Agape and its significance

[R_Daneel]

So apparently you are defining volitional with “could act otherwise” as a necessary condition. This is a mistake. A volitional act need only arise from the will (voluntas); it need not express a choice between two options (arbitrium). (I think this missed distinction is a major source of your confusion in this thread.)

I vehemently disagree. There are three conditions to be met if one wishes to speak of a meaninful “free will”:

1. The locus of causal control (LCC) is residing in the entity.
2. The principle of alternate possibilities (PAP).
3. The ability to carry out one’s decision (ACD).If any one of these is missing, there is no meaningful “free will”.

…or that might be just you deceiving yourself.

You gotta be kidding. If you wish to be happy, just because you are better off than a pauper, or if you wish to be miserable, just because there are others who are better off than you are, be my guest. I will stick to my way of evaluating my own life.

The question is: what are the concrete conditions for valuing that give content to the dependence relation to which you so vaguely point?

It depends on the specific circumstances.

 

[R_Daneel]

You are unable to see the value because to you, inherent value does not exist and the value of volition/free will is inherent to it’s existence.

Exactly. And I am waiting for an argument which would support the opposing view.

You did not receive a specific answer because it is pretty obvious. People value their own lives, and yes, is something helps preserve their life, they do in fact appreciate it. At the same time, a person who risks his/her own life to save another would be more appreciated than if the risk was not as prevalent (lifeguard who swims into the ocean to save a person is at more risk than the dolphin) , and rightfully so. It is that whole “yes” to one thing (I want to help you survive)," as well as “no” (concern for self-preservation) that makes the rescue more meaningful.

There is nothing “obvious” about this. You reiterate your previous “theory”, with nothing to support it.

Okay, I think we adequately addressed the fact that we do not agree on our definition of value. And you seem to think that superficial qualities are grounds for evaluating two “entities” with intrinsically different natures.

What is “superficial” is undefined here.

Another reason why their actions are valued differently is because of the dishonest presentation of the action. If a person were to be very kind to you and say they loved you (or “agaped you” if you want), then you found out that it was not true, your feeling towards the person would change because the person lied to you.

Yes, this is correct.

Likewise, if you found out it was a robot, and thus did not posses the free will to love you by the fact of the definition of agape, then your feelings would still change.

No, it would not. If the actual behavior withstands the scrutiny, if the “emulated” agape cannot be distinguished from the “real” agape, I would not care.

So you do not mind “appreciating” a tool as a human? Are you fine with “appreciating” a person as a tool?

Why do you think that the second one follows from the first one? From A->B (A implies B) it does not follow that B->A (B implies A). This is elementary logic. Besides I already stated my position in an unequivocal manner.

 

[R_Daneel]

With comments like these I’m half inclined to think you are a robot!

Consider my screen name. If you don’t understand, read Asimov.

But seriously, you see caricatures and semantic games where in fact you simply don’t understand the point being made. Now obviously you don’t respond in the same way to a human rescuer and to a dolphin rescuer. You should thank the volitional rescuer for one thing, maybe even offer to buy her a coffee; you might say thank you to a robot too, if that was the (name removed by moderator)ut needed to keep it functioning properly, but that would not at all be the same thing.

In the examples given the response would be different, since in those cases the rescuer is clearly not another human. It has no real understanding. But in the underlying problem you don’t have that knowledge. You only have access to the actions of the rescuer - nothing more. Don’t you see the distinction between an example and the actual question? How many times do I have to explain it?

Do you not see that? It’s hard not to wonder if perhaps you don’t have any meaningful personal relationships and that’s why you don’t understand their value.

Don’t make assumptions, buddy… you know what “assume” does to you?

 

[anns82]

What is “superficial” is undefined here.

“superficial” in that it simply appears to be agape, but by definition (presence of volition) it is not

No, it would not. If the actual behavior withstands the scrutiny, if the “emulated” agape cannot be distinguished from the “real” agape, I would not care.

Agape from a human can result in the mutual return of agape. Are you saying that if a “person” appeared to love you in this form, and you loved the “person” in return, then you discovered the “person” was a robot, you would continue to love it? No, you would not be upset with the robot as you would a person, but you would not continue to love the robot. Or would you?

 

[Betterave]

I vehemently disagree. There are three conditions to be met if one wishes to speak of a meaninful “free will”:

1. The locus of causal control (LCC) is residing in the entity.
2. The principle of alternate possibilities (PAP).
3. The ability to carry out one’s decision (ACD).If any one of these is missing, there is no meaningful “free will”.

lol! Here we go! So PAP is the problem, then, right? But what exactly does PAP mean? If an act of will is self-determined to one object (no matter how complex) it is not freely self-determined? Therefore only a vacillating will can be free…? Believe that if you want, but it’s a groundless and absurd position.

You gotta be kidding. If you wish to be happy, just because you are better off than a pauper, or if you wish to be miserable, just because there are others who are better off than you are, be my guest. I will stick to my way of evaluating my own life.

As far as irrelevant ad hominem straw man red herrings go, not a bad response. Beyond that you kind of missed the boat.

It depends on the specific circumstances.

ya think?! (Thanks for clarifying that for us.)

 

[R_Daneel]

“superficial” in that it simply appears to be agape, but by definition (presence of volition) it is not

That is why I suggested the word “egapa”. I am questioning the significance of “volition”.

Agape from a human can result in the mutual return of agape. Are you saying that if a “person” appeared to love you in this form, and you loved the “person” in return, then you discovered the “person” was a robot, you would continue to love it? No, you would not be upset with the robot as you would a person, but you would not continue to love the robot. Or would you?

You cannot “discover” that. The parameters do not allow it. And that makes your question futile.

 

[anns82]

You cannot “discover” that. The parameters do not allow it. And that makes your question futile.

So you are saying that the truth of the situation is not relevant in the value. If truth was not relevant, then the value change would not occur. If you have no problem with being lied to as long as you are not aware of it, then enjoy your life with your love-bot. Ignorance is bliss - as long as you don’t unplug.

 

[R_Daneel]

lol! Here we go! So PAP is the problem, then, right? But what exactly does PAP mean? If an act of will is self-determined to one object (no matter how complex) it is not freely self-determined? Therefore only a vacillating will can be free…? Believe that if you want, but it’s a groundless and absurd position.

Is it, now? So resolve this question: “under the old communist regimes, there was ONE party to ‘choose from’. There was no option to ‘select’ another one. There was no option to say ‘NO’ to the one and only party presented as the only ‘option’.” Is this what you call a “free” choice? I don’t. The possibility to have at least two valid options, and the ability to carry either one out is essential to have a meaningful “free choice”.

As far as irrelevant ad hominem straw man red herrings go, not a bad response. Beyond that you kind of missed the boat.

I simply asserted your right to live your life as you wish to live. What is “ad hominem”, or “irrelevant” or a “red herring” about that?

ya think?! (Thanks for clarifying that for us.)

A general question can only be answered in a general fashion.

 

[R_Daneel]

So you are saying that the truth of the situation is not relevant in the value.

The “truth” is that you have access to the person’s behavior - nothing more. You may doubt it, if you want, but there is nothing to support your possible doubt.

If truth was not relevant, then the value change would not occur. If you have no problem with being lied to as long as you are not aware of it, then enjoy your life with your love-bot. Ignorance is bliss - as long as you don’t unplug.

Lied to? Where did this come from?

 

[Betterave]

Is it, now? So resolve this question: “under the old communist regimes, there was ONE party to ‘choose from’. There was no option to ‘select’ another one. There was no option to say ‘NO’ to the one and only party presented as the only ‘option’.” Is this what you call a “free” choice? I don’t. The possibility to have at least two valid options, and the ability to carry either one out is essential to have a meaningful “free choice”.

Is what what I call a free choice? A political system? No, a political system is not a free choice. (Do you know what a “category error” is?)

I simply asserted your right to live your life as you wish to live. What is “ad hominem”, or “irrelevant” or a “red herring” about that?

That’s simply what you did, is it? Are you always this dishonest?

A general question can only be answered in a general fashion.

…although there are degrees of generality. Your degree was so general that you didn’t answer the question at all. General questions still require specific answers.

 

[anns82]

Lied to? Where did this come from?

Your right, I mistyped to the situation, let me rephrase:

If truth was not relevant, then the value change would not occur. If you have no problem with misunderstanding reality as long as you are not aware of it, then enjoy your life with your love-bot. Ignorance is bliss - as long as you don’t unplug.

 

[Betterave]

Consider my screen name. If you don’t understand, read Asimov.

lol! and I thought I was white and nerdy! (If you don’t understand, listen to Weird Al.)

In the examples given the response would be different, since in those cases the rescuer is clearly not another human. It has no real understanding. But in the underlying problem you don’t have that knowledge. You only have access to the actions of the rescuer - nothing more. Don’t you see the distinction between an example and the actual question? How many times do I have to explain it?

So here’s your position:
We value being volitionally rescued.
If a robot that acts “volitionally” while lacking true volition rescues us we will value this the same as the volitional rescue, provided we don’t know that volition is missing.
Therefore we don’t value the volitionality of acts.

This is called a non sequitur.

Don’t make assumptions, buddy… you know what “assume” does to you?

“Wondering” and “assuming” are distinct notions.

 

[anns82]

Just be aware, I am the kind of person whom if I saw you walking in your happy ignorance, hand and hand with your robot whom you thought were a real person, I would be kind enough to tell you the truth that “Cindy” is a robot and does not really feel “agape” towards you.

Does that make me a good or a bad person? To value truth of the situation over your ignorant happiness? Or would that really not change anything for you?

 

[R_Daneel]

Are you always this dishonest?

Conversation closed. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[R_Daneel]

If truth was not relevant, then the value change would not occur. If you have no problem with misunderstanding reality as long as you are not aware of it, then enjoy your life with your love-bot. Ignorance is bliss - as long as you don’t unplug.

Ok. Just tell me how do you know that I misunderstood reality. Remember, the information at your disposal is your observation - nothing more. You have no access to the process in the “love-bot” in question.

 

[R_Daneel]

Just be aware, I am the kind of person whom if I saw you walking in your happy ignorance, hand and hand with your robot whom you thought were a real person, I would be kind enough to tell you the truth that “Cindy” is a robot and does not really feel “agape” towards you.

Does that make me a good or a bad person? To value truth of the situation over your ignorant happiness? Or would that really not change anything for you?

Without any intent to be rude, I recall the nice old prayer: “Oh Lord, please save me from the people, who want to save me from myself”. The question is still the same: “how do you know that Cindy’s agape (which is not emotion and not a feeling) is ‘not real’?”

 

[Thing]

To be precise: wild dolphins help drowning people. The drowning people exhibit the same struggling that freshly born baby-dolphins do, and they must be pushed to the air to survive. There is pure instinct working here, nothing more. A stimulus-action type of behavior. Yet, the people who are pushed up in the air are usually happy with the result, and rightfully so. Maybe they anthropomorphise the dolphins, but that is not relevant.

I fail to see the point. People do not thank the animal as if it were human. They are nervous of this wild animal but they thank God, if anything, for creating this animal and sending it to them. Your argument is that the act of a dolphin rescue is superior to the act of a human rescue because the dolphin does’nt have a choice. The human rescuer choses to ignore the real danger of drowning. He overcomes the simple stimulus response that guides the dolphins actions. This makes the human rescuers act superior as it goes beyond the bounds of instinct - simply to do good to another creature.

You said that you read what I mean by the word “robot”. The answer is obvious then: I would appreciate both as a sign of creativity. Which one is artistically superior? That depends.

Have you forgotten your own question to us? Which act is superior?

Not which is more creative, artistic etc., etc.

 

[R_Daneel]

People do not thank the animal as if it were human.

Of course not.

Your argument is that the act of a dolphin rescue is superior to the act of a human rescue because the dolphin does’nt have a choice.

No, this is not the exact argument. The dolphin is merely an example to show that there is no “objective need” for volition for an act to be beneficial (or good). The real argument is: "you are confronted by an act, performed by one of 2 people. Unbeknowst to you, one of them acts out of volition (A), the other one acts because he is compelled to do so (B). My argument is that the actions of these two people are identically good, there is no reason to appreciate one of them over the other.

However, if we would know which one is which, then we could make a different assessment. If we could know that “B” cannot act otherwise, while “A” could - then there are two different ways to “appreicate” their actions. One is that “B” is more reliable - since he has no choice. “B” still risks his existence, but has no choice in the matter. The other one is that “A” risks his life and that lends extra value to his act. (By the way, only an atheist would say that “A” truly risks his life. A theist would say that he merely risks his current existence - and hopes for some reward in the hereafter. ) I maintain that the first one is the proper method, since it gives more security. You consider the second one better - and I am still waiting for the “why?”. Nevertheless, the objective act of “helping” is still the same in both instances.

Have you forgotten your own question to us? Which act is superior?

Not which is more creative, artistic etc., etc.

Since the act of “painting a picture” is not a moral choice, neither creatures is compelled to do it. They both act out of volition. Their act is identical.

 

[Thing]

Of course not.

No, this is not the exact argument. The dolphin is merely an example to show that there is no “objective need” for volition for an act to be beneficial (or good). The real argument is: "you are confronted by an act, performed by one of 2 people. Unbeknowst to you, one of them acts out of volition (A), the other one acts because he is compelled to do so (B). My argument is that the actions of these two people are identically good, there is no reason to appreciate one of them over the other.

However, if we would know which one is which, then we could make a different assessment. If we could know that “B” cannot act otherwise, while “A” could - then there are two different ways to “appreicate” their actions. One is that “B” is more reliable - since he has no choice. “B” still risks his existence, but has no choice in the matter. The other one is that “A” risks his life and that lends extra value to his act. (By the way, only an atheist would say that “A” truly risks his life. A theist would say that he merely risks his current existence - and hopes for some reward in the hereafter. ) I maintain that the first one is the proper method, since it gives more security. You consider the second one better - and I am still waiting for the “why?”. Nevertheless, the objective act of “helping” is still the same in both instances.

Since the act of “painting a picture” is not a moral choice, neither creatures is compelled to do it. They both act out of volition. Their act is identical.

I’ll just remind you of your question again.

Which act is superior? Nothing more or less nor different. Simply; Which act is superior?

So you set up two objectively identical acts. and we are not allowed to judge the act. We can only judge the result of the act i.e. was the act successful or not.

Your argument is simply that the ‘robotic’ act will always be successful because it can finish the act successfully, and it can only ever finish the act successfully.

And that is, apparently, your definition of ‘superior’, a compleated act.

So your definition of superior act is actually very limited and narrow.

There are countless possibilities of completed erroneous acts, mistakes finished beautifully, unforeseen disasters following perfectly completed acts.

If you mean that two hands can each place a dollar bill each in a hat, and the point when the dollar bill hits the hat signals a superior act.

If one hand is robotic and one hand is human but both hands look completely human; the *moment *the dollar bill hits the hat, that signals a superior act.

I think you are a very strange person. If a superior act is reduced to a basic automated sequence, hand to hat, and nothing else.

I think I reject your definition of superior act. I will have to rename your basic sequence example [a supposed superior act] to ‘automated action’ and give it a value of nill superiority in all cases as there is nothing superior in an automaton completing an automated action.

 

[anns82]

Without any intent to be rude, I recall the nice old prayer: “Oh Lord, please save me from the people, who want to save me from myself”. The question is still the same: “how do you know that Cindy’s agape (which is not emotion and not a feeling) is ‘not real’?”

Luckily, God supports the authentic pursuit of truth.

My neighbor is the scientist who created Cindy. He owns a unicorn.

You don’t seem interested in any responses based in reality, so I no longer see the need for providing a real response to this thread.