Machines can describe, and identify, but definitions are formed by attributing signs to identified objects. Signs are not a product of invention ad nihilo, but communally developed and recognized symbols of meaning. Can machines ever do this? At the very least, in a totally excluded human world, with only inter-machine communication, machines would need to develop self consciousness. Above that, they would need to develop the ability to communicate with other machines, also conscious as well. For that to happen, the idea of ‘consciousness’ would have to be solved, first, and then, machines would need to be programmed as such ,by evolving consciousness, just as mankind did. How is the assumption that machines could evolve faster and better then man make sense? Apart from this quirk i see no problem with machines retaining definitions.
In order to become more powerful than human beings, machines need a will to power, interests, …, and so on.
Arminius,
Please don’t mischaracterize my statements. Premise 2 differs between the two quoted versions of the argument you posted a few posts above. That cheaper machines will always replace more expensive human workers is not a logical necessity. It may be found to be true empirically and there may be observable trends which lead you to believe it, but it isn’t true by logical necessity, which has a certain stipulated meaning in this context.
Ver. 1
Ver. 2
There is nothing wrong with disputing a statement of logical implication if it is not the conclusion of a valid deductive argument. Neither quoted argument has a logical implication as its conclusion. The logical implication is premise 2 in arg. version 1 and premise 1 in arg. version 2. There is nothing absurd about disagreeing with a premise. Obviously it falls on me to provide a reason I don’t accept the premise, but even if I didn’t it wouldn’t make the implication a logical necessity. Really, in this case, the first thing that needs mentioning is the fact that the implication implies there is some reason cheaper workers will always be preferred. So who is doing the preferring? It is us. Human beings. I am a human being, am I not, and I would not prefer a machine to a human in all cases, even when cheaper. Who wants to talk to a machine to get tech support; not me or anyone I know. I’d rather talk to a real person who I can relate to and who can better relate to me, and companies know that which is why many still employ human representatives to answer questions and concerns. That is a counter example to the statement Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive. or the other version Expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. Human workers have qualities that machines do not currently come near to achieving. There are many jobs where the most fundamentally human qualities are the most important. And we do not know when or even if it’s possible to build a machine that is fundamentally human-like. Furthermore, no matter how close, there could still be prejudice, and for good reason. When it comes down to human preference why wouldn’t we prefer our own kind, with whom we can relate to on the most fundamental level, especially if we foresee a future in which machines could dominate and eliminate us?
Fuse.
What you have been saying is not as important for this thread as you probably have been thinking.
I didn’t mischaracterise your statements.
Have you read the thread? Have you read my other posts? Probabaly you have not because of some of your interests which have nothing to do with this topic here.
Not always. But nevertheless: that statement is one of my two true premises because it is generally accepted. I don’t have to start with the exceptions. Exceptions prove the rule - anyway. I even don’t have to start with syllogisms and logical implications, when I open a thread here in this forum (ILP) - as I repeatedly said (please read it!), and I also don’t have to do it, when the title of my thread and the title of my OP is a question, cp.: Will machines completely replace all human beings?
No problem in order to accept. But it is an opinion, your opinion (and probably even my opinion - have you ever thought about that? [so please read the thread!]), it is no counter argument against my arguments.
All what you have been telling in your last posts (adressed to me) contains no arguments, only disagreements, nothing new. That’s destructive, thus not constructive.
You have no argument and no counter argument. You always only disagree - without arguments or counter arguments. That’s all.
You’re not dealing with my position, you ignored the latter half of my post, and referencing formally structured arguments makes this conversation clearer, especially when you charge me with:
I have refuted this completely, but you’re brushing it off. Logical truth has a stipulated meaning, and I’ve explained that my disagreement is perfectly reasonable. Why is it that you have avoided responding to my main points?
The proposition of machines completely replacing human beings in the future depends on the premises that support it, so why are you ignoring any discussion of the premises? I’ve given a plausible counter example to your premise in my last post.
If you had read more of my my posts, then you would have known that I don’t ignore your posts. Even in my last post I mentioned that I porbably also don’t want to be replaced by machines. So why are you crying so much?
What you are saying in your last post is no counter argument because that is what I have been saying for about 40 years (cp.: you are 25 years old - according to ILP viewing profile).
Please don’t confuse ideality with reality!
Your pseudonym is “Fuse”. And your real name? “Confuse”? Your “logical truth” is “disagreeing” or “reversing” the logical truth which is accepted - as logical truth, not as wish, desire, hope …, and os on - by at least 80%. One can always disagree - that’s no mighty deed. So: If you say “Any worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will NOT replace a worker that is more expensive” or “NO worker (human or machine) that is cheaper will replace a worker that is more expensive”, then you have to argue in that way, but you can merely argue in that way, if you deny the logical truth of the 80 or probably more percent. Because: the fact that nearly all machines are cheaper than human beings is accepted by at least 80 or probably more percent.
Your so called “counter examples” are no counter examples to my examples because they are integrated in my examples, and as I denoted in my last post: I don’t want to be replaced by machines as well as you. But that are our opinions - not more.
You didn’t refute anything.
Your “logical truth” is at the utmost a “10-20%-truth”. So what about the “80-90% truth”? Who ignores? Who confuses? Don’t confuse, Fuse!
From my philosophy of Logic teacher: The syllogism is invalid because it has four terms. Valid syllogisms have three terms, the two in the conclusion, and the one in both premises.
In its earliest form, defined by Aristoteles, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise [=> 1]) and a specific statement (the minor premise [=> 2), a conclusion (=> 3) is deduced. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Sokrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Sokrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form (without sentence-terminating periods):
[url=http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=300#p2466923]1) All M are P
2) All S are M
3) All S are P
- All human beings are mortal.
- Sokrates is a human being.
- Therefore: Sokrates is mortal.[/url]
The word “therefore” is usually either omitted or replaced by a symbol.
B.t.w.: Where is your nice sig?
Before I opened this thread I had to decide in which philosophical subforum it should be opened:
(A) Subforum „Philosophy“?
(B) Subforum „Science, Technology, and Math“?
(C) Subforum „Society, Government, and Economics“?
One of the main reasons why I decided to open this thread in the philosophical subforum „Philosophy“ was the syllogism and the logical implication, although I knew that on ILP they are not required, not necessary in order to make clear what the title of the thread and of the OP means: Will machines completely replace all human beings?
So when I wrote the syllogism and the logical implication into the OP, I did it nevertheless - and because of my decision for the subforum „Philosophy“.
[size=114]One of my favourite conversations in this thread:[/size]
I compliment Obe.
Here comes the 2nd 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 |
|| Amorphos | Esperanto | Mithus |
||| Only Humean | Nano-Bug |
|||_ Gib | Lizbethrose |
|||Uccisore | Cassie |
||| Zinnat (Sanjay) | Tyler Durdon |
|||____|__ Eric The Pipe __|
|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]4[/size] |_ [size=150]8[/size] _| [size=150]9[/size] ______|
There is a difference between this 2nd and the 1st balance sheet (=> #).
The argument is that the conversion will not be a black to white decision, but a slow, mostly unseen conversion that snowballs out of control and thus ends up even replacing those who could have made a different decision.
And the OP is actually an inference stated as an implication. The conclusion isn’t “the implication”, but rather the entire proposal is an implication. An exact syllogistic implication has no question to it. An inference basically means, “it seems like things point in this conclusion”. An exact implication means, “because of these known truths, this conclusion is necessarily true”.
The obvious intention was to discuss the inference of the premises; “Do cheaper things really always replace cheaper things in the long run?”, “Are machines really cheaper than people?”, “Might it all occur by accident?”, “Is it an insidious plot by an alien android race?”, “Are people just so damn dumb that they will die out and leave it all to machines?”…
Yes. With the utmost probability that has been being or will be the development. I think so, and I do not really appreciate this development.
Especially the last of your given examples is the question I am very much interested in. I would add this question, if people are not damn dumb enough: „Are people just damn decadent that they will die out and leave it all to machines?“ The question whether people are intelligent and the question how intelligent people are depend on both objective facts and subjective facts. The more the objectively estimated or measured intelligence sinks the more the subjectively estimated intelligence rises. If the level of intelligence sinks, then the people in decadent societies do not necessarily change their estimation. So the consequence is that they overestimate their intelligence, and their subjective overestimation is not anymore corrected by obejective estimation or measure because the level has sunken. This vicious circle is very fatal.
Will those people or even all human beings never awake from an „age of sleep“ (James S. Saint), which has been coming or will come?
There may be another scenario? The age of sleep, or just sleep for that matter, instead of causing a vicious cycle, may become a conscious disconnect, with no further effects of meltdown. If there is consciousness to it, the estimation, would, as admittedly remaining constant, have some effect on disproportionate or overestimated intelligence. Another thing is, the abnormal intelligence, itself, may be the effect of sinking general intelligence. It may be a natural process of a compensatory effect to sinking awareness.
If at a critical level of the negative feedback a break would occur, then sleep would not be of pleasant dreams, for nightmares would surely come forth. If still, absent these, psychotic episodes will be in alert mode, to signify that social intelligence has diminished.
The apex of this realization is what makes or breaks social consciousness, making a difference between enhanced or diminished capacity.
Do you see there even a chance for the humans in the „age of sleep“?
While the age of sleep may be unconscious, that period doesn’t figure into awareness, however, there is no temporal gap, until awakening.Sleep is only a state of regeneration, until awakening. Brunhilda was granted her wish of not to be awakened unless for some worthy being. There is no need for men during regeneration, until the worthy one arrives. And then, it’s likely, he never leaves. He doesn’t sleep. Machines are interim products, during sleep, after awakening, there is no need for them. They may turn out to be the keepers.
But will there be a chance for human beings to change or even to turn the development in the opposite direction?
That is why, wisely, You put me in the column marked indeterminable. There is always a chance, granted, however one of the biggest obstacles to it’s realization is the diminishing returns which mankind places on value, whether it be other, or self = valuing. We are at a low point in valuing the very being in which we find our very existence. Until that can be overcome, singularly, it seems we are heading for a period of long sleep.
My estimation: the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don’t take over is about 20%. 80% vs. 20%. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.
If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call “Letzter Mensch” (“Last Man”). This “Last Man” will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.