J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 10:42, Richard Loosemore wrote:
... 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.
I think we're just stumbling on words here. I tend to use "module" to mean the
most basic components of whatever level of concern I'm talking about at any
given time, rather than to indicate (e.g.) "usability or fitness for a
particular purpose."
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.
...
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 second case is a lot more like what I envision going on, (and so I'm using
"module" at the level of Lego part). Full rebuild/replacements are virtually
impossible in a market/evolutionary setting.
Well, I have no problem now, but then it has to be the "concept" level
that is where the modules live, because they are the Lego blocks.
I thought Minsky was saying they were higher up than that, but maybe I
was mistaken.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
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
