Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Of course I read it, I would do You a disservice if I tried to answer something unread. Not only that, it would border on fraud.
My point is philosophical, and will try to in a roundabout way desribe what I mean.

What has happened to our way of thinking since the dawn of civilization, and I do not mean this as a lecture, only to lay a foundation to my blog up above,
Is, that is that the structural integrity of it has gone through changes of assimilated ideas which drew heavily on the similarity of constructions based on human models. there was a turnaround, whereby these models started to be deconstructed, to accommodate machine modeling based on data. The perfect model, even suggested through this forum is one which is more machine based, destined to overcome the human one. In and through this process, a dehumanizations is taking place, whereby the differences between machine and man are narrowing. The cyborg is such a model.

I was not suggesting that machines and human beings are identical, only that the modeling, of reality itself, is becoming more machine like and less human like.

Even though in the original vote I held that machines will not be able to overcome reality by a total human/machine integration, the fact remains, that even to be able to hold such a concept. The idea of
constructing on basis of such a model, implies that the systems are very similar in the first place, and will become nearer and nearer for them to be able to become identical. In this sense, machines and human beings are both nearing identical systems.

I disagree with the suggestion that Al will turn evil and eliminate humans, because man still retains the element of invention, and they will be aware, that is the humans, when Al will reach a point in its development, when it will pose a danger, in terms of
resisting human control. Once a feedback system develops, when power sharing becomes a control issue, various checks and balances will be established
to assure, that proper overflow will be grounded into alternative systems, which can modify and change these types of process.

The new models are only different in kind, but not in the type of systems necessary to function as a machine. That is what was meant, and not the literal way of interpreting human beings and machines as being identical.

humans are mostly digital, DNA is digital.

a bird solved this puzzle faster than most humans would have. most humans are inferior to birds. wallythekat.tripod.com/A_Pages/A … stein.html

living or non-living does not determine if something is a machine. if an AI can self-regulate and reproduce you don’t say it ceases to be a machine. If a woman goes through menopause and is sterile we don’t have a funeral and say she is no longer among the living.

Arminus,

It is still not clear what you are suggesting. What do you eaxtly mean by life or living organism? What would be the difference between a human and an android according to you? Is inclusion of any pure mechanical device in the humans is enough call them andriods? Is a human having his knee joint replaced by an artificial one worthy enough to be called an android? Or, he should has something else?

With love,
Sanjay

Science has accepted that a “human” or “homosapian” is anything founded on an RNA/DNA sequencing that can mate with a homosapian and reproduce (bear an offspring).

Even if artificially produced, if anything, mechanical or not, can do the above, it is “human”. Otherwise it is merely machine, artificial, incongruent, or a different species.

Okay.

Is the definition of the LIFE the same?

With love,
Sanjay

Of course not. Ants are “alive”.

The definition of “life” still varies but basically encompasses self-preservation and reproduction. Reproduction is actually a method of self-preservation, not independent of it. The inherent intent of reproduction is to form harmonious surroundings. Reproducing nanobots serve that function, but seldom (if ever yet) enact self-preservation, although it wouldn’t take all that much to include it.

Some military drones enact self-preservation but can’t reproduce … yet. Combine the two of those and you have a truly living machine; “Replicators” (as displayed in sci-fi films).

James,

Does your definition not suggest that plants are also Live?
Or not!

With love,
Sanjay

Yes. How is that an issue?

Do they have mind or consciousness too?

With love,
Sanjay

No.

Consciousness requires remote recognition. Plants don’t do that.
But some drones do.

If plants do not have ether consciousness or mind, how they make decisions?

With love,
Sanjay

Plants dont make decisions and neither do humans. Plants just “do” things.

Well, that is neither a philosophical nor scientific explanation. It is like saying that the God created this universe, just because he does that. No further deduction is required.

By the way, have you ever seen sunflower plant moving the face of its flower towards the sun all the time?

Is that not a conscious decision, taken collectively by the whole of the plant?

If sunflower plant does not has any collective and conscious decision making portion, how could it ever be do such act?

And, remember also, unlike animals and humans, plants do not have any central nervous system. So, how its different portions cummunicate and synchronise with each other?

With love,
Sanjay

dude its just some chemicals moving down the vine causing it to rotate for the photoreceptors

GWT,

I do not think that you are able to understand the issue.

With love,
Sanjay

I think it is quite clear what I mean by “life” and “living organism”. And as I also said several times: androids belong to the machines, cyborgs belong to the humans. So if humans wanted to become machines, they could only become cyborgs; and if machines wanted to become humans, they could only become androids. So cyborgs are humans, although with some or many features, properties, characters of machines, and androids are machines, although with some or many features, properties, characters of humans.

Machines do not have cells. A cell is the smallest independently viable unit. Machines are not living beings. Androids are machines. Cyborgs are humans. Humans are living beings. Living beings are not machines.

Arminius,

Zinnat has a point, thou maybe we are overlooking it. development per evolution of organisms is very gradual over a long time. There are no gaps within the continuum. So the problem is, of defining at what point can we say of a lower order organism, that it has no function in decision making? At what point, for instance the actions of a fly eating plant, can it be said, that there is a certain amount of understanding in terms of deciding to open its mouth and swallow a fly? Between the machine and man, there also exist a long developmental continuum, and if only a few human devices/traits/organs are left within its body, when is it, that it can be said to have
become a machine?

In other words on the cellular level there is a noticeable distinction, but on the molecular level, no such distinction pervades. It’s a structural and systemic arrangement .

I apologize for not having read the whole thread. I honestly still do not understand what is the difference between a cyborg and an android. To me, they are the same entities. Would you explain that?

This is true that living things are made of cells. But, at the end of the day, even cells are made of same basic ingredients as of machines. If we break down any living entity, which we can do now precisely, they are made of same inorganic compounds like water, carbon, iron etc. Then, what is that make organisms Live?

with love,
sanjay

Yes.

Cyborgs are humans with features, properties, characters of machines; so they may be on the way from humans to machines, but they can’t become machines. Androids are machines with features, properties, characters of humans; so they may be on the way from machines to humans, but they can’t become humans. The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.

Yes, but that is not what you asked. You asked me about the difference between cyborgs and androids. And here is my answere again: The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.

Again: that is not what you asked. You asked me about the difference between cyborgs and androids. And here is my answere again: The difference betwen cyborgs and androids is life as it is defined by biology.

Do you know the biological definition of “life”?

Yes, i certainly have, and very big one too. This very simple and common point can brought down the whole premise of AI singlehandedly and successfully too.

That is certainly the case. Actually, it is so simple and common that we refuse to pay attention to it. Like Tixe said - it just happens thus forget it and move on to the bigger issues.

Orb, if an alien, from such a planet, where there were no plants, would ever come to the earth, i am dead sure that he would look into the plants first before animals/humans, for the simple reason that they are more challenging to deduct sentience wise.

It is understandable to some extent that animals/humans have sentience, because they have CNS and brain. But, what about plants which do not have any such things? What is creating their sentience?

Secondly, i find it even more surprising that we are trying to invent artificial humans before trying to invent artificial plants! if we cannot understand and replicate a live plant, how on the earth we could ever replicate live human ever, which is thousands time more complex than plants!

Is it not like trying to land on Mars before moon!

Science says that human dies when its brain stops working (even that is wrong and i can prove it scientifically right now even on the net). Right! But, what makes a plant die? They do not have any brain or even a heart! So, theoretically, should they not live forever?

Has anyone answers?

with love,
sanjay