My understanding is that for this model (epiphenomenalism (?)) is there isn't mental causation rather a kind of mapping between physical and mental events?

What happens to statements like cause must precede effect for this model?

  • I think you are mixing epiphenomenalism ("physical events cause mental events, but mental events never cause anything, not even other mental events") with psycho-physical parallelism ("mental events enter into causal transactions only with other mental events, and physical events enter into causal transactions only with other physical events").
    – Conifold
    Jan 29, 2023 at 10:32
  • I think(?) or i feel(? i donno english word without cause precede) that mental events are reflex based. But any reflex has a cause already, except non-caused. It based not on cause, but on principles - non-price, non-value something, chinese wúwéi 無為, and same. Something that can stop any reason. If you do something cuz you have no any chose~ But all eng words for this theme are terms with "casual transaction", so it is hard to understand. Jan 29, 2023 at 10:40
  • 1
    @Conifold i thought it was epiphenomenalism? philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91220/… Jan 31, 2023 at 5:26


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .