Philosophical Studies 74 (1):51-75 (1994)

Authors
Ronald Endicott
North Carolina State University
Abstract
Some scientists and philosophers claimed that there is a converse to multiple realizability. While a given higher-level property can be realized by different lower-level properties (multiple realizability), a given lower-level property can in turn serve to realize different higher-level properties (this converse I dubbed the unfortunately obscure "constructival plasticity" to emphasize the constructive metaphysics involved in this converse to multiple realizability). I began by defining multiple realizabilty in a formal way. (Looking back, one point of interest is that I defined modally weak and strong versions of realization, which is relevant to later views about contingent versus necessitarian grounding.) I then turned to the relation in question. By my analysis, for the converse claim to be true, a lower-level property G1 that realizes a higher-level F must be taken in conjunction with some other base condition G2 so that a difference in G2 allows G1 to determine some other higher-level property E but not F (otherwise there would be violations of supervenience). The realization law thus has the form: (G1 & G2) => F. As such, the base property G1 is insufficient by itself to produce F. It is an insufficient but necessary part of a sufficient condition. I also point out that this makes the realization base property an INUS condition, if combined with multiple realizability. Specifically, if F is multiply realized by properties other than the pair G1 and G2, then G1 is an insufficient but necessary part of an unnecessary but sufficient condition. This is just the first clear and explicit INUS condition view of realization in the literature. Looking back, this converse is also relevant to later views, such as Robert Wilson's view about metaphysically contextual realization.
Keywords Converse to Multiple Realizability  Multiple Realizability
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00989639
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Realization, Determination, and Mechanisms.Matthew C. Haug - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 150 (3):313-330.
How to Theorize About Multiple Realization.David Barrett - 2018 - Metaphilosophy 49 (5):674-690.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Multiple Realizability Does Not Show.Robert Francescotti - 1997 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 18 (1):13-28.
A Liberal Conception of Multiple Realizability.Eric Funkhouser - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 132 (3):467-494.
The Reemergence of 'Emergence'.Bryon Cunningham - 2001 - Philosophy of Science 68 (3):S63-S75.
Two Kinds of Role Property.Douglas Keaton - 2010 - Philosophia 38 (4):773-788.
Multiple Realizability and Universality.R. Batterman - 2000 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (1):115-145.
Realization Reductios, and Category Inclusion.Ronald P. Endicott - 2010 - Journal of Philosophy 107 (4):213-219.
Multiple Realizability.Ronald P. Endicott - 2005 - In D. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition. Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
88 ( #107,688 of 2,348,165 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #71,975 of 2,348,165 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes