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. 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.

Stathis Papaioannou

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to