Identity and Unconditional Actions

[Sanity Panda]

Aren't the best moments... When your mind is free to wander and think about fluff?

After having watched some ef - a tales of memories and reading on the ego - I've been questioning again whether it's possible to love someone unconditional or any actions.

The next thing was our identity. Granted I haven't looked it up on wikipedia but what do others believe creates our identity?
Would it be a simple case that we are the sum of our life experiences, or do people here believe that there's something more innate about each of us?

In the anime ~ Renji and Chihiro seems to be a clear example of how we love someone for their personality. Except when it kept on resetting, Renji felt a dissonance within.

Whats the conclusion then? That we're basically falling in love with other people based on what they offer as a person? It does make sense but is that all there is to it?

edit by mod: (double posting is not tolerated thus I have added your other post with this one)

Perhaps my point was lost...
My main two questions are:

How many people see their identity more than just a sum of life experiences?
Is it possible to love someone unconditionally in that regard?

Moderator's comment: Edit feature was invented right around when forums was invented. Use it

 

[Tetsugakusha]

Odd, I was just about to make a similar topic.

Anyways, I hate to answer your question with another question but perhaps this will give us a little perspective and a good starting point.

Okay, to begin: say you are walking through the mall with your significant other. You have known this person for many years and care very much for them. Moreover you have been through a lot with this person, shared many things, but one day as you are walking through the mall they trip and fall. When they hit their head a panel opens up in the back of their head to reveal all kinds of wires and lights (essentially the stereotypical robotic interior, think Data from Star Trek). Embarrassed, they stand up and quickly close the panel.

My question I’d like to pose is: Would you still love this person? If you value your memories and experiences of this person you would have to. But I’m also wondering, how much does the “humanity” play into it?

For arguments sake let us think of “humanity” as ‘those little oddities’: especially in romantic relationships it’s likely the case that the person your with does those odd things that you find attractive; IE she’s a bit of a klutz, she has some quirky way of laughing/smiling, and so on. We can already see potential for a problem with this but I'll stop for now...

 

[Nioki]

QUOTE How many people see their identity more than just a sum of life experiences?

Most probably everyone will have his or her own answer to this... But I believe that we are more than just our experiences, we do not need an experience to be, we create our own experience. Say there is a newly born baby, it doesn't know anything hence it hasn't experienced anything yet. But it is. And it gives others some sort of feelings, emotion. If it weren't there, people who would have seen it wouldn' have had those experiences.
Also imagine you take several people, who are still babies, raise them seperatly in hte exact same way, then give them the exact same basic knowledge through the exact same methods and everything was exactly the same in general. Then, you put them also seperatly in the exact same environment that is completely different from what they have experienced so far (yet the environment is controlled). Do you believe they would act exactly the same? I believe not.
Most probably people are more of identities that use new experiences to further enhance their already formed soul.
Experiences of one are no doubt important but they are not the only thing that forms ones identity.


QUOTE Is it possible to love someone unconditionally in that regard?

And based on what I said , yes I believe this is possible.


QUOTE My question I’d like to pose is: Would you still love this person? If you value your memories and experiences of this person you would have to. But I’m also wondering, how much does the “humanity” play into it?

I don not believe humanity plays a major role in this sort of a decision. It might be different for others though. Even if you know beforehand that one is not human, one can still develope a deep affection towards that non-human entity. A good example is Chobits with Chii and Hideki

 

[EggBeast]

Whoo! Now this is a topic! Identity eh? Is all love conditional at the very least upon one's identity, eh?

So, by identity, I'm assuming we're talking about what identifies us as being different from any other person in the world? What makes us "unique"? There are all kinds of things that can define the identity of someone, and I believe that changes from different people's perspectives. por exemplo, some bigwig CEO would likely see the bulk of their employees by their ID numbers and departments, basically by their labels within their group. An acquaintance may know you for the way you act, maybe for one of your hobbies. A lover or a close friend would see you more for... I suppose the best way to put it would be by sum of your experiences.

As for the question about unquestionable love, I guess you'd have to say that if you loved someone because of who they were, and they were to suddenly change who that was (via memory loss, radical change in lifestyle, gradual decay, whatever), then your love for them would either have to change, or fail. If you're the type of person who throws all of your love onto someone regardless of how they change and who they may become, then hey, go for it.

As for the slightly different question, about the whole robot-girlfriend thing, that becomes a whole lot fuzzier. Does one's identity have to hinge upon their being human, or just upon their life's experiences, motivations aside? Even then, could a human being even be able to love something/someone who/that they know isn't human, even if they appear to be on the outside? If you could, then if your good robot buddy where to have their memories and eperiences copied into another model, would you be able to love both of them? Would there be any difference between them at all? The anime, Ghost in yon' Shell, deals with stuff like that a lot. Once humanoid robots come into the picture, the whole ballgame changes. You can't be distinguished by you memories, because all of a sudden your memories can be copied, transferred, or erased, same goes with your body, the way you feel about someone, most everything. The shows answer to that was everyday curiosity. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Tetsugakusha]

QUOTE one can still develope a deep affection towards that non-human entity. A good example is Chobits with Chii and Hideki

Agreed. Humanities impact is also questionable due to the fact that AI (for instance) develops it's own quirks, Chobits {yet again} and Ghost in the Shell: SAC are good examples of this. Even if AI doesn't develop it own quirks, it is not to wild to suggest that we could hard program the quirks in.


QUOTE But I believe that we are more than just our experiences, we do not need an experience to be, we create our own experience. Say there is a newly born baby, it doesn't know anything hence it hasn't experienced anything yet. But it is. And it gives others some sort of feelings, emotion. If it weren't there, people who would have seen it wouldn' have had those experiences.

Are we considering cognitive awareness of experience or cognitive understanding of experience? She may not be able to understand it but I do think she would be aware enough of the situation, enough to call it an experience for her. After all, nurture wouldn't be a factor if the child didn't experience anything. For example:

Consider a child who desires a certain color of crayon. It doesn't know that when it says 'red' it will get a 'red' crayon, all it realizes is that when it makes the noise 'red' it gets a crayon that is different from the other ones. It isn't until later in its development that it looks back on its experiences and realizes that it was a reliable detector of 'red'. What I'm getting at is I don't believe there is an innate thing that governs who we are or who become.

In this case it's not a personality quirk that causes it to want a red crayon because without experiencing the red crayon it cannot have knowledge of it (this is the Bootstrap problem of knowledge). In your second example of the several children being raised exactly the same but separately; I'd have to say that the differences in personality, definately agree on this case, are the result of mutated algorithms. Again, because we're dealing with biological beings brought about through a biological process the occurance of mutations are expected; for instance, why two siblings born of the same parents will be different.

Because the algorithms are subject to this kind of biological mutation, one algorithm will play a prominant role in one child while another child will have a completely different one playing the prominant role. Especially if it's the case we are taking these children from different parents. So, nature sets the basis for our behaviour through emphasis on certain algorithms, while Experience plays a regulatory role in the individuals interactions with the group.

Another question I have: Do forgotten experiences play a factor? Can we even evaluate those experiences?

Departing from this train a thought for a moment: I think the unconditional love comes down to not only who they are (as a result of their experience) but your own experiences and how well they match up. However, this doesn't explain the effectiveness of a risk-averse/risk-taking couple's successes. After all, one of them sees only the cons of risk while the other sees only the pros of risk; their experiences are not likely to be the same....

 

[Sanity Panda]

QUOTE (Nioki @ Dec 08 2007, 05:12 PM) Say there is a newly born baby, it doesn't know anything hence it hasn't experienced anything yet. But it is. And it gives others some sort of feelings, emotion. If it weren't there, people who would have seen it wouldn' have had those experiences.
Yep. I've come to the idea that a baby that's born does not have awareness of its own identity and from that moment, other people create that identity for it (Kinda feels wrong to call a child "it") but what are they basing it's identity on? A simple question I'm sure many will be able to answer...

- Baby's relation to the family
- The furball of cells

It's a rather reductionist view to think our personality, experiences and everything about our identity is just possible something created by chemical balances and such within the brain.


QUOTE (Nioki @ Dec 08 2007, 05:12 PM)Most probably everyone will have his or her own answer to this... But I believe that we are more than just our experiences, we do not need an experience to be, we create our own experience.
Most probably people are more of identities that use new experiences to further enhance their already formed soul.
Your right, most people will have a different answer and I'm interested in hearing that. It's clear that you believe there's something more external lasting to the concept of you being the soul.


QUOTE (Tetsugakusha-chi)
Okay, to begin: say you are walking through the mall with your significant other.  You have known this person for many years and care very much for them.  Moreover you have been through a lot with this person, shared many things, but one day as you are walking through the mall they trip and fall.  When they hit their head a panel opens up in the back of their head to reveal all kinds of wires and lights (essentially the stereotypical robotic interior, think Data from Star Trek).  Embarrassed, they stand up and quickly close the panel.

My question I’d like to pose is: Would you still love this person?  If you value your memories and experiences of this person you would have to.  But I’m also wondering, how much does the “humanity” play into it?

As much as I'd like to say that I could... I don't think I'd be able to love the person in the same way as it'd shed a new light. There'd be issues such as why this has been kept a secert from me all this time.
In this case it seems that I'd love someone for "me". Their personality/experiences/existance relative to myself and what it can offer. Guess this is why people choose their partners in the first place though right? Looking for someone intelligent/beautiful/human etc...

Else we'd have cases of people falling completely in love with their animals (not that, that hasn't happened...

)


QUOTE (EggBeast-san)As for the question about unquestionable love, I guess you'd have to say that if you loved someone because of who they were, and they were to suddenly change who that was (via memory loss, radical change in lifestyle, gradual decay, whatever), then your love for them would either have to change, or fail.  If you're the type of person who throws all of your love onto someone regardless of how they change and who they may become, then hey, go for it.
If they suddenly changed who they were through those various means does that mean that they are now a different person? What I'm searching for is whether there is something about our existance that can't be changed.
Most are happy to go with personality since that never really changes, it makes sense to fall in love with someones personality over their looks which is more prone to change.

So far this all seems like conditional love....

Ps. Intersting conversation about the robots... Unfortunately I've never watched those series so I'm unable to comment on them

 

[Tetsugakusha]

QUOTE As much as I'd like to say that I could... I don't think I'd be able to love the person in the same way as it'd shed a new light. There'd be issues such as why this has been kept a secert from me all this time.
In this case it seems that I'd love someone for "me". Their personality/experiences/existance relative to myself and what it can offer. Guess this is why people choose their partners in the first place though right? Looking for someone intelligent/beautiful/human etc...

Lots of people respond this way to this problem, close to 50/50. It's interesting, what is it about finding this out that changes your view of them? Just that you felt they lied to you, or at least were not completely honest, or was it that part of what you liked about them was the mere fact they were human? Keep in mind that procreation is not an important factor to love. You can love who you choose to procreate with, but you don't need to love the person you procreate with.

Just to offer my own personal opinion on the matter, whether or not they are human doesn't really matter to me. The number one thing is the intellectual connection I have with that person, be they human or robot.

 

[Sanity Panda]

QUOTE (Tetsugakusha @ Dec 09 2007, 01:38 PM)
Lots of people respond this way to this problem, close to 50/50.  It's interesting, what is it about finding this out that changes your view of them?  Just that you felt they lied to you, or at least were not completely honest, or was it that part of what you liked about them was the mere fact they were human?  Keep in mind that procreation is not an important factor to love.  You can love who you choose to procreate with, but you don't need to love the person you procreate with.
I'm rather surprised its 50/50

You raise a good point. Why has my perception changed with this new information about their history or real background. They are still the same person unless they had lied to me.

I'll offer you a hypothetical situation [perhaps cliched] where you have fallen in love with someone, you have an intellectual connection with the said person. You later find out that this person was the murderer of valued family members. A common situation where anime shows that love transcends all previous mistakes, and the fact they love each now is important. But how does that play into reality?

In that regard... What exactly are you loving? You won't be loving their past experiences of life. Your loving the present them but how long does that last for?

You know what? I do think that I can love an animal, but it wouldn't be the same as a lover. I guess it's possible to fall in love with a robot, it's a mindset I've never had before. I'm sort of curious now about how others feel regarding it.

For me, loving people would be sort of similar to falling for women as opposed to men. It's not a thought process I paid attention to and seems just to happen ~ but perhaps that mindset can be modified?

 

[Tetsugakusha]

QUOTE (Sanity Panda @ Dec 09 2007, 01:40 PM) I'll offer you a hypothetical situation [perhaps cliched] where you have fallen in love with someone, you have an intellectual connection with the said person. You later find out that this person was the murderer of valued family members. A common situation where anime shows that love transcends all previous mistakes, and the fact they love each now is important. But how does that play into reality?

In that regard... What exactly are you loving? You won't be loving their past experiences of life. Your loving the present them but how long does that last for?

You know what? I do think that I can love an animal, but it wouldn't be the same as a lover. I guess it's possible to fall in love with a robot, it's a mindset I've never had before. I'm sort of curious now about how others feel regarding it.

For me, loving people would be sort of similar to falling for women as opposed to men. It's not a thought process I paid attention to and seems just to happen ~ but perhaps that mindset can be modified?
Is this hypothetical situation spawned out of Elfen Lied by any chance?

Nevertheless, this is very interesting. If that's the case I'd have to say that I would continue loving them regardless of who they killed; however, I could never forgive them. The justification for this is along the lines that, you can't help who you love and the past is the past; so if I left them (or do whatever you're suppose to do in a situation like this

) it would only cause more pain because of the fact that I still loved them.

The decision process is sort of like a game of Chicken. If I defect (swerve) in the game I lose face amongst my peers plus I lose my oil-pan, but if I defect in proto-chicken (decline the challenge) I save my oil pan. In the situation of the one I love being the killer of my family members: if I defect (end the relationship) my family members are still dead and I lost the one I loved, but if I don't defect I still remain with the one I love.

I think it all comes down to your ordering of preferences. If my second-order preference is to be with the one I love then nothing would really change (besides the subsequent emotional period of time that would follow). But if my second-order preference is that the one I love not be a murderer then I have to self-efface my preference or that person didn't posses the critical characteristic.

[Just in case, Self-Effacement: adopting a belief that is the negation of one you currently have or getting rid of the belief completely; this is weak and strong self-effacement respectively] *mmmm...Game Theory...*

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (Tetsugakusha @ Dec 09 2007, 12:38 PM)
Lots of people respond this way to this problem, close to 50/50. It's interesting, what is it about finding this out that changes your view of them? Just that you felt they lied to you, or at least were not completely honest, or was it that part of what you liked about them was the mere fact they were human? Keep in mind that procreation is not an important factor to love. You can love who you choose to procreate with, but you don't need to love the person you procreate with.

Just to offer my own personal opinion on the matter, whether or not they are human doesn't really matter to me. The number one thing is the intellectual connection I have with that person, be they human or robot.
Well, I can agree that love for someone can be based solely on what they have on the inside (metaphorically speaking), and not so much what they are. But given the situation of suddenly finding out someone so close to you is a robot (lol, I chuckly every time I say that

), I can definitely understand someone seriously questioning their feelings for that person upon learning that. Think of it this way. Such a robot would really be little more than a very advanced computer system that can move around and communicate. As such, they must be running off of some pre-set program, no matter how sophisticated it would be. That would mean that, if your robot-lover (lol...) really fell in love with you, it would have had to have been pre-programmed to fall in love with you, meaning it had no choice in the matter. Given a similar situation with a similar person, the robot would have to have fallen in love each and every time. That's a lot like what's going on in Ef, as was mentioned somewhere in the deep recesses of this post.

Some people might feel manipulated by this idea, others might not mind the reasons as to why said robot lover (lol....) fell in love with them, so long as what they are sharing means something. Some people might not see that much of a difference between what this robot-lover(lol...) did and what a normal human being would do. Some people might make an anime about the concept, and make millions off of it!

At any rate, there are always questions that come into play when talking about as-of-now hypothetical stuff like this. I don't think the whole Chobits example shows that a real human being could experience real love with a fake human beings. I sure woludn't know unless I somehow came in contact with a hot robot babe (lol...).

 

[Nioki]

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 09 2007, 03:36 PM)QUOTE (Tetsugakusha @ Dec 09 2007, 12:38 PM)
Such a robot would really be little more than a very advanced computer system that can move around and communicate.  As such, they must be running off of some pre-set program, no matter how sophisticated it would be.

I agree to the possibility that such a robot would probably be nothing higher than a pre-set high-end/next-gen computer system? but neverless, don't you think that we humans arent much different? We too, at the very beginnings of our life have little more than just a base "program", that has been formed through ages of evolution. (Unless you're an "abomination" from F. Herberts 'Dune') It is that "program" that allowed us to become those who we are now, to discuss what we are discussing, no more no less. It just gave us the ability to learn through different techniques and develope new ones from the knowledge we gain.

The point of developing AI is to create an artificial system capable of equal or greater control over ideas, knowledge, gaining them, then a human. And if an AI of that level is developed, then, don't you think a robot can have a soul? Just as humans do, whatever the reason we do.
We aren't that different from robots. Our reasone to be, is to be. Even if you say robots have to be preprogrammed to do anything, you can always set their main command to "be" and give them the ability to generate any other sub-commands for themselves.

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (Nioki @ Dec 10 2007, 04:48 PM)
I agree to the possibility that such a robot would probably be nothing higher than a pre-set high-end/next-gen computer system? but neverless, don't you think that we humans arent much different? We too, at the very beginnings of our life have little more than just a base "program", that has been formed through ages of evolution. (Unless you're an "abomination" from F. Herberts 'Dune') It is that "program" that allowed us to become those who we are now, to discuss what we are discussing, no more no less. It just gave us the ability to learn through different techniques and develope new ones from the knowledge we gain.

The point of developing AI is to create an artificial system capable of equal or greater control over ideas, knowledge, gaining them, then a human. And if an AI of that level is developed, then, don't you think a robot can have a soul? Just as humans do, whatever the reason we do.
We aren't that different from robots. Our reasone to be, is to be. Even if you say robots have to be preprogrammed to do anything, you can always set their main command to "be" and give them the ability to generate any other sub-commands for themselves.
That is a very, very, very, very ,very ,very......... very, very very..... very good point. I was really just talking about how I could see myself no longer loving someone should they ruthlessly reveal to me that they've been hiding their robotic heritage all along

. I completely agree with you.

I've heard of some famous dude from California (don't remember his name, but he invented those treo PDAs) who's creating a new computer architecture made to mimic the human thought process, essentially a machine that "learns" things based upon whatever information you show it, and then makes future decisions based upon such information. He's said that, in some of his test models, his machines (nothing more than big-black computer towers) started developing some quirks after showing them certain types of data. Some developed some radical belief systems, the way he put it was, they'd turned to religion to piece things together. I saw a presentation of it once, and it was just amazing. Once they're finished they should be able to do everything humans can do, but regular computers still struggle with, for example, driving a car, instant image recognition, develop mathematical formulas, derive theories in physics dealing with multi-dimensional situations, all kinds of crazy stuff.

And that really goes to show that it can get very difficult to define a human being apart from any other intelligent being, be it an "alien" or "cyborg", other than the matter that builds us up. And even then... Given the way you look at it, yes, human beings really can be defined as biological machine that follows some preset program, albeit a very complex and open-ended program, we are all still a slave to our instincts (not to get into Buddhism or anything here).

It's not altogether unbelievable that one day we may develop "artificially intelligent" beings with intellectual, emotional, creative, and critical-thinking faculties greater than our own. If/when that happens, we'll need to look at ourselves in a whole new way.

 

[mo0nl0rd]

QUOTE QUOTE (Tetsugakusha @ Dec 09 2007, 12:38 PM)
Such a robot would really be little more than a very advanced computer system that can move around and communicate. As such, they must be running off of some pre-set program, no matter how sophisticated it would be.


humans run on a preset code .. the entire logic behind the human psyche is quite close to fuzzy logic. hence 2 people under identical conditions produce varied results.. similarly a sufficiently complicated bot can be made to carry the anomalies of human mind, and it too will behave/think/compute exactly like a human, tho as of now, we neither have the processing power nor the algorithms to implement a complete fuzzy and yet accurate system. IMO it will be combination of fuzzy and genetic algorithms. a preview of the same can be met by looking at HAL for emotions or NUDE for speech

 

[Tetsugakusha]

We're on an interesting tangent here, perhaps enough for another topic, but I was just wondering what kind of an effect would this have on this concept of unconditional love?

If it's the case that our AI robot could act and think in the same way humans do and since we are allowing for the possibility of love, why would our AI robot love? If so, why?

If the AI robot was being engineered to be similar to humans, if not exactly the same, I think it would love. However, if we're dealing with programs and hard-coding I think it wouldn't love because this particular emotion is very irrational. [Again, we've ruled out procreation and I think that basic needs food/shelter/security can be ruled out because love isn't necessary to obtain those things]

An advanced program that could figure out human behavior and go beyond it would come to the realization that because it knows itself to be a robot and because of the things we've ruled out, 'loving' is an unnecessary use of resources. Then again, a being that would never die, at least not the way humans do, would have more time on their hands to explore seemingly pointless things. But then could we say this was love? Does one need to "truly" love in order to feel what it is really like? But if you cannot know what love is until you truly love, isn't it impossible to ever know what love is?

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (Tetsugakusha @ Dec 15 2007, 05:23 PM)An advanced program that could figure out human behavior and go beyond it would come to the realization that because it knows itself to be a robot and because of the things we've ruled out, 'loving' is an unnecessary use of resources. Then again, a being that would never die, at least not the way humans do, would have more time on their hands to explore seemingly pointless things. But then could we say this was love? Does one need to "truly" love in order to feel what it is really like? But if you cannot know what love is until you truly love, isn't it impossible to ever know what love is?
...being a bit of a computer programmer myself, I'd have to say... how/if/why a robot could experience "love" would completely depend upon the hard/fuzzy coding, and to write such a godly program, the godly programmers would first have to have a clean-cut, very precise definition of "human" and have a perfect understanding of how humans work. It would depend upon how the computer takes something as good, and how it sees something as bad. It would depend on... gross, why am I even thinking about programming a robot?!? Basically, there are all kinds of ways that a robot designed to replicate human thought patterns could manifest itself.

At any rate,assuming the hypothetical situation that such a robot (isn't there a better term for robot, besides cyborg, or... AI?) existed that was designed to act human, but had the capacity and drive to supersede human intelligence... there are still all kinds of reasons such a robot could want to love, ranging from boredom, to fulfilling some hard-coded purpose, to simply giving in to... super advanced pleasure receptors?!?! ...and then that starts begging the question of what love is, if love is relatively absolute or absolutely relative, if love is even meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

..Goodness!!! Why don't we just make a freakin' humanoid robot and find out what it means to be human? It sure gets hard to define ourselves without anything to compare ourselves to...

...well, we've got animals, and if you're into evolutionary biology, then I suppose chimps make a nice comparison. Speaking of which, because I suppose it relates to the topic of human identity, I just saw two articles about studies on prodigious chimpanzees. One was about... some famous chimpanzee dying who actually understood human sign language, and taught it to several other chimps as well. The other was a study of the mental capabilities of chimps. In a test with several trained chimps and several college students, the smartest chimpanzees had superior short-term memory and reaction time then the students. I could post some links, if they're not already commonly known stories (plus I'm way too tired right now). ...I mean, doesn't that give us some kind of comparison to go off of? We know chimps are (or at least can be trained to be) at a comparable level of intelligence and self-awareness to humans. ...but perhaps that doesn't give the depth of meaning that a super-intelligent humanoid cyborg could give(

).

...dang, that gives a whole new meaning to the whole ape vs. robot genre. Maybe by pitting the two things we could possibly use to define ourselves in a brutal death match, we can finally find the answers we so desperately seek?!? XD

Time for sleep. Thanks for reading!

 

[wittyfox]

QUOTE Aren't the best moments... When your mind is free to wander and think about fluff? laugh.gif

After having watched some ef - a tales of memories and reading on the ego - I've been questioning again whether it's possible to love someone unconditional or any actions.

The next thing was our identity. Granted I haven't looked it up on wikipedia but what do others believe creates our identity?
Would it be a simple case that we are the sum of our life experiences, or do people here believe that there's something more innate about each of us?

In the anime ~ Renji and Chihiro seems to be a clear example of how we love someone for their personality. Except when it kept on resetting, Renji felt a dissonance within.

Whats the conclusion then? That we're basically falling in love with other people based on what they offer as a person? It does make sense but is that all there is to it?

Perhaps my point was lost...
My main two questions are:

How many people see their identity more than just a sum of life experiences?
Is it possible to love someone unconditionally in that regard?



I think first you are miss understanding the true purpose of love. Second I have no idea how this thread even got on robots.

Loves biological purpose is "a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance." This of course can be seen in couples who have sex, cuddle and say together at least long enough to bear a child. Dont start a discussion on the fact some couples don't want children/cant have children etc. I am just basing it on the majority of couples and the fact couples do have childern. I mean look at the birth rate... Now theres also love for family members or people just close to you, which usaully is played out with a less sexual concentration. This type of love keeps you safe, content, and emotionally stable etc.
So understanding that, love is produced by hormones and the like and its main purpose lies in drawing two people together. It makes you happy, joyful, cheerful etc, basically it modifies your own personality and demands certain actions from you to keep the bond strong. For example a person in love is usaully more willing to hurt them self before a love one. Or children are usually looked at as joys to be around but in all actuality they are annoying and stressful to have or be around. In these cases we bring guilt onto our selfs for ever thinking of hurting a loved one but when in any other case there would be no problem with a stranger or person we don't like. In the case of the children we become kind and more understanding. That basically means we take all the anger and stress onto out selfs.
These are just some examples, and the list can go on and on about how we unknowing act differently when in love. This is why its hard for me to understand talking about identity and love in the same breath. Love changes us and makes us silly, almost on the level of a mentally challenged person. We are anything but our selfs when in love.
To me love is always unconditional, it only breaks when we can not take anymore or our brains stop producing the emotion. In general if we have to love a person we don't really like them usaully and they have little quirks that annoy us. For example family members, fighting lovers, parenting. Now some one could say " I love and like my friends" however friends are usaully a extension of us and usaully think like us, so its not all that hard. You may actaully only love them because you like them so much.

This thread however moves further pass that into ideas of learning and identity. How does ones get a identity? I look at it like this. When dealing with a society there is only one type of identity that is ever used. One that makes a man suitable in a group. We want, no need, people who are of use that are part of a strong chain. This is why we shun arrogance, fool heartiness, or any desire that makes a man feel he is above another. Of course there is always a need for leadership but even that these days turns into a formula of "I serve as I lead, I am not that better then you."
But how does society do this? well through education, teaching, parenting and religion; all of which leads to what we call identity.
One of the most interesting things about human life is our thirst for love. We cling to this want for free love, unconditional love, peace for all, cheerfulness etc. But if you look closer you will see all this is a claim to a "better" society man. What is the best thing to a group of people? Well, to be able to work together. However, you can not do this when there is a over abundance of violence, arrogance, 300 different leaders, and back stabbing. Our identity/ opinions/ traits are shaped to confirm to this, hence why even the most "immoral" man understands a claim to unfairness and malice even if he himself doesn't want to play fair. Ever heard of a man just not understanding what you mean but unfair or too over-indulgent? I haven't but I think a man like that is possible if from birth he was thought to rely on himself and find strength in loneness. That man wouldn't understand pity and holding back on purpose unless it is beneficial to himself. That man could still love and pity but not as a life style but whenever he sees fit.
Anyway, a question a person could ask is, "How could you say this? so many people in this world raise their children differently. Look at religious parents over atheist parents!" But I will have to say I see little if any difference. they still in there own way teach morals and standards, there by making their child useful. The child can love, make friends, argue points on moralities and pity with out ever feeling odd or out of place. He can also keep the respect and honor of a society, thereby being able to scorn "bad" "immoral" "racist" "unlawful" behavior; all of which is un-beneficial to a group of people. You have to keep this in mind though; the certain act may not be un beneficial to himself but to society, the place where he from birth found his strength.
I would say genetics etc. have a role in what place a person finds in a society but not his identity's and look on life. The last two are already placed out for him, being born to group of people.

I guess I am trying to answer the question the first poster bought up and make sense of it. I must admit I got rather confused with the whole robot love discussion....
I hope I am not too confusing. I kinda bored myself there.

 

[poonk]

QUOTE (Sanity Panda @ Dec 08 2007, 06:22 AM)After having watched some ef - a tales of memories and reading on the ego - I've been questioning again whether it's possible to love someone unconditional or any actions.Maybe I'm a cold, unromantic person, but I don't believe in unconditional love, at least not of the romantic sort. Of course when talking about "love" (whatever that is is open to discussion too), I can only speak for myself (and obviously I'm heartless).

QUOTE (Sanity Panda @ Dec 08 2007, 06:22 AM)The next thing was our identity. Granted I haven't looked it up on wikipedia but what do others believe creates our identity?
Would it be a simple case that we are the sum of our life experiences, or do people here believe that there's something more innate about each of us?
...
How many people see their identity more than just a sum of life experiences?I guess... I would define a person as the sum of their perceived experiences of the physical world as processed through their consciousness and self-consciousness (which is was some people would call a "soul," although I don't think of it as such in the religious sense).

Re: The "Clumsy Robot Lover" scenario:

QUOTE (Tetsugakusha @ Dec 08 2007, 02:17 PM)My question I’d like to pose is: Would you still love this person? If you value your memories and experiences of this person you would have to. But I’m also wondering, how much does the “humanity” play into it?My initial reaction in this situation (in the present time, when no such robot-lovers exist-- as far as we know! ) would be, of course, extreme shock, because obviously some grand conspiracy had been revolving around li'l ol' me. That would probably be a deal-breaker right there, but that would also hold true if a human lover had been engaged in such a grand deception, so it wouldn't necessarily be about the lover's non-human status, but instead realizing that what you perceived to be reality was in fact radically wrong.


QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 08 2007, 05:32 PM)As for the slightly different question, about the whole robot-girlfriend thing, that becomes a whole lot fuzzier. Does one's identity have to hinge upon their being human, or just upon their life's experiences, motivations aside?I would argue that no, to be a "person" it is not necessary to be a human, and vice versa. I think just being self-aware (not just conscious) is enough.

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 08 2007, 05:32 PM)Even then, could a human being even be able to love something/someone who/that they know isn't human, even if they appear to be on the outside?I don't see any reason why someone couldn't love a non-human person, if they believed it was self-aware (here I'm assuming that most people would not opt into any sort of meaningful relationship with a non-self-aware being-- mainly because such a relationship would only be truly meaningful to you and not to the dimly-conscious object of your affection, and that's sort of a ego-killer. *laughs*).
If your robot-lover passes the Turing Test (act/responds indistinguishably from a conscious being) and you had no biases based on their non-organic origin, then why not? Granted, he could be merely mimicking consciousness without truly possessing it, but the same suspicions could be raised about every person besides yourself, if you wanted to be paranoid about it for the sake of a thought experiment (thanks Descartes!). It's just that we tend to assume that since other humans are outwardly like us (biologically, physically, and behaviorally), they're probably also inwardly like us (conscious and self-aware). We grant them the benefit of the doubt that we may not grant a conscious robot (i.e. we show a bias).

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 08 2007, 05:32 PM)If you could, then if your good robot buddy where to have their memories and experiences copied into another model, would you be able to love both of them?Robot menage a trois *laughs*


QUOTE (wittyfox @ Dec 16 2007, 02:38 PM)I have no idea how this thread even got on robots. I think it's because this thread is about both identity and love, and it's more interesting (to me, at least) to discuss identity because love (again, whatever it is) is so subjective. And who doesn't love robots!?

In conclusion (Finally! You all roll your collective eyes): You are probably all secretly mindless robots and I'm essentially talking to myself in here (but ultimately it's okay because I'm being entertained and that's what counts. *laughs*) P.S. Sorry if this is the longest post ever.

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (poonk @ Dec 18 2007, 05:40 PM)In conclusion (Finally! You all roll your collective eyes): You are probably all secretly mindless robots and I'm essentially talking to myself in here (but ultimately it's okay because I'm being entertained and that's what counts. *laughs*) P.S. Sorry if this is the longest post ever.
That's actually not a bad way of looking at things. Looking solipsist view point (that the idea that you're the one and only real, self-conscious being in existence and everyone else is either a figments of your imagination or, I dunno, a bunch of mindless robots), and from the view that everyone is actually a legitimate, self-conscious being, they both ultimately mean the exact same thing to you. Either everything you experience is real and legitimate, or everything has the perfect illusion of appearing real and legitimate. Either way could be the case, and both really end up meaning the same thing.

That same idea really applies to relationships as well. If you're having a real relationship with someone who actually shares the same thoughts, emotions, and awareness with you, or if you're having a relationship with some... thing that acts as if it shares your thoughts, emotions, and awareness, but in reality is just... crunching numbers, or something. Both ultimately mean the same to you, and there's no real way of knowing if what you're experiencing is "real", or if you're just enjoying a byproduct of your imagination, or some kinda robot.


QUOTE (poonk @ Dec 18 2007, 05:40 PM)I don't see any reason why someone couldn't love a non-human person, if they believed it was self-aware (here I'm assuming that most people would not opt into any sort of meaningful relationship with a non-self-aware being-- mainly because such a relationship would only be truly meaningful to you and not to the dimly-conscious object of your affection, and that's sort of a ego-killer. *laughs*).
Hmm, if you get into that, then it would be reasonable for someone to fall in love with a chimpanzee, it's been shown that they are one of a few self-conscious species in the world. I'm not saying that it's impossible to fall in love with a chimpanzee here (lol... monkey love...

), but I've personally experience/heard about such an occurrence happening, though I might be wrong. In a case like this, a monkey could very well return your love... whoa, this is getting weird. At any rate, you have to question just what is being meant my "love" here, and just how much of that love is instinctively based upon genetic code... hormonal shtuff.

Holy crap! I've got to run!!! Thanks for reading!!! And hope I'm not too late!!!!!

 

[poonk]

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 18 2007, 07:39 PM)That same idea really applies to relationships as well.  If you're having a real relationship with someone who actually shares the same thoughts, emotions, and awareness with you, or if you're having a relationship with some... thing that acts as if it shares your thoughts, emotions, and awareness, but in reality is just... crunching numbers, or something.  Both ultimately mean the same to you, and there's no real way of knowing if what you're experiencing is "real", or if you're just enjoying a byproduct of your imagination, or some kinda robot.Sometimes I think that what people call "love" often amounts to as much anyway-- it's really more of a projection of what you want the person to be, and how that makes you feel about yourself (loved, desirable, worthy, etc.) than what the person really is, at least initially. Or perhaps I should say that's people using the term "love" when they should say "infatuation," "comfort," "co-dependency," etc. I can't decide if I'm being too cynical, or just logical about it. Sometimes to me, emotions are weird sticky things I'd rather poke with a stick than handle personally.


QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 18 2007, 07:39 PM)Hmm, if you get into that, then it would be reasonable for someone to fall in love with a chimpanzee, it's been shown that they are one of a few self-conscious species in the world.
...
At any rate, you have to question just what is being meant my "love" here, and just how much of that love is instinctively based upon genetic code... hormonal shtuff.Well... I do think it would be extremely hard for a human to get around a non-humanoid appearance, probably due to both conditioning and biology (hormonal stuff, like you said), etc. And I think the other being would have to be at least of (relatively) equal intelligence (hmm, wait, maybe chimps:humans::humans:robot-people).

 

[Nioki]

QUOTE (EggBeast @ Dec 19 2007, 03:39 AM)
Hmm, if you get into that, then it would be reasonable for someone to fall in love with a chimpanzee, it's been shown that they are one of a few self-conscious species in the world. I'm not saying that it's impossible to fall in love with a chimpanzee here (lol... monkey love... ), but I've personally experience/heard about such an occurrence happening, though I might be wrong. In a case like this, a monkey could very well return your love... whoa, this is getting weird. At any rate, you have to question just what is being meant my "love" here, and just how much of that love is instinctively based upon genetic code... hormonal shtuff.

I'd say that that might not be so strange. The idea of loving monkeys being strange, came the society we live in.
If we were brought up in an isolated society (Think Nagasarete Airantou) We might have just been perfectly fine with the idea of loving monkeys.



QUOTE (poonk @ Dec 19 2007, 05:14 AM)
At any rate, you have to question just what is being meant my "love" here, and just how much of that love is instinctively based upon genetic code... hormonal shtuff.Well... I do think it would be extremely hard for a human to get around a non-humanoid appearance, probably due to both conditioning and biology (hormonal stuff, like you said), etc. And I think the other being would have to be at least of (relatively) equal intelligence (hmm, wait, maybe chimps:humans::humans:robot-people).
So what we get is: chimps evolve, get all friendly with robots and we all live happily ever after...
Anyway, as a said just before, if we where brought up in a completly different society than our modern one (some futuristic cyber-punk maybe) I don't think we'd have problems even with appearance.