As human beings, we always anticipate future occurrences based on our past experiences. It is not new to hear people say it will rain because the cloud has changed . So based on their past experiences they concluded that i will rain. So this forms an image or opinion in their brain that rain falls whenever the whether changes.
There are other views like: you eat because you are hungry, you drink water because you are thirsty, you feel pain because you were slapped, etc,. So they believe that whatever consequence or effect we experience, there must be a cause that led to it.
This is called problem of causality or the problem of causal interaction in philosophy. This is a topic under philosophy of mind which looks at the material and spiritual aspect of man.
In philosophy of mind, there are there different views on the components of man. We have the materialist, the idealist and the dualist.
Both materialism and idealism are monist views. Monism is the view that there only one reality in the universe. In monism, we have materialist monism and idealist monism. Materialist monism argues that only matter exist in the universe. Idealist monism argues that only mind exist in the universe. These two views look like idealism and materialism but in reality they are different.
Idealism is the view that the real substance in the universe is mind. This view claims that body is an illusion. So they believe that mind is the real thing and body has no significance.
The materialists on the other hand maintains that matter it the real substance in the universe. The mind for this view is an extension of the body and depend on the body.
Dualism is the view that mind and body exist and that they are real. This view maintains that neither body nor mind can exist without the other. They compliment each other and their existence depend on each other.
This view was actually articulated by Rene Descartes. Descartes, a French philosopher whose philosophy marked the beginning of modern era philosophy theorized on the issue of mind and body.
In order to come up with a good answer to the question of whether man is composed of two components, mind and body, Descartes begin to think that nothing exist. He doubted that he was born, that he went to school, that he ever married. He doubted everything in existence. In the process of doing this, he discovered that he was thinking because only a thinking being can doubt the possibility of anything in existence. So he argues that he is a thinking being (ego sum res cogitans). This gave birth to his popular dictum: cogito ergo sum - i think therefore i exist. Descartes maintains that every man is both body and mind.
It was Descartes that actually created the mind-body problem in philosophy. He argued that body is spatial, extends and is divisible. That is, we move, occupy space, we grow and every human part can be divided. Mind on the other hand has the attributes of feeling, thinking and it is non-spatial and non-divisible. That is, mind is capable of feeling and thinking but is is not a spatial substance and it cannot be divided.
You might be wondering, why is t that mind is non-spatial when it is in the body? But if you notice, nobody can say where the mind is!!! If i ask you where is your mind, you will likely touch your head, point at your brain or heart! So where is the mind?
The question arises is: if these two things are distinct elements and works separately, how come one affects the other? Descartes argues that they do and the interaction occurs in the pineal gland. For him, this is where the trigger comes from.
Nobody has actually been able to prove that the interaction actually occurred at the pineal gland.
David Hume, an empiricist debunked the idea of causality in terms of real connection. He claims that what we call causal interactions are simply our past experiences. Like when we see someone who is about to kick a ball to the wall, we already assume that ball would bounce back to the person or close to him and thereby implying an effect. This is based on our past experience of similar action. So nothing in the ball makes it go forward to the wall and at the same time brings it back after hitting the wall.
There is nothing in the cause that will ever imply the effect in an experiential vacuum - David Hume
So without past experiences, we cannot anticipate for certain the effect of an action. All we call causalities are resemblance of past experiences. Our only external impression of causation is a mere constant conjunction of phenomena, that B always follows A (like the pain example).
Gilbert Ryle, a behaviorist, maintains that the distinction between mind and body is nothing but a 'category mistake'. Category mistake is committed when you think the 'part is different from the whole'. To buttress his claim, Ryle told us to imagine a situation where a student visits Oxford University. The student is shown the library, classrooms, administrative offices, museum, etc., and the student is still wondering where the university is! Ryle maintains that the student doesn't know that the library, museum and different offices he saw constitute the university.
Ryle argues that mind is not an entity in itself or something that is independent but something that is part of a whole. He argues that the supporters of mind-body dualism wrongly assume that there is a ghost in the machine - a mind in the body can act independently. source
My Take on causality
Man is a material being that is capable of reasoning and acting. Man is a matter that can think, he occupies space, he is divisible and he extends. By virtue of my definition, i do not see man as anything other than matter.
I have always had problems comprehending mind and what it stands for. For those who have been following my philosophical works, you will notice that 'mind' is one word i don't use. I prefer to use brain rather than mind because brain is a matter. This does not suggest that i do not believe in dualism, rather i do not believe in mind-body separation and the causality argument that ensued from it.
Now, how can you measure cause and effect that occurs between person A and B? If you say you feel pain because someone slapped you. You are simply saying cases where such force occurred will result into pain (to use Hume's experience theory).
Now what happens when you were not slapped or there was nothing to suggest the similar force but you are in pain?
If you say copulation leads to pregnancy, then, you must be ready to also accept cases of artificial insemination as another case of pregnancy. The result is that all pregnancies are not effect of copulation.
If you also say we take water because we feel thirsty, then, you must be ready to explain what happens when someone feels thirty but did not drink water or drinks water without feeling thirty.
To even say because you see a child then you have seen an effect of a female would mean you are saying men have not given birth before!
No event affects one another independently. All we have of causality are nothing but resemblance of our past experiences. If we touch fire, we will feel pain and if we touch ice, we feel cold. These things form experiences in us that result into our ideas about causal natures.
Like Hume said, resemblance is what we call causation. To say a 'mind' in me told me to eat suggest that there is something in me that tells me (body) what to do.
Some have even argued that when i think of eating, it is 'mental' and when i eat it is 'bodily'. They simply mean these actions are different but carried out by one thing (body). So their logic implies that either mind or body can affect one anther but the body carry out the effect which is illogical because it implies the superiority one one (mind) over the other (body).
What is your take on this? Do you believe that every cause leads to effect or all effects are product of causes as the case of karma suggest?
Thanks for reading. Its your boy 
Please resteem, upvote and comment!