Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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

You both appear to be in the “too naive to discuss such a subject” column.

Have been since the 80’s.

Even in a “simple” power regulator for one of IBM’s semiconductor testing systems, I designed the regulator to very carefully distinguish itself from influences upon it. It had merely a little Z80 microprocessor and small memory, but was tasked to ensure that the power going into the system was extremely clean of spurious noise and affects.

The most common of such situations is when the regulator has no means of knowing whether it was being affected by the noise and thus merely passing on its own subjective mindset (as people and especially governments often do). The simplest form of this is called a “ground loop” because the “ground” is supposed to be the zero reference. But when the grounding is affected (by current passing through it), it is no longer at “zero”. So I had a processor on board to decipher where “real ground” was despite where it would seem to have been by normal measuring means.

For the processor to determine where ground “really was” meant that it had to know the difference between itself, its output, its input, and ground. People have a really hard time doing that. But that little regulator could because unlike people, it was programmed to not presume - to verify everything related to the issue.

What do you mean with “I”? Intelligence?

By “I” I meant consciousness of Self. JSS seems to think such computers exist.

Self awareness is not an issue for computers.

The assertion that IQ cannot be measured is different from the assertions that IQ is going up or IQ is going down.

I think it should be if they are to replace humans.