John Haugeland, Mind embodied and embedded
3. COMPONENTS, SYSTEMS AND INTERFACES

question is to ask whether we can (..) partition off the intellect (or mind) from the body and/or the world.

whether it can be understood as a distinct and well-defined subsystem.

An electronic component's connecting wires constitute its "interface" to the rest of the system.
component is a relatively independent and self-contained portion of a system and (..)interacts with other components only through interfaces
interface is a point of interactive "contact" between components
system is a relatively independent and self-contained composite of components

(when something is both - a component and a system it is often called subsystem)

component as such is delimited by its simple, reliable interfaces

4. INCORPOREAL INTERFACES

systematic interfaces need not coincide with corporeal surfaces (like in large organizations, corporations the physical location of personnel and data is irrelevant)

what matters is the structure that deterimes departamentalization and hierarchy. (and intensity of interaction - how tightly things are coupled (?))

5. INTELLIGIBILITY AS THE PRINCIPLE OF DECOMPOSITION

by paraphrasing Simon:
finding, in something complicated and hard to understand, a set of simple, reliable interfaces, dividing it into relatively independent components, is a way of rendering things intelligible

structure of the beach is as important as the structure of the ant in Simon's parable (..) ant's actual path is determined in real time by the close interaction between the ant and (..) beach's surface

if we are interested in the path, and if the ant relies mostly on its own internal structure (..) counting for ground just for friction and support, then the ant and the beach ar two relatively independent components or systems with the interaface at the soles at its feet

but if there is a constant coupling between the ant and (..) the beach surface, (..) then, for purposes of understanding the path, the ant and the beach must be regarded more as an integrated unit than as a pair of distinct components. This is the simplest arechetype of what I mean by intimacy (p.217)