From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!cmcl2!psinntp!psinntp!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw Fri Oct 30 15:18:19 EST 1992
Article 7447 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!cmcl2!psinntp!psinntp!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
>From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: mind-body duality, self-awareness, and the N senses
Message-ID: <720329583@sheol.UUCP>
Date: 29 Oct 92 01:57:37 GMT
References: <1992Oct27.182833.15332@oracle.pnl.gov>
Lines: 60

: From: d3g637@pnl.gov (David P.  Chassin) 
: Message-ID: <1992Oct27.182833.15332@oracle.pnl.gov> 
: Besides the stimuli are not just the six senses (sight, sound, touch,
: taste, smell, and proprioception), but also host of other specific
: "states" which constitute a kind of short hand for the brain to
: interpret what other organs mean/want/expect from what they are
: currently doing.

I agree in general, but I think the list of "senses" above is
a fair bit too short.  It is arguable whether "touch" ought really
to be considered two senses of "temperature" and "pressure", due to
some specialization of the sense, or whether vision should be
split into "color", "shape", "outline" and so on senses.

But more to the point (and I think less controversial), Sacks is pretty
consistent in refering both to proprioception and kinesthesia (at
least) as the motor system senses, the one being (roughly) the sense of
muscle tension, which makes limbs seem like they "belong" (the proprio-
part), and the other being the sense of relative joint position that
allows the coordination of movement.  Further, there's the gyroscopic
sense, and probably a few others I'm forgetting just now.

And in *addition* to these eight or more senses (depending on how you
count... I most often count sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste,
proprioception, kinesthesia, and gyroscopic), (uh... gyroception?
gyrosthesia?  well, anyway, the sense that makes you motion sick when
it disagrees with visual cues... "vertigeation", perhaps) there are
various other feedback loops that are normally not considered "senses"
(such as the involuntary system that regulates blood pressure, part of
which causes some of the "empty gut" feeding of shock, or the systems
that regulate peristalisis, and so on) because they are largely part of
the autonomic system, and not usually considered available to the
conscious mind.  And we haven't even started on the chemical feedback
loops that manage the endocrine system, circadian rhythms, mood,
hunger, and so on.

Somewhere in there, we get beyond the notion of a "sense", and end up
with the notion of a "state" (or something), just as David says above.

: We have to be careful of falling too readily into any of a variety of
: mind-body dualities.  Don't forget that although our brains seem to be
: distinct from our bodies, this is likely only a by-product of
: self-awareness (aside: could this be used as a definition for
: self-awareness?) and so we should take care not to assume that it is
: necessarily so.  Therefore, I don't see how we can talk about simulating
: the brain, without discussing the degree to which the brain and the
: body, as two sides of the same coin, may be inextricably linked.

Very much agreed.  It is precisely in this area that many, many AI
models and notions are very much inadequate (IMHO).

Also, all of this relates strongly to the notions of "grounding" and
"transduction as opposed to symbolic" interfaces and the like.  In my
mind, these issues are related in interesting ways to software
development issues such as modularity and contracted interfaces, and
"spaghetti" code vs linearly arranged code with definite pre- and post-
conditions, and issues of the differences between adaptation and
design, and so on and on.  SHRDLU vs Eurisko, perhaps. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw


