From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!jpe1 Tue Apr  7 23:24:35 EDT 1992
Article 4967 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!jpe1
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 17:06:25 EDT
>From: <JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <92098.170625JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: syntax and semantics
References: <1992Apr1.150750.9618@cs.yale.edu>
 <1992Apr2.181357.25444@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr03.164328.8107@spss.com>
 <1992Apr4.061244.767@mp.cs.niu.edu>

In article <1992Apr4.061244.767@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil
Rickert) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr03.164328.8107@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark           )
>Rosenfelder
>writes:
>>
>>Searle seems to use "syntactic" to mean "formal", or "manipulating...
>>symbols [with] precisely stated rules."  "Semantics" he seems to equate
>
> Would that Searle were that precise in his use of "syntactic".  But he
>also says that every thing a computer can do is syntactic, and this
>therefore includes computing averages and correlations of very imprecise
>floating point information.
>
    Are you suggesting that such computations are _not_ syntactic?  In what
manner would they not be?  From what I understand, whatever the computer does
_is_ "formal" and "precise", although we may interpret its output as
_meaning_ something imprecise.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      John Emmer              Currently playing at the Emmer Arcade:
  JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu    Amiga: Black Crypt  Genesis: Kid Cham.  SNES: Smash TV
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- "We are condemned to meaning."  - Maurice Merleau-Ponty --------------


