Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C.CS.CMU.EDU!KRULWICH
From: KRULWICH@C.CS.CMU.EDU (Bruce Krulwich)
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: symbols: syntax vs semantics
Message-ID: <8610190504.AA08083@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 17-Oct-86 13:29:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8610190504.AA08083
Posted: Fri Oct 17 13:29:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Oct-86 04:23:09 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 29
Approved: ailist@sri-stripe.arpa



i think that the main thing i disagree with about Searle's work
and recent points in this discussion is the claim that symbols,
and in general any entity that a computer will process, can only
be dealt with in terms of syntax.  i disagree.  for example, when
i add two integers, the bits that the integers are encoded in are
interpreted semantically to combine to form an integer.  the same
could be said about a symbol that i pass to a routine in an
object-oriented system such as CLU, where what is done with
the symbol depends on it's type (which i claim is it's semantics)

i think that the reason that computers are so far behind the
human brain in semantic interpretation and in general "thinking"
is that the brain contains a hell of a lot more information
than most computer systems, and also the brain makes associations
much faster, so an object (ie, a thought) is associated with
its semantics almost instantly.


bruce krulwich

arpa:   krulwich@c.cs.cmu.edu
bitnet: bk0a%tc.cc.cmu.edu@cmuccvma
uucp: (??)  ... uw-beaver!krulwich@c.cs.cmu.edu
       or   ... ucbvax!krulwich@c.cs.cmu.edu

"Life's too short to ponder garbage"