I've been told that once you go through a black hole, you never wish to go back to a white hole.

So to the OP's question, you answer in the affirmative. He should be permitted to modify himself to be a dolphin and he should be accomodated as a dolphin without judgment by others.

Sure, this is a slippery slope argument, but you're explicitely arguing for no lines at all.

Like I said, your post, regardless of where it came from, isn't going to result in any response in the form you've presented it. You're going to need to state your position and see where it goes. Otherwise, you're just going to be frustrated that no one is responding.

Do you have a question or is this just an invitation to read everything you've ever written and to discuss it, with the enticement that we won't be disappointed with the contents because your esteemed father was duly impressed? If that's the gist, I'll pass, although if you highlight some salient points, I (and others, I suspect), might engage.

I mean something beyond appearance. I'm talking about the thing itself, at least inasmuch as I'm talking about what it is not. Whether it has no colour, or is a different colour, or has colour in a different sense to when we talk about how something appears - the point is, to talk of colour in the way that you and Hanover have done is problematic. — Sapientia

Well, to the extent that we're dividing the world between realism and anti-realism, the only thing of significance is that we admit to seeing the same thing, regardless of what it is. That is, whether the color is "really" in the strawberries or is imposed by the mind by something the fact that we're both seeing the same thing consistently speaks to some external reality.

Further complicating things is that when I speak of colour, I speak of color.

They're red. To say they look red but are actually not red is incoherent. To look red is to be red.

And should he pop in and then out of existence as suggested, how will we know? Will he humbly ride into town on a donkey or will he drop from the sky singing "I was born this way."

As they say, bad facts make bad law, meaning the best way to get a bad rule change is to have the rule maker be confronted with a bad set of facts. I can't say that I've read the exemplar thread cited in this thread, but, from what I've gathered, there were some really bad posts in it, and the mods finally had to arrive at a way to bring that under control, and there's now some concerned with the precedent set by those decisions. If I've gotten that right, then, yeah, we have some bad law created by the bad facts.

But, let's stop really being so complicated about this, with all our talk about rules, precedent, clear moderating rules, bad facts, and bad law. The problem most often comes down to someone. Get rid of that someone and we no longer have all these complicated problems.

The reference was made to Paul and how he handled things. He not only didn't have rules, but he expressed a disdain for rules. What he did was sort of decide, based upon what he thought was right and wrong, and just banned people unapologetically.

Do that.

Why can't manual/genital involve a partner?

I'd like a feature that allows the rank and file to ban other members from this site. My feeling is that if the general public can be trusted not to pull the emergency brake in the subway, not to pull the fire alarm in public places, and not to play with publically available defibrillators, then we can be trusted not to misuse our power here.

The wosret is the sadness that lingers in an empty field that was just previously a trailer park but for the tornado that cleared it of all struggling life.

Seems pervy to choose a cartoon mermaid as the example here. I'd suggest gay Peter instead.

To further expand, what's implied in the way you're talking is that Ariel is really thoughts in people's head, pictures, pixels on screens, words on pages, recorded sound vibrations by people pretending to be her and such, and then you're equivocating this with what Ariel actually is supposed to be. — Wosret

That is all that Ariel is and that is all the Wosret is.

After all, there isn't much fun standing in spike heels on somebody resembling a corpse. — Bitter Crank

Speak for yourself.

I've never been into S&M because it seems very unRepublican and nonsuburban. It just seems very incongruent to be getting whipped indoors while my Volvo sits outdoors next to my well manicured lawn.

I also have a bit of an imagination problem and it would make staying in character a bit difficult. If Sally were playing mistress, I think I might call her Sally instead of Mistress, well, because that's her name even if she happens to have a whip. It seems like the real game has to take place in your head, and if you can't take it all seriously in your head, then it's just Sally beating you for no good reason.

Buy yourself a little something special with the money.

You can subscribe or just send a Paypal donation to infoatthephilosophyforumdotcom — Baden

How do you make a paypal donation when you click on infoatthephilosophyforumdotcom ? That link just lets you leave an email.

I'm not sure about the BDSM stuff.

I tried Christian Mingle for a while and most girls were looking for Jesus there. I tried okcupid, and well that was a vanity fair. I might give some BDSM a try. Any tips on what to say or not to say? How should I promote myself and such? — Question

I don't suspect that most people enter into the BDSM world on a whim after sort of casually batting around the idea, but, who knows, maybe they do. It sort of seems that the allure of it to you is that it appeals to your general laziness, as in you can sort of lay there and let someone else do the work. Not only would you not have to take any initiative, you'd be specifically forbidden to do anything, which would be right up your alley.

The way you succeed on the various online services is much the same way you succeed anywhere. You need to be engaging and nice, and maybe even funny. Maybe you have that in you, maybe you don't. What I do note is that you are able to gain considerable attention here by coming up with rather absurd problems, all of which center around your refusal to take charge and make things happen yourself. It's not that you just won't take charge due to timidness, but it seems you take great pride in doing nothing. I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where George told every women he met that he was unemployed and lived with his mother and that surprisingly worked wonders. I doubt that will work outside a 1990s sitcom though.

Here's what I think you really ought to do, and this I really mean. Stop selling yourself short. You're a smart guy who wants to be cared about and loved, much like everyone else. Your many self-destructive philosophies notwithstanding, you know at some level that having a girl who shares your interests and who cares about you is all you really want. So, please, stop with the nonsense of how you can find some girl willing to beat the hell out of you. Maybe those folks are all nice and healthy but only have some unusual desire to mix sex and humiliation a few hours a week, or maybe, just maybe, their sexual deviations are but the tip of the iceberg in terms of the unhealthiness that lurks deep within.

I know. Your position was simply atracking his, but I'm accepting your criticism and now asking for a proof of your alternative. If your alternative fails, and we know there is movement of some sort, then it might be analog movement is just as reasonable as an any.

Are you conceding that discrete movement is nonsensical? If so, why'd you offer it as an possible solution to Zeno?

If motion is discrete, it's not motion as we understand it to be. As object A "moves" from discrete point 1 to point 10, what is the time lapse between 1 and 2? Does A go out of existence during the lapse, and how do we claim A maintains identity during teleport and reappearance?

You can't just offer discrete movement as a solution to the paradoxes associated with analog movement without also explaining how discrete movement really works. It might be there's no coherent explanation to something as basic as movement, just like there's not with causation.

Anyway, discrete movement is an obvious adoption of the computer graphics model imposed on reality. Identity of a computer graphic over time is preserved by the underlying programming, which is a quite literal deus ex machina. If we're going to insert Deus, I suppose anything is possible, including analog movement.

Of course we move. Such is the paradox. My point was that your pointing out that we can't get to the halfway point under the paradox, much less the finish line, really can be reduced to the claim that we can't get to any point at all. That means we can't move at all.

Here's the problem: Infinity is ultimately an incoherent concept and should it be inserted into any discussion, confusion will follow if you think it through.

This is just to point out that all movement is impossible, which was the asserted conclusion to begin with. That is, it's not just impossible under this paradox to get to the arbitrary finish line, but it's impossible to get to any arbitrary point, meaning any movement whatsover is impossible.

Can you see that the series ½ + ¼ + ⅛... is infinity long, and yet adds to 1? — Banno

For practical purposes we say it "equals" 1, but it actually only approaches 1, as it's clear 1 is the boundary, but to say it "equals' 1 the same as 2+2 "equals" 4 is equivocation. So, I don't buy into your mathematical solution even if math could dictate metaphysics.

She knows I love her, I know she loves me — Question

She most certainly does not love you. Most certainly. Sorry. She has a very complicated psychological profile that we'll be unable to fully decipher here without more information, but she's not just weird and quirky, but she has a personality disorder. In one paragraph you pointed out that she abuses drugs and alcohol, has a sex addiction, fails to conform to basic societal standards, and lacks a maternal instinct. You even referenced what you perceived to be psychopathic traits, and then you claimed she loved you, as if psychopaths love anybody. If she doesn't care about her kids, why would she care for you?

(I seriously doubt she's wicked and twisted to torture me so, as it was really bad in the past, though I might be wrong here, who knows?), — Question

It's likely that she's just doing whatever she feels like doing without regard for your feelings one way or the other. She's heavily medicated on drugs, alcohol, and sex, escaping whatever snakes are slithering around in her head. You're just another quick fix for her. Stop painting some normal picture of her behavior as being loving and caring. It's not.

Good Lord.

You left out a number of facts, so I'm going to recite the facts you've said as well as what I assume them to be. If I'm wrong, let me know where.

You have a neighbor who is a swinger. She is married to someone else. She sexually propositioned you. She followed up with phone calls. You timidly withdrew from any conversation with her. You think you love her. You think about her all the time. You like older women. She wants you to treat her like her mother yet have sex with her. You're embarrassed by the situation. You don't know what her angle is.

Here are my conclusions: (1) She wants to have sex with you. (2) Her sexual behavior is deviant. (3) You find her sexuality enticing. (4) You think you love her.

There are three ways to end this: (1) have sex with her and fulfill both of your fantasies so that you can realize that you really don't love her and you can have that empty, weird, unsatisfied feeling of regret that accompanies making a mistake, (2) go out and get a normal girlfriend and have a normal relationship so that your hormone infused brain isn't focused on what you know to be a bad idea, or (3) convincingly reject her.

If you're going to do #3, do be convincing because if she thinks it's staged, she'll just fuck with you more. A good way to make it clear is to show up at her doorstep with your mother and maybe another neighbor and lay into her.

How then are they separable as distinct from each other? We don't have direct access to the minds of other animals. — TheMadFool

First of all, we weren't talking about animal consciousness. We were talking about plant consciousness. Second, we don't have direct access to any mind other than our own, which means we can't conclude the existence of any mind other than our own. To the extent we use behavior to determine the existence of other consciousness, we can look at the behavior of plants and recognize their behavior as distinct from animals. The simple fact that a branch bends towards the sun is not sufficient to prove the plant is conscious.

I could, I suppose, list the various differences between plants and people in order to point out how the former lacks the behavioral manifestations of consciousness, but I'd not be proving anything that isn't already fully accepted, and I don't feel like performing a mindless academic task.

Well I suppose you're right that I shouldn't resign myself to nonsense, but, in truth, I'm happier with a Trump presidency than a Clinton one, if for no other reason than for the Supreme Court nominee.

I do care what happens after me, and I do buy into the Trump position that America has lost its way a bit and its course needs to be straightened out for future generations. Of course, I don't think Trump is at all an ideologue, nor do I think that there's anything fully consistent with anything he says or does. That is, he's not really much of anything other than a blowhard, but some of what he says sounds right sort of kind of, as opposed to the screeching dishonesty of Hillary. She's a nasty woman. I have that written across my face in solidarity with my sisters in arms because it's a badge of honor to be considered a nasty woman for some reason.

So, a plant growing towards the sun and a man looking for shade in the hot sun are indistinguishable. — TheMadFool

I am capable of distinguishing the two. In fact, it's far more difficult to find similarities than distinctions.

I thought of that too but there's a problem in this. We can't distinguish between real consciousness and simulated consciousness (I suspect you want to make this distinction). Having access only to the external behavior of matter, I'm forced to conclude that plants have consciousness. — TheMadFool

That's a really good conclusion. I'll keep that in mind so that every time you say something questionable, I can offer the retort, "but then again, you think plants have consciousness."

Have you considered that purposeful physical events can occur unconsciously, like your heart, for example, as it pumps blood through your body. And do we really need to give examples for why you might not conclude that plants have consciousness when in truth you really don't believe they do. If you insist, though, that plants are conscious, then I think we need a new word for how I use the term, considering I really do see a distinction between how I respond to the sun and how a plant does.

When I watch sports, I just cheer mindlessly with the crowd because usually I'm just lost in thought about you or my cat.

Your speech, it reeks of the uneducated streets from where you must have been reared.

Just fast forward to the good parts. That's the way men under 40 watch movies.

And if you don't, then you'll be some weird fucking outcast that doesn't no what any male under forty is talking about half of the time. — Wosret

I'm not an outcast. I'm the funny old guy who complains about how the world has changed while looking for my pants.

http://lifehacker.com/how-to-develop-your-sense-of-humor-1690680308

http://lifehacker.com/how-to-develop-your-sense-of-humor-1690680308

My son in college was telling me that the dorm hallways are no longer the site of vandalism, golf driving ranges, BB target practice, and boisterous drunkenness, but instead the students all sit in their rooms playing video games, wasting the best years of their lives.

Such is the gibberish spoken by those whose lives have been reduced to attaching oneself to another's imagination. Do you not wonder what your life would be like if not for geek that created your reality?

Get on a roof. Playtime is over.

Because plants turn toward the sun doesn't make them anymore "aware" than a leaf that is blown in the wind or an apple that falls to the ground. Physical reaction is not equivalent to awareness.

Isn't it ironic then that Trump is uncomfortable (and more vocally so) with American exceptionalism, too? — Michael

It's all spin, really. The Trump slogan is "Make America Great Again." This is a lament. America was great, ought to be great, has the potential to be great, but fuckers like Obama have reduced our standing in the world. Exceptionalism, at least as I define it, is a moral imperative that those who have been given much are required to give much. That is, the US is exceptional in the sense of its resources, its history being founded on the principle of liberty, and because of its people's drive to make the world a better place. However, it's acting ordinary, neither exceptional nor great. So I really don't see this as a departure at all from the concept of American exceptionalism.