691) Arminius, 20.04.2015, 00:40, 00:51, 01:33, 02:37, 02:46, 03:22, 03:46, 19:28, 20:06, 21:07 (2888-2897)

Matt MVS 7 wrote:

„I am looking for a hedonistic debate.“ **

No. You are looking for a person who agrees with you.

„Man sollte nicht überrascht sein, wenn sich zeigt, wie mit fortschreitender Weltvernetzung die Symptome der Misanthropie anwachsen. Wenn Menschenfurcht eine naturwüchsige Antwort auf unwillkommene Nachbarschaft bedeutet, läßt sich angesichts der erzwungenen Fernnachbarschaften der meisten mit den meisten eine misanthropische Epidemie ohne Beispiel vorhersehen. Das wird nur jene in Erstaunen setzen, die vergessen haben, daß die Ausdrücke »Nachbar« und »Feind« herkömmlich nahezu Synonyme waren.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals, 2005, S. 220.
Translation:
„It should come as no surprise if it transpires that the symptoms of misanthropy increase with the progressive interconnection of the world. If fear of humans means a primal response to unwelcome neighbours, an unprecedented misanthropic epidemic would be the foreseeable result of the imposed long-distance vicinity between most people and most others. This should only amaze those who have forgotten that the words »neighbour« and »enemy« were traditionally almost synonymous.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, The World Interior of Capitalism, 2005, p. 141.

Erik (Primal Rage) wrote:

„Starting Philosophical Eco-villages

Something I've been entertaining recently is the concept of eco-villages centered around a shared philosophy, in this case, the Brunelleschi project. Instead of the primary, or sole reason behind the creation of such villages being the reduction of our footprints, the main reason will be to cultivate an environment of creativity, a place where academics, mystics, artists, and philosophers can focus most of their energies on the pursuit of excellence, as opposed to mundane jobs and careers. The villages will be limited to about 20-30 people. These villages will be hierarchical in nature, unlike communes; people will have their own personal space, their own property, and the ability to move up the hierarchy latter. And food will be obtained through donations, farming, and gardening.

....“ **

Is this really an eco-village? Where exactly is it?

The question of this thread (**) is whether „forces“ are „farces“ or not, and I think we should not speak of „forces“ but of „interactions“. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the „queen of the universe“ but merely one of the natural interactions.

In your thread „Forces or Farces“ (**) you are asking whether „forces“ are „farces“ or not, and I think we should not speak of „forces“ but of „interactions“. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the „queen of the universe“ but merely one of the natural interactions.

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„Hi guys. I'm sure some of you noticed I haven't posted anything in some time. I've been checking in every now and then, just not posting.

I've been going through a lot in my life. I've separated from my wife; I'm now a single American expatriate living in the UK. I have a job which pays a bit above minimum at the moment (min is 6.50, I make 7.10), doing web-designy-type things mostly. I've moved into my own little apartment which is uncomfortably costly for me. Need to find a fucking roommate.

When I was with my wife, she sort of toyed with me. She had a lot of power over me, because I was in her country and my livelihood depended on her. She abused that power over me, frequently threatening me etc. A big reason why I had to leave.

But now that I'm on my own, I feel more than ever like I'm hanging by my fingertips off the edge of a cliff. If I lost my job I'd be fucked. Completely. I wouldn't have anywhere to go, any way to eat, any place to sleep. I don't have any family here, and even if I miraculously made it back to the US I wouldn't have any family there who'd want to help me either. I'm just constantly worried and stressed out about my ability to survive on my own, particularly in a country that isn't my own.

I'm also a bit afraid of my wife's family. I think they've got a lot of anger towards me. If they wanted to, they could probably make my life very, very difficult. Her step dad talked about wanting to hit me or kick my ass or something, so idk what could happen.

Since moving out on my own, I've mostly felt an immense, consuming sense of loneliness. I have some buddies here, but nobody to properly hang out with outside of work. I have a fear that it's going to be really hard for me to find another woman as well.

I had to make a lot of stupid decisions to get myself in this situation. Now all I feel is regret, fear and loneliness.

That's I suppose mostly why I haven't posted much in a long time.“ **

I am very sorry about your situation. I wish you much strength and the best of luck.

What you are saying (**) is typically human!

That statement (**) is typically human too!

Do you (**) know what English is?

-----------------------------------

Back to the topic:

Why do you (**) think that machines have already taken over?

That statement (**) is again typically human. Please, try to „talk“ like a machine, if you can!

You are a romanticistic wishful thinker and like animals, this uncivilised, gruesome living beings. So you are a typically „modern“ human.

If all humans will be completely replaced by machines, then because of „modern“ humanity.

692) Arminius, 21.04.2015, 01:05, 02:31, 02:52, 03:31, 04:18, 17:08, 17:47 (2898-2904)

I am a human. But you claim to be a machine: **

Unbelievable.

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.

No. it is not my belief, 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.

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“.

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.

No.

Additionally: I put you to the proof, because you claimed - in a typically human way - to be a machine.

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.

693) Arminius, 22.04.2015, 00:34, 18:31, 21:47 (2905-2907)

Again: Your statements are false.

So I think we can close our „discussion“.

Good bye, little „machine“.

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 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 any humans are.

694) Arminius, 23.04.2015, 01:28, 17:32, 19:56 (2908-2910)

This thread is intersting.

What would they do in that said situation? Would they believe it?
Most of them would not believe it. Most of them would do and believe what most humans do and believe. They would rather berate, attack, or even kill the one who has told them the truth.

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.

„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.“ ** **

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.

Zinnat wrote:

„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?“ **

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.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»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.« ** **

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.“ **

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.

Zinnat wrote:

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..“ **

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.

Zinnat wrote:

„Then, what is that make organisms live?“ **

Do you know the biological definition of „life“?

695) Arminius, 24.04.2015, 13:23, 21:13, 21:27 (2911-2919)

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»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.« ** **

It is still hard me to understand except the distinction of life. But, i take it.“ **

Arminius wrote:

»... but that is not what you asked ....« ** **

True. i certainly not asked this specifically in that post but is the thread has not been around this issue all along?
Secondly, what if i ask those questions again now?“ **

Then it would not have anything to do with your former questions. But, okay, if you ask those new questions, I would appreciate it. (Thank you in advance!)

But, please, note that your new questions refer to another level than to the level biology.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do you know the biological definition of ›life‹?« ** **

I do not think if there is any clear-cut biological definition of life. Or, i am not aware of that till now. There are only vague interpretations.“ **

The biological definition of „life“ is the best one we have. There are also good definitions of „life“ which come from life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics). Life-philosophy, physics, system-theory, informatics (mathematics), and also the ordinary experiences with machines have influenced some interpretations but not the biological definition of „life“, because it is based on cells, and cells are well known. Cells are not machines, and machines are not cells, although both have similarities and work similarly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another question is whether machines can evolve or not.

Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three principles are (1) variation, (2) reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3) reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1) means that there are and must be several units (often called „individuals“)because of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction (=> 2) means preservation of the competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]). Reproduction interest (=> 3) means the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative). Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call „evolution“? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?

The internet is a digital modernity within the modernity. If you know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from modernity, then you also know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from the internet as the digital modernity.

Again:
Where are these eco-villages?
Are they leaded by too extreme idealists / romanticists?

René Descartes (1596-1650) said animals were machines, Christian Wolff (1679-1754) said the world were a machine, Julien de Lamettrie (1709-1751) said humans were machines, Hans Driesch (1867-1941) said the substances of the organisms were machines. I think that their theories are false.

696) Arminius, 25.04.2015, 12:28, 12:59, 14:41, 21:09, 21:35, 22:14 (2915-2920)

A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the „building block of life“; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called „cell division“.

The cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. So the cell division involves a single cell (called a mother cell) dividing into two daughter cells. This leads to growth in multicellular organisms (the growth of tissue) and to procreation (vegetative reproduction) in unicellular organisms. The process of duplicating a cell's genome - thus: the DNA replication - always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission.

Three types of cell division:

Example:

A cell division over 42 hours. The cells were directly imaged in the cell culture vessel, using non-invasive quantitative phase contrast time-lapse microscopy.

Schematic of the cell cycle:

I = Interphase, M = Mitosis; inner ring: M = Mitosis, G1 = Gap 1, G2 = Gap 2, S = Synthesis; not in ring: G0 = Gap 0/Resting.

The DNA replication (the process of duplicating a cell's genome which always happens when a cell divides through mitosis or binary fission) occurs during the S phase of the cell cycle.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. So the cell division involves a single cell (called a mother cell) dividing into two daughter cells.« ** **

But only if she consciously decides to ....“ **

There has to be a decision, yes, and that means that there has to be an interest, a reproduction interest. Like I said:

„Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three principles are (1) variation, (2) reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3) reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1) means that there are and must be several units (often called „individuals“)because of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction (=> 2) means preservation of the competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]). Reproduction interest (=> 3) means the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative). Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call „evolution“? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call "evolution"? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?« ** **

In the case of adapting and replicating nanobots, yes they qualify. They seek to replicate and also adapt through experimental minute variations.“ **

A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) or others (for example: growers, breeders, Raisers, stockmen) „help“ them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius,

All that is good and very informative. I appreciate and thank for your effort. I disagree with nothing what you quoted. Those are scientific findings and I have no right to challenge what is found empirically. But, I have every right to challenge any presumption, even if they were scientific.

And, machines will have AI, life and consciousness, is only a presumption till now.“ **

Who said so?

Additionally:
What is your presumption, opinion, statement, and point?

Zinnat wrote:

„Secondly, there is nothing in your reply that answers my basic question. I did not ask how all that happens but why all that happens.“ **

I have answered all your questions ....

Zinnat wrote:

„I am asking why, not what.
I am asking your basis of considering a cell live, and a machine of similar scale not.“ **

I have answered all your questions ....

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call „evolution“? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?« ** **

What do you think? Are machines following there three principles now?“ **

I guess you mean „their“ (not „there“), but the said three principles are also not „their“ principles but the principles of evolution. And they follow them by help of the humans, and in the other case:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call „evolution“? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?« ** **

In the case of adapting and replicating nanobots, yes they qualify. They seek to replicate and also adapt through experimental minute variations.“ **

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.« ** **

Again, that depends how you define evolution.“ **

Who said that it does not depend how one defines evolution?

Zinnat wrote:

„If you want to consider any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it is happening, you can certainly call them living.“ **

I do not „consider any change in the entity as an evolution“. I also do not „consider any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it is happening“. And I do not „call them (?) living“. Additionally: Whom or what do you mean by „them“ in your sentence?

Zinnat wrote:

„But, i do not think that justify the true intent, at least in the context of this discussion. The change should be self propagated, without any outside help.“ **

With reference to living beings, yes, but not with reference to other beings. Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.

Please do not confuse „evolution“ with „life“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.« ** **

I was referring to nanobots that alter themselves through replication, without Man's help (**).“ **

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

James S. Saint wrote:

„Intentional Communities.
And also;
Mondragon Corporation.
The Mondragon corp comes really close to the SAM concept except they don't have a common constitution that would cause it to be a sentient, living entity (the only thing missing).

But „this only thing“ is one of the most important things.

697) Arminius, 26.04.2015, 21:59 (2921)

Zinnat wrote:

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

Nanobots manipulate.

Wikipedia wrote:

Nanorobotics is the emerging technology field creating machines or robots whose components are at or close to the scale of a nanometer (10-9 meters).[1][2][3] More specifically, nanorobotics refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline of designing and building nanorobots, with devices ranging in size from 0.1–10 micrometers and constructed of nanoscale or molecular components.[4][5] The names nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines, or nanomites have also been used to describe these devices currently under research and development.[6][7]
Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase,[8] but some primitive molecular machines and nanomotors have been tested. An example is a sensor having a switch approximately 1.5 nanometers across, capable of counting specific molecules in a chemical sample. The first useful applications of nanomachines might be in medical technology,[9] which could be used to identify and destroy cancer cells.[10][11] Another potential application is the detection of toxic chemicals, and the measurement of their concentrations, in the environment. Rice University has demonstrated a single-molecule car developed by a chemical process and including buckyballs for wheels. It is actuated by controlling the environmental temperature and by positioning a scanning tunneling microscope tip.
Another definition is a robot that allows precision interactions with nanoscale objects, or can manipulate with nanoscale resolution. Such devices are more related to microscopy or scanning probe microscopy, instead of the description of nanorobots as molecular machine. Following the microscopy definition even a large apparatus such as an atomic force microscope can be considered a nanorobotic instrument when configured to perform nanomanipulation. For this perspective, macroscale robots or microrobots that can move with nanoscale precision can also be considered nanorobots.“ **

Wikipedia wrote:

„Molecular assembler .... A molecular assembler, as defined by K. Eric Drexler, is a »proposed device able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision«. A molecular assembler is a kind of molecular machine. Some biological molecules such as ribosomes fit this definition. This is because they receive instructions from messenger RNA and then assemble specific sequences of amino acids to construct protein molecules. However, the term »molecular assembler« usually refers to theoretical human-made devices.“ **

Wikipedia wrote:

„Self-replication . .... »Molecular assemblers« have been confused with self-replicating machines. To produce a practical quantity of a desired product, the nanoscale size of a typical science fiction universal molecular assembler requires an extremely large number of such devices. However, a single such theoretical molecular assembler might be programmed to self-replicate, constructing many copies of itself. This would allow an exponential rate of production. Then after sufficient quantities of the molecular assemblers were available, they would then be re-programmed for production of the desired product. However, if self-replication of molecular assemblers were not restrained then it might lead to competition with naturally occurring organisms. This has been called ecophagy or the grey goo problem.[8]
One method to building molecular assemblers is to mimic evolutionary processes employed by biological systems. Biological evolution proceeds by random variation combined with culling of the less-successful variants and reproduction of the more-successful variants. Production of complex molecular assemblers might be evolved from simpler systems since »A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. .... A complex system designed from scratch never works and can not be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a system that works.«[9] However, most published safety guidelines include »recommendations against developing ... replicator designs which permit surviving mutation or undergoing evolution«.[10]
Most assembler designs keep the »source code« external to the physical assembler. At each step of a manufacturing process, that step is read from an ordinary computer file and »broadcast« to all the assemblers. If any assembler gets out of range of that computer, or when the link between that computer and the assemblers is broken, or when that computer is unplugged, the assemblers stop replicating. Such a »broadcast architecture« is one of the safety features recommended by the »Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology«, and a map of the 137-dimensional replicator design space[11] recently published by Freitas and Merkle provides numerous practical methods by which replicators can be safely controlled by good design.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Zinnat wrote:

»... there is a limit to everything and that holds also. Nobody can cross that ever. Infinities are not achievable.« **

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

„But in my estimation they are currently not completely capable of replication without Man's help.“ ** **

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:

„Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three principles are (1) variation, (2) reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3) reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1) means that there are and must be several units (often called „individuals“)because of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction (=> 2) means preservation of the competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]). Reproduction interest (=> 3) means the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative). Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call „evolution“? Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?“ ** **

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% [**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) be replaced by machines. I know that Zinnat belongs to the „no“-sayers (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) when it comes to answer the question of this thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?. Whereas I am the „80%-yes“-sayer.

698) Arminius, 27.04.2015, 02:37, 02:59, 03:22, 19:49, 20:13, 21:34, 23:34 (2922-2928)

So you are saying that the interaction between the Earth and the Moon is not the interaction between their masses but the „interaction between a mass and its own immediate ambient surroundings“ (**). Is it the mass of the Earth, or the mass of the Moon, or a mass „somewhere between them“ (but where?), or even another mass? And if it is only the surrounding which is it? Is it more the surrounding of the Earth or of the Moon?

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

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.

„Untroubled existence“ (**) is a loose concept. However, the reality shows us almost always the opposite side of that what you call „our need is untroubled existence“ (**).

If humans have less troubles than they usually have, then they invent troubles. Metaphorically said humans live on an „island of luxury“, surrounded by an „ocean of non-luxury and less-luxury“.

Each culture is embedded in nature.

If it is not false that humans are naturally „98%-animals“ and „2%-humans“ but culturally „98%-humans“ and „2%-animals“, then it is easy to find out that they are not able to leave all troubles behind them („trouble equals strength“) and that they are nonetheless able to sublimate troubles because of their culture.

So generally human troubles do not vanish.

See also: ** ** ** **

1) The prestage of the human luxury beings was the upright walking which led to the possibility of using hands in many other ways than walking which led to a more voluminous brain with very much more capacity which led to the birth of the luxury being.

2) The „birth“ of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was associated with the use of language.

3) The „youth“ of the human luxury beings was the sapientisation.

4) The „adulthood“ of the human luxury beings began when they were left alone, thus with the Neanderthal extinction (since then there has been being merely one species of the humans).

4a) The „early adulthood“ of the human luxury beings: from the Neanderthal extinction to the transition (the so-called „Neolithic Revolution“) to the agriculture.

4b) The „middle adulthood“ of the human luxury beings: from the agriculture to that probable date in the future when machines will take over (**|**).

4c) The „late adulthood“ of the human luxury beings: from the probable date in the future when machines will have taken over to the death of the last human.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The question isn't whether they can choose to replicate but rather whether they can choose to NOT replicate.“ **

I was speaking of „reproduction interest“, and („reproduction interest“ implcates to choose to reproduce or replicate and to choose to not reproduce or replicate).

James S. Saint wrote:

„... and faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more reliable.“ **

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.

Amorphos wrote:

„I want humans to be more valuable than machines, so it works both ways.“ **

You „want humans to be more valuable than machines“, yes, but that is more wishful thinking than thinking about the 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.

Does the mass, does the weight of bodies play no role in RM:AO?

GT, SRT/ART, QP are not compatible with RM:AO.

699) Arminius, 28.04.2015, 02:50, 15:29, 17:44, 18:39 (2929-2932)

Zinnat wrote:

„Why cells are not machines? What is your benchmark of differentiation? My argument is that plant cells are not machines because they are live and governed by the consciousness of the plant. What is your argument?“ **

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?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

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?

GT, SRT/ART, QP are not compatible with each other, that's clear, but ist that the reason why they are also not compatible with RM:AO?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

That refers much to RM:AO which is quite clear to me, but that does not answer my question, because when reproduction or replication can be influenced by consciousness. So there are two levels of interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-sesponse 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-sesponse mechanism (=> a [for example in the human cells]).

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I have answered all your questions ....« ** **

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

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

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»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.« ** **

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!“ **

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

Zinnat wrote:

Arminius wrote

»Do the three evolution principles - variation (=> 1), reproduction (=> 2), and reproduction interest (=> 3) - also apply to machines?« ** **

Here, you still not sure whether machines actually evolve or not but generally you say that machines evolve.“ **

I was very sure. I asked like Sokrates asked, you know. 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:

„A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) "help" them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.“ ** **

Or here for example:

„Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.

Please do not confuse ›evolution‹ with ›life‹.« ** **

I think I can save the other examples.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»A cell is a living being; a cell is the smallest independently viable unit; a cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms; a cell as the smallest unit of life can replicate independently; a cell is the ›building block of life‹; a cell is capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities; a cell is able to divide itself into two or more cells - this process is called ›cell division‹.« ** **

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.“ **

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

Zinnat wrote:

„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?“ **

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

Zinnat wrote:

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

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).

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Whom or what do you mean by ›them‹ in your sentence?« ** **

Machines.“ **

But machines are no living beings.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»With reference to living beings, yes, but not with reference to other beings.Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.« ** **

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

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.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Please do not confuse ›evolution‹ with ›life‹.« ** **

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.“ **

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:

„A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest), or others (for example: growers, breeders, raisers, stockmen) »help« them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.“ ** **

Or here for example:

„Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled.

Please do not confuse ›evolution‹ with ›life‹.« ** **

I think I can save the other examples.

700) Herr Schütze, 29.04.2015, 23:14, 23:44, 23:54, 23:58 (2933-2936)

Ja, Nobelpreise sind nur noch ein Witz, und die Wissenschaft bewegt sich mittlerweile auf exponentielle Weise ebenfalls auf diesen zu. Das kann kein Zufall sein. Oder?

Die Gravitationstheorie (GT), die Relativitätstheorie (RT: spezielle [SRT] und allgemeine [ART]) und die Quantenphysik (QP: QT [Quantentheorie] und QM [Quantenmechanik]) sind miteinander nicht kompatibel. Somit können wir auch von keiner dieser Physikdisziplinen erwarten, daß sie jeweils allein oder/und alle drei zusammen das Universum erklären können. Alle drei sind teilweise falsch und müssen deshalb als falsch bezeichnet werden, weil auch “teilweise falsch” wissenschaftlich bedeutet, daß sie falsifiziert sind.

„Meine Theorie von der Entstehung des Universums bis zur heutigen Zeit sieht so aus: Auch ich glaube daran, dass alle Planeten und das sind ja wirklich Billionen tatsächlich aus einem Massekern entstanden sind. Die Wissenschaft glaubt, das Universum gleicht einem riesigen Handtuch und hat eine Ausdehnung von etwa 8 Milliarden Lichtjahren.
(Wenn man diese Zahl mit der Lichtgeschwindigkeit von etwa 298.000 km/sec. multipliziert, ist das alleine eigentlich schon unendlich.) aber das würde bedeuten, das Universum hätte auch einen Anfang und ein Ende, was wäre denn nach diesem Ende, wenn man in einer Zeitreise an dieses Ende ankommen würde (was natürlich nicht möglich ist) würde man nach diesem Ende ins Nichts fallen? Ich glaube man ist jetzt gerade mal soweit mit den Erforschungen, wie im frühen Mittelalter mit der Erforschung der Erde, als viele Wissenschaftler die Erde für eine Scheibe hielten. Die Wissenschaft beobachtet auch, dass sich das Universum ständig mit ungeheurer Geschwindigkeit immer weiter ausdehnt, dass was wir noch mit sehen und erahnen können, ist jedoch sicher nur ein kleiner Teil, ich glaube die Ausdehnung des Universums wird in den nächsten Jahrzehnten noch deutlich nach oben geschraubt werden aber den Teil, den wir nicht mehr erahnen können, führt die Planeten wie bei einer Kugel auf der anderen Seite allmählich wieder zusammen, so dass im Laufe von etlichen Milliarden Lichtjahren wieder ein fester Kernpunkt entsteht. Masse kann nicht aus nichts entstehen, sie muss also schon immer vorhanden gewesen sein. Meiner Theorie nach wiederholt sich das Spektakel des Urknalls nach unzähligen Milliarden Lichtjahren immer wieder auf’s neue und da keine anderen Umstände auf diesen Kreislauf einwirken, wird jeder Planet, der aus dem Urknall entsteht wieder auf seinem Ausgangspunkt zurückkehren, selbst unser so unscheinbar klein erscheinendes Sonnensystem und unsere vergleichsmäßig winzige Erde selbst. Die Erde würde durch Eis oder Wasser und der ständigen Sonneneinstrahlung wieder eine Atmosphäre bilden, aus der allmählich wieder Pflanzen und später Algen, Pilzen und schließlich erste Lebewesen wie z. B. Insekten entstehen. Am Ende dieses Kreislaufes würde genauso wieder der Mensch entstehen. Meiner Auffassung nach wird sich dieser Kreislauf nach jedem Urknall wieder aufs 1000000000000000000000el genauso wiederholen und jede Zeit-Epoche, auch die des Menschen ebenfalls wiederholen. Selbst unser kleiner Lebensabschnitt wird sich immer wieder wiederholen und hat sich bereits schon unzählige Male ereignet. Ich will damit sagen, dass alles, was sich ereignet, schon unzählige Male passiert ist und immer wieder neu passieren wird, schließlich auch der Untergang unserer Erde und unseres Sonnensystems. Das bedeutet, dass jedes Leben schon vorgezeichnet ist, ob man ein glückliches Leben führt oder immer nur Pech hat, selbst die Art und Weise unseres Todes steht bei unserer Geburt schon fest und falls jemand denkt, er könnte dem Schicksal ein Schnäppchen schlagen indem er anders wie gewohnt reagiert, ist das schon längst einmal passiert und wird immer wieder neu passieren. Das heißt, wir haben unser Leben schon unzählige Male durchlebt und werden es auf dieselbe Art und Weise immer wieder durchleben, nur liegen die Zeitabstände dazwischen immer etliche Milliarden Lichtjahre, so dass sich niemals ein Mensch wieder daran zurückerinnern kann. Nur so ist es zu erklären, weshalb alles immer in einer Schiene läuft, wie von einer magnetischen Hand gezogen. Natürlich steht auch der Fußballweltmeister 2014 schon längst fest, weil sich alles ohne jegliche Abweichung immer wiederholen wird.“ (Berthold, 23.06.2014 **

Sind sie auch philosophisch sowie theologisch und religiös motiviert?

Wir brauchen wieder mutige Wissenschaftler!

==>