Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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.)

Perhaps observation? If say you take some observing particles then one pulls out and sees the others as a group, then it has perspective command over the others. If we then build up to a human or artificial brain, there would always be a single observer throughout the process which has ‘consumed’ the others. Naturally all those observing particles need to be put together in an instrument which utilises a subjective observer, such that an observer stands out as the singular focus. Rocks and other collections probably don’t do this.

For a computer to be more than a ‘rock’ it would require an observer. No amount of processes alone would achieve that, only the correct instrumentation would.
Then the observing instrument would require continuity, otherwise you would be switching observers where conscious processes require a singular experience throughout a given process, such that a full observation of said process occurs = conscious experience.

By whom?

Why?

That is not enough!

Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.

If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.

But conscious experience is merely a part of merely one side of consciousness, and a part of one side of consciousness is not enough, because it is not the whole consciousness (see above).

Consciousness: Remote Recognition

True it does, but you can have all of that but without an observer/perceiver/experiencer, ergo it appears to be the difference between a conscious and non-conscious intelligence. maybe consciousness doesn’t even require intelligence.

True. Which makes me wonder if there is a fundamental consciousness which all life has. There may be spiritual concerns but my difficulty is in the idea of something coming into and leaving the body. In short i have concluded that there must be a way to build up to consciousness e.g. If you keep adding neurons starting with one or a few. …same if those neurons are artificial naturally.

So “consciousness is now defined” (Orb) as a “remote recognition” by you, James. But how do you define “remote recognition”? You say what and who does not have consciousness as “remote recognition” - but who (and what?) has it? And what does this mean in the context of this thread?

How would you define “consciousness” and “intelligence” then?

Being able to identify a remote object. The ability for your Samsung TV to recognize you and realize when you are not looking at the screen, as well as where on the screen you are looking, makes that TV conscious to that degree (still far from what you would call a “human consciousness”).

Huh?
I said that if an entity has the ability to recognize remote objects, it has consciousness of those objects.

It means that already a great many machines have various degrees of consciousness that is greater than a human and they will only gain more.

No, that is not true for two simple reasons.

1- there is no nanobot (according to the definition of the nanobot) made so far thus there is no such possibility.
2-When we cannot make manipulating microbots so far, which is an easier thing to do, how can we make such nanobots?

Arminus, wikipedia is also a part of popular media, though certainly and slightly better than other ones. But, it is certainly not a word of the God thus should not be taken a fact but some loose or general information about the subject. More often than not, experts do not write wiki pages. People like you and me, take the work of the experts and quote those on wiki, imbued with their own understanding of the issue. Thus, when subtlety or precision is involved, it is better to look for particularly devoted sites instead of wiki. Like, for philosophical issues, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is far better and reliable source than wiki.

But, when you are saying that they cannot reproduce without outside help, does not that mean that they either have no such interest or unable to do to?

Certainly, but there is a big if is in between.

My personal/previous opinion does not matter for me when i revisit any issue. I can throw it out of the window without any hesitation, provided i find a better alternative.

with love,
sanjay

There is certainly a limit/condotions for consciousness too and that is precisely why it cannot be found in/with every complexity.

Secondly, not the whole of nature, but only conscious part of the nature produces self replicating nanobots. This appropriate environment should be a such hosting body which entails consciousness. Otherwise, the guest DNA cell will die.

with love,
sanjay

Arminus, i am not sure whether you are asking or telling your reasoning?

with love,
sanjay

Microsbots;

I think they have the microbot issue well covered.

Functioning nanobots, but not replicating;

An unwarranted remark. I do not think that ia am being childish here by any streach of imagination.

Again, where?

Okay. I did not realize that.

How my question was out of the context? I was also referring to the definition of the independent viable unit in the biological sense.

You may say so but i do not think that it could be defined as reproduction interest in true sense, as far it is controlled by any outside entity. Yes, one time programming is acceptable but not a continuous interference.

with love,
sanjay

No perhaps in it. There has to be an obsever in the first place, everything else comes later.

That observer is precisely what consciousness is. And, any cognition/life is not possible without it. This is the crux of all life forms and everything is built around it. As soon as you lave it out of the equation, the life would be lost and the entity would stop functioning; death.

with love,
sanjay

That illusion is the reason of many misperceptions.

Observation does not require senses or brain (as we understand them). Plants can observe, process observation and make decisions accordingly. Of course, those actions would not match human’s capabilities but they do all that nevertheless.

Like, i gave the example of sunflawer plant. It can detact the angle of sunlight anf keeps the face of its flower to that direction all day. Some plants can detect and catch incets too. How can it be possible withpout obsevation, process and decision? And, whothout a singular controling authority?

Consciousness is a real entity and observation is its default character but observation is diferent from obsever. These obsevations manifest mind (not brain).

with love,
sanjay

Amorphos,

Leave your presumptions out of your thinking.

You conclusion is right. There are only two possibilities.

1- there must be consciousness in the first place to built a life form.
2- consciousness must be invariably built from complexity.

One of those must be true but they both cannot be true. Now, try to reach a conclusion.

with love,
sanjay

James,

Even Microbots means such.a thing whose size is around 10-6 of a metre. We are talking about a thousandth part of a millimetre here. I do not think that the things of that size could be seen by naked eyes.

Secondly, they have to be artificially made, not naturally found, and self duplicating too.

With love,
Sanjay