🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27898@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>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?

If you were a physician you might hold the watch at different distances
from a patient's ears to see if it can be heard, and thus serve as a
crude indicator of hearing problems.  In such a case the distinction
between the clockwork watch (which makes a ticking sound), and the silent
electronic watch which might turn out to be crucial.

I think Daryl's point is that you cannot rule out the possibility that
seemingly unimportant difference may turn out to be quiet important.