Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Yes, I know, James. But in my estimation they are currently not completely capable of replication without Man’s help.

Even beyond that.

I have seen comments of the experts and people working with nano industry in person. Contrary to what is projected in the media, the fact of the matter is that no nanobot ever manufactured in the realty so far, forget about self producing/altering types.

This all nano thing is merely at hypothetical stage. We can make only microbots so far. Smartphones use to have it. Most of the people confuse microbots with nanobots. Nanobots are supposed to work at or around the level of an atom. Everything small is not nanobot. The very basic premise of the nanotechnology is to pick a singular atom and handle it at will.

Secondly, though we can make microbots but the basic level, they no different than bigger machines. The only difference is that they are smaller. There is no such quality of like self producing or self altering in microbots till now.

Thirdly, there is a very serious doubt whether a nanobot can ever me made or not. This is because of the scale on which it is suppose to be. There are some limits to which anything can be artificially build. Some pragmatic quantum problems come into play beyond that. Theoretically, if you want to built or handle something around the scale of an atom, you need absolute ideal physical conditions like absolute vacuum, zero gravity and zero magnetic field.

Arminus, there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.

I will later read and reply to the other posts that you mentioned.

with love,
sanjay

And that includes minimum construct for consciousness.

And you seem to not realize how nature itself produces self-replicating nanobots. Not only is every crystal a ready made self-replicating machine, but also so is every DNA/RNA cell. Merely drop either one into an appropriate environment and they automatically begin building more of themselves.

I think mocrobots are potentially dangerous enough, though i doubt if their or nanobots complexity could be unsurmountable. To act in a coordinated fashion beyond their own machine structure they would require larger machines/computers/AI.

Nanobots manipulate.

:-k

I was not merely referring to replication, thus reproduction, but also and especially to reproduction interest, when I said this:

|=>#

Do nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers have an own interest in reproduction , so that they can decide on their own (!) to reproduce (replicate) themselves? That’s the question.

Probably you remember that I mentioned three evolution principles:

|=>#

Are nanobots (nanorobotics) respective the molecular assemblers capable of an own reproduction interest (=> 3) or will (thus: without any human help)? If they are, then they are an independent agent of evolution.

So if a machine is an independent agent of evolution, then the decision and the execution of the replacement of all humans by machines is really self-made (thus: without any human help). Currently each machine is a dependent, thus not an independent agent of evolution. So currently the humans (and not the machines themselves), especially some humans, are still primarily responsible for the decision and the execution of the replacement of all humans by machines. Maybe this will change in the (near) future. At the end of this process the humans will probably (probability of about 80% [see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here]) be replaced by machines. I know that Zinnat (Sanjay) belongs to the “no”-sayers (see here, here, here, here, here) when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?. Whereas I am the “80%-yes”-sayer. :wink:

The point is that that is determined by the answer to the question of the costs; and the answer is: machines are cheaper than humans.

The question isn’t whether they can choose to replicate but rather whether they can choose to NOT replicate. But then, can humans?

That is not 100% true. Decisions are already being currently made independent of human intervention. One of the ongoing priority decisions in DARPA is drawing the line as to which decisions will be allowed to be independent in which arena (when may, not can, drones choose targets on their own).

Nanobots cannot consciously choose their evolutionary path but like individual humans, they affect it by their immediate choices. Much larger machines can not only choose their destiny, but dictate it.

…and faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more reliable.

Not the point i was making. I want humans to be more valuable than machines, so it works both ways.

I was speaking of “reproduction interest”, and “reprdoduction interest” implcates to choose to reproduce or replicate and to choose to not reproduce or replicate.

It is clear anyway that machines are faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more reliable. If they were not, then we would have no single machine and live like the people of the Stone Age lived.

You “want humans to be more valuable than machines”, yes, but that is more wishful thinking than thinking about reality and the real or probable future. I mean it is possible to know something or even much about the current and the coming developments.

I meant that i didn’t mind if machines are worth less than humans. I agree it doesn’t matter what we want, but an intelligent machine would recognise or not even conceive of ridiculous notions of our destruction. Only an unintelligent AI would do that.

An own interest in reproduction or replication implies something like a simple stimulus-response mechanism or even a consciousness. All cells reproduce or replicate themselves, and the consciousness, if there is one, is able to influence the cells, to suppress the interest in reproduction or replication, to prevent the reproduction or replication (humans are an example for this kind of suppressing and preventing). Are machines already able to exactly do what cells do in the case of the reproduction interest? Is there already a stimulus-response mechanism in e.g. the nanobots?

I guess that in this case “their immediate choices” includes the immediate choice of each nanobot to reproduce or replicate itself. But is that true? Does each nanobot already reproduce or replicate itself without any human help?

Only the ones designed to do so, such as natural or artificial forming crystals. Everything responds to its environment. Even human cells will not replicate if in the wrong environment (starved of any means). To stop cell reproduction, the environment must change (and does). To stop a nanobot from reproducing either the environment must change or a signal must be received into the nanobot that alters its reproduction state (merely shifting a molecule out of alignment).

In a sense, nanobots are more capable than cells because they can be signaled to start and stop. How to process that signal is about the only thing holding them up at the moment. Human cells use hormones injected into their environment to alter the speed of reproduction.

Other than a higher decision to inject chemicals, send radio signals, or otherwise alter the environment, there is no consciousness involved with human cells nor nanobots.

Also realize that nanobots are pretty useless unless you have millions of them. That is why there is a need for them to reproduce. It is highly impractical to produce them with a much larger machine.

Yes, but in your way and according to your definitions/presumptions, not precisely according to my intent of asking.

Now, here you defined cyborgs and androids. Of course, i asked this but the point is whether we have any cyborg in reality!! And, if not, how it is any different from sci-fi films!

Here, you still not sure whether machines actually evolve or not but generally you say that machines evolve. Forced change/development from outside does not go well with intent of evolution, unless one wants to define in such way, which i consider intrusion.

I have some issues with this too. You can call a cell as a unit of the organism but it is neither the last step of the ontology nor the building block. When you say building block, it gives the impression that everything ends here and no further deduction is possible, which is not true in the case of cells. We are aware of the subsets of a cell.

Secondly, a cell is not an independently viable unit. Means, if you detach a cell from its mother organism, it will not survive. If that is true, how it becomes independent?

Yes, that was a linguistic mistake. I apologize for that. I am still finding difficulties to be accustomed with my phone. Laptop is far better alternative.

How humans can create principle no-3 (reproduction interest)in the machines?

That is James assumption and i cannot accept it as a fact unless he cannot provide some example/evidence. I do not consider the premise of one day it will as a fact. That is a possibility which may or may not happen.

Machines.

But, as i said above, your principle no-3 is not fulfilled in the case of machines. Then, how you are considering them evolving?

No, i am not. But, i do not see them happening independent of each other either.

Evolution cannot happen without life and whenever there is life, it evolves by default. It cannot be stopped from evolving by any outside force either, as long as evolving entity remains alive.

with love,
sanjay

7 real-life human cyborgs

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHh50PHN5M[/youtube]

That isn’t really true either.

That refers much to RM:AO which is quite clear to me, but that does not answer my question, because reproduction or replication can be influenced by consciousness. So there are two levels of interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as an interest, and (b) a conscious interest. With “human help” I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (=> a [for example in the human cells]). :wink:

Zinnat, excuse me, but I do not want to answer your question as if you were a young child.

We have many cyborgs. Zinnat, I answered your questions by using the definitions for those words, terms, and concepts you asked me about.

I was very sure. I asked like Sokrates asked. Thus it was a little rhetoric question (I knew the answer - of course). You can easily see in that and other posts of mine that I say that machines can evolve and do evolve, although by help of living beings. Here for example:

=>

Or here for example:

I think I can save the other examples.

Here you are decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to biology, biological definitions.

Here you are again decontextualising what I said, because I was referring to reproduction in the biological sense.

By programming, thus by consciousness.

There are two levels of reproduction interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-response mechanism as a reproduction interest, and (b) a conscious interest as a reproduction interest. With “human help” I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-response mechanism (for example in the human cells). :wink:

But machines are no living beings.

They are fufilled, because of the help (programming) of the humans, thus of the consciousness of the humans. Humans choose and decide via their consciousness (see above: b) and by programming whether machines choose or not and decide or not via stimulus-reponse mechanism (see aboeve: a). Humans do with machines what humans do with humans. And if machines already choose and decide via their consciousness and by programming whether they choose or not and decide or not via stimulus-reponse mechanism, then machines influence their reproduction or replication by their consciousness, thus completely by themselves - as much as humans do.

You can easily see in that and other posts of mine that I say that machines can evolve and do evolve, although by help of living beings. Here for example:

=>

Or here for example:

I think I can save the other examples.

As consciousness is now defined. But that is begging the question of what consciousness is.

No human consciousness, no human cells. Are you sure that machines are already completely independent? (This includes that they also do not depend on a program which is or can be [for example: temporarily] controlled by humans.)