Abstract
Abstract
Philosophers look to the realization relation as a way to make sense of the possibility that special science kinds are physical, yet not reducible to kinds in physics. A realized property fails to reduce because it can be realized in multiple ways, thus blocking its identification with lower-level properties. One prominent analysis of realization, subset realization, distinguishes multiple realizers on the basis their “left-over powers,” that is, those that don’t contribute to the individuative powers of the realizer. However, I argue, the subset analysis of realization fails to mark an important distinction between different ways that a property might be realized, and also makes questions about the reducibility of kinds—presumably an empirical issue—tractable from the armchair. I offer as an alternative mechanistic multiple realization, which avoids both these problems.
Publisher
University of Illinois Press
Reference28 articles.
1. Audi, Paul. 2012. “Properties, Powers, and the Subset Account of Realization,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 84, pp. 654–674.
2. Bechtel, William and Jennifer Mundale. 1999. “Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 66, pp. 175–207.
3. Bickle, John. 1998. Psychoneural Reduction (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).
4. Churchland, Patricia S. 1986. Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of Mind-Brain (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).
5. Clapp, Lenny. 2001. “Disjunctive Properties: Multiple Realizations,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 3, pp. 111–36.