From:	SMTP%"ghrosenb@phil.indiana.edu"  8-MAR-1996 09:15:37.87
To:	STAPP
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Reply to Hayes 5

From: "Gregg Rosenberg" <ghrosenb@phil.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply to Hayes 5
To: phayes@cs.uiuc.edu (Pat Hayes)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:08:40 -0500 (EST)
Cc: klein@adage.Berkeley.EDU, A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk, brings@rpi.edu,
        keith@imprint.co.uk, mckee@neosoft.com, patrickw@cs.monash.edu.au,
        STAPP@theorm.lbl.gov, phayes@cs.uiuc.edu
In-Reply-To: <199603080744.BAA11224@tubman.ai.uiuc.edu> from "Pat Hayes" at Mar 8, 96 01:45:35 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1930      

> 
> Imagine someone in the 17th century objecting to the atomic hypothesis on
> the grounds that even if it were true, there would still be a 'hard
> problem' to 'bridge' between different 'aspects', because chalk was so,
> well, *chalky*, and clearly a collection of atoms, no matter how complex,
> wasn't going to ever be *chalky*. Seems to me that this case is almost
> exactly analogous.
> 
> Pat

These cases really are *almost* exactly analogous. They are analagous
in that the demand for proof is the same in both, and need to be met in
the same way: by evidencing an entailment (or convincing us that an 
entailment exists in principle) from the properties a collection of atoms 
would have to the chalkiness of the chalk.

They are disanalagous in that such an entailment seems to exist (under
any ordinary understanding of what 'chalkiness' means) in the chalk
case. Given the theoretical meanings of the terms in atomic chemistry,
a very good case can be made that one can derive precisely the reason
why chalk seems so chalky. It is interesting that you pick chalk as
your example: this is precisely the example that Steven Weinberg uses
(in Dreams of a Final Theory) to show *how* physics normally goes about 
defending its explanations by producing entailments.

In the phenomenal and functional case all we have (and it seems all we
could ever have) is correlation. If all you have is correlation, you have 
no identity. You need entailment.

Think about it this way: Movements of my backside are perfectly correlated
with movements of my frontside. But my backside and frontside, while
sides of the same thing, are not identical. 

--Gregg


-- 
Honesty in academia
  _____  
 /     \
 |      |                             Gregg Rosenberg
 | --)(--                             
 C      _)  D'ohh!                    Will philosophize for food.
 |   ___\    /                        
 |  /  __)
 /_ \__/
/  \  / \