Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Veni, Vidi, Vacancy

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/5/03 at 12:05 AM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 11:35  PM, Glotmorf wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/03 at 11:25 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, but what you do not realize is that penguins are irrelevant to the
>>> issue at hand. I submit to the players that the Baron is not, and has
>>> never been, a penguin. E is, however, a Toad.
>>>
>>> I cite r1183: On any roll from 83 to 90, a random player becomes a
>>> Penguin, the effects of which are identical to becoming a Toad.
>>>
>>> What are the effects of becoming a Toad? The object is now a Toad.
>>> What are the effects of becoming a Penguin? They're identical to the
>>> effects of becoming a Toad; thus, an object that has become a Penguin
>>> is now a Toad.
>>>
>>> Thus, when the Baron became a Penguin, e in fact ended up as a Toad;
>>> and as nothing has change about said toadliness, e is still such now,
>>> Q.E.D.
>>
>> Sorry, dude.  Dad the Lawyer and I got into this a couple times.
>>
>> Suppose two elements under the law happen to have apparently identical
>> properties, such that they are treated the same way under similar
>> circumstances.  Does that mean the elements are interchangable?
>
>If one of the elements is defined to be identical to the other, then
>the two can be used interchangeably - a change to one element is, de
>facto, a change to the other.
>
>> No, because they are defined separately.  Therefore, even if the rules
>> don't distinguish the effects of one from another *at this time*, the
>> fact that the rules *could* distinguish them means they are by
>> necessity two separate items.
>>
>> The cheesier example is from programming.  Creating ints a and b, and
>> then having a = b, does not mean a has become b; changing a doesn't
>> change b.
>
>But creating a and b, and then declaring b to be a reference to the
>same object as a, does mean that the two are the same - changing a will
>change b. (Any python programmer has experienced this at some point)
>
>> Besides, by your claim that being a toad is an effect of becoming a
>> toad, it would make the rule paradoxical.  If being a toad is an
>> effect of becoming a toad, then having become a toad as a result of
>> sleeping with a siren is also an effect of becoming a toad; however, a
>> penguin did not become a penguin or a toad as a result of sleeping
>> with a siren, so that effect at least doesn't carry over.
>
>The only effect that directly follows from the event "$OBJECT becomes a
>Toad" is that $OBJECT is now a Toad. "$OBJECT becomes a Toad" does not
>in any way, shape, or form imply that $OBJECT had intimate connections
>with a Siren. Indeed, it is possible to become a toad in a number of
>ways - unlucky Dark Hand rolls, Caffeine burnout, etc.
>
>> So either the penguin rule combined with the toad rule is paradoxical,
>> or the fact that a penguin is defined in a separate rule regulates a
>> penguin's existence as a penguin and not a toad.
>
>"Penguin" is never defined. There is no such thing as a Penguin. There
>is "the act of becoming a Penguin", which is defined to be the same as
>"the act of becoming a Toad"; "the act of becoming a Toad" causes the
>object taking the action to end up as a toad.

You lost the word "effects" in there, as in "the effects of becoming a toad".  Identical "effects" don't mean identical objects, or even identical classes of objects.  The effect of a hedgehog curling up into a ball is identical to the effect of the growth of a horse chestnut: you get this round prickly thing.  But a hedgehog and a horse chestnut aren't interchangable (except possibly in the context of throwing either one at someone).

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss