From:	SMTP%"klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU"  6-MAR-1996 23:55:17.59
To:	STAPP
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Reply to Hayes 4

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 23:51:43 PST
From: klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU (Stanley Klein)
Message-Id: <9603070751.AA25688@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

After sending out my last message I looked over several of the other 
messages that flew by today. Some clarity seems to be brewing. Let me see 
if I am catching on. Pat seems to be claiming that the area 12 activity "is" 
the pain. Others (like me) are claiming that the area 12 activity "is 
necessary and sufficient for" the pain. I would never be brave enough to say 
that the activity is the pain since they seem so different. 

The question that I have is whether this distinction between "is" and "is 
necessary and sufficient for" is all that important. It seems to me to be a 
philosophical issue that can't ever be decided by any experiment. It has to 
do with the meaning of "is". Different people can have different definitions. 

I think Pat is fine with the "necessary and sufficient for" way of saying it. 
Because of Pat's enjoyment for tweaking others he likes to push the "is" 
(identity) way of saying it. I am not too worried about that since he has his 
own definition of "is" that differs from mine.

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. I think from previous 
clarifications with Gregg that he accepts that we may someday find the 
NCCQ. But now I'm not sure anymore. Same for Henry. I know that
Henry questions whether one can find causes without having a theoretical
framework. But I suspect that the biologists and physicists do have a
theoretical framework that might be powerful enough to do the job without
quantum mechanics. Of course I could be wrong, but that is why we need
to do the experiments to figure out the NCCQ. 

Stan