Will machines completely replace all human beings?

  Honestly, i don't know.  The statistics is interesting from the point of view of what certain IPL members take re: this issue, and equally interesting it it, to see how attitudes toward various positions and counterpositions seem to change.  However, i wonder, how representative these views are, as proportionate to general societal expectations.

 As far as the dichotomy of metaphysical/linguistic approaches, and Monad's irresolution toward it, it is interesting to note, that his comment pretty well undermines the intent of showing any conclusion in terms of meaning, i.e., what it means 'to be a man', and whether such an approach can make any kind of in road into the this analysis.  

 The most critical level into this inquiry is that which concerns cybernetics, the composure of which blends both: human and artificial intelligence.  Hopefully, cybernetics will continue to be developed as to be of benefit to mankind , and since it is man's cognitive facilities which both consist of the content of artificial intelligence, and the object of it's processes, the differences between the intent, content and object of artificial intelligence will continue to be of an negligible concern.  I am fairly confident, Arminus, that the 3rd breakdown is fairly generally is fairly representative , although it's interesting to note, how and why they do change.

“Human” literally means “the hue of, or most basic element of, Man”.

So using that definition, they will eventually be able to say that androids are human.
They love to be able to play word games on simple minded people.

You already indicated it. I’m in the abstention column simply because I can’t categorically say Yes or No.

I think eventually when its found to be more feasible, humans will become a fusion of the two. Of course, it will take time. This kind of evolution has already started and may even become essential for space travel which is expected to be evermore common.

Who said that?

Do any of your disagreements “lead you to believe that there can be such a solution”?

And b.t.w.: Which “guide books” do you mean? The books I mentioned - indirectly - in this thread do not have to be my “guide books” just because you want them to be my “guide books”.

Because you have a “better” one: Disagreement! How absolutely ludicrous!

I don’t think that linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions are the only possibilities.

But your regurgitated disagreements are not useful at all.

Why don’t you offer at least a few suggestions. Nothing - except disagreements. Okay, disagree how much you can - I don’t care -, but your
disagreements are no solutions.

Which “books” do you mean?

Then please say what “the mystery” is for you and how you can get a solution.

Disagreement without any argumentation and evidence is the typical behaviour of internet users. And it’s “cool” too. It does never bring on a conversation, not to mention a solution of a problem. Bummer! That’s too bad.

And whom do you mean with “they”? :wink:

Here comes the 4th 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 |
Kriswest |
__ Amorphos |__ Fuse | Mithus |
Tyler Durdon |
Esperanto | Nano-Bug |
__ Blueshift | Only Humean | Lizbethrose |
|| Gib | Cassie |
|Uccisore | Eric The Pipe |
| Zinnat (Sanjay) |Backspace Losophy|
| Barbarianhorde | Monad |
| Ivory Man ____||
| Moreno |__________|

|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]5[/size] | [size=150]11[/size] |_ [size=150]9[/size] ________|

For comparasion:
1st Interim balance sheet,
2nd Interim balance sheet,
3rd Interim balance sheet.

“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%.

Your are clearly free to think what you want. I made my arguments and reasons for them. That’s the best I can do especially on philosophy forums where there are NO solutions only discussions of problems which is why the same ones get mentioned over and over again with never a solution in sight. Opinions, including mine, do not constitute solutions or proof.


Them”? What or whom do you mean with the word “them” in that sentence?

Does anybody of the members of this forum know which “arguments” and “reasons” Monad means?

That’s the best …” What’s the best, Monad?

That’s honest, Monad. But I don’t think that your last sentence is absolutely right, and because of the fact that it is at least relatively right we should use the rest of possibilities and try to constitute solutions or proofs.

I mean: You are also writing in this forum, so you confirm my statement that your sentence - “opinions … do not constitute solutions or proof” - is not absolutely right.


That’s the whole point of philosophy forums, is it not, that there’s fun in trying. But philosophy by it’s nature is not amenable to solutions and proofs; that’s in the science department. Do you know of any philosophy as true based on solutions or proofs? Every philosophy derives from one man’s thought and how he visualizes whatever he’s contemplating.

Inserting solutions and proofs into philosophy as if it were math or science usually destroys the conversation or one must know in what sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy.

Does this make sense or not?

Yes, those philosophies are based on scientific solutions or rules (“laws”), they are the “crowns” of what they are based on. This “crowns” can and should be criticised; many of them exist only because of personal credit, regard, publicity. Science is already partly enslaved. So what can we do in order to prevent that this all increases more and more, so that the end effect will be merely stupidity, absurdity, “dementia”, and ignorance?

You are against statistics, science, philosophy, and that is okay, but I also think that it is too much “against”. And the fact that you are a member of this philosophy forum and write posts on philosophy indicates that some of your statements are contradicted by some of your statements.

I don’t think that it “destroys the conversation”, because philosophy is not merely a conversation. One should “know in what sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy”. We are human beings - fortunately or unfortunately -, so we have no choice, if we want to know, to recognise, to philosphise, to be wise.

I gave no indication that I’m “against” any of these fundamental human activities. How does one even describe a person who is against philosophy and science? Statistics are also essential but, I repeat, one must know it’s limitations; in some cases as in IQ, they can be severe, damaging and misleading. As for science, I don’t recall having said anything negative about it but that doesn’t mean one can’t depending upon what aspect of it is put up for discussion.

The upshot being, a criticism of anything does NOT imply a negation! One can criticize, analyze in a hundred different ways depending on “perspective” and how its discussed. It all depends on how and in what manner references are made. Is this not also one of the main functions of philosophy? as a kind of “Perspectivism” a la Nietzsche? Taking things out of context yields nothing but distortions. Your “against” statements are examples of that. As such, there is no purpose in further posting responses to each other since neither of us is going to be happy.

I’m still a no. I just think if you have the modern, realist, consensus science centered belief system then it is the best conclusion and would find it odd if someone in that broad paradigm would not think so unless they were in some kind of denial. I am not in that category and do not believe it is what will happen.

Oh dare you put me in “abstention.”
I’m in “What a stupid meaningless question” column, and I bet so are most of the rest of “no”.

I posted to clear up a misrepresentation of the movie ‘Robocop’ and I ended up in ‘no’. I’m actually in the ‘silly nonsense - not worth discussing’ column.


Are you satisfied, Moreno?

Phyllo, your name is deleted from the list. is that okay for you?

You should not take the “interim balance sheets” as seriously as you seem to do.

You don’t want to have any fun in this forum, do you?

It is especially what I said among others in this post: Reference is in no other realm of science as important as in linguistics. Reference is important. And philosophy has very much to do with language, thus with linguistics (ask Nietzsche, if you can).

No. This is what I wrote:

“Against”, “against” - that belongs to you, not to me. Nietzsche would have disagreed with you too, because he was both a philologist (cp. linguistics) and a philosopher.

Whatever you like! This thread no-longer holds any interest for me. Often, I don’t even know what you’re talking about in response to my posts. No offense! but it’s clear we are not ever going to understand each other and knowing that, we don’t need to get in each others way. I think that should be agreeable to you as well.

Thanks. :smiley:

I don’t take the thread seriously at all.

Depends on what you mean by fun. I don’t discuss werewolves, vampires or Brangelina.
Unsupported claims about IQ are not fun because people believe that stuff and then vast quantities of time have to be wasted trying to correct a bunch of misinformation. :frowning:

Morality and ethics is fun. Science and tech is fun when people understand it and when they twist it in a clever way. :evilfun:

In general, I find fun to be easier (and more enjoyable) in real life because body language and tone of voice adds so much richness to the discussion. Wittiness, irony, satire, playfulness, etc, don’t work well in forums.

And why are you writing here in this thread?

Funny, funny. :smiley:

It was about the interim balances between (and actually you know that). The claims about the IQ are supported! but you don’t want them to be supported. That’s your problem, not mine. I can specify many sources and statistics, but you won’t accept them. That’s your problem, not mine. A much greater danger is the fact that people believe in opposite nonsense and in the silly “Flynn effect” and other nonsense and misinformation, including yours. :frowning:

And you don’t like fun. Stop pushing the people in front.

So again: Why are you writing here, especially in this thread? Why don’t you leave the house in order to enjoy the forest?

Enjoy the forest, Phyllo! I wish you much fun!