From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Thu Apr 16 11:33:45 EDT 1992
Article 5018 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: The Challenge
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <6742@pkmab.se> <1992Apr7.223711.18902@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr8.182009.23909@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.210102.24189@psych.toronto.edu>
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:01:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.182009.23909@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:

>  As far as I can see, "syntax" is an aspect of "form", and "semantics"
>is an aspect of "function".  So, "Syntax does not imply semantics" is
>a special case of "Form does not imply function."  I agree with
>this completely, at least in principle.  (Practically speaking,
>form often says a great deal about function.)  I even agree
>with Searle's claim that instantiating a set of syntactic rules
>is not sufficient for semantics.  Semantics implies some sort of
>connection with the real world, and syntactic rules alone cannot
>force such a connection to exist.
>
>  I disagree, though, that these arguments pose any kind of problem
>for AI.  It is clear to me that the Chinese Room, and computer
>programs in general, *do* have semantics.  The semantics are not
>conferred by the formal structure alone; they are conferred by
>the way the program is instantiated and interacts with the world.

See Searle's response to the Robot Reply in "Minds, Brains, and Programs".
The bottom line there is that interacting doesn't help.

- michael



