On Monday 12 March 2007 09:01, Richard Loosemore wrote: > The word "module" has implications, some of which I don't think you > really want to buy. If the helvetica-reading module is completely > different from the roman-reading module, why do I find it so easy to > accommodate to a new typeface ... is it because I can build a new > "module" really quickly, using the same basic building blocks that I > used to build the helevetica and roman ones? You would probably say, > yes (I hope).
You may be surprised to learn that in experiments, reading speed drops by as much as 30% when the text is in a new font significantly different from those the reader is used to. By far the most common source of new modules is copy/modify old ones. Think again of a market, where any success elicits a host of imitators. Most fail. A few find some minor efficiency advantage and prosper. > But if you agree that the answer is yes, then it doesn't quite make > sense to stress the "module" aspect of these modules, does it, surely? > If we are *so* very quick to build new modules out of building blocks, > is it not the process of assembling the building blocks that matters > more? Then, the "module" aspect of the modules would mean ... what > exactly? I don't have building blocks for the modules. If you break one open and look inside, you'll see interpolating associative memories storing trajectories in n-space. OTOH, one module can "program" itself to imitate another one simply by watching it for long enough. > What I am saying is: yes, abilities like "helvetica-reading" can become > automatized (compiled down) to such an extent that it might seem we are > building modules to do these things, but given the enormously flexible > process by which they get constructed, I am not sure what is left that > really deserves to be called "module" any more. Module: A self-contained hardware or software component that interacts with a larger system. [TechWeb] The word has a plethora of different meanings, so it may not be the best one for the discussion here. Typically, however, the connotation is that the module is at the small, basic end of the range of items under discussion. > My feeling is that there is a continuum, rather than a "module" versus > "non-module" way of looking at things. Certainly. By far the most interesting (and unsettled) things in my scheme are the ways the modules get created, destroyed, and connected. There are several higher levels of organization each with its own properties. I would be inclined to call the group of modules that dealt with, say, vision, a "sector", but others here have used the word "module" for units at that level. Josh ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
