From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Tue Jun  9 10:07:32 EDT 1992
Article 6126 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Transducers: The Retina is Part of the Brain
Keywords: mind/body problem, other-minds problem, dualism, solipsism
Message-ID: <1992Jun6.163918.24479@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 92 16:39:18 GMT
References: <1992Jun6.153132.25456@Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 32
Cc: minsky

In article <1992Jun6.153132.25456@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>I'm beginning to suspect, based on the difficulty people seem to have
>even in UNDERSTANDING it (let alone accepting it) that my point about
>my being a transducer might be a subtler and more profound one than I
>had thought.

A transducer, in engineering parlance, is used to describe a device
that detects or simplifies an input.  A typical example is a
microphone, which sits in the world, is exposed to lots of conditions
(light, heat, sound, etc.) and produces an output that contains
information about the sound-pressure, plus some noise, etc.  Yes, you
can think of it as converting energy.  Now a computer can be thought
of as a LOT of transducers, each specialized to reject all but the
threshold signals to its inputs.  

If you assemble a lot of transducers, then the term "transducer" is
not as descriptive as, say, "system", or "computer" unless you are
trying to trivialize the thing as in terms of its input-output
envelope.  When you say that you are a transducer, do you mean 

1. that you filter certain inputs from the world, process them, and
produce some ouput into the world?  In that case, you're describing
behaviorism.  Not profound.  Or, when you say that you are a
transducer, do you mean 

2. that you process inputs from the world and output them into your
mind?  In that case you're a homuncular dualist.  Not profound.

I cannot make any other sense of this.  Your exasperation suggests
that others cannot either.  Do you have an easily expressed 3rd
explanation?  If not, I shall regretfully have to conclude that your
idea is indeed too profound, and put it into my kill list.


