James S Saint wrote: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.
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.Kriswest wrote: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.
Kriswest wrote:I am still trying to figure out how machines could ever be cheaper in the long run. Show me the details.
Arminius wrote: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.
James S Saint wrote:fuse wrote: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").
James S Saint wrote:In fact, as long as Man is attempting to control all things, he will be eliminated. Life does not tolerate remote control for long.
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.Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote: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?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote: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".
Eric_The_Pipe wrote: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 wrote:James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote: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.
obe wrote: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 wrote:obe wrote: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?
Arminius wrote:obe wrote: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?
fuse wrote: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.
fuse wrote:Arminius wrote: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 ....
fuse wrote:I disagree with premise 2 ....
fuse wrote: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.
fuse wrote:Arminius wrote: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 ....
fuse wrote:Cheaper workers will always be preferred.
fuse wrote: I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper.
Arminius wrote: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.
fuse wrote: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?
Eric_The_Pipe wrote: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.
Uccisore wrote:Machines can't replace me because I don't do anything.
fuse wrote:Brilliant.
obe wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users