Antonio Dolcetta on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:13:12 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Oracle Report 26/07

Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
> Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Consultation 11
>>   > True or false: Is Primo Corporation a player?
>> Answered TRUE, PONDERED
> [...]
>> Consultation 12
>>   > Is a cooperation a single entity, capable of passing the Turing test?
> [...]
>> Consultation 13
>> {
>> Question: True of false: Consultation #12 does not serve to prevent a
>> corporation from becoming a player because it specifies that said
>> corporation must pass "the Turing Test" instead of "a Turing Test"?
>> Unbeliever: Wonko
>> }
> So, I'm not sure what to make of the combination of these. Is Primo a
> player, but no future "cooperations" are? Are the higher-numbered
> consultations overriding the lower-numbered one? Are we just all just
> as confused as ever? :)

I think at this point Primo is a player
Future corporations/societies trying to join are maybe stopped by 12, 
certainly not by 13

> (Although something interesting crossed my mind that I wanted to
> share: Had there been someone else calling Consultation 11
> Inconsistent, and the Primo Corporation had called it Consistent, we'd
> have had a bit of a paradox, where if it were a player it would be a
> player, and if it weren't a player (and thus couldn't call it
> Consistent), then it wouldn't be a player. We've got a *lot* in our
> ruleset that assumes that we know who is and isn't a player...)

that would have been fun :-)

spoon-discuss mailing list