Is freely-chosen love better than hardwired love?

[Jamie_L]

This came up again recently, as it always does. In discussions of free will, and why it's of any value at all, a common response is that "love cannot exist unless it is freely given love", or something to that effect.

The implication is: freely-chosen love is more valuable than love that someone is programmed to feel.

I challenge this notion.

To the lover, the sensations are identical. Presumeably, one cannot detect the programming, one simply feels love as one feels everything else. It somes from within. We are not talking about forcing a behavior onto someone that feels differently. We are talking about altering how they fundamentally feel, such that it is indistinquishable from any other of their emotions.

To the loved, the results are nearly identical. Their lover behaves in exactly the same way towards them, hardwired or not. The only difference is the knowledge that the love is hardwired. I suppose, one could argue that this would change the reciprocle feeling towards the person loving you. But, really, we don't value those who don't love us as much as we value those that do. Is it the free choice that is really valued? Or is it the result of the choice?

All this assumes, of course, the existence of true "free choice", which I am prone to deny. But assuming it, for the sake of arguement, what is the good arguement for "freely chosen love" being superior to "hardwired love"?

Jamie

[Spurious Quirk]

When actually defined, free will inevitably narrows down to an 'unmoved mover' type concept. In that case, the 'free' person does things for no reason whatsoever. I think love for a reason is better than love for no reason at all.

Cheers

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by Jamie_L All this assumes, of course, the existence of true "free choice", which I am prone to deny. But assuming it, for the sake of arguement, what is the good arguement for "freely chosen love" being superior to "hardwired love"? :) Maybe you can see the dilemma: To follow an argument ('a valid hard_xxxxx one') means not to be free ... ;) Truth and love are not in a linear relationship; Truth is the real part of the spiritual nature and love is imaginary part of this complex couple. :cool:

love

Volker

[Theophage]

I like your contrast between "freely chosen love" and "hardwired love", because I think it is more accurate a distinction than is often assumed. When most people think of something that is not by free will, they imagine it is given by coercion instead; against their will rather than simply involving no will at all.

I would say that giving love against your will (if indeed such a thing is possible) would be worse than giving your love freely. But "hardwired love" is a different beast altogether, and I would say that it would be indistinguishable from "freely chosen love".

Indeed, if I am hardwired to do something, then I certainly believe that I am doing it because "I want to", right? And isn't that the feeling of free will?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
This came up again recently, as it always does. In discussions of free will, and why it's of any value at all, a common response is that "love cannot exist unless it is freely given love", or something to that effect.

The implication is: freely-chosen love is more valuable than love that someone is programmed to feel.

I challenge this notion.

To the lover, the sensations are identical. Presumeably, one cannot detect the programming, one simply feels love as one feels everything else. It somes from within. We are not talking about forcing a behavior onto someone that feels differently. We are talking about altering how they fundamentally feel, such that it is indistinquishable from any other of their emotions.

To the loved, the results are nearly identical. Their lover behaves in exactly the same way towards them, hardwired or not. The only difference is the knowledge that the love is hardwired. [Emphasis added.] I suppose, one could argue that this would change the reciprocle feeling towards the person loving you. But, really, we don't value those who don't love us as much as we value those that do. Is it the free choice that is really valued? Or is it the result of the choice?

All this assumes, of course, the existence of true "free choice", which I am prone to deny. But assuming it, for the sake of arguement, what is the good arguement for "freely chosen love" being superior to "hardwired love"?

Jamie

How would one know that it was "hardwired"? How could one tell the difference?

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
How would one know that it was "hardwired"? How could one tell the difference?
Say if there was a large group of people or puppies where every single one loved you a lot no matter what you did (even after torture them, etc). It would seem that their love is "hardwired" rather than something they really have a choice in.

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
When actually defined, free will inevitably narrows down to an 'unmoved mover' type concept. In that case, the 'free' person does things for no reason whatsoever. I think love for a reason is better than love for no reason at all.
The point is not whether the lover has genuine free will or not... the point is whether the beloved *thinks* that the lover had a choice in the matter and that there was a possibility of the lover not being as loving. In the case of "hardwired" love, there is absolutely no possibility that the lover can't love the beloved.

Originally posted by Jamie_L
To the loved, the results are nearly identical. Their lover behaves in exactly the same way towards them, hardwired or not.
This would be true for some of the non-hardwired lovers, but others would have a varying love that isn't constant... it might vary depending on how bored or selfish or irritable, etc, the non-hardwired lover is. And they might even occassionally dislike or hate the beloved if they get into a disagreement... (similar to some human lovers)

[Keith Russell]

I prefer to look at this from the standpoint of 'unconditional love', vs. the kind of love that one has to earn.

I believe that love, freely given (unconditional), is worth every penny of the price paid.

I'd rather earn someone's love. Then I truly have something of value...

K

[XtrueOloveX]

I think it is really up to the beloved to decide if the "hardwired" love given to them is worth more or less than "freely-chosen love", if they knew which love was being given to them.

In the case in which the beloved does not know, who is to say which is better? We as outsiders cannot judge - we can only speculate and offer our own opinion.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by excreationist
Originally posted by Pyrrho
How would one know that it was "hardwired"? How could one tell the difference?
Say if there was a large group of people or puppies where every single one loved you a lot no matter what you did (even after torture them, etc). It would seem that their love is "hardwired" rather than something they really have a choice in.

...

I don't think that is an accurate representation of the difference between having love via "free will" versus it being "determined". Consider, for example, the possibility that the "hard wiring" is not directly for the love to exist, but for it to exist whenever X, Y, and Z occur. Then it would not be "unconditional" love, but it would still be "caused" or "determined", with "free will" having nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
[Say if there was a large group of people or puppies where every single one loved you a lot no matter what you did (even after torture them, etc). It would seem that their love is "hardwired" rather than something they really have a choice in.
...]
I don't think that is an accurate representation of the difference between having love via "free will" versus it being "determined". Consider, for example, the possibility that the "hard wiring" is not directly for the love to exist, but for it to exist whenever X, Y, and Z occur. Then it would not be "unconditional" love, but it would still be "caused" or "determined", with "free will" having nothing whatsoever to do with it.
By "hard-wired love", me (and Jamie_L?) mean love that is quite blind - it is automatic love.
The alternative is conditional love, where the exact requirements are unclear and vary from person to person... it is far more fussy and the person could lose interest due to boredom, etc. And it would mostly be learnt... I mean say you have a wife that you had learnt to love over your lifetime - that isn't hardwired love... you wouldn't love her a lot before you even before you knew she existed - and even when you met her, she mightn't be the thing you love most in the world at that stage... and there is the possibility you'd later love her less or hate her. But for "hardwired love" (as far as this thread is concerned) it means that you'd always love her - rather than learning to love her or being able to fall out of love with her...
"Freely-chosen" love doesn't necessarily mean that they are going against the deterministic nature of the universe... it just means it not completely predictable (from the point of view of the beloved and the lover) and the lover feels that it is possible for them to decide to not love them, etc.

[Amos]

Originally posted by excreationist
By "hard-wired love", me (and Jamie_L?) mean love that is quite blind - it is automatic love.


Hmm, like "arranged in heaven" maybe? There seems to be an innate attraction here as if they were opposites. This makes for interesting marriages when the opposites that caused the attraction become liabilities towards unity.

Free love would be more like "flattery" and is the stuff I do not like. Friends make up this sort of thing and since friends have all things in common it can be said that neither one of them have anything to offer the other but companionship. This is modern but makes for dull marriages without assets and liabillities.

[Devilnaut]

"Freely" chosen love is conditional love and it isn't real, it is a reflection by virtue of its initiation by something other than itself.



"But see, amid the mimic rout,
A crawling shape intrude!
A blood-red thing that writhes from out
The scenic solitude!
It writhes! -- it writhes! -- with mortal pangs
The mimes become its food,
And the seraphs sob at vermin fangs
In human gore imbued.

Out -- out are the lights -- out all!
And over each quivering form,
The curtain, a funeral pall,
Comes down with the rush of a storm,
And the angels, all pallid and wan,
Uprising, unveiling, affirm
That the play is the tragedy, "Man,"
And its hero the Conqueror Worm."

This is a beautiful poem but its presence here might be called artificial, because it was not destined to be created in this post by my own hand and the influences acting upon it. Instead it was chosen by a will other than what we call God's, and for a specific purpose that may or may not have much to do with this greater one. And so to this end it (the poem) may or may not become entwined with the destiny of another and instead seem more like an intrusion that makes little sense.

Of course from the greater perspective it could be said that there is really nothing that is "artificial" and a flawed perspective is required to make this distinction in the first place.

[Amos]

It's tragic indeed but the real tragedy is in giving the worm a headstart for the sake of our own convenience.

I think the worm will always be there as it must gnaw away the mimes and once they are gone there better be something left to claim its victory.

Did you write that poem? Very nice.

[Devilnaut]

Perhaps one day I'll write poetry like that ;) But that is from a Poe story, "Ligeia".

Ligeia (http://www.eapoe.org/works/tales/ligeiag.htm)


You'll like it, if you haven't read it before...

[premjan]

The key aspect is that free will involves conscious awareness which locks the decision in (or can). So the decision can tie in better into the higher brain centers. When the consciousness is not involved, it may be an animal attraction or instinct. In this case, it will not be as stable an attraction because human beings are not true pair bonders (as in they do not have an instinct for permanent pairbonding). So the involvement of conscious decision-making seals the whole thing better.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by excreationist
By "hard-wired love", me (and Jamie_L?) mean love that is quite blind - it is automatic love.
The alternative is conditional love, where the exact requirements are unclear and vary from person to person... it is far more fussy and the person could lose interest due to boredom, etc. And it would mostly be learnt... I mean say you have a wife that you had learnt to love over your lifetime - that isn't hardwired love... you wouldn't love her a lot before you even before you knew she existed - and even when you met her, she mightn't be the thing you love most in the world at that stage... and there is the possibility you'd later love her less or hate her. But for "hardwired love" (as far as this thread is concerned) it means that you'd always love her - rather than learning to love her or being able to fall out of love with her...
"Freely-chosen" love doesn't necessarily mean that they are going against the deterministic nature of the universe... it just means it not completely predictable (from the point of view of the beloved and the lover) and the lover feels that it is possible for them to decide to not love them, etc.

If Jamie_L means that, then why bring up, in the post that started this thread:

Originally posted by Jamie_L
Is freely-chosen love better than hardwired love?
This came up again recently, as it always does. In discussions of free will, and why it's of any value at all, a common response is that "love cannot exist unless it is freely given love", or something to that effect.

...

Jamie_L seems quite definitely contrasting a "free will" position with "determinism".

In any case, the distinction between love as a result of "free will" versus love as a result of "determinism" is NOT the same distinction as the one between conditional and unconditional love.

If you mean the latter distinction, it would be better to use the expression "conditional" instead of "freely chosen", particularly when the idea of "free will" has been already introduced into the discussion.

[Devilnaut]

"In any case, the distinction between love as a result of "free will" versus love as a result of "determinism" is NOT the same distinction as the one between conditional and unconditional love."


Well, in my opinion they are the same because freely chosen love is rationally chosen love and is therefore conditional and determined love "just is".

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Devilnaut
"In any case, the distinction between love as a result of "free will" versus love as a result of "determinism" is NOT the same distinction as the one between conditional and unconditional love."


Well, in my opinion they are the same because freely chosen love is rationally chosen love and is therefore conditional and determined love "just is".

As I stated above (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1193064#post1193064), consider, for example, the possibility that the "hard wiring" is not directly for the love to exist, but for it to exist whenever X, Y, and Z occur. Then it would not be "unconditional" love, but it would still be "caused" or "determined", with "free will" having nothing whatsoever to do with it.

"Determined" love may be conditional.

[Devilnaut]

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. You could say that, in a deterministic universe, nothing is unconditional because everything is caused. But I disagree, because if everything is caused then cause loses its meaning as a form of distinction. Therefore if everything is caused only the initial "condition" is required for anything to occur and since we are inside of this condition anything that occurs "naturally" we can call unconditional.

So it depends on if you're looking at things from our point of view or the universe's point of view. From the universe's point of view, there is no such thing as a "condition" as everything "just is" and separations (as implied by the word condition) are arbitrary. From our point of view we divide things and make distinctions and it is when we initiate love as an idea of our own that I would use the word conditional. Love occuring "naturally" could happen no other way and is therefore not really conditional at all.

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

There's a medical horror novel that deals with the freely-chosen vs. hardwired love issue: Wavelengths, subtitled "A novel about the ultimate cure for burned-out marriage," by Daniel M. Klein (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982). A psychiatrist, Dr. Elizabeth Saxon, runs a place called the Institute of Marriage, which takes couples who've been bitter and completely out of love for years, and who've tried every kind of marital therapy in the book, and in one week has them ecstatically happy with each other.

The first sign that all is not as it seems occurs when an IM graduate couple gets into a car crash; the husband is killed instantly but the wife survives. As the paramedics try to free her from the wreckage, she suddenly plants a big French kiss on her husband's corpse -- even as it spurts blood onto her; she shows no sorrow, only serenity and rapture. As an aghast cop tries to stop her, she whispers, "Goodness, Officer, don't you understand? Haven't you ever been in love?"

It turns out Dr. Saxon is a psychosurgeon as well. On their last day at the IM, without their consent, couples are sedated and subjected to automated microsurgery which implants phenylethylamine (PEA, sometimes called "the love chemical") stimulators in their brains; also implanted in each is a transmitter which activates the other's stimulator (and only the other's). They are then given a high-voltage tranquilizer to erase their memory of the operation. Bingo! Perfect hardwired love for life! (Speaking of life: The devices are powered by body-heat-activated batteries; hence, since the above hubby's corpse had not gone cold, his transmitter remained active.)

This makes for a fine novel, but as to what's wrong with it in reality (and why I hold freely chosen love to be far superior):

(1) Programming doesn't happen naturally; it takes serious, strenuous effort (in this case, psychosurgery) to pull it off. Furthermore, unless the programmer has total control over the programmee's environment (as in a totalitarian political regime or a typical religious cult), there will always be threats to the programming from outside. For example, the novel presupposes that PEA stimulation occurs from no source besides the transmitter, which works at up to ten miles. Great ... first business trip of eleven miles or more, hubby sees a striking bimboid and his PEA spikes unassisted; as the immortal Bryan Ferry said in "Love is the Drug," "You can guess the rest." Freely chosen love, however, allows one to foresee the consequences of cheating and willingly decide not to inflict pain on the beloved and thus throw away one's marriage.

(2) The equation "PEA Stimulation = Love" is absurdly mechanistic and simplistic. PEA stimulation may stir up pleasure and sexual excitement, but what the stimulatee does with those feelings is entirely his/her own choice, and the consequences can be for good or ill. An analogous absurdity would be "Viagra = Love" or "Viagra = Broken Marriage." All Viagra does is inhibit one enzyme responsible for shutting down the male arousal process. Thus, a guy taking it may feel the erection of a lifetime, but if he then cheats on his wife, you can be sure he was thinking about it long before the pill came along.

In fact, in one of the two biggest twists of irony I've ever seen (the other will follow below), it's interesting how many guys justify cheating on their spouses by claiming it's due to "male hardwiring" or "evolutionary imperative," or "men are from Mars," and so on -- i.e., claiming programming (in this case by nature) as a defense! Again, freely chosen love allows a far better response to this kind of threat.

(3) Dr. Saxon makes the following dubious claim to a patient in mid-implant:

"Pure, undiluted pleasure. No nagging worry can weight it down. No sudden itch on the back can distract you from it. No, this is the pure thing, the uncut stuff. The aim of all the psychotherapies whatever their dogma, when you think of it. Pure pleasure crowds out guilt, numbs anxiety."

Real life, however, throws plenty of worry and stress at people -- often enough to overcome any PEA action; even the most loving of couples can't have a good time with each other if one or both is worried sick over the credit card bill or Junior's failing grades. The ones who choose love freely, however, will be far more able to weather such storms.

(4) One also wonders if the body's PEA production system might eventually burn out from so much artificial stimulation -- at which point free choice must come to the fore once again.

(5) The couples who attend the IM seem highly fear-driven by the misconception that love is no more than a powerful feeling which comes upon one unbidden, and that once that feeling goes, so does the marriage. As Laura, the female protagonist, puts it in a couples counseling session with her husband Ted, led by a male/female therapist team:

"I'm talking about the magic that can happen between two people. The chemistry. The romance, for chrissake! Have any of you heard of romance?"

"... But one cannot expect to sustain such feelings as those all the time," [the female therapist] continued without missing a beat. "Any more than one can expect to laugh all the time or to feel orgiastic pleasure every moment of the day." She smirked. "I think it would be difficult to lead a mature, fulfilling life if we did."

Both the male therapist and Ted smiled.

"Well, then, fuck the mature, fulfilling life!" Laura said.

I hold that the therapists erred greatly here -- they may have been right about how romantic feelings can't be sustained 24/7/365, but casting the problem as a maturity issue demeans Ted and Laura for having such concerns. The therapists would have been far wiser to stress that dry spells don't last forever, and that choosing to wait them out preserves the marriage until better times return.

(6) Finally, programming means the presence of a programmer, which raises all the ethical red flags over who gets to do what programming to whom for what purpose. The novel provides two ominous hints. Dr. Saxon's mid-implant speech continues:

"And of course, [pure pleasure] has an altogether socializing influence. That's the reason so many of our leaders support our work here. Happy people are good, generous, loyal. Undemanding."

The gubmint's involved? Ya think??? :rolleyes: And in that other twist of irony, what kicks off its involvement in promoting mechanistic programmed love? Yea, verily, didst thou guess it ... prayer! Chapter One opens with a fundy senator from Arkansas speaking before Congress, thanking god for making the architect of the plan the director of the National Institute of Mental Health:

"Lord ... Everywhere we looked we saw our children drunk and stupefied. We saw our daughters fornicating guiltlessly and then demanding the right to murder their unborn babies. We saw our sons sadistically enslaved by homosexual teachers. We saw one sister locking her God-given husband from her door so that she could qualify for a government check while another sister lived in naked sin so that she could qualify for a tax benefit. We saw parenthood that was no longer natural, but planned by men with pills and test tubes. We saw children dragging their parents to court, whores demanding payment of palimony, adulterers demanding no-fault divorces. Yes, Lord, everywhere we looked we saw a Sodom where a man was no longer responsible for his wife and children, a Gomorrah where a woman did not need to honor and obey her husband. And we cried aloud in the words of Your Son, 'Why have you forsaken us?'"

........

"Lord ... You came to me in a luminous, overwhelmingly beautiful vision, a vision of a Peaceable Kingdom on Earth. Families all over America were reunited, wives with husbands, children with parents, parents with grandparents. Drugs and drink had disappeared, replaced by a natural joy. Homosexuals had vanished, replaced by men who cherished their wives and supported their families. Child murderers were gone, replaced by wives swelling with the blessing of God-given children. Wedding vows were sacraments. Families were indivisible. Matrimony was holy again.

"... I cried with joy because in that moment, Lord, I understood that there are not a million obstacles preventing us from founding Your Kingdom on Earth, but only one obstacle. And that is the barrier between a man and his wife. The barrier born of dying marital love. Yes, Lord, if every man and wife could truly love one another with all their hearts for all their lives, peace would reign on the Earth forever after."

(Oops -- a third twist of irony here: It's soooo important to this fundy that love be made certain through programming, but aren't fundies also all ca-ca-pants about how god wants his "children" to freely choose to love him? :confused: :eek: )

Most fortunate am I indeed that Mrs. Doubtmonger and I are fully compatible on all levels -- we're both musicians, writers and artists, we've got two of the sickest minds on the planet, and after a two-decade-plus marriage we can finish each other's thoughts with delight!

Here endeth the fevered ramblings of a guy who chose and still chooses to love his wife freely and joyously, and who fervently hopes the scenario in Wavelengths will forever remain fiction.

Deacon Doubtmonger

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/obscene/eck31.gif religion

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
This came up again recently, as it always does. In discussions of free will, and why it's of any value at all, a common response is that "love cannot exist unless it is freely given love", or something to that effect.

The implication is: freely-chosen love is more valuable than love that someone is programmed to feel.

I challenge this notion.

To the lover, the sensations are identical. Presumeably, one cannot detect the programming, one simply feels love as one feels everything else. It somes from within. We are not talking about forcing a behavior onto someone that feels differently. We are talking about altering how they fundamentally feel, such that it is indistinquishable from any other of their emotions.

To the loved, the results are nearly identical. Their lover behaves in exactly the same way towards them, hardwired or not. The only difference is the knowledge that the love is hardwired. I suppose, one could argue that this would change the reciprocle feeling towards the person loving you. But, really, we don't value those who don't love us as much as we value those that do. Is it the free choice that is really valued? Or is it the result of the choice?

All this assumes, of course, the existence of true "free choice", which I am prone to deny. But assuming it, for the sake of arguement, what is the good arguement for "freely chosen love" being superior to "hardwired love"?

Jamie

Just a couple of observations:

1. How would either the lover or beloved detect the difference.
2. In what context is either "more valuable" or "superior" to the other.
3. I think it is important to distinguish between free "will" and free "choice."

[Devilnaut]

Deacon, programmed love is not the same as hardwired love. Programmed implies the existance of a programmer and if this is another human being then their choice of love will be just as conditional as yours would be, which would give you no reason at all to defer to their judgement on the matter.


Personally, when I talk about "hardwired" love I am talking about love that would exist without the reasoned initiation of it through a will. Freely chosen love would be love initiated by someone who thinks they know better than that which made them who they are.

Hardwired love would be like a match made in heaven, where the paths of two people intersect naturally and without the intervention of reason.

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

Originally posted by Devilnaut
Deacon, programmed love is not the same as hardwired love. Programmed implies the existance of a programmer and if this is another human being then their choice of love will be just as conditional as yours would be, which would give you no reason at all to defer to their judgement on the matter.

Personally, when I talk about "hardwired" love I am talking about love that would exist without the reasoned initiation of it through a will. Freely chosen love would be love initiated by someone who thinks they know better than that which made them who they are.
This all seems to imply that there's a god doing the "hardwiring." As an atheist, of course, I can't buy this, and can't imagine deferring to "nature" or some other such non-judging abstraction as the "maker."

Hardwired love would be like a match made in heaven, where the paths of two people intersect naturally and without the intervention of reason.
Sorry if I confused things -- the starting thread of this post was regarding programming. However, whether love is initiated through programming or hardwiring (or a will), it's not the initiation but the maintenance of love that's at issue. For the reasons I set forth in my post, I hold that free choice is necessary if a match made in "heaven" (even if hardwired at the outset) is to survive the pressures and threats against its life on Earth.

Deacon Doubtmonger

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/obscene/eck31.gif religion

[Theli]

I guess if someone loves you because they've been hardwired to do so, then you may not be as wonderful as that person thinks. Although on the other hand, you don't really need to.

I guess freely chosen love would give you a sense of self-worth.

[Jamie_L]

Originally posted by theophilus
1. How would either the lover or beloved detect the difference.
2. In what context is either "more valuable" or "superior" to the other.
3. I think it is important to distinguish between free "will" and free "choice."

Responses:

1. I'm assuming that neither the lover nor the beloved can tell the difference. There's no magical reason to assume this, it's just the scenario that I've used in previous arguements, so it's the scenario I'm interested in here.

2. Not sure I completely understand this question.

3. True. Some of that ambiguity can be eliminated from this equation, I think, by asking about "hard-wired" love vs. non "hard-wired" love.

Jamie

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
This came up again recently, as it always does. In discussions of free will, and why it's of any value at all, a common response is that "love cannot exist unless it is freely given love", or something to that effect.

The implication is: freely-chosen love is more valuable than love that someone is programmed to feel.



It all depends on what your definition of "better" is, doesn't it?

If value is experimentally determined, then there is nothing ultimate about any form of behavior, is there.

Therefore, the motivation of love, whatever that is, if it has no transcendent value, i.e., not deriving from the materiality of human existence, cannot be evaluated in any objective sense, can it?