Modularity versus Continuum

    Shame and Affect Theory (Nathanson)
    • Responses to First Learning about Affect Theory by Jim Duffy a.k.a. J.C.D., 2/28/97
      • (...)
        • Affective Emergence by Ed Riemann, 4/20/97

    Modularity versus Continuum
    by Jonathan Grindlinger, 4/23/97

    Ed, actually, I wonder what you think of the idea of visualizing affect and cognition as modular functional subunits as opposed to the two ends of a continuum. So, in other words, these two separate and distinct modules are among many in the central nervous system which have clearly defined separate and distinct functions for information processing, and can be assembled (wired together) in any combination or sequence. The concept of modularity allows for much more flexibility and complexity compared to a continuum; infinite dimensionality as opposed to two (or a few) dimensions.

    In our recently started study group we were trying to pin down the distinction between the abstract property of affect and the generalized property of affect and came up with an elegant model to show the difference, while at the same time illustrated the utility of a modularity concept. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a confessed audio nut, currently on *gear detox./rehab* (it's been six months since my last purchase of audio gear) and so therefore utilized an amplifier model to demonstrate the idea.

    Consider a audio amplifier (not a receiver or integrated amp which includes a pre-amplifier) and that one can hook up any particular single signal generating source ( a turntable, a CD player, a microphone for example) which in turn can send to the amplifier any type of signal or waveform imaginable (music, spoken voice, noise, whatever). So then the concept of abstractness of the affect system is analogous to the fact that any type of signal is then amplified by the amplifier in question.

    Now consider that one can hook up any number of other components (a pre-amp which is another type of amplifier, a radio receiver, whatever) to the front end of this amplifier and in turn the amplifier in question can then send (from its back end) the signal on to any number of other components (modules). Now, in real life, if we get too wild with how things are hooked up, circuits will fry. However; it is common in modern recording studio mix sessions to route many different signal processing modules to each other in various combinations to create unique and wonderful sounds (and not so wonderful). So then the concept of generality of the affect system is analogous to the fact that many different types of components (modules) can be wired in many different patterns to a particular amplifier which, in turn, can be then wired in different patterns to other modules, even other amplifiers.

    Don uses the model of a bank of nine different spotlights to illustrate the plasticity and function of the affect system. I prefer the model of nine different types of amplifiers, but the analogy holds true either way.

    I hope this amplifies... err, generates further discussion.
            • Modulation vs Mathmatics by Ed Riemann, 5/1/97
    [Prev] [Up] [Next]