On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Eric Stucky <turiski.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > First, I agree that ehird's content -is- a large bundle of cells and water, > but I argue that it -takes the form- of text in the context of Agora, which > is all that is required.
Eh. That's stretching the definition of "content". > Second, this is the particular example where ALTASEAOR comes to mind. > Non-person rules cannot declare themselves to have broader scope than the > rest of the ruleset defines; I fail to see how persons' situations are > different. Also, why could not ehird govern the state of the game, generally? Well, that's actually a pretty good argument against your interpretation: how do you know whether some random entity can govern the state of the game, in order to know whether it's a rule? > As for intension, I guess I don't understand why we would need such extensive > definitions for something like rules if those definitions are not intended to > be intensional. Most of these "restrictions" are intended to explicitly empower rules to do things, not to restrict what might be a rule. The exceptions are "power between one and four" and "takes the form of a text", which aren't really that burdensome requirements.
