>This assumes that the (clay) Mostali can actually impute motivations
>to others which is IMO somewhat debatable. They would know how a
>human, an elf or a troll might act in a given situation with some
>accuracy but would not know (or care) why. A defective component
>that acts in such a way is good enough for them.
To which my original reaction was "Brilliant -- Mostalli don't as "why?"."
Which I really liked until I tried to figure out how to debug a system
without
asking "why".
So then I went to the fallback position that Mostalli don't impart
motivation to anything. They do this by being reductionists.
Example conversation:
Human: Why are you eating that?
Mostalli: Because I am putting it into my mouth and chewing and swallowing
it.
H: No, why are you putting it in your mouth?
M: Because signals are being sent by my brain to my arms, fingers and hands,
and mouth telling them to do those actions.
H: No. Are you hungry, does it taste good?
M: Hungry? There are signals from my digestion unit, indicating that it has
capacity for more work. Taste good? The chemical analysis units in my mouth
indicate that this is likely to be an adequate food.
Powered by hypermail