From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Feb 20 15:20:19 EST 1992
Article 3683 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Strong AI and Panpsychism
Message-ID: <6171@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Feb 92 20:26:12 GMT
References: <1992Feb6.222128.18717@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Feb10.213422.4256@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1992Feb11.042319.3356@psych.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 32

In article <1992Feb11.042319.3356@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>It is not necessary to have a worked-out definition to know that
>>some things do not qualify. 
>
>I didn't asked for a "worked-out" definition, merely a *working* one.  I    
>realize that the concept of belief may not be completely well-defined
>in functional terms, but what I would like to see is at least some 
>basic features, or some sort of principles.  What I *don't* want to
>see is ruling something out ad hoc, merely because it doesn't "seem
>right."  
>
>And I'm still waiting to find out *why* a lookup table *doesn't*
>have beliefs under a functionalist view (assuming that a lookup table
>can reproduce "belief-behaviour", which was the original assumption
>offered by Chalmers).

Becuase it doesn't have the right functional organization.

I know you will find that completely unsatisfying.  However, the
first step is to see whether there's any point in trying to say
what the right functional organization is.  Quite a few people
who post here, and (I think) most of the ones who keep asking
for definitions of this sort, seem to think that there can't
be such a definition; that the only "objective" (insert favorite
"like good science" adjective here) definitions will be in terms
of behavior.

Now, if you can accept that there can be a rfelevant difference
in functional organization, don't you think it's at least unlikely
that simple table lookup would do the trick?

-- jd


