The point of CFJ 1895 is that it's an Agoran axiom (or custom) that, for legal purposes, natural persons are the only accepted originators of thought. This is in part driven by the idea that the definition of a "Game" is that a collection of thought-originators are making moves as a collaborative exercise. So the emergent actions taken by agora are products of these originators' collective actions, but do not create a new source of origination.
(I'm not suggesting CFJ 1895 to be the last word on the subject btw - this hasn't been revisited in the courts since the origination language was put in the rules so it's worth seeing if it still holds). On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > (You could take that the place where the thought blooms itself is where it > "originates". Or the origin of the heat itself. If we assume that a start > of the universe was the originator of everything, and we assume that > nothing can have more than one originator, then nothing is an originator. > Or everything in a chain of cause-effect is the originator of the stuff > after it, if things can have more than one originator. Kind of depends on > how far up the chain of causality you go... And if its unclear then its > easily defused with that other stuff because of the "if its unclear > then..." thing in the CFJ rules. But I think that "originating" something > is clear enough. Hopefully, lol.) > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes, more or less the argument I'm supporting. That Agora originates > > (gives rise to) in OTHERS, thoughts. Note the ones I bring up about Agora > > to defend the case aren't of the creative kind, they're of the "yeah it > > exists and its there" kind - passive. > > > > Imagine, really hot stew. You could accidentally burn yourself on it, and > > get the thought of "[profanity of your choice here] that was really hot!". > > You didn't deliberately make that thought - but it didn't come from > > nowhere. It came from the stew (via you perceiving it. And you couldn't > > have perceived it if wasn't there in the first place, so the origin of that > > chain reaction is the heat of the stew. Heat is there-> Heat is > > perceived->thought about the Heat). > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> CFJ 1895 may be useful, although it was written when 'person' was defined > >> in other ways. The key quote: > >> It is a longstanding principle of Agora that fundamental telos, the > >> Intention, > >> is non-assumable, irreducible, and non-transferable. Every assumed > >> act of > >> free will can be traced to a particular person's desire. Thus, as > >> final > >> cause and intention, this intention, and free will is, also > >> non-transferable, > >> in the most fundamental sense. > >> In other words, if there's a collection of persons behind an Agoran > >> action, > >> they are the "originators of thought", not Agora. > >> > >> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> > - It depends on what thought you're referring to, because thoughts are > >> > personal experiences. The original idea of Agora was originated by M. > >> > Norrish via their own creativity but the non-creative activity of > >> > perceiving Agora itself gives rise to other ideas (therefore > >> "originating" > >> > them as per the term). For example, the personal thought experience of > >> > Agora itself within each player. > >> > - " Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own > >> > accord" <- there is no explicit mention that the origination needs to be > >> > made by the person itself. > >> > - The argument can be generalized that Agora, as a gestalt of various > >> > game-communications, can originate (in the sense of "giving rise to") > >> > various thoughts besides itself. Such as the thought experience of CFJs > >> in > >> > the game and whatnot. > >> > - Indeed it doesn't. But containing thoughts isn't a requirement to be a > >> > person, just originating and communicating them. > >> > - The same argument could be put that you (most likely lol) can only > >> > communicate ideas that you're able to vocalize/write and think of - and > >> are > >> > incapable of communicating any other ideas. Does that mean you do not > >> > communicate ideas freely? We could indeed argue that we are indeed not > >> > truely entirely free, therefore, none of us are persons, therefore, > >> none of > >> > us is actually a player of this game. > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Proto-gratuitous arguments: > >> > > > >> > > There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or > >> idea) > >> > > throughout) > >> > > Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody > >> that > >> > > thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish. > >> > > Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own > >> accord. > >> > > Agora can’t just go out and originate some idea that hasn’t been > >> thought of > >> > > by a player in the past. Agora is not free to originate independent > >> > > thoughts. > >> > > Thoughts plural. Even ignoring the above points, Agora only > >> originates the > >> > > thought of itself. > >> > > Agora has no independent thoughts. Any “thoughts” contained within > >> Agora > >> > > were originally from a player. > >> > > Agora does not communicate ideas freely. It only communicates ideas > >> that > >> > > one of us has sent to the mailing list and is incapable of > >> communicating > >> > > any other ideas. > >> > > > >> > > Gaelan > >> > > > >> > > > On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person" > >> > > > > >> > > > Grat. Arguments: > >> > > > > >> > > > R869 says "Any organism that is generally capable of freely > >> > > > originating and communicating > >> > > > independent thoughts and ideas is a person." > >> > > > > >> > > > There is no mention that the independent thoughts and ideas that are > >> > > > originated or communicated need to be from this "person" > >> themselves. With > >> > > > that known: > >> > > > > >> > > > Agora originates the thought of Agora itself (as its current being > >> - a > >> > > real > >> > > > thing). If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to think of > >> > > > Agora-the-real-thing as we do now. > >> > > > > >> > > > Existing as it does now _initiates_ the process of creating the > >> thought > >> > > of > >> > > > acknowledging that it exists, therefore it fulfills the definition > >> of > >> > > > "originating" that thought. > >> > > > > >> > > > There is no extraordinary restriction to how Agora performs this > >> feat, > >> > > > therefore, Agora freely originates the thought of Agora itself. > >> > > > > >> > > > Agora is a communication system, evidenced by this mailing list and > >> R101. > >> > > > It communicates (without extraordinary restriction) our own > >> independent > >> > > > thoughts and ideas, by merit of being a transportation system of > >> those > >> > > > things. > >> > > > > >> > > > And so, Agora does in fact freely originate independent > >> thoughts/ideas > >> > > (in > >> > > > other entities which are capable of such) and communicates > >> thoughts/ideas > >> > > > (from others). Agora is a person. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
