Modularity book intro
notes I took from the introductory sections of Modularity - Understanding the Development and Evolution of Natural Complex Systems (which I refer to as "Sandy's book on Modularity" in other posts)
complex ststems:
- hierarchical structures
- consist of subsystems through many levels
nearly decomposable = subsystems interact, but less frequently by an order of magnitude or two than the interactions within each subsytstem
why does complexity in the universe generally take this form?
- complex systems evolve from simpler systems by evolution
- independence of organs makes natural selection of beneficial designs more likely to occur, since they can improve independently w/o mutual dependence of design
Bonner (1988) and Lewontin (1974) argue that modularity is necessary for the very existence of adaptation.
Brandon (1999) transcendental argument says this is logically valid but not explanatory
is genetic modularity necessary for evolvability?
Gerhart + Kirschner (1998)
Raff + Raff (2000)
Wagner + Laubichler (2004)
- many other conceivable principles of evolvability: Hansen (2003)
- genetic evolvability might not appear logical and simple to us
further criteria for modularity:
- own structural and/or functional identity
- persists as identifiable units
- repetitive, reusable building blocks
ontologically, 2 varieties of modularity:
- primary property of how organisms are built due to organizational principles
- or an evolved property
can result from either parcellation, or from integration
Bechtel + Richardson (1993)
structures often do not map neatly one to one onto functions
top-down (Fodor, Chomsky) - modules as explanans
bottom-up (genetic modularity) - modules as explanandum
(huh? need to look up Latin, assuming that is Latin ;)
Churchland + Sejnowski (1992) brain module
neuropsychology -> link behavioural data with regions of the brain using brain-damaged patients and brain-imagery
Kosslyn + Koenig (1992) weak modularity
???
Fodor - information encapsulation
Evolutionary Psychologists
massive modularity hypothesis
adaptationism, nativism, computationalism
(my notes were pretty vague at this point, just lists of words without context, but i think this was a list of different ways that modularity could be understood, or different ways of splitting it up)
modularity of knowledge representation
computational - specific computational device
vs
chomskyan - domain-specific device for representation of knowledge to account for a cognitive capacity
complex ststems:
- hierarchical structures
- consist of subsystems through many levels
nearly decomposable = subsystems interact, but less frequently by an order of magnitude or two than the interactions within each subsytstem
why does complexity in the universe generally take this form?
- complex systems evolve from simpler systems by evolution
- independence of organs makes natural selection of beneficial designs more likely to occur, since they can improve independently w/o mutual dependence of design
Bonner (1988) and Lewontin (1974) argue that modularity is necessary for the very existence of adaptation.
Brandon (1999) transcendental argument says this is logically valid but not explanatory
is genetic modularity necessary for evolvability?
Gerhart + Kirschner (1998)
Raff + Raff (2000)
Wagner + Laubichler (2004)
- many other conceivable principles of evolvability: Hansen (2003)
- genetic evolvability might not appear logical and simple to us
further criteria for modularity:
- own structural and/or functional identity
- persists as identifiable units
- repetitive, reusable building blocks
ontologically, 2 varieties of modularity:
- primary property of how organisms are built due to organizational principles
- or an evolved property
can result from either parcellation, or from integration
Bechtel + Richardson (1993)
structures often do not map neatly one to one onto functions
top-down (Fodor, Chomsky) - modules as explanans
bottom-up (genetic modularity) - modules as explanandum
(huh? need to look up Latin, assuming that is Latin ;)
Churchland + Sejnowski (1992) brain module
neuropsychology -> link behavioural data with regions of the brain using brain-damaged patients and brain-imagery
Kosslyn + Koenig (1992) weak modularity
???
Fodor - information encapsulation
Evolutionary Psychologists
massive modularity hypothesis
adaptationism, nativism, computationalism
(my notes were pretty vague at this point, just lists of words without context, but i think this was a list of different ways that modularity could be understood, or different ways of splitting it up)
modularity of knowledge representation
computational - specific computational device
vs
chomskyan - domain-specific device for representation of knowledge to account for a cognitive capacity
posted by cs at 7:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home