🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.041758.16880@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

>The problem for me is that I don't know of an objective, coherent,
>nontrivial notion of functional organization. To be nontrivial, it has
>to be the case that two systems that are behaviorally identical can
>have different functional organizations.

There are plenty of examples of systems that are functionally
different while being _essentially_ (in all important respects)
behaviourally the same, such as clockwork and digital electronic
watches. Are these good enough? Or do you insist on completely
identical behaviour? The problem with _completely_ identical behaviour
is that it includes such behaviour as coming to bits in the same way.
In other words, one can always devise a test for the organisational
difference and include it in the definition of behviour.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205