Brain modularity is a concept inspired by how we make machines. But brains are not made by people. press.princeton.edu/books/paperb...

what would be a better word for repeated structures, in the brain (the repeated folds of the cerebellum), or elsewhere in nature (leaves, vertebrae, so many of those). The repetition is structural, and also functional

but maybe it's up to the people using 'modules' for the brain to change? They could say 'components' instead?

Plus, the fact that the brain is made by nature and not humans is irrelevant. Both could build things similarly, especially because humans can be inspired by nature. Aren't bodies organs undeniably modular?

anyway it'd be good to have a more precise way of distinguishing between repeated natural patterns and, for example, parts of a computer with well defined functions, like memory storage, clock, etc. Some brain theories from the 70s-80s do seem to use 'modularity' in that 2nd, machine-like, sense

The discussion about which of these two ways is the brain modular is a fair one, but it seems to me that nature has plenty of examples of both cases.

well, stuff like the working memory and the phonological loop always seemed to me as quite unnatural. Coming from electronic engineering, the first time I saw the idea I went 'come on wtf go touch grass'!

Are human organs modular? (Genuine question; it reveals how one is thinking about modularity in 2026)

I think so, at least under the definition provided in the screenshot. IF the brain was as modular as organs, that would be great news for neuroscience and medicine: currently we can identify and cure several organ diseases but AFAIK we can't clearly identify, let alone cure, 'PFC diseases'

One reason I ask is because somatic organs (or perhaps organ systems) seem hard to fit with the tenets of modularity in causal modeling.

🤷‍♂️I don't know enough about organs and precise definitions of modularity. I do agree with the OP that it's not clear at this point if brains are as modular as human bodies and other natural systems.

The latter point is fair. I worry that without a precise (or at least suitably articulated) definition of 'modularity' post Fodor, this distinction becomes undesirably messy (which is not a point against you). Maybe this book will offer one.

Precise definitions are extremely important, please help us! 😅 But a definition that rejects human organs as modular will not be very useful for the brain modularity debate, since IMO no one believes the brain is more modular than organs.

Re Fodor: my ignorant impression is that he turned out wrong in so many ways (extreme nativism, anti connectionism and even rejecting evolution, I'm told?) that it's not even worth debating it. Every time I tried reading his stuff I find it so detached from 🧠 and get confused. Should I try again? 😅

Answering with a German "Jein": you should try again; you will likely remain confused or frustrated. You might look to contemporary scholars reappraising some of his ideas (e.g., @quiltydunn.bsky.social)