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
(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
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
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
- 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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
