From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes Mon Jun 15 16:05:02 EDT 1992
Article 6244 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
>From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Physical versus Computaional (was Re: Transducers)
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.212725.22683@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Nntp-Posting-Host: opal
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
References: <1992Jun11.184125.13172@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jun11.201743.11470@cs.ucf.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 21:27:25 GMT
Lines: 29

In article <1992Jun11.201743.11470@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
[...]
>
>Not so sure it's a mistake.  I vaguely remember some theory of mind in 
>which the body played a distinct role.  Since people actually tense
>the relevant muscles when thinking and visualizing, someone (who?) 
>maintained that somatosensory feedback was essential to thought.
>

Somebody else did an experiment and proved that this was false.  They
used curare to totally paralyze experimental subjects, who reported
subsequently that they could think just fine without being able to do
(at least somatic) feedback.  This is all according to my
non-professional recollections of extracurricular reading, of course;
any comments from the cognoscenti?
[...] 

>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


