Piccinini G. (2007) Computing Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 74: 501–526. https://cepa.info/3920
Piccinini G.
(
2007)
Computing Mechanisms.
Philosophy of Science 74: 501–526.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/3920
This paper offers an account of what it is for a physical system to be a computing mechanism – a system that performs computations. A computing mechanism is a mechanism whose function is to generate output strings from input strings and (possibly) internal states, in accordance with a general rule that applies to all relevant strings and depends on the input strings and (possibly) internal states for its application. This account is motivated by reasons endogenous to the philosophy of computing, namely, doing justice to the practices of computer scientists and computability theorists. It is also an application of recent literature on mechanisms, because it assimilates computational explanation to mechanistic explanation. The account can be used to individuate computing mechanisms and the functions they compute and to taxonomize computing mechanisms based on their computing power.
Piccinini G. (2008) Computation without representation. Philosophical Studies 137(2): 205–241. https://cepa.info/3921
Piccinini G.
(
2008)
Computation without representation.
Philosophical Studies 137(2): 205–241.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/3921
The received view is that computational states are individuated at least in part by their semantic properties. I offer an alternative, according to which computational states are individuated by their functional properties. Functional properties are specified by a mechanistic explanation without appealing to any semantic properties. The primary purpose of this paper is to formulate the alternative view of computational individuation, point out that it supports a robust notion of computational explanation, and defend it on the grounds of how computational states are individuated within computability theory and computer science. A secondary purpose is to show that existing arguments for the semantic view are defective.