From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Jan  9 10:34:18 EST 1992
Article 2575 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Epiphenomenal semantics
Message-ID: <5916@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Jan 92 22:04:21 GMT
References: <1991Dec15.023122.6582@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec16.181202.526@cs.yale.edu> <41047@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1991Dec30.150818.25714@cs.yale.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 18

In article <1991Dec30.150818.25714@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:
>It is the case that
>
> (a) People use symbols that refer to things
> (b) People can make semantic theories about what agents' symbols
>     refer to
>
>but the theories referred to in (b) play no role in the competence
>described in (a).

If this is the explanation of "semantics is epiphenominal", then
again I find I'm getting further from understanding you rather
than closer.

Did anyone (Searlie or no) think having a semantic _theory_
played a role in competance?  Is this the semantics Searle
says syntax isn't sufficient for?  What, exactly, does this
have to do with what's been debated all this time.


