On 26 Aug, 17:58, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> 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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Aug 27 2009 - 10:28:45 PDT