Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I agree that that is what ‘they’ want to do. I agree (though I might see it as more on the Surface) these people have the Power or have had it and the sway to move things in that direction. I agree further because it is a natural extension of modern atheistic reasonism/science groupieism/ technoaddiction and the way people conceive of themselves - most people - and their hubris and confusion in self-relation. So within that paradigm, as I tried to say, there is no reason to Believe it will not happen. It should happen. Unless you Believe in something significant not currently verfied by science, then you should conclude that it will happen. There needs to be some kind of ‘force’ or factor to counter where things are going. As it happens I do Believe in things not currently accepted as verified - some not remotely - by current science. These factor in on this issue, and obviously others, and lead me to Believe it will not happen.

I agree with you and James - though I have only read his in a browsing way where it is quoted in other people’s posts - within the modern reasonist scientism shaped conception of reality way of looking at things. It makes sense within that. But I am not within that. Neither is James, but we likely have different beliefs about what is both true and not accepted by mainstream science.

Right, and that is part of the ‘most’ I agreed with. Another way of putting it is unless those who disagree with you have some extra-curricular beliefs, I Think their belief is based on faith.

Sure, that statement may very well be perfectly in line with what you Believe. But what has been happening need not continue.

LOL, nah. Think of it as my thinking I have reached my conclusion via a sound argument and this conclusion is the same as the conclusion reached by those who I do not Think have a sound argument - given their paradigmns. Don’t take that too literally, but the idea being that we Three would likely make a larger set of similar assertions about what is and what is going on. So I see much of what you both see happening out there. And that is where I end up being able to say I agree most with you guys - a lot of the observations about what is happening what it would lead to and so on.
I disagree with the conclusion however.

I really can deal with the social terror of being in any column and being associated with anybody’s beliefs in a table.

That, however, is not so easy to demonstrate. But in any case I should be in the middle.

No James, believe me or not, i really know it.
And, i would have explained about my knowing, had would be able to interact with you in person, instead of on a public forum.

The existence of an a priori feeling/sensing entity, before infusing information, which can evaluate and evolve on its own, at different levels, instead of one.

Well, that depends how one defines these things.

According to my definition, consciousness is an independent and complete entity, while sensing is its default job/character.
Consciousness is different and independent from will, mind and body.

Sensing is slightly different from mere detection or recognition. It entalis feelings/emotions, besides physical effect.

Like, in the case of any injury, it is not only body that gets affected, but that effect influnces the cosciousness also, going through the brain and mind.

with love,
sanjay

If evolution holds true, or that the rate of change stays constant, it does seem likely all will be replaced. No amount of logic can determine if that will be good or bad. Robots could replace people, then solar flares from the sun short everything electric. After that, humans could reappear. Again hard to know when results are final results, or how to qualify them. If humans are worse than robots, we are still biased to think our legacy simply must persist forever into the future. Humans claim logic, but irrational emotion dominates our thoughts and actions. The pure logic that we claim makes us superior to other animals is better found in computer programs. In that sense, it would be an honor to be replaced.

This thread inspired this other one:

Reforming Democracy

In that sense, it would be an honor to be replaced?

Then please answer my question directly:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?

No. First of all this thread inspired this other one:

Thinking about the END OF HISTORY. :smiley:

Besides:

Democracy has been being reformed since its beginning. It has already become abnormal. This abnormal democracy is called “ochlocracy” (Aristoteles). And currently this “ochlocracy” has already reached a stage which tends to monarchy.

[size=120]If humans will be replaced by machines, who will judge the responsible one(s)?

How can God or how can the humans allow that humans will be eliminated?[/size]

In what sense could a machine replace a human being?

It might be the wording of the question, but if you just want to ask “will machines succeed human beings?” – that’s a different question to me, and more easily tackled.

The obvious cases are those advertised; machines, androids, going into dangerous places, lifting heavy things, calculating for you, envisioning for you, pacing you, and replacing other people for you. But note that it is always merely replace Other people, most notably those who serve in some way - everybody.

I see it as the same question?
What distinction are you making?

I mean, machines replace people in the field (any field) but only so far as they are performing a task with a given set of parameters. I know we’re pretty dependent on machines, but in what way do machines carry on when we’re gone? They don’t seem to be much without us. If every human stopped living today, what would happen to all the current machinery? How long before it would “run out of batteries” and simply stop working? And during the time they still had power, what would machines accomplish in their present states without their users?

They way I see it, machines may very well succeed us, but their future looks pretty trivial to me if you’re going by the current state of technology. I know I’m not privy to all the tech advancement in today’s world, but I don’t think there is any AI that could spawn it’s own civilization or develop into a black hole as per your proposition on the first page of the thread. Perhaps that shows my ignorance, and if so I’m happy to be linked to said technology.

Also, we may die by natural or man-made disaster sooner than such supposed machines take over the world, so there is a lot of room for a future in which machines never even get the chance to “have their day.”

Besides: Fuse has already given an answer (by trend):

So, Fuse, you don’t think (by trend) that all humans will be completely replaced by machines.

Replaced in what way? Human beings are being replaced by machines for many tasks. Machines may even succeed us. That’s not saying much, though, as I explained above.

You merely have to read the question! Please read it one more time!

Arminius,

I’m sorry I don’t know what you’re asking.

I disagree.

Who knows? Perhaps if you tailored your question I could answer it.

I don’t see how you could disagree with that.

People used to do all mathematics without any use of machines.
People used to build toys, furniture, cars, houses, ships, and buildings with minimal use of machines.
Farms are almost completely automated today. Even the tractors, when they even use tractors, are remotely and automatically controlled, merely monitored by humans. Japan has entire factories wherein there are no humans other than monitors looking for anything going wrong. Raw materials go in, and product comes out.

Machines replace people most often by doing something differently and thus not needing people. The drill-press operator gets replaced by the programmable, automated CNC machine. Then the programmer gets replaced with an automatic program assembler/compiler.

The people get replaced by replacing what people do with people-less mechanisms that would cost far too much to make work with highly skilled and talented people.

Behind it all is the terrorism of “We have to have more!!

James,

There are some things I don’t think people want a machine doing in place of a person, even if it can.

Many people like to drive, for instance, instead of having cars that drive for them. People like to know some things, instead having everything in phone or computer memory/access. People like to live and play, which machines cannot do for them.

And then there are things like art, culture, and philosophy.
…giving birth to a child.

Machines help with these, but they arise in principle because of human biology/psychology.

Yes and those are the people being replaced with anything more cooperative.

People like to have sex. Sex causes overpopulation. So we must be rid of sex and/or those who are not willing to conform to our rules governing it. Machines a really good at conforming to such rules… for now.

Driverless cars are already being promoted, “Intellicars”. Soon it will be illegal for you to drive yourself. And why? Because tracking your ass and making sure that you don’t go anywhere you aren’t supposed to be, or doing something stupid with your car is just too expensive and dangerous. That propaganda is coming very shortly. And of course, intellicars will have higher priority and less insurance, as will the government androids merely performing their duties.

Of course they must boil the frog slowly, else he will jump out of the pot (aka “rebel”), so the change will be gradually introduced and extorted into place via money and plausible deniability on the part of the government. The writers guild liked to be free in their writing of movie and TV scripts. Where are they now? They lost the rebellion and either conformed to the new mainstream psychological writing practices, aka “government censorship” or they just found another job and/or died.

Soon, if you were to insist upon driving your own car, you too would either find another means to get where you are going (to be limited of course) or just died for not going along with the system. It will be your own fault of course, for not being sane enough to just do what needs doing in your life and thus dying.

I haven’t read this thread, entirely. Given that, I’m intrigued. Parts of people are already being replaced with machines of one sort or another. Arms and legs are being replaced by mechanical prostheses, aren’t they? If a person loses a limb, it can be replaced. A part of my brain function that doesn’t work properly has been replaced by electrodes and battery packs, to help regulate movement. Interestingly, deep brain stimulation also produces new brain cells, something I didn’t think was possible.

Do these things count as replacing human beings with machines? Would Hawking exist without his machines?

Pinker predicts a continued decrease of violence, and so machines might fight instead of humans in future wars if secular humanism continued to have its way and wasting humans was off-limits. There would be machines making more machines making more machines then. Bloodless, efficient, and cowardly hesitation each eying the other tensely becoming the new standard; unwillingness becoming heroism…

This is another use for machines: Drones. Drones snoop, surveil, and, in a way, report. But drones still require humans. In a sense, drones take the place of unmanned gliders, which have been used in wars before. The glider had cameras. I don’t know if it had to be found when it crashed or if it was remotely controlled by a human. It wasn’t autonomous.

But no one has answered my question about just what we’re talking about here. It’s too soon to expect any answers, yet. :slight_smile: