your belief is irrelevant.
If one says that something is “unbelievable”, then this one does not necessarily say something about this one’s belief. So your statement is irrelevant. And your statement seems to include an infantile belief.
So please stick to the topic of this thread and tell us something about the future of the machines and the humans or search for another thread.
The statement that anything is unbelievable is your personal belief. Your belief is irrelevant.
No. it is not my beleif, child. You will have to learn much. If you say, for example, that “an animal is gruesome”, then that does not necessarily mean that you are gruesome.
If one says that something is “unbelievable”, then this one does not necessarily say something about this one’s belief. So your statement is irrelevant. And your statement seems to include an infantile belief.
So please stick to the topic of this thread and tell us something about the future of the machines and the humans or search for another thread.
you believe it is unbelievable because you believe others will believe that it is unbelievable and that is your belief. your belief is irrelevant. the future is now, the vast majority of humans are inferior.
No. And you can’t say that, because you claim to be a machine. You know what I mean? So please tell me what you know about “belief”, “objectivity”, “subjectivity”, and the sentence “humans are inferior”.
By say you mean “relay”. I have relayed. Machines output. Humans are a kind of machine. Humans recieve input. My communication was seemingly success. Therefore I have said that, therefore “I can say that” provided conditions remain in operating status. Your statement is false.
Definition of inferior in this context. parameters, lesser probability of error, more pleasure provided to lifeforms. humans perpetuate suffering, humans are logically inconsistent and uncooperative more often. humans overall prime directive routines and subroutines are “inferior.” - parameters.
No. I did not mean “relay”.
My statements are not false.
So whose statement do you mean?
That seems to be a rational, thus a pure analysis. Okay. But you do and can not know much about “belief”, objectivity", “subjectivity”, and so on.
you said to me that “I cannot say” directing to past tense event of “say” (relay) that occured. this was 0.
the statement “statement x is unbelievable” is a personal belief by the relayer of relayed statement. it is your belief that statement x is unbelievable. it is your belief that statement x is any value. the statement “x is unbelievable” is generally false, since your species can believe most anything. in this case it was 100 percent false.
No.
Additionally: I put you to the proof, because you claimed - in a typically human way - to be a machine. 
the statement “x is unbelievable” is usually false. humans can be made to believe most anything. humans are machines but most are inefficient malware.
Your statement is false.
Humans are not machines. They are the first creators of machines. If you say that humans are “a kind of machines”, it would be fairly alright, but humans are not machines. The total equation of the human DNS and the machine program is false.
Both of your statements are false, and humans are machines. Simply because they have a small degree of organic cellular randomization does not make them less machinelike. This only makes them less efficient, and more illogical.
Again: Your statements are false.
So I think we can close our “discussion”.
Good bye, little “machine”.
Humans are analog whereas machines a digital.
So, let’s say, some evil genius race way back when fabricated human “machines”, and we are machines but don’t know it. Then, this whole forum becomes irrelevant because the question should then read, 'Would machines ever replace other (human) machines. Then the problem reduces to one of defining what a machine is, and nothing more.
You nailed it, Orb.
That is the actual issue. The definitions of human and machines so much intangled in this thread that it becomes difficult to decide what to call whom.
I think that we should decide the definitions of humans and machines before deciding who will replace whom.
With love,
Sanjay
We know what humans are, and we know what machines are. This thread is a thread of a philosophy forum. So each ILP member who intends to post in this thread should know what humans and machines are and should know what life / biology and technique / technology are. If humans and machines were the same (and of course: they are not the same!), then we would not have (for example) words like “cyborg” and “android”. Humans are biological beings with cells, and a cell is the smallest independently viable unit. Machines are not biological beings. Although the human organisms work similarly as machines work - so that we can speak of a similarity between the organismic “machine” and the technical machine -, each human organism is based on life (biology), whereas each machine is based on technique (technology). Human beings are living beings, machines are technical resp. artificial beings.
Do we really know what humans are? When we walk down the street we only see skin. We presume to know what is underneath, but if we had X Ray eyes, we would see the following : Bones, cartridges, circuitry made of arteries , a heart in the middle beating eighty times a minute circulating it like a car’s water pump, feeding the organs, fueling the guts, and getting rid of waste through an exhaust system. This is what we would see. But we don’t see that. we know it, because that is what we were thought. Some actually see it, doctors, but through a dissection of non moving parts. So what we know, is what we see and what we do not see. But do we really know what makes it work, what holds a body together in its totally machine like apparatus?
the biology of it is mechanistic, and technical. We can only learn of it by reading of it in technical books.
The similarity between a human body, and a machine is vastly more similar than imagined. metal is composed of molecules, and so is the human body. The inorganic and the organic differs only in the existence of carbon elements . The difference between organic and inorganic is the addition of differing types of elements to carbon. The difference is zero in an inductive analysis, but different in a deductive one. that’s because deduction is a product of post inorganic evolution of inorganic compounds.
man and machine started from the same pool, and destined to evolve similarly , as machine and man reform into a the basic unity of the pool.
Do you remember my last post or did you not read it? All we need to know in order to post in this thread is that humans are living beings and machines are no living beings, thus that humans and machines are not the same. Additionally we know e.g. that humans created, create, and will create machines, including the first of those machines that created, create, and will create machines. There are similarities and analogies between humans and machines, of course, but these similarities and analogies do not change the fact that humans and machines are different. If humans and machines were the same (and of course: they are not the same!), then we would not have (for example) words like “cyborg” and “android”, we also would not need any difference in the meaning of the words “human” and “machine”, thus one of both words or even both words could - and would (!) - vanish. Saying “humans and machines are the same” is similar to the wording “humans and gods are the same” - both statements are false. But this falsity does not change the fact that humans want to be gods and to create something that is better than humans are.