🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov11.073728.17827@nevada.edu>, snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev. Institute of Tech.) writes:
> 
> If one believes that functionality doesn't fully define qualia, then I
> believe that a model that fulfills the functions (even though it lacks
> "true" qualia) would do what cognitive AI is designed to do (IMHO - to
> predict, explain, describe, and manipulate human thought and
> behavior).

Perhaps I'm just being thick-headed, but by "functional" do you mean
1) "fulfilling a defined purpose" or 2) "intensional, not extensional"?

If you mean (1), then whose purpose is being fulfilled?  A Creator?
I don't think explanations of cognitive activity in terms of purposes
have any validity except as pedagogical aids.  Do you mean a statistical
or causal account?

If you mean (2), then isn't an intensional description equivalent to
interpreting the phenomenon (which would mean you weren't really
addressing qualia, i.e. uninterpreted experience).

Note: I know hardly anything of the debate over qualia, but what I do
know makes describing it "functionally" sound silly.

	-dp-