4 ms·
I hear you, and I think it’s valuable to delineate the intellectual from the emotional to some extent. With love being such a nebulous concept, I want to set ou
by keenmaster 6y ago
I hear you, and I think it’s valuable to delineate the intellectual from the emotional to some extent. With love being such a nebulous concept, I want to set out my narrow definition in the context of this conversation. Anthropomorphic love necessarily requires abstract cognition which is beyond the abilities of dolphins. Dolphins can love you, and love each other, but the love is entirely rooted in lower cognitive states which simply draw a connection between you and a few very tangible, primal things.
There’s love, and then there’s love love.
- undershirt 6y agoi agree, and thanks for your charitable reading (re-reading what i said, i actually hate the way i said it). > love is entirely rooted in lower cognitive states you likely already know this, but emergence adds a famous corollary to what “rooted in” means: > Downward causation can be defined as a converse of the reductionist principle: the behavior of the parts (down) is determined by the behavior of the whole (up), so determination moves downward instead of upward. The difference is that determination is not complete. It gets into an example that makes this sound less mystical. But applying that here, “love love” abstractly might be the higher signal abstraction for understanding “lower cognitive states”, because the lower stuff emerges higher stuff that constrains its behavior using higher complexity rules. [1]: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html