X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_10_20, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.2.0-r431796 Sender: -1.2 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l2DGtdGc011044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:55:39 -0500 Received: from workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.132]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2DGtYQd000830; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:55:34 -0400 Received: FROM web38314.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web38314.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.125.30]) BY workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45F6D77C.20AF4.5743 ; 13 Mar 2007 12:55:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 67978 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Mar 2007 16:55:23 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=3bCV2QdAnpi4t50A79ixpJKFD7yjkvg/BpmHqBus6y3dWzOnqLkdzn5KpV93sE2hRoMfTXjYbpurOUxczHRqakNXAJKmcZVZqidH3pXM3pIS13kwKVRyJy532W5eiTr3Hl+yl35ccnIkjFZ1T8fzE63L4fMRJN9yr1B6XIooFJw=; X-YMail-OSG: XYg_9eQVM1kNkfSLjlj1dU37kVsKWPT5gMF80vd_ Received: from [74.134.117.52] by web38314.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:55:23 PDT In-Reply-To: <3a58138836fc8b56dde2b1c8ffff4b00 Æ umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-644211797-1173804923=:66092" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <695581.66092.qm Æ web38314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:55:23 -0700 (PDT) To: Dave Morris , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Laurie Reeves Subject: Re: Grandpa Andrew's Reflections on Marriage --0-644211797-1173804923=:66092 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yes, and would the hat be able to detect the lightining fast re-defining of words and concepts that a person is capable of if lying is not a good option at the moment or if they want to avoid the uncomfortable/guilty feeling that they are lying. In other words, a thought process such as: "Well, yes I love you if what you mean by love is..." and a quick re-definition to the rescue. And this is not even necessarily negative or unethical. The point I'm making, I guess, is that the hat is useless when we ourselves don't even know what we mean by love or whether we feel it, do it, think it, or whatever, and when our definition of it can change in an instant because it's difficult to pinpoint or descibe in all of its physical and psychological nuances. So, like Dave first said, love is felt and works differently for different people and I would add that it works differently for the same person at different times, or even different moments, especially if one is asked to declare "Do you or do you not love me?" Not such an easy question to answer given all the nuances and descriptions of the word "love," which varies within and between people and has innumerable variables influencing the answer at any given moment or place in time. And how true, Dave, that people assume it works the same for them as for their counterpart. But the hat idea is a fun one, isn't it? Dave Morris wrote: I believe, and think that I have seen, that many people feel love very differently, and that it can work quite differently for different people, both in what is required to maintain it, and in whether they can feel it for more than one person at a time. Quite a few problems in relationships arise because of this fact, because one partner may assume that love works the same way for their counterpart as for themselves, and thus misinterpret their actions- mistrust their emotions. Recent studies are beginning to detect what scientists believe are electromagnetic signs of that "in love" feeling in the brain, which is apparently differentiable from lust and other emotions. But this is just beginning, it will be some time before they can draw general conclusions and explore the full range of possibility of human emotion. And there's a frightening though- what if your partner could put a hat on you and ask you if you are "in love" with them and the computer would tell them whether or not you're lying. Or maybe would that be a good thing? Hmmm. Dave On Mar 9, 2007, at 8:57 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote: >> the pysiological condition of being "in love" is only possible with >> one person at a time. If you can't relate to what I'm talking about, >> then you've never really been in love. > > So judgmental! I think second guessing people's emotions is a bad > idea. > > -- > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" > > Irrationality is the square root of all evil. > > > David P. Morris, PhD Operations Manager and Senior Engineer ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc. morris Æ edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235 --------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. --0-644211797-1173804923=:66092 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yes, and would the hat be able to detect the lightining fast re-defining of words and concepts that a person is capable of if lying is not a good option at the moment or if they want to avoid the uncomfortable/guilty feeling that they are lying.  In other words, a thought process such as: "Well, yes I love you if what you mean by love is..."  and a quick re-definition to the rescue.  And this is not even necessarily negative or unethical.  The point I'm making, I guess, is that the hat is useless when we ourselves don't even know what we mean by love or whether we feel it, do it, think it, or whatever, and when our definition of it can change in an instant because it's difficult to pinpoint or descibe in all of its physical and psychological nuances.  So, like Dave first said, love is felt and works differently for different people and I would add that it works differently for the same person at different times, or even different moments, especially if one is asked to declare "Do you or do you not love me?"  Not such an easy question to answer given all the nuances and descriptions of the word "love," which varies within and between people and has innumerable variables influencing the answer at any given moment or place in time.  And how true, Dave, that people assume it works the same for them as for their counterpart.  But the hat idea is a fun one, isn't it? 

Dave Morris <thecat Æ umich.edu> wrote:
I believe, and think that I have seen, that many people feel love very
differently, and that it can work quite differently for different
people, both in what is required to maintain it, and in whether they
can feel it for more than one person at a time. Quite a few problems in
relationships arise because of this fact, because one partner may
assume that love works the same way for their counterpart as for
themselves, and thus misinterpret their actions- mistrust their
emotions.

Recent studies are beginning to detect what scientists believe are
electromagnetic signs of that "in love" feeling in the brain, which is
apparently differentiable from lust and other emotions. But this is
just beginning, it will be some time before they can draw general
conclusions and explore the full range of possibility of human emotion.
And there's a frightening though- what if your partner could put a
hat on you and ask you if you are "in love" with them and the computer
would tell them whether or not you're lying. Or maybe would that be a
good thing? Hmmm.

Dave



On Mar 9, 2007, at 8:57 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:

>> the pysiological condition of being "in love" is only possible with
>> one person at a time. If you can't relate to what I'm talking about,
>> then you've never really been in love.
>
> So judgmental! I think second guessing people's emotions is a bad
> idea.
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> Irrationality is the square root of all evil.
>
>
>
David P. Morris, PhD
Operations Manager and Senior Engineer
ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
morris Æ edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235


Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. --0-644211797-1173804923=:66092--