Skip to main content
Log in

Substitutive, Complementary and Constitutive Cognitive Artifacts: Developing an Interaction-Centered Approach

  • Published:
Review of Philosophy and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abtract

Technologies both new and old provide us with a wide range of cognitive artifacts that change the structure of our cognitive tasks. After a brief analysis of past classifications of these artifacts, I shall elaborate a new way of classifying them developed by focusing on an aspect that has been previously overlooked, namely the possible relationships between these objects and the cognitive processes they involve. Cognitive artifacts are often considered as objects that simply complement our cognitive capabilities, but this “complementary view” seems to be an oversimplification. Assuming an “interaction-centered approach”, this article identifies three essential ways in which cognitive artifacts carry out their function: complementing, constituting and substituting our cognitive processes, and builds a taxonomy of these objects that is grounded on these relations. In so doing, it also addresses the chaotic set of different micro-functions carried out by cognitive artifacts, which have not thus far been dealt with, sorting these functions into three corresponding categories. The second part of the article analyzes in greater detail how cognitive artifacts work in our cognitive life, identifying a new kind of functions, called semi-proper functions, and providing a new definition of cognitive artifact based on the previous analysis of these objects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, L.R. 2007. The metaphysics of everyday life: An essay in practical realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A., and E. Tobin, 2016. Natural kinds. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/natural-kinds/.

  • Bloom, P. 1998. Theories of artifact categorization. Cognition 66: 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. 2000. Theories of technology as extensions of human faculties. In Metaphysics, epistemology and technology. Research in philosophy and technology, ed. C. Mitcham, vol. 19, 59–78. London: Elsevier/JAI press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. 2005. The epistemology and ontology of human-computer interaction. Minds & Machines 15: 383–398 Carr.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, N. 2011. The shallows: What the internet is doing to your brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrara, M., and D. Mingardo. 2013. Artifact categorization. Trends and problems. The Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4: 351–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casati, R. 2017. Two, then four modes of functioning of the mind: Towards an unification of "dual" theories of reasoning and theories of cognitive artifacts. In J. Zacks, H. Taylor, eds. Representations in Mind and World. Essays Inspired by Barbara Tversky, 7–23.

  • Clark, A. 2004. Towards a science of the biotechnological mind. In Cognition and technology: Coexistence, convergence and co-evolution, ed. B. Gorayska and J. Mey, 25–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J., and K. Michaelian. 2016. Identifying and individuating cognitive systems: A task based distributed cognition alternative to agent-based extended cognition. Cognitive Processing 17: 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J. 1993. The disorder of things: Metaphisical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasoli, M. 2016. Neuroethics of cognitive artifacts. In Frontiers in neuroethics: Conceptual and empirical advancements, ed. A. Lavazza, 63–75. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge scholars publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasoli, M., and M. Carrara. 2016. Classificare gli artefatti cognitivi: una proposta. Sistemi Intelligenti 2: 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawande, A. 2009. The checklist manifesto. New York: Metropolitan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S.A., and P. Bloom. 2000. Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it. Cognition 76 (2): 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heersmink, R. 2013. A taxonomy of cognitive artifacts: Function, information, and categories. Review of Philosphy and Psychology 4: 465–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heersmink, R. 2014. The metaphysics of cognitive artifacts. Philosophical Explorations 19 (1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heersmink, R. 2015. Extended mind and cognitive enhancement: Moral aspects of cognitive artifacts. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 16: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. 1999. Cognitive artifacts. In The MIT encyclopaedia of the cognitive sciences, ed. R.A. Wilson and F.C. Keil, 126–128. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. 2014. The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology 27: 34–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javadi, A.H., B. Emo, L.R. Howard, F.E. Zisch, Y. Yu, R. Knight, et al. 2017. Hippocampal and prefrontal processing of network topology to simulate the future. Nature Communications 8: 14652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

  • Kirsh, D. 1995. The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence 72: 31–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, D., and P. Maglio. 1994. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science 18: 513–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblith, H. 1980. Referring to artifacts. The Philosophical Review LXXXIX: 109–114.

  • Latour, B. 1994. On technical mediation. Common Knowledge 3 (2): 29–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malt, B.C., and S.A. Sloman. 2007a. Category essence or essentially pragmatic? Creator’s Intention in naming and what’s really what. Cognition 105: 615–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malt, B.C., and S.A. Sloman. 2007b. Artifact categorization: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation, ed. E. Margolis and S. Laurence, 85–123. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. 1991. Cognitive artifacts. In Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface, ed. J.M. Carroll, 17–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. 1993. Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C.S. 1935. The collected papers of Charles Peirce. Vol. 3. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, J. 2014. ‘Guns Don’t kill, people kill’; values in and/or around technologies. In The moral status of technical artefacts, ed. P. Kroes and P. Verbeek, 89–102. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, B. 1998. Why is a wing like a spoon, a pluralist theory of function. The Journal of Philosophy 95 (5): 215–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, B. 2013. A philosophy of material culture: Action, function, and mind. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, L.A. 2008. Functionalism and mental boundaries. Cognitive Systems Research 9 (1): 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Cambridge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vaccari, A.P. 2016. Against cognitive artifacts: Extended cognition and the problem of defining ‘artifact’. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1–14.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Fasoli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fasoli, M. Substitutive, Complementary and Constitutive Cognitive Artifacts: Developing an Interaction-Centered Approach. Rev.Phil.Psych. 9, 671–687 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0363-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0363-2

Navigation