Is it possible that a person in Trump's base could change preferences?

Please see the conversation in the attached link. There is kindness on both sides.

The elephant in the room is abortion.

One side deploys this analogy:

It is just as great a crime to destroy the painting of an artist when it is 80 percent complete as when it is 100 percent complete.

这幅画是对人生的比喻。

The other answers with a different analogy:

From behind the curtain, enters a twirling ballerina.

She dances a brief, dramatic story.

And in the end, she disappears behind the curtain-- forever.

The stage is life.

The ballerina is the self.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-dream-child-hypothesis.8135502/

...

你可以说我多愁善感，但我最喜欢我自己的经历;怪癖;缺点;个性和彻头彻尾的愚蠢。当然，改变这一切会很有趣，但有什么用呢?不妨说:开始新的生活，白白的，开始掷骰子，看看现在的赌注会把你带到哪里!但是，再一次，有一个问题是，生活是好是坏，相当好，抛弃所有，为了什么，未知吗?我是一个有一定年龄的人，不管是通过狡猾的预谋还是愚蠢的运气，我所做的都是我自己的方式(谢谢，弗兰克)。一个新的我(也许)相当于某种形式的转世，这听起来并不那么令人不快，但是，为什么要再来一次呢?与其他生物相比，我们是相当短暂的，所以我们为什么要寻求一种全新的方法来解决这些问题呢? On the other cuff, though, what if the propounders of reincarnation are correct? Suppose we are all just consciousness in temporal vessels and, destined to live other lives, again and again? If so, the notion of changing 'core selves' is nothing new and has been happening for thousands of years---or, maybe, there are only a finite array of core selves to go around? It's all speculative, of course.

我曾经遇到过一个孩子。在朋友的婚礼上。在婚礼宴会上，她大部分时间都注视着我。这种体验几乎是超级的，或者更好，超自然的。她脸上挂着会心的微笑，脸上的温暖令人心醉，好像她认识我似的。这是令人不安的，但并没有威胁到我。那天晚上结束时，我感觉到我与我去世已久的母亲的转世面对面了。很恐怖?也许是这样，但有一段时间，我读了一些关于转世的书，试图发现那天晚上发生了什么，以及它对我的余生意味着什么(如果有的话);它会如何影响我的未来。我不知道。 Still can't quite connect the dots. Perhaps it was something like what Jung called synchronicity. But, I may never know for sure. And, I do not expect anything as dramatic as a change in my core self. That self, whatever it is, is fine the way it is. I wonder what became of that little girl. I hope she is well...

Professor Peacocke,

Yes. Yes I would like to do this snap change. I'd change especially if my friends would lose my number - or perhaps Mark Zuckerberg (in fact I've recently deleted my FB account for other reasons - but perhaps not entirely other.) Could you tell me how to do this snap change? I think it to be impossible without a leukotomy, drug or worse still some spartan self help routine pushed on me by some encroaching trend.

I'm guessing your answer is a clear 'no'. But how? How can one change their aesthetics?

I can tell you that it takes 30 days to delete your FB account (if you can trust such a company to follow their own policy - I have no confidence or qualms for that matter in my impending erasure.) Changing your preferences, ideas or mind even...that is the hard problem.

It's not that we can't change our thought. We can. We can not do anything, however, of our own choice, devoid of experience and the biological burden of our embodied minds. In fact, we are probably not who we think we are when we attribute any one thing to our identity. That is what "science" seems to be saying, to me if to no one else. But that is a thread jack and bitter pill best left to your impending essay.

But first and lastly why? Why would I give up my preferences? For the truth. Certainly not for relative beauty. Truth, absolute truth, is the one aspiration that I'd alter my staid and well pruned neural network to get just a little bit more comfortable in my own correctness. You don't seem open to reasons for change, but I think you too would like some truth for the snapping. Am I wrong? It would be the first time... I kid.

I'm looking forward to your next post. I'd keep it within the lines however. Philosophy is explaining how things in the broadest possible sense hang together in the broadest possible sense. I'm not sure if I understand what a preference is. You too ask this question. I'm not sure if you intend to answer it or not. I'll read your posts though because that is my preference.

So... I slept on this. I've fixed some typos above and now let me fix my thought about this idea one last time.

Wilfrid Sellars is the person who couched philosophy as understanding how things in the broadest sense of the term relate together in the broadest sense of the term. It was António Egas Moniz who won the Noble prize for pithing tens of thousands of human brains - mostly minorities and women.

我不知道为什么我有必要把这两个想法归为一类。科学无疑是任何当代哲学的基础，尽管它可能会误入歧途。归因是偏好依恋的核心。虽然我们可能站在巨人的肩膀上，但我真的不太确定我们最初的立场到底是什么。As I read your essay again I wonder about what I am.

我越想这一点，我就越少考虑我的偏好，事实上，我就越少考虑我自己。睡眠能让我有一定的清醒，让我对自己的喜好来源有一定的了解。

不知道这是否补充了什么或者澄清了我的回答。

Change your core self? Change what's innate to you? Not possible without: un-invented drugs, un-invended surgery and un-invented biotechnology. Unless by "change" you mean: drasticly, uncontrollably and detrimentally incur brain damage.

You can't just argue with billions of years or evolution without lying to yourself. It would be easier for you to argue with God-himself(assuming).

"When Catholics are near, you should always triple check if your "enemies" are your "best friends" and your "best friends" are your "enemies."
~ Really Really Dead People
~ The Bucket of a Well
~ and, The Phantom of a Dropout.