Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!nsc!voder!dtg.nsc.com!andrew
From: andrew@dtg.nsc.com (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head       )
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Chinese Room and the Babylonian Bureaucracy
Summary: reflection of depth
Message-ID: <492@berlioz.nsc.com>
Date: 12 Jan 90 10:24:23 GMT
References: <139@daedalus.nsc.com> <8489@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Lines: 27

In article <8489@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, ele@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (eugene.l.edmon) writes:
> > andrew@dtg.nsc.com (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head) writes:
> >How can Searle assert that syntax in and of itself cannot give rise to
> >semantics? An existence proof for the contradiction is there for all to see
> >in (at least) every mentally normal human child. Isn't it really this simple?
> 
> No, it isn't this simple. 
	ok - so what's the scoop?

> As children learn semantics they are not picking it up from the syntax.
	aha! - a contradiction; i'm all ears....

> If you still think this I would be interested in your further developing 
> the argument.
	i must have missed something somewhere....

> In fact, it seems to make more sense to argue that children
> learn semantics first as they learn words then how to string
> them together in sentences.
	at least it's obvious to you. that's nice, but hardly counts
	as a refutation, eugene.



-- 
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman	andrew@dtg.nsc.com	Albania before April!