relations to vs relations between

Question

But that doesn't seem enough to make something a pain. It's true that pains are caused by injury, and they do make you hop and yell. But they also feel a certain way, and that seems to be something different from all their relations to causes and effects, as well as all the physical properties they may have—if they are in fact events in your brain. I myself believe that this inner aspect of pain and other conscious experiences cannot be adequately analyzed in terms of any system of causal relations to physical stimuli and behavior, however complicated.

[What does it all mean? Thomas Nagel]

In this case, can I replace "relations to" with "relations between"? Will the meaning change?

And .... what's complicated? Is it "system of causal relations"?

Thank you so much!

Answer 1

What I think Nagel is saying in that sentence is that there's one thing ("this inner aspect of pain and other conscious experiences") that cannot be analyzed by causally relating it to a second thing ("physical stimuli and behavior"). If this is indeed what he means, then "between" would change the meaning of the sentence --- it would mean that the relation in question is between "the stimuli" and "the behavior" rather than between "the conscious experiences" and "the stimuli and behavior".

So with "complicated", I think what he's saying is that no matter how complicated your "system of causal relations to physical stimuli and behavior" is, there's no way it can be used to explain "this inner aspect of pain and other conscious experiences".

This sentence is quite dense! I had to read it a couple times to understand what he meant and I'm a native speaker.

Answer 2

any system of causal relations to physical stimuli and behavior

This means something else can relate to physical stimuli or behavior.

any system of causal relations between physical stimuli and behavior

This limits you to the relations of physical stimuli and behavior only.

Yes, the meaning will change.