Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

Does this picture illustrate an exaggeration or not?

[James S Saint]

What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?

I would build an android to replace that one.

[Ierrellus]

Arminius,
Are there machines, then, who know 'relative" free will?

[Arminius]

Arminius,
Are there machines, then, who know 'relative" free will?

That's - of course - a good question, and I answer it with: in the future machines will probably know "'relative' free will".

The will, how Schopenhauer defiend it (as Kant's "Ding an sich" - "thing in itself"), is a free will, but not the will of the human beings because human beings depend on the will. Since God has been murdered - at the end of the 18th century - his free will has also been murdered. Since then human beings pride themselves to be like God, to have a free will, but that is a false conclusion.

[Arminius]

What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?

I would build an android to replace that one.

Ah, and by whom or what exactly?

[James S Saint]

What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?

I would build an android to replace that one.

Ah, and by whom or what exactly?

??? "By whom"???
I don't understand the question.

And yes, machines experience "relatively-free will".

[Arminius]

What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk and in the way?

I would build an android to replace that one.

Ah, and by whom or what exactly?

??? "By whom"???
I don't understand the question.

Would you replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans? And if the former, then by what? And if the latter, then by whom?

You can build an android and replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans.

And yes, machines experience "relatively-free will".

I thought Ierellus meant his question by referring to his statement that "machines cannot be self aware in the human sense of self-awareness":

James, I thought you were above name calling and was able to understand what my brief post meant. Others have hinted at the same thing--machines cannot be self aware in the human sense of self-awareness. This does not indicate that I see all forms of awareness as human. ....
Can machines experience free will?

Arminius,
Are there machines, then, who know 'relative" free will?

"Self-awareness", "experience", "know"? What would you answer?

[Orbie]

any number of them can be replaced by either , and no one would notice, and even if they did they would not care. Flash: By the end of the year, driverless cars will be on the road. Some advocates are very against that. Wonder if they will take off like the electric cars. The hybrids are selling pretty good, though.

[SweetMisery93]

the fact is, that while we all act like we enjoy being lazy and sitting on our tails thinking about our problems, it is only through continuous habit and ritual, that we actually find happiness, that isnt self-destructive. You may think its the taste and sweetness of ice cream that makes that ice cream cone sooooo delicious, but how good would it taste if you had a fridge full everyday since birth

[Ierrellus]

James,
Did you explain how machines have achieved relative free will? Or do I just have to take your word for it?

[James S Saint]

any number of them can be replaced by either , and no one would notice, and even if they did they would not care. Flash: By the end of the year, driverless cars will be on the road. Some advocates are very against that. Wonder if they will take off like the electric cars. The hybrids are selling pretty good, though.

The less people need people, the more people suffer and die.

Would you replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans? And if the former, then by what? And if the latter, then by whom?

You can build an android and replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans.

I was accepting the scenario of it having to be an android. If given the choice, I would not build a machine superior to humans except in very specific tasks, still requiring just as many humans as before, merely better equipped.

James,
Did you explain how machines have achieved relative free will? Or do I just have to take your word for it?

Explaining it is complicated, just as explaining how your computer works in the first place. You don't have to take anyone's word for anything. But then again, when you don't know anything, you shouldn't be making assertions.

"Free-will" is decision-making. As long as the decision is left up to you, you have "free-will" to the degree of the choices. Free-will is not something that either is there or not there. It comes in degrees determined by the number and types of choices allowed. No free-will means no choices. Total free-will means unlimited choices (followed by insanity).

And:

By attending to the actual fundamental cause of all things, one has a greater number of choices (from which they can succeed) than otherwise. Thus they say that God yields more free-will. The more Man knows of the cause of all things, the greater he becomes at accomplishing anything he chooses. Since he is basically insane, he chooses to enhance his insanity, making it stronger and unstoppable, through technological tools.

[Arminius]

"Free will" is not what human beings or other living beings have, because they are part of the evolution. For example: As a human you can't decide your origin, your genetic program, your birth, your death. And if you can't decide about the most important phenomenons of your life, then you have no "free will".

Market propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting articles, consumer goods, products, so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". Political propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting politicians, their parties (homonym! ), their ideologies (modern religions), so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". They say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting your sex, gender, so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". You can merely choose in a relative way. God, the nature, or Kant's "Ding an sich" ("thing as such", "thing in itself") may have or be a "free will", but humans don't know who or what they really are and have killed them, either absolutely (God) or partly (nature, "Ding an sich").

Human beings who think that they have a "free will" are:

1) God(s),
2) nature,
3) "Ding an sich" ("thing as such", "thing in itself"),
4) lunatics.

Human beings have no "free will".

[James S Saint]

It's called "The illusion of free-will" and is always relative or partial.

[Arminius]

It's called "The illusion of free-will" and is always relative or partial.

Yes, that is what I have been saying for so long too.

The determinist and the religionist are the same person. The priest and the scientist are the same person.

And:

By attending to the actual fundamental cause of all things, one has a greater number of choices (from which they can succeed) than otherwise. Thus they say that God yields more free-will. The more Man knows of the cause of all things, the greater he becomes at accomplishing anything he chooses. Since he is basically insane, he chooses to enhance his insanity, making it stronger and unstoppable, through technological tools.

So we have the priests, the scientists, and with them we have the increase of illusions and insanity, and at last the products of that all: a high "human civilisation" with its technologie / technique, amongst other things more and more machines and the high probability that they will replace all human beings.

If one had said when human history started that all humans will be replaced by machines one day, no one would and could have understand or even believed that. But the most human beings have been knowing that since the first well-functioning steam-engine was built and the so called "indsutrial revolution" began. And what happened, happens, and will happen? The increasing replacement of human beings by machines.

[LaughingMan]

If all else fails hopefully the imposed physical limitations of nature will put an end to humanity's collective madness.

See global peak energy for reference on that.

Do you believe in that very much, especially in peak oil?

I think human beings are best subservient living under nature instead of trying to dominate it.

But then they wouldn't and couldn't be the people they want to be. And I don't think that their rulers will give up that claim. Merley the mass of the human beings would agree to live „under nature instead of trying to dominate it“, if they are wanted to agree, and also because of such an agreementt they will be endangered by replacement. So the really meaning of their „living under nature“ in the future is their disappearance. What remains is the question, whether their rulers will later disappear as well or not.

No matter what happens a lot of people are going to die. It's necessary and unavoidable.

Is that really „necessary and unavoidable“? Do you not have any hope?

Yes, I'm a firm believer in global peak oil and energy. It's only a matter of time until the wheels spin off of technological industrial society.

When this happens never again will humanity experience such a technological industrial society ever again.

We will be forced into what I like to describe as permanent 18th century living standards.

But then they wouldn't and couldn't be the people they want to be.

What people want and what people get are very different things altogether.

What remains is the question, whether their rulers will later disappear as well or not.

Once technological industrial society collapses a lot of the current world order is going to go by the wayside rather quickly.

Is that really „necessary and unavoidable“? Do you not have any hope?

I believe the collapse of industrial technological society to be the best outcome for humanity.

A lot of people are going to die around the globe in the midst of that but humanity will still prevail as it becomes stabilized within the natural equilibrium of the rest of the planet. Compared to the other alternatives it's an acceptable loss as it could be much worse.

The collapse of industrial technological society is certainly a lot better scenario than total annihilation or enslavement to robotics in the future.

The only problem with my scenario is that it presumes humanity doesn't destroy itself through war before this transition takes place.

Then there are all those pesky nuclear reactors around the world that left unattended or shut down could definitely pose environmental problems overtime.

[Ierrellus]

"Free will" is not what human beings or other living beings have, because they are part of the evolution. For example: As a human you can't decide your origin, your genetic program, your birth, your death. And if you can't decide about the most important phenomenons of your life, then you have no "free will".

Market propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting articles, consumer goods, products, so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". Political propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting politicians, their parties (homonym! ), their ideologies (modern religions), so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". They say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting your sex, gender, so that you may think you have a "free will", but what you have is merely a "relative free will". You can merely choose in a relative way. God, the nature, or Kant's "Ding an sich" ("thing as such", "thing in itself") may have or be a "free will", but humans don't know who or what they really are and have killed them, either absolutely (God) or partly (nature, "Ding an sich").

Human beings who think that they have a "free will" are:

1) God(s),
2) nature,
3) "Ding an sich" ("thing as such", "thing in itself"),
4) lunatics.

Human beings have no "free will".

Thanks, Arminius, for the good explanation of relative free will. I agree with it and am grateful that you explain without put downs or ad homs. I still see a vast difference between a DNA produced organism, a human, that took millions of years to evolve, and a machine, which is a human invention.

[LaughingMan]

Current world population is seven billion people and growing.

When the collapse of technological industrial society begins I imagine we will see about six billion people dead after all is said and done.

In 1802 the world reached a population of one billion milestone. After the collapse of technological industrial society human global population will probably normalize within natural equilibrium around a billion or less.

Six billion people dead upon the collapse of technological industrial society.....that's a lot of dead people. I don't think we have enough coffins to put them in.


Where are we going to put them all?

[Kriswest]

Let nature consume them.

[LaughingMan]

Let nature consume them.

In more ways than just one.

[Ierrellus]

Let nature consume them.

Consume whom?

[Arminius]

Current world population is seven billion people and growing.

When the collapse of technological industrial society begins I imagine we will see about six billion people dead after all is said and done.

In 1802 the world reached a population of one billion milestone. After the collapse of technological industrial society human global population will probably normalize within natural equilibrium around a billion or less.

Six billion people dead upon the collapse of technological industrial society.....that's a lot of dead people. I don't think we have enough coffins to put them in.


Where are we going to put them all?

Let nature consume them.

Let nature consume them.

Consume whom?

Ierellus, do you really not know what Kriswest means?

[LaughingMan]

Current world population is seven billion people and growing.

When the collapse of technological industrial society begins I imagine we will see about six billion people dead after all is said and done.

In 1802 the world reached a population of one billion milestone. After the collapse of technological industrial society human global population will probably normalize within natural equilibrium around a billion or less.

Six billion people dead upon the collapse of technological industrial society.....that's a lot of dead people. I don't think we have enough coffins to put them in.


Where are we going to put them all?

Let nature consume them.

Let nature consume them.

Consume whom?

Ierellus, do you really not know what Kriswest means?

Yes, our resident faithful believer is that mentally dense. If you were to ask me I'd say it was the prescribed medication.

[James S Saint]

Too many people get injured playing football and basketball. When need to automate the game with android teams.

[Arminius]

Where are all the posts of the "revolting" ( ) functionaries of the current dictatorship now? Kriswest's sentence is not politically correct. But who cares? No one because Kriswest is a female. So her sentence is politically correct. But if a male had said that, he would have been mauled by the functionaries of the current dictatorship. That's remarkable, isn't it?

[Ierrellus]

Where are all the posts of the "revolting" ( ) functionaries of the current dictatorship now? Kriswest's sentence is not politically correct. But who cares? No one because Kriswest is a female. So her sentence is politically correct. But if you as a male had said that, you would have been mauled by the functionaries of the current dictatorship. That's remarkable, isn't it?

I guess I didn't understand her. Will nature "consume" biology or its artifacts--technology?