From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!harnad Tue Jun  9 10:07:41 EDT 1992
Article 6138 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!harnad
>From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
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: <1992Jun7.125059.3790@Princeton.EDU>
Date: 7 Jun 92 12:50:59 GMT
References: <1992Jun6.153132.25456@Princeton.EDU> <1992Jun6.163918.24479@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 37
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu

In article <1992Jun6.163918.24479@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

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 am speaking of transducers of optical, acoustic, somesthetic,
kinaesthetic and probably other forms of sensory input to a robot
(including also its effector functions). The "I am a Transducer"
Hypothesis is intended as an alternative to the hypothesis that just a
digital computer running the right software will have mental states.
As I've said before, I think symbol grounding is actually a lot more
complicated than mere transduction, but I am stating it in this simlified
way to set intuitions as to what the alternative amounts to: Simulated
transducers (which would again reduce the entire system to just a
program running on a computer) will not do.

>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.

I have given it above. And now I will say this just once: Marvin, I
will not respond to postings or posters who make ad hominem remarks.
Discuss the ideas and leave everything else -- gastronomic habits,
taste in movies -- out of it. I think it is bad for the discussion and
bad for the future of this new medium of intellectual exchange to
join the undergraduates in this sort of thing. -- Stevan
-- 
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


