Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 193–225 | Cite as

Information Processing Artifacts

  • Neal G. AndersonEmail author
General Discussion
  • 142 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Computers Technical artifacts Artifact functions Physical information Physical computation Instrumental computation Unconventional computation Natural computation Pancomputationalism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Adamatzky, A. (2015). Slime mould processors, logic gates and sensors. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 373(2046), 20140216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. G. (2010). On the physical implementation of logical transformations: Generalized L-machines. Theoretical Computer Science, 411(48), 4179–4199.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. G. (2017). Information as a physical quantity. Information Sciences, 415–416, 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, N. G., & Piccinini, G. (2017). Pancomputationalism and the computational description of physical systems. PhilSci Archive, ID: 12812.Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). Does a rock implement every finite-state automaton? Synthese, 108(3), 309–333.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Ganesh, N., & Anderson, N. G. (2013). Irreversibility and dissipation in finite-state automata. Physics Letters A, 377(45), 3266–3271.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Horsman, C., Stepney, S., Wagner, R. C., & Kendon, V. (2014). When does a physical system compute? Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 470(2169), 20140182.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010). Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes, J. (2009). An artifact is to use: An introduction to instrumental functions. Synthese, 168(1), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Joslin, D. (2006). Real realization: Dennett’s real patterns versus Putnam’s ubiquitous automata. Minds & Machines, 16, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Ladyman, J. (2009). What does it mean to say that a physical system implements a computation? Theoretical Computer Science, 410(4), 376–383.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladyman, J., Presnell, S., Short, A. J., & Groisman, B. (2007). The connection between logical and thermodynamic irreversibility. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38(1), 58–79.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. Okamoto, A., Tanaka, K., & Saito, I. (2004). DNA logic gates. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 126(30), 9458–9463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Piccinini, G. (2015). Physical computation: A mechanistic account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Piccinini, G. (2016). The computational theory of cognition. In Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 201–219). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Piccinini, G., & Scarantino, A. (2011). Information processing, computation, and cognition. Journal of Biological Physics, 37(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Putnam, H. (1991). Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  23. Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  24. 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/.
  25. Teuscher, C. (2014). Unconventional computing catechism. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 1, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turner, R. (2018). Computational artifacts: Towards a philosophy of computer science. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Vermaas, P. E., & Houkes, W. (2006a). Technical functions: A drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations