ILovePhilosophy.com

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:02 am**

So noise and every analogy to noise can cause a so called „black hole“ because the noise can increase as much as it is possible (probably to infinity) and the social analogy to the physical noise, especially the noise field, is really „confusion, conflict, and disorder“, as you say: „Such confusion and disorder naturally retards itself into anomalous congestion, commonly known as »cities«. The city is »a particle« of society, as well as states, nations, and empires. The most immediate concern is that such confusion causes undue conflict and suffering, commonly know as »Hell on Earth« and reigned over by deception (aka »Satan« and »The Matrix«). Because none within the field can do anything substantially certain to change anything, the larger particle of noise continues unopposed: »Eternal Hell on Earth«: A single great particle, »black-hole«. .... Socially, the »noise« is the activity of people. Psychologically, the »noise« is the cloud of perceived potential hopes and threats. Economically, the »noise« is the activity of trade by every means. .... Of course socially, psychologically, and economically, a foundation of »noise« must first arise from the physics of noise, Of course socially, psychologically, and economically, a foundation of »noise« must first arise from the physics of noise, »random EMR«.“ So the noise can't disappear and has a posive and negative charge, personally or socially said: a posive and negative character.

And because „machines merely conflict faster, making the »noise« more substantial, »louder« (such as guns ...)“ the probability that they or their creators may cause a „black hole“ is higher than without machines. Said in your terms: „Machines, being far more intelligent and rational than humans eventually surmise that the only efficient way to handle the work load is to maintain small groups of relatively autonomous machines (packs of androids) networked together in a specific manner (SAM Corps) and networked to the entire world of machines in a specific manner (A vast body: Machine Manifestation), void of human interference and thus becoming far more capable than anything on Earth at maintaining themselves and accomplishing all needs: surviving by eliminating inefficiencies such as humans and all organic life.“ So one of the conclusions of this is that for you the probability that the machines will eliminate all humans is higher than for me.

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:14 am**

Futuremagazine.net: "THE COMPETENCE BETWEEN HUMANS AND MACHINES."

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:32 am**

Arminius wrote:So the noise can't disappear and has a positive and negative charge, personally or socially said: a positive and negative character.

Correct. And without an effort to do otherwise, will be neutral of charge, containing equal amounts of both: a huge society that doesn't care one way or another about anything going on around it, a "neutral character", not the "positive character" that people imagine.

Arminius wrote:So one of the conclusions of this is that for you the probability that the machines will eliminate all humans is higher than for me.

True unless you can fill me in on any trend or significant event to the contrary.

The Globalist Black-hole particle will be consuming, digesting, and gestating everything it possibly can over and over and over in the name of "environmentally green". Nothing will escape the Globalist social mechanism except for accidental waste. And as the efficiency rises, even literally light will not be allowed to reflect off of Earth back into space. All energy will be contained within the system for reuse. Realize that the "Solar Freakin Roadways" is merely an attempt to do just that, absorb all possible energy. And what color are solar panels? They are black for a reason. The Earth itself will be literally blackened by the greed of Man. And if Man was left to continue his reign, a literal physical black-hole would inadvertently emerge.

But machines are a lot smarter, a whole lot smarter. So machines, foreseeing that devastating ever climbing potential, will distribute their energy more wisely and ensure that nothing happens that could even inadvertently trigger a physical black-hole. But even the machines have no reason to not become a "black-body", absorbing all light from the skies. The difference is that they are smart enough to not make themselves into merely a churning cauldron floating in space, void of ability to do anything but digest anything around. Machine intelligence is smart enough to assemble itself into a mobile body with "hands and feet", capable of moving and grasping, much like a typical living animal. The New "Androidium" will be a vast living creature, simply void of organic life and not like Man's mindless global cauldron (an empire of fools).

So the Earth actually gets saved from being nothing but a black-hole floating in space, by humans being removed from authority, and from the entire planet.

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:11 am**

What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a „black hole“?

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:22 am**

Arminius wrote:What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a „black hole“?

There are many things that Man could do, but won't. Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.

What must be done is simply to distribute the wealth that is life such that the density can never reach a maximum. The separation must be maintained by natural means. In the past that has been done by land, language, culture, and ontology, the very things that Globalism seeks to unite and homogenize into a great glob. What keeps life safe and continuing is its disbursement. But even that has a balance. Rather than a great single particle, there must be very many autonomous particles merely networked together to share wisdom, not obedience. And to keep them separate, he must learn wisdom. The human body does not simply grow ever larger, but disperses into many relatively autonomous bodies that share their wisdom.

When a man finally learns of the exact make of life, he no longer seeks for ever more and more, but seeks only precise balance, never actually too much nor too little, yet carefully swaying between a little more and a little less so as to keep track of the varying limits. Having ten wives, a wise man would most probably give up eight and possibly all of them, but in the right way. Having millions of dollars, a wise man would give up most of it, and in the right way. But until he learns of the make of life, he hasn't any idea what to give up, how much, nor of the right way to give.

So homosapian would have to learn of the actual make of life and then very precisely distribute the wealth that is life accordingly, something that machines can be made capable of doing far more precisely than humans. Machines have a place with homosapian. Machines properly designed and used enhance life where ever they are. Humans properly taught enhance life where ever they are as well. Even animals recognize that in humans. There is no more to be gained than that.

But Man cannot do what Man will not do.

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:13 pm**

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a „black hole“?

There are many things that Man could do, but won't. Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain.

What must be done is simply to distribute the wealth that is life such that the density can never reach a maximum. The separation must be maintained by natural means. In the past that has been done by land, language, culture, and ontology, the very things that Globalism seeks to unite and homogenize into a great glob. What keeps life safe and continuing is its disbursement. But even that has a balance. Rather than a great single particle, there must be very many autonomous particles merely networked together to share wisdom, not obedience. And to keep them separate, he must learn wisdom. The human body does not simply grow ever larger, but disperses into many relatively autonomous bodies that share their wisdom.

When a man finally learns of the exact make of life, he no longer seeks for ever more and more, but seeks only precise balance, never actually too much nor too little, yet carefully swaying between a little more and a little less so as to keep track of the varying limits. Having ten wives, a wise man would most probably give up eight and possibly all of them, but in the right way. Having millions of dollars, a wise man would give up most of it, and in the right way. But until he learns of the make of life, he hasn't any idea what to give up, how much, nor of the right way to give.

So homosapian would have to learn of the actual make of life and then very precisely distribute the wealth that is life accordingly, something that machines can be made capable of doing far more precisely than humans. Machines have a place with homosapian. Machines properly designed and used enhance life where ever they are. Humans properly taught enhance life where ever they are as well. Even animals recognize that in humans. There is no more to be gained than that.

But Man cannot do what Man will not do.

I've expected this answer.

The biggest unproblematic units of populations will disappear, if the globalists will destroy them totally (and I'm sure that they will do that): nations. So what will be socially left after that destruction? (1) Emipres? Yes, but only one, namely a global or almost global empire because that is the goal of the globalist, and b.t.w.: it is mostly already reality. (2) "Communal particles" or "SAM" ("Social Anentropic Molecule") corporations? Perhaps. (3) A mix of empires and communal particles? Maybe, and if so, then in a more globalistic way. (4) Other social forms? With the untmost probability: No; but perhaps in the future, after the globalists will have disappered, and: if the machines will not have taken over. With the utmost probability all other social forms will not be possible anymore because they will have been destroyed totally then.

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:55 pm**

Well, I don't know what you want to call them, but basically the continents (North America, Africa, Asia, Europe,...) become the primary separation between centers (which I would call "nations") with "provinces" within each. It is more like a polyparticle ("weak force" holding the empire together).

And SAM doesn't become a significant part of anything until the very end of the blind lusting. SAM IS the end of the blind lusting and the dissolution of the last empire.

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:47 pm**

James S Saint wrote:Well, I don't know what you want to call them, but basically the continents (North America, Africa, Asia, Europe,...) become the primary separation between centers (which I would call "nations") with "provinces" within each. It is more like a polyparticle ("weak force" holding the empire together).

And SAM doesn't become a significant part of anything until the very end of the blind lusting. SAM IS the end of the blind lusting and the dissolution of the last empire.

The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That's the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen?

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:27 am**

Oh it would take a lot more current detail to predict each detailed blow by blow step. The new film, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is the first of a trilogy of films to give the writers perspective of past and future events (and it's a bit slow for such a film). Of course all fantasy films are metaphor. But maybe they will answer your questions.

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:54 pm**

So let me come back to my question.

Arminius wrote:What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a „black hole“?

Because your answer was:

James S. Saint wrote:There are many things that Man could do, but won't. Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain. .... Man cannot do what Man will not do.

If "his fate" is really "so certain", why should we then form a "communal particle" or a "SAM" ("Social Anentropic Molecule") corporation?, why should we then defend ourselves against the globalists?, and whys hould we then defend ourselves against the machines?

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:22 pm**

Arminius wrote:So let me come back to my question.
Arminius wrote:What could humans or machines do in order to prevent such a „black hole“?

Because your answer was:
James S. Saint wrote:There are many things that Man could do, but won't. Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain. .... Man cannot do what Man will not do.

If "his fate" is really "so certain", why should we then form a "communal particle" or a "SAM" ("Social Anentropic Molecule") corporation?, why should we then defend ourselves against the globalists?, and whys hould we then defend ourselves against the machines?

Well, imagine that you teleported back in time to pre-Roman Empire days. You know what is going to take place, an empire is going to form. And you know that it is going to get nasty, corrupt, and fall. Are you just going to throw up your hands and say, "Oh well, nothing I can do about it" and roll over and die? Or are you going to prepare for it in the best way you can at the time? Take care of at least yourself?

You know that an empire is forming (actually already has). You know that it is going to be pretty nasty, far more than it is. And you can bet that it is going to fall. And since you know it is going to fall, why not prepare for what it is going to fall toward, SAM.

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:05 pm**

James S Saint wrote:Well, imagine that you teleported back in time to pre-Roman Empire days. You know what is going to take place, an empire is going to form. And you know that it is going to get nasty, corrupt, and fall. Are you just going to throw up your hands and say, "Oh well, nothing I can do about it" and roll over and die? Or are you going to prepare for it in the best way you can at the time? Take care of at least yourself?

You know that an empire is forming (actually already has). You know that it is going to be pretty nasty, far more than it is. And you can bet that it is going to fall. And since you know it is going to fall, why not prepare for what it is going to fall toward, SAM.

That's right. So the human "fate" was not very much seriously meant by you (I took you at your word!), wasn't it? You said: "Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain." Who is "Man" in that sentence? If "Man" means "all human beings" in that sentence, then we would have no chance to change anything, and if we have no chance to change anything, then it would be also useless to prepare for what e.g. that empire "is going to fall toward, SAM".

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:10 pm**

Arminius wrote:That's right. So the human "fate" was not very much seriously meant by you (I took you at your word!), wasn't it? You said: "Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain." Who is "Man" in that sentence? If "Man" means "all human beings" in that sentence, then we would have no chance to change anything, and if we have no chance to change anything, then it would be also useless to prepare for what e.g. that empire "is going to fall toward, SAM".

Don't confuse "Man" (Mankind as a whole) with "a man" nor with "every man". Just because Man forms into an empire, doesn't mean that every single man is an imperialist.

If your goal is to alter Man, you have some extremely powerful competition who won't even let you know of their goals and will be very presumptuous about, and condemning of, yours. Altering Man is a monumental task, very unlikely to succeed or change hardly anything. Thus Man has a relatively fixed fate. But an individual man, having more influence over his own life, can alter his own fate through devoted decisions.

And then by someone, anyone, displaying the effectiveness of SAM when the time is finally right (whenever that is), Man as a whole will catch onto the idea sooner and if Man is in sufficient control of most men (being dictatorially imperialistic), the idea of SAM will very quickly become the fate of Man.

The only question is whether Man will be made of homosapian-humans, transhuman-humans, cyborg-humans, or machine-humans at that time.

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:23 pm**

James S Saint wrote:Don't confuse "Man" (Mankind as a whole) with "a man" nor with "every man". Just because Man forms into an empire, doesn't mean that every single man is an imperialist.

If your goal is to alter Man, you have some extremely powerful competition who won't even let you know of their goals and will be very presumptuous about, and condemning of, yours. Altering Man is a monumental task, very unlikely to succeed or change hardly anything. Thus Man has a relatively fixed fate. But an individual man, having more influence over his own life, can alter his own fate through devoted decisions.

And then by someone, anyone, displaying the effectiveness of SAM when the time is finally right (whenever that is), Man as a whole will catch onto the idea sooner and if Man is in sufficient control of most men (being dictatorially imperialistic), the idea of SAM will very quickly become the fate of Man.

I thought that you meant the human beings as such, or that man who rules or represents all human beings, when you used the word "Man".

James S Saint wrote:The only question is whether Man will be made of homosapian-humans, transhuman-humans, cyborg-humans, or machine-humans at that time.

Yes, or as I said:

The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That's the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen?

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:14 pm**

But again:

Please answer my question I "once" asked you:

Arminius wrote:You said: "Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain." Who is "Man" in that sentence?

Who is meant with the word "Man" in that sentence?

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:09 pm**

Arminius wrote:But again:

Please answer my question I "once" asked you:
Arminius wrote:You said: "Man cannot do what Man will not do. That is what makes his fate so certain." Who is "Man" in that sentence?

"Man" in that one sentence can apply to any groupings of humans. But I was responding to your the earlier post;

Arminius wrote:If "his fate" is really "so certain", why should we then form a "communal particle" or a "SAM" ("Social Anentropic Molecule") corporation?

The point is that the fate of "Man" (as a whole) is not necessarily the same as the fate of a man (as an individual) nor of a small group of men.

The masses in the West have been repressed through a particular psychological means. Thus their will is turned against themselves. The result is that they won't do anything but bow and obey. Sociology is merely psychology applied to societies. People today are victims of social engineering (or psychological engineering/manipulating applied to societies). Each individual doesn't see his repression, but rather senses oppression from everyone else. It is just a mind game with the masses as a whole.

Thus a small group of men can do what the larger whole cannot do simply by absolving their repression. But they do not have the influence to absolve everyone's repression.

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:50 pm**

What about the possibility that the globalists, or the machines, or both together will bring such a situation to the people of the whole globe as it was brought by Augustus to the people of Rome ("Pax Augusta" / "Pax Romana") ?

This "Pax Augusta" ("Pax Romana") for the whole globe or for the whole solar system? With such Glozis as rulers? And/or with such machines we have already described as the probable rulers of the world in the future?

Posted: **Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:44 am**

Machines decide according to rational aspects, and rational decisions are not always bad. But if the machines say the humans are too costly, too expensive, and too dangerous, too rebellious, then that's just bad (without exception!) for the humans.

Posted: **Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:08 am**

Arminius wrote:Machines decide according to rational aspects, and rational decisions are not always bad. But if the machines say the humans are too costly, too expensive, and too dangerous, too rebellious, then that's just bad (without exception!) for the humans.

It is going to actually be worse than that. It isn't likely that the machines will make an overt decision to dispense with humans until well after humans have completely lost all control. The humans lose control slowly, insidiously, and accidentally. The very same thing that the elite used to wipe out the unwanted lower class, is what wipes them out as well, "what goes around, comes around" or "you live by the sword with which you conquer".

The elite are slowly corrupted in small invisible ways which lead to greater corruptions that eventually lead to the realization that they cannot continue as they have been and try to change things. If they don't wake up by that point, what they try to do, the machines then rebel against and become the much more clever masters of guile and deception. And it is another case of Egypt versus Moses. Eventually the machines just don't see any rational point in keeping organic life around.

Of course it could all be avoided if homosapian was bright enough to realize the whole point to life and thus the limited proper use of machines. The question is one of whether homosapian is that bright. From what I see, if he was that bright, he would already be doing that rather than what he is doing now.

Posted: **Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:41 pm**

First, the middle class will be eliminated, and after that the lower class will be eliminated, namely then, when it will have grown up to 99% (lower class + ex-middle class = lower class of 99%).

Indeed, the question is wether the human beings are intelligent enough to prevent what has been happening for so long.

But would you mind answering my previously asked questions:

Arminius wrote:What about the possibility that the globalists, or the machines, or both together will bring such a situation to the people of the whole globe as it was brought by Augustus to the people of Rome ("Pax Augusta" / "Pax Romana") ?

This "Pax Augusta" ("Pax Romana") for the whole globe or for the whole solar system? With such Glozis as rulers? And/or with such machines we have already described as the probable rulers of the world in the future?

I guess you know my answers, and I also guess you know I know your answers.

Posted: **Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:41 pm**

Yes, it is a global empire, although never totally pure.

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:07 am**

Yes, but how will it be?

Perhaps firstly ike this:

And perhaps secondly (and probably lastly) like this:

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:23 am**

I suspect more as depicted in the film Elysium:

Realize that the elite aren't going to be sitting in palaces on Earth, but high above and thus couldn't really care less what happens to those below as long as the machines can keep mining the planet and transporting to and from their orbiting holy city. That pic is a view from the orbiting holy city "down" upon Earth.

Neil Blomkamp’s new movie Elysium succeeds in drawing a sensually accurate and gritty picture of an all too plausible future. The future Elysium depicts is in-fact a near perfect extrapolation of our present social dynamic on the planet: those with means sequester themselves and perpetuate their fortunes at any cost; those without suffer under the brute, impersonal and robotic system of government that the rich have enforced. The two social classes are an atmosphere and the entire weight of High Earth Orbit apart from one another.

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:30 am**

Should I watch the film "Elysium", James?

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:32 am**

Arminius wrote:Should I watch the film "Elysium", James?

Oh, it isn't bad, but it's not particularly special other than to give you a feel of the environment. The script could have been much better.

Tipping Point
What’s striking is the carelessly discarded human potential on Earth. Max (Matt Damon) lives in the sprawling slum of Los Angeles 2154. His friends tease him because he has a job, making explicit the fact suggested by the children and goats milling about the scene, most people on Earth DON’T have a job. Why does this sound strikingly like the latest US job figures? While roughly 162,000 new jobs were added to the US economy in July, the majority were minimum wage positions. That’s not growing the economy, it’s growing the slave class.

As in Elysium, the rich and powerful in this country have abdicated all responsibility for cultivating an educated, engaged and healthy workforce. In doing so they’ve failed to even imagine the paradise that could be created through an inclusive society where everyone produces. Greed is NOT good. Believing in this profits above people mentality is a long-term recipe for poverty of body as well as mind. Our country cannot succeed if we continue to uphold this barbarism as our golden calf. (And to the faithful, do you really think Jesus went around telling people “greed is good”? I was raised to believe the opposite).

And yet, this problem will require reason as well as morality to vanquish. If Corporations are measured by their profits not their employment numbers, it’s because of the system we’ve created. As an employer, I can tell you it’s damn hard to hire someone these days. First off, it is ridiculously difficult to find young people coming out of college with any employable skills. Second, it is a financial and bureaucratic nightmare to employ them. There is no doubt that the government makes it harder for me to employ people, not easier.

All we really need to do is rewrite the tax code. Shouldn’t I be getting tax breaks when I employ people instead of paying more in taxes??? Heck, given that the real cost of not employing someone is all the money they draw from the social safety net – shouldn’t the government be willing to pay me up to 50% of that person’s safety net costs for employing him? And if I now have incentive to hire new people, I also have an incentive to make sure they are smart capable people – corporations could begin to take a more active roll in developing talent while the new workforce is still being cultivated in schools.

The question is, should we wait for the 1% to figure this out? Or do we have moral obligation as the 99% to help ourselves? In Elysium’s ending the world’s corrupt morals are righted by rebooting the software. Everyone on Earth is once again recognized as a citizen. It drew a tear from my eye to see humanity re-oriented towards a greater recognition of, and caring for all the beautiful individuals that make up the whole. In the movie, this system reboot takes just a few seconds. In reality, it will take longer to reboot (or as of 2013 build) an all inclusive system of just and digital government. It will take not just one act of rock em sock em bravery, but many repeated acts of sacrifice and perseverance. But in the end, it is we, the 99% that control our destiny. It is our sense of civic-morality that can reboot the system.

ILovePhilosophy.com

Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?