From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Tue Mar 24 09:55:58 EST 1992
Article 4476 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!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Mar14.182737.15329@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar14.213045.21776@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar15.011107.7828@news.media.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Mar16.171520.15584@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Mar15.011107.7828@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>
>I have the same sense.  I have assumed that "semantics" refers to the
>correspondence between expressions and (say) things.  Or something
>like that; please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're only partially right. This was the view prior to Frege, in the
early 19th century. Frege showed us that *reference* alone isn't enough
to carry the full semantic burden of propositions. We need their
*sense* as well. In the last few decades, sense has come to be explicated
as something like 'the reference in all possible worlds', and there has
been a vast and continuing debate about it ever since. What troubles
me is a lot of CompSci types sitting around ragging on Searle (who
is well aware of these matters -- hell, he developed some of the issues)
without knowing what syntax and semantics are. Its one thing to say,
'Gee, I don't really understand the difference between syntax and semantics.
Perhaps I better go find out about it if I'm to understad Searle's argument.'
It's quite another to say, as many on this group seem to say (and I'm *not* 
specifically including Minsky -- who got me started on this -- among these),
'This sytax/semantics stuff isn't very clear to me. Therefore it must be
a lot of pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo.' That just sheer anti-intellectualism.

For those interested in learning about semantics, and excellent readable
introduction is: 

Kempson, R. (1977). _Semantic theory_. Cambridge.

Problem with it is it's a little old. There's no Montague in it, for instance.
Thus, you might also look at

Allen, ?.  (198?)  _Linuistic meaning_. Routledge?
Dowty, et al. (198?) _Montague Semantics..._. (don't know publisher)

For the heart of the current debate on semantics, take a look at
Fodor's "Methodological solipsism" (BBS, 1981?), _Psychosemantics_
(in which he changes his mind about solipsism), and _Theory of content_;
Putnam's _Representation and reality_; and Millikan's _Language and other 
biological concepts_. (or is it "categories"?). An interesting
side trip consists of Dretske's _Knowledge and the flow of information_,
followed by Fodor's "Semantics Wisconsin style".

By the way, Searle's _Speech act_, and _Intentionality_ are still both
excellent introductions to what Searle does when he's not being abused
by the artificial intelligentsia.

Happy reading! 

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


