Will machines completely replace all human beings?

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.

Torture machines:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwrMc_RNH-k[/youtube]

How to get rid of humans?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmh0fp6SOSw[/youtube]

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?

Or more poignantly , what if, the perfect simulation may become ‘alive’, living at some point? In that case the definition of man may alter the non-humanness of a simulation.

If there will be “perfect simulations”, then they will still know that these perfect simulations are simulations.

As long as human beings can distinguish themselves from machines, however (by knowing the development or by knowing the design … a.s.o.), they should call a machine “machine” and a man “man”.

If something is not biological, then it is not a living being. A human being is a living being. But a machine is not a living being.

Do you agree?

Racism?
Certainly at no time would society attempt to promote the notion that women are equal to men nor that blacks are equal to whites, so certainly they would never promote that extremely intelligent, skilled, and autonomous machines are equal in rights to humans. Seriously?

I can’t agree with that one. Biology is not what constitutes life. Life is the spirit, the effort and behavior, not the physical mechanisms involved.

The question was whether humans can be distinguished from machines even then, if the machines have already become almost indistinguishable. I think that in that case it is only possible to distinguish them biologically.

For now, yes. However cannot a proposition be made
that sometime in the future, living Being can be made in the laboratory, where those would be living, biological, yet artificiality created beings?

There are ethical standards that stymie that effort, now, but once it has become acceptable, just like
assisted suicide, testube babies, artificial
insemination ,transplant of artificial organs, it may hold a future.