Dear Pat, 

I'm sure were both getting pretty anxious to terminate this:
I had really heaved a big sigh of relief, that I could get back to 
physics.
 
But still I think some account has to be given of the application of
CM to tides and cannon balls etc. etc. It seems to me that Einstein's
and Bohr's analysis was essentially correct: we make the connection,
and thus apply the mathematical statements of CM to macroscopic features 
of the world about us, by constructing, within the mathematical framework,.
macroscopic conglomerates of the elementary particles and fields that 
should have the general appearance of tides and billiard, looked at from
a distance, and that would respond to the probings of mathematical models 
of measuring devices, whose "pointers" we can see from afar, in the ways that
waves and billiard balls do. I think a look at how CM has been used and applied
since the time of Newton and Galileo shows that the mathematical theory is
linked into  our experiences of the world in this nonproblematic way, and
that this correspondence at this nonproblematic level is part of classical
mechanics in the broad sense in which it is understood by people who use it.

I think this was the common ground of Einstein and Bohr in their debate on
essentially this issue.

But when we look at a person who is seeing something blue we do not see,
or expect to see, patches of blue appear in his brain. There must be,
or presumeably is, some sort of activity in his brain that we may be able to
detect by various devices that we can all observe, and that he himself might
even observe,  that corresponds to, or co-exists with, his experience of 
blueness, and it is these latter sorts of things that orthodox classical
mechanics deals with, by constructing out of the elements of the theory
conglomerates that have the properties that should be visible to all of us
through our sense of vision, and confirmable through our sense of touch.

So I think you are defining too narrowly the meaning of classical mechanics
when you assert that it can say nothing about the brain, or about springs and
hurricanes. The more normal meaning of the words would have classical mechanics
make purported statements about such macroscopic things: for only then could it
be proven to be false, as it has in fact been.

Henry

P.S. Jim Balter sent me a note supporting your position, and I have sent
this letter (and yours) to him and to Stan K, who asked for some further 
clarification on our differences.

Pat's Letter:


From:	SMTP%"phayes@picayune.coginst.uwf.edu" 14-OCT-1996 10:02:21.21
To:	STAPP
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Wrapping up QM and C.

>
>This is, I think, an important concession on Pat's part because it puts in
>jeopardy his claim that consciousness is both 1), adequately described
>within CM, with no need to go to QM; and 2), simply a complex activity
>of classically describable brain, nothing more. For, according to the
>principles of CM, brain activity is entailed by the principles of CM.

It is simply a matter of LOGIC that CM says nothing about brain activity.
This follows from the Craig interpolation lemma, among other things, which
states that if one sentence entails another, then there must be a third
sentence which uses only the common nonlogical vocabulary such that the
first entails it, and it entails the second. That is, any argument from one
to the other can be made to 'pass through' their common nonlogical
vocabulary. Let me emphasise, this is a theorem, not a matter for debate.
It has an obvious consequence that if two sentences have no common
nonlogical vocabulary, then there can be no (nontrivial) entailment between
them. (One might be a tautology or a contradiction, of course.)  Now,
classical mechanics speaks of particles and fields; it does not speak of
brains (or gases or springs.). Hence it is *logically impossible* that CM
should entail anything at all about brains, unless extended by some
sentences that mention brain-relevant topics. No consistent theory can
possibly entail that it entails anything about things which it does not
even mention. If CM does make such a meta-claim then it is inconsistent, by
Craig's lemma.

This has nothing whatever to do with views-from-afar, or any of the other
irrelevant stuff you keep injecting into the discussion. You STILL havnt
responded to this point. But I give up: you got the last word. I tip my hat
to your energy and perseverance, if not to your logic or your conclusions.

Pat Hayes