XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 4 May 2006 16:17:31 -0700, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Thank you for your profound observation. That doesn't mean it's   
   >logically impossible for me to experience those things.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> >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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >No surgeon can with the knowledge we possess at the moment.   
      
       So no surgeon can.   
      
   >It may or   
   >may not be causally possible for a surgeon to do it if he possessed   
   >sufficient knowledge. We don't know.   
      
       True. It would be a lot more likely with sufficient knowledge...at   
   least imo.   
      
   >> >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.   
   >   
   >I'm just trying to educate you on the distinction between "logically   
   >possible" and "causally possible".   
      
       So far whatever you consider to be an attempt on your part is   
   non-existent as far as I've seen.   
      
   >Leif didn't seem up to speed on it   
   >either. It is quite clearly logically possible that I could come to   
   >have the experiences of a giraffe. We were originally discussing this   
   >because Leif claimed that there is a sense of "that could be me" with   
   >*all* humans, but *no* nonhumans. This is patently false, there is a   
   >sense of "that could be me" with all sentient beings.   
      
       LOL! There is certainly NO WAY you could know that. AND! I   
   believe this is something else you're wrong about.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)