From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Mon Mar  9 18:33:37 EST 1992
Article 4115 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <458@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 27 Feb 92 20:16:13 GMT
References: <450@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb26.172245.10210@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb26.195645.9914@spss.com> <1992Feb27.045520.2238@psych.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 15

In article <1992Feb27.045520.2238@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
| The claim I was relying to was that
|there is NO evidence that syntax and semantics are distinct things.

No, that was *not* my claim.

I claimed that there is no evidence that semantics are not *based* *on*
syntax in some manner.  After all the brain, like a computer, has only
the internal representations of its inputs to work upon.  So, it could
equally well be said to be a purely syntactic processor, at least as far
as we know now.  It *may* not be, but we have no evidence for it.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)



