From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!brauer!zeleny Thu Dec 26 23:57:20 EST 1991
Article 2292 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:2292 sci.philosophy.tech:1533
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!brauer!zeleny
>From: zeleny@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Epiphenomenal Semantics (was re: "grounded syntax" and the semantic bootstrap)
Summary: please pay more attention
Message-ID: <1991Dec19.194111.6792@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 91 00:41:09 GMT
References: <am0TcB3w164w@elrond.toppoint.de> <1991Dec13.013107.6496@husc3.harvard.edu> <1476@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 47
Nntp-Posting-Host: brauer.harvard.edu

In article <1476@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 
silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:

>In article <1991Dec13.013107.6496@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>   A less trivial semantic convention may be estabilished by using the Ariadne
>   technique: connect each name-token to its denotation with a thin thread of
>   ballistic nylon.  If you wish to determine the denotation, just follow the
>   line.

ES:
> The physical thread from the syntactic poker chip to the "meaning"
> IS not required, IF you admit of a common, hardwired , 
> symbol-meaning core (fundamental , hardwired symbol/interpretation
> machinery in the brain) upon which other (symbol,meaning) structures
> are elaborated.  Any sort of recursion/transcendance problems are
> trapped, viciated, accomodated by this physical fact re: human brains.


For all your big words and occasional wit you understand not a whit of this
discussion.  A "fundamental, hardwired symbol/interpretation machinery in
the brain" will not, by definition, transcend the syntax of the "language"
of brain processes.  The fundamental difference is between semantic
interpretation and syntactic paraphrase.  I have covered this point a month
ago, and feel quite disinclined to reiterate my arguments.  Nor am I
prepared to repeat the elementary distinction between syntax, semantics,
and pragmatics for the sole benefit of the reading-impaired.  As say the
French, I've other cats to flog.

A big hint: the only coherent response to my arguments has been given by
Drew MacDermott's assertion that semantics is epiphenomenal.  Unfortunately
for him, if his claim is true, he can't mean it.


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


