Is it possible to get semantics from syntax?
If it were impossible to get semantics (meaning) from syntax (symbols and formal rules for manipulating them) then we probably wouldn't have bothered broadcasting the
Arecibo image to the universe in the hope of communicating with aliens.
Without any way to explain the meaning of this image, it seems to consist of syntax alone. Whether it could be deciphered by aliens in practice or not, it at least seems possible in principle, which seems to suggest that it may be possible in some cases to derive semantics from syntax.
The assertion that you can't, that there is no way to get from syntax to semantics, is perhaps the strongest response from John Searle to the systems/virtual mind refutation of his Chinese Room thought experiment (as outlined in my post on the topic).
Searle illustrates his point by saying that if he is in The Chinese Room and has a formal system of rules (syntax) for manipulating Chinese words, he has no way to get from this syntax to the semantics of what is being said. If he has no way to do this, then how can the system do it?
In Searle's view, the systems/virtual mind reply to the Chinese Room is just hand-waving until this is explained.
Let's see if I can attempt to do just that.
