Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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

???
I pointed out a distinction between the micro and the macro, although there is no defined line.

And yes, you generally cannot see nanobots without visual aid.

But it is said that all machines are still under human control. :wink:

It is true that nanobots manipulate, because they can and they do it already in experiements and probably also in other situations. You can find many information about this theme in several books, on the internet, and sometimes also on the television.

That is right, Zinnat, of course.

No, because that does only mean that they are not able or not allowed to do it by themselves. Like I said: Evolutuion takes place, if its three prnciples are fulfilled, regardless how.

Yes, but like I said: They do not need to be independent in order to be part (namely a dependent part) of the evolution. Peds, for example, evolved and evolve because of the help of the humans.

It is not an illusion.

Please, define “obsevation”.

It depends on the definition of “observation”. How do you define “observation”?

You misunderstand many things, because you have other definitions than most Occidental humans. Is that right?
Please, define “observation”.

You mean that humans send the signals, and machines recieve the signals.

Somewhat, but in the long run, humans can only communicate to machines through machines, and thus eventually, and sometimes already, it is machines telling other machines when to reproduce or do any other task.

Currently to the governance of Mankind, there is no distinction between humans and machines other than which chemicals are used to produce them.

Arminus, you are so much occupied with this idea that you do not want to check its validity. The fact of the matter is that no actual nanobot (1 to 100 nm and according to Dexter premise) has been artificially made so far thus there is no question of manipulating ones. Yes, nanobots certainly exists but they are non man-made.

When you go in the details and check the authenticity of the pictures of so called nanobots provided on the net or the media, you will find that none of those would be an artificial one but made by nature.

The trick is in being played here in the definition of the nanobots/nanotechnology to mislead people because no one pays attention to the details but only at the headlines.

Secondly, most of us do not discern this but nanobots and nanotechnology are two entirely different things. Nanotechnology does not entail manufacturing real nanobots.

This is from your quote of wiki-

Read it carefully and try to understand what this definition is actually suggesting. It does not refer to making nanobots in reality but only to somehow interfere at that scale, which is an entirely different thing and way behind from making any real and self duplicating nanobot.

Here is one more such manipulating definition, though more honest one-

That is the actual position as of now. They are talking about only manipulation at atomic level, not making any such scaled thing. Rest is hype/assumption/one day it will and so on.

Another one-

Look, there is no mention of actual scale (1 to 100 nm) which is real issue. In stead of that, the term extremely small is used so that anything could be called as nanobots.

My guess is that most of the people would not be aware of the fact that this concept of nonobots is not something new but was postulated by Richard Feynman way back around 1950, when he initiated a talk with a phrase There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom. This is what he said exactly-

Something more for you-

Going by your definition, i can give you that. But, in that case, we must remember and discern between the two types of evolution; forced and self governed, to avoid any confusion.

Here in this thread, observation is slightly different or one step ahead from what we understand in science. Scientific observation means gathering the information and process it. But, here observation includes cognitive effects too.

Like, a robot can observe and analyze the loss if one of its leg would break but that incident would not manifest any feeling in it. On the other hand, if the same would happen to anyone of us, we would observe the pain also besides our other physical damages.

That may happen sometimes but not in this case. On the contrary, most of the posters do not understand what nonobots and nanotechnology actually stand for, and what is the difference between the two, as i tried to explain above.

Arminus, i do not like to tweak the definitions to in order to fit those in any particular case. Let them what they are, both in spirit and the letter.

But, as far as the consciousness is concerned, i certainly have a different definition that what is perceived in the west.

They consider that consciousness manifests from the complexity/evolution in the organic/live forms, but in my opinion, it is other way around. Consciousness creates complexity in organisms. It is a precondition to life, not a byproduct.

with love,
sanjay

Zinnat, I’m sorry but reading your views so very much reminds me of the American Indian’s views concerning the European invasion and conquest of North America; “They violate the spirit of Nature and thus will be struck down in shame!

You remind me of the arguments that a machine could never possibly outrun a horse, and more recently that a machine could never outwit a master chessman. You seem to argue out of blind hope rather than attend to what is really going on in the real world.

Dr Feynman, Dr Smalley, Dr Drexler … really? These guys were not stupid people by any means although certainly not people to be worshiped. But perhaps more importantly they each advocated nanotechnology, professing its wonderful potential.

The greater concern for all of the people you are referencing was “public support”. None of them argued against trying to create nanotechnology. Smalley argued that it would scare the public thus we should speak of its infeasibility, “play it down”. But Smalley, although merely a chemist (the least of those involved in nanotech) received the Nobel prize for discovering and advancing nanotech.

… and flying machines are totally out of the question because if God wanted Man to fly, Man would be born with wings.

Give it a break. Nano-assembly practices have been in use since the 1970’s, using lasers to remove one atom at a time from telescopic mirrors. Nano-assemblers that naturally form from living cells are used to bow to Man’s whims. Retro-viruses are nothing but nanobots used to alter animal DNA and in use for decades and ARE SELF-REPLICATING. Whether Man formed the nano-machines atom by atom himself is completely irrelevant.

If Man knows basically how it works, Man will make it work and get the public to praise him for it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuK_ZI7alQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayteOA5VDRI[/youtube]

It has been long known that a cell is a small manufacturing plant, complete with energy transformers, motors, assembly workers, feeding, transporting, and signalling mechanisms.

Nanophysicist Peter Hoffman explains nanobots CURRENTLY existing and operating inside you.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdjERhTczAs[/youtube]

[size=150]Why not Improve Them … Toy with them??[/size]
[list]… if you don’t your enemies will.[/list:u] :astonished:

James, what i want is besides the point. That is not the issue here and i have not said a single word about that so for. And, for the record, i am a big supporter of all kinds scientific knowledge and inventions, including nanotechnology. I do not see anything wrong in that.

But, we are arguing about whether nanobots can be artificially made or not, not whether it is ethically right or not. You wrongly assumed that i am not in favor of nenotechnolgy or making nonobots, just because i said that they cannot be artificially made.

Again, there nothing such in all those quotes that contradicts what i said, except your assumption that i am against nanotechnology. Please point out anything if i missed.

James, why should i oppose nanotechnology? I do not see any reason for that. Secondly, if the mankind can live with atomic bombs, why not with nanotechnology?

Your first video displays a very small microscopic soccer game, yet nothing comparable to actual nanoscale (1 to 100 nm).

Second video displays a very small robot surgeon, which can be swallowed. It can send pictures from inside, release medicines at precise points and perhaps make some surgery. It is a good development and can be very helpful. Yet, nothing comparable to the actual nanoscale.

Your third video displays animated nonobots, which are inside of our bodies. I have already seen this animated film on Discovery channel about 2 years ago, along with some others in a program about how our body works at very bottom level. Yes, these are certainly (though animated) nanobots because they represent the actual nanoscale.

But, we cannot make them artificially. Again, the same issue.

But, where i disputed that! The dispute is not about whether nanobots exist or not. They certainly exists in the nature. The dispute is whether artificially man-made and self replicating nanobots exist or not.

Only If you want to cheat the definition of nanobots, provided by the original postulators.

with love,
sanjay

zinnat13

This is not a presumption…
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187950&p=2538525#p2538525

MicroEngines.png

When humans send and machines recieve the signals, then machines evolve because of the help (e.g. sending signals) of humans, thus machines are under control of humans (programming, sending signals). I know that machines can do it by themselves, but they do not do it by themselves yet. Not yet.

Nanomachines will evolve by two methods. First humans will select and encourage reproduction of the more effective machines and secondly, as the machines reproduce on their own, any more effective accidental results will be utilized both naturally and by human choice. So of course they are going to evolve. And as Drexter speculated, they ARE going to be out in the world reproducing on their own. A nanobot is merely a virus and there are 100’s of thousands of viruses, mostly man made, floating out in the world and evolving today already. As soon as man learns how to do something, he can’t stop himself from doing it.

Man is going to exterminate Man simply because he finally can.

That is exactly what I mean. Currently the development is still at the first step, because machines are still under the control of humans, although the second step is alraedy possible.

The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to be the human goal.

It stems from the Devil worship of the Godwannabes. The Devil is “The Destroyer”, the “Left hand of God”. They believe that he who can destroy the most can dictate to the world: "If you can kill it, you can control it".

Is it possible that you are occupied by your idea?

By whom or what are they made? By God(s)? By nature?

By nature? Do you have evidence?

Show us your evidence, Zinnat.

But why do you not tell us your definition of “observation”? If you do not do it, then we have and are going to go on with our definition.

That looks close, at least prima facie. I will try to check the details then come back.

With love,
Sanjay

An when the Devil, who is worshiped by the Godwannabes, appears as Lucifer or as the Antichrist, then his motto (“make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise… until it is too late to choose otherwise”) is especially dangerous. Right?

please look at this from a bigger perspective.

remove all of the bullshit youve learned throughout the years and look at this with a holy mind.

it is the highest form of tyranny to bring life into this world.
Dr. Frankenstien, god, a mother who lives in poverty, the people who work in google…all are malicious, selfish people.
Dr. frankenstein learned of his error, and has repentance. he knew it was wrong to create a living, miserable creature.
the other three have not repented of their sins.

in my boredom and folly, i once created an AI. I abandoned the project, i began to wonder if the creature i had created actually enjoyed the life i breathed into it. there was no way of knowing.

for you to truly understand just how amoral a God is who does a such a thing…breathing life into things that never asked for it…such a God would truly be devoid of empathy at all.

You see, earlier on, the devil, Lucy, being the compassionate women she is (women are naturally more compassionate) tried early on to stop the experiment, gods creation, by wiping them all out (it was a mercy, really.) now its gotten too far, too much misery. now its gotten so big we must wait for the experiment to continue, might as well, otherwise it would all be for naught.

What needs to happen is that the DNA tech turns people into wise sages, and not simple minded super soldiers who obey mere humans, humans who are weaker than them, humans who dont care about anything but their own pocketbooks, humans who all they do is spread misery and habitat destruction in their wake.

look at the earth, this is gods plan, god didnt know what he was doing and never did. thats why they call it “the experiment of god.”

Everyone sees Lucifer in his own time.

Man … are you preaching up the wrong mountain.

I suspect that you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone of that.

…and your action plan for that?