From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!pacbell.com!UB.com!daver!leadsv!sunfse!iscnvx!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Mar 24 09:57:54 EST 1992
Article 4650 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!pacbell.com!UB.com!daver!leadsv!sunfse!iscnvx!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar21.183203.21183@oracorp.com>
Date: 21 Mar 92 18:32:03 GMT
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 20

onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

> Daryl,

> For clarification purposes, could you please answer the following:

> Do you think that humans could possibly have a different kind of semantics? 
> Or, to put it another way, can there be different kinds of semantics?
> Must semantics be limited in some way such that the term 'semantic' can
> only refer to one particular quality?

I'm not sure if I understand the question. If you are asking whether
the word "semantics" can mean different things, the answer is yes; I'm
not picky about words having unique meanings--I only ask that the
meaning be made clear if it is going to figure prominently in an
argument. What kind of semantics do you have in mind?

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


