From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Mon Mar  9 18:34:08 EST 1992
Article 4159 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Subject: Re: Semantic and Syntax
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.084722.11682@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
References: <1992Feb28.172808.1956@oracorp.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 08:47:22 GMT
Lines: 46

In article <1992Feb28.172808.1956@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>kimhock@csar.uucp (Ng Kim Hock) writes:
>
>[speaking about syntactic rules in mathematics]
>
>The main issue is the existence of some semantics which is "correct".
>The thoughts of human beings have a preferred semantics; when I talk
>about "cats", there may indeed be a consistent way to interpret what I
>am saying so that I seem to be talking about arithmetic or chess. (I
>posted an article once showing how you can, in principle, consistently
>interpret any statement to be about any subject.) However, I would say
>that such nonstandard interpretations are wrong, even if they fit the
>syntax of what I am saying.
>
I am slightly confused by your statement that certain interpretations
are wrong.
>On the other hand, in the case of computer programs, there doesn't
>seem to be any wrong interpretations; one interpretation seems just as
>good as another. Given that there can be multiple interpretations that
>are equally good, it doesn't make sense to say that the interpretation
>is part of the computer program---the interpretation must be something
>imposed on the program from outside, and the program itself is
>completely without semantics.
>
>Daryl McCullough
>ORA Corp.
>Ithaca, NY


My confusion comes in when you say that for humans (or aliens) there
seems to be only one interpretation of syntax, but for AIs this
may not be so. Is it not possible that the program *does* have its
semantics impossed from the outside by the inputs that it recieves?
(Even at the insitence of the program, telling you that the
interpretation is wrong, you would still insist that there is nothing
wrong with a certain interpretation?)

I have followed this group for several weeks now, but I do not
understand the above, I anyone feels the need to flame because
this topic was answered to everyones satisfaction then please
do it by E-mail.
-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


