Why MUST there be “an external interface, an integrator of the other component selves”? Why does it SEEM that there MUST be?
In a system of deliberate design, one might think that an integrative interface is necessary for “quality control” of the output of the system. The system needs an “official spokespersona,” so that if there is any unauthorized leakage through other channels, such leakage may be disavowed. Or, in keeping with the spirit of what I think Harlow is getting at, it’s not a spokespersona, but a clearly defined channel of communicative exchange with whatever is other than the selfsystem, a Pravda to consult for the official line.
OK, let’s define a particular channel as THE official channel, THE interface. There is now some sort of control over what is defined as official intercourse with anything exterior. Now I would need a way to enforce the treatment of that channel, by other selfsystems, as official. Suppose another selfsystem fails to cooperate, and treats extraneous “noise” from the system as communicative? (Don’t we do this ALL THE TIME?) What recourse is there? The official channel can emit the message “HEY, YOU SHOULDN’T LISTEN TO THAT! ONLY LISTEN TO ME!”
[When a la Freud, you “mean one thing and say your mother” (slip), you say: “What I really meant to say was…” Freud doesn’t believe you. He thinks you meant to say both what you think you meant to say, and something else that was at odds with it.]
Several persons have just stood and said “I am Spartacus!” Will it change anything if one of them is wearing a t-shirt that says “I am OFFICIALLY Spartacus!” Will it help cut down on crucifixions if the latest issue of Pravda includes a picture of the one who is OFFICIALLY “really” Spartacus?