Is love and logic programmable in the same way?
Can I write a database of love by using an abductive-based algorithm, putting into the database, a long narrative, logical history of love, love-calls, responses, wooing and so-frth, that can be called on by the algorithm through the trigger effect of particular key words. How possible is it to create an algorithm that can close-read text messages and tries to decipher the underlying coded message (like what you try to do when playing a record backwards to capture the subliminal encodings) without falling back into the mistakes of the Strong AI program? Can we attempt to do something like this without falling back to trying to elucidate sentience?
Maybe sometime in the near future one can wire chemicals into minute computers that are interfaced to the body and reads the fluctuations of the receptors, transmitters, interferons, axions and various other regulators of the mind and feed the information into a database that then tries to decrypt these raw data (a such a database would be functioning at a higher level than the kind needed to process the abstract raw data produced by the LHC).
Some scientists suspect that love is merely another chemical processing that goes on in the body, and psychiatrists and psychologists think of love(s) as the narcissist/ego/id coming out to play and attempting to outwit reason. And when such a time happen, can we then try to compare this with the simple abductive algorithm we have created to program love? Perhaps this question is like asking if we can create an introspective system that does not suffer from the mood swings of humans. This is a question asked in the novel Turing .
One that can think about how to relate problems of the world with knowledge of the past. We ask, why not let a human do this? Well, perhaps, if we can figure out how to get all the neurons activated at the same time without completely depleting the human being of its energy store.
On a different note; if we are to build sentient systems that can displace repetitive cognitive labor of humans, how should we transform the productive and reproductive construction of the human? Can the 'Turing machine' then work to sufficiently allocate resources so that all humans would have a chance of an education and resources that will enble them to spend time thinking about and working on solutions to the problems of the world rather than be bogged down by tasks that could be performed by the machinic 'slave'. But the question now falls into the rather contentious nature versus nurture debate. As the crime library indicates, the inexplicable mystery of human nature and ethics, regardless of how much work has gone into trying to explain it, makes it difficult to ever ascertain a real future of egalitarity and shared values. Supposing we are able to create machines that approximate the human, how do we create space for both? How will the labor laws change?
However, if we can solve the still unsolvable question of love and falling in love, can we then solve the problem of sentience and make a prick into the blackbox of consciousness? But Latour has indicated the tenuousness of basing one's values and core beliefs on the very fundamentals that are subject to uncertainty, revision and occasionally, denial of the insecurity of one's understanding and knowledge.
thinking about this helps me think about the very artificiality of the dotted lines we made across epistemic fields.
There's this book by Levy called Love + Sex With Robots that I still have not gotten to reading as it lies languishing on my night-table. This will be a treat to myself.
back to more reading.