Agape and its significance

[anns82]

What would prevent you from falling in love (emotionally) with Cindy? She sounds like a very nice person. Does she smell?

 

[anns82]

(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. )

A theist would recognize the intrinsic value of physical life. When you give up something of value for something else, it is a sacrifice.

The belief in an afterlife does not change the fact of the sacrifice.

 

[R_Daneel]

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

You changed the principles. That is not way the cookie crumbles.

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.

On the contrary, that is what I am most interested in. But if you lost interest, that is fine. Thanks for your contribution.

What would prevent you from falling in love (emotionally) with Cindy? She sounds like a very nice person. Does she smell?

Not a thing. But emotional love is not part of this discussion. As a matter of fact, good, old Asimov spent a lot of time in thinking about “robots”, humaniform and otherwise. He wrote some stories along those lines. Just imagine someone, who is a loner, ugly, smells, despised for his lack of personal hygene, but who is very smart and can build a humaniform “robot”, who will emulate not only agape, but eros, too. Yes, such a designer can easily fall in love with his creation… Pygmalion, anyone?

 

[R_Daneel]

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.

I kept asking your variant, and to support it. You told me what your assessment is, but failed to give reason why it is “better”.

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

Yes, so what? the “proof of the pudding is still that it is edible”. If it merely looks beautiful but tastes awful, it still fails, because it is not edible.

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.

You are welcome to offer something “better”, and give reasons why it is “better”.

Here is another example. Suppose you meet someone, whom you never met before. This person exhibits the signs of great distress, pain and suffering. How do you treat this person? Now, later on, you discover that this person is the greatest actor of the world. Someone who can emulate any feeling, and can do it so perfectly, that no one can distinguish the “playacting” from the real “McCoy”. Yet, you see him in distress. What will be your response? Will you help him? Or stand to the side, just because he “might” have been fooling you? Someone else’s pain cannot be touched, examined. All you have is the appearance of the pain. That is your only information. What will you do?

 

[R_Daneel]

A theist would recognize the intrinsic value of physical life. When you give up something of value for something else, it is a sacrifice.

And, pray tell, what that “intrinsic value” would be?

The belief in an afterlife does not change the fact of the sacrifice.

Ah, but it is the “motivation”, and you have been arguing so far, that the motivation is of extreme importance. So, maybe the “motivation” is no longer important?

 

[Betterave]

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

So yes, then; you *are *always that dishonest? And you don’t even have the honesty to admit the fact that you’ve obviously said something dishonest? That’s unfortunate. Good luck to your other interlocutors.

 

[Thing]

I kept asking your variant, and to support it. You told me what your assessment is, but failed to give reason why it is “better”.

Yes, so what? the “proof of the pudding is still that it is edible”. If it merely looks beautiful but tastes awful, it still fails, because it is not edible.

You are welcome to offer something “better”, and give reasons why it is “better”.

Here is another example. Suppose you meet someone, whom you never met before. This person exhibits the signs of great distress, pain and suffering. How do you treat this person? Now, later on, you discover that this person is the greatest actor of the world. Someone who can emulate any feeling, and can do it so perfectly, that no one can distinguish the “playacting” from the real “McCoy”. Yet, you see him in distress. What will be your response? Will you help him? Or stand to the side, just because he “might” have been fooling you? Someone else’s pain cannot be touched, examined. All you have is the appearance of the pain. That is your only information. What will you do?

If I was a robot I would assist the person. If I was a person I would assist the person.

But *your *question, I am reminding you, was - which act of assistance is superior?

And I am not allowed, by your rules, to consider anything except the disembodied act of assistance. You say the robots assistance is superior? Because it completes the task? But the human completes the task also. What extra does this humans assistance lend to the acts value. It exercises the virtues of love, mercy, etc., etc., which I am not allowed to mention. Those things which make free human choices superior to animal instinct.

 

[anns82]

And, pray tell, what that “intrinsic value” would be?

God holds human life with value, and thus we are called to respond in the same way.

Ah, but it is the “motivation”, and you have been arguing so far, that the motivation is of extreme importance. So, maybe the “motivation” is no longer important?

Motivation is still important. If the person says “I’m going to save that life so I will go to heaven” it is missing the true motivation of the action. If the person says “I’m going to save that life because it is valuable” then it really is about the value of the other rather than self interest.

You can choose to see things how you want, but that does not change the truth of the situation. A person can see a wife serving her husband when he comes home from work as the man enslaving the woman, or the woman having a low self-esteem. But neither would be correct if the woman was serving her husband out of love.

But I guess in the end, the husband has his slippers, so it doesn’t matter what motivated the wife.

 

[anns82]

Not a thing. But emotional love is not part of this discussion. As a matter of fact, good, old Asimov spent a lot of time in thinking about “robots”, humaniform and otherwise. He wrote some stories along those lines. Just imagine someone, who is a loner, ugly, smells, despised for his lack of personal hygene, but who is very smart and can build a humaniform “robot”, who will emulate not only agape, but eros, too. Yes, such a designer can easily fall in love with his creation… Pygmalion, anyone?

So if the designer were to create the eros robot, we can call her Sally, and you were to fall in love with her, there would still be no problem as long as you are happy and in love?

Love is considered a “good thing”, would you say that it is good regardless of to where it is projected?

 

[R_Daneel]

If I was a robot I would assist the person. If I was a person I would assist the person.

I am sure you honestly believe that. But did you really think it through? Suppose the person to be helped is someone you genuinely despise for some very serious reason (which is a valid reason for you). The robot would help him, nevertheless. But would you do it, really? I can say that I would not. (I always found the idea of “love thy enemies” ludicrous. Jesus did not have access to game theory, because if he did, he would have realized that loving (=helping) your enemies is a bad strategy in every respect. It leads to a non-optimal solution.)

But *your *question, I am reminding you, was - which act of assistance is superior?

Would you tell me, where did I use first the word “superior”? I need to revisit that post, because I cannot remember it.

And I am not allowed, by your rules, to consider anything except the disembodied act of assistance.

What else is there, that you can know? You don’t have access to the internal works of the being in question. Look at the example I gave you, about the greatest actor. You see what he does - and nothing more. You must base your action on the available information.

You say the robots assistance is superior? Because it completes the task?

Because it certainly completes the task.

But the human completes the task also.

If he does, there is no difference. There is a non-zero chance, that the human will hesitate, and “back out” - for whatever reason. At the very least, the fact that the “robot” cannot hesitate is an objective “plus” in his favor.

What extra does this humans assistance lend to the acts value. It exercises the virtues of love, mercy, etc., etc., which I am not allowed to mention. Those things which make free human choices superior to animal instinct.

Of course you can mention anything. However, virtue, like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I understand that you hold this “virtue” in high esteem. But that does not make it objectively “better”. Subjectively it sure does - in your eyes (and countless others).

 

[R_Daneel]

God holds human life with value, and thus we are called to respond in the same way.

I understand that this is your belief. But it has no convincing value for someone who does not believe in God.

You can choose to see things how you want, but that does not change the truth of the situation. A person can see a wife serving her husband when he comes home from work as the man enslaving the woman, or the woman having a low self-esteem. But neither would be correct if the woman was serving her husband out of love.

But I guess in the end, the husband has his slippers, so it doesn’t matter what motivated the wife.

And the husband will see it as a sign of love. If the wife actually does not care for him (but does this out of her sense of duty), he would have no “clue”. He can only go by the signs, and when the signs are overwhelming, he will have to reach the conclusion. Whether the wife “really” loves him, or just “pretends” - it boils down to the same thing. The internal thought process cannot be seen, experienced from the outside - it can only be surmised based upon the available evidence. This is the point.

So if the designer were to create the eros robot, we can call her Sally, and you were to fall in love with her, there would still be no problem as long as you are happy and in love?

No, there would be no problem. Why would there be? What is the difference between the perfect emulation and the original?

Love is considered a “good thing”, would you say that it is good regardless of to where it is projected?

Sure. There are some strange people who have a shoe-fetish. If it does not hurt anyone, and makes them happy, why should anyone care? But let’s drop this whole eros-thing. We are talking about “agape”, which has no emotional overtones.

 

[anns82]

I understand that this is your belief. But it has no convincing value for someone who does not believe in God.

You have yet to convince me that you have any value to respect human life, which is what lead to the person with a mental disability/heart “donor” question. Do you kill him to preserve your own life (he doesn’t have an understanding of life beyond an animal anyway)? From your perspective, your existence would be over without the heart. You see no reason to love your neighbor unconditionally. Hey, you might discover the cure cancer someday or some other heroic thing and thus save millions from pain, this person will not do anything beyond play with a string. The person would not experience any pain. You can guarantee this person has a peaceful death, no chance in experiencing the pain of being brutally abused by a stranger or neglected by a caretaker. What do you do?

And the husband will see it as a sign of love. If the wife actually does not care for him (but does this out of her sense of duty), he would have no “clue”. He can only go by the signs, and when the signs are overwhelming, he will have to reach the conclusion. Whether the wife “really” loves him, or just “pretends” - it boils down to the same thing. The internal thought process cannot be seen, experienced from the outside - it can only be surmised based upon the available evidence. This is the point.

And the point is that perception is obviously limited and can very easily be wrong. Actions are infused with meaning (which you do not like to admit) and looking for a true understanding of the meaning rather than just assuming you can understand something based on perception is what gets to the truth of the situation. If the husband were to ask the wife why she treats him so well when he gets home, and she says “because I love you” then he knows the meaning rather than just relying on perception. If she says that but does not love him, then she is lying to him, which, unless you think dishonesty is okay, makes it wrong.
Likewise, if a robot is taking care of someone, and the person wants to know why they are being so selfless, and the robot says “It is out of agape,” rather than “because I was programed,” that would be a misrepresentation of the truth of the situation. I’m not saying that the robot would be lying because it can only respond to programing, but that does not change the fact that the actions were not a result of agape and thus, it would be misleading. The programmer would be guilty of dishonesty through the robot unless it acted out of a glitch. In which case it is the result of chance. But that does not change the fact that the robot gave the wrong response.

No, there would be no problem. Why would there be? What is the difference between the perfect emulation and the original?

Wow, you’re right! And it might actually be better to fall in love with a robot because if it is programed to love you back, it will always love you, unlike people who require actual relationships, thus while you risk not being loved with people, you don’t have to worry about it with a robot! And robots don’t age, so you wont have to worry about this endless source of love getting out of shape and wrinkly, or if it does happen, you can just go to the store an pick up some new parts! Brilliant!!

Sure. There are some strange people who have a shoe-fetish. If it does not hurt anyone, and makes them happy, why should anyone care?

Because love in any form (agape or eros) is superior in reality to any distorted version. If love does not require a real relationship, then there is no reason why we can’t just take drugs to fool the brain into thinking it’s experiencing love. Life is not about the end product.

But let’s drop this whole eros-thing. We are talking about “agape”, which has no emotional overtones.

Why? because “emotion” is less rational? Do you have a problem recognizing the truth that life is not 100% rational?

 

[R_Daneel]

You have yet to convince me that you have any value to respect human life, which is what lead to the person with a mental disability/heart “donor” question. Do you kill him to preserve your own life (he doesn’t have an understanding of life beyond an animal anyway)? From your perspective, your existence would be over without the heart. You see no reason to love your neighbor unconditionally. Hey, you might discover the cure cancer someday or some other heroic thing and thus save millions from pain, this person will not do anything beyond play with a string. The person would not experience any pain. You can guarantee this person has a peaceful death, no chance in experiencing the pain of being brutally abused by a stranger or neglected by a caretaker. What do you do?

The value we place on human life is not part of this discussion.

And the point is that perception is obviously limited and can very easily be wrong. Actions are infused with meaning (which you do not like to admit) and looking for a true understanding of the meaning rather than just assuming you can understand something based on perception is what gets to the truth of the situation. If the husband were to ask the wife why she treats him so well when he gets home, and she says “because I love you” then he knows the meaning rather than just relying on perception. If she says that but does not love him, then she is lying to him, which, unless you think dishonesty is okay, makes it wrong.
Likewise, if a robot is taking care of someone, and the person wants to know why they are being so selfless, and the robot says “It is out of agape,” rather than “because I was programed,” that would be a misrepresentation of the truth of the situation. I’m not saying that the robot would be lying because it can only respond to programing, but that does not change the fact that the actions were not a result of agape and thus, it would be misleading. The programmer would be guilty of dishonesty through the robot unless it acted out of a glitch. In which case it is the result of chance. But that does not change the fact that the robot gave the wrong response.

Our perception could be wrong. So what? It does not follow that it is always wrong. And if all the signs point to a certain conclusion, it is nonsensical to ponder if it is “really” so?

Wow, you’re right! And it might actually be better to fall in love with a robot because if it is programed to love you back, it will always love you, unlike people who require actual relationships, thus while you risk not being loved with people, you don’t have to worry about it with a robot! And robots don’t age, so you wont have to worry about this endless source of love getting out of shape and wrinkly, or if it does happen, you can just go to the store an pick up some new parts! Brilliant!!

You keep forgetting (?) the premises. The “robot” is not distinguishable from a human being. She is totally human in her emotions. To emotionally love someone is not a moral dilemma, so there are no constraints on her behavior. She is NOT programmed to emotionally love you back.

Because love in any form (agape or eros) is superior in reality to any distorted version. If love does not require a real relationship, then there is no reason why we can’t just take drugs to fool the brain into thinking it’s experiencing love. Life is not about the end product.

There is no “distortion”. It is a WYSIWYG setup (what you see is what you get)

Why? because “emotion” is less rational? Do you have a problem recognizing the truth that life is not 100% rational?

Because it belongs to different thread. This thread is about one problem only. Let’s stick to it.

 

[anns82]

Because it belongs to different thread. This thread is about one problem only. Let’s stick to it.

Which is why the bubble of your hypothetical situation is so detached from reality that you can not risk applying the results of your conclusions to the real world. Philosophy is supposed to help us more clearly understand the world and ourselves. Your situation does neither.

 

[anns82]

The value we place on human life is not part of this discussion.

Defining the word “value” in a “why is volition important / why do we find value in free will” is part of your original question in regards to agape. You will never be satisfied with anyone’s response who holds value as being determined by God, so tell us by what terms you define value and may be we can get somewhere. If you do find value in human life, then figuring out what warrants the value is important. If you do not, and you would kill the mentally ill person to save your own life, then that also helps clarify my understanding of where you are coming from in your thought process. I have told you why I value human life. All you have done is say you do not believe my reason to be true. So why do you find value in human life? If you do, that is.

 

[R_Daneel]

Defining the word “value” in a “why is volition important / why do we find value in free will” is part of your original question in regards to agape.

Value is something that someone finds important. But there is no “generic value”. Value is only definable in a set of circumstances. The “value” depends on what we want to achieve, and how we can achieve it. I see no value in “free will” when it comes to so-called moral problems. If you can define a “secular” value, (and some supporting argument) I am interested. God-related “values” are not acceptable for me.

You will never be satisfied with anyone’s response who holds value as being determined by God, …

Obviously.

… so tell us by what terms you define value and may be we can get somewhere.

I already said that I don’t accept “generic” and/or “intrinsic” value.

If you do find value in human life, then figuring out what warrants the value is important.

I don’t find “intrinsic” value in anything. Human life has its own “value” for everyone who put value onto it. This value is probably different from person to person… but most people put value on well-being, on happiness, on a good, balanced existence, on health, etc… etc… There are as many “value-systems” as there are humans. There are many “overlaps”, of course.

If you do not, and you would kill the mentally ill person to save your own life, then that also helps clarify my understanding of where you are coming from in your thought process.

This hypothetical question has nothing to do with the dilemma of this thread.

I have told you why I value human life.

Yes, you did. You said that God “values” human life, and he commands us to do so, too. Naturally, this is meanigless to me.

Note: I am going to have a vacation for a few days. See you when I will be back.

 

[anns82]

Value is only definable in a set of circumstances. The “value” depends on what we want to achieve, and how we can achieve it. I see no value in “free will” when it comes to so-called moral problems.

Isn’t that interesting, you see no value in “free will” with moral problems, and yet free will is what gives humans the unique ability to overpower nature and nurture in order for moral problems to actually exist. Hmmm…, you could even get rid of the whole pesky question of morality if you simply deny the existence of free will. How convenient.

If you can define a “secular” value, (and some supporting argument) I am interested. God-related “values” are not acceptable for me.
I don’t find “intrinsic” value in anything. Human life has its own “value” for everyone who put value onto it. This value is probably different from person to person… but most people put value on well-being, on happiness, on a good, balanced existence, on health, etc… etc… There are as many “value-systems” as there are humans. There are many “overlaps”, of course.

But there is no right or wrong in a person’s sense of value? That can get pretty dicey considering there are quite a lot of murderers and rapists out there. But hey, values differ from person to person. If a person is suicidal, and does not see the value in his life then is he correct in his thinking? Who are we to say the drug addict valuing meth over everything else in life is wrong? But no, there are no right or wrong answers, “we all just have different perspectives.” Wait, did I get too real again? I’m sorry, I forgot we were talking about robots.

This hypothetical question has nothing to do with the dilemma of this thread.

The hypothetical situation reveals the fact that you do not want to stand behind the claims you have made. You say there is no inherent value to anything (including human life), so if a person is more valuable to you dead than alive, and it makes no intellectual difference to the person anyway due to the limitations of his understanding, then why do you not save your own, very valuable life? Please, correct me if I’m wrong with your actual reasoning (with a *real *supporting argument for your values, not just rambling on about other people’s values).

Note: I am going to have a vacation for a few days. See you when I will be back.

enjoy : )

 

[Thing]

I am sure you honestly believe that. But did you really think it through? Suppose the person to be helped is someone you genuinely despise for some very serious reason (which is a valid reason for you). The robot would help him, nevertheless. But would you do it, really? I can say that I would not. (I always found the idea of “love thy enemies” ludicrous. Jesus did not have access to game theory, because if he did, he would have realized that loving (=helping) your enemies is a bad strategy in every respect. It leads to a non-optimal solution.)

For your homework read Quo Vadis, if I remember there are two characters in it, one of whom is the enemy and tormentor of the other. This enemy is rescued from drowning and finally refuses help on his deathbed and experiences hell fire closing around him as he dies. I think I’ve got the right book in mind here.
The next case I recall is a true event during the Spanish civil war in the 1930’s when a Catholic priest heard the confession of a dying man and gave him absolution. The man told him he had killed the priests parents.
These are the Catholic examples Catholics want to follow. Christ is correct, you are incorrect. In your gaming strategy the priest kills the man or acts out his revenge and those subject to his wrath in turn take out their wrath on him and those connected to him. Thus evil is perpetuated and propagated in your philosophy. In Christs thought evil must be defeated and this is done by forgiveness as an evil act done is returned with kindness and so the evil dies when it encounters that person and does not propagate further by their actions.

Would you tell me, where did I use first the word “superior”? I need to revisit that post, because I cannot remember it.

You used it to argue the robots cause a few pages back.

What else is there, that you can know? You don’t have access to the internal works of the being in question. Look at the example I gave you, about the greatest actor. You see what he does - and nothing more. You must base your action on the available information.

Thats what I mean, you must try to limit your point but if philosophy is to be in any way useful it must be true to life. And in every case you will choose to have free willed human children as your family not automatons programmed by you. Automatons are not superior in your holistic estimation.

Because it certainly completes the task.

As does a conscientious Christian. They will even go the extra mile the robot is not programmed to go.

If he does, there is no difference. There is a non-zero chance, that the human will hesitate, and “back out” - for whatever reason. At the very least, the fact that the “robot” cannot hesitate is an objective “plus” in his favor.

If circumstances change the robot is still locked into its task and cannot see a better way of completing its mission. The free volitional human can.

Of course you can mention anything. However, virtue, like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I understand that you hold this “virtue” in high esteem. But that does not make it objectively “better”. Subjectively it sure does - in your eyes (and countless others).

As you say I mentioned them and they have been rejected. These things are real, no doubt you spend your life working to posess beauty, truth, love, mercy, etc., etc. These are the motives for human life.

 

[anns82]

A welcome back from vacation thought:

The idea that you seem to want us to accept is that the “why” does not matter, as long as some “good” occurs. There is no difference between a person who is helped by the free will of another person or by the programing of a robot. There is no difference between a Van Gogh and a copy of the original, as long as it looks nice in your living room.

Yet, if we should stop asking “why” simply because we might not be able to be 100% certain of getting the correct answer, then you might as well tell people to stop pursuing science, archeology, history, psychology, ect. All that matters is what we get on face value. It is only about treating the symptoms of this situation, not the reason for the fever itself.

Finding out the “why” is how we learn to encourage or discourage bad results, such as eugenics and genocide - very real situations which is a possibility for every generation. The “it can’t happen here” dismissal is a blind belief held by many naive thinkers - and then all of a sudden, people wake up to the realization that we are once again sacrificing our children for the gods of material comforts and discriminating for the sake of diversity. By restricting your hypothetical situation to just the supposed “good” results, you do not consider the full aspect of your philosophy.

 

[Slowlearner]

A welcome back from vacation thought:

The idea that you seem to want us to accept is that the “why” does not matter, as long as some “good” occurs. There is no difference between a person who is helped by the free will of another person or by the programing of a robot. There is no difference between a Van Gogh and a copy of the original, as long as it looks nice in your living room.

Yet, if we should stop asking “why” simply because we might not be able to be 100% certain of getting the correct answer, then you might as well tell people to stop pursuing science, archeology, history, psychology, ect. All that matters is what we get on face value. It is only about treating the symptoms of this situation, not the reason for the fever itself.

Finding out the “why” is how we learn to encourage or discourage bad results, such as eugenics and genocide - very real situations which is a possibility for every generation. The “it can’t happen here” dismissal is a blind belief held by many naive thinkers - and then all of a sudden, people wake up to the realization that we are once again sacrificing our children for the gods of material comforts and discriminating for the sake of diversity. By restricting your hypothetical situation to just the supposed “good” results, you do not consider the full aspect of your philosophy.

From what he has posted, I don’t think r daneel has a cogent definition of “good.”