Talk:Multiple realizability

This article needs to be re-written for a non specialist audience


 * You know, the more I think about this matter, the more ridiculous this claim seems. This article is NOT the kind of thing that you will find in ANY general encylopedia. Why should I write it as if it were being written for a general encylopedia.


 * Not in this lifetime, bud. This article would not even exist if I hadn't created it. I am the oly one who touches it. No one else here touches such topics at all. Thereofre, in all likelihood, you'r stuck with trying to learn the material.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, this is a techincal topic. IMO, it is insufficently specialzied and techinal. If you want non-techincal, you have Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The West Wing and all sorts of other pages. Dumbing down challenging ideas never helped anyone. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, here's a challenge for you: write a Simple English Wikipedia version of this article. --Xyzzyplugh 22:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How much money??--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ask Judith Butler or other theorists to do it for you!! Simple English is against there religion.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple realisability
If someone could take anything salvageable from that page and put it in here then turn it into a redirect that'd be great --WikiSlasher 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing salvageable. Redirected.--Francesco Franco 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of McClamrock's response to Kim is inappropriate and misleading. There are numerous prominent responses to Kim's causal exclusion argument, but McClamrock's is not among those. This is not a comment on how good his reply is....the point is only that the article as written makes it sound as if McClamrock's response is a well-known, prominent reply within the literature. This is simply not so.

Opinionated
"Functionalism has consequently fallen out of vogue as a dominant theory in the philosophy of mind[citation needed]. The dominant theory ("received view" in the words of Lepore and Pylyshyn) in modern philosophy of mind is a sort of generic non-reductive physicalism and one of its central pillars is the hypothesis of multiple realizability"

This claim seems highly contentious. Even were a citation provided, such a reference would still be the opinion of just one (or one group of) philosophers/scientists, and as such would do little to make the claim more secure. Functionalism/CTM is still very much the dominant theory in phsychology and cognitve science. See, for example, the work being done on analogial reasoning at Stanford University by Gentner. 62.244.185.135 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)