Turing and von Neumann machines: Completing the new mechanism.

Turing (1937) introduces a model of code that is followed by other pioneers of computing machines (such as Flowers 1983, Eckert, Mauchly, Brainerd 1945 and others). One of them is John von Neumann, who defines the concept of optimal code in the context of the conception of EDVAC. He later uses it to build on in his theoretical considerations of the universal constructor (von Neumann 1966). Von Neumann (1963) further presents one of the first neural network models, in relation to the work of McCulloch and Pitts (1943), for both theoretical purposes (von Neumann probe) and practical applications (computer architecture of EDVAC). The aim of this paper is (1) to describe the differences between Turing's and von Neumann's conceptualizations of code and the mechanical computing model. Between von Neumann's abstract technical conception (von Neumann 1963 and 1966) and Turing's more concrete biochemical conception (Turing 1952). Furthermore, (2) we want to answer the question why these influential models of mechanisms (predominantly in computer science) have so far been ignored by philosophers of the new mechanism (Machamer, Darden, Craver 2000, Glennan 2017). We will show that these classical models of machines are not only compatible with the new mechanism, but moreover complement it, since they represent a completely separate type of model of mechanism, alongside producing, maintaining and underlying (Zámecník 2021). The final (3) and main goal of our paper will be an attempt to relate von Neumann's and Turing's notion of mechanism to Barbieri's notion of extended mechanism (Barbieri 2015).

Causal and non-causal explanations in code biology.

In the philosophy of science, we can consider debates about the nature of non-causal explanations in general (e.g. Reutlinger, Saatsi 2018; Lange 2017) and then especially those in the life sciences (e.g. Huneman, 2018; Kostic 2020). These debates are accompanied by the development of a new mechanism that is becoming the major response to the nature of scientific explanation in the life sciences (e.g. Craver, Darden 2013; Craver 2006); and also by the development of a design explanation (e.g. Eck, Mennes 2016) that represents a modern variant of a functional explanation. In this paper, we will methodically: 1. evaluate the plurality of explanatory strategies in contemporary science (chapter 2). 2. describe the mechanical philosophy and mechanistic explanation (Glennan 2016; Craver, Darden 2013, etc.) (chapter 3). 3. explicate the role of mechanisms in code biology (Barbieri 2015, 2002, etc.) and its relation to the new mechanism (chapter 4). 4. fulfill the main goal of the paper - to apply mechanistic explanations in code biology (Barbieri 2019, etc.) and to apply their suitability for this scientific domain (chapter 5).