Requirements:Must have clear thesis statement. I also would like you to highlight the thesis before handing it in. Must be in MLA Format, 1 inch margins, 12 pt font times new roman, double spaced.Must be 5 full pages, not 4 full pages and 1 page that’s 3/4 full. Do not summarize, include quotes from the new humanities reader that I will provide for you. the readings that you must read pages 458-478, this is about Turkle, then pages 165-189 this is about Fredrickson, and finally, pages 1-18 this is about Karen Armstrong. After using quotes to back up your argument you have to explain the quotes, obviously refrain from using these types of phrases: “this quote explain that….””in conclusion….”The link to the pdf: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7EBV8fLINIhZ0MtU…I need an outline like the one attached. I also need a works cited page.I need minimal grammatical errors (Grammarly can help with that)This isn’t a personal essay, so refrain from using first person perspective writing: I, Me,My, Etc.I attached below an outline that you can use as a guide, the outline is about the first reading- Fredrickson.I attached both previous papers having to do with this, do not copy and paste material from previous essays. Use the papers as a guide.
paper__3_1__1_.docx
20190220184442biology_and_love__outline.doc
paper_1_final.docx
ahmet_dulgeroglu_assignment_2_final_.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Paper 3
Expos 355: 101
Readings: Barbara Fredrickson, “Love 2.0” (New Humanities Reader)
Sherry Turkle, “Alone Together”(New Humanities Reader)
Karen Armstrong, “Homo religiosus” (New Humanities Reader)
For the past few weeks, we have looked at essays that dealt with concepts such as love and life
itself. All three authors argue that these are continuous processes rather than monumental
moments in time. Turkle argues that our efforts in loving something, even a machine, gives it
not only a meaning, but also perhaps a life. Fredrickson contends that love is a verb, a process,
that “[p]ositivity resonance lies in the action, the doing, the connecting” (109). Finally,
Armstrong proposes that religion is a specific series of rituals; “…a matter of doing rather than
thinking” (17). How might Armstrong’s description of “rituals” offer a model by which
individuals and communities can construct meaning for concepts such as love or life?
Questions to Get You Started:
• What is the process of love according to Fredrickson? Turkle? Armstrong?
• How do rituals build up an individual’s religious understanding? What is the ritual’s role in
the development of a religion or civilization?
• What are the physiological, mental, spiritual, and emotional changes that humans undergo
when experiencing love or deeper connections with their surroundings over time?
• How might Turkle respond to Fredrickson or Armstrong in their examination of human
behavior?
Rough Draft Due: Wednesday, March 6 (four full pages)
Please upload (as an attachment) to Assignments on our Sakai site (sakai.rutgers.edu) by 12:00
PM on Wednesday, March 6. Please share on the class Google Drive as well.
Final Draft Due: Wednesday, March 13 (five full pages)
Please upload (as an attachment) to Assignments on our Sakai site (sakai.rutgers.edu) by 12:00
PM on Wednesday, March 13.
Late rough drafts will result in a half-letter grade deduction from the final of Paper. Late final
drafts will result in a full-letter grade deduction from Paper.
Required:
* stapled *double spaced *1-inch margins *12-pt. font (Times New Roman)
* MLA format (Your headers, page numbers, and quotations should be formatted properly.)
* See Keys for Writers
Biology and Love
A. Love is viewed as an emotional experience that only relates to living things.
B. Love is understood as a biological response that is based on anatomical responses and
therefore has not been viewed outside the realms of biological life.
C. It is possible for humans to love something that does not have the same physiological
response as them as love is not only delineated towards biological entities alone.
I.
Love as a biological response to a non-biological entity
A. Humans can love without expecting the other person to reciprocate their feelings and this
therefore identifies that it is possible for humans to love non-biological entities.
B. Biology is necessary for the development of love but that does not mean that humans
cannot develop the same affections and feelings of longing for non-biological entities.
C. Machines can be considered alive even when we know that they are not when they are
able to express different personalities as evidenced by the Tamagotchi (Miller and
Spellmeyer 464).
D. The act of caring for an inanimate object with as great care and affection as a real person
shows that love can expressed for non-biological entities.
II.
Affection for machines and healthy development
A. The behavior of the children such as caring for all the needs of the Furby and the
Tamagotchi’s identifies that although these toys are innate they are capable of evoking
emotional responses from humans thus fueling the desire to care for and be cared for.
B. Affection for machines promotes healthy social and emotional development among
children that are later evidenced between interactions with real life persons.
C. The machines provide an opportunity to learn how to treat others within the society and
how to care for others.
III.
Conclusion
A. Turtle’s work provides distinctive examples of how machines are considered alive
enough to be cared for and to simulate human emotions.
B. The ability of the machines to simulate human emotions and ability to care and be cared
for enabled the children to relate to these non-biological entities and to form love for
them.
C. Love is expressed as a product of interactions that elicit biological responses in humans.
Additionally, affection for machines can be a healthy development as it provides
opportunities to care as well as develop social and emotional skills that may be
implemented in person to person interactions.
Dulgeroglu 1
Ahmet Dulgeroglu
Thomas Colella
Expository Writing 101
February 23rd, 2019
To understand the meaning of positivity resonance, one has to explore its role in love
from the different perspectives that the author provides.Fredrickson discusses various concepts
that surround love, its occurrence, and how it is shared among two people. The author considers
love as a verb or a process that comprises of biological systems, and she uses terms like bond,
coupling, and click to describe the process. This paper explains Fredrickson’s description of love
as a verb and a method, explores the various systems that make up love, and explains the
principle of “love begets love.” Fredrickson uses many concepts that have a special meaning
concerning love. One of these concepts is positivity resonance. In her book, Fredrickson writes
that love is an experience that humans undergo that can be identified through variations in their
emotional wellbeing and the connection that they have with one another. In this case, factors
such as positive emotion sharing, synchronization among partners, and the existence of mutual
care fluctuate from highs to lows. These fluctuations are not only identified in the bond of love
that exists among those in romantic relationships, but it can also be seen in other settings
including the relationship between a parent and a child. All these concepts are what define
positivity resonance.
Positivity resonance can be understood as a scenario where an emotion exists among two
or more people. It is a term that the author uses interchangeably with love. For instance, she
states that one can “think of love, or positivity resonance” as a set among complex and recurrent
Dulgeroglu 2
scenes that occur when an emotion exists between two people (p. 109). When such a bond is
shared among two or more people, it positively unfurls across both their minds and their bodies.
This makes positivity resonance an integral process within the larger love domain.
Positivity resonance is a verb. This can be learned from the description that is provided
by the author and how the concept is linked to love or emotions that are shared across two
people. The author argues that verbs, rather than nouns, rule when it comes to love. This means
that the components that make up love are themselves verbs. To begin with, Fredrickson writes
that positivity resonance lies in the “action, the doing, the connecting” (p. 109). This means that
the concept is a verb. In addition, she describes it as an act and a play that determines one’s day
and life. The action concept of positivity resonance is also based on the idea that it is the process
of “connecting” those entangled in the shared emotions. Without these actions, it would be
difficult to understand the process of love as the actions themselves constitute the concept of
positivity resonance. The description of positivity resonance as moments or scenes that are
nested within the day-to-day processes reaffirms that positivity resonance is indeed a verb.
The process of love is a complex process that revolves around the emotional bond that
exists between two people. Fredrickson uses terms such as coupling, bond, and click, among
others to describe the process of love. While describing love as a coupling, Fredrickson argues
that love is a process that binds or establishes a connection between two brains (p. 111). In this
case, this process can be understood as a series of waves that connect the brain of one person
with another whom they share an emotional bond in a way that the two brains function as a
single one. During that moment, the two people forget themselves and immerse themselves in a
world that is composed of the life that they share.
Dulgeroglu 3
The process of love can also be understood as one that leads to the formation of a
“powerful social bond” between two people who share an emotional connection (Fredrickson
114). This is a process that can be best understood by considering the author’s description of the
impact of oxytocin hormone in love. In this case, the hormone binds two people through the
body and the mind as well. It is a hormone that creates tight social bonds and attachment. As a
result, the process of love can be understood as a bonding process between the minds and bodies
of two people who share an emotional connection. The author also describes the process using a
scenario that occurs when an infant and its parent click. At this point, oxytocin levels among the
two people vary based on the quality of bond that they share (Fredrickson 116). This essentially
means that the hormones that determine emotions will vary synchronously with the type of
emotional bond and its quality. It is for these reasons that Fredrickson argues that positivity
resonates once two people entangled in love or positive emotions interact.
There are a number of conditions that must be met in order for the process of love to
occur. Both parties have to feel internally and externally safe while they should also share a
neural connection. While describing the process of love as a click, Fredrickson argues that
coordinated motions and emotions have to be tracked while the two parties balance their actions
to ensure that they create a positive impact on the other party (pp. 116-117). Should any of the
two feel unsafe, the waves or connections that bind the brains and bodies of the two people
would be negatively affected? Similarly, it is the actions of the two people and their physical
proximity with one another that determine the strength of the bond that exists between them.
From the description above and Fredrickson’s text, it is clear that the process of love and
its associated connection is one that is founded on a biological system. This biological system is
made up of three components. As described by Fredrickson, these are the brain, oxytocin
Dulgeroglu 4
hormone, and vagus nerve (p. 109). The rain is the determinant of the emotional bond that exists
between two people. On the other hand, oxytocin is a hormone that moves around the body, and
the brain whose release is levels are stimulated by the existence of a social or emotional bond
between two people. Vagus bond serves as a link between the brain and the essential organs
including the lungs and heart, among others within the abdomen and the chest sections. This
nerve influences the physiological and physical wellbeing of an individual. By describing love as
a connection that is built by the three components of a biological system, the author determines
that love has a direct influence on the physical, emotional, social, and physiological wellbeing of
an individual.
Fredrickson argues that love begets love. She shares her knowledge of the complex topic
of love and cites research studies that support her viewpoints to explain the meaning of this
concept. She argues that one can learn how to self-generate love. Through this process, an
individual can raise their vagal tone, which can then help in establishing positive connections
with those around oneself (p. 120). As had been explained earlier vagus nerve is a nerve that
coordinates the performance of the vital organs like the heart and lungs. Vagal tone is the action
of this nerve. Thus, Fredrickson means that after self-generating love, one can improve their
physical and physiological wellbeing, which can then help then in sharing more love with other
people. These new relationships are expected to create more love or positivity resonance between
an individual and other people. This is a clear demonstration that the presence of love creates
even more love; hence the principle of love begets love.
A different way that love begets love is through the concept of oxytocin hormone. As the
author explains, positivity resonance leads to increased levels of oxytocin hormone (p. 120).
Oxytocin is a hormone that enhances love between two people by elevating their social skills
Dulgeroglu 5
such as friendliness and calmness. These skills help in creating emotional bonds with more
people; which means that love creates more love.
Finally, the author uses the concept of the brain as a component of the biological system
of love to explain how love creates more love. In this case, she argues that positivity resonance
creates neural coupling between people. By citing research findings, Fredrickson claims that
neural coupling improves the structure of the brain (pp. 120-121). Improved brain structure
raises the sensitivity of the brain to other people and necessitates the creation of more emotional
bonds. In the end, this is proof that love creates more love. By focusing on oxytocin, vagal tone,
and the brain as the three components of the biological system that makes love, the author
demonstrates that love begets love.
Fredrickson’s perception of love as a process differs considerably from the traditional
notions of love. While conventional notions of love focus on love as a simple social bond that is
automatically shared among people who share positive emotions, Fredrickson views love as a
complex process that involves biological systems (p. 109). This begins from the time that
positivity resonance occurs to the bind that is created between the minds and bodies of the two
people, which then leads to the sharing of love among them. This series of processes has to be
entirely followed in order for love to occur between two people.
Fredrickson’s book discusses various concepts that surround love, its occurrence, and
how it is shared among two people. The author considers love as a verb or a process and uses
terms like bond, coupling, and click to describe the process. She considers love as a complex
process of biological systems that work in a coordinated manner. In this case, the ability of each
of these systems to generate more love leads to the conclusion that love begets love.
Dulgeroglu 6
Work Cited
Fredrickson, Barbara. “Love 2.0” (New Humanities Reader), 5e. Cengage Learning,2015.
Miller, Richard Earl, and Spellmeyer, Kurt. The new humanities reader (5th ed). Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2015, pp. 165-189.
Dulgeroglu 7
Dulgeroglu 1
Ahmet Dulgeroglu
Thomas Colella
Expository Writing 101
February 10th, 2019
Biology and Love
It is worth noting that the concept of love has been an eternally elusive subject. Love is
highly perceived as an emotional experience that only relates to living things. It is understood as
a biological response that is based on anatomical responses and therefore has not been viewed
outside the realms of biological life. This statement raises the question as to whether love can be
expressed and experienced towards a non-biological entity. According to our text, Sherry Turkle
in her work illustrates how humanity is nearing a ‘robotic moment.’ This is to imply that humans
already filter companionship through machines and what follows is for people to accept
machines as companions. Again, Barbara Fredrickson in her work, ‘Love 2.0,’ gives us an
entirely new way of understanding love. She states that love holds the key to improving physical
and mental health and to a great extent acts as micro-moments of connection between people
including strangers and everything else that surround them. It is, therefore, possible for humans
to love something that does not have the same physiological response as them as love is not only
delineated towards biological entities alone. Turkle properly explains this as she notes that’s, as
people are given robot companions for varying lengths of time, the result is that a bond is
formed. It is also worth realizing that humans can love without expecting the other person to
reciprocate their feelings. This primarily because, as Barbara Fredrickson states, love is an
emotion or in other words a dynamic mind-body process that rolls through someone for a few
micro-moments any time this individual connects with someone else (Fredrickson 2013). This is
Dulgeroglu 2
to mean when someone really ‘clicks’ with someone else, then love develops without necessarily
considering the reaction of the other person.
Biology is necessary for the development of love, but that does not mean that humans
cannot develop the same affections as well as feelings of longing for non-biological entities.
Machines can be considered alive even when we know that they are not when they can express
different personalities. For instance, Turkle reflects upon this by talking about a television news
story about a Japanese robot designed in the form of a sexy woman. It is said that even though
this robot currently functions or operates as a receptionist, its designers have much hope that it
will someday perform or in other words, serve as a teacher and companion. Therefore,
personality is one way of distinguishing something as alive from something that is not.
Additionally, the ability of machines to mimic human emotions as well as behaviors is another
method of viewing machines as alive even when they are not, and this is exemplified by the
Furby which would say ‘me scared’ and whimpers when it helped upside down (Turkle 464).
Even though this is artificially created imitations, it is a proper illustration of how machines are
in the position to show and also exhibit human emotions. It is reported that the Furby exerts a
hold over any individual who nurtures it for a few weeks. People tend to develop deep emotional
connections with robots as they exhibit human emotions.
The act of caring for an inanimate object with as great care and affection as a real person
shows that love can be expressed for non-biological entities. Turkle identifies that children take
time to ‘bring up’ the Tamagotchi and the Furby. Turkle states that ‘from the very start, the
children make it clear that the Furby is a machine but alive enough to need care,’ (Turkle 468).
Turkle, therefore, identifies that the ability of the non-biological entity to show similar traits to
humans and to need care and respond to the care provided is what counts as being alive enough.
Dulgeroglu 3
Fredrickson also builds on work as well as research from developmental psychology. As she
starts, she reflects upon infant bonding and attachment theory (Fredrickson 2013). It is worth
noting through her work that positivity resonance develops reciprocal empathy, which then to a
great extent becomes a mutually shared physical phenomenon in the brain.
The behavior of the children such as caring for all the needs of the Furby and the
Tamagotchi identifies that although these toys are innate, they are capable of evoking emotional
responses from humans thus fueling the desire to care for and be cared for. The Furby for
instance as noted by Turkle responds to being fed by saying ‘Yum’ and this reinforces the
biological aspects of this machine (Turkle 468). The children can view it as a machine, but this
does not deter the emotional response they have towards its needs based on the fact that it only
takes a bit of interactivity before our minds go a step further and begin projecting consciousness.
We tend to think sometime that emotions are private events that are confined to an individual’s
mind and skin. However, according to Fredrickson Barbara, love knows no su …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
