Causation, Mind, and Psionics

[Neo-Scholastic]

This difference isn't about quantum mechanics vs Newtonian mechanics or determinism vs probability. The uncertainty here refers to the gap in our knowledge.

I did mention that the idea deals primarily with epistimology, or as you say gaps in our knowledge. I'm looking beyond that focus, to see if the idea could be extended in the metaphysics of causation. The cause-effect relationship seems easily taken for granted without much reflection on why causes are linked with effects. On this forum proofs that begin with the proposition "everything has a cause" presuppose that causation is a fully resolved problem. I do not think that is the case.

...the probabilistic theory of causation refers exclusively to 'efficient causes' - not the rest.

I completely agree. I did not mean that probablistic cause entailed the other forms or cause as well. Instead, I think it supplants deterministic cause-effect relations in such a way that in operates in conjunction with other types of cause, which I'll clarify next.

Our usage of the terms has changed since his times. ...'material cause', we refer to as 'composition'...'formal cause' became structure, 'final cause' became function ...and his 'efficient cause' became just 'cause'.

You are correct in as much as the Aritotelian nomenclature needs updating. I stuck with those terms because a little research and any forum reader will learn their meaning. That said, I do not think the terms you chose fully capture the original concepts.

Material cause traditonally means indefinite primal matter - below quarks, below strings, all the way down at the bottom. I think, the best modern equivelent is "stuff", but that doesn't capture the idea of its infinite potency.

Formal cause seems best translated as essence, because a thing can change its structure and still retain its formal cause, like when an acorn becomes a fully grown oak tree. Formal cause, or essence is that which preserves its identity as a distinct entity throughout its existence.

Final cause is a bit more difficult to pin down. My understanding is that final cause serves as the motivating principle for all change. We know that things in the universe change, but why is there change at all and not perfect stasis? If I had to choose, I would call it 'intention' even with the connotation of consciousness.

...about psionic experiments and their relation to mind-body dualism...it is still a reach to go from there to dualism. One criticism of the experiment is the psi-assumption...

Psi is just a name for the phenomena not the explanation of it. It referes to facts that cannot be explained within a standard naturalistic paradigm. It seems to me the only assumption being made is that the results must have a physical explanation. It may be telepathy, or it could be something else. The point of serious psychical research, like the kind to which I point, is not about proving the existence of a specific means, like telepathy, but to narrow in on the source of the small but significant lab results, in the hopes that it may shed light on what is actually happening during unusual anecdotal events.

But, even if it were established as telepathy, your argument that "no purely materialistic theory can account for these results" would still be incorrect. ..subconscious perception, i.e. relying on perceptions before or after the ganzfeld effect to make the judgments. ...limited sensory perception. ...weak electro-magnetic fields.

Most of these variables have been eliminated to conform to objections by skeptics. For example, many of the experiments put the 'receiver' in a Faraday cage.

I do not say that dualism is a natural conclusion of my points. Instead it eliminates one of the most persistent objections to it. That objection is the interaction problem: how can an immaterial mind interact causally with material brain.