Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!forbis
From: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Searle controversy
Message-ID: <4977@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 12 Jul 90 01:07:56 GMT
References: <601@ntpdvp1.UUCP>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 49

In article <601@ntpdvp1.UUCP> kenp@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Ken Presting) writes:
>If you believe:
>
>1. Programs are just syntax (or just mechanical)
>2. Syntax is not a sufficient condition for semantics
>3. Semantics is a necessary condition for intelligence
>
>then you have no choice but to accept Searle's conclusion.   For my own 
>part, I deny (1).  I think that programs have semantics as well as syntax.
>
>
>Ken Presting  ("Fluent in, oh, well, just forget it")

I'm pretty sure that 1 can not only be denied but be supportablely denied.
I know of few, if any, who can write programs in a language without knowing
the semantics assocaited with the syntax.  Further, some languages may have
different semantics on different machines such that a program may be 
syntactically correct on both machines yet produce incorrect results on one.
One of the most common errors I have seen people well versed in COBOL on IBM
who start working here (on a UNISYS machine) is the attempt to use GO TO to
exit an outer level of a set of nested performs.  This information cannot be
gleamed from the syntax alone.

I find 2 questionable.  I learn about computer languages by reading the
manuals.  All of the information I gain from the manuals has been presented
syntactically.  If semantics exist somewhere else they cannot be communicated.

-----------------------------------

On another related subject:

I thought the position held by strong AI was:

for all persons A and all things B and all universal turing machines D
  if a person A can understand a thing B 
  then there exists a program C such that
    a universal turing machine D runing program C understands the thing B. 

I don't think any claims are made about machine D understanding independent
of program C are made.  Even if there existed a program which, when running,
would be said to understand English, I doubt that any sales person would
claim the computer understood English without bundling the program with it.
Probably the most that would be claimed is "if you buy an 'English 
understanding program' this machine can understand English."  Likewise, I
doubt the sales person would claim the program understood English independent
of the machine.  I think this is a claim that all universal turing machines
have intrinsic semantics or understanding must occur within a context.

--gary forbis@milton.u.washington.edu