Commentary Thread: Causation and Spirituality (Sam vs David)

[Kevin Solway]

Perhaps Sam wants to talk about whether people believe their will is free, even though it isn't. But there's no debate about that. People do believe their will is free, even though it isn't.

Is it possible to say that one's will is free, even though one knows that it isn't? Certainly it is.

[Cory Duchesne]

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.

Yes, in the same way that a tree in a pot deprived of water has less space and energy to grow, I would have less space and energy to grow.

Less, energy, less freedom.

As I said in my previous post, to say that I have freedom is just a convenient figure of speech. For instance, if you introduced a puppy into the outdoors for the first time, the puppy would suddenly have more freedom than he had before. But that doesn't mean that his excited response to the new environment isn't governed (controlled).

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: 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.

It's just a figure of speech, Sam. That's all it is. If you examine it honestly, you'll see that the notion of a 'self being free' has very little meaning. Everyone is governed by causality.

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.

Yes, and people who feel they are in control seldom realize that the only reason they are in control is because they are controlled.

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 the only reason they feel they are in control is because they are controlled.

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?

An illusion.

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.

a tree doesn't make any effort, you do.

Effort? Consider these cows butting heads with each other

Do you honestly think that the effort that these cows are clearly exerting is proof of free will?

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!

What about animals, such as bulls, cows, goats and dear. These animals are known for locking horns and butting heads - exerting effort. Is that proof that effort implies free will?

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?

It's actually perfectly relevant - and I'll explain to you why:

You define freedom as being in control.

And I am telling you that to be in control is to be controlled. I am also telling you that such an understanding is born out of understanding cause & effect. And an understanding of cause & effect is born out of an understanding of oneness. And by understanding oneness, we understand that the controller must be controlled.

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?

Actually, ever since you defined freedom as 'being in control' it became perfectly relevant to discuss the oneness of the controller and the controlled. You say that being free is being in control. And I say that being in control is being controlled. Hence, being in control is not being free.

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?

No beliefs and actions are based on free will. It's impossible for any thing to be free. (e.g. it's impossible for a thing to not be determined by the existence of other things)

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?

Ok, so basically you're talking about a belief in something that doesn't exist. I agree, that humans are very prone to believing in things that we have no proof for. Your point?

A belief in free will does exist in most people.

Yes, and a belief in a supernatural, infinitely loving, all powerful creator exists in most people too. Is that your argument? That most people believe in something......and so, that means what exactly? What's your point?

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.

You're actually wrong about that. The oxygen a tree produces is consumed by animals and converted into carbon dioxide, which plants need to exist. Oxygen is a very important cause of a trees existence.

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?

A free agent is someone whose actions are not controlled. It's impossible for a thing to not be controlled. Therefore, the whole notion of being a free agent is irrational.

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

Believe it or not, there are some humans who are capable of viewing two sides as constituents of the same whole. This takes a certain level of consciousness, that you perhaps don't have.

Time really is an illusion. There is only simultaneity.

Irrelevant, right? Wrong. But as long as you dwell in lower rungs of consciousness, you will perceive what I say as irrelevant - which is no fault of yours.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Less, energy, less freedom.

Cory: As I said in my previous post, to say that I have freedom is just a convenient figure of speech. For instance, if you introduced a puppy into the outdoors for the first time, the puppy would suddenly have more freedom than he had before. But that doesn't mean that his excited response to the new environment isn't governed (controlled).

The problem seems to be I am talking about freedom as people actually experience it and you are talking about freedom as some abstract idea that you can't even articulate yet feel the need to strenuously deny. Why would it need denying if you can't even say what it is?

Sam: 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.

Cory: It's just a figure of speech, Sam. That's all it is. If you examine it honestly, you'll see that the notion of a 'self being free' has very little meaning. Everyone is governed by causality.

So, the experience is something you are not interested in, only the idea that doesn't actually exist draws your attention. This is like raising chickens to collect the shit while throwing away the eggs. Deal with people as they are, not as your imagination conjures them.

sam: Again, freedom has meaning. People understand it as being in control.

Cory: Yes, and people who feel they are in control seldom realize that the only reason they are in control is because they are controlled.

Neverthless, it is the imagined control that gives rise to the imagined freedom and which you yourself partake of.

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

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

Cory: And I'm telling you that the only reason they feel they are in control is because they are controlled.

Yet this feeling of control gives rise to the feeling of freedom. You yourself want to feel in control. I must conclude you also enjoy the feeling of freedom, illusory though it may be.

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.

For the hundreth time, it isn't about any objective validity. It is about what people believe. If a belief in free agency arises out of the feeling of being in control and you yourself have said you want to be in control, how is that different than believing in free agency?

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

Cory: An illusion.

Again, without discussing the belief in freedom as an experience, all you are giving me is your dogma.

sam: a tree doesn't make any effort, you do.

Cory: Effort? Consider these cows butting heads with each other. Do you honestly think that the effort that these cows are clearly exerting is proof of free will?

The cows aren't believing in anything, you are. Do people believe in freedom or not?

sam: A plant isn't trying to do anything, you are!

Cory: What about animals, such as bulls, cows, goats and dear. These animals are known for locking horns and butting heads - exerting effort. Is that proof that effort implies free will?

Animals act according to their nature, same as humans. Human nature includes beliefs of which being a free agent is one. The nature of that belief is reflected by the feeling of control one has over actions and choices. Your actions and choices are a reflection of a belief in free agency. Got it?

sam: Why do you keep dragging in the irrelevant to our discussion?

Cory: It's actually perfectly relevant - and I'll explain to you why:

You define freedom as being in control.

It is not a matter of defining it, it is a matter of how people experience it.

And I am telling you that to be in control is to be controlled. I am also telling you that such an understanding is born out of understanding cause & effect. And an understanding of cause & effect is born out of an understanding of oneness. And by understanding oneness, we understand that the controller must be controlled.

The discussion is about how a belief in free agency is reflected in actions and choices and how your belief in causation is similarly reflected. Please try to keep to the discussion.

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

Cory: Actually, ever since you defined freedom as 'being in control' it became perfectly relevant to discuss the oneness of the controller and the controlled. You say that being free is being in control. And I say that being in control is being controlled. Hence, being in control is not being free.

So being in control is the same as not being in control, is this what you are telling me? Seriously?

sam: 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?

Cory: No beliefs and actions are based on free will. It's impossible for any thing to be free. (e.g. it's impossible for a thing to not be determined by the existence of other things)

Are you telling me it is impossible to believe in free will? It doesn't matter whether the belief is true or not. People believe in a God with a long white beard who lives in the sky and act on that belief, its nonsensical nature notwithstanding.

sam: 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?

Cory: Ok, so basically you're talking about a belief in something that doesn't exist. I agree, that humans are very prone to believing in things that we have no proof for. Your point?

Gee, have I gotten through to you? Let's find out. A belief in free agency is reflected in actions and choices, do you agree?

sam: A belief in free will does exist in most people.

Cory: Yes, and a belief in a supernatural, infinitely loving, all powerful creator exists in most people too. Is that your argument? That most people believe in something......and so, that means what exactly? What's your point?

The point which you seem to finally be grasping is that a belief in free will is reflected in actions and choices. Your belief in causation is also reflected in actions and choices. If the actions and choices are the same in both cases, your belief in causation is tantamount to a belief in free will.

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.

sam: 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.

Cory: You're actually wrong about that. The oxygen a tree produces is consumed by animals and converted into carbon dioxide, which plants need to exist. Oxygen is a very important cause of a trees existence.

How about a seed? You think that might be a cause? Oxygen is a condition, not a cause.

sam: 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?

Cory: A free agent is someone whose actions are not controlled. It's impossible for a thing to not be controlled. Therefore, the whole notion of being a free agent is irrational.

People believe they are free agents. Whether they actually are or not isn't the discussion. C'mon now, you were making progress, don't throw it all away.

sam: You made the argument that an effect is a cause. It isn't. An effect can become a cause

Cory: Believe it or not, there are some humans who are capable of viewing two sides as constituents of the same whole. This takes a certain level of consciousness, that you perhaps don't have.

Don't be stupid. I'm well aware of your point. But we aren't talking about how effects become causes, are we? We are talking about the belief in free agency and how it is reflected in actions and choices. Your belief in causation is also reflected in your actions and choices. I am pointing out how your actions and choices are also reflective of a belief in free agency. You need to address this and not ramble on about oneness, time, consciousness or any other non-sequitur that comes into your brain.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

Sam: 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.

Cory: It's just a figure of speech, Sam. That's all it is. If you examine it honestly, you'll see that the notion of a 'self being free' has very little meaning. Everyone is governed by causality.

So, the experience is something you are not interested in, only the idea that doesn't actually exist draws your attention. This is like raising chickens to collect the shit while throwing away the eggs. Deal with people as they are, not as your imagination conjures them.

I am dealing with people as they are: deluded.

People are deluded into thinking that their future is not determined.

sam: Again, freedom has meaning. People understand it as being in control.

Cory: Yes, and people who feel they are in control seldom realize that the only reason they are in control is because they are controlled.

Neverthless, it is the imagined control that gives rise to the imagined freedom and which you yourself partake of.

Ok, I agree that freedom is imagined and not real. But personally, I realize that my action is governed by the causes which beget my values, as well as the causes which beget my feelings of pleasure. In other words, my action is determined by nature, and not by my ego.

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

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

Cory: And I'm telling you that the only reason they feel they are in control is because they are controlled.

Yet this feeling of control gives rise to the feeling of freedom. You yourself want to feel in control. I must conclude you also enjoy the feeling of freedom, illusory though it may be.

My sense of freedom isn't like most peoples. There is a sense of freedom when I realize there is no division between me and anything else. Freedom is when there is no will.

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.

For the hundreth time, it isn't about any objective validity. It is about what people believe. If a belief in free agency arises out of the feeling of being in control and you yourself have said you want to be in control, how is that different than believing in free agency?

My sense of being in control doesn't exclude a sense of being controlled - therefore I don't really have a sense of free agency. When I'm in a situation where I must control, I realize I'm being controlled by certain concepts, feelings, and demands of the environment.

Ironically, for me, there is only a sense of freedom when I realize I have no free will. I realize that I am God (without limitation, infinite, boundless, free)

sam: a tree doesn't make any effort, you do.

Cory: Effort? Consider these cows butting heads with each other. Do you honestly think that the effort that these cows are clearly exerting is proof of free will?

The cows aren't believing in anything, you are. Do people believe in freedom or not?

Yeah, they do, but they are deluded because of it.

sam: A plant isn't trying to do anything, you are!

Cory: What about animals, such as bulls, cows, goats and dear. These animals are known for locking horns and butting heads - exerting effort. Is that proof that effort implies free will?

Animals act according to their nature, same as humans. Human nature includes beliefs of which being a free agent is one. The nature of that belief is reflected by the feeling of control one has over actions and choices. Your actions and choices are a reflection of a belief in free agency. Got it?

Well, personally, my actions are a reflection of a realization that freedom is to be without form. That's quite a bit different than most people.

So being in control is the same as not being in control, is this what you are telling me?

No, I'm saying that both control and not being controlled are useful fictions which depend on the assumption that things exist. The truth is oneness, and from such a oneness there are no things which can control or be controlled.

sam: 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?

Cory: No beliefs and actions are based on free will. It's impossible for any thing to be free. (e.g. it's impossible for a thing to not be determined by the existence of other things)

Are you telling me it is impossible to believe in free will?

It's certainly possible to believe in free will - but that doesn't mean free will is real.

sam: 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?

Cory: Ok, so basically you're talking about a belief in something that doesn't exist. I agree, that humans are very prone to believing in things that we have no proof for. Your point?

Gee, have I gotten through to you? Let's find out. A belief in free agency is reflected in actions and choices, do you agree?

Human behavior is often partially controlled by a belief in free agency.

The majority of the time, the action of people has nothing to do with any conscious belief in free will. Like children, they simply act instinctively, unthinkingly, compulsively, irrationally, unconsciously. Only occasionally do some people stop and think: "do I have free will?" or they might feel ashamed, regretful or proud.

Personally, I act - but my actions are not the result of a belief in free agency. Instead, my actions are the result of having the sense that I am something I didn't choose to be.

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.

sam: 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.

Cory: You're actually wrong about that. The oxygen a tree produces is consumed by animals and converted into carbon dioxide, which plants need to exist. Oxygen is a very important cause of a trees existence.

How about a seed? You think that might be a cause?

Certainly. The seed is the cause of the prior trees rebirth.

Oxygen is a condition, not a cause.

I don't think it's true to treat condition and cause as separate things. A condition is a cause.

sam: 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?

Cory: A free agent is someone whose actions are not controlled. It's impossible for a thing to not be controlled. Therefore, the whole notion of being a free agent is irrational.

People believe they are free agents. Whether they actually are or not isn't the discussion.

I'm interested in having a discussion about truth, which demands that we don't erect barriers dividing topics. If building up walls to divide things up is what you're only interested in, then I don't see much point in our discussion continuing.

sam: You made the argument that an effect is a cause. It isn't. An effect can become a cause

Cory: Believe it or not, there are some humans who are capable of viewing two sides as constituents of the same whole. This takes a certain level of consciousness, that you perhaps don't have.

Don't be stupid. I'm well aware of your point. But we aren't talking about how effects become causes, are we? We are talking about the belief in free agency and how it is reflected in actions and choices.

You obviously want to severely compartmentalize and limit the discussion in order to protect your ego. I suggest you take a break to think things over. Maybe we can have a discussion about truth some other time.

Your belief in causation is also reflected in your actions and choices. I am pointing out how your actions and choices are also reflective of a belief in free agency.

A person can be very proud or ashamed of what they have done - so yes, the state of a persons mind is often reflective of a belief in free agency. Although, amusingly, people often take pride or shame in things that they know they had nothing to do with (such as the hick town they grew up in, or their ugly or beautiful appearance)

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: So, the experience is something you are not interested in, only the idea that doesn't actually exist draws your attention. This is like raising chickens to collect the shit while throwing away the eggs. Deal with people as they are, not as your imagination conjures them.

Cory: I am dealing with people as they are: deluded. People are deluded into thinking that their future is not determined.

Yet the discussion isn't about delusion of others but your own which you are studiously avoiding. I am showing you how your actions and choices coincide with a belief in free will. But you don't want to hear that so you keep talking about others.

sam: Again, freedom has meaning. People understand it as being in control.

Cory: Yes, and people who feel they are in control seldom realize that the only reason they are in control is because they are controlled.

sam: Neverthless, it is the imagined control that gives rise to the imagined freedom and which you yourself partake of.

Cory: Ok, I agree that freedom is imagined and not real. But personally, I realize that my action is governed by the causes which beget my values, as well as the causes which beget my feelings of pleasure. In other words, my action is determined by nature, and not by my ego.

Real or imagined isn't the point. Belief is the point. People act according to their beliefs. If you want to know what they believe, watch how they act. Your actions are governed by a belief in control as you have already admitted. Acting in an attempt to control reflects a belief in free agency. Tough to hear, isn't it?

sam: Yet this feeling of control gives rise to the feeling of freedom. You yourself want to feel in control. I must conclude you also enjoy the feeling of freedom, illusory though it may be.

Cory: My sense of freedom isn't like most peoples. There is a sense of freedom when I realize there is no division between me and anything else. Freedom is when there is no will.

Then why do you try to control? Why do you want to be a cause? You say one thing but do another.

Cory: 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: For the hundreth time, it isn't about any objective validity. It is about what people believe. If a belief in free agency arises out of the feeling of being in control and you yourself have said you want to be in control, how is that different than believing in free agency?

Cory: My sense of being in control doesn't exclude a sense of being controlled - therefore I don't really have a sense of free agency. When I'm in a situation where I must control, I realize I'm being controlled by certain concepts, feelings, and demands of the environment.

Double talk. You have admitted wanting to control. You want to teach so you can be a cause. Your actions reflect a belief in free agency despite your protestations to the contrary.

Ironically, for me, there is only a sense of freedom when I realize I have no free will. I realize that I am God (without limitation, infinite, boundless, free)

Yet your actions say otherwise. Why should we believe your words when we have your actions to go on?

sam: The cows aren't believing in anything, you are. Do people believe in freedom or not?

Cory: Yeah, they do, but they are deluded because of it.

That isn't the point despite your repeating it ad infinitum. Only belief matters in this case.

sam: Animals act according to their nature, same as humans. Human nature includes beliefs of which being a free agent is one. The nature of that belief is reflected by the feeling of control one has over actions and choices. Your actions and choices are a reflection of a belief in free agency. Got it?

Cory: Well, personally, my actions are a reflection of a realization that freedom is to be without form. That's quite a bit different than most people.

Yet you hang out in a body (form) and converse with me and others (form) giving the lie to your words. You enjoy form very much though you have a need to pretend otherwise.

sam: So being in control is the same as not being in control, is this what you are telling me?

Cory: No, I'm saying that both control and not being controlled are useful fictions which depend on the assumption that things exist. The truth is oneness, and from such a oneness there are no things which can control or be controlled.

Again, fiction or fact makes no difference. We are talking about beliefs. Your actions reflect just the opposite of the image you seem desperate to project.

Cory: No beliefs and actions are based on free will. It's impossible for any thing to be free. (e.g. it's impossible for a thing to not be determined by the existence of other things)

sam: Are you telling me it is impossible to believe in free will?

Cory: It's certainly possible to believe in free will - but that doesn't mean free will is real.

Who cares? People act on beliefs whether they are true or not. Why don't you want to admit that?

sam: 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?

Cory: Ok, so basically you're talking about a belief in something that doesn't exist. I agree, that humans are very prone to believing in things that we have no proof for. Your point?

sam: Gee, have I gotten through to you? Let's find out. A belief in free agency is reflected in actions and choices, do you agree?

Cory: Human behavior is often partially controlled by a belief in free agency.

Great. Cory admits the obvious after endless equivocation.

The majority of the time, the action of people has nothing to do with any conscious belief in free will. Like children, they simply act instinctively, unthinkingly, compulsively, irrationally, unconsciously. Only occasionally do some people stop and think: "do I have free will?" or they might feel ashamed, regretful or proud.

It is immaterial whether they think about it or not. You don't need to keep asking yourself "can I do what I want, can I do what I want?" in order to do what you want to do.

Personally, I act - but my actions are not the result of a belief in free agency. Instead, my actions are the result of having the sense that I am something I didn't choose to be.

Yet you want to be in control of your life and be a cause for others, just like those who believe they are free agents. So if you belief in causation leads to identical actions that a belief in free will engenders, we can either conclude your belief is identical to a belief in free will or your belief does not cause you to act in any way different than a belief in free will. Either way, it presents no distinction to someone who might be interested in its efficacy.

sam: Oxygen is a condition, not a cause.

Cory: I don't think it's true to treat condition and cause as separate things. A condition is a cause.

Causes are something that is necessary and sufficient to produce an effect. Conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

sam: People believe they are free agents. Whether they actually are or not isn't the discussion.

Cory: I'm interested in having a discussion about truth, which demands that we don't erect barriers dividing topics. If building up walls to divide things up is what you're only interested in, then I don't see much point in our discussion continuing.

This is pretty lame. We are discussing YOUR BELIEF after all. Suddenly confronted with your own delusion you don't want to discuss it anymore. How surprising.

sam: Don't be stupid. I'm well aware of your point. But we aren't talking about how effects become causes, are we? We are talking about the belief in free agency and how it is reflected in actions and choices.

Cory: You obviously want to severely compartmentalize and limit the discussion in order to protect your ego. I suggest you take a break to think things over. Maybe we can have a discussion about truth some other time.

Running scared now, aren't we? You don't want to look at your own actions and see how they reflect just the opposite of what you pretend to believe and in fact you want to make that my problem. How sad.

sam: Your belief in causation is also reflected in your actions and choices. I am pointing out how your actions and choices are also reflective of a belief in free agency.

Cory: A person can be very proud or ashamed of what they have done - so yes, the state of a persons mind is often reflective of a belief in free agency.

Yeah. I know you will never admit your own belief but actions after all speak louder than words. Your actions tell us all we need to know.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

sam: Again, freedom has meaning. People understand it as being in control.

Cory: Yes, and people who feel they are in control seldom realize that the only reason they are in control is because they are controlled.

sam: Neverthless, it is the imagined control that gives rise to the imagined freedom and which you yourself partake of.

Cory: Ok, I agree that freedom is imagined and not real. But personally, I realize that my action is governed by the causes which beget my values, as well as the causes which beget my feelings of pleasure. In other words, my action is determined by nature, and not by my ego.

Real or imagined isn't the point. Belief is the point. People act according to their beliefs.

And my point is that some people involuntarily have a desire to have true beliefs, rather than false ones.

What's your point?

sam: Yet this feeling of control gives rise to the feeling of freedom. You yourself want to feel in control. I must conclude you also enjoy the feeling of freedom, illusory though it may be.

Cory: My sense of freedom isn't like most peoples. There is a sense of freedom when I realize there is no division between me and anything else. Freedom is when there is no will.

Then why do you try to control?

In some instances I have no choice but to engage in the illusion of control, all for the sake of preserving what I value.

Cory: 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: For the hundreth time, it isn't about any objective validity. It is about what people believe. If a belief in free agency arises out of the feeling of being in control and you yourself have said you want to be in control, how is that different than believing in free agency?

Cory: My sense of being in control doesn't exclude a sense of being controlled - therefore I don't really have a sense of free agency. When I'm in a situation where I must control, I realize I'm being controlled by certain concepts, feelings, and demands of the environment.

Double talk. You have admitted wanting to control.

I also admitted that having control (effecting) necessitates being controlled (being caused)

So you really have no point.

You want to teach so you can be a cause. Your actions reflect a belief in free agency

You're wrong. In the same way that 2+2=4 isn't a choice, the truth isn't a choice. What we are attracted to isn't a choice. What we are is involuntary.

Cory: No beliefs and actions are based on free will. It's impossible for any thing to be free. (e.g. it's impossible for a thing to not be determined by the existence of other things)

sam: Are you telling me it is impossible to believe in free will?

Cory: It's certainly possible to believe in free will - but that doesn't mean free will is real.

Who cares? People act on beliefs whether they are true or not. Why don't you want to admit that?

I do admit that people act on beliefs. But that's a pretty mundane statement.

My point is that some people act on true beliefs, and others act on false beliefs. It's the difference between being free of ignorance, and being ignorant.

The majority of the time, the action of people has nothing to do with any conscious belief in free will. Like children, they simply act instinctively, unthinkingly, compulsively, irrationally, unconsciously. Only occasionally do some people stop and think: "do I have free will?" or they might feel ashamed, regretful or proud.

It is immaterial whether they think about it or not. You don't need to keep asking yourself "can I do what I want, can I do what I want?" in order to do what you want to do.

So 'belief in free agency' really isn't as important as you seemed to be preaching earlier. The truth is that, for most people, whether or not they are free agents doesn't even cross their minds.

Personally, I act - but my actions are not the result of a belief in free agency. Instead, my actions are the result of having the sense that I am something I didn't choose to be.

Yet you want to be in control of your life and be a cause for others, just like those who believe they are free agents. So if you belief in causation leads to identical actions that a belief in free will engenders

It doesn't lead to identical actions, actually. My understanding of truth causes me to act wisely. Your ignorance of truth causes you to act ignorantly.

sam: Oxygen is a condition, not a cause.

Cory: I don't think it's true to treat condition and cause as separate things. A condition is a cause.

Causes are something that is necessary and sufficient to produce an effect. Conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

You'll have to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. I don't believe you can.

[Kevin Solway]

The problem seems to be I am talking about freedom as people actually experience it

People experience lots of things that aren't real. That's why they're unenlightened.

If a belief in free agency arises out of the feeling of being in control and you yourself have said you want to be in control, how is that different than believing in free agency?

Free agency, as I define it, arises out of the desire for one's actions to not be fully predetermined by the environment. Wise people don't believe in it.

So being in control is the same as not being in control

The control is an illusion. It's not real.

So what would reflect a belief in free will? What beliefs and actions are based on free will?

Emotional behaviour, selfishness, anger, boredom, etc.

People believe they are free agents.

Wise people do not believe they are free agents. They know that everything they do is caused. They are fully aware that there's nothing "free" about their thoughts and actions.

We could say that wise people are "free" of having a definite knowledge of what the future holds, and what they will do before they do it, but that's not the same as having free will, as I define it.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Neverthless, it is the imagined control that gives rise to the imagined freedom and which you yourself partake of.

Cory: Ok, I agree that freedom is imagined and not real. But personally, I realize that my action is governed by the causes which beget my values, as well as the causes which beget my feelings of pleasure. In other words, my action is determined by nature, and not by my ego.

sam: Real or imagined isn't the point. Belief is the point. People act according to their beliefs.

Cory: And my point is that some people involuntarily have a desire to have true beliefs, rather than false ones. What's your point?

My point is that beliefs are revealed by actions and choices. Your belief in causation is revealed by your actions and choices as coinciding with a belief in free will.

sam: Yet this feeling of control gives rise to the feeling of freedom. You yourself want to feel in control. I must conclude you also enjoy the feeling of freedom, illusory though it may be.

Cory: My sense of freedom isn't like most peoples. There is a sense of freedom when I realize there is no division between me and anything else. Freedom is when there is no will.

sam: Then why do you try to control?

Cory: In some instances I have no choice but to engage in the illusion of control, all for the sake of preserving what I value.

Well, plainly you have a will to control so you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Cory: My sense of being in control doesn't exclude a sense of being controlled - therefore I don't really have a sense of free agency. When I'm in a situation where I must control, I realize I'm being controlled by certain concepts, feelings, and demands of the environment.

sam: Double talk. You have admitted wanting to control.

Cory: I also admitted that having control (effecting) necessitates being controlled (being caused)

Again, it doesn't matter whether you are controlled or not. What matters is that your actions reveal your belief in causation to be equivalent to a belief in free will.

sam: You want to teach so you can be a cause. Your actions reflect a belief in free agency

Cory: You're wrong. In the same way that 2+2=4 isn't a choice, the truth isn't a choice. What we are attracted to isn't a choice. What we are is involuntary.

Whether it's a choice or not isn't the point. You act as if you have a belief in free will. You say you don't but you act as if you do. Either you secretly believe in free will or your belief in causation is tantamount to a belief in free will. Either way, there is no distinction between the effects of your belief in causation with the effects of others' belief in free will.

sam: Are you telling me it is impossible to believe in free will?

Cory: It's certainly possible to believe in free will - but that doesn't mean free will is real.

sam: Who cares? People act on beliefs whether they are true or not. Why don't you want to admit that?

Cory: I do admit that people act on beliefs. But that's a pretty mundane statement.

Acting on belief is the whole point. Your actions equate to a belief in free will.

My point is that some people act on true beliefs, and others act on false beliefs. It's the difference between being free of ignorance, and being ignorant.

Then why can't you demonstrate a difference as evidenced by your actions between your supposed "true" belief versus others' "false" belief? You actually demonstrate a similarity.

sam: It is immaterial whether they think about it or not. You don't need to keep asking yourself "can I do what I want, can I do what I want?" in order to do what you want to do.

Cory: So 'belief in free agency' really isn't as important as you seemed to be preaching earlier. The truth is that, for most people, whether or not they are free agents doesn't even cross their minds.

Just ask them, okay. You will find out what they believe.

Cory: Personally, I act - but my actions are not the result of a belief in free agency. Instead, my actions are the result of having the sense that I am something I didn't choose to be.

sam: Yet you want to be in control of your life and be a cause for others, just like those who believe they are free agents. So if you belief in causation leads to identical actions that a belief in free will engenders

Cory: It doesn't lead to identical actions, actually. My understanding of truth causes me to act wisely. Your ignorance of truth causes you to act ignorantly.

Heh heh heh. Yet when I ask you, you say you want to do exactly what someone who believes in free will wants to do, namely be a cause for desirable effects.

sam: Oxygen is a condition, not a cause.

Cory: I don't think it's true to treat condition and cause as separate things. A condition is a cause.

sam: Causes are something that is necessary and sufficient to produce an effect. Conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

Cory: You'll have to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. I don't believe you can.

A condition for winning the lottery is buying a lottery ticket. Such a condition however is not a sufficient cause for winning the lottery.

[Leyla Shen]

Would somebody please explain to me in very clear and succinct terms exactly what a "true belief" is.

[Leyla Shen]

Having since given it a little thought, I think it's a statement that's pointing to the ritualisation of truth (an accidental coincidence with it) as opposed to truth as a living component of the individual.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

Cory: My sense of being in control doesn't exclude a sense of being controlled - therefore I don't really have a sense of free agency. When I'm in a situation where I must control, I realize I'm being controlled by certain concepts, feelings, and demands of the environment.

sam: Double talk. You have admitted wanting to control.

Cory: I also admitted that having control (effecting) necessitates being controlled (being caused)

Again, it doesn't matter whether you are controlled or not. What matters is that your actions reveal your belief in causation to be equivalent to a belief in free will.

A guy who believes in free will believes that his ego chose to be who he is. For me, there is never an instant where I believe that I chose to be who I am.

My awareness of causation is not the equivalent to a belief that I chose to be who I am.

sam: You want to teach so you can be a cause. Your actions reflect a belief in free agency

Cory: You're wrong. In the same way that 2+2=4 isn't a choice, the truth isn't a choice. What we are attracted to isn't a choice. What we are is involuntary.

Whether it's a choice or not isn't the point. You act as if you have a belief in free will. You say you don't but you act as if you do. Either you secretly believe in free will or your belief in causation is tantamount to a belief in free will. Either way, there is no distinction between the effects of your belief in causation with the effects of others' belief in free will.

Unlike people who believe in free will, I see no reason to be proud or ashamed of things I've done - I also have no way of justifying any angry thoughts I might have, or any cravings for revenge. So there's a blatantly obvious distinction between the effects of my faith in causation compared to the effects of others' belief in free will. Most people would be very angry with a serial killer and would want to kill him for the sheer sake of revenge - they would say that he chose to do what he did - that he is to blame. In my view, a serial killer is not to be blamed for what he has done.

sam: Are you telling me it is impossible to believe in free will?

Cory: It's certainly possible to believe in free will - but that doesn't mean free will is real.

sam: Who cares? People act on beliefs whether they are true or not. Why don't you want to admit that?

Cory: I do admit that people act on beliefs. But that's a pretty mundane statement.

Acting on belief is the whole point. Your actions equate to a belief in free will.

Then explain to me why most people think that pride, shame, guilt and anger is justified?

Isn't it because they believe that they have free will?

Now explain to me why I think those emotions are not justified?

Hint: because I understand that free will is an illusion

Cory: So 'belief in free agency' really isn't as important as you seemed to be preaching earlier. The truth is that, for most people, whether or not they are free agents doesn't even cross their minds.

Sam: Just ask them, okay. You will find out what they believe.

Oh, don't get me wrong - the moment you ask them then they will assert they have free will.

But seldom to they really think about it. Their behavior is largely unconscious, generic, predictable - determined. The generic and predictable trajectory of their life exists despite their belief in free will.

Cory: Personally, I act - but my actions are not the result of a belief in free agency. Instead, my actions are the result of having the sense that I am something I didn't choose to be.

sam: Yet you want to be in control of your life and be a cause for others, just like those who believe they are free agents. So if you belief in causation leads to identical actions that a belief in free will engenders

Cory: It doesn't lead to identical actions, actually. My understanding of truth causes me to act wisely. Your ignorance of truth causes you to act ignorantly.

Heh heh heh. Yet when I ask you, you say you want to do exactly what someone who believes in free will wants to do, namely be a cause for desirable effects.

I'm aware that I don't choose to desire what I desire. That's a fundamental component to free will: "choice"

You are forgetting that.

sam: Oxygen is a condition, not a cause.

Cory: I don't think it's true to treat condition and cause as separate things. A condition is a cause.

sam: Causes are something that is necessary and sufficient to produce an effect. Conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

Cory: You'll have to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. I don't believe you can.

A condition for winning the lottery is buying a lottery ticket. Such a condition however is not a sufficient cause for winning the lottery.

No, but such a condition is a cause for possessing a ticket. So you have failed to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. Try again?

[Cory Duchesne]

Would somebody please explain to me in very clear and succinct terms exactly what a "true belief" is.

confidence; faith; trust - in appearances or logical truths.

For example, if I looked in the fridge for the carrots, and if I seen them, my reaching to grab them would be concomitant with my belief that they were there.

[Leyla Shen]

So, what you're essentially saying is that you cannot know if something is true and not merely a belief (or a "false belief") until you can reach out and touch it; that logic and illogic alike both serve only belief?

If I have faith in logic, does that mean all logic is a matter of faith?

[Leyla Shen]

[Hums--helicopters overhead...] Yoo! Yes, yoo! St-a-a-a-nd still, laddie! Ya can't have belief without truth. How can ya have belief if there isn't any trooth!?

[samadhi]

Cory,

Cory: I also admitted that having control (effecting) necessitates being controlled (being caused)

sam: Again, it doesn't matter whether you are controlled or not. What matters is that your actions reveal your belief in causation to be equivalent to a belief in free will.

Cory: A guy who believes in free will believes that his ego chose to be who he is. For me, there is never an instant where I believe that I chose to be who I am. My awareness of causation is not the equivalent to a belief that I chose to be who I am.

Yet your awareness of causation as reflected by your choices and actions seems equivalent to someone else's awareness of free will reflected by their choices and actions.

sam: Whether it's a choice or not isn't the point. You act as if you have a belief in free will. You say you don't but you act as if you do. Either you secretly believe in free will or your belief in causation is tantamount to a belief in free will. Either way, there is no distinction between the effects of your belief in causation with the effects of others' belief in free will.

Cory: Unlike people who believe in free will, I see no reason to be proud or ashamed of things I've done - I also have no way of justifying any angry thoughts I might have, or any cravings for revenge. So there's a blatantly obvious distinction between the effects of my faith in causation compared to the effects of others' belief in free will. Most people would be very angry with a serial killer and would want to kill him for the sheer sake of revenge - they would say that he chose to do what he did - that he is to blame. In my view, a serial killer is not to be blamed for what he has done.

First, I am pleased that you are agreeing with me about how a belief in causation entails a surrender of the divisive emotions that presuppose one is in control. Can you explain this to David and Kevin who rejected this notion when I outlined it in the debate?

Second, pride is something you obviously take in your beliefs. You have said, "my understanding of truth causes me to act wisely. Your ignorance of truth causes you to act ignorantly." Plainly you think there is something special about your belief and something repugnant about the beliefs of others. Yet under causation there can be neither distinction nor ignorance, all people think and do what they are caused to think and do. Marking one as special as opposed to another is about free will once again.

Cory: I do admit that people act on beliefs. But that's a pretty mundane statement.

sam: Acting on belief is the whole point. Your actions equate to a belief in free will.

Cory: Then explain to me why most people think that pride, shame, guilt and anger is justified? Isn't it because they believe that they have free will?

I argued in the debate that emotions which presuppose one is a free agent should be surrendered when one adopts a belief in causation. So you are agreeing with me. Whether you yourself have surrendered those emotions however is doubtful. Right now you are taking pride in your belief in causation. You think it sets you apart from others who are not as "wise" as you. You have chided me for "dwelling in the lower rungs on consciousness" and others for "acting like children, instinctively, unthinkingly, compulsively, irrationally, unconsciously." Plainly you think a belief in causation is a mark of distinction. In fact if you truly adopted it, it would be seen as a great leveler, removing all barriers between you and others rather than creating them. So your free will beliefs are still showing through.

Cory: So 'belief in free agency' really isn't as important as you seemed to be preaching earlier. The truth is that, for most people, whether or not they are free agents doesn't even cross their minds.

Sam: Just ask them, okay. You will find out what they believe.

Oh, don't get me wrong - the moment you ask them then they will assert they have free will. But seldom do they really think about it. Their behavior is largely unconscious, generic, predictable - determined. The generic and predictable trajectory of their life exists despite their belief in free will.

It doesn't matter. If you belief in causation creates the same unconcious, generic, predictable, determined behavior as a belief in free will, which apparently it does, then your belief is tantamount to a belief in free will.

Cory: Personally, I act - but my actions are not the result of a belief in free agency. Instead, my actions are the result of having the sense that I am something I didn't choose to be.

sam: Yet you want to be in control of your life and be a cause for others, just like those who believe they are free agents. So if you belief in causation leads to identical actions that a belief in free will engenders

Cory: It doesn't lead to identical actions, actually. My understanding of truth causes me to act wisely. Your ignorance of truth causes you to act ignorantly.

sam: Heh heh heh. Yet when I ask you, you say you want to do exactly what someone who believes in free will wants to do, namely be a cause for desirable effects.

Cory: I'm aware that I don't choose to desire what I desire. That's a fundamental component to free will: "choice." You are forgetting that.

Of course you choose. Life is about choices, whether you want to claim responsibility for them or not. The awareness you claim for not being responsible however is not being reflected in those choices. You want to be a cause, you want to create desirable effects, you take pride in your beliefs, etc. etc. etc., just like anyone who believes in free will.

sam: A condition for winning the lottery is buying a lottery ticket. Such a condition however is not a sufficient cause for winning the lottery.

Cory: No, but such a condition is a cause for possessing a ticket. So you have failed to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. Try again?

You misunderstand. For the particular effect of winning a lottery, buying a ticket is only a condition, not a cause. For the particular effect of possessing a lottery ticket, having money is only a condition, not a cause. Get it?

[brad walker]

sam: A condition for winning the lottery is buying a lottery ticket. Such a condition however is not a sufficient cause for winning the lottery.

Cory: No, but such a condition is a cause for possessing a ticket. So you have failed to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. Try again?

sam: You misunderstand. For the particular effect of winning a lottery, buying a ticket is only a condition, not a cause. For the particular effect of possessing a lottery ticket, having money is only a condition, not a cause. Get it?

Can you name one cause or condition that's sufficient for an effect?

[samadhi]

brad,

Can you name one cause or condition that's sufficient for an effect?

You might ask this of Kevin or Cory. I myself look at things in terms of conditioning, not causes.

[Kevin Solway]

Samadhi wrote to Cory:

Yet your awareness of causation as reflected by your choices and actions seems equivalent to someone else's awareness of free will reflected by their choices and actions.

It doesn't seem equivalent to me. To the contrary, it seems entirely different because it produces entirely different behaviours.

You act as if you have a belief in free will.

No, not as we have defined "free will" (freedom from causation).

I am pleased that you are agreeing with me about how a belief in causation entails a surrender of the divisive emotions that presuppose one is in control. Can you explain this to David and Kevin who rejected this notion when I outlined it in the debate?

David and I have already explained to you that the wise person surrenders ALL emotions, not just the "divisive" ones. But you are incapable of hearing this.

Yet under causation there can be neither distinction nor ignorance, all people think and do what they are caused to think and do.

Clearly your understanding of the term "ignorance" is tainted with emotion and delusion. You understand "ignorance" to be an inherently bad thing, which it isn't.

Right now you are taking pride in your belief in causation.

This is simply an arrogant and judgemental assertion of yours. You are not providing anything to back-up your claim.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

Cory,

Cory: I also admitted that having control (effecting) necessitates being controlled (being caused)

sam: Again, it doesn't matter whether you are controlled or not. What matters is that your actions reveal your belief in causation to be equivalent to a belief in free will.

Cory: A guy who believes in free will believes that his ego chose to be who he is. For me, there is never an instant where I believe that I chose to be who I am. My awareness of causation is not the equivalent to a belief that I chose to be who I am.

Yet your awareness of causation as reflected by your choices and actions seems equivalent to someone else's awareness of free will reflected by their choices and actions.

I already pointed out to you (in a number of ways) that there is a big difference between the ordinary person who justifies his anger, vindictiveness, pride and shame - and a person like myself who has no way of justifying such emotions.

sam: Whether it's a choice or not isn't the point. You act as if you have a belief in free will. You say you don't but you act as if you do. Either you secretly believe in free will or your belief in causation is tantamount to a belief in free will. Either way, there is no distinction between the effects of your belief in causation with the effects of others' belief in free will.

Cory: Unlike people who believe in free will, I see no reason to be proud or ashamed of things I've done - I also have no way of justifying any angry thoughts I might have, or any cravings for revenge. So there's a blatantly obvious distinction between the effects of my faith in causation compared to the effects of others' belief in free will. Most people would be very angry with a serial killer and would want to kill him for the sheer sake of revenge - they would say that he chose to do what he did - that he is to blame. In my view, a serial killer is not to be blamed for what he has done.

First, I am pleased that you are agreeing with me about how a belief in causation entails a surrender of the divisive emotions that presuppose one is in control. Can you explain this to David and Kevin who rejected this notion when I outlined it in the debate?

David and Kevin, in their attempts to get through to you, did not reject the notion that causation undermines emotions. On the contrary, for as long as I've known them, they have always promoted the elimination of emotion.

Or do you actually have examples of instances where David or Kevin defended emotionalism?

Second, pride is something you obviously take in your beliefs. You have said, "my understanding of truth causes me to act wisely. Your ignorance of truth causes you to act ignorantly."

You just succumbed to a blatant non sequitur, Sam. You conclude that I take pride in my beliefs, but the premise you base your conclusion on does not support such a conclusion. Are premises even something that you consider before you come to conclusions? Or are your conclusions just the result of your intuitions?

Plainly you think there is something special about your belief and something repugnant about the beliefs of others.

Well, my awareness of causation is relatively rare - so if you want to call it special, then I guess that's okay. But wisdom certainly isn't unique to just me, obviously, so it's not so special that it cannot be attained by others. As for the beliefs of others - to be under the influence of deluded people does arouse my ego, which causes my ego to suffer - so it's true that the beliefs of others are repugnant to my ego.

Yet under causation there can be neither distinction (better vs. worse).

It's true that no thing is inherently superior or inferior to other things. However, if I value survival, then automatically, some things are going to aid my survival more effectively than others, and thus they will be judged as relatively superior.

all people think and do what they are caused to think and do. Marking one as special as opposed to another is about free will once again.

You are coming to conclusions which do not follow from your premises (or are you even aware of premises?). Judging one thing as relatively more superior than another is simply doing just that. You can't conclude that such an action is about free will, because the premises clearly do not lend such a conclusion.

Cory: I do admit that people act on beliefs. But that's a pretty mundane statement.

sam: Acting on belief is the whole point. Your actions equate to a belief in free will.

Cory: Then explain to me why most people think that pride, shame, guilt and anger is justified? Isn't it because they believe that they have free will?

I argued in the debate that emotions which presuppose one is a free agent should be surrendered when one adopts a belief in causation. So you are agreeing with me. Whether you yourself have surrendered those emotions however is doubtful. Right now you are taking pride in your belief in causation.

As I said earlier, your conclusion that I pride myself in my belief does not follow from the apparent premise. You are over reaching.

You think it sets you apart from others who are not as "wise" as you. You have chided me for "dwelling in the lower rungs on consciousness" and others for "acting like children, instinctively, unthinkingly, compulsively, irrationally, unconsciously." Plainly you think a belief in causation is a mark of distinction.

Being aware of causation, and having faith in the reality of it, is simply just that.

In fact if you truly adopted it, it would be seen as a great leveler, removing all barriers between you and others rather than creating them. So your free will beliefs are still showing through.

Because I adopt the view of causation, I urge others to drop their egotism, to stop viewing themselves as divided agents, and to start viewing life as a unity.

sam: A condition for winning the lottery is buying a lottery ticket. Such a condition however is not a sufficient cause for winning the lottery.

Cory: No, but such a condition is a cause for possessing a ticket. So you have failed to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. Try again?

You misunderstand. For the particular effect of winning a lottery, buying a ticket is only a condition, not a cause.

I didn't ask you to give me an example of a particular effect which does not arise as a result of a condition. I asked you to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. Can you do it or not?

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Yet your awareness of causation as reflected by your choices and actions seems equivalent to someone else's awareness of free will reflected by their choices and actions.

Cory: I already pointed out to you (in a number of ways) that there is a big difference between the ordinary person who justifies his anger, vindictiveness, pride and shame - and a person like myself who has no way of justifying such emotions.

It's fine that you want to agree with me about how controlling emotions should be surrendered. The point however is that you haven't surrendered them. I've showed you that using your own words.

sam: First, I am pleased that you are agreeing with me about how a belief in causation entails a surrender of the divisive emotions that presuppose one is in control. Can you explain this to David and Kevin who rejected this notion when I outlined it in the debate?

Cory: David and Kevin, in their attempts to get through to you, did not reject the notion that causation undermines emotions. On the contrary, for as long as I've known them, they have always promoted the elimination of emotion. Or do you actually have examples of instances where David or Kevin defended emotionalism?

Did you read the debate? David rejected the idea that surrender is implied by causation. Kevin also rejects that idea.

sam: Second, pride is something you obviously take in your beliefs. You have said, "my understanding of truth causes me to act wisely. Your ignorance of truth causes you to act ignorantly."

Cory: You just succumbed to a blatant non sequitur, Sam. You conclude that I take pride in my beliefs, but the premise you base your conclusion on does not support such a conclusion. Are premises even something that you consider before you come to conclusions? Or are your conclusions just the result of your intuitions?

Your words speak for themselves. Anyone can draw their own conclusions.

sam: Plainly you think there is something special about your belief and something repugnant about the beliefs of others.

Cory: Well, my awareness of causation is relatively rare - so if you want to call it special, then I guess that's okay.

Ah, more pride. Why not just drop the pride since you are not the cause of your "relatively rare" belief?

But wisdom certainly isn't unique to just me, obviously, so it's not so special that it cannot be attained by others. As for the beliefs of others - to be under the influence of deluded people does arouse my ego, which causes my ego to suffer - so it's true that the beliefs of others are repugnant to my ego.

Great, so you agree with me. Causation is fine as long as it reflects wisdom but when it reflects ignorance, you take offense. Why can't you accept its truth without the need to mold it to your liking, which is what free agents attempt to do all the time?

sam: Yet under causation there can be neither distinction (better vs. worse).

Cory: It's true that no thing is inherently superior or inferior to other things. However, if I value survival, then automatically, some things are going to aid my survival more effectively than others, and thus they will be judged as relatively superior.

But this isn't what you are doing. You are judging superiority as a moral quality inherent in a certain belief. Yet all beliefs are caused according to you. How can one be better than the other except as a reflection of your own values which would correspond to a belief in free will?

sam: all people think and do what they are caused to think and do. Marking one as special as opposed to another is about free will once again.

Cory: You are coming to conclusions which do not follow from your premises (or are you even aware of premises?). Judging one thing as relatively more superior than another is simply doing just that. You can't conclude that such an action is about free will, because the premises clearly do not lend such a conclusion.

On the contrary, judging oneself superior based on a belief is about pride. Pride is indicative of free will. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

sam: I argued in the debate that emotions which presuppose one is a free agent should be surrendered when one adopts a belief in causation. So you are agreeing with me. Whether you yourself have surrendered those emotions however is doubtful. Right now you are taking pride in your belief in causation.

Cory: As I said earlier, your conclusion that I pride myself in my belief does not follow from the apparent premise. You are over reaching.

We have your words, what else do we need? Why would you express yourself in a way to reflect pridefully on your beliefs if that wasn't your intent?

sam: You think it sets you apart from others who are not as "wise" as you. You have chided me for "dwelling in the lower rungs on consciousness" and others for "acting like children, instinctively, unthinkingly, compulsively, irrationally, unconsciously." Plainly you think a belief in causation is a mark of distinction.

Cory: Being aware of causation, and having faith in the reality of it, is simply just that.

Your "faith in the reality of it" however is being undermined by your pride. You criticize others indiscriminately because they hold a different belief. Why criticize others if their belief is a result of causation, the very same way yours is?

sam: In fact if you truly adopted it, it would be seen as a great leveler, removing all barriers between you and others rather than creating them. So your free will beliefs are still showing through.

Cory: Because I adopt the view of causation, I urge others to drop their egotism, to stop viewing themselves as divided agents, and to start viewing life as a unity.

But they don't need to drop anything, they aren't doing anything! Once again, you try to demonstrate a belief in causation by adopting a free will approach to it. You seem to think contradicting your own belief is the best way to support it. Does that make any sense to you?

sam: You misunderstand. For the particular effect of winning a lottery, buying a ticket is only a condition, not a cause.

Cory: I didn't ask you to give me an example of a particular effect which does not arise as a result of a condition. I asked you to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. Can you do it or not?

In fact it is just the opposite. Can you give me an effect that is not about multiple conditions?

[Carl G]

Sam wrote:

Pride is indicative of free will.

How would this be necessarily so?

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

sam: First, I am pleased that you are agreeing with me about how a belief in causation entails a surrender of the divisive emotions that presuppose one is in control. Can you explain this to David and Kevin who rejected this notion when I outlined it in the debate?

Cory: David and Kevin, in their attempts to get through to you, did not reject the notion that causation undermines emotions. On the contrary, for as long as I've known them, they have always promoted the elimination of emotion. Or do you actually have examples of instances where David or Kevin defended emotionalism?

Did you read the debate? David rejected the idea that surrender is implied by causation.

David stated quite explicitly that he surrenders to truth. What he rejected was your interpretation of what surrender implies.

Kevin also rejects that idea.

Kevin also rejects your idea of surrender, while promoting his own idea of surrender.

Are you able to understand that two people can have different interpretations of the same word?

sam: Yet under causation there can be neither distinction (better vs. worse).

Cory: It's true that no thing is inherently superior or inferior to other things. However, if I value survival, then automatically, some things are going to aid my survival more effectively than others, and thus they will be judged as relatively superior.

But this isn't what you are doing. You are judging superiority as a moral quality inherent in a certain belief.

Superiority is a judgment, and the very nature of judgment is to distinguish better from worse.

The very fact that you are debating with me, shows that you too are making judgments about what is right and wrong.

Yet all beliefs are caused according to you. How can one be better than the other except as a reflection of your own values which would correspond to a belief in free will?

Non-sequitur, Sam. The premise "having values" does not lend the conclusion "there is free will"

sam: all people think and do what they are caused to think and do. Marking one as special as opposed to another is about free will once again.

Cory: You are coming to conclusions which do not follow from your premises (or are you even aware of premises?). Judging one thing as relatively more superior than another is simply doing just that. You can't conclude that such an action is about free will, because the premises clearly do not lend such a conclusion.

On the contrary, judging oneself superior based on a belief is about pride.

Another non-sequitur. The premise "judging myself as superior" does not lend the conclusion "I am proud"

sam: I argued in the debate that emotions which presuppose one is a free agent should be surrendered when one adopts a belief in causation. So you are agreeing with me. Whether you yourself have surrendered those emotions however is doubtful. Right now you are taking pride in your belief in causation.

Cory: As I said earlier, your conclusion that I pride myself in my belief does not follow from the apparent premise. You are over reaching.

We have your words, what else do we need?

The wisdom to interpret those words.

Why would you express yourself in a way to reflect pridefully on your beliefs?

I never did. It is only your imagination and poor logic which lends such a conclusion.

You criticize others indiscriminately because they hold a different belief.

I criticize others if the beliefs they hold are irrational.

Why criticize others if their belief is a result of causation, the very same way yours is?

Another non-sequitur.

the premise "all beliefs are caused" does not lend the conclusion "all beliefs should not be criticized"

sam: In fact if you truly adopted it, it would be seen as a great leveler, removing all barriers between you and others rather than creating them. So your free will beliefs are still showing through.

Cory: Because I adopt the view of causation, I urge others to drop their egotism, to stop viewing themselves as divided agents, and to start viewing life as a unity.

Sam: But they don't need to drop anything, they aren't doing anything!

In the same way that tree grows, a cloud is blown, or a leaf flutters, humans are doing things. They are doing, yet they are not the doers of their doings.

Cory: I didn't ask you to give me an example of a particular effect which does not arise as a result of a condition. I asked you to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. Can you do it or not?

In fact it is just the opposite. Can you give me an effect that is not about multiple conditions?

No I can't actually. All things (effects) produce multiple conditions (causes).

But never mind me, are you going to take responsibility for something you said earlier?

Sam: Conditions are necessary but not sufficient to produce an effect

You are wrong. Conditions are not only sufficient to produce an effect, but they always produce an effect.

That's why I consider a cause to be synonymous with a condition.

[samadhi]

Carl,

sam: Pride is indicative of free will.

Carl: How would this be necessarily so?

Pride is about taking credit. Under causation, no one is doing anything they are not caused to do so there is no credit to take for any action.



Cory,

sam: Did you read the debate? David rejected the idea that surrender is implied by causation.

Cory: David stated quite explicitly that he surrenders to truth. What he rejected was your interpretation of what surrender implies.

But you just agreed with me about what surrender implies! You yourself just said it implies not indulging in those emotions which try to control. So what exactly is it that you don't want to surrender?

sam: Kevin also rejects that idea.

Cory: Kevin also rejects your idea of surrender, while promoting his own idea of surrender. Are you able to understand that two people can have different interpretations of the same word?

In this case, you have agreed with me on the interpretation while trying also to agree with David and Kevin who have rejected the interpretation. Why are you trying to have it both ways?

sam: Yet under causation there can be neither distinction (better vs. worse).

Cory: It's true that no thing is inherently superior or inferior to other things. However, if I value survival, then automatically, some things are going to aid my survival more effectively than others, and thus they will be judged as relatively superior.

sam: But this isn't what you are doing. You are judging superiority as a moral quality inherent in a certain belief.

Cory: Superiority is a judgment, and the very nature of judgment is to distinguish better from worse.

Judgment in terms of making distinctions is not about better or worse as a moral condition (what is more or less superior) but as a utilitarian condition (what is more or less useful). You are making moral judgments, not utilitarian ones.

The very fact that you are debating with me, shows that you too are making judgments about what is right and wrong.

I do not judge you as morally inferior because of your beliefs. I am saying that your beliefs are inconsistent with your actions and choices.

sam: Yet all beliefs are caused according to you. How can one be better than the other except as a reflection of your own values which would correspond to a belief in free will?

Cory: Non-sequitur, Sam. The premise "having values" does not lend the conclusion "there is free will"

You are giving me a non-sequitur. Having values isn't the problem, making moral judgments of others is the problem.

sam: On the contrary, judging oneself superior based on a belief is about pride.

Cory: Another non-sequitur. The premise "judging myself as superior" does not lend the conclusion "I am proud"

Then why are you emphasizing your "wisdom" as opposed to others' "ignorance"? You keep making distinctions that indicate superiority and pride which reflect a belief in free will.

sam: I argued in the debate that emotions which presuppose one is a free agent should be surrendered when one adopts a belief in causation. So you are agreeing with me. Whether you yourself have surrendered those emotions however is doubtful. Right now you are taking pride in your belief in causation.

Cory: As I said earlier, your conclusion that I pride myself in my belief does not follow from the apparent premise. You are over reaching.

sam: We have your words, what else do we need?

Cory: The wisdom to interpret those words.

Really? So if I were to say to you, you are ignorant and I am wise, would you say I am not bragging but simply giving you the facts?

sam: Why would you express yourself in a way to reflect pridefully on your beliefs?

Cory: I never did. It is only your imagination and poor logic which lends such a conclusion.

People have bragged to me before. Believe me, you aren't the first.

sam: You criticize others indiscriminately because they hold a different belief.

Cory: I criticize others if the beliefs they hold are irrational.

If you are caused to act irrationally, how is that different than being caused to act rationally? Your belief in rationality is subservient to your belief in causation, is it not? Or do you think you can act rationally despite being caused to act irrationally?

sam: Why criticize others if their belief is a result of causation, the very same way yours is?

Cory: Another non-sequitur. The premise "all beliefs are caused" does not lend the conclusion "all beliefs should not be criticized"

Hardly. You are criticizing your own belief in causation when you criticize someone for what they are caused to do! How rational is that?

sam: In fact if you truly adopted it, it would be seen as a great leveler, removing all barriers between you and others rather than creating them. So your free will beliefs are still showing through.

Cory: Because I adopt the view of causation, I urge others to drop their egotism, to stop viewing themselves as divided agents, and to start viewing life as a unity.

sam: But they don't need to drop anything, they aren't doing anything!

Cory: In the same way that tree grows, a cloud is blown, or a leaf flutters, humans are doing things. They are doing, yet they are not the doers of their doings.

This is my point, not yours. Why criticize them if they are not the doer? What do you expect them to "do" with your criticism?

Cory: I didn't ask you to give me an example of a particular effect which does not arise as a result of a condition. I asked you to give me an example of a condition which does not produce an effect. Can you do it or not?

sam: In fact it is just the opposite. Can you give me an effect that is not about multiple conditions?

Cory: No I can't actually. All things (effects) produce multiple conditions (causes).

So, you agree with me again. Strange, you seem to agree a lot despite pretending not to.

Cory: But never mind me, are you going to take responsibility for something you said earlier?

Sam: Conditions are necessary but not sufficient to produce an effect

Cory: You are wrong. Conditions are not only sufficient to produce an effect, but they always produce an effect. That's why I consider a cause to be synonymous with a condition.

You just said no effect is the result of a single condition. Now you say every condition produces an effect. This is why our discussion goes in circles, you keep wanting to have it both ways.

[Carl G]

sam: Pride is indicative of free will.

Carl: How would this be necessarily so?

sam: Pride is about taking credit. Under causation, no one is doing anything they are not caused to do so there is no credit to take for any action.

I thought so; this is illogical. Pride in your example may show ego or delusion, but there is no indication that pride would necessitate free will. It may indicate a belief in free will...

[samadhi]

Carl,

sam: Pride is indicative of free will.

Carl: How would this be necessarily so?

sam: Pride is about taking credit. Under causation, no one is doing anything they are not caused to do so there is no credit to take for any action.

Carl: I thought so; this is illogical. Pride in your example may show ego or delusion, but there is no indication that pride would necessitate free will. It may indicate a belief in free will...

Right. Pride indicates a belief in free will.