<<The presence of continuous bidirectional interactions between the agent and the artifact can therefore serve as a clear criterion of constitution—or integration—distinguishing authentic cases of cognitive extension from merely supportive tools.>>
Thank you, Orestis.
I largely agree with these thoughts. One remark, however. I doubt we can always be sure of identifying this "presence of continuous bidirectional interactions." In fact, whenever we try to "distinguish," we tend to overlook the fact that much of what makes us decide is arbitrary or random.
Might it not be more accurate to consider this separation as a gray area within which we will have to arbitrate on a case-by-case basis and where our distinctions will be regularly called into question?
Yes, Marc, I agree that we should arbitrate on a case-by-case basis whether we are dealing with a genuine instance of mental extension—especially when legal issues are at stake. While the presence of continuous bidirectional interactions between agent and artefact may not always be obvious, establishing it could, in my view, serve as a reliable sign of cognitive extension. If such interactions are not clearly present, there is a set of other indicators (such as informational transparency, ease of use, reliability, etc.) that can serve as proxies for the presence of continuous bidirectional interactions. I won’t go into the details here, but I discuss this further in Chapter 2 of my book, if you’re interested!
<<The presence of continuous bidirectional interactions between the agent and the artifact can therefore serve as a clear criterion of constitution—or integration—distinguishing authentic cases of cognitive extension from merely supportive tools.>>
Thank you, Orestis.
I largely agree with these thoughts. One remark, however. I doubt we can always be sure of identifying this "presence of continuous bidirectional interactions." In fact, whenever we try to "distinguish," we tend to overlook the fact that much of what makes us decide is arbitrary or random.
Might it not be more accurate to consider this separation as a gray area within which we will have to arbitrate on a case-by-case basis and where our distinctions will be regularly called into question?
Yes, Marc, I agree that we should arbitrate on a case-by-case basis whether we are dealing with a genuine instance of mental extension—especially when legal issues are at stake. While the presence of continuous bidirectional interactions between agent and artefact may not always be obvious, establishing it could, in my view, serve as a reliable sign of cognitive extension. If such interactions are not clearly present, there is a set of other indicators (such as informational transparency, ease of use, reliability, etc.) that can serve as proxies for the presence of continuous bidirectional interactions. I won’t go into the details here, but I discuss this further in Chapter 2 of my book, if you’re interested!