I would think that the former are the _mechanism_ of the latter—though, as they say, “don’t quote me on that”.
There is an interesting question of whether, if many things are modules, there is also non-module part, the “general intelligence” part which does not share those properties. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is no consensus (though my intuitions say there is the GI part).
Also, it seems that different modules might use the same (common) working memory—though this is not set in stone (and depends, in particular, on your analysis of language—if late Chomsky is right, only phonology (PF) and perhaps semantics (LF) are modular, whereas syntax uses our general recursive ability, and this is why it uses general working memory).
Specialized Functionality Via The Neocortex’s Gross Wiring Diagram—So if you seed a region with particular feedforward and feedback information streams, then it will find patterns and build up the corresponding concept space.
...and therefore, that there are lots of different neocortical modules exactly to the extent that there are lots of different neocortical regions, with strict borders between them and few axons crossing those borders. I’m not sure the extent to which this is the case.
Also, I’m not convinced that “general working memory” is a thing. My understanding is that we can do things like remember a word by putting it on loop using speech motor control circuits. But I would expect that someone with a lesion to those speech motor control circuits would still be able to, say, hold an image in their head for a short period of time using visual cortex. I think recurrent networks are ubiquitous in the neocortex, and any of those networks can potentially hold an activation at least for a couple seconds, and a few of them for much longer. Or maybe when you’re thinking about “general working memory”, you’re really thinking of the GNW?
1. “My understanding is that we can do things like remember a word by putting it on loop using speech motor control circuits”—this is called phonological loop in psycholinguistics (psychology) and is NOT THE SAME as working memory—in fact, tests for working memory usually include reading something aloud precisely to occupy the circuits and not let the test subject take advantage of their phonological loop. What I mean by working memory is the number of things one can hold in their mind simultaneously captured by “5+-2″ work and Daneman’s tests—whatever the explanation is.
2. Fodorian modules are, by definition, barely compatible with CCA. And the Zeitgeist of theoretical linguistics leads me to think that when you use RNN to explain something you’re cheating your way to performance instead of explaining what goes on (i.e. to think that brain ISN’T an RNN or a combination thereof—at least not in an obvious sense). Thus we don’t quite share neurological assumptions—though bridging to a common point may well be possible.
To be clear, I am using the term “recurrent” as a kinda generic term meaning “having a connectivity graph in which there are cycles”. That’s what I think is ubiquitous in the neocortex. I absolutely do not think that “the kind of RNN that ML practitioners frequently use today” is similar to how the neocortex works. Indeed, I think very few ML practitioners are using algorithms that are fundamentally similar to brain algorithms. (I think Dileep George is one of the exceptions.)
Fodorian modules are, by definition, barely compatible with CCA
...unless the Fodorian modules are each running the same algorithm on different input data, right?
Well, no. In particular, if you feed the same sound input to linguistic module (PF) and to the module of (say, initially visual) perception, the very intuition behind Fodorian modules is that they will *not* do the same—PF will try to find linguistic expressions similar to the input whereas the perception module will try to, well, tell where the sound comes from, how loud it is and things like that.
I would think that the former are the _mechanism_ of the latter—though, as they say, “don’t quote me on that”.
There is an interesting question of whether, if many things are modules, there is also non-module part, the “general intelligence” part which does not share those properties. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is no consensus (though my intuitions say there is the GI part).
Also, it seems that different modules might use the same (common) working memory—though this is not set in stone (and depends, in particular, on your analysis of language—if late Chomsky is right, only phonology (PF) and perhaps semantics (LF) are modular, whereas syntax uses our general recursive ability, and this is why it uses general working memory).
Hmm, interesting!
My thinking about general intelligence is the combination of
Common Cortical Algorithm—every part of the neocortex is a similarly-constructed general-purpose generative model builder that basically does some combination of self-supervised learning, RL, and Model Predictive Control
Specialized Functionality Via The Neocortex’s Gross Wiring Diagram—So if you seed a region with particular feedforward and feedback information streams, then it will find patterns and build up the corresponding concept space.
...and therefore, that there are lots of different neocortical modules exactly to the extent that there are lots of different neocortical regions, with strict borders between them and few axons crossing those borders. I’m not sure the extent to which this is the case.
Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW) connecting diverse parts of the neocortex to each other and to long-term memory.
“System 2” is just a way of stringing together various automatic thoughts (generative models) into a sorta ad-hoc serial computer.
Also, I’m not convinced that “general working memory” is a thing. My understanding is that we can do things like remember a word by putting it on loop using speech motor control circuits. But I would expect that someone with a lesion to those speech motor control circuits would still be able to, say, hold an image in their head for a short period of time using visual cortex. I think recurrent networks are ubiquitous in the neocortex, and any of those networks can potentially hold an activation at least for a couple seconds, and a few of them for much longer. Or maybe when you’re thinking about “general working memory”, you’re really thinking of the GNW?
1. “My understanding is that we can do things like remember a word by putting it on loop using speech motor control circuits”—this is called phonological loop in psycholinguistics (psychology) and is NOT THE SAME as working memory—in fact, tests for working memory usually include reading something aloud precisely to occupy the circuits and not let the test subject take advantage of their phonological loop. What I mean by working memory is the number of things one can hold in their mind simultaneously captured by “5+-2″ work and Daneman’s tests—whatever the explanation is.
2. Fodorian modules are, by definition, barely compatible with CCA. And the Zeitgeist of theoretical linguistics leads me to think that when you use RNN to explain something you’re cheating your way to performance instead of explaining what goes on (i.e. to think that brain ISN’T an RNN or a combination thereof—at least not in an obvious sense). Thus we don’t quite share neurological assumptions—though bridging to a common point may well be possible.
Thank you for clearing up my confusion! :-)
To be clear, I am using the term “recurrent” as a kinda generic term meaning “having a connectivity graph in which there are cycles”. That’s what I think is ubiquitous in the neocortex. I absolutely do not think that “the kind of RNN that ML practitioners frequently use today” is similar to how the neocortex works. Indeed, I think very few ML practitioners are using algorithms that are fundamentally similar to brain algorithms. (I think Dileep George is one of the exceptions.)
...unless the Fodorian modules are each running the same algorithm on different input data, right?
Oh, then sorry about the RNN attack ;)
Well, no. In particular, if you feed the same sound input to linguistic module (PF) and to the module of (say, initially visual) perception, the very intuition behind Fodorian modules is that they will *not* do the same—PF will try to find linguistic expressions similar to the input whereas the perception module will try to, well, tell where the sound comes from, how loud it is and things like that.