Definitions of 4 different notions of ‘function’ from: Guest, O., Blokpoel, M., & van Rooij, I. (2026). What the func? Multiple Realizability need not be Vague. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19388964
We propose 4 different notions of ‘function’ and formalise each.
1. Functional capacity
2. Functional theory
3. Functional goal
4. Functional role
---
Preprint: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
4/🧵
Super interesting, #pygmaliondisplacement since I been posting about prevalence of #pygmalioneffect
OmG!
An image showing 5 figures from Laura van de Braak's work, with the section labels from the preprint: Oversimplification, Excessiveness, Misfocusing, Obfuscation, Exacerbation. The figures are described and captioned at length in section §4 of https://zenodo.org/records/17152893 (pp. 30ff)
Here are the five types of "quick-fixes" Laura found, in terms of five map-territory analogies (which therefore map the metatheoretical terrain explored: a metamap 🗺️). Informal annotations mine. From section 4 (pp. 30ff) in "Understanding Misunderstanding" zenodo.org/records/1715...
“Two figures showing a pencil drawn map with points A and B and a mountain range. On the left, the mountain range is in between points A and B. On the right, the part containing the mountain range has been cut out, showing the author’s desk through the hole cut in the map.” Figure 12 in: van de Braak, L., van Rooij, I., Dingemanse, M., Toni, I., & Blokpoel, M. (2025). Understanding misunderstanding: How quick-fix solutions undermine explanation. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17152893
New preprint from the lab!
🗣️ 🤔 💻 🗺️
📝 van de Braak, van Rooij, Dingemanse, Toni & Blokpoel (2025). Understanding misunderstanding: How quick-fix solutions undermine explanation. doi.org/10.5281/zeno... 📝
cc @irisvanrooij.bsky.social @dingemansemark.bsky.social @blokpoel.bsky.social
Check out this brilliant work by PhD candidate Laura van de Braak 👇 🗺️ 💭
“check out this great interview w/a.o. @olivia.science & @irisvanrooij.bsky.social (…) The whole piece is strong, but the beginning is truly fantastic, when Guest explains how the Q of whether something might work is completely irrelevant ("possibilities don't bake bread”).” — @felienne.bsky.social
Keep pushing, everyone in academia and beyond...
This was only out in September and things have already changed and this is becoming a mainstream view. Keep moving the needle. Keep being strong. Taking breaks. Resting. Crying. Coming back. We can do it. ☺️
Here's a real life example of how AI is destroying scientific knowledge. This is scary b/c it's happening so fast. How soon before we can no longer trust any "facts" b/c what we once called facts have been replaced with fraudulent AI slop?
Ai slop coming to your academic journals and resouce collections
"I regret to have to inform you that I cannot review work that is partially processed by a product that in my opinion fails to meet standards of scientific integrity that I need to comply with.."
Jos haluat ymmärtää tekoälyn vaikutuksia yms vähän muutenkin kuin "aah, hienoa...tätä lisää" suhtautumisella, Olivia voi olla erinomainen lähde sille.
A terrific direction to help clarify relations between different approaches to understanding #cognition and #consciiousnes. Looking forward to reading.
We've been slow cooking this for ~4 years 🥘👩🍳⏲️
back soon/later, but I love to show "modern" things are not as new as we think and it's extra fun when they are ancient 5/
More about Voula's work:
www.bsa.ac.uk/videos/voula...
Our very short paper: Guest, O., Blokpoel, M., & van Rooij, I. (2026). What the Func? Multiple Realizability Need not be Vague. Zenodo. doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
Iris' better/full thread: bsky.app/profile/iris...
4/
MR has existed since min. the Ancient Greeks; Voula Tsouna:
“Epicurus’ conception of the pollachos tropos [method of multiple explanations] is rich, nuanced, fairly coherent,
and strongly motivated by methodological and scientific considerations” www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv...
youtu.be/Oi6IEzO_rZ0
3/
![First, notions of MR have existed for millennia. Voula Tsouna (2023) explains: “Epicurus’ concep-
tion of the pollachos tropos [method of multiple explanations] is rich, nuanced, fairly coherent,
and strongly motivated by methodological and scientific considerations” (p. 240). Epicurians
contemplated celestial phenomena, but the argument applies to cognitive neuroscience: “there are
in-principle reasons why explanatory pluralism is to be expected[:] the computational description
is no more and no less realistic and fundamental than the mechanistic/implementational one"
(Chirimuuta, 2018, p. 406).
Second, we define four distinct notions of function: 𝜙, 𝑇, 𝐺, and 𝜏. A function 𝐹 : 𝐼 → 𝑂 maps
elements in the set 𝐼 to elements in the set 𝑂. Importantly, functions are not guaranteed to be
computable. And for any given computable function there exist many algorithms. This is an
instance of MR at the algorithmic level to which we return below. Before that, what could a
function be?](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:vsyj5jtayxcq5dw5mtja4xtb/bafkreia7s4jv6ntg3tlwx4cjkblg2wvqjip2tzis63iqbapdowutizbbti)
First, notions of MR have existed for millennia. Voula Tsouna (2023) explains: “Epicurus’ concep- tion of the pollachos tropos [method of multiple explanations] is rich, nuanced, fairly coherent, and strongly motivated by methodological and scientific considerations” (p. 240). Epicurians contemplated celestial phenomena, but the argument applies to cognitive neuroscience: “there are in-principle reasons why explanatory pluralism is to be expected[:] the computational description is no more and no less realistic and fundamental than the mechanistic/implementational one" (Chirimuuta, 2018, p. 406). Second, we define four distinct notions of function: 𝜙, 𝑇, 𝐺, and 𝜏. A function 𝐹 : 𝐼 → 𝑂 maps elements in the set 𝐼 to elements in the set 𝑂. Importantly, functions are not guaranteed to be computable. And for any given computable function there exist many algorithms. This is an instance of MR at the algorithmic level to which we return below. Before that, what could a function be?
@irisvanrooij.bsky.social covers the main points in her thread, but I just want to sign post a few things that I think are important — do just read the very short paper itself if you're curious as it's about 2 pages worth of main text / formalisms:
> notions of MR have existed for millennia.
2/
I think ~4 years ago, Iris and I 1st sat down and formalised various meanings of function and multiple realizability — both core concepts for any serious computationalist discussions — because in part we realised nobody has done this and/or collected these for cogsci.
doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
1/
“Feel free to adapt and reuse. No attribution needed (…) If you make an adaption that you also want to share, I’d love to know about it, too.”
irisvanrooijcogsci.com/2026/04/08/r...
Olivia Guest & Iris van Rooij urge teachers and scholars to reject tools that commodify learning, deskill students, and promote illiteracy.
bravely listened back to my own voice, but thankfully @mel_hogan @Iris and Andrea Elizondo also spoke!
> In this episode, Olivia Guest, Iris van Rooij and Andrea Reyes Elizondo discuss why it’s important to the overall purpose and significance of the university to resist the uncritical adoption […]
Hollowed, with Olivia Guest, Iris van Rooij and Andrea Reyes Elizondo pocketcasts.com/podcast/the-...
this was such a fun chat! not least of which because I finally got to meet the super talented Profs. van Rooij and Guest 😎
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLuk...
"All in all, the use of ChatGPT for scientific purposes, in my honest opinion, clashes with core scientific integrity principles such as honesty, scrupulousness, transparency, responsibility, and independence.
Therefore, I need to decline this invitation to review."
Peer-review et IAgen : un modèle de réponse pour les chercheureuses invité·es à évaluer l'article d'un·e collègue qui aurait utilisé l'IAgen.
Ainsi que les (bonnes) raisons pour refuser de le faire, avec sources.
