From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Thu Jan 16 17:22:21 EST 1992
Article 2779 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Semantics of thoughts
Message-ID: <1992Jan16.164646.24041@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <41719@dime.cs.umass.edu> <CHANDRA.92Jan14132526@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 16:46:46 GMT

Richard Yee ((yee@cs.umass.edu) says:
>
>The difference between formal and semantic processing is profound: In
>the former case, basic symbols cannot *represent* (literally
>re-present) anything... to the processor.  In the latter case, they
>can.  Given a symbol, two semantic processors must agree as to its
>formal properties, but they may differ, to a greater or lesser extent,
>as to its associations or content.  In semantically processing true
>re-presentations (as contrasted with formal tokens), each step holds
>the possibility of interpreting the basic symbols---using them to form
>connections with subjective information.  This can yield inferences not
>derivable solely from the intrinsic properties of the manipulated
>symbols.  The point is that such interpretations and inferences are
>available *within the processor itself*.  A formal symbol processor has
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>no such leverage with regard to its basic symbols: all additional
>interpretation and inferencing, i.e., all additional *semantics*, must
>lie elsewhere (e.g., in an external agent's use of "wishful mnemonics"
>:-)
>
It's all very well, but how has the processor acquired such abilities? Are
they in-bred (hardwired) or are they learned (through previous exposure to
the said symbols)? If the latter, then it is syntax again. If the former,
then there is no reason why it couldn't be hardwired into a computer.
Are there other possibilities, inaccessible to computers?
One could of course speculate about mind's ability to tap into ethereal 
(platonic) realm of ideas (which computers are not subtle enough to do)
but this smacks of mysticism.

-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


