From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!umd5!fermat!orourke Tue Mar 24 09:57:44 EST 1992
Article 4635 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!umd5!fermat!orourke
>From: orourke@fermat.cs.jhu.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <11356@cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 92 17:05:23 GMT
References: <1992Mar14.213045.21776@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar15.011107.7828@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Mar16.171520.15584@psych.toronto.edu> <6705@pkmab.se>
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA
Lines: 9

In article <6705@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:

 >[...] As far as
 >I know, the Chinese Room does not use any claim about syntax and semantics
 >as a premise; [...]

Then why does Searle include as Axiom 3 of his argument (as presented
in Scientific American), "Syntax by itself is neither constitutive nor
sufficient for semantics"?


