Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: What's innate? (Was Re: Artificial Neural Networks and Cognition
Message-ID: <jqbD3vstp.LEB@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3gtu3i$rf3@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3hbsq4$arh@agate.berkeley.edu> <jqbD3r3Cp.CrC@netcom.com> <D3svKq.LIA@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 09:53:49 GMT
Lines: 57
Sender: jqb@netcom11.netcom.com

In article <D3svKq.LIA@hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>It is my position that the sentences "I saw John with Mary" and
>"I saw John and Mary" have identical semantic content. They are
>"stimulus synonymous", as Quine might say. The two utterences are,
>in many contexts, completely interchangeable, and communicate
>precisely the same information.

Give an example in which they are interchangeable.  In every example I can
think of, "John with Mary" remarks in some way on the fact that they
are together, whereas "John and Mary" does not.

>I don't think syntax and semantics can be so cleanly separated
>as you seem to think.

I don't know where you got the idea.  It seems to me that UG, by referring
to a "G" mechanism, makes the distinction.  UG says we reject "John and"
strictly because of grammar; I'm suggesting that it isn't a convincing argument,
and don't need a clear distinction to do so.

>: If this is the best that Chomskyists can offer, I am sorely disappointed.
>
>It was not warranted to that effect, nor am I willing to
>consider myself to be a "Chomskyist". No doubt a true
>Chomskyist, if such a one exists and lurks nearby, could
>do better.

They seem a bit shy. :-)

>: [Since some of this discussion seems to take, on the surface, a personal tone,
>: I will point out that I have met and spoken to Noam Chomsky and have the
>: highest personal regard for him.]
>: -- 
>
>I'm not sure what "personal tone" you have detected, but I would
>say that the high regard in which I too hold Chomsky (though I
>have not met him), while it may predispose me to take his ideas
>seriously, does not ensure that I agree with them.

Sometimes people take harsh criticism of their views or, especially,
their methodology, as personal attacks.  I was just trying to make the
distinction.  Of course we should all strive to address the arguments,
not the arguers and their traits (unless we are striving for John Snodgrass's
"power").

>I also
>have a high regard for my net.opponents: I will read and try
>to understand their arguments and try to give those arguments the
>most generous reasonable interpretation. This would certainly
>not be worth my while if I thought they had nothing interesting
>to say. I'm trying to understand this stuff, not running for office.

Not everyone understands the difference.


-- 
<J Q B>

