That exactly seems quite close to Searle to me, in that you are both imposing specific requirements for the substrate—which is all that Searle does really. There is the possible difference that you might be more generous than Searle about what constitutes a valid substrate (though Searle isn’t really too clear on that issue anyway).
Unlike Searle, and like Sharvy, I believe it ain’t the meat, it’s the motion (see the Sharvy reference at the bottom). Sharvy presents a fading qualia argument much like the one Chalmers offers in the link simplicio provides, only, to my recollection, without Chalmers’s wise caveat that the functional isomorphism should be fine-grained.
That exactly seems quite close to Searle to me, in that you are both imposing specific requirements for the substrate—which is all that Searle does really. There is the possible difference that you might be more generous than Searle about what constitutes a valid substrate (though Searle isn’t really too clear on that issue anyway).
Unlike Searle, and like Sharvy, I believe it ain’t the meat, it’s the motion (see the Sharvy reference at the bottom). Sharvy presents a fading qualia argument much like the one Chalmers offers in the link simplicio provides, only, to my recollection, without Chalmers’s wise caveat that the functional isomorphism should be fine-grained.