Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 465–481 | Cite as

A Taxonomy of Cognitive Artifacts: Function, Information, and Categories

  • Richard Heersmink
Article

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to develop a systematic taxonomy of cognitive artifacts, i.e., human-made, physical objects that functionally contribute to performing a cognitive task. First, I identify the target domain by conceptualizing the category of cognitive artifacts as a functional kind: a kind of artifact that is defined purely by its function. Next, on the basis of their informational properties, I develop a set of related subcategories in which cognitive artifacts with similar properties can be grouped. In this taxonomy, I distinguish between three taxa, those of family, genus, and species. The family includes all cognitive artifacts without further specifying their informational properties. Two genera are then distinguished: representational and non-representational (or ecological) cognitive artifacts. These genera are further divided into species. In case of representational artifacts, these species are iconic, indexical, or symbolic. In case of ecological artifacts, these species are spatial or structural. Within species, token artifacts are identified. The proposed taxonomy is an important first step towards a better understanding of the range and variety of cognitive artifacts and is a helpful point of departure, both for conceptualizing how different artifacts augment or impair cognitive performance and how they transform and are integrated into our cognitive system and practices.

Keywords

Cognitive Task Representational System Intentional Control Informational Property Cognitive Artifact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisors John Sutton and Richard Menary, Peter Woelert, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. I would also like to thank Sadjad Soltanzadeh for inviting me to present this paper at a colloquium at the Centre for Applied Ethics and Public Philosophy (CAPPE) at Charles Sturt University in Canberra as well as the audience, particularly Steve Clarke.

References

  1. Atkin, A. 2008. Icon, index, and symbol. In The Cambridge encyclopaedia of language sciences, ed. P. Hogan, 367–368. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brey, P. 2005. The epistemology and ontology of human-computer interaction. Minds & Machines 15(3–4): 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, R. 1999. Cambrian intelligence: The early history of the new AI. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carrara, M., and P. Vermaas. 2009. The fine-grained metaphysics of artifactual and biological functional kinds. Synthese 169(1): 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, A. 1989. Microcognition: Philosophy, cognitive science and parallel distributed processing. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, A. 2003. Natural born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. 2004. Towards a science of the biotechnological mind. In Cognition and technology: Co-existence, convergence, and co-evolution, ed. B. Gorayska and J. Mey, 25–36. John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. 2008. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58: 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dipert, R. 1993. Artifacts, art works, and agency. Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Donald, M. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dourish, P. 2001. Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, C.B., P.G. Keil, J. Sutton, A.J. Barnier, and D.J.F. McIlwain. 2011. We remember, we forget: Collaborative remembering in older couples. Discourse Processes 48(4): 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haugeland, J. 1991. Representational genera. In Philosophy and connectionist theory, ed. W. Ramsey, S. Stich, and D. Rumelhart, 61–89. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Heersmink, R. 2012. Mind and artifact: A multidimensional matrix for exploring cognition-artifact relations. In Proceedings of the 5th AISB Symposium on Computing and Philosophy, ed. J.M. Bishop and Y.J. Erden, 54–61.Google Scholar
  16. Heersmink, R. 2013. Embodied tools, cognitive tools, and brain-computer interfaces. Neuroethics 6(1): 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hilpinen, R. 2011. Artifact. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 23 February 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/artifact/.
  18. Hollan, J., E. Hutchins, and D. Kirsh. 2000. Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7(2): 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houkes, W., and P. Vermaas. 2004. Actions versus functions: A plea for an alternative metaphysics of artifacts. The Monist 87(1): 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Houkes, W., and P. Vermaas. 2010. Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts. Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins, E. 1999. Cognitive artifacts. In The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences, ed. R.A. Wilson and F.C. Keil, 126–128. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kirchhoff, M.D. 2011. Extended cognition and fixed properties: Steps to a third-wave version of extended cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11(2): 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirsh, D. 1995. The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence 72: 31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirsh, D. 2006. Distributed cognition: A methodological note. Pragmatics and Cognition 14(2): 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirsh, D. 2009. Problem-solving and situated cognition. In The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition, ed. P. Robbins and M. Aydede, 264–306. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kirsh, D., and P. Maglio. 1994. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science 18: 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kornblith, H. 1980. Referring to artifacts. Philosophical Review 89(1): 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kroes, P. 2012. Technical artefacts: Creations of mind and matter. Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Menary, R. 2007. Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbounded. Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  31. Nersessian, N.J. 2005. Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In New directions in scientific and technical thinking, ed. M. Gorman, R. Tweney, D. Gooding, and A. Kincannon, 17–56. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Nersessian, N.J., E. Kurz-Milcke, W.C. Newstetter, and J. Davies. 2003. Research laboratories as evolving distributed cognitive systems. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. R. Alterman and D. Kirsh, 857–862.Google Scholar
  33. Norman, D. 1991. Cognitive artifacts. In Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface, ed. J.M. Carroll, 17–38. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Norman, D. 1993. Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Peirce, C.S. 1935a. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce vol 2. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Peirce, C.S. 1935b. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce vol 3. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Peterson, D. 1996. Introduction. In Forms of representation: An interdisciplinary theme for cognitive science, ed. D. Peterson, 7–27. Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  38. Preston, B. 1998. Why is a wing like a spoon? a pluralist theory of function. The Journal of Philosophy 95(5): 215–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Preston, B. 2009. Philosophical theories of artifact function. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. A. Meijers, 213–234. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  40. Preston, B. 2013. A philosophy of material culture: Action, function, and mind. Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Robbins, P., and M. Aydede (eds.). 2009. The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sutton, J. 2006. Distributed cognition: Domains and dimensions. Pragmatics and Cognition 14(2): 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sutton, J. 2010. Exograms and interdisciplinarity: History, the extended mind and the civilizing process. In The extended mind, ed. R. Menary, 189–225. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Theiner, G. 2013. Transactive memory systems: A mechanistic analysis of emergent group memory. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4(1): 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Von Eckhardt, B. 1995. What is cognitive science? MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Zhang, J., and D. Norman. 1995. A representational analysis of numeration systems. Cognition 57: 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations