Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: SEMANTICS***>
Message-ID: <1995Feb9.001820.11933@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <D3p4HI.50B@info.uucp>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 00:18:20 GMT
Lines: 14

In <D3p4HI.50B@info.uucp> jsmyth4@mach1.wlu.ca (jeffrey ryan smyth u) writes:

>Is anyone aware of any argument of any worth that tries to get the 
>conclusion that a semantics may be derived from a complicated enough 
>syntactics?

Douglas Hofstadter proposes an argument, either in "Goedel, Escher, Bach"
or in "Metamagical Themas", I don't remember which.  Whether the argument
is of "any worth" I don't think there is a consensus on.

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

