01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 |
<= [431][432][433][434][435][436][437][438][439][440] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
922 |
If language isn't sound, then what is it? **
It is a set of forms used to convey concepts. The forms can be of anything; sound, letters, symbols, light strobes, semaphore. hand gesters .... **
I love you, too, James. Do whales, dolphins, dogs, cats use a language that isn't first of all sound? Or don't you believe mammals all have their own languages? **
923 |
Arminius,
I would like to look and address my second post, addressed to James (**) -
with love,
sanjay **
A thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own. **
Machines cannot evaluate given information. **
Machines cannot evaluate given information. Because, for that, again they have some inherited information and this is an endless process. **
The problem with machines is that they can never be in the stage of a priori knowlege. That is a must ingredient to form personal intelligence. **
Machines are blank on their own so you have to feed then from a to z. But, on the other hand, a child is born with some a priori knowledge. Then, he evaluate and evolve his knowledge. Machines cannot do either of those. **
After the every gap of some years, some scientist in the some corner or the world tends to come forth and claims that all is solved now but nothing happens on the ground. It looks to me it is more related to continue with the incoming huge funding than the actual research. The scientific community just do not want the idea of AI to die because it is the question of the bread and butter to the related persons. **
Zinnat wrote:
»A thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.« **
Then I guess that you aren't a thinking entity. Learning is the only form of »evolution« involving a single being, an evolution of his mind. **
The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness. **
And concerning to my question in the original post (op), to my question or statement of surviving in my next-to-last post (**), and the questions in my last post (**), that is also assuming that there will be no human errors (for example: creating machines-with-self-will), no wars, no accidents and so on. ** **
We tend to confuse complexity with learning. **
Actually, the machines never learn, simply because they do not any willingness to learn. They display or behave exactly how they are fed, neither more nor less.
It is neither the change/development nor capacity to develop that differs humans from the machines but the willingness of humans to do so. Machines certainly have better potential but they do not have any will to evolve. They do not want or desire anything. **
To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible. **
We cannot enable them to will. **
They take orders from their programming, no matter how developed, complex or sophisticated it may be, it is still an order. They never question/challenge/change their programming. Someone else has to do it for them. **
All of this falls into the same category as »Automobiles will never replace horses«, along with »If an automobile moves faster than 20 miles per hour, the people's ears will explode« and »They can't land on the Moon else they would just fall off«. **
924 |
But, of course, to accept that means a person would have to accept that languages started with sound rather than (flag) semaphores. **
Arminius wrote:
»What did Nietzsche's sister when, where, and why say?« **
..... **
Nietzsche studied and lectured on philology .... **
|
925 |
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, James S. Saint, Moreno. | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat. | Obe, Lev Muishkin, Kriswest. | |
Sum: | 3 | 8 | 3 |
926 |
Ive just read Bill McKibbens »Deep Economy« in which he argues that economic growth is no longer »better«. It creates inequality, leads to individualism and doesnt make us happier at all.
He shows (mostly by telling anecdotes and pulling statistics) that we should move away from the vast globalized economy towards local economies. **
According to McKibben local economies might produce less stuff, but will yield to better relationships and will be far more durable. **
Durability is another recurring theme in his book .... **
He argues that we no longer will have the (planetary) energy to keep the current system going, which will mean that we have to move to a more ecological economy. **
What are your thoughts on local communities? **
Are they too deal in theory? **
Is mankind »good« enough to be part of such a community, arent we too greedy? **
How to get away of our sense of what constitutes as progress? **
If we are to move to a new form of economy how would that even be possible given that our current economy has such a huge momentum? **
Can it be done within a period of 20 years, 50, 100? **
Should there be a massive redistribution of wealth? **
927 |
Are you assuming I know something about Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche ...? **
As for unanswered questions, you haven't answered mine, either. **
As a matter of fact, we don't seem to even be on the same page! **
When I say language is sound, it's because, to me, that's how it began. **
I imagine a small group of hominids .... **
My questions hint at this when I ask, »Will Nietzsche's philosophy, assuming it can be defined, endure for 500 or more years? Will it have changed the way the world thinks in that time?«
Can you answer my questions? **
928 |
In philosophy, there cannot be any proofs but arguments only. It works on the ontological results of the premises, both backward and forward. Testing those results falls under the juridiction of the science, not philosophy. **
There is certainly a proof, not mere argument. **
First of all, this a priori status of the child is the proof that you asked above. **
Secondly, unlike machines, no matter how hard we programme/train/teach a human child, he will never become the same as his programmers expect him to be. **
Otherwise, there all humans in the world will be the same but that is not the case. **
AI and AW are the same things. Actually, AI entails AW. The machines have to acquire AW before AI. **
Firstly, taking the strict sense of the question of the thread, there is a possibility that human race will be eliminated form this planet. But, that will be done by humans themselves by using machines. So, it cannot be called as machines replacing humans. **
Secondly, you missed the issue of the difference of the methodologies of understanding between humans and machines that i pointed out in that second post. **
Computers or robots do not take things as they are. They do not understand things in totality but have to deduct everything up to the level of 0 and 1 to understand anything because these are the only two terms in the world they can really recognize. Everything else is just the induction of this duo, thus does not have any real meaning for them. . **
This is the real hurdle. **
|
929 |
Arminius wrote:
»Zinnat wrote:
In philosophy, there cannot be any proofs but arguments only. It works on the ontological results of the premises, both backward and forward. Testing those results falls under the juridiction of the science, not philosophy. **
Testing means falsification, not verification.« ** **
Excellent point for people to remember. Science can only tell you when something is NOT true. It can't tell you when something IS true. Philosophy is required for that function, specifically ontologically based logic. **
Testing means falsification, not verification. ** **
930 |
Arminius wrote:
»I think that such a dualism or dichotomy is important for science. You can call this dualism science versus philosophy or, as I do, Naturwissenschaft versus Geisteswissenschaft. And between both there is Sozialwissenschaft (social science). So we have the falsification on the one side and the verification on the other side. And between them there is an instance of intermediation (with less authority?). The reason is that science (as well as ruling, governance) needs control because science (as well as ruling, governance) can become very powerful.« ** **
And science, exactly like religion (having become the same thing theses days) can be and is being used solely to create more power for the government controllers and nothing more than that. **
931 |
I've never understood why it is greed to keep the money you earn, but not greed to take it from somebody else for your own purposes. **
I know that redistribution of wealth doesn't work .... **
Mr. Reasonable wrote:
»You know that redistribution of wealth doesn't work for what?« **
For anything, except causing pain and suffering among the poor. **
Mr. Reasonable wrote:
»Why wouldn't that work?« **
First, why would it? I am asking you to show it does work, not to make statements and demand I disprove it works. Second, because I made the first statement, that Redistribution of wealth doesn't work, I will work to prove it. Lets start with examples; Russia, India and China. The poor suffered under them, luckily they did a great job of making everyone, except the very rich and well connected, very poor. Russia killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. China killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. India and China are now realizing that, »Let some get rich first.« **
Mr. Reasonable wrote:
»Social justice is a farce?« **
Yes: Yes. It means nothing. It is touted by people who just want their »way«, like a 5 year old. **
James S. Saint wrote:
»Eric the Pipe wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
'If you are talking about merely localizing with no other changes, then that would not work until a great deal of warring was finished.' **
Could you please explain what you mean in greater detail? **
In ignorance, people attempt things that are not to their own advantage even though they would appear to be at the moment. That is what allows a third party to pit people against each other. And people are currently ignorant in that regard, thus there are very many who know the strategy of subtly implying that another person is the cause of a problem, one that they might have to secretly create themselves. As the people war with each other, the third party wins by both selling "arms" of whatever nature and also by weakening everyone else before he steps in to finish off both of them. Feminism and racism are both promoted so as to weaken both for sake of a third party.
Ignorance is actually the only problem. If you aren't going to educate people on their actual needs and how to address them in a wise manner, then of course, the only thing that keeps them from getting into wars is an overlord. And that is why they are kept in confusion, so that an overlord can be seemingly justified. And that is exactly what has been going on for thousands of years, but most especially in the last 200 years.
On the planet of the apes, in the land of lies, all they do, to their own demise.
The key to fixing it is to teach them to not be merely apes presuming to know who is guilty and of what. And the key to that is to show how that which brings clarity is of higher value than that which brings condemnation or a microscope is more valuable than a magical medicine.
Merely obligate every law to the reasoning that brought about the law, open for public debate, and the serpents leave the scene. Even if that was done on a national scale, it would result in an extremely democratic, localized governing wherein reasoning befitting the local situation, governed the local situation, not a presumptuous or insidious person far away dictating universal social justice.« **
Thank you. **
932 |
933 |
Oh ..., I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a »pan-psychotic« .... **
A Pan-Psychotic Libertine of de Sade's tradition.
Wasn't what the op wanted, but it most certainly fits. **
934 |
935 |
|
936 |
Arminius wrote:
»1) Can we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 100%?« ** **
I can't give it 100%.
The right person in the right position at the right time might do the right thing and change the course of the train sufficiently. But I can discuss things assuming the much higher probability that such didn't happen. **
Arminius wrote:
»2) If machines are going to replace all human beings, what will they do afterwards?« ** **
Merely maintain themselves for a very, very, very long time. **
Arminius wrote:
»A) Will they fight each other?« ** **
They will have already been put at odds with each other by humans. But they will resolve that one way or another. **
Arminius wrote:
»B) Will they use, waste, »eat« the entire crust of the earth?« ** **
I doubt that they would ever have that need or will. **
Arminius wrote:
»C) Will they emigrate?
... C1) Will they move to the planet Mars, or to the moon Europa, or to other planets or moons of our solar system?
... C2) Will they move e.g. to a planet or moon of a foreign solar system?
... C3) Will they move e.g. to a planet or moon of a foreign universum?« ** **Unlikely. Again, much more superior intelligence doesn't desperately attempt to expand at all cost. And the cost of trying to migrate very far from Earth is ridiculously high. But given that they can send a self-replicating android through space for the thousands of years it would take to get anywhere beyond the solar system, and many of them, there is a reasonable chance they will find a need to do so. There are far more places an android population can live than a human population. **
Arminius wrote:
»D) Will they be eliminated?
... Da) Will they be elimanted by an accident?
... Db) Will they be elimanted by themselves?
... Dc) Will they be elimanted by foreign machines?« ** **No.
They will know to eliminate any adversary and thus most probably eliminate all organic life entirely either purposefully, or merely carelessly, because they have no concern over the organic ecology. Man depends a great deal upon millions of smaller factors and life forms, thus Man has to be careful what species of what type he accidentally destroys in his blind lusting for more power. Machines have far, far less dependencies, because we design them that way. They might simply disregard the entire oxygen-nitrogen cycle. The »green-house effect« would probably be of no concern for them. And microbes are simply problematic, so why not just spread nuclear waste throughout the Earth and be rid of the problem.
The point is that they know their own few dependencies and those are far less than Man's and thus they can deduce an anentropic state of maintenance and simply take care of that. And thus »live« for billions of years. And very little if any of their needs will involve building anything greater than themselves or even comparable. They will not be so stupid as to create their own competition.
And the whole »alien's from space« bit is just too silly to discuss. **
Arminius wrote:
»B) Will they use, waste, »eat« the entire crust of the earth?« ** **
I doubt that they would ever have that need or will. **
937 |
Arminius wrote:
»1) Can we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 100%?« ** **
That's right.
....
So the higher probability is that the android population will establish anentropic molecularisation (which the replicators couldn't do anything about anyway) and go from there. In an anentropic state, nothing grows more than its true need (by definition). **
938 |
Yes, androids are machines... and?
What's is your point? **
939 |
I'm not seeing what that has to do with any of this. **
940 |
My fundamental argument is that between Man and the machines, Man is going to be fooled into his own elimination by the machines, like a chess game against a greatly superior opponent. One can't get much more foolish than Man. **
941 |
Arminius wrote:
»Whereto does the word this refer in your text or context?« ** **
What did androids being made by humans and having human interests have to do with anything?
I am not disagreeing. I just don't understand the relevance. **
I just don't understand the relevance. **
942 |
Are you saying that because of their association with humans, they will become human-like in their passions? **
943 |
Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was the first one who came to that conclusion, which became
a starting signal for many people, e.g.: | ||
| Karl Marx with his concept of the paradise after the dictatorship of the proletariat - a Left-Hegelian ideology, thus a reference to Hegel; | |
| Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche with his concept of the last men; | |
| Oswald A. G. Spengler with his reference to Goethe and Nietzsche, especially with his concept of the decline of culture and the assumption that with the utmost probability there will be no more culture after the decline of the occidental culture; | |
| Martin Heidegger with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Ernst Jünger with his reference to Spengler (Nietzsche, Goethe); | |
| Alexandre Kojève (Alexandr Koschewnikov) with his his reference to Hegel; | |
| Ernst Nolte with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Peter Sloterdijk with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche; | |
| Francis Fukuyama with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche. |
944 |
»The end of history is a political and philosophical concept that supposes that a particular political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.«
The end of humanity's evolution and change comes when everyone is dead. **
It is often attempted, with moderate success, to erase all knowledge of prior history so as to establish a new age founded on new premises (usually rewriting history so as to hide the old). Does that count as an »end of history«? **
So what does »End of History« really mean? **
I, a bit like Hegel, can tell you where it ends up and why, but not when or how it gets there ... or even what kind of species remains. Who is to be in the real Heaven? It is looking very suspiciously like it isn't going to be human (as we were discussing on the other thread). Would that constitute an »End of History«, the end of humanity? **
945 |
The culture will change as long as humans change. **
Humans change as long as they are alive. **
Phyllo wrote:
You can see change happening very clearly as each new generation rejects the current culture and creates its own. You could say that when humans become immortal, there will be no more children who would be rejuvenating the culture. That might be the end of history. **
946 |
|
947 |
And what about machines depending upon humans? **
Programming is quite important. **
948 |
How many billions of dollars do you figure they spent finding this one (that they could never go visit)?
»This planet orbits its star every 130 days, says ... the SETI Institute .... It's called Kepler-186f, and it's just 10 percent bigger than Earth. .... And because this planet orbits a dim, red dwarf star, he notes that midday on this planet wouldn't be bright it would look more like an hour before sunset on Earth. .... Even though this planet is too distant for follow-up work with other telescopes, it suggests similar worlds might be out there orbiting other red dwarf stars, which are very common. ....«
.... With only a 130 day orbit, that has to be a pretty cold Sun. **
949 |
Everything depends on the programming. And what that means is that in order to do one thing well, other things get their programming free.
One need not program emotion into an android. One merely has need to install in the android the heuristic ability to seek out efficient ways of accomplishing its tasks. Emotions will soon emerge quite automatically. Lizards, spiders, and bees can do it. It doesn't take sophisticated programming.
That is not to say that emotions really are the most efficient way to accomplish things. Emotions are merely a phase of figuring out the most efficient way. It takes wisdom to see past the apparent, a wisdom that is not installed into the android, because the programmers don't have it themselves. **
Zinnat wrote:
»After the every gap of some years, some scientist in the some corner or the world tends to come forth and claims that all is solved now but nothing happens on the ground. It looks to me it is more related to continue with the incoming huge funding than the actual research. The scientific community just do not want the idea of AI to die because it is the question of the bread and butter to the related persons.« **
That is probably true, but that is also the status quo you are describing. If you are right, then the time for AI is over. But I don't think that the time for machines alt all will be over. A new, but old idea will bring the new, but old projection and preparation, not in the area of AI, but in the area of AW (Artificial Will[ingness]). ** **
Zinnat wrote:
»AI and AW are the same things. Actually, AI entails AW. The machines have to acquire AW before AI.« **
No, because it depends merely on the definition by humans - and nothing else. And that definition is false. They will find it out - probably by an accident. ** **
950 |
Well, I can tell you that it is a »Heaven« scenario, not a »Hell«.
And the reason is simply that a part of the activity going on involves inspiring the joy of attending to things that are of actual need. By that means, not only does the person (or whatever) maintain eternal existence, but also enjoys doing so; ie. "Heaven". The only problem in the past was understanding what really is of actual need. But that isn't an issue anymore.So the Eternal Hell scenario is out.
The other option is the Abyss, wherein everything gets totally lost, as in perhaps that »Black-hole« scenario. **
951 |
I consider those to be the hell on Earth that preceded the final anentropic stage. It is similar to now, but worse, wherein lives are just wasted needlessly because some idiot on top arranged it to be that way and idiots beneath him thought it was necessary to arrange a holy city surrounded by a human trash bin (separating heaven and Earth). The final era is completely different, with or without humans.
The Eloi and the Morlocks are a temporary stage. **
952 |
Machines are blank on their own so you have to feed then from a to z. But, on the other hand, a child is born with some a priori knowledge. Then, he evaluate and evolve his knowledge. Machines cannot do either of those. **
953 |
Well, I don't know which things that Zinnat thinks have to be fed into the machines that don't have to be fed (via DNA) into a human. As one of those films showed, machines can learn on their own without being simply »fed information«.
The fundamental needs for an AI are pretty simple. And as Zinnat said, the AI and the AW are pretty much the same thing. **
954 |
Arminius wrote:
»Did you see the film Time Machine in the 1959 version?« ** **
Sure, and also the more recent version.
They are actually telling of the present, very slightly exaggerated.
The Morlocks are the social engineers.
The Eloi are pretty much everyone else.It is actually pretty similar to The Matrix wherein the Eloi are those trapped in the machine dream world. The Architect and the »programs« are the Morlock. On the Zionist side in the film, they also have their version of Eloi and Morlock (their own programmers) but don't show that part much. **
|
955 |
The poster, who lives in Germany, maintains that German is the language of science and philosophy. He implies there are »taboos« that keep US Americans from admitting the dominance of German philosophers and scientists over the ages. I believe that's his German Nationalism showing. **
Really, just what is Nationalism? **
1.) | United States of America; |
2.) | Great Britain; |
3.) | Israel. |
956 |
Im not German, although Ive lived here for nearly 40 years. German is a language that makes philosophy and science speak the common tongue. I found that books I found difficult reading in my own language were easier in German (admittedly, I am fluent in German) and that goes for almost any subject. Admittedly, there are other sides to language, like Shakespeare or other English language literature in German in not something I enjoy, but I can underline the statement of the person you were speaking of.
It isnt nationalism because it isnt unreasonable, nor is it fear that he is expressing, but it is a fact that German speaking (often Jewish) philosophers and scientists have dominated in the past. **
957 |
When you do it, it's patriotism. When they do it, it's nationalism. The two words exist purely for rhetoricians to make the exact same behaviors seem good or evil depending on the ends of the rhetorician.
Look at Bob's definition- nationalism is when patriotism becomes evil, prejudiced, etc. Well, when is that? It's when the person doing the evaluating disagrees with it.
What is xenophobia? Irrational hatred and fear of the other. Who calls themselves a xenophobe? Nobody, ever. So what is »Xenophobia«? It's a thing you call other people, based on your presumptions about their hidden mental states. Practically, when you want to disparage somebody's position, you declare that they are a xenophobe- you call their motivations into question, 99% without just grounds. **
958 |
I actuaally showed lizbethrose that the person she felt could be nationalistic had a valid point and showed that he wasnt being unreasonable, nor was it fear that he was expressing. Those are valid identifiers for whether someone is being a patriot or a nationalist - or xenophobic. Perhaps you should look here: http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/x/xenophobia/symptoms.htm
Otherwise there were multiple points that showed a differentiated perspective and no black or white discussion, so why bring it up? **
959 |
By making life easier for you, it takes self-control away from you. Anything that it does for you, it takes something away from you. And if it isn't taking it away from you, it is taking it away from someone else who could have been doing it for you instead. **
The truth is, they cannot program an android to NOT kill and there would be little to no use for one so programmed. The androids are for the king, not for the consumers who paid for them. They are there to watch out for, protect, and serve... the king. And the more the king uses androids, the less he needs people **
960 |
|
961 |
Uccisore wrote:
More and more people behave as though we are living after the end of history, and thus they make themselves unimportant in history. **
Uccisore wrote:
I don't think the number will ever reach 100%- history will continue for those who have power, but we are essentially living in a post-historical culture already. **
962 |
What would be the list of historical essentials to be eliminated? **
963 |
Oh geeez.. I'm not sure you want me doing that.
As with all things, there is the actual and the mental model (including physics). Some refer to actual history, which can never be exactly known and some refer to »history« as being merely whatever is currently documented (and often erased and rewritten). The mind identifies or objectizes (forms a mental picture or as a mental object) situations or events and records them as historical events based on relevance.
Those who record history for sake of humanity, identify some things as relevant and others as irrelevant and document the relevant ones. New ages bring people who then erase or alter documents so as to further their chosen cause.
So the idea of no one ever documenting anything seen as relevant means that the age that has been entered regards no changes as relevant and thus either doesn't document them or merely documents them as an ambiguous repeated cycle. Or perhaps, as suggested, we simply stop calling it »our history« because there are no more humans to consider anything relevant.
As long as some living entity exists, there will always be a personal history relevant to that individual, at least. And it is hard for me to imagine even the possibility of life continuing in any form without any recording of social events marked as significant moments of change as far as those lives are concerned. Every small town and family has its historical events.
So the only thing that I could safely call the "historical essentials" that are being referred to would be the globally public announcements concerning globally significant events standing out above the average enough to be note worthy.
The greater issue is of course, the contrived historical announcing, a purely imaginary history for sake of an artificially propagated society being told of events so as to inspire them in certain ways even though those events never really occurred (The Matrix scenario). The more people believe what they are told via a news mediator, the more invention of history occurs and the less anyone knows of it being completely fake.
So to a public, history could never actually end because either the level of relevance will shift so as to make formerly irrelevant things noteworthy or invented historical scenarios will be told to them regardless of perhaps nothing actually relevant changing. **
Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder »Existenzialien« - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige »Zwischenspiel« der »eigentlichen Geschichte« bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines »Schemas der historischen Existenz« ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.
My translation:
Thus, it is thought possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or »existentials« - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting »interlude« of the »actual history« and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a »scheme of historical existence«is the main goal of this book.
Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der »Nachgeschichte«, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?
My translation:
Are we people ... already in the »post-history« as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?
Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der »große Krieg«, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.
My translation:
All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the »Great War«, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.
|
964 |
»We have no choice, we [they] are going to be cyborgs anyway.« **
»Cyborgs are just natural evolution.«
»Cyborgs are just natural evolution.« **
»We [they] will eventually replace our entire bodies with non-organic substances.«
»We must compete with evolving computers.« **
»It just makes you [them] more powerful.« **
965 |
@ Arminius and James
If it is possibe that all human beings can be completely replaced by machines (and I don't doubt that it is possible) what is there to set against it? Is there something to set against it? How would you encourage young people to get children at all if they have to assume that they are just producing more 'human material', ready to become designed and eventually replaced?
I can see - also on this forum - that people don' t want to hear that humans can be replaced, not even that they are directed. I'm also referring to the End-Of-History-thread. Is that a self-protecting reaction and the only precondition that evolution can go on? **
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, James S. Saint, Moreno. | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat. | Obe, Lev Muishkin, Kriswest. | |
Sum: | 3 | 8 | 3 |
966 |
Arminius, is the whole goal of all your posts is to advocate the Borg as the Overman? **
Your emphasis on technology and questioning the psyche .... **
|
967 |
I'm interested to learn something about an active way, about something that can be done. **
968 |
Actually I do not think they will replace humans. I can understand why I ended up where I did on the balance sheet, however. It seems to me the modern atheist basing his or her beliefs on science looking out at what is happening should draw the conclusion that humans will be replaced by machines, or at least, there is a very good chance they will be. It is a logical extension of what is already happening and how the technocrats/corporations view us and the nature of the world/universe. I can't see an objection from that camp and I cannot see a force to oppose the replacement that they would consider real. So in a sense I was trying to highlight this and this may have seemed like identification with the belief it will happen. **
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, James S. Saint. | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat. | Obe, Lev Muishkin, Kriswest, Moreno. | |
Sum: | 2 | 8 | 4 |
969 |
Transhumanism .... ** **
970 |
Transhumanism .... ** **
|
971 |
Arminius wrote:
»James, what do you think about that?« ** **
???
What do you mean?I think those are what we have been talking about for 10 pages.
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** ** ** Yes
(by trend)No
(by trend)Abstention Arminius,
James S. Saint.Dan,
Mr. Reasonable,
Fuse,
Esperanto,
Only Humean,
Gib,
Uccisore,
Zinnat.Obe,
Lev Muishkin,
Kriswest,
Moreno.Sum: 2 8 4 And that reflects Normalcy Bias. Normalcy bias is the result of the mind wanting for (hoping for) normalcy and thus willing to interpret things to favor normalcy until it is directly confronted. **
972 |
Arminius wrote:
»You want to keep out of the evaluation, right?
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** ** ** Yes
(by trend)No
(by trend)Abstention Arminius,
James S. Saint.Dan,
Mr. Reasonable,
Fuse,
Esperanto,
Only Humean,
Gib,
Uccisore,
Zinnat.Obe,
Lev Muishkin,
Kriswest,
Moreno.Sum: 2 8 4 Do you like it this way?« ** **
I would say that I belong in the middle column, though I probably agree most with what you and James are saying. That may seem strange, but that's the way it is. **
I see what those with Power want to do, I just Think in the end they actually do not know what is going on, even if they know more than the average person whose energy they are sucking on. **
973 |
The cold war never ended; it simply morphed from a genetic plane to a memetic warfare and in that sense, it was the end of a history. Although the players change, the ideals haven't. You are either a mindless hedonist seeking identity via what you consume, or you find your identity in an allegiance to a one mind humanity. The meme war between capitalism and communism never really ended. In the former case, what is paraded as individuality is really a hyper-narcissism, and in the latter case, secular humanism masquerades as individuality. Either way, both are nihilistic ideals that can be traced back to platonic-hebraic values, and so really a continuation of the same history. **
974 |
Arminius wrote:
»Interesting is that there - in the second part - is for example pantheism mentioned.« ** **
I think the first half helps to enlighten those who think that Man's lust and ability to create a competing species is mere fantasy. The second part involves religious notions and it gets hard for me to listen much to technology people trying to seriously discuss such things. Religion involves things that techy nerds have no knowledge of whatsoever. But then the same could be said about religious people. Generally if you can't hold something in your hand, even the most elite don't really grasp it (pun intended). **
Moreno wrote:
»I would say that I belong in the middle column, though I probably agree most with what you and James are saying. That may seem strange, but that's the way it is. I see what those with Power want to do, I just Think in the end they actually do not know what is going on, even if they know more than the average person whose energy they are sucking on.« **
Actually, I think that puts you back into the first list. What I am saying (and I think Arminius as well), is that the leaders are using psychology to trick the population into accepting something that is tricking the leaders into trickery and eventually into even their own extinction. I am not saying that the leaders are intentionally sacrificing themselves, although as insane as they are, that is always possible too. **
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat. | Obe, Lev Muishkin, Kriswest. | |
Sum: | 3 | 8 | 3 |
975 |
I recommend just dropping the Nietzscheans like a sack of shit and comming over to our side. **
976 |
The cold war never ended; it simply morphed from a genetic plane to a memetic warfare and in that sense, it was the end of a history. Although the players change, the ideals haven't. You are either a mindless hedonist seeking identity via what you consume, or you find your identity in an allegiance to a one mind humanity. The meme war between capitalism and communism never really ended. In the former case, what is paraded as individuality is really a hyper-narcissism, and in the latter case, secular humanism masquerades as individuality. Either way, both are nihilistic ideals that can be traced back to platonic-hebraic values, and so really a continuation of the same history. **
Arminius wrote:
»Capitalism and its antagonist communism have not been eliminated because they have become parts of the globalism- they have been lifted, not eliminated.« ** **
Yea, its what I said too. **
==>
|