(January 15, 2019 at 9:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: How do you attribute causality with non-brain events? For example, Hume postulated that all we see is conjunction, not cause and effect. Say a billiard ball strikes another billiard ball, stopping itself, and resulting in the other billiard ball being put into motion. It would seem that you have a problem similar to associating qualia with brain states in that all you have is a correlation between one ball coming into contact with the other ball and the other ball moving. If all you have is correlation, and your argument against identifying correlation with causation is that it is an insurmountable barrier, then it would seem necessary for you to deny all causation. If you can't attribute causation to anything, then how would you explain anything? So, how do you overcome the philosophical hurdle of attributing causation to correlation in physical events?
You are correct that causation must include the mind.
The brain/mind is one thing, even though the brain has other functions as well. So the mind is also a physical system, albeit one for symbolic processing. In other words, if the brain is causal, so is the mind.
If you press the button which says "STOP," some process will likely stop, even if it didn't stop because the label said "STOP."
