From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!trwacs!erwin Tue Jun  9 10:05:58 EDT 1992
Article 6006 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!trwacs!erwin
>From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Keywords: computation, transduction, homunculus, sensorimotor physiology
Message-ID: <615@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Date: 1 Jun 92 11:44:49 GMT
References: <1992May31.145204.16357@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA
Lines: 16

I'm in general agreement with your argument. This is due to Pribram's
evidence that > 50% of the brain is involved directly in sensory
processing. I have a very preliminary inkling that although the data do
not seem to support Pribram's holographic memory model, the related
concept of "adaptive beam forming" may be productive. The difference
between the two concepts has to do with the holographic memory model
actually generating an internal scene from the sensory data array, which
the frontal and motor areas observe passively, while the "adaptive beam
forming" model instead allows the frontal and motor cortexes to actively
interact with the sensory data array to specify the point of view and
sensory modalities involved.

-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com



