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?
Asked
Active
Viewed 87 times
3
-
I think you are mixing [epiphenomenalism](https://iep.utm.edu/mental-c/#SH1ciii) ("physical events cause mental events, but mental events never cause anything, not even other mental events") with [psycho-physical parallelism](https://iep.utm.edu/mental-c/#SH1cii) ("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 '23 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. – άνθρωπος Jan 29 '23 at 10:40
-
1@Conifold i thought it was epiphenomenalism? https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91220/experience-as-an-initial-value-problem#comment256270_91220 – More Anonymous Jan 31 '23 at 05:26