Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

Obe, should I write the next interim balance sheet soon?

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote:Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

Yes, I have. But do you accept statistics and experiences as evidence?

The Flynn effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect - has been falsified: too much statistcs ( ).

Let's see what you have.

[monad]

I think you meant to say "Without statistics no one can say...".

No.

You who have read so many books have no better answer than that. Do you find it so difficult to explain yourself or are you just so arrogant?

How long does it take to research "Human" linguistically or philosophically before a host of meanings and definitions become clear? How often do we have to reinvent the wheel before the meaning behind the word human reveals itself. It's as tedious as that typical and perennial question, "What is the meaning of life?" The definition of Human is NOT described through metaphysics where virtually anything goes. It does not amount to a God variable incessantly probed but never yielding to any conclusion. Haven't we been here long enough and considered that question to gain some comprehension of what it means to be human?

You do not have an alternative. You disagree partly, but you have no argument, not to mention an evidence. Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions? It doesn't very much matter how long it takes because it takes no longer than the alternatives, if there really is any.

No! I merely countered your argument with my own which of course, you are not in favor of so I have no argument...the perennial response to any opposing view. As for "evidence" if such were even applicable to this subject - which it is not - why didn't YOU supply any in your favor? What is Evidence and how is it to be established in this case? Do you think there can ever be any definitive evidence on what it means to be human based on philosophical or linguistic approaches? Do any of your guide books lead you to believe that there can be such a solution?

As to "Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions?" is an absolutely ludicrous question! I for one, don't find it useful to regurgitate the same questions and responses to them over and over again. It seems the more books you read the more uncertain you are about the qualities which uniquely denote humans. I know you don't agree but the mystery is not as great as you make it out to be.

[monad]

So i gather, Monad is in the 'indeterminate column'?, as well?

What does "indeterminate" mean?

In that text it is because of my question in the title of my thread and the Title of my OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? Obe asks whether you belong to those who answer that question neither with "yes" nor with "no"; so he asks whether your name is or should be in the "Abstention" column in my 3rd interim balance sheet

I was being facetious! Not my best quality for which I apologize!

[Orbie]

No problem, but really, which camp do You see Yourself belonging to?

[Orbie]

Obe, should I write the next Interim balance sheet soon?

Honestly, i don't know. The statistics is interesting from the point of view of what certain IPL members take re: this issue, and equally interesting it it, to see how attitudes toward various positions and counterpositions seem to change. However, i wonder, how representative these views are, as proportionate to general societal expectations.

As far as the dichotomy of metaphysical/linguistic approaches, and Monad's irresolution toward it, it is interesting to note, that his comment pretty well undermines the intent of showing any conclusion in terms of meaning, i.e., what it means 'to be a man', and whether such an approach can make any kind of in road into the this analysis.

The most critical level into this inquiry is that which concerns cybernetics, the composure of which blends both: human and artificial intelligence. Hopefully, cybernetics will continue to be developed as to be of benefit to mankind , and since it is man's cognitive facilities which both consist of the content of artificial intelligence, and the object of it's processes, the differences between the intent, content and object of artificial intelligence will continue to be of an negligible concern. I am fairly confident, Arminus, that the 3rd breakdown is fairly generally is fairly representative , although it's interesting to note, how and why they do change.

[James S Saint]

"Human" literally means "the hue of, or most basic element of, Man".

So using that definition, they will eventually be able to say that androids are human.
They love to be able to play word games on simple minded people.

[monad]

No problem, but really, which camp do You see Yourself belonging to?

You already indicated it. I'm in the abstention column simply because I can't categorically say Yes or No.

I think eventually when its found to be more feasible, humans will become a fusion of the two. Of course, it will take time. This kind of evolution has already started and may even become essential for space travel which is expected to be evermore common.

[Arminius]

You who have read so many books ....

Who said that?

I merely countered your argument with my own which of course, you are not in favor of so I have no argument...the perennial response to any opposing view. As for "evidence" if such were even applicable to this subject - which it is not - why didn't YOU supply any in your favor? What is Evidence and how is it to be established in this case? Do you think there can ever be any definitive evidence on what it means to be human based on philosophical or linguistic approaches? Do any of your guide books lead you to believe that there can be such a solution?

Do any of your disagreements "lead you to believe that there can be such a solution"?

And b.t.w.: Which "guide books" do you mean? The books I mentioned - indirectly - in this thread do not have to be my "guide books" just because you want them to be my "guide books".

As to "Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions?" is an absolutely ludicrous question!

Because you have a "better" one: Disagreement! How absolutely ludicrous!

I for one, don't find it useful to regurgitate the same questions and responses to them over and over again.

I don't think that linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions are the only possibilities.

But your regurgitated disagreements are not useful at all.

Why don't you offer at least a few suggestions. Nothing - except disagreements. Okay, disagree how much you can - I don't care -, but your
disagreements are no solutions.

It seems the more books you read the more uncertain you are about the qualities which uniquely denote humans.

Which "books" do you mean?

I know you don't agree but the mystery is not as great as you make it out to be.

Then please say what "the mystery" is for you and how you can get a solution.

Disagreement without any argumentation and evidence is the typical behaviour of internet users. And it's "cool" too. It does never bring on a conversation, not to mention a solution of a problem. Bummer! That's too bad.

[Arminius]

"Human" literally means "the hue of, or most basic element of, Man".

So using that definition, they will eventually be able to say that androids are human.
They love to be able to play word games on simple minded people.

And whom do you mean with "they"?

[Arminius]

Here comes the 4th 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 __|____ Kriswest ___|
|___|____ Amorphos _____|_______ Fuse _______|____ Mithus _____|
|___|___ Tyler Durdon ___|_____ Esperanto _____|___ Nano-Bug ___|
|___|____ Blueshift _____|____ Only Humean ___|___ Lizbethrose __|
|___|__________________|_______ Gib ________|_____ Cassie _____|
|___|__________________|______Uccisore _____|__ Eric The Pipe __|
|___|__________________|__ Zinnat (Sanjay) ___|Backspace Losophy|
|___|__________________|__ Barbarianhorde ___|_____ Monad ____|
|___|__________________|_____ Ivory Man ____|_________________|
|___|__________________|______ Moreno _____|_________________|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sum:|_______ 5 ________|________ 11 ______|_______ 9 ________|

For comparasion:
1st Interim balance sheet,
2nd Interim balance sheet,
3rd Interim balance sheet.

Note:
"Yes (by trend)" means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%.
" No (by trend)" means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.

[monad]

I know you don't agree but the mystery is not as great as you make it out to be.

Then please say what "the mystery" is for you and how you can get a solution.

Disagreement without any argumentation and evidence is the typical behaviour of internet users. And it's "cool" too. It does never bring on a conversation, not to mention a solution of a problem. Bummer! That's too bad.

Your are clearly free to think what you want. I made my arguments and reasons for them. That's the best I can do especially on philosophy forums where there are NO solutions only discussions of problems which is why the same ones get mentioned over and over again with never a solution in sight. Opinions, including mine, do not constitute solutions or proof.

Regards

[Arminius]

Your are clearly free to think what you want. I made my arguments and reasons for them.

"Them"? What or whom do you mean with the word "them" in that sentence?

Does anybody of the members of this forum know which "arguments" and "reasons" Monad means?

That's the best I can do especially on philosophy forums where there are NO solutions only discussions of problems which is why the same ones get mentioned over and over again with never a solution in sight.

"That's the best ...." What's the best, Monad?

Opinions, including mine, do not constitute solutions or proof.

That's honest, Monad. But I don't think that your last sentence is absolutely right, and because of the fact that it is at least relatively right we should use the rest of possibilities and try to constitute solutions or proofs.

I mean: You are also writing in this forum, so you confirm my statement that your sentence - "opinions ... do not constitute solutions or proof" - is not absolutely right.

Regards.

[monad]

Opinions, including mine, do not constitute solutions or proof.

That's honest, Monad. But I don' think that your last sentence is absolutely right, and because of the fact that it is probably relatively right we should use the rest of possibilities and try to constitute solutions or proofs.
Regards.

That's the whole point of philosophy forums, is it not, that there's fun in trying. But philosophy by it's nature is not amenable to solutions and proofs; that's in the science department. Do you know of any philosophy as true based on solutions or proofs? Every philosophy derives from one man's thought and how he visualizes whatever he's contemplating.

Inserting solutions and proofs into philosophy as if it were math or science usually destroys the conversation or one must know in what sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy.

Does this make sense or not?

[Arminius]

Do you know of any philosophy as true based on solutions or proofs?

Yes, those philosophies are based on scientific solutions or rules ("laws"), they are the "crowns" of what they are based on. This "crowns" can and should be criticised; many of them exist only because of personal credit, regard, publicity. Science is already partly enslaved. So what can we do in order to prevent that this all increases more and more, so that the end effect will be merely stupidity, absurdity, "dementia", and ignorance?

You are against statistics, science, philosophy, and that is okay, but I also think that it is too much "against". And the fact that you are a member of this philosophy forum and write posts on philosophy indicates that some of your statements are contradicted by some of your statements.

Inserting solutions and proofs into philosophy as if it were math or science usually destroys the conversation or one must know in what sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy.

I don't think that it "destroys the conversation", because philosophy is not merely a conversation. One should "know in what sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy". We are human beings - fortunately or unfortunately -, so we have no choice, if we want to know, to recognise, to philosphise, to be wise.

[monad]

You are against statistics, science, philosophy, and that is okay, but I also think that it is too much "against". And the fact that you are a member of this philosophy forum and write posts on philosophy indicates that some of your statements are contradicted by some of your statements.

I gave no indication that I'm "against" any of these fundamental human activities. How does one even describe a person who is against philosophy and science? Statistics are also essential but, I repeat, one must know it's limitations; in some cases as in IQ, they can be severe, damaging and misleading. As for science, I don't recall having said anything negative about it but that doesn't mean one can't depending upon what aspect of it is put up for discussion.

The upshot being, a criticism of anything does NOT imply a negation! One can criticize, analyze in a hundred different ways depending on "perspective" and how its discussed. It all depends on how and in what manner references are made. Is this not also one of the main functions of philosophy? as a kind of "Perspectivism" a la Nietzsche? Taking things out of context yields nothing but distortions. Your "against" statements are examples of that. As such, there is no purpose in further posting responses to each other since neither of us is going to be happy.

[Moreno]

Here comes the 4th 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 _____|
|___|___ Tyler Durdon ___|____ Only Humean ___|___ Nano-Bug ___|
|___|____ Blueshift _____|_______ Gib ________|___ Lizbethrose __|
|___|__________________|______Uccisore _____|_____ Cassie _____|
|___|__________________|__ Zinnat (Sanjay) ___|__ Eric The Pipe __|
|___|__________________|______ Phyllo ______| Backspace Losophy |
|___|__________________|__ Barbarianhorde __|_____ Monad ______|
|___|__________________|_____ Ivory Man ____|_________________|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sum:|_______ 6 ________|________ 11 _______|______ 10 _______|

For comparasion:
1st Interim balance sheet,
2nd Interim balance sheet,
3rd Interim balance sheet.

I'm still a no. I just think if you have the modern, realist, consensus science centered belief system then it is the best conclusion and would find it odd if someone in that broad paradigm would not think so unless they were in some kind of denial. I am not in that category and do not believe it is what will happen.

[Lev Muishkin]

Here comes the 4th 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 _____|
|___|___ Tyler Durdon ___|____ Only Humean ___|___ Nano-Bug ___|
|___|____ Blueshift _____|_______ Gib ________|___ Lizbethrose __|
|___|__________________|______Uccisore _____|_____ Cassie _____|
|___|__________________|__ Zinnat (Sanjay) ___|__ Eric The Pipe __|
|___|__________________|______ Phyllo ______| Backspace Losophy |
|___|__________________|__ Barbarianhorde __|_____ Monad ______|
|___|__________________|_____ Ivory Man ____|_________________|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sum:|_______ 6 ________|________ 11 _______|______ 10 _______|

For comparasion:
1st Interim balance sheet,
2nd Interim balance sheet,
3rd Interim balance sheet.

Oh dare you put me in "abstention."
I'm in "What a stupid meaningless question" column, and I bet so are most of the rest of "no".

[phyllo]

I'm in "What a stupid meaningless question" column, and I bet so are most of the rest of "no".

I posted to clear up a misrepresentation of the movie 'Robocop' and I ended up in 'no'. I'm actually in the 'silly nonsense - not worth discussing' column.

[Arminius]

I'm still a no.

Okay:

Here comes the 4th 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 __|____ Kriswest ___|
|___|____ Amorphos _____|_______ Fuse _______|____ Mithus _____|
|___|___ Tyler Durdon ___|_____ Esperanto _____|___ Nano-Bug ___|
|___|____ Blueshift _____|____ Only Humean ___|___ Lizbethrose __|
|___|__________________|_______ Gib ________|_____ Cassie _____|
|___|__________________|______Uccisore _____|__ Eric The Pipe __|
|___|__________________|__ Zinnat (Sanjay) ___|Backspace Losophy|
|___|__________________|__ Barbarianhorde ___|_____ Monad ____|
|___|__________________|_____ Ivory Man ____|_________________|
|___|__________________|______ Moreno _____|_________________|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sum:|_______ 5 ________|________ 11 ______|_______ 9 ________|

For comparasion:
1st Interim balance sheet,
2nd Interim balance sheet,
3rd Interim balance sheet.

Note:
"Yes (by trend)" means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%.
" No (by trend)" means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.

Are you satisfied, Moreno?

[Arminius]

Phyllo, your name is deleted from the list. is that okay for you?

You should not take the "interim balance sheets" as seriously as you seem to do.

You don't want to have any fun in this forum, do you?

[Arminius]

The upshot being, a criticism of anything does NOT imply a negation! One can criticize, analyze in a hundred different ways depending on "perspective" and how its discussed. It all depends on how and in what manner references are made. Is this not also one of the main functions of philosophy? as a kind of "Perspectivism" a la Nietzsche?

It is especially what I said among others in this post: Reference is in no other realm of science as important as in linguistics. Reference is important. And philosophy has very much to do with language, thus with linguistics (ask Nietzsche, if you can).

Taking things out of context yields nothing but distortions. Your "against" statements are examples of that.

No. This is what I wrote:

Why are you against linguistical and/or philosophical approaches or perhaps solutions?

=> #

You are against statistics, science, philosophy, and that is okay, but I also think that it is too much "against".

=> #

"Against", "against" - that belongs to you, not to me. Nietzsche would have disagreed with you too, because he was both a philologist (cp. linguistics) and a philosopher.

[monad]

Whatever you like! This thread no-longer holds any interest for me. Often, I don't even know what you're talking about in response to my posts. No offense! but it's clear we are not ever going to understand each other and knowing that, we don't need to get in each others way. I think that should be agreeable to you as well.

[phyllo]

Phyllo, your name is deleted from the list. is that okay for you?

You should not take this "interim balance sheet" as seriously as you seem to do.

You don't want to have any fun in this forum, do you?

Thanks.

I don't take the thread seriously at all.

Depends on what you mean by fun. I don't discuss werewolves, vampires or Brangelina.
Unsupported claims about IQ are not fun because people believe that stuff and then vast quantities of time have to be wasted trying to correct a bunch of misinformation.

Morality and ethics is fun. Science and tech is fun when people understand it and when they twist it in a clever way.

In general, I find fun to be easier (and more enjoyable) in real life because body language and tone of voice adds so much richness to the discussion. Wittiness, irony, satire, playfulness, etc, don't work well in forums.

[Arminius]

Thanks.

I don't take the thread seriously at all.

And why are you writing here in this thread?

Funny, funny.

Depends on what you mean by fun. I don't discuss werewolves, vampires or Brangelina.
Unsupported claims about IQ are not fun because people believe that stuff and then vast quantities of time have to be wasted trying to correct a bunch of misinformation.

It was about the interim balances between (and actually you know that). The claims about the IQ are supported! but you don't want them to be supported. That's your problem, not mine. I can specify many sources and statistics, but you won't accept them. That's your problem, not mine. A much greater danger is the fact that people believe in opposite nonsense and in the silly "Flynn effect" and other nonsense and misinformation, including yours.

Morality and ethics is fun. Science and tech is fun when people understand it and when they twist it in a clever way.

And you don't like fun. Stop pushing the people in front.

In general, I find fun to be easier (and more enjoyable) in real life because body language and tone of voice adds so much richness to the discussion. Wittiness, irony, satire, playfulness, etc, don't work well in forums.

So again: Why are you writing here, especially in this thread? Why don't you leave the house in order to enjoy the forest?

Enjoy the forest, Phyllo! I wish you much fun!