The term “medium independence” has different meanings. One sense maps onto “abstract-as-abstracta” descriptions while the other maps onto “abstract-as-omission” descriptions. Both senses have been deployed when it comes to understanding the nature of physical computation. However, because medium independence is a polysemic term, the sense being used should be clearly stated. If the sense is not clearly stated, then those who wish to engage in debates regarding medium independence and physical computation run the risk of conflating different but related issues (...) which can have consequences when it comes to thinking about physical computation across contexts. (shrink)

The authors argue that their target is orthogonal to the realism and instrumentalist debate. I argue that it is born directly from it. While the distinction is helpful in illuminating how some ontological commitments demand a theory of implementation, it's less clear whether different views cleanly map onto the epistemic and metaphysical uses defined in the paper.

The Physical Signature of Computation is the most “robust” mapping view that’s ever hit the market. It is impressive in its detail and the careful attention paid to its characterization of both the physical system and the formal computational description—a true service to the philosophical literature. The book promises a “unified account of artifact and biological computation,” but here’s where things take a turn: after handling artifacts, the Robust Mapping Account fades from view and the Mechanistic Account of Physical Computation (...) (in its neurocognitive form) emerges as the way to capture biological computation. To have a unified account, then, requires two distinct approaches to understanding the nature of physical computation. This raises questions about whether the Robust Mapping Account can be extended to neural computation, but most importantly, questions about the compatibly of these two views is questionable given the history of the Mechanistic Account and its underpinning framework. (shrink)

Recently, a version of realism has been offered to address the simplification strategies used in computational neuroscience (Chirimuuta, 2023; 2024). According to this view, computational models provide us with knowledge about the brain, but they should not be taken literally in any sense, even rejecting the idea that the brain performs computations (computationalism). I acknowledge the need for considerations regarding simplification strategies in neuroscience and how they contribute to our interpretations of computational models; however, I argue that whether we should (...) accept or reject computationalism about the brain is a separate issue that can be addressed independently by a philosophical theory of physical computation. This takes seriously the idea that the brain performs computations while also taking an analogical stance toward computational models in neuroscience. I call this version of realism “Analogical Computational Realism.” Analogical Computational Realism is a realist view in virtue of being committed to computationalism while taking certain computational models to pick out real patterns (Dennett, 1991; Potochnik, 2017) that provide a how-possibly explanation without also thinking that the model is literally implemented in the brain. (shrink)