Commentary Thread: Causation and Spirituality (Sam vs David)

[Carl G]

Okay, but that isn't what you said at first.

[samadhi]

Carl,

My discussion with Cory is about how his actions and choices actually reflect a belief in free will rather than in causation. I was using short-hand when I said pride reflects free will. It reflects his belief in it.

[Cory Duchesne]

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.

And your point is?

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?

Again, it's just your imagination, poor listening skills, and weak logic which have contrived such a conclusion (that I'm 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.

Sam: Judgment in terms of making distinctions is not about better or worse as a moral condition

Judgment is about making distinctions between better or worse, which can be in regards to a moral condition or a utilitarian condition.

You are making moral judgments, not utilitarian ones.

And your point here is what?

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.

Ok, so is making utilitarian judgments not a problem? Why the emphasis on moral judgments?

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"?

If you value the survival of good, then it's important to clearly distinguish good from evil.

You keep making distinctions that indicate superiority and pride which reflect a belief in free will.

To distinguish something as superior, does not indicate pride - due to your poor logic, you are conflating the two. As for the free will thing, that's just another non-sequitur on your behalf. The premise "distinguishing my self as superior" does not lend the conclusion "I have free will, or 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.

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?

It would depend on the context in which you said it.

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?

If we analyze the constituents (the causes) of an irrational person, we will notice that they differ from the constituents of a rational person.

Your belief in rationality is subservient to your belief in causation, is it not?

There is a difference between merely believing in rationality, and being rational. Being rational involves an awareness of causation. If there is no awareness of causation, then there is no rationality. Likewise, if there is no rationality, then there can be no awareness of causation.

Or do you think you can act rationally despite being caused to act irrationally?

If I am caused to act irrationally, then I cannot act rationally (at least not in the particular instance in which I am caused to be irrational).

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!

Do you even have reasons for believing such a thing? Or are you just going on vague intuitions?

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?

The same reason why a farmer might criticize his apple trees which aren't producing very well.

What do you expect them to "do" with your criticism?

Well, since some humans have the capacity for increased consciousness, I am open minded that they might see the truth in my criticisms of humanity, and thus become more conscious.

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.

But the only reason the condition produces the effect, is because the condition is the effect of other conditions. So I'm not in contradiction.

[samadhi]

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.

sam: 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.

Cory: And your point is?

Gee, you are agreeing with me about surrender and you don't know what the point is? Yikes!

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?

sam: 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?

Cory: Again, it's just your imagination, poor listening skills, and weak logic which have contrived such a conclusion (that I'm trying to have it both ways)

You have already agreed with me so it would seem your criticisms reflect on you.

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.

sam: Judgment in terms of making distinctions is not about better or worse as a moral condition

Cory: Judgment is about making distinctions between better or worse, which can be in regards to a moral condition or a utilitarian condition.

Moral judgments are problematic in case you haven't been paying attention to enlightenment teaching for the past few thousand years. Try to keep up.

sam: You are making moral judgments, not utilitarian ones.

Cory: And your point here is what?

Sheesh. Stop judging people! Not only does it reflect free will, it reflects poorly on your understanding of enlightenment.

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"

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

Cory: Ok, so is making utilitarian judgments not a problem? Why the emphasis on moral judgments?

Because that's what you have been doing. First it reflects a belief in free will, second it reflects an entrenched ego, third, every teaching points to its problematic effects.

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"

sam: Then why are you emphasizing your "wisdom" as opposed to others' "ignorance"?

Cory: If you value the survival of good, then it's important to clearly distinguish good from evil.

Under causation, there is no good and evil, there is only what is caused. People don't do evil, they do what they are caused to do and you are passing judgment on them for doing it.

sam: You keep making distinctions that indicate superiority and pride which reflect a belief in free will.

Cory: To distinguish something as superior, does not indicate pride - due to your poor logic, you are conflating the two.

Moral superiority is always about pride. Why do you think every teaching condemns it?

Cory: As for the free will thing, that's just another non-sequitur on your behalf. The premise "distinguishing my self as superior" does not lend the conclusion "I have free will, or I am proud"

Sure it does. Why else would you keep telling us how wonderful you are?

sam: 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?

Cory: It would depend on the context in which you said it.

What about this context?

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

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

sam: If you are caused to act irrationally, how is that different than being caused to act rationally?

Cory: If we analyze the constituents (the causes) of an irrational person, we will notice that they differ from the constituents of a rational person.

So what? Would you criticize someone suffering from Alzheimer's for being irrational? Yet you criticize everyone else despite the fact that they are equally caused according to you.

sam: Your belief in rationality is subservient to your belief in causation, is it not?

Cory: There is a difference between merely believing in rationality, and being rational. Being rational involves an awareness of causation. If there is no awareness of causation, then there is no rationality. Likewise, if there is no rationality, then there can be no awareness of causation.

Awareness of causation is not about rationality. Do we have to drag dictionaries into the argument?

sam: Or do you think you can act rationally despite being caused to act irrationally?

Cory: If I am caused to act irrationally, then I cannot act rationally (at least not in the particular instance in which I am caused to be irrational).

Which is my point, not yours. Why do you stress rationality if causation is what underlies all action?

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"

sam: Hardly. You are criticizing your own belief in causation when you criticize someone for what they are caused to do!

Cory: Do you even have reasons for believing such a thing? Or are you just going on vague intuitions?

Would you criticize an Alzheimer's sufferer for acting irrationally? So why criticize others for what they are caused to do?

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.

sam: This is my point, not yours. Why criticize them if they are not the doer?

Cory: The same reason why a farmer might criticize his apple trees which aren't producing very well.

Huh? Do you criticize trees?

sam: What do you expect them to "do" with your criticism?

Cory: Well, since some humans have the capacity for increased consciousness, I am open minded that they might see the truth in my criticisms of humanity, and thus become more conscious.

So it seems you believe in individuals as "doers" after all. You are just a bundle of contradictions, aren't you?

sam: You just said no effect is the result of a single condition. Now you say every condition produces an effect.

Cory: But the only reason the condition produces the effect, is because the condition is the effect of other conditions. So I'm not in contradiction.

A condition does not produce an effect by itself. You have already admitted this. Conditioning doesn't tell you how people will act, it tells you how they are likely to act.

[Kevin Solway]

Stop judging people!

Your problem is that you are judgementally judging other people to be judgemental.

Would you criticize someone suffering from Alzheimer's for being irrational?

You are projecting emotional content onto criticism, which isn't there. You should remove the plank from your own eye before pointing out what you think is a splinter in someone elses.

Conditioning doesn't tell you how people will act, it tells you how they are likely to act.

All the conditions fully determine how people will act. If you could know all the conditions then you would know how people will act.

[Cory Duchesne]

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.

sam: 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.

Cory: And your point is?

Gee, you are agreeing with me about surrender and you don't know what the point is? Yikes!

It looks to me like you are assuming that just because I eschew the emotions, that it means I am not warranted to make an effort to control aspects of my environment. Am I right?

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.

sam: Judgment in terms of making distinctions is not about better or worse as a moral condition

Cory: Judgment is about making distinctions between better or worse, which can be in regards to a moral condition or a utilitarian condition.

Moral judgments are problematic in case you haven't been paying attention to enlightenment teaching for the past few thousand years. Try to keep up.

Oh really? What about the teachings of Buddha, Nagarjuna, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Diogenes, Hakuin and Kierkegaard? Do you believe that their teachings are devoid of moral judgments?

sam: You are making moral judgments, not utilitarian ones.

Cory: And your point here is what?

Sheesh. Stop judging people!

You are obviously judging me (and thus you are clearly a fool).

Not only does [judging people] reflect free will,

Non Sequitur. The premise 'I judge people' does not lend the conclusion 'I have free will'

[judging people] reflects poorly on your understanding of enlightenment.

Again, that's obviously a judgment you are making (and thus you are clearly a fool).

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"

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

Cory: Ok, so is making utilitarian judgments not a problem? Why the emphasis on moral judgments?

Because that's what you have been doing.

I know. And I see no problem with it.

every teaching points to [the] problematic effects [of judging people].

You obviously haven't explored many teachings! What about the teachings of Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Diogenes, Nagarjuna, Hakuin and Kierkegaard?

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"

sam: Then why are you emphasizing your "wisdom" as opposed to others' "ignorance"?

Cory: If you value the survival of good, then it's important to clearly distinguish good from evil.

Sam: Under causation, there is no good and evil,

Causation produces men who invent what good and evil are.

People don't do evil

If people do what I decide is evil, then according to me, they are doing evil. It's as simple as that.

they do what they are caused to do and you are passing judgment on them for doing it.

Sure. Likewise, I pass judgment on soil that does not produce crops very well.

sam: You keep making distinctions that indicate superiority and pride which reflect a belief in free will.

Cory: To distinguish something as superior, does not indicate pride - due to your poor logic, you are conflating the two.

Moral superiority is always about pride. Why do you think every teaching condemns it?

What makes you so sure that every teaching condemns it? Your foolishness couldn't be more apparent!

sam: 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?

Cory: It would depend on the context in which you said it.

What about this context?

In the context of our discussion, I have simply been making it clear that wisdom and foolishness cannot exist unless an individual is prepared to judge himself and others as wise and foolish.

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

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

sam: If you are caused to act irrationally, how is that different than being caused to act rationally?

Cory: If we analyze the constituents (the causes) of an irrational person, we will notice that they differ from the constituents of a rational person.

So what? Would you criticize someone suffering from Alzheimer's for being irrational?

Criticism is about passing judgment as to the merits of a thing, it's about faultfinding, analyzing, evaluating or judging the quality of something.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to analyze the Alzheimer patients genes and criticize his genes. It also might be apt to criticize the fact that he didn't create a will prior to becoming ill.

Yet you criticize everyone else despite the fact that they are equally caused according to you.

I might analyze the quality of the soil in my yard, and criticize it's qualities based on what I believe soil ideally should be.

sam: Your belief in rationality is subservient to your belief in causation, is it not?

Cory: There is a difference between merely believing in rationality, and being rational. Being rational involves an awareness of causation. If there is no awareness of causation, then there is no rationality. Likewise, if there is no rationality, then there can be no awareness of causation.

Awareness of causation is not about rationality.

Without an awareness of causation, rationality is impossible.

Do we have to drag dictionaries into the argument?

Wise people further refine (or completely redefine) dictionary definitions when it appears apt to do so.

sam: Or do you think you can act rationally despite being caused to act irrationally?

Cory: If I am caused to act irrationally, then I cannot act rationally (at least not in the particular instance in which I am caused to be irrational).

Which is my point, not yours. Why do you stress rationality if causation is what underlies all action?

Understanding causation makes me realize that I can be a cause that helps bring about rationality.

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.

sam: This is my point, not yours. Why criticize them if they are not the doer?

Cory: The same reason why a farmer might criticize his apple trees which aren't producing very well.

Huh? Do you criticize trees?

If by criticism, we mean 'fault finding, analyzing and judging something to ascertain it's worth', then yes, I might criticize the quality of a tree, or the quality of a soil or of an ore.

sam: What do you expect them to "do" with your criticism?

Cory: Well, since some humans have the capacity for increased consciousness, I am open minded that they might see the truth in my criticisms of humanity, and thus become more conscious.

So it seems you believe in individuals as "doers" after all.

Non-sequitur again. The premise 'a human can see truth' does not lend the conclusion 'a human is the doer of it's deeds'

You are just a bundle of contradictions, aren't you?

Stop judging people!

sam: You just said no effect is the result of a single condition. Now you say every condition produces an effect.

Cory: But the only reason the condition produces the effect, is because the condition is the effect of other conditions. So I'm not in contradiction.

A condition does not produce an effect by itself. You have already admitted this. Conditioning doesn't tell you how people will act, it tells you how they are likely to act.

If I knew all of the conditions, then I would know how they would act.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: Gee, you are agreeing with me about surrender and you don't know what the point is? Yikes!

Cory: It looks to me like you are assuming that just because I eschew the emotions, that it means I am not warranted to make an effort to control aspects of my environment. Am I right?

No. You agreed with me about what surrender to causation means. Then you seem to indicate agreement with David who rejected my interpretation. In fact, you don't agree with David about rejecting my interpretation. That is the point that you seemed to forget.

Cory: Judgment is about making distinctions between better or worse, which can be in regards to a moral condition or a utilitarian condition.

sam: Moral judgments are problematic in case you haven't been paying attention to enlightenment teaching for the past few thousand years. Try to keep up.

Cory: Oh really? What about the teachings of Buddha, Nagarjuna, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Diogenes, Hakuin and Kierkegaard? Do you believe that their teachings are devoid of moral judgments?

You mean this teaching? Or this one? Or this one?

sam: You are making moral judgments, not utilitarian ones.

Cory: And your point here is what?

sam: Sheesh. Stop judging people!

Cory: You are obviously judging me (and thus you are clearly a fool).

Suggesting that you conform to your own beliefs isn't passing moral judgment on you. You can do what you like but if you value consistency, my suggestion is that you stop judging others.

sam: Not only does [judging people] reflect free will,

Cory: Non Sequitur. The premise 'I judge people' does not lend the conclusion 'I have free will'

You seem to like the term "non sequitur" but you don't seem to know what it means. Passing moral judgments on others assumes they have free will. If someone does not have free will, there is nothing to condemn them for.

sam: [judging people] reflects poorly on your understanding of enlightenment.

Cory: Again, that's obviously a judgment you are making (and thus you are clearly a fool).

It is not a moral judgment to say that if you cannot add 1 + 1, it reflects poorly on your math skills. Making moral judgments DOES reflect poorly on your understanding of enlightenment.

Cory: Ok, so is making utilitarian judgments not a problem? Why the emphasis on moral judgments?

sam: Because that's what you have been doing.

Cory: I know. And I see no problem with it.

Obviously not. Nevertheless it reflects a belief in free will in that there is an assumption that people could act in ways other than how they are caused to act. It reflects an entrenched ego that seeks superiority over others. And it reflects no understanding of enlightenment teaching, referenced above.

sam: every teaching points to [the] problematic effects [of judging people].

Cory: You obviously haven't explored many teachings! What about the teachings of Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Diogenes, Nagarjuna, Hakuin and Kierkegaard?

see above.

sam: Under causation, there is no good and evil,

Cory: Causation produces men who invent what good and evil are.

I'm not saying you can't make it up if you want to. Of course, it reflects a belief in free will when you do that.

sam: People don't do evil

Cory: If people do what I decide is evil, then according to me, they are doing evil. It's as simple as that.

Again, you can pass judgment if you want. Just understand that doing so reflects a belief in free will.

sam: they do what they are caused to do and you are passing judgment on them for doing it.

Cory: Sure. Likewise, I pass judgment on soil that does not produce crops very well.

You pass moral judgments on dirt? Holy cow! Does the dirt ever change its behavior based on your judgment? Or is it you who has to change your behavior?

sam: Moral superiority is always about pride. Why do you think every teaching condemns it?

Cory: What makes you so sure that every teaching condemns it? Your foolishness couldn't be more apparent!

see above.

sam: 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?

Cory: It would depend on the context in which you said it.

sam: What about this context?

Cory: In the context of our discussion, I have simply been making it clear that wisdom and foolishness cannot exist unless an individual is prepared to judge himself and others as wise and foolish.

So, I wouldn't be judging you if I called you ignorant nor would I be bragging to say I am wise, is that what you are saying?

sam: So what? Would you criticize someone suffering from Alzheimer's for being irrational?

Cory: Criticism is about passing judgment as to the merits of a thing, it's about faultfinding, analyzing, evaluating or judging the quality of something.

So, would you find fault with an Alzheimer's sufferer for not being rational?

Therefore, it would be appropriate to analyze the Alzheimer patients genes and criticize his genes. It also might be apt to criticize the fact that he didn't create a will prior to becoming ill.

I wasn't inquiring as to their genes or their will. My question was, would you find fault with an Alzheimer's sufferer for not being rational?

sam: Yet you criticize everyone else despite the fact that they are equally caused according to you.

Cory: I might analyze the quality of the soil in my yard, and criticize it's qualities based on what I believe soil ideally should be.

Would your criticism of the dirt affect the dirt in any way? Or is it your behavior that would have to change?

sam: Awareness of causation is not about rationality.

Cory: Without an awareness of causation, rationality is impossible.

Are you saying anyone who doesn't believe as you believe about causation is irrational?

sam: Do we have to drag dictionaries into the argument?

Cory: Wise people further refine (or completely redefine) dictionary definitions when it appears apt to do so.

Lol. So, whatever definition doesn't suit you, you toss out and substitute your own?

sam: Which is my point, not yours. Why do you stress rationality if causation is what underlies all action?

Cory: Understanding causation makes me realize that I can be a cause that helps bring about rationality.

You realize that is a free will argument, don't you?

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.

sam: This is my point, not yours. Why criticize them if they are not the doer?

Cory: The same reason why a farmer might criticize his apple trees which aren't producing very well.

So, would a farmer's criticism affect his apple tree's behavior? Whose behavior would change, the tree's or the farmer's?

Cory: If by criticism, we mean 'fault finding, analyzing and judging something to ascertain it's worth', then yes, I might criticize the quality of a tree, or the quality of a soil or of an ore.

Does your criticism of trees change the behavior of trees? What is the point of your complaining to a tree that it didn't provide the fruit you wanted? Would you complain to an apple tree for not giving you oranges? Why not?

sam: What do you expect them to "do" with your criticism?

Cory: Well, since some humans have the capacity for increased consciousness, I am open minded that they might see the truth in my criticisms of humanity, and thus become more conscious.

sam: So it seems you believe in individuals as "doers" after all.

Cory: Non-sequitur again. The premise 'a human can see truth' does not lend the conclusion 'a human is the doer of it's deeds'

So a human is not the doer of deeds but is the seer of truth, is that your argument?

sam: You are just a bundle of contradictions, aren't you?

Cory: Stop judging people!

Recognizing your contradictions does not constitute a moral judgment. Besides, why would you object to being judged when you seem to value it? Lol, more contradictions from the one whose bundle overfloweth!

sam: You just said no effect is the result of a single condition. Now you say every condition produces an effect.

Cory: But the only reason the condition produces the effect, is because the condition is the effect of other conditions. So I'm not in contradiction.

sam: A condition does not produce an effect by itself. You have already admitted this. Conditioning doesn't tell you how people will act, it tells you how they are likely to act.

Cory: If I knew all of the conditions, then I would know how they would act.

The point isn't what you could know, it is that any condition in and of itself does not constitute a cause.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: Gee, you are agreeing with me about surrender and you don't know what the point is? Yikes!

Cory: It looks to me like you are assuming that just because I eschew the emotions, that it means I am not warranted to make an effort to control aspects of my environment. Am I right?

No. You agreed with me about what surrender to causation means.

From what I recall, the only thing that we agreed on was that surrendering to truth rendered the emotions superfluous. Your interpretation of surrendering to causation involves ceasing to judge, teach, control, etc. And it's this interpretation that I don't agree with.

Then you seem to indicate agreement with David who rejected my interpretation.

Your interpretation is clearly not something I agree with.

Cory: Judgment is about making distinctions between better or worse, which can be in regards to a moral condition or a utilitarian condition.

sam: Moral judgments are problematic in case you haven't been paying attention to enlightenment teaching for the past few thousand years. Try to keep up.

Cory: Oh really? What about the teachings of Buddha, Nagarjuna, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Diogenes, Hakuin and Kierkegaard? Do you believe that their teachings are devoid of moral judgments?

You mean this teaching?

What do you make of this:

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil." John 7: 7

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. All those who do evil hate the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." John 3: 19

"Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world." Thomas: 56

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" Matthew 7: 21

"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. Good people bring good things out of the good stored up in their heart, and evil people bring evil things out of the evil stored up in their heart. For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Luke 6: 43

^ Jesus is clearly making moral judgments.

Or this one?

In the article, Adya is doing his best to distinguish Good (the truth) from evil (the false self)

Or this one?

Lau Tzu is distinguishing Good (the man who takes no sides) from evil (the man who takes sides)

sam: Not only does [judging people] reflect free will,

Cory: Non Sequitur. The premise 'I judge people' does not lend the conclusion 'I have free will'

You seem to like the term "non sequitur" but you don't seem to know what it means. Passing moral judgments on others assumes they have free will. If someone does not have free will, there is nothing to condemn them for.

I have no interest in punishing people, but if by condemn we mean "disapprove of" - then we can certainly disapprove of certain inimical phenomena. For instance, if a dog has rabies - then it would be perfectly reasonable to disapprove of the dog's vicious conduct, and kill the dog or vaccinate him with a cure.

sam: [judging people] reflects poorly on your understanding of enlightenment.

Cory: Again, that's obviously a judgment you are making (and thus you are clearly a fool).

It is not a moral judgment to say that if you cannot add 1 + 1, it reflects poorly on your math skills.

Why do you care to point out that I do not have an understanding of enlightenment?

Making moral judgments DOES reflect poorly on your understanding of enlightenment.

It's obvious that you think there is only one true understanding of enlightenment (which you possess).

Cory: Ok, so is making utilitarian judgments not a problem? Why the emphasis on moral judgments?

sam: Because that's what you have been doing.

Cory: I know. And I see no problem with it.

Obviously not. Nevertheless it reflects a belief in free will in that there is an assumption that people could act in ways other than how they are caused to act.

No, it reflects an awareness that the behavior of people can be altered by introducing new causes that hitherto were not there.

sam: every teaching points to [the] problematic effects [of judging people].

Cory: You obviously haven't explored many teachings! What about the teachings of Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Diogenes, Nagarjuna, Hakuin and Kierkegaard?

see above.

Every teaching? You're arrogant. I can cite examples of moral judgments from every teacher I listed above.

sam: Under causation, there is no good and evil,

Cory: Causation produces men who invent what good and evil are.

Sam: it reflects a belief in free will when you do that.

Remind me, what premise is the basis of such a conclusion?

sam: they do what they are caused to do and you are passing judgment on them for doing it.

Cory: Sure. Likewise, I pass judgment on soil that does not produce crops very well.

You pass moral judgments on dirt? Holy cow!

Don't be ridiculous. Do you need to be reminded as to why we originally started debating about judgments? You said making judgments is indicative of free will. Whether or not the judgments are moral or not is completely irrelevant.

Does the dirt ever change its behavior based on your judgment? Or is it you who has to change your behavior?

Both. The dirt's behavior changes in that it produces better crops as a result of me adding manure to it. So the judgment that I make upon the soil, changes both myself and the soil.

sam: Moral superiority is always about pride. Why do you think every teaching condemns it?

Cory: What makes you so sure that every teaching condemns it? Your foolishness couldn't be more apparent!

You are simply arrogant for concluding that every teaching condemns judgments.

Also, think about your usage of the word condemn. It's obvious that this implies that those who engage in judgments are morally inferior. Why else would you condemn them?

sam: 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?

Cory: It would depend on the context in which you said it.

sam: What about this context?

Cory: In the context of our discussion, I have simply been making it clear that wisdom and foolishness cannot exist unless an individual is prepared to judge himself and others as wise and foolish.

So, I wouldn't be judging you if I called you ignorant nor would I be bragging to say I am wise, is that what you are saying?

Ah, I now recall where this all started. Consider the context in which I said the following:

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.

^ You see, at the time, I was only trying to demonstrate the point that causation doesn't lead to identical actions, and I was using myself and you as contrasting models. There was also a bit of jest involved - a bit of provocation. It had nothing to do with bragging. So let's just drop it.

sam: So what? Would you criticize someone suffering from Alzheimer's for being irrational?

Cory: Criticism is about passing judgment as to the merits of a thing, it's about faultfinding, analyzing, evaluating or judging the quality of something.

So, would you find fault with an Alzheimer's sufferer for not being rational?

When it comes to evaluating a person - I never find fault with the person, because I can see that the person has no inherent existence. A persons inferiority is always due to the causes which create the inferiority. So I would find fault with the causes of Alzheimer's.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to analyze the Alzheimer patients genes and criticize his genes. It also might be apt to criticize the fact that he didn't create a will prior to becoming ill.

I wasn't inquiring as to their genes or their will. My question was, would you find fault with an Alzheimer's sufferer for not being rational?

See above.

sam: Yet you criticize everyone else despite the fact that they are equally caused according to you.

Cory: I might analyze the quality of the soil in my yard, and criticize it's qualities based on what I believe soil ideally should be.

Would your criticism of the dirt affect the dirt in any way? Or is it your behavior that would have to change?

Both. My criticism would lead to both a change in my behavior, as well as the soils behavior.

sam: Awareness of causation is not about rationality.

Cory: Without an awareness of causation, rationality is impossible.

Are you saying anyone who doesn't believe as you believe about causation is irrational?

They are relatively less conscious.

sam: Do we have to drag dictionaries into the argument?

Cory: Wise people further refine (or completely redefine) dictionary definitions when it appears apt to do so.

Lol. So, whatever definition doesn't suit you, you toss out and substitute your own?

In a roundabout way, yes.

sam: Which is my point, not yours. Why do you stress rationality if causation is what underlies all action?

Cory: Understanding causation makes me realize that I can be a cause that helps bring about rationality.

You realize that is a free will argument, don't you?

Please provide a premise for your conclusion.

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.

sam: This is my point, not yours. Why criticize them if they are not the doer?

Cory: The same reason why a farmer might criticize his apple trees which aren't producing very well.

So, would a farmer's criticism affect his apple tree's behavior? Whose behavior would change, the tree's or the farmer's?

Both. The farmer's judgment would lead to him cutting the tree down. A tree falling down is not the farmer's behavior, but the tree's.

Cory: If by criticism, we mean 'fault finding, analyzing and judging something to ascertain it's worth', then yes, I might criticize the quality of a tree, or the quality of a soil or of an ore.

Does your criticism of trees change the behavior of trees?

Yes - in the sense that my criticism causes me to change the conditions which cause the behavior of the tree.

What is the point of your complaining to a tree that it didn't provide the fruit you wanted?

It's not so much about complaining, as it is about doing something which causes the tree to change.

sam: What do you expect them to "do" with your criticism?

Cory: Well, since some humans have the capacity for increased consciousness, I am open minded that they might see the truth in my criticisms of humanity, and thus become more conscious.

sam: So it seems you believe in individuals as "doers" after all.

Cory: Non-sequitur again. The premise 'a human can see truth' does not lend the conclusion 'a human is the doer of it's deeds'

So a human is not the doer of deeds but is the seer of truth, is that your argument?

A human can do, without being the doer. Likewise, seeing is an act that is done by no doer.

sam: You are just a bundle of contradictions, aren't you?

Cory: Stop judging people!

Recognizing your contradictions does not constitute a moral judgment. Besides, why would you object to being judged when you seem to value it?

I was joking. Besides, if you don't value good over bad, then why do you even debate with me?

sam: You just said no effect is the result of a single condition. Now you say every condition produces an effect.

Cory: But the only reason the condition produces the effect, is because the condition is the effect of other conditions. So I'm not in contradiction.

Sam: A condition does not produce an effect by itself. You have already admitted this. Conditioning doesn't tell you how people will act, it tells you how they are likely to act.

Cory: If I knew all of the conditions, then I would know how they would act.

The point isn't what you could know, it is that any condition in and of itself does not constitute a cause.

A condition is always a cause, and it is always an effect.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: You agreed with me about what surrender to causation means.

Cory: From what I recall, the only thing that we agreed on was that surrendering to truth rendered the emotions superfluous. Your interpretation of surrendering to causation involves ceasing to judge, teach, control, etc. And it's this interpretation that I don't agree with.

Okay. By the way, I didn't say anything about not teaching, what I said was not trying to be a cause. Also, only those emotions which are used to control others would need to be surrendered.

sam: Then you seem to indicate agreement with David who rejected my interpretation.

Cory: Your interpretation is clearly not something I agree with.

You agree that emotions which are used to control should be surrendered.

sam: Moral judgments are problematic ...

Cory: What do you make of this:

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil." John 7: 7

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. All those who do evil hate the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." John 3: 19

Look at John 3:17

"Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world." Thomas: 56

There is no book of Thomas.

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" Matthew 7: 21

"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. Good people bring good things out of the good stored up in their heart, and evil people bring evil things out of the evil stored up in their heart. For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Luke 6: 43

You overlooked Luke 6:41-42

Jesus is clearly making moral judgments.

I don't deny that Jesus pointed out hyprocrisy in people. But the essence of his message was not condemnation. Look at John 8:11-15 (KJV). To make it about condemnation when he himself was condemned by others is to take the side of the Pharisees.

sam: Or this one?

Cory: In the article, Adya is doing his best to distinguish Good (the truth) from evil (the false self)

Not cherishing opinion is about not judging. Your opinion of others isn't what is important and is in fact a hindrance.

sam: Or this one?

Cory: Lau Tzu is distinguishing Good (the man who takes no sides) from evil (the man who takes sides)

He said the master doesn't take sides, i.e. does not judge others.

sam: Not only does [judging people] reflect free will,

Cory: Non Sequitur. The premise 'I judge people' does not lend the conclusion 'I have free will'

sam: You seem to like the term "non sequitur" but you don't seem to know what it means. Passing moral judgments on others assumes they have free will. If someone does not have free will, there is nothing to condemn them for.

Cory: I have no interest in punishing people, but if by condemn we mean "disapprove of" - then we can certainly disapprove of certain inimical phenomena. For instance, if a dog has rabies - then it would be perfectly reasonable to disapprove of the dog's vicious conduct, and kill the dog or vaccinate him with a cure.

Do you pass a moral judgment on a dog who has rabies? You keep conflating utilitarian judgments with moral ones. Do you know what the difference is?

sam: It is not a moral judgment to say that if you cannot add 1 + 1, it reflects poorly on your math skills.

Cory: Why do you care to point out that I do not have an understanding of enlightenment?

I thought you were interested in it. Besides, if causation is what you believe, acting as if free will was your truth I would think might be a problem for you.

sam: Making moral judgments DOES reflect poorly on your understanding of enlightenment.

Cory: It's obvious that you think there is only one true understanding of enlightenment (which you possess).

Well, we are discussing it according to our understanding. I don't see a problem with doing that. Could we do anything else?

Cory: Ok, so is making utilitarian judgments not a problem? Why the emphasis on moral judgments?

sam: Because that's what you have been doing.

Cory: I know. And I see no problem with it.

sam: Obviously not. Nevertheless it reflects a belief in free will in that there is an assumption that people could act in ways other than how they are caused to act.

Cory: No, it reflects an awareness that the behavior of people can be altered by introducing new causes that hitherto were not there.

Which is how those who believe in free will act. Or do you deny this?

sam: every teaching points to [the] problematic effects [of judging people].

Cory: You obviously haven't explored many teachings! What about the teachings of Buddha, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Diogenes, Nagarjuna, Hakuin and Kierkegaard?

sam: see above.

Every teaching? You're arrogant. I can cite examples of moral judgments from every teacher I listed above.

Then please do so. It might help your understanding to actually do some legwork.

sam: Under causation, there is no good and evil,

Cory: Causation produces men who invent what good and evil are.

sam: it reflects a belief in free will when you do that.

Cory: Remind me, what premise is the basis of such a conclusion?

All act under causation according to you. In the same way a lightning strike killing someone does not make lightning evil as it functions with no intent, you cannot say anyone else is evil since the action is caused and not the intent of an individual will.

sam: they do what they are caused to do and you are passing judgment on them for doing it.

Cory: Sure. Likewise, I pass judgment on soil that does not produce crops very well.

sam: You pass moral judgments on dirt? Holy cow!

Cory: Don't be ridiculous. Do you need to be reminded as to why we originally started debating about judgments? You said making judgments is indicative of free will. Whether or not the judgments are moral or not is completely irrelevant.

Of course it is! A moral judgment presupposes free will, that someone could have acted other than how they did.

sam: Does the dirt ever change its behavior based on your judgment? Or is it you who has to change your behavior?

Cory: Both. The dirt's behavior changes in that it produces better crops as a result of me adding manure to it. So the judgment that I make upon the soil, changes both myself and the soil.

The soil doesn't change, you change. You are actually making my point for me. You moral condemnation has zero effect on that which functions on a causal basis. Only when your own behavior changes in relation to that which you condemn, does anything actually change. Thus you must be the source of the problem and not what you are condemning.

sam: Moral superiority is always about pride. Why do you think every teaching condemns it?

Cory: What makes you so sure that every teaching condemns it? Your foolishness couldn't be more apparent!

sam: See above.

Cory: You are simply arrogant for concluding that every teaching condemns judgments.

Well, the proof is in the pudding.

Also, think about your usage of the word condemn. It's obvious that this implies that those who engage in judgments are morally inferior. Why else would you condemn them?

Yeah. Condemning someone for condemning isn't a great idea. In the passages I cited it was more like, do you really want to do that? You can if you want to but the idea is to think about it first. Teachers who know their stuff don't actually condemn others, they simply point out the effects of their actions. But if people like the effects, they will continue their actions in any case.

sam: So, I wouldn't be judging you if I called you ignorant nor would I be bragging to say I am wise, is that what you are saying?

Cory: Ah, I now recall where this all started. Consider the context in which I said the following:

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.

You see, at the time, I was only trying to demonstrate the point that causation doesn't lead to identical actions, and I was using myself and you as contrasting models. There was also a bit of jest involved - a bit of provocation. It had nothing to do with bragging.

Look, I know what bragging is. You can pretend with yourself but you can't pretend with me. If I was to brag to you how wise I am, you would immediately recognize it as such and dismiss any attempt on my part to characterize my words as "speaking the truth".

sam: So, would you find fault with an Alzheimer's sufferer for not being rational?

Cory: When it comes to evaluating a person - I never find fault with the person, because I can see that the person has no inherent existence. A persons inferiority is always due to the causes which create the inferiority. So I would find fault with the causes of Alzheimer's.

So essentially you are agreeing with me that fault-finding and moral condemnation should be ruled out under causation. So when you say "I see no problem with it," that isn't strictly true, is it?

Cory: I might analyze the quality of the soil in my yard, and criticize it's qualities based on what I believe soil ideally should be.

sam: Would your criticism of the dirt affect the dirt in any way? Or is it your behavior that would have to change?

Cory: Both. My criticism would lead to both a change in my behavior, as well as the soils behavior.

How would the soil behave differently without you behaving differently?

sam: Awareness of causation is not about rationality.

Cory: Without an awareness of causation, rationality is impossible.

sam: Are you saying anyone who doesn't believe as you believe about causation is irrational?

Cory: They are relatively less conscious.

So, consciousness requires agreement with Cory?

sam: Do we have to drag dictionaries into the argument?

Cory: Wise people further refine (or completely redefine) dictionary definitions when it appears apt to do so.

sam: Lol. So, whatever definition doesn't suit you, you toss out and substitute your own?

Cory: In a roundabout way, yes.

Great, this says it all.

Cory: Understanding causation makes me realize that I can be a cause that helps bring about rationality.

sam: You realize that is a free will argument, don't you?

Cory: Please provide a premise for your conclusion.

You want to be a cause. So does every free agent. Being a cause is what free agency is about.

Cory: The same reason why a farmer might criticize his apple trees which aren't producing very well.

sam: So, would a farmer's criticism affect his apple tree's behavior? Whose behavior would change, the tree's or the farmer's?

Cory: Both. The farmer's judgment would lead to him cutting the tree down. A tree falling down is not the farmer's behavior, but the tree's.

Really? The farmer is taking action, not the tree. The farmer cuts the tree because he condemns it. The problem must be with him because he is the one acting in response to criticism.

Cory: If by criticism, we mean 'fault finding, analyzing and judging something to ascertain it's worth', then yes, I might criticize the quality of a tree, or the quality of a soil or of an ore.

sam: Does your criticism of trees change the behavior of trees?

Cory: Yes - in the sense that my criticism causes me to change the conditions which cause the behavior of the tree.

It is your behavior that is changing in response to criticism. The problem must be with you.

sam: What is the point of your complaining to a tree that it didn't provide the fruit you wanted?

Cory: It's not so much about complaining, as it is about doing something which causes the tree to change.

Yes, you are the one acting in response to your own criticism. The problem must be with you.

Cory: The premise 'a human can see truth' does not lend the conclusion 'a human is the doer of it's deeds'

sam: So a human is not the doer of deeds but is the seer of truth, is that your argument?

Cory: A human can do, without being the doer. Likewise, seeing is an act that is done by no doer.

So, no one is seeing anything, correct?

sam: You are just a bundle of contradictions, aren't you?

Cory: Stop judging people!

sam: Recognizing your contradictions does not constitute a moral judgment. Besides, why would you object to being judged when you seem to value it?

Cory: I was joking. Besides, if you don't value good over bad, then why do you even debate with me?

I value consistency. I also enjoy a good discussion.

Cory: If I knew all of the conditions, then I would know how they would act.

sam: The point isn't what you could know, it is that any condition in and of itself does not constitute a cause.

Cory: A condition is always a cause, and it is always an effect.

But you have admitted no effect is bound by a single condition. To say that everything causes everything isn't saying much, is it?

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: You agreed with me about what surrender to causation means.

Cory: From what I recall, the only thing that we agreed on was that surrendering to truth rendered the emotions superfluous. Your interpretation of surrendering to causation involves ceasing to judge, teach, control, etc. And it's this interpretation that I don't agree with.

Okay. By the way, I didn't say anything about not teaching, what I said was not trying to be a cause.

Well, a person teaches in order to cause a student to learn. So the very effort to teach is an effort to be a cause.

sam: Then you seem to indicate agreement with David who rejected my interpretation.

Cory: Your interpretation is clearly not something I agree with.

You agree that emotions which are used to control should be surrendered.

Yes - but just because I surrender such emotions doesn't mean I can't make an effort to control. Is that what you are assuming? That surrendering such emotions makes it impossible to try and control?

sam: Moral judgments are problematic ...

Cory: What do you make of this:

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil." John 7: 7

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. All those who do evil hate the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." John 3: 19

Look at John 3:17

I can't say for sure what is meant by 'condemn' in that passage. What I can say for certain is that the whole notion of 'saving the world' implies that the world needs to be saved from something which must necessarily be judged as inferior.

"Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world." Thomas: 56

There is no book of Thomas.

Gospel of Thomas

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" Matthew 7: 21

"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. Good people bring good things out of the good stored up in their heart, and evil people bring evil things out of the evil stored up in their heart. For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Luke 6: 43

You overlooked Luke 6:41-42

You've got to be kidding. Jesus is clearly saying that one should recognize one's own moral inferiority before dwelling on the moral inferiority of others. You're doing a very poor job of defending your case, Sam.

Jesus is clearly making moral judgments.

I don't deny that Jesus pointed out hyprocrisy in people. But the essence of his message was not condemnation.

What do you mean by condemnation? Do you have reason to believe that my message is condemnation?

sam: Or this one?

Cory: In the article, Adya is doing his best to distinguish Good (the truth) from evil (the false self)

Not cherishing opinion is about not judging. Your opinion of others isn't what is important and is in fact a hindrance.

Isn't that just your opinion of people who have opinions? You're clearly judging me as hindered because of my opinions.

sam: Or this one?

Cory: Lau Tzu is distinguishing Good (the man who takes no sides) from evil (the man who takes sides)

He said the master doesn't take sides, i.e. does not judge others.

Well, we disagree on that one. As I see it, Lau Tzu is judging those as good as those who take no sides, and those who are evil, take sides.

sam: Not only does [judging people] reflect free will,

Cory: Non Sequitur. The premise 'I judge people' does not lend the conclusion 'I have free will'

sam: You seem to like the term "non sequitur" but you don't seem to know what it means. Passing moral judgments on others assumes they have free will. If someone does not have free will, there is nothing to condemn them for.

Cory: I have no interest in punishing people, but if by condemn we mean "disapprove of" - then we can certainly disapprove of certain inimical phenomena. For instance, if a dog has rabies - then it would be perfectly reasonable to disapprove of the dog's vicious conduct, and kill the dog or vaccinate him with a cure.

Do you pass a moral judgment on a dog who has rabies? You keep conflating utilitarian judgments with moral ones. Do you know what the difference is?

Utilitarian judgments are about ascertaining what is. Moral judgments are about ascertaining what ought to be.

sam: It is not a moral judgment to say that if you cannot add 1 + 1, it reflects poorly on your math skills.

Cory: Why do you care to point out that I do not have an understanding of enlightenment?

I thought you were interested in it.

Why do you care whether or not I'm interested in it?

Besides, if causation is what you believe, acting as if free will was your truth I would think might be a problem for you.

Why do you care?

Cory: Ok, so is making utilitarian judgments not a problem? Why the emphasis on moral judgments?

sam: Because that's what you have been doing.

Cory: I know. And I see no problem with it.

sam: Obviously not. Nevertheless it reflects a belief in free will in that there is an assumption that people could act in ways other than how they are caused to act.

Cory: No, it reflects an awareness that the behavior of people can be altered by introducing new causes that hitherto were not there.

Which is how those who believe in free will act. Or do you deny this?

Those who don't believe in free will, also act in that way - so I don't see your point.

Every teaching? You're arrogant. I can cite examples of moral judgments from every teacher I listed above.

Then please do so.

Let's start with the Buddha:

Buddha: The Tathagata recreates the whole world
like a cloud shedding its waters without distinction.
He has the same sentiments
for the high as for the low,
for the wise as for the ignorant,
for the noble-minded as for the immoral

then later...

Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without cause.
However, neither Isvara, nor the absolute, nor the self,
nor causeless chance, is the maker,
but our deeds produce results both good and evil
according to the law of causation.

Ah, there's more....

Reading the Vedas, making offering to priests,
or sacrifices to the gods, self-mortification by heat or cold,
and many such penances performed for the sake of immortality,
these do not cleanse the man who is not free from delusions.

Anger, drunkenness, obstinacy, bigotry, deception, envy, self-praise,
disparaging others, superciliousness and evil intentions constitute uncleanness

what else...

How can anyone be free from self by leading a wretched life,
if he does not succeed in quenching the fires of lust,
if he still hankers after either worldly or heavenly pleasures.
But he in whom self has become extinct is free from lust;
he will desire neither worldly nor heavenly pleasures,
and the satisfaction of his natural wants will not defile him.
However, let him be moderate,
let him eat and drink according to the needs of the body.

Sensuality is enervating; the self-indulgent man is a slave to his passions,
and pleasure-seeking is degrading and vulgar.

But to satisfy the necessities of life is not evil.
To keep the body in good health is a duty,
for otherwise we shall not be able to trim the lamp of wisdom,
and keep our mind strong and clear.
Water surrounds the lotus-flower,
but does not wet its petals.

More...

All who are wise spurn the pleasures of the body.
They are disgusted with lust
and seek instead to promote their spiritual existence.

When a tree is burning with fierce flames,
how can the birds congregate therein?
Truth cannot dwell where passion lives.
He who does not know this,
though he be a learned man
and be praised by others as a sage,
is beclouded with ignorance.

To him who has this knowledge true wisdom dawns,
and he will beware of hankering after pleasure.
To acquire this state of mind, wisdom is the one thing needful.
To neglect wisdom will lead to failure in life.

The teachings of all religions should centre here,
for without wisdom there is no reason.

There are ways from light into darkness and from darkness into light.
There are ways, also, from the gloom into deeper darkness,
and from the dawn into brighter light.
The wise man will use the light he has to receive more light.
He will constantly advance in the knowledge of truth.

Exhibit true superiority by virtuous conduct and the exercise of reason;
meditate deeply on the vanity of earthly things,
and understand the fickleness of life.

more...

I have shown you the way to the lake of Ambrosia,
which washes away all evil desire.
I have given you the refreshing drink called the perception of truth,
and he who drinks of it becomes free from excitement, passion, and wrong-doing.

more...

Guard against looking on a woman.

If you see a woman, let it be as though you saw her not,
and have no conversation with her.

If you must speak with her,
let it be with a pure heart,
and think to yourself,
'I as a student of wisdom will live in this sinful world
as the spotless leaf of the lotus,
unsoiled by the mud in which it grows.'

more...

He whose lusts have been destroyed,
who is free from pride,
who has overcome all the ways of passion,
is subdued, perfectly happy, and of a firm mind.
Such a one will wander rightly in the world.

It's extremely obvious that Buddha was emphasizing moral superiority, and therefore moral inferiority.

Should I move onto the other teachers, or have you had enough?

sam: Under causation, there is no good and evil,

Cory: Causation produces men who invent what good and evil are.

sam: it reflects a belief in free will when you do that.

Cory: Remind me, what premise is the basis of such a conclusion?

All act under causation according to you. In the same way a lightning strike killing someone does not make lightning evil as it functions with no intent, you cannot say anyone else is evil since the action is caused and not the intent of an individual will.

To have intent basically means to act with a purpose. One can be caused to act with evil purposes or good purposes.

sam: they do what they are caused to do and you are passing judgment on them for doing it.

Cory: Sure. Likewise, I pass judgment on soil that does not produce crops very well.

sam: You pass moral judgments on dirt? Holy cow!

Cory: Don't be ridiculous. Do you need to be reminded as to why we originally started debating about judgments? You said making judgments is indicative of free will. Whether or not the judgments are moral or not is completely irrelevant.

Of course it is! A moral judgment presupposes free will, that someone could have acted other than how they did.

What premise do you base such a conclusion on? In my view, some people are involuntarily evil, while others are involuntarily good.

sam: Does the dirt ever change its behavior based on your judgment? Or is it you who has to change your behavior?

Cory: Both. The dirt's behavior changes in that it produces better crops as a result of me adding manure to it. So the judgment that I make upon the soil, changes both myself and the soil.

The soil doesn't change, you change.

It's very obvious that the soil does change. I'm a bit amazed that you can't see it.

Also, think about your usage of the word condemn. It's obvious that this implies that those who engage in judgments are morally inferior. Why else would you condemn them?

Yeah. Condemning someone for condemning isn't a great idea. In the passages I cited it was more like, do you really want to do that? You can if you want to but the idea is to think about it first. Teachers who know their stuff don't actually condemn others,

What do you mean by condemn, and what makes you think that I'm engaging in such an act?

sam: So, would you find fault with an Alzheimer's sufferer for not being rational?

Cory: When it comes to evaluating a person - I never find fault with the person, because I can see that the person has no inherent existence. A persons inferiority is always due to the causes which create the inferiority. So I would find fault with the causes of Alzheimer's.

So essentially you are agreeing with me that fault-finding and moral condemnation should be ruled out under causation. So when you say "I see no problem with it," that isn't strictly true, is it?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'moral condemnation' or how it applies to me. My view is that it's reasonable to say that consciousness can be morally inferior, due to causes.

Cory: I might analyze the quality of the soil in my yard, and criticize it's qualities based on what I believe soil ideally should be.

sam: Would your criticism of the dirt affect the dirt in any way? Or is it your behavior that would have to change?

Cory: Both. My criticism would lead to both a change in my behavior, as well as the soils behavior.

How would the soil behave differently without you behaving differently?

The microbial activity comprising the soil would generate various lipids and such at a certain rate. In other words, it would behave differently than it would if I added something to it.

Cory: Understanding causation makes me realize that I can be a cause that helps bring about rationality.

sam: You realize that is a free will argument, don't you?

Cory: Please provide a premise for your conclusion.

You want to be a cause. So does every free agent.

A person who doesn't believe in free will also wants to be a cause, so you really have no case.

Being a cause is what free agency is about.

Again, please provide a premise for that conclusion.

Cory: The same reason why a farmer might criticize his apple trees which aren't producing very well.

sam: So, would a farmer's criticism affect his apple tree's behavior? Whose behavior would change, the tree's or the farmer's?

Cory: Both. The farmer's judgment would lead to him cutting the tree down. A tree falling down is not the farmer's behavior, but the tree's.

Really? The farmer is taking action, not the tree.

Both entities are acting in response to causes.

Cory: If by criticism, we mean 'fault finding, analyzing and judging something to ascertain it's worth', then yes, I might criticize the quality of a tree, or the quality of a soil or of an ore.

sam: Does your criticism of trees change the behavior of trees?

Cory: Yes - in the sense that my criticism causes me to change the conditions which cause the behavior of the tree.

It is your behavior that is changing in response to criticism. The problem must be with you.

This is actually true, because I don't create a boundary dividing myself from others. When I teach I am enlightening the more ignorant aspects of myself - or if I cut down a tree, I am attacking a certain part of myself in order to make room for new parts of myself to emerge.

Cory: The premise 'a human can see truth' does not lend the conclusion 'a human is the doer of it's deeds'

sam: So a human is not the doer of deeds but is the seer of truth, is that your argument?

Cory: A human can do, without being the doer. Likewise, seeing is an act that is done by no doer.

So, no one is seeing anything, correct?

But they think they are! Therefore they are evil.

sam: You are just a bundle of contradictions, aren't you?

Cory: Stop judging people!

sam: Recognizing your contradictions does not constitute a moral judgment. Besides, why would you object to being judged when you seem to value it?

Cory: I was joking. Besides, if you don't value good over bad, then why do you even debate with me?

I value consistency.

Which means that you think things ought to be a certain way - which means you make moral judgments.

Cory: If I knew all of the conditions, then I would know how they would act.

sam: The point isn't what you could know, it is that any condition in and of itself does not constitute a cause.

Cory: A condition is always a cause, and it is always an effect.

But you have admitted no effect is bound by a single condition. To say that everything causes everything isn't saying much, is it?

Well, if one truly understands causation, then they understand that there really is no causation. There is only a oneness that is without cause.

[samadhi]

Cory,

We seem to be going in circles here. Let's cut to the chase, okay?

My argument is that a belief in causation must have some effect on how a person acts. If it doesn't, then the belief is not operative and not worth a discussion. A belief in free will must also have some effect on how a person acts if the belief is to be operative. Would you agree with that?

If the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation correspond to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will, then one is either mistaken about what they believe or the belief in the former is in fact equivalent to the belief in the latter. Would you agree with that?

Would you agree that if I cannot distinguish the implications and effects of your actions from those of someone who has a belief in free will, that I can rightly conclude that your belief in causation is equivalent to others' belief in free will?

Can we agree on these things?

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

We seem to be going in circles here. Let's cut to the chase, okay?

My argument is that a belief in causation must have some effect on how a person acts. If it doesn't, then the belief is not operative and not worth a discussion. A belief in free will must also have some effect on how a person acts if the belief is to be operative. Would you agree with that?

Okay, fair enough.

If the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation correspond to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will, then one is either mistaken about what they believe or the belief in the former is in fact equivalent to the belief in the latter. Would you agree with that?

The implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation are not identical to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will.

There are similarities, but there are also important differences. I think it's obvious what the similarities are. The key difference is that someone who understands causation cannot justify emotions such as anger, impatience, pride, shame, guilt, hope, regret, etc. Also, a person who understands causation acknowledges the oneness of everything.

Would you agree that if I cannot distinguish the implications and effects of your actions from those of someone who has a belief in free will, that I can rightly conclude that your belief in causation is equivalent to others' belief in free will?

If you (for whatever reason) cannot make such a distinction, then yes such a conclusion would be reasonable. However, I think you're capable of understanding what I'm saying.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: If the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation correspond to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will, then one is either mistaken about what they believe or the belief in the former is in fact equivalent to the belief in the latter. Would you agree with that?

Cory: The implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation are not identical to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will.

There are similarities, but there are also important differences. I think it's obvious what the similarities are.

What are they so we know what we're talking about. And if the effects are similiar, then you can't turn around and say they are the result of one belief as opposed to the other, can you?

The key difference is that someone who understands causation cannot justify emotions such as anger, impatience, pride, shame, guilt, hope, regret, etc.

We agreed on this.

Also, a person who understands causation acknowledges the oneness of everything.

Acknowledging the oneness of everything is not a action, it's a belief.

Wouldn't a key difference be that somone who believes in causation would not assert the personal will as a cause in itself?

sam: Would you agree that if I cannot distinguish the implications and effects of your actions from those of someone who has a belief in free will, that I can rightly conclude that your belief in causation is equivalent to others' belief in free will?

Cory: If you (for whatever reason) cannot make such a distinction, then yes such a conclusion would be reasonable. However, I think you're capable of understanding what I'm saying.

What about if you cannot make such a distinction? Would you then agree that the beliefs are equivalent?

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: If the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation correspond to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will, then one is either mistaken about what they believe or the belief in the former is in fact equivalent to the belief in the latter. Would you agree with that?

Cory: The implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation are not identical to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will.

There are similarities, but there are also important differences.

I think it's obvious what the similarities are.

What are they so we know what we're talking about.

Both agents would endeavor to be a cause. Both agents would value particular effects, and would do things to produce those effects. So in that sense, they are similar.

And if the effects are similiar, then you can't turn around and say they are the result of one belief as opposed to the other, can you?

Why not?

Also, a person who understands causation acknowledges the oneness of everything.

Acknowledging the oneness of everything is not a action, it's a belief.

I never said it was an action, I said it was an acknowledgment. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Wouldn't a key difference be that someone who believes in causation would not assert the personal will as a cause in itself?

Yes, that would be a key difference as well. Due to an awareness of causation, such an agent would attribute his deeds to nature, rather than to his ego. On the other hand, due to a lack of awareness of causation, an agent would blame the ego for it's deeds, rather than assign the fault to nature.

sam: Would you agree that if I cannot distinguish the implications and effects of your actions from those of someone who has a belief in free will, that I can rightly conclude that your belief in causation is equivalent to others' belief in free will?

Cory: If you (for whatever reason) cannot make such a distinction, then yes such a conclusion would be reasonable. However, I think you're capable of understanding what I'm saying.

What about if you cannot make such a distinction? Would you then agree that the beliefs are equivalent?

I'm not interested in such a hypothetical. The fact is that I can make such a distinction. It's clear to me that the beliefs are not equivalent.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: If the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation correspond to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will, then one is either mistaken about what they believe or the belief in the former is in fact equivalent to the belief in the latter. Would you agree with that?

Cory: The implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation are not identical to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will. There are similarities, but there are also important differences. I think it's obvious what the similarities are.

sam: What are they so we know what we're talking about.

Cory: Both agents would endeavor to be a cause. Both agents would value particular effects, and would do things to produce those effects. So in that sense, they are similar.

This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. What you are saying is that one can believe everything is caused AND that an individual can also be a cause. Free will is also defined as the belief that an individual can be a cause. So essentially your belief in causation is the same as everyone else's belief in free will.

sam: And if the effects are similiar, then you can't turn around and say they are the result of one belief as opposed to the other, can you?

Cory: Why not?

If diametrically opposed beliefs produce the same effects, as seems to be the case above, then the beliefs are either being ignored or are not in opposition at all.

Cory: Also, a person who understands causation acknowledges the oneness of everything.

sam: Acknowledging the oneness of everything is not a action, it's a belief.

Cory: I never said it was an action, I said it was an acknowledgment. So I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that a belief is understood by the actions it produces. A belief in oneness is not an action.

sam: Wouldn't a key difference be that someone who believes in causation would not assert the personal will as a cause in itself?

Cory: Yes, that would be a key difference as well. Due to an awareness of causation, such an agent would attribute his deeds to nature, rather than to his ego.

Well, you've already acknowledged that you can believe in causation while affirming an individual's ability to be a cause. So I'm not sure if your agreement here is meaningful. Simply attributing your ability to be a cause to nature is sidestepping the issue. It allows the ego to harm someone and then excuse it by saying "I didn't do it, nature did." Using causation as an excuse to do whatever you want is the ego in control.

On the other hand, due to a lack of awareness of causation, an agent would blame the ego for it's deeds, rather than assign the fault to nature.

Again, attributing cause to nature to absolve the ego's actions is a transparent fraud. You do not get past the ego by denying it.

sam: Would you agree that if I cannot distinguish the implications and effects of your actions from those of someone who has a belief in free will, that I can rightly conclude that your belief in causation is equivalent to others' belief in free will?

Cory: If you (for whatever reason) cannot make such a distinction, then yes such a conclusion would be reasonable. However, I think you're capable of understanding what I'm saying.

sam: What about if you cannot make such a distinction? Would you then agree that the beliefs are equivalent?

Cory: I'm not interested in such a hypothetical. The fact is that I can make such a distinction. It's clear to me that the beliefs are not equivalent.

Well clearly you do want to be a cause while contending you aren't doing anything. The ego loves to play both sides, that way it can't lose.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: If the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation correspond to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will, then one is either mistaken about what they believe or the belief in the former is in fact equivalent to the belief in the latter. Would you agree with that?

Cory: The implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in causation are not identical to the implications and effects of the actions resulting from a belief in free will. There are similarities, but there are also important differences. I think it's obvious what the similarities are.

sam: What are they so we know what we're talking about.

Cory: Both agents would endeavor to be a cause. Both agents would value particular effects, and would do things to produce those effects. So in that sense, they are similar.

This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. What you are saying is that one can believe everything is caused AND that an individual can also be a cause.

It's obvious that there's no contradiction - because an apple can be caused to fall from a tree, but the apple can also cause a dent in the ground. Likewise, a tidal wave can be caused by a storm, but the tidal wave can cause damage to the coastline.

Free will is also defined as the belief that an individual can be a cause.

Free will has more to do with the belief that the conduct of human beings is not determined by physical or divine forces. You are actually just redefining the term because the original definition doesn't serve your interest in remaining unconscious. And to think you disapprove of me redefining terms to serve my interests - Look at you!

So essentially your belief in causation is the same as everyone else's belief in free will.

You already agreed with me that an understanding of causation makes it impossible for a person to justify certain emotions - so on the one hand, you agree with me that the two views are different, but then on the other hand you assert that the two beliefs are the same. What's up with that?

sam: And if the effects are similiar, then you can't turn around and say they are the result of one belief as opposed to the other, can you?

Cory: Why not?

If diametrically opposed beliefs produce the same effects, as seems to be the case above, then the beliefs are either being ignored or are not in opposition at all.

You've already agreed with me that a view of causation makes certain emotions superfluous. Therefore, the two diametrically opposed beliefs do not produce the same effects.

Cory: Also, a person who understands causation acknowledges the oneness of everything.

sam: Acknowledging the oneness of everything is not a action, it's a belief.

Cory: I never said it was an action, I said it was an acknowledgment. So I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that a belief is understood by the actions it produces. A belief in oneness is not an action.

No, but an understanding of oneness certainly produces certain actions.

sam: Wouldn't a key difference be that someone who believes in causation would not assert the personal will as a cause in itself?

Cory: Yes, that would be a key difference as well. Due to an awareness of causation, such an agent would attribute his deeds to nature, rather than to his ego.

Well, you've already acknowledged that you can believe in causation while affirming an individual's ability to be a cause.

A tidal wave can be caused by nature, but regardless, the tidal wave is still a cause. So you're making a very weak case.

Simply attributing your ability to be a cause to nature is sidestepping the issue.

Oh, so there’s an issue eh? I guess that’s what we need to focus on then….

[attributing your ability to be a cause to nature] allows the ego to harm someone and then excuse it by saying "I didn't do it, nature did."

Can you cite any examples of criminals who excuse themselves in this fashion? Ironically, what we find is that criminals are very superstitious and suffer from magical thinking. On the other hand, the forensic scientists who have to deal with criminals tend to attribute a criminals behavior to poor childhood and genetics. The responsible citizen tends to think in terms of cause and effect. The criminal usually has magical interpretations of reality.

Using causation as an excuse to do whatever you want is the ego in control.

On the contrary, my understanding of causation makes me realize that I cannot do whatever I want. The greater the understanding of cause and effect, the more acutely one perceives limitations and consequences. Such an understanding thwarts desire, rather than inflames it.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. What you are saying is that one can believe everything is caused AND that an individual can also be a cause.

Cory: It's obvious that there's no contradiction - because an apple can be caused to fall from a tree, but the apple can also cause a dent in the ground. Likewise, a tidal wave can be caused by a storm, but the tidal wave can cause damage to the coastline.

You are misunderstanding me. When I speak of an individual, I am referring to the personal will. Can this will be a cause under your belief in causation?

sam: Free will is also defined as the belief that an individual can be a cause.

Cory: Free will has more to do with the belief that the conduct of human beings is not determined by physical or divine forces. You are actually just redefining the term because the original definition doesn't serve your interest in remaining unconscious. And to think you disapprove of me redefining terms to serve my interests - Look at you!

Ah, you're not going to make this about semantics now are you?. Are you going to redefine what free will means after all this? If an individual claims to be a cause of actions as you are doing, rather than impersonal forces, does that qualify as a belief in causation to you?

sam: So essentially your belief in causation is the same as everyone else's belief in free will.

Cory: You already agreed with me that an understanding of causation makes it impossible for a person to justify certain emotions - so on the one hand, you agree with me that the two views are different, but then on the other hand you assert that the two beliefs are the same. What's up with that?

Emotions that attempt to control others or reveal a need to control oneself indicate a belief in free will, but this isn't your argument. What you seem to be saying is that an individual who believes he is a cause is not an indication of a belief in free will but in causation. So if he believes he is not a cause, that impersonal forces are what bring actions about, would that indicate a belief in free will? How is that possible?

sam: If diametrically opposed beliefs produce the same effects, as seems to be the case above, then the beliefs are either being ignored or are not in opposition at all.

Cory: You've already agreed with me that a view of causation makes certain emotions superfluous. Therefore, the two diametrically opposed beliefs do not produce the same effects.

You seem to think I'm arguing for free will, I'm not. Do you understand that? It is you who is arguing for causation and I am asking you whether your actions indicate a belief in causation or a belief in free will.

Cory: Also, a person who understands causation acknowledges the oneness of everything.

sam: Acknowledging the oneness of everything is not a action, it's a belief.

Cory: I never said it was an action, I said it was an acknowledgment. So I'm not sure what your point is.

I asked you about actions that indicate a belief, not beliefs that indicate a belief. You can believe anything but your actions are what tell the story.

sam: My point is that a belief is understood by the actions it produces. A belief in oneness is not an action.

Cory: No, but an understanding of oneness certainly produces certain actions.

But we aren't talking about a belief in oneness! We are talking about causation.

sam: Wouldn't a key difference be that someone who believes in causation would not assert the personal will as a cause in itself?

Cory: Yes, that would be a key difference as well. Due to an awareness of causation, such an agent would attribute his deeds to nature, rather than to his ego.

sam: Well, you've already acknowledged that you can believe in causation while affirming an individual's ability to be a cause.

Cory: A tidal wave can be caused by nature, but regardless, the tidal wave is still a cause. So you're making a very weak case.

You are misunderstanding. When I refer to an individual, I am speaking of the individual will. Does such a will existence under your idea of causation?

sam: [attributing your ability to be a cause to nature] allows the ego to harm someone and then excuse it by saying "I didn't do it, nature did."

Cory: Can you cite any examples of criminals who excuse themselves in this fashion? Ironically, what we find is that criminals are very superstitious and suffer from magical thinking. On the other hand, the forensic scientists who have to deal with criminals tend to attribute a criminals behavior to poor childhood and genetics. The responsible citizen tends to think in terms of cause and effect. The criminal usually has magical interpretations of reality.

This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Is causation an excuse to you to do whatever you want?

sam: Using causation as an excuse to do whatever you want is the ego in control.

Cory: On the contrary, my understanding of causation makes me realize that I cannot do whatever I want. The greater the understanding of cause and effect, the more acutely one perceives limitations and consequences. Such an understanding thwarts desire, rather than inflames it.

So, one cannot use causation to justify any action, correct? If this is true, then you would need to examine your actions to see whether they do in fact conform to your beliefs, yes?

[Leyla Shen]

1. Causation is defined as the absolute sum and force of causes and effects
2. Free will constitutes recognition/distinction of the individual as a cause of any given effect and/or as an effect of any given cause/s
3. Thus, causation manifests relatively as free will in the individual
3. Thus, emotions that manifest as an attempt to control others or oneself are both a cause and an effect and constitute a relative aspect of causation

[Leyla Shen]

A question, sam: do you think the self exists?

[samadhi]

Leyla,

Remember, I'm not arguing for or against causation. I'm discussing how the belief in causation and the belief in free will is reflected through one's actions. I will go with your definition of free will though. I wonder if Cory will agree.

As for the self, please define it and we can discuss its existence.

[Leyla Shen]

I have had a few exchanges with Cory on the matter of self. I, too, would be interested in his comments on my reasoning.

Self: consciousness of personal, individual identity---including physical and mental attributes.

[samadhi]

I have had a few exchanges with Cory on the matter of self. I, too, would be interested in his comments on my reasoning.

You know, I don't have a problem with your reasoning. That free will and causation can exist side by side and not contradict each other seems obvious and also points to the duality that exists within non-duality.

Self: consciousness of personal, individual identity---including physical and mental attributes.

Is there consciousness of a personal, individual identitiy? Sure, no problem.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

Cory,

sam: This seems to be the heart of our disagreement. What you are saying is that one can believe everything is caused AND that an individual can also be a cause.

Cory: It's obvious that there's no contradiction - because an apple can be caused to fall from a tree, but the apple can also cause a dent in the ground. Likewise, a tidal wave can be caused by a storm, but the tidal wave can cause damage to the coastline.

You are misunderstanding me. When I speak of an individual, I am referring to the personal will.

Oh, I get it - you define free will as 'the belief that an individual can be a cause' (the trap) and if I agree that the personal will can be a cause, then that means I've taken your bait and have become trapped in contradiction. Boy, what a mastermind you are!

sam: Free will is also defined as the belief that an individual can be a cause.

Cory: Free will has more to do with the belief that the conduct of human beings is not determined by physical or divine forces. You are actually just redefining the term because the original definition doesn't serve your interest in remaining unconscious. And to think you disapprove of me redefining terms to serve my interests - Look at you!

Ah, you're not going to make this about semantics now are you?

Are you kidding me? Take a look at the Definition of Free Will @ dictionary.com

Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Nowhere do I see anything about free will as the belief that an individual can be a cause

What is apparent is that my definition has a strong resemblance to the dictionary definition.

Are you going to redefine what free will means after all this?

As I've demonstrated above, my definition of free will has a very strong resemblance to the dictionary.com definition. On the other hand, Your definition hardly has any resemblance.

If an individual claims to be a cause of actions as you are doing, rather than impersonal forces, does that qualify as a belief in causation to you?

If the individual understands that he is interpersonal forces - then there is no problem.

sam: So essentially your belief in causation is the same as everyone else's belief in free will.

Cory: You already agreed with me that an understanding of causation makes it impossible for a person to justify certain emotions - so on the one hand, you agree with me that the two views are different, but then on the other hand you assert that the two beliefs are the same. What's up with that?

Emotions that attempt to control others or reveal a need to control oneself indicate a belief in free will, but this isn't your argument. What you seem to be saying is that an individual who believes he is a cause is not an indication of a belief in free will but in causation.

True.

So if he believes he is not a cause, that impersonal forces are what bring actions about, would that indicate a belief in free will? How is that possible?

Why on earth would he believe that he is not a cause?

sam: If diametrically opposed beliefs produce the same effects, as seems to be the case above, then the beliefs are either being ignored or are not in opposition at all.

Cory: You've already agreed with me that a view of causation makes certain emotions superfluous. Therefore, the two diametrically opposed beliefs do not produce the same effects.

You seem to think I'm arguing for free will

Ah No, rather, what I think is that you have foolishly tried to argue that the diametrically opposed beliefs produce the same effects when you had already agreed that a belief in causation produces a person who cannot justify his emotions.

Rather than take accountability for this error, you desperately try throwing the fault onto me.

No Sam, I don't think you are arguing for free will - I could care less about that. What's apparent is you are arguing to protect the cozy feeling that your shallow interpretation of religion gives you.

It is you who is arguing for causation

Ah, here you are trying to make it seem like it was me who was disoriented and confused - when really, it's obvious to any intelligent person who is reading this that you have blundered. But you defend yourself against this fact by trying to throw the fault onto me.

Cory: Also, a person who understands causation acknowledges the oneness of everything.

sam: Acknowledging the oneness of everything is not a action, it's a belief.

Cory: I never said it was an action, I said it was an acknowledgment. So I'm not sure what your point is.

I asked you about actions that indicate a belief, not beliefs that indicate a belief.

Understanding causation leads to understanding oneness, and understanding oneness produces actions which differ from the actions of people who don't understand oneness/causation.

sam: My point is that a belief is understood by the actions it produces. A belief in oneness is not an action.

Cory: No, but an understanding of oneness certainly produces certain actions.

But we aren't talking about a belief in oneness! We are talking about causation.

Understanding causation and understanding oneness are not two seperate things. If you understand one, you understand the other.

sam: Wouldn't a key difference be that someone who believes in causation would not assert the personal will as a cause in itself?

Cory: Yes, that would be a key difference as well. Due to an awareness of causation, such an agent would attribute his deeds to nature, rather than to his ego.

sam: Well, you've already acknowledged that you can believe in causation while affirming an individual's ability to be a cause.

Cory: A tidal wave can be caused by nature, but regardless, the tidal wave is still a cause. So you're making a very weak case.

You are misunderstanding. When I refer to an individual, I am speaking of the individual will. Does such a will exist under your idea of causation?

If by exist we mean appear and if by will we mean desire, then yes, such a will exists.

sam: [attributing your ability to be a cause to nature] allows the ego to harm someone and then excuse it by saying "I didn't do it, nature did."

Cory: Can you cite any examples of criminals who excuse themselves in this fashion? Ironically, what we find is that criminals are very superstitious and suffer from magical thinking. On the other hand, the forensic scientists who have to deal with criminals tend to attribute a criminals behavior to poor childhood and genetics. The responsible citizen tends to think in terms of cause and effect. The criminal usually has magical interpretations of reality.

This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You obviously can't handle seeing the relatedness of everything, which is why we see you here trying to compartmentalize the discussion into a comfy little fragment.

Is causation an excuse to you to do whatever you want?

Obviously not. It's by acknowledging causation that we learn to restrain and limit irrationality. On the otherhand, by harboring magical notions, irrationality flowers into full bloom.

sam: Using causation as an excuse to do whatever you want is the ego in control.

Cory: On the contrary, my understanding of causation makes me realize that I cannot do whatever I want. The greater the understanding of cause and effect, the more acutely one perceives limitations and consequences. Such an understanding thwarts desire, rather than inflames it.

So, one cannot use causation to justify any action, correct?

On the contrary, through causation all actions are justified.

[Cory Duchesne]

Leyla,

1. Causation is defined as the absolute sum and force of causes and effects

Causation is simply the process of differentiation which occurs in the mind. There needs to be a mind for causation to be. Where there is no mind, there is no causation.

2. Free will constitutes recognition/distinction of the individual as a cause of any given effect and/or as an effect of any given cause/s

I don't agree here either. Believing in free will ultimately means that our brain (or the self) is the source of our decisions.

3. Thus, causation manifests relatively as free will in the individual

There is no such thing as free will in the individual. The individual is not the source of his actions, which is what free will implies.

3. Thus, emotions that manifest as an attempt to control others or oneself are both a cause and an effect

true

[Leyla Shen]

Causation is simply the process of differentiation which occurs in the mind. There needs to be a mind for causation to be. Where there is no mind, there is no causation.

A mind, eh? You mean a self, perhaps as I defined it earlier? How are you defining mind?

If I contemplate (mind) the existence of anything, even a mindless thing like a rock, then it necessarily follows from your above premises that causation (the process which is occurring in the mind) is the source of my decisions and free will exists by your own reasoning:

[Believing in] free will ultimately means that our brain (or the self) is the source of our decisions.

One can hardly “believe” that the brain and/or self is the source of one’s decisions without having some things (causes and effects) on which to decide.

There is no such thing as free will in the individual. The individual is not the source of his actions, which is what free will implies.

Are you sure, Cory Duchesne?

true

Naturally. It logically follows…