Will machines completely replace all human beings?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Amorphos » Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:31 pm

it would have no mathematical basis. If plants have sentience, why not candy? There are moving chemicals inside of candy.


Because they are not moving in the necessary patterns as like living things. Apparently plants have neurons of sorts, so it seems a matter of how many processes are going on, and if those processes are sophisticated enough to run concurrently and give neuronal plasticity. In other words, consciousness appears to be continuous, so has a pattern moving through the other patterns subjectively.

Perhaps it is possible that plants [all life?] have being and consciousness at some rudimentary level.

Problem with all of this is that i think you could have a computer which mimics all of this in machine-like fashion. There is something different about the info at work in my computer, to info in my mind. Notably a subjective observer.

If you made an instrument exactly like a human, then switched it on, would it have consciousness, or be like someone sleepwalking or some such unconscious thing?
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:20 am

Amorphos wrote:
it would have no mathematical basis. If plants have sentience, why not candy? There are moving chemicals inside of candy.


Because they are not moving in the necessary patterns as like living things. Apparently plants have neurons of sorts, so it seems a matter of how many processes are going on, and if those processes are sophisticated enough to run concurrently and give neuronal plasticity. In other words, consciousness appears to be continuous, so has a pattern moving through the other patterns subjectively.

Perhaps it is possible that plants [all life?] have being and consciousness at some rudimentary level.

Problem with all of this is that i think you could have a computer which mimics all of this in machine-like fashion. There is something different about the info at work in my computer, to info in my mind. Notably a subjective observer.

If you made an instrument exactly like a human, then switched it on, would it have consciousness, or be like someone sleepwalking or some such unconscious thing?


plants do not have neurons. you will not find any scientific study that says they do. please provide some evidence that they have neurons.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:22 am

Orb wrote:The analogy is very fitting, the plant as corresponding to the auto responses of a mechanical gadget, further points toward the view, that the plant, can be looked at as an evolutionary retrograde, most akin to machines. The composition of which have anomalous structural ingredients, where it(the plant) can be interpreted as more like a machine then a human being, judging from it's actions. Therefore, the fact that the reverse appears to be happening, the retrogression into more rather than less conversion from human-ness, seems to further the view, that life, is more of a factor of adaptation, then to genetic typing. In other words, the function of a thing or an organism, determines it, as a type of thing, signifying a chemical or biochemical constitution.


it would not be less like a "machine" simply less like a "simple machine". humans and ai are complex machines relative to plants.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:26 am

James S Saint wrote:Plants "make decisions" through auto-responses, much like a thermostat "decides" when to turn on the heater. There is no remote recognition involved, merely direct contact and response.

And a plant dies when it has systemic failure, no longer sustaining its nutrient cycle.


Not convincing enough, James.

Decision entails discretion. There must be multiple choices available for any entity to chose from, otherwise it cannot be called a decision, but merely a law or default action.

If you drop a ball from your hand, it would hit the ground every time. It would never go towards the sky. So, can we say that the ball made a conscious decision to fall on the ground? Certainly not, because there is no other way in which the ball can react. Falling on the ground is binding on it.

The same is with the thermostat too. Its action is not discretionary but a binding one thus not decision.

We eat when we feel hungry. That is our natural action in that particular circumstances but we can chose not to eat, even till death. That is decision because we intentionally opted another alternative. A thermostat/machine cannot do that. It will always do the same for what it is designed for, unless you change its internal structure. It cannot change neither its structure nor its behavior on its own, means, it cannot evolve on its own but humans/plants can do that. That is the difference.

Secondly, a thermostat behaves in a particular way because we designed it in that way. We know that. But, do we know why plants/animals behave in that way? One can argue that they learn and evolve through circumstances. There is nothing wrong in that argument but why a thermostat cannot learn on its own in the same way? Who is asking it not to learn? Why it cannot learn and evolve on its own? What is the difference between the two entities?

Thirdly, plants are not that complex entities biologically. With the scientific means available now, we can deduct and analyze a plant up to the last pat of the cell. Everything is in black and white. But still, we cannot explain its synchronized behavior, why the whole plant acts for a common goal.

In humans/animals each and every cell on the body is connected to CNS through neurons, directly or indirectly. That is necessary for the survival of them. Even a single cell out of control can cause cancer. Cancer is nothing but a refusal of one or some cells to obey CNS. It starts living its own life independently from the rest of the body and we know the result.

This neuron network and CNS in the humans/animals integrates cells into a harmonious or unified entity. If this network is broken anywhere in the body, the affected or disconnected portion becomes non-active, and we call it paralyze. Right!

But, there is no such communication network in the plants. We have not found any. Every botanist would be agree with that. If that is true, how and why roots suck water from the earth for the whole of the plant, and why only leaves prepare food for the whole plant? Why should a stem of sunflower plant should be concerned about keeping its flower facing the sun all the time? How the stem becomes aware of the importance of its function? What is the communicating and binding agent between the different organs or the plants? Why every organ or cell of the plants does not declare Independence from the main body and not start behaving like human cancer cells, given that there is absolutely no governing network?

It is not surprising that a single broken nerve of that governing network can cause the whole of the human body becoming nonfunctional, but many times bigger plants can survive even many times more than humans without having a governing network at all!

James, there must be some binding agent/mechanism/entity in the plants, which makes sure that the whole of the plant always behaves as a unified entity. And, that is consciousness. That is what that creates life in true sense. Plants have consciousness too and, it is such a entity which we are not able to trace physically so far. But, it is there for sure, hidden and integrated with every live form. A live, decision making, intelligent and evolving entity cannot be created without consciousness. That is why machines will never be able to have AI.

You can say that one day machines would have AI but this one day is not an argument but mere assumption. It is must be established either philosophically or physically, to be taken as a fact. Your explanation of forming a particle through RM/VO is perfect but it explains the formation of non-live matter only, not live ones.

[quote="James S Saint"]And a plant dies when it has systemic failure, no longer sustaining its nutrient cycle.

Again, that is not up to the mark.

Why a plant or even an animal should die? Why its system should fail? Why they cannot live forever after having established properly once in the ambient? Why death of all living organisms is necessary?

James, forget about humans/animals but plants are there for million of years before them. They had for more time than humans to evolve. And also, look at their journey of evolution from tiny ones to huge ones. How much they have been evolved? But, they have not yet learned to live forever. Why? If survival is most important thing for any living entity, why they have not able to defeat dying so far?

What is the need of dying for the plants? Once established, everything works fine. Unlike humans/animals, they do not have brain which can produce hormones of aging. They do not have to fight for essential resources like animals do. Means, a lone tree should survive forever. Yes, they cannot grow beyond a certain limit because of the limitation of the resources, but that should not cause their death.

with love,
sanjay
Last edited by zinnat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:43 am

Orb wrote:The analogy is very fitting, the plant as corresponding to the auto responses of a mechanical gadget, further points toward the view, that the plant, can be looked at as an evolutionary retrograde, most akin to machines. The composition of which have anomalous structural ingredients, where it(the plant) can be interpreted as more like a machine then a human being, judging from it's actions. Therefore, the fact that the reverse appears to be happening, the retrogression into more rather than less conversion from human-ness, seems to further the view, that life, is more of a factor of adaptation, then to genetic typing. In other words, the function of a thing or an organism, determines it, as a type of thing, signifying a chemical or biochemical constitution.


No Orb,

You are confusing the issue. Read my reply to the James above.

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:23 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
Arminius wrote: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.

It is still hard me to understand except the distinction of life. But, i take it.
Arminius wrote:but that is not what you asked

True. i certainly not asked this specifically in that post but is the thread has not been around this issue all along?
Secondly, what if i ask those questions again now?

Then it would not have anything to do with your former questions. But, okay, if you ask those new questions, I would appreciate it. (Thank you in advance!)

But, please, note that your new questions refer to another level than to the level biology.

zinnat13 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Do you know the biological definition of "life"?

I do not think if there is any clear-cut biological definition of life. Or, i am not aware of that till now. There are only vague interpretations.

The biological definition of "life" is the best one we have. There are also good definitions of "life" which come from life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics). Life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics), and also the ordinary experiences with machines have influenced some interpretations but not the biological definition of "life", because it is based on cells, and cells are well known. Cells are not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities and work similarly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another question is whether machines can evolve or not.

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?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Amorphos » Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:46 pm

Is that the only thing you got from that post?

plants do not have neurons. you will not find any scientific study that says they do. please provide some evidence that they have neurons.


I said neurons + of sorts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perc ... physiology)
Neurochemicals[edit]
Plants produce several proteins found in the animal neuron systems such as acetylcholine esterase, glutamate receptors, GABA receptors, and endocannabinoid signaling components. They also use ATP, NO, and ROS like animals for signaling.[7]
http://www.plantcell.org/content/14/suppl_1/S3.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/ ... 11-667.pdf

I have seen some german research which suggested the same, but couldn't find it in a 30 second search
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:42 pm

Amorphos wrote:Is that the only thing you got from that post?

plants do not have neurons. you will not find any scientific study that says they do. please provide some evidence that they have neurons.


I said neurons + of sorts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perc ... physiology)
Neurochemicals[edit]
Plants produce several proteins found in the animal neuron systems such as acetylcholine esterase, glutamate receptors, GABA receptors, and endocannabinoid signaling components. They also use ATP, NO, and ROS like animals for signaling.[7]
http://www.plantcell.org/content/14/suppl_1/S3.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/ ... 11-667.pdf

I have seen some german research which suggested the same, but couldn't find it in a 30 second search


wikipedia article is dead. It's not a "neuron of sorts" if it doesnt belong to any kind of neural network. plants have no neural network just a basic pathway of sending basic rudimentary signals via chemical movements. Because it uses some common chemicals found in animals does not make it an animal.

zinnat13 wrote:plant's have COMPLEX actions. This can only be explained by one way...CONSCIOUSNESS!!!


Plants have rudimentary behavoirs. It's very simply why cutting off a leaf doesnt kill the plant's behavoirs. Because plant behavoirs are very basic and are at the primitive, genetic level. All of the plant is wired with the same basic behavoir, which is "face the sun when photo receptors are active" and "grow". it accomplishes this through a very rudimentary chain of cells, which slowly pass chemicals through the path at a slow pace. There is not some marvelous sentience at play here.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:51 pm

zinnat13 wrote:Why do plants die? Tree in the forest could live forever if it chose to. Machines will never grow AI!


If a plant never died it would never evolve. It would be the equivalent of your thermostat. Second I'm sure you are aware of a thing called aging. After a while the biological integrity degrades and you die of old-age. You believe machines will never grow AI, presumably, because of their rigid nature. However there already exists self-learning and self-repairing robots which function as a hive mind. With quantum computing they won't be so rigid. When an AI is exposed to the physical world, the physical world functions as an extension of it's self, adding the necessary randomness and entropy to overcome it's rigid nature.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Amorphos » Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:03 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie

I largely agree with your basic position, but what do you think it would take to make the jump from machine to conscious machine?

Image you are adding extra elements of tech one piece at a time to a machine/computer, at what point does it become conscious. If you added all of mans knowledge to its data base and the software to locate relative answers, it would be more intelligent than any human. Yet i don’t see a mystery item being added that would make it more than a machine still? It would still be a calculator but with words and meanings instead of numbers.

I think a snail is more conscious than that. There is something there [like with us] observing or it is an observer even. Or/ where would you draw the line between a conscious and non-conscious creature?
Further, is a dog conscious, but is it less intelligent or complex than your pc which isn’t conscious?

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Orbie » Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:18 pm

Some sources which may shed some compelling hypotheticals here, are the quantum limits of artificial intelligence, correlated with near death experience.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Amorphos » Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:49 pm

Some sources which may shed some compelling hypotheticals here, are the quantum limits of artificial intelligence, correlated with near death experience.


Well the universe is reborn in every moment, so it would make sense that it has some way to rebirth the observers experiencing it. That is if we consider the cyclicity as fundamental and universal. After that its a question of what ‘attracts’ observers? If we built/printed a human from scratch it would probably be as alive as a human born from a womb. If so then something is correlating or connecting observers with an appropriate body.

Theoretically it should be possible to give an AI consciousness? I think you are right in that the quantum space is where all that spirituality [rebirthing] takes place. If so then there would be some manner of resonance between form and spirit, a ‘like attracts like’ nature.

We perhaps have to think of consciousness as like an ocean, much as physical reality is at base too. Then that they belong to a further classification where they too are indistinguishable [energy and consciousness]. Interestingly, if that is so, then the whole thing can be brought around in a circle, and consciousness should be able to be arrived at by building up to it.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:20 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Plants "make decisions" through auto-responses, much like a thermostat "decides" when to turn on the heater. There is no remote recognition involved, merely direct contact and response.

And a plant dies when it has systemic failure, no longer sustaining its nutrient cycle.


Not convincing enough, James.

Decision entails discretion. There must be multiple choices available for any entity to chose from, otherwise it cannot be called a decision, but merely a law or default action.

Do you seriously want to make a thread issue out of this?
It is a bit embarrassing to have to try to explain such things to an adult.

Decisions do not "entail discretion". Decisions ARE discretion and vsvrsa.

You keep habitually injecting teleology where it doesn't belong and thus can't help but believe that consciousness is independent of materiality. That is a typically primitive, backward mindset. In a highly sophisticated techo-world (regardless of how evil it might be) such is embarrassingly naive. I feel like I am trying to convince a "man" that a machine can actually run faster than his horse.

Yes, monkeys of the world, germs, chemicals, and even machines exist and can kill you even though you may never see them. Virginia, the wolf is real.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:12 am

James S Saint wrote:You keep habitually injecting teleology where it doesn't belong and thus can't help but believe that consciousness is independent of materiality.


I do not think that teleology is bad thing to imply. Cause and purpose are essential parts or every ontology.

James S Saint wrote:Decisions do not "entail discretion". Decisions ARE discretion and vsvrsa.


I do not see any real difference between what i said and what you suggested. The intent is still the same.

James S Saint wrote:Do you seriously want to make a thread issue out of this?


I have already decided to do so. It is all in my mind but i need some time to present it systematically. I will write an essay regarding this along with some peripheral issue as a new thread. I have promised this to lambiguous long time ago but not able to do so far. You are also welcome to criticize me along with him.

with love,
sanjay
Last edited by zinnat on Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:52 am

Arminius wrote:Cells are not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities and work similarly.


I do not disagree with but that is precisely the issue also. 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?

With love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:17 am

Amorphos wrote:Perhaps it is possible that plants [all life?] have being and consciousness at some rudimentary level.


Yes, there is no perhaps in it. Ontology cannot be completed without that.

Amorphos wrote:If you made an instrument exactly like a human, then switched it on, would it have consciousness, or be like someone sleepwalking or some such unconscious thing?


If you can do that exactly, it would certainly have consciousness but the issue is whether you cane do that precisely and exactly or not?

The crux of the issue in this question is whether consciousness manifests from the complexity of the entity or is it necessary to built a live entity, in the first place!

If complexity can manifest consciousness, the machines would become live have AI and consciousness one day for sure, no matter how much time it would take. But, if consciousness is necessary to built a live entity at the initial level, the machines would never going to have intelligence or consciousness.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:25 am

Amorphos wrote:Is that the only thing you got from that post?

plants do not have neurons. you will not find any scientific study that says they do. please provide some evidence that they have neurons.


I said neurons + of sorts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perc ... physiology)
Neurochemicals[edit]
Plants produce several proteins found in the animal neuron systems such as acetylcholine esterase, glutamate receptors, GABA receptors, and endocannabinoid signaling components. They also use ATP, NO, and ROS like animals for signaling.[7]
http://www.plantcell.org/content/14/suppl_1/S3.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/ ... 11-667.pdf

I have seen some german research which suggested the same, but couldn't find it in a 30 second search


Amorphos,

First two articles are quite good and help a lot. The third one is bit more technical.
If you do not mind, may i use the content of those articles in my essay?
Secondly, would you provide me a link to that German research also, whenever you will get some spare time?

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:28 am

zinnat13 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Cells are not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities and work similarly.

I do not disagree with but that is precisely the issue also. 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?

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:

Image

Example:

Image

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:

Image

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.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:44 am

Arminius wrote: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.

But only if she consciously decides to ... :-$

:icon-rolleyes:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:59 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote: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.

But only if she consciously decides to ... .

There has to be a decision, yes, and that means that there has to be an interest, a reproduction interest. Like I said (here):

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?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:13 pm

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.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Amorphos » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:14 pm

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.

:)
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:41 pm

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.

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.
Last edited by Arminius on Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:59 pm

:P
Arminius wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Cells are not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities and work similarly.

I do not disagree with but that is precisely the issue also. 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?

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:

Image

Example:

Image

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:

Image

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.

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 am asking why, not what.

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

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby zinnat » Sat Apr 25, 2015 5:10 pm

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?


What do you think? Are machines following there three principles now?

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: perpetualburn