# created ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.cday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.cday ASC ``` # modified ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.mday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.mday ASC ``` --- # [[diary and thoughts]] #thought #diary --- # Structural Outline of the Slide Deck #teaching/technology-course ## Part 1: Essay Workshop (Methodology) ### Slide 2: The Anchor Question Sets the specific problem (History vs. System) for the workshop. ### Slide 3: The Diagnostic Identifies "Opinion Paralysis" as a failure to treat theory as data. #### Slides 4–5: Move 1: The [[Hard Case]] (Normativity) - _Logic:_ Theories differ only at the edges. - _Application:_ The Malfunctioning Heart (Chapter 5). - _Result:_ [[Proper Function]] explains error; [[System Function]] cannot. ## Slides 6–7: Move 2: Absurd Implication (Scope) - _Logic:_ Test definitions against non-artifacts. - _Application:_ Clouds/Rain (Chapter 5). - _Result:_ [[System Function]] is too broad (Pan-functionalism). ### Slides 8–9: Move 3: The Steel-Man (Categorical Distinction) - _Logic:_ Attempt to merge theories to save the weaker one. - _Application:_ Subsumption. - _Result:_ Fails because "Is" (System) cannot generate "Ought" (Proper). #### Slide 10: Summary Recap of the three argumentative moves. ## Part 2: Chapter 6 – Intentionalism (The Setup) ### Slide 13: Introduction Links Chapter 6 (Agency) to the previous critique of Centralized Control. #### Slide 14: The [[Intentionalist Thesis]] Defines the [[standard view]]: Function comes from the Creator's mind. ### Slide 15: The Identification Problem Who is the creator? (Maker vs. Designer). #### Slides 16–17: The Sociality Problem - _Evidence:_ Post-it Notes. - _Argument:_ Design is collaborative and improvisatory, not a single mental spark. ### Slide 18: The User Gap Intentions must be communicated to users to sustain function. #### Slides 19–20: The "Use Plan" Attempt Critique of Houkes & Vermaas’s communication model. ### Slide 21: Divergence Users (e.g., Aspirin) hijack function, proving designer intention isn't absolute. ## Part 3: [[Novel Prototypes]] (Test Case A) ### Slide 23: The Problem Prototypes have no history. How do they have function? #### Slide 24: Millikan's Fix "Derived [[Proper Function]]" (borrowed from the maker's mind). ### Slide 25: The Consequence This creates a hierarchy: Designers give function, Users don't. #### Slides 26–27: The Critique (Equivalence) There is no cognitive or [[creative difference]] between a Designer and an Innovative User. ### Slide 28: The Reframing Design is just "Innovative Use" of existing material. #### Slide 29: Evidence The Electric Guitar ([[Les Paul]]) was an assembly of existing parts. ### Slides 30–31: The "Heroic Inventor" Myth The hierarchy exists only because of social status/bias, not ontology. #### Slide 33: [[Founding Intentions]] The theory implies designers have magical, infallible intentions. ### Slide 34: The Solution Treat prototypes as System Functions until reproduction occurs. ## Part 4: [[Phantom Functions]] (Test Case B) ### Slide 36: The Problem Items that _never_ work (Fengshui mirrors) but are still reproduced. #### Slide 37: Non-Intentionalist Failure We can't just call them "mistakes"; they are culturally real. ### Slide 38: Intentionalist Fix (Designers) Griffiths: Designed for a "hypothetical environment." #### Slide 39: Critique (Cynicism) Designers often know the product is fake (Snake Oil). ### Slide 40: Intentionalist Fix (Users) Maybe users _believe_ it works? #### Slides 41, 45: Critique (Motivation) Users buy for aesthetics, tradition, or protest—[[not just]] belief in efficacy. ### Slide 46: The Slippage Intention doesn't track reproduction reliably. #### Slide 47: The Solution (Patterns of Use) Ignore [[mental states]]. Look at observable behavior. ### Slide 48: Final Definition Proper Function is the best explanation of the history of reproduction. # Speaker's Notes: Philosophy of Material Culture # Speaker's Notes: Philosophy of Material Culture ## Chapter 6 & Essay Workshop ## SECTION 1 OVERVIEW: THE ESSAY WORKSHOP Signposting for Students: "Good morning. Today's session is split into two distinct halves. We are going to start with a 'Lab Session' focused on essay writing technique. We will use the material from Chapter 5—the debate between Proper Function and System Function—as our raw data. The goal here is to cure 'Opinion Paralysis' by shifting you from passive reading to active testing. Once we have established these tools, we will apply them to the new material: Chapter 6 and the problem of Intention." ### Slide 1: Title Slide - Main Point: Introduction and Tone Setting. - Elaboration: Welcome the students. The visual style (8-bit) represents the "constructed" nature of artifacts—a theme we will touch on later with the electric guitar. - Logistics: Confirm that the lecture covers both the "How-To" of the essay and the "What" of Chapter 6. ### Slide 2: The Essay Question - Main Point: Anchoring the discussion in a concrete problem. - Elaboration: Read the prompt aloud. It sets up the classic conflict: Millikan (History/Proper Function) vs. Cummins (System Function). - The Trap: Acknowledge that this is a difficult question because both theories feel "correct" in different contexts. History explains design; System explains current use. The difficulty isn't a lack of knowledge; it's an excess of plausible options. ### Slide 3: The Problem ("I Don't Know What to Think") - Main Point: Diagnosing "Opinion Paralysis." - Elaboration: Many of you feel stuck because you are waiting for a psychological feeling of conviction—an "intuition" that one theory is True and the other is False. This is a category error. Philosophy essays are not diaries where you record your feelings. They are lab reports where you record the results of stress tests. - The Pivot: We are going to stop asking "Which theory do I like?" and start asking "Which theory survives the test?" - Relevant Quote (Contextual): > The study of material culture in other disciplines is extremely varied... In comparison, the philosophical study of material culture has been quite narrowly focused. (p. 134) ### Slide 4: Technique 1 - The Hard Case (Normativity) - Main Point: Move 1 is "Find the Disagreement." - Elaboration: Theories usually agree on normal cases. Both Millikan and Cummins agree a healthy heart pumps blood. You cannot write an essay about a healthy heart. You must find the edge case where they give opposite answers. - Application (The Malformed Heart): - Consider a heart so malformed it _cannot_ pump. It just quivers. - System Function (Cummins): Says it has _no function_ because function is capacity. This contradicts our linguistic intuition that it is a "broken" heart, not a non-heart. - Proper Function (Millikan): Says it _has a function_ because of its history. This matches our intuition of "error." - Conclusion: Proper Function wins on Normativity—the ability to explain malfunction. - Relevant Quote: > A distinguishing feature of Millikan’s notion of proper function is that a correlative notion of malfunction falls out directly. If you can say what a thing is supposed to do, then you can also say when it is failing to do it. (p. 143) ### Slide 5: Technique 2 - The Absurd Implication (Scope) - Main Point: Move 2 is "Test the Definition on Nature." - Elaboration: Take the definition of the theory you want to critique (System Function) and apply it literally to a non-artifact to see if it breaks common sense. - Application (Clouds and Rain): - The Logic: If Function is just "a contribution to a containing system" (Cummins), then we look at the Water Cycle. Rain contributes to this system. - The Problem: Therefore, clouds have the _function_ to make rain. This creates "Pan-functionalism." It collapses the distinction between Purpose (function) and Physics (accident). - Conclusion: System Function fails on Scope—it is too broad and cannot distinguish artifacts from nature. - Relevant Quote: > Cummins’s account, on the other hand, makes it impossible to draw the function-accident distinction where Wright wants to draw it. (p. 141) ### Slide 6: Technique 3 - The Steel Man Rescue (Categorical Distinction) - Main Point: Move 3 is "Attempt to Fix It." - Elaboration: A distinction essay doesn't just attack a Straw Man; it attacks a Steel Man. Try to save the theory before you kill it. - Application (Subsumption): - The Rescue: "Can we say Proper Function is just a _type_ of System Function? Can we merge them?" - The Rebuttal: No. Preston argues they are different categories. One is Normative (Ought), one is Descriptive (Is). You cannot derive an "Ought" from an "Is." - Conclusion: The theories cannot be merged. You must choose. - Relevant Quote: > The intersection of these two extensions is not empty, but neither extension is a proper subset of the other. This also reinforces the point... What we seem to have in the notions of system function and proper function is two distinct forms of explanation. (p. 148) ### Slide 7: Conclusion - Your Essay Answer - Main Point: The opinion is the output. - Elaboration: Show them how the previous three slides _are_ the essay structure. Paragraph 1: The Hard Case (Malfunction). Paragraph 2: The Absurd Implication (Clouds). Paragraph 3: The Failed Rescue (Subsumption). Conclusion. ## SECTION 2 OVERVIEW: INTENTIONALISM & SOCIALITY Signposting for Students: "Now we move to the new reading: Chapter 6. We are leaving the biological models of Chapter 5 behind and looking at Human Agency. The intuitive view is that artifacts have functions because we intend them to. This section deconstructs that intuition by looking at how messy design actually is in the real world." ### Slide 10: The Intentionalist Thesis - Main Point: The standard view (The "Centralized Control Model"). - Elaboration: Intentionalism claims the mind is the uncaused cause of function. I think 'Can Opener,' therefore it is. This is the "Centralized Control" model reappearing from Part I of the book. - Anticipated Question: "Why is this a problem? Isn't it obvious that I make things for a reason?" - Response: It works for simple individual acts. It breaks down completely for complex, social objects that exist over time. - Relevant Quote: > The common opinion that it is the intentions of the creators of items of material culture that establish their function is a form of the centralized control problem we discovered in action theory. (p. 134) ### Slide 11: Problem of the Creator - Main Point: Locating the "Intender" is impossible. - Elaboration: If intention is the source, we must locate the specific mind it comes from. Is it the Factory Worker (Maker)? They might be bored and thinking about dinner. Is it the Inventor (Designer)? Which one? - Relevant Quote: > First of all, who is to count as the creator of an item of material culture for the purposes of establishing its function? On the one hand, there is a crucial difference between the maker and the designer/inventor. (p. 162) ### Slide 12: Sociality of Design (Post-it Notes) - Main Point: Intentions do not map 1:1 to Outcomes. - The Case Study: Post-it Notes (p. 162). - Agent 1 (Spencer Silver): Intention = "Strong Glue." Outcome = "Weak Glue" (Failure). - Agent 2 (Art Fry): Intention = "Bookmark." Action = "Use." - Agent 3 (Production): Intention = "Office Supply." - Analysis: There is no single "Founding Intention." The function emerged through a social chain of failure and re-interpretation. - Relevant Quote: > The engineer who invented the Post-it note adhesive intended to invent a strong adhesive but ended up with a weak one, for which he could find no good use. It was another engineer at a later date who adopted this adhesive for a purpose not envisioned by the first engineer. (p. 162) ### Slide 15: Houkes & Vermaas (Use Plans) - Main Point: The defense of Intentionalism via Communication. - Elaboration: Houkes and Vermaas try to save Intentionalism by arguing that intention is communicated as a 'Use Plan.' The Designer tells the User what to do. - Critique: This creates a hierarchy. It assumes the Designer's plan is 'Standard' and the User's plan is 'Non-standard.' We are about to see why this hierarchy is false. - Relevant Quote: > Functions are ascribed in accordance with a use plan intentionally communicated by the designers to the users, and by users to other users... intentions are transmitted in virtue of being embodied in use plans. (p. 163) ### Slide 17: Divergence of Use - Main Point: Users hijack function. - The Case Study: Aspirin. - Original Plan: Pain relief. - Current Use: Heart attack prevention. - Analysis: The users (doctors) changed the Proper Function _against_ the designer's plan. This proves that History of Reproduction (what users actually do) overrides Origin (what designers thought). - Relevant Quote: > Aspirin tablets were originally designed to relieve fever and pain, but are now prescribed for the prevention of cardiac problems, as well. Here the added function qualifies as a proper function, since aspirin manufacturers market specially formulated tablets for this purpose. (p. 164) ## SECTION 3 OVERVIEW: NOVEL PROTOTYPES Signposting for Students: "We have attacked Intentionalism generally. Now we look at its strongest defense: The Novel Prototype. If a function comes from history, how does the very first item have a function? This section argues that we solve this by collapsing the distinction between 'Design' and 'Use.'" ### Slide 19: The Problem of Novel Prototypes - Main Point: The Non-Intentionalist's weakness. - Elaboration: Preston's theory relies on history. A prototype has no history. Yet we want to say it has a function. Intentionalists say: 'Aha! This proves Intention is the source.' - Relevant Quote: > But novel prototypes do not have the history of selection and reproduction that is required for Millikanian direct proper functions... The intuition is that such novel prototypes have proper functions, not just system functions. (p. 165) ### Slide 20: Millikan's Solution (Derived Function) - Main Point: A biological workaround. - Elaboration: Millikan argues the function is 'Derived' from the maker's desire. But this reinforces the idea that Makers are special and Users are passive. - Relevant Quote: > When a thing has a direct proper function that it accomplishes by producing some other thing, the product is said to derive a proper function from the producer... The intentional states of intelligent organisms have direct proper functions. (p. 166) ### Slide 22-23: The Critique (Equivalence) - Main Point: Dismantling the "Designer/User" binary. - Analysis: We assume Designers create (God-like) and Users consume (Sheep-like). Preston argues there is No Cognitive Difference. Both use means-end reasoning. Both make plans. - Relevant Quote: > From a formal point of view, then, it looks like there is no cognitive difference between the intentions of users and designers... Innovative users make plans too... for example, I cut up non-recyclable plastic cups and containers to make plant labels. (p. 169) ### Slide 25: Case Study - The Electric Guitar - Main Point: Invention is just Assembly. - The Evidence: Les Paul and "The Log" (p. 171). He did not create new technology. He took existing artifacts (Phonograph pickup, Radio amp, Wood) and combined them. - The Takeaway: Les Paul was an Innovative User of existing culture. "Invention" is just a high-status word for "Using things creatively." - Relevant Quote: > For amateur inventors all the technology required to increase the guitar’s volume was readily at hand. They were not dealing with revolutionary new concepts but with equipment they had been playing with for years: microphones, record players, radios, and vacuum tubes. (p. 170) ### Slide 29: Founding Intentions (Infallibility) - Main Point: The _Reductio ad Absurdum_ of Intentionalism. - The Thought Experiment: If I tape two sticks together and _intend_ them to be a nuclear reactor, is it one? - Intentionalist Logic: Yes. It is a nuclear reactor (just a broken one). - Reality: No. It is two sticks. - Analysis: Intentionalism implies humans have Ontological Infallibility—we can create reality by fiat. This is absurd. Reality constraints matter. - Relevant Quote: > In order to guarantee that novel prototypes have proper functions the founding intentions of designers must be infallible... nothing at all can frustrate your intention that a thing that you have designed have a certain proper function. (p. 175-176) ## SECTION 4 OVERVIEW: PHANTOM FUNCTIONS Signposting for Students: "Finally, we look at the opposite problem: Items that never work but are still reproduced (Phantom Functions). Standard theory says we reproduce things because they succeed. These don't succeed. So why are they here? We will see that 'User Belief' is not enough to explain them." ### Slide 32: Phantom Functions Defined - Main Point: Identifying the anomaly. - Examples: Fengshui mirrors (deflecting spirits), Rabbit's feet (luck). - The Puzzle: If Function = History of Success, these should not exist. - Relevant Quote: > Phantom functions are cases where an item of material culture is constitutionally incapable of performing a function it is widely taken to have... Their reproduction cannot be contingent on actual successful performance. (p. 177) ### Slide 38: Intentionalist Solution (Hypothetical Environments) - Main Point: Griffiths' "Mind-World." - Elaboration: Griffiths argues the function is real _in the designer's mind_. He imagines a world where spirits exist. - Critique: This requires the designer to be sincere. But what about the Cynic? The Snake Oil salesman knows it doesn't work. He has no "Hypothetical Environment" where it works. He just wants money. - Relevant Quote: > The solution to this difficulty is... to create a more abstract notion of 'selective process' by allowing selection amongst hypothetical alternatives... in a hypothetical environment constituted by the beliefs of the designer. (Griffiths, cited p. 178-179) ### Slide 41: User Motivations (The Slippage) - Main Point: Motivation is heterogeneous. - Elaboration: Can we say "Users reproduce it because they believe it works"? No. Motivation is complex. - Protest: "I hang the mirror to annoy the state, not to deflect spirits." - Tradition: "I do it because my mom did." - Analysis: There is a Slippage between the function (deflecting spirits) and the cause of reproduction (protest/tradition). Intention does not track reproduction reliably. - Relevant Quote: > Users often acquire products in order to try them out... 'It's only $4.99. What the hell!'... Users often acquire and use items of material culture in response to peer pressure... 'I don't think rabbit's foot amulets really bring good luck, but everybody who is anybody has one.' (p. 181) ### Slide 43: Patterns of Use (The Solution) - Main Point: Behavior over Mental States. - Elaboration: We stop asking what people _think_. We ask what they _do_. - The Pattern of Use: People hang these mirrors over doors. - The Best Explanation: "To deflect spirits"—regardless of whether spirits exist or users believe in them. - Relevant Quote: > Instead, we can simply look to the pattern of use to which the item is put, as judged by the actions of users in which it plays some part... This pattern of use is not going to be univocal, although it should be substantially more so than users' intentions. (p. 185) ### Slide 44: Final Definition (The Revised Definition) - Main Point: The final definition of Proper Function. - Elaboration: This definition moves us away from "Usefulness" (which implies success) to "Pattern of Use" (which implies behavior). - Relevant Quote: > A current token of an item of material culture has the proper function of producing an effect of a given type just in case producing this effect... contributes to the best explanation of the patterns of use to which past tokens of this type of item have been put. (p. 187)