From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!wupost!psuvax1!psuvm!jpe1 Thu Apr 16 11:33:38 EDT 1992
Article 5008 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!wupost!psuvax1!psuvm!jpe1
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 12:16:50 EDT
>From: <JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <92100.121650JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: syntax and semantics
References: <92099.165657JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr8.220700.12092@mp.cs.niu.edu> <92099.200726JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr9.005331.23376@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Lines: 43

In article <1992Apr9.005331.23376@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil
Rickert) says:
>
>In article <92099.200726JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> <JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.220700.12092@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil
>>Rickert) says:
>>  [Emmer:]
>>     The purpose is to distinguish between what the computer is actually
>>doing (i.e. what is actually happening inside the computer) and what kinds
>>of things _we_ do with the various states (say, output) of the computer
>>(i.e. how we interpret them).
>   [Rickert:]
> Certainly you may, if you wish, say that what the computer "is actually
>doing" is formal manipulations, and anything else is an interpretation.  But
>then you must surely say that what you are actually doing is chemical
>manipulations, and anything else is an interpretation.  Any use of this
>approach to deny the possibility that computers could ever have semantics
>applies equally to deny the possibility that humans could have semantics.
>
     I never stated that my approach was designed to "deny the possibility
that computers could ever have semantics".  I simply wanted to distinguish
between machine (or biological) level causal interactions and meaning.  The
distinction only denies the possibility of semantics for both humans and
computers if one assumes that, whatever meaning is, it is reducible to
mechanical functions.  I happen to think that its not, and I take my guidance
in this way of thinking from the arguments presented by such figures as
Kant and Husserl, who show that (to put it in a very simplified manner)
subjectivity cannot be reduced to objectivity because the former is the
condition of the possibility of the latter.
     Please note that in my more extended response to your other comments,
I stated that my arguments had "not, of course, show[n] that our brains
'have meaning' in some other way than the computer's state does".  I am
not at this point entirely convinced wither way as to whether a computer
can be created and programmed to instantiate the kind of subjectivity
found in humans.  I do, however, think it is useful to distinguish between
formal systems (or computers) and their interpretations.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John Emmer               "...reason has no dictatorial authority; its verdict
 Philosophy Department     is always simply the agreement of free citizens..."
 Penn. State University                   - Immanuel Kant, CPR, A738/B765
 JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu       Now playing:  Amiga: BC  Genesis: KC  SNES: Smash TV


