The Functionalist Reply (Ohio State)
Lycan (William)
Source: Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 3 - Issue 3 - September 1980, pp. 434-435
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsBooks / Papers Citing this PaperColour-ConventionsDisclaimer


Full Text


Comment:



In-Page Footnotes

Footnote 1:
  • This characterization is necessarily crude and vague. For a very useful survey of different versions of functionalism and their respective foibles, see Block (1978); I have developed and defended what I think is the most promising version of functionalism in Lycan (forthcoming).
Footnote 2:
  • For further discussion of cases of this kind, see Block (forthcoming).
Footnote 3:
  • A much expanded version of this reply appears in section 4 of Lycan (forthcoming).
Footnote 4:
  • I do not understand Searle's positive suggestion as to the source of intentionality in our own brains. What "neurobiological causal properties"?
Footnote 5:
  • As Fodor (forthcoming) remarks, SHRDLU as we interpret him is the victim of a Cartesian evil demon; the "blocks" he manipulates do not exist in reality.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2019
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)



© Theo Todman, June 2007 - August 2019. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page