From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!mtecv2!pl160988 Thu Apr 30 15:23:23 EDT 1992
Article 5332 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!mtecv2!pl160988
>From: pl160988@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: syntax and semantics
Message-ID: <5674@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx>
Date: 30 Apr 92 01:05:41 GMT
References: <1992Apr8.215800.18021@mp.cs.niu.edu> <92099.194744JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr9.174840.3407@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Organization: I.T.E.S.M. Campus Monterrey
Lines: 23

In article <1992Apr9.174840.3407@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>In article <92099.194744JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> 
>JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>     The point is not that what computers do is _necessarily_ meaningless, just
>>that, at the machine level, there is no inherent meaning (or reference).  It
>>is we who come along and project reference upon the formal manipulations that
>>the computer has carried out. 
>
>> John Emmer
>
>  I don't agree with this analysis (if I understand it).  In a brain,
>at the neuron level, there is also no inherent meaning or reference.
[Deletions]
Just one thing: How do you know? I mean, if you disect a living brain,
you won't find any meaning or reference either. We can't equate neurons
to microprocessors, since we don't know yet how a neuron works. Maybe a
full explanation of the function of a neuron will require the
introduction of concepts like 'meaning'.
I am a newcomer, forgive me if this is an old argument (or a silly
argument).

Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso
pl160988@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx


