Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

Okay:

Are you satisfied, Moreno?

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?

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).

No. This is what I wrote:

“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.

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.

Thanks. :smiley:

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. :frowning:

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

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.

And why are you writing here in this thread?

Funny, funny. :smiley:

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. :frowning:

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

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!

What a bummer! What a pity! Can’t I keep you here?

But okay: Whatever you like!

Regards.

You haven’t specified any sources or statistics.

And reason is that I won’t accept them???

You’re quite the character. LOL

At least this last post of yours was fun. :wink:

Re IQ:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html

I especially like this quote from the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

Even those who are not so negative on IQ testing admit that there are some deep flaws in the method.

The validity of IQ tests have been under scrutiny for quite a number of years so there is really nothing new in this…except for some!

You haven’t specified sources or statistics, and you don’t like statistics!
I don’t have to specify sources or statistics for you because (a) you can’t read the sources (they are not in English), (b) you don’t like sources and statistics, (c) you don’t “take the thread seriously at all”:

Why you are writing here in this thread, Phyllo?

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

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

Good bye.

And why are you still writing here in this thread?

Do you know Phyllo? He has also no interest in this thread, although he is writing more and more in this thread.

Why don’t you both search for another thread?

Do you know what “pharisee” means?

I am positive on IQ testing. It is partly right that there are some flaws in the method, but the statement that intelligence is not measurable at all is wrong. The correct measurement of intelligence depends very much on the statistics and on the long-term measurement.

B.t.w.: Your “sources” are full of egalitarian(istic) rhetoric.

You and Phyllo are against the IQ because you are following the communistic mainstream. That’s dangerous.

Please search for another thread, because you both are saying that you are not interested in this thread, whilst you are writing more an more in this thread!

[size=120]Questions can’t be wrong!

So:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?[/size]

A major event in the evolution of the human brain came when the brain achieved a certain level that allowed self-consciousness. It achieved an “I”. Are there any computers that can do this?

duplicate post