Talk:Multiple realizability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. |
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)
-
[edit] 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.
