Some believers; I think love is a special force. God is love so we should love one another! Peace man!
Some unbelievers: Dude love is the chemical found in chocolate you think God is love go worship a mars bar or something
Funny, no?
But you know what, the next time this happens, I am really going to break something. Why? Because love isn't chocolate. Yes, there are certain chemicals that are contined withing this little snack that cause the emotional response for love, I'm sure you read some quaint little article about it somewhere. But why should this mean that the chemical alone is what love is? If I, say remove certain portions of your brain responsible for emotion, and I give you the chemical, you aren't going to feel anything, are you? You know why, because the chemicals aren't the cause, they seem to me more of a trigger. The sensation of love, although triggered by chemicals, is due to the wiring and programming in your limbic system. Love would be whatever wiring goes on there.
Thank you
Regarding love
Moderator: Moderators
Regarding love
Post #1'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
Re: Regarding love
Post #2I would have to ask for your support on the limbic system. But in regards to classifying love with chocolate, ridiculous. My concept of love is utopian. Yes. And I use science as a shield to build a brick wall so high and so thick that no person can ever break through it to cause me pain. I am not one who thinks that is better to love and lost than to never have loved at all. The love I share with my children is the only form of love I have ever known. It is unconditional. But their rejection of me (if it should ever happen) is one I could live with. It is one I would be willing to suffer over. But to allow another such power based on such a fickle emotion that changes so much every day, week, month, year.......sorry, can't understand it. I think getting to happily ever after is always better than happily ever after.scorpia wrote:Some believers; I think love is a special force. God is love so we should love one another! Peace man!
Some unbelievers: Dude love is the chemical found in chocolate you think God is love go worship a mars bar or something
Funny, no?
But you know what, the next time this happens, I am really going to break something. Why? Because love isn't chocolate. Yes, there are certain chemicals that are contined withing this little snack that cause the emotional response for love, I'm sure you read some quaint little article about it somewhere. But why should this mean that the chemical alone is what love is? If I, say remove certain portions of your brain responsible for emotion, and I give you the chemical, you aren't going to feel anything, are you? You know why, because the chemicals aren't the cause, they seem to me more of a trigger. The sensation of love, although triggered by chemicals, is due to the wiring and programming in your limbic system. Love would be whatever wiring goes on there.
Thank you
In regards to love being a set of wiring. I have not heard such. I am familiar with all the neurochemicals and hormones involved as well as the synapses in the brain to lead to stimulation in different areas, but they are still subject to the hormones/biochemical reactions that initiated them, as I have shown in the thread this one was lead from.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
Post #3
Regarding the limbic system; Love is an emotion, and the part of the brain responsible for emotion is the limbic system. Yes, there are biochemicals, but without the limbic system, what use are they? The biochemicals alone aren't what cause love. They're more like something that cause increase in nerves firing or something. I am not going to pretend to be an expert in neurochemistry or anything but the above situation in the thread gets me considering these thoughts I have had. As for "wiring", that's for a lack of better word. Like, the brain is a computer, and computers have circuits and processors which make them do what they do, while the neurochemicals in my eyes are more like a powercord to certian bits of that computer. Or perhaps not even that; for all I know love could be more like a program that is recorded in sections of the brain.
Come to think of it, what if technology with AI was developed far enough to create a machine that could feel love? How would it be able to do that? I wouldn't be caused by biochemicals now, would it? How would anyone classify love as simply biochemistry then?
Come to think of it, what if technology with AI was developed far enough to create a machine that could feel love? How would it be able to do that? I wouldn't be caused by biochemicals now, would it? How would anyone classify love as simply biochemistry then?
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
Post #4
Considering my definition of love, it wouldn't be possible for AI to develop love.scorpia wrote:Regarding the limbic system; Love is an emotion, and the part of the brain responsible for emotion is the limbic system. Yes, there are biochemicals, but without the limbic system, what use are they? The biochemicals alone aren't what cause love. They're more like something that cause increase in nerves firing or something. I am not going to pretend to be an expert in neurochemistry or anything but the above situation in the thread gets me considering these thoughts I have had. As for "wiring", that's for a lack of better word. Like, the brain is a computer, and computers have circuits and processors which make them do what they do, while the neurochemicals in my eyes are more like a powercord to certian bits of that computer. Or perhaps not even that; for all I know love could be more like a program that is recorded in sections of the brain.
Come to think of it, what if technology with AI was developed far enough to create a machine that could feel love? How would it be able to do that? I wouldn't be caused by biochemicals now, would it? How would anyone classify love as simply biochemistry then?
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
Post #6
Because to me, love outside of that which I feel for my children is a utopian concept. In other words, it is nothing. AI would have to be able to procreate and experience the the bond between a parent and child to experience my concept of love. Anything else is nothing more than neurotransmitter, biochemical reaction, and hormones. The point of AI is to be able to program it to do what it's purpose is. You could program it to experience love, but not on the utopian concept that I have built my definition around and not on a parental level. I realize that my concept of love is very harshly defined. Like I have said before, defense mechanisms aren't always healthy. Mine have hurt many of men, but have kept me safe. Somehow I doubt that I could "Love" a machine. Even if you could program it to meet all the criteria that I would use to define love, I would still know it to be false. If AI could evolve to the point where they could grow and develop such as man does, and didn't require man to program it, then it wouldn't be AI anymore, it would be a new species. Does that make sense. I am just coming off a 36 hour rotation and too many people died tonight so I am in somewhat of a somber mood. My main point is that if AI could evolve to the point that they could meet my criteria, independent of human manipulation (programming) and can procreate as living things do to experience that parental bond, then it is no longer just a computer, it is a living organism independent of it's creator.scorpia wrote:Why not?
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
Post #7
I can see where you might come from there, but despite the fact it may be classed as living, it would still be made of circuits and wires, and lack biochemicals. Therefore the idea where love=biochemicals could not be true because then there would the the existance of love without biochemicals and how would that be explained?My main point is that if AI could evolve to the point that they could meet my criteria, independent of human manipulation (programming) and can procreate as living things do to experience that parental bond, then it is no longer just a computer, it is a living organism independent of it's creator.
Regarding the need to procreate, what about those who can't, or don't decide to have children? Why only parent-child relationships?
Come to think of it this makes me curious about where people draw the line between something being a machine and something being alive
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
Post #8
I think she answered that with...Why only parent-child relationships?
What if it is just the information that needs to be understood? That way it would not matter if the information is biochemical or digital(as long as the system is capable of reading the information). This way a biological system would respond differently to the same information if it is presented digitally rather than chemically. Yet that same digital information may make an AI have a feeling of love.And I use science as a shield to build a brick wall so high and so thick that no person can ever break through it to cause me pain.
Yes? No? Just making a guess here.
Post #9
You jump around so much. LOL. In regards to procreation, I say it because this is the only type of love I can experience, the love for my children. I don't say that my barriers are healthy. But because of how I define love, the fact that it is utopian so no man could ever meet it, then I can't imagine a computer meeting it unless it was programmed to do so, then of course I would know it to be false.scorpia wrote:I can see where you might come from there, but despite the fact it may be classed as living, it would still be made of circuits and wires, and lack biochemicals. Therefore the idea where love=biochemicals could not be true because then there would the the existance of love without biochemicals and how would that be explained?My main point is that if AI could evolve to the point that they could meet my criteria, independent of human manipulation (programming) and can procreate as living things do to experience that parental bond, then it is no longer just a computer, it is a living organism independent of it's creator.
Regarding the need to procreate, what about those who can't, or don't decide to have children? Why only parent-child relationships?
Come to think of it this makes me curious about where people draw the line between something being a machine and something being alive
Perhaps I am the worst person to ask about AI and love given my concept of love. I can't be impartial. I can only view love as I understand it (which I obviously don't outside of parental love).
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #10
Love is a word. Off the top of my head here are some more concepts words.
lust
yearn
friendship
sharing
commitment
honesty
white lies
bond
intimacy
ownership
jealousy
happiness
Romeo + Juliet
Romance
Valentine
role play
Partnership
compromise
openness
Sacrifice
Sex
union
Does love stand alone as a sperate state in itself? or does it involve some/all of the above plus perhaps others factors too. I'd say there is no single emotion that can be labelled love. I think that is an illusion. I'd also say there is no single feeling of what it is to be in love. Love is definitely not a force. At best love is an umbrella term that covers a multitude of feelings, behaviour and ideas, that change and alter with the situation.
I'd also echo Confused's point. I know what it is like to love a child. It is not a specific feeling. But it is an inescapable commitment. If they are in hospital hurt or ill, you feel stressed, if you could you carry the pain for them. If they ever needed a kidney or bone marrow there would be no hesitation in giving them yours. When they are out late you worry. When they exceed themselves you feel pride. And so on. I guess most would say it is possible to feel the same way about their husband, wife, boyfriend or girlfriend. Personally I doubt that.
The kidney test is always quite interesting. Would you donate X your kidney?
If X were in a permanent vegative state would you commit the rest of your life to their care?
lust
yearn
friendship
sharing
commitment
honesty
white lies
bond
intimacy
ownership
jealousy
happiness
Romeo + Juliet
Romance
Valentine
role play
Partnership
compromise
openness
Sacrifice
Sex
union
Does love stand alone as a sperate state in itself? or does it involve some/all of the above plus perhaps others factors too. I'd say there is no single emotion that can be labelled love. I think that is an illusion. I'd also say there is no single feeling of what it is to be in love. Love is definitely not a force. At best love is an umbrella term that covers a multitude of feelings, behaviour and ideas, that change and alter with the situation.
I'd also echo Confused's point. I know what it is like to love a child. It is not a specific feeling. But it is an inescapable commitment. If they are in hospital hurt or ill, you feel stressed, if you could you carry the pain for them. If they ever needed a kidney or bone marrow there would be no hesitation in giving them yours. When they are out late you worry. When they exceed themselves you feel pride. And so on. I guess most would say it is possible to feel the same way about their husband, wife, boyfriend or girlfriend. Personally I doubt that.
The kidney test is always quite interesting. Would you donate X your kidney?
If X were in a permanent vegative state would you commit the rest of your life to their care?
