>>43
Okay, let me get this right?
I was talking about non-cortical regions. That's the whole point.
I'm guessing here that you're talking about the Hippocampus
Learn more about brain function so you can stop guessing. While writing that post I had 3 other regions in mind only one of which was the hippocampus. You can view it as a section of the cortex if you like but it's not part of the usual memory-computation process. (See: HM.)
Do you mean reflexes, such as those that can be performed as early as in the spinal cord/brainstem/cerebellum/... ?
Not really. Certainly not exclusively.
What I do believe I've seen him claim is that the more specialized parts are a lot more simpler, low-level and specialized to the organism.
I didn't word that well. I was trying to say that his claim is anything not done by the generalized regions is unimportant. An exception to that "anything" seems to be the thalamus which he was never clear about.
Another point, nothing is simple until you understand it. The hippocampus looks simple but the more complicated cortex at large is easier to simulate to some degree of satisfaction. His treatment of the thalamus seems to be another example (like treating the philosophers stone as an implementation detail) and I don't get where he's going with it.