Editing Modularity of mind (section)

==Early investigations==
Historically, questions regarding the ''functional architecture'' of the mind have been divided into two different theories of the nature of the faculties. The first can be characterized as a horizontal view because it refers to mental processes as if they are interactions between faculties such as memory, imagination, judgement, and perception, which are not [[domain specificity|domain specific]] (e.g., a judgement remains a judgement whether it refers to a perceptual experience or to the conceptualization/comprehension process). The second can be characterized as a vertical view because it claims that the mental faculties are differentiated on the basis of domain specificity, are genetically determined, are associated with distinct neurological structures, and are computationally autonomous.<ref name=":0" />

The vertical vision goes back to the 19th-century movement called [[phrenology]] and its founder [[Franz Joseph Gall]]. Gall claimed that the individual mental faculties could be associated precisely, in a one-to-one correspondence, with specific physical areas of the brain.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Hergenhahn, B. R., 1934–2007.|title=An introduction to the history of psychology|date=2009|publisher=Wadsworth Cengage Learning|isbn=978-0-495-50621-8|edition=6th|location=Australia|oclc=234363300}}</ref> For example, someone's level of intelligence could be literally "read off" from the size of a particular bump on his posterior parietal lobe. Phrenology's practice was debunked scientifically by Pierre Flourens in the 19th century. He destroyed parts of pigeons' and dogs' brains, called lesions, and studied the organisms' resulting dysfunction. He was able to conclude that while the brain localizes in some functions, it also works as a unit and is not as localized as earlier phrenologists thought.<ref name=":1" /> Before the early 20th century, Edward Bradford Titchener studied the modules of the mind through introspection. He tried to determine the original, raw perspective experiences of his subjects. For example, if he wanted his subjects to perceive an apple, they would need to talk about spatial characteristics of the apple and the different hues that they saw without mentioning the apple.<ref name=":1" />