Free Will And Love

From FreeWill:

Free Will is necessary for love to have meaning. Could you imagine programming your computer to say "I LOVE YOU" every time you came into the room? Would that be love? No, for love to be real, it must be freely chosen, freely given. -- BrucePennington

Why wouldn't it suffice for it to seem to have such meaning to those involved (or observers)?

Would it suffice to aid in the propagation of the species? – yes. Would it suffice to pacify malcontents like me who reject their genetic programming and question things? - No. It would suffice if you are the type to mindlessly go through life. I’m not. It matters to me. I want to know if we are simply a pile of chemical compounds obeying the laws of physics – genetically programmed bio-robots – or something bigger, better, more important than that. -- BrucePennington

[By "seems", I meant non-superficially, even after being given careful consideration. Hence, even most malcontents and observers would be satisfied. Since no proof is available, "seems" (in the sense described) suffices.]

It isn't necessary for love to have "meaning". If it makes you feel better to imagine that someone "freely" chooses to say he loves you, that's cool. Just don't pretend it's anything but a comforting illusion.

Certainly love seems to be real (i.e. freely chosen, not genetically driven) and has the desired emotional pleasures, resulting relational cooperation, sex, reproductive success, etc. It accomplishes the task it is designed for. The question at hand, though, is FreeWillAndLove. If there is no FreeWill, there is no love as we know it. We can label the genetically programmed "if" "then" behaviors as love, but to the massive majority of the Human race, love does not exist. -- BrucePennington

[What communicating system are you implying? Which parts are due to physics?]

I don't follow. I don't believe in FreeWill, but I experience multiple forms of love. Love doesn't depend on free will. All of my emotions, thoughts and decisions are the product of deterministic or non-deterministic physics. They either have to happen the way they happen, or they happen randomly. That doesn't make any of them less "real" or remove their "meaning". All "real" and "meaningful" events occur for those same reasons.

OK, I think I'm seeing our issue here and it is focusing on meaning. To me, love is meaningless if it is chosen robotically - a programmed behavior. To me, Life is meaningless if this is all there is {see my article: "The Meaning of Life" }. Yes, either way, it is "real." Either way, it produces measurable results. -- BrucePennington

[What are "results"? The problem with a dictionary definition of that term for the above context is that it would imply God is subject to "cause and effect" laws.] By "results" I mean that whether love is chosen freely, or it is a genetically driven behavior, the results are the same -- we mate and reproduce. Can you explain what you mean by God is subject "cause and effect" laws? BrucePennington

---

You're putting the cart before the horse. Free will won't pop into existence to give love meaning for you. We either have free will or we don't. If our lack of it makes love meaningless for you, that's too bad, but it doesn't give us free will. We are physical objects and hence we obey the laws of physics. Most of those laws are deterministic (with the notable exception of quantum effects, which are probably non-deterministic.) Our consciousness and sense of free will are governed by those laws, not vice versa. We can't make a decisions that change the laws of physics. The laws of physics produce all of our decisions.

P You sound like you are working with StephenHawking on his GUT theory (Grand Unified Theory, which is to unite all laws of physics and will explain how everything works, including human behavior. See "Brief History of Time.") "We either have free will or we don't" -- I agree. I don't understand why you think I believe that have free will affects the laws of physics. My point is simple: If there is no free will, love is meaningless; in fact Life is meaningless. If this view of Existence is correct, all Life is without purpose and meaning. It is in a god-created universe, one where we are specifically given free will so that we may choose to love God, that love matters and has purpose.

And my point is also simple. Realization of our lack of free will may seem unpleasant to us, but it doesn't change the facts. Humans created "meaning" and "love" without free will. Knowldege of that doesn't make the concepts disappear.

Ok, then we are at impasse. If I really believed your world-view was accurtate, I'd cash it in. The pain and suffering I've been through are not worth putting up with; but that's a different Wiki page! I can accept them because I believe that love is real - i.e. it is freely chosen and given - and that the Ultimate love comes from God and fullfils our lives, makes us whole and complete. It gives our lives purpose and meaning. I couldn't live your way. BrucePennington

Do you see that a need for free will has no effect on the presence or absence of free will?

Certainly! But this is an arguement for the FreeWill page. This page's point is to discuss FreeWillAndLove. BrucePennington

Which was started on the FreeWill page and refactored here.

---

Maybe this isn't the place for this question, but - if you don't believe in FreeWill, then why do you get up in the morning?

So I won't get the bed wet when I pee, same as anyone else. Does a belief in FreeWill get you up in the morning?

---

This is really stupid discussion. Love isn't a choice! You can choose how to act on it, or what it means for you, but if/when it happens to you, like it or not, you're pretty much stuck with it. It can be great, it can suck, that's life. At the very least you can hope to learn a little about yourself. -Inamorati Anonymous

Hi I.A.! I like your approach about learning from life and love! Love itself is actually much more than what you describe. That first "In love" stuff is mostly chemicals. You're "hot" for each other, because the pheremones have kicked in. Real "love" comes in after the chemicals have worn off, and the morning breath and warts, and bad habits become known. This love is a choice. It is chosing to spend the rest of your life "enriching" the life of your spouse. This is called "Agape" love, or unconditional love. Believe me, after 28 years of marriage, you need to chose this kind of love or the relationship will not last. But hey! If there is not FreeWill, it's all moot. We're just robots and what will be - will be - because it doesn't really matter! BrucePennington

Sorry Bruce, but I know the difference between limerance and love. What you're saying is that without making sacrifices and compromises, your relationship will not last, because it's complicated and NOT unconditional, and that the choice to do this. I maintain that love is a form of self discovery, and has no bearing on the question of free will. You can't establish or disprove free will by citing love or any other such phenomenological "evidence" because it's just a fact of the system we live in. From here, it's a short trip to Turing-Godel-Chaitin incomputability-incompleteness-AIT!

Yes, love may be defined a number of ways. My point on this page is that it is meaningless, de-valued, made moot if it is not chosen freely - like the desk top computer programmed to say "I LOVE YOU" everytime you walk into the room. BrucePennington

On a side note, the chemical feelings you cite are really just a feedback mechanism for the underlying informational systems. In this version, love is a pattern matching problem in system dynamics. I also find it curious that you insist we are something other than biological robots without citing evidence, or apologizing to all the robots out there. Robots are people too you know. -I.A.

LOL! I'll have to ponder the "evidence" question. I meant this as a logic discussion on the meaningfulness of love in a world without FreeWill. Sounds like we need a page called RobotsHaveFeelingsToo?. BrucePennington