Hmmmm.... I am not sure I am conveying the level at which my concern
about "modules" is operating.
If I go to my kitchen, then what I find are many tools, each of which is
specialized for a particular job -- they are modules. I have, among
other things, a food mixer and a (lousy) salad spinner
If I go to my Lego play box, however, I can find components that I can
use to make a variety of different tool-like entities... and in
prtaicular I have a design in my Lego Dacta set, I seem to remember, for
a food mixer. Overlooking the practical deficiencies of actual Lego as
a material for dealing with food, one could imagine a kind of neoLego
that really was adequate for making all the tools in my kitchen. Grant
me that as a presupposition.
Now, I wouldn't be *too* unhappy to call a kitchen equipped with neoLego
tools a set of "modular" tools, but there is clearly a sense in which my
real kitchen has tools that are very much more modular than a set of
neoLego ones.
Here is one of the reasons why.
You mention, below, that reading an unfamilar typeface can cause a 30%
drop in efficiency .... no surprise at all, I assure you. And it is
also not surprising that people show interesting *incremental*
improvements after learning a new skill (see all the stuff about the
power law of skill learning ... the improvement curve can go on sloping
upwards for years, following a delightfully regular path that is the
same across many differnt kinds of skills).
But if I tried to use my food mixer as a salad spinner, it would be a
disaster! Could I adapt it? Well, maybe, but I would practically have
to dismantle the whole thing and rebuild it at the nits and bolts level
to convert it to a salad spinner .... and even they I mihgt have to get
materials from elsewhere to complete the project. BIG job.
And notice: this would be a one-off conversion. For a while I would be
able to spin salads at 0% of what I could before! Not 30% less
efficiently, but 100% less. And then, after the conversion was
finished, I would suddenly have a salad spinner again, and would
probably be able to do it 100% efficiently, if I could do it at all.
With my neoLego, on the other hand, it is quite possible that I could
make a quick change to quickly get a rough salad spinner, then gradually
improve the new design over the course of time until it was a 100% good
tool.
The difference between these two would be in the fact that the neoLego
was already made from building blocks, so reassembling them was quick
and easy. They were not excessively modularized, whereas the
specialized appliances really were not adaptable.
Conclusion: we know how flexible cognition is, so the neoLego must
surely be a better idea about how the "modules" are structured. But
that begs the question: in what sense are they still to be called
"modules" at all? I am no longer sure what the term "module" is telling
me about them, that is useful.
In the case of the kitchen appliances, on the other hand, I do certainly
see why they are called modules. But I also don't think that sort of
module is a good model of cognition,for the reasons stated above.
I am willing to be flexible on the use of "module," but at the moment I
am just trying to ask what sense of that term is important here. Maybe
a weakened sense that just means "cluster of conceptual apparatus that
is easily disassembled and reassembled, but which has a tendency to stay
together as a unit" would be a good interpretation.
I would buy into that sense of module immediately, because it exactly
fits with the way I see the processes of concetual combination
happening, anyway.
Richard Loosemore.
P.S. Off topic: Does anyone know of a really reliable brand of salad
spinner? Hate the damn things: they keep breaking on me.
J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
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
-----
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
