From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Thu Apr 16 11:33:35 EDT 1992
Article 5003 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: syntax and semantics
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.040057.4784@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Cc: minsky
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <92098.170625JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr8.010858.5398@news.media.mit.edu> <92099.165657JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:00:57 GMT
Lines: 43

In article <92099.165657JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> <JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.010858.5398@news.media.mit.edu>, minsky@media.mit.edu
>(Marvin Minsky) says:
>>
>>In article <92098.170625JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> <JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>>
>>>    Are you suggesting that ...  computations are _not_ syntactic?  In what
>>>manner would they not be?  From what I understand, whatever the computer doe
>>>_is_ "formal" and "precise", although we may interpret its output as
>>>_meaning_ something imprecise.
>>
>>Nonsense. What the computer does is what it does, just like a brain.
>
>   What does this mean?  That a computer does whatever it does (which tells
>us nothing) or that a computer does whatever a brain does (which is a central
>issue here, not something that can be simply assumed or stated without
>support)?
>
>>It is _you_ who may interpret what it is doing as formal or precise.
>
>   Does this mean that you reject the isomorphism that many philosophers
>find between computers and formal systems?  And if so, on what grounds?
>(Directing me to an article would be an acceptable response here, although
>some stated reasons would be easier to discuss on the net.)
>  John Emmer  
>  Philosophy Department  
>  Penn. State University 
>  JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu     

I mean that a computer is a machine, in practice finite state.  Its
behavior can be described in many ways, formal and informal.  And of
course one could use, in particular, various kinds of monogenic
production rules.  But my point was simply to object to using terms
like "syntactic" and "formal" -- along, I fear, with their various and
curious implications -- as though these were substitutes for simpler
and less ambiguous terms like "finite-state" or "deterministic
machine".  To be sure, if you yourself don't subscribe to those hidden
assumptions, then no harm is done.  However, there appear to be those
who are convinced that "syntactic" means "devoid of semantic" --
without substantial justification for the implication that
finite-state (or, in Penrose's view, "algorithmic") machines cannot
have any degree of meaning, understanding, consciousness, etc.  What
do you mean when you say a machine is "syntactic"?


