The aim of this paper is to begin developing a version of Gualtiero Piccinini’s mechanistic account of computation that does not need to appeal to any notion of proper (or teleological) functions. The motivation for doing so is a general concern about the role played by proper functions in Piccinini’s account, which will be evaluated in the first part of the paper. I will then propose a potential alternative approach, where computing mechanisms are understood in terms of Carl Craver’s perspectival (...) account of mechanistic functions. According to this approach, the mechanistic function of ‘performing a computation’ can only be attributed relative to an explanatory perspective, but such attributions are nonetheless constrained by the underlying physical structure of the system in question, thus avoiding unlimited pancomputationalism. If successful, this approach would carry with it fewer controversial assumptions than Piccinini’s original account, which requires a robust understanding of proper functions. Insofar as there are outstanding concerns about the status of proper functions, this approach would therefore be more generally acceptable. (shrink)

A single physical process may often be described equally well as computing several different mathematical functions—none of which is explanatorily privileged. How, then, should the computational identity of a physical system be determined? Some computational mechanists hold that computation is individuated only by either narrow physical or functional properties. Even if some individuative role is attributed to environmental factors, it is rather limited. The computational semanticist holds that computation is individuated, at least in part, by semantic properties. She claims that (...) the mechanistic account lacks the resources to individuate the computations performed by some systems, thereby leaving interesting cases of computational indeterminacy unaddressed. This article examines some of these views, and claims that more cases of computational indeterminacy can be addressed, if the system-environment interaction plays a greater role in individuating computations. A new, long-arm functional strategy for individuating computation is advanced. (shrink)

A distinguishing feature of neural computation and information processing is that it fits models that describe the most efficient strategies for performing different cognitive tasks. Efficiency determines a distinctive sense of teleology involving optimal performance and resource management through a specific strategy. I articulate this kind of teleology and call it efficient teleological function. I argue that efficient teleological function is compatible with mechanistic explanation and, most likely, neural computational mechanisms are efficiently functional in this sense. They are members of (...) a distinctive class of computational mechanisms whose efficiency is intertwined with their functionality. This is illustrated by widely discussed approaches to mind, such as Barlow’s efficient coding hypothesis or the ones associated with the so-called “predictive mind”, which propose that the brain employs highly efficient coding strategies to save energy resources that are critical to the organism’s survival. (shrink)

One of the central aims of the neo-mechanistic framework for the neural and cognitive sciences is to construct a pluralistic integration of scientific explanations, allowing for a weak explanatory autonomy of higher-level sciences, such as cognitive science. This integration involves understanding human cognition as information processing occurring in multi-level human neuro-cognitive mechanisms, explained by multi-level neuro-cognitive models. Strong explanatory neuro-cognitive reduction, however, poses a significant challenge to this pluralist ambition and the weak autonomy of cognitive science derived therefrom. Based on (...) research in current molecular and cellular neuroscience, the framework holds that the best strategy for integrating human neuro-cognitive theories is through direct reductive explanations based on molecular and cellular neural processes. It is my aim to investigate whether the neo-mechanistic framework can meet the challenge. I argue that leading neo-mechanists offer some significant replies; however, they are not able yet to completely remove strong explanatory reductionism from their own framework. (shrink)

This dissertation focuses on generative models in the Predictive Processing framework. It is commonly accepted that generative models are structural representations; i.e. physical particulars representing via structural similarity. Here, I argue this widespread account is wrong: when closely scrutinized, generative models appear to be non-representational control structures realizing an agent’s sensorimotor skills. The dissertation opens (Ch.1) introducing the Predictive Processing account of perception and action, and presenting some of its connectionist implementations, thereby clarifying the role generative models play in Predictive (...) Processing. Subsequently, I introduce the conceptual framework guiding the research (ch.2). I briefly elucidate the metaphysics of representations, emphasizing the specific functional role played by representational vehicles within the systems of which they are part. I close the first half of the dissertation (Ch.3) introducing the claim that generative models are structural representations, and defending it from intuitive but inconclusive objections. I then move to the second half of the dissertation, switching from exposition to criticism. First (Ch.4), I claim that the argument allegedly establishing that generative models are structural representations is flawed beyond repair, for it fails to establish generative models are structurally similar to their targets. I then consider alternative ways to establish that structural similarity, showing they all either fail or violate some other condition individuating structural representations. I further argue (Ch.5) that the claim that generative models are structural representations would not be warranted even if the desired structural similarity were established. For, even if generative models were to satisfy the relevant definition of structural representation, it would still be wrong to consider them as representations. This is because, as currently defined,structural representations fail to play the relevant functional role of representations, and thus cannot be rightfully identified as representations in the first place. This conclusion prompts a direct examination of generative models, to determine their nature (Ch.6). I thus analyze the simplest generative model I know of: a neural network functioning as a robotic “brain” and allowing different robotic creatures to swiftly and intelligently interact with their environments. I clarify how these networks allow the robots to acquire and exert the relevant sensorimotor abilities needed to solve the various cognitive tasks the robots are faced with, and then argue that neither the entire architecture nor any of its parts can possibly qualify as representational vehicles. In this way, the structures implementing generative models are revealed to be non-representational structures that instantiate an agent’s relevant sensorimotor skills. I show that my conclusion generalizes beyond the simple example I considered, arguing that adding computational ingredients to the architecture, or considering altogether different implementations of generative models, will in no way force a revision of my verdict. I further consider and allay a number of theoretical worries that it might generate, and then briefly conclude the dissertation. (shrink)