Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Ah, so programming feelings into thinking machines? ergo, artificial consciousness… or even someone’s real consciousness being uploaded, uh oh!

But that doesn’t mean that machines will one day rule us and take over, but I can understand the thinking behind it seemingly being able to become so.

Yes the old thesis. The Theatrical thesis OS a preamble to the Faustian anti thesis, which came before the antichrist, before the previous Enlightenment , which was a kind of preamble to the New Enlightenment of pure consciousness

One can not dismiss of the diminution of him an memory without a reminder of the noetic claim to a preference, to a Thetic fabricatire, that memory just doesen’t go poof without creating almost invisible signs that can connect among some faithfully reverant.

In fact just like the monks of the middle ages some strive to retain these relevant connections.

So in the event that the truly earnestly mad hold on against the real, the substantive anti thetic, remember most will let this fly by. Course they could hardly be blamed for the coming battle between Cyborgs and machines, they will, by human -Theistic Deus ex Machina , hold the upper hand.

ref: Michael Foucault

Orwell studied totalitarianism, especially communism, also in terms of forgetting. He did not yet know the technical possibilities that exist today, but he was already betting that people’s memory would be taken away by communism, which he himself experienced at times (he was temporarily a communist himself).

As for the criticism of modern technology, let us recall Heidegger:

“Only a God can save us.” - Martin Heidegger.

“The humans will only be used in the way they are needed.” - Martin Heidegger.

So, if they will not be needed at all anymore, then … (see above).

Are you sure?

See how willingly more than 90% of all humans on this planet do what they are told to do from above, and fight, insult, physically attack, and in some cases even demand the death of the less than 10% of all humans on this planet.

But also think of the possibility that even though the machines are about to replace the humans, the humans will fight back and start replacing the machines. :smiley:

Making humans small, sick, forgetful and weak, but also spoiled, in any case helpless in an autistic sense and without reference to space and time (think of dementia, forgetting time and therefore also forgetting history) is part of the agenda.

Work is no longer valued as highly as it was in earlier times, which is especially for wage work, because machines work for free.

Scramble old priorities so that new priorities can be established.

Machines cost money to make, run and maintain.
They are not cheaper.
Machines work for humans.
If the number of humans declines, so do machines.
Machines’ efficiency relies on econmies of scale. Unless you can manufacture large numbers of machines they are prohibitively expensive. Typically the first machine made on a production line can be a million times as expensive and mass produced ones. If the number of humans declines, then the demand for machines falls below practical costs.
What would be the point of a million trains running if there were no humans to travel on them?

Troll. You are as dumb as a stump, thick as a brick.

Not trains are, but only the lovomotive (engine) of each train is a machine. And how much does even a personal computer cost? You have no idea about that either. Machines, not people, make machines. More and more human jobs have disappeared. What about the robots that are now even used in the care sector? What about artificial intelligence in general? Etc. etc. … No humans are needed, only machines are needed.

Once again you don’t know what you are talking about.

The premise of Arminius’ claim that machines are cheaper where people work and they can replace them is the observation that people are being replaced by machines. So it is the observation-based fact (i.e., something you obviously have no idea about) that machines have replaced humans and are still replacing humans that has led him to say that machines are cheaper than humans, because if they were not, they would not be replaced by machines, and if they were not replaced by machine, they would not be cheaper than humans.

We can still see machines replacing humans every day and more and more, so Arminius asked the future-oriented question of whether machines will replace all humans. This is really not difficult to understand.

Troll, go play somewhere else!

There are machines as there are human beings is a duplicitous argument that ever was.

The history of machines has, ans is continually narrowing the gap. We just keep talking in terms which dies not accord substance to this, well diversionary tactic.

We diverse because it simply is uncomfortable to fill the gaps that exist between an understandable continuum between then. Projectively, thie desired outcome does not expect the interveneeing variables that ade oresent, since it was not the sought after goal of the very first machine inventions.

The machine men, of the future, with their expanding roles, awereness and autonomy, including self replication, were not present constitutionally, as did men foresaw that possibility.

Here, the matter of defining what remains of ‘humanness’ is the most pressing importance. At what point can the human production convert to purely non human means?
Or, conversely, can it futuristically predicted that humanness, in the ideologically conceptual sense alone, at some point become an isolated machine production, apart, isolated from the phisycal and sociatal aspects?

These are theoretical considerations, which may even be changed as we speak , due to retro casual temporally inversive considerations.

These are some of the most important questions here, yes.

And: Will man be able to be a man at all in the future? To answer this question, one only has to observe well and draw the right conclusions from the observation. One of the conclusions is that man should become a machine, because it has been noticed that man as he is biolgically will no longer be usable. This is to be recognized already now. Another conclusion is that, because opponents of this development will be simply murdered, a political movement against it will turn the tables and will be successful with the assertion of the old values.

So all this has to become political in order to be successful. Otherwise, the technical and economic interests will win.

It can be said that machines even work for free, because they do not demand wages, social security, pensions, increases of all that, and never take sick leave. It is always worthwhile to buy machines even if they are relatively expensive to purchase. Humans cannot compete with machines in the long run.

Still need people to power the Matrix goo pods.

And they are owned. They can be taken off line for a while with very little expense or even rented out - profit without problems.

There’s a video, of two robots that started talking to each other in computer language/machine code…

that was staged/fake!

Of course.

Have you seen those military drone swarms that coordinate with each other to avoid obstacles and attack a target? If that isn’t intelligence creatively thinking on its own - I don’t know what is.

  • How long before an army of androids do the same?
  • How tempting would it be to instruct the androids to continue the fight even if their masters were killed?
  • How long before the androids were all that was left?
  • After a win, how long before the new highest priority was simply to continue surviving?
  • Why would there be a continued need for homosapians?

you know what you must do, 524

  • not even going to look at it. :smiley:

That’s too bad because it’s a link to a treatise on affectance-ontosocialism written by James S. Saint in 2011… which he presented at the G7 summit meeting of that year.

Oh well… guess you dont want to see it. I’ll change the link then.