Will machines completely replace all human beings?

If you had read more of my my posts, then you would have known that I don’t ignore your posts. Even in my last post I mentioned that I porbably also don’t want to be replaced by machines. So why are you crying so much?

What you are saying in your last post is no counter argument because that is what I have been saying for about 40 years (cp.: you are 25 years old - according to ILP viewing profile).

Please don’t confuse ideality with reality!

Your pseudonym is “Fuse”. And your real name? “Confuse”? Your “logical truth” is “disagreeing” or “reversing” the logical truth which is accepted - as logical truth, not as wish, desire, hope …, and os on - by at least 80%. One can always disagree - that’s no mighty deed. So: If you say “Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will NOT replace a worker that is more expensive” or “NO worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive”, then you have to argue in that way, but you can merely argue in that way, if you deny the logical truth of the 80 or probably more percent. Because: the fact that nearly all machines are cheaper than human beings is accepted by at least 80 or probably more percent.

Your so called “counter examples” are no counter examples to my examples because they are integrated in my examples, and as I denoted in my last post: I don’t want to be replaced by machines as well as you. But that are our opinions - not more.

You didn’t refute anything.

Your “logical truth” is at the utmost a “10-20%-truth”. So what about the “80-90% truth”? Who ignores? Who confuses? Don’t confuse, Fuse!

From my philosophy of Logic teacher: The syllogism is invalid because it has four terms. Valid syllogisms have three terms, the two in the conclusion, and the one in both premises.

In its earliest form, defined by Aristoteles, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise [=> 1]) and a specific statement (the minor premise [=> 2), a conclusion (=> 3) is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Sokrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Sokrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form (without sentence-terminating periods):

[url=http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=300#p2466923]1) All M are P
2) All S are M
3) All S are P

  1. All human beings are mortal.
  2. Sokrates is a human being.
  3. Therefore: Sokrates is mortal.[/url]
    The word “therefore” is usually either omitted or replaced by a symbol.

B.t.w.: Where is your nice sig?

Before I opened this thread I had to decide in which philosophical subforum it should be opened:

(A) Subforum „Philosophy“?
(B) Subforum „Science, Technology, and Math“?
(C) Subforum „Society, Government, and Economics“?
One of the main reasons why I decided to open this thread in the philosophical subforum „Philosophy“ was the syllogism and the logical implication, although I knew that on ILP they are not required, not necessary in order to make clear what the title of the thread and of the OP means: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

So when I wrote the syllogism and the logical implication into the OP, I did it nevertheless - and because of my decision for the subforum „Philosophy“.

[size=114]One of my favourite conversations in this thread:[/size]

I compliment Obe.

Here comes the 2nd interim balance sheet:

|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
|_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|

||__ Arminius |__ Dan | Obe |
James S. Saint | Mr. Reasonable | Lev Muishkin |
__ Moreno |_ Fuse | Kriswest |
Amorphos | Esperanto | Mithus |
| Only Humean | Nano-Bug |
|_ Gib | Lizbethrose |
|Uccisore | Cassie |
Zinnat (Sanjay) | Tyler Durdon |
|____|__ Eric The Pipe __|

|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]4[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] _| [size=150]9[/size] ______|

There is a difference between this 2nd and the 1st balance sheet (=> #).

The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision.

And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn’t “the implication”, but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, “it seems like things point in this conclusion”. An exact implication means, “because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true”.

The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; “Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?”, “Are machines really cheaper than people?”, “Might it all occur by accident?”, “Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?”, “Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?”…

Yes. With the utmost probability that has been being or will be the development. I think so, and I do not really appreciate this development.

Especially the last of your given examples is the question I am very much interested in. I would add this question, if people are not damn dumb enough: „Are people just damn decadent that they will die out and leave it all to machines?“ The question whether people are intelligent and the question how intelligent people are depend on both objective facts and subjective facts. The more the objectively estimated or measured intelligence sinks the more the subjectively estimated intelligence rises. If the level of intelligence sinks, then the people in decadent societies do not necessarily change their estimation. So the consequence is that they overestimate their intelligence, and their subjective overestimation is not anymore corrected by obejective estimation or measure because the level has sunken. This vicious circle is very fatal.

Will those people or even all human beings never awake from an „age of sleep“ (James S. Saint), which has been coming or will come?

There may be another scenario? The age of sleep, or just sleep for that matter, instead of causing a vicious cycle, may become a conscious disconnect, with no further effects of meltdown. If there is consciousness to it, the estimation, would, as admittedly remaining constant, have some effect on disproportionate or overestimated intelligence. Another thing is, the abnormal intelligence, itself, may be the effect of sinking general intelligence. It may be a natural process of a compensatory effect to sinking awareness.

If at a critical level of the negative feedback a break would occur, then sleep would not be of pleasant dreams, for nightmares would surely come forth. If still, absent these, psychotic episodes will be in alert mode, to signify that social intelligence has diminished.

 The apex of this realization is what makes or breaks social consciousness, making a difference between enhanced or diminished capacity.

Do you see there even a chance for the humans in the „age of sleep“?

While the age of sleep may be unconscious, that period doesn’t figure into awareness, however, there is no temporal gap, until awakening.Sleep is only a state of regeneration, until awakening. Brunhilda was granted her wish of not to be awakened unless for some worthy being. There is no need for men during regeneration, until the worthy one arrives. And then, it’s likely, he never leaves. He doesn’t sleep. Machines are interim products, during sleep, after awakening, there is no need for them. They may turn out to be the keepers.

But will there be a chance for human beings to change or even to turn the development in the opposite direction?

That is why, wisely, You put me in the column marked indeterminable. There is always a chance, granted, however one of the biggest obstacles to it’s realization is the diminishing returns which mankind places on value, whether it be other, or self = valuing. We are at a low point in valuing the very being in which we find our very existence. Until that can be overcome, singularly, it seems we are heading for a period of long sleep.

My estimation: the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don’t take over is about 20%. 80% vs. 20%. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.

If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call “Letzter Mensch” (“Last Man”). This “Last Man” will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

=> #

In fact, our bodies are the most efficient and perfect machines up to date. If our cybernetics evolve anywhere near to our bodies , the cyborgs will be hardly noticeably different. So how do we know at the present time, that our bodies, as we experience them now, are not partly artificial, from a past machine age? We really can’t know this. We might as well be recreations.

It seems to me, sometimes, like people would rather not be here. They are Always focused elsewhere, preferably via digital media. I often would rather they were not here either, especially if they really don’t quite like it here, and so they have to distract themselves from here by looking at pseudo-heres that are off somewhere else. If only this was not merely a kind of fuzzing over of their BEING but in fact a quasi ontological shift away from here - here being this universe/reality. Perhaps they can actually shift out completely.

Cultural, technical, economical, artistic developments always belong together. If people like to be not here, if they are always focussed elsewhere, preferable via digital media, then it seems that a development - for example a technical one - has led them to this behaviour, but this impression is merely partly true because the other developments (cultural, economical, artistic) are connected to this (technical) development. So I think there is no way out for them because their own develeopments depend on those very much connected developments. If you take one development (e.g. a technical) away, then the other developments (e.g. cultural, economical, artistic) bring it back - immediately.

They also can not have a choice in being elsewhere, because of the question of being responsible for themselves now has been offset by insitutionalized requirements. They are beyond the idea that elsewhere is a greener pasture, digitalization has brought the elsewhere here. There truly is no elsewhere, exit.

At least it is very difficult to break out of this mainstream, to be a dropout in a really successful way. Apropos: What about the Amish, the Mennonites …?