<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 17, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Gordon Swobe 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; "><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Searle only assumes exactly what he states he assumes:<br>P1) Programs are formal (syntactic) [which is NOT to say they have no semantics or that they cannot cause or have minds]<br>P2) Minds have mental contents (semantics)<br>P3) Syntax is neither constitutive nor sufficient for semantics.<br>That's all he assumes, Stathis. Nothing more, nothing less.<br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div><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; ">He assumes that syntax is neither constitutive nor sufficient for semantics and then announces with great fanfare that by using these assumptions he has proven that syntax is neither constitutive nor sufficient for semantics. If a machine can not have a mind then a machine can not have a mind; well it's not exactly brilliant but at least it's correct. But to say it's not even constitutive of semantics is just dumb.</span></div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div></div><div><br></div></div><br></body></html>