Johannes Brinz

Since Clark and Chalmers advanced “The Extended Mind” in 1998, a persistent dispute evolved on how our tool interactions shape the kind of cognition we have. Extended cognition generally views us as cognitively augmented and enhanced by our tool practices, which shall render our cognitive constitution extended to those tools. Bounded and embedded cognition have primarily criticized this metaphysical claim. However, another contender may arise from considering how we use more intelligent tools. We arguably employ advanced technologies that capture, mimic, and then replace our cognitive skills, which we then no longer need to exercise ourselves. This precedes any metaphysical debate, since such practices might stand in a more fundamental conflict with extended cognition. The counter-hypothesis of extracted cognition states that we primarily tend to use tools that initially attain and eventually displace our cognitive responsibilities and involvements. This paper evaluates extended and extracted cognition by comparing theoretical, practical, and ethical arguments respectively. If extracted cognition describes most convincingly how such tool interactions shape our kind of cognition, then we may also endorse “The Extracted Mind”.

I examine a major objection to the mechanistic view of concrete computation, stemming from an apparent tension between the abstract nature of computational explanation and the tenets of the mechanistic framework: while computational explanation is medium-independent, the mechanistic framework insists on the importance of providing some degree of structural detail about the systems target of the explanation. I show that a common reply to the objection, i.e. that mechanistic explanation of computational systems involves only weak structural constraints, is not enough to save the standard mechanistic view of computation—it trivialises the appeal to mechanism, and thus makes the account collapse into a purely functional view. I claim, however, that the objection can be put to rest once the account is appropriately amended: computational individuation is indeed functional, while mechanistic explanation plays a role in accounting for computational implementation. Since individuation and implementation are crucial elements in a satisfying account of computation in physical systems, mechanism keeps its central importance in the theory of concrete computation. Finally, I argue that my version of the mechanistic view helps to provide a convincing reply to a powerful objection against non-semantic theories of concrete computation: the argument from the multiplicity of computations.