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?
3
-
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").– ConifoldJan 29 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.– άνθρωποςJan 29 at 10:40
-
1@Conifold i thought it was epiphenomenalism? philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91220/…– More AnonymousJan 31 at 5:26
Add a comment
|