The Triphasic Model of Love: An Adaptation to the State of FLOW

Numerous scientific attempts have been made to deconstruct the various dimensions of love, such as identifying its core components—attachment, intimacy, and passion (Sternberg, 1986)—or pinpointing neurobiological correlates of pleasure and reward in brain regions such as the ventral tegmental area and caudate nucleus (Bartels & Zeki, 2000). However, the transformative nature of love, capable of inspiring creativity, resilience, and profound meaning, extends well beyond the scope of scientific analysis alone. Whether experienced as an intensified form of desire, fleeting infatuation, enduring commitment, or even an unhealthy obsession, love remains central to human existence, guiding individuals toward their aspirations.

This essay seeks to simplify the intricate nature of love by proposing a new framework—the Triphasic Model of Love (TML)—and examining its adaptation to the State of FLOW.

Can AI ever become conscious?

Whether computers can currently be considered conscious or aware, even to a limited extent, depends largely on the framework used to define awareness and consciousness. For instance, IIT equates consciousness with the capacity for information processing, while the Higher-Order Thought (HOT) theory integrates elements of self-awareness and intentionality into its definition.

This manuscript reviews and critically compares major theories of consciousness, with a particular emphasis on awareness, attention, and the sense of self. By delineating the distinctions between artificial and natural intelligence, it explores whether advancements in AI technologies—such as machine learning and neural networks—could enable AI to achieve some degree of consciousness or develop a sense of agency.

The Triphasic Model of Love and its Variations

Even though love is often regarded as the essence of life and the reason for existence, understanding this abstract concept has always been a challenge. The multifaceted and profoundly human experience of love spans a wide spectrum of emotions, behaviors, and relationships. Its manifestations take countless forms—romantic infatuation, familial affection, passion for art and creation, patriotism, loyalty to a group or cause, and altruistic ambitions. This deep-rooted drive, observable in many sentient beings, serves as the fundamental basis for reproduction, parental care, and social bonding, contributing to survival from an evolutionary standpoint (Fisher, 2004).

While love may be considered a universal drive, its expression varies across cultures and eras, shaped not only by genetic influences but also by nurture—upbringing, family dynamics, societal norms, religious beliefs, personal values, and individual experiences. In other words, the complex interplay between innate drives and the rational mind’s regulatory mechanisms creates a diverse range of mental and behavioral responses, many of which remain difficult to fully describe or explain.

The abstract and versatile nature of love allows it to be perceived in countless ways—as a path, a goal, a journey, an experience, a condition, a process, or a state of being—each offering a unique lens through which to explore this profound concept.

This essay seeks to simplify the intricate nature of love by proposing a new framework—the Triphasic Model of Love (TML)—and examining its different phases and variations. By conceptualizing love as a journey and breaking it down into distinct phases, this model aims to provide a clearer understanding of how love evolves, shapes, and defines the human experience.

If you were God and wanted to create a fair world, what could you have done differently?

Existentialist philosophers like Camus argue that life is absurd and inherently meaningless, implying a lack of fairness. Nietzsche suggests that fairness is a human construct imposed on an indifferent world. Similarly, Tolstoy viewed the world as absurd, citing glaring inequalities and a lack of justice. He believed that the absence of meaning in existence, compounded by the inevitability of death, underscored life’s absurdity. According to Tolstoy, people respond to this absurdity in three primary ways:

1.     Ignoring the Absurd
2.    Seeking Pleasure
3.    Relying on Faith

If you believe this world is not a fair place, you are in good company. In our study conducted across California, Panama, and Iran, nearly 80% of participants expressed the belief that the world is inherently unfair. This essay explores whether the structure of the world might support the possibility of inherent fairness and examines how contemplating fairness through the lens of happiness could offer new insights. It does not aim to prove that the world is fair but rather considers whether fairness might exist in subtle or overlooked forms. Moreover, the idea of fairness as synonymous with the notion that "we get what we deserve" remains open to interpretation.