Psychological Review 113 (3):628-647 (2006)
AbstractModularity has been the subject of intense debate in the cognitive sciences for more than 2 decades. In some cases, misunderstandings have impeded conceptual progress. Here the authors identify arguments about modularity that either have been abandoned or were never held by proponents of modular views of the mind. The authors review arguments that purport to undermine modularity, with particular attention on cognitive architecture, development, genetics, and evolution. The authors propose that modularity, cleanly defined, provides a useful framework for directing research and resolving debates about individual cognitive systems and the nature of human evolved cognition. Modularity is a fundamental property of living things at every level of organization; it might prove indispensable for understanding the structure of the mind as well.
Similar books and articles
Modularity in music relative to speech: framing the debate.Isabelle Peretz - 2011 - In Patrick Rebuschat, Martin Rohrmeier, John A. Hawkins & Ian Cross (eds.), Language and Music as Cognitive Systems. Oxford University Press. pp. 310.
The complexity of cognition: Tractability arguments for massive modularity.Richard Samuels - 2005 - In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York. pp. 107.
Andy Clark on intrinsic content and extended cognition.Frederick R. Adams & Kenneth Aizawa - manuscript
Modularity, rationality, and higher cognition.Philip Cam - 1988 - Philosophical Studies 53 (March):279-94.
Modularity and design reincarnation.H. Clark Barrett - 2006 - In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen P. Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents.
Fodor on cognition, modularity, and adaptationism.Samir Okasha - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (1):68-88.
On the input problem for massive modularity.John M. Collins - 2004 - Minds and Machines 15 (1):1-22.
From massive modularity to metarepresentation: The evolution of higher cognition.David E. Over - 2003 - In Evolution and the Psychology of Thinking: The Debate. Psychology Press. pp. 121--144.
Massive Modularity and Brain Evolution.Edouard Machery - 2007 - Philosophy of Science 74 (5):825-838.
Indexing the World? Visual Tracking, Modularity, and the Perception–Cognition Interface.Santiago Echeverri - 2016 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (1):215-245.
Framing the debate.Arthur M. Glenberg, Manuel de Vega & Graesser & C. Arthur - 2008 - In Manuel de Vega, Arthur Glenberg & Arthur Graesser (eds.), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition. Oxford University Press.
Evo-devo, modularity, and evolvability: Insights for cultural evolution.Simon M. Reader - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):361-362.
Modularity and naturalism.Neil Stillings - 1989 - In Theories of Vision in Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-Language Understanding. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects.Chaz Firestone & Brian J. Scholl - 2016 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39:1-72.
Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain.Michael L. Anderson - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (4):245.
Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds.Derek C. Penn, Keith J. Holyoak & Daniel J. Povinelli - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):109-130.
Seeing and Conceptualizing: Modularity and the Shallow Contents of Perception.Eric Mandelbaum - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 97 (2):267-283.
The Perception-Cognition Border: A Case for Architectural Division.E. J. Green - 2020 - Philosophical Review 129 (3):323-393.
References found in this work
The Selfish Gene. [REVIEW]Gunther S. Stent & Richard Dawkins - 1977 - Hastings Center Report 7 (6):33.