Revista de Filosofía (Madrid) 31 (2):83-107 (2006)

In the Philosophy of Cognitive Science, it is a common held view that the modularity hypothesis for cognitive mechanisms and the innateness hypothesis for mental contents are conceptually independent. In this paper I distinguish between substantial and deflationist modularity as well as between substantial and deflationist innatism, and I analyze whether the conceptual independence between substantial modularity and innatism holds. My conclusion will be that if what is taken into account are the essential properties of the substantial modules, i.e. domain specificity and informational encapsulation, then it seems to be such independence. However, if what is taken into account is the function of the substantial modules, then it seems to be a conceptual connection from modularity to substantial innateness
Keywords ToM module  Language module  Representational innatism  Innate biases
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2007
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,431
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What’s Within? Nativism Reconsidered.Fiona Cowie - 1998 - Oxford University Press USA.
Nativism in Cognitive Science.Richard Samuels - 2002 - Mind and Language 17 (3):233-65.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
21 ( #481,012 of 2,372,021 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #559,821 of 2,372,021 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes