Will machines completely replace all human beings?

 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.

There is a bifocal perspective, if we talk about “replacement”:

1.) B replaces A not bit by bit (B instead of A, but not bit by bit). The two bodies remain separately, and one of them relaces the other as a whole.
2.) B replaces A bit by bit, and in the end A is B or reamains A as a B.
I consider all possibilities in this thread.

In any case, as this bit by bit exchange occurs, if A is changed into B, but A is kept as the model, or not, after a duration of X time, the fact is A will = B. They will be indistinguishable. The plasticity surrounding the conversion will require closer and closer approximation to the original, and the plasticity (the appearance) of the simulacra will have to become progressively resembling the original. (the sell) Therefore, the requirement is that B will become the exact duplicate of A. In that case, no difference will be observed, except at the time of creation,termination, but this too, will have to be dealt with when the time comes. Only a very few, top ‘CREATORS’ will really know this technique, for fear of subversion and other issues, and as the technology becomes unreachable progressively, the synthetic-creator will replace the human one.

Now here enters an interesting scenario. A virtually indistinguishable plastic=fantastic Descartes will question the EVIL GENIUS as to the feasibility of the very synthesis of man and machine as a certainty. and a super philosophy may inquire of the possibility that eternal return is simply this/ the CREATION of the simulacra of the dual nature of reality.

By an eternal CREATOR.

I would like to pre-empt a foreseeable objection about the conceivability of creation,termination. In the beginning…the commercial development, marketing, and sales of such ‘products’ will be exceedingly high. As capitalistic supply and demand curves begin to slope into more affordable areas, the usual development and sales figures will jump significantly. The previous super wealthy, will, use life extension, also on a progressive scale, to justify their bit by bit conversion, until they do not recognize, that ultimately, their most private parts will also need to be replaced. By this time, the costs will be enormous, but as with all newly created products, it will again become more reasonable, as other wealthy, as usually ,loose their fortunes, and cheaper products will need to be developed to deal with the newly emerging markets of those with the need for these types of products, but with affordability issues. By these times the creators may instill a program requirement of non recognition, or the purchasers may not recognize themselves.

(1) In one case there are two different bodies: (1,1) machine, (1,2) human being. The machine does not become an android, and the human being does not become a cyborg, They bodily have nothing to do with each other. So they remain what they are. But someday one of them is completely replaced by the other, for example in this way: the last human being dies without any offspring and becomes replaced by the machine. The processes occur outside of the human body, not inside of the human body (as in case 2).

(2) In the other case a or the last human being is replaced little by little, bit by bit. So the human being becomes a cyborg. The machine may become an android but never become the human being. The human being may become a cyborg but never become a machine. So replacement has to happen. In this case an android (thus: machine) replaces a cyborg (thus: human being). The processes occur inside of the human body, not outside of the human body (as in case 1).

So the processes are very differerent, although the results are alike or even equal. In the first case (1) the bodiies remain the same until complete replacement, and in the second case (2) one body does not remain the same because it becomes replaced little by little, bit by bit. In the first case the processes occur outside of the bodies, and in the second case (2) the processes occur inside of the human body.