From: SMTP%"phayes@cs.uiuc.edu" 6-MAR-1996 15:17:07.21 To: STAPP CC: Subj: Re: Reply to Hayes 4 Message-Id: <199603062314.RAA01050@tubman.ai.uiuc.edu> X-Sender: phayes@tubman.cs.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:18:35 -0600 To: "Gregg Rosenberg" From: phayes@cs.uiuc.edu (Pat Hayes) Subject: Re: Reply to Hayes 4 Cc: STAPP@theorm.lbl.gov, klein@adage.berkeley.edu, phayes@cs.uiuc.edu, A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk, keith@imprint.co.uk, mckee@neosoft.com, brings@rpi.edu, patrickw@cs.monash.edu.au Gregg, just a quick response for clarification. I think that you and I are arguing across a use/mention misunderstanding. In the discussion with Henry, I was using the symbols 'F' and 'P' (or was it 'E' ?) to be schematic stand-ins for the relevant descriptions, not as *names* for sets of facts *about* anything. Thus, the claim that P=F is (shorthand for) the claim that the neural event (itself) is identical to the experience (itself), both understood de re. This is what (I think!) Henry and I have been arguing about. You however are taking these capital letters to refer to the descriptions (in neural-event-language and subjective-phenomenal-language) of something (or things). If that's what 'P' and 'F' mean, then of course not(P=F), trivially, just as a matter of syntax. (How could you take me to be so stupid as to be claiming that? :-) For example, you say: >So I claim: if =/=>

, then not P=F. which to me seems illformed:

and are descriptions, not assertions, so it is meaningless to put an implication sign between them. Let me explain my usage.Things exist,and relations hold between them. To claim that a relation holds between things, using names for the relations and the things, is to make an atomic assertion. We allow quantifiers and other logical constructs to make more complex assertions and descriptions which refer to things. A particular assertion, or set of them, uses a particular vocabulary of names and relation names. The same thing may be correctly described in different vocabularies. The identity sign is used between two descriptions to assert that the two descriptions describe the same thing. I don't think this is at all controversial or unusual. Now, where in this do 'aspects' fit? One natural interpretation is that an aspect of something is a (perhaps incomplete) description of it in some vocabulary. But from your left/right side example, an aspect would seem to be a *part* of a thing (or am I taking this too literally?) I'd appreciate some clarification. Pat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Beckman Institute (217)244 1616 office University of Illinois (217)328 3947 or (415)855 9043 home 405 North Mathews Avenue (217)244 8371 fax Urbana, IL. 61801 Phayes@ai.uiuc.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------