From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!harnad Mon Jun 15 16:04:38 EDT 1992
Article 6203 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!cis.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
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.055038.9628@Princeton.EDU>
Date: 11 Jun 92 05:50:38 GMT
References: <1992Jun10.203412.19158@news.Hawaii.Edu> <4138.708217481@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 40
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu

In article <4138.708217481@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>  To put this in perspective, consider an automobile.  This doesn't look
>like a set of peripherals and a computational core.  But it can still
>be described that way.

It can be described, simulated, modelled, predicted and fully explained
that way -- yet the pure computational model will not drive, because it
is not a real car, just a virtual car, i.e., squiggles and squoggles
that are systematically interpretable as if they were a car, driving.

Precisely the same is true of the mind: The pure computational model
can be used to predict and explain, but it does not think, there's
nobody home in there, it's not a real mind, just a virtual mind:
squiggles and squoggles that are systematically interpretable as if
they were a mind, thinking (e.g., passing the TT). To pass the TTT (and
think) requires a real robot with a lot of its function dedicated to
sensorimotor transduction. The physical embodiment of the thinking
includes the noncomputational part, ESSENTIALLY. Remove that and
keep only a computational core and all you have once again is
ungrounded though systematically interpretable squiggles and
squoggles.

Ceterum sentio: Real time learning or development have NOTHING to do
with it; only real TTT-capacity is relevant. Nor is there any
cybermagic to appeal to at the "virtual level": That is just a house of
symbolic cards: higher-order squiggles and squoggles. Part of the
appearance/reality distinction that excessive habitation of cyberspace
beclouds -- note that I am NOT referring here to Neil's thoughtful
postings, but to some of the fast ones on cyber-solipsism -- is the
distinction between a real object and a symbolic description or
simulation of it. Lose that (or fail to have grasped it in the first
place) and you are hopelessly lost in the hermeneutic hall of mirrors
created by projecting interpretations onto systematically interpretable
squiggles and squoggles (or the video displays they drive) and
forgetting where they originated from.
-- 
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


