Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnewsm!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!cbnewsj!cbnewsi!cbnewsh!cbnewsu!cbnewse!rhb
From: rhb@cbnewse.att.com (richard.h.bradley)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: You can't get semantics by playing with syntax.
Message-ID: <1990Nov20.215107.11930@cbnewse.att.com>
Date: 20 Nov 90 21:51:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 50


In article <1990Nov20.151400.2252@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
		cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes:
>In article <1990Nov19.215824.7547@cbnewse.att.com> rhb@cbnewse.att.com (richard.h.bradley) writes:

>[...]

>>Through I/O devices, models of formal systems are able to interact with
>>external physical objects.  Thus internal syntactical operations
>>are able to affect and be affected by external things.  This critical I/O
>>interface introduces all the semantics that should be relevant.
>>
>  This leaves unaddressed the fact that the objects of consideration
>may not exist and therefore have never truly presented themselves to 
>the I/O interface (I am speaking of intelligent creatures here of course).
>The ability to anticipate, and therefore deal *meaningfully* with
>things that may never be or occur is, I think, a vital component of
>any model of thought.

I may have led you to believe that I think semantics exist only at the
external interface.  That was not my intent.  The problem was to get some
meaning into the formal manipulations.  Once the semantics are in the door,
all your imaginings can be meaningful.  (Your later statement seems to
agree with this.)

>   Also, by saying that I/O introduces all the semantics
>that "should be relevant" (to what?), you seem to be arguing against
>any form of innate knowledge.  Are you therefore suggesting a 
>behaviourist model of learning?

It may be worthwhile to distinguish different forms of innate knowledge.
Certainly the structure of the formal system could be considered innate.
You may be able to exhibit a form of innate knowledge that is not inherent
in that structure.  Then we might argue about the boundaries of the system.
When considering humans, it may be hard to draw a clean line between
the inputs and the system.  One might put hunger pangs on either side.
Depending on the purpose of the discussion, even memory might be considered
as I/O.  I don't think I'm implying anything about learning mechanisms.

>[ ... ]

>--
>      Cameron Shelley        | "Logic, n.  The art of thinking and reasoning
>cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu|  in strict accordance with the limitations and
>    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  incapacities of the human misunderstanding..."
> Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |				Ambrose Bierce

--
Dick Bradley
att!ihlpl!rhb