"Ah, well, that is a very persuasive argument, I am totally persuaded.  But what rule are you using to find this persuasive, what shard of structure embedded within me leads me to find it persuasive?  Is it the sort of rule that has some important exception we need to know about, like not being able to divide by zero?  Does it only work sometimes and sometimes give wrong results?  Is it maybe a bit of complete nonsense that somehow got embedded into both of us, causing us to both arrive at the same wrong conclusions?  If we don't even know what rules we're following, how could we begin to tell?  Imagine getting to Hell and being locked in a room with Lriratha and now she has to explain everything you're doing wrong, only you don't know what you're doing at all and she has trouble empathizing because, I'm guessing, all the nonsense in our heads is contrary to her own nature.  Think of how much of her valuable time you could save her - not to mention your own time locked in the room - if you actually knew which rules were operating inside you, to cause you to be persuaded by arguments like that one.  So what renders persuasive 'Z and H implies Q', or your own statement 'for there to be a non-large triangle implies either a non-red triangle or a non-large red thing' - how would you construct an entity from scratch to be persuaded by a statement like that?"

"Ah, well, that is a very persuasive argument, I am totally persuaded.  But what rule are you using to find this persuasive, what shard of structure embedded within me leads me to find it persuasive?  Is it the sort of rule that has some important exception we need to know about, like not being able to divide by zero?  Does it only work sometimes and sometimes give wrong results?  Is it maybe a bit of complete nonsense that somehow got embedded into both of us, causing us to both arrive at the same wrong conclusions?  If we don't even know what rules we're following, how could we begin to tell?  Imagine getting to Hell and being locked in a room with Lrilatha and now she has to explain everything you're doing wrong, only you don't know what you're doing at all and she has trouble empathizing because, I'm guessing, all the nonsense in our heads is contrary to her own nature.  Think of how much of her valuable time you could save her - not to mention your own time locked in the room - if you actually knew which rules were operating inside you, to cause you to be persuaded by arguments like that one.  So what renders persuasive 'Z and H implies Q', or your own statement 'for there to be a non-large triangle implies either a non-red triangle or a non-large red thing' - how would you construct an entity from scratch to be persuaded by a statement like that?"