On 27 Aug 2009, at 15:04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > 2009/8/27 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>: > >> You are right. A simpler example is a dreamer and a rock, and the >> whole universe. They have locally the same input and output: none! >> So >> they are functionally identical, yet very different from the first >> person perspective. This is why in comp I make explicit the existence >> of a level of substitution. It is the only difference with >> functionalism which is usually vague on that point. It is a key >> point. > > The dreamer is not functionally identical to the rock because he is > dreaming and the rock isn't (I'll avoid starting up another rocks are > conscious discussion). If the dreamer could talk, he would tell you > that something is going on, while the rock would not. I was assuming a non talking dreamer, of course. > It isn't really > fair to say that the outputs are the same simply because the lines of > communication are down, or because eg. you are deliberately trying to > fool the external observer into thinking everything is the same. My point is just that functionalism does not really make sense, unless a level of substitution is assumed. - Bruno Marchal http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
