“There is an important question: Will people manage to survive? Because”
Mankind’s will to survive is an absolute. Or genetic warriors, our progeny will not allow anything but.
I do not know or understand the immense force of that bind between young and old, but it is a certainty of nature, that can not be defied.
It is like the firc impressed by a sort of magical mystery tour.
Cyborgs still will be pervy to their creators, and when humanity will re- etheralize, the eternal reprogramming will be based on an iron clad hard drive .
Ironically it’s message core already seems to poo out in the messages which come trough with incredible velicity, that exceeds the speed of light.
In fact the messages come trough far before we see them. A kind of doppier trip back to the future.
All of a-priori philosophy sources in this strange reverse thesis narrative, for example the Scriptures come from a non spational-temporal antiquity that may be understood as short term, compared to the immensity of what a multitudinal universe may consist of.
Yes, and on reread Kathrina, I am really sorry for the typos.
I believe religion can be used loosely to include many ideas, which have hardened into belief. Science is embracing a renewal of a substratum , which has largely been occupied as an image, of something previously grossly undefined.
That ‘Being’ the case, and connecting the ontological certain proposition with the peripheral climate of interpretation, the hardened drive arises, literally from a potential vacuum of energy laden question that revolves around the impossibility of some ‘thing’ coming from no ’ thing’ - namely the word or the idea of god(God).
“But more tot the concrete point: Can religion overcome the replacement of people by machines? And if so, how?”
The essential having been upstaged by science, boldly cut off the connection between them, by a temporal succession of about 200 years / to 2000 years of prior ontological hegemony.
The deconstruction of deductive progression , overcome by enlightened induction, is now suffering that approaching meaninglessness, that belies the death of history.
Further along , the many sequential sub texts will rely more and more on the cybernization of adult babies, who furitively try to connect the points between functionally and progressively widening hard driven families, resembling such Thetic models , that can no longer sustain faith from Their simalacrum.
This reconstruction is parallel to the deconstructed common sense which must eventually coincide with abstracted notions that depend on cyber signals, .
The cyborg will prevent ultimate robot superiority, but not before a nee enlightened war of the worlds must institute new programs assigned toward that goal, to the multitude if this , who have come to take them for granted.
The Gods are not dead, they are merely slumbering, along with the great doubters who supposedly woke up , although mislead totally, probably do to political causes.
Yes. But sometimes something really new happens. And one of the examples of this really new are the technical achievements. Probably the patterns for this are not new either, but the phenomena, i.e. how it appears, and their application always lead to new forms of signs, because the people who deal with them just deal with them in different ways. It is a question of culture.
Last year I raiseddd this issue with the CEO of a major corporation. His firm pioneered in the Artificial Intelligence applications field. Their first application eventuated in replacing the telephone operator.
It turned out that she [or he] - the person who usually took your call and directed it to the party with whom you wished to speak] was replaced by a roomful of “customer service representatives.” …a boiler room full of people.
His response to my query was (regarding the issue) “It’s overblown.” He is a man of few words. The next application his company went into is automating the 'know your customer ’ process. They promote using AI instead of bothering to get personally acquainted with your customers.
The rationale behind his response is that computers are dumb: in the sense that they only do what is programmed into them to do… Someone with an evil mind can command a supercomputer to “Buy up all the staple machines and staplers in this world, and use this billion-dollar fund to do it!” The computer will find a way to carry out the order. But some people will decline to sell their stapler. This will ten to thwart the program. And/or people will devise a new technology to fasten or bond papers together, thus dispensing with the need for staple guns for that particular purpose.
Such a project as this, though, is a far cry from replacing humans altogether
Not necessarily. The problem is both broader and narrower. Broader in the sense that l human beings will not be replaced, , and narrower for the ones replaced will be merely those whose function has been become obsolete, by virtue of possessing a required extended memory.
That the process of obscolecence may or may not impede into the arena of cost of production, needs to evolve into more uncertain territory.
As ceratain jobs loke farming requieeing minimal memmory, wi hypotheticay demain more cost effective.
Machines will treat them as we do farm workers today, fruit picking is less costly then machine picking.
That the ultimate consideration of machine es developing more benign of less harmful characteristics, remain in the future annals of discovery.
Who expected, when we still had horse-drawn carriages, that someday automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, rockets, space shuttles would be driving around, and that the Internet and artificial intelligence would prevail? Almost all horses have been replaced by machines. And humans have never been considerate of humans in matters of power. So why shouldn’t it be possible to replace all humans? After all, many have already been replaced anyway? And why shouldn’t it be possible for machines to become independent of humans (in this thread this possibility was affirmed in principle by Arminius and James S. Saint). Humans want to control machines, yes, but so far they have always failed with their attempts at control. And humans want to controll other humans. Now, draw the conclusion from this, please.[tab][/tab]
The human of the future shall be the artificial human. The humans have always tried to make themself different, somehow „new“. But this time it is a serious matter. Our consciousness shall have to learn to understand itself as the consciousness of a machine, as a made and yet in its factual being uninterruptible, self-contained Dasein.
The human of the future shall be the artificial human. The humans have always tried to make themself different, somehow „new“. But this time it is a serious matter. Our consciousness shall have to learn to understand itself as the consciousness of a machine, as a made and yet in its factual being uninterruptible, self-contained Dasein.
Microcomputers (nanobots) the size of a cell are supposed to improve our brain function (probably even when we don’t want them to!) This is to explore the brain, scan synapse by synapse, transmitter by transmitter, and be able to copy a brain.
Virtual spaces are created with such microcomputers. Billions of nanobots will be sent into our brains as artificial neurons, attaching themselves to every single nerve cord coming from our sensory organs.
“When we want to experience real reality, the nanobots hold still. For the virtual reality experience, they cut off the supply of real stimuli and put artificial signals in their place.” - Ray Kurzweil.
It seems the prevailing strategy is proving to be - eliminate the encumbrance - replace the less harmonious with the more harmonious - replace unserviceable with the serviceable - manufacture the servant to design specifications from the ground up as soon as possible -
[list]And eliminate that which doesn’t serve.[/list:u]
Humans are already machines albeit genetic ones simply through the process of serving programmed functions without much thought for anything else. As humans this usually gets transcribed into some higher imagined purpose which actually serves no function at all except wishful thinking. The counter question would be can a machine become what a human is supposed to be? After all, just like a machine, humans are just another assembly of various entities.
[/tab]