(May 17, 2025 at 5:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(May 17, 2025 at 5:17 pm)emjay Wrote: I'm not really sure I understand your objection. If a physical law predicts a given outcome in a given situation, and that given outcome occurs as a result of that law applied, then I have no problem in saying that that outcome was determined by the application of that law in that situation.
Right, but I would say you're making an explanatory or categorical leap that isn't warranted. Similar to confusing correlation with causation. When laws and theories predict something they aren't giving you an inference into causation. For the sake of illustration let's say we can accurately predict the rain about 75% of the times based on whether cows lay down. Clearly, the accuracy of the prediction is independent of the cause. We wouldn't say the cows determine the rain, just that the correlation allows us to make the prediction.
Just to be clear, are you referring to my epiphenomenalist stance, or to my to characterisation of physical processes, such as the behaviour of electrons in a circuit, as causal and therefore in this sense, determined?
If the former then I indeed accept that I'm only working with correlation not causation per se... no one has any theory of how the physical brain actually causes consciousness, so that is ultimately a leap of faith... but the stronger the correlations and predictions become, the more reasonable it is to take that leap of faith, and assume causation, IMO. And the amount of correlational evidence is overwhelming, and anyone arguing the counter case that consciousness is independent of the brain... and I don't know if you are arguing that, but if you believe in an afterlife, I assume you must be to some extent... has to answer why they even have a brain and why physical interactions with it, such as brain damage and drugs, have reliable and predictable effects on consciousness.
