Comment by vidarh
5 hours ago
> There is no "depends on how you look at it." There's nothing to debate.
None of what you wrote is remotely relevant to what I wrote.
> There's no "magic" because this isn't a thing. You can't transmute syntax into semantics any more than you can transmute the knowledge of Algebra into the sensation of a cool breeze on a hot summer day. This is a category error.
We "transmute" syntax into semantics every time we interpret a given syntax as having semantics.
There is no inherent semantics. Semantics is a function of the meaning we assign to a given syntax.
> None of what you wrote is remotely relevant to what I wrote.
You made no arguments, only vacuous assertions. In the absence of anything nontrivial to respond to, I have to assume what a better version of your post might argue.
> We "transmute" syntax into semantics every time we interpret a given syntax as having semantics.
Transmutation is the act of converting one thing into another [1]. Syntax is the structure of words or logical units [2], and semantics are meaning [3]. Your words, strung together, are ill-formed. You'll find it hard to argue much of anything when you don't understand what words mean.
[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transmute
[2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/syntax
[3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/semantics