From: SMTP%"klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU" 7-MAR-1996 13:48:20.74 To: STAPP CC: Subj: Re: Reply to Hayes 5 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 13:44:06 PST From: klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU (Stanley Klein) Message-Id: <9603072144.AA26316@adage.Berkeley.EDU> To: STAPP@theorm.lbl.gov, phayes@cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Reply to Hayes 5 Cc: A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk, brings@rpi.edu, ghrosenb@phil.indiana.edu, keith@imprint.co.uk, klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU, mckee@neosoft.com, patrickw@cs.monash.edu.au Pat's position is quite clear. He said: >'A is B' is true iff 'A' and 'B' denote the same thing. Nothing >mysterious or unusual. >The reason I dont like the 'necc and suff for' is that I see no reason for >it. Here are two descriptions of events. They are always exactly >correlated: whenever one occurs, so does the other. They always occur in >exactly the same place at the same time. They have the same functional >role. There is no way to ever distinguish them except by the language used >to refer to them with. Doesnt the suspicion just creep upon you that they >might, possibly, be the *same thing*? (Be brave! ;-) Just because the neural activity is exactly correlated with the qualia doesn't seem to make them the same thing. (Incidentally, I surely agree with Gregg that something other than neurons might be sufficient to evoke a quale-I just use the word neuron as a shorthand to stand for the physical entity that causes the quale). Pat, I don't see why you have problems with different aspects. There is the objective, 3rd person aspect, and the subjective, 1st person aspect of the NCCQ. One might not be derivable from the other. At this point I don't see how the feel of the pain is related to the neural activity. I hope someday we might gain some insight into that hard question. At this point in 1996 the 1st person account is SO different from the 3rd person account that it seems legitimate to me to say they are not the same. Pat, don't you see any difference between the feel of the pain and the neural correlate? Stan