Multiple realizability

Last updated

Multiple realizability, in the philosophy of mind, is the thesis that the same mental property, state, or event can be implemented by different physical properties, states, or events.

Contents

Philosophers of mind have used multiple realizability to argue that mental states are not the same as — and cannot be reduced to — physical states. They have also used it to defend or criticize many versions of functionalism, especially machine-state functionalism . [1]

The notion of multiple realizability

The multiple realizability thesis in the philosophy of mind is the thesis that the same mental state can be realized by different physical states; another way of putting it is that there is a many-to-one mapping from physical states to mental states. [2] Multiple realizability in general is not restricted to the multiple realizability of mental states. Many kinds of things can be realized by numerous physical devices. A wide variety of physical devices can serve as corkscrews, for example. Mental states can also be realized in a variety of ways. Just as the logical states of a Turing machine can be realized by different structural states in different mechanisms, so, by analogy, the mental states of a human being can be realized by different physical states in different individuals. [3] Pain, for example, is correlated with different physical states of the nervous system in different organisms, but the organisms all experience the mental state of "being in pain."

Mental states have been claimed to be multiply realizable not only across species and between individuals but also within individuals. At different times, the same individual may realize the same mental states in physically different forms. Neural plasticity — the fact that areas of the brain can assume the functions of other parts that have been damaged as the result of traumatic injury, pathology, natural biological development, or other processes — has long been considered to be an example. [4] But so are more mundane facts about neurophysiology, such as the fact that neurons die and connections between them are rewired. [2] The argument that neural plasticity supports multiple realizability has also been contested. [5]

Gualtiero Piccinini differentiates three related properties: variable realizability, multiple realizability, and medium independence. [6]

The significance of multiple realizability

Multiple realizability has been used as an argument against type-identity theory, against reductionist theories of mind in general, for functionalist theories of mind, and even against functionalist theories of mind.

Starting in the 1960s, Hilary Putnam used multiple realizability as an argument against type-identity theory. Specifically, Putnam noted that the multiple realizability of pain entails that, contrary to type-identity theory, pain is not identical to C-fibre firing. [3] [7] More generally, multiple realizability shows that psychological attributes are not the same as physical attributes. [8] Psychological attributes, rather, are disjunctions of physical attributes. [7] [8] Fodor, Putnam, and others noted that, along with being an effective argument against type-identity theories, multiple realizability implies that any low-level explanation of higher-level mental phenomena would be insufficiently abstract and general.

Jerry Fodor (1975) deployed multiple realizability more generally as an argument against any reductionist account of the relation between higher-level sciences and physics. [9] Fodor also uses multiple realizability to argue against reductionism not only of psychology but of any special sciences (that is, any sciences that are "higher level" than physics). In his characterization of reductionism, all mental kind predicates in an ideal and completed psychology must correspond with physical kind predicates in an ideal and completed physics. He suggests taking Ernest Nagel's theory of reduction, which insists on the derivability of all terms in the theory to be reduced from terms in the reducing theory and the bridging laws, as the canonical theory of reduction. Given generalized multiple realizability, the physical science part of these psychophysical bridge laws will end up being a (possibly infinite) disjunction of all the terms referring to possible physical realizations of a mental kind. This disjunction cannot be a kind-predicate and therefore the entire statement cannot be a law of physics. The special sciences therefore cannot be reduced to physics.

Functionalism, which attempts to identify mental kinds with functional kinds that are characterized exclusively in terms of causes and effects, abstracts from particle physics and hence seems to be a more suitable explanation of the relation between mind and body. As a result of these arguments and others that build upon them, the dominant theory in philosophy of mind since the 1960s has been a version of non-reductive physicalism based on multiple realizability. [10]

In 1988, Hilary Putnam used multiple realizability to argue against functionalism. Noting that functionalism is essentially a watered-down reductionist or identity theory in which mental kinds are ultimately identified with functional kinds, Putnam argues that mental kinds are probably multiply realizable over functional kinds. The same mental state or property can be implemented or realized by different states of a universal Turing machine.

Arguments for multiple realizability

The conceivability argument

Putnam asks whether alien beings, [7] artificially intelligent robots, [8] and silicon-based life forms should be considered a priori incapable of experiencing pain merely because they do not have the same neurochemistry as humans. We can imagine that they might share our psychological states despite being made of different stuff. Our ability to conceive of that possibility means that multiple realizability is possible. [11]

The likelihood argument

Putnam cites examples from the animal kingdom as evidence for the multiple realizability of mental states. [7] Evolutionary biology — including evolutionary neuroscience — and comparative neuroanatomy and neurophysiology have demonstrated that mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, and mollusks have different brain structures. These animals can only share the same mental states and properties if these mental states and properties can be realized by different physical states in different species. [7] Putnam concludes that type-identity and other reductive theories make an extremely "ambitious" and "highly implausible"[ citation needed ] conjecture that can be disproven with just one example of multiple realizability. On the contrary, it is likely that creatures that cannot be in identical physical states, due to their different composition and structure, can nevertheless be in identical psychological states. [12] Some philosophers refer to this argument — that multiple realizability is much more likely than reductionism — as the likelihood argument. [13] [14]

The a priori argument

Putnam also formulates a complementary argument based on functional isomorphism. He defines the concept in these terms: "Two systems are functionally isomorphic if there is a correspondence between the states of one and the states of the other that preserves functional relations." [15] Two computers, for example, are functionally isomorphic if the sequential relations among states in one are exactly mirrored by those in the other. A computer made of electrical components and a computer made of cogs and wheels can be functionally isomorphic even though they are constitutionally different. [15] Functional isomorphism implies multiple realizability.[ why? ] Some philosophers refer to this as the a priori argument. [13]

Arguments against multiple realizability

Some philosophers deny that mental states are multiply realizable. [5] A detailed examination of how brain areas are identified in neuroscience shows that psychological functions are not, in fact, multiply realizable. [2]

Arguments against the significance of multiple realizability

Some philosophers accept the thesis that mental states are multiply realizable but deny that multiple realizability gives rise to functionalism or other forms of non-reductive physicalism.

Reductionism in other sciences

Early objections to multiple realizability were limited to the narrow, "across structures-type" version. Starting with David Kellogg Lewis, many reductionists argued that it is very common in scientific practice to reduce one theory to another via local, structure-specific reductions. A frequently cited example of this sort of intertheoretic reduction is temperature. The temperature of a gas is identical to mean molecular kinetic energy. Temperature in a solid is identical to mean maximal molecular kinetic energy because the molecules of a solid are more restricted in their movements. Temperature in a plasma is a mystery because the molecules of a plasma are torn apart. Therefore, temperature is multiply realized in a diversity of microphysical states. [9]

Disjunction

Jaegwon Kim argues that disjunction — the idea that the physical realization of a particular mental state is not a particular physical state but the disjunction of the physical states that realize that mental state — creates problems for multiple realizability. [16] Putnam also argued against this "disjunctive" possibility in later work. [15] Block and Fodor had also argued against it. [17]

Causal closure of the physical

Kim has also argued against non-reductive physicalism on the grounds that it violates the causal closure of the physical, which assumes that physics provides a full explanation of physical events. If mental properties are causally efficacious, they must either be identical to physical properties or there must be widespread overdetermination. The latter is often held to be either unlikely or even impossible on conceptual grounds. If Kim is right, then the options seem to be either reduction or elimination.

Insufficient generalizability

One criticism of multiple realizability is that any theory that attempts to address the possibility of generalized multiple realizability must necessarily be so local and context-specific in nature (referring exclusively to a certain token system of a certain structure-type at a certain time) that its reductions would be incompatible with even a minimally acceptable degree of generality in scientific theorizing. [16] Any psychology that is sufficiently narrow to accommodate this level of multiple realizability required to account for neural plasticity will almost certainly not be general enough to capture the generalizations needed to explain human psychology.

Some reductionists [2] reply that this is not empirically plausible. Research and experimentation in the neurosciences requires that some universal consistencies in brain structures must either exist or be assumed to exist. The similarity (produced by homology or convergent evolution) of brain structures allows us to generalize across species. If multiple realizability (especially the generalized form) were an empirical fact, then results from experiments conducted on one species of animal (or one organism) would not be meaningful or useful when generalized to explain the behavior or characteristics of another species (or organism of the same species; or in the generalized form, even the same organism).

Sungsu Kim has recently responded to this objection using the distinction between homology of brain structures and homoplasy. Homologies are characteristics of physiology, morphology, behavior, or psychology shared by two or more species and inherited from a common ancestor. Homoplasies are similar or identical characteristics shared by two or more species but not inherited from a common ancestor, having evolved independently. The feet of ducks and platypuses are an example of homoplasy, while the hands of humans and chimps are an example of homology. The fact that brain structures are homologous provides no evidence either for or against multiple realizability. The only way to empirically test the thesis of multiple realizability would be to examine brain structures and determine whether some homoplasious "psychological processes or functions might be 'constructed' from different material" and supported by different brain structures just as the flight capacities of bats and birds emerge from different morphophysiologies. The emergence of similar behavioral outputs or psychological functions brought about by similar or identical brain structures in convergent evolutionary lineages would provide some evidence against multiple realizability, since it is highly improbable that this would happen, if not for constraints on the type of physical system that can realize mental phenomena. This, however, would not completely refute the possibility of realizability of mental states in radically different physical systems such as non-carbon based life forms or machines.

Historical note

Observations of multiple realizability — and of its relation to functionalism — predate their use in philosophy beginning in the 1960s. Alan Turing remarked on multiple realizability in 1950, for example, [18] writing: "The fact that Babbage's Analytical Engine was to be entirely mechanical will help us rid ourselves of a superstition. Importance is often attached to the fact that modern digital computers are electrical, and the nervous system is also electrical. Since Babbage's machine was not electrical, and since all digital computers are in a sense equivalent, we see that this use of electricity cannot be of theoretical importance. ... If we wish to find such similarities we should look rather for mathematical analogies of function." [19]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "Multiple Realizability - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Jan 15, 2013.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Bechtel, William; Mundale, Jennifer (1999). "Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States". Philosophy of Science. 66 (2): 175–207. doi:10.1086/392683. ISSN   0031-8248. JSTOR   188642. S2CID   122093404.
  3. 1 2 Putnam, Hilary (1960). "Minds and Machines". In Hook, Sidney (ed.). Dimensions of Mind. New York: New York University Press. pp. 138–164.
  4. ↑ Block and Fodor (1972) cite the "Lashleyan doctrine of neurological equipotentiality" in this respect. Block, Ned; Fodor, Jerry A. (1972). "What Psychological States Are Not". Philosophical Review. 81 (April): 159–81. doi:10.2307/2183991. JSTOR   2183991.
  5. 1 2 Maimon, Amber; Hemmo, Meir (2022). "Does Neuroplasticity Support the Hypothesis of Multiple Realizability?". Philosophy of Science. 89 (1): 107–127. doi: 10.1017/psa.2021.16 . ISSN   0031-8248. S2CID   235720598.
  6. ↑ Piccinini, Gualtiero (2015). Physical Computation: A Mechanistic Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 10. ISBN   9780199658855.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Putnam, Hilary (1967). "Psychological Predicates". In Capitan, W. H.; Merrill, D. D. (eds.). Art, Mind, and Religion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 37–48.
  8. 1 2 3 Putnam, Hilary (1964). "Robots: Machines or Artificially Created Life?". Journal of Philosophy. 61 (21): 668–691. doi:10.2307/2023045. JSTOR   2023045.
  9. 1 2 Bickle, John (2019). "Multiple Realizability". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2019-08-16.
  10. ↑ Lepore and Pylyshyn called non-reductive physicalism the "received view."[ citation needed ] Jaegwon Kim calls non-reductive physicalism the "new orthodoxy" on the mind-body problem. Kim, Jaegwon (1992). "Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 52 (1): 1–26. doi:10.2307/2107741. ISSN   0031-8205. JSTOR   2107741. Bechtel and Mundale write that, "The claim, originating with Hilary Putnam, that psychological states are multiply realizable, has become orthodoxy in the philosophy of mind." Bechtel, William; Mundale, Jennifer (1999). "Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States". Philosophy of Science. 66 (2): 175–207. doi:10.1086/392683. ISSN   0031-8248. JSTOR   188642. S2CID   122093404.
  11. ↑ Jaworski, William. "Mind and Multiple Realizability". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2019-08-19.
  12. ↑ This way of putting it owes to Block, Ned; Fodor, Jerry A. (1972). "What Psychological States Are Not". Philosophical Review. 81 (April): 159–81. doi:10.2307/2183991. JSTOR   2183991.
  13. 1 2 Shapiro, Lawrence A. (2000). "Multiple Realizations". The Journal of Philosophy. 97 (12): 635–654. doi:10.2307/2678460. ISSN   0022-362X. JSTOR   2678460.
  14. ↑ Shapiro, Lawrence A. (2005). The Mind Incarnate (Revised ed.). Cambridge, Mass: A Bradford Book. pp. 23ff. ISBN   978-0-262-69330-1.
  15. 1 2 3 Putnam, Hilary (1975). "Philosophy and our Mental Life". In Putnam, Hilary (ed.). Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 291–303. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511625251.016. ISBN   978-0-511-62525-1 . Retrieved 2019-08-16.
  16. 1 2 Kim, Jaegwon (1992). "Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 52 (1): 1–26. doi:10.2307/2107741. ISSN   0031-8205. JSTOR   2107741.
  17. ↑ Block, Ned; Fodor, Jerry A. (1972). "What Psychological States Are Not". Philosophical Review. 81 (April): 159–81. doi:10.2307/2183991. JSTOR   2183991.
  18. ↑ Restrepo, R. (2009). Russell's Structuralism and the Supposed Death of Computational Cognitive Science. Minds and Machines 19(2): 181-197.
  19. ↑ Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59. In J. Copeland (Ed.), The essential Turing (pp. 433–460). Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 446.

Related Research Articles

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical. Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hilary Putnam</span> American mathematician and philosopher (1926–2016)

Hilary Whitehall Putnam was an American philosopher, mathematician, computer scientist, and figure in analytic philosophy in the second half of the 20th century. He contributed to the studies of philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of science. Outside philosophy, Putnam contributed to mathematics and computer science. Together with Martin Davis he developed the Davis–Putnam algorithm for the Boolean satisfiability problem and he helped demonstrate the unsolvability of Hilbert's tenth problem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mind–body dualism</span> Philosophical theory

In the philosophy of mind, mind–body dualism denotes either the view that mental phenomena are non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, as well as between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem.

In the philosophy of mind, functionalism is the thesis that each and every mental state is constituted solely by its functional role, which means its causal relation to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioral outputs. Functionalism developed largely as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism.

Eliminative materialism is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. It is the idea that the majority of mental states in folk psychology do not exist. Some supporters of eliminativism argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. The argument is that psychological concepts of behavior and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level. Other versions entail the nonexistence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual perceptions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Fodor</span> American philosopher (1935–2017)

Jerry Alan Fodor was an American philosopher and the author of many crucial works in the fields of philosophy of mind and cognitive science. His writings in these fields laid the groundwork for the modularity of mind and the language of thought hypotheses, and he is recognized as having had "an enormous influence on virtually every portion of the philosophy of mind literature since 1960." At the time of his death in 2017, he held the position of State of New Jersey Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, at Rutgers University, and had taught previously at the City University of New York Graduate Center and MIT.

Emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them. Within the philosophy of science, emergentism is analyzed both as it contrasts with and parallels reductionism.

Neurophilosophy or philosophy of neuroscience is the interdisciplinary study of neuroscience and philosophy that explores the relevance of neuroscientific studies to the arguments traditionally categorized as philosophy of mind. The philosophy of neuroscience attempts to clarify neuroscientific methods and results using the conceptual rigor and methods of philosophy of science.

Jaegwon Kim was a Korean-American philosopher. At the time of his death, Kim was an emeritus professor of philosophy at Brown University. He also taught at several other leading American universities during his lifetime, including the University of Michigan, Cornell University, the University of Notre Dame, Johns Hopkins University, and Swarthmore College. He is best known for his work on mental causation, the mind-body problem and the metaphysics of supervenience and events. Key themes in his work include: a rejection of Cartesian metaphysics, the limitations of strict psychophysical identity, supervenience, and the individuation of events. Kim's work on these and other contemporary metaphysical and epistemological issues is well represented by the papers collected in Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays (1993).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">China brain</span> Philosophical experiment

In the philosophy of mind, the China brain thought experiment considers what would happen if each member of the Chinese nation were asked to simulate the action of one neuron in the brain, using telephones or walkie-talkies to simulate the axons and dendrites that connect neurons. Would this arrangement have a mind or consciousness in the same way that brains do?

Ronald Albert McClamrock is an associate professor of philosophy at the University at Albany, The State University of New York. His primary areas of research are the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and cognitive science.

In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1967, and developed by his PhD student, philosopher, and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was vigorously disputed in analytic philosophy in the 1990s due to work by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others.

Type physicalism is a physicalist theory in the philosophy of mind. It asserts that mental events can be grouped into types, and can then be correlated with types of physical events in the brain. For example, one type of mental event, such as "mental pains" will, presumably, turn out to be describing one type of physical event.

Physical causal closure is a metaphysical theory about the nature of causation in the physical realm with significant ramifications in the study of metaphysics and the mind. In a strongly stated version, physical causal closure says that "all physical states have pure physical causes" — Jaegwon Kim, or that "physical effects have only physical causes" — Agustin Vincente, p. 150.

The problem of mental causation is a conceptual issue in the philosophy of mind. That problem, in short, is how to account for the common-sense idea that intentional thoughts or intentional mental states are causes of intentional actions. The problem divides into several distinct sub-problems, including the problem of causal exclusion, the problem of anomalism, and the problem of externalism. However, the sub-problem which has attracted most attention in the philosophical literature is arguably the exclusion problem.

Antireductionism is the position in science and metaphysics that stands in contrast to reductionism (anti-holism) by advocating that not all properties of a system can be explained in terms of its constituent parts and their interactions.

Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of the mind and its relation to the body and the external world.

Special sciences are those sciences other than fundamental physics. In this view, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience—indeed, all sciences except fundamental physics—are special sciences. The status of the special sciences, and their relation to physics, is unresolved in the philosophy of science. Jerry Fodor, for instance, has argued for strong autonomy, concluding that the special sciences are not even in principle reducible to physics. As such Fodor has often been credited for having helped turn the tide against reductionist physicalism.

Lawrence Shapiro is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in the United States. His research focuses in the philosophy of psychology. He also works in both the philosophy of mind, and philosophy of biology.

Interactionism or interactionist dualism is the theory in the philosophy of mind which holds that matter and mind are two distinct and independent substances that exert causal effects on one another. An example of your mind influencing your body would be if you are depressed, you can observe the effects on your body, such as a slouched posture, a lackluster smile, etc. Another example, this time of your body affecting your mind would be: If you struck your toe very forcefully on a door, you would experience terrible pain. Interactionism is one type of dualism, traditionally a type of substance dualism though more recently also sometimes a form of property dualism. Many philosophers and scientists have responded to this theory with arguments both supporting and opposing its relevance to life and whether the theory corresponds to reality.

References

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.