Is love simply the firing of synapses in the brain telling you to have a physical attraction to them or is it something more? Can a robot be taught to love, and if so, would it truly differ from human love? Is love deeper than what you see on the surface of a relationship? Does it make the world a better place to live or does it just tear it appart?
If you can answer any and all of these questions do so. I probably won't agree with you and try to prove you wrong, but that is okay, because I love you guys.
Tell me, why are things that are synthetic inherently imperfect? The mind, however complex or efficient, is not infallible. We could very well be able to improve on the processes of the mind in the future through artificial intelligence. We do not know.
I agree you could make an AI that by definition is less imperfect then we are.
If the love that you have for someone doesn't cover all three, then the love is lacking in an area. It's not complete. This hypothetical robot cannot have a complete love. It is not a balance of all three, it is love that contains all three.
You can still have love that's not all three look at the combinations. I don't understand what is complete in a incomplete system. They can be logical definition have three. Let me emphasize that no love does not have to contain all three.
Not only that, but we don't know 100% about our mind. We barely even know how memories are even created.
You don't have to fully understand a system to be able to recreate it and tweak it.
Let me emphasize that no love does not have to contain all three.
Let's go from the top:
Intimacy Only -- Buddies. New friends. "You're interesting, but I don't have a physical attraction for you, nor do I want any commitments from you".
Passion Only -- Crushes. You're sexy, but I'm not sure if I like you on the inside. I'm not sure if I want commitments from you either.
Commitment Only -- Can't really say what this can be for, but I see it from arranged marriages mostly. "We have to be husband and wife, but that doesn't mean I have to like you".
Companionate Love -- Best friends. Bromances. The only thing that's missing is the physical, sexual attraction. You are willing to see each other to the end.
Romantic Love -- Heavy relationships. Both a physical and mental attraction to the mate. They are not willing to be together forever yet.
Fatuous Love -- Passion, plus commitment? I think of mistresses.
When you have Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment all together, you have a full, complete love for one another. Most married couples have the trinity complete, though you have to admit that after a while, one of the sides of the trinity melts.
You don't have to fully understand a system to be able to recreate it and tweak it.
Right now, we don't know a lot about our minds. If we, right now, tried to implement a mind into a robot, given that we could, the project would fail horribly. Our expectations would be severely screwed up.
But hey, all this talk about AI finally makes us know what love, the original topic, is, right? /sarcasm
Also in the other example that bond is still love. Your trying to define true love.
Right now, we don't know a lot about our minds. If we, right now, tried to implement a mind into a robot, given that we could, the project would fail horribly. Our expectations would be severely screwed up.
But in the near future it could be easily feasible. With the boom of technology. This is all hypothetical (including the graph) so there isn't much to argue.
But hey, all this talk about AI finally makes us know what love, the original topic, is, right? /sarcasm
Isn't the whole point of discussion like this, is asking questions, diverging and arguing. I find it ridiculous to tie yourself down to the topic so throughly. Unless you really, really go off topic.
I know what hate is thought. It's the feeling I have for the placement of the submit button.
But in the near future it could be easily feasible. With the boom of technology. This is all hypothetical (including the graph) so there isn't much to argue.
I agree that what the future holds could be a serious spike in innovation. We may have another Age of Invention in our lifetimes we may never know! That diagram is from Sternburg's theory of love. So far it hasn't been debunked in his field of study yet.
Isn't the whole point of discussion like this, is asking questions, diverging and arguing. I find it ridiculous to tie yourself down to the topic so throughly. Unless you really, really go off topic.
That is true, however, the OP asked for a definition of love. There are different components of love that can still occur, but the full, complete version of love, true love as you said, occurs when the trinity is met.
I know what hate is thought. It's the feeling I have for the placement of the submit button.
That diagram is from Sternburg's theory of love. So far it hasn't been debunked in his field of study yet.
I know but the previous iteration of the love graph also seemed quite logical. Personally I think it's more complex that the graph could illustrate but in general for now the graph works to a degree.
That is true, however, the OP asked for a definition of love. There are different components of love that can still occur, but the full, complete version of love, true love as you said, occurs when the trinity is met.
I think we pretty much gave the definition of love that would be suitable for the op now we are just refining the constraints of it and stretching the idea.
That song does not really have any relevance to the question. It basically asks the question over and over without really giving an answer.
I like the three sided love triangle, but is that really all there is to it? Can love be summed up in just three little neat piles? I really don't think so. Maybe it can, maybe I am wrong, but I think that there is more to love than that.
Trying to explain love to someone who has never felt it is like trying to explain the color blue to someone who has been blind all their life. True love is one of those things that you cannot truly understand until you feel it, and it is the equivalent of every positive emotional feeling you have ever had piled on top of each other. I think it is wrong to try to break human emotion down into a theory, or a chart. It is much more complex than anything that can ever be explained.
Love is a balance beam; at any point in time, you could fall and never be repaired.
Love is a magnet, attracting you, but able to be turned so you will be repelled, whether you like it or not.
Love is a weakness, a blind spot that makes you depend on another to guide you through the dark. This blind spot stays forever, even if you are unable to depend on that person anymore.
Love is one side of a coin, so close to heartbreak, but you are unable to see misery when you are looking at the side of love. And vice-versa.
"Love" is a combination, typically referring to human's "emotion", of pheromones, hormones, and at least in humans of personal preference do to culture or any other form of preference essentially.
