# To Do > [!multi-column] > > > [!bug] Overdue > > ```tasks not done (due before today) hide task count hide due date hide edit button short mode > > >[!success] Today > >```tasks not done (due on today) hide task count hide due date hide edit button short mode > # Notes > [!multi-column] > > > [!summary]- Created Today > > ```dataview > > LIST WITHOUT ID file.link > > FROM "" > > WHERE file.cday = this.file.day AND file.name != this.file.name > > SORT file.ctime ASC > > ``` > > > [!example]- Modified Today > > ```dataview > > LIST WITHOUT ID file.link > > FROM "" > > WHERE file.mday = this.file.day AND file.name != this.file.name AND file.cday != this.file.day > > SORT file.mtime ASC > > ``` ## Quick Links ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM #quicklink SORT file.cday DESC ``` # [[Weight Tracker]] # [[Scratch Pad]] https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/bf87d65f-830b-47e7-8fcf-2e799aff99a6/audio https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/e18a8580-95a1-4587-84d6-4625ed2dd83e/audio https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/e18a8580-95a1-4587-84d6-4625ed2dd83e/audio - is a combination of [[use plans]] and horgan's ideas a good way of fleshing out how norms feed into experience? #thought ### notes on [[the beauty]] in use paper - [[use plans]], we can say that [[use plans]] are involved in agentive experience - You can accept that something like [[use plans]] are available, or have an impact on, agentive experience without having to but Houkes and Vermaas view on Use before Function/ICE ## Slides for my [[Philosophy of Technology]] class Oct 2024 at 10:48:00 #technology #function #### better version # Actions Versus Functions: Lecture Slides ## I. Introduction - Dominant approaches to artifact metaphysics are function-based - Proper functions, causal role functions, etc. - Artifacts characterized in terms of intrinsic functional capacities - Houkes & Vermaas: These are inadequate - a more realistic, action-based metaphysics is needed - Will argue: 1. Function theories fail to capture key use & design phenomena 2. A use plan analysis better explains these phenomena 3. This has revisionary implications for artifact metaphysics ## II. Background: Function Theories - Wright's etiological theory: - "Proper functions" grounded in evolutionary selection history - Cummins' causal role theory: - Functions are causal contributions to some overall "containing system" - Preston's pluralist approach: - Distinguishes "proper functions" from "[[system functions]]" - Allows for novel functions not grounded in history - Houkes & Vermaas' critique: - Both types of theory face limitations in accounting for artifact use & design - Need to go beyond the proper/[[system function]] divide ## III. Critique of Function Theories - Etiological theory (Wright, Millikan): - Selection history is the wrong basis for [[artifact function]] - Cannot handle malfunction, novel uses - "Evolutionary history may be an acceptable basis for '[[proper function]]' ascriptions in biology, but not for rapidly evolving technical artifacts" (p. 5) - Causal role theory (Cummins): - Makes functions relative to arbitrary containing system descriptions - Too permissive - no distinction between proper vs accidental function - Upshot: All function theories are phenomenologically inadequate - Fail to capture the "active, agent-involving" dimension of artifacts - Treat artifacts as intrinsically functional, ignoring creator/user roles ## IV. The Use Plan Analysis - Artifacts figure in [[use plans]]: Goal-directed series of manipulations to achieve some aim - Structure of a use plan: - Overall goal state + steps for manipulating artifact to reach that state - Includes beliefs about circumstances, user abilities, side effects, etc. - Using an artifact = Executing a use plan - Designing an artifact = Constructing and communicating a use plan - Types of use plan: - Standard vs non-standard - Intended by designer vs invented by user - Rational vs irrational (means-end effectiveness, coherence of beliefs, etc.) - [[Use plans]] are more basic than "proper functions" - What counts as "proper" depends on social practice, not intrinsic nature ## V. Phenomenology Revisited ### Individuating Artifacts: - Different artifacts can share a [[physical structure]] but correspond to different use plans - "A screwdriver is primarily an object for which there is a well-established, communicated use plan aimed at attaching things with screws" (p. 68) - Using a screwdriver to pry open a paint can = Using a "paint-can-opener", not a screwdriver! ### Creative Re-Use: - Examples: Aspirin (painkiller -> blood thinner), Cornstarch (thickener -> drywall spackle) - Not "accidental" or "improper" use, but rationally discovering new standard uses - Driven by evolving user/designer knowledge, needs and practices ### Fluidity of Standards: - Standards linked to historically shifting shared use plans, not fixed essences - "The standard use of artifacts is not historically fixed, but may change over time" (p. 55) - E.g. Chopsticks designed as eating utensils, later also hair ornaments - No bright line between "alternative" and "standard" use as practices evolve ### Designers vs Users: - Designers communicate use plans to users via manuals, demonstrations, cultural context - But users also innovate novel use plans through tinkering, responding to circumstances - "Many use plans are not autonomously constructed by individual users - we learn how to use toasters, hammers and bicycles from others" (p. 60) - The stability and rationality of use plans depends on social uptake and practical success ## VI. Metaphysical Upshot - Artifact functions are use-plan-relative capacities, not intrinsic - No functional essence independent of culturally situated practices - "It makes no sense to ascribe functions to an object that is not embedded in a use plan" (p. 66) - Artifacts as fusions of materiality and action/intention - Constituted by both physical structure and mental/behavioral practices - Neither pure physicalism nor pure intentionalism suffices - Need to consider interplay of form and function, matter and mind - The "proper function"/"accidental function" distinction dissolves - Replaced by a contextual, action-oriented notion of use plan rationality - Still supports normative assessments of artifact use (rational vs irrational) - A pragmatist reorientation: From objects to agency - Artifacts as "objects-embedded-in-practices", not just assemblies of parts - Metaphysics of artifacts cannot be divorced from metaphysics of action ## VII. Open Questions & Future Directions - Developing a full-fledged theory of use plan rationality - Basis of normativ **Slide 2: Introduction** - **Overview of Presentation** - Critique of function-oriented approaches to artifacts - Proposal of an action-theoretic approach centered on use plans - Exploration of metaphysical implications - **Objective** - Provide a deep understanding of Houkes and Vermaas' arguments - Engage with key concepts and debates in the metaphysics of artifacts --- **Slide 3: Background Concepts** - **Function Theories** - **Causal Role Theory**: Functions as causal contributions to systems - **Etiological Theories**: Functions based on selection history and reproduction - **Action Theory** - Analyzes intentional actions versus mere behavior - Concepts like intention, planning, belief, and desire --- **Slide 4: Critique of Function-Oriented Approaches** - **Dominant Paradigm** - Artifacts are essentially objects with functions - Focus on function neglects the role of use and agent actions - **Neglect of Use** - Function-oriented theories overlook the phenomenology of use - Designers and users reduced to mere function specifiers - **Key Claim** - Function essentialism fails to account for the richness of artifact use --- **Slide 5: Problems with Function Theories** - **Inadequacy in Capturing Use Distinctions** - Struggle to distinguish between standard and alternative uses - **Multiple Types of Alternative Use** - Function theories label all non-proper functions as accidental - Lack of nuance within accidental functions - **Historicity of Standard Use** - Inability to account for shifts in standard use over time - Functions tied to historical reproduction miss innovative uses - **Use vs. Mere Effects** - Difficulty in differentiating intentional use from unintended effects - Agent involvement is essential in defining use --- **Slide 6: Multiple Types of Alternative Use** - **Example Analysis** - Using a rocking chair vs. a dining chair as a footstool - **Function Theory Limitation** - Both considered accidental functions without distinction - **Need for Nuanced Distinctions** - Some alternative uses are acceptable or clever - Others are improper or irrational --- **Slide 7: Historicity of Standard Use** - **Shifts in Use Over Time** - Artifacts adapted for new purposes through user innovation - **Limitations of Etiological Theories** - Functions based on reproduction history can't explain innovation - **Dynamic Nature of Use** - Standard use evolves through adaptation and communication among users --- **Slide 8: Distinguishing Use from Mere Effects** - **Intentional Use vs. Accidental Effects** - Example: Magnifying glass unintentionally causing a fire - **Agent Involvement** - Genuine use requires intentional action and planning - **Function Theories' Shortcomings** - Lack criteria to separate use from mere causal effects --- **Slide 9: The Use Plan Analysis** - **Action-Theoretic Approach** - Centers on agents and their actions involving artifacts - **Definition of Use Plans** - Goal-directed series of considered actions - Manipulations of the artifact contribute to realizing a goal - **Key Premise** - Artifacts are understood through the actions and plans of agents --- **Slide 10: Using and Designing as Actions** - **Using an Artifact** - Execution of a use plan involving the artifact - Based on deliberate actions to achieve a goal - **Designing an Artifact** - Constructing a use plan for prospective users - Communicating the plan along with the artifact - **Role of Designers and Users** - Active participants in creating and executing use plans --- **Slide 11: Advantages of the Use Plan Approach** - **Standards of Rationality** - Use plans evaluated for efficiency and coherence - **Context Sensitivity** - Incorporates beliefs about circumstances, skills, and availability - **Deriving Function from Use Plans** - Functions are roles within use plans, not intrinsic properties - **Plan-Relative Functions** - Functions depend on the context of the use plan --- **Slide 12: Revisiting the Phenomenology of Use** - **Addressing Previous Shortcomings** - Use plan analysis accounts for distinctions in use - **Distinguishing Types of Alternative Use** - Based on similarity to designed use plans - **Accounting for Shifting Standards** - Explains how non-standard use becomes standard over time - **Differentiating Use from Mere Behavior** - Emphasizes agent intentions and rational planning --- **Slide 13: Distinguishing Types of Alternative Use** - **Standard Use** - Execution of a plan matching the designed use plan - Same goal and similar actions - **Non-Standard Use** - Execution of a different type of plan - **Rational vs. Irrational Use** - Clever alternative uses are rational and acceptable - Improper uses are irrational and potentially harmful --- **Slide 14: Accounting for Shifting Standards** - **Evolution of Use Plans** - Users develop new plans through trial and error - **Communication of Successful Plans** - Non-standard plans become widely adopted - **Dynamic Standards** - Standard use is not fixed but evolves with practice --- **Slide 15: Use vs. Mere Behavior** - **Agent-Involving Use** - Based on explicit beliefs and intentions - **Example: Horseshoe to Ward Off Evil** - Use plan based on belief, even if the capacity is questionable - **Exclusion of Mere Effects** - Casual effects without intentional planning are not considered use --- **Slide 16: Metaphysical Implications** - **Functions as Capacity Highlights** - Functions are capacities emphasized within a use plan - **Artifacts Embedded in Use Plans** - Artifacts gain meaning through their role in actions - **Functions Are Derivative** - Not essential properties but dependent on agent context --- **Slide 17: Reconceptualizing Artifacts** - **Identifying Artifacts by Use Plans** - More stringent conditions than function identification - **Limitations of Function-Based Identification** - Omits important information about artifact use - **Focus on Agent Activities** - Artifacts are tied to the intentions and practices of users --- **Slide 18: Conclusion** - **Critique Summary** - Function essentialism is inadequate for understanding artifacts - **Advantages of Use Plan Approach** - Provides a richer, action-centered metaphysics - **Artifacts and Rational Action** - Emphasizes the role of intentional activities - **Future Directions** - Potential for further development of this framework --- **Slide 19: Discussion Points** - **Implications for Philosophy of Technology** - Rethinking the nature of artifacts and technological practice - **Questions for Further Exploration** - How does this approach affect design and engineering? - What are the limits and challenges of the use plan analysis? - **Critiques and Counterarguments** - Possible objections to the action-theoretic approach