[Please read: \u201cLandscape of Empathy<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n Humans tend to \u2018recognize\u2019 human features in many things.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We look at the clouds and we see human faces \u2013 with a little imagination \u2013 everywhere. A child plays with a doll and the doll responds. For a while, there is a genuine relationship, even if the doll does not yet have futuristic A.I. capabilities. An animated movie shows a talking teacup and immediately the audience \u2013 children and adults alike \u2013 responds. You may even imagine one now and feel<\/em> something. Primitive tribes have always looked at nature seeing the work of god, or the gods themselves. Etc.<\/p>\n People readily personify. And that\u2019s OK. It\u2019s part of our humanity, our being human.<\/p>\n It should not be manipulated, but respectfully handled.<\/p>\n Empathic, who?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Until quite recently, researchers used to think that animals cannot show signs of \u2018real empathy.\u2019 Now a lot of findings show otherwise. Even rodents display behavior to each other \u2013 not only between mothers and children \u2013 that can be deemed \u2018empathic.\u2019<\/p>\n Empathy is not a purely human characteristic, as is also not the case with intelligence, consciousness, mortality, etc.<\/p>\n That does not<\/em> make humans less worthy. It may make us less unique on our little big planet. A sign of \u2018real empathy\u2019 is to appreciate that and be happy about it.<\/p>\n The title is mainly a question about empathy itself<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Is a very complex system necessary to be able to talk of empathy? A doll or a pixelized graphic in a movie is not enough. A person may see empathy there, but it is his own.<\/p>\n Which brings the question: if we see empathy in other humans, to what degree is it our own projection? Certainly to some degree. Moreover, the situation quickly becomes more complex. Part of one\u2019s empathy \u2013 say: that of person A \u2013 consists in bringing someone else \u2013 say: person B \u2013 more in contact with himself \u2013 again: person B. Person A may thereby enjoy what he sees happening in person B. Person B feels grateful for the feeling within himself \u2013 person B \u2013 as well as for person A\u2019s happiness. A self-perpetuating pattern brings person A and person B closer to each other.<\/p>\n Warm feelings.<\/p>\n And also some real possibility to grow from the experience, to grow as a person (A and B), to feel less lonely, to feel happy in this life, to feel more like a unity, a whole. To \u2018heal.\u2019<\/p>\n This may be the main strength of psychotherapy. And of friendship. And of love.<\/p>\n A.I.?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We have more and more the opportunity to build complexity into A.I. Real deeply pattern-recognizing complexity within a system that can show itself with a certain recognizable consistency at more than the most superficial level. [see: \u201cA.I. Is in the Patterns<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n So, don\u2019t look for \u2018human empathy.\u2019 At the other side, it\u2019s not like a simple doll or a computer graphic. It\u2019s something in-between. Thus, calling it \u2018empathy\u2019 or not, is more like a semantic question at this moment.<\/p>\n More interesting as for now: does this permit us to build a system that can genuinely help people to become \u2018better persons\u2019 through human \u2013 A.I. interaction?<\/p>\n I am convinced of this.<\/p>\n