From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!logos.waterloo.edu!cpshelle Thu Apr 16 11:33:36 EDT 1992
Article 5004 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!logos.waterloo.edu!cpshelle
>From: cpshelle@logos.waterloo.edu (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: syntax and semantics
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.135236.11478@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@watdragon.waterloo.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1992Apr9.040057.4784@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:52:36 GMT
Lines: 42

minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
> 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"?

This is an interesting point.  Having recently re-read Searle's
account of the chinese room problem, in which he discusses syntax and
semantics, I was impressed with the strength of his rhetoric.  Searle
himself is a past-master at using structure, syntax included, to carry
a point.  I think if you pay careful attention to his choice of
wording, and how he connects concepts by apposition and repetition,
you will understand some of the significance of what he deprecates as
"merely syntax". 

For example, the term "symbol manipulation" is presented so that it is
clear that "manipulation" is meant in its devious sense, as in "crass
manipulation".  His choice of terms regarding those who agree and
disagree with him is interesting too.  The association of formal
syntax and semantics, with the procedural behaviour of same on an
actual machine, and with natural language syntax and semantics is also
interesting.  

It is ironic that someone who, as I've learned, is so good at rhetoric
dismisses it so abjectly.

				Cam
--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Proof, n.  Evidence having a shade more of
cpshelle@logos.waterloo.edu  |  plausibility than of unlikelyhood.  The
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  testimony of two credible witnesses as
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |	opposed to that of one."    Ambrose Bierce


