Commentary Thread: Causation and Spirituality (Sam vs David)

[samadhi]

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

Kevin: Do you not understand how wise actions have different consequences to deluded actions?

Oh please. What is a "wise" way to drink water versus a "deluded" way?

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.

Get off your pedestal and explain the above.

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.

Ah, the QRS shuffle by its most elegant practitioner!

[Kevin Solway]

What is a "wise" way to drink water versus a "deluded" way?

This is something so simple that a person needs to be able to work it out for themselves.

[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.

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!

Oh, so you believe trying is the key element when it comes to accounting for free will. Am I right?

Causation is not about getting more control, it is about giving up control.

Acknowledging the truth of causation is about realizing that a human being's effort to control is controlled.

Sun and water don't try to control things, sun shines and water flows, that's it.

Human beings cannot help it but to control. They are caused to control.

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.

What is so unreasonable about that? Do you honestly think that it's possible to know everything?

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."

Think of it this way: I am caused to control my life.

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?

There's no such thing as free agents, Sam. It's a fairy tale.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: What is a "wise" way to drink water versus a "deluded" way?

Kevin: This is something so simple that a person needs to be able to work it out for themselves.

There you have it folks. Is Kevin the champion dissembler or what?



Cory,

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

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

sam: Sun and water aren't trying to be agents, YOU ARE!

Cory: Oh, so you believe trying is the key element when it comes to accounting for free will. Am I right?

Free agency is the idea of being in control of one's life. It takes effort to control.

sam: Causation is not about getting more control, it is about giving up control.

Cory: Acknowledging the truth of causation is about realizing that a human being's effort to control is controlled.

That doesn't mean you will give up your efforts to control. Making excuses for it is a way to remain in control.

sam: Sun and water don't try to control things, sun shines and water flows, that's it.

Cory: Human beings cannot help it but to control. They are caused to control.

This is your excuse to keep trying to control.

sam: Under that argument, everything and everyone is ignorant of what they don't know.

Cory: What is so unreasonable about that? Do you honestly think that it's possible to know everything?

It is not about knowing everything. If you want to call everyone and everything ignorant, then the word is not really conveying any information, is it?

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.

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

Cory: Think of it this way: I am caused to control my life.

You are using causation as an excuse to control.

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

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

Cory: There's no such thing as free agents, Sam. It's a fairy tale.

I am not arguing whether there are free agents or not! I am saying you are using a free agent argument to justify causation. That doesn't make any sense.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

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

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

sam: Sun and water aren't trying to be agents, YOU ARE!

Cory: Oh, so you believe 'trying' is the key element when it comes to accounting for free will. Am I right?

Free agency is the idea of being in control of one's life.

Just because I have the notion that I can control some aspects of reality, does not mean that this notion of mine is uncaused. The truth is that this 'sense of having control' is not a choice. It's something that we realize quite involuntarily.

I just want to make this clear: to me, to be a free agent is to be uncaused. And to be uncaused is impossible. Therefore, to be a free agent is impossible.

It takes effort to control.

So what? Just because the attempt to control takes effort - doesn't necessary imply that I am not caused.

sam: Sun and water don't try to control things, sun shines and water flows, that's it.

Cory: Human beings cannot help it but to control. They are caused to control.

This is your excuse to keep trying to control.

An excuse? What, do you think that the effort to control is morally wrong or something? I don't understand why you should think I need to be excused.

sam: Under that argument, everything and everyone is ignorant of what they don't know.

Cory: What is so unreasonable about that? Do you honestly think that it's possible to know everything?

It is not about knowing everything. If you want to call everyone and everything ignorant, then the word is not really conveying any information, is it?

Everyone is ignorant to varying degrees, relative to each other. A physics professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of biology. A biology professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of physics. A child is likely ignorant about politics. A politician is likely ignorant about eastern mysticism. Etc, etc.

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.

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

Cory: Think of it this way: I am caused to control my life.

You are using causation as an excuse to control.

Excuse? Again, please explain why I should ever need to be excused. A very peculiar choice of word, Sam.

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

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

Cory: There's no such thing as free agents, Sam. It's a fairy tale.

I am not arguing whether there are free agents or not! I am saying you are using a free agent argument to justify causation. That doesn't make any sense.

What are your reasons for thinking it doesn't make any sense?

[Kevin Solway]

I see no value in adopting causation as an intellectual idea and pretending something is accomplished or understood by that when the "no self" it is pointing to is studiously avoided.

This is only an arrogant claim of yours. You haven't established that anyone is adopting causation as only an intellectual idea.

Obviously he does not want to give up blaming which he visits on me in his very first paragraph.

This is another arrogant claim of yours. You haven't established that pointing out a truth, like saying that someone is a fool, is the same as "blaming".

If he believed in causation as a spiritual path, there would be no fault to find in anyone.

This is yet another arrogant claim of yours. When causation causes you to discriminate between the true and the false you will automatically find fault with that which is false.

My thoughts and actions are as explainable and justifiable as his under causation.
Yet he pretends otherwise.

David has done no such thing. David has stated that causation is 100% responsible for all of your thoughts and actions. But the mere fact that they are caused doesn't make them right.

Nothing to overcome is a spiritual practice

It is a rubbish practice, that has nothing to do with spirituality.

he does not recognize surrender as any kind of practice at all.

David has argued very clearly that one must surrender only to truth.

David, arguing for causation, nevertheless invokes personal will as a means of overcoming ignorance. Once again, a free agent argument.

No it's not, because one's personal will comes from causation, or God. It is in no way "free".

the Buddha did not teach causation as a spiritual path.

You obviously don't know anything about Buddhism.

Why would you blame others if you believe their actions are a result of causation?

This is yet another arrogant claim of yours. David has never blamed anybody. Some people are fools, but that is not the same as blaming them.

Why strive for enlightenment when all is already perfect under causation?

Causation causes some individuals to strive for enlightenment. That is part of its perfection.

Can you become more perfect than you already are?

Once again you have made a serious error of logic. If the individual is caused to value truth then he will automatically seek to become more truthful, or more perfect in wisdom. This is something you have completely failed to understand.

Under causation there is no reason to judge others.

This is yet another arrogant claim.

Causation will decide whether people have a reason to judge others or not — not you. And causation causes people to have a reason to judge others. Your arrogance makes no impact on the workings of causation.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Free agency is the idea of being in control of one's life.

Cory: Just because I have the notion that I can control some aspects of reality, does not mean that this notion of mine is uncaused. The truth is that this 'sense of having control' is not a choice. It's something that we realize quite involuntarily.

Wherever it comes from isn't the point. The idea that one is in control of one's life is what the free will argument is about. All you are doing is appending on causation to it which doesn't change it in the least. In fact it justifies it which only strengthens the idea of free agency. "I am caused to be a free agent!" It doesn't get much freer than that.

I just want to make this clear: to me, to be a free agent is to be uncaused. And to be uncaused is impossible. Therefore, to be a free agent is impossible.

Free agency isn't about being uncaused. It is about control. You can always find a reason to exert control if that is what you want to do.

sam: It takes effort to control.

Cory: So what? Just because the attempt to control takes effort - doesn't necessary imply that I am not caused.

You are missing the point again. The effort to control is what free agency is about. Does it take any effort to let people make their own choices?

Cory: Human beings cannot help it but to control. They are caused to control.

sam: This is your excuse to keep trying to control.

Cory: An excuse? What, do you think that the effort to control is morally wrong or something? I don't understand why you should think I need to be excused.

The ego likes doing what it wants. You want to control someone else. Your idea that you are caused to do so is your justification for doing it.

Cory: Everyone is ignorant to varying degrees, relative to each other. A physics professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of biology. A biology professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of physics. A child is likely ignorant about politics. A politician is likely ignorant about eastern mysticism. Etc, etc.

I got your argument the first time. It is still a fatuous argument.

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

Cory: Think of it this way: I am caused to control my life.

sam: You are using causation as an excuse to control.

Cory: Excuse? Again, please explain why I should ever need to be excused. A very peculiar choice of word, Sam.

It is very relevant. The ego wants to control others. You use causation as an excuse to do that. Yet a cursory examination of the idea that "I have no control over my will to control" shows a blatant contradiction of denying control by the act of exerting it. The ego loves backflips like that. It admires its ingenuity to justify every single action.

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

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

Cory: There's no such thing as free agents, Sam. It's a fairy tale.

sam: I am not arguing whether there are free agents or not! I am saying you are using a free agent argument to justify causation. That doesn't make any sense.

Cory: What are your reasons for thinking it doesn't make any sense?

Why make a free will argument to justify the very opposite of free will? Again, notice how the ego is blind to its own contradictions. You literally can't see the contradiction. That's the only way the ego can operate, by a refusal to see or acknowledge any deficiency in its justifications.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

Back for more I see. Can't get enough of me, can you? Heh, heh, heh, I like that.

sam: I see no value in adopting causation as an intellectual idea and pretending something is accomplished or understood by that when the "no self" it is pointing to is studiously avoided.

Kevin: This is only an arrogant claim of yours. You haven't established that anyone is adopting causation as only an intellectual idea.

Well, he denied any action is implied from causation so what are you left with?

sam: Obviously he does not want to give up blaming which he visits on me in his very first paragraph.

Kevin: This is another arrogant claim of yours. You haven't established that pointing out a truth, like saying that someone is a fool, is the same as "blaming".

Oh please, I know blaming when I hear it.

sam: If he believed in causation as a spiritual path, there would be no fault to find in anyone.

Kevin: This is yet another arrogant claim of yours. When causation causes you to discriminate between the true and the false you will automatically find fault with that which is false.

Finding fault is distinct from finding the false. Do you understand that?

sam: My thoughts and actions are as explainable and justifiable as his under causation. Yet he pretends otherwise.

Kevin: David has done no such thing. David has stated that causation is 100% responsible for all of your thoughts and actions. But the mere fact that they are caused doesn't make them right.

How can they be wrong if what causes his thoughts and actions is identical to what causes mine?

sam: Nothing to overcome is a spiritual practice

Kevin: It is a rubbish practice, that has nothing to do with spirituality.

Read the Tao, Kevin. You might learn something.

sam: he does not recognize surrender as any kind of practice at all.

Kevin: David has argued very clearly that one must surrender only to truth.

Surrender as lip service won't get you very far.

sam: David, arguing for causation, nevertheless invokes personal will as a means of overcoming ignorance. Once again, a free agent argument.

Kevin: No it's not, because one's personal will comes from causation, or God. It is in no way "free".

So, you are caused to be a free agent? Do you really want to go there?

sam: the Buddha did not teach causation as a spiritual path.

Kevin: You obviously don't know anything about Buddhism.

Ah, well then you can quote him for us.

sam: Why would you blame others if you believe their actions are a result of causation?

Kevin: This is yet another arrogant claim of yours. David has never blamed anybody. Some people are fools, but that is not the same as blaming them.

Do you know what it means to blame someone Kevin?

sam: Why strive for enlightenment when all is already perfect under causation?

Kevin: Causation causes some individuals to strive for enlightenment. That is part of its perfection.

You don't strive to become what you already are.

sam: Can you become more perfect than you already are?

Kevin: Once again you have made a serious error of logic. If the individual is caused to value truth then he will automatically seek to become more truthful, or more perfect in wisdom. This is something you have completely failed to understand.

We are talking about your argument here, not mine. Under causation things are already perfect, true or false?

sam: Under causation there is no reason to judge others.

Kevin: This is yet another arrogant claim.

Causation will decide whether people have a reason to judge others or not — not you. And causation causes people to have a reason to judge others. Your arrogance makes no impact on the workings of causation.

Judging others is about being better than. Under causation, all are the same. You don't want to acknowledge that.

[Kevin Solway]

He denied any action is implied from causation?

Causation doesn't have a preference for one action over another. It doesn't have a preference for good over evil. Yet some people are caused to be good, and others are caused to be evil.

I know blaming when I hear it.

That is your ego speaking.

Finding fault is distinct from finding the false. Do you understand that?

This is yet another arrogant claim of yours. You do not know what other people mean when they speak of "finding fault", hence your arrogance.

the mere fact that they are caused doesn't make them right.

How can they be wrong if what causes his thoughts and actions is identical to what causes mine?

Each person's actions have different causes, otherwise there wouldn't be different people.

Read the Tao

You don't understand the Tao.

David has argued very clearly that one must surrender only to truth.

Surrender as lip service won't get you very far.

This is only an arrogant claim of yours. You haven't established that David's words are only lip service.

One's personal will comes from causation, or God. It is in no way "free".

So, you are caused to be a free agent?

Reread what I just said. Every choice we make, and what we choose, is entirely caused by what happened in the past.

then you can quote him for us.

The opening words of the Dhammapada:

"What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present
thoughts build our life of tomorrow."

"When a fool does evil work, he forgets that he is lighting a fire wherein he
must burn one day."

"From pleasure arises sorrow and from pleasure arises fear."

"It is by a process of evolution that sankharas come to be.
There is no sankhara which has sprung into being without a gradual becoming.
Your sankharas are the product of your deeds in former existences.
The combination of your sankharas is your self.
Wherever they are impressed, there your self migrates.
In your sankharas, you will continue to live
and you will reap in future existences
the harvest sown now and in the past."

Literally all of the Buddha's teachings are about cause and effect. All of the teachings about reincarnation are entirely about cause and effect. If you do not see this, you are blind.

You don't strive to become what you already are.

You are not already enlightened. People who are enlightened are not deluded.

If the individual is caused to value truth then he will automatically seek to become more truthful, or more perfect in wisdom.

Under causation things are already perfect, true or false?

Read again what I just wrote. Some people are caused to seek to become more perfect in wisdom. Therefore they are not already perfect in wisdom.

It doesn't mean anything to speak of "perfect" on its own, without specifying in what way it is perfect. For example, a person can be a perfect fool or perfectly wise.

Judging others is about being better than.

Certainly it is. I can judge someone else to be better than me. In which case God has caused them to be better than me.

Under causation, all are the same.

Since all people are caused to be different, your claim is obviously misguided.

[samadhi]

sam: He denied any action is implied from causation so what are you left with?

Kevin: Causation doesn't have a preference for one action over another. It doesn't have a preference for good over evil. Yet some people are caused to be good, and others are caused to be evil.

This is an ego argument. "I can do what I want since I am caused to do it."

sam: I know blaming when I hear it.

Kevin: That is your ego speaking.

This is blaming itself. You are deflecting criticism on to me.

sam: Finding fault is distinct from finding the false. Do you understand that?

Kevin: This is yet another arrogant claim of yours. You do not know what other people mean when they speak of "finding fault", hence your arrogance.

Is this another one of your "let's redefine what words mean so I can be right" arguments?

Kevin: the mere fact that they are caused doesn't make them right.

sam: How can they be wrong if what causes his thoughts and actions is identical to what causes mine?

Kevin: Each person's actions have different causes, otherwise there wouldn't be different people.

Duh. Nevertheless, it's all causation.

sam: Nothing to overcome is a spiritual practice

Kevin: It is a rubbish practice, that has nothing to do with spirituality.

sam: Read the Tao

Kevin: You don't understand the Tao.

Let's see. How about this?

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

Kevin: David has argued very clearly that one must surrender only to truth.

sam: Surrender as lip service won't get you very far.

Kevin: This is only an arrogant claim of yours. You haven't established that David's words are only lip service.

You yourself just said that causation doesn't have a preference for one action over another. So where is the surrender?

Kevin: One's personal will comes from causation, or God. It is in no way "free".

sam: So, you are caused to be a free agent?

Kevin: Reread what I just said. Every choice we make, and what we choose, is entirely caused by what happened in the past.

Personal will is being a free agent.

sam: then you can quote him for us.

Kevin: The opening words of the Dhammapada: ...

Literally all of the Buddha's teachings are about cause and effect. All of the teachings about reincarnation are entirely about cause and effect. If you do not see this, you are blind.

His teaching is about ending suffering, not causation which is discussed in terms of karma. And did you notice the blame you are putting on me? Why would I have to be blind? I'm just caused not to see it.

sam: You don't strive to become what you already are.

Kevin: You are not already enlightened. People who are enlightened are not deluded.

They are caused to do what they do according to you. That is the best you can do, isn't it?

Kevin: If the individual is caused to value truth then he will automatically seek to become more truthful, or more perfect in wisdom.

sam: Under causation things are already perfect, true or false?

Kevin: Read again what I just wrote. Some people are caused to seek to become more perfect in wisdom. Therefore they are not already perfect in wisdom.

Everyone is doing what they are caused to do, is that perfection or not?

It doesn't mean anything to speak of "perfect" on its own, without specifying in what way it is perfect. For example, a person can be a perfect fool or perfectly wise.

They are perfectly caused. They can't do anything wrong by that reasoning, can they?

sam: Judging others is about being better than.

Kevin: Certainly it is. I can judge someone else to be better than me. In which case God has caused them to be better than me.

How are they better than you? They may know more, see more, do more, etc. Does that make them better?

sam: Under causation, all are the same.

Kevin: Since all people are caused to be different, your claim is obviously misguided.

It's all causation, isn't it?

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: Free agency is the idea of being in control of one's life.

Cory: Just because I have the notion that I can control some aspects of reality, does not mean that this notion of mine is uncaused. The truth is that this 'sense of having control' is not a choice. It's something that we realize quite involuntarily.

Wherever it comes from isn't the point. The idea that one is in control of one's life is what the free will argument is about.

Says who? What are your reasons for believing that such an idea automatically implies free will?

I just want to make this clear: to me, to be a free agent is to be uncaused. And to be uncaused is impossible. Therefore, to be a free agent is impossible.

Free agency isn't about being uncaused. It is about control.

Ok, please give your reasons for this belief of yours. Why is free will about control?

sam: It takes effort to control.

Cory: So what? Just because the attempt to control takes effort - doesn't necessary imply that I am not caused.

You are missing the point again. The effort to control is what free agency is about. Does it take any effort to let people make their own choices?

I have no interest in forcing people to do what I want them to do. I do have an interest in teaching those who are interested in learning - not to mention, I also have an interest in learning from those who are interested in teaching.

Cory: Human beings cannot help it but to control. They are caused to control.

sam: This is your excuse to keep trying to control.

Cory: An excuse? What, do you think that the effort to control is morally wrong or something? I don't understand why you should think I need to be excused.

The ego likes doing what it wants. You want to control someone else.

What is the difference between Adya who teaches, and me who also teaches?

Don't you realize the difference between teaching those who are interested in learning, compared to forcing someone to do something? I am not interested in teaching anyone who has no interest in learning. Although, I do believe there is much a person can learn from a fool. So I do have an interest in learning from people who have no interest in teaching. ;)

Cory: Everyone is ignorant to varying degrees, relative to each other. A physics professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of biology. A biology professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of physics. A child is likely ignorant about politics. A politician is likely ignorant about eastern mysticism. Etc, etc.

I got your argument the first time. It is still a fatuous argument.

Sorry, remind me, why is it a fatuous argument?

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

Cory: Think of it this way: I am caused to control my life.

sam: You are using causation as an excuse to control.

Cory: Excuse? Again, please explain why I should ever need to be excused. A very peculiar choice of word, Sam.

It is very relevant. The ego wants to control others. You use causation as an excuse to do that.

Again, what's the difference between a guy like Adya, and a guy like me? He gives lectures and writes books in order to get through to people, doesn't he?

[Kevin Solway]

Causation doesn't have a preference for one action over another. It doesn't have a preference for good over evil. Yet some people are caused to be good, and others are caused to be evil.

This is an ego argument. "I can do what I want since I am caused to do it."

I didn't say anything of the kind. You are simply making these things up so that it fits-in with your script.

You do not know what other people mean when they speak of "finding fault", hence your arrogance.

Is this another one of your "let's redefine what words mean so I can be right" arguments?

It is a wise behaviour to find fault where fault exists. People pay me to find fault with their beliefs so that they can abandon those faulty beliefs.

the mere fact that they are caused doesn't make them right.

How can they be wrong if what causes his thoughts and actions is identical to what causes mine?

Different actions have different causes, and that's what makes them different. A reasoning is wrong when it is wrong and right when it is right.

Even though God is the root cause of all good and evil, yet good and evil are different things, and the causes of good are different to the causes of evil.

You don't understand the Tao.

Let's see. How about this?

Quoting words doesn't mean you understand them.

You yourself just said that causation doesn't have a preference for one action over another. So where is the surrender?

Wise people are caused to surrender to truth. That's where the surrender is.

Personal will is being a free agent.

That's where we disagree, since I know that causation prevents any will from being free.

His [the Buddha's] teaching is about ending suffering

It is primarily about living truthfully.

. . . not causation which is discussed in terms of karma.

Karma is cause and effect, or causation.

Why would I have to be blind? I'm just caused not to see it.

That's what a blind person is — someone who is caused not to see.

You are not already enlightened. People who are enlightened are not deluded.

That is the best you can do, isn't it?

Whatever you do is all you can do. That's not the same as being enlightened. Evil, ignorant, and deluded people are also doing all they can do.

They are perfectly caused. They can't do anything wrong by that reasoning, can they?

That doesn't logically follow. While all people are perfectly caused, some people are perfectly caused to be evil while others are perfectly caused to be good. Some people are caused to be wrong in their reasoning and others are caused to be right in their reasoning.

I can judge someone else to be better than me. In which case God has caused them to be better than me.

How are they better than you? They may know more, see more, do more, etc. Does that make them better?

Yes, that's what "better" means. It doesn't mean they are inherently better, but they are certainly better.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Free agency is the idea of being in control of one's life.

Cory: Just because I have the notion that I can control some aspects of reality, does not mean that this notion of mine is uncaused. The truth is that this 'sense of having control' is not a choice. It's something that we realize quite involuntarily.

sam: Wherever it comes from isn't the point. The idea that one is in control of one's life is what the free will argument is about.

Cory: Says who? What are your reasons for believing that such an idea automatically implies free will?

What is free will if not being in control of your life?

Cory: I just want to make this clear: to me, to be a free agent is to be uncaused. And to be uncaused is impossible. Therefore, to be a free agent is impossible.

sam: Free agency isn't about being uncaused. It is about control.

Cory: Ok, please give your reasons for this belief of yours. Why is free will about control?

Suppose you were to give me control of all your financial assets. Would you still feel free to do what you want with your money?

sam: It takes effort to control.

Cory: So what? Just because the attempt to control takes effort - doesn't necessary imply that I am not caused.

sam: You are missing the point again. The effort to control is what free agency is about. Does it take any effort to let people make their own choices?

Cory: I have no interest in forcing people to do what I want them to do. I do have an interest in teaching those who are interested in learning - not to mention, I also have an interest in learning from those who are interested in teaching.

Well, we're back to free will, aren't we? You want to be a cause for people's learning. Who doesn't? Being a cause is being in control, isn't it?

Cory: Human beings cannot help it but to control. They are caused to control.

sam: This is your excuse to keep trying to control.

Cory: An excuse? What, do you think that the effort to control is morally wrong or something? I don't understand why you should think I need to be excused.

sam: The ego likes doing what it wants. You want to control someone else.

Cory: What is the difference between Adya who teaches, and me who also teaches?

I have no problem with your teaching. It is you wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Don't you realize the difference between teaching those who are interested in learning, compared to forcing someone to do something? I am not interested in teaching anyone who has no interest in learning. Although, I do believe there is much a person can learn from a fool. So I do have an interest in learning from people who have no interest in teaching. ;)

See above.

Cory: Everyone is ignorant to varying degrees, relative to each other. A physics professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of biology. A biology professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of physics. A child is likely ignorant about politics. A politician is likely ignorant about eastern mysticism. Etc, etc.

sam: I got your argument the first time. It is still a fatuous argument.

Cory: Sorry, remind me, why is it a fatuous argument?

You are saying ignorance applies to everyone and everything. Without distinctions, there is nothing to discuss.

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

Cory: Think of it this way: I am caused to control my life.

sam: You are using causation as an excuse to control.

Cory: Excuse? Again, please explain why I should ever need to be excused. A very peculiar choice of word, Sam.
sam: It is very relevant. The ego wants to control others. You use causation as an excuse to do that.

Cory: Again, what's the difference between a guy like Adya, and a guy like me? He gives lectures and writes books in order to get through to people, doesn't he?

Like I said, teach all you want, that isn't the problem. It is wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: Free agency is the idea of being in control of one's life.

Cory: Just because I have the notion that I can control some aspects of reality, does not mean that this notion of mine is uncaused. The truth is that this 'sense of having control' is not a choice. It's something that we realize quite involuntarily.

sam: Wherever it comes from isn't the point. The idea that one is in control of one's life is what the free will argument is about.

Cory: Says who? What are your reasons for believing that such an idea automatically implies free will?

Sam: What is free will if not being in control of your life?

An illusion.

Cory: I just want to make this clear: to me, to be a free agent is to be uncaused. And to be uncaused is impossible. Therefore, to be a free agent is impossible.

sam: Free agency isn't about being uncaused. It is about control.

Cory: Ok, please give your reasons for this belief of yours. Why is free will about control?

Sam: Suppose you were to give me control of all your financial assets. Would you still feel free to do what you want with your money?

I would have less power to do what I am caused to value.

sam: It takes effort to control.

Cory: So what? Just because the attempt to control takes effort - doesn't necessary imply that I am not caused.

sam: You are missing the point again. The effort to control is what free agency is about. Does it take any effort to let people make their own choices?

Cory: I have no interest in forcing people to do what I want them to do. I do have an interest in teaching those who are interested in learning - not to mention, I also have an interest in learning from those who are interested in teaching.

Well, we're back to free will, aren't we? You want to be a cause for people's learning. Who doesn't? Being a cause is being in control, isn't it?

Being in control is being controlled, and vice versa. Doesn't Adya teach anything about Nondualism?

Cory: Human beings cannot help it but to control. They are caused to control.

sam: This is your excuse to keep trying to control.

Cory: An excuse? What, do you think that the effort to control is morally wrong or something? I don't understand why you should think I need to be excused.

sam: The ego likes doing what it wants. You want to control someone else.

Cory: What is the difference between Adya who teaches, and me who also teaches?

Sam: I have no problem with your teaching. It is you wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Again, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control? That's basically my position. I am caused to teach. And to teach is to control the present to some extent. For example, I might train my employees to operate my company's software more effectively, and in that sense, I am controlling the outcome of my company, as well as the lives of my employees. But I am caused to control. Again, please tell me, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control?

Cory: Everyone is ignorant to varying degrees, relative to each other. A physics professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of biology. A biology professor is likely ignorant of a great deal of physics. A child is likely ignorant about politics. A politician is likely ignorant about eastern mysticism. Etc, etc.

sam: I got your argument the first time. It is still a fatuous argument.

Cory: Sorry, remind me, why is it a fatuous argument?

Sam: You are saying ignorance applies to everyone and everything. Without distinctions, there is nothing to discuss.

It's true, everyone is ignorant to varying degrees - but people can be ignorant in distinct ways. One person can be very knowledgeable about computers, but completely ignorant about agriculture, and vice versa. Therefore, when we talk about humanity's ignorance, there are indeed distinctions to make, and thus something to discuss.

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

Cory: Think of it this way: I am caused to control my life.

sam: You are using causation as an excuse to control.

Cory: Excuse? Again, please explain why I should ever need to be excused. A very peculiar choice of word, Sam.

sam: It is very relevant. The ego wants to control others. You use causation as an excuse to do that.

Cory: Again, what's the difference between a guy like Adya, and a guy like me? He gives lectures and writes books in order to get through to people, doesn't he?

Sam: Like I said, teach all you want, that isn't the problem. It is wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Again, I sincerely encourage you to explain why you think it's impossible for an entity to be caused to value teaching/controlling.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

Kevin: Causation doesn't have a preference for one action over another. It doesn't have a preference for good over evil. Yet some people are caused to be good, and others are caused to be evil.

sam: This is an ego argument. "I can do what I want since I am caused to do it."

Kevin: I didn't say anything of the kind. You are simply making these things up so that it fits-in with your script.

Of course you did. And you are denying it because it fits your script.

Kevin: You do not know what other people mean when they speak of "finding fault", hence your arrogance.

sam: Is this another one of your "let's redefine what words mean so I can be right" arguments?

Kevin: It is a wise behaviour to find fault where fault exists. People pay me to find fault with their beliefs so that they can abandon those faulty beliefs.

Finding fault is about blaming. Finding the false isn't.

Kevin: the mere fact that they are caused doesn't make them right.

sam: How can they be wrong if what causes his thoughts and actions is identical to what causes mine?

Kevin: Different actions have different causes, and that's what makes them different. A reasoning is wrong when it is wrong and right when it is right.

Even though God is the root cause of all good and evil, yet good and evil are different things, and the causes of good are different to the causes of evil.

All actions are God's actions, isn't this what you told me? Do you embrace all of God or just the parts you like?

Kevin: You don't understand the Tao.

sam: Let's see. How about this?

Kevin: Quoting words doesn't mean you understand them.

Lol. This from the guy who just quoted the Dhammapada to me.

sam: You yourself just said that causation doesn't have a preference for one action over another. So where is the surrender?

Kevin: Wise people are caused to surrender to truth. That's where the surrender is.

But causation has no preference for surrender according to you.

sam: Personal will is being a free agent.

Kevin: That's where we disagree, since I know that causation prevents any will from being free.

Right. I am caused to be free. Great argument.

sam: His [the Buddha's] teaching is about ending suffering

Kevin: It is primarily about living truthfully.

By ending suffering.

sam: . . . not causation which is discussed in terms of karma.

Kevin: Karma is cause and effect, or causation.

It is about ending suffering by understanding its causes.

sam: Why would I have to be blind? I'm just caused not to see it.

Kevin: That's what a blind person is — someone who is caused not to see.

So why blame me for not seeing?

Kevin: You are not already enlightened. People who are enlightened are not deluded.

sam: That is the best you can do, isn't it?

Kevin: Whatever you do is all you can do. That's not the same as being enlightened. Evil, ignorant, and deluded people are also doing all they can do.

If you are doing all you can do, there is nothing else to do, is there? What more would you have them do?

sam: They are perfectly caused. They can't do anything wrong by that reasoning, can they?

Kevin: That doesn't logically follow. While all people are perfectly caused, some people are perfectly caused to be evil while others are perfectly caused to be good. Some people are caused to be wrong in their reasoning and others are caused to be right in their reasoning.

Exactly. You are agreeing with me while pretending not to. All are caused. Therein lies their perfection.

Kevin: I can judge someone else to be better than me. In which case God has caused them to be better than me.

sam: How are they better than you? They may know more, see more, do more, etc. Does that make them better?

Yes, that's what "better" means. It doesn't mean they are inherently better, but they are certainly better.

Why is knowing more, seeing more, doing more better? All is caused to be as it is. Is one cause better than another?

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Free agency is the idea of being in control of one's life.

Cory: Just because I have the notion that I can control some aspects of reality, does not mean that this notion of mine is uncaused. The truth is that this 'sense of having control' is not a choice. It's something that we realize quite involuntarily.

sam: Wherever it comes from isn't the point. The idea that one is in control of one's life is what the free will argument is about.

Cory: Says who? What are your reasons for believing that such an idea automatically implies free will?

Sam: What is free will if not being in control of your life?

Cory: An illusion.

Uh, you are missing the point again. I am not arguing for free will. I am arguing that you are promoting causation in terms of free will.

Cory: Ok, please give your reasons for this belief of yours. Why is free will about control?

sam: Suppose you were to give me control of all your financial assets. Would you still feel free to do what you want with your money?

Cory: I would have less power to do what I am caused to value.

You get the point. So why are you arguing it?

Cory: I have no interest in forcing people to do what I want them to do. I do have an interest in teaching those who are interested in learning - not to mention, I also have an interest in learning from those who are interested in teaching.

sam: Well, we're back to free will, aren't we? You want to be a cause for people's learning. Who doesn't? Being a cause is being in control, isn't it?

Cory: Being in control is being controlled, and vice versa. Doesn't Adya teach anything about Nondualism?

Lol. So A = (not A) is what you're saying. Free will and causation are the same. What would David say?

Cory: What is the difference between Adya who teaches, and me who also teaches?

Sam: I have no problem with your teaching. It is you wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Cory: Again, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control? That's basically my position.

But this is A = (not A) again. If being in control is what free will is about, you are saying you are caused to be free. Why would you want to argue that?

I am caused to teach. And to teach is to control the present to some extent. For example, I might train my employees to operate my company's software more effectively, and in that sense, I am controlling the outcome of my company, as well as the lives of my employees. But I am caused to control. Again, please tell me, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control?

I am fine with you teaching. Just see that you want to be a cause instead of simply an effect, just like everyone else. Then you can give up your proselytizing for causation.

Sam: You are saying ignorance applies to everyone and everything. Without distinctions, there is nothing to discuss.

Cory: It's true, everyone is ignorant to varying degrees - but people can be ignorant in distinct ways. One person can be very knowledgeable about computers, but completely ignorant about agriculture, and vice versa. Therefore, when we talk about humanity's ignorance, there are indeed distinctions to make, and thus something to discuss.

The point was that ignorance applies within a context. It is pointless to say that a robot is ignorant in the same way a human being is ignornant. You want to make it a semantic argument instead of what the difference between a robot and human is.

Cory: Again, what's the difference between a guy like Adya, and a guy like me? He gives lectures and writes books in order to get through to people, doesn't he?

sam: Like I said, teach all you want, that isn't the problem. It is wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Cory: Again, I sincerely encourage you to explain why you think it's impossible for an entity to be caused to value teaching/controlling.

I have no problem with your teaching. The point is you want to be a cause and not just an effect. That is a free will argument.

[Kevin Solway]

Finding fault is about blaming. Finding the false isn't.

You should listen to what people are telling you rather than trying to impose your will on others.

People know what they are saying more than you do, so you shouldn't presume to tell people what they mean by their own words.

Do you embrace all of God or just the parts you like?

I embrace all parts of God, including ignorance, and then I try to eliminate ignorance.

Wise people are caused to surrender to truth. That's where the surrender is.

But causation has no preference for surrender according to you.

That's right, but wise people have a preference for it, as I've just said.

I know that causation prevents any will from being free.

Right. I am caused to be free.

You are not listening.

That's what a blind person is — someone who is caused not to see.

So why blame me for not seeing?

It is your ego that thinks you are being blamed, but you aren't.

If you are doing all you can do, there is nothing else to do, is there? What more would you have them do?

I would have people do whatever I can cause them to do. I am caused to cause other people to change their behaviour.

Why is knowing more, seeing more, doing more better?

It is only "better" for those people who are caused to have values.

A rock isn't caused to have values, so, for a rock, there is no "better".

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: Finding fault is about blaming. Finding the false isn't.

Kevin: You should listen to what people are telling you rather than trying to impose your will on others.

Wow, this from you?

People know what they are saying more than you do, so you shouldn't presume to tell people what they mean by their own words.

I know blame when I hear it.

sam: Do you embrace all of God or just the parts you like?

Kevin: I embrace all parts of God, including ignorance, and then I try to eliminate ignorance.

Right. You want to be a cause of ending ignorance. A free will argument.

Kevin: Wise people are caused to surrender to truth. That's where the surrender is.

sam: But causation has no preference for surrender according to you.

Kevin: That's right, but wise people have a preference for it, as I've just said.

Right, a free will argument.

Kevin: I know that causation prevents any will from being free.

sam: Right. I am caused to be free.

Kevin: You are not listening.

Neither are you.

Kevin: That's what a blind person is — someone who is caused not to see.

sam: So why blame me for not seeing?

Kevin: It is your ego that thinks you are being blamed, but you aren't.

So if I called you stupid for not understanding your own free will arguments, would I be blaming you or simply describing the truth? Would your ego object to the truth?

sam: If you are doing all you can do, there is nothing else to do, is there? What more would you have them do?

Kevin: I would have people do whatever I can cause them to do. I am caused to cause other people to change their behaviour.

Right. You want to be a cause for change, a free will argument.

sam: Why is knowing more, seeing more, doing more better?

Kevin: It is only "better" for those people who are caused to have values.

So is more always better? Isn't it true that more knowledge and more people is leading to more environmental destruction?

A rock isn't caused to have values, so, for a rock, there is no "better".

Right. A rock isn't trying to be a free agent like you.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: Free agency is the idea of being in control of one's life.

Cory: Just because I have the notion that I can control some aspects of reality, does not mean that this notion of mine is uncaused. The truth is that this 'sense of having control' is not a choice. It's something that we realize quite involuntarily.

sam: Wherever it comes from isn't the point. The idea that one is in control of one's life is what the free will argument is about.

Cory: Says who? What are your reasons for believing that such an idea automatically implies free will?

Sam: What is free will if not being in control of your life?

Cory: An illusion.

Uh, you are missing the point again. I am not arguing for free will. I am arguing that you are promoting causation in terms of free will.

No I'm not. You are assuming that possessing a degree of power and control automatically implies free will. And now here I am asking you what your reasons are for concluding why a degree of power/control implies free will.

Cory: Ok, please give your reasons for this belief of yours. Why is free will about control?

sam: Suppose you were to give me control of all your financial assets. Would you still feel free to do what you want with your money?

Cory: I would have less power to do what I am caused to value.

Sam: You get the point. So why are you arguing it?

What are your reasons for assuming that I'm arguing it?

Cory: I have no interest in forcing people to do what I want them to do. I do have an interest in teaching those who are interested in learning - not to mention, I also have an interest in learning from those who are interested in teaching.

sam: Well, we're back to free will, aren't we? You want to be a cause for people's learning. Who doesn't? Being a cause is being in control, isn't it?

Cory: Being in control is being controlled, and vice versa. Doesn't Adya teach anything about Nondualism?

Lol. So A = (not A) is what you're saying.

Things are created by our perspective. From one perspective, there is a phenomena called 'control'. Control = Control.

From a second perspective there is a phenomena called: 'being controlled'

Being controlled = Being controlled.

From a third, more lofty perspective we see the unity between having control and being controlled.

The unity of controller & controlled = the unity of controller & controlled.

So you see, as long as you realize that the existence of things depends on your perspective of them, then there is no contradiction.

Free will and causation are the same. What would David say?

He would say that because of causation, there is no free will.

Cory: What is the difference between Adya who teaches, and me who also teaches?

Sam: I have no problem with your teaching. It is you wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Cory: Again, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control? That's basically my position.

But this is A = (not A) again.

No it's not. There is no contradiction - I explain why above.

If being in control is what free will is about...

Hold it right there.

THATS where you are wrong. You are making an assumption. Again, tell me, what are your reasons for concluding that being in control is what free will is about?

you are saying you are caused to be free.

No, I am saying that I am caused to have some degree of effect (control) over my environment.

Likewise, the sun shining down on the earth has some degree of control in terms of what happens on earth. For instance, in the desert, the sun partly controls what takes place in the desert. Tender grasses may attempt to grow up from the sand, but the sun, exerting force, eliminates them.

I am caused to teach. And to teach is to control the present to some extent. For example, I might train my employees to operate my company's software more effectively, and in that sense, I am controlling the outcome of my company, as well as the lives of my employees. But I am caused to control. Again, please tell me, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control?

I am fine with you teaching. Just see that you want to be a cause instead of simply an effect, just like everyone else.

It's logically impossible to be an effect without being a cause, and vice versa. Causes are effects, and effects are causes.

Again, I'm really surprised that Adya hasn't taught you anything about nondualism.

Sam: You are saying ignorance applies to everyone and everything. Without distinctions, there is nothing to discuss.

Cory: It's true, everyone is ignorant to varying degrees - but people can be ignorant in distinct ways. One person can be very knowledgeable about computers, but completely ignorant about agriculture, and vice versa. Therefore, when we talk about humanity's ignorance, there are indeed distinctions to make, and thus something to discuss.

The point was that ignorance applies within a context.

All things only exist in a context. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that ignorance is exempt from context. On the contrary, we can only consider something ignorant in comparison to something else.

It is pointless to say that a robot is ignorant in the same way a human being is ignorant.

Well, likewise, it may not be very apt to say that a robot 'knows' in the same way a human being knows.

It really all boils down to how we define terms. For instance, you may define ignorance as a characteristic attributable only to entities capable of learning. I couldn't argue with you there.

Cory: Again, what's the difference between a guy like Adya, and a guy like me? He gives lectures and writes books in order to get through to people, doesn't he?

sam: Like I said, teach all you want, that isn't the problem. It is wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Cory: Again, I sincerely encourage you to explain why you think it's impossible for an entity to be caused to value teaching/controlling.

I have no problem with your teaching. The point is you want to be a cause and not just an effect. That is a free will argument.

Ok, why is that a free will argument? Please give your reasons. Do you have any?

Besides, it's logically impossible for something to only be an effect. Effects are causes, causes are effects.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Uh, you are missing the point again. I am not arguing for free will. I am arguing that you are promoting causation in terms of free will.

Cory: No I'm not. You are assuming that possessing a degree of power and control automatically implies free will. And now here I am asking you what your reasons are for concluding why a degree of power/control implies free will.

I asked you the question about giving me control of your financial assets. You agreed that you would have less power and freedom to do what you wanted. And now turn around and ask me why control implies freedom? What's up with that?

Cory: Ok, please give your reasons for this belief of yours. Why is free will about control?

sam: Suppose you were to give me control of all your financial assets. Would you still feel free to do what you want with your money?

Cory: I would have less power to do what I am caused to value.

Sam: You get the point. So why are you arguing it?

Cory: What are your reasons for assuming that I'm arguing it?

Then you are agreeing with me that control implies freedom. Pretty straightforward, eh?

Cory: I have no interest in forcing people to do what I want them to do. I do have an interest in teaching those who are interested in learning - not to mention, I also have an interest in learning from those who are interested in teaching.

sam: Well, we're back to free will, aren't we? You want to be a cause for people's learning. Who doesn't? Being a cause is being in control, isn't it?

Cory: Being in control is being controlled, and vice versa. Doesn't Adya teach anything about Nondualism?

sam: Lol. So A = (not A) is what you're saying.

Cory: Things are created by our perspective. From one perspective, there is a phenomena called 'control'. Control = Control.

From a second perspective there is a phenomena called: 'being controlled'

Being controlled = Being controlled.

From a third, more lofty perspective we see the unity between having control and being controlled.

The unity of controller & controlled = the unity of controller & controlled.

So you see, as long as you realize that the existence of things depends on your perspective of them, then there is no contradiction.

So what perspective is it in which you are caused to be free?

sam: Free will and causation are the same. What would David say?

Cory: He would say that because of causation, there is no free will.

But you just said you are caused to be free!

Cory: Again, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control? That's basically my position.

sam: But this is A = (not A) again.

Cory: No it's not. There is no contradiction - I explain why above.

Right, you are caused to be free. I love it.

sam: If being in control is what free will is about...

Cory: Hold it right there. THATS where you are wrong. You are making an assumption. Again, tell me, what are your reasons for concluding that being in control is what free will is about?

I explained this with the financial question and you agreed with me.

sam: you are saying you are caused to be free.

Cory: No, I am saying that I am caused to have some degree of effect (control) over my environment.

Control implies freedom which you have admitted.

Likewise, the sun shining down on the earth has some degree of control in terms of what happens on earth. For instance, in the desert, the sun partly controls what takes place in the desert. Tender grasses may attempt to grow up from the sand, but the sun, exerting force, eliminates them.

The sun doesn't control anything. Existence per se isn't control. I can't believe you would try to make that argument.

Cory: I am caused to teach. And to teach is to control the present to some extent. For example, I might train my employees to operate my company's software more effectively, and in that sense, I am controlling the outcome of my company, as well as the lives of my employees. But I am caused to control. Again, please tell me, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control?

sam: I am fine with you teaching. Just see that you want to be a cause instead of simply an effect, just like everyone else.

Cory: It's logically impossible to be an effect without being a cause, and vice versa. Causes are effects, and effects are causes.

So A = (not A)? Being caused is being free? This just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Again, I'm really surprised that Adya hasn't taught you anything about nondualism.

We are not talking about nondualism. The world we live in is dualistic in case you haven't noticed. But if you want to talk about nondualism, we can do that too.

sam: You are saying ignorance applies to everyone and everything. Without distinctions, there is nothing to discuss.

Cory: It's true, everyone is ignorant to varying degrees - but people can be ignorant in distinct ways. One person can be very knowledgeable about computers, but completely ignorant about agriculture, and vice versa. Therefore, when we talk about humanity's ignorance, there are indeed distinctions to make, and thus something to discuss.

sam: The point was that ignorance applies within a context.

Cory: All things only exist in a context. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that ignorance is exempt from context. On the contrary, we can only consider something ignorant in comparison to something else.

So I'll ask you again, can a robot be ignornant in the context of being a robot?

sam: It is pointless to say that a robot is ignorant in the same way a human being is ignornant.

Cory: Where did I argue that a robot was ignorant in the same way a human being is ignorant?

Here's the conversation:

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.

Your argument is that there are things a robot wouldn't know, thus its ignorance. That is a semantic argument. You are ignoring the fact that a robot doesn't "know" anything to begin with.

Cory: Again, what's the difference between a guy like Adya, and a guy like me? He gives lectures and writes books in order to get through to people, doesn't he?

sam: Like I said, teach all you want, that isn't the problem. It is wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Cory: Again, I sincerely encourage you to explain why you think it's impossible for an entity to be caused to value teaching/controlling.

sam: I have no problem with your teaching. The point is you want to be a cause and not just an effect. That is a free will argument.

Cory: Ok, why is that a free will argument? Please give your reasons. Do you have any?

Wanting to be a cause IS free will. Everyone wants to be a cause. Why would people imagine themselves as free if not for being causes for the effects they desire?

Besides, it's logically impossible for something to only be an effect. Effects are causes, causes are effects.

Hmm, it seems A does not equal A once again. Is my response to your post the effect of your post or the cause of it? Think hard now, David will be checking on you!

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: Uh, you are missing the point again. I am not arguing for free will. I am arguing that you are promoting causation in terms of free will.

Cory: No I'm not. You are assuming that possessing a degree of power and control automatically implies free will. And now here I am asking you what your reasons are for concluding why a degree of power/control implies free will.

I asked you the question about giving me control of your financial assets. You agreed that you would have less power and freedom to do what you wanted.

No, I said I would have less power to do what I was caused to value. (as opposed to being 'free' to value)

And now turn around and ask me why control implies freedom?

Yes, please tell me why.

Cory: Ok, please give your reasons for this belief of yours. Why is free will about control?

sam: Suppose you were to give me control of all your financial assets. Would you still feel free to do what you want with your money?

Cory: I would have less power to do what I am caused to value.

Sam: You get the point. So why are you arguing it?

Cory: What are your reasons for assuming that I'm arguing it?

Sam: Then you are agreeing with me that control implies freedom.

No, I'm saying that there's a difference between being caused to value something, and being free to value something. The later is impossible.

Cory: I have no interest in forcing people to do what I want them to do. I do have an interest in teaching those who are interested in learning - not to mention, I also have an interest in learning from those who are interested in teaching.

sam: Well, we're back to free will, aren't we? You want to be a cause for people's learning. Who doesn't? Being a cause is being in control, isn't it?

Cory: Being in control is being controlled, and vice versa. Doesn't Adya teach anything about Nondualism?

sam: Lol. So A = (not A) is what you're saying.

Cory: Things are created by our perspective. From one perspective, there is a phenomena called 'control'. Control = Control.

From a second perspective there is a phenomena called: 'being controlled'

Being controlled = Being controlled.

From a third, more lofty perspective we see the unity between having control and being controlled.

The unity of controller & controlled = the unity of controller & controlled.

So you see, as long as you realize that the existence of things depends on your perspective of them, then there is no contradiction.

So what perspective is it in which you are caused to be free?

I don't have any such perspective. It's nonsensical to say that freedom is caused.

sam: Free will and causation are the same. What would David say?

Cory: He would say that because of causation, there is no free will.

But you just said you are caused to be free!

Where/when exactly did I say that?

sam: If being in control is what free will is about...

Cory: Hold it right there. THATS where you are wrong. You are making an assumption. Again, tell me, what are your reasons for concluding that being in control is what free will is about?

I explained this with the financial question and you agreed with me.

No, I said that I would have less power to do what I am caused to value. Similarly, if you deprived a plant of water and sunlight, it would have less power to do what it is caused to do.

sam: you are saying you are caused to be free.

Cory: No, I am saying that I am caused to have some degree of effect (control) over my environment.

Control implies freedom which you have admitted.

Where/when did I admit it?

Likewise, the sun shining down on the earth has some degree of control in terms of what happens on earth. For instance, in the desert, the sun partly controls what takes place in the desert. Tender grasses may attempt to grow up from the sand, but the sun, exerting force, eliminates them.

The sun doesn't control anything. Existence per se isn't control. I can't believe you would try to make that argument.

The sun very obviously exerts force upon things, preventing them from growing, or causing them to grow. Likewise, a human being exerts force upon things, preventing them from growing, or causing them to grow. Both exert a degree of control - but humans are more complicated.

Cory: I am caused to teach. And to teach is to control the present to some extent. For example, I might train my employees to operate my company's software more effectively, and in that sense, I am controlling the outcome of my company, as well as the lives of my employees. But I am caused to control. Again, please tell me, what are your reasons for denying the possibility that an entity can be caused to control?

sam: I am fine with you teaching. Just see that you want to be a cause instead of simply an effect, just like everyone else.

Cory: It's logically impossible to be an effect without being a cause, and vice versa. Causes are effects, and effects are causes.

So A = (not A)? Being caused is being free?

I will explain this one more time:

From one perspective: cause = cause.

From another perspective: an effect = an effect.

From a greater perspective: the unity of cause and effect = the unity of cause and effect.

In other words, cause & effect is ultimately an illusion. The self is also an illusion. To realize this is to understand what freedom is. Freedom has nothing to do with being in control.

Again, I'm really surprised that Adya hasn't taught you anything about nondualism.

We are not talking about nondualism. The world we live in is dualistic in case you haven't noticed.

The world we live in is illusionary. But it appears this is not something you really understand.

But if you want to talk about nondualism, we can do that too.

I'm only interested in having a truthful, rational discussion.

sam: You are saying ignorance applies to everyone and everything. Without distinctions, there is nothing to discuss.

Cory: It's true, everyone is ignorant to varying degrees - but people can be ignorant in distinct ways. One person can be very knowledgeable about computers, but completely ignorant about agriculture, and vice versa. Therefore, when we talk about humanity's ignorance, there are indeed distinctions to make, and thus something to discuss.

sam: The point was that ignorance applies within a context.

Cory: All things only exist in a context. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that ignorance is exempt from context. On the contrary, we can only consider something ignorant in comparison to something else.

So I'll ask you again, can a robot be ignorant in the context of being a robot?

A robot is ignorant as a result of us defining certain behaviors as learned behavior. For instance, a robot may be programmed to solve a math problem - and thus prior to solving the problem, the robot is ignorant of the solution.

sam: It is pointless to say that a robot is ignorant in the same way a human being is ignornant.

Cory: Where did I argue that a robot was ignorant in the same way a human being is ignorant?

Here's the conversation:

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.

Your argument is that there are things a robot wouldn't know, thus its ignorance. That is a semantic argument. You are ignoring the fact that a robot doesn't "know" anything to begin with.

How do you define 'know'?

What does it mean to know something, according to you?

Cory: Again, what's the difference between a guy like Adya, and a guy like me? He gives lectures and writes books in order to get through to people, doesn't he?

sam: Like I said, teach all you want, that isn't the problem. It is wanting to be in control while preaching causation that is the problem.

Cory: Again, I sincerely encourage you to explain why you think it's impossible for an entity to be caused to value teaching/controlling.

sam: I have no problem with your teaching. The point is you want to be a cause and not just an effect. That is a free will argument.

Cory: Ok, why is that a free will argument? Please give your reasons. Do you have any?

Wanting to be a cause IS free will.

Why? Please give me some reasoning, rather than just mere assertions.

Everyone wants to be a cause.

Yes, but everyone is caused to desire such a thing - and since they are caused, they are not free.

Why would people imagine themselves as free if not for being causes for the effects they desire?

People tend to imagine things as being one way, when really they are another. Humans, generally, are very fallible.

Besides, it's logically impossible for something to only be an effect. Effects are causes, causes are effects.

Hmm, it seems A does not equal A once again.

I explained to you how things are created by the perspective we take of them, and lack inherent existence.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Uh, you are missing the point again. I am not arguing for free will. I am arguing that you are promoting causation in terms of free will.

Cory: No I'm not. You are assuming that possessing a degree of power and control automatically implies free will. And now here I am asking you what your reasons are for concluding why a degree of power/control implies free will.

sam: I asked you the question about giving me control of your financial assets. You agreed that you would have less power and freedom to do what you wanted.

Cory: No, I said I would have less power to do what I was caused to value. (as opposed to being 'free' to value)

The question you are avoiding is, once you have given me control of your financial assets, are you free to do with them what you want? Or have you lost your freedom when you gave up control?

sam: And now turn around and ask me why control implies freedom?

Cory: Yes, please tell me why.

See above.

sam: Then you are agreeing with me that control implies freedom.

Cory: No, I'm saying that there's a difference between being caused to value something, and being free to value something. The later is impossible.

You need to answer the question of whether you are still free to do what you want with your money once you have given up control of your financial assets. You seem to think there is a difference between a loss of power and a loss of freedom.

sam: So what perspective is it in which you are caused to be free?

Cory: I don't have any such perspective. It's nonsensical to say that freedom is caused.

But I'm not saying that, you are! You have already said you are caused to control. I have shown how control and freedom go together. Thus it is your perspective, not mine.

sam: Free will and causation are the same. What would David say?

Cory: He would say that because of causation, there is no free will.

sam: But you just said you are caused to be free!

Cory: Where/when exactly did I say that?

You agreed with me about what happens when you lose control of financial assets. Of course now you are trying to backpedal by saying a loss of power isn't a loss of freedom. If you lose your power to walk, are you still free to walk?

sam: If being in control is what free will is about...

Cory: Hold it right there. THATS where you are wrong. You are making an assumption. Again, tell me, what are your reasons for concluding that being in control is what free will is about?

sam: I explained this with the financial question and you agreed with me.

Cory: No, I said that I would have less power to do what I am caused to value. Similarly, if you deprived a plant of water and sunlight, it would have less power to do what it is caused to do.

See above.

sam: you are saying you are caused to be free.

Cory: No, I am saying that I am caused to have some degree of effect (control) over my environment.

sam: Control implies freedom which you have admitted.

Cory: Where/when did I admit it?

See above.

Cory: Likewise, the sun shining down on the earth has some degree of control in terms of what happens on earth. For instance, in the desert, the sun partly controls what takes place in the desert. Tender grasses may attempt to grow up from the sand, but the sun, exerting force, eliminates them.

sam: The sun doesn't control anything. Existence per se isn't control. I can't believe you would try to make that argument.

Cory: The sun very obviously exerts force upon things, preventing them from growing, or causing them to grow. Likewise, a human being exerts force upon things, preventing them from growing, or causing them to grow. Both exert a degree of control - but humans are more complicated.

There is a difference between the sun shining and a human being controlling. Equating them is just making our discussion into a word game.

Cory: It's logically impossible to be an effect without being a cause, and vice versa. Causes are effects, and effects are causes.

sam: So A = (not A)? Being caused is being free?

Cory: I will explain this one more time:

From one perspective: cause = cause.

From another perspective: an effect = an effect.

From a greater perspective: the unity of cause and effect = the unity of cause and effect.

In other words, cause & effect is ultimately an illusion. The self is also an illusion. To realize this is to understand what freedom is. Freedom has nothing to do with being in control.

Look, if you are going to make the "all is one" argument, there is nothing to talk about. Jumping between levels in an argument is bad form. We are talking about the human experience, not non-dualism. There is neither cause nor effect in non-dualism so why muddy the water with it?

Cory: Again, I'm really surprised that Adya hasn't taught you anything about nondualism.

sam: We are not talking about nondualism. The world we live in is dualistic in case you haven't noticed.

Cory: The world we live in is illusionary. But it appears this is not something you really understand.

Oh I understand it just fine. You simply want to abandon the context of the discussion so you can insist on being right. Another loser argument.

But if you want to talk about nondualism, we can do that too.

I'm only interested in having a truthful, rational discussion.

Then why drag in non-dualism? Cause and effect IS DUALISM!

sam: The point was that ignorance applies within a context.

Cory: All things only exist in a context. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that ignorance is exempt from context. On the contrary, we can only consider something ignorant in comparison to something else.

sam: So I'll ask you again, can a robot be ignorant in the context of being a robot?

Cory: A robot is ignorant as a result of us defining certain behaviors as learned behavior. For instance, a robot may be programmed to solve a math problem - and thus prior to solving the problem, the robot is ignorant of the solution.

Sigh. Back to semantics.

sam: It is pointless to say that a robot is ignorant in the same way a human being is ignornant.

Cory: Where did I argue that a robot was ignorant in the same way a human being is ignorant?

In your last answer. Try to keep up.

sam: Your argument is that there are things a robot wouldn't know, thus its ignorance. That is a semantic argument. You are ignoring the fact that a robot doesn't "know" anything to begin with.

Cory: How do you define 'know'? What does it mean to know something, according to you?

Look, I'm not interested in semantics. If you don't know in what context people use the word "ignorance," we should just drop it.

sam: Wanting to be a cause IS free will.

Cory: Why? Please give me some reasoning, rather than just mere assertions.

It's a matter of experience. Surely you've had some. You want to be in control of your life, do you not? Do you not equate this control with the freedom to do what you want?

sam: Everyone wants to be a cause.

Cory: Yes, but everyone is caused to desire such a thing - and since they are caused, they are not free.

You want to be a cause, not an effect, correct? If you were just an effect, could you be a cause? Tell me how.

sam: Why would people imagine themselves as free if not for being causes for the effects they desire?

Cory: People tend to imagine things as being one way, when really they are another. Humans, generally, are very fallible.

The question doesn't imply infallibility. It implies belief. Do you understand that one can believe and operate on a belief without being infallible? What gives rise to the belief in free agency? Is it not the ability to cause outcomes?

Cory: Besides, it's logically impossible for something to only be an effect. Effects are causes, causes are effects.

sam: Hmm, it seems A does not equal A once again.

Cory: I explained to you how things are created by the perspective we take of them, and lack inherent existence.

But if A = (not A), you can prove anything you want which makes our discussion moot.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

Cory,

sam: Uh, you are missing the point again. I am not arguing for free will. I am arguing that you are promoting causation in terms of free will.

Cory: No I'm not. You are assuming that possessing a degree of power and control automatically implies free will. And now here I am asking you what your reasons are for concluding why a degree of power/control implies free will.

sam: I asked you the question about giving me control of your financial assets. You agreed that you would have less power and freedom to do what you wanted.

Cory: No, I said I would have less power to do what I was caused to value. (as opposed to being 'free' to value)

The question you are avoiding is, once you have given me control of your financial assets, are you free to do with them what you want? Or have you lost your freedom when you gave up control?

If you deprive a tree of sunlight and water, it will have less energy to convert into growth. Likewise, if I'm deprived of financial assests, I will have less energy to convert into growth.

sam: Then you are agreeing with me that control implies freedom.

Cory: No, I'm saying that there's a difference between being caused to value something, and being free to value something. The later is impossible.

Sam: You need to answer the question of whether you are still free to do what you want with your money once you have given up control of your financial assets. You seem to think there is a difference between a loss of power and a loss of freedom.

Whether or not I have more money or less, I'm still caused to do what I do. I define freedom as being uncaused. And since it's impossible for a self to be uncaused, then it's impossible for a self to be free.

sam: So what perspective is it in which you are caused to be free?

Cory: I don't have any such perspective. It's nonsensical to say that freedom is caused.

Sam: But I'm not saying that, you are! You have already said you are caused to control. I have shown how control and freedom go together.

Ok, so you define freedom as having control. And I'm telling you that having control is only a useful illusion. The notion that I have control is only a practical tool. Such a notion, when scrutinized, doesn't really have any objective validity.

sam: Free will and causation are the same. What would David say?

Cory: He would say that because of causation, there is no free will.

sam: But you just said you are caused to be free!

Cory: Where/when exactly did I say that?

Sam: You agreed with me about what happens when you lose control of financial assets.

But it's no different when a tree is deprived of sunlight and water. It has less power to grow.

sam: Of course now you are trying to backpedal by saying a loss of power isn't a loss of freedom. If you lose your power to walk, are you still free to walk?

You are merely employing a figure of speech. For instance, if you give a plant lots of soil for it's roots to spread, the plant is free to grow as big as it can. But that doesn't mean it has any sort of essence which is inherently free. Humans are the same way.

Cory: It's logically impossible to be an effect without being a cause, and vice versa. Causes are effects, and effects are causes.

sam: So A = (not A)? Being caused is being free?

Cory: I will explain this one more time:

From one perspective: cause = cause.

From another perspective: an effect = an effect.

From a greater perspective: the unity of cause and effect = the unity of cause and effect.

In other words, cause & effect is ultimately an illusion. The self is also an illusion. To realize this is to understand what freedom is. Freedom has nothing to do with being in control.

Sam: Look, if you are going to make the "all is one" argument, there is nothing to talk about. Jumping between levels in an argument is bad form. We are talking about the human experience, not non-dualism. There is neither cause nor effect in non-dualism so why muddy the water with it?

It's impossible to realize oneness without understanding cause & effect. It's really not logical to emphasize one without emphasizing the other.

sam: But if you want to talk about nondualism, we can do that too.

Cory: I'm only interested in having a truthful, rational discussion.

Sam: Then why drag in non-dualism? Cause and effect IS DUALISM!

As I said above, cause & effect is the key to understanding oneness. And oneness is the key to understanding cause & effect.

sam: Wanting to be a cause IS free will.

Cory: Why? Please give me some reasoning, rather than just mere assertions.

Sam: It's a matter of experience. Surely you've had some. You want to be in control of your life, do you not?

Do you honestly think that people choose to desire what they desire? For instance, does a girl choose to fall in love with who she falls in love with? Sam, did you choose to encounter Adya? And did you choose to be inspired or pleased by his message?

Sam: Do you not equate this control with the freedom to do what you want?

I don't see how it's rational to regard 'wants' as choices. I don't choose to want what I want. If you are honest with yourself Sam, if you study your mind - you'll see that everything about life is involuntary. We do what we do because we are caused by something other than what we are.

sam: Everyone wants to be a cause.

Cory: Yes, but everyone is caused to desire such a thing - and since they are caused, they are not free.

Sam: You want to be a cause, not an effect, correct? If you were just an effect, could you be a cause?

It's impossible to be just an effect.

Consider bird droppings falling from the sky. Yes, from one perspective the bird droppings are an effect of the bird, but from another perspective the bird droppings are a cause of the soils nutrients.

Likewise, consider the oxygen released from trees. Yes, from one perspective the oxygen is an effect of the tree - but from another perspective, the oxygen is the cause of an animals breathing.

Sam: What gives rise to the belief in free agency? Is it not the ability to cause outcomes?

Lightening or wind as the ability to cause outcomes - but we have no reason to attribute free agency to such things.

Cory: Besides, it's logically impossible for something to only be an effect. Effects are causes, causes are effects.

sam: Hmm, it seems A does not equal A once again.

Cory: I explained to you how things are created by the perspective we take of them, and lack inherent existence.

Sam: But if A = (not A), you can prove anything you want which makes our discussion moot.

If you understand what I'm saying, then we no longer need to have a discussion.

If you aren't capable of understanding what I'm saying, then we also should no longer have a discussion.

If your ignorance is capable of transforming into consciousness - then the discussion might continue.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: The question you are avoiding is, once you have given me control of your financial assets, are you free to do with them what you want? Or have you lost your freedom when you gave up control?

Cory: If you deprive a tree of sunlight and water, it will have less energy to convert into growth. Likewise, if I'm deprived of financial assests, I will have less energy to convert into growth.

I see you don't want to answer the question. Yet you do say you would have less energy. Less, energy, less freedom. It appears you like to disagree with me by subtlely agreeing. Have it your way.

sam: Then you are agreeing with me that control implies freedom.

Cory: No, I'm saying that there's a difference between being caused to value something, and being free to value something. The later is impossible.

Being free has a meaning. People would understand what you mean if you told them you are free to do what you want with your money. Pretending it has no meaning is like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you." It's not a credible argument.

sam: You need to answer the question of whether you are still free to do what you want with your money once you have given up control of your financial assets. You seem to think there is a difference between a loss of power and a loss of freedom.

Cory: Whether or not I have more money or less, I'm still caused to do what I do. I define freedom as being uncaused. And since it's impossible for a self to be uncaused, then it's impossible for a self to be free.

Again, freedom has meaning. People understand it as being in control. You want to pretend it means something else. Your only argument appears to be semantics. Let me guess, Kevin is behind the curtain.

sam: So what perspective is it in which you are caused to be free?

Cory: I don't have any such perspective. It's nonsensical to say that freedom is caused.

sam: But I'm not saying that, you are! You have already said you are caused to control. I have shown how control and freedom go together.

Cory: Ok, so you define freedom as having control.

That is the experience of freedom, I'm not defining it in any sense other than how people experience it.

And I'm telling you that having control is only a useful illusion. The notion that I have control is only a practical tool. Such a notion, when scrutinized, doesn't really have any objective validity.

What is not objective about my being free to do what I want with my money? If that isn't freedom, what is it?

sam: But you just said you are caused to be free!

Cory: Where/when exactly did I say that?

sam: You agreed with me about what happens when you lose control of financial assets.

Cory: But it's no different when a tree is deprived of sunlight and water. It has less power to grow.

Do you really think you are being clever by equating trees with humans? Do you really think that helps your argument? In any event a tree doesn't make any effort, you do.

sam: Of course now you are trying to backpedal by saying a loss of power isn't a loss of freedom. If you lose your power to walk, are you still free to walk?

Cory: You are merely employing a figure of speech. For instance, if you give a plant lots of soil for it's roots to spread, the plant is free to grow as big as it can. But that doesn't mean it has any sort of essence which is inherently free. Humans are the same way.

A plant isn't trying to do anything, you are! Your analogies completely miss the point. They are totally outside the context of our discussion yet you strangely seem unable to comprehend that.

sam: Look, if you are going to make the "all is one" argument, there is nothing to talk about. Jumping between levels in an argument is bad form. We are talking about the human experience, not non-dualism. There is neither cause nor effect in non-dualism so why muddy the water with it?

Cory: It's impossible to realize oneness without understanding cause & effect. It's really not logical to emphasize one without emphasizing the other.

Why do you keep dragging in the irrelevant to our discussion? We aren't talking about oneness, we are talking about your need to frame causation in terms of free will. How many times do I have to remind you of that?

Cory: I'm only interested in having a truthful, rational discussion.

sam: Then why drag in non-dualism? Cause and effect IS DUALISM!

Cory: As I said above, cause & effect is the key to understanding oneness. And oneness is the key to understanding cause & effect.

The discussion isn't about oneness. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

sam: Wanting to be a cause IS free will.

Cory: Why? Please give me some reasoning, rather than just mere assertions.

sam: It's a matter of experience. Surely you've had some. You want to be in control of your life, do you not?

Cory: Do you honestly think that people choose to desire what they desire? For instance, does a girl choose to fall in love with who she falls in love with? Sam, did you choose to encounter Adya? And did you choose to be inspired or pleased by his message?

Choice as we are discussing it is a matter of experience, not an intellectualized concept. You have already admitted wanting to be in control of your life yet you reject the idea that such control reflects a belief in free will. So what would reflect a belief in free will? What beliefs and actions are based on free will?

sam: Do you not equate this control with the freedom to do what you want?

Cory: I don't see how it's rational to regard 'wants' as choices. I don't choose to want what I want. If you are honest with yourself sam, if you study your mind - you'll see that everything about life is involuntary. We do what we do because we are caused by something other than what we are.

Look, I'm not arguing about the existence of free will, how many times do I have to say that? I am talking about a BELIEF in free will. Do you understand the difference? A belief in free will does exist in most people. You need to acknowledge that and stop dragging the argument where it doesn't belong.

sam: You want to be a cause, not an effect, correct? If you were just an effect, could you be a cause?

Cory: It's impossible to be just an effect.

Consider bird droppings falling from the sky. Yes, from one perspective the bird droppings are an effect of the bird, but from another perspective the bird droppings are a cause of the soils nutrients.

Likewise, consider the oxygen released from trees. Yes, from one perspective the oxygen is an effect of the tree - but from another perspective, the oxygen is the cause of an animals breathing.

The argument is whether you yourself are a cause or an effect in any particular action. Oxygen is an effect of a tree, it is not the cause of a tree. Free agents seek to be causes of effects they desire. You have already admitted wanting to be a cause. How can you then turn around and say you are not acting as all free agents act?

sam: What gives rise to the belief in free agency? Is it not the ability to cause outcomes?

Cory: Lightening or wind as the ability to cause outcomes - but we have no reason to attribute free agency to such things.

Back to this nonsense. You seem to have a problem sticking with the context of human experience. Lightning and wind aren't trying to do anything, you are. Your irrelevant analogies aren't helping your argument.

Cory: Besides, it's logically impossible for something to only be an effect. Effects are causes, causes are effects.

sam: Hmm, it seems A does not equal A once again.

Cory: I explained to you how things are created by the perspective we take of them, and lack inherent existence.

Sam: But if A = (not A), you can prove anything you want which makes our discussion moot.

Cory: If you understand what I'm saying, then we no longer need to have a discussion.

If you aren't capable of understanding what I'm saying, then we also should no longer have a discussion.

If your ignorance is capable of transforming into consciousness - then the discussion might continue.

You made the argument that an effect is a cause. It isn't. An effect can become a cause but not in the same context in which it is an effect. Effect = effect, get it? Sheesh.

If you are capable of understanding that, we can continue. If you can't, why are you even talking to me?

[Kevin Solway]

I embrace all parts of God, including ignorance, and then I try to eliminate ignorance.

Right. You want to be a cause of ending ignorance. A free will argument.

Except there is no freedom in my will.

If I called you stupid for not understanding your own free will arguments, would I be blaming you or simply describing the truth?

Well you certainly wouldn't be describing the truth. You may however be describing what you think to be the truth.

So is more always better?

I thought we were discussing the concept of "better" and "worse". Of course more is not always better. More ignorance is not better to me, because of my particular values.

Isn't it true that more knowledge and more people is leading to more environmental destruction?

From the perspective of some people, that might be a good thing. It depends on the values held by the individual.

A rock isn't trying to be a free agent like you.

A rock will become a thinking individual if it is caused to. It is no more or less free than I am.