431) Arminius, 16.04.2014, 01:32, 19:11, 19:46 (922-924)

Lizbethrose wrote:

„If language isn't sound, then what is it?“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

“It is a set of forms used to convey concepts. The forms can be of anything; sound, letters, symbols, light strobes, semaphore. hand gesters ....“ **

Lizbethrose wrote:

„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?“ **

Animal „languages“ are very different to human languages, and this fact has always been clear to scientists or philosophers. Excuse me, but your premise is false because animals use language in a too much different way than humans do. Language is NOT only a physiologic phenomenon, it is a lingiuistic system (cp above: my posts), and this linguistic system is typical for human beings. Human language is so very much different to animal „languages“, that both became two language systems during the evolution. Human language is primarily a very much single language, a language by itself, a language system on its own.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius,

I would like to look and address my second post, addressed to James (**) -

with love,
sanjay“ **

Hello, Zinnat (Sanjay).

I have read the post you mentioned. Thank you. Unfortunately I have to repeat some of my words: You are describing machines of the past and the presence. (And that is not forbidden, Gib!). But the question in the title of my thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). This question refers to the future! ** **

Zinnat wrote:

„A thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.“ **

Why? There is no proof!

Zinnat wrote:

„Machines cannot evaluate given information.“ **

Not yet!

Zinnat wrote:

„Machines cannot evaluate given information. Because, for that, again they have some inherited information and this is an endless process.“ **

The information doesn't have to be inherited biologically (genetically), but can be inherited technically (artificially).

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Why is that a „must“? There is no proof!

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Machines don't have to repeat a child's development at all. And there is no proof for your claim that „thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.

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]).

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Learning implies a will(ingness). So the scientists and technicians (engineers) will change the AI into the AW (cp. above).

Zinnat wrote:

„The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness.“ **

No. Because I mentioned it, e.g. here:

Arminius wrote:

„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.“ ** **

I said „machines-with-»self-will«“, and „self-will“ has also to do with „willingness“. My idea was that human beings create machines with a will, and that includes interests. So willingness may be interpreted little bit differently; but as far as I know the English language: the meaning of „willingness“ is very much similar to the meaning of „will“.

Zinnat wrote:

„We tend to confuse complexity with learning.“ **

No!

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

That will be changed, Zinnat!

Why?

Human beings have different interests, and they struggle for interests, this leads them to the interest to fit or equip machines with interests. Once more: The interests of human beeings lead to the interests of machines.

In the beginning of that development there is an human interest in copying the own interests in order to strengthen the own interests against the interests of the enemy. In order to prevent that the enemy has already machines with self-interests (although the enemy perhaps doesn't have them) the first machine with „self-will“ will be created.

Zinnat wrote:

„To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible.“ **

It is possible!

Zinnat wrote:

„We cannot enable them to will.“ **

Humans can!

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

You are describing machines of the past and the presence. (And that is not forbidden, Gib!). But the question of the title of my thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). This question refers to the future!

Many things will change in the future! Many people don't want these things to be changed. Maybe I belong to those people but nevertheless: I stay on track, I always try to prevent getting side-tracked, wandering from the subject.

What about you, Zinnat? Do you also not want machines to be changed?

Learning implies a will(ingness).

James S. Saint wrote:

„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«.“ **

Learning implies a will(ingness). The will of the occident people has been declining. The frequency of occurrence of mistakes, errors, has been increasing.

Zinnat (Sanjay), the probability that machines take over is about 80%, and the probability that they don't take over is about 20%. It is because of the coincidence, the accident caused by human beings. Their trial and error will probably (cp. 80%) lead to the will of machines.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„But, of course, to accept that means a person would have to accept that languages started with sound rather than (flag) semaphores.“ **

No.

Languages started with signs (cp. semiotic), the transition of semiotic signs to the first lingusitic signs was the beginning of the language in that sense we can use the word „language“ very generally. The sound started later. Sound is not necessary for language, but an advantage, as all human languages indicate. Primitive animals do not need any sound for their language, they use a very primitive language, a chemical language.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What did Nietzsche's sister when, where, and why say?« **

.....“ **

Excuse me, but you did NOT answer my question. All what you said is known!

In addition: Whether Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche was in Paraguay or not, whether she or her brother were antisemitic or not, and other whether ... or not ... - all that has nothing to do with my question.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Nietzsche studied and lectured on philology ....“ **

That's all known.

So you can NOT answer my question.

Okay. It doesn't matter.

432) Arminius, 17.04.2014, 01:20, 14:43, 21:14, 23:18 (925-928)

Here comes the 1st interim balance sheet:

Remember: the history of knowledge and science shows that in the beginnig the majority was wrong and the minority was right, and in the end when the majority adapted itself to the minority it didn't matter anymore who was right or wrong because the knowledge or science had already become normalcy.

@ Diethert

First of all I would like to thank you for this interesting topic!

Diethert wrote:

„I’ve just read Bill McKibben’s »Deep Economy« in which he argues that economic growth is no longer »better«. It creates inequality, leads to individualism and doesn’t 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.“ **

Globalism is the Synthesis of liberalism/nationalism (Thesis) and egalitarianism/communism (Antithesis). (Cp. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Dialektik). According to Hegel the Synthesis will be set - after its success - as a new Thesis and will be attacked by a new Antithesis, and the latter is what McKibben has probably done (although I haven't read his book!).

Diethert wrote:

„According to McKibben local economies might produce less stuff, but will yield to better relationships and will be far more durable.“ **

I agree. But unfortunately the devolopment of the globalism will end for 99% of the people in local economies anyway - very poor ones. So there will be no autarky, but very poor local economies - stemmed from exploited ex-nations - and very rich global economies. You can call this goal feudalism.

So the probability that local economies will not work is high. Let's take the little chance?

Diethert wrote:

„Durability is another recurring theme in his book ....“ **

Durability is very important when it comes to local economies because the enemy is not sleeping during that time.

Diethert wrote:

„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.“ **

This argument supports the idea of local econmies - b.t.w.: this idea is not new -, but this argument is not really needed because there can be a real energy crisis or a artificial energy crisis.

Diethert wrote:

„What are your thoughts on local communities?“ **

My thoughts on local communities are confident and unconfident ones. As idealist I want this idea to be realised, at first more partially, at last globally - without any globalic or globalistic rulers! But as realist I don't want this idea to be realised, because the probability that local economies don't work is high!

Diethert wrote:

„Are they too deal in theory?“ **

What do you exactly mean with the word „they“? The local communities? What do you exactly mean with „too deal in theory“?

Diethert wrote:

„Is mankind »good« enough to be part of such a community, aren’t we too greedy?“ **

Human beings are very greedy, but perhaps not greedy enough, so that local communities have a chance.

This reminds me of the question of my thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). I asked this question because I am not sure and have to calculate with probability. 80% vs. 20% for example. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.

Diethert wrote:

„How to get away of our sense of what constitutes as progress?“ **

A „progress“ isn't always a progress. You know what I mean?

Diethert wrote:

„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?“ **

It is possible but very difficult to realise. So there is a little chance (see my text above).

Diethert wrote:

„Can it be done within a period of 20 years, 50, 100?“ **

20 years are too less time, I think.

Diethert wrote:

„Should there be a massive redistribution of wealth?“ **

Thre must be paid much attention in order to prevent () egalitarianism/communism (se my text above).

Therefore „local communities“ is probably the wrong term, the wrong concept. What about the term, the concept „local corporations“ or (for me: better!) „Allmende“ or „Gemeinde“?

The probability that such local corporations will remain under the control of the globalists is very high because the globalistic corporations / companies are more powerful than all nations together - their business volume is higher than all gross national product / gross national income together - tendency: increasing!

Under the control of the globalists local communities / corporations are unfortunately no autonomous local economies, no autonomous societies, no autonomous political units, and so on. So the probability that local communities / corporations don't work is high. Let's take the little chance?

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Are you assuming I know something about Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche ...?“ **

No.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„As for unanswered questions, you haven't answered mine, either.“ **

Which question you mean?

Lizbethrose wrote:

„As a matter of fact, we don't seem to even be on the same page!“ **

Which page you mean?

Lizbethrose wrote:

„When I say language is sound, it's because, to me, that's how it began.“ **

But it did NOT begin with sound, it began with soundless signs, with chemical signs (cp. my posts [**|**|**|**|**|**]). One of my fields of study has been linguistics (degree: Magister) and language acquisition and language development - both are not the same (!) - was the theme of my diploma thesis. Sound is one of the high leveled kinds of language, thus it was NOT the beginnig kind of language.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„I imagine a small group of hominids ....“ **

Language (in general!) did NOT begin with hominids, but with primitive living beings!

If we want to talk about language seriously, we have to define the word „language“ in order to prevent misunderstandings and unnecessary disputes. Language in general is very much more than human language, but human language is the greatest one. All the so called „progress“ of human beings is based on the language of human beings. It's just the human language which led to the difference between the ancestors of the human beings and the human beings. That was the beginning of human language, the larynge sank which caused a very complex phonetic, the brain grew in an exponential degree. So one can say that the phonetical sound was important for human beings (=> their language development) and for their very young children (=> their language acquisition) and also has been being important for very young children (=> their language acquisition). But phonetical sound was NOT important for the general language, because in the beginning of general language there were only chemical signs - at that time there was NO possibility for any development of sound.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„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?“ **

Yes I can, Lisbeth.

Nietzsche's philosophy will perhaps endure for 500 or more years, but perhaps there will be NO human being then.
Assuming there will be some human beings at that time it probably will have changed.

Remember: Your questions refer to the future, so I can merely answer with probability.

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. So proofs would not be proofs any more, if they were merely under the jurisdiction of the science. And: It would be a very terrible dictatorship (but maybe it is already one), if there were no more proof.

Zinnat wrote:

„There is certainly a proof, not mere argument.“ **

Which proof, Zinnat? And which proof of which kind of science (because of your „ jurisdiction of the science“, you know?)?

Zinnat wrote:

„First of all, this a priori status of the child is the proof that you asked above.“ **

That „a priori status of the child“ is NOT a proof, but an assumption (nothing more!). Concerning to the proofs we have already reached the very terrible dictatorship I mentioned. There is no proof, but only order, command, instruction, censorship - and all that comes from them who are powerful enough to order, demand, instruct, censor.

That „a priori status of the child“ can NOT be accepted as a proof.

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

The first problem is the „a priori status of the child“ - this premise is false. The second problem are the programmers because of their expectings, wishes, desires, and so on. They all have to do something different, but they don't want to yet. So they will have to make a mistake, and this mistake will probably lead to the new paradigm I mentioned. ** ** ** **

Zinnat wrote:

„Otherwise, there all humans in the world will be the same but that is not the case.“ **

Humans have never been the same. That has always been right. The problem is that even that will be changed. I don't say that because I want this situations come true, but I say it because of my knowledge of human nature, and that development belongs to an anthropological constant. It is not stoppable, but deferrable / suspensible.

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.

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, it can! Of course! You don't call us monkeys, do you? You know what I mean? Humans create machines, but later, if humans will be eliminated, machines will have replaced humans. Yes. of course.

Remember: My question in my title of my thread, of my topic, and of my OP refers to the future (**|**|**|**): Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

No. The premise of the AI is false, the conclusion of the AI is false too, and the „difference of the methodologies of understanding between humans and machines“ you mentioned is different from that what it really is, and it is not a „must“ for my question in my title of the thread, of my topic, and of my OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**). This question refers to the future! ** ** ** **

Another question is: How often will I have to say that?

Zinnat wrote:

„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. .“ **

Zinnat, you are describing machines of the PAST and of the PRESENCE!

„This is the real hurdle.“ **

Yes it is, but it most not be a hurdle for ever. Probably this hurdle will be eliminated before humans will be eliminated.

433) Arminius, 18.04.2014, 03:30, 04:10, 15:15, 15:33, 16:19, 18:09, 23:30 (929-935)

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Thank you, James.

One should also not forget what that means in conclusion:

Arminius wrote:

„Testing means falsification, not verification.“ ** **

Both proof and disproof should not be given away from the responsibility of philosophy or „Geisteswissenschaft“ (that is the science of the „Geist“ (**|**) which means something like „mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „esprit“, „spirit“, „génie“, „intelligence“, „intellect, „apprehension“, „brain“, “sense“ etc.). If proof is only „under the jurisdiction of the science“, as Zinnat believes, it would be one-sided, too easy to use wrongly, to misuse, to abuse, and so on.

The science which means „Naturwissenschaft“ (natural science) is responsible for falsification and the „Geisteswissenschaft“ (especially mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, jurisprudence, and others) is responsible for verification. I know there is no word for „Geisteswissenschaft“ in the English language, so you may call it „philosophy“, but it is not only philosophy what the word „Geisteswissenschaft“ means (cp.above). If you subtract natural science and the most of social science from science, then you get „Geisteswissenschaft“.

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.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Unfortunately science has been becoming a religion. The reason is control, thus power. And I don't know whether science will ever recover from its dependency, awake from its sleep (sleep is currently perhaps the wrong word, because the current scientists know about their cowardly situation). Probably science will remain as religion until all human beings are eliminated or probably replaced by machines.

@ Eric the Pipe

First of all I want to compliment you on your signature.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„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.“ **

This sentence makes shortly clear what exploitation is and especially who the greatest exploiter is.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„I know that redistribution of wealth doesn't work ....“ **

You don't see any chance, even any little like I do?

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„Mr. Reasonable wrote:

»You know that redistribution of wealth doesn't work for what?« **

For anything, except causing pain and suffering among the poor.“ **

If a critical point has passed, distribution leads to poverty. That's known. There is no exception in history.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„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.«“ **

That's known. Nobody can deny that an overacted redistribution leads to poverty.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„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.“ **

Social justice is merely a rhetoric term.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„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.“ **

The „third party“ is always the ruler.

A little correction:

1900. Planck found the energy of electron: E=h*f.

Not Planck and Einstein, but only Planck.

Einstein found E=mc².

James S. Saint wrote:

„Oh ..., I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a »pan-psychotic« ....“ **

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„A Pan-Psychotic Libertine of de Sade's tradition.

Wasn't what the op wanted, but it most certainly fits.“ **

So Nietzsche was a panpsychotic, wasn't he?

I nominate „Historyboy“ - because he is more religious than all other members together.

@ James S. Saint
@ Moreno

You and I say that the replacing of all human beings by machines is possible. I have said that the probality is about 80%. ** ** ** ** ** **

The following questions refer to an intellectual game:

1) Can we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 100%?

If so, then:

2) If machines are going to replace all human beings, what will they do afterwards?

A) Will they fight each other?
B) Will they use, waste, "eat" the entire crust of the earth?
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?
D) Will they be elimanted?
... Da) Will they be elimanted by an accident?
... Db) Will they be elimanted by themselves?
... Dc) Will they be elimanted by foreign machines?

434) Arminius, 19.04.2014, 01:36, 02:18, 02:38, 03:42, 03:51, 11:43, 12:42, 13:41, 15:41, 21:59, 22:29 (936-946)

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Thank you for your answers. I can agree to the most answers you gave, but one answer you gave I can not agree to:

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Machines need stones because they are made of stones, and if they want to create more machnines, they need more stones. Merely the crust of the earth and some parts of the mantle of the earth are usable for the physico-chemical needs of the production and - of course - reproduction of machines. So if the machines want to become more, they have to use the crust of the earth and at last even parts of the mantle of the earth.

I estimate that you will respond that the machines will have no interests in becoming more, or even will not want to become more. Is that right?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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).“ **

But androids are machines - more than less.

My definition of „cyborg“ is: „more human being than machine“; and my definition of „android“ is: „more machine than human being“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yes, androids are machines... and?
What's is your point?“ **

If we take the word „android“ as seriously as the fact that machines are made by human beings, then we have to include that the machines have some human interests - not as much as the human beings, but probably as much as ... to become more.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I'm not seeing what that has to do with any of this.“ **

Whereto does the word „this“ refer in your text or context?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, that are MY words!

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

With anything? You think that machines with human interests don't need anything?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I just don't understand the relevance.“ **

Existing things or beings have to do with other existing things or beings in their surrounding area or in even more areas. Machines with partial human interests - with a partial human will (!) - will have to do with more other existing things or beings in more areas.

All machines need physico-chemical „food“, after an accident they need a repair, and in the case of replication they need even more of that material they are made of.

Is it this relevance you don't understand?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Are you saying that because of their association with humans, they will become human-like in their passions?“ **

That is a question I can only answer without any guaranty.

Topic: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.

There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).

My questions:

What do you think?

Phyllo wrote:

„»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.«

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history

The end of humanity's evolution and change comes when everyone is dead.“ **

There is a difference between the „end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution“ and the „end of humanity's evolution“. The difference is namely the culture!

James S. Saint wrote:

„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«?“ **

Maybe as a pre-stage of (the idea of) the „end of history“, but not really.

James S. Saint wrote:

„So what does »End of History« really mean?“ **

The „end of history“ means the end of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all „historical existence“ (Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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?“ **

Some people may say that the time after the end of history is „haeven on earth“, some other people may say that the time after the end of history is „hell on earth“. There is no real historical develoment, nothing to do that really counts, boredom, happiness, perhaps it is the (last) age with machines, before the machines will completely replace all human beings (you remember! [**|**]) - this all depends upon the people's evaluation.

Phyllo wrote:

„The culture will change as long as humans change.“ **

That has not being prooved, not being disprooved, not being falsified. We just don't know certainly. Therefore the questions of my OP (**).

Phyllo wrote:

„Humans change as long as they are alive.“ **

This is what you don't know, if you understand „change“ as historical or cultural change.

If the history really ends, there is no change in sense of historical change because that is just the definition of the „end of history“ - that is logical, even tautological.

If the history does not end, there is change in sense of historical change because that is just the definition of the „history“ - that is logical, even tautological.

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.“ **

Please don't confuse the „end of history“ with the „end of evolution“ - both are different. The „end of history“ doesn't also not mean the „end of human beings“, at least not necessarily. It can be, but it does not have to be that „history“, „human evolution“, and even „evolution“ simultaneously end.

Any of the questions of my OP (**) includes the term „end of history“, not the term „end of human beings“, and not the term „end of evolution“. The questions of the „end of human beings“ and the „end of evolution“ are very interesting too, but here in this thread they are not the primary or even the secondary questions, except in the case of a simultaneous endings because then they immediately belong to the primary and secondary questions.

@ All members, and all readers!

If we assume that the probability for replacing of all human beings by machines is even 0% (!), which affects will that have for our future development, for our future evolution and perhaps for our history („perhaps“ because of the high probability that history will end (**|**) in that case too) and for the future development of our machines?

I think that human beings will very much more depend upon machines than human beings have been depending upon machines since the last third of the 18th century.

435) Arminius, 20.04.2014, 01:53, 02:01, 10:58, 11:41, 13:55, 14:06, 22:09, 22:53 (947-954)

Kriswest wrote:

„And what about machines depending upon humans?“ **

Since God was murdered (R.I.P.) and replaced by humans machines have been replacing humans. We can rephrase your interrogative sentence. Before God was murdered, there was the question „And what about humans depending upon God?“, and after that there has been being the question: „What about humanic machines depending upon godly humans?“, and in the future there will be the question: „What about machines depending on humanic machines?“ which will lead to a new circle of questions beginnig with the question: „What about New Gods depending on machines?“

Kriswest wrote:

„Programming is quite important.“ **

More important is the wisdom, at least the knowledge of the fact that humans make mistakes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

But that would be an ideal place for machines (you remember! **).

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

The prmises of the AI are probably false.

I remember the following conversation:

Arminius wrote:

„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]).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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.“ ** **

What do you think about that?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Are you not afraid of the „Last Men“ (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche), or of scenarios which are similar to some written stories, for example by Herbert George Wells, Aldous Huxley, or George Orwell?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Did you see the film „Time Machine“ in the 1959 version?

One of the false premises is for example the one which Zinnat mentioned:

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Machines don't have to repeat a child's development at all. And there is no proof for your claim that „thinking entity must pass two benchmarks; evaluation and evolution, and both on its own.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, that is what he said, but that is because of a false premise.

Arthur Schopenhauer said that there is a will (Wille) in the world (Welt), and this will expresses itself in living beings for example. The will itself can be understood as Kant's thing-in-itself (Ding an sich).

The programmers and designers don't have to follow what the theory of evolution and the theory of evaluation dictate. They just have to find the correct programm in order to feed the machines with it. It is not necessary to follow strictly a theory when it comes to program.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

And probably the author of the „Time Machine“ (1895), H. G. Wells, belonged to them, at least he was initiated into that „program“.

Do you know, whether Wells knew Nietzsche very much? I ask because Wells' Eloi are similar to Nietzsche's „Last Men“, and when Wells wrote his „Time Machine“ (1895), Nietzsche was insane and unable to write, but all his books had already been known for a relative long time.

436) Arminius, 21.04.2014, 21:37, 21:42, 21:43, 21:44, 21:58, 23:38 (955-960)

Lizbethrose wrote:

„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.“ **

I translate:

The poster, who lives in US, maintains - in order to hide her nationalsim - that a foreign person is „nationalistic“. She implies there are „taboos“ that keep foreigners, especially male foreigners, from admitting the dominance of US nationalism, feminism, and imperialism over one age named US-Dollar-Empire. I believe that's her US Nationalism showing - and also her try to hide it.

I believe that Lizbethrose is nationalistic and tries to hide her nationalism behind a presumpted nationalism of anyone and everyone - except herself. (Cp. Uccisore's post [**|**] and Bob's posts [**|**|**|**]).

The poster she mentioned is not guilty for Lizbethrose's ignorance of nation, of nationalism, of history, of language, of speech (and it is very ridiculous, that she with English as her mother tongue doesn't know the difference between „language“ and „speech“), of Nietzsche, of Nietzsche's sister, of anything and everything.

Lizbethrose can not accept truth and facts. According to her one would have to call anyone and everyone a nationalistic, if they try to say that the USA won the World War II. According to her truth and facts are taboos.

Lizbethrose wrote:

„Really, just what is Nationalism?“ **

According to Lizbethrose there are currently still three nations / states / countries with nationalistic, imperialistic, fascistic names:

1) Have you ever been to school? Or is there no school in your country? Have you never heard what „America“ means? America is NOT a nation, NOT a state, but merely TWO CONTINENTS. According to Lizbethrose the claim of being „United States of America“ is a megalomanian nationalism and a megalomanian imperialism. Two isms! I am agaist any ism!

2) What does „Great“ in the name „Great Britain“ really mean? According to Lizbethrose the claim of being „Great Britain“ is a megalomanian nationalism and a megalomanian imperialism. Two isms! I am agaist any ism!

3) What does the name „Israel“ really mean? According to Lizbethrose the claim of being „Israel“ is a fascistic nationalism because the ancient Israel was eliminated in the year 133. So according to Lizbethrose that claim is fascism and nationalism. Two isms. I am agaist any ism!

Many names of nations / states / countries were not given by themselves, but by their neighbours, though the names of the three nations I mentioned were given by themselves. In the most cases names of nations / states / countries were given by their neighbours. For example: The Germans do not call themselves Germans and their nation / state / country Germany - they call themselves Deutsche and their nation / state / country Deutschland, but the neighbours call them Germans, Allemands, or Saxons, but not Deutsche, and their nation / state / country Germany, Allemagne, or Sachsa, but not Deutschland (exceptions are younger small neighbours, e.g. the Dutch, who became independent from Germany as the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation - cp. Deutscher, thus not German Nation) in the year 1648 by the Peace of Westphalia. Arminius, who lived when Augustus (Octavian) as the follower of Caesar ruled in Rome, and other Germans didn't call themselves Germans.

Arminius did NOT defend a nation, or even a nationalistic idea, Arminius defended culture and fighted civilisation, Arminius defended freedom and fighted slavery.

If you want to know what nationalism really is, Germany is not the most typical example; all other nations / states / countries in Europe have being been more nationalistic than Germany. I don't say that primarily in order to defend my nation / state / country, but I say it primarily as historian.

Even Lizbethrose has to accept the truth and the facts.

It is the truth, a fact that German scientists and philosophers have dominated in the past, and the Jewish percentage in German science and philosophy has always been about 1%, and the Jewsih population in Germany has always been about 0.5% (= ½%).

All this can be checked in books of libraries and in other sources.

According to Hegels „Dialektik“ nationalism as „Thesis“ leads to anti-nationalism as „Antithesis“, and both lead to globalism as „Synthesis“. Thus globalism doesn't mean there is no more nationalism in it, but globalism even lifts nationalism on a higher level by denying anti-nationalism. So nationalism, anti-nationalism, and globalism are civilised barbarisms, and currently the danger comes mostly from globalism - of course in global dimensions!

I am against all isms at all because I am against ideologies at all. Thus I am also against civilised barbarism. Civilised barbarisms are for example nationalism, anti-nationalism, and globalism. I am a...istic, defendig a-...ism, fighting all isms. That is because of my strongly pronounced sense of freedom, especially the freedom of thinking and speaking. I defend freedom and fight slavery, as Arminius did in ancient times.

Bob wrote:

„I’m not German, although I’ve 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 isn’t nationalism because it isn’t 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.“ **

Not often Jewish because that is very relative: In Germany the Jewish population was only 0.5%, that is merely ½%, but the Jewish percentage in German science and philosophy was 1%.

Amongst thousand German scientist of the past you find about nine Jewish ones, and amongst thousand German philosophers of the past you find about ten Jewish ones.

Uccisore wrote:

„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.“ **

Thus: When she does it, she calls it „patriotism“ or „feminism“; when they do it, she calls it „nationalism“ (incl. „nationalsocialism“ / „anti-semitism“) or „anti-feminism“.

Bob wrote:

„I actuaally showed lizbethrose that the person she felt could be nationalistic had a valid point and showed that he wasn’t 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?“ **

Perhaps she can not tolerate that because of her nationalism and xenophobism.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

That's the point, yeah.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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“ **

Even those people who currently do not accept the truth, the facts, will have to practise accepting, because they soon will have to accept the truth, the facts.

One can cynically say that the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) was a „process of murder“ because this process disenchanted the „Western World“, and when the „Western World“ was finally disenchanted, which means that finally in the „Western world“ „God was dead“, the next process started: „Bringing the Dead God to the Rest of the World“.

We have to wait on the re-enchantment. But maybe this re-enchantment will never come, but merely the last human age: the age without history - an as boring as cruel „age“, which is again like the „age“ of the nomadic humans, homonids, and prehominids.

Some or many „modern“ people have been appreciating this „age“. What do you think about that?

437) Arminius, 22.04.2014, 01:05, 01:16, 02:51 (961-963)

Uccisore wrote:

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.“ **

That is at least the first impression. But people are also overestimated when it comes to power. Not the people, but their rulers (with their „social-engineers“) are primarily those who made, make, and will make people unimportant in history (and b.t.w.: probably in evolution too). The impression is often that people themselves cause their behaviour, but often the behaviour of the people is caused by their rulers, and that should be always the first impression.

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.“ **

And why are you so sure?

History began about 6000 years ago and will perhaps end in the end of the 21st, or in the 22nd, or in the 23rd century (I refer to one of my questions in my OP (**|**): => 2.3). But remember that all „historical existentials“ (alle „historische Existenziale“), how Ernst Nolte called them, have to be eliminated, before one can say that the end of history is really reached. The process which leads to the end of history has to have the same dimension as the so-called „neolithic revolution“ had. And Nolte said that all „historical existentials“ have changed very much, but have not been elimanted yet. (Cp. Ernst Nolte, Historische Existenz, 1998, p. 682; translated by me). I think, the post-historical age will be the the very last age with machines, before the machines will completely replace all human beings (**|**), so in the end of the 21st, or in the 22nd, or in the 23rd century history as we have been knowing it for about 6000 years will have reached its end because all „historical existentials“ will probably be eliminated then.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What would be the list of „historical essentials“ to be eliminated?“ **

That's a good question, and I have expected that question. But would you mind answering before I answer in a more detailed way?

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):

„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.

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):

„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?“

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):

„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.“

That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: „Historische Existenz“ („Historical Existence“).

438) Arminius, 23.04.2014, 11:37, 15:01, 16:04 (964-966)

James S. Saint wrote:

„»We have no choice, we [they] are going to be cyborgs anyway.«“ **

»Cyborgs are just natural evolution.«“

Therefore it was my intention to connect this topic („Thinking about the END OF HISTORY“ [**|**]) with another topic („Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ [**|**]). One of the reasons for that is my firm conviction that you will not win very much knowledge about the human future, if you aways separate questions of technique / technology , science, and economy from questions of philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history.

Perhaps it would have been better, if I had opened this threads in the subforum „Science, Technology, and Math“ or in the subforum „Society, Government, and Economics“, but probably it would have been not better, if I had done so.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Cyborgs are just natural evolution.«“ **

Therefore this question (amongst others): Can cyborgs „have“ history?

And I remind you again: Don't confuse „history“ with „evolution“!

Please don't confuse the „end of history“ with the „end of evolution“ - both are different. The „end of history„ doesn't also not mean the „end of human beings“, at least not necessarily. It can be, but it does not have to be that „history“, „human evolution“, and even „evolution“ simultaneously end.

Evolution is more than history. History is merely a little part of evolution. Evolution is merely a part of cosmic devolopment.

Here in this thread we are primarily talking about history!

James S. Saint wrote:

„»We [they] will eventually replace our entire bodies with non-organic substances.«

»We must compete with evolving computers.«“ **

Or eventually fight them?

James S. Saint wrote:

„»It just makes you [them] more powerful.«“ **

You or them?

Mithus wrote:

„@ 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?“ **

We have a probabilty of about 20% to stop the procees which will lead to the fact (!) that all human beings are completely replaced by machines. I merely see a possibility to stop it, if there will be an accident which will lead to that stop. There will have to be a coincidence like an accident in order to get that possibility. The „human reason“ by itself and the „human emotion“ by itself will never stop, but accelerate that process in favour of the machines.

I would not encourage all „young people to get children at all“, I would favor and support a policy which means just the contrary to the current policy, thus the contrary to the irresponsible mindlessness or abandon concerning (1) culture / civilisation, (2) education, (3) demographics / reproduction / sexuality, (4) ethics / custom / morality / religion, (5) economics / ecology, (6) technique / technology, (7) science, and so on. This policy as the contrary to the current policy would lead to more responsibility at all, thus also when it comes to get children. Not the irresponsible, but merely the responsible human beings would have childen then.

Concerning to the topic of this thread (**|**) I once made the following interim balance sheet (**|**):

I don't know, whether one can surely interpret this interim balance sheet to represent the will of all people, but I also think that people or at least most people don't want to be completely replaced by machines and that their „arguments“ are merely self-protecting reactions and also reactions because of the fact that they are operated by remote control.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Arminius, is the whole goal of all your posts is to advocate the Borg as the Overman?“ **

No. I don't advocate, but I try to find out, what can or will be done in order to prevent such developments. But before I can find it out, I have to know or - unfortunately (!) - to accept the facts.

My actual goal is: No „Borg“!

I defend freedom and fight slavery, as the Cheruscan Arminius did in ancient times.

Becoming machines does not mean freedom, but slavery.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Your emphasis on technology and questioning the psyche ....“ **

1) My emphasis on technology is because of the fact that nearly all people don't care that technology changes them. They are almost like the Eloi or the „Last Men“. That's dangerous and terrible! Technology should never be underestimatied. If you know that - for example - Nietzsche did not mention any single word about technology a.s.o., then you may probably also know how much important it is to advocate technology in that sense I mentioned.

2) Psyche as defined in modern times is - unfortunately - dangerous and terrible too. In the German languuage there is - still (!) - a difference (possible) between „Psyche“ and „Geist“ („mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „knowledge“, „esprit“, „spirit“, „génie“, „intelligence“, „intellect, „apprehension“, „brain“, “sense“, a.s.o. [**|**|**]), but in the English language and all other languages that difference is no longer possible (in former times it was!). What does that mean? I think, the danger is, that, if there is no difference between them, it is very much easier to enslave people.

If the psyche gets under control, then you have to have another mechanism in order to defend your freedom. Currently the psyche becomes a controlled instance, which it has never been before. So there is no instance left for freedom. If you have another and even a very much more powerful instance of freedom, you have another and even a very much more powerful chance to defend your freedom. Geist is this other instance of freedom, and it's very much more powerful than psyche. But if you have no word for this instance of freedom, then it is only a question of time when you will get totally under control. If there is no instance of freedom in language and in thinking, there soon will be no freedom at all.

Most people really don't want freedom, but idols, ideology / religion, thus slavery (which they always confuse with „freedom“). For example idiots like Cezar and his buddies belong to those people. If you know that Cezar and his buddies make Nietzsche the more unalluring the more they call themselves „Nietzscheans“ and believe in him as their „God“, then you may probably also know that Nietzsche didn't need such people as much as they need Nietzsche and misuse his words, e.g. for their envy and resentment, for their racism and sexism, and so on.

439) Arminius, 24.04.2014, 09:33, 09:36, 13:18, 13:30 (967-970)

Mithus wrote:

„I'm interested to learn something about an active way, about something that can be done.“ **

Do you have any suggestions?

Replacing humans by machines has two sides, and the „good“ side covers the „bad“ side.

Moreno wrote:

„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.“ **

You want to keep out of the evaluation, right?

Do you like it this way?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Transhumanism ....“ ** **

James, what do you think about that?

referring to: „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Transhumanism ....“ ** **

James, what do you think about that?

440) Arminius, 25.04.2014, 11:39, 12:12, 13:03, 20:26, 20:45, 23:44 (971-976)

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

That's right, but I mean the 105-minutes-film and especially its content, what it is talking about. Interesting is that there - in the second part - is for example „pantheism“ mentioned.

Moreno wrote:

„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.“ **

So you are saying that you „probably agree most with what“ I „and James are saying“ and nevertheless that you do not agree with what I and James are saying because you are saying that you „belong in the middle column“. That is a contradiction (e.g. „it's raining and it's not raining“).

Moreno wrote:

„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.“ **

That is approximately what I have been saying since the 1990s.

So there can not be a great difference between your statement and my statement.

Or do you want to „belong in the middle column“ because you love the people of the middle column more than the people of the left and right column?

Cassie wrote:

„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.“ **

„Memetic“! „Meme“! .... Are you a Dawkinsian or even a Dawkinsist?

„Capitalism“ and its antagonist „communism“ have not been eliminated because they have become parts of the „globalism“ - they have been lifted, not eliminated.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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).“ **

The second part is at least the more meaningful part because there is a lot of apology, exculpation, thus much rhetoric in it.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Agreement - generally speaking.

So Moreno is put back:

Excude me, Moreno.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„I recommend just dropping the Nietzscheans like a sack of shit and comming over to our side.“ **

And what do you exactly mean in that text and context by saying „our side“?

If it is the opposite side of that pan-psychotic (**|**) side (including the slavic / slavish idiot from Bosnia where life is rapidly declining! [**|**]), then I don't have to come over to your side because it has been my side since my first post (**|**) in this forum, as you probably know.

Cassie wrote:

„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.“ **

Nihilism repeats. When a culture becomes old („modern“, „civilis[at]ed“), it becomes nihilistic.

Cassie wrote:

„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.“ **

Globalism as the „One World“, the „One Nation“, is probably the last stage before the „World of the Last Men“ / the „World of the Morlocks and the Eloi“ will begin. And the „World of the Last Men“ will probably lead to the „World of No Men, but only Machines“ (**|**).

==>