Seeing red

[Angrboda]

You obviously have something on your mind, asking me these loaded questions, why don't you spill it?  I tire of your leading.

You talk about representation and information. Then you get cagey when I ask if the representation is identical to that from which it is made. Seems to me that you cannot describe your robot's behavior in totally physical terms after all!

I can describe it in multiple ways.  That's the point.  A mechanistic description of it accounts for the robot's behavior in terms of physical interactions.  A functionalist description would incorporate concepts of representation and reference.  You appear to be asking me to make a commitment to an ontological stance depending on which form of description I choose.  If I choose the mechanistic description, you'll accuse me of not explaining the function.  If I choose the functional description, you'll accuse me of using borrowed concepts and not explaining in terms of mechanistic interactions.  That's just a disingenuous game.  That a level of description is possible says nothing about the ontology of the phenomena.  I can provide multiple descriptions without being obligated to solely choose one and only one.  Your specific question mixes the two types of description, asking me to provide a mechanistic answer to a functional question.  It explicitly puts me in the dilemma just described.  I've more than adequately explained how it is both, so I don't get the meaning of your question.  "You see no difference between an image and what an image is made out of. They are identical to you?"   That's an ambiguous question. Rephrase!  What specifically do you mean by 'identical' ?