In actual fact sir the questuion I posed was this: 'What is 1 and 1?'
Admitedly it is a bit of trickery, but not one that is illogical. The application of some 'deductive reasoning' does indeed render the correct answer. Or do you maintian that all riddles are illogical?
The porpouse of it was to counter your claim which paraphrasing was esensitaly that a creators logic cannot contradict the logic of it's creation. I have show here with this question that it is all a question of knowldege. In pure maths the question what is 1 and 1, the computer can only answer 2. This is because the creator(humans) of the computer have not yet programed it with the relevant knowledge to understand the concept of 'latteral thought'. In this example we can clearly see that the creators(human) knowledge and logic is greater than the created(computer), and so it shows your initial premis to be false.(this is the logical way in which to debate logical points is it not?)
Do you agree that this is indeed a logicaly sound answer to your acertion?
Sir I made no mention of an = sign in my initial question.
Sir in the field of logical debate there is a term for the response of attacking the person and not the argument, this is called(as I'm sure you know) the fallcy of ad homine. It is well regarded as a sign of weakness of argument.
I have asked you to highlight for me the exact parts of my arguments you find illogical so that we can move forward, would you care to do that?
In an effert to do exactly that(move forward) let me offer you this on your original anogly of the silver screen.
Yes I would expect a film to run exactly the same on each viewing as the film is merley a recording of the actions that have already taken place.
You are lucky sir I work in the TV industry and know a little about the filming proces, so perhaps it would be a better anolgy if we equate the director with God.
During the filming of the scene the director will tell his actors what result he wants, the actors my ask him for further direction 'what is my motivation?' for example, and the director will answer in such a way so as to enable the actor to do his job and give the director the reukst he reqiures. In all of this the actor is still free to ply his craft how he sees fit, the director has not the power to tell the actor his job, only what he wants the end result to be.
The turn of the lip, the body language, the way the actor looks into camera, the inflection on the spoken words, the minute facecial work to convey emotions, these are all real time choices that the actor makes, and in reality the director may film the scene several times, each time the actor acts in a sutbly differant way. The scene is finished and ultimatly when the editing begins the diector also has the choice on just which version of the scene to keep in and which to leave out.
In this anology it is clear to see that actor has choices. The director is interested in the end result, how the actor gets it is up to the actor.
