Skip to main content
Log in

Emergence and reduction: Reply to Kim

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I examine Jaegwon Kim’s view that emergent properties are irreducible to the base properties on which they supervene. Kim’s view assumes a model of ‘functional reduction’ which he claims to be substantially different from the traditional Nagelian model. I dispute this claim and argue that the two models are only superficially different, and that on either model, properly understood, it is possible to draw a distinction between a property’s being reductively identifiable with its base property and a property’s being reductively explainable in terms of it. I propose that we should take as the distinguishing feature of emergent properties that they be truly novel properties, i.e., ontologically distinct from the ‘base’ properties which they supervene on. This only requires that emergent properties cannot be reductively identified with their base properties, not that they cannot be reductively explained in terms of them. On this conception the set of emergent properties may well include mental properties as conceived by nonreductive physicalists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beckermann A. (1992). Supervenience, emergence, and reduction. In: Beckermann A. (eds). Emergence or Reduction?. De Gruyter, Berlin and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickle J. (1998). Psychoneural reduction. MIT Press, Cambrdige, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland P. (1985). Reduction, qualia, and the direct introspection of brain states. Journal of Philosophy 82, 8–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker C. (1981). Towards a general theory of reduction. Dialogue, 20, 38–60, 201–236, 496–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (1984). Concepts of supervenience. In Supervenience and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

  • Kim, J. (1990). Supervenience as a philosophical concept. In Supervenience and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

  • Kim J. (1998). Mind in a physical world. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J. (2003). Blocking causal drainage and other maintenance chores with mental causation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67, 151–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loar B. (1990). Phenomenal states. Philosophical Perspectives 4, 81–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marras A. (1998). Kim’s principle of explanatory exclusion. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76, 439–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marras A. (2000). Critical notice of Kim (1998). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30, 137–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Marras A. (2002). Kim on reduction. Erkenntnis 57, 231–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel E. (1961). The structure of science. Harcourt, Brace, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson R. (1979). Functionalism and reductionism. Philosophy of Science 46, 533–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross D., Spurrett D. (2004). What to say to a skeptical metaphysician: a defense manual for cognitive and behavioral scientists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27, 603–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner K. (1967). Approaches to reduction. Philosophy of Science 34, 137–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ausonio Marras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marras, A. Emergence and reduction: Reply to Kim. Synthese 151, 561–569 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9026-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9026-z

Keywords

Navigation