A philosophical question pertaining to self-driving cars

[vz71]

Typically the contractor assumes responsibility if the program they developed does not operate as expected.

So the question will be one of liability and responsibilities.

Has the contractor tested for every circumstance?
Are they willing to bet their lives on it?

My own experience says no. I would be unwilling to bet life on anything the computer is programmed to do.
But then I work in the business and am too close to have blind faith in any program.

 

[mikekle]

I have been watching the news on self driving cars this past couple weeks, and apparently they are closer than even I thought, it seems GM now plans to have a production version out by 2018, tests in CA are going very well, Google and the major car makers are in the process of making deals now, the people in charge of this idea are saying it will be nation wide within 5 years, I originally thought it wouldnt happen for at least another 10-15, but I guess I was wrong.

Like any other kind of technology, Im sure there will be bugs at first, but eventually those will be worked out, Im actually somewhat surprised by this happening so fast, I mean, if this happens when Google and the big car makers are thinking, no more need for car insurance, no more DUIs, no more traffic stops, etc. There are quite few smaller cities who rely on revenue from these things for their operating budget, will be interesting to see how they get by.

Plus, ultimately, at some point, for this to be successful, they are going to have to take away the option to drive your own car, human errors are going to be the one big variable, computers cannot decide what choices they will make on the road, so eventually, it will have to be everyone letting their cars do the driving, to take away the unpredictability of humans driving.

 

[NovusFidem]

Guys, page 3 of this thread, posts 10 and 11 (I might have miscounted):

:newidea:

Personally, I think self-driving cars should have unbridled free will. They should be programmed to be allowed to do absolutely anything and cause any amount of mayhem and chaos with no restraint other than the physical limitations of their designs. After all, if there were any limitations on the choices available to the AI, then the car and passenger wouldn’t be able to have a meaningful relationship, and the relationship is more important than the health or safety of the passenger, pedestrians, other drivers, or anyone in the path of the car of course.

…joking…

Well, at last! That is what I was hoping for.

Thank you for presenting exactly the “argument” which is brought forth by the proponents of unbridled free will. And presenting how utterly irrational that “argument” is. No rational designer, constructor would allow “freedom” which would counteract the basic design aim of the creation.

And since God is “supposed” to be rational, we must accept the conclusion that the current state of affairs is exactly the one that God intended and desired from the get-go.

The idea of the OP was to show that giving free will to anything (like God did to us) is not a good idea. The OP forgot that God made us for love, and not for driving, but I gave up discussing this a while ago.

Either way, the discussion is more about the value, need and implications of free will rather than the moral implications of self-driving cars

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The idea of the OP was to show that giving free will to anything (like God did to us) is not a good idea. The OP forgot that God made us for love, and not for driving, but I gave up discussing this a while ago.

Either way, the discussion is more about the value, need and implications of free will rather than the moral implications of self-driving cars

Thank you. I was about to give up due to the irrelevant postings. The cars were simply an illustration, not the aim of the thread.

Now what does the freedom to kill, torture or rape have anything to do with “love”? Would you be incapable of loving your spouse, child, friend or neighbor (in the widest sense) if you were either physically or psychologically unable to hurt them? How does the ability to hurt give any “extra” value to the caring attitude we call “love”?

 

[NovusFidem]

How does the ability to hurt give any “extra” value to the caring attitude we call “love”?

Because the attitude of caring is not merely doing something the other sees as good. You can’t hug your mother and say that is love - there is much more involved into a love action than just that. A hug can be just a hug, or it can have love as a motivator, cause, end, reason, and etc etc. (it’s all-encompassing)

But if you, Pallas, can’t really understand what this Love we mean is, there is little I can do to help or add to this discussion; others are far more capable than I. Unless you understand what this Love we are talking about is, you’ll never understand why the free will is needed. (and when you do understand this love, free will will come as an “Ahhh! That’s why!” moment for you)

 

[Ghosty]

If that is the OPs real point it should have been brought up initially so as not to waste a lot of people’s time.

That being said, humans making synthetic companions with free will is absolutely nothing like what God does with humans. He gave us free will AND Grace, an extension of His very Being and Life. Then He gave us this incredible universe to enjoy as true chrildren of God. He shares His Divine Life with us, something He doesn’t do with other creatures, because He made us to love and cherish both the world and God.

We are designed to be bearers of Divinity, not just free companions that bump around in well-programmed autopilot. This isn’t a philosophical argument, it is a theological and metaphysical fact. There are proofs of this, but they are for a different thread.

Debating the merits of making something with free will without also understanding the nature of Grace and the true sharing of Divine Life is going to lead to incomplete conclusions at best, dangerous ones at worst.

As it has been said: know thyself. This is applicable to every endeavor, but never moreso than philosophy and theology.

Peace and God bless!

 

[davidv]

Thank you. I was about to give up due to the irrelevant postings. The cars were simply an illustration, not the aim of the thread.

Now what does the freedom to kill, torture or rape have anything to do with “love”?

Nothing, except that the antithesis of these could not have been chosen freely.

Would you be incapable of loving your spouse, child, friend or neighbor (in the widest sense) if you were either physically or psychologically unable to hurt them? How does the ability to hurt give any “extra” value to the caring attitude we call “love”?

Until and unless the meaning of love in understood in it fullest Catholic sense, any answer to this would appear meaningless.
There is no extra value. Without free will there no love, only instinct.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Because the attitude of caring is not merely doing something the other sees as good. You can’t hug your mother and say that is love - there is much more involved into a love action than just that. A hug can be just a hug, or it can have love as a motivator, cause, end, reason, and etc etc. (it’s all-encompassing)

But if you, Pallas, can’t really understand what this Love we mean is, there is little I can do to help or add to this discussion; others are far more capable than I. Unless you understand what this Love we are talking about is, you’ll never understand why the free will is needed. (and when you do understand this love, free will will come as an “Ahhh! That’s why!” moment for you)

Nothing, except that the antithesis of these could not have been chosen freely.

Until and unless the meaning of love in understood in it fullest Catholic sense, any answer to this would appear meaningless.
There is no extra value. Without free will there no love, only instinct.

I will give a consolidated answer to both of you.

First, you both say that until I understand the Catholic concept of “love”, I will be unable to comprehend the answers given or the answers will be meaningless for me. So, if you are willing, tell me what is the official definition of “love”? “Official” in the sense that it is declared in some “inerrant”, “infallible” document (infallible in YOUR eyes, of course). I have seen the definition of “Love is willing the good of another”. Is this precise? The definition I would use is slightly different: “Love is acting in the best interest of others”.

In my secular understanding love is a positive emotion… which MUST be expressed in ACTIONS, otherwise it is meaningless utterance. The “emotion” is not the result of volition. On the other hand, the ACTION, stemming from emotion CAN be volitional (but does not have to be).

I already presented this question on the “Ask the apologist” forum, but unfortunately it was never answered. Looking forward to see your answers. Or anyone else’s response, of course.

 

[NovusFidem]

So, if you are willing, tell me what is the official definition of “love”?

Ok, “challenge” accepted! I doubt I’ll be able to explain it well, but I want to try, Hopefully others will give their insights here, because this is all too deep.

I just ask that you keep your mind and heart open, because this is something very difficult to understand at first, or to notice in our day-to-day lives. Just to reinforce: we are not against you, just trying to explain our views. If you will accept or not later, is up to you. However, you’ll then know what we think, and you’ll be able to understand how we feel (hopefully).

As to it all being official… hardly you’ll find it quoted somewhere in the CCC as “This is love”, but you can understand love from those teachings.

I have seen the definition of “Love is willing the good of another”. Is this precise? The definition I would use is slightly different: “Love is acting in the best interest of others”.

The first definition is right, albeit too broad (and, thus, doesn’t explain much). It was St.T.Aquinas who said it, so you have to understand what he meant. Your definition is almost the same, just worded differently. Both are right, but we need to understand what they mean under a Catholic point of view.

So, let’s start! (this will be long winded)

I think the best definition of love is Charity. For the Greeks (the 4 types of love), the love we mean would be Agape, which relates directly to Charity. Charity explains where love comes from and towards what it is directed. On the CCC:

1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

Here we can already see some things. One, that we love God above all things. This means that we love Him over our parents, siblings, friends and spouses, and even over ourselves.

The second is that we love our neighbors (parents, siblings, etc), for HIS sake as well! We love others because, by doing that, we are loving God. More than prayers, the best way to honor, glorify and love God is to love His creation.

God says that “love is the greatest thing there is” (1 Cor 13: 13), and we also know that “God is love,” (1 John 1:8).

So, this is the first step: Love is directed at God. Always. You can’t have love if God is not involved in some way. (and this is important information, keep a note!)

Which brings us to Jesus:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ "But I say to you,** love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you**,…] (Matthew 5:43-44)

Here we see something peculiar, that makes love (charity/agape) distinct from love (storge, philia, eros). “Love your enemies” makes things a bit clearer as to what He meant by “love”. Better yet, what He didn’t mean by it.

Here is why Christ’s definition is distinct from yours, for example:

In my secular understanding love is a positive emotion… which MUST be expressed in ACTIONS, otherwise it is meaningless utterance. The “emotion” is not the result of volition.

You got it all pretty much perfect, spot on, except for the emotional part. Emotion has nothing to do with love. And for nothing I mean nothing. It may be a result of love, sure, but never necessary for it. It can perfect your love, but love exists despite your emotions.

Our good actions (love) stem from emotion when we love our family (storge), for example. We have affection for them, and our “liking” them moves us into doing them good. This is natural love, and this is EASY.

But Jesus didn’t want easy. He wanted more. Continuing from the previous quote:

“For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax collectors do as much? And if you save your greetings for your brothers, are you doing anything exceptional? Do not even the gentiles do as much? You must therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.’” (Matthew 5:46-48)

From this we get that the motivation to love doesn’t come from “liking”, for when it comes from emotions (natural love) there is nothing supernatural to it. We don’t necessarily feel good emotions for our enemies, much less their actions, but we are called to love them either way - that love, the “Christian love”, is Charity (agape)

The CCC defines love-emotion as well:

1771 The term “passions” refers to the affections or the feelings. By his emotions man intuits the good and suspects evil.

1772 The principal passions are love and hatred, desire and fear, joy, sadness, and anger.

1773 In the passions, as movements of the sensitive appetite, there is neither moral good nor evil. But insofar as they engage reason and will, there is moral good or evil in them.

1774 Emotions and feelings can be taken up in the virtues or perverted by the vices.

As we can see, emotions are neither good nor evil, and this we will see in a bit with animals as well. Emotions can be “perverted by the vices”, while the Love we mean, can’t:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Cor 13:4-7)

Point being: Christian love isn’t an emotion. Greeks called it Agape, we call it Charity. When we say “God is love”, then, we mean that God is the source of Charity, and not emotions.

 

[NovusFidem]

Now. What is an “act of the will”?

The emotional aspect comes passively from withing us, which is why they are called “passions”. Charity comes actively from God and is accepted by our free choice. As St.T.A said, Charity is an act of the will.

If you think of an animal, you can imagine how or why it will act in some way. Animals are led by their passions, their emotions, which is as God wanted, and that is good. Animals, plants, and all of creation honor God just by existing:

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory

They can’t, however, love like we do.

When a dog protects a person, he does so out of instinct - their programming. You are a part of its pack, you are the source of food, the enemy invaded its territory; there are many reasons. It won’t protect you out of love for God’s creation, out of charity. Just like with you being nice to your friends, a dog loves you - it is just natural love, originated from passions, its affections for you. But not charity.

Make no mistake: that love is also good. It just isn’t Charity, you know? The epitome of goodness.

Charity comes from God and is accepted by our free choice. Charity is something completely unpretentious, which is why it is easier to identify when we deal with strangers. Taking a bullet for a stranger makes no sense whatsoever, for example.

Toning it down a bit to reality: there is no reasonable reason or passion that would lead you into giving to the poor, or visiting strangers in prison, or caring for the ill. There is, however, Hope. On the CCC:

1818 The virtue of hope responds to the aspiration to happiness which God has placed in the heart of every man; it takes up the hopes that inspire men’s activities and purifies them so as to order them to the Kingdom of heaven; it keeps man from discouragement; it sustains him during times of abandonment; it opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude. Buoyed up by hope, he is preserved from selfishness and led to the happiness that flows from charity.

Hope is another theological virtue, and comes from God. It is that part that Christians say that “God made us for good, not for evil”.

When you see a ragged beggar, your passions lead you to disgust. Your instinct is to turn your face away and move on. Your reason says that you won’t get anything from helping him. And that makes sense. But yet, many choose to go on their knees and meet them face to face. We go against our instincts and emotions, our programs, and do something because we can.

So, as we see, Charity is an act of the will, and only the will. It is I who want to do good, not my body, not my animal nature. It is the one thing we choose for ourselves. We have a innate will to do good, that is the love we receive from God, but we still have to choose to do it.

Like Jesus did on the Cross. Why would someone die like that, when the result (our conversion) wasn’t a guarantee? Because He loves us, that’s why.

While affection is swimming with the stream, love is swimming against it sometimes - there is will, you choose to do it. That’s it.

This is all too nuanced, too subtle. You won’t see it unless you are paying attention to it.

What is to “will them good”?

When someone shows up at your door, what do you feel? How do you act?

When a beggar asks for money, do you give it? What do you will him?

We have a tendency to believe ourselves good when, in fact, we are not. We deny the beggar money, with the excuse of “not paying for his alcohol” - we are good; we are saving him from his vice, right? And when we give them money, we do so with a misdirected idea of “good” - as if those $5 are going to change his life or something.

But when we pay attention, we see that we don’t will them good. We don’t see those $5 as the ultimate good for that beggar. We don’t see our action as truly effective good. We feel good not because we helped someone (we didn’t!), but because we can now think ourselves as “charitable”.

Love is much more than that. It is much more than just a “good action”. Will them good, Charity, is to do as the good Samaritan did:

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ (Luke 10:30-35)

 

[NovusFidem]

Lastly, because it all relates to “If God is love, and love is good, why is there evil in the world?”.

Why is there evil and sin?

Evil, strange enough, doesn’t exist. Try to wrap your mind on this.

Did you know that cold doesn’t exist? We call cold the absence of heat. You feel cold when you touch something that steals your warmth, but cold doesn’t exist as something. It is not-something, a lack of something.

Evil, likewise, is the absence of love.

Remember the lion killing lion cubs, and how I said that was neither good nor evil? Yeah. Since the lion is not capable of love, its actions can’t have a lack of love. The lion has no “Agape” socket in its nature, so its actions are just actions.

But we do. We have an Agape hole in our very beings, and our actions fulfill its need.

Remember Hope?

1818 The virtue of hope responds to the aspiration to happiness which God has placed in the heart of every man; it takes up the hopes that inspire men’s activities and purifies them so as to order them to the Kingdom of heaven; it keeps man from discouragement; it sustains him during times of abandonment; it opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude. Buoyed up by hope, he is preserved from selfishness and led to the happiness that flows from charity.

“It opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude”. We want warmth, which is why we are bothered by the cold. We also want love (God), which is why we are bothered by His absence.

When we are faced with a choice, in ignoring the beggar or giving him a bath and dressing his wounds, we are given a choice to love, or not. It is not a choice “to love or to do evil”, it is just “to love or not”.

If you don’t love, someone will feel the loss. Either the beggar or you, which is when we look and recognize: Evil.

That’s what evil is. The absence of God.

Which is why evil is a “necessity” for there to be good. The moment I give you something, there is the situation of you not having it.

Finally: God loves us.

Because He loves us, He wanted us to have our freedom. Freedom is a good thing.

CCC:
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

Animals lack freedom. Since they don’t have free will, animals can’t do evil, or be evil. However, animals also can’t love, or be good.

Humans have freedom. Since they have freedom, humans can love and be good. However, for being capable of love, humans also are capable of not-love.

Since they have freedom, humans can love and be good - and this is what God wants for us. God wants this so much that He gave us virtues like Faith and Hope to inspire us into seeking Charity, into seeking Him. He wants us to come to Him.

1743 “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” (GS 17 § 1).

Love is such a good thing, that even God wants to be loved. :hug3:

And love is such a good thing, that God saw it was worth the sufferings we would have to endure for it. Because love doesn’t come without sacrifice, without fight. Love is not a passive “feeling” that we just get to feel and feel good.

Love is washing the feet of our enemies. It is doing good to other just because good is good. It is loving God because He loved us first, He made us capable of love, and He wants our love but does not force it.

We have the option of not loving God. But we will witness His absence if we do that. But for God to force us into loving Him is to He Himself deny us Love, and He just won’t do that. He loves us too much to make us into mere drones, willing to please Him. And for loving us is that we are still free to choose.

(until we set our hearts on God definitely, when we will finally be free of sin! In this, we remember the Saints, and that it is possible to achieve perfect love)

 

[NovusFidem]

Again, this is all just a glimpse. Someone else could do a much better job at it than I can.

It is important to remember that God made us for Himself. He wants to have us close.

When you consider Catholic theology, and that the time we have on here is limited, you can see why seeking God is more important than seeking relief from suffering in some cases. Eternal love is worth the pain; we have felt it, we sometimes act on it, and it is wonderful! And this is just a small sample of the Love God has for us. Risking our “salvation” (all that love) just to alleviate ourselves here is absurd; it is denying a greater love for eternity, for relief for a small period of time here.

And it all can be noted on social issues we usually discuss here. We often place pleasure, our own comfort, or riddance of suffering above God. Then we sin, and don’t understand why bad things happen.

We do evil to avoid suffering, and end up suffering more for it. Others accept their suffering, learn to find love in their suffering, and end up with no regrets and with more love. Saints Like St. Theresa rejoiced in their own sufferings, because they were so close to God already, that no pain was able to distract from that love; instead, it pushed them more towards Him.

Death also, after Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, comes as a blessing, which is why we don’t see death as a bad thing per se. (we get sad, but it’s not bad, you know?). Death is just the final enemy to be conquered, and which Christ already defeated for us. When we die, hopefully we go to God’s arms, and that makes us very, VERY happy to think about.

But only when we are in a state of grace. Or else, we are just as fearful as anyone else

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ok, “challenge” accepted! I doubt I’ll be able to explain it well, but I want to try, Hopefully others will give their insights here, because this is all too deep.

First of all, I want to thank you for your detailed explanation. Obviously you spent a lot of time and effort on formulating your thoughts. I will read and reply to all of them, but not very quickly. We shall be out of town for about a week, and I will not have my usual access to the web or my main computer. A tablet is just too small.

The first definition is right, albeit too broad (and, thus, doesn’t explain much). It was St.T.Aquinas who said it, so you have to understand what he meant. Your definition is almost the same, just worded differently. Both are right, but we need to understand what they mean under a Catholic point of view.

As to be expected, I already have an objection. The two definitions are not even similar, much less almost identical. The first one talks about “will”, the second one talks about “action”.

“Will” does not imply action, and “action” does not imply (free) will. I may “will” the best things to all humanity, but since I have no way to put that “will” into action, it is just an empty “wish”. Also even if I would have the ability to put that “will” into action, but would “choose” not act on it, it would be a meaningless utterance.

Action, on the other hand does not necessarily require a “free will”. Yet, comparing an “impotent” will to an “unfree” action, I would value the latter much higher. At least it would be helpful. Imagine an “autodoc” (from Larry Niven’s wonderful sci-fi novels). It is a specialized robot, which has only one purpose, to heal anyone in need. It has no “free will”. Now imagine a human doctor who took the Hippocratic oath, and takes it very seriously. He will do exactly as the autodoc, heal any patient, even his deadly enemy, because he effectively “foreswore” his freedom to pick and choose which patient he will heal, and which one he will let to die. There is no difference between them. True, the human could deviate from his oath, and could kill the unwanted patient… but this freedom is not just not valuable, it is actually detrimental. It would be much better, if he did not have this particular kind of freedom.

There is another definition, which you quote in one of the later posts, which says “love is an act of will”. And that is simply nonsense in its brevity. If I would point a gun, and pull a trigger, it would be an “act of will” but not “love”.

So we are still a long way from actually getting into the details.

As you correctly pointed out, the word “love” covers a whole lot of different “things”. Let me point out two uses:
1) Joe loves God.
2) God loves Joe.

The two usages of “love” are very different. What do they mean? Choose a different word (synonym) for “love” in the sentence of “Joe loves God”. and conversely choose a synonym for “love” in the sentence of “God loves Joe”. Humans cannot act in God’s best interest, since God needs nothing. God could act in our best interest, but does not seem to do it.

I always think that it is better to take “baby-steps” instead of covering a lot of ground in one post. To prevent some possible misunderstanding, when I use the word “will”, it is synonymous with “want”, or “desire”. Keep that in mind.

So, please concentrate on those two sentences. What synonyms can you offer for the two different kinds of “love”?

 

[davidv]

First of all, I want to thank you for your detailed explanation. Obviously you spent a lot of time and effort on formulating your thoughts. I will read and reply to all of them, but not very quickly. We shall be out of town for about a week, and I will not have my usual access to the web or my main computer. A tablet is just too small.

As to be expected, I already have an objection. The two definitions are not even similar, much less almost identical. The first one talks about “will”, the second one talks about “action”.

“Will” does not imply action, and “action” does not imply (free) will. I may “will” the best things to all humanity, but since I have no way to put that “will” into action, it is just an empty “wish”. Also even if I would have the ability to put that “will” into action, but would “choose” not act on it, it would be a meaningless utterance.

Action, on the other hand does not necessarily require a “free will”. Yet, comparing an “impotent” will to an “unfree” action, I would value the latter much higher. At least it would be helpful. Imagine an “autodoc” (from Larry Niven’s wonderful sci-fi novels). It is a specialized robot, which has only one purpose, to heal anyone in need. It has no “free will”. Now imagine a human doctor who took the Hippocratic oath, and takes it very seriously. He will do exactly as the autodoc, heal any patient, even his deadly enemy, because he effectively “foreswore” his freedom to pick and choose which patient he will heal, and which one he will let to die. There is no difference between them. True, the human could deviate from his oath, and could kill the unwanted patient… but this freedom is not just not valuable, it is actually detrimental. It would be much better, if he did not have this particular kind of freedom.

There is another definition, which you quote in one of the later posts, which says “love is an act of will”. And that is simply nonsense in its brevity. If I would point a gun, and pull a trigger, it would be an “act of will” but not “love”.

So we are still a long way from actually getting into the details.

As you correctly pointed out, the word “love” covers a whole lot of different “things”. Let me point out two uses:
1) Joe loves God.
2) God loves Joe.
The two usages of “love” are very different. What do they mean? Choose a different word (synonym) for “love” in the sentence of “Joe loves God”. and conversely choose a synonym for “love” in the sentence of “God loves Joe”. Humans cannot act in God’s best interest, since God needs nothing. God could act in our best interest, but does not seem to do it.

I always think that it is better to take “baby-steps” instead of covering a lot of ground in one post. To prevent some possible misunderstanding, when I use the word “will”, it is synonymous with “want”, or “desire”. Keep that in mind.

So, please concentrate on those two sentences. What synonyms can you offer for the two different kinds of “love”?

Why are you objecting? How does objecting lead to understanding? More likely it will lead to defensiveness.

You asked for an explanation of what love means in the Catholic context and got a very detailed one. An explanation that I cannot add to from a Catholic theological view. It is very consistent with Church teaching.

Since you asked for the Catholic meaning you must abandon your definition of will and use the Catholic meaning. If not you will continue to misunderstand.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

The term will as used in Catholic philosophy, may be briefly defined as the faculty of choice; it is classified among the appetites, and is contrasted with those which belong either to the merely sensitive or to the vegetative order: it is thus commonly designated “the rational appetite”;