Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Consciousness: Remote Recognition

True it does, but you can have all of that but without an observer/perceiver/experiencer, ergo it appears to be the difference between a conscious and non-conscious intelligence. maybe consciousness doesn’t even require intelligence.

True. Which makes me wonder if there is a fundamental consciousness which all life has. There may be spiritual concerns but my difficulty is in the idea of something coming into and leaving the body. In short i have concluded that there must be a way to build up to consciousness e.g. If you keep adding neurons starting with one or a few. …same if those neurons are artificial naturally.

So “consciousness is now defined” (Orb) as a “remote recognition” by you, James. But how do you define “remote recognition”? You say what and who does not have consciousness as “remote recognition” - but who (and what?) has it? And what does this mean in the context of this thread?

How would you define “consciousness” and “intelligence” then?

Being able to identify a remote object. The ability for your Samsung TV to recognize you and realize when you are not looking at the screen, as well as where on the screen you are looking, makes that TV conscious to that degree (still far from what you would call a “human consciousness”).

Huh?
I said that if an entity has the ability to recognize remote objects, it has consciousness of those objects.

It means that already a great many machines have various degrees of consciousness that is greater than a human and they will only gain more.

No, that is not true for two simple reasons.

1- there is no nanobot (according to the definition of the nanobot) made so far thus there is no such possibility.
2-When we cannot make manipulating microbots so far, which is an easier thing to do, how can we make such nanobots?

Arminus, wikipedia is also a part of popular media, though certainly and slightly better than other ones. But, it is certainly not a word of the God thus should not be taken a fact but some loose or general information about the subject. More often than not, experts do not write wiki pages. People like you and me, take the work of the experts and quote those on wiki, imbued with their own understanding of the issue. Thus, when subtlety or precision is involved, it is better to look for particularly devoted sites instead of wiki. Like, for philosophical issues, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is far better and reliable source than wiki.

But, when you are saying that they cannot reproduce without outside help, does not that mean that they either have no such interest or unable to do to?

Certainly, but there is a big if is in between.

My personal/previous opinion does not matter for me when i revisit any issue. I can throw it out of the window without any hesitation, provided i find a better alternative.

with love,
sanjay

There is certainly a limit/condotions for consciousness too and that is precisely why it cannot be found in/with every complexity.

Secondly, not the whole of nature, but only conscious part of the nature produces self replicating nanobots. This appropriate environment should be a such hosting body which entails consciousness. Otherwise, the guest DNA cell will die.

with love,
sanjay

Arminus, i am not sure whether you are asking or telling your reasoning?

with love,
sanjay

Microsbots;

I think they have the microbot issue well covered.

Functioning nanobots, but not replicating;

An unwarranted remark. I do not think that ia am being childish here by any streach of imagination.

Again, where?

Okay. I did not realize that.

How my question was out of the context? I was also referring to the definition of the independent viable unit in the biological sense.

You may say so but i do not think that it could be defined as reproduction interest in true sense, as far it is controlled by any outside entity. Yes, one time programming is acceptable but not a continuous interference.

with love,
sanjay

No perhaps in it. There has to be an obsever in the first place, everything else comes later.

That observer is precisely what consciousness is. And, any cognition/life is not possible without it. This is the crux of all life forms and everything is built around it. As soon as you lave it out of the equation, the life would be lost and the entity would stop functioning; death.

with love,
sanjay

That illusion is the reason of many misperceptions.

Observation does not require senses or brain (as we understand them). Plants can observe, process observation and make decisions accordingly. Of course, those actions would not match human’s capabilities but they do all that nevertheless.

Like, i gave the example of sunflawer plant. It can detact the angle of sunlight anf keeps the face of its flower to that direction all day. Some plants can detect and catch incets too. How can it be possible withpout obsevation, process and decision? And, whothout a singular controling authority?

Consciousness is a real entity and observation is its default character but observation is diferent from obsever. These obsevations manifest mind (not brain).

with love,
sanjay

Amorphos,

Leave your presumptions out of your thinking.

You conclusion is right. There are only two possibilities.

1- there must be consciousness in the first place to built a life form.
2- consciousness must be invariably built from complexity.

One of those must be true but they both cannot be true. Now, try to reach a conclusion.

with love,
sanjay

James,

Even Microbots means such.a thing whose size is around 10-6 of a metre. We are talking about a thousandth part of a millimetre here. I do not think that the things of that size could be seen by naked eyes.

Secondly, they have to be artificially made, not naturally found, and self duplicating too.

With love,
Sanjay

???
I pointed out a distinction between the micro and the macro, although there is no defined line.

And yes, you generally cannot see nanobots without visual aid.

But it is said that all machines are still under human control. :wink:

It is true that nanobots manipulate, because they can and they do it already in experiements and probably also in other situations. You can find many information about this theme in several books, on the internet, and sometimes also on the television.

That is right, Zinnat, of course.

No, because that does only mean that they are not able or not allowed to do it by themselves. Like I said: Evolutuion takes place, if its three prnciples are fulfilled, regardless how.

Yes, but like I said: They do not need to be independent in order to be part (namely a dependent part) of the evolution. Peds, for example, evolved and evolve because of the help of the humans.

It is not an illusion.

Please, define “obsevation”.

It depends on the definition of “observation”. How do you define “observation”?

You misunderstand many things, because you have other definitions than most Occidental humans. Is that right?
Please, define “observation”.

You mean that humans send the signals, and machines recieve the signals.

Somewhat, but in the long run, humans can only communicate to machines through machines, and thus eventually, and sometimes already, it is machines telling other machines when to reproduce or do any other task.

Currently to the governance of Mankind, there is no distinction between humans and machines other than which chemicals are used to produce them.

Arminus, you are so much occupied with this idea that you do not want to check its validity. The fact of the matter is that no actual nanobot (1 to 100 nm and according to Dexter premise) has been artificially made so far thus there is no question of manipulating ones. Yes, nanobots certainly exists but they are non man-made.

When you go in the details and check the authenticity of the pictures of so called nanobots provided on the net or the media, you will find that none of those would be an artificial one but made by nature.

The trick is in being played here in the definition of the nanobots/nanotechnology to mislead people because no one pays attention to the details but only at the headlines.

Secondly, most of us do not discern this but nanobots and nanotechnology are two entirely different things. Nanotechnology does not entail manufacturing real nanobots.

This is from your quote of wiki-

Read it carefully and try to understand what this definition is actually suggesting. It does not refer to making nanobots in reality but only to somehow interfere at that scale, which is an entirely different thing and way behind from making any real and self duplicating nanobot.

Here is one more such manipulating definition, though more honest one-

That is the actual position as of now. They are talking about only manipulation at atomic level, not making any such scaled thing. Rest is hype/assumption/one day it will and so on.

Another one-

Look, there is no mention of actual scale (1 to 100 nm) which is real issue. In stead of that, the term extremely small is used so that anything could be called as nanobots.

My guess is that most of the people would not be aware of the fact that this concept of nonobots is not something new but was postulated by Richard Feynman way back around 1950, when he initiated a talk with a phrase There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom. This is what he said exactly-

Something more for you-

Going by your definition, i can give you that. But, in that case, we must remember and discern between the two types of evolution; forced and self governed, to avoid any confusion.

Here in this thread, observation is slightly different or one step ahead from what we understand in science. Scientific observation means gathering the information and process it. But, here observation includes cognitive effects too.

Like, a robot can observe and analyze the loss if one of its leg would break but that incident would not manifest any feeling in it. On the other hand, if the same would happen to anyone of us, we would observe the pain also besides our other physical damages.

That may happen sometimes but not in this case. On the contrary, most of the posters do not understand what nonobots and nanotechnology actually stand for, and what is the difference between the two, as i tried to explain above.

Arminus, i do not like to tweak the definitions to in order to fit those in any particular case. Let them what they are, both in spirit and the letter.

But, as far as the consciousness is concerned, i certainly have a different definition that what is perceived in the west.

They consider that consciousness manifests from the complexity/evolution in the organic/live forms, but in my opinion, it is other way around. Consciousness creates complexity in organisms. It is a precondition to life, not a byproduct.

with love,
sanjay