Commentary Thread: Causation and Spirituality (Sam vs David)

[samadhi]

sam: surrendering to the truth is not an action

Kevin: If it is not an action then what do you think it is?

sam: A concept that implies an action, what else?

Kevin: How do you know that the surrender to truth that David is taking about is only a concept and is not an action?

It is obvious what surrender to truth means. It simply means doing what is truthful and not doing what is not truthful. It is therefore an action.

Doing what is truthful is subject to interpretation. If I told you I have just surrendered to the truth right now, would you know what I'm talking about or would you ask me what I meant by that? Would sitting in my chair typing be considered surrendering to the truth?

If you want to argue that surrender to truth is not an action, but is only a concept, then you need to provide supporting evidence. You have not done this.

Surrendering to the truth carries the same implication as having fun. The latter suggests some action of which fun is a description. It doesn't tell you what the action is nor what constitutes fun. In the same way, surrendering to truth suggests some action of which truth is a description. It doesn't tell you what the action is nor what constitutes truth.

[Kevin Solway]

Surrendering to truth suggests some action of which truth is a description. It doesn't tell you what the action is nor what constitutes truth.

So how do you know that "surrending to truth" is only a concept and is not an action? Or do you mean that it's only a concept for you and may well be an action for everyone else?

[samadhi]

So how do you know that "surrending to truth" is only a concept and is not an action? Or do you mean that it's only a concept for you and may well be an action for everyone else?

If you say it is an action then what kind of action is it? Walking, talking, thinking, sleeping, eating, are all actions. What is surrendering to the truth? Tell me how I do that. Even David understood me when I asked him to describe it. Maybe you need to talk to him.

[Peter L]

Sam, what does "surrendering to truth" mean to you? (Basically, I'd like to know what you're talking about and why you don't accept what David was saying.).

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: You can program a robot to do anything (theoretically). It doesn't mean they care about what they do.

Cory: What are your reasons for thinking that a person who cares, isn't programmed (caused) to care? I mean, think about it - do people choose to fall in love with who they fall in love with? Do people choose to like the things they like doing? Like sex? Or philosophy?

You can interpret anything you want in terms of causation. I am not trying to disprove causation to you. I am trying to suggest that it is a path that is asking for your surrender, not your proselytizing.

And I am trying to suggest that one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

sam: The point is that under causation, ignorance is just another effect.

Cory: Sorry, why is that a problem?

sam: Because the effect is seen as "wrong." There is nothing wrong with it. Enlightenment is posited as a goal and ignorance an impediment to it. Under causation, that is nonsense.

Cory: What about a robot who has programmed values, who has a goal of overcoming an obstacle? Under causation, is this nonsense?

What does it mean for a robot to have a goal?

It means the robot has a programmed set of values which causes it to act in a particular way.

Is it your (the programmer's) goal or the robot's goal?

That's just like asking if Billy's goal to have sex or eat food is his goal or the goal of his distant ancestors - such as Neanderthals or very ancient single celled organisms. My point here is that the basis of an agents determination is always an inheritance of karma - of causes.

sam: Simply preaching the distinction while acting as if it doesn't exist is worthless. And in fact, the preaching itself is treating people as free agents.

Cory: Why do you think that in order to learn, people must have free will?

What is the efficacy of teaching causation to those who are already under its sway?

That's just like asking what the efficacy is of teaching a child about the world who is already under it's sway. Just because a child is immersed in the world is no reason for not teaching the child about the world.

Does their belief [about causation] add anything to their actions?

An improved awareness of causation certainly alters the course of one's life. For instance, because I'm aware that committing myself to a woman causes insecurity and jealousy (among other things), I veto my desire to commit to a woman.

What is it you are trying to accomplish by teaching causation that isn't already happening?

Pleasure and pain, peace and war, love and hate - the causal relationship between these opposites is rarely acknowledged. People should be made aware that they are sowing the seeds of sorrow. If they realized the truth in what they were doing - they would cease doing it.

If you say you want to help people, isn't that treating them as free agents and yourself as well?

Just because I give fertilizer to a garden of lettuce - does not mean that I'm treating the lettuce as free agents.

Likewise, just because I give truth to humanity - does not mean that I'm treating them as free agents.

sam: Unless you are prepared to do that, arguing for causation is merely a mental exercise that subtlely encourages free will by implying a superior position via logic. Trying to be superior is a free will argument.

Cory: What if you programmed two robots to compete with each other for resources? Are the two robots (who are clearly programmed to improve their situation) exercising free will?

sam: A robot by definition has no will.

Cory: Robots certainly have purpose and determination. Which is basically what it means to have a will. Isn't it?

What does it mean for a robot to have purpose and determination? Is it your (the programmer's) purpose and determination or the robot's?

Purpose and determination is always an effect - an inheritance.

[samadhi]

Peter,

Sam, what does "surrendering to truth" mean to you? (Basically, I'd like to know what you're talking about and why you don't accept what David was saying.).

In the context of this discussion I have already said that surrender includes not treating others as free agents by blaming people, nor yourself by claiming merit and not indulging in emotions like anger, jealousy, self-pity and self-importance that revolve around an ego trying to control.



Cory,

Cory: What are your reasons for thinking that a person who cares, isn't programmed (caused) to care? I mean, think about it - do people choose to fall in love with who they fall in love with? Do people choose to like the things they like doing? Like sex? Or philosophy?

sam: You can interpret anything you want in terms of causation. I am not trying to disprove causation to you. I am trying to suggest that it is a path that is asking for your surrender, not your proselytizing.

Cory: And I am trying to suggest that one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

Being a free agent is not consistent with preaching strict causation. So why would you want to do both?

sam: The point is that under causation, ignorance is just another effect.

Cory: Sorry, why is that a problem?

sam: Because the effect is seen as "wrong." There is nothing wrong with it. Enlightenment is posited as a goal and ignorance an impediment to it. Under causation, that is nonsense.

Cory: What about a robot who has programmed values, who has a goal of overcoming an obstacle? Under causation, is this nonsense?

sam: What does it mean for a robot to have a goal?

Cory: It means the robot has a programmed set of values which causes it to act in a particular way.

So could it act in a wrong or ignorant way?

sam: Is it your (the programmer's) goal or the robot's goal?

Cory: That's just like asking if Billy's goal to have sex or eat food is his goal or the goal of his distant ancestors - such as Neanderthals or very ancient single celled organisms. My point here is that the basis of an agent's determination is always an inheritance of karma - of causes.

Okay. My point is that robot's don't have goals. But if you say that they do, it can't be a "wrong" one.

sam: Simply preaching the distinction while acting as if it doesn't exist is worthless. And in fact, the preaching itself is treating people as free agents.

Cory: Why do you think that in order to learn, people must have free will?

sam: What is the efficacy of teaching causation to those who are already under its sway?

Cory: That's just like asking what the efficacy is of teaching a child about the world who is already under it's sway. Just because a child is immersed in the world is no reason for not teaching the child about the world.

Except that a child can effect his or her world. You cannot effect causation but only act under it.

sam: Does their belief [about causation] add anything to their actions?

Cory: An improved awareness of causation certainly alters the course of one's life. For instance, because I'm aware that committing myself to a woman causes insecurity and jealousy (among other things), I veto my desire to commit to a woman.

I am not saying you can't do anything you want with your life. I am saying that if you teach causation you are still left with causation which is where you began. Nothing changes. Whether you commit to a woman or not does not effect causation. But if you believed you are caused to do what you do, either way would be perfectly okay. You would just accept the outcome without pride or regret.

sam: What is it you are trying to accomplish by teaching causation that isn't already happening?

Cory: Pleasure and pain, peace and war, love and hate - the causal relationship between these opposites is rarely acknowledged. People should be made aware that they are sowing the seeds of sorrow. If they realized the truth in what they were doing - they would cease doing it.

Why? They are caused to do what they do. Why can't you accept whatever they do since you believe it to be caused?

sam: You say you want to help people, isn't that treating them as free agents and yourself as well?

Cory: Just because I give fertilizer to a garden of lettuce - does not mean that I'm treating the lettuce as free agents.

Treating lettuce as lettuce is accepting causation. If you wanted lettuce seeds to produce spinach because that was your preference, that would be treating it as a free agent.

Likewise, just because I give truth to humanity - does not mean that I'm treating them as free agents.

You want to be a cause, that is treating yourself as a free agent. You want humanity to do something besides what they would otherwise do. That is treating others as free agents.

Cory: What if you programmed two robots to compete with each other for resources? Are the two robots (who are clearly programmed to improve their situation) exercising free will?

sam: A robot by definition has no will.

Cory: Robots certainly have purpose and determination. Which is basically what it means to have a will. Isn't it?

sam: What does it mean for a robot to have purpose and determination? Is it your (the programmer's) purpose and determination or the robot's?

Cory: Purpose and determination is always an effect - an inheritance.

This is like saying the earth is determined to spin and the purpose of the sun is to shine. In fact, those are qualities you are projecting. It doesn't mean those qualities exist apart from your projection.

[Peter L]

Sam,

In the context of this discussion I have already said that surrender includes not treating others as free agents by blaming people, nor yourself by claiming merit and not indulging in emotions like anger, jealousy, self-pity and self-importance that revolve around an ego trying to control.

Can you please just answer the questions...

Me,

Sam, what does "surrendering to truth" mean to you? (Basically, I'd like to know what you're talking about and why you don't accept what David was saying.).

........................................................................................................................................................
Quotes taken from above, Sam's responses to Cory:

Being a free agent is not consistent with preaching strict causation. So why would you want to do both?

For that very reason. It fits. A single page has two sides...

So could it act in a wrong or ignorant way?

So, if I say you're wrong, then am I wrong? Neither?

Okay. My point is that robot's don't have goals. But if you say that they do, it can't be a "wrong" one.

Can't they be programmed to have goals? For instance, a computer who sweeps the floor whenever someone throws some trash on it, doesn't it appear to have a goal or purpose?

Bare floor: right
Trash: wrong

The difference is that we have freewill - A baby in a box! Get it?

Except that a child can affect his or her world. You cannot affect causation but only act under it.

So, what does that mean? I am causation...

I am not saying you can't do anything you want with your life. I am saying that if you teach causation you are still left with causation which is where you began. Nothing changes. Whether you commit to a woman or not does not effect causation. But if you believed you are caused to do what you do, either way would be perfectly okay. You would just accept the outcome without pride or regret.

I'd accept the outcome however it'd be revealed before me, since I have no choice, but that doesn't mean: I can foresee the future. Ex. My car breaks down: it broke down - *whistling*.

Why? They are caused to do what they do. Why can't you accept whatever they do since you believe it to be caused?

Seriously, I can't believe you. After all this time...

Treating lettuce as lettuce is accepting causation. If you wanted lettuce seeds to produce spinach because that was your preference, that would be treating it as a free agent.

That's terrible!

You want to be a cause, that is treating yourself as a free agent. You want humanity to do something besides what they would otherwise do. That is treating others as free agents.

I wanna clean my car. Would snapping my fingers do the trick?

This is like saying the earth is determined to spin and the purpose of the sun is to shine. In fact, those are qualities you are projecting. It doesn't mean those qualities exist apart from your projection.

You got it!

[samadhi]

Peter,

sam: Being a free agent is not consistent with preaching strict causation. So why would you want to do both?

Peter: For that very reason. It fits. A single page has two sides...

Fine. Just say that you are contradicting yourself but you don't care. Then we don't have to discuss it.

sam: So could it act in a wrong or ignorant way?

Peter: So, if I say you're wrong, then am I wrong? Neither?

Huh? The question is, can a robot be wrong.

sam: My point is that robot's don't have goals. But if you say that they do, it can't be a "wrong" one.

Peter: Can't they be programmed to have goals? For instance, a computer who sweeps the floor whenever someone throws some trash on it, doesn't it appear to have a goal or purpose?

Is it the computer's purpose or is it yours?

Bare floor: right
Trash: wrong

Your question?

The difference is that we have freewill - A baby in a box! Get it?

I am not arguing against freewill or causation. I am arguing for consistency.

sam: Except that a child can affect his or her world. You cannot affect causation but only act under it.

Peter: So, what does that mean? I am causation...

Have you been reading the conversation or not? Cory's argument is that all is caused.

sam: I am not saying you can't do anything you want with your life. I am saying that if you teach causation you are still left with causation which is where you began. Nothing changes. Whether you commit to a woman or not does not effect causation. But if you believed you are caused to do what you do, either way would be perfectly okay. You would just accept the outcome without pride or regret.

Peter: I'd accept the outcome however it'd be revealed before me, since I have no choice, but that doesn't mean: I can foresee the future. Ex. My car breaks down: it broke down - *whistling*.

Yeah, and?

sam: Why? They are caused to do what they do. Why can't you accept whatever they do since you believe it to be caused?

Peter: Seriously, I can't believe you. After all this time...

Do you even know what we're talking about?

sam: Treating lettuce as lettuce is accepting causation. If you wanted lettuce seeds to produce spinach because that was your preference, that would be treating it as a free agent.

Peter: That's terrible!

I like spinach, do you?

sam: You want to be a cause, that is treating yourself as a free agent. You want humanity to do something besides what they would otherwise do. That is treating others as free agents.

Peter: I wanna clean my car. Would snapping my fingers do the trick?

Try it and see.

sam: This is like saying the earth is determined to spin and the purpose of the sun is to shine. In fact, those are qualities you are projecting. It doesn't mean those qualities exist apart from your projection.

Peter: You got it!

You don't!

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

Cory: What are your reasons for thinking that a person who cares, isn't programmed (caused) to care? I mean, think about it - do people choose to fall in love with who they fall in love with? Do people choose to like the things they like doing? Like sex? Or philosophy?

sam: You can interpret anything you want in terms of causation. I am not trying to disprove causation to you. I am trying to suggest that it is a path that is asking for your surrender, not your proselytizing.

Cory: And I am trying to suggest that one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

Being a free agent is not consistent with preaching strict causation. So why would you want to do both?

I didn't say anything about being a free agent. I said, one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

sam: The point is that under causation, ignorance is just another effect.

Cory: Sorry, why is that a problem?

sam: Because the effect is seen as "wrong." There is nothing wrong with it. Enlightenment is posited as a goal and ignorance an impediment to it. Under causation, that is nonsense.

Cory: What about a robot who has programmed values, who has a goal of overcoming an obstacle? Under causation, is this nonsense?

sam: What does it mean for a robot to have a goal?

Cory: It means the robot has a programmed set of values which causes it to act in a particular way.

So could it act in a wrong or ignorant way?

If it was programmed to survive - it would have to make judgments. For instance, if the robot had an injury, it would judge the injury as wrong and would judge a remedy to the injury as right. Furthermore, the robot might not know initially how to fix it's injury. It would judge itself as ignorant about it's injury and would then strive to overcome the ignorance by analyzing it's condition and trying to come up with a solution.

sam: Simply preaching the distinction while acting as if it doesn't exist is worthless. And in fact, the preaching itself is treating people as free agents.

Cory: Why do you think that in order to learn, people must have free will?

sam: What is the efficacy of teaching causation to those who are already under its sway?

Cory: That's just like asking what the efficacy is of teaching a child about the world who is already under it's sway. Just because a child is immersed in the world is no reason for not teaching the child about the world.

Except that a child can effect his or her world. You cannot effect causation but only act under it.

Causation is something that you literally are. You and causation are not two separate things.

sam: Does their belief [about causation] add anything to their actions?

Cory: An improved awareness of causation certainly alters the course of one's life. For instance, because I'm aware that committing myself to a woman causes insecurity and jealousy (among other things), I veto my desire to commit to a woman.

I am not saying you can't do anything you want with your life. I am saying that if you teach causation you are still left with causation which is where you began.

Where a person begins is ignorance of causation. Ideally, a person ends with an awareness of causation. Big difference.

Whether you commit to a woman or not does not effect causation.

It certainly effects your awareness of causation.

But if you believed you are caused to do what you do, either way would be perfectly okay. You would just accept the outcome without pride or regret.

It's because one is aware of causation that pride and regret can be overcome.

sam: What is it you are trying to accomplish by teaching causation that isn't already happening?

Cory: Pleasure and pain, peace and war, love and hate - the causal relationship between these opposites is rarely acknowledged. People should be made aware that they are sowing the seeds of sorrow. If they realized the truth in what they were doing - they would cease doing it.

Why?

That's just like asking why people refrain from smoking cigarettes after they are educated about it's dangers.

Why can't you accept whatever they do since you believe it to be caused?

That's just like asking why I don't let my garden become infested by weeds. Yes, I believe my garden is caused, but that doesn't stop me from intervening and guiding my garden in a desirable direction.

sam: You say you want to help people, isn't that treating them as free agents and yourself as well?

Cory: Just because I give fertilizer to a garden of lettuce - does not mean that I'm treating the lettuce as free agents.

Treating lettuce as lettuce is accepting causation.

Yes, and treating a human being interested in learning as a human being interested in learning is accepting causation as well.

Likewise, just because I give truth to humanity - does not mean that I'm treating them as free agents.

You want to be a cause, that is treating yourself as a free agent.

Just because the sun is a cause, doesn't mean it's a free agent.

You want humanity to do something besides what they would otherwise do.

Without sunlight and water, life will wither and die. I want life to grow, and growing is not something that will necessarily happen unless the right causes are in place.

Cory: What if you programmed two robots to compete with each other for resources? Are the two robots (who are clearly programmed to improve their situation) exercising free will?

sam: A robot by definition has no will.

Cory: Robots certainly have purpose and determination. Which is basically what it means to have a will. Isn't it?

sam: What does it mean for a robot to have purpose and determination? Is it your (the programmer's) purpose and determination or the robot's?

Cory: Purpose and determination is always an effect - an inheritance.

This is like saying the earth is determined to spin and the purpose of the sun is to shine. In fact, those are qualities you are projecting. It doesn't mean those qualities exist apart from your projection.

It's impossible for anything to exist unless it's a projection. Things exist precisely because they are a mental projection.

[Peter L]

Sam, what's an absolute truth? (...Is it also another story?)

[samadhi]

Cory,

Cory: And I am trying to suggest that one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

sam: Being a free agent is not consistent with preaching strict causation. So why would you want to do both?

Cory: I didn't say anything about being a free agent. I said, one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

An agent which causes things IS a free agent!

Cory: What about a robot who has programmed values, who has a goal of overcoming an obstacle? Under causation, is this nonsense?

sam: What does it mean for a robot to have a goal?

Cory: It means the robot has a programmed set of values which causes it to act in a particular way.

sam: So could it act in a wrong or ignorant way?

Cory: If it was programmed to survive - it would have to make judgments. For instance, if the robot had an injury, it would judge the injury as wrong and would judge a remedy to the injury as right. Furthermore, the robot might not know initially how to fix it's injury. It would judge itself as ignorant about it's injury and would then strive to overcome the ignorance by analyzing it's condition and trying to come up with a solution.

First, an injury isn't right or wrong, it is a condition. Second, a robot may not know a lot of things but lack of knowledge isn't ignorance per se. You don't call children ignorant because they don't have PhD's. Third, you didn't answer the question. I'll make it even simpler. A hammer is a tool in the same way a robot is a tool, only less sophisticated. Can a hammer be ignorant? Can a hammer strike a nail "wrong"?

sam: What is the efficacy of teaching causation to those who are already under its sway?

Cory: That's just like asking what the efficacy is of teaching a child about the world who is already under it's sway. Just because a child is immersed in the world is no reason for not teaching the child about the world.

sam: Except that a child can effect his or her world. You cannot effect causation but only act under it.

Cory: Causation is something that you literally are. You and causation are not two separate things.

This is my point, not yours. Would you teach a human to be human? So why teach causation to causation?

sam: I am not saying you can't do anything you want with your life. I am saying that if you teach causation you are still left with causation which is where you began.

Cory: Where a person begins is ignorance of causation. Ideally, a person ends with an awareness of causation. Big difference.

But what is the difference? Is it just another piece of "knowledge" or does it change how you act? If you act no differently than you otherwise would, of what use is it?

sam: Whether you commit to a woman or not does not effect causation.

Cory: It certainly effects your awareness of causation.

sam: But if you believed you are caused to do what you do, either way would be perfectly okay. You would just accept the outcome without pride or regret.

Cory: It's because one is aware of causation that pride and regret can be overcome.

Again, this is my point, not yours. That is a surrender to causation which is what I have been pointing to from the start.

sam: What is it you are trying to accomplish by teaching causation that isn't already happening?

Cory: Pleasure and pain, peace and war, love and hate - the causal relationship between these opposites is rarely acknowledged. People should be made aware that they are sowing the seeds of sorrow. If they realized the truth in what they were doing - they would cease doing it.

sam: Why?

Cory: That's just like asking why people refrain from smoking cigarettes after they are educated about it's dangers.

So causation means what? Pleasure not pain, peace not war, love not hate? You still haven't said why.

sam: Why can't you accept whatever they do since you believe it to be caused?

Cory: That's just like asking why I don't let my garden become infested by weeds. Yes, I believe my garden is caused, but that doesn't stop me from intervening and guiding my garden in a desirable direction.

The point isn't not to do anything, it is to accept the results of what you do without pride or regret. You yourself already agreed with this and here you are arguing with it? What's up with that?

sam: You say you want to help people, isn't that treating them as free agents and yourself as well?

Cory: Just because I give fertilizer to a garden of lettuce - does not mean that I'm treating the lettuce as free agents.

sam: Treating lettuce as lettuce is accepting causation.

Cory: Yes, and treating a human being interested in learning as a human being interested in learning is accepting causation as well.

But they already have causation! They are fully caused already! Would you teach addition and subtraction to a PhD. in math?

Likewise, just because I give truth to humanity - does not mean that I'm treating them as free agents.

You are expecting them to act differently with their new knowledge, are you not? Why else would you teach them?

sam: You want to be a cause, that is treating yourself as a free agent.

Cory: Just because the sun is a cause, doesn't mean it's a free agent.

The sun doesn't desire to be a cause, you do. Besides, the point is free agents see themselves as causes, that's why they act. You are doing no differently than they are by your own reasoning. If your actions are justified in the same manner as those of free agents, what is the value of seeing yourself in terms of causation? You are insisting on a distinction without a difference.

sam: You want humanity to do something besides what they would otherwise do.

Cory: Without sunlight and water, life will wither and die. I want life to grow, and growing is not something that will necessarily happen unless the right causes are in place.

Again, this is a free agent argument. You want to create the right causes to reap the right effects. How is this different than any free agent might act?

Cory: Purpose and determination is always an effect - an inheritance.

sam: This is like saying the earth is determined to spin and the purpose of the sun is to shine. In fact, those are qualities you are projecting. It doesn't mean those qualities exist apart from your projection.

Cory: It's impossible for anything to exist unless it's a projection. Things exist precisely because they are a mental projection.

So what are you a projection of?

[Kevin Solway]

Where a person begins is ignorance of causation. Ideally, a person ends with an awareness of causation. Big difference.

But what is the difference? Is it just another piece of "knowledge" or does it change how you act? If you act no differently than you otherwise would, of what use is it?

Samadhi, you are under the delusion that knowledge and lack of knowledge are the same thing. They aren't. Knowledge itself is a different action to a lack of knowledge. A person with knowledge acts with knowledge, and a person without knowledge acts without it.

If you want to argue that knowledge is no different to a lack of knowledge then you need to provide supporting evidence. You have failed to do this.

Also, are you saying that for you personally there is no difference between knowledge and a lack of knowledge? In which case for everyone else there may well be a difference.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: But what is the difference? Is it just another piece of "knowledge" or does it change how you act? If you act no differently than you otherwise would, of what use is it?

Kevin: Samadhi, you are under the delusion that knowledge and lack of knowledge are the same thing. They aren't. Knowledge itself is a different action to a lack of knowledge. A person with knowledge acts with knowledge, and a person without knowledge acts without it.

First, we are talking about causation, not knowledge. Under causation, everything that happens is an effect. The valuing of one effect over another and promoting it is the hallmark of free agency. If you disagree with this, then you need to say what constitutes a belief in free agency.

If you want to argue that knowledge is no different to a lack of knowledge then you need to provide supporting evidence. You have failed to do this.

Again, under causation, everything that happens is an effect. Do you agree with that or not? Your choosing to value one effect over another, promoting it and asking others to do likewise is what free agents do. If you disagree, you must say what the difference is between what you do and what those who believe in free agency do.

Also, are you saying that for you personally there is no difference between knowledge and a lack of knowledge? In which case for everyone else there may well be a difference.

Again, I am not the one arguing for causation, YOU ARE! You argue for causation yet insist that one effect is right and should be promoted while another is wrong and should be discouraged. This is how free agents act, do you agree? If you don't, then tell us the difference between your actions and those who believe in free agency.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

Cory: And I am trying to suggest that one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

sam: Being a free agent is not consistent with preaching strict causation. So why would you want to do both?

Cory: I didn't say anything about being a free agent. I said, one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

An agent which causes things IS a free agent!

Do you believe the sun and water are free agents?

lack of knowledge isn't ignorance per se.

The dictionary definition of ignorance is: a lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

So yes, a lack of knowledge is ignorance.

You don't call children ignorant because they don't have PhD's.

Well, children are ignorant of many things, including most of the learning which goes into a PhD. So children, relatively speaking, are ignorant.

Third, you didn't answer the question. I'll make it even simpler. A hammer is a tool in the same way a robot is a tool, only less sophisticated. Can a hammer be ignorant?

Since the definition of ignorant is a lack of knowledge, learning, information, then yes, a hammer is ignorant.

sam: I am not saying you can't do anything you want with your life. I am saying that if you teach causation you are still left with causation which is where you began.

Cory: Where a person begins is ignorance of causation. Ideally, a person ends with an awareness of causation. Big difference.

But what is the difference? Is it just another piece of "knowledge" or does it change how you act?

Historically, knowledge changes how we act. A lot less people smoke cigarettes these days, and that's because of knowledge.

sam: Why can't you accept whatever they do since you believe it to be caused?

Cory: That's just like asking why I don't let my garden become infested by weeds. Yes, I believe my garden is caused, but that doesn't stop me from intervening and guiding my garden in a desirable direction.

The point isn't not to do anything, it is to accept the results of what you do without pride or regret. You yourself already agreed with this and here you are arguing with it?

I say that pride and regret are superfluous. I also say that humanity should be guided towards wisdom. Explain to me: why are these two notions incompatible?

Likewise, just because I give truth to humanity - does not mean that I'm treating them as free agents.

You are expecting them to act differently with their new knowledge, are you not?

Yes, that's right. Likewise, I would expect my lettuce to grow differently if it didn't have adequate fertilizer, sunlight and water. Humanity is no different. Deprive it of knowledge, and it behaves differently than it would if it had knowledge.

sam: You want to be a cause, that is treating yourself as a free agent.

Cory: Just because the sun is a cause, doesn't mean it's a free agent.

The sun doesn't desire to be a cause, you do.

Oh I see. You think that having desire creates a free agent. Is that it?

How do you know that agents are not caused to desire, and thus not free?

Besides, the point is free agents see themselves as causes, that's why they act.

Ok, you have a very vague and inconsistent definition of 'free agent'

On the one hand, you define a 'free agent' as that which perceives itself as causing things. But earlier you define a free agent as that which desires to be a cause.

That being said, I suppose you and I should be exploring the nature of perception and desire?

Cory: Purpose and determination is always an effect - an inheritance.

sam: This is like saying the earth is determined to spin and the purpose of the sun is to shine. In fact, those are qualities you are projecting. It doesn't mean those qualities exist apart from your projection.

Cory: It's impossible for anything to exist unless it's a projection. Things exist precisely because they are a mental projection.

So what are you a projection of?

Let's first get clear on what we mean by projection. To project is to invent boundaries.

That being said, the self is not a projection of anything. The self is the very act of projection (drawing boundaries).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: to keep correspondence at a more manageable length, I omitted many of my responses. If we can manage to resolve what I posted above, I might post the rest later.

[samadhi]

Cory,

Cory: And I am trying to suggest that one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

sam: Being a free agent is not consistent with preaching strict causation. So why would you want to do both?

Cory: I didn't say anything about being a free agent. I said, one can surrender to the truth and still be an agent which causes things.

sam: An agent which causes things IS a free agent!

Cory: Do you believe the sun and water are free agents?

Sun and water aren't trying to be agents, YOU ARE! Causation is not about getting more control, it is about giving up control. Sun and water don't try to control things, sun shines and water flows, that's it.

sam: lack of knowledge isn't ignorance per se.

Cory: The dictionary definition of ignorance is: a lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. So yes, a lack of knowledge is ignorance.

Under that argument, everything and everyone is ignorant of what they don't know. It becomes a fatuous argument.

sam: You don't call children ignorant because they don't have PhD's.

Cory: Well, children are ignorant of many things, including most of the learning which goes into a PhD. So children, relatively speaking, are ignorant.

See above.

sam: Third, you didn't answer the question. I'll make it even simpler. A hammer is a tool in the same way a robot is a tool, only less sophisticated. Can a hammer be ignorant?

Cory: Since the definition of ignorant is a lack of knowledge, learning, information, then yes, a hammer is ignorant.

See above. And you didn't say whether the hammer is "wrong."

sam: I am not saying you can't do anything you want with your life. I am saying that if you teach causation you are still left with causation which is where you began.

Cory: Where a person begins is ignorance of causation. Ideally, a person ends with an awareness of causation. Big difference.

sam: But what is the difference? Is it just another piece of "knowledge" or does it change how you act?

Cory: Historically, knowledge changes how we act. A lot less people smoke cigarettes these days, and that's because of knowledge.

Free will argument. "I can control my life."

sam: Why can't you accept whatever they do since you believe it to be caused?

Cory: That's just like asking why I don't let my garden become infested by weeds. Yes, I believe my garden is caused, but that doesn't stop me from intervening and guiding my garden in a desirable direction.

sam: The point isn't not to do anything, it is to accept the results of what you do without pride or regret. You yourself already agreed with this and here you are arguing with it?

Cory: I say that pride and regret are superfluous. I also say that humanity should be guided towards wisdom. Explain to me: why are these two notions incompatible?

One is about surrender, the other about control. Be a guide if you want to be but you can't argue being a guide is about causation. It isn't.

Likewise, just because I give truth to humanity - does not mean that I'm treating them as free agents.

Of course you are. You are expecting them to adopt your teaching based on its advantages. Isn't that how free agents work?

sam: You are expecting them to act differently with their new knowledge, are you not?

Cory: Yes, that's right. Likewise, I would expect my lettuce to grow differently if it didn't have adequate fertilizer, sunlight and water. Humanity is no different. Deprive it of knowledge, and it behaves differently than it would if it had knowledge.

You are seeking control. Causation is about giving up control, not accumulating it.

sam: You want to be a cause, that is treating yourself as a free agent.

Cory: Just because the sun is a cause, doesn't mean it's a free agent.

sam: The sun doesn't desire to be a cause, you do.

Cory: Oh I see. You think that having desire creates a free agent. Is that it?

Trying to be a cause is about control. People should do what you do. Why should they? Isn't causation enough to guide their actions? No. They need you to guide their actions. Control.

How do you know that agents are not caused to desire, and thus not free?

Causation becomes your excuse to do what you want. You want to control people and excuse it by saying it is caused. You can excuse anything that way.

sam: Besides, the point is free agents see themselves as causes, that's why they act.

Cory: Ok, you have a very vague and inconsistent definition of 'free agent'. On the one hand, you define a 'free agent' as that which perceives itself as causing things. But earlier you define a free agent as that which desires to be a cause.

A free agent sees itself as in control of its own destiny. You are doing the same in promoting your own agenda and excusing the self-promotion by saying you are caused to do that. Causation is not about excusing behavior, it is about surrendering the personal agenda.

That being said, I suppose you and I should be exploring the nature of perception and desire?

Let's not widen the discussion just yet.

Cory: It's impossible for anything to exist unless it's a projection. Things exist precisely because they are a mental projection.

sam: So what are you a projection of?

Cory: Let's first get clear on what we mean by projection. To project is to invent boundaries. That being said, the self is not a projection of anything. The self is the very act of projection (drawing boundaries).

Boundaries are a part of duality. I see no point in denying them. However projecting human qualities on to non-human entities is always problematic.

[Kevin Solway]

First, we are talking about causation, not knowledge.

You might be talking about causation, but I am talking about understanding of causation, which is knowledge.

If you disagree with this, then you need to say what constitutes a belief in free agency.

In the context of cause and effect no actions are truly free, since all actions are caused.

If you disagree, you must say what the difference is between what you do and what those who believe in free agency do.

I would say that a person who believes in "free agency" is a person who believes that they can do things that are free from causation — free from the determining force of the past, and free from the will of God.

You argue for causation yet insist that one effect is right and should be promoted while another is wrong and should be discouraged. This is how free agents act, do you agree?

I would say that those who believe they are truly free agents always act in a deluded fashion, so no, I do not agree.

[samadhi]

Kevin: you are under the delusion that knowledge and lack of knowledge are the same thing.

sam: First, we are talking about causation, not knowledge.

Kevin: You might be talking about causation, but I am talking about understanding of causation, which is knowledge.

Knowledge and causation are two different things. You are confusing a discussion of knowledge of causation with a discussion of knowledge per se.

sam: If you disagree with this, then you need to say what constitutes a belief in free agency.

Kevin: In the context of cause and effect no actions are truly free, since all actions are caused.

Whether all actions are caused or not is beside the point. One can still believe one acts as a free agent. The question is whether the actions of one who believes in causation differ from the actions of one who believes in free agency.

sam: If you disagree, you must say what the difference is between what you do and what those who believe in free agency do.

Kevin: I would say that a person who believes in "free agency" is a person who believes that they can do things that are free from causation — free from the determining force of the past, and free from the will of God.

I know how the beliefs differ. I am asking you how the actions differ.

sam: You argue for causation yet insist that one effect is right and should be promoted while another is wrong and should be discouraged. This is how free agents act, do you agree?

Kevin: I would say that those who believe they are truly free agents always act in a deluded fashion, so no, I do not agree.

You still haven't answered the question. If a belief in causation leads to actions that reflect a belief in free agency, then your belief in causation has the same utility as a belief in free agency.

[Kevin Solway]

Knowledge and causation are two different things.

That's right. I'm talking about knowledge of causation, which gives rise to wisdom.

You are confusing a discussion of knowledge of causation with a discussion of knowledge per se.

I am not discussing knowledge in general, but knowledge of causation in particular.

One can still believe one acts as a free agent.

It is a delusion to believe that one acts freely when one does not.

I am asking you how the actions differ.

I've already answered this question very clearly, multiple times.

If a belief in causation leads to actions that reflect a belief in free agency, then your belief in causation has the same utility as a belief in free agency.

Belief in free agency is a delusion. Wise actions have a different utility to actions that are based on delusion. This has already been explained.

[samadhi]

sam: Knowledge and causation are two different things.

Kevin: That's right. I'm talking about knowledge of causation, which gives rise to wisdom.

sam: You are confusing a discussion of knowledge of causation with a discussion of knowledge per se.

Kevin: I am not discussing knowledge in general, but knowledge of causation in particular.

Then why did you say "you are under the delusion that knowledge and lack of knowledge are the same thing."? Knowledge per se wasn't under discussion.

sam: One can still believe one acts as a free agent.

Kevin: It is a delusion to believe that one acts freely when one does not.

That's beside the point. Believing you can fly may be a delusion but you can still act on that delusion by jumping off a cliff. The belief has consequences. So the question remains, how does a belief in causation affect one's actions as opposed to a belief in free agency?

sam: I am asking you how the actions differ.

Kevin: I've already answered this question very clearly, multiple times.

No, you haven't. You have studiously avoided answering the question. See above.

sam: If a belief in causation leads to actions that reflect a belief in free agency, then your belief in causation has the same utility as a belief in free agency.

Kevin: Belief in free agency is a delusion. Wise actions have a different utility to actions that are based on delusion. This has already been explained.

Whether it is a delusion or not is beside the point as I explained above. You have yet to say how a belief in causation results in actions that differ from those engendered by a belief in free agency.

[Kevin Solway]

why did you say "you are under the delusion that knowledge and lack of knowledge are the same thing."

Probably because of some foolish thing you said. You'd have to go back and have a look at the context.

So the question remains, how does a belief in causation affect one's actions as opposed to a belief in free agency?

That question has already been answered many times.

The actions differ in their consequences, since one action is based on wisdom and the other on ignorance.

Whether it is a delusion or not is beside the point

It's not, because the consequences will be different. That's what makes the actions different.

[Peter L]

Sam, after all this time, you still haven't answered this:

Sam, what's an absolute truth? (...Is it also another story?)

So, the puppet master is another puppet! My God, who's pulling the strings.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: why did you say "you are under the delusion that knowledge and lack of knowledge are the same thing."

Kevin: Probably because of some foolish thing you said. You'd have to go back and have a look at the context.

Nice dodge.

sam: So the question remains, how does a belief in causation affect one's actions as opposed to a belief in free agency?

Kevin: That question has already been answered many times.

Oh please. Your unwillingness to answer it is evidenced by this thread, otherwise you would simply quote your answer. It appears the implications of causation are something you haven't even considered in your own life.

The actions differ in their consequences, since one action is based on wisdom and the other on ignorance.

Is this supposed to be the answer? Some vague hand-waving. The QRS shuffle at its finest.

sam: Whether it is a delusion or not is beside the point.

Kevin: It's not, because the consequences will be different. That's what makes the actions different.

Geez, do you even know what you're saying? I asked you whether a belief in causation leads to actions distinct from a belief in free agency and to give us an example of such actions. You said a belief in free agency is a delusion. I pointed out that delusions can still be acted on. And your answer is another evasion. The QRS shuffle never stops, does it?

Please don't bother replying any more. You have sufficiently demonstrated your lack of interest in the topic and your word-shuffling mastery at avoiding it.



Peter,

What's the point of your question?

[Kevin Solway]

I asked you whether a belief in causation leads to actions distinct from a belief in free agency and to give us an example of such actions.

I said yes, all actions are different when they are based on wisdom as opposed to ignorance. I said that drinking a glass of water was an example, but that any action at all that is based on wisdom would do as an example.

You said a belief in free agency is a delusion. I pointed out that delusions can still be acted on.

I agree that delusions can be acted on.

And your answer is another evasion.

I don't see how. My answers couldn't be any clearer, and they answered your questions perfectly.

[samadhi]

sam: And your answer is another evasion.

Kevin: I don't see how. My answers couldn't be any clearer, and they answered your questions perfectly.

You refuse to discuss how your belief in causation gives rise to actions that otherwise would not occur under a belief in free will. All you are saying is that it gives rise to identical actions, albeit one "wise" and the other "deluded." Since the distinction depends solely on how you choose to label identical actions, there is no basis for a discussion.

[Kevin Solway]

You refuse to discuss how your belief in causation gives rise to actions that otherwise would not occur under a belief in free will.

Do you not understand how wise actions have different consequences to deluded actions? When you understand that then you will understand how belief in causation gives rise to different actions to those that arise from a belief in free will. I don't mind talking about how wise actions have different consequences to deluded actions, but I think you should be able to work this out for yourself.