🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.041758.16880@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>In article <Bx3t8w.D75@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>
>>While it is true that there are many functional descriptions of a
>>system, that does not mean that such descriptions are not objective.
>>Whether a system instantiates a given functional organization is an
>>objective matter, it seems to me (modulo Putnam/rock worries -- let's
>>not get into those again).
>
>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.

But in another article you say:

   "behavior" is not a sequence of actions, it is a causal
   relationship between inputs and outputs. The [source] code 
   [of a program] is the specification of this causal relationship.

Now, it sounds from this like functional organization and
"behavior" are almost the same thing.  A specification of
a functional organization would also specify the behavior.

-- jd