On 26 Aug, 17:58, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2009, at 17:58, Brent Meeker wrote:

> > What about lower levels?  Surely it doesn't matter whether 10,000 K+
> > cross the axon membrane or 10,001 cross.  So somehow looking at just
> > the right level matters in the hypothesis of functionalism.  Maybe
> > that level corresponds to the level at which the organism acts; the
> > functions evolved to support and direct actions.  Rocks don't act so
> > they don't have any functional level.
> 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,

On the most coarse-grained view possible.

>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.
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