Lecture � Campbell, modularity

Greg Detre

Thursday, 31 January, 2002

John Campbell, Weiskrantz Room

 

Marr (1982) elevates modularity to a principle in AI, with reference to his 3 levels

Fodor�s 9 marks of modularity

  1. domain specific
  2. mandatory
  3. central systems have limited access to the representations computed by input systems
  4. fast
  5. informationally encapsulated
  6. input systems have "shallow" outputs
  7. associated with fixed neural architecture
  8. exhibit characteristic and specific breakdown patterns
  9. their ontological development exhibits a characteristic pace and sequencing

 

Marr � claims that the 2D sketch is subjectively available � one-off remark

usually, the lower levels are unavailable to central (i.e. conscious) access

input systems have shallow outputs � basic visual processing isn't too heavily top-down(???)/loaded with memories etc.

information encapsulation:

major aspect of Fodor�s modularity

belief �independence of perception � couldn't otherwise see what you don't expect

computation vs intelligence � role in vision

cognitive impenetrability

synchronic vs diachronic � at a moment vs over time

transparency assumption � Caramazza, 1986

fractionnation

double dissociation � Plunkett doesn't buy this at all

assimulation � perception as hypothesis-generation, problem-solving/intelligence (e.g. Gregory, Rock)

Fodor � no, it�s domain-specific, mandatory, fast, limited central access � modular computation

Can we really have laws of nature stated in terms of representations?

  1. what is a representation? how do you know it�s representing anything?

the use that is made of it computational/functionally

external correlation between neural + physical phenomena

  1. why is it right to use this notion to explain causal laws?

role of that represenation in the organism�s success?

what its selective advantage?

Fodor�s first law of the non-existence of cognitive science

the more global, the less understood a mechanism (e.g. analogical reasoning)

principled reasons why we can't understand these unencapsulated processes

central systems (e.g. ordinary thinking)

domain general

isotropic (don't know which information will bear on other information)

Quinean (coherentist � confirmation applies to theory as a whole)

why can't you have laws governing central systems according to Fodor? Campbell doesn't get it � he doesn't think the above premises discount it

the theory theory

children + scientists do the same thing in generating/testing hypotheses + theories

scientists � just as rattling more complicated and expensive toys, or alternatively, as big children

terrible twos � experimenting with implications of theory of mind

don't seem tobe laws of scientific thinking/generating alternate theories/logic of discovery

underdetermination

Questions & points

Marr�s 3 levels were levels of what???

why am I so sure that Fodor is wrong??? to what extent is it an empirical question???

see Rethinking Innateness

possibility of a connectionist AI that thinks connectionistically, like the Moties???

advantage of modularity for evolution???

why do MRI studies show such large areas for a given function

large blood flow??? no, they�re higher resolution than that

each N plays different roles???

where is colour vision in the brain??? V4 or V5???

it�s Fodor�s information encapsulation premise that I�m least happy about

are there many modular-hidden Ns in the brain??? I spose so

quantify modularity (in terms of information encapsulation)???

big central model, or multiple drafts??? � fits with multiple drafts

Shallice, 1988

there are �laws� to the logic of discovery, but they�re at a low level that�s neither generalnor linguistically expressible

would multi-modal areas be modules???

let's say we've got a sensory association area, say the parietal cortex. Andersen et al (1997) argues for an abstract multi-modal distributed representation of space, combining vision, somatosensation, audition, and vestibular sensation, which 'can then be used to construct multiple frames of reference to be used by motor structures to code appropriate movements', as well as selecting stimuli and helping to plan movements. This fits in with Goodale & Haffenden's description of the functions of the visuomotor system, and aligns with it in neuroanatomical terms too.

so, we're imagining that the parietal cortex is taking in signals from visual, auditory, somatosensory and vestibular perception, and combining them to form some multi-modal abstract representation of space. to what extent should we consider this to be a module?

yes, this is a module, because it has most of the properties, and it�s domain-specific, even if it�s not modality-specific