yes, James, he meant his own hubris as an irreverent teenager.

And he is already the defeated because he does not respect what we say (cp. irreverent teenager).

That should have been the reason for me “to compare” you “with a communist dictator and call all of” your “assertions bitching”? No. That’s again your teenage attempt to be rhetorical.

That “fruitful discussion” is not possible with you because you would not change your teenaged communistic dictatorship. In other words: You don’t want that “fruitful discussion”.

Thanks. :slight_smile:

Frankly, I think that I should apologize to AP. Rereading his posts, I think that I can see that he was intending a different perspective than as it first appeared. First he got the wrong impression, then we got the wrong impression. Internet exchanges can be tricky (everyone tends to be overly defensive).

Sorry AP.

If you mean that it’s okay and I appreciate it. It’s all a learning lesson. And in reality when I called you two immature I was just moralizing and actually was sulking. My apologies as well, as I entered the conversation with too much self confidence and an incomplete grasp of the conversation, so now I’ve been showed up to be the goof.

I’ll lay off for Arminius’s sake.

Here again, the discussion strayed between feeling states of optimism/pessimism. These states are merely non categorical by now, and reverting to the basic break of either=trying to sustain in the romantic notion, as it should be,(how many bewailed this loss,), or to die-entangle it by way of de-signifying it, via the gradual relaxing of codes of standards particularly of censures of expression.

Knowing full well, the initial break started with the expression of exasperated logical and inconsequential relationships, between feeling states and actual changes in context and perspective,leaving little room for regrets.

So discussion on this level is fruitless, and see no need to regret anything, the different points of view are on different levels, where no real consensus can be attained.

No. There are other reasons which make that “no real consensus can be attained”, and one of this reasons is the emotional motive, for example expressed in sarcasm. The first sentence of The Artful Pauper in this thread was: “This thread is really defeatist.” It is confusing because of the sarcastic background. His whole post:

Because of the fact that I had a good conversation with him in the “END OF HISTORY” thread I was very much surprised when I read all that sarcastic words. And I think that this sarcasm respectively the motives for that sarcasm are the reason why “no real consensus can be attained” (Obe).

In any case: the “pessimism/optimism” dualism is not the main reason why “no real consensus can be attained” (Obe) because it plays no role in this discussion. The “yes”-sayer are no pessimists, but probably realists, and the “no”-sayers are no optimists, but probably idealists. The words “pessimism” and “opimism” are moreover disqualified (because of too much abuse) when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?.

Moreno, for example, is a “no”-sayer. According to you, Obe, “no real consensus can be attained” between “no”-sayers ans “yes”-sayers, but the truth is that Moreno and some other “no”-sayers can find a consnsus with the “yes”-sayers. Note:
“Yes (by trend)” means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%.
" No (by trend)" means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.

And I very often said that for me the probability that machines replace all humans is about 80% (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and
here); thus the 20% probability that machines will not replace all humans is not low (note: probability calculation!).

The Artful Pauper has not read the whole thread but probably some sentences of it and come to the “decision”: “Defeatist”. And that’s not okay, folks!

Remember our discussion about relating, associating?Consensus was one, synthesis another, and incorporation again another. Are these just mere verbal manipulations, best fitted to be placed in a dusty attic to gather spider webs? No, these concepts are different, they are symbolic of an intention to form some kind of trust, in the meaning of them.

How these concepts evolve is one thing, and may be You would agree that it’s beyond the intent of this forum. Or not? At any rate the differrance, implies, how, one is to look at the outcome of the statistic. The 80-20 split, is apparently credible, but still subject to the interpretive force of the way the machines and human beings are associated. This differance, is at the crux of post nihilistic and pre deconstructionist philosophy, and my point is, and many here and elsewhere seem to agree on this point, that post modern philosophy has not served well, generally, those, who seem unable to go beyond it.(nihilism)

That some people can associate and come to an agreement on basis of consensus, is not based on an adequate ground. I would think, this forum is valuable in many ways, one of which, is by showing, that it is not a done deal, but a work in progress, a learning experience.

As such, we have to agree on whether we mean the same things when we say we are reaching some agreement. I agree with Moreno, that consensus may be reached, and as i recall, he was in the same non committed column as i was. But non commitment, does not require the spelling out of the kind of relationship which combines the elements to be explored.

I learned that Your original presumption as to the synthetic nature of Kant being correctly presupposed by Leibnitz was correct, it was he, who carried this thema into post modernism. I think this ground may yet to be sufficiently understood, but the general outline has been drawn to get the thing going and see if, there needs to be more elaboration.

Where and when did Moreno say that? It was me who said this:

The term “can find a consensus” does not mean “Moreno said that consensus may be reached” because he didn’t, but true is that he can find a consensus.

I merely quoted You for saying he said it, furthering the element of intended trust that is a requirement for such consensus. I trusted You to mean what Moreno meant with the
seemingly different propositions, as fairly well similar.

Please note that I didn’t say that he said that a consensus can be reached, but I said that Moreno and other members of this forum are good examples to show that a consensus can be reached. See the corresponding posts of this thread.

If a consensus can be reached, then it is not necessarily sure that a consensus will always be reached. It depends on many factors.

I appreciate Your looking into the distinction. Carry on!

Thank you, Obe. Carry on! :slight_smile:

I’m sorry, Zinnat, but I don’t think so. You said (for example):

I don’t think that Nietzsche’s texts are difficult to understand - the revers is true: Nietzsche’s texts are easy to understand. Nietzsche said this and that . there are some contradictions in his texts, but they as such are not difficult to understand.

Actually, if You start with the premiss, that Nietzsche, is the ultimate ironist, then everything will fall into place. That no ONE understood that, caused HIS demise, and that of WW2.

Where there is the ability to enslave all of humanity there certainly will be the desire to do just that by groups of people out there.

[size=120]Machines and all those ecological, economic, and demographical problems:[/size]

Reforming democracy is relatively useless, but reforming demography is not useless.

These are my presuppositions:

size=140[/size] Currently there are three main global(istic) problems:list the ecologic problem,
(1.2) the economic problem,
(1.3) the demographic problem.[/list:u]
So, if we really want to solve that three main global(istic) problems, then we can do it only by considerating this three facts:

list the pollution of the environment is a disaster,
(1.2) the wealth is unequally or at least unfair distributed,
(1.3) the offspring is unequally or at least unfair distributed.[/list:u]
size=140 [/size]Currently the politicians are not able to solve that three main problems and produce more and more regulated markets.

size=140[/size] „Free“ markets have not existed anymore since the end of the Stone Age and will not exist until the Stone Age will come back.
The politicians don’t solve but increase the problems. The market allone can’t solve but decrease the problems, if such a market is wanted, allowed.

My solution requires less regulated markets and laws than we have today. A familiy manager is needed for my solution and will be found soon via market, if those bureaucratic laws which currently forbid to have family managers will be eliminated. Many other laws will have to be eliminated as well before the concept of the family management will be successful.

Many people have no time for their children - a family manager would do the job temporarily instead of them. Many people merely have children because the state pays for them - that is criminal, unsocial, thus egoistical, and of course that leads to many more problems which increase exponentially. Many people who want to work, to supply, to carry, to achieve, to accomplish, to afford will be able to have children then, now they can’t, and other many people who don’t want to work will have children too but not more than one per adult (= two per married couple).

The merely one law which is needed for my solution is that which says: „it is not allowed to have less and more than one child per adult“. In view of the fact that many laws will disappear, these two laws are very few. Furthermore, my solution leads to more wealth because the productive can be reproductive again (now they can’t), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.

„Dangerous thinking“ must be allowed on this forum because it is a philosophy forum and no party conference. My solution is a taboo, I know, it is not wanted by the rulers because if practised it will be successful, and that means that the rulers will lose their control and consequently their power. The rulers don’t want other humans, especially intelligent humans, because they are not needed, machines can replace them.

I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all „higher“ living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have both less and more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1,0 and not 1,07 or more (population growth). My solution menas that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.

Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth.

Wait a minute, are you saying that government powers controlling whole robotic armies in the future will not be so nice and caring towards us?


Here’s an interesting related article on ongoing studies into the dangers of superintelligence:
chronicle.com/article/Is-Artific … e-a/148763

Humean, i am kind of beginning to feel very much as if this is the coming scene. Just almost simultaneously, i wrote a piece in the off topic forum,‘daily journal’ of the introduction in Japan of robots , actually placed on homebound students’ desks, and learning through this kind of interaction and memory. Almost at the same time you brought in the super intelligence article. Uncanny and strange. However, the article brings to light concerns of the negative aspects of robotics, corresponding reversely to one of usefulness, and even developing technically feasible empathy, as in the Japanese robotic student, being used in Japanese classrooms.

PS i checked the time of postings, Your’s was posted prior to mine, but i had no way to know about it, therefore if there is a connection, (which to me seems to be the case) it is not as if the two blogs were totally unrelated.

The relationship between a developing, benign system (my ‘good’ robot) with the article’s concern with the risk of developing metastatically dubious super-intelligent systems, as measured by the different rates of change of the systems may parallel a coincidental occurrence of divergence of error as risk. If the question , at all, be asked of concurrence of risk management between two different systems, as a new basis to developed , using extra differential systems to intervene between them, to diminish the risk, can such co-incidences as my posting a very similar post, be some indication of the risks of assuming traditional logic formats coming up in the future?

If so, probability-function data should very much be focused upon as legitimate ,correlates of such variables in risk management of super-intelligence.

Just a thought, but traditional hardware, may reach limits to actually afford , not to involve concepts of simultaneity into the equation. (Here the example is very crude, Your blog predated mine by twenty minutes, but then again i had not read Your blog prior to writing mine.

What’s your point, Laughing Man?