In this talk, our colleagues from Lublin and Warsaw, Marcin Trybulec and Hajo Greif, will continue on the topic of the cognitive and semiotic status of artifacts that we have discussed over the semester multiple times, and address the thorny issue of "representation". The talk will be given on zoom, but those of us who wish can meet as usual in H402, starting from 15:00. Welcome!

In this talk we challenge the dominant view that all cognitive artifacts (CAs) are inherently representational (Norman, 1991). We ask whether and – and in what ways – cognitive  artifacts can be conceptualized as non-representational. In doing so, we align with Heersmink’s (2013) argument for distinguishing a class of non-representational CAs. We attempt to defend his position against criticisms (Fasoli, 2018) and provide a more systematic foundation for it with support from cognitive semiotics. 

Our argument is structured into four parts. First, we review the literature on CAs demonstrating that representational properties are central to their standard conceptualizations. In the second part, we present Heersmink's (2013) argument supporting the existence of non-representational CAs alongside its critique. Third, using the framework of cognitive semiotics, we identify four criteria that define representational relation (Sonesson & Lenninger, 2015; Zlatev et al., 2013). Finally, using these criteria we analyze three examples of non-representational CAs: the hotel key weight (Latour, 1990), the intelligent use of space (Kirsh, 1995), and isomorphic versions of the Tower of Hanoi (Zhang & Norman, 1994). In each of these cases, the objects fulfill cognitive roles without serving representational functions. 

Fasoli, M. (2018). Substitutive, complementary and constitutive cognitive artifacts: Developing an interaction-centered approach. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 9(3), 671–687.

Heersmink, R. (2013). A Taxonomy of Cognitive Artifacts: Function, Information, and Categories. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0148-1

Kirsh, D. (1995). The Intelligent Use of Space. Artificial Intelligence, 73, 31–68.

Latour, B. (1990). Technology is Society Made Durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03350.x

Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. W J. M. Carroll (Red.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human computer interface (s. 17–38). Cambridge University Press.

Sonesson, G., & Lenninger, S. (2015). The psychological development of semiotic competence: From the window to the movie by way of the mirror. Cognitive Development, 36, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.09.007

Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1801_3

Zlatev, J., Madsen, E. A. er, Lenninger, S., Persson, T., Sayehli, S., Sonesson, G., & van de Weijer, J. (2013). Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees. Cognitive development, 28(3), Article 3.