From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!forbis Wed Feb 26 12:54:21 EST 1992
Article 3995 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3995 sci.philosophy.tech:2179
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!forbis
>From: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.040130.27023@u.washington.edu>
Date: 25 Feb 92 04:01:30 GMT
References: <1992Feb24.083303.20762@u.washington.edu> <1992Feb24.100036.9114@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Feb24.180730.18355@psych.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 31

In article <1992Feb24.180730.18355@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <1992Feb24.100036.9114@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb24.083303.20762@u.washington.edu> 
>>forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes:
>>
>>GF:
>>>It seems to me that one has to first accept the premises that semantics is
>>>not reducable to syntax and machines only manipulating symbols acording
>>>to syntatic rules.
>>
>>This is not a premiss of Searle's argument, but its conclusion.
>
>Actually, it *is* a premise of his *formal* argument (see _Minds, Brains,
>and Science_).  It is, in part, this premise for which Searle attempts to
>provide evidence in the Chinese Room *demonstration*.
>
>However, none of the above greatly changes the point of this thread.  
>Syntax *is not* semantics, and no philosopher has yet given an adequate
>account of, or even an inkling of a direction toward, how one could possibly
>describe semantics in purely syntatic terms.
>
>- michael

If you accept the theoretic possibility of a lookup table that could be used
to produce behavior indestinguishable from human behavior then to the extent
that human behavior indicates semantics it has been reduce to syntax.  If
humans have semantics but the lookup table does not then the semantics humans
have that cannot be reduced to syntax cannot be expressed.  In this case
semantics provides no explanitory power.

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu


