XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 3 May 2006 15:59:53 -0700, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On 1 May 2006 16:25:03 -0700, "Rupert"  wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> On 27 Apr 2006 00:22:35 -0700, "Rupert"  wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> >I have said that it is logically possible that I could come   
   >> >> >to have the experiences of a giraffe.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>     LOL! Uhh...I mean: How do you figure that?   
   >> >   
   >> >Well, it seems pretty obvious to me.   
   >>   
   >>     You're not thinking it through then.   
   >>   
   >> >Do you think there's some sort of   
   >> >contradiction involved in it, do you?   
   >>   
   >>     Let's consider it in a little detail: Could you experience drinking as a   
   >> giraffe? No. Eating? Nope. Nor walking, running, lying down, getting   
   >> up, or sleeping. Not mating. You couldn't even experience the   
   >> senses like a giraffe, and in fact don't even know what sensations   
   >> like tasting, smelling, seeing etc. would be like for a giraffe. You   
   couldn't   
   >> lick yourself like a giraffe, and you couldn't lick a giraffe like a   
   giraffe.   
   >> So we see a number of giraffile things that you could *not* do, but as   
   >> yet we (apparently yourself included) can't think of any that you *could*.   
   >> Meaning that my original question remains.   
   >   
   >Why couldn't I experience all those things?   
      
       You're not a giraffe.   
      
   >Do you know what "logically   
   >possible" means? "Causally possible" means "possible, given the laws of   
   >the universe as they actually are." It may or may not be causally   
   >possible for me to come to have the experiences of a giraffe. Perhaps   
   >some surgeon could do an operation on my brain so that I could come to   
   >have all the experiences of a giraffe.   
      
       No surgeon can. Too bad for you.   
      
   >Or perhaps not. We don't know.   
   >But I was simply claiming that it was logically possible. It is   
   >logically possible for Superman to fly. It is not logically possible   
   >for two plus two to equal five, or for a bachelor to be married, or for   
   >something to be red all over and green all over at the same time.   
   >Something is logically possible if some conceivable state of affairs   
   >would make it true. It doesn't have to be consistent with the actual   
   >laws of the universe. Those are a logically contingent matter. It is   
   >logically possible that I might simply turn into a giraffe.   
      
       If "logically possible" is just another way of saying: make up any   
   stupid fantasy you want to, then I can see why it appeals to you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)