From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!masscomp!peora!tarpit!cs.ucf.edu!news Tue Mar 24 09:57:41 EST 1992
Article 4631 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!masscomp!peora!tarpit!cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Message-ID: <1992Mar20.142954.19624@cs.ucf.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 92 14:29:54 GMT
References: <1992Mar19.011133.10015@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 21

I think everyone is making it too complicated.

Putnam's Theorem clearly applies to automata without input or output: "If a  
physical object does not have motor organs or sensors ...then...it cannot be a  
model...to a kind of automaton which, ex hypothesi, possesses such motor organs  
and sensors of that kind."

Now an automaton without inputs or outputs just sits there, like a rock.  Of  
course an equivalence can be established between these two inert objects by a  
mathematical identification technique.

Putnam then goes on to talk about "an object S which ... behaves ... exactly as  
if it had a certain description D."  The same mathematical identification  
technique can be applied to S to establish that it realizes input/output  
automaton D.   In particular, anything which passes the Turing test,   
implements the Turing machine (if such exists) which passes the test. 

Putnam thus establishes that "functionalism" implies "behaviorism", so that if  
you don't like behviorism then you won't like functionalism.

On the other hand, maybe I'm oversimplifying.


