Commentary Thread: Causation and Spirituality (Sam vs David)

[David Quinn]

This thread is set aside for any comments that people wish to make about the Causation debate between Sam and myself.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sam, your writing is like beautiful poetry. You would make a great author of books. What I hope to see you develop online is your ability to be succinct. Here is an example:

A more esoteric objection to causation is that our observational ability is not only narrow but grounded in an assumption that our experience arises from the surroundings we can observe.

Beautifully written, this topic sentence introduces the reader to the concepts outlined by the supporting sentences in the associated paragraph. Such clarity of writing style reflects much academic achievement, and is evidence of excellent mental exercise. Unfortunately, the attention to such a rigidly structured style subtracts from the impact on the larger audience. People's attention spans have become quite short, so even this post that I am making directly to you is probably causing a number of yawns by those still reading.

Just get in and out with quick jabs of insight. Online, brevity trumps form. Instead of the above, you could have written:

We can't observe all of Reality, but we assume that all we observe is all that there is. Causality is not a fact because it is based on this assumption.

By the way, you have not convinced me yet. I just want to see you have a better chance of getting your point across.

[Carl G]

The subject of this debate is very vague. One wonders if debate is really the correct term for it, or maybe discussion, or exchange of opinions would be better. The two posters positions are not laid out in the introductory post, indeed no premise of any kind, just the statement that the debate "will focus on the role of causation in spirituality." Sam's opening post sheds no further light for the querying reader, saying only that "David and I have decided to have a debate about causation." About causation. Focus on the role of causation. I'm lost.

Sam then launches into support for....what. Comes across more like disembodied tangents, and cloaked in obtuse language as Elizabeth trenchantly notes. Sam violates a practical rule of communication, which paraphrased says "why use a ten-cent word when a penny will do."

David sort of points this out, but more as a reaction to Sam than as any sort of opening statement of his own, So we get little clue to his position in the "debate." Thus, opposition without focus and without tension has so far been set up. Hopefully these will be improved as the thread progresses.

[Kevin Solway]

Hmm. I can't see this "debate" progressing very far.

Sam says, "Our observational ability is not only narrow but grounded in an assumption that our experience arises from the surroundings we can observe."

I personally observe that I am surrounded by Nature and that my experience arises from Nature. There's nothing narrow about that.

Clearly, Sam is arguing against some kind of narrow and distorted conception of causation. So, either Sam needs to demonstrate that David has that narrow and distored conception of causation, or David needs to demonstrate that Sam is unaware of real causation, otherwise there is no debate.

Perhaps the debate is about how we define words, specifically the meaning of the word "causation". Should the word refer to something that is not real? Or should it refer to something real? I don't see the point of the former.

[Ataraxia]

I'd like to see Sam really test the QSR penchant for conflating causality with conditionality but it seems he plans on going a different route. :(

[Kevin Solway]

Sam argues that "causation is imbued in the observer". Yet the observer was himself caused, so causation is clearly not imbued in the observer. Causation is much bigger than the observer.

Sam also says, "Putting causation into particular events eventually results in the logical fallacy . . . ". But this statement of Sam's can easily be proven false because "the past" is a particular event, which causes the present, and doesn't give rise to any logical fallacies.

[Dan Rowden]

I'd like to see Sam really test the QSR penchant for conflating causality with conditionality but it seems he plans on going a different route. :(

Show me an instance of causality that isn't an instance of conditionality...

From Genius News: Cause V Condition

[Ataraxia]

I'd like to see Sam really test the QSR penchant for conflating causality with conditionality but it seems he plans on going a different route. :(

Show me an instance of causality that isn't an instance of conditionality...

Sir,it is thee who is making an absolute claim that conditionality and causality are one and the same.So it is incumbent on you to absolutely prove such,not I to disprove it.What will your request for an encore be--I disprove Abrahamic God?

Moreover,if causality is absolutely true -or there is no such event/phenomena as acausality- then it would be a simple procedure for you to produce a syllogism showing such without committing a logical falacy(likely begging the question)

Make with it :)

[Dave Toast]

Come on now rax, you're insisting it's a conflation so it's a fair question.

A: You're wrong!
D: How so?
A: First tell me how you think you're right.
D: But you've just said I'm wrong so you must know how I think I'm right.

[brad walker]

David's "false paths" are Sam "detours". The more detours followed increases the probability of reaching a dead end, not the final destination of a path long or short.

[Kevin Solway]

Sam says, "Everyone determines truth for themselves", but this statement could only be true for Sam himself, and others who might personally create this "story". So there's no real point in Sam even saying it.

Sam also says, "No paths are false in so far as a person is getting what they want." This means that, for Sam, whenever a person is getting what the want they are closely aligned with truth. But this redefinition of the term "truth" makes the term completely useless. This of course may be Sam's whole intention - to do away with the whole notion of truth.

I don't see how the debate can proceed when Sam believes that causation is neither true nor false, but depends entirely on what you want to believe.

[samadhi]

Okay, I'm going to jump in here since there is obviously no debate going on on the "debate" thread.

Sam says, "Everyone determines truth for themselves", but this statement could only be true for Sam himself, and others who might personally create this "story". So there's no real point in Sam even saying it.

He asked me a question and I answered it. If you don't think everyone determines truth for themselves, what would you say if I told you your truth? In fact, you are proving my point when you disagree with me! Why would you do that if you weren't telling me what is true for you?

Sam also says, "No paths are false in so far as a person is getting what they want." This means that, for Sam, whenever a person is getting what the want they are closely aligned with truth.

With THEIR truth.

But this redefinition of the term "truth" makes the term completely useless. This of course may be Sam's whole intention - to do away with the whole notion of truth.

I don't approach "truth" as something handed down from above. That's what fundamentalists do, insisting there is one truth and they have it. Perhaps there is a bit of fundamentalism in you? I wouldn't doubt it.

I don't see how the debate can proceed when Sam believes that causation is neither true not false, but depends entirely on what you want to believe.

Causation as story is my experience. Causation as truth seems to be your story. If that is so, do you care to tackle the questions I posed to David?

[Kevin Solway]

If you don't think everyone determines truth for themselves

People decide for themselves what they believe to be the truth, but the truth itself is determined by God (Reality, Nature).

I don't see how the debate can proceed when Sam believes that causation is neither true nor false, but depends entirely on what you want to believe.

Causation as story is my experience.

Truth as story is also your experience, which makes having a debate about any topic at all completely useless, since it all comes down to personal preference.

You might say that 1 + 1 = 2, based on certain definitions. And I might say that 1 + 1 = 3, based on the very same definitions. Both positions would be equally "true" since that's what we personally want to believe. So there's no basis for any kind of debate.

[William Miller]

Samadhi seems to be viewing cause and effect empirically and doesn't see, or doesn't agree, that cause and effect can be discerned logically--hence his rejection of it as a universal law.

[Faust]

Samadhi seems to be viewing cause and effect empirically and doesn't see, or doesn't agree, that cause and effect can be discerned logically--hence his rejection of it as a universal law.

because causality IS purely empirical, the law of identity is an empirical concept and uses empirical notions of existence and nonexistence

causality implies infinite regress, which implies that something must have always been here for infinite regress to happen, implying that that something was uncaused in the first place

[Kevin Solway]

Samadhi seems to be viewing cause and effect empirically and doesn't see, or doesn't agree, that cause and effect can be discerned logically--hence his rejection of it as a universal law.

"Causation" is the fact that things have causes. I don't think that Sam has made it clear whether he agrees or disagrees with this idea.

Sam's position is so vague that I think it's impossible to determine what Sam's position is - other than "vague".

Terms like "causation" and "truth" should really be defined right from the start, but then I don't think that Sam believes in defining things.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . implying that that something was uncaused in the first place

Causation doesn't require that any "thing" (ie, with boundaries) is uncaused.

The Totality is without boundaries, and is therefore not a "thing" or a "something".

[Faust]

. . . implying that that something was uncaused in the first place

Causation doesn't require that any "thing" (ie, with boundaries) is uncaused.

The Totality is without boundaries, and is therefore not a "thing" or a "something".

If the Totality exists then it's "something". If something doesn't come from nothing as causation implies, then something must have always been here for causation to act on it infinitely. This something then is uncaused.

[Kevin Solway]

If the Totality exists then it's "something".

Since the Totality doesn't have boundaries it doesn't "exist".

[Carl G]

There is therefore logically a magical basis for Creation, being both uncaused and infinite, and eternal, thus "it" is unexplainable. Where did "it" come from? "It" didn't.

[Kevin Solway]

There is therefore logically a magical basis for Creation

What do you mean by "Creation"? The only thing that is created are "things" (that are bounded). The Totality itself cannot be created, and therefore it would be a misnomer to call it "Creation".

[divine focus]

The bewilderment of thought...

David is asking questions with no answers. "If I cut a dollar bill in two, is that not half a dollar?" "If I read a book back to front, have I not read the book?" "If I take a shower in a rain coat, have I not showered?"

[Carl G]

There is therefore logically a magical basis for Creation

What do you mean by "Creation"? The only thing that is created are "things" (that are bounded). The Totality itself cannot be created, and therefore it would be a misnomer to call it "Creation".

By Creation, misnomer or not, I was referring to The Totality.

[Kevin Solway]

By Creation, misnomer or not, I was referring to The Totality.

It is a logical error to think of a "basis" for the Totality, since there is nothing other than itself.

[Carl G]

What caused the Big Bang?