From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Thu Apr 16 11:33:17 EDT 1992
Article 4970 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Challenge
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1992Apr8.070452.28658@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:04:52 GMT
References: <1992Apr1.150750.9618@cs.yale.edu> <1992Apr2.181357.25444@psych.toronto.edu> <511@tdatirv.UUCP>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 26

In article <511@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>
>
>I believe I do understand syntax and semantics, linguistics is one of
>my 'hobbies', and I have studied it extensively.
>
>And I have yet to see an argument supporting 'no semantics from syntax'
>that does not equally apply to the human brain.  No one has yet provided
>a compelling, observatianally verified, model of how the *brain* could
>generate semantics in any other way.
>
>Yes there have been some clever models that seem to show this *may* be
>possible, but none of them have any observatianal evidence to support
>them, or even to show that they are actually possible.
>-- 
I am not aware of even one such model (that supports that
semantics is strictly human) Please summarize for me.
>---------------
>uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


