Multiple Realizability Argument

1. Introduction

The Multiple Realizability Argument is a central line of reasoning in the philosophy of mind that concerns how mental states relate to physical states. It focuses on the idea that the same kind of mental state—such as pain, a visual experience of red, or a belief that it will rain—can, in principle and often in practice, be instantiated by a wide variety of different physical or biological configurations.

Proponents use this idea to challenge type-identity theories of mind, which equate mental state types with specific neurophysiological types (for example, “pain = C-fiber firing” in humans). If pain can be realized in very different nervous systems, in non-carbon-based organisms, or in artificial systems, then, they argue, no single physical state type can be identified with that mental type. Instead, they suggest that mental types should be understood as functional or psychological kinds, characterized by their causal roles rather than by their material composition.

The argument is typically framed as both philosophical and empirically informed. It draws on comparative psychology, neuroscience, biology, and computational theory to motivate the claim that psychological regularities “cut across” neurophysiological diversity. This has been taken to support functionalism and various forms of non-reductive physicalism, while putting pressure on more reductive forms of physicalism.

Critics maintain that the diversity of realizations has been overstated, that reduction can proceed via more complex physical descriptions, or that multiple realizability is a widespread feature of higher-level properties and thus cannot carry the specific anti-reductive weight often assigned to it. The argument’s status remains contested, but it continues to structure debates over how mental phenomena fit into the physical world.

2. Origin and Attribution

The canonical formulation of the Multiple Realizability Argument is usually attributed to Hilary Putnam, especially his paper “Psychological Predicates” (1967). There, Putnam directly attacked the mind–brain identity theory by appealing to the possibility of radically different organisms sharing the same mental states.

"

“It is logically possible for there to be a creature physically quite unlike us and yet psychologically very much like us.”

— Hilary Putnam, “Psychological Predicates” (1967)

Putnam had already laid groundwork in earlier work, including “Brains and Behavior” (1963), where he criticized behaviorism and explored the idea that mental states could not be neatly behaviorally or neurophysiologically identified. His later adoption of functionalism is closely connected to his use of multiple realizability.

Jerry Fodor played a major role in embedding multiple realizability into broader debates about scientific reduction and the “special sciences.” In “Special Sciences (or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis)” (1974), Fodor used multiple realizability to argue that psychological and other special-science kinds are irreducible to physics, even if everything is physically realized.

Other important contributors include:

Although Putnam is widely viewed as the originator, many commentators emphasize that the core idea has roots in earlier reflections on the diversity of biological and computational implementations. Putnam and Fodor nonetheless set the agenda for subsequent discussions, framing multiple realizability as a central challenge to type-identity and a key resource for functionalist and non-reductive views.

3. Historical Context and Motivations

The Multiple Realizability Argument emerged in the 1960s against a background of intense debate over the nature of the mental. Two dominant positions helped shape its targets and motivations:

Many philosophers and scientists found behaviorism inadequate to capture internal cognitive processes suggested by emerging cognitive science and computer science. At the same time, identity theory promised a more straightforward physicalism: mental states just are brain states.

However, mid-20th-century developments raised doubts about simple one–one identifications:

• Comparative neurobiology and ethology highlighted striking differences in nervous systems across species that nevertheless appeared to share basic capacities such as perception, learning, and pain behavior.
• Cybernetics and early AI suggested that information-processing and control functions could be implemented in different physical media (electronic, mechanical, biological).
• Philosophy of science debates about reductionism and the status of “special sciences” (biology, psychology, economics) questioned whether all higher-level laws could be neatly derived from physics.

In this setting, Putnam and later Fodor used multiple realizability to motivate a more flexible, functionally oriented conception of mental kinds. The guiding intuition was that what unifies, say, instances of pain across humans, octopuses, and hypothetical Martians is not a shared neural microstructure, but a shared pattern of causal relations to stimuli, internal processing, and behavior.

Motivationally, multiple realizability served several purposes: to defend a robust scientific status for psychology independent of neuroscience; to articulate a form of physicalism that does not collapse mental types into neural types; and to provide a conceptual bridge between mental states and computational or information-processing roles.

4. The Argument Stated

In its classic form, the Multiple Realizability Argument is directed against type-identity theory. It can be presented informally as follows:

1. If type-identity theory is correct, then for each mental state type (e.g., pain, believing that 2+2=4), there exists a specific physical state type—typically a particular neural configuration or activity pattern—to which it is identical.
2. However, it is at least possible, and arguably actual, that the same mental state type is instantiated in systems with very different physical make-up: for example, humans, non-human animals with different neuroanatomy, extraterrestrials, or artificial systems such as computers or robots.
3. When mental states are examined across such diverse systems, there is no single physical state type common to all their instances of, say, pain or belief; instead, they share only a common functional role or psychological profile.
4. Therefore, mental state types cannot be identical to any single physical state type.
5. Consequently, mental kinds are, at best, realized by but not identical with physical kinds, and they are more plausibly individuated at a functional or psychological level.

A familiar illustration is the Martian pain example: a Martian might experience pain realized not by C-fibers or anything neuron-like, but by hydraulic mechanisms or silicon circuits, while still playing the same causal role as human pain (caused by damage, leading to aversive behavior, and so on). Similarly, it is suggested that different animal species, whose nervous systems differ substantially, nonetheless share mental states like fear or hunger.

Proponents extend this reasoning beyond mere logical possibility, appealing to empirical and theoretical considerations from biology and cognitive science to claim that genuine cross-substrate multiple realizability is likely or already observed. Opponents dispute either the move from possibility to anti-identity conclusions, or the empirical assumptions about the extent and character of such realizations.

5. Logical Structure and Form

The Multiple Realizability Argument is generally understood as inductive rather than strictly deductive. That is, it does not claim to derive the falsity of type-identity theory from purely a priori premises, but rather to show that, given what is known (or reasonably conjectured) about biological and computational diversity, type-identity is unlikely or ill-suited as a theory of mental kinds.

Inductive and Modal Components

The argument combines:

• Modal reasoning: appealing to what is logically, metaphysically, or nomologically possible (e.g., Martians with hydraulic “brains,” silicon-based minds).
• Empirical reasoning: citing actual or anticipated diversity in nervous systems across species, and in possible artificial systems.

The structure can be schematized:

The inference from P2–P3 to the conclusion is not strictly deductive, because it depends on assumptions about how identity and scientific kinds work, as well as on incomplete empirical information about possible realizers.

Role of Generalization

Many formulations also rely on projectible generalizations: from known examples of cross-species or cross-medium implementation in other domains (e.g., computation, life, economic relations), proponents infer that psychological kinds are likely to exhibit similar multiple realizability. This generalization is contestable and has been a focus of criticism.

Relation to Conceptual Analysis

Some presentations of the argument emphasize conceptual constraints on type identity—for instance, that genuine property identity requires coextensiveness across all possible instances. Under that construal, even a single actual or possible counterexample (a case of the same mental type realized differently) would suffice to undermine a simple identity claim. Other versions are more tolerant of local or species-specific identities and thus hedge the conclusion accordingly.

6. Key Concepts and Definitions

The Multiple Realizability Argument relies on a cluster of interconnected concepts. Some are technical, others more intuitive, but their interrelations shape how the argument is understood and evaluated.

Mental and Physical Types

• Mental state type: A general psychological category such as pain, visual experience of red, or belief that snow is white. Types abstract away from particular instances (tokens) and are used in laws and explanations in psychology and cognitive science.
• Physical state type: A general neurophysiological or physical category, such as a specific pattern of neural firing, a certain activation of cortical areas, or a particular configuration in a silicon circuit.

Identity and Realization

• Type-identity theory: The view that for each mental state type M there exists a physical type P such that M = P (often restricted to a species). Identity here is strict: if M = P, they must share all instances across all relevant possibilities.
• Token-identity physicalism: Holds that every particular mental event is identical to some physical event, without requiring that mental types line up neatly with physical types.
• Realization relation: A dependence relation whereby physical states realize or implement higher-level properties. A physical realizer underpins the causal powers associated with a mental state but need not be identical to it.

Functional and Special-Science Notions

• Functionalism: A theory of mind that individuates mental states by their causal roles (relations to inputs, other states, and outputs). On this view, mental kinds are like “software states” that can be implemented in diverse “hardware.”
• Causal role: The pattern of causal relations a property has, often specified in terms of what tends to cause it and what it tends to cause.
• Special sciences: Disciplines such as psychology, biology, or economics that study higher-level phenomena. Their kinds and laws may not map straightforwardly onto physical or microphysical kinds.

Multiple Realizability and Related Terms

• Multiple realizability: The thesis that a single higher-level kind (e.g., pain) can be instantiated by many distinct realizer kinds (e.g., different neural or non-neural configurations).
• Realizer kind: A category of physical states that can serve as a basis for a given higher-level state (for example, human C-fiber firing, octopus neural activation, or a robot’s circuit state that all realize “pain-like” behavior).
• Disjunctive property: A property characterized as a disjunction (P1 or P2 or P3 …) of heterogeneous sub-properties. Some critics suggest mental kinds may be identical to such disjunctive physical properties, preserving reduction while allowing multiple realizability.
• Martian pain example: A thought experiment illustrating multiple realizability by imagining beings with radically different physiology who nonetheless feel pain, functionally akin to human pain.

7. Premises Examined

The standard formulation of the Multiple Realizability Argument involves several key premises, each of which has been scrutinized.

Premise 1: Type-Identity Requires One–One Matches

P1 states that if type-identity theory holds, each mental type must be identical to a specific physical type. Supporters see this as a conceptual point about property identity: identities must hold across all instances and possibilities. Critics sometimes argue for species-specific or context-limited identities, softening the requirement.

Premise 2: Mental Types Can Be Realized in Heterogeneous Systems

P2 asserts that the same mental type can, in principle or in fact, occur in very different physical systems (across species, or in AI). Proponents cite:

• Biological diversity of nervous systems.
• Theoretical possibilities of silicon-based or other non-biological minds.
• Analogies to computation and biological functions (e.g., digestion across species).

Skeptics question whether these possibilities are genuine at the relevant metaphysical level or whether apparent similarities (e.g., “pain-like” behavior) mask deeper psychological differences.

Premise 3: No Single Physical Type Underlies All Instances

P3 claims that heterogeneous realizations share no single physical kind. This is often motivated by the detailed variability of neuroanatomy and implementation. Critics respond by proposing more abstract or higher-level physical types, or by allowing identity to polymorphous or disjunctive properties, thereby challenging the premise that physical kinds must be homogeneous in a strong sense.

Premise 4: Multiple Realizability Blocks Reduction

P4 generalizes: if a higher-level kind is multiply realizable, then it resists reduction to a lower-level kind. This premise connects multiple realizability to anti-reductionism. Opponents argue that reduction can proceed via:

• Identifying the higher-level kind with a disjunction of lower-level kinds.
• Piecemeal, domain-specific reductions.
• Mechanistic explanations that span levels.

Premise 5: Scientific Practice Treats Mental Types as Cross-Realizer Kinds

P5 notes that psychology and cognitive science often classify states by functional or behavioral profiles, not by neural details. While widely acknowledged, some contend that as neuroscience advances, psychological categories may be refined to track neural kinds more closely, potentially weakening this premise.

Debate over the argument’s cogency largely centers on how compelling these premises are, and on whether any weakened or modified versions still pose a significant challenge to type-identity and strong reductionism.

8. Multiple Realizability in Cognitive Science and AI

Within cognitive science and artificial intelligence, multiple realizability functions both as a guiding assumption and as a subject of empirical scrutiny.

Cognitive Science

In early cognitive science, mental states were often modeled as information-processing states that could be implemented on different physical substrates. Cognitive architectures, such as symbolic systems or connectionist networks, were taken to illustrate that the same computational function (e.g., parsing a sentence, recognizing an object) might be realized in various neural or artificial networks.

Comparative studies in animal cognition provide further suggestive cases: different species exhibit similar behavioral and cognitive capacities (navigation, learning, problem solving) despite pronounced neuroanatomical differences. Some researchers treat these as real-world instances of multiple realizability; others argue that closer examination reveals shared mechanistic motifs, limiting the extent of genuine diversity.

Artificial Intelligence and Robotics

In AI, the hardware–software distinction is often aligned with the idea that the same algorithm or functional organization can be executed on different machines. Classical AI projects employed this to argue that if cognitive functions are essentially computational, then they could, in principle, be realized in digital computers as well as biological brains.

Examples include:

Some philosophers extrapolate from these practices to claim that mental and cognitive kinds are inherently functional and multiply realizable. Others caution that success in AI does not straightforwardly demonstrate psychological multiple realizability, since artificial systems may only simulate, rather than share, human mental states.

Ongoing Empirical Debates

More recent work in computational neuroscience and embodied cognition sometimes challenges the strong functionalist reading of multiple realizability. Mechanistic models often emphasize the importance of particular neural dynamics, bodily structures, or environmental couplings, suggesting that not all aspects of cognition are indifferent to physical realization details.

Still, many cognitive scientists continue to rely on levels of description where functional roles, algorithms, and representational structures are treated as relatively independent of specific implementations, keeping multiple realizability as a working hypothesis, though not always as a settled thesis.

9. Impact on Functionalism and Physicalism

Multiple realizability has been closely linked with the rise and development of functionalism and has influenced various forms of physicalism.

Support for Functionalism

Functionalists argue that mental states are individuated by their causal roles—what they do—rather than by what physically realizes them. Multiple realizability is often cited as a central motivation:

• If the same mental type can be implemented by diverse physical systems, then mental types are plausibly functional kinds.
• Mental explanations, on this view, operate at a computational or functional level, distinct from underlying physical implementation.

Putnam and Fodor both invoked multiple realizability to support such a perspective, encouraging analogies between mental states and software states.

Influence on Physicalist Positions

Within physicalism, the argument has been used to differentiate between reductive and non-reductive approaches.

Non-reductive physicalists argue that although all mental events are physically realized, mental kinds form an autonomous level of classification. Multiple realizability is then taken to explain why psychology cannot be straightforwardly reduced to neuroscience.

Refinements and Reactions

Some physicalists respond by relaxing or modifying reductionist commitments, allowing for:

• Identities to disjunctive physical properties.
• Local or species-specific reductions, compatible with restricted multiple realizability.
• Mechanistic approaches that integrate functional roles with physical structures.

In these frameworks, multiple realizability does not necessarily entail anti-reductionism but instead informs more nuanced accounts of how mental phenomena fit into a physical world, shaping ongoing debates over the nature and scope of physicalism.

10. Key Variations and Strengthenings of the Argument

Over time, philosophers have articulated several variations and elaborations of the Multiple Realizability Argument, differing in strength, scope, and targets.

Strong vs. Weak Multiple Realizability

Some distinguish between:

Stronger versions aim to show that mental kinds cut across radically heterogeneous physical kinds, making reduction particularly implausible. Weaker versions allow for substantial underlying similarity, potentially more compatible with mechanistic and reductionist accounts.

Domain-General vs. Mind-Specific Forms

The original argument was often presented as special to the mental. Later work extends multiple realizability to other domains (e.g., biological traits, economic properties), yielding domain-general arguments that question reduction across the sciences. Some strengthen the case for mental multiple realizability by embedding it within a broader pattern; others use this generalization to argue that the mental is not special and that reduction can accommodate widespread multiple realizability.

Modal Strength: Possibility vs. Actuality

Variations also differ in their modal commitments:

• Possibility-focused versions rest on the coherence of conceivable scenarios (Martians, AI minds).
• Actuality-focused versions emphasize empirical evidence of cross-species or cross-system realizations.

Some strengthenings argue that even possible counterexamples suffice to undermine strict type identities, given stringent criteria for property identity. Others insist that only actual cases bear on scientific reduction, thereby pushing for empirically grounded versions of the argument.

From Anti-Identity to Autonomy Claims

A further variation shifts emphasis from merely rejecting type-identity to defending the autonomy of psychology and other special sciences. Here, multiple realizability is deployed not just against identity theory but as part of a broader argument that higher-level explanatory frameworks cannot be dispensed with or fully reconstructed in lower-level terms.

These and other refinements have made multiple realizability a flexible argumentative tool, with different formulations tailored to engage distinct opponents: strict type-identity theorists, stronger forms of reductionism, or views denying the explanatory indispensability of higher-level theories.

11. Standard Objections and Replies

A number of influential objections challenge aspects of the Multiple Realizability Argument. Responses often refine or qualify the original claims.

Neural Disunity and Overestimation

Critics such as John Bickle, William Bechtel, and Jennifer Mundale argue that the extent of multiple realizability has been overstated. As neuroscientific detail accumulates, they claim, we find more structural and organizational similarity across brains than the original arguments assumed. On this view:

• Many psychological capacities correlate with conserved neural circuits or motifs.
• Apparent multiple realizations may mask underlying mechanistic commonalities.

Proponents reply that even with shared motifs, there remains sufficient variability in details and that psychological kinds are still more naturally individuated at a functional level.

Disjunctive Kinds and Reduction

Jaegwon Kim and others contend that multiple realizability does not refute reduction. Mental kinds, they suggest, could be identical to disjunctive physical properties (P1 or P2 or P3 …), where each disjunct corresponds to a different realizer. Even if such identities are messy, they maintain, they are metaphysically legitimate and theoretically acceptable in some scientific contexts.

Defenders of the original argument respond that highly disjunctive physical properties may fail to support robust laws or explanations, undermining their status as natural kinds and thereby weakening the claim that reduction has been preserved in any substantively explanatory sense.

Overgeneralization and Trivialization

Some philosophers argue that multiple realizability is nearly ubiquitous among higher-level properties (e.g., David Lewis, Sydney Shoemaker). If so, it either:

• Makes reduction impossible almost everywhere, which many see as implausible, or
• Becomes too trivial or coarse-grained to support distinctive conclusions about the mind.

Replies often appeal to degrees or patterns of multiple realizability, contending that mental states exhibit a particularly salient or explanatory form of cross-realizer unity.

Mechanistic and Piecemeal Reduction

Another objection stresses that reduction need not be global and one–one. Mechanistic philosophers of science claim that lower-level descriptions can explain how higher-level functions are implemented, even if multiple realizations exist. Similarly, advocates of piecemeal reduction argue that specific mental kinds, in particular species or contexts, may still be successfully reduced.

Supporters of multiple realizability typically respond by acknowledging these possibilities but maintaining that the overall pattern of cross-realizer diversity still justifies significant autonomy for psychological kinds and explanations, even if some local reductions turn out to be viable.

12. Realization Theories and Metaphysical Issues

Multiple realizability raises questions about the nature of the realization relation and the metaphysics of properties and kinds.

Metaphysical Accounts of Realization

Various theorists have offered models of how higher-level properties are realized:

These accounts aim to explain how multiple realizers can underwrite the same higher-level property without that property collapsing into a disjunction of its realizers.

Identity, Dependence, and Distinctness

A central issue is whether realized properties are identical to, grounded in, or merely coinstantiated with their realizers. Multiple realizability has been invoked to support the idea that:

• Realized properties are distinct from realizing properties, since they can be shared across different realizers.
• Nonetheless, they are dependence-related to physical properties, preserving physicalist commitments.

Opponents maintain that if the dependence is sufficiently tight (e.g., involving necessary coinstantiation), identity may be the simpler and more parsimonious option, possibly via complex or disjunctive identities.

Natural Kinds and Disjunctive Properties

Another metaphysical concern is whether massively disjunctive properties can serve as genuine natural kinds. If mental kinds are multiply realized, and if reduction identifies them with disjunctive physical properties, questions arise about:

• Their eligibility for laws and explanations.
• Their role in inductive and explanatory practice.

Some argue that the naturalness of kinds is determined by scientific utility rather than metaphysical homogeneity; others insist that highly heterogeneous disjuncts undermine kindhood.

Levels of Explanation and Grounding

Realization theories intersect with debates about levels of explanation and grounding. Multiple realizability encourages a view where:

• Higher-level properties are grounded in, but not fully reducible to, lower-level properties.
• Explanations can be legitimately given at multiple levels, each with its own appropriate kinds.

How to articulate the metaphysical relations between these levels—whether in terms of grounding, supervenience, or other dependence relations—remains a central topic influenced by the multiple realizability discussion.

13. Relation to the Autonomy of the Special Sciences

Multiple realizability has played a prominent role in arguments for the autonomy of the special sciences, especially psychology, relative to fundamental physics.

Fodor’s Autonomy Thesis

In “Special Sciences,” Jerry Fodor argued that laws of psychology, biology, and economics are formulated over kinds that do not correspond neatly to physical kinds. Because these higher-level kinds are multiply realizable by heterogeneous physical states, their laws cannot be straightforwardly derived from physical laws.

On this view:

• Higher-level sciences are autonomous in that they retain their own indispensable kinds and generalizations.
• Multiple realizability explains why reductionist projects that seek to eliminate higher-level descriptions in favor of physics are unlikely to succeed.

Alternative Views on Autonomy

Some philosophers accept multiple realizability but offer more modest conceptions of autonomy:

• Pragmatic autonomy: Special sciences are autonomous in practice due to complexity and limited computational resources, even if, in principle, all phenomena are describable in physical terms.
• Mechanistic integration: Cognitive science and other special sciences provide higher-level descriptions that are integrated with, but not replaced by, mechanistic accounts spanning multiple levels.

Others challenge the inference from multiple realizability to autonomy, suggesting:

• That disjunctive physical kinds or mechanistic decompositions could still underpin higher-level laws.
• That successful local reductions may erode autonomy over time.

Scope Beyond Psychology

The autonomy debate extends beyond the mental. Proponents point to examples from biology (e.g., species, functional traits) and social sciences (e.g., money, markets) as similarly multiply realizable across different physical realizers, suggesting a general pattern of partial or robust autonomy.

At the same time, some critics treat multiple realizability as compatible with a hierarchical, integrated science, where different levels are coordinated through bridging principles, models, or mechanistic explanations, reducing the sense in which special sciences are fully independent.

14. Contemporary Empirical Relevance

Recent empirical work in neuroscience, cognitive science, and AI continues to inform discussions of multiple realizability, sometimes reinforcing and sometimes challenging classic claims.

Neuroscience and Comparative Biology

Detailed mapping of neural circuits and brain regions has revealed both:

• Conserved organizational patterns across species (e.g., similar sensory pathways, canonical microcircuits).
• Substantial variations in neuroanatomy and neurochemistry accompanying similar behaviors or capacities.

Some interpret the conserved patterns as evidence against radical multiple realizability; others emphasize that even shared motifs can be embedded in different large-scale architectures, leaving room for significant multiple realization.

Comparative studies of invertebrate cognition, such as in cephalopods and insects, provide potential test cases: sophisticated behavior appears in organisms with neural structures quite unlike mammalian cortices. Whether these constitute genuine instances of shared mental states or functionally analogous but distinct states remains debated.

Cognitive Science and Modeling

In cognitive science, the proliferation of computational models—from symbolic systems to deep neural networks—has intensified focus on implementation:

• Different architectures can often produce similar input–output behavior, which some see as concrete illustrations of multiple realizability.
• Conversely, detailed modeling indicates that small changes in architecture or learning rules can sometimes yield qualitatively different cognitive profiles, suggesting implementation may matter more than strong functionalist readings imply.

Artificial Intelligence

Advances in machine learning and embodied AI have renewed interest in whether artificial systems could share mental states with humans. Some argue that if mental kinds are defined functionally, then suitably organized AI systems could instantiate them, providing real-world cases of non-biological realizers.

Skeptics question whether current AI systems possess states that are genuinely mental, rather than merely behaviorally or functionally analogous, thereby complicating attempts to treat them as clear-cut instances of multiple realizability in the original philosophical sense.

Experimental Philosophy and Conceptual Work

Empirical studies in experimental philosophy have begun probing lay and expert intuitions about cross-species and artificial minds, exploring whether ordinary and scientific conceptions of mental states presuppose multiple realizability. These findings feed back into debates about whether the concept of a mental state is, at root, functional, biological, or something else.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

The Multiple Realizability Argument has had a lasting impact on several areas of philosophy and related disciplines.

Reshaping the Philosophy of Mind

The argument contributed significantly to:

• The decline of logical behaviorism and simple mind–brain identity theories as dominant positions.
• The rise of functionalism as a leading framework for understanding mental states.
• The development of non-reductive physicalism, emphasizing that mental states are physically realized yet not straightforwardly reducible to neurophysiological types.

Even critics often frame their positions in relation to multiple realizability, indicating its enduring role as a reference point.

Influence on Philosophy of Science

Multiple realizability has also shaped discussions of:

• Reductionism and the structure of scientific theories.
• The status of special sciences and the concept of autonomy.
• The nature of natural kinds, particularly the viability of disjunctive kinds in scientific practice.

These debates have informed broader views about scientific pluralism and the legitimacy of multi-level explanations.

Impact Beyond Philosophy

In cognitive science and AI, the argument helped legitimize treating cognitive states as functional or computational, relatively independent of specific biological substrates. While empirical developments have led to more nuanced views, the idea that similar cognitive roles can be realized across different physical systems remains influential.

Continuing Debates

The legacy of multiple realizability is not merely historical. Contemporary work in metaphysics, philosophy of neuroscience, and philosophy of AI continues to engage with:

• How to articulate the realization relation.
• Whether mental and other higher-level kinds are multiply realized in ways that matter for explanation.
• How to reconcile physicalism with the apparent autonomy of higher-level sciences.

In this sense, multiple realizability functions as a conceptual nexus connecting issues about mind, science, and the metaphysical structure of reality, maintaining a central place in ongoing philosophical conversations.