KRULWICH@C.CS.CMU.EDU (Bruce Krulwich) (10/17/86)
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"