From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!swrinde!gatech!psuvax1!rutgers!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!kodak!ispd-newsserver!psinntp!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske Tue Apr  7 23:23:07 EDT 1992
Article 4807 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!swrinde!gatech!psuvax1!rutgers!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!kodak!ispd-newsserver!psinntp!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <6715@pkmab.se>
Date: 25 Mar 92 18:30:20 GMT
References: <1992Mar16.171520.15584@psych.toronto.edu> <6705@pkmab.se> <11356@cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 20

In article <11356@cs.jhu.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
 >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"?

As we have worked out privately in mail, there is no contradiction in
this matter of fact, since Searle, in his article, uses the Chinese Room
to support his Axiom 3, and not the other way around, as can be seen by
reading the text immediately preceding Axiom 3.

-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske


