fuse wrote: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?
James S Saint wrote: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.
James S Saint wrote: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?"...
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote: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.
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.James S Saint wrote: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?"...
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?
obe wrote:Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote: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.
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.James S Saint wrote: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?"...
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.
obe wrote: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.
obe wrote: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.
It seems to me, sometimes, like people would rather not be here. They are Always focused elsewhere, preferably via digital media. I often would rather they were not here either, especially if they really don't quite like it here, and so they have to distract themselves from here by looking at pseudo-heres that are off somewhere else. If only this was not merely a kind of fuzzing over of their BEING but in fact a quasi ontological shift away from here - here being this universe/reality. Perhaps they can actually shift out completely.Arminius wrote: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.
=> #
So humans have some use value to something external to humans and this use value will be superceded, for whomever this is, by the Machines?cassie wrote:Machines will make human beings obsolete.
cassie wrote:Evolution does not always move upwards.
Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.
Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.
Human is a sexual type.
cassie wrote:Evolution does not always move upwards.
Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.
Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.
Human is a sexual type.
Agreed, though that wasn't so much my focus. My focus was more on what seemed an objective obsolesence. Humans cannot become obsolete to me, for example. Hence me asking about 'to whom we would become obsolete for.'cassie wrote:Evolution does not always move upwards.
Yes, people's sense of what their value is can lead them to being made obsolete by Machines. Those people.Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.
Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
That's true, but to me that isn't obsolesence.Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.
Moreno wrote:Agreed, though that wasn't so much my focus. My focus was more on what seemed an objective obsolesence. Humans cannot become obsolete to me, for example. Hence me asking about 'to whom we would become obsolete for.'cassie wrote:Evolution does not always move upwards.
I know there are humans who already Think most of us are obsolete and have for, well, millenia. But that's in their sense of use value.Yes, people's sense of what their value is can lead them to being made obsolete by Machines. Those people.Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.
Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.That's true, but to me that isn't obsolesence.Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.
Once even an implicit potential for humans to become obsolete is accepted as real, then all someone who really rather hate Life has to do is come up with performance criteria and then point at a machine that can perform better on each criterion.
So that was me not granting that this obsolescence is real. I am not simply an engineering event. Not remotely. Someone may Think of me that way and may label me obsolete, but that is subjective. Unless it is God, I suppose, and then we have one hell of a discussion, me and God, ahead of us.
cassie wrote:Machines will make human beings obsolete.
cassie wrote:Evolution does not always move upwards.
cassie wrote:Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.
Man in his desire to "correct" himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the "human" part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]