From:	SMTP%"klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU"  6-MAR-1996 23:17:28.53
To:	STAPP
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Reply to Hayes 4

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 23:08:26 PST
From: klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU (Stanley Klein)
Message-Id: <9603070708.AA25665@adage.Berkeley.EDU>
To: ghrosenb@phil.indiana.edu, phayes@cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Reply to Hayes 4
Cc: 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

Gregg, you distinguish between the following two sentences:

"the pain in her shin exists implies activity in area 12 of her amygdala
occurs." (where "implies" is taken to be strict logical implication).

By the way, the failure of *this* kind of implication plays no part in
the arguments that convince me. It is the failure of the other direction:

"The occurrence of activity in area 12 of her amygdala implies that she
 feel a pain in her shin." 


I am presuming that you mean by area 12 of her amygdala the NCCQ for the
pain in her shin.  To call the area 12 of her amygdala an NCCQ means that
the amygdala is the cause of the quale. If so then it logically follows
that activity in area 12 will indeed cause the pain. That is what it means
to be a cause. It seems to me that if the scientists ever discover the
NCCQ then they will have the necessary and sufficient connection between
neural activity and quales. So both of your above sentences would be 
true. 

The tricky part, of course, is the question of whether scientists can 
indeed ever discover the NCCQ. That is a question that Henry and I and 
others have discussed. Scientists have discovered causes of things before
so maybe they can do it again. At this point it is not clear that they
can do it. I think Henry and Gregg think that on principle they can't 
do it (or that quantum mechanicsis needed for the enterprise). I am not
sure, so I say let's keep on with the scientific enterprise to see whether
surprising connection between neural activity and quales is discovered.

(I haven't been able to follow all the P=F business, so I am trying to
translate it to a language that I understand).

Stan
(On the identity topic I often get persuaded by the Jackson type argument
that P /= F)