Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 1

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Adam Tomjack:
> (Mon, 02 Oct 2000) Thus Spake Joel Uckelman:
> > I assign number 1 to the RFJ I made yesterday, and select myself as Judge:
> >
> > Those that have declared emselves Players are not Players.
> > . . .
> > . . .  so I want to be sure I am ruling
> > correctly. If anyone would like to make further argument why my
> > interpretation is incorrect, I would be glad to consider it before making
> > the judgment (tomorrow evening, probably).
> 
> I think perhaps we should ask the question, are there any players at all?  I 
> could submit a Request for Judgement on the following statement:  The Player 
> called Joel Uckelman is incapable of passing the Turning Test, and thus is 
> not a player.  Since Joel's status as a player is called into question, could
>  
> he be a judge?  And who would administer the Turing Test?  Perhaps we need an
>  
> Officer in Charge of Administering Turing Tests.
> Of course I won't submit such an RFJ lest, for that act of sabotage, I be 
> crucified. ;)
> God

My (admittedly bad) solution to this is to take Playerhood to be 
self-evident in some (many?) cases. This is a rather Godel-esque problem, 
in that there seems to be no satisfactory way to handle certain questions 
within the system, e.g. "No one is a Player.", "No one is eligible to be a 
Judge.", and other variations on the same theme. If someone can think of a 
principled way to deal with these, we should give em a medal or something. 
We were never able to do so in Berserker...

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net