On Tuesday 25 November 2008 10:52:57 am Alex Smith wrote: > I CFJ on the statement "The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's > Recognition to Friendly without objection.". > > It is a philosophical question whether or not humans are defined in > some sense by a set of explicit rules; neuroscientists and > philosophers have puzzled over this for decades, and are unlikely > to come to a conclusion any time soon. > > I seriously don't expect an Agoran CFJ to be able to solve this > issue; in fact, logic alone is insufficient to determine matters of > logic and philosophy. > > arguably it isn't > UNDETERMINED because "uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply > the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this > purpose", and the question is about how the rules define a nomic;
I agree with woggle. It's UNDETERMINED, because we have insufficient information as to whether a human is defined by a set of explicit rules. If Wooble is so defined, then e is a nomic; the interpretation of the rules is perfectly clear. The question is a matter of worldly fact. Pavitra
