On 4/17/25 16:04, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: >> * Those people performing such action must have done so with the intent of >> forming a single person as defined by R869. > R869 is interestingly unclear as to whose intent it must be. Can that intent > be an emergent property? In other words, am I a confederation of my > constituent atoms at any given moment? > > Also, R869 only tests "able to willingly communicate original ideas" at the > aggregate level, not the constituent level. > > > Here's one possible interpretation of things... > > Person + person = person > Person + non-person = person > Non-person + non-person = ??? (can be person or non-person) >
If I intend to "confederate" with someone, but they don't want anything to do with me, we are not a "confederated" group in any sense. Similarly, if I intend to confederate with a rock, but the rock is a rock, then the "group" of me + the rock is not "confederated"; I'm just having strange thoughts about a rock. "Confederation" should, at a minimum, require a meeting of the minds with common mutual intent. The "intent of forming a single person under this Rule" clause modifies "confederated" and restricts what kinds of mutual intent count. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
