From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic2!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske Tue Jun 23 13:20:50 EDT 1992
Article 6272 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic2!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Transducers
Message-ID: <6980@pkmab.se>
Date: 15 Jun 92 21:47:04 GMT
References: <1992Jun10.203412.19158@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 38

In article <1992Jun10.203412.19158@news.Hawaii.Edu> roitblat@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Herbert Roitblat) writes:

> Harnad points out that this
>peripheral/core argument is at least anatomically incorrect for
>biological brains. The peripherals, retinae, cochleae, etc. are
>part of the brain, not mere peripherals.  When one strips away
>the parts of the brain that deal with sensory and motor
>processing, what is left is not a central core of disembodied
>intelligence, but the vegetative functions.

Who's said anything about stripping away parts of the brain that deal
with sensory and motor processing?

As for the retinae cochleae and other parts of the human body being
peripherals, there is a very easy way to define a border between them
and the "central core": Define the grey stuff in the big hollow room
in the skull as the "central core", and call it "brain". Define the
rest as "peripherals". Perhaps not "mere" peripherals, but nevertheless
peripherals. The interface consists of nerve fibres and blood streams,
transmitting nerve pulses, hormones, nutrients, and possibly some other
signals.

I can define boundaries other ways too (wherever I like), but this is a
one of the more easily identifiable ones. You and others seem to be saying
that this is not a possible way to divide the human anatomy. I fail to see
the problem. How could it be simpler?

Perhaps Harnad has got some or other point with his idea about transducers,
but I can't see that these claims about the anatomy of the brain, although
repeated several times by different people by now, provides any argument
for it.

(I would be much more impressed by arguments about his ideas providing
grounding in the "real world", and such things.)
-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske


