From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Thu Apr 16 11:34:30 EDT 1992
Article 5093 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: What counts as the "Right" functional organization?
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <6737@pkmab.se> <1992Apr5.210553.11966@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr14.064526.16723@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Apr14.142239.7807@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:22:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.064526.16723@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.210553.11966@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>
>>Under strong AI, one would be committed to such a view. Surely, if McCarthy
>>believes is thermostat has beliefs, he believes that SHRDLU does. Same
>>goes for any other thorough-going functionalists. Right Dave...?
>
>No, not necessarily.  A functionalist need only hold that beliefs result
>from the *right* functional organization, not from any old functional
>organization.  The question of what organization suffices will get
>different answers from different functionalists.
>
Okay, then you'd better start specifying what counts as the "right" functional
organization lest you slip into a Davidsonian circle.  Actually, snarkiness
aside, I'm honestly interested in what might count as right and not right.
Presumably, recourse to human behavior is out of bounds. Presumably, phrases
such as "sufficiently complex", or anything else countaining relative terms
such as "sufficient", "enough", "necessary", etc., are all off bounds as
well. What sorts of criteria are you going to use to explicate "right"? I
would think, though I have trouble imagining how it will be done, that you
will have to divide functional architectures into something like "natural
kinds", and then argue that some of these are "intelligent".
Ready, set, go!

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


