Paul Smart

Proponents of the extended mind have suggested that phenomenal transparency may be important to the way we evaluate putative cases of cognitive extension. In particular, it has been suggested that in order for a bio-external resource to count as part of the machinery of the mind, it must qualify as a form of transparent equipment or transparent technology. The present paper challenges this claim. It also challenges the idea that phenomenological properties can be used to settle disputes regarding the constitutional status of bio-external resources in episodes of extended cognizing. Rather than regard phenomenal transparency as a criterion for cognitive extension, we suggest that transparency is a feature of situations that support the ascription of certain cognitive/mental dispositional properties to both ourselves and others. By directing attention to the forces and factors that motivate disposition ascriptions, we arrive at a clearer picture of the role of transparency in arguments for extended cognition and the extended mind. As it turns out, transparency is neither necessary nor sufficient for cognitive extension, but this does not mean that it is entirely irrelevant to our understanding of the circumstances in which episodes of extended cognizing are apt to arise.

Social machines are a prominent focus of attention for those who work in the field of Web and Internet science. Although a number of online systems have been described as social machines, there is, as yet, little consensus as to the precise meaning of the term “social machine.” This presents a problem for the scientific study of social machines, especially when it comes to the provision of a theoretical framework that directs, informs, and explicates the scientific and engineering activities of the social machine community. The present paper outlines an approach to understanding social machines that draws on recent work in the philosophy of science, especially work in so-called mechanical philosophy. This is what might be called a mechanistic view of social machines. According to this view, social machines are systems whose phenomena are explained via an appeal to socio-technical mechanisms. We show how this account is able to accommodate a number of existing attempts to define the social machine concept, thereby yielding an important opportunity for theoretical integration.

There have been a number of attempts to apply mechanism-related concepts to the notion of extended cognition. Such accounts appeal to the idea that extended cognitive routines are realized by mechanisms that transcend some salient border or boundary. The present paper describes some of the challenges confronting the effort to develop a mechanistic account of extended cognition. In particular, it describes five problems that must be resolved if we are to make sense of the idea that extended cognition can be understood via an appeal to extended mechanisms. These problems are intended to guide the philosophical effort to develop a mechanistic account of extended cognition.

Available from UMI in association with The British Library. ;John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx both understood real human freedom as self-determination. The following study will show that although the origins of these two notions of freedom are widely divergent, they are nevertheless similar in terms of the vision they incorporate of a fully emancipated existence. As both Mill and Marx were system builders in true nineteenth century fashion, I situate their conceptions of freedom within their general social sciences and begin by assessing the content of their respective theories of human nature. This assessment reveals the methodological foundations of their systems and the impact they have on their understanding of the formation of human character. It also exposes certain inconsistencies which are later shown to have detrimental effects on their propositions regarding social progress. The second part of the study concentrates on Mill's and Marx's analysis of unfreedom in their own time and their different approaches to the task of securing liberty. It will be suggested that both thinkers compromised their commitment to freedom as self-determination; Mill became increasingly susceptible to elitist institutional arrangements; Marx dismissed too easily consideration of morality and rights. However, it will be proposed that the stronger elements of both views may in fact complement one another