I bet that if you were a squirell, that wouldnt be any special agility for you. But perhaps you would look at those giant, hairless bipedal things and contemplate with another squirell what it would be like to be so large =)

Being another animal would only be special if you retained the memories of your "past life".

This is a nice suming up of why I believe life is eternal =) I cant conceive the world without me, but I can conceive it with me on it, so I conclude that the world cannot exist without me. Even though other people can conceive the world without me, the fact that I cannot ever see it through the eyes ends up giving then no credibility in the matter, its like they were talking about ghosts without proof.

Why not? Perhaps only I have qualia and everyone else are hyper complex biological robots.

Invent it. The meaning of a word may have any lenght you desire =)

Like the Ents of the Lord of the Rings, who did it reverse. their words had the lenght (and form) of songs, and their conversations outlasted the patience of any hobbit.

Hard to say. Good point. And it would be best if we could have our human minds somehow within the squirrels body. It's funny the way squirrels look at us. I had one looking at me today, sort of cautiously.

The world does seem to exist only for embodied particular beings. Anything else is a guess, an abstraction. The way we live proves that we see others as also made of experience. We give and receive love. We bother to get angry. We can't logically prove that others have experience, but we can't logically prove anything, really. Not perfectly. We persuade and our persuaded by the various aspects of our experience to edit our system of concepts in various ways.

I see your point. It's tricky. You can get away with it sometimes. But it strikes others as a sort of claim on them. It's more social, generally, to make use of an already existing term. I'm now just using "sensation" and "emotion," which takes us out of the qualia debate. "Consciousness" is a strange abstraction. I know what people mean by it, but on close examination it's not so simple....

Indeed.

I never understand why the 'other possible universes' idea is regarded as signifying anything intelligible at all. As an argument it is the death of philosophy. It means nothing whatever.

But even if multi-verses do 'exist' it is really impossible to know, isn't it? I mean the hardcore atheists ridicule the idea of God because 'there is no evidence possible'. But they are quite ready to argue until blue in the face in favour of the multiverse, which by definition there can never be evidence of, simply to avoid the argument from the Strong Anthropic Principle. Strikes me as both hypocritical and philosophically indefensible.

Its because, for then, the multiverse makes more sense. Off course, they are wrong in being radical atheists because in the same way that there is no proof that other realities dont exist, there is no proof that god doesnt exist.

If everything is an abstraction, why does the word 'abstraction' mean anything?

2.1511 That is how a picture is attached to reality; it reaches right
out to it.
2.1512 It is laid against reality like a measure.