<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">It is probably true that syntax is not sufficient for semantics. We<br>could study an alien language and, with enough examples, work out all<br>the criteria for well-formed sentences, but still not have the<br>faintest idea what even a single word in the language means.<br></span></blockquote><br></div><div>I think we could understand what an alien book on pure mathematics means but never mind, a computer could figure out what words mean the same way that we do, by examples. I don't see why Searle thinks that straightforward process can only proceed in the 3 pounds of grey goo in our head and is inaccessible to silicon. </div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark </div></body></html>