From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!oceania!seeger Tue May 12 15:48:38 EDT 1992
Article 5365 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!oceania!seeger
>From: seeger@oceania.com (Seeger Fisher)
Subject: Re: syntax and semantics
Message-ID: <1992May1.214914.5732@oceania.com>
Sender: seeger@oceania.com (Seeger Fisher)
Reply-To: seeger@oceania.com
Organization: Oceania Health Care Systems
References: <5674@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx>
Date: Fri, 1 May 92 21:49:14 GMT
Lines: 30

In article <5674@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx> pl160988@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan  
Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.174840.3407@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:
> >In article <92099.194744JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> 
> >JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> >>at the machine level, there is no inherent meaning (or reference).
> >> ...John Emmer
> >
> >  I don't agree with this analysis (if I understand it).  In a brain,
> >at the neuron level, there is also no inherent meaning or reference.
> ...
> Just one thing: How do you know? I mean, if you disect a living brain,
> you won't find any meaning or reference either. 
> ...Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso

People deal with symbols within a very rich conceptual world (I know, from  
personal experience, I have the tools to process self-referentially+).  
Computers, at least in general, perform computations, within no 'conceptual'  
framework. There is not a rich enough net of symbols/processes within the  
computer for it to be an interesting philosopher/conversationalist. Not that I  
think this kind of program couldn't be written, just that in general, most  
computers aren't programmed to be anything more than tool/slaves .

seeger
-- 
|   seeger@oceania.com 											  |





