From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Thu Apr 30 15:23:02 EDT 1992
Article 5292 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Categories: bounded or graded?
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.233614.22559@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Cc: minsky
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <mt6j0nd.kmc@netcom.com> <1992Apr24.132722.20648@cs.ucf.edu> <1992Apr27.173513.33215@spss.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 23:36:14 GMT
Lines: 18

In article <1992Apr27.173513.33215@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <1992Apr24.132722.20648@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu 
>(Thomas Clarke) writes:
>>Paraphrasing from memory, a game requires three things:  an objective goal  
>>(crossing the finish line first), rules (can't shoot your opponent,  shortcut  
>>across the infield etc), and the ludic attitude (game playing frame of mind,  
>>free desire to play the game).  Therefore an acting performance is not a game.   
>A recursive definition is not improved by hiding the recursion with Latin.

Wow.  First I said to myself, "Right on the Mark!"  Then I thought,
well, perhaps that's the best way.  Fool them into thinking the
question has been answered by concealing the circularity.  For what is
wrong here, among other things, is that there is something peculiar
about the idea of "defining" something like the word "game" whose
usage is subject to constant social evolution.  Like defining
"pretty".  Good exercise, but a waste of time unless it helps you
realize that what you "really" want is a theory of common sense psychology.



