Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Kriswest]

Yes but, James, a human can do what machines cannot. Humans/life can stop machines, machines cannot stop life without causing its own destruction.

[Arminius]

Fuse is partly right.

"Since machines can be both cheaper and more capable, will they totally replace human beings?" would have been a better way to ask the question (for those who couldn't see the intent).

It is not a formal logic proposal, but a question.

I have studied logic, and there is no problem with the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? It is based on the classical syllogism:

All M are P
All S are M
All S are P

All human beings are mortal.
Sokrates is a human being.
Sokrates is mortal.

Well known, isn't it?

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Eric_The_Pipe]

Nope not, buying it. Biology naturally self replicates. A machine does not. A machine will require machines to keep it running and those machines will require machines and guess what metals and materials are finite on this world. Machines are not self replicating unlike biology. That is all just the tip, if I was long winded I could cite more things but, as it is I think you get the idea and can build on it.

The materials and metals that are finite also put a "natural" limit on the increase of biological organisms. But, I do understand what you are saying. Upkeep on humans is remarkably low, what with the self healing an all. The real problem is when self healing machines are created, or nano tech. The costs to create and upkeep machines will decrease, the Costs of humans will decrease also... But, impart because of the decrease in costs of machines.

I forgot to include emotional costs for humans, loosing a human has a greater emotional cost than that of a machine, it's just stuff after all. Also, the intelligence* that a human has that far exceeds (at this point) robots adds to the value of humans.

Though, the underline argument I made is actual real world application. We use machines in situations we could not use a human. The moment a type writer was used instead of something being written by human hands, machines replaced humans. The moment that a plow machine was used instead of a scythe, machines replaced humans. The Luddites smashed machines for a reason... The reason why is because machines are cheaper than humans and human life, they can be thrown away at a lesser cost than a human. Anytime you buy a new toaster it is because that machine is cheaper than starting a fire and cooking it yourself. More, the replacement of humans for machines has increased (at least to most value systems) the life style of most people. Trust me, you do not want humans to be cheaper than a machine, the results are less enjoyable.

An example: In India, where dowries are acceptable, a newspaper ad once read: Man interested in marriage for tractor. Send pictures of tractor.

If human life is cheaper, than people are thrown away before the machine is, I know from other posts that you do not want this. Children are the cheapest of humans, because they have not had as much energy placed in them.

When sex slavery happens it is because the cost of that human is lower than the costs to, well, a lot of things.

The act of creating the immorality of children being used as labor increases the costs of human life as a whole.

I should probably point out, I was answering a specific question:

I am still trying to figure out how machines could ever be cheaper in the long run. Show me the details.

I have not commented on the OP, nor should my arguments for machines being cheaper be taken as agreement or argument against the OP.

[James S Saint]

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

As a formal syllogism, that would be a "non-sequitor" (a disconnect in the logic). You have to have a premise included to say, "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things". And also, "Only machines replace people".

[Arminius]

Thanks for weighing in, James, but I didn't point out the structure of his argument to be trivial. I brought it up because Arminius seems to think that "cheaper things must always replace expensive things" is a statement of logical necessity. He has been assuming it, and I disagree with that assumption.

I understand what you were getting at. But what you need to do is provide the counter argument, much like Lady K is attempting ("cheaper will not replace all else").

And ...? Has anybody provided such a "counter argument"?

In fact, as long as Man is attempting to control all things, he will be eliminated. Life does not tolerate remote control for long.

Has anybody a "counter argument"?

My question is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP.

It is just a question. One can answer this question with "yes" or with "no" (therefore also my interim balance sheet), but one has to justify the arguments or counter arguments, if it is requested.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

Fuse is partly right.

"Since machines can be both cheaper and more capable, will they totally replace human beings?" would have been a better way to ask the question (for those who couldn't see the intent).

It is not a formal logic proposal, but a question.

I have studied logic, and there is no problem with the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? It is based on the classical syllogism:

All M are P
All S are M
All S are P

All human beings are mortal.
Sokrates is a human being.
Sokrates is mortal.

Well know, isn't it?

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

(p) Machines are cheaper than human beings, thus (q) human beings are replaced by machines / machines replace human beings.

Do you agree or disagree?

I'm not that good at the logic philosophy, I'm sorry to say. I could move the q's and p's around, but pulling it out of the statements always confuses me. So I am approaching this with a huge dollop of humility.

The underline problem is that if one part is false, the whole thing falls apart, no? Because, Expensive things are not necessarily replaced by cheaper things. We have a whole industry called the luxury market, for one. But mostly, the value of something is not always contained with in a simple matrix. Moral value for one is harder to predict a cost on. In economics there is a statement, bad money chases out good. It is under the idea that people hoard the good money, not that they throw it away. For example: In prisons people use the cheap shitty cigarettes as "cash" but keep the good ones to smoke. The active devalue of machines may just mean that machines become more disposable, and are treated more like slaves... (Though, that may be a loaded term)

[Arminius]

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

As a formal syllogism, that would be a "non-sequitor" (a disconnect in the logic). You have to have a premise included to say, "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things". And also, "Only machines replace people".

No, I don't have to say that because this thraed has already reached an extend of 13 pages and 307 posts. I did the syllogism in the easiest way (as possible) because I had assumed that the most readers are more able to follow the logic in a simple way than in a more complicated way. This 13 pages and 307 posts have proved that. There is no problem because everybody knows the facts (except Fuse, but not really because he has other reasons to "disagree" ).

I say: "Cheaper things replace expensive things".

You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things".

I say: "Machines replace human beings".

You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): "Only machines replace people".

After 13 pages and 303 posts, James!

[Arminius]

I'm not that good at the logic philosophy, I'm sorry to say. I could move the q's and p's around, but pulling it out of the statements always confuses me. So I am approaching this with a huge dollop of humility.

The underline problem is that if one part is false, the whole thing falls apart, no? Because, Expensive things are not necessarily replaced by cheaper things. We have a whole industry called the luxury market, for one. But mostly, the value of something is not always contained with in a simple matrix. Moral value for one is harder to predict a cost on. In economics there is a statement, bad money chases out good. It is under the idea that people hoard the good money, not that they throw it away. For example: In prisons people use the cheap shitty cigarettes as "cash" but keep the good ones to smoke. The active devalue of machines may just mean that machines become more disposable, and are treated more like slaves... (Though, that may be a loaded term)

I have never said that it is not possible or not real that people sometimes replace cheaper things by expensive things. But that is not meant in this thread - as evreybody knows in case of understanding the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

1) If I say "expensive things are replaced by cheaper things", then it is clear that I don't speak about "luxus" and so on - generally machines do not belong to luxuriousness.

2) If I say "machines are cheaper than human beings", then it is clear that I don't speak about toys and so on - generally machines do not belong to toys.

If we go further with "nitpicking", than we will at last not be able to speak. Speaking and thinking need some gaps or breaks, elsewise there were nothing to speak or think about (because in that case any- and everything were defined for all eternity). All modern totalitarianisms seek definitions for all eternity, and that is very dangerous for all people without power.

Nevertheless we need definitions, but we can not have definitions for all eternity. That's impossible for human beings, but that is possible for machines.

[Orbie]

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

As a formal syllogism, that would be a "non-sequitor" (a disconnect in the logic). You have to have a premise included to say, "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things". And also, "Only machines replace people".

No, I don't have to say that because this thraed has already reached an extend of 13 pages and 307 posts. I did the syllogism in the easiest way (as possible) because I had assumed that the most readers are more able to follow the logic in a simple way than in a more complex way. This 13 pages and 307 posts have proved that. There is no problem because everybody knows the facts (except Fuse, but not really because he has other reasons to "disagree" ).

I say: "Cheaper things replace expensive things".

You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): "Cheaper things always replace more expensive things".

THAT IS LOGICALLY THE SAME.

I say: "Machines replace human beings".

You say (after 13 pages and 303 posts!): "Only machines replace people".

THAT IS LOGICALLY THE SAME.

What's that? Nitpicking? Are you a bean counter, James?

Linguistically you are right, but not logically.

I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.

[Arminius]

I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.

Would you - please - explain your last sentence, Obe?

[Orbie]

I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.

Would you - please - explain your last sentence, Obe?

Logic, in the traditional sense, has always been thought of in the form of identity and I don't think i have to explain what that entails, suffice with, the above descriptions. However, identity, implies identity with some "thing" and element that is shared by at least 2 "things". This shared thing became the model, the paradigm which served the sameness into which these things fitted, as in a mold. Later, much later, this paradigm became deconstructed. And a different kind of logic came to be the predominant form of apprehending reasoning, vis, difference. The differential calculus was the analytical foreshadowing of of limits, approximations, and literally, the functional use of logic. The point is, discerning the steps (logical) became more and more an exercise in delineating the in between the either/or in any logical problem. In Meno's paradox, the half steps become increasingly small,and the logical limits become approximations. This correlates with the arc of the circle, where increasingly many sided figures of equal sides can be constructed within the circle, where the limit appears to be the figure with infinite sides. However the such a figure, would have sides with no length, only an infinite number of points. The concept of infinity is not accessible to Meno because, it was obvious the turtle would eventually reach the end. This concept was prevalent all through the Middle Ages, when it was thought that the earth's horizon consisted of a drop off point. The language of logic was based here on the paradigm of the perfect circular objects the ideal figure, with which other objects shared identity.

When it was found that the horizon was ever moving away from the point of view of the observer,
the ideal object of circularity changed, from a static point of view of the observer, to that of the moving toward a never ending horizon of circularity. The concept of perfect circularity was destroyed, as in the concept of identity, A=A, and there became no two perfectly identical circles or spheres. Logical difference became the form of reasoning, and the principle of exclusion, made the logical deduction shift toward inductive reasoning, by processes of elimination. If A=B and if B=C, then A could =X,Y,Z, if all other elements are equal. But from premise to conclusion, there may be any number of elements, and any one being indeterminable or variable, could upset the syllogism. This meant, that hypotheses had to be made, on basis of probability, as to what premis(s) could satisfy that hypothesis. Functional analysis does not start at the starting gate of meno's paradox, but guessing at the most probable result and working it back, to a probable starting point by excluding all elements most unlikely to effect change. The fact that those elements were effected by other most probable events, makes this logic verifiable not by simple reductionism but by processes best described by game theory of sets, i believe.

Would like to add, my take is philosophical and am looking at paradox, as a foreshadowing of this coming problem of analytic/synthetic propositions, in classical times.

It is paradoxical that there is no agreement in the OP's assertion, but science has developed by leaps and bounds by virtue of seemingly paradoxical understanding of phenomenon, so there is no clear cut model to understanding, except looking at the OP/ hypothetically, and working it out through game theory.

Obviously we would not want a world to be ruled by machines, and how does this probable future relate to the present? How can certain events be excluded, so as to make that scenario less likely? Or put in another way, what elements can be safely excluded, or safely left undiscovered, so as not to pose as a logical flaw to this objective?(to avoid a machine run scenario).

I was hoping for a neat logical way to point to an answer, but found it impossible without laying some kind of credible foundation. I can't help but to think, though, that this reversal, was meant to imply some kind of test, rather then a serious doubt about what usual syllogisms entail. Since reversibility in logic is not entirely ex-post facto, i have confidence in james' holdout for formal elements. I share those views to an extent, in the effect of "tacit knowledge"(M.Polanyi), has on game theory.

[Orbie]

I am working on a problem called the cure, and i cannot be specific, because it's full of non sequitors, holes. Arguments are sometimes full of holes, because at times, the premise can not contain the conclusion regardless of the number of logical steps.

Here, i see big divide, a disconnect of the very thing James is attempting to show with the inverted pyramid, the backward slanting argument, or arguing repetitiously with difference. There is no paradigm, therefore, the logical either or, is predicated by a new element, his 3Rd man, and although he sustains his notion of formal elements, such as it is, reduced, by increasing numbers of repetitions. The third element, seeks to rise above this logic, and create the synthesis, within a dialectic of reason. This reason, this cure, has preoccupied men from the classical age on, and reached a climax with Hegel. With Hegel, he would see the machine problem as the satisfactory amalgam of man and machine, and as James would have it, within a reasonable marriage of both. That both be harmonized to the best advantage of man gains credible momentum, because it is doubtful, that a machine would self create toward it's own selfish benefit, since, such machine would need to be designed with safeguards. It is undoubtedly questionable, that all work would be delegated to machines, since even in a machine delegated world, control. production of newer machines, and even bypasses to eventual self replicating machines would have to have human overseers. And finally, if evil machines would evolve, to totally displace humanity, men, waging war , because of the probable co-production of man-machine hybrids, would be able to have a Wellsian war of the worlds, benefiting mankind.

But what if, super-intelligent, vastly advanced robot army would try to undermine an evolved cyborg army? In such a showdown, incredibly powerful basis of power would be vested, and there would not be any clear winners, just as the evil empire of the soviet empire could not overcome the mighty western world, and conversely the ideological strength of dialectical materialism may never cease to exert a very powerful force to be reckoned with, as a de-compensating force to limitless capitalisation.

Finally, for this reason,it is compelling to point to connections between classical and post modern aspects of a logic, whose skeleton, is insufficient to hold the the corpus of such a weighty argument.

Would you - please - explain your last sentence, Obe?

Logic, in the traditional sense, has always been thought of in the form of identity and I don't think i have to explain what that entails, suffice with, the above descriptions. However, identity, implies identity with some "thing" and element that is shared by at least 2 "things". This shared thing became the model, the paradigm which served the sameness into which these things fitted, as in a mold. Later, much later, this paradigm became deconstructed. And a different kind of logic came to be the predominant form of apprehending reasoning, vis, difference. The differential calculus was the analytical foreshadowing of of limits, approximations, and literally, the functional use of logic. The point is, discerning the steps (logical) became more and more an exercise in delineating the in between the either/or in any logical problem. In Meno's paradox, the half steps become increasingly small,and the logical limits become approximations. This correlates with the arc of the circle, where increasingly many sided figures of equal sides can be constructed within the circle, where the limit appears to be the figure with infinite sides. However the such a figure, would have sides with no length, only an infinite number of points. The concept of infinity is not accessible to Meno because, it was obvious the turtle would eventually reach the end. This concept was prevalent all through the Middle Ages, when it was thought that the earth's horizon consisted of a drop off point. The language of logic was based here on the paradigm of the perfect circular objects the ideal figure, with which other objects shared identity.

When it was found that the horizon was ever moving away from the point of view of the observer,
the ideal object of circularity changed, from a static point of view of the observer, to that of the moving toward a never ending horizon of circularity. The concept of perfect circularity was destroyed, as in the concept of identity, A=A, and there became no two perfectly identical circles or spheres. Logical difference became the form of reasoning, and the principle of exclusion, made the logical deduction shift toward inductive reasoning, by processes of elimination. If A=B and if B=C, then A could =X,Y,Z, if all other elements are equal. But from premise to conclusion, there may be any number of elements, and any one being indeterminable or variable, could upset the syllogism. This meant, that hypotheses had to be made, on basis of probability, as to what premis(s) could satisfy that hypothesis. Functional analysis does not start at the starting gate of meno's paradox, but guessing at the most probable result and working it back, to a probable starting point by excluding all elements most unlikely to effect change. The fact that those elements were effected by other most probable events, makes this logic verifiable not by simple reductionism but by processes best described by game theory of sets, i believe.

Would like to add, my take is philosophical and am looking at paradox, as a foreshadowing of this coming problem of analytic/synthetic propositions, in classical times.

It is paradoxical that there is no agreement in the OP's assertion, but science has developed by leaps and bounds by virtue of seemingly paradoxical understanding of phenomenon, so there is no clear cut model to understanding, except looking at the OP/ hypothetically, and working it out through game theory.

Obviously we would not want a world to be ruled by machines, and how does this probable future relate to the present? How can certain events be excluded, so as to make that scenario less likely? Or put in another way, what elements can be safely excluded, or safely left undiscovered, so as not to pose as a logical flaw to this objective?(to avoid a machine run scenario).

I was hoping for a neat logical way to point to an answer, but found it impossible without laying some kind of credible foundation. I can't help but to think, though, that this reversal, was meant to imply some kind of test, rather then a serious doubt about what usual syllogisms entail. Since reversibility in logic is not entirely ex-post facto, i have confidence in james' holdout for formal elements. I share those views to an extent, in the effect of "tacit knowledge"(M.Polanyi), has on game theory.

[Orbie]

double post

[Arminius]

Again:

The TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP is a QUESTION:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?

And my given logical implication is valid because of the fact that both premises are known - known in that way which is the usaual way of ILP (only very less threads are opened with a logical implication, for eample Gib's one which is false because he doesn't satisfie the logical implication truth table.

I insist on that because ILP doesn't demand a syllogisms and a logical implication when it comes to open a thread. So, actually, one doesn't have to give any syllogism, one doesn't have to give any logical implication in the OP. (Though I have given them!). If all ILP threads had to be opened by syllogisms and logical implications, then the statistics of ILP would be merely 1-10% of the total posts, and 1-10% of the total topics, and 1-10% of the actual total members.

I have given the syllogism and the logical implication in the easiest way (as possible) because I had assumed that the most readers are more able to follow the logic in a simple way than in a more complicated way. And in that way the syllogism and the logical implication MY OP are not false.

13 pages and 307 posts of this thread (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) have shown or even proved that my given syllogism and my given logical implication are true.

Have I forgotten "emotional 'arguments'"?

Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:

P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.

But then:

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

Yes, this is a valid argument ....

"Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper" IS A CHEAPER THING.
"A worker that is more expensive" IS MORE EXPENSIVE.

There is no problem.

I disagree with premise 2 ....

Fuse's disagreement has nothing to do with logical arguments, but merely with his emotions!

Fuse doesn't want to answer the question of this thread (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with "yes" or "no", he disagrees to poll, he diagrees to my premise 2, he disagrees ..., okay, he may disagree - I don't care -, but he has no argument.

[Arminius]

Again:

I have never said that it is not possible or not real that people sometimes replace cheaper things by expensive things. But that is not meant in this thread - as everybody knows in case of understanding the question which is the TITLE OF MY THREAD and the TITLE OF MY OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

1) If I say "expensive things are replaced by cheaper things", then it is clear that I don't speak about "luxury" and so on - generally machines do not belong to luxury.

2) If I say "machines are cheaper than human beings", then it is clear that I don't speak about toys and so on - generally machines do not belong to toys.

If we go further with "nitpicking", than we will at last not be able to speak. Speaking and thinking need some gaps or breaks, elsewise there were nothing to speak or think about (because in that case any- and everything were defined for all eternity). All modern totalitarianisms seek definitions for all eternity, and that is very dangerous for all people without power.

Nevertheless we need definitions, but we can not have definitions for all eternity. That's impossible for human beings, but that is possible for machines.

[Orbie]

Machines can describe, and identify, but definitions are formed by attributing signs to identified objects. Signs are not a product of invention ad nihilo, but communally developed and recognized symbols of meaning. Can machines ever do this? At the very least, in a totally excluded human world, with only inter-machine communication, machines would need to develop self consciousness. Above that, they would need to develop the ability to communicate with other machines, also conscious as well. For that to happen, the idea of 'consciousness' would have to be solved, first, and then, machines would need to be programmed as such ,by evolving consciousness, just as mankind did. How is the assumption that machines could evolve faster and better then man make sense? Apart from this quirk i see no problem with machines retaining definitions.

[Arminius]

In order to become more powerful than human beings, machines need a will to power, interests, ..., and so on.

[fuse]

Arminius,

Please don't mischaracterize my statements. Premise 2 differs between the two quoted versions of the argument you posted a few posts above. That cheaper machines will always replace more expensive human workers is not a logical necessity. It may be found to be true empirically and there may be observable trends which lead you to believe it, but it isn't true by logical necessity, which has a certain stipulated meaning in this context.

Ver. 1

Here's what a valid deductive argument looks like:

P1: Machines are cheaper than human beings.
P2: Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive.
C: Therefore, machines will replace human beings.

Ver. 2

1) First premise (propositio maior): Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things.
2) Second premise (propositio minor): Machines are cheaper than human beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are replaced by machines.

Yes, this is a valid argument ....

There is nothing wrong with disputing a statement of logical implication if it is not the conclusion of a valid deductive argument. Neither quoted argument has a logical implication as its conclusion. The logical implication is premise 2 in arg. version 1 and premise 1 in arg. version 2. There is nothing absurd about disagreeing with a premise. Obviously it falls on me to provide a reason I don't accept the premise, but even if I didn't it wouldn't make the implication a logical necessity. Really, in this case, the first thing that needs mentioning is the fact that the implication implies there is some reason cheaper workers will always be preferred. So who is doing the preferring? It is us. Human beings. I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper. Who wants to talk to a machine to get tech support; not me or anyone I know. I'd rather talk to a real person who I can relate to and who can better relate to me, and companies know that which is why many still employ human representatives to answer questions and concerns. That is a counter example to the statement Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive. or the other version Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. Human workers have qualities that machines do not currently come near to achieving. There are many jobs where the most fundamentally human qualities are the most important. And we do not know when or even if it's possible to build a machine that is fundamentally human-like. Furthermore, no matter how close, there could still be prejudice, and for good reason. When it comes down to human preference why wouldn't we prefer our own kind, with whom we can relate to on the most fundamental level, especially if we foresee a future in which machines could dominate and eliminate us?

[Arminius]

Fuse.

What you have been saying is not as important for this thread as you probably have been thinking.

I didn't mischaracterise your statements.

Have you read the thread? Have you read my other posts? Probabaly you have not because of some of your interests which have nothing to do with this topic here.

Cheaper workers will always be preferred.

Not always. But nevertheless: that statement is one of my two true premises because it is generally accepted. I don't have to start with the exceptions. Exceptions prove the rule - anyway. I even don't have to start with syllogisms and logical implications, when I open a thread here in this forum (ILP) - as I repeatedly said (please read it!), and I also don't have to do it, when the title of my thread and the title of my OP is a question, cp.: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper.

No problem in order to accept. But it is an opinion, your opinion (and probably even my opinion - have you ever thought about that? [so please read the thread!]), it is no counter argument against my arguments.

All what you have been telling in your last posts (adressed to me) contains no arguments, only disagreements, nothing new. That's destructive, thus not constructive.

You have no argument and no counter argument. You always only disagree - without arguments or counter arguments. That's all.

[fuse]

You're not dealing with my position, you ignored the latter half of my post, and referencing formally structured arguments makes this conversation clearer, especially when you charge me with:

You are disagreeing with facts! You are disagreeing with logical truth!

Your disagreement by itself is not the main problem because of the freedom of opinion. The main problem is that you deny facts, you deny logical truth. My premises are logical true, they are facts.

I have refuted this completely, but you're brushing it off. Logical truth has a stipulated meaning, and I've explained that my disagreement is perfectly reasonable. Why is it that you have avoided responding to my main points?

The proposition of machines completely replacing human beings in the future depends on the premises that support it, so why are you ignoring any discussion of the premises? I've given a plausible counter example to your premise in my last post.

I'd rather talk to a real person who I can relate to and who can better relate to me, and companies know that which is why many still employ human representatives to answer questions and concerns. That is a counter example to the statement Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive. or the other version Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. Human workers have qualities that machines do not currently come near to achieving. There are many jobs where the most fundamentally human qualities are the most important. And we do not know when or even if it's possible to build a machine that is fundamentally human-like. Furthermore, no matter how close, there could still be prejudice, and for good reason. When it comes down to human preference why wouldn't we prefer our own kind, with whom we can relate to on the most fundamental level, especially if we foresee a future in which machines could dominate and eliminate us?

[Arminius]

If you had read more of my my posts, then you would have known that I don't ignore your posts. Even in my last post I mentioned that I porbably also don't want to be replaced by machines. So why are you crying so much?

What you are saying in your last post is no counter argument because that is what I have been saying for about 40 years (cp.: you are 25 years old - according to ILP viewing profile).

Please don't confuse ideality with reality!

Your pseudonym is "Fuse". And your real name? "Confuse"? Your "logical truth" is "disagreeing" or "reversing" the logical truth which is accepted - as logical truth, not as wish, desire, hope ..., and os on - by at least 80%. One can always disagree - that's no mighty deed. So: If you say "Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will NOT replace a worker that is more expensive" or "NO worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive", then you have to argue in that way, but you can merely argue in that way, if you deny the logical truth of the 80 or probably more percent. Because: the fact that nearly all machines are cheaper than human beings is accepted by at least 80 or probably more percent.

Your so called "counter examples" are no counter examples to my examples because they are integrated in my examples, and as I denoted in my last post: I don't want to be replaced by machines as well as you. But that are our opinions - not more.

You didn't refute anything.

Your "logical truth" is at the utmost a "10-20%-truth". So what about the "80-90% truth"? Who ignores? Who confuses? Don't confuse, Fuse!

[Eric_The_Pipe]

From my philosophy of Logic teacher: The syllogism is invalid because it has four terms. Valid syllogisms have three terms, the two in the conclusion, and the one in both premises.

[Arminius]

From my philosophy of Logic teacher: The syllogism is invalid because it has four terms. Valid syllogisms have three terms, the two in the conclusion, and the one in both premises.

In its earliest form, defined by Aristoteles, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise [=> 1]) and a specific statement (the minor premise [=> 2), a conclusion (=> 3) is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Sokrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Sokrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form (without sentence-terminating periods):

1) All M are P
2) All S are M
3) All S are P

1) All human beings are mortal.
2) Sokrates is a human being.
3) Therefore: Sokrates is mortal.

The word "therefore" is usually either omitted or replaced by a symbol.

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

B.t.w.: Where is your nice sig?

[Arminius]

Before I opened this thread I had to decide in which philosophical subforum it should be opened:

(A) Subforum „Philosophy“?
(B) Subforum „Science, Technology, and Math“?
(C) Subforum „Society, Government, and Economics“?

One of the main reasons why I decided to open this thread in the philosophical subforum „Philosophy“ was the syllogism and the logical implication, although I knew that on ILP they are not required, not necessary in order to make clear what the title of the thread and of the OP means: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

So when I wrote the syllogism and the logical implication into the OP, I did it nevertheless - and because of my decision for the subforum „Philosophy“.

[Arminius]

 
One of my favourite conversations in this thread:

Machines can't replace me because I don't do anything.

Brilliant.

Brilliant but untrue. You would be the first one to replace. After all, a large percentage of people do nothing or next to it, but they would still have to be replaced, because they are the most voracious of consumers. Consuming machines would need to be invented to offset the supply demand curve, if do nothings would perish, or go on some kind of revolt. Either that, or dump excess supply into the ocean, but that harbors indelicate consequences to the morale.

I compliment Obe.