[MUD-Dev] Re: MUD-Dev digest, Vol 1 #445 - 27 msgs
paul.schwanz at east.sun.com
Tue Oct 16 13:06:09 New Zealand Daylight Time 2001
> Adam Martin wrote:
>> From: "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
>> Personally, to me there is no difference between 1 and 2 - I
>> would (and in similar situations have done) say that I think its
>> rubbish either way (if thats what I thought based purely on an
>> evaluation of the text).
> Well, the fact that you think this particular text is rubbish does
> not challenge the argument. If you think that ALL sequences of
> symbols or sensory input are the same kind of rubbish then you
> might have a case. Now, if you were madly in love with this girl,
> and she had broken up with you with no warning or explanation. How
> could you avoid making an interpretation of the note passed to
> you? Anyway, even if you still think it is rubbish, it would
> probably be a different kind of rubbish.
If I may, I think that the point is that procedures can become quite
good at creating content, but not intent. Evaluation as to whether
the sequence is rubbish or not is focused on content. I think that
this evaluation can be made with little regard for authorship.
However, in many cases, it is the intent that is the more
interesting of the two (as in the case of lost love). When it comes
to intent, authorship is crucial.
Just my 2p.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev