From:	SMTP%"ghrosenb@phil.indiana.edu"  7-MAR-1996 08:45:32.20
To:	STAPP
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Reply to Hayes 4

From: "Gregg Rosenberg" <ghrosenb@phil.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply to Hayes 4
To: klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU (Stanley Klein)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:41:17 -0500 (EST)
Cc: phayes@cs.uiuc.edu, A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk, STAPP@theorm.lbl.gov,
        brings@rpi.edu, keith@imprint.co.uk, klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU,
        mckee@neosoft.com, patrickw@cs.monash.edu.au
In-Reply-To: <9603070751.AA25688@adage.Berkeley.EDU> from "Stanley Klein" at Mar 6, 96 11:51:43 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 723       

Stan writes:
 
> I am more worried about Gregg and Henry, because I am not sure that they 
> accept the possibility that the area 12 neural activity (what I had been
> calling
> the NCCQ) is necessary and sufficient for the pain. 

For the record:
1) I think that there is neural activity which is sufficient for the
presence of qualia. 

2) I think we can discover this neural activity

3) I think the neural activity and the qualia are not identical

4) I do not think the neural activity causes the qualia (or vice
versa). I think they are complimentary aspects of a single system.

5) I think it is likely that non-neural systems may have qualia, so the
neural activity, although sufficient, is not necessary.

--Gregg