causation is a subset of correlation (that has to be proven to a higher standard than correlation. In other words, what is seen as correlation now could turn into causation with more experiments and evidence).
Both of you are wrong... A correlation is pretty much a relationship, and a relationship, in that sense, is a function where there is some sort of variable difference unless you get something that is constant where something increases or decreases as a function of something.
Actually, what I said is not wrong, Rayn.
All causations are correlations that have one additional piece of information; the linking mechanism. If you have a causation, and then remove the knowledge of the linking mechanism, you still tend to have a strong positive correlation. You cannot have a causality without a correlation, and all information found in the correlation of that same causality
is also found in the causality itself, ergo causality is
a subset of a correlation. Squares and rectangles.
I do agree that causality is not the important thing in this topic, of whether the mind is distinct from the brain and how it is distinct from the brain, however. After all, it doesn't matter when the scientists can literally subvert the entire topic by simply reading a person's brain and showing that thoughts exist within the brain, where we still have no evidence that a mind supposedly exists apart from the brain.
Yes, like one day we'll find out fairies make flowers bloom, the moon is really made of cheese, and that Jesus Christ was at Wood Stock. Here is the thing, though, within an unbounded probability domain, these things could be true inductively; however, the chances are so infinitesimal prima facie that we can practically ignore the possibility abductively. In other words, by virtue of it possibly being true can you not reject something that as a measurable likelihood, for if you do this, you pretty much state that everything in science can be treated arbitrarily, which it is not.
Wow, and here I thought after a few days you'd have realized how stupid that was and removed it. Oh well. For ease of reference, let me quote what I said that prompted your response:
For those abilities and phenomenon that haven't been shown to exist within the physical realm yet, those are still viewed by metaphysicalists as being metaphysical, but one day, with better experiments and stronger evidence, it might yet be proven that they are all purely and completely within the physical domain.
There's really nothing wrong with what I said that should draw such a poor reference to fairies making flowers bloom; in fact, that's the exact kind of superstitious nonsense that science originally sprang up to kill. And science has done a good job doing so purely within the physical domain. Doesn't mean that the whole world is necessarily
physical, but the so-called evidence that psi might be non-physical (primarily, I assume, your beliefs regarding ITCC?) aren't necessarily
what they seem either; in other words, your apt for inferencing might be, instead, jumping to unwarranted conclusions (do you know what the difference between "an inference" and "jumping to a conclusion" is? It's whether you still hold open the doors of other possibilities, or whether you decide to prematurely close them in favour of your favoured belief).
As I said above to Rayn, I don't think the causality is what matters here. We have people who've definitively looked into the brain activity of humans, and reproduced the thoughts that were found there. Certainly, they've only reproduced the simpler kinds of "sensory thoughts", and even then only for one of the senses for now, and not the more complex types of conceptual thoughts that people can have, but once again there isn't any evidence suggesting that we have a mind as distinct from a brain. But since you're talking a Philosophical slant on this rather than an Empirical Evidence slant, I'll respond mostly from that direction.
This is what you're proposing in order to argue that thoughts might emerge initially from the mind and then become represented in the brain. So far no evidence of such, yet still it is proposed as a thing to ponder over, since ancient times. It's a nice mental exercise, but we would be remiss to not mention the other possible view (than the one already mentioned).
You seem to take a top-down ideology, where the mind/consciousness exists first and it then somehow communicates itself to the brain. Hence the analogy someone else made about radio waves; if the consciousness is the radio antenna that produces the waves, and the brain is the radio in your car that picks up the radio waves and play them, then turning off the radio in the car merely seems
to stop the radio waves in the air that were produced by the radio antenna. This is one way to look at it... except where would the mind or consciousness reside? An entirely new level of reality? At Tom and Dot's Diner in Milwaukee? What's it been doing the whole billions of years that existed prior to your physical body existing, or did it only come into existence at about the same time as your body? Is your physical body only picking up a tiny fraction of a much grander consciousness? What exactly causes this previously disconnected consciousness to attach itself to your physical body such that it would want to communicate via your brain? There's a lot of unanswered questions regarding the consciousness-first side of mind-as-distinct-from-brain ideologies, and as such adhering
to the concept, rather than merely contemplating or debating it, would almost appear more as an exercise in Religion than in Philosophy.
The bottom-up ideology would be more where science comes in. Science holds, for instance, that all life on earth used to be incredibly simplistic single celled organisms, and that it grew more complex from there; that complexity grew from simplicity. We have many simple things still in the world today, and then we have a few extra-ordinarily complex things in the world such as brains. From studying other brains and the mental capabilities of other creatures, we can pretty definitively show a correlation between brain complexity and intellectual capacity. Now, to be sure, even simple brains from tiny organisms that are limited in the number of neural pathways that could be produced, can still produce some amazingly intelligent workings; bees and ants and their societies, for instance. However, even from this point of view, the mind-as-distinct-from-brain has never been shown to exist, but if a person were to continue pondering the idea anyway, the brain-first-then-mind ideology would be something like the brain creating an "aura"-like presence that we could call the mind, in much the same way that electrons create an electromagnetic field. The benefit of this way of looking at it is that it can still fit with the scientific understandings that we have so far found in neurology.
Now, back to the thing you said about "characteristically non-empirical phenomenon": this isn't necessarily true. The human brain is incredibly complex, as someone pointed out the number of potential neural pathways and whatnot, and there's a lot of different aspects that go into the human brain, to the point where neurologists are still learning a lot each year; remember that the neurological field(s) is still in it's child stages, and as it progresses more and more it will discover more and more information and reveal the truths behind more and more mysteries. And consciousness is certainly a mystery; as I said before with the psi abilities, it might end up being that consciousness exists outside the physical domain, but we still have so much left to test and search out that it's far to early to definitively say such a thing, especially when the possibility of the consciousness being seated very firmly within the brain is still a very solid possibility.