Love and free will... eh?

[Moonstruck888]

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.

Ah yes, I’m with you now, and in agreement with you.

 

[WHOWHIE]

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.

Would that be because of your inability to be accurate with the technical details?

The devil is in the details

 

[Moonstruck888]

Would that be because of your inability to be accurate with the technical details?

The devil is in the details

Actually, no it isn’t, that’s what he’s saying. All you have to know is that the robot is as capable as a human and physically indistinguishable from a human.

 

[WHOWHIE]

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.

The robot is incapable of love as only sensient and intelligient beings are capable of it.

If correctly programmed,

Hit that on the nail. 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.

Except that beyond what it was programmed to do it is incapable fo anything else. Which goes back to the fact that your care is still dependent on the programmer.

But it seems that eluded your understanding.

What is your opinion?

How about to Love is to will the good of the other as other? And since the robot has no will it cannot love?

So your premises are going nowhere really.

 

[WHOWHIE]

Actually, no it isn’t, that’s what he’s saying. All you have to know is that the robot is as capable as a human and physically indistinguishable from a human.

No he completely misses the point.

Volition as in free will is what makes agape. It is willing the good of the other as other. Without free will there is no agape.

Being “physically” (as in outer casing) indistinguishiable from the human does not make it the same as the human.!!!

And no the robot is not as capable as the human precisely because it was created by the human. Duh!

 

[WHOWHIE]

The usual wording is: “love is an act of will…” - I have seen it so many times, that I am about to puke

Perhaps a small mind is incapable of comprehending something that simple that it disposes your innards to go into convulsions.

Before you start dislodging your lunch, dinner or breakfast a better solution would be to actually study what agape is and how it relates to free will as as opposed to being emotionally driven.

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.

Are you for real? How is being programmed to act on behalf of others be similar to willing the good of the other? Whoever did the programming is the one who did the good, not the robot.

A robot nurse who slits the throat of a patient based on its programming is not the one who will go to jail! Another Duh! in order here.

And if what you are trying to get at is that what matters is whether a job is done efficiently or not, then for goodness sake, what has volition, love and agape got to do with it??

 

[WHOWHIE]

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…

And is that the whole point of this thread, that something is useful?

A bus is useful, so is a wok, a plant, and toilet paper.

What has being useful got to do with volition and agape?

As for human like companion - well they are not “human-like”. Robots are as far removed from being human as anyone can get. A dog has is much more closer to human characteristics than a robot ever will be.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Perhaps a small mind is incapable of comprehending something that simple that it disposes your innards to go into convulsions.

Perhaps a small mind that is in here insulting people in Ad hominem attacks ten posts in the door needs to be reported to the moderators?

 

[WHOWHIE]

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?

A robot is indistinguishable from a human???!! You are living in lala land.

 

[WHOWHIE]

Perhaps a small mind that is in here insulting people in Ad hominem attacks ten posts in the door needs to be reported to the moderators?

Hey that’s fine. No big deal

Does the truth hurt? Someone said it does not hurt unless it ough to.

A classic case of an atheist being put on the back foot and taking umbrage.

Go ahead make my day:knight2:

 

[WHOWHIE]

Perhaps a small mind that is in here insulting people in Ad hominem attacks ten posts in the door needs to be reported to the moderators?

Oh and BTW the attack was not Ad Hominem. Check the definition.

Better yet here it is from Wikipedai:

Ad Hominem also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.%between% The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.

You can scour my posts but you will not find such a fallacy.

 

[Moonstruck888]

A robot is indistinguishable from a human???!! You are living in lala land.

An android, by definition, would be human in appearance. It’s just a penser, no one is suggesting that the technology exists at the moment.

 

[WHOWHIE]

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

Oh no ByzCath, RD is totally, irrevocably wrong. Don’t be drawn into the lies. Spot the tail of the serpent here.

The robot neither cares about the patient nor cares for the patient. The Robot is inacapable of caring. Caring is a human attribute and solely the domain of intelligent beings.

All the robot does is follow a set of instructions. Actually even that is not the right term for robots are incapable of following. They just cannot make judgments and following is a judgment.

All a robot can “do” (if one can even call it doing" which really does not apply either butI just can’t think of a word that would work in this instance) is move according to the wishes of the programmer. That is all it can do. Move according to the the impulse sent by zeroes and ones. It is a puppet.

Perhaps some would like to be handled and manipulated by inanimate puppets when one is sick. To each his own poison, I say.

 

[WHOWHIE]

An android, by definition, would be human in appearance. It’s just a penser, no one is suggesting that the technology exists at the moment.

So exactly as I said then. Lala land. A sign of watching too many sci fi movies.

 

[WHOWHIE]

I must repeat myself: “how do you differentiate between a ‘geniune’ and a ‘simulated’ response”?

You can’t differentiate between “genuine” and “simulated” response? Nuff said.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So exactly as I said then. Lala land. A sign of watching too many sci fi movies.

Good day to you. I shan’t waste my time reading any more of your drivel.

 

[PAboy57]

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?

Dear RDaneel,

I’ll take the human. The robot can’t think outside the box (only what is programmed), has no sense of humor and certainly cannot show any compassion for us humans. We need all 3 of those when we are down and out. I also do not like talking to machines when calling companies for help. Can’t say I care for them repeating everything I say just so they can get the words right.

Maybe I’m old fashioned but give me that human nurse anytime. Take care.

 

[WHOWHIE]

Good day to you. I shan’t waste my time reading any more of your drivel.

You know it is not drivel. I must have written something too close to home.

 

[WHOWHIE]

Indeed it is.

It is supposed to be tough.

There’s nothing tough about the question once boiled down to reality.

Would you like to be handled and maniputlated by a complex mass of metal and twisted cabling of electronics encased in possibly a silicon casing OR would you like to be cared for by a nurse?

 

[WHOWHIE]

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!

So you don’t know the definition of robot? Being a robot has nothing to with being made for a specific purpose.

Plants are not robots, neither are animals, neither are stones neither are any in the natural created world. But they were all created for a specific purpose.

And we are not merely stuck inside these material bodies. If you believe in the resurrection, then once resurrected you will once again be stuck in the material body. This material body happens to be the Temple of the Holy Spirit.