Agape and its significance

[R_Daneel]

Touché! The cold fact remains that a motiveless person is not a genuine person at all but merely a meaningless caricature…

How do you find out if the person is “geniune” or not? You only have access to his actions.

No response!
No response!
No response!
No response!
No response!
No response!

And it will stay that way. Don’t bother. I will not reply to attempts to derail the thread. Stay with the topic.

 

[R_Daneel]

It is more valuable for the person who freely chooses because they had other options they could have pursued in responding to the situation. With every “yes” answer, they are also saying “no” to something else, thus making it more meaningful. They sacrifice numerous other possible responses for the one they choose. For a robot who can only say “yes,” the meaning stops there.

For the person, who has the options, maybe. But I am concerned about the recipient.

 

[anns82]

For the person, who has the options, maybe. But I am concerned about the recipient.

People can choose how attentive they are to meaning in life. If the recipient only looks at the effect something has on his own self then the person risks not appreciating the actual sacrifice that is entailed in a self-less act. For example, take a wealthy person who donates 3% of their income to a charity, in contrast to a poor person who gives a large portion of the small amount they personally have. For the recipient, the larger sum has a larger monetary worth. In the reality of human life though, the sacrifice of the poor person is much greater. It is the will of the recipient which determines whether or not the value of the actual sacrifice in the choice of the giver is truly appreciated.

 

[R_Daneel]

People can choose how attentive they are to meaning in life. If the recipient only looks at the effect something has on his own self then the person risks not appreciating the actual sacrifice that is entailed in a self-less act. For example, take a wealthy person who donates 3% of their income to a charity, in contrast to a poor person who gives a large portion of the small amount they personally have. For the recipient, the larger sum has a larger monetary worth. In the reality of human life though, the sacrifice of the poor person is much greater. It is the will of the recipient which determines whether or not the value of the actual sacrifice in the choice of the giver is truly appreciated.

I understand your point, but I am afraid we still don’t see eye-to-eye. If the recipient can distinguish between a gift stemming from “true” goodwill and coming from pre-programmed behavior, then he may assign a different “value” to it. First, I consider this distinction irrational, and second, the question is still open: “what if the recipient is unable make that distinction?”. Which is the question I am interested in. I appreciate your efforts in trying to enlighten me.

 

[HelenaMT]

First, I would like to make a strong suggestion. Please don’t use the word “love” when you refer to God, use the word “agape” (divine love). The English language, beautiful as it is, does not differentiate between the different types of “love”, and this leads to confusion. It is true, that one of the meanings of “love” is the “divine love”, but this usage is by far not the most prominent one. So, borrowing the Greek word of “agape” we can cut down of the possibility of misunderstandings.

Well, this was just a suggestion, the meat is about to follow. Agape means selfless, benevolent, possibly even sacrifical behavior on behalf of others. The definition also includes that this behavior is volitionally driven, usually phrased as “love is an act of will”.

Now the question is this: “why is the volitional part considered to be important?”. Let’s create a new word: “epaga”, which means selfless, benevolent behavior, which is NOT volitionally driven, say: “programmed”. For the external observer and the recipient of the action it is indistinguishable from “agape”. What does the “volitional” part add to it? In my opinion, nothing. Agape and epaga are the same in their effects. No one should care if the benefactor chose to be as he is or was programmed to be as it is. Do you agree, or not? (And if yes, then why not? )

I think the obvious difference between “agape” and "epaga " is one of empathy. Because we know what it is like to act selflessly for another we recognize the value when someone like us does the same. We empathize with the benefactor and are grateful for their sacrifice of time, effort, money, whatever.

A care giving robot might satisfy the same physical needs but can’t generate the sort of gratitude one feels towards another person with a mind like ours, with whom we empathize. I suppose one might anthropomorphize it, but in most cases I think the awareness that it is not truly sacrificing for us (since it’s just doing what it was made to do and can’t have chosen not to) will make it worth less emotionally.

 

[R_Daneel]

I think the obvious difference between “agape” and "epaga " is one of empathy. Because we know what it is like to act selflessly for another we recognize the value when someone like us does the same. We empathize with the benefactor and are grateful for their sacrifice of time, effort, money, whatever.

A care giving robot might satisfy the same physical needs but can’t generate the sort of gratitude one feels towards another person with a mind like ours, with whom we empathize. I suppose one might anthropomorphize it, but in most cases I think the awareness that it is not truly sacrificing for us (since it’s just doing what it was made to do and can’t have chosen not to) will make it worth less emotionally.

This is only true, if you can tell the person and the robot apart. Don’t think of the robot as a metallic structure. Think about is as a humaniform creature. The only information you have is what you observe, its behavior. If the behavior is not distinguishable from that of loving, caring human, then what? Does it matter that the “love” and “caring” is emulated, if it is exactly the same as the “genuine” emotion?

 

[HelenaMT]

This is only true, if you can tell the person and the robot apart. Don’t think of the robot as a metallic structure. Think about is as a humaniform creature. The only information you have is what you observe, its behavior. If the behavior is not distinguishable from that of loving, caring human, then what?

Ok, I wish I had read further in the thread before posting-I didn’t realize you were meaning to propose that the recipient couldn’t tell if it was volitional or not and that the programmed being was indistinguishable from any other human. That wasn’t apparent in the OP. Sorry.

If the recipient perceives the behavior to stem from love and caring, the value to him is the same as though it were real. He will still feel cared for.

Does it matter that the “love” and “caring” is emulated, if it is exactly the same as the “genuine” emotion?

It only matters if the recipient finds out it was not “genuine”. How could it matter otherwise? Only sentient beings can say what “matters” and all they can go on is the information they have access to to make that determination. Outside of sentient minds, nothing matters or doesn’t matter. So if the recipient *believes *he has been helped by a being who wants to help him, the value is the same whether or not the action was really volitional, because the recipient is the only one who can truly assign it value.

 

[tonyrey]

Is your motive

Derail? It brings you to a halt in your tracks! I have posted my questions again to demonstrate that they are directly concerned with the fact that a motiveless person is not a genuine person at all but merely a meaningless caricature…

 

[R_Daneel]

Ok, I wish I had read further in the thread before posting-I didn’t realize you were meaning to propose that the recipient couldn’t tell if it was volitional or not and that the programmed being was indistinguishable from any other human. That wasn’t apparent in the OP. Sorry.

If the recipient perceives the behavior to stem from love and caring, the value to him is the same as though it were real. He will still feel cared for.

It only matters if the recipient finds out it was not “genuine”. How could it matter otherwise? Only sentient beings can say what “matters” and all they can go on is the information they have access to to make that determination. Outside of sentient minds, nothing matters or doesn’t matter. So if the recipient *believes *he has been helped by a being who wants to help him, the value is the same whether or not the action was really volitional, because the recipient is the only one who can truly assign it value.

Thank you very much!!

Now we can make another step. Let’s play a simple thought experiment: suppose someone devises a perfect copy machine, which copies “3-dimensionally”. This machine uses some kind of a “beam”, which can detect each atom, and puts together an exact replica, say of the Mona Lisa. Each atom of the original has a corresponding, identical atom in the copy - and we know that atoms are identical. At the end you have two pictures in front of you. They cannot be told apart by any means whatsoever.

I am aware, that most people would hold the original of inestimable value, and consider the duplicate almost “worthless”. The beauty is the same. One of them has been touched by the brush of DaVinci, the other one has not - but it is impossible to tell which is which. Do you consider this attitude rational?

 

[anns82]

Thank you very much!!

Now we can make another step. Let’s play a simple thought experiment: suppose someone devises a perfect copy machine, which copies “3-dimensionally”. This machine uses some kind of a “beam”, which can detect each atom, and puts together an exact replica, say of the Mona Lisa. Each atom of the original has a corresponding, identical atom in the copy - and we know that atoms are identical. At the end you have two pictures in front of you. They cannot be told apart by any means whatsoever.

I am aware, that most people would hold the original of inestimable value, and consider the duplicate almost “worthless”. The beauty is the same. One of them has been touched by the brush of DaVinci, the other one has not - but it is impossible to tell which is which. Do you consider this attitude rational?

So I take the heart of your “experiment” to be that the value lies in the perception of the product (sense of being cared for, or the beauty of the painting replica), regardless of whether or not the perception is incorrect due to incomplete information. By this you say that simply because a person believes their understanding of value is correct makes it correct. Yet, the lack of information in the situation is equal to a person who is expected to solve for A if all they are given is 4 =A + 2 - 5, but the -5 is written in invisible ink. The person will think the correct answer is A = 2, but the reality is A = 7.
The reason why the DaVinci is inherently more valuable is not simply because of the beauty of the painting, but also because of the endless possibilities of what the painting could have been. The artist chose everything within the painting for a specific reason, whether it be to inform the viewer of the sitter, or to solve compositional issues. The image of the replica could only be one thing, the image of the original. Thus, while an original painting can be worth a thousand words, the replica is only worth the title, “The Mona Lisa.” It is only a signifier of the original. The meaning does not extend beyond that point. Judging the value of something based on incomplete information does not make the concluded value correct.
I would caution you to realize that when “the means” has no value to the perception of “the ends,” the logic of “the end justifies the means” has often been the conclusion.

 

[R_Daneel]

So I take the heart of your “experiment” to be that the value lies in the perception of the product (sense of being cared for, or the beauty of the painting replica), regardless of whether or not the perception is incorrect due to incomplete information. By this you say that simply because a person believes their understanding of value is correct makes it correct. Yet, the lack of information in the situation is equal to a person who is expected to solve for A if all they are given is 4 =A + 2 - 5, but the -5 is written in invisible ink. The person will think the correct answer is A = 2, but the reality is A = 7.

If something is written in “invisible ink” then there is no reason to assume that it is there. We must go by what we perceive, not by what “might be lurking behind the curtain”. After all how do you know that it was a “-5” written in invisible ink and not something else? You say that we must make judgment calls based upon insufficient information. That is correct, but as long as the information is missing, that is all we can do.

The reason why the DaVinci is inherently more valuable is not simply because of the beauty of the painting, but also because of the endless possibilities of what the painting could have been. The artist chose everything within the painting for a specific reason, whether it be to inform the viewer of the sitter, or to solve compositional issues. The image of the replica could only be one thing, the image of the original. Thus, while an original painting can be worth a thousand words, the replica is only worth the title, “The Mona Lisa.” It is only a signifier of the original. The meaning does not extend beyond that point.

I doubt your conclusion that the value of the Mona Lisa is determined by the unrealized other possibilities of what “might have been”.

I would caution you to realize that when “the means” has no value to the perception of “the ends,” the logic of “the end justifies the means” has often been the conclusion.

It most certainly does not. We take both the means and the end into consideration. The means is the ways the help was performed, and the end is the value of the help received. The internal aspect of the help-giver does not belong here. Besides the concept of “the end justifies the means” - which we both disagree with - is reserved to otherwise “unjustifyable” means and a desirable end. If both the means and the end are good, we don’t try to pass judgment. Why would we?

 

[Justin1982]

R Daneel, I am perplexed by your necessity to use theoretical ideas to ground your argument. It seems much like the very abstract viewpoint of today’s society, how we try to find beauty where there is none or where there is no reality in the idea.
After all, if crickets had machine guns, birds wouldn’t eat them.

 

[anns82]

“If something is written in “invisible ink” then there is no reason to assume that it is there. We must go by what we perceive, not by what “might be lurking behind the curtain”. After all how do you know that it was a “-5” written in invisible ink and not something else? You say that we must make judgment calls based upon insufficient information. That is correct, but as long as the information is missing, that is all we can do.”

That is what I am saying. While the person would not be held accountable for getting the information wrong, the fact that the -5 is a part of the equation still makes the person’s answer wrong. The true value is not dependent on the person’s perception.

• "I doubt your conclusion that the value of the Mona Lisa is determined by the unrealized other possibilities of what “might have been”. *

Yes, art historians very well do hold the value of work based on the ingenious of the artist in the creation of the piece. It is why Giotto is held in such high esteem. Setting his work next to a High Renaissance artist, his work seems elementary. But knowing the innovation that occurred through him, moving from the Gothic into the beginning of the Renaissance, the brilliance shown within his work is not tied simply to the perceived beauty. The fact that the artist makes very specific decisions within a piece, rather than just copying what is before him, inherently makes the piece more valuable than a reproduction. It is information that a person may not be aware of simply through observation, but once that element of the truth comes to light (or the invisible ink reappears) no one would argue that the information is important in evaluating the actual value of the work.

“It most certainly does not. We take both the means and the end into consideration. The means is the ways the help was performed, and the end is the value of the help received. The internal aspect of the help-giver does not belong here. Besides the concept of “the end justifies the means” - which we both disagree with - is reserved to otherwise “unjustifyable” means and a desirable end. If both the means and the end are good, we don’t try to pass judgment. Why would we?”

What you are missing is the volition/will/free thought is an important part of the means, eventhough it is not perceived by the recipient. If the reason why someone helps a person is so that the person will feel they owe them later, then the recipient may still react the same way, but it can not be called agape because the will is not in line with the act. If a robot helps someone simply because it is programed that way then it is not agape because the will is not involved at all. If a robot recreates a beautiful painting, then the value is inherently worth less than the original because it did not make any meaningful decisions. When trying to determine the inherent value of something, a person can only use the information provided. If they do not have enough information and come to an incorrect conclusion, that does not change the true meaning/value. Are you saying that the truth in a situation does not matter if the person perceives it differently than it actually is?

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel, I am perplexed by your necessity to use theoretical ideas to ground your argument. It seems much like the very abstract viewpoint of today’s society, how we try to find beauty where there is none or where there is no reality in the idea.
After all, if crickets had machine guns, birds wouldn’t eat them.

Isn’t that what philosophy is all about?

 

[R_Daneel]

That is what I am saying. While the person would not be held accountable for getting the information wrong, the fact that the -5 is a part of the equation still makes the person’s answer wrong. The true value is not dependent on the person’s perception.

In what way is it “wrong”? If something is “not there”, then it is not there… and nothing further can be said about the “what if…”?

Yes, art historians very well do hold the value of work based on the ingenious of the artist in the creation of the piece. It is why Giotto is held in such high esteem. Setting his work next to a High Renaissance artist, his work seems elementary. But knowing the innovation that occurred through him, moving from the Gothic into the beginning of the Renaissance, the brilliance shown within his work is not tied simply to the perceived beauty. The fact that the artist makes very specific decisions within a piece, rather than just copying what is before him, inherently makes the piece more valuable than a reproduction. It is information that a person may not be aware of simply through observation, but once that element of the truth comes to light (or the invisible ink reappears) no one would argue that the information is important in evaluating the actual value of the work.

You compare apples to oranges. The innovation is important, and it is also objectively visible. Pieces of art are evaluated on several levels, most of which are subjective. That is not my contention. It is the irrationality of finding the original valuable, and the replica “worthless” even though for the same person they would be equally beautiful.

What you are missing is the volition/will/free thought is an important part of the means, eventhough it is not perceived by the recipient.

This is exactly what I challenge.

When trying to determine the inherent value of something, a person can only use the information provided. If they do not have enough information and come to an incorrect conclusion, that does not change the true meaning/value.

I am also denying the concept of “inherent” value. The value of something presupposes a person who “uses” that “thing” and the aim which it is supposed to achieve. The “value” of the tomes of the gratest thinkers for a savage is that he can make a great bonfire out of them, and warm his hands by the fire. Also there is no “inherent” meaning of anything. The meaning of a proposition is not what the person intends it to have, rather how the recipient will understand it.

Are you saying that the truth in a situation does not matter if the person perceives it differently than it actually is?

Apples and oranges again. Truth is the correspondence of the external reality with our internal perception of it. You use “meaning”, value" and “truth” as if they were interchangable. They are not.

 

[anns82]

The truth is that the meaning someone puts into something (wills) is directly related to its value whether or not it is perceived. If the meaning is perceived wrongly due to incomplete information then it does not change the truth of the value, only the perception of the value. The striking difference between humans and your robots is the humans have free wills rather than programs. A person may perceive the actions of a human and a robot as being the same, but by definition of the situation, it is not at all the same because of the fact that the robot does not have a free will. The person who can not detect a difference between the original and the replica, then learns the truth in the situation, would change the evaluation to be that the original is inherently more valuable. Why do you find this to be irrational?

 

[R_Daneel]

The truth is that the meaning someone puts into something (wills) is directly related to its value whether or not it is perceived. If the meaning is perceived wrongly due to incomplete information then it does not change the truth of the value, only the perception of the value.

You said this before. You assert that the intent gives additional value to the act. The only thing that is missing is some reason why it should be so. As far as the usefulness of the act, there is no difference.

The striking difference between humans and your robots is the humans have free wills rather than programs. A person may perceive the actions of a human and a robot as being the same, but by definition of the situation, it is not at all the same because of the fact that the robot does not have a free will.

Correct, but I never disputed that. What I am still asking: “is the difference relevant, or substantial”? So far there was no argument presented that it is so. Two things can be substantially the same, with minor, irrelevant differences. Why would the “intent” be substantial, rather than irrelevant?

The person who can not detect a difference between the original and the replica, then learns the truth in the situation, would change the evaluation to be that the original is inherently more valuable. Why do you find this to be irrational?

Because there is no difference in the usefulness or the beauty in the two objects. To assign “value” to the origin of the objects is an artifical and subjective “value”, not related to the object’s usefulness or beauty.

Reflecting on your previous “end does not justify the means” objection, let me make a further clarification. The “end” is what is to be achieved. The “means” is how it is to be achieved. The “intent” is why it is to be achieved. It would make no sense to mix the how and the why and say that these together constitute the “means”.

 

[HelenaMT]

… What I am still asking: “is the difference relevant, or substantial”? So far there was no argument presented that it is so. Two things can be substantially the same, with minor, irrelevant differences. Why would the “intent” be substantial, rather than irrelevant?

The intent would only be substantial if it could be ascertained. If one could see intent, it would become relevant.

Because there is no difference in the usefulness or the beauty in the two objects. To assign “value” to the origin of the objects is an artifical and subjective “value”, not related to the object’s usefulness or beauty.

What “value” is not subjective? And what makes a value artificial? Valuing things are what sentient beings do, there’s nothing artificial about that.

I would also say the value of the origin may not always match the value of the object’s usefulness or beauty, but that they are 2 separate values.

However, I do agree that nothing has inherent value, meaning value that exists apart from what meaning a sentient mind gives it (either the creator or the end user).

 

[R_Daneel]

The intent would only be substantial if it could be ascertained. If one could see intent, it would become relevant.

Interesting idea, but I don’t see why it should be so?

What “value” is not subjective? And what makes a value artificial? Valuing things are what sentient beings do, there’s nothing artificial about that.

Maybe the word “artificial” was not a good choice. I wanted to idicate that the “artifical” is something that is not “substantial”. After all a glass of water’s usefulness in a desert is undeniable to quench one’s thirst, but the monetary value assigned to it is artifical.

I would also say the value of the origin may not always match the value of the object’s usefulness or beauty, but that they are 2 separate values.

Yes, the word “value” has several meanings, for sure.

However, I do agree that nothing has inherent value, meaning value that exists apart from what meaning a sentient mind gives it (either the creator or the end user).

Agree with you 100%,

 

[anns82]

However, I do agree that nothing has inherent value, meaning value that exists apart from what meaning a sentient mind gives it (either the creator or the end user).

I agree, but I disagree with this statement. As a Catholic, your statement allows for God to be the creator of the value, which I agree with. For a person who does not believe in a Creator, it would mean that things which are found in nature would have no value other than what the end user places to it, which would be to say that human beings have no inherent value above animals, trees, etc. If value is tied to sentient minds, then what about the value of individuals with sever mental disabilities? Does this allow for scientific studies to be conducted on those people whom we know are alive, but we do not perceive to be mentally functioning? When value simply falls into the usefulness to the “end user,” allowing one to only consider things from the limited understanding of the receiver, it is to say that the limited understanding of the receiver is fully legitimate. It would be to encourage people to accept the limited info they have as the only thing that matters rather than admitting to one self that there is something that might be outside of their understanding. If someone treats another badly, according to this philosophy the recipient should say “that person is a complete jerk” rather than “may be he/she was having a bad day.” It would be a mistake to deny that there is something that exists beyond face value when dealing in the reality of life.

Out of curiosity R Daneel, where is it that you actually want this conversation to go? You started with one question, then when you got the answer you wanted, you moved onto the “next exercise.” Please just be upfront and set your actual thesis out there.