Commentary Thread: Causation and Spirituality (Sam vs David)

[samadhi]

brad,

brad: The laws of physics govern my life so I don't need to understand them. Later everyone, I need to fly like Superman to work. A nearby cliff's a great runway.

sam: You don't need to know anything about causation to act under it, duh.

brad: I don't need to know anything about physics to act under it, either. It's just a model of causality. This model prevents me from accidently killing myself and generally improves my utility.

You are trying to use causality to some purpose. That is a free will argument!

Your examples are poor. An average swimmer could improve with lessons from an Olympic athlete. Fish aren't conscious, so it's nonsense to think of teaching them.

Actually they are the perfect example. With humans there is the illusion of accomplishment. With fish, there is nothing to accomplish. Where you start is where you end. Nothing is happening.

Anyway, evolution has pretty much maximized fish's swimming skill after millions of generations. If fish developed consciousness we could teach them other skills, perhaps hunting or evasion strategies better than instinct. If they also developed human characteristics we could accelerate their memetic evolution by teaching them how to utilize them, reducing dead-end experimentation. Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs: 'Oh, Shit,' Says Humanity

You are missing the point. There is nothing to learn in cause and effect. You are trying to use it which is a free will argument.

sam: You do it not because you are caused to perform nonsense but because you see yourself as a free agent affecting other free agents positively.

brad: Why must one necessarily project free will on others after acknowledging it in themself?

sam: Because the alternative is nonsense.

brad: Please elaborate. I don't project free will on inanimate objects or animals. If you reject free will why can't I see myself as a free agent and you as an automaton?

Because it doesn't work that way. If causation is operating, it operates for everyone.

sam: One who firmly believes in causation would no longer be concerned with others' conduct. They would see in an instant that all conduct is perfect already and could never be otherwise.

brad: It's useful to acknowledge that the present couldn't be otherwise to accept it. Conduct can be improved. You know this, otherwise you wouldn't post on forums persuading people otherwise, nor would you support Barack Obama.

sam: Laboring to improve upon perfection is only done by agents steeped in the delusion of free will.

brad: That makes two of us!

One more time, causation isn't my story, it's David's!

[Carl G]

What caused the Big Bang?

Also, Kevin, I am curious as to what your response might be to this, from yesterday.

Kevin, I am still interested in your response to this question from April 12. Also, if, as scientists say, the Universe is expanding, where do you think it is expanding into?

[Kevin Solway]

if, as scientists say, the Universe is expanding, where do you think it is expanding into?

Scientists only speak of the observable universe, which is probably only an infinitely small part of the entire Universe.

However, let's imagine for a moment that what is observed is the "whole thing". In that case it is expanding into whatever name you want to give it . . . let's call it "Non-space". In the future, as we learn more about this "non-space" we will likely discover that it is in fact a different kind of space, and not non-space after all.

In the past, some people used to think that if you travelled out to sea far enough you would simply fall off the end, into nothingness. It's a natural human tendency for us to think that there is absolutely nothing beyond where we can see. I believe that will be found to the case with the so-called "expanding universe".

[divine focus]

In the past, some people used to think that if you travelled out to sea far enough you would simply fall off the end, into nothingness. It's a natural human tendency for us to think that there is absolutely nothing beyond where we can see. I believe that will be found to the case with the so-called "expanding universe".

This has been done. It requires a "mystical" perception.

This whole argument of causation seems to stem from a lack of follow-through. The reason for doing anything has not been examined. Not knowing your motivation means not having any of your own. We seem to be accepting our lot as dutiful robots when a little examinatory focus would reveal our "supernatural" power. Let us not be so lazy in thought or observation.

[Kevin Solway]

The reason for doing anything has not been examined.

Then you should examine it.

We seem to be accepting our lot as dutiful robots when a little examinatory focus would reveal our "supernatural" power.

There is nothing more "super" than the natural. There is only the natural, which is causation.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I will what Nature causes me to will. I decide what Nature causes me to decide. Causality is the underlying process of everything that happens, and that includes reflecting, making decisions and initiating action.

To believe in free will is to mentally block out the omnipotence of God.

As for surrendering, the only kind of surrendering that I recognize as being valid is the surrender to truth. This involves recognizing what truth is, such as the truth of causation, and allowing it to transform your whole being. It is a case of allowing God to take over your whole life.

This surely is almost a word to word translation of core Islamic teachings. Replace Nature, truth and God with Allah and many mullahs will embrace the one citing this without hesitation.

Ironic but it doesn't invalidate the words. Within fifty years one will be placed on the terrorist watch list for just uttering it. As you know, the Moon and her worshipers will deduce that the above constitutes the greatest ideological threat to the world wide web of lies.

[samadhi]

I will what Nature causes me to will. I decide what Nature causes me to decide. Causality is the underlying process of everything that happens, and that includes reflecting, making decisions and initiating action.

To believe in free will is to mentally block out the omnipotence of God.

As for surrendering, the only kind of surrendering that I recognize as being valid is the surrender to truth. This involves recognizing what truth is, such as the truth of causation, and allowing it to transform your whole being. It is a case of allowing God to take over your whole life.

This surely is almost a word to word translation of core Islamic teachings. Replace Nature, truth and God with Allah and many mullahs will embrace the one citing this without hesitation.

Ironic but it doesn't invalidate the words.

Yes, it is and you can see the problem with it, I hope. Just like those fundamentalists, David is saying everything he thinks, says and does is from God because it is caused. In other words, he is just using causation as an EXCUSE to do what he believes is right, regardless of the results. Causation as a spiritual path is not about the ego doing whatever it wants and passing it off as God's will. It is a path of SURRENDER of the "I", not a path of enthroning it. The ego usurps these teachings for its own agenda and David seems to fall readily into that abyss. And you seem to go there with him.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

David seems to fall readily into that abyss. And you seem to go there with him.

Insha'Allah!

[Leyla Shen]

Amin!

La ilahe il allah (there is no God only Allah, Allah the Absolute). He begeteth not, nor is he begotten...

[divine focus]

As for surrendering, the only kind of surrendering that I recognize as being valid is the surrender to truth. This involves recognizing what truth is, such as the truth of causation, and allowing it to transform your whole being. It is a case of allowing God to take over your whole life. And that requires dissolving one’s self in the sea of causation which makes up the body of God. - David

Ok, that's the feminine. Where's the masculine? Where's the joy?

The way I see it, if causation was God, there would be no allowing or disallowing. There would be no ego or any way to choose any other way of being. There would be no will. Obviously, there is will. To deny that would be to deny your whole experience, in which case you have lost almost all perspective on truth.

If it is agreed that there is will, and it is not an illusion, might that not mean that God is doing the willing through us? Now, if God is causation, does that mean he (or she :) is trapped by what was willed previously? Would the God of the Present be subject to the whims of the Gods of the Past, like many people seem to be? If all willing or all action happens in the present, there can be no Gods of the Past. They are the same God, and they are all now. Causation and will cannot coexist, unless you equate the two. In this case, "causation" is no longer about past or future, and all is not pre-determined.

[Kevin Solway]

As for surrendering, the only kind of surrendering that I recognize as being valid is the surrender to truth. This involves recognizing what truth is, such as the truth of causation, and allowing it to transform your whole being. It is a case of allowing God to take over your whole life. And that requires dissolving one’s self in the sea of causation which makes up the body of God.

Ok, that's the feminine. Where's the masculine? Where's the joy?

The feminine is unconscious, but the masculine is conscious.

The sage consciously surrenders to the truth which he is conscious of, whereas unconscious things, like the feminine, or a rock, are simply undifferentiated.

The way I see it, if causation was God, there would be no allowing or disallowing.

Do you think that decision making, and decisions, happen without cause? All decisions are fully caused, in every respect, and so they do not escape God's will, and causation.

Obviously, there is will.

Yes, there is will, but what we will is what God has willed.

If it is agreed that there is will, and it is not an illusion, might that not mean that God is doing the willing through us?

Certainly. Causation controls every aspect.

Now, if God is causation, does that mean he (or she :) is trapped by what was willed previously?

Since God is the Totality, it doesn't mean anything to describe it as "trapped", since there is nothing to compare it to.

The present is fully determined by the past. God must always be Himself.

If all willing or all action happens in the present, there can be no Gods of the Past.

All willing and action of the present is determined by the past.

"Willing" is only a particular case of causation — it is not acausal.

[divine focus]

If all willing or all action happens in the present, there can be no Gods of the Past.

All willing and action of the present is determined by the past.

"Willing" is only a particular case of causation — it is not acausal.

This may be the case under a modus operandi of control, but not within direction. To actually let God run your life is to realize your true self and cease fighting it. Otherwise, you are simply doing what everyone else has been doing for millenia, except you identify with thoughts or ideas while others attach to other things.

The difference between control and direction is like the passenger seat vs. the driver's seat. It takes too much effort and responsibility to drive all the time, so many do not. It is actually very easy and effortless once the pull of laziness from the passenger side stops distracting you. Heaven has been known to be where all your needs are taken care of, but here on Earth, heaven requires your constant choice.

[Carl G]

Major Ho-hum! Either causation is the most boring subject in the school for enlightenment, or I am just not cut out for philosophy. I'd rather watch paint dry than tune in to any more of the so-called debate. Sorry! And the commentary thread isn't much better. Going down like prison food, like so much dry crackers and water. I would really like to know how anybody can get from that to immersing themselves in "this marvelous reality, called the Infinite.

[Peter L]

Samadhi,

Can you please explain your definition for the following terms: control, spirituality, and causation. I've read your last few posts and I'm having trouble understanding what you mean when you use them.

To me...

Control - the ability to consciously influence something (ultimately an illusion, though, useful nonetheless).
Spirituality - awareness of what is true.
Causation - interconnectedness of everything and change (ex. all for one and one for all).

[Peter L]

Samadhi,

I am not trying to show there is no such thing as causation, only that it depends on the observer.

It depends on an observer to comprehend causation and its meaning. However, causation is present whether there is an observer or not and the very fact that there is an observer, confirms causation. So, rather then stating the above quote, it would be must more accurate to type: "The observer is dependent on causation". Similarly, 1+1=2, requires an observer to invent, learn, and understand that "fact", but that fact would still be true whether or not it was discover.

Here's a neat story:

A group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.

Absolute Truth:

"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner

Another thing, freewill (the way I understand it) only exists in the sense that we were caused to experience it and in some cases understand it.

[Nick Treklis]

This debate is another classic case of an indvidual mistaking the drift into unconsciousness for enlightenment.

[samadhi]

Peter,

Can you please explain your definition for the following terms: control, spirituality, and causation. I've read your last few posts and I'm having trouble understanding what you mean when you use them.

To me ...

Control - the ability to consciously influence something (ultimately an illusion, though, useful nonetheless).

I see control as being in charge. The ego likes being in charge.

Spirituality - awareness of what is true.

Spirituality comes down to the individual's relationship with the three questions, who am I?, where did I come from? and where am I going?

Causation - interconnectedness of everything and change (ex. all for one and one for all).

I already answered this in the debate and again with Kevin. Causation is how you choose to relate preceding events with subsequent events.

sam: I am not trying to show there is no such thing as causation, only that it depends on the observer.

Peter: It depends on an observer to comprehend causation and its meaning. However, causation is present whether there is an observer or not and the very fact that there is an observer, confirms causation. So, rather then stating the above quote, it would be must more accurate to type: "The observer is dependent on causation". Similarly, 1+1=2, requires an observer to invent, learn, and understand that "fact", but that fact would still be true whether or not it was discover.

You are giving me your story about causation and then pretending it is some kind of objective fact. Which only reinforces my point.

A group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.

Which makes my point, not yours. You are giving me your perspective and calling it absolute truth. I have pointed out that what you have is your story. Stop making it into something other than that.

Absolute Truth:
"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - Steven Robiner

His story, no doubt.

Another thing, freewill (the way I understand it) only exists in the sense that we were caused to experience it and in some cases understand it.

Okay.

[Kevin Solway]

You are giving me your perspective and calling it absolute truth.

This is only your story — a personal perspective which is peculiar to yourself, and as it happens is also entirely warped and wrong. Yet you are presenting it as though it is some kind of objective truth.

[samadhi]

Kevin,

sam: You are giving me your perspective and calling it absolute truth.

Kevin: This is only your story — a personal perspective which is peculiar to yourself ...

Of course it's my story! What else could it be?

... and as it happens is also entirely warped and wrong.

And this is yours.

Yet you are presenting it as though it is some kind of objective truth.

We're discussing our stories here. That's what we do. I am just pointing out that when someone says, "and I have the absolute truth!" they may want to look again. They don't HAVE to. In your case, I don't expect you to. Some people are too invested in their stories to take that step back.

[Nick Treklis]

If we are to take Sam's philosophy and follow it to it's logical end we should all behave like cows, unconscious and unaware. Sam seems to have accomplished this quite nicely. This is why I think debating with him is a complete waste because he is so utterly blind to the truth of the matter it becomes mundane almost before it starts. Still, I appluad David and Dan for being able to make some interesting points and observations while dealing with someone as souless as Sam, it couldn't have been easy.

[samadhi]

Hmm, seems you don't really understand what I'm talking about and want to blame me for that. You could always ask me but I guess you aren't really interested in conversation, only in making pronouncements. Whatever makes you feel good.

[Nick Treklis]

Sam,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say all one can do is tell stories, you are basically claiming that Absolute Truth is impossible know, or tell. Yet by saying this you are actually making an absolute statement whether you realize it or not, the same thing you discourage David from doing. The only difference between you two is that David's absolute statements are true, and yours are complete non-sense. The fact that you haven't recognized this by now leads me to believe that you are too unconscious to be worthy of a formal debate about the subject matter at hand.

[samadhi]

Nick,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say all one can do is tell stories, you are basically claiming that Absolute Truth is impossible know, or tell. Yet by saying this you are actually making an absolute statement whether you realize it or not, the same thing you discourage David from doing.

No, I am not making an absolute statement. I can tell you what is true for me but you need to see for yourself what is true for you. If you think you can make absolute statements about truth, you will do so no matter what anyone else says.

The only difference between you two is that David's absolute statements are true, and yours are complete non-sense.

David's absolute truth of causation is not in dispute. I have been arguing from his position to begin with, in case you haven't noticed.

The fact that you haven't recognized this by now leads me to believe that you are too unconscious to be worthy of a formal debate about the subject matter at hand.

It seems your own consciousness is in question if you have figured out by now what I am arguing and what I am not.

[Nick Treklis]

No, I am not making an absolute statement. I can tell you what is true for me but you need to see for yourself what is true for you. If you think you can make absolute statements about truth, you will do so no matter what anyone else says.

You are making an absolute statement, albeit unconsciously. Either that or you don't really believe what you're saying because it's obviously complete nonsense.

David's absolute truth of causation is not in dispute. I have been arguing from his position to begin with, in case you haven't noticed.

I'm not talking about causation, I'm talking about the existence of Absolute Truth. So let me be as direct as possible; do you agree that Absolute Truth exists, and that it can be known by us?

[Dan Rowden]

As far as I'm concerned the "debate" hasn't even really touched on causation as it relates to spirituality. David is trying to get Sam to acknowledge certain things that will direct the discussion there, but it certainly isn't there yet. Personal "stories" (perspectives) about how empirical relations unfold have little to do with causality as it pertains to spirituality.