Love and free will... eh?

[JDaniel]

If I were to be sick in the hospital and it turned out I was dying in a week, a robot nurse wouldn’t shed a tear. A human would feel pity and sadness for my condition. A robot nurse would be forced to follow the rules - if I was bedridden and wanted to see my dog one last time before I died, (at the hospital), but there was a rule, the robot would refuse no matter what. The human has a good chance of taking pity and letting me see. There are other examples I can give later if needed.

My dad was a professional heart surgeon up till 2006, and I aim to ask him later when he gets home which he would rather have care for his patients when they are still in the hospital and may still need surgery and careful watching.

I can’t wait for the answer. Thank you.

God bless,
jd

 

[Pieman333272]

I asked my dad. He told me as a surgeon, he would prefer a robot but ONLY IF they…

• Made less or no mistakes than a human nurse
• could appropriatly respond to VERY rare/unexpected happenings (i.e recieving a diseased heart, sudden drug side effects, immune system rejection, sudden “death”, etc.)
• Could understand complex human commands very well in a pinch (i.e. “Grab the knife” not "walk to the table…lower your arm… pick up the knife… etc.)
• Could contact the doctor or move the patient in a pinch.
• (Last and most important) Handled the objects with the utmost cleanliness, care, and stability (My dad said if it crushed or dropped a heart for a transplant of the just right type and size which comes up only once every few months, he would take the human any day, because his personal assistants and nurses NEVER did that).

 

[JDaniel]

I asked my dad. He told me as a surgeon, he would prefer a robot but ONLY IF they…

• Made less or no mistakes than a human nurse
• could appropriatly respond to VERY rare/unexpected happenings (i.e recieving a diseased heart, sudden drug side effects, immune system rejection, sudden “death”, etc.)
• Could understand complex human commands very well in a pinch (i.e. “Grab the knife” not "walk to the table…lower your arm… pick up the knife… etc.)
• Could contact the doctor or move the patient in a pinch.
• (Last and most important) Handled the objects with the utmost cleanliness, care, and stability (My dad said if it crushed or dropped a heart for a transplant of the just right type and size which comes up only once every few months, he would take the human any day, because his personal assistants and nurses NEVER did that).

Pieman:

That’s excellent. Years ago, I spent some time at the Miami Heart Institute. Your dad’s perceptions would be unanimous. Of course, RD did state that the robot was every bit as sound as any human, just without the emotion of love. My question would be, “Is it possible to perform to this degree of soundness without any real emotional care/love for your brother/patient?”

God bless,
jd

 

[rinnie]

The word “love” is used in many different ways. Eros, philia, storge and agape all meant some kind of “love” in ancient Greek. Unfortunately the contemporary English language does not differentiate between the possible meanings, and so the conversations quickly become confusing. And many times (always?) there is the explicit assertion that “free will” is oh, so very important, because without free will there cannot be “real love”. Is that true? I don’t think so.

Let’s talk about “agape”, divine love or selfless love.

This meaning does not presuppose emotion. What about “volition”? Does “volition” add anything to this kind of “love”? Suppose we talk about a hospital nurse, who devotes her life to helping the patients. And suppose that the human nurse is quietly substituted by a robotic one. Suppose that from the ourside there is no difference, the robot looks just like the human counterpart. Of course, there is a difference, the robot cannot get tired, cannot get irritated, her attention cannot wander, she never has “family” problems, or a “bad hair day”, she is always there the help - unlike a human nurse. If correctly programmed, she can never make a mistake. But she does not care about the patients, she merely cares for the patients.

Personally, I would choose a robotic nurse over a human, any day. The fact that the robot has no “free will”, she must follow her programming is not a hindrance, it is an asset.

What is your opinion?

Oh My, How could you even begin to compare a human to a machine to begin with? But I guess my opinion would be that you want to be with your kind. A human needs a human. You hear it all the time with old people. They always say they are so lonely. Now how could that be possible they have a TV, Computer, etc.

But the key word is what you said, A TV does not care, a computer does not care. But a Human does care, a human feels, a human loves, a human has compassion. Sometimes many people just need another HUMAN to just listen.

Just like a husband and wife. It is not that he looks at his wife, it is the way he looks at his wife that shows Love. It is not that a women touches her husband, it is the emotion and feel of the touch that moves him. It is not the act itself, it is the emotion of the act, the human touch revealed in the act that makes it what it is.

It is like having someone look at you really look at you and say I LOVE YOU. that makes the words important. How could anyone but a human do that!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I asked my dad. He told me as a surgeon, he would prefer a robot but ONLY IF they…

• Made less or no mistakes than a human nurse
• could appropriatly respond to VERY rare/unexpected happenings (i.e recieving a diseased heart, sudden drug side effects, immune system rejection, sudden “death”, etc.)
• Could understand complex human commands very well in a pinch (i.e. “Grab the knife” not "walk to the table…lower your arm… pick up the knife… etc.)
• Could contact the doctor or move the patient in a pinch.
• (Last and most important) Handled the objects with the utmost cleanliness, care, and stability (My dad said if it crushed or dropped a heart for a transplant of the just right type and size which comes up only once every few months, he would take the human any day, because his personal assistants and nurses NEVER did that).

This sounds like your father is only thinking of this robot nurse in a operating room, not in a patient care arena.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

I just sent a Hail Mary for you.

God bless,
jd

jd,
I thank you for your prayers but I find this reply very dismissive.

You do not comment on anything I have said.

If this is how you wish to carry on the discussion I will make it a point to move on then.

 

[Pieman333272]

Pieman:

That’s excellent. Years ago, I spent some time at the Miami Heart Institute. Your dad’s perceptions would be unanimous. Of course, RD did state that the robot was every bit as sound as any human, just without the emotion of love. My question would be, “Is it possible to perform to this degree of soundness without any real emotional care/love for your brother/patient?”

God bless,
jd

Thanks. Well, I guess the last one would have a higher probability of happening if someone cared about the patient, as does the second. If it didn’t care about the patient, it might not value the object or rush to fix the condition as much even IF it knew the rarity of the object or danger/rarity of the condition. My dad also wasn’t a heart surgeon, but a pediatric heart surgeon - he focused on children and babies.
So, at younger ages it may help to know someone in the hospital genuinely cares about you (my father said himself, though in answer to a different question a few weeks ago, that he rarely bonded with the kids, usually due to them not meeting him or perceiving the surgeon’s job as purely mechanical, but enjoyed the ones he did bond with). My dad never noticed a difference in healing speed or quality if he or a nurse bonded with the patient, but says bonding has happened and it did make the kids more positive when it did.
I am also curious as to whether being a literal android will possibly hinder the nurses’ skills in Defibrillation.

 

[Pieman333272]

This sounds like your father is only thinking of this robot nurse in a operating room, not in a patient care arena.

Almost all of them could be applied to either. #2, he said, was meant for care areas post-surgery as surgeons frequently take quick notice if something goes wrong in the operating room (keep in mind there may be a good many surgeons plus nurses for one operation). #4 could be applied to both but from my inexperienced (minus asking questions) view of the post-surgery process it seems more necessary as a skill in a post-surgery care environment.

 

[R_Daneel]

I would hate to be the patient that is the first one to have a situation that is used for the “self-programming and learning algorithms” to be used.

Very true. Just as we would hate to be on an airplane where the pilot did not go through many hundreds of simulator exercises. But that is not the point in this conversation, is it? How does the robot acquire the necessary skills is a technical question. The thought experiment deals with the concept that the robot is exactly as good as the best human nurse would be, and even better, because “it” never gets tired, its attention will never wander, it does not get distracted by personal problems, it can pay attention to more details, etc… Just think about “Big Blue”, which defeated the world chess champion. True, the computer did not “enjoy” the win, but sure could beat the best human player.

You are correct, you said “But she does not care about the patients, she merely cares for the patients.”

But I do not see those as two different things, they are one and the same. (again speaking from my first career of paramedic (if anyone is interested, religious life is my 4th “career”)

I can not see how one can care for someone that they do not care about.

Do you think that there is some logical contradiction there? I am arguing from the standpoint that it is impossible to differentiate between the “original” and the “simulated” if the simulation is good enough.

You also totally ignored the part where the nurse is the patients advocate to the rest of the caregiving team.

In my case, something that really needed to be done would not have been done without one of my nurses advocating for me with the rest of the caregiving team. I could go into specifics if necessary but I do not really think I need to.

What is so special about that part? I don’t know the details to make a meaningful answer.

 

[R_Daneel]

I sometimes hesitate to answer these types of questions, where a hypothetical situation is posed that has pretty much NO chance of ever happening.

I recall the “forecast” by Bill Gates, when he said: “640KB will always be enough”, and the CEO of IBM who said: “I can foresee that there might be a need for 4 or 5 mainframe computers in the whole world”, and innumerable other ones, where the “experts” made a prediction, and it only earned them some virtual eggs of their face.

 

[WHOWHIE]

Since all 3 of you pretty much said the same thing, a combined answer is sufficient. (While composing the post, I saw your answer, JD. I will respond to you separately.) You all missed the point: the robot (or android) cannot be told apart from a human nurse. You cannot take her apart, and examine the inner workings. She will exhibit all the human characteristics, the touch, the proper words, the shapely figure for you Moonstruck and may even engage in some not-so-professional activity (cough, cough), if she thinksthat it is in your best interest, if it helps you in your recovery process.

Hmmm, this is where you and rational thinking parted ways.

If** she thinks!!! The Robot does NOT THINK!**

 

[Moonstruck888]

I recall the “forecast” by Bill Gates, when he said: “640KB will always be enough”, and the CEO of IBM who said: “I can foresee that there might be a need for 4 or 5 mainframe computers in the whole world”, and innumerable other ones, where the “experts” made a prediction, and it only earned them some virtual eggs of their face.

To be fair, Bill Gates actually said that 640KB will always be enough for business applications and it probably would be. It’s just that people demand Gooeys rather than CLI’s in their computer systems these days. A lot of the overheads on a windows system are having a pretty looking front end.

They managed to navigate to the Moon and back using two 38K computers.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Since all 3 of you pretty much said the same thing, a combined answer is sufficient. (While composing the post, I saw your answer, JD. I will respond to you separately.) You all missed the point: the robot (or android) cannot be told apart from a human nurse. You cannot take her apart, and examine the inner workings. She will exhibit all the human characteristics, the touch, the proper words, the shapely figure for you Moonstruck and may even engage in some not-so-professional activity (cough, cough), if she thinks that it is in your best interest, if it helps you in your recovery process. There is only one thing missing, the volition. She cannot help, but be a great nurse.

Ha! I like her already…

Seriously though, if she is indistinguishable from a human, then why should it matter to me either way? Surely if they had the same characteristics they would both be equally desirable?

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, but, that’s NOT real love. It’s a cute, for-the-other-army-guys, display of feigned affection for a machine that just happens to be life-saving.

Well, I was not there to witness it first hand. But the stories depicted real affection on the soldiers’ part. They actually cried when the machine was beyond repair, and did a real funeral for it.

It’s a good thing you’re not god!

Hmmm, that would be another interesting conversation. I think that I would be a much better “god”, according my concept of “good” and “better”. No “forbidden tree”, no rules, just a simple Earthly paradise, with ample resources so no one would ever go hungry, no harmful microbes, so no one would ever go sick, always pleasant weather, so no one would ever be too cold or too hot. People would have all the time to engage in sex, arts, music, games, conversations and if they would be so inclined, they could investigate the beauties of nature. And most certainly no “revelation”, no contact whatsoever. But that should be explored in another thread. I just could not resist to make a very short summary.

 

[R_Daneel]

I asked my dad. He told me as a surgeon, he would prefer a robot but ONLY IF they…

• Made less or no mistakes than a human nurse
• could appropriatly respond to VERY rare/unexpected happenings (i.e recieving a diseased heart, sudden drug side effects, immune system rejection, sudden “death”, etc.)
• Could understand complex human commands very well in a pinch (i.e. “Grab the knife” not "walk to the table…lower your arm… pick up the knife… etc.)
• Could contact the doctor or move the patient in a pinch.
• (Last and most important) Handled the objects with the utmost cleanliness, care, and stability (My dad said if it crushed or dropped a heart for a transplant of the just right type and size which comes up only once every few months, he would take the human any day, because his personal assistants and nurses NEVER did that).

Very sensible. And those would be a “given”.

 

[R_Daneel]

But the key word is what you said, A TV does not care, a computer does not care. But a Human does care, a human feels, a human loves, a human has compassion. Sometimes many people just need another HUMAN to just listen.

I must repeat myself: “how do you differentiate between a ‘geniune’ and a ‘simulated’ response”? By the way, people in elderly care facilities do very well with animal companions, cats or dogs. Those are not human, and do not emulate human compassion, but they are extremely “useful” in keeping those old people happy. How much better would be a “human-like” companion, who could hold their hands, listen to the same story hundreds of times without ever becoming impatient…

 

[R_Daneel]

Ha! I like her already…

Seriously though, if she is indistinguishable from a human, then why should it matter to me either way? Surely if they had the same characteristics they would both be equally desirable?

Indeed. It was one of the options, which was not selected yet. It is the point of this exercise: “what does the ‘volitional’ part add to ‘agape’?”. So far no one could substantiate that there is some added advantage.

 

[R_Daneel]

Please, do not get lost or get sidetracked in the technical details. The thread uses the “nurse” only as an example to investigate one question only: “what does ‘volition’ add to ‘agape’?”. Please concentrate on that.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Please, do not get lost or get sidetracked in the technical details. The thread uses the “nurse” only as an example to investigate one question only: “what does ‘volition’ add to ‘agape’?”. Please concentrate on that.

If I knew what volition and agape meant in this context, I’d be happy to oblige…

 

[R_Daneel]

If I knew what volition and agape meant in this context, I’d be happy to oblige…

The usual wording is: “love is an act of will…” - I have seen it so many times, that I am about to puke when I see it. Love is here not eros, which is emotionally driven, it is “agape” or selfless love, acting on behalf of others. And I am interested in some arguments which would show that “preprogrammed acting on behalf of others” is somehow inferior to “volitional acting on behalf of others”. That is all.