Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:3626 comp.ai:6046
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!xerox
From: xerox@cs.vu.nl (J. A. Durieux)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai
Subject: Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince
Message-ID: <5624@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 21 Feb 90 10:00:51 GMT
References: <18883@bcsaic.UUCP> <1589@skye.ed.ac.uk> <11488@venera.UUCP> <1754@skye.ed.ac.uk> <IZqZqtu00Uh_I3oHJo@andrew.cmu.edu> <dfQB026l88hi01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <0ZqmtbK00WBME1A1RK@andrew.cmu.edu> <2340@castle.ed.ac.uk> <sZrtkau00UhW81pHhU@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Lines: 15

In article <sZrtkau00UhW81pHhU@andrew.cmu.edu> qw0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Quanfeng Wu) writes:

>You are right; we may indeed have to make the distinction between
>"numbers" and  "numberals". However, very unfortunately, I really don't
>see there is a way of expressing "numbers' without resorting to any
>"numerals", ...

Of course not: once you talk about expressing, you have shifted
to syntax already.  That's one of the sources of confusion in the
syntax/semantics debate: when one *talks about* semantics, one is
using syntax.  Nobody can "write down a semantics", except by
using a syntax, about which' semantics there is agreement.
And always there is someone who doesn't appreciate this
indirection, and concludes that semantics and syntax are really
not very different.