Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[zinnat]

In the case of adapting and replicating nanobots, yes they qualify. They seek to replicate and also adapt through experimental minute variations.

Again, only in theory, so far, which could be turn out in both ways. There is no nanobot invented so far which can adopt or replicate on its own.

Please mention when and where such nanobots were made/invented and there present status.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

zinnat13

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884105/
http://www.linv.org/edited-books/

Here’s a couple more ^^, but i couldn’t find the original specific links, though they are on this forum somewhere too. There is also a link to scientific american article which places the origins of thought in single celled creatures, there is some rudimentary process in all life-forms.

Feel free to use any info, if i come across some more specific works i’ll let you know.

Thanks for your help, Amorphos.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.

Again, that depends how you define evolution.

If you want to consider any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it is happening, you can certainly call them living. But, i do not think that justify the true intent, at least in the context of this discussion. The change should be self propagated, without any outside help.

With love,
sanjay

[James S Saint]

Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call "evolution"? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

In the case of adapting and replicating nanobots, yes they qualify. They seek to replicate and also adapt through experimental minute variations.

A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.

I was referring to nanobots that alter themselves through replication, without Man's help.

[Arminius]

A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the "building block of life"; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called "cell division".

The cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. So the cell division involves a single cell (called a mother cell) dividing into two daughter cells. This leads to growth in multicellular organisms (the growth of tissue) and to procreation (vegetative reproduction) in unicellular organisms. The process of duplicating a cell's genome - thus: the DNA replication - always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission.

Three types of cell division:



Example:



A cell division over 42 hours. The cells were directly imaged in the cell culture vessel, using non-invasive quantitative phase contrast time-lapse microscopy.

Schematic of the cell cycle:



I = Interphase, M = Mitosis; inner ring: M = Mitosis, G1 = Gap 1, G2 = Gap 2, S = Synthesis; not in ring: G0 = Gap 0/Resting.

The DNA replication (the process of duplicating a cell's genome which always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission) occurs during the S phase of the of the cell cycle.

Arminus,

All that is good and very informative. I appreciate and thank for your effort. I disagree with nothing what you quoted. Those are scientific findings and I have no right to challenge what is found empirically. But, I have every right to challenge any presumption, even if they were scientific.

And, machines will have AI, life and consciousness, is only a presumption till now.

Who said so?

Additionally:
What is your presumption, opinion, statement, and point, Zinnat?

Secondly, there is nothing in your reply that answers my basic question. I did not ask how all that happens but why all that happens.

I have answered all your questions:
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1475#p2537692
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1475#p2537716
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1500#p2537817
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1500#p2537944

I am asking why, not what.
I am asking your basis of considering a cell live, and a machine of similar scale not.

I have answered all your questions:
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1475#p2537692
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1475#p2537716
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1500#p2537817
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1500#p2537944

Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call "evolution"? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

Are machines following there three principles now?

I guess you mean "their" (not "there"), but the said three principles are also not "their" principles but the principles of evolution. And they follow them by help of the humans, and in the other case:

Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call "evolution"? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

In the case of adapting and replicating nanobots, yes they qualify. They seek to replicate and also adapt through experimental minute variations.

A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.

Again, that depends how you define evolution.

Who said that it does not depend how one defines evolution?

If you want to consider any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it is happening, you can certainly call them living.

I do not "consider any change in the entity as an evolution". I also do not "consider any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it is happening". And I do not "call them (?) living". Additionally: Whom or what do you mean by "them" in your sentence?

But, i do not think that justify the true intent, at least in the context of this discussion. The change should be self propagated, without any outside help.

With reference to living beings, yes, but not with reference to other beings. Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.

Please do not confuse "evolution" with "life".

[Arminius]

Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call "evolution"? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

In the case of adapting and replicating nanobots, yes they qualify. They seek to replicate and also adapt through experimental minute variations.

A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.

I was referring to nanobots that alter themselves through replication, without Man's help.

Yes, I know, James. But in my estimation they are currently not completely capable of replication without Man's help.

[zinnat]

But in my estimation they are currently not completely capable of replication without Man's help.

Even beyond that.

I have seen comments of the experts and people working with nano industry in person. Contrary to what is projected in the media, the fact of the matter is that no nanobot ever manufactured in the realty so far, forget about self producing/altering types.

This all nano thing is merely at hypothetical stage. We can make only microbots so far. Smartphones use to have it. Most of the people confuse microbots with nanobots. Nanobots are supposed to work at or around the level of an atom. Everything small is not nanobot. The very basic premise of the nanotechnology is to pick a singular atom and handle it at will.

Secondly, though we can make microbots but the basic level, they no different than bigger machines. The only difference is that they are smaller. There is no such quality of like self producing or self altering in microbots till now.

Thirdly, there is a very serious doubt whether a nanobot can ever me made or not. This is because of the scale on which it is suppose to be. There are some limits to which anything can be artificially build. Some pragmatic quantum problems come into play beyond that. Theoretically, if you want to built or handle something around the scale of an atom, you need absolute ideal physical conditions like absolute vacuum, zero gravity and zero magnetic field.

Arminus, there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.

I will later read and reply to the other posts that you mentioned.

with love,
sanjay

[James S Saint]

there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.

And that includes minimum construct for consciousness.

And you seem to not realize how nature itself produces self-replicating nanobots. Not only is every crystal a ready made self-replicating machine, but also so is every DNA/RNA cell. Merely drop either one into an appropriate environment and they automatically begin building more of themselves.

[Amorphos]

I think mocrobots are potentially dangerous enough, though i doubt if their or nanobots complexity could be unsurmountable. To act in a coordinated fashion beyond their own machine structure they would require larger machines/computers/AI.

[Arminius]

I have seen comments of the experts and people working with nano industry in person. Contrary to what is projected in the media, the fact of the matter is that no nanobot ever manufactured in the realty so far, forget about self producing/altering types.
This all nano thing is merely at hypothetical stage. We can make only microbots so far. Smartphones use to have it. Most of the people confuse microbots with nanobots. Nanobots are supposed to work at or around the level of an atom. Everything small is not nanobot. The very basic premise of the nanotechnology is to pick a singular atom and handle it at will.
Secondly, though we can make microbots but the basic level, they no different than bigger machines. The only difference is that they are smaller. There is no such quality of like self producing or self altering in microbots till now.
Thirdly, there is a very serious doubt whether a nanobot can ever me made or not. This is because of the scale on which it is suppose to be. There are some limits to which anything can be artificially build. Some pragmatic quantum problems come into play beyond that. Theoretically, if you want to built or handle something around the scale of an atom, you need absolute ideal physical conditions like absolute vacuum, zero gravity and zero magnetic field.
Arminus, there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.

Nanobots manipulate.

Nanorobotics is the emerging technology field creating machines or robots whose components are at or close to the scale of a nanometer (10-9 meters).[1][2][3] More specifically, nanorobotics refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing and building nanorobots, with devices ranging in size from 0.1–10 micrometers and constructed of nanoscale or molecular components.[4][5] The names nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines, or nanomites have also been used to describe these devices currently under research and development.[6][7]
Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase,[8] but some primitive molecular machines and nanomotors have been tested. An example is a sensor having a switch approximately 1.5 nanometers across, capable of counting specific molecules in a chemical sample. The first useful applications of nanomachines might be in medical technology,[9] which could be used to identify and destroy cancer cells.[10][11] Another potential application is the detection of toxic chemicals, and the measurement of their concentrations, in the environment. Rice University has demonstrated a single-molecule car developed by a chemical process and including buckyballs for wheels. It is actuated by controlling the environmental temperature and by positioning a scanning tunneling microscope tip.
Another definition is a robot that allows precision interactions with nanoscale objects, or can manipulate with nanoscale resolution. Such devices are more related to microscopy or scanning probe microscopy, instead of the description of nanorobots as molecular machine. Following the microscopy definition even a large apparatus such as an atomic force microscope can be considered a nanorobotic instrument when configured to perform nanomanipulation. For this perspective, macroscale robots or microrobots that can move with nanoscale precision can also be considered nanorobots.

Molecular assembler .... A molecular assembler, as defined by K. Eric Drexler, is a "proposed device able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision". A molecular assembler is a kind of molecular machine. Some biological molecules such as ribosomes fit this definition. This is because they receive instructions from messenger RNA and then assemble specific sequences of amino acids to construct protein molecules. However, the term "molecular assembler" usually refers to theoretical human-made devices.

Self-replication .... "Molecular assemblers" have been confused with self-replicating machines. To produce a practical quantity of a desired product, the nanoscale size of a typical science fiction universal molecular assembler requires an extremely large number of such devices. However, a single such theoretical molecular assembler might be programmed to self-replicate, constructing many copies of itself. This would allow an exponential rate of production. Then after sufficient quantities of the molecular assemblers were available, they would then be re-programmed for production of the desired product. However, if self-replication of molecular assemblers were not restrained then it might lead to competition with naturally occurring organisms. This has been called ecophagy or the grey goo problem.[8]
One method to building molecular assemblers is to mimic evolutionary processes employed by biological systems. Biological evolution proceeds by random variation combined with culling of the less-successful variants and reproduction of the more-successful variants. Production of complex molecular assemblers might be evolved from simpler systems since "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. . . . A complex system designed from scratch never works and can not be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a system that works."[9] However, most published safety guidelines include "recommendations against developing ... replicator designs which permit surviving mutation or undergoing evolution".[10]
Most assembler designs keep the "source code" external to the physical assembler. At each step of a manufacturing process, that step is read from an ordinary computer file and "broadcast" to all the assemblers. If any assembler gets out of range of that computer, or when the link between that computer and the assemblers is broken, or when that computer is unplugged, the assemblers stop replicating. Such a "broadcast architecture" is one of the safety features recommended by the "Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology", and a map of the 137-dimensional replicator design space[11] recently published by Freitas and Merkle provides numerous practical methods by which replicators can be safely controlled by good design.

there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.

And that includes minimum construct for consciousness.
And you seem to not realize how nature itself produces self-replicating nanobots. Not only is every crystal a ready made self-replicating machine, but also so is every DNA/RNA cell. Merely drop either one into an appropriate environment and they automatically begin building more of themselves.

I was not merely referring to replication, thus reproduction, but also and especially to reproduction interest, when I said this:

But in my estimation they are currently not completely capable of replication without Man's help.

|=>#

Do nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers have an own interest in reproduction , so that they can decide on their own (!) to reproduce (replicate) themselves? That's the question.

Probably you remember that I mentioned three evolution principles:

Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three principles are (1) variation, (2) reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3) reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1) means that there are and must be several units (often called "individuals") because of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction (=> 2) means preservation of the competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]). Reproduction interest (=> 3) means the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative). Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call "evolution"? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

|=>#

Are nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers capable of an own reproduction interest (=> 3) or will (thus: without any human help)? If they are, then they are an independent agent of evolution.

So if a machine is an independent agent of evolution, then the decision and the execution of the replacement of all humans by machines is really self-made (thus: without any human help). Currently each machine is a dependent, thus not an independent agent of evolution. So currently the humans (and not the machines themselves), especially some humans, are still primarily responsible for the decision and the execution of the replacement of all humans by machines. Maybe this will change in the (near) future. At the end of this process the humans will probably (probability of about 80% [see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here]) be replaced by machines. I know that Zinnat (Sanjay) belongs to the "no"-sayers (see here, here, here, here, here) when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?. Whereas I am the "80%-yes"-sayer.

[Arminius]

I think mocrobots are potentially dangerous enough, though i doubt if their or nanobots complexity could be unsurmountable. To act in a coordinated fashion beyond their own machine structure they would require larger machines/computers/AI.

The point is that that is determined by the answer to the question of the costs; and the answer is: machines are cheaper than humans.

[James S Saint]

Do nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers have an own interest in reproduction , so that they can decide on their own (!) to reproduce (replicate) themselves? That's the question.

The question isn't whether they can choose to replicate but rather whether they can choose to NOT replicate. But then, can humans?

Currently each machine is a dependent, thus not an independent agent of evolution.

That is not 100% true. Decisions are already being currently made independent of human intervention. One of the ongoing priority decisions in DARPA is drawing the line as to which decisions will be allowed to be independent in which arena (when may, not can, drones choose targets on their own).

Nanobots cannot consciously choose their evolutionary path but like individual humans, they affect it by their immediate choices. Much larger machines can not only choose their destiny, but dictate it.

The point is that that is determined by the answer to the question of the costs; and the answer is: machines are cheaper than humans.

..and faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more reliable.

[Amorphos]

The point is that that is determined by the answer to the question of the costs; and the answer is: machines are cheaper than humans.

Not the point i was making. I want humans to be more valuable than machines, so it works both ways.

[James S Saint]

I want

[Arminius]

Do nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers have an own interest in reproduction , so that they can decide on their own (!) to reproduce (replicate) themselves? That's the question.

The question isn't whether they can choose to replicate but rather whether they can choose to NOT replicate.

I was speaking of "reproduction interest", and "reprdoduction interest" implcates to choose to reproduce or replicate and to choose to not reproduce or replicate.

The point is that that is determined by the answer to the question of the costs; and the answer is: machines are cheaper than humans.

..and faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more reliable.

It is clear anyway that machines are faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more reliable. If they were not, then we would have no single machine and live like the people of the Stone Age lived.

The point is that that is determined by the answer to the question of the costs; and the answer is: machines are cheaper than humans.

Not the point i was making. I want humans to be more valuable than machines, so it works both ways.

You "want humans to be more valuable than machines", yes, but that is more wishful thinking than thinking about reality and the real or probable future. I mean it is possible to know something or even much about the current and the coming developments.

[Amorphos]

I want

I meant that i didn’t mind if machines are worth less than humans. I agree it doesn’t matter what we want, but an intelligent machine would recognise or not even conceive of ridiculous notions of our destruction. Only an unintelligent AI would do that.

[Arminius]

Why cells are not machines? What is your benchmark of differentiation?
My argument is that plant cells are not machines because they are live and governed by the consciousness of the plant. What is your argument?

An own interest in reproduction or replication implies something like a simple stimulus-response mechanism or even a consciousness. All cells reproduce or replicate themselves, and the consciousness, if there is one, is able to influence the cells, to suppress the interest in reproduction or replication, to prevent the reproduction or replication (humans are an example for this kind of suppressing and preventing). Are machines already able to exactly do what cells do in the case of the reproduction interest? Is there already a stimulus-response mechanism in e.g. the nanobots?

Nanobots cannot consciously choose their evolutionary path but like individual humans, they affect it by their immediate choices. Much larger machines can not only choose their destiny, but dictate it.

I guess that in this case "their immediate choices" includes the immediate choice of each nanobot to reproduce or replicate itself. But is that true? Does each nanobot already reproduce or replicate itself without any human help?

[James S Saint]

Does each nanobot already reproduce or replicate itself without any human help?

Only the ones designed to do so, such as natural or artificial forming crystals. Everything responds to its environment. Even human cells will not replicate if in the wrong environment (starved of any means). To stop cell reproduction, the environment must change (and does). To stop a nanobot from reproducing either the environment must change or a signal must be received into the nanobot that alters its reproduction state (merely shifting a molecule out of alignment).

In a sense, nanobots are more capable than cells because they can be signaled to start and stop. How to process that signal is about the only thing holding them up at the moment. Human cells use hormones injected into their environment to alter the speed of reproduction.

Other than a higher decision to inject chemicals, send radio signals, or otherwise alter the environment, there is no consciousness involved with human cells nor nanobots.

Also realize that nanobots are pretty useless unless you have millions of them. That is why there is a need for them to reproduce. It is highly impractical to produce them with a much larger machine.

[zinnat]

I have answered all your questions:
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1475#p2537692
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1475#p2537716
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1500#p2537817
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1500#p2537944

Yes, but in your way and according to your definitions/presumptions, not precisely according to my intent of asking.

Cyborgs are humans with features, properties, characters of machines; so they may be on the way from humans to machines, but they can't become machines. Androids are machines with features, properties, characters of humans; so they may be on the way from machines to humans, but they can't become humans. The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.

Now, here you defined cyborgs and androids. Of course, i asked this but the point is whether we have any cyborg in reality!! And, if not, how it is any different from sci-fi films!

Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

Here, you still not sure whether machines actually evolve or not but generally you say that machines evolve. Forced change/development from outside does not go well with intent of evolution, unless one wants to define in such way, which i consider intrusion.

A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the "building block of life"; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called "cell division".

I have some issues with this too. You can call a cell as a unit of the organism but it is neither the last step of the ontology nor the building block. When you say building block, it gives the impression that everything ends here and no further deduction is possible, which is not true in the case of cells. We are aware of the subsets of a cell.

Secondly, a cell is not an independently viable unit. Means, if you detach a cell from its mother organism, it will not survive. If that is true, how it becomes independent?

I guess you mean "their" (not "there")

Yes, that was a linguistic mistake. I apologize for that. I am still finding difficulties to be accustomed with my phone. Laptop is far better alternative.

but the said three principles are also not "their" principles but the principles of evolution. And they follow them by help of the humans

How humans can create principle no-3 (reproduction interest)in the machines?

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call "evolution"? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

In the case of adapting and replicating nanobots, yes they qualify. They seek to replicate and also adapt through experimental minute variations.

That is James assumption and i cannot accept it as a fact unless he cannot provide some example/evidence. I do not consider the premise of one day it will as a fact. That is a possibility which may or may not happen.

Whom or what do you mean by "them" in your sentence?

Machines.

With reference to living beings, yes, but not with reference to other beings. Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.

But, as i said above, your principle no-3 is not fulfilled in the case of machines. Then, how you are considering them evolving?

Please do not confuse "evolution" with "life".

No, i am not. But, i do not see them happening independent of each other either.

Evolution cannot happen without life and whenever there is life, it evolves by default. It cannot be stopped from evolving by any outside force either, as long as evolving entity remains alive.

with love,
sanjay

[James S Saint]

7 real-life human cyborgs

Evolution cannot happen without life and whenever there is life, it evolves by default. It cannot be stopped from evolving by any outside force either, as long as evolving entity remains alive.

That isn't really true either.

[Arminius]

Does each nanobot already reproduce or replicate itself without any human help?

Only the ones designed to do so, such as natural or artificial forming crystals. Everything responds to its environment. Even human cells will not replicate if in the wrong environment (starved of any means). To stop cell reproduction, the environment must change (and does). To stop a nanobot from reproducing either the environment must change or a signal must be received into the nanobot that alters its reproduction state (merely shifting a molecule out of alignment).

In a sense, nanobots are more capable than cells because they can be signaled to start and stop. How to process that signal is about the only thing holding them up at the moment. Human cells use hormones injected into their environment to alter the speed of reproduction.

Other than a higher decision to inject chemicals, send radio signals, or otherwise alter the environment, there is no consciousness involved with human cells nor nanobots.

Also realize that nanobots are pretty useless unless you have millions of them. That is why there is a need for them to reproduce. It is highly impractical to produce them with a much larger machine.

That refers much to RM:AO which is quite clear to me, but that does not answer my question, because reproduction or replication can be influenced by consciousness. So there are two levels of interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as an interest, and (b) a conscious interest. With "human help" I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (=> a [for example in the human cells]).

[Arminius]

I have answered all your questions:
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1475#p2537692
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1475#p2537716
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1500#p2537817
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=1500#p2537944

Yes, but in your way and according to your definitions/presumptions, not precisely according to my intent of asking.

Zinnat, excuse me, but I do not want to answer your question as if you were a young child.

Cyborgs are humans with features, properties, characters of machines; so they may be on the way from humans to machines, but they can't become machines. Androids are machines with features, properties, characters of humans; so they may be on the way from machines to humans, but they can't become humans. The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.

Now, here you defined cyborgs and androids. Of course, i asked this but the point is whether we have any cyborg in reality!! And, if not, how it is any different from sci-fi films!

We have many cyborgs. Zinnat, I answered your questions by using the definitions for those words, terms, and concepts you asked me about.

Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

Here, you still not sure whether machines actually evolve or not but generally you say that machines evolve.

I was very sure. I asked like Sokrates asked. Thus it was a little rhetoric question (I knew the answer - of course). You can easily see in that and other posts of mine that I say that machines can evolve and do evolve, although by help of living beings. Here for example:

A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.

=>

Or here for example:

Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled. =>

Please do not confuse "evolution" with "life".

I think I can save the other examples.

A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the "building block of life"; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called "cell division".

I have some issues with this too. You can call a cell as a unit of the organism but it is neither the last step of the ontology nor the building block. When you say building block, it gives the impression that everything ends here and no further deduction is possible, which is not true in the case of cells. We are aware of the subsets of a cell.

Here you are decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to biology, biological definitions.

Secondly, a cell is not an independently viable unit. Means, if you detach a cell from its mother organism, it will not survive. If that is true, how it becomes independent?

Here you are again decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to reproduction in the biological sense.

How humans can create principle no-3 (reproduction interest)in the machines?

By programming, thus by consciousness.

There are two levels of reproduction interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as a reproduction interest, and (b) a conscious interest as a reproduction interest. With "human help" I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (for example in the human cells).

Whom or what do you mean by "them" in your sentence?

Machines.

But machines are no living beings.

With reference to living beings, yes, but not with reference to other beings. Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.

But, as i said above, your principle no-3 is not fulfilled in the case of machines. Then, how you are considering them evolving?

They are fufilled, because of the help (programming) of the humans, thus of the consciousness of the humans. Humans choose and decide via their consciousness (see above: b) and by programming whether machines choose or not and decide or not via stimulus-reponse mechanism (see aboeve: a). Humans do with machines what humans do with humans. And if machines already choose and decide via their consciousness and by programming whether they choose or not and decide or not via stimulus-reponse mechanism, then machines influence their reproduction or replication by their consciousness, thus completely by themselves - as much as humans do.

Please do not confuse "evolution" with "life".

No, i am not. But, i do not see them happening independent of each other either.

Evolution cannot happen without life and whenever there is life, it evolves by default. It cannot be stopped from evolving by any outside force either, as long as evolving entity remains alive.

You can easily see in that and other posts of mine that I say that machines can evolve and do evolve, although by help of living beings. Here for example:

A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.

=>

Or here for example:

Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled. =>

Please do not confuse "evolution" with "life".

I think I can save the other examples.

[James S Saint]

Other than a higher decision to inject chemicals, send radio signals, or otherwise alter the environment, there is no consciousness involved with human cells nor nanobots.

[Orbie]

As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.

[Arminius]

Other than a higher decision to inject chemicals, send radio signals, or otherwise alter the environment, there is no consciousness involved with human cells nor nanobots.

No human consciousness, no human cells. Are you sure that machines are already completely independent? (This includes that they also do not depend on a program which is or can be [for example: temporarily] controlled by humans.)