From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!uniol!tpki.toppoint.de!elrond.toppoint.de!freitag Mon Dec 16 11:01:56 EST 1991
Article 2124 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:2124 sci.philosophy.tech:1410
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!uniol!tpki.toppoint.de!elrond.toppoint.de!freitag
>From: freitag@elrond.toppoint.de (Claus Schoenleber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Semantic Conventions (was re: Searle and the Chinese Room)
Message-ID: <1Z7XcB2w164w@elrond.toppoint.de>
Date: 14 Dec 91 13:51:11 GMT
References: <1991Dec13.013107.6496@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Claus Schoenleber, Kiel, Germany (3-926986)
Lines: 53

zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

> In article <am0TcB3w164w@elrond.toppoint.de> 
> freitag@elrond.toppoint.de (Claus Schoenleber) writes:
> 
> >Maybe "meaning" is association between a (more or less) complex symbol and
> >some environmental event. Now, can't that be done by a sufficient complex
> >syntactical rule system? There is nothing said about whether the acting
> >machine is intelligent or simulates, it would behave like an intelligent
> >system.
> 
> How would the "meaning" (environmental association) of the explicans, i.e.
> "a sufficient complex syntactical rule system" be given, except by more
> complex syntactical rule systems, etc.?  So sorry, but meaning is still not
> syntactical.
> 

I tried to get some echo about the term "meaning". It is still undefined in
that discussion.

Why is it necessary to seperate "syntax" from "semantics"? You don't seperate
time from space, eh? They are different, o.k., but they belong to each other.

1. How can you get semantics without any form of syntax?
2. How can you get syntax without any form of semantics?

"syntax" and "semantics" are neither equal nor independent from each other.
There is a relation between syntax and semantics, and the question is: which?

But still there is my question: What is "meaning"? While there is no proper
definition, it seems, that "semantics" or "meaning" are mysterious lifebelts
preventing humans from being drowned in the stormy sea of "mindless machines".
;-)

Regards,

Claus.

p.s.:

There is no way to understand semantics, you get only used to it. (Couldn't
resist; beg your pardon, Mr. v. Neumann!) ;-)



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claus Schoenleber                      freitag@elrond.toppoint.de
2300 Kiel 1  
Germany					 +49 431 18863 (voice, Q)
=================================================================
        "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is 
          has left the path of wisdom" (Gandalf the Grey)
=================================================================


