Information Processing Artifacts
- 31 Downloads
What is a computer? What distinguishes computers from other artificial or natural systems with alleged computational capacities? What does use of a physical system for computation entail, and what distinguishes such use from otherwise identical transformation of that same system when it is not so used? This paper addresses such questions through a theory of information processing artifacts (IPAs), the class of technical artifacts with physical capacities that enable agents to use them as means to their computational ends. Function ascription, use plan requirements, malfunction, and efficacy of IPAs are all addressed in this theory, with emphasis on artifacts that can be used—reliably or otherwise—for digital computation. By explicitly distinguishing physically grounded computational capacities from user-ascribed computational functions, and by recognizing the distinct roles of each for the implementation of computations in artifacts, this theory clearly distinguishes the use of physical systems for computation from the transformations of physical system states that enable such use. As such, it provides a rigorous basis for distinguishing “computers” from other artificial and natural systems—a distinction whose nature and legitimacy faces ever-evolving challenges from multiple disciplines. This theory, and the associated “instrumental” view of computation in artifacts, naturally accommodates the openminded but scrupulous consideration of radically unconventional physical systems as potential substrates for future computers.
KeywordsComputers Technical artifacts Artifact functions Physical information Physical computation Instrumental computation Unconventional computation Natural computation Pancomputationalism
I am grateful to Gualtiero Piccinini, Jesse Hughes, Corey Maley, İlke Ercan, and two thorough and constructive anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. I also thank Mike Cuffaro, John Norton, and other attendees at the Twenty-Fifth PSA Biennial Meeting poster forum for insightful discussions on a poster presentation of this work.
- Anderson, N. G., & Piccinini, G. (2017). Pancomputationalism and the computational description of physical systems. PhilSci Archive, ID: 12812.Google Scholar
- Horsman, D., Kendon, V., & Stepney, S. (2018). Abstraction/representation theory and the natural science of computation. In M. E. Cuffaro & S. C. Fletcher (Eds.), Physical perspectives on computation, computational perspectives on physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010). Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Konkoli, Z. (2015). A perspective on Putnam’s realizability theorem in the context of unconventional computation. International Journal of Unconventional Computing, 11(1).Google Scholar
- Maley, C., & Piccinini, G. (2017). A unified mechanistic account of teleological functions for psychology and neuroscience. Integrating Psychology and Neuroscience: Prospects and Problems.Google Scholar
- Millhouse, T. (2017). A simplicity criterion for physical computation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx046.
- Piccinini, G. (2016). The computational theory of cognition. In Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 201–219). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- Piccinini, G., & Anderson, N. G. (2018). Ontic pancomputationalism. In M. E. Cuffaro & S. C. Fletcher (Eds.), Physical perspectives on computation, computational perspectives on physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Putnam, H. (1991). Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. R. (2014). What your computer can’t know. The New York review of books. www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/oct/09/what-your-computer-cant-know/.
- Vermaas, P. E. (2009). On unification: Taking technical functions as objective (and biological functions as subjective). In Functions in biological and artificial worlds: Comparative philosophical perspectives, Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology, pp. 69–87.Google Scholar
- Vermaas, P. E., & Houkes, W. (2006b). Use plans and artefact functions: An intentionalist approach to artefacts and their use. In A. Costoll & O. Dreier (Eds.), Doing things with things: The design and use of everyday objects (pp. 29–48). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Vissol-Gaudin, E., Kotsialos, A., Groves, C., Pearson, C., Zeze, D. A., & Petty, M. C. (2017). Computing based on material training: Application to binary classification problems. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE international conference on rebooting computing (ICRC 2017) (pp. 274–281). IEEE.Google Scholar