Philosophy – “Why Machines would not Understand Love” – 3/15/2023

“Between the black or the white, there is nothing but everything brought forward from a certain past into an uncertain future.”

Modern Romanticism

What a machine knows is to compute A or B from a scenario, or from a file where something can be accessed in its objective light. What it cannot do is comprehend the middle-ground where nothing can be objective, though resides upon the solid choice of the individual. A machine can bring on disappearances, though that has its role in life and its physical components. Only physical components, for only life can be taken apart, though love cannot; because the disappearance of love would be the disappearance of memories. To those memories, they define love to the connection that had been formed through moments shared with a beating heart.

Should a life die, or when it does, a person is forced to bury what remains of them, whether whole or not in their physical body. A person can bury that. Though, to love? What of love does a person bury, store, or conceal of grief, other than what is felt by them to be the most misunderstood thing to others? To that grief, a person isolates themselves. Upon that grief, love persists, and nothing could erase what a grieving person knows or what they’ve taken away at a disconnecting “goodbye”. A machine couldn’t fathom this, because a machine would see a life as a file, with its disappearance as a file’s deletion. A machine would see black or white, though not the black and the white that relates to what’s in that middle-ground where something cannot be deleted. Though, should a grief-stricken person want for their pain from their grief to disappear, one can believe that should that occur, they’d take the joyous moments away, too. For as love cannot be black or white, it would be black and white, meaning that what’s separated from one will be separated from the other.

In all of love’s pain, itself defines growth, as a metaphysical essence that is only painful because of its existence in a person’s heart. A metaphysical heart, not being the one that physically beats, has been dealt with grief’s dose of pain because of love’s eternal “life”. An existence that does not have physical form does not die. While a machine comprehends parts to make a whole, it would have to comprehend only a life’s deletion. What of love could be deleted, if not ever physical? What of love could be taken apart, when it had always been whole, not ever possible to be split into black or white?

Philosophy – “Why Humans were not Meant to Think like Computers” – 12/20/2021

“The machine is purely functional. A human, more than functional. Unlike the computer, human emotions represent our freedom. We cannot think, without feeling. We cannot be logical, without the direction that emotions are always expressed. With control over emotions, not the absence of them, this is what defines logic. Logic is not pure in simple function. It is pure when human emotions do not constrain the individual into being chaotic.”

– Modern Romanticism

Freedom. It is a concept buried in subjectivity. However, it should be innately understood about the freedom to express an emotion, that there is nothing to it without our control over them. An emotion becomes a device, representative of the machine, with control over us without our governance. That is, anything that is uncontrolled is the pure function of the device. The radical, through these words, is the tyrant of chaos. Such a tyrant is uncontrolled, though controls others. He is the beast who requires a leash, while believing others are his hounds.

A concept as freedom is subjective, though can be understood, again, as what is against the purport of function. Humans express what is controlled, of their own emotions. A pure function would control or manipulate another’s emotions, because they are not the ruler of their own. As an example, an abuser in a relationship holds no governance over their emotions, though will believe themselves capable of being the puppet-master to someone else’s.

Humans were not meant to think as machines or computers, because the very concept of free will rejects the distraction. As in, to be distracted is to be as the machine, to let emotions control the individual without the opposite ever being intended. Free will reigns upon the comprehension of direction. Without direction, no human can be free. A machine has no direction, nor could it ever, without being unable to commit to several tasks in the same moment. A human cannot “multitask”, because our brains are incapable of focusing on two or more tasks at the same time. Not paying attention or becoming distracted is how humans lose direction. A machine is only such, because its lack of emotions guarantees a person’s false perception into what is pure about logic. A false perception that believes a lack of emotion is logic defined will not understand how to control the self. There is a degree of limitation to even the fields of science, when control over the self is implemented to not go beyond the boundaries of human capability.

With direction, we reject the distraction. Computers can commit to multiple tasks, due to being without emotions. It is to mean that humans are only able to truly think, when doing so upon a straight line. Becoming distracted is against thinking, and also of course against focus. When emotions are controlled of the self, we feel more the need to guide, not force, others into the same balance.