Assuming rational self-interest here, there is something being derived from the fact of having a baby of my own.

You can call it, that, given that the idea seems to hinge on rational self-interest and an eclectic mix of utilitarianism along with it. Everything's OK as long as there was no other way for things to be the way they are/we're in transactional analytic terms, I think.

Do you think that would apply even to your love for your (hypothetical) new born baby? (Who is (let's face it) not immediately capable of reciprocation. — Baden

How can a baby reciprocate anything, that's nonsensical to assume such a state of affairs?

Anyway, the point you seem to be asking, is what reasons are there for having the child if it cannot reciprocate for the 'favor' in return. Is that correct?

Depends on how you define what is of value to you in the relationship, is what I assume the question posed in proper transactional terms. Again, these things can be both emotional and material, not either/or.

To me though it seems to inhere conditionality, the necessary expectation of something in return, which doesn't fly with regard to love. See Un's post. Anyhow, talk is cheap in this area. — Baden

Even reciprocation is usually transactional. But, gifts serve as an external reinforcing factor to the furtherment of reciprocity.

But I do. They feel different. — Moliere

Again, have a expressed my love and adoration with saying that I love you more than words can say?

Surely, we can talk about love; but, it is often shown through deeds and acts. A transactional relationship can entail everything that is the case about love.

What? I'm totally confused as to what you're getting at. — Moliere

A transactional relationship, be it emotional and material is no different than one based on one where love is present, as you seem to differentiate between one and the other, where there are no grounds to do so.

I'd say feelings are noticeably absent. — Moliere

You have no grounds for doubting here.

Love needs more than expressions of love -- it is also actions, commitments, feelings, a relationship, and an experience. — Moliere

Isn't all of that manifest in transactional acts?

Hmm. I dunno. It seems to me that love isn't ineffable. Because it's not strictly propositional there is more to love than words, but we can sensibly talk about love. — Moliere

This is nonsense. When someone says that they love someone more than what words can convey, then they have conveyed their love, no?

I don't know if it's unique. I think we know what we're talking about when we talk about love, at least -- it's not like a beetle in a box that only I have access to. Is that what you mean by unique, or something else? — Moliere

Yet, we treat it as if a beetle in a box, that is unique to us only or to two partners.

And I'd say that love can be learned, but I don't know if it can be developed. — Moliere

I don't understand the difference between the two here.

I don't think that love is purely propositional and can be understood simply by telling someone 'This is what it is", in the manner that we might say we can understand that the capital of the United States is Washington D.C. — Moliere

We can talk about what people or ourselves think about love; but, in many cases love is a transactional attitude.

But is that love? — Moliere

Doesn't that imply that love is a unique experience, in a phenomenological nonsensical sense? As if the feeling cannot be learned, and appreciated, and developed over time?

Sometimes the most lasting relationships are based on a transactional analysis between partners. If not material, than emotional.

I'm not sure how to generalize the feeling of loneliness. It's such a peculiar feeling of all the gamut of human emotions.

But, I'd like to elucidate that the feeling is a performative contradiction. If anyone is familiar with the beetle in a box logical experiment or the illogicality of a private language or to live in a solipsistic world, then the point should become apparent fairly soon.

There is a deep philosophical insight in this thread. Let's see who else sees it. It's still underdeveloped and glimmers in the shore, still hidden to the naked eye.

(+ further question re: individuation of causes; what makes a cause a cause and not another...). — StreetlightX

But, all this is nonsensical in the Many Worlds Theory. Nothing in particular is special because absolutely everything is.

When you say 'attitude' do you also mean 'observation'? Or are you intimating that perhaps I was in a bad mood or good mood when I wrote the piece? — Marcus de Brun

One has to wonder, was it an accurate observation? I think there is much to talk about this issue.

Quite interested in your attitude about the whole issue.

Is the PSR manifest in 'causality'?

I don't know. It's a depressing feeling. At one instance we feel as though we can emulate other emotions and feelings of other's through empathy and sympathy for the welfare of others and chickens, I hope.

Speaking from personal experience, I have felt lonely sometimes (very rarely) in the past; but, have learned to live with it or it has never bothered me to any significant extent. I guess one can dwell over the feeling as many do...

I'll come back to this thread later when I have all my thoughts down.

If you haven't noticed. I'm a chicken.

*cluck*

Oh, save us, now Noble Dust and I will be eaten again!

Noble Dust was just eaten and you sent your starved cat to Gitmo. Have some human decency!

Oh, your an owl, my apologies.

Oh cruel world! The Ingenious Nobleman, @Noble Dust, say it ain't so!

Noooo!

@Posty McPostface cheers on @Noble Dust despite the quixotic odds. The @Lone Wolf cannot be denied.

@Noble Dust, we're about to be eaten by a @Lone Wolf. Senior Noble Dust, I am by your side. It was a pleasure knowing you.

*clucking intensifies*

Spare @Noble Dust, take me instead!

The horror. D:

*clucks silently*

How's your cat doing? Did you make her fat and plumpy?

Who knows such things?

How's Fred?

"Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims?"

Either way I'm sorry about the loss.

*cluck!*

Time to get some chickens.

I'd like to put together some thoughts.

I have pretty much been a subscriber to logical atomist and Leibniz monadology. To assume the PoSR, it seems that the world must be assumed to be at the core, logical, and orderly. I also wanted to outline that just because something might be unintelligible, does not mean that it cannot happen, to say so would be a gross anthropocentric POV to hold.

Anyway, those issues aside. I have been reading much from this highly edifying and interesting exchange between various scholars on the topic, and am intrigued by the underlying physics that might presuppose the PoSR. One thing that isn't mentioned is the relationship between time and the PoSR. I was wondering if anyone would care to explain the PoSR and 'time'.

Another way to ask this question is to wonder if Quantum Mechanics obeys causality.

*cluck*