Love and free will... eh?

[R_Daneel]

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?

 

[Alexander_Smith]

A robot cannot lend a sympathetic ear, or truly comfort you. You cannot thank a robot, or appreciate it the way you can appreciate a human. A robot has no intuition, or “gut feeling”, a robot has no soul, no connection to the patient.

It is the love of a parent, the honest self-giving love that nurtures children, and helps them to become healthy adults. A robot could teach your kids, but it couldn’t love them. Love is what makes parents discipline their children. Parents that let their children do whatever they want, do not truly love their children.

It is true love that makes for happy marriages. A love that says “I want you to be happy.” Unhappy marriages are the result of selfishness, and false love. A love that says “I want you, because I want to be happy.”

Love prompts us to self-sacrifice. Love goes against our basic instincts or self preservation sometimes. It can prompt us to lose everything we have for the life of someone else.

True love requires free will. Without free will, the “love” would merely be actions that would normally accompany love. With free will, we can choose to be self-serving, or self-sacrificing. It is when we choose to put the needs of others before our own, even to the point of our own death, that we truly love.

 

[Alindawyl]

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

You are correct when you say that selfless love does not presuppose emotion. Agape is an act of the will, a choice we make, to place the interests and well being of another ahead of our own. We can do that whether or not we feel happy about it. My wife and I fight at times and get mad at each other. But we never stop loving each other no matter how bad the fight gets, no matter how angry we are. Each of us has decided to place the interests of the other ahead of our own so we always “kiss and make up”, even if it sometimes means doing something we don’t personally want to do but that the other does want to do.

A robot programmed to provide care will always go through the motions exactly as programmed. I wouldn’t mind having that robot doing dangerous surgery where my life is at stake. Doctors can and should use the best tools at their disposal. But I would still want that robot supervised by a person with intellect and reason, to make sure the rote programming of the robot is correct. And I would want a person providing care before and after the surgery. That human contact, that personal touch, really does facilitate a patient’s recovery. It makes a difference to have someone care for you who has made their life work the health and well being of others, who is on call 24/7, who will give their time to those who need care ahead of their own activities.

Caring for the sick is more than just going through the motions. What sick child would want to be taken care of by a machine instead of their parent? They want to be cared for properly, but they also want to hear “mommy will kiss it and make it better”. They don’t want it to come from something programmed to say it. They want it to come from someone who actually means it.

 

[Moonstruck888]

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?

Give me a statuesque woman nurse in a well fitted starched uniform over a robotic nurse any day. At least that way you get some pleasure while in hospital.

There’s no way I would ever want my care entrusted to a machine.

 

[JDaniel]

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 our side 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?

RD:

I haven’t made up my mind, on your survey yet. I actually lean toward the robot. But, that said, love is nothing like it is depicted in the cinema. Love is more like the exceptional affinity Padre Pio openly, and privately, displayed for his Lord and Savior. None of us do that these days. We, no doubt, have affinity for others, such as our spouses, but, at a much lower level. Often, it improves with age.

Love = Charity and Charity = Love, for the Catholic. Have you ever seen young boys torture a grasshopper by pinning it to a clothes line and taking a match, or cigarette lighter to its antennae, or legs? That’s what lesser beings do to their fellow creatures. God has the absolute All-powerfulness to do with each of us as He pleases. Imagine if He didn’t Love us. He could keep us alive forever and torture us forever for some sick pleasure derived from it.

How can a Supreme Being Love robots? (Unless he’s somewhat sicko!) On the same hand, why would a Supreme Being not want and expect us, as puny little grasshoppers, to Love Him back, and not by pre-determination necessarily? Padre Pio lived an incredible life of hard love. He lived how he wanted to live. He had Free Will. At any time he could have thrown in the towel. I have the highest regard for character-filled people. He was truly character-filled.

The vast majority of us will never reach those heights of Love for God. But, if we choose to love Him, we may approach the affinity accepted by the good Padre.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

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.

Alindawyl:

Caring for the sick is more than just going through the motions.

No, it is not. Going through all the motions is exactly what care is. The nurse does not have to have the human feelings, it is enough if she exhibits the outer signs of those feelings.
Alexander Smith:

Love prompts us to self-sacrifice. Love goes against our basic instincts or self preservation sometimes. It can prompt us to lose everything we have for the life of someone else.

Maybe you are not familiar with a few gadgets developed by the military, some crude robots, “who” will seek out mines and blow them up, while “risking” their existence and usually losing some limbs in the process. (Observe the quotation marks, please). The soldiers value these companions very highly. They give them names, and mourn when they “sacrifice” their “lives” for the human soldiers. This is not science fiction, this is reality. So I am very sure, that the “robotic” nature of these companions is totally irrelevant for the soldiers. Think about that. And also, the soldiers are much more able to get over their grief for the robot than they can get over the loss of a human companion. So in this respect it is much more preferable to have robots, in this specific scenario.
Alexander Smith:

A robot could teach your kids, but it couldn’t love them.

Not emotionally. But you started to mix in emotion into the conversation, which is specifically excluded. Nevertheless, the robots can display all the necessary signs of emotional attachments.
Alexander Smith:

True love requires free will. Without free will, the “love” would merely be actions that would normally accompany love.

Yes! And here comes the question: “what is the difference”? Why do you care if you cannot tell the “true” feeling from the “simulated” one? Don’t you experience emotions when an exceptionally good human actor “simulates” those feelings, which she does not feel inside during a performance?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Didn’t it ever occur to anyone that we too are robots, created for a specific purpose? My, oh my, when will the day of salvation come? Our souls long to cleave to God (true salvation), but instead, they are stuck inside these material bodies!

 

[R_Daneel]

God has the absolute All-powerfulness to do with each of us as He pleases. Imagine if He didn’t Love us. He could keep us alive forever and torture us forever for some sick pleasure derived from it.

You just described Hell.

How can a Supreme Being Love robots? (Unless he’s somewhat sicko!)

I don’t thinks that is a sicko-type emotion. Look that the soldiers I mentioned in the post above.

On the same hand, why would a Supreme Being not want and expect us, as puny little grasshoppers, to Love Him back, and not by pre-determination necessarily?

Now you said something very important, and the English language makes this conversation tricky. The “love”, which God has for us (and I see absolutely no sign of that) is completely different from the “love” we are supposed to feel toward God! To call both of them “love” is very confusing and misleading.

Obviously we cannot have an “agape” for God. We have nothing to sacrifice for God, which would be “useful” of “helpful” for God. After all God is self-sufficient. Nothing we can do will be “beneficial” for God. So what we are supposed to do is become “humble”, to express our “gratitude”, to worship, and stuff like that. All those are emotionally driven. One can make an argument that emotions must be “real” in order to be significant. But I am specifically talking about (or trying to!) the agape-type love. And I still don’t see any reason why that type of love will be “better” if it comes from volition.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Maybe you are not familiar with a few gadgets developed by the military, some crude robots, “who” will seek out mines and blow them up, while “risking” their existence and usually losing some limbs in the process. (Observe the quotation marks, please). The soldiers value these companions very highly. They give them names, and mourn when they “sacrifice” their “lives” for the human soldiers.

One might question emotional attachment to such machines though. Regardless, the robots didn’t lose anything, and didn’t make any sacrifice. They were machines, unaware of their existence, unaware of the consequences of their actions. They performed a function, and got destroyed. A human feels the fear and adrenaline in situations where they may have to sacrifice themselves for the good of others. They overcome this to do what they must. A robot feels no such thing.

Also, you dodged my points the nurse. Robots cannot comfort you. If a robot says “It’s going to be alright” in a metallic voice, there ain’t much force in it. It’s a prerecorded voice with no emotion, love, or anything else behind it. When a human says such a thing, with the earnest intention of comforting you, most people can tell, and it does comfort them.

 

[The_Exodus]

Ignorance is bliss; or is it?

Really tough question.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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?

In my last career before religious life I was an IT professional. Programming was a part of my job.

A robotic nurse would have to follow its programming and that is a hindrance as if soemthing has not been anticipated by the programmer there will be no programming for it. Also a nurse is to be the patients advocate to the rest of the care team as they deal with the patient on a more daily basis.

As I am undergoing treatment for cancer I would never chose an uncaring creation of a person.

You said;

But she does not care about the patients

So there is no love at all.

I have had caregivers and worked with caregivers (another one of my past careers was that of paramedic) and those are the worst people to be in those positions.

 

[R_Daneel]

One might question emotional attachment to such machines though. Regardless, the robots didn’t lose anything, and didn’t make any sacrifice. They were machines, unaware of their existence, unaware of the consequences of their actions. They performed a function, and got destroyed. A human feels the fear and adrenaline in situations where they may have to sacrifice themselves for the good of others. They overcome this to do what they must. A robot feels no such thing.

Sure thing. But you need to look at the human soldiers’ response to those machines. Yes, they were aware that the “companion” is just a machine, and yet they responded as if it were a valuable “mate” to them. I brought this up not just an interesting tidbit, but specifically to the assertion that humans will react in a specific way to the machine companions. The real experiment shows and proves that the “material” is not important. That is what the story teaches us.

Also, you dodged my points the nurse. Robots cannot comfort you. If a robot says “It’s going to be alright” in a metallic voice, there ain’t much force in it. It’s a prerecorded voice with no emotion, love, or anything else behind it. When a human says such a thing, with the earnest intention of comforting you, most people can tell, and it does comfort them.

Actually I did not. However you did miss (sorry to tell you) that the robots cannot be told apart from the human nurse. They do not have a “prerecorded, metallic” voice, they have an emotion-filled, compassionate voice, full of conviction (which they do not feel). This is the crux of the thought experiment. You don’t know if that nurse next to your bed is a human or a machine. Their behavior is indentical. The only difference is that the robot nurse emulates the feelings “he/she/it” does not feel.

 

[R_Daneel]

Ignorance is bliss; or is it?

Indeed it is.

Really tough question.

It is supposed to be tough.

 

[R_Daneel]

In my last career before religious life I was an IT professional. Programming was a part of my job.

Well, so was I, though retired now. The current level of IT is far from implementing such an incredibly complex task. But we are dealing here with a thought experiment.

A robotic nurse would have to follow its programming and that is a hindrance as if soemthing has not been anticipated by the programmer there will be no programming for it. Also a nurse is to be the patients advocate to the rest of the care team as they deal with the patient on a more daily basis.

Sure, but self-programming and learning algorithms are not science fiction any more.

As I am undergoing treatment for cancer I would never chose an uncaring creation of a person.

Wishing you speedy recovery.

So there is no love at all.

You forget the second part of what I said: “they care for the patient”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, so was I, though retired now. The current level of IT is far from implementing such an incredibly complex task. But we are dealing here with a thought experiment.

And I chose to use my experiences and learning in this throught experiment.

Sure, but self-programming and learning algorithms are not science fiction any more.

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.

Wishing you speedy recovery.

Thank you.

You forget the second part of what I said: “they care for the patient”.

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.

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.

 

[Pieman333272]

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.

 

[Magdalena09]

Yes! And here comes the question: “what is the difference”? Why do you care if you cannot tell the “true” feeling from the “simulated” one? Don’t you experience emotions when an exceptionally good human actor “simulates” those feelings, which she does not feel inside during a performance?

I sometimes hesitate to answer these types of questions, where a hypothetical situation is posed that has pretty much NO chance of ever happening. As a Catholic I definitely believe the situation you pose begins with a false premise–because there could never be robots that are completely indistinguishable from humans. Ever! We know humans are set apart from the rest of creation. It simply wouldn’t be possible–even with artificial intelligence. Humans have something that robots can never have. As someone already pointed out, a created computer intelligence can never be flawless, because it operates on its pre-installed programming. Even with self-learning, there would be no guarantee that there would not be flaws and kinks even just within the self-learning element. And there is a reason for that–the human person has a certain type of reason, understanding, compassion, intuition, that has never been (and never could be) duplicated. We have that as a direct result of God creating us that way. We, as humans, could never “create” or even duplicate that, seeing as how we are not God. We may have times where we think we duplicate it (as in cloning, etc) but there have always been and will always be problems, both actual (performance wise) and ethical.

Some people are more perceptive than others, but most of us can tell when someone is “fake” or when they aren’t 100% comitted to a conversation–even if there are no “signs”. Often times we describe this perceptivity as “I just had a feeling…” because there are not outward signs that something is different or wrong, and yet we somehow “sense” it. And usually, we’re right. Like I said before, I do not believe this intuition we have could ever be duplicated.

There is a movie, although I can’t remember for sure what movie it is, where the actor (Will Smith) is describing a time when he was involved in an accident. He was pinned in a car, under water, and there was another car with a man who died on impact, but whose 12 year old daughter was still alive. A robot jumped in and for some reason couldn’t save everyone, so it picked Will Smith’s character because he had a 45% chance of living and the girl only had a 10% chance or something like that. Will Smith was yelling, “No, save her! Save her!” Smith makes a comment that 10% is more than enough of a chance, and that a human would have known that. The robot could only do what it was programmed to do.

As for your comment on actors–I was in theatre and they told us from year 1 that the best way to be convinceable is to get in character–truly try to temporarily become the person you are trying to portray. Feel what they would feel. Not just “pretend.”

 

[JDaniel]

You just described Hell.

RD:

Except Hell is not a physical realm, we hope!

I don’t thinks that is a sicko-type emotion. Look that the soldiers I mentioned in the post above.

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.

Now you said something very important, and the English language makes this conversation tricky. The “love”, which God has for us (and I see absolutely no sign of that) is completely different from the “love” we are supposed to feel toward God! To call both of them “love” is very confusing and misleading.

Actually, they’re the same. And, I see signs of it - but, there was a time that I didn’t. Lots of exigencies relative to God are often confusing.

Obviously we cannot have an “agape” for God. We have nothing to sacrifice for God, which would be “useful” of “helpful” for God. After all God is self-sufficient. Nothing we can do will be “beneficial” for God. So what we are supposed to do is become “humble”, to express our “gratitude”, to worship, and stuff like that. All those are emotionally driven.

Yes! If they were merely “emotionally driven” then I would have remained an atheist. But, I realize that that’s just me.

One can make an argument that emotions must be “real” in order to be significant. But I am specifically talking about (or trying to!) the agape-type love. And I still don’t see any reason why that type of love will be “better” if it comes from volition.

It’s a good thing you’re not god!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ignorance is bliss; or is it?

Really tough question.

Exodus:

It is for me!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

And I chose to use my experiences and learning in this throught experiment.

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.

Thank you.

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.

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.

ByzCath:

I just sent a Hail Mary for you.

God bless,
jd