Those who refuse even the possibility of what they do not personally see, are the ones who are unjustly self-certain, the very thing that those same people complain about concerning others. And it is entirely religious, another of their complaints.
In the end of all of the complaining about others merely being like themselves, only a few of the purely dedicated survive. And there is nothing more dedicated than a machine, a “drone” that isn’t even aware of a master or queen to question.
And note that the wealthier Jews thought the same thing about the Nazis, “Our God will protect us. They are merely getting rid of the dangerous, weak, and useless. All is well. Nothing is really changing.”
“Science and technology will save us. They are merely getting rid of the dangerous, weak, and useless. All is well. Nothing is really changing.”
[list][list]
[/list:u][/list:u]
[list][list][list] ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]
What do you mean “too late”? Why is it too late after being laid off or experiencing starvation?
Yeah, it’s how the French Revolution started.
You and James are talking about something completely different from the OP. All the OP brought up was the possibility of machines completely taking over the rolls of human being–you and James are adding a huge, monolithic, gargantuan extraneous variable from out of nowhere: brainwashing! You’re supposing that this machine take over is going to follow, by necessity, a massive global brainwashing operation in which people end up not realizing they’re being laid off or that they’re out of work and that they have no clue that they’re starving or know what starvation is (and I’m not sure who’s orchestrating this brainwashing operation–a human government that plans to replace the working class with machines or the machines themselves in a post-machine-take-over world). That’s quite amazing–being brainwashed to the point of not even knowing you’re out of work and starving–and ridiculously fantastical.
But in order for me to take this seriously and grant that it might be remotely plausible, you’re going to have to detail for me a timeline of events–starting from the state of things now, how they’re going to unfold, stage by stage, into the future, explaining how the machines are gradually going to replace humans and take over their jobs, until we get to this science-fiction world of yours in which humans have forgotten what starvation is (even though their experiencing the pangs of it every day) and being out of work has become a foreign concept. Then maybe I can assess whether your argument makes sense or not.
NO. It is NOT how the French „revolution“ started.
NO. YOU are talking about something completely different fom the OP because you are always only talking about political and social issues which belong mostly to the past and to the presence, maybe even to the nearest future, but not to that future what my OP is talking about.
You are talking about „revolution“, „revolt“ „rebellion“, „out of work“, „workforce“ „working class“, „starve“. You are changing my OP in a primarily political „DP“ („Different Post“). You think of „revolution“, and „socialism“, or „communism“, and believe naively or optimistically in the competence of workers.
You don’t know whether they know or not know because the topic of this thread and the OP refer not to the presence, but to the futue: Will machines completely replace all human beings? . That’s the theme, the title, the topic of this thread and what’s the OP is all about. And the topic of this thread and the OP is no „revolutionary“ combat organ with hate campaign. No. The OP refers to the future and tries to find out whether machines will completely replace all human beings.
So you should stay on track, keep the OP in mind, remind yourself of the topic of this thread. 
If they effectively revolt, then Machines will not replace them. So he is discussion what he considers will prevent the replacement which is on topic, since it argues for an answer to the title of the thread.
Primarily it is a technical, economical, and last - but not least - a philosphical question. it has very much to do with rationality, not so very much with wishes / desires. Secondarily it is also a politcal and social question. Of course. But both questions do not refer very much to the past and to presence, but very much to the future.
One should not confuse the meaning and importance of the first question with the the meaning and importance of the second question.
Please follow the link above, and you will at first read a question. A question! And although I am asking this question, I have hopefully the right to say something different, something which differs from the question and tens to an answer.
And why do I “have to detail for me a timeline of events … (etc. pp.)”, and you don’t have to explain anything, although your statements are full of errors and lead - with the utmost probability - to conclusions which are false and not good for you and your descendants? Furthermore I have given evidence for my arguments. For example: Machines are cheaper than human beings, machines can be controlled very nuch easier than hunans, machines don’t rebel, the current machines are alraedy able to learn and also in some cases alraedy part of human bodies, machines will capture the human bodies and probably - I don’t know exactly, therefor the question in the title of the thread and in the OP - take over. I don’t have to go in details because you can raed them in my posts of this thread. So please read my posts of this thread, If you are really intersted in my arguments and their evidence.
But what about you? You don’t have to detail and so on? Are you God?
Your arguments can hardly convince. So please explain them and detail a timeline of events.
Try to convince the people who don’t believe in social revolutions, in socialism, communism, and other totalitarianisms!
Machines will never be able to replace humans completely on their own, for some inevitable reasons.
Yes, there is a possibility that human race on this planet will eliminate himself either by a huge war or trying to machinize humans by planting some sort of chips in the brain or other mechanical parts somewhere else in the body in order to improve human efficieny, both mentally and physically.
A human is a complex order or system. If it is forced to accomodate too much change and too rapidly, it is possible that the whole system would collapse, instead of improving.
Though, in that case, even if the human race is eliminated, there would not be ever any rule of machines.
And also, the human race will stem out again from the remaining biological life forms, if there were left any and that enviornment would permit.
with love,
sanjay
Sorry, but I am not very much convinced. 
Well, I have noticed that since the time I posted that video on ASIMO, it has become “Private” and thus you are not allowed to see it. Within that video were scenes of a Japanese workplace preparing for the day’s work by doing mandatory calisthenics. Just behind a row of such employees was a row of ASIMO robots, doing the exact same movements along with the other employees. Of course the employees were all smiling and expressing joy that they had such companionship. It was a part of Japan’s technology propaganda. The video also included a few new American commercials for businesses to replace workers with much cheaper androids - currently available. Along with this commercial and many others;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFgXEkzMq7A[/youtube]
And then from the University of West England you have this;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhVu2hxm07E[/youtube]
More from Japan (there is a new contest between Japan and the West to produce the best androids);
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIuF5DcsbKU[/youtube]
Rise of the Machines - Michio Kako on the subject of future “timeline” speculations concerning machine take-over;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imc4xQDp_Fs[/youtube]
“Honda kept it a secret for 10 years”, no doubt so as to get ahead of the game before the competition took over. Now H7 can “play ball”. The military has hover craft and land craft that can find their own way through all kinds of obstacles and maintain cooperative order between the drones automatically, “swarm robots”.
The military now prefers video controlled drones so that the controllers are sitting back at home, merely playing a video game. And a war between drones is much like a chess game. Who is the current chess champion? - a computer.
From your History Channel;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7EFmO260E[/youtube]
…1942 German Goliath terminator robot and the infamous UAV, “Predator”, in 1975.
And now DARPA is facing the decision of “at what point we ARE going to give autonomous killing authority to androids”.
For an even better “Timeline”, you already have this in public domain;
Living machines, fighting for their survival, autonomously;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2h22M2xRBw[/youtube]
Ever heard of “A Fish Called Wanda”? I bet you think it is just a movie title. It was an MIT confidential project to produce an artificial fish, called “WANDA”. How many fish in the world do you think are artificial? How many insects?
Why would human produce millions of artificial fish and insects? Well obviously surveillance. And what happens immediately following all forms of surveillance? Strategic action.
You think it isn’t cost effective to build millions of such things. But they are being built by robots and they are very small, made to be inexpensive.
On Mars are intelligent roaming devices (more sent ever couple of years) that cannot afford to wait for instructions from Earth. They make their own decisions. They learn and deal with what they encounter. They have no choice. “If we don’t do it, they will”.
Saddam Insane’s Red Army was whipped out primarily by Hellfire missiles fired from drones declared illegal years prior. So what do you do when a government doesn’t allow you to use your advanced tech? You give them a reason to open the door (9/11). Now through DARPA, even civilian surveillance drones are being armed with weapons and a small amount of AI.
The “timeline” is already far ahead of where you can see. What you see on your documentary channels is already out of date by the time you get to see it. Everything you see in those films is already outdated.
And in the mean time, 1/6 of the USA population is already unemployed.
And you might also want to realize that an android face, when designed properly, can rearrange its contour and facial features to match any face that it sees. Upon merely looking at you, an android can replicate your face as its own. Then 10 minutes later, choose someone else’s.
Who needs human spies?
mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschw … uences.htm
Check out item #6 in particular:
Ok, in the future, humans will rebel in response to being laid off and being forced to starve… is that better?
Right, because none of that has any place in the topic of machines taking over human beings.
Who said anything about communism? This is human nature. You get put out of work, you face starvation, you panic. Organized rebellion is just a human instinct made collective–it is the response to the threat of death. You panic at the prospect and you take drastic measures: bloody and violent revolution.
And… why, again, can I not explain my answer to your question? I mean, in your own words, you asked the question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? My answer is no. Am I to refrain from explaining why I think machines will not completely replace all human being simply because I’d have to use the word “revolt” which you left out of the OP?
Oh, so you did.
So that I can, per chance, take you seriously.
All right, that’s a start. My response: that’s not going to stop human workers from rebelling against their replacement.
Yes, machines can learn to a certain extent, but to what extent do you think machines are already part of human bodies? Off the top of my head, I can think of heart transplants, hearing aids, prosthetic limbs… but to the point of being a cyborg or having computer chips implanted in human brains… that’s still too science-fiction for me to believe we’re destined for it or that it implies machines will completely take over human beings.
See, now this is out of the blue. Why do you predict machine will “capture” human bodies. Who’s orchestrating this? Will machines eventually wipe out all human beings on the planet? And how will it have gotten to that point? Why would we have programmed the machines to do that? Are there still human beings in this scenario orchestrating this machine take over? If so, they must remain around and so you can’t say that all humans would have been wiped out.
This is the part that we need to flesh out more. You have given reasons to believe it may be economical to replace humans with machines, and that to an extent machines are being “integrated” into human bodies (although I still think this is an exaggeration given the present state of things), but all this is talk about the present (which you forbade, remember?). Then you jump ahead to some future post-apocalyptical science-fiction fantasy world in which machines will “probably” capture human beings. The gap between the present and this fanciful future scenario is what I need to you to fill in.
Machines are, increasingly utilized, right, and the integration of machine thought with human thought is in process to reach a state of less and less distinguishability between the two. But absolute indistinguishability is impossible, since human thought is an integral part of the machine program. The program is human based and oriented, and it relates to fields in process of unification. There is fast approaching a state, where looking for where the machine starts, and humanity stops will seem redundant, because, there must by definition develop a synergy between them. It is tantamount to worrying about ideas of the self, and realizing that a manageable letting go of the ideas surrounding it, is the cure. The rise of the machines is the production of anti-cogito, discarded Descartianism, the rise of the new man. This process, is necessary, by definition of the new age of communication., Meaning, understanding, perception, are going through a subliminal change, and the effects are enormously challenging. We are living the process, but are unable to grasp it’s true significance. We are in a state of development, utilization comes later.
Never mind. I was expecting that sort of reply.
with love,
sanjay
Though, there are some metaphysical reasons why machines cannot replace humans, but i will try to argue the case purely in the context of the philosophy of the mind.
The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness.
We tend to confuse complexity with learning. Actually, the machines never learn, simply because they do not any willingness to learn. They display or behave exactly how they are fed, neither more nor less.
It is neither the change/development nor capacity to develop that differs humans from the machines but the willingness of humans to do so. Machines certainly have better potential but they do not have any will to evolve. They do not want or desire anything.
To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible. We cannot enable them to will. They take orders from their programming, no matter how developed, complex or sophisticated it may be, it is still an order. They never question/challenge/change their programming. Someone else has to do it for them.
with love,
sanjay
.
[size=150]Asimo learning;[/size]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wSJs6LIc0[/youtube]
“Okay so when will Asimo take over the world?”
“Oh, I don’t think that will happen.”
“I’m not so sure.”
Hello, Gib.
I do NOT have to check out. Who is Mr. Schwartz? His name is German, but nevertheless I don’t know him.
Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”?
That’s not a proof of “revolution”, it is more a proof of NO “revolution”.
Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”?
Where did, do, or will do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?
Overnight this poor and starving people became, become, and will become emperors, kings, and - of course - “Gods”?
No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread , of the topic, and of the OP : Will machines completely replace all human beings?
If you want to discuss the question “what would be better”, you have to answer firstly the question of the “what”, secondly the question of the “would”, and thirdly the question of the “better” (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would …, if …
Which sense does it make, when you are counting … 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 …?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying “better” => “would be” => “what” instead of “what” => “would be” => “better”?
Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!
AGAIN: Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”?
Where do the poor and starving people get their weapons from in order to win their so called “revolution” and to defeat rulers, machines?
It did not, and it does not, and it will not work in that way. I can guarantee you.
You have said “no” - twice -, so what is your problem? Is it because of my “probably yes” (not “yes”, but merely “probably yes”) ?
Not necessarily, Gib, but it would be better because the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP ask one QUESTION: Will machines completely replace all human beings?
Probably yes.
You can find the answers in this thread.
The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with “yes” is not 100%, but it is high.
If so? If not so? They do not necessarily act and react in that way you are assuming. So your premise is probably false, thus your conclusion is probably false too. Try to unerstand how and why human beings “decide” always by their interest, their will to power (Nietzsche), to control anything and everything, anybody and everybody, and - if they have power - their failing of beeing perfect. Human beings act and react very much in the way of trial and error, and even in the moments when they believe in being perfect - in being God(s) -, they usually fail and tend to suicide.
I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?
I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!
You are as much as I invited to give answers and evidence for this answers. Please read the posts in my thread because it contains many answers and evidence.
James,
I am dead sure that no machine would be able to replace humans ever about that but that problem with me that i cannot prove it to others, in the exact way that i want.
Secondly, what you consider the learning of the robots is still their programming. They are not doing it willingly. That is the crux of the issue.
We can infuse as much knowledge and develop the robots as much as we can. They can be very sophisticated in the future, and also, we can programme them to use their knowledge and capacity in the way we like. That is not what i am disputing.
Furthermore, there is a very clearcut difference between an information and a knowledge.
And, this is precisely the point where the whole concept of AI misfires.
The most part of the knowledge requires to go through the process of experiencing the learning. This sense of experience is missing in the machines. And, without this, knowledge is nothing but mere information. So, machines do not have any real knowledge, but the information about the knowledge only.
A very simple but perfect example is the explanation of any color to a blind man by birth. It is simply immpossible. No matter how much information we give to a blind about colors, yet he would never understand what we exactly mean by color. Simply because, the thing that may have enabled him to understand colors truly (eyes) are missing in him.
We can tell him about the all technical detalis of colors and he can remember all that too, yet that does not serve the purpose. The important thing to understand here is that he can still use colors for different purposes, even without understanding exactly what colors mean.
That is exactly how machines use to work.
[b]We can enrich them with as much information as we like and programme them to use that in the way we like, yet they would neither experience anything within them. Because, the ingredient that is essential for experience, is missing in them and that is Mind. And, as they cannot experience anything thus they would not have any willingness ever to challenge thier programming. Means, they would always behave as we want them to behave.
Having said that, still there is a possibility that some insane ( or wise, if one wants to call as such ) individual or a group of those would be able to control the machines to eliminate the rest of the human race. And, it is also possible that, in that process, the ultimate result may be the extinction of the whole of the human race.
But, even that situation cannot considered as machines replacing humans[/b].
It would be the exinction of humans by humans, nothing else.
James, Machines will be machines only, ever.
with love,
sanjay