From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!hp-cv!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!forbis Tue Jun  9 10:05:50 EDT 1992
Article 5995 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!hp-cv!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!forbis
>From: forbis@carson.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a [sensory] Transducer
Keywords: computation, transduction
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.035818.6822@u.washington.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 92 03:58:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jun1.035818.6822
References: <1992May31.145204.16357@Princeton.EDU> <1992Jun1.012608.3756@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jun1.023730.20079@Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 47

I guess I would like to stomp around in this almost clear waters.

In article <1992Jun1.023730.20079@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>In article <1992Jun1.012608.3756@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>>  Much of my response will be on the theme of what a computer is.  But let
>>me start by pointing out that a computer IS a transducer.
>
>Of course I know this, and of course I know that a computation refers
>to an implemented computation when it's running on a computer, and that
>implementation means transduction of a certain kind. Just substitute
>"TTT robot's sensory transducer" for "transducer" and maybe the message
>will get through. All the analogies with how you get the data on a
>digital or analog disk into a computer are irrelevant. Think only of a
>TTT robot getting about in the real world of objects. And when you try
>to substitute simulated transducers for its real sense organs, don't
>think of getting data from a disk into core, but think of getting the
>robot to hear and react as you do to the same sounds you are hearing,
>see and react as you do to the same sights you are seeing. The devices
>that transduce that real acoustic oscillation and that real EM
>radiation are the ones in question. And do not assume that they
>immediately crunch it into symbols either -- they could in principle
>keep it analog all the way to the effectors (by which I likewise mean
>robotic output devices, not the components of a computer). "I am a
>[sensory] Transducer" means that I am one of those devices.

I scarcely know where to break that up it seems so clearly a whole.
I would like some further clarification.

I believe I am intelligent and continue to be so inside a virtual
reality.  Am I mistaken?  Would it matter if the reality in which
I am immersed is computer generated or remotely transmitted?

If I am tele-sensing is either the remote or local apparatus part of
me?  Isn't there certain conditions where there is in fact a homunculus
inside the outwardsly perceived whole?

If there are conditions under which there are homuculus home then
does it matter if the parts outside connect to a "real" or generated
reality?

>-- 
>Stevan Harnad  Department of Psychology  Princeton University
>harnad@clarity.princeton.edu / harnad@pucc.bitnet / srh@flash.bellcore.com 
>harnad@learning.siemens.com / harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu / (609)-921-7771

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu


