Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences
Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences
Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
194<br />
Four Anti-reductionist Dogmas <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Light of Biophysical Micro-reduction of M<strong>in</strong>d & Body — Theo A. F. Kuipers<br />
all. MB-laws are laws that relate M- <strong>and</strong> B-properties<br />
<strong>and</strong>/or MB-properties. Note that <strong>in</strong> my approach, MB-laws<br />
are as a rule or even always correlations, MB-correlations<br />
for short. Correlations may be causal or ontological<br />
correlations, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> latter case <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>in</strong>complete, e.g., of<br />
a part-whole nature, such that <strong>the</strong>y cannot be considered<br />
as ontological identities. The question of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
MB-identities, besides MB-correlations, is irrelevant <strong>in</strong> my<br />
micro-reductionist approach, for both concern relations on<br />
<strong>the</strong> macro-level.<br />
In this term<strong>in</strong>ology <strong>the</strong> really <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g question is<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r at least some M- or MB-concepts or even some<br />
M- or MB-laws can be reduced, straightforwardly or<br />
approximately, to biophysical micro-concepts <strong>and</strong> -<br />
<strong>the</strong>ories. As long as reduction of, say, an M-concept is not<br />
successful, it may well be that we can f<strong>in</strong>d one or more<br />
MB-correlations <strong>and</strong> ‘ontological’ correlations, that is,<br />
correlations between <strong>the</strong> M-concept <strong>and</strong> micro-concepts.<br />
For <strong>in</strong>stance, neuro-imag<strong>in</strong>g techniques may show that<br />
certa<strong>in</strong> areas <strong>and</strong> processes on, relatively speak<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong><br />
macro-level of <strong>the</strong> bra<strong>in</strong> are specifically related to a certa<strong>in</strong><br />
M-concept. Such MB-correlations may well be a crucial<br />
step for an ultimate reduction of <strong>the</strong> M-concept. Moreover,<br />
electrophysiological, neuro-anatomical, <strong>and</strong> neurochemical<br />
experiments, for <strong>in</strong>stance, may show that certa<strong>in</strong> types of<br />
neurons or neurotransmitters are <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> M. Such<br />
ontological correlations may be part of an ultimate<br />
reduction. Similarly, as long as <strong>the</strong> reduction of, say, an Mlaw<br />
is not successful, it may be that we can f<strong>in</strong>d a micro<strong>the</strong>ory<br />
that enables <strong>the</strong> explanation, toge<strong>the</strong>r with suitable<br />
concept correlations, of <strong>the</strong> M-law.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r Analysis<br />
In <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g analysis, I will essentially apply <strong>the</strong> analysis<br />
presented <strong>in</strong> Chapters 3 <strong>and</strong> 5 of SiS to <strong>in</strong>dividuals,<br />
humans <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r animals. In order to simplify <strong>the</strong> presentation<br />
I will restrict <strong>the</strong> attention to MB-concepts <strong>and</strong> MBlaws,<br />
relat<strong>in</strong>g MB-concepts, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> story is essentially<br />
<strong>the</strong> same for pure M-concepts <strong>and</strong> M-laws, if any exist, for<br />
B-concepts <strong>and</strong> B-laws, <strong>and</strong> for MB-laws relat<strong>in</strong>g pure M-<br />
<strong>and</strong> B-concepts. Let us concentrate for a while on <strong>the</strong><br />
macro-concepts <strong>and</strong> let us assume a f<strong>in</strong>ite number of families<br />
of MB-types, i.e., sets of mutually exclusive <strong>and</strong> toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
exhaustive, monadic MB-predicates, each family<br />
giv<strong>in</strong>g rise to an MB-representation of an <strong>in</strong>dividual at each<br />
moment. The MB-predicates at <strong>the</strong> start are supposed to<br />
be types <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense that <strong>the</strong>ir application is stable <strong>and</strong><br />
strongly <strong>in</strong>tersubjective <strong>and</strong>/or because <strong>the</strong>y are lawfully<br />
correlated with o<strong>the</strong>r types.<br />
Let us now conceive <strong>in</strong>dividuals, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
environment as far as relevant, as (organized) aggregates,<br />
to be described <strong>in</strong> terms derived from ‘base-terms’. It is<br />
important to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between <strong>the</strong> genu<strong>in</strong>e baseconcepts<br />
for <strong>the</strong> constituents, e.g., molecules or cells, etc.,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir mutual relations, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> representation of<br />
aggregates of <strong>the</strong>se constituents, e.g., substances <strong>and</strong><br />
tissues. The latter may be done by constru<strong>in</strong>g set-<strong>the</strong>oretic<br />
‘micro-structures’ <strong>in</strong> terms of <strong>the</strong> (biophysical) baseconcepts.<br />
The micro-structures will be <strong>in</strong>dicated as CSstructures,<br />
because <strong>the</strong> micro- or base-entities are<br />
supposed to be Cells, <strong>in</strong> particular neurons, <strong>and</strong> (micropieces<br />
or -amounts of) Substances. The latter are <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
<strong>in</strong> order to be able to take non-biological micro-entities <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> bra<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> body <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> environment <strong>in</strong>to account.<br />
Each CS-structure represents a conceptual possibility of a<br />
state of an aggregate.<br />
A CS-structure is a token of as many (disjunctions<br />
of) CS-types as can be mean<strong>in</strong>gfully def<strong>in</strong>ed as sets of<br />
structures, us<strong>in</strong>g aggregate concepts, i.e., concepts<br />
characteriz<strong>in</strong>g a certa<strong>in</strong> aspect of <strong>the</strong> structure, e.g., <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ternal <strong>and</strong> external temperature, <strong>the</strong> ratio of activated<br />
neurons <strong>in</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong> layer or region of neurons <strong>in</strong>volved,<br />
etc. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> idea is of course that many different,<br />
though probably <strong>in</strong> some way or o<strong>the</strong>r related CSstructures,<br />
may realize (approximately) <strong>the</strong> same MBconcept,<br />
e.g., <strong>the</strong> same memory or pa<strong>in</strong>. This set of<br />
structures is called <strong>the</strong> realization-class of that MBconcept.<br />
If a structure belongs to such a class, it is also<br />
said to be a token of <strong>the</strong> realization-type of that concept.<br />
Let us now formulate some possible reduction<br />
results concern<strong>in</strong>g some MB-families that would be<br />
considered as successes. For this purpose we have to<br />
assume at least <strong>the</strong> Token-Identity Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis; i.e., every<br />
state of an <strong>in</strong>dividual can be represented by an MB-type of<br />
each MB-family as well as by a CS-structure. Additionally<br />
<strong>the</strong> Realization Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis has to be adopted; i.e., every<br />
CS-structure uniquely determ<strong>in</strong>es, as a matter of<br />
ontological fact, an MB-type for each MB-family. Note that<br />
<strong>the</strong> Realization Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis implies that each structure can<br />
be represented as a member of <strong>the</strong> realization-class of<br />
precisely one MB-property of each family. In o<strong>the</strong>r words,<br />
that structure is a token of <strong>the</strong> realization-types of those<br />
MB-properties.<br />
It is possible to dist<strong>in</strong>guish (SiS, Chaper 5) three<br />
degrees of concept (micro-)reduction. A result of <strong>the</strong> first<br />
degree is <strong>the</strong> quasi-type-type reduction of some MB-type,<br />
say an MB-state. This result only presupposes that it is<br />
possible to characterize a set of CS-structures as <strong>the</strong><br />
realization-class of that MB-state. Assum<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> CSstructure<br />
representation of a state can be experimentally<br />
established, <strong>the</strong> reduction enables <strong>the</strong> prediction of <strong>the</strong><br />
MB-state on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> CS-structure representation<br />
(quasi-reduction) <strong>and</strong>, conversely, be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> an MB-state<br />
predicts that <strong>the</strong> CS-structure representation belongs to<br />
<strong>the</strong> realization-class of that MB-state. Of course, given that<br />
<strong>the</strong> realization-class is not exclusively def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> CS-terms,<br />
for it is by def<strong>in</strong>ition ‘MB-<strong>in</strong>duced’, both k<strong>in</strong>ds of prediction<br />
concern CS-structure representations that are (very)<br />
similar to those that were used to characterize <strong>the</strong><br />
realization-class.<br />
As soon as a realization-class can also be<br />
characterized <strong>in</strong>dependently <strong>in</strong> CS-terms, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> form of a<br />
disjunction of CS-(micro-)types, exemplify<strong>in</strong>g a multiple<br />
version of <strong>the</strong> Type-Type Identity Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis, see below,<br />
we get <strong>the</strong> possibility of a one-many or multiple type-type<br />
reduction of an MB-state: <strong>the</strong> second degree of reduction.<br />
A second degree reduction enables <strong>the</strong> deduction of <strong>the</strong><br />
realization-type <strong>and</strong> hence <strong>the</strong> MB-state when one knows<br />
that <strong>the</strong> CS-structure of <strong>the</strong> state belongs to <strong>the</strong> disjunction<br />
of <strong>the</strong> correspond<strong>in</strong>g CS-(micro-)types. The special case<br />
that <strong>the</strong> realization-type corresponds to just one CS-type,<br />
exemplify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gular version of <strong>the</strong> Type-Type Identity<br />
Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis, is a third degree result: <strong>the</strong> one-one or<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gular type-type reduction of an MB-state. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
<strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gular Type-Type Identity Hypo<strong>the</strong>sis, belong<strong>in</strong>g to a<br />
certa<strong>in</strong> macro-type <strong>and</strong> to a certa<strong>in</strong> micro-type amounts to<br />
an ‘ontological equivalence’.<br />
The forego<strong>in</strong>g classification immediately leads to<br />
three degrees of (micro-)reduction of laws. First, if two MBtypes<br />
are lawfully connected <strong>and</strong> both can be quasireduced,<br />
it may be possible that <strong>the</strong> law can be reduced by<br />
a <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>in</strong> a weaker sense than occurs <strong>in</strong> reduction by<br />
identification accord<strong>in</strong>g to a general model (SiS, Chapter<br />
3), viz., that, start<strong>in</strong>g from one or more specific <strong>the</strong>ory