Rote instruments consist of large numbers of a few types of basic components, each of which performs a rather simple task. The accomplishment of complex tasks is possible through intricate interconnections (programming) between the components. The important principles of operation reside in the program, and by changing the program the instrument can be put to different uses. New problems can be approached in a straightforward, intellectual, bureaucratic, "systems", manner. The solutions will be elementaristic and often a bit clumsy.What started me on my post of yesterday was the observation that it looks to me at least as though the mechanisms of lateral inhibition in the retina (setting aside whether they are information processors or analogue computing devices) have most of the characteristics of rote mechanisms. (The last two sentences probably do not, however, describe the retinal mechanisms of lateral inhibition.) And, perhaps they are "specialized" for just lateral inhibition.
Smart instruments are specialized on a particular (type of) task in a particular (type of) situation and capitalize on the peculiarities of the situation and the task, i.e. use shortcuts, etc. They consist of few but specialized components. For solving problems which are repeated very often, smart instruments, if they exist, are more efficient and more economical. They are also likely to be more reliable and durable. Solution of a new problem requires the invention of a new instrument. A straightforward and bureaucratic procedure is not likely to achieve that, since the task is creative and just as much intuitive as intellectual. (Runeson, 1977, pp. 173-4).
I haven't had time to look into these examples, but if I had the time I would look at:
1) The neural circuitry for the vestibulo-ocular reflex would be a rote mechanism that is also smart. Rote, but "specialized" for stabilizing images on the retina during head motions. The VOR might be especially good as it might be adjustable to accommodate changes in head size during growth.
2) Spinal reflex circuitry. Perhaps that is rote, but "specialized".
3) Neural circuits in area V4. Perhaps they are rote mechanisms, but "specialized" for color processing. (Pick any of the regions of visual cortex for that matter.)
4) Regions of motor cortex. Perhaps rote, but specialized for initiating/controlling finger movements.
Andrew kind of invited this post when asking for an example of a wondrous sort of device that could be both rote and specialized, so I hard to pick the computer example to avoid trampling over today's post.
But, again, all of this depends on what is meant by being "specialized".
I think a rote device can be specialised, but smart devices must be specialised.
ReplyDeleteI also think the point is that the smart/rote distinction is more about process, not specialisation. The fact that a smart device is specialised is sort of a side effect of the fact that it has locked itself into doing one thing really well by taking smart advantage of any available reliable shortcuts, etc.
"The fact that a smart device is specialised is sort of a side effect of the fact that it has locked itself into doing one thing really well by taking smart advantage of any available reliable shortcuts, etc. "
ReplyDeleteSo, are smart devices the things that realize FAPs? See next post....
"I think a rote device can be specialised, but smart devices must be specialised."
ReplyDeleteThat's possible, but it's not the way Runeson explains it. But, again, FAPs might be rote and smart, even by this new (interpretation of the) criterion. They have many parts that are programmed together, but being hard-wired they must do just one thing. Is this what Runeson has in mind?
I'm not sure about the FAP thing, I need to think some more. First pass: if a FAP hardwires a rote solution, it may not be smart, just specialised; remember, smartness is about process, specialisation is about function/outcome.
ReplyDeleteWell, I am not convinced that your reading of "smart" is what Runeson is up to, but FAPs apparently "capitalize on the peculiarities of the situation and the task". It just so happens that the sticklebacks can rely on a peculiarity of the situation, namely, The only things in the normal stickleback environment that have red bellies are male sticklebacks.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds a like the kind of thing Runeson was working in the Ames room. The trapezoidal room that look rectangular is unlikely and did not exist until 60 years ago. Similarly, until about 60 years ago, there were no fake sticklebacks.