Will machines completely replace all human beings?

It would be silly to only vote on things that I am absolutely certain about.

And just the other day, I caught a glimpse of a TV program called The Talk. It is a seriously feminist racist program apparently repeating how dangerous it is to love males. In that episode, they interviewed a woman cuddling an android and explaining their love relationship.

Of course, at this stage of the game, the hostess must reflect whatever they believe the audience is going to accept and thus didn’t show approval (yet). They will wait until the idea is promoted enough that enough people are insisting on equal marriage rights between women and androids.

People are amazing suckers. And that is why the probability is so very high.

You can’t argue with a racist. Like other religions it tends to put conclusions before the evidence, and only sees evidence in the light of those conclusions.

Who is arguing? Placing hypothesis before conclusion is the usual standard way to go about the business of approximating the most probable course. Usually the two re-enforce each other.

I disagree. You have a recipe for forcing the outcome.
Start with a conclusion and then select evidence to fit - that is a recipe for prejudice and belief, not knowledge.

But although the “argument” has descended into cheap quips about “black” people.
There is nothing more ridiculous than Arminius’ cheap logic at the outset.

What are the machines actually doing? If humans are replaced, then the machines have no function. machines serve humans.
The logic is too simple to be meaningful.

80% - that is what I said (here, here, here, here, here, here) - and say.

“Cheap quips about black people”? There is [size=120]no[/size] cheap quip about black people in this thread. [size=120]Stop insulting me![/size]


I can quote you chapter and verse. You are insulting yourself. Check out your own posts.

Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. If you want this thread to be derailed, then you merely Show that you are the one who insults himself.

Back to the thread:Again:

The TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP is a [size=108]QUESTION[/size]:

[list][list][list][list][list][list][size=108]Will machines completely replace all human beings?[/size][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]
A QUESTION! A question doesn’t have to be justified by a logical implication. I did it anyway because I wanted to give an example for one of the possibilities to answer that question. If one wants to disprove my this answer, then this one can not disprove the question. A question is just a question. If one wants to givae an example for another possibility to answer that question, then this one has to give evidence as well as I have to.

My given logical implication is valid because of the fact that both premises are known - known in that way which is the usaual way of ILP (only very less threads are opened with a logical implication, for eample Gib’s one which is false because he doesn’t satisfie the logical implication truth table. It doesn’t matter, whether a logical implication is simple or not, elsewise all ancient philosophers, especially the excellent logician Aristoteles, could not be designated as philosophers. A counter argument to my argument has to be provided, for example this one: “cheaper will not replace all else”. But has any single member of this forum written such a counter argument in this thread? No! Nobody has done it. Why? There is no one.

The birthrates and fertility rates I have given in one of my posts are known and accepet worldwide. They are facts. The Population of the most african populations have grow exponentially since the last centuries. In the 1940’s they had the population of “x” and in the 1990’s they had the population “10X” - ten times more! Not an african, but a west asiatic example is Iraque: In the 1920’s Iraque had a poulation of 3 millons, 2010 Iraque had a population of 32 millions - more than ten times more! That are no quips, but facts.

When machines replace human beings there are three steps of human behaviour:

1.) they behave as usual (according to their tradition), althuogh machines make alraedy life more pleasant,
2.) they behave both as usual and according to the machines,
3.) they behave according to the the machines.
Between machines and economical welfare is always a close context, but the cultural elements are also important.

Even an auto-racist (the one who hates the own race) can not change this facts because all human beings behave in that way, at least similarly. That behaviour is a developmental (according to both evolution and history) fact.

I’m not derailing anything. I questioned the logic of your first post, and until that is sorted, the thread is nothing more than hot air.

Simplistic logic is no way to ask a question of this complexity. Which, in any event, is not any kind of question that can be answered except in the negative.
There are plenty of logical reasons why the answer is no, but without a crystal ball and access to knowledge of the future you are not in a position to answer in the positive.

Simplistic logic has directly nothing to do with QUESTIONS, in my case: with the question in the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP. One can answer the question and argue. There is no problem at all.

You have no counter argument at all, for example this one: “cheaper will not replace all else”.

Please search for another thread, if you do not like this one. If you want this thread to be derailed, then you merely show that you are the one who insults himself. You are saying that “the thread is nothing more than hot air”, so why you are posting in this thread? Please search for another thread!

Currently this thread has 7300 views and 648 replies. A great thraed, so it’s no problem, if you search for another thread. Good bye!

I refer the poster to the remarks I made above.

As they openly stated at the UN (ref. Rio+5), “Because this is the world that we want.

Excerpt from THE DENVER POST, 21st of May 2010:

No panic, that Isn’t the first sign of the end of the world, is it?

No, “they” are very beloved. You will soon be fond of “them”.

Hear “them” say (again and again):

“Don’t worry about us, we’re just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines.”


[size=150]Bicentennial Man[/size]

Certainly lovable and desperate for your understanding and sympathy.

But easy to disable/disassemble, if they go out of control. Overrides are a sine qua nonto any machine, PLEASE! (as lovable as they are)

Some words to the picture and the adaptation of humans and machines:

The similarity between humans and machines is not random. Look at the picture (again):

“Don’t worry about us, we’re just a large, unstoppable army of friendly machines.” :imp: :evilfun:

Remember that the next time your car, an airplane, or nuclear generating station goes out of control. You can always just disassemble it, so don’t worry. Well, of course in the case of androids, I suspect it would take a secret pass code to stop it from defending itself against hacking into it by the unruly horde of terrorists - You. Are you going to have the password? - No.

No, not me, but there always will be some some “terrorist” who can do a mission impossible and get the code. There are no full proof systems, especially in an “open” society. Even an anarchic disillusioned general, or president can achieve this purpose. All the U.S political assassinations to date attest to this. There simply is not complete compliance, even the author of this OP presents a 20/80 split. That’s far more generous then 95/05. Even a 1% chance must offer hope. I stand fast in the irresoluteness of this issue.

Why do You think that in this late day and age, a North Korean or Syrian madman appears to present such a formidable challenge? Because the behemoth can be severely disabled by the discovery of a very much hidden, yet present achilles heel. Granted Goliath has an extreme monopoly on intelligence, but intelligence is not full proof.

The presentation of this as such, seems to side with David, yet,the alternative of a fallen Goliath, at this stage, presents a rather horrible scenario, much worse than what occurred at the time of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Unbelievable and monstrous anti civilization may betake the world, and all the comfort zones will not offer a shred of sympathetic hearing, except that offered by a hideous and cruel anti christ.

Pray, be it, that the orgiastic phenomenon of the daemon may not prevail. It has happened in key times in the history of the world, and may not, machines in service of evil overcome those of the good. Both , armies of robots of good and evil, may be needed, in the service of humankind, and the apparent notion that it may merely be a struggle consisting of good humans against the evil machines is a misconstrued fallacy.

Finally the thread has been reduced to science fiction where it belongs.

It’s worth pointing out that in none of the above examples - even though they are ridiculous, do machines ever completely replace humans.
Tools are useless without people.

As I said before, I have never said to give up. This is a question pertaining to probability. 1% is not a high probability.

And where in this world are you going to find an “open society”??? In the “Land of the Blind”?