"Walter, Maybe the cause-effect demon itself needs to be questioned, which is what the mainstream medical model is based on.  But if this idea from Newtonian physics no longer applies to current experimental physics, how would we expect it to apply to the relationship between biology and cognition?" Probably not. So it´s good that it still applies to all of physics. And why exactly do you think the concept of causality comes from Newton? "You've heard Bateson's analogy about how when kicking a ball you might get fairly predictable results, which is not quite the case when you kick a dog?" Problems with predictability are no reason to be against the concept of causality. That´s why Boltzmann created statistical thermodynamics. If I remember Batesons story correctly he argued that the behavior of living things can better be modelled in a framework of information than one of energy. "How many variables does modern medicine deal with pharmacologically compared to how many there are?" How do you define the numbers of variables in asystem? You have variables in models, not in the so called real world. "And how can we possibly know, in each case, what a determining variable might be?" You can´t that´s why you use statistics in medical research.   You've heard Bateson's analogy about how when kicking a ball you might get fairly predictable results, which is not quite the case when you kick a dog?  How many variables does modern medicine deal with pharmacologically compared to how many there are?  And how can we possibly know, in each case, what a determining variable might be?  Sounds like a bit of magic to me, and I don't know why you place so much trust in it.  It gets results, but I've heard numerous stories of alternative methods having results as well.  It could be coincidence all around.  Or it could be expectation. best, JS