I suggest that you move beyond it. James makes up all sorts of weird etymologies.
And he continues.
- Is clueless about the capability of computers yet argues
- argues the wrong Latin meaning of “Man” and “human”.
- argues the wrong meaning of “ad hominem”
- discourteously distracts and derails a thread for personal vengeance
I could design a computer to do what you do pretty easily.
This isn’t an ad hominem attack. But this thread is getting discourteous, and I’d like to request that the people taking part rectify that please.
Which is a waste of everybody’s time and effort. That’s what I’d like to see changed.
Right from the beginning of this thread, James posted a lot of interesting things concerning the abilities of machines. If you want evidence for the excellence of his posts, you just have to make an effort and read the thread.
You came in here recently, posted a few things about computer-“art“ and since then, you do nothing else than ranting against James. The thread is not about him. It’s about the question whether machines will replace all human beings. And it has been highly informative before you turned it into a personcentered battle.You are continuously derailing. That’s what I would like to see changed.
If Donald Trump was the last man standing at this time, what would he opt to do with them?
Let’s try and keep things related to the subject at hand, please.
On a related, lighthearted note: youtube.com/watch?v=fsF7enQY8uI
O_H, if the above was for me, I meant that as a legitimate question.
Do you really see God to be the determiner of all things, James?
It appears that God has failed.
Does man actually lust to be God or to be self-autonomous? albeit there are and have been some who want to become what they “see” God to be.
Wouldn’t you say that the above would appear to be self-defeating behavior?
Couldn’t it have more to do with saving time, cost and energy in the long run?
Inorganic life is not necessarily that controllable either since it is organic life with all of its flaws and limited intelligence and foresight which designs it.
Do machines have consciousness, a sense of wonder, the instinct to survive? Can a machine write a poem, paint a landscape, discuss philosophy, make the decision to value human rights and justice and to fight for those things?
Aren’t we the determiners of the machine? Can the created be above the creator? I didn’t express that well.
Can the machine be self-adapting and self-adjusting?
I don’t figure that the machine would outlive and become the higher life (though inorganic) form
But if God was compelled to design a man, would He not need a design such as man, and would he then not have produced such ,as indistinguishable from what a machine is?
Perhaps in a very far away future, a machine like us would need to look, act and think like a machine like us with the exact same requirements, if by that time it’s possible to do so.
Would a perfect human simulation be called a machine or, a man.?
Data from Star Trek was an android. He was perfect perhaps as an android but was he a man? No and he realized this and this is why he longed to actually be a man. He realized that he was made to be a machine, the ultimate machine…and he did everything in his power to evolve but just how far could he go?
Human beings can “perfect” in a sense machines but remember how long it has taken for the process to make a human being a human being.
Unless this human simulation has consciousness, an organic body, human DNA, which bleeds, feels love and hate, a sense of wonderment, has great imagination - has literally evolved into a human being as evolution planned, it is still a simulation, not a human being.
Why would a machine need to look like us in the future?
A machine that looked just like me sometime in the future might in some real sense be more perfect than me but then again, since it could not be human like me, it could never be as perfect…even if it could be more functioning.
Our kind of consciousness sets us apart, don’t you think?
And perhaps organic life is merely the necessary precursor to the perfected mechanized life form, otherwise incapable of forming on such a planet as Earth.
Perhaps like the ape to the human or even the parent to the child, you are but the caterpillar to your much superior replacement.
Perhaps the wisdom is that each stage keeps replacing itself until it finally reaches a level of intelligence to understand how to not go any further - to learn how to be joyfully and successfully stable (aka “The End of Days”).
Evolution would dictate such.
for any machine to look like you in the future, it would need help, from you and from those surrounding you. And if it were to create a perfect copy of you, still would not be perfect.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Do not miss the point, please.
That is possible, yes.
That is an informative video.
If a perfect human simulation is not a living being, then it should not be called “man” or “human being”.
But what if a perfect human simulation becomes indistinguishable from the human, and no data remains on what the keys with which to appraise authenticity, to remote future civilizations?
What if, sometime far away and in the far future, technology can produce perfect simulations?
Will there remain, even a scintilla of a need to sustain a different name?
I agree that there should, but will they , whoever ‘they’ will be even find it useful or advisable?