[ExI] The digital nature of brains.

[John Clark]

Me:
> 
>> If syntax is not only insufficient for meaning but it's not even part of meaning then what good is it?

> Gordon Swobe:

> Programs use syntactic rules to manipulate symbols. They look at the forms of symbols, not at their meanings 

Well that's all very well, but you still haven't answered my question. I don't know it for a fact but presumably you are not a computer program, so why do YOU bother to read syntactic symbols as they are not only insufficient for meaning they are not even part of meaning? An even better question is why do you bother to produce syntactic symbols as you have done in such abundance on this list in the last couple of months when you must know there is absolutely no chance of any of us getting any meaning out of them?

  John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100129/776fe49d/attachment.html>