Searle is (in)famously on record as arguing that you can't get meaning (semantics) out of formal structure (syntax).
Interestingly, Chalmers has written a rebuttal of Searle's argument. I say "interestingly" because Searle's contention seems very redolent of Chalmers' own claim that you can't get to phenomenal properties (consciousness) out of formal properties (physics).
Maybe the analogy doesn't go that deep, but at least on its face it seems kind of ironic.
Searle is (in)famously on record as arguing that you can't get meaning (semantics) out of formal structure (syntax).
Interestingly, Chalmers has written a rebuttal of Searle's argument. I say "interestingly" because Searle's contention seems very redolent of Chalmers' own claim that you can't get to phenomenal properties (consciousness) out of formal properties (physics).
Maybe the analogy doesn't go that deep, but at least on its face it seems kind of ironic.