Evaluating the evidence for multiple realization
Synthese 167 (3):457 - 472 (2009)
| Abstract | Consider what the brain-state theorist has to do to make good his claims. He has to specify a physical–chemical state such that any organism (not just a mammal) is in pain if and only if (a) it possesses a brain of suitable physical–chemical structure; and (b) its brain is in that physical–chemical state. This means that the physical–chemical state in question must be a possible state of a mammalian brain, a reptilian brain, a mollusc’s brain (octopuses are mollusca, and certainly feel pain), etc. At the same time, it must not be a possible (physically possible) state of the brain of any physically possible creature that cannot feel pain. Even if such a state can be found, it must be nomologically certain that it will also be a state of the brain of any extraterrestrial life that may be found that will be capable of feeling pain before we can even entertain the supposition that it may be pain. It is not altogether impossible that such a state will be found... . But this is certainly an ambitious hypothesis. (Putnam 1967/1975, p. 436) The belief that mental states are multiply realized is now nearly universal among philosophers, as is the belief that this fact decisively refutes the identity theory. I argue that the empirical support for multiple realization does not justify the confidence that has been placed in it. In order for multiple realization of mental states to be an objection to the identity theory, the neurological differences among pains, for example, must be such as to guarantee that they are of distinct neurological kinds. But the phenomena traditionally cited do not provide evidence of that sort of variation. In particular, examples of neural plasticity do not provide such evidence. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPeter Alward (2004). Mad, Martian, but Not Mad Martian Pain. Sorites 15 (December):73-75.
Peter Singer (1990). Do Animals Feel Pain? In Peter. Singer (ed.), Animal Liberation. Avon Books.
Tim Crane (2003). The Intentional Structure of Consciousness. In Quentin Smith & Aleksandar Jokic (eds.), Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Francis V. Raab (1965). Of Minds and Molecules. Philosophy of Science 32 (January):57-72.
Ken Aizawa (2009). Neuroscience and Multiple Realization: A Reply to Bechtel and Mundale. Synthese 167 (3):493 - 510.
Stephen Williams (1978). Pains, Brain States and Scientific Identities. Mind 87 (January):77-92.
Sungsu Kim (2002). Testing Multiple Realizability: A Discussion of Bechtel and Mundale. Philosophy of Science 69 (4):606-610.
Thomas W. Polger (2013). Realization and Multiple Realization, Chicken and Egg. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (1).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads33 ( #36,590 of 549,124 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
