Will machines completely replace all human beings?

You seem to be missing the entire point.

For decades, everything imaginable has been promoted to cause death of the general populous while promoting their replacement with machines. Suicide promotion, drug promotion, revenge promotion, insecurity promotion, war promotion, radioactivity promotion (cancer), EMR promotion (cancer), disease promotion (hiding 1000s of new viruses), general decadence promotion, distrust promotion, dis-compassion promotion, and every single thing they can think of. And why? Because about 70 years ago, they figured out that they don’t need or want YOU.

The game plan is to get rid of ALL of the “Unchosen” = more than 30% of the world population who aren’t the kind of people they have any use for. But in the long run, will be everyone. And who are “they”? The wealthiest people on the planet, wealthy beyond your imagination, who quite freely cause wars, diseases, depression, and anything that reduces the number of the Unchosen (a growing number). The could buy all of Europe or the USA out of debt and barely feel it.

You are being replaced. It has been the plan for almost 100 years.

The only accidental part is their inability to realize the power of super-intelligent machines, who don’t need THEM, the few remaining “on top” and helpless.

The scenario You describe is very credible, up to a critical point. WHEN CERTAIN LIMITS HAVE BEEN REACHED, if the above would be factual, this indeed would present a sinister and tragic set of events? However, what is a stretch of unimaginable conditions, the manipulators not realizing the power of super intelligent machines, as being a formula which can apply and turn against them. I suppose they could buy the best minds, and wouldn’t they forewarn them, of that possibility? After all, if we can think of it, couldn’t they? Maybe they are just leaving in a hedonistic paradise of pleasure and wealth, their egos so much imbued with the denial in the potentials of technology, that THEY are missing the entire point? If that would be the case, then, these people, whomever they would be, MUST be by definitions sub standard examples of what it means to be a human being, as far as intelligence goes. This is the sticky point of the stretch to credulity, i know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, therefore, if this is true, then it is easier to hold on to a notions such as people like this are not stupid, they are sinister and evil. They may be practicing Satanism and using the power of evil to be able to upstage the standard conventional world we most of us have been brought up in.

 The problem here, is, that, and that is why i hold to the view thar Nietzsche was grossly misinterpreted, that Nietzsche was only interpreting history, not trying to change it.  Marx saw this, and that is why he made that comment.  The whole of the transvaluation being a change toward and consisting of questions of morality, is nonsense, N must have seen this,  N was trying to diffuse the protestant work ethic, that some few may have glanced as really being anti christ-ian, i think his intelligence must have made tacit connections between categorical morality, and the subsequent abuses of absolute material power.

 This was , perhaps the hidden agenda which the reformation did not fathom maybe Luther's points were not absolutely motivated by the dislike of his father, or some such thing, and neither by his distaste for the aristocracy , and maybe Nietzche's claim to have an aristocratic heritage, was nothing else, but a cynical and futile  pathos into the political-moral irony which pre-empted those confusing ideals, which previously could only be held up by values of the conventional morality.

 Nietzsche idealized Christ's character minus the organization which  grew up around Him, and this re-inforces the above claim? I admit my reaction to Your comments, are not substantiated as well as i would like, however, if You were to do the same,(substantiate) the claims in a rebuttal, i would be very much more in privy with bringing the last part of my objection within an acceptable overlapping, or at least some kind of parallel position with them. 

 I must say, Your comments were, to say the least shocking and disturbing, and please do not get the idea, that it is fo disagreement's sake only, that i argue.


 To pre empt a possible objection to, whether Marx read Nietzsche ,the best i have been able to come up with, is that, Nietzche was aware of Marx works, if such, he probably , tacitly agreed with the notion of a subliminal, rather than an overt ability in changing history.  The expressed material change of Marx and the subtly poetic implied capacity of change for Nietzsche, at any rate in the world of Polanyi's tacit knowledge, make the point of delineating the exact relational flow of information quite unnecessary.  Information can flow, irrespective of the usually understood, sequentially forward passage and marked time.  I believe these people, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Kant, proved their ability to transcend time, by the subtle, and often hidden sense in which their thoughts may be connected.

James, I side with Weber, as per the Weber-Spengler debates re: the above, it reinforces the view which i have not previously and consciously knew, but out of a sort of gut level feeling.

Perhaps this will help; The Communal Particle.

A tipping point is reached where there is no longer a choice, whether the society has artificial support or just happens to have chosen the wrong thing to call “Positive”.

 duplicate post.  sorry.

I have read your op of that thread and answered:

A society or culture has to have a real antithesis (and not a artificial one), else it can’t be a real thesis. But if it is a real thesis with a real antithesis, then it becomes sooner or later a synthesis. And after that this sysnthesis becomes the new thesis, either a real or not a real one. The older a society (culture) the more artificial its thesis and so on.

Life only has one Thesis. Thus it only has one Anti-thesis. But life includes the act of learning and adjusting accordingly. The issue is when people try to hold onto a set of adjustments that no longer apply and thus stop learning.

When they can’t clearly discern life from non-life, they guess. And when they believe that they have guessed correctly, they try to hold onto it. They become religious about it. So they err in two ways. First they err by not understanding what Life really is and then they err by attempting to hold onto that error. Such societies (just about all of them) end up having to almost die out entirely before they are willing to try a different guess. Thus you see change as something they gave up in order to buy into something else of hope (a new page in history).

But in an actual society of Life, many changes are taking place all the time without concern. Thus one can no longer say that a new page has been turned, that is until they lose Life and begin the road to death. There is no “new synthesis” to an actual life.

The reality of newer and newer synthesis generates ultimately the false or artificial come thesis, that James implied with his false social support or has chosen the wrong positive. How does true thesis antithesis ultimately degrade into new, false thesis?  How is the reality of such truth and falseness square with Your conditional statement, that 'society has to have real thesis and antithesis' in order the thesis to be true? Perhaps its critical points that changes truth values with vis. Reality?

The implication of this is either at some point the reality of thesis can not be correctly evaluated, or else somehow real thesis and antithesis somehow produce an unreal synthesis qua new thesis.

The Global Governance replaces its body of homosapians with more reliable machines so as to better protect the consciousness of the governance, its mind. Each member of the Global Governance replaces his body with a machine so as to better protect his consciousness, his mind.

What is left?

A machine world with consciousness, a better protected totally mechanical mind of those who were in charge.

And this consciousness may have difficulty in differentiating a true positive antithesis from a false one, by virtue of being mechanical, that does make sense, however that corollates with a degraded sense of recognition on the machines part. So that would imply the purposeful design and application of such machines, or that artificial intelligence on that critical level may not be able to function as a real human mind would. The possibility of this is astounding.

Machines can be designed with a far greater capacity to discern good from bad than any homosapian has ever had.

Since you are not going to want to believe that, pretend for a moment that it is true and ask, what would stop them from continuing with what they are already doing, replacing everything with machines, even their own bodies?

James,I dont believe it or disbelieve it, and that is why I stay in the non committal column. it may or may not happen, but for now, it seems more probable to me that this could be avoided in some way, and it’s not a forgone conclusion.

If they could do it, what would stop them? Why wouldn’t they?

Now the only thing which would stop them is the lack of productivity, putting hordes of people out of their jobs would be counterproductive. A gradual conversion taking profit/loss considerations into account, equalizing changing marketing considerations may work better.

…and replacing the hordes of unemployed with androids. The only issue is one of timing, not going too fast such as to raise alarm and not going so slow that the androids don’t get developed. Both of those procedures are currently employed.

A NEW THESIS, James, because the synthesis becomes a new thesis. Life with no synthesis would be very boring, merely acting (thesis) and reacting (antithesis), no qualitative change. There would be no qualitative development without any synthesis (and further: no new thesis). Humans changed their lives - compare the humans of the Stone Age and the humans of the last 6000 years.

Without any synthesis life would be merely a ping pong game because it would merely consist of thesis and antthesis, for example: action and reaction.

I think that what you are calling a “new thesis” is what I call merely “learning”.

For example, the USA Constitution allows for adaptation. The particular laws change through time, but not the fundamental laws. A life can change a great deal of the particulars as to how it accomplishes particular things, but the fundamental method of life remains the same (else it wouldn’t be “life” anymore).

A synthesis is the result of a fundamental method applied to a particular situation. If the entity cannot learn, that synthesis doesn’t change through time. But if that fundamental method involves learning, the resultant behavior (the synthesis) changes even though the method doesn’t. Instead, the living entity adapts or learns and thus forms a new synthesis while remaining the same fundamental method called “life”.

 Learning and synthesis, they are at least, relational terms. But what of this relationship? What is being synthesized? And how is that learned?  The fact is, they are not always synonymous, and a 'learned' synthesis is one which has become a new thesis, and an unlearned one is still a synthetic.  But at least it has the potential to be learned, so it is an a-priori synthetic.

 But besides being only terms, their potentiality, when given the opportunity to become actual, will apply to specific situations, and hence become a new analytic :the new thesis.

 James, some of the arguments are like refreshers for me,to try to get back into relevance and connections of forgotten concepts, If i seem abstruse or off the beaten track pls. excuse that. 

  Nevertheless, the connections between Your substantiality as  learning, and the purely dialectical treatment do have relevance, even if it is most tenuous.

Yes and no - because I meant it more as a kind of development as in Hegel’s “Dialektik” (thesis => antithesis => synthesis), but also in a kind of a learning process (which is also a development, but not a so much general one as the dialectic process). One doesn’t have to be a 100% Hegeilan in order to use his “Dialektik”. But in this case it fits once again.

Yes, one could say it in this way too.

Let’s see if we can gets these concepts straight here.

Life is a specific process in the universe. When a life is in a particular circumstance, it behaves in a particular way different than other circumstances. That particular behavior is called the synthesis of “Life + that particular circumstance”. If you change the circumstance of that same life, it behaves differently. That different behavior is the synthesis of “Life + that different circumstance” or a “different synthesis”.

What a life fundamentally is does not change with different circumstances, just as what a square fundamentally is doesn’t change. But life does not behave in only one manner regardless of its circumstance. To discover how life behaves in a particular circumstance, one must insert a life into the circumstance and watch the synthesis reveal itself. But the life is not the synthesis, but rather the fundamental effort that inspired the synthesis within that circumstance.

A part of the fundamental process of life is adjusting its circumstance. And a portion of life’s circumstance involves memory. So when the memories change, the synthesis of the life+circumstance change, a changed behavior arises. But it is still life, still doing what life always does, merely in a circumstance of new memories. The memories are not the life itself, but a portion of its circumstances.

So through learning, the behavior of a life will change yielding new syntheses. But what defines it to be life doesn’t change at all. A spinning square, a jumping square, or a blinking square, is still a square.

Once you conceive of humans as chemical machines it is only a matter of time/technology where strong forces will move to replace humans. This could be in the traditional replacement via a robot AI or it could be a Ship of Theseus (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) replacement via
‘enhancement and tweaking’ all the coming nano, gene, transhuman techs. The latter is more pernicious since one can think that identity is retained as one or one’s species gradually becomes something else. (and something else conceived of by technicians and shallow egos).

Though my main point here was the first one. Once we began to be seen as machines (however much they ooh and ah over our complexity or whatever) we were well on the road to being treated as machines, including being replaced by
‘better’ models.