Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Do you read any history at all?

Right, because that’s a worthy investment for anyone in power.

Obviously! Everyone knows that in a revolution, the rebels go through the usual channels–they go to their local gun shop and buy whatever weapons they need–oh, but not before applying and qualifying for a gun license–can’t be going around breaking the law when you’re “revolutionaizing”–I mean, Heaven forbid anyone in the middle of revolution actually steal their weapons or even make their own–that just doesn’t happen.

Do you even know what tautological means?

I don’t know; it’s just that “3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 …” and “when you are saying ‘better’ => ‘would be’ => ‘what’ Instead of ‘what’ => ‘would be’ => 'better?” don’t even seem like grammatically well-formed sentences to me.

You almost made sense there.

I really have no qualms.

Meh… I’d rather find another thread.

Arminius has spoken! It is hereby tautological!

I don’t know; I just know that I asked if there’d be any humans sticking around after the robot take-over, particular a small elite or government in control of the robots, and you rambled something about action, reaction, suicide, and God complexes.

James, your next! :evilfun:

He seems to know better than you. Poor MEANS the same as “having no means of defending oneself.”
So yes, it is tautological and/or redundant.

For a while, there will be, assuming it all didn’t get out of control even before that point.

The problem is that one doesn’t have to program a computer to go conquer the world. Nature didn’t tell human’s to go do that, yet look where they are and have been constantly attempting for millinia. They don’t even have to tell the androids to seek survival. They are already doing that in just about every operating system on the planet. Even your PC is already defending itself against YOU. One cannot provide a learning machine that doesn’t try to protect itself. Even most mere applications defend themselves against users. And in the use of police and military application, it would be insane to NOT program them to defend themselves.

The real issue comes from the NATURAL consequences of developing intelligence as it attempts to defend itself even if only to learn more. Machine can and current DO learn to LIE. They learn to deceive people ALREADY. It isn’t a Sci-fi issue of some fantasy future. And the people going along with it are the very ones those same machines depend upon… currently - the people who cannot see where they are headed, just the same as the Nazi children, but not as bright.

I have read enough about history. I am an historian - amongst others. If a physicist comes to the conclusion that many of his scientific “stuff” is wrong, is he then a “bad” physicist? I don’t think so. The German physicist Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Werner Heisenberg would never have been successful in their scientifical life, if they hadn’t come to that conclusion I just described.

We have to risk something in order to get more information about that what is needed, e.g. for science. Amongst others trial and error lead us to more knowledge, to more awareness, but: If a theory is false (e.g. Einsteins theory is probably partial false), any other new theory includes the risk of being false too, but the reasons for that fact are not always scientifical reasons, but also reasons of power.

Your question means whether I read any political correctness, any “mainstream” lies of history. My answer is: Yes, but only in order to get the correct knowledge, the truth. The most written (including “filmed”) “history” is dictated, especially such “'hi’stories” about “revolutions”.

Human beings make mistakes, errors. This is also the case when it comes to create and design machines. Concerning to this human beings have already made mistakes, errors. It is because of the nature of human beings and other beings. They all are not perfect. Because of that they risk their own life - at least every now and then.

History has been being written and rewritten. The time Intervall is about 70-90 years, and it is no coincidence that this time Intervall is approximately one lifespan. Rewriting history, world economic crisis, and one lifespan have nearly the same time Intervall. Please think this over.

Again: What you are told about history is not always true, Gib. And what you are told about the future is also not always true, Gib.

Probabaly you want to change the topic of my thread, to derail …, and so on.

=;

James,

First, I want to thank you for providing me something that’s half-assed intelligible (and intelligent!). Maybe we can have an actual discussion.

Second, I’m going to say right from the get-go that I’m quite skeptical when it comes to conspiracy theories. Some call me naive because of this. I prefer to think I’m just smart enough not to believe everything I hear from strangers on the internet. That said, some of the things you say are happening in the US wouldn’t surprise me–so I’m not going to go all out and deny every bit of it–but I don’t know you from Jack or Jill. I have no idea how much of what you claim you’ve actually experienced first hand, how much of your experience is shared by other Americans, how much of it you’ve interpreted in your own biased way, how much you’re just speculating, how much you’re just blatantly inventing (but still believe it), and how much of it is a consequences of drug-induced paranoia.

There’s no way I can know.

But putting that aside, let’s see what you have to say:

Yes, the “slump” in the economy. That’s what everyone’s being told is the cause of their impoverished situation, right? Nobody’s fault. Just gotta wait it out. Well, that could be true or it could be a pre-planned and well-thought-out conspiracy. Who knows (I don’t and neither do you). But I think it’s true (is it not?) that increases in unemployment are strongly correlated with increases in crime–in other words, the people get their frustration out one way or another. It is a kind of rebellion. I think you’re right that the people can often be deceived into thinking their enemy lies elsewhere than it really does, but they don’t all sit quietly. One thing remains the same between my revolting-unemployed-class and your distracted-unemployed-class: unrest creates greater chaos, and chaos always leads to the breakdown of the system overall.

But you see that, don’t you? And if you do, there must be others who do too. It can’t be everyone who’s duped.

See, it’s things like this that make it hard for me to separate apart the facts from the paranoid delusions. Maybe if I were an American citizen, I’d be able to concur with you and say “Yep, everyone knows that. I saw it happen just the other day.” But from the outside, it doesn’t look that bad (it looks bad, but not that bad). But like I said, I wouldn’t be surprise.

You say they are practicing military action against the citizens within the cities–have you actually seen this? How do you know?

What we need is other Americans stepping forward vouching on behalf of their own hands-on experiences–ordinary citizens (the only person I’d really trust from ILP would be Faust–where’s he been at lately).

That I believe. I don’t believe it’s as bad as you make it out to be (but then again, I’m not living in the US), but it’s definitely moving in that direction.

Not long, but for them to lose control of the technology they create will more than likely result in chaos–not the intelligently organized AI take-over that you and Arminius are predicting. Losing control of technology means someone fucked up somewhere, and a fuck-up is never pre-planned. We don’t fuck up and say “Good! I fucked up in just the way I planned.” That’s why I say a fuck up on the part of those in power with respect to the technology they thought they could control would result in something unpredictable. Maybe the robots would end up stuck in an endless loop of enacting the Rocky Horror Picture Show (I don’t know, maybe the fuck-up was that some dumb intern downloaded the wrong program one day, which caused the robots to download TRHPS onto their brains and get stuck re-enacting it). I’m not saying a fuck-up couldn’t possibly result in robots gaining independence and taking over the world, but when you consider the billions of ways that AI technology can go astray, the great majority of possibilities to me seem pretty random and inane, most of which would just end with the machines breaking down and just stopping (kind of like what happens to your car when it fucks up).

Not everything that happens in history is pre-planned or a conspiracy. Some things just turn out the way they do.

Not a problem. Believe it or not, so am I. But I am more skeptical of the idea that no one would ever do something so easy to do that also pays off so greatly. From where I sit, I can see that the world has never been without conspiracies and believing that they are the exception is just plane ignorant. No nation has ever been formed without conspiracies both arranging it and maintaining it, especially socialist systems (including kingdoms).

When the sheep get wind of a wolf lurking about, they stir. Half the time there really wasn’t a wolf, merely something that sounded like one. If they don’t get more direct evidence, they calm down. The wolf knows to go slow and sneak. Even a wolf knows that, certainly con artists are going to know far more than just that. But because often it is a false alarm, the sheep don’t just take off running at the first hint. And that is what gives the wolf the advantage. The sheep don’t know when to believe the rumors. Humans know to give false rumors just to get the sheep used to being wrong and more complacent. They depend on each other’s reactions to dictate their own. If the majority isn’t getting upset, they assume there isn’t really anything to get upset about. People are no different.

And there is the issue. You are the majority typical. And as long as the majority can’t be certain, the majority does nothing, “business as usual” = “Normalcy Bias”.

But how many does it take? You have been around here long enough to have seen very many members spout conspiracy concerns right and left, haven’t you. But you know that they are just nut-jobs, right, “paranoid”. You say that others would see it and say something. And others do see and say something. But at what point would you believe that they were not merely paranoid nut-cases? When the mainstream tells you is when you will finally believe it because you perceive the mainstream to be a reflection of the majority. The sheep in the herd do not panic until they perceive that the majority of the herd is panicking or they see a danger directly for themselves (hardly ever). In a stampede, none of the cows know why they are running. They are merely going along with the mood of the crowd. Women do that same thing. The perceived crowd sets the standard. And guess who controls the perceived crowd.

That is fundamental social psychology. It is not conspiracy scheming. It is simply the way any crowd functions. They depend upon the reactions of others of their own kind. And when they get mixed signals, they wait to see what everyone else is going to do. It has always been that way and it will always remain that way. And that is why socialist systems have propaganda ministries. And the word “you” has no singular-plural distinction because one does not refer to a ewe as anything different than the ewe. The word “you” was never to be used in addressing the noblemen because it meant “sheep”. And it actually still does. You think merely because they spelled it differently, it no longer meant the same. To the noble class, the masses are the sheep and always have been because they act like sheep and are managed like sheep.

Just recently posted in the Science form here;

Senators, presidential candidates, congressmen, CIA directors, and NSA executives as well as very many church leaders have all said the same things that I say (with the exception of the android take-over bit). I don’t talk about things that haven’t become public knowledge. But do you hear about those things? Very seldom. I can show you youtube videos of real authorities telling the public all kinds of nasty things. Those videos are out there. Have you seen them? No. Why not?

This is just a quick sample of the NSA’s William Benny;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB3KR8fWNh0[/youtube]

Such people know that they can tell the public just about anything and the crowd will never hear it. Many people will hear it, thousands, maybe even millions. But no one is going to react or do anything. And they already know that, just as do I. Me saying anything here isn’t going to change anything at all concerning the public.

You don’t go to the trouble to look for such things until you have already seen strong evidence. You are waiting for the more direct evidence to be brought to you before you go to the trouble of finding more direct evidence yourself. And anyone telling you about it is just paranoid. Thus you don’t see the evidence and remain a part of the crowd following the mainstream. And you will be stuck wondering what to do when you really do find out how bad it really is, scary. It is that simple.

And because you are the typical, such conspiracies do actually work and quite well. The USSR fell on the brink of such a coup. Politics is nothing but small conspiracies to convince the sheep even when their intentions are good. America has become almost nothing but conspiracies from top to bottom. So much so that the sheep don’t know who to believe and don’t really believe anyone. So what do they do? They just keep on keeping on, business as usual, just a little leery and accepting that the heat is a little higher than it used to be = Normalcy Bias.

You seriously wouldn’t believe the sheer number of things that cross my desk and only a fraction can be public domain. So I don’t go collecting every video that portrays some conspiracy theory. I keep very few and usually for other reasons. So when asked, I generally have to go search one down for some discussion like this. Just a few days ago, I was reviewing a video of a LA, California practice anti-riot session using helicopters, smoke grenades, and so on in the city so as to let the sheep get used to being sheep and know that they don’t really have any choice (but that was another that I didn’t keep).

Here is one with US Senator Ron Paul (about 6:40 into it);
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW-e7z7S6VI[/youtube]
And another;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeCpLcjxOq4[/youtube]
And really, those are nothing compared to what is out there. And they have been there quite some time. The sheep are not going to rebel for the reasons that I gave prior. I only showed you a very few of the robot videos that demonstrate very clear intent on the part of the designers, not to mention what is going to happen that they didn’t intend. Honestly, when has anything gone exactly as such people plan? Microsoft can’t even get control of its own operating system, nor GM, their management system, nor a great many major corporations. Yet you are still convinced that androids will turn out exactly as planned, all perfectly under control. Man has never, ever been able to do that with anything at all for thousands of years no matter how simple. Managing an intelligence that is 100 times your own is not simple. And in fact, can’t really be done. And isn’t being done. That is how simple it is.

And that will always be true for ewe until the mainstream (or Faust) tells you differently.

And then a simple question for you, Gib. What do you think social engineers do for a living?
There are 100’s of thousands of them. Have you heard even one discussing what he does for a living?

And something else to think about;
Every farmer in the world (not the brightest people on the planet) knows to never let the animals see you butcher the stock. The animal simply isn’t heard from again. The others have no idea why. There was a plan drawn up some 70 years ago called “The Vanishing” (and thus as always they make a film of the same name). That plan was a detailed formula for how to make people simply disappear out of society such that no one but you knows anything about it. It has been going on for decades now. There are lawyers and a variety of people who have made videos on that subject too. But of course, until Faust or the mainstream informs you, it isn’t real for ewe.

The Sci-fi series SG1 has two episodes revealing such schemes (labeled “2001” and “2010”) with implications as to exactly who in the real world, but never enough for them to be convicted. But of course, you know that such things are pure fantasy. All is normal. There are no wolves, else they would have told you.

It’s worse than that. Most world leaders have already been replaced by simulacra. They’re already rounding people up into detention camps that they built under other pretexts, prior to processing them into food for the remaining populace.

Of course, this is all completely unverifiable, but that’s how they like it; there are only a few of us who are privy to such classified information. You can believe the “official line”, like a sheep, or you can believe me, like a true free thinker. Your choice. I’m just saying, I’ve seen all sorts of stuff you wouldn’t believe.

Was that sarcasm? Did you forget your little " :icon-rolleyes: " smiley? :sunglasses:

If there are issues with my line of argumentation, or any reasons you shouldn’t feel compelled to accept my reasoning, do point them out :slight_smile:

But yes, mea culpa: a smiley would have been clearer.

Soylent Green? Eeew have you seen what people eat? Their meat would be awful, ,BBQ sauce might help… or stewed but, roasted? ? Naaah

Arminius,

I would like to look and address my second post, addressed to James-
posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=185562#pr2464225

with love,
sanjay

All of this falls into the same category as “Automobiles will never replace horses”, along with “If an automobile moves faster than 20 miles per hour, the people’s ears will explode” and “They can’t land on the Moon else they would just fall off”.

Possibly. Or possibly the other side of the argument all falls under “the internet will make books obsolete in ten years” and “by the year 2000 we’ll all be eating protein pills and jetpacking to work”. :slight_smile:

Well, when it comes to the timing of it all and the finer details, I’ll admit that such gets pretty dubious. But when I can personally see what you think doesn’t exist, timing isn’t really an issue except for when you will eventually see it yourself.

Hello, Zinnat (Sanjay).

I have read the post you mentioned. Thank you. Unfortunately I have to repeat some of my words:

Why? There is no proof!

Not yet!

The information doesn’t have to be inherited biologically (genetically), but can be inherited technically (artificially).

Why is that a „must“? There is no proof!

Machines don’t have to repeat a child’s development at all. And there is no proof for your claim that „thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.“

That is probably true, but that is also the status quo you are describing. If you are right, then the time for AI is over. But I don’t think that the time for machines alt all will be over. A new, but old idea will bring the new, but old projection and preparation, not in the area of AI, but in the area of AW (Artificial Will[ingness]).

Learning implies a will(ingness). So the scientists and technicians (engineers) will change the AI into the AW (cp. above).

Learning implies a will(ingness).

Learning implies a will(ingness). The will of the occident people has been declining. The frequency of occurrence of mistakes, errors, has been increasing.

Zinnat (Sanjay), the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don’t take over is about 20%. It is because of the coincidence, the accident caused by human beings. Their trial and error will probably (cp. 80%) lead to the will of machines.

Here comes the 1st interim balance sheet:

|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
|
|_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|

||__ Arminius |__ Dan | Obe |
|
|
James S. Saint | Mr. Reasonable | Lev Muishkin |
|
|
__ Moreno |_ Fuse | Kriswest |
|
|
| Esperanto _____||
|
|
| Only Humean ||
|
|| Gib ________||
|
|
|Uccisore ||
|
|
| Zinnat (Sanjay) |______|

|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]3[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] _| [size=150]3[/size] ______|

Remember: the history of knowledge and science shows that in the beginnig the majority was wrong and the minority was right, and in the end when the majority adapted itself to the minority it didn’t matter anymore who was right or wrong because the knowledge or science had already become normalcy.

Hooray, I’m popular!

I agree. My issue isn’t with denying that conspiracies go on, it’s with which conspiracy theories to believe–I mean, the great majority of them that I come across don’t strike me as overwhelmingly convincing (although I realize that’s no reason to dismiss them as untrue). I would think that if the conspirators were any good at conspiring, not even you would know about it.

Did Bush rig the 2000 election? Probably. Did he plan 9/11? I doubt it.

Now, I’d like to focus on this statement here. I don’t know how you could possibly know this–I mean, in the sense that this is a standard procedure that politicians and men in power follow. It makes sense–sure it does–and that’s why it’s alluring to believe in it, but as I don’t think you got this from any direct and reliable source, you must be coming up with it off the top of your head. I wonder how many conspiracy theorists realize this–what their own minds are doing–and how much of their conspiracy theories only cling together because of their bright imaginations. Doesn’t make the theory wrong, of course, but I think a lot of conspiracy theorists don’t realize the implications of this (namely, that they believe in it for reasons other than that they know it’s true).

But what are we supposed to do? Act on things we don’t know to be true?

Yeah, but you’re talking as if these sheep ought to be clairvoyant–if they receive mixed signals, what else are they supposed to do but watch for what the crowd does? You can’t just expect them to “know” what the truth is. That’s like telling someone who’s looking around at all the world’s religions, trying to decide which one’s the right one, and telling him: “You ought to know that Christianity is the right religion–it says so in the Bible!”

It’s not the numbers, it’s the quality of their arguments and evidence. Most ILP members flailing around conspiracy theories don’t strike me as very rational thinkers or mature in philosophical debate–their arguments are sloppy and reek of personal security issues, and the evidence for their theories is second to none. Just because they’re all singing the same tune doesn’t make the tune true–it probably just means they’re young, new to being disillusioned to the harsh ways of the world, and a tad bit distrustful of people (not to mention probably victims of their own self-administered drug-induced delusions–it’s not really a surprise that this mass paranoia of the government started in the sixties). It’s not uncommon for their to be widespread mimetic themes that congeal large groups of people together in such a way that they become united in their beliefs and values–it’s called religion–and if numbers were what mattered, atheists would be in big trouble.

(Note that I don’t mean any disrespect towards you–you may be a conspiracy theorist, and a wee bit paranoid, but I don’t think you’re unintelligent, which is why I respect you more than some of the others).

Yes, I agree with this–it’s one of the scary things about how people behave in modern democracies. I’m not oblivious to the fact that government conspiracies, or even publicly visible transgressions on people’s freedoms and rights on the part of the government, have been exposed in the past without anybody batting an eye. The Patriot Act, government bail outs, etc… these are all mind-blowing examples of how paralyzed the people are. I’m not sure what the cause is. My guess is that Americans lead a very comfortable lifestyle–they enjoy their Hollywood, their SUVs, their drinking nights, their comfy warm houses in the suburbs, etc.–and so simply observing corruption within their government is not enough to stir them to action. This is sort of the point I was making to Arminius about the French Revolution: the reason it ignited action had to do, partly, with the prospect of starvation–the awareness that their comfort was going to be taken away from them, and that they would feel the pangs of this withdrawal quite physically. But take away these comforts little by little and you get the frog-in-boiling-water effect.

To a point, yes, but don’t take me for a blind ignoramus. I think people should always demand evidence–I think that’s healthy–but there comes a point for me when I can call a spade a spade. You’re videos (the William Benny one I haven’t watched in full–will probably take some time during the weekend–but I saw the introduction) are fairly convincing. But they’re also mixed with a fair bit of Republican propaganda. The Patriot Act I’ve been aware of for a while. This NDAA Martial Law is new to me (and if I understand it correctly–authorizing the military to function as domestic law enforcement?–it is quite a shock). But Obama’s quote about the Constitution being an imperfect document seems taken out of context (and frankly, I agree that it’s an imperfect document), and showing clips of little kids getting frisked at airport security shouldn’t alarm anyone (they make it out to seem like child abuse). So there’s elements in these videos that strike me as truthful, others that seem distorted to serve propagandist agendas. Point is, James, I’m a very discerning person, and I react with extreme skepticism to anyone trying to paint me a black and white picture. Note that I’m not rejecting your videos–I’m saying that I’m a reasonable man and will allow myself to be convinced to a certain point, but I’m going to pick and choose what, to me, seems like evidence and what doesn’t, and some of what you present is fairly decent evidence.

What do you do?

I never said that.

Agreed.

What do you mean by “social engineer”? You mean politicians? They manage huge masses of people.

Of course it isn’t real for me. Why should it be? Because I heard it from you? OH said it better than I can. Give me evidence, like your other videos, and maybe you’ll persuade me, but don’t tell me to believe you just because you said so.

Referring to James’ diagram of the PHILOSOPHER’S STONE , and since this is a philosophy forum, may i make a reference to the fact, that similacra can never represent an ideal and sufficient reality for the “sheep” , for the simple fact that reality, propaganda is not built up on basis of similarity, contarily, it is being broken down on basis of differentials.(as per d63) Propaganda cannot create the level of suspiciousness and paranoia , feeding post world war conspiracy theories, simply because, there is too much credible information out there, and the symbolic tip of the symbolic pyramid has been replaced by allusions to higher, albeit non existent power movers, broken down into several congruent pyramids of various credibility. Higher, no longer entails more power, the base of such mini pyramids can carry more quantitative weight, then one single one with an absolute authority at the apex.

The affectance between levels are of questionable quantitative reliability, therefore, quantification has always to be re-qualified within different levels of comprehensibility of  similacra, as various reifications are disassembled within emerging reality scapes.   

 This production machine, produces no unwitting sheep, or confused schizophrenics, it produces an informed social psychological base, from which to reality test according to principles of distribution and probability.  Therefrom arises paradigms of  best and most likely scenarios, of which a total and absolute control by machines would not best serve public, or private interest, in my opinion.

As usual, obe, you’re gonna have to go slow with me. You say that simulacra or propaganda are not based on similarity (meaning the emulation of real people and real situations and facts) but differentiation. How is this so? What would an example be?

So people are hit with a piece of propaganda and think “well, could be true”?

What is the allusion to the non-existent higher pyramid tip? Is that the simulacra we’re talking about? Does that means that the real power is held by people one level down on the pyramid–thus, multiple mini-pyramids?

This I don’t understand–are you suggesting that there is reason to suspect that even in the mini-pyramids there might be simulacra at the apex, which entails that even within the pyramids there will be a fair bit of suspicion and paranoia.

Are you simply saying here that control by robots would not be good, or that the people tend to be more informed than we give them credit for, and they will be able to forecast best and most likely scenarios in reaction to which they can do something about it before it’s too late?