> From: email@example.com (Harnad, Stevan)
> The symbols have NO semantics for Searle; hence they have none for the
> computer running the same programme either. They are INTERPRETABLE
> by the real penpal, but then the "semantics" is not in the symbols but in
> the mind of the real penpal, just as the semantics of a book are not in
> the book, but in the mind of the reader. Whatever cognition (thought)
> might be, it can't be THAT: It can't be about what it's about merely
> because it is interpretable to an outside interpreter. The ""aboutness""
> of thoughts must be intrinsic, autonomous, independent of an outside
> interpreter. When I think something, it means something to me; and not
> because it is so interpretable by you!
> As I suggested, I think the intrinsic "aboutness" of thoughts derives
> completely from the fact that there is someone home in a thinking
> system, and its thoughts are about something TO him; they mean something
> to the thinker; they are not merely interpretable as meaning something
> by an external interpreter.
DB: This backs up my claim that understanding does not have to be
'correct' to be semantic. I see no reason why such a high level of
syntactic complexity should not lead to semantic interpretation.
Why is it so stunningly important that it is not the same
understanding that would beexpected by the penpal.
Anyway I shall remove my argumentative hat and shut up about this for
a while as long as someone concedes I have a point.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:57 GMT