From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!news.smith.edu!orourke Thu Apr 16 11:34:13 EDT 1992
Article 5065 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!news.smith.edu!orourke
>From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Functional Equivalence (Was: A rock implements every FSA)
Message-ID: <1992Apr12.114858.7932@sophia.smith.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 92 11:48:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: sophia.1992Apr12.114858.7932
References: <1992Apr9.214829.3723@oracorp.com>
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 27

In article <1992Apr9.214829.3723@oracorp.com> 
	daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

 >Your definition amounts
 >to letting people see the intermediate steps of the calculation
 >instead of just the final results.

Yes, exactly.  I was searching for a definition that would accord with
my intuitive notion of "functional equivalence."   I am not satisfied
with the results.

 >To me, functional equivalence is a constraint that is imposed over and
 >above behavioral equivalence, and is not simply a matter of drawing
 >the interface at a different place.  For whatever your choice of
 >interface is, there is a corresponding notion of behavioral and
 >functional equivalence. 

I agree: the meaning of these two types of equivalence is dependent on
where you draw the interface.  And that choice seems to be arbitrary.
Which leads me to wonder how firm are the basic tenets of functionalism.
Presumably when a functionalist says that

	appropriate functional organization ==> mind, consciousness, etc.

they are drawing the interface line to separate what counts as
functional organization.  But if that line is arbitrary, it is hard to see
how it can delineate mind.


