When weak modularity is robust enough?

in this paper, i suggest that the notion of module explicitly defined by peter carruthers in the architecture of the mind (carruthers 2006) is not really in use in the book. instead, a more robust notion seems to be actually in play. the more robust notion, albeit implicitly assumed, seems to be far more useful for making claims about the modularity of mind. otherwise, the claims would become trivial. this robust notion will be reconstructed and improved upon by putting it into a more general framework of mental architecture. i defend the view that modules are the outcome of structural rather than functional decomposition and that they should be conceived as near decomposable systems.