Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Isolability as the unifying feature of modularity

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the concept of modularity is pervasive across fields and disciplines, philosophers and scientists use the term in a variety of different ways. This paper identifies two distinct ways of thinking about modularity, and considers what makes them similar and different. For philosophers of mind and cognitive science, cognitive modularity helps explain the capacities of brains to process sundry and distinct kinds of informational input. For philosophy of biology and evolutionary science, biological modularity helps explain the capacity of random evolutionary processes to give rise to highly complex and sophisticated biological systems. Although these different ways of thinking about modularity are largely distinct, this paper proposes a unifying feature common to both: isolability, or the capacity of subsystems to undergo changes without resulting in substantial changes to neighboring or interconnected subsystems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For debate regarding the nature of modularity see: (Brown 2014; Pigliucci 2008; Brookfield 2001, 2009; Love 2003; Sterelny 2007, 2011).

  2. Credit goes to an anonymous reviewer for highlighting that the example of the Rube Goldberg machine described here is analogous to Simon’s (1962) elegant watchmaker example. Although there are important differences between these examples, the conclusion of the argument is quite similar: systems that comprise modules (‘subassemblies’, on Simon’s account) are likely to exhibit a higher probability of evolving toward greater degrees of complexity.

  3. Note that Brosnan (2009) offers a definition of quasi-independence that captures potential fitness trade-offs: “For any trait Ti that is correlated with other traits Tn, and whose trait values are T1 and T2, Ti is quasi-independent of Tn if and only if Ti’s advantageous trait value is fitter than its disadvantageous trait value” (p. 232).

  4. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for introducing the notion of near decomposability to this analysis.

  5. Nicholson (2012) highlights different senses of mechanism. See Craver and Tabery (2016) for a more thorough account.

References

  • Altenberg L (2005) Modularity in evolution: some low-level questions. In: Callebaut W, Rasskin-Gutman D (eds) Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of complex natural systems. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Barret HC, Kurzban R (2006) Modularity in cognition: framing the debate. Psychol Rev 113(3):628–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett HC (2005) Enzymatic computation and cognitive modularity. Mind Lang 20(3):259–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett HC (2015) Modularity. In: Virgil Zeigler-Hill LLMW, Shackelford TK (eds) Evolutionary perspectives on social psychology. Evolutionary psychology. Springer, Berlin, pp 39–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker JA (2000) Modularity in development and why it matters to Evo-Devo. Am Zool 40(5):770–776

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield JFY (2001) Evolution: the evolvability enigma. Curr Biol 11(3):R106–R108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield John F Y (2009) Evolution and evolvability: celebrating Darwin 200. Biol Lett 5(1):44–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan K (2009) Quasi-independence, fitness, and advantageousness. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C 40(3):228–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown RL (2014) What evolvability really is. Br J Philos Sci 65:549–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers P (2006) The architecture of the mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cheverud JM (2001) The genetic architecture of pleiotropic relations and differential epistasis. In: Wagner GP (ed) The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 411–433

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Colosimo PF, Hosemann KE, Balabhadra S, Villarreal G, Dickson M, Grimwood J, Schmutz J, Myers RM, Schluter D, Kingsley DM (2005) Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks by repeated fixation of ectodysplasin alleles. Science 307(5717):1928–1933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides L (1989) The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the wason selection task. Cognition 31(3):187–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides L, Tooby J (1992) Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In: Barkow L, Cosmides L, Tooby J (eds) The adapted mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 163–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Craver C, Tabery JG (2016) Mechanisms in science. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/science-mechanisms/. Accessed 1 Feb 2019

  • Driscoll C (2004) Can behaviors be adaptations? Philos Sci 71(1):16–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eble G (2005) Morphological modularity and macroevolution: conceptual and empirical aspects. In: Callebaut W, Rasskin-Gutman D (eds) Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of complex natural systems. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor J (1983) The modularity of mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • García CL (2007) Cognitive modularity biological modularity and evolvability. Biol Theory Integr Dev Evol Cognit (KLI) 2(1):62–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Garson J (2013) The functional sense of mechanism. Philos Sci 80(3):317–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhart J, Kirschner M (1997) Cells, embryos, and evolution. Blackwell Science Inc, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1977) Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen TF (2003) Is modularity necessary for evolvability? Remarks on the relationship between pleiotropy and evolvability. Biosystems 69(2–3):83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes CL, Kaufman TC (2002) Hox genes and the evolution of the arthropod body plan. Evol Dev 4(6):459–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner M, Gerhart J (1998) Evolvability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95(15):8420–8427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1978) Adaptation. Sci Am 239(3):212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino HE (2013) Studying human behavior: how scientists investigate aggression & sexuality. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2003) Evolvability, dispositions, and intrinsicality. Philos Sci 70(5):1015–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machery E (2007) Massive modularity and brain evolution. Philos Sci 74(5):825–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews LJ (2016) On closing the gap between philosophical concepts and their usage in scientific practice: a lesson from the debate about natural selection as mechanism. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 55(February):21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews LJ (2017) On mechanistic reasoning in unexpected places: the case of population genetics. Biol Philos 32(6):999–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezey JG, Cheverud JM, Wagner GP (2000) Is the genotype-phenotype map modular? A statistical approach using mouse quantitative trait loci data. Genetics 156(1):305–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell SD (2003) Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchia G, Sams M, Skoe E, Kraus N (2007) Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and audiovisual processing of speech and music. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(40):15894–15898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needham J (1933) On the dissociability of the fundamental processes in ontogenesis. Biol Rev 8(2):180–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson DJ (2012) The concept of mechanism in biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43(1):152–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo-Diaz C, Salazar C, Jiggins CD (2015) Towards the identification of the loci of adaptive evolution. Methods Ecol Evol 6(4):445–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2008) Is evolvability evolvable? Nat Rev Genet 9(1):75–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker S (1997) How the mind works. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff RA (1996) The shape of life: genes, development and the evolution of animal form. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raff EC, Raff RA (2000) Dissociability, modularity, evolvability. Evol Dev 2(5):235–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins P (2007) Minimalism and modularity. In: Preyer G, Peter G (eds) Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 303–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins P (2015) Modularity of Mind. In: Zalta EN (ed) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/modularity-mind/. Accessed 1 Feb 2019

  • Samuels R (2000) Massively modular minds: evolutionary psychology and cognitive architecture. In: Carruthers P, Chamberlain A (eds) Evolution and the human mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schank JC, Wimsatt WC (2001) Evolvability, adaptation and modularity. In: Singh RS, Krimbas CB, Paul DB, Beatty J (eds) Thinking about evolution, vol 2. Historical, philosophical, and political perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 322–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (2002) Near decomposability and the speed of evolution. Ind Corp Change 11(3):587–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D (1994) The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In: Hirschfeld LA, Gelman SA (eds) Mapping the mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 39–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D (2002) In defense of modularity. In: Dupoux I (ed) Language, brain, and cognitive development. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler Bärbel M R, Stadler PF, Wagner GP, Fontana W (2001) The topology of the possible: formal spaces underlying patterns of evolutionary change. J Theor Biol 213(2):241–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny K (1992) Evolutionary explanations of human behaviour. Australas J Philos 70(2):156–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny K (2007) What is evolvability? In: Matthen M, Stephens C (eds) Philosophy of biology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 177–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny K (2011) Evolvability reconsidered. In: Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) The major transitions in evolution revisited. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 83–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny K, Griffiths P (1999) Sex and death. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Dassow G, Munro E (1999) Modularity in animal development and evolution: elements of a conceptual framework for EvoDevo. J Exp Zool 285(4):307–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (1995) Adaptation and the modular design of organisms. In: Morán F, Moreno A, Merelo JJ, Chacón P (eds) Advances in artificial life, vol 929. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 315–328

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (1996) Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. Integr Comp Biol 36(1):36–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP, Altenberg L (1996) Perspective: complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50(3):967–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP, Stadler PF (2003) Quasi-independence, homology and the unity of type: a topological theory of characters. J Theor Biol 220(4):505–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch JJ, Waxman D, Houle D (2003) Modularity and the cost of complexity. Evolution 57(8):1723–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winther RG (2001) Varieties of modules: kinds, levels, origins, and behaviors. J Exp Zool 291:116–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Above all else, Kenneth Blake Vernon played a pivotal role in the earliest stages of this project. He both helped formulate the idea for a paper that compared cognitive and biological concepts of modularity, and helped write sections of a first draft that did not make it to the final manuscript. Special thanks to Anya Plutynski for advising early stages of the project, reading multiple drafts and providing great feedback. Thanks as well for helpful comments from Juliana Gottschling, Lisa Hanh, Sarah Carol, Evan Giangrande, and Eric Turkheimer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

    Lucas J. Matthews

Authors
  1. Lucas J. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas J. Matthews.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matthews, L.J. Isolability as the unifying feature of modularity. Biol Philos 34, 20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9672-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9672-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation