Evaluating the evidence for multiple realization

Synthese 167 (3):457 - 472 (2009)
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 Multiple realization  Identity theory  Putnam  Fodor  Block  Shapiro
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-008-9386-7
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,208
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
On a Confusion About a Function of Consciousness.Ned Block - 1995 - Brain and Behavioral Sciences 18 (2):227-–247.
Natural Minds.Thomas Polger - 2004 - MIT Press.
Multiple Realizations.Lawrence A. Shapiro - 2000 - Journal of Philosophy 97 (12):635-654.
What Psychological States Are Not.Ned Block & Jerry A. Fodor - 1972 - Philosophical Review 81 (April):159-81.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Multiple Realizability, Identity Theory, and the Gradual Reorganization Principle.David Barrett - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):325-346.
The Functional Unity of Special Science Kinds.D. A. Weiskopf - 2011 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (2):233-258.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Mad, Martian, but Not Mad Martian Pain.Peter Alward - 2004 - Sorites 15 (December):73-75.
Do Animals Feel Pain?Peter Singer - 1990 - In Peter. Singer (ed.), Animal Liberation. Avon Books.
The Intentional Structure of Consciousness.Tim Crane - 2003 - In Quentin Smith & Aleksandar Jokic (eds.), Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford University Press. pp. 33-56.
Of Minds and Molecules.Francis V. Raab - 1965 - Philosophy of Science 32 (January):57-72.
Realization and Multiple Realization, Chicken and Egg.Thomas W. Polger - 2013 - European Journal of Philosophy 21 (1):862-877.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

112 ( #44,305 of 2,172,789 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #117,033 of 2,172,789 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums