I would go one step further and argue that "causation" or "causality" is just a label that we attach to a special kind of correlation. The very concept of causa

I would go one step further and argue that "causation" or "causality" is just a label that we attach to a special kind of correlation. The very concept of causality, it seems to me, is an attempt to impose human logical structures on a messy world that is fundamentally probabilistic. The universe doesn't guarantee that if P, then Q. At best we can observe that if P at t1, then it is highly likely that Q at t2. We can often simplify that as "if P, then Q", just as we can approximate Einstein's physics with Newtonian physics for low-velocity applications. But at the end of the day, both are only approximations. The clear rules of logic only exist in our head, just as a perfect circle doesn't exist in reality. If so, whether correlation implies causation is the wrong question to ask. A more important question is what kind of correlations we usually take to imply causation. We're probably looking at correlations that hold exclusively between two sets of events with an extremely high probability, with the right sort of temporal relationship. We could then say that those kinds of correlations simply are what we mean by causation, because there really is nothing else to say. Once upon a time, most philosophers thought that the mind was some immaterial substance separate from the brain. Now many of us believe that certain functions of the brain are the mind. Perhaps we could apply a similar reductionism to the issue of correlations and causations, too.