The Dresden Files > DF Reference Collection
Questions for Jim 2012 style 2
cass:
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on August 08, 2012, 03:25:32 PM ---Can an entity with intellectus deliberately refrain from obtaining an answer on a subject of interest (eg, in order to be able to truthfully say it does not know as part of misleading someone) or does just thinking about the subject cause the information to appear ?
--- End quote ---
Perhaps an answer like, "I hadn't considered it" would be a good hedge? That's truthful without giving away information.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: cass on August 08, 2012, 04:10:24 PM ---Perhaps an answer like, "I hadn't considered it" would be a good hedge? That's truthful without giving away information.
--- End quote ---
There was an argument a couple of weeks back in which someone mentioned thinking of intellectus as meaning that if the topic ever crossed one's mind, one couldn't not have the answers; that interpretation had never occurred to me, but I can't think of anything in the text to rule it out, hence the question.
Quantus:
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on August 08, 2012, 04:55:59 PM ---There was an argument a couple of weeks back in which someone mentioned thinking of intellectus as meaning that if the topic ever crossed one's mind, one couldn't not have the answers; that interpretation had never occurred to me, but I can't think of anything in the text to rule it out, hence the question.
--- End quote ---
Thats an interesting Idea. There are some limitations to Intellects that we've seen, like how harry could not identify the traitor while he was standing on the island, or when he could not get a specific lock on Binder, because Demonreach was having difficulty distinguishing such things. But that seems like a more specific limitation to Demonreach's completely alien perspective, something that wouldnt necessarily apply to Angels or the Mothers, for example.
There is the WOJ about Shagnasty's intellectus that says he knew the What intuitively, without knowing the greater context of the Why. But again, that is a specific a limited intellectus.
For the Question, you may need to specify which beings (or class of) you are referring to...
KevinSig:
--- Quote from: cass on August 08, 2012, 05:08:05 AM ---Last, for discussion, there was a WoJ in response to a post by kmosiman (linked here: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,11471.msg494046.html#msg494046)
--- Quote ---Quote
Demonreach may not be friendly to humans but he is not violent to others. All the animals on the Island are welcome and make their homes there. While he may have a dark nature, nothing on the Island is corrupt or foul.
Two of these three sentences are precisely, absolutely correct. One of them is lethally half-right. :)
--- End quote ---
We've had relatively little new info on Demonreach since that was posted, but I'd like to formulate a question that would help nail down the little logic problem he gave us.
--- End quote ---
I might be wrong, but I've guessed that the leathally half right part might be about under the island. That dark Ley line likely comes from something both dark & foul, but under the island is different than on the island, hence being half right.
cass:
--- Quote from: KevinSig on August 08, 2012, 09:33:11 PM ---We've had relatively little new info on Demonreach since that was posted, but I'd like to formulate a question that would help nail down the little logic problem he gave us.
I might be wrong, but I've guessed that the leathally half right part might be about under the island. That dark Ley line likely comes from something both dark & foul, but under the island is different than on the island, hence being half right.
--- End quote ---
Hmm. I never considered the potential of a preposition being the problematical word. I thought that those statements broke down nicely into two parts each: "not friendly to humans" and "not violent to others", "All animals on the island are welcome" and "[all animals on the island] make their homes there" and then "nothing on the island is corrupt" and "nothing on the island is foul"-- and that the problem was then in determining which one of the six statements was wrong.
I agree that the 'corrupt and foul' statement is the one most likely to contain the lethally wrong portion, though for all we know, someone will die because a chipmunk decided to commute into the NN to make its burrow.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version