Core realizers

See Loewer (2002a, 2007b), and Melnyk (2003). The useful distinction between core realizers and total realizers was first drawn by Shoemaker. 

The concern, then, is that functional states and events do not cause their manifestations rather, their core realizers, their bases — to use another term from disposition theory — cause the manifestations. This concern is succinctly expressed by Frank Jackson (1996) in the following passage ... 

Thus, on Humean grounds, he denies that functional events cause their manifestations.Moreover, he points out that if functional properties do not cause their manifestations, then they do not cause anything their core realizers cause by causing their manifestations. ... 

A non-Humean response is to maintain that state and event types have at least some of their causal powers essentially, namely, the (conditional) powers to produce their manifestations. I will not attempt to determine here whether we should be Humeans or non-Humeans about causation. Suffice it for the moment just to note that even if event types endow causal powers essentially, the question remains whether functional state and event types endow causal powers. Thus, suppose that the Humean view is indeed wrong, and that some structures are essentially killer structures, and so essentially endow the power to kill. The question would still remain why the state of having some or other killer structure is a state that is itself a killer state - a state that endows the power to kill — given that it is not identical with any of the killer structures. Why think that the property of having some property or other that essentially endows the power to kill is itself a property that endows the power to kill Similarly, even if all the bases or core realizers of a functional property, water solubility, essentially endow the (conditional) power to cause dissolvings in water, what reason is there to think that the functional property does - that water solubility itself does For the moment, suffice it to note that these questions deserve answers. 

This concern is raised by appeal to the physical bases for the dispositions, but all that matters is that the dispositions have bases, not specifically what their bases are or whether they are physical. The point about fragility would arise even in a world in which its bases all involved spook-glue. As concerns functional states and events, the concern is that for any manifestation, it is invariably the case that the core realizer (on the occasion in question) brings it about, and so there is no work for the functional state or event to do in bringing it about. The concern arises for any effects of the core realizers or bases (physical or not), even ones that are not neither manifestations of the functional events nor caused by means of the causation of their manifestations. 

Before asking why they won t be undercutting, let us first note that Melnyk requires that causation-grounding regularities be contingent, which, of course, is standard for regularity theories. Recall, however, that functional event types have manifestations. Their manifestations are the effect types (perhaps conditional effect types) of their core realizers, effect types to which the functional event types are linked by definition. There will, then, be conditional necessitation relations that functional event types bear to their manifestations. When fully ticketed to accommodate all the relevant contingencies of an actual situation, there will be a metaphysically... 

Also as concerns a mental event token and its narrow realizer (what we earlier called its core physical realizer ), he says If an Mi token is realized by a Pj-token, then the Pj-token just is part of the Mi-token (Melnyk, 2003, p. 137). He says nothing in defense of these claims. In fact, it is not the case that if an Mj token is realized by a Pj-token, then the Pj-token just is part of the Mj-token (p. 137). And it is not the case that the narrow realizer of a C-type event is surely a part or constituent of that C-type event (p. 160). The relation that the narrower physical realizer bears to the functional event — namely, the realization relation — is not a part-whole relation. It is, rather, the relation of role-occupancy. Narrow or core realizers are not parts or constituents of functional events. 

Since narrow or core realizers are not parts or constituents of functional events, it follows that regularities with functional event types in their antecedents will have undercutting explanations in Melnyk s sense. Regularities with functional event types in their antecedents will have undercutting explanations in terms of regularities involving their narrow or core realizers. So, in Melnyk s sense, they will not be causal laws. 

If a realizing event metaphysically suffices for the functional event, then the realizing event also cannot be a member of any minimal set of events for another. But NRP theorists typically deny that core realizers metaphysically suffice for the functional events they realize. 

Suppose, then, that there are functional events. Functional events are not identical with their core realizers. Nor do the events overlap In the sense that they share certain events as parts. Moreover, a functional event does not imply the event that is the core realizer on the occasion in question it could be realized by some other event. Further, given that a core realizer will occupy the relevant causal role with at most nomological necessity, the core realizer will not imply the functional event. The realizer and the functional event are distinct events. Notice, however, that there is a counterfactual dependency between them. The functional event is coun-terfactually dependent on the realizing event (barring cases of realization preemption). If the realizer had not occurred, then the functional event would not have occurred. So, then, were there functional events, we would have here a counterfactual dependency between distinct events. Lewis always insisted that he wanted to allow for instantaneous causation. But, to borrow a phrase of his, surely instantaneous causation is not so very easy The relationship between a realizing event and the functional event it realizes would not be a causal relation it would be the relation of role-occupancy. Thus, functional events would yield counterexamples to the central thesis of any counterfactual theory, namely, that a counterfactual relation between distinct events suffices for causation. 

Of course, if the core physical realizer has the causal role essentially (an idea Lewis would reject), then the core realizer will imply the functional event. Shoemaker (2001) holds that the way to go in responding to Kims exclusion problem is to embrace essential causal powers. But that invokes causal oomph, and we are now focused on the Humean conception of causation. As 1 mentioned earlier, I discuss Shoemaker s view in McLaughlin (2006b) it faces problems different from those of the view under discussion here. 

The core-realizer/total-realizer distinction employed here is somewhat different from the one I have employed elsewhere, for example, in Shoemaker (1981). That applied to property realization rather than to realization by states of affairs. On that account, it might be that a core-realization of pain is G-fiber stimulation and that the associated total realization is Gfiber stimulation plus the subjects brain being wired in such a way as to enable Gfiber-stimulation to play the causal role of pain. But on the present account, states of affairs involving the wiring of the brain that enable the implementation of the causal role of pain would count as parts of the core of pain realizer. The two distinctions serve different purposes. 

Uses and Treatments of Hardwood Plywood. Most early appHcations of hardwood plywood were those where the hardwood plywood was better adapted to the use than soHd wood. One of the most important early uses was in curved or formed parts, an appHcation particularly suited to the use of veneers which could be molded into intricate shapes during the pressing and bonding process. Then, as furniture manufacturers realized the inherently superior stabiHty of plywood compared to soHd wood, lumber-core or plywood panels began to be used for most flat-panel constmctions in furniture. 

Then, in the early 1980s the concept of OSB was realized in the constmction and operation of large-size mills. OSB is a panel product made from wood strands and somewhat like plywood in that the strands on the two faces are oriented in the long direction of the panel and the core strands are oriented in the cross-panel direction. The use of orientation yields panels having exceUent directional properties, much like plywood, and thus an exceUent and economical stmctural sheathing material is created. 

In general, solubilization of appropriate substances in a solution of reversed micelles forming a solid, liquid, or gel core within the reversed micelle is the preliminary step to realize systems easily handled and interesting both from the theoretical and the practical points of view. 

The vibrational dynamics of water solnbilized in lecithin-reversed micelles appears to be practically indistingnishable from those in bulk water i.e., in the micellar core an extensive hydrogen bonded domain is realized, similar, at least from the vibrational point of view, to that occurring in pure water [58], On the other hand, the reorientational dynamics of the water domain are strongly affected, due to water nanoconfmement and interfacial effects [105,106],... 

In order to realize the precise control of core/shell structures of small bimetallic nanoparticles, some problems have to be overcome. For example, one problem is that the oxidation of the preformed metal core often takes place by the metal ions for making the shell when the metal ions have a high-redox potential, and large islands of shell metal are produced on the preformed metal core. Therefore, we previously developed a so-called hydrogen-sacrificial protective strategy to prepare the bimetallic nanoparticles in the size range 1.5-5.5nm with controllable core/shell structures [132]. The strategy can be extended to other systems of bi- or multimetallic nanoparticles. 

In summary, we concluded that the successive reduction method easily provides the bimetallic nanoparticles with the core/shell structure according to versatile design. For example, different reducing agents may be used for the first reduction and the second one, respectively, depending on the property of the metal. In some cases of two kinds of metals with much different redox potentials, however, inverted core/shell nanoparticles are difficult to form even in the successive reduction. The inverted core/shell structure can be realized by an... 

---