From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.smith.edu!orourke Thu Apr 16 11:33:50 EDT 1992
Article 5026 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!uunet!news.smith.edu!orourke
>From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Subject: Re: syntax and semantics
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.013123.24515@sophia.smith.edu>
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
References: <92098.170625JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr8.215800.18021@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Apr9.204735.21732@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:31:23 GMT
Lines: 13

In article <1992Apr9.204735.21732@psych.toronto.edu> 
	michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:

>Heck, if everyone decided to interpret *your*
>bank's computer as playing chess instead, how would you prove them wrong?

	This echoes a point of Searle's, one I have disputed with
Jeff Dalton and a host of others.  Although our discussion never reached
a clearcut resolution (do they ever?), I'll just go on record again as
saying that I don't think it is possible to consistently interpret Neil's
bank computer as playing chess.  It is only possible if one has a very
loose sense of "interpretion," one which permits lots of symbol manipulations
to be mapped to idle time-marking meaninglessnesses (so to speak).


