From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Mon Mar  9 18:32:49 EST 1992
Article 4039 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!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.172245.10210@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb24.083303.20762@u.washington.edu> <1992Feb24.171942.10981@psych.toronto.edu> <450@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 17:22:45 GMT

In article <450@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1992Feb24.171942.10981@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>
>|In the 
>|absence of such a proof, there's no particular reason to believe they
>|are.
>
>Then again there is no reason to believe they are *not*.  

Of course there is. That's wy the distinction is universally held.
Consider:
   The boy kicked the ball to the girl.
   A monster pinned the prince to the wall.

They have the same syntax, but different semantics. Now consider:
   Jack gave the box to the girl.
   The girl was given the box by Jack.
  
They have the same semantics but different syntax.

It's very simple. What might you be on about?
Now ots up to you, or some AI-ist, to demonstrate to me that one
can be reduced to the other. 
-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


