Nihilists want to destroy everything, especially all values, and if they are successful, there will be nothing left.
I make the same definition. But what is the connection to machines and humans?
Nihilists want to destroy everything, especially all values, and if they are successful, there will be nothing left.
By this do you mean that machines, as nihilists, will destroy–amidst everything else–all human beings and the machines themselves as well?
Arminius:For someone who knows the Mendel’s laws and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So more lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.
Since machines have become capable of serving and repairing machines, less humans are needed. And in future machines will probably even be capable of inventing machines, then no human will be needed. But will the humans have to be intelligent then (provided that they will still be there)?
Arminius:Nihilists want to destroy everything, especially all values, and if they are successful, there will be nothing left.
By this do you mean that machines, as nihilists, will destroy–amidst everything else–all human beings and the machines themselves as well?
No and yes.
No, because humans have invented machines. So humans are the nihilists.
Yes, because machines are or will be the humans’ heirs. So machines are or will be the nihilists too. And as such they will at last destroy themslves as well, yes.
Since all human beings are “humanoids” … what’s the big deal?
Machines are being designed, built, and programmed to deceive the masses.
What could you possibly expect to come of it.
I think that certain Features like self-consciousness and Soul couldn’t be implemented by a Computer. Insofar as we are grounded and rooted in the universe, this concepts Play a crucial role. So as a consequence, machines aren’t able to be rooted in the universe, and this means that they are misguided as time went on. Günther saw this, and he thinks that with machine consciousness there is a way that man himself detects new sides of what it means to be human. This is coevolution of man and machine.
I think that certain Features like self-consciousness and Soul couldn’t be implemented by a Computer. Insofar as we are grounded and rooted in the universe, this concepts Play a crucial role. So as a consequence, machines aren’t able to be rooted in the universe, and this means that they are misguided as time went on. Günther saw this, and he thinks that with machine consciousness there is a way that man himself detects new sides of what it means to be human. This is coevolution of man and machine.
It is just more excusing the lust.
It is just more excusing the lust.
I don’t understand you! Do you mean my thoughts mirror lust?
It is just more excusing the lust.
I don’t understand you! Do you mean my thoughts mirror lust?
No. I mean the denial of android abilities to provide an excuse to keep lusting after godhood through technology.
Technology is the opiate of governments.
surreptitious57: commonsense33:Please make the connection between nihilism and the rest here more obvious for me
I define nihilism as simply the lack of any objective meaning to life or to existence
I make the same definition. But what is the connection to machines and humans?
Surreptitious,
Then, in existential terms, this thread asks, “Will machines completely replace nothing at all?”
I find it challenging to address this conceptually. How does this work out for you?
I think that certain Features like self-consciousness and Soul couldn’t be implemented by a Computer. Insofar as we are grounded and rooted in the universe, this concepts Play a crucial role. So as a consequence, machines aren’t able to be rooted in the universe, and this means that they are misguided as time went on. Günther saw this, and he thinks that with machine consciousness there is a way that man himself detects new sides of what it means to be human. This is coevolution of man and machine.
I hope that the future will show us what Günther has foreseen and thought. I also think that humans have no other chance in the long run than the said human-machine-coevolution. But if you compare humans with animals, then you will find that humans are the most terrible predator on this planet, much more terrible than all predators together; and if you compare some humans with other humans, you will always find that some are much more terrible than others. Think of the unconditional will to power, the greed, the fate between wanting to be like an almighty God and having to be like an almost powerless animal, which means the incapability of being like God and of being like an animal. Humans are no gods and no animals, they are somewhat between them, and that is their fate.
The only ethical and hopeful use of machines and high technology is reflected by Marvel’s Iron man comic book character. Machines should be use exclusively for personal, individual enhancement, not socialist structure containment. In the long run, socialist systems have no need for people, merely mechanisms … machines.
The over focus upon social structure (social power structures) being all important over the individual is what brings the end of the individual, just as with any other kind of misplaced priority.
Shouldn’t we just destroy all machines?
It’s hardly possible, isn’t it?
And if it’s possible, it leads to war, doesn’t it?
But war is something that we get in any case, don’t we?
Then in existential terms this thread asks Will machines completely replace nothing at all
I find it challenging to address this conceptually How does this work out for you
At the moment it is entirely hypothetical but as I said it will ultimately depend upon how independent of humans machines will become and also whether they
will want to be completely independent of them. Maybe machines will split into two factions with one side pro human and one side anti human. It is not some
thing I will witness so I really do not know. But a thousand years from now will probably be sufficient time to discover the reality. Whatever it will actually be
commonsense:Then in existential terms this thread asks Will machines completely replace nothing at all
I find it challenging to address this conceptually How does this work out for you
At the moment it is entirely hypothetical but as I said it will ultimately depend upon how independent of humans machines will become and also whether they
will want to be completely independent of them. Maybe machines will split into two factions with one side pro human and one side anti human. It is not some
thing I will witness so I really do not know. But a thousand years from now will probably be sufficient time to discover the reality. Whatever it will actually be
I question whether in a thousand years there will be anyone left to discover any kind of reality.
Whatever may be left will be waiting in the wings to be jump-started.
Perhaps reality has been jump-started many times over.
I wonder what it will be that does that?
Shouldn’t we just destroy all machines?
It’s hardly possible, isn’t it?
And if it’s possible, it leads to war, doesn’t it?
But war is something that we get in any case, don’t we?
We already talked about that in this thread:
What do you think about Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism?
Named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. Ned Ludd was allegedly called General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.
Here are some pictures (from Luddism to Neo-Luddism, and perhaps the beginnig of Neo-Neo-Luddism):
Song of the Luddites (by Lord Byron, 1816):
"As the Liberty lads o’er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,
So we, boys, we
Will die fighting, or live free,
And down with all kings but King Ludd!
When the web that we weave is complete,
And the shuttle exchanged for the sword,
We will fling the winding-sheet
O'er the despot at our feet,
And dye it deep in the gore he has pour'd.
Though black as his heart its hue,
Since his veins are corrupted to mud,
Yet this is the dew
Which the tree shall renew
Of Liberty, planted by Ludd!"
[tab][/tab][tab][/tab]
Your solution seems to be that “we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information”, and that “we must take another direction and slow down”.
Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.
Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.
Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!
But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.
So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.
Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It’s a vicious circle.
So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.
No one wants to take responsibility!
Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?
The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this “advantages” as “short advantages”, or as “pretended advantages”, or even as “disadvantages” because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!
So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.
We must take another direction and slow down.
Your solution seems to be that “we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information”, and that “we must take another direction and slow down”.
Arminius:Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.
Arminius:Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.
Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!
But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.
So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.
Arminius:Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It’s a vicious circle.
So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.
No one wants to take responsibility!
Arminius:Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?
The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this “advantages” as “short advantages”, or as “pretended advantages”, or even as “disadvantages” because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!
So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.
We must take another direction and slow down.
This is true. If we do not get that first currency of knowledge, wisdom, information and do not take another direction and slow down, then we will get the huge catastrophe. It is possible to avoid this. But it requires responsible rulers instead of the current ones who are godwannabes, too greedy, too corrupt and going to bring the huge catastrophe to the humans.