2497 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...

If it turned out that the Archdemon was intended by Bioware to be the good guy, would that make it so? Would I be wrong to say that actually everyone being eaten by Darkspawn would be a bad thing?

But these statements need context. What would it mean for Bioware to intent for the archdemon to be the good guy? Like, let's say that the Fade Tears will rip apart reality and the only way to have avoided that was massive slaughters in Ferelden for decades. Would that make the Archdemon the good guy?

Besides, there's a clear difference between authorial intent when something is ambiguous and when it isn't. If you write an unambigious statement and mean to write something else, (a) that's kind of an impressive mistake and ( too bad, at some point things to have to be interpreted on an objective rather than subjective standard.

But intent is part of that objective standard. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The intent matters tremendously. Putting aside that "meaning" is nothing more than a function of that intent, often writting is ambiguous and can only be understood with reference to intent.

Then they can't be understood at all.

That's not possible except in very simplified and short cases, because again, "meaning" just flows from intent.

No.  Meaning flows from definitions.

There's a difference between "perceived" meaning and "intended" meaning, in that I might want to convey some information but because of imperfects in the method of communication you perceive it differently... but that just illustrates that (i) the communication itself is irrelevant in isolation, because it is only a portion of the story and (ii) communication is fundamentally contextual, in that the words have to be understood in the context (including the subjective contexts of the person stating and receiving).

I'm not concerned with the intended meaning or the perceived meaning.  When I talk about meaning, I'm talking about the actual literal meaning of the words, based on the definitions of those words.  And yes, something that renders statements ambiguous, nonsensical, or even meaningless.  But intent doesn't change that.

The first half of the second amendment to the US constitution is a great example of this.

Changing the intent very much does. All that you need is a sufficiently ambiguous sentence, because meaning is also carried in the general context that the statmemt is made (e.g. the cultural context). I've shown you an example before: the sentence "That was a good idea."

Before getting to cultural context, let's use a simple example: tone and body language.

Context, tone, and body language are content (as is the text itself).

Intent is not.  Because it doesn't persist within the statement.  It's not there to be found.

I concede that body language exists.  I concede that tone exists.  I concede that context exists.  While I may take issue with how those tool are employed or interpreted, they're still there.

The intent is not.  When you write (or speak) a line, your intent doesn't go with it.  Your intent remains in your head.

[Taleroth]

In Exile wrote...

But intent is part of that objective standard. 

Intent is never objective. Even an author is a subject. And their own understanding of their own intent is just another subjective interpretation.

The human psyche is concrete for no one.

Modifié par Taleroth, 04 octobre 2013 - 09:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Just in case you are speaking categorically (not sure if you are), the entire field of law is an exercise in determining what a person meant (sometimes objectively, sometimes not) and very rarely what was actually said. 

The entire field of legislative interpretation is nothing but guessing the intent of legislative sessions long gone through videos of debates, transcripts, policy papers read, etc.

I know.

It makes me very angry.  It is so fundamentally wrong-headed.  How can the law be at all useful to people if they aren't allowed to know what it means without reading the minds of the people who wrote it?

What the law means should be what the law says.  Full stop.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then they can't be understood at all.

Very few things are unambigous. Even words are ambiguous.

No.  Meaning flows from definitions.

No. Definitions are just descriptions of the type of intended meaning that attaches to particular sounds or scrib

I'm not concerned with the intended meaning or the perceived meaning.  When I talk about meaning, I'm talking about the actual literal meaning of the words, based on the definitions of those words.

There is no such thing as a "definition" of a word, unless you assume that reality is perfectly segment and that things naturally organize in definitive and irreducible metaphysical categories, which is clearly false. Just look at words like "reasonable" or "a bunch". 

Definitions do not work the way you think they do in language. You are just wrong about this. The idea that a word has a defined meaning and nothing else is demonstrably wrong. 

You might want to try and argue that words should have an absolute and eternal meaning, but that's different from what is actually happening as a matter of fact.

The first half of the second amendment to the US constitution is a great example of this.

It is, but only as an example of how intent does change things. Even the insane American legal theories used to describe it are all about intent, not the words. 

Let's just use a portion "A well regulated Militia..." is not static. The meaning of "well" and "regulated" and "Militia" has changed over generations. We do not mean the same thing in using those words as people did 300 years ago. That's why even the wacko US jurisprudence on this subject has to involve questions like "What would Thomas Jefferson think about howitzers?" 

Context, tone, and body language are content (as is the text itself).

Intent is not.  Because it doesn't persist within the statement.  It's not there to be found.

Context isn't within the statement. Body language isn't part of the statement. They aren't found there. 

Edit:

A better example is the statemnet I used below: "I am going to the store". It clearly carries intention. 

I concede that body language exists.  I concede that tone exists.  I concede that context exists.  While I may take issue with how those tool are employed or interpreted, they're still there.

Do you take issue with the existence of agency of living beings? Of living humans? Because intent is clearly there, even if you can't experience it.

The intent is not.  When you write (or speak) a line, your intent doesn't go with it.  Your intent remains in your head. 

The precise configuration of body language and words exist only in virtue of my intent. The only proxy of it that you can see is that configuration, but if you were death that wouldn't suddenly render the existence of speech false. 

Modifié par In Exile, 04 octobre 2013 - 09:45 .

[In Exile]

Taleroth wrote...
Intent is never objective.

You misunderstand. There is a difference between subjective intent and objective intention, which is to say the difference between that your actual intention was and what we might infer that intention to be based on our theories of mind, evidence of body language, etc. 

If you say "I am going to the store", then your intent (based on that statement), to go the store. Coincidentally, this is also a response to Sylvius about intent being part of statements. 

Of course, you could be lying. I can't know that. But what I can say is that based on the available evidence, the objective inference to draw is that you are intending to go to the store.

The human psyche is concrete for no one. 

 Something doesn't have to be exact or absolutely knowable to be objectively determinable. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The precise configuration of body language and words exist only in virtue of my intent.

Exactly.  But it is that content we perceive and interpret, not the intent itself.

It's like when you look at a red apple - you're not actually seeing the red apple, you're seeing the light reflected by the red apple.  If the light persisted even when the apple went away, your perception wouldn't change, even though the apple was no longer there.

[Wulfram]

I intended that nothing should be changed about the story, only that Bioware would have intended something else by it - that the Archdemon be the good guy. Maybe this Bioware were part of an insane doomsday cult that sees the destruction of life as desirable or something. Obviously an absurd scenario, but an easy way to illustrate my point.

If you accept that the writer can be objectively wrong about their work, then can't they be wrong in less clear cut matters too? Can't I conclude based on the facts presented in the work that revolution on the part of the mages is in fact the best and most appropriate reaction to the circumstances, even if Bioware didn't intend that be so? Just as I can read the [insert party here] manifesto and conclude that they're in fact talking a complete load of twaddle?

[dsl08002]

this just makes me more convinced that bioware didnt plan this whole rebellion from the very beginning, DA2 was simply a good way to implement that.

[Taleroth]

In Exile wrote...

You misunderstand. There is a difference between subjective intent and objective intention, which is to say the difference between that your actual intention was and what we might infer that intention to be based on our theories of mind, evidence of body language, etc. 

If you say "I am going to the store", then your intent (based on that statement), to go the store. Coincidentally, this is also a response to Sylvius about intent being part of statements. 

Of course, you could be lying. I can't know that. But what I can say is that based on the available evidence, the objective inference to draw is that you are intending to go to the store.

Drawing intent from overt actions is not meaningful in this discussion. The intent of writing a book is to write a book by that basis.

The question of why was the book written and what the message was the ones relevant to intent.

If I say "I am going to the store." The intent isn't what I'm doing, but why I am doing it. Maybe I'll tell you I'm going to get milk because we're out. But even unknown to me, it might be because I really enjoy driving, because I'm stressed at home and need a break, or maybe the cashier is cute and it would be nice to see her. Not only do you not know, but even I, the one performing the action and holding the intent, really do not know either. And if you press me on it, maybe I will really stress that milk thing because I do not know enough to confirm any of the others.

We are mere witnesses of ourselves.

If when I go out to get the milk, I pick up a date and forget the milk. Well, there's some data far more important than why I thought I left the house.

Modifié par Taleroth, 04 octobre 2013 - 10:00 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Exactly.  But it is that content we perceive and interpret, not the intent itself.

No, we perceive the intent. You're trying to be reductionist here, but you're losing meaning.

It's like when you look at a red apple - you're not actually seeing the red apple, you're seeing the light reflected by the red apple.

But the idea of "seeing" the red apple is nonsense in this case. You're trying to use seeing to say that in some sense I have the wrong "kind" of interaction with the apple - that "actually" seeing it would involve... what, exactly? 

This line is in itself very fitting for our discussion. You say "look" and "see" as if they mean different things, and like I say in the preceding paragraph you're suggesting that I can't "actually see" unless I have some kind of knowledge about the object - or interaction with the object-  that goes beyond piercing wavelengths of light... but why should that be true?

If the light persisted even when the apple went away, your perception wouldn't change, even though the apple was no longer there.

But I am still seeing the apple itself. Definitionally so. We "see" the stars despite the fact that they're not there. Where an object is and whether I'm seeing aren't the same thing.

If the apple is the intent, and the wave of light is the speech... then I perfectly see it, even when the intent is there, and even when the apple isn't (like, when the author is dead or not here to answer my Qs). 

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
If you accept that the writer can be objectively wrong about their work, then can't they be wrong in less clear cut matters too? Can't I conclude based on the facts presented in the work that revolution on the part of the mages is in fact the best and most appropriate reaction to the circumstances, even if Bioware didn't intend that be so? Just as I can read the [insert party here] manifesto and conclude that they're in fact talking a complete load of twaddle?

Well, it's like how you can conclude that the templars are obviously right and the ROA is the best solution. DGs comments in the OP at least are that Bioware's tried to make it somewhat ambigous, and they've succeeded based on the aggregate reaction. Which is it's own discussion.

I don't think I'm following what you're trying to say here, because I don't see how anything you're saying here is contrary to the idea of author intent. 

[In Exile]

Taleroth wrote...
 The intent of writing a book is to write a book by that basis.

It's like interpreting law, which is nothing but written rules. And intent is fundamental to doing it. Take a contract for example. In fact, that the EULA we sign each time we buy and install a game. 

If I say "I am going to the store." The intent isn't what I'm doing, but why I am doing it.

You're wrong. Intention isn't a singular thing. Why you're doing is certainly about intention. But where you're planning to go is also an intention. 

Maybe I'll tell you I'm going to get milk because we're out. But even unknown to me, it might be because I really enjoy driving, because I'm stressed at home and need a break, or maybe the cashier is cute and it would be nice to see her. Not only do you not know, but even I, the one performing the action and holding the intent, really do not know either. And if you press me on it, maybe I will really stress that milk thing because I do not know enough to confirm any of the others.

All of this arises from your confusion about what it means to have intent.

We are mere witnesses of ourselves.

This is really complicated, and since my actual academic background was cognitive psych, I could go on for hours about how the proper way to qualify this statmeent is. Suffice it to say that it's a lot more complicated than the idea that we have underlying desires that we interact with in a limited way. Much, much more complicated. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No, we perceive the intent. You're trying to be reductionist here, but you're losing meaning.

I don't see the intent.  How do you see the intent?

But the idea of "seeing" the red apple is nonsense in this case.

Yes.  Just as the idea of perceiving the intent is.

You're trying to use seeing to say that in some sense I have the wrong "kind" of interaction with the apple - that "actually" seeing it would involve... what, exactly?

No, I'm saying you're describing your interaction with the apple incorrectly.  Actually seeing the apple is impossible.  As with intent.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someones interpretation is irrelevant.
Why should I care if Bob interpreted the passage differently? Why should anyone care about Bobs oppinion? Who is Bob anyway? Bobs oppinion doesn't matter to anyone other than Bob.

Author >>>> Random Joe.
More poeple care about authors oppinion than yours.

You cna interpreate a sentance of character A to mean he hates character B all you want.
If the wirter sez that character A doesn't hate character B, then you are categoricly wrong.

Interpretation does not exist wihout personal bias.

Evne something simple as watching a man giving 100$ to a beggar can be seen in different ways by different people.
One person cna think "wow, how generous"
The other might think "what a showoff"
A third one might think "he insane to give away that much"

And yet they all saw the exact same thing.
It's not a matter or wording or meaning - words and sentaces can have multiple meaning away - it's a matter of projection.

[Wulfram]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

More poeple care about authors oppinion than yours.

More people probably care about Miley Cyrus's opinion than the author's, if you're going to look at it that way.

[Medhia Nox]

@Sylvius the Mad: That's only in the limited scope of science.

If you've ever said "It's cold outside." you have to admit that - while it's a fun exercise for the self-promoting egoist - that you don't live the way you're talking.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Author >>>> Random Joe.

You>>>>Everyone else

You will always be the most important person in your own universe.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad: That's only in the limited scope of science.

If you've ever said "It's cold outside." you have to admit that - while it's a fun exercise for the self-promoting egoist - that you don't live the way you're talking.

What I say doesn't necessarily reflect what I think.

[Medhia Nox]

@Sylvius the Mad: That's disappointing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's pretty much the central point I'm trying to make, here. If I say" It's cold outside," you can deduce from that nothing about my perception of whether it is cold outside.

[Medhia Nox]

Why do I need to deduce anything at all?

I know what you believe it to be. I also know that I have a high cold tolerance.

Given prior experiences of your statement: "It's cold outside." I can, if need be, deduce that it is possibly warmer than your statement implies because after having heard you say that - I have gone outside and found it to be quite pleasant.

What matters - to me - is not that the statement: "It's cold outside." is empirical data. But that you perceive it that way.

I know... what I think. I'm not impressed with relativism or the demonization of authorial intent... because I already know what I think. I don't need to dwell in the world of only "what I think."

Instead - I prefer to know what other people think.

It's true - I can only understand that through the scope of my being.

But stating other people's "intent" is pointless - is boorish and obtuse to me. As it is all I genuinely care about (because, as I already stated, my thoughts are natural and therefore can be considered during private moments - not pushed on to other people because they are all that matter.)

Edit: Also - though I know there is no such thing as cold "scientifically".  I find it the actions of a "self-promoting egoist" to remind others of this type of concept knowing full well that we do not converse as human beings in this way (that is - to percieve it as "cold") . 

If someone says it's cold outside - I know they actually mean: "There is an abscence of heat outside." and furthermore that: "They believe there to be an excessive absence of heat outside." 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 04 octobre 2013 - 10:43 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What I say doesn't necessarily reflect what I think.

I'll take this a bit further and suggest that what you think isn't even entirely under your own control

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 04 octobre 2013 - 11:09 .

[Wulfram]

How does authorial intent handle there being 8 (or so) writers? Plus producers and whoever else who can overrule them? And the long writing period of Origins meaning that there are places where it seems like intent has probably shifted during the process. And how about the actor's intent?

(Not really intended as an argument, just interested)

Modifié par Wulfram, 04 octobre 2013 - 11:11 .