From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!forbis Tue Apr  7 23:22:41 EDT 1992
Article 4761 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!forbis
>From: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Subject: On functionalism and implementation 
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.184244.7511@u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 18:42:44 GMT

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of functionalism and implementationism
as used by people in this group.

I'm pretty sure that more than a mapping between inputs and current states to
next states is necessary for particular implementations of a FSA to be 
functionally equivalent.

Consider a John Deere tractor and a farmer who uses one but is looking for
a replacement.  Here I am trying to sell him an International Harvester and
I say it is functionally equivalent.  I certainly don't mean that one could
find a mapping between input and current state to next state of both devices.
There is something about the way in which a functionally equivalent system
is implemented that lay people usually refer to.

All the talk in the world won't convince a farmer that a rock and a tractor
are functionally equivalent no matter how well one maps factuals and counter-
factuals.

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu


