Commentary Thread: Causation and Spirituality (Sam vs David)

[Cory Duchesne]

I didn't decide that free will wasn't real in the same way that I didn't decide 1+1=2. It's a discovery. Also, I didn't choose to desire to discover truth. As human beings, we desire what pleases us - and what pleases us isn't a choice.

Isn't what pleases you today 'input' for what pleases you tomorrow?

I'm not sure what you're implying. It sounds like your saying that the past influences the future.

Might it not be that these memories weigh in on the 'virtual' decision you reach tomorrow?

For most people, memories of like and dislike are an important part of the decision making process and usually dictate the choice that's made.

[Cory Duchesne]

What/where are the boundaries which mark the beginning and end of the individual?

For practical purposes, let's say I end with the boundary of my energy field, a foot or two outside my physical body.

Practical purposes? More like egotistical purposes.

then you will see that the whole notion of 'choices coming from within the individual' is meaningless.

Excuse me. As you know we create our own meaning, and this is meaningful to me.

Why do you divide the outer from the inner? The truth is that a choice is caused from without just as much as it is caused from within. Really, such division is an illusion anyway.

Sounds like you are pulling the logical/ultimate card. Sorry, logical theory is trumped here by practical experience.

translation: logical theory is trumped here by my egotistical intuitions.

Remain in your hypothesis if you like. Yes, you are a robot. Meanwhile I have choices to make and things to do.

Off you go then.

[Fujaro]

For most people, memories of like and dislike are an important part of the decision making process and usually dictate the choice that's made.

Then, if we are processing our own thoughts, and in the process have build internal rule upon internal rule from it, solidifying our own behavioural traits in the process, isn´t the result of that process (albeit causally fully determined) something we can and want to call our own unique decision? A process so inate to us, so close with what we identify with, that the difference between this kind of decision making and a decision making process according to some abstracted free will process is like comparing real life with virtual reality?

[earnest_seeker]

What/where are the boundaries which mark the beginning and end of the individual? If you become clear on that issue, then you will see that the whole notion of 'choices coming from within the individual' is meaningless.

I don't see that question as being as relevant the question: is there a centre of an individual, or at least something approximating it?

[Carl G]

Cory:What/where are the boundaries which mark the beginning and end of the individual?

Carl: For practical purposes, let's say I end with the boundary of my energy field, a foot or two outside my physical body.

Cory: Practical purposes? More like egotistical purposes.

In the practical realm, there is necessarily an ego element, yes.

Cory: then you will see that the whole notion of 'choices coming from within the individual' is meaningless.

Carl: Excuse me. As you know we create our own meaning, and this is meaningful to me.

Cory: Why do you divide the outer from the inner?

I do not. Although sometimes it can be meaningful to do so.

The truth is that a choice is caused from without just as much as it is caused from within.

If you're saying that choices are co-created between the individual and the universe I agree. Earlier, though, you said the idea of choices coming from within the individual is meaningless to you.

Really, such division is an illusion anyway.

Sure. But I was speaking of practical matters, wherein solid matter and the self exists.

Carl: Sounds like you are pulling the logical/ultimate card. Sorry, logical theory is trumped here by practical experience.

Cory: translation: logical theory is trumped here by my egotistical intuitions.

Incorrect but funny. I guess funny trumps logic and practical experience for you.

[Cory Duchesne]

For most people, memories of like and dislike are an important part of the decision making process and usually dictate the choice that's made.

Then, if we are processing our own thoughts,

We are not separate entities who are processing our own thoughts - rather, we literally are the very thought process which we try and separate ourselves from.

and in the process have built internal rule upon internal rule from it, solidifying our own behavioural traits in the process, isn´t the result of that process (albeit causally fully determined) something we can and want to call our own unique decision?

Yes, it's true that we want and can call the result our own unique decision, but that doesn't mean such a conclusion has much meaning. What I find exceedingly more meaningful is to attribute who we are (we are a result of some process) to the totality of all processes.

A process so innate to us, so close with what we identify with

Why don't you identify with everything?

that the difference between this kind of decision making and a decision making process according to some abstracted free will process is like comparing real life with virtual reality?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make.

[Cory Duchesne]

What/where are the boundaries which mark the beginning and end of the individual? If you become clear on that issue, then you will see that the whole notion of 'choices coming from within the individual' is meaningless.

I don't see that question as being as relevant as the question: is there a center of an individual, or at least something approximating it?

The individual has no center, and that's because infinity can't have a center.

[Cory Duchesne]

The truth is that a choice is caused from without just as much as it is caused from within.

If you're saying that choices are co-created between the individual and the universe I agree.

If we approach the issue from the absolute, then there is actually no creation.

Earlier, though, you said the idea of choices coming from within the individual is meaningless to you.

Remember, the statement was: to make choices that come from entirely within that individual.

Choices actually don't come from anywhere. They simply are.

Really, such division is an illusion anyway.

Sure. But I was speaking of practical matters, wherein solid matter and the self exists.

Ok, but keep in mind what it is we're tackling on this thread: causality, free will, and how they relate to each other and spirituality.

[Carl G]

Carl: If you're saying that choices are co-created between the individual and the universe I agree.

Cory: If we approach the issue from the absolute, then there is actually no creation.

I was speaking of practical matters.

Cory: Earlier, though, you said the idea of choices coming from within the individual is meaningless to you.

Cory: Remember, the statement was: to make choices that come from entirely within that individual.

Yes. And you do not believe this is possible? I do, though I would not use the word "entirely," I would simply say "from the individual." My point was that some freedom of choice is potentially possible.

Choices actually don't come from anywhere. They simply are.

This sounds suspiciously like poetry. At least, where practicality is being considered.

Cory: Really, such division is an illusion anyway.

Carl: Sure. But I was speaking of practical matters, wherein solid matter and the self exists.

Cory: Ok, but keep in mind what it is we're tackling on this thread: causality, free will, and how they relate to each other and spirituality.

I'm entirely on topic. Of course, if you wish to speak only in terms of the Absolute, feel free, that's your choice.

[earnest_seeker]

The individual has no center, and that's because infinity can't have a center.

You seem to be implying a correspondence between infinity and the individual, which matches what I understand about your beliefs: as far as I understand it, you believe that the self extends infinitely into the universe.

There's a difference, though: the individual has a location; infinity does not.

[Cory Duchesne]

The individual has no center, and that's because infinity can't have a center.

You seem to be implying a correspondence between infinity and the individual, which matches what I understand about your beliefs: as far as I understand it, you believe that the self extends infinitely into the universe.

There's a difference, though: the individual has a location; infinity does not.

Ok, but a location (the form of the individual) does not objectively exist. It's boundaries are created by the mind.

[Fujaro]

We are not separate entities who are processing our own thoughts - rather, we literally are the very thought process which we try and separate ourselves from.

Then your body is not a part of you since your body doesn't equal to the thought process. And if by this you mean that there is only one thought process, please put it to the test and tell me which number I am thinking of right now. For if there are no separate thought processes, this would necessarily mean you have direct access to all thought.

and in the process have built internal rule upon internal rule from it, solidifying our own behavioural traits in the process, isn´t the result of that process (albeit causally fully determined) something we can and want to call our own unique decision?

Yes, it's true that we want and can call the result our own unique decision, but that doesn't mean such a conclusion has much meaning. What I find exceedingly more meaningful is to attribute who we are (we are a result of some process) to the totality of all processes.

And what is the gain from this insight that identity-separation doesn't exist? The all is one mantra doesn't seem to equate to new 100% succesfull cancer therapies, so far.

A process so innate to us, so close with what we identify with

Why don't you identify with everything?

I won't easily fit in with kid cancer, for one thing. What therapies would there be without these 'delusional human' agents called scientist, who on basis of 'false' conceptions of identity as a vehicle to accomplish something, strive to battle disease.

that the difference between this kind of decision making and a decision making process according to some abstracted free will process is like comparing real life with virtual reality?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make.

Your idea that identity-awareness is delusional relies on the presumption of an unchangeable, undivisible, absolute truth. Have you any evidence to present here that that is a coherent concept in accordance with reality?

[Carl G]

Fujaro wrote:

And what is the gain from this insight that identity-separation doesn't exist? The all is one mantra doesn't seem to equate to new 100% succesfull cancer therapies, so far.

I'm kind of wondering this myself, so it will be interesting to hear what Cory has to say. Of what practical use is this notion of the Ultimate/ Absolute, and along with it this idea that all is predetermined? Even if it contains "Ultimate truth" doesn't a focus upon this not lead one to a sort of nihilistic viewpoint wherein "I understand that I do not do and indeed there is no "I"" and by this I do not do? What does anything on the ground -- in the material world -- mean to one who believes there is only the One Formless Infinite?

[Fujaro]

The Absolute really is a god 2.0 kind of thing. It can lift a stone that is too heavy to lift without a problem. It is all, its is absolute, complete and indivisible, so:

Electrons don't exist. Away with electrons as identifyable parts of reality with their own characterstics and lifecycle.

Then electricity doesn't exist. It's an illusion artificially upholded by the power companies. Away with electricity.

Then the internet doesn't exist. We always knew that one, it's virtual, isn't it! Away with the internet.

Then this discussion is an illusion. That's a big relief for it means that I am not in a state of delusional argumentaton with myself here. Away with discussion.

But then information is an illusion. To hell with gigabytes.

And finally awareness is an illusion. Not just my awareness, but all awareness.

So all that nothing ('we' in traditional terms) is left with is nothingness.
Now we are happy!

Even awareness vanishes when you embrace the concept of indivisible, complete, absolute truth.

[Carl G]

Damn, you're enlightened!

Wait, enlightenment can't exist either.

[Cory Duchesne]

Fujaro,

We are not separate entities who are processing our own thoughts - rather, we literally are the very thought process which we try and separate ourselves from.

Then your body is not a part of you since your body doesn't equal to the thought process.

It does actually. The activity of your biological organism generates the thought process. So ultimately the body and the thought process are one. Kill the body and you kill the thought process.

And if by this you mean that there is only one thought process, please put it to the test and tell me which number I am thinking of right now.

I didn't mean to imply such a thing.

For if there are no separate thought processes, this would necessarily mean you have direct access to all thought.

I didn't mean to say what you think I said. What I meant was that the division between the thinker and the thought is false. The thinker doesn't make his thoughts. The thoughts make the thinker.

Yes, it's true that we want and can call the result our own unique decision, but that doesn't mean such a conclusion has much meaning. What I find exceedingly more meaningful is to attribute who we are (we are a result of some process) to the totality of all processes.

And what is the gain from this insight that identity-separation doesn't exist?

If everybody were to apply it, we would see the end of war, pollution, loneliness, violence and emotion, the end of overpopulation, etc.

The all is one mantra doesn't seem to equate to new 100% succesful cancer therapies, so far.

I'm not trying to undermine science. People who are suited for it, should still do science.

Why don't you identify with everything?

I won't easily fit in with kid cancer, for one thing. What therapies would there be without these 'delusional human' agents called scientist, who on basis of 'false' conceptions of identity as a vehicle to accomplish something, strive to battle disease.

Being enlightened shouldn't stop a person from practicing science, if that's what he's good at.

Your idea that identity-awareness is delusional relies on the presumption of an unchangeable, undivisible, absolute truth.

Have you any evidence to present here that that is a coherent concept in accordance with reality?

I think a good place to start is understand how boundaries don't objectively exist. The evidence for this very apparent. If you can understand this point, then the rest might be clear to you.

[Cory Duchesne]

The Absolute really is a god 2.0 kind of thing. It can lift a stone that is too heavy to lift without a problem. It is all, its is absolute, complete and indivisible, so:

Electrons don't exist. Away with electrons as identifyable parts of reality with their own characterstics and lifecycle.

Then electricity doesn't exist. It's an illusion artificially upholded by the power companies. Away with electricity.

Then the internet doesn't exist. We always knew that one, it's virtual, isn't it! Away with the internet.

Then this discussion is an illusion. That's a big relief for it means that I am not in a state of delusional argumentaton with myself here. Away with discussion.

But then information is an illusion. To hell with gigabytes.

And finally awareness is an illusion. Not just my awareness, but all awareness.

So all that nothing ('we' in traditional terms) is left with is nothingness.
Now we are happy!

Even awareness vanishes when you embrace the concept of indivisible, complete, absolute truth.

For a thing to exist means that it appears. Things do certainly appear, therefore they exist as appearances. Do they exist when there is no mind?

Of course not. But that doesn't mean there is nothingness. The truth is beyond existence and non-existence.

[Fujaro]

We are not separate entities who are processing our own thoughts - rather, we literally are the very thought process which we try and separate ourselves from.

Then your body is not a part of you since your body doesn't equal to the thought process.

It does actually. The activity of your biological organism generates the thought process. So ultimately the body and the thought process are one. Kill the body and you kill the thought process.

OK, I agree on this one, the body generates the thougt process. Without the body there is no thought process. And that's all there is to it really. The body constitutes the self in exactly this way. I call my body plus the thought it generates 'me' and though that's not the same as describing the universe as a whole, it is a very usefull labeling. For instance when you're crossing a road, this labelling helps you to get to the other side in one piece.

And if by this you mean that there is only one thought process, please put it to the test and tell me which number I am thinking of right now.

I didn't mean to imply such a thing.

OK, you have no connection to my thought process. In other words, our bodies and thought processes are distinct in certainly this sense.

For if there are no separate thought processes, this would necessarily mean you have direct access to all thought.

I didn't mean to say what you think I said. What I meant was that the division between the thinker and the thought is false. The thinker doesn't make his thoughts. The thoughts make the thinker.

I agree on the fact that there's no homonculus inside the flesh, there's no Cartesian theater. But as you said, the body generates the thought. I am the body and the thought. So with 'I', I don't mean a little man inside. So you should agree on it when I say "I have thought this or that" that the I (call it the thinker) has generated a thought.

Yes, it's true that we want and can call the result our own unique decision, but that doesn't mean such a conclusion has much meaning. What I find exceedingly more meaningful is to attribute who we are (we are a result of some process) to the totality of all processes.

And what is the gain from this insight that identity-separation doesn't exist?

If everybody were to apply it, we would see the end of war, pollution, loneliness, violence and emotion, the end of overpopulation, etc.

Here's where we differ in opinion. You make a very big claim from an unsubstantiated assumption. Have you any further proof for the claim that who we are can be attributed to the totality of all processes in any usefull way other than as an interacting entity with the environment?

The all is one mantra doesn't seem to equate to new 100% succesful cancer therapies, so far.

I'm not trying to undermine science. People who are suited for it, should still do science.

But do you acknowledge that the average lifetime of human populations the last two centuries has seriously been lengthened by big technological and scientific advances achieved by personal human endeavour, strong will, perseverence and determination? In other words that the concept of 'I' is crucial in it?

Why don't you identify with everything?

I won't easily fit in with kid cancer, for one thing. What therapies would there be without these 'delusional human' agents called scientist, who on basis of 'false' conceptions of identity as a vehicle to accomplish something, strive to battle disease.

Being enlightened shouldn't stop a person from practicing science, if that's what he's good at.

So far (in this posting, that is) then, we only disagree on the big claim you're making about the path to make the world a better place.

Your idea that identity-awareness is delusional relies on the presumption of an unchangeable, undivisible, absolute truth.

Have you any evidence to present here that that is a coherent concept in accordance with reality?

I think a good place to start is understand how boundaries don't objectively exist. The evidence for this very apparent. If you can understand this point, then the rest might be clear to you.

I don't agree on this point. As we have agreed on above, there are boundaries that are extremely usefull (i.e. distinctiveness of 'me' and 'you' for instance). Here you seem to confirm that identity-awareness is delusional whereas in the above we agreed on the negation of that. When you use the word 'objectively' you refer to some platonic absolute truth without any evidence for its existence. You first should explain that objective knowledge (nothing less than absolute knowledge that is) has any meaning whatsoever. Can we test it to be objective? That's a rather wild claim. Since you are making a claim that's both counterintuitive and inconsistent with your own statements I suggest you elaborate on this 'obvious' and 'objective' issue.

[Fujaro]

The Absolute really is a god 2.0 kind of thing. It can lift a stone that is too heavy to lift without a problem. It is all, its is absolute, complete and indivisible, so:

Electrons don't exist. Away with electrons as identifyable parts of reality with their own characterstics and lifecycle.

Then electricity doesn't exist. It's an illusion artificially upholded by the power companies. Away with electricity.

Then the internet doesn't exist. We always knew that one, it's virtual, isn't it! Away with the internet.

Then this discussion is an illusion. That's a big relief for it means that I am not in a state of delusional argumentaton with myself here. Away with discussion.

But then information is an illusion. To hell with gigabytes.

And finally awareness is an illusion. Not just my awareness, but all awareness.

So all that nothing ('we' in traditional terms) is left with is nothingness.
Now we are happy!

Even awareness vanishes when you embrace the concept of indivisible, complete, absolute truth.

For a thing to exist means that it appears. Things do certainly appear, therefore they exist as appearances. Do they exist when there is no mind?

Of course not. But that doesn't mean there is nothingness. The truth is beyond existence and non-existence.

Another big claim without evidence: that things can only exist when there is a mind. You should at least provide a test for that. Otherwise this is nothing more than a religious claim. I suggest the following experiment:
Construct a sound proof, room with an impenetrable wall and put a chair in it. Wait a few days and open the room. If the chair has vanished after the lock up period I'll reconsider your suggestion, otherwise it follows that the chair existed when the room was locked since auto-generating chairs haven't been observed in the entire universe so far.

[Leyla Shen]

It still takes what we infer as mind to determine the continued existence of the chair and the difference between mind and no mind, which is quite neat, really. Isn't this the very thing you use in order to establish whether or not there could exist a non-omnipotent, omnibenevolent alien, for example?

If that chair wasn't there when you went back, you couldn't conclude on the basis of that particular phenomenon that the chair therefore existed without mind.

[Fujaro]

If that chair wasn't there when you went back, you couldn't conclude on the basis of that particular phenomenon that the chair therefore existed without mind.

You're mixing arguments in a potpourri of misunderstandings.

1) You're referring to the problem of induction. That from a particular cannot follow the general rule. You're right there. There is no definite proof for it and science really does not depend on it. But drawing the negative conclusion from it should stop you from any conclusion, and it certainly should stop you for making claims about chairs popping in and out of existence.

2) Suppose the chair wasn't there when you went back it would be pretty solid proof for the claim wouldn't it? With the given hypothesis not drawing the conclusion that the chair needs the mind in order to exist amounts to not wanting to draw any conclusion at all.

3) Suppose the chair was there when you went back, you still could conclude that the chair pooped out of existence when the room was sealed and popped into existence again when it was opened. But in that case you should find chairs popping into existence on the moon also, wouldn't you? But all the astronauts brought back from the moon so far were rocks and sand.

[Leyla Shen]

You're mixing arguments in a potpourri of misunderstandings.

I am? I don’t see it. By your good grace, perhaps you can help me to:

Re. 1) Who drew any conclusion even remotely close to chairs popping in and out of existence? I certainly didn’t. I don’t believe this for a second. I have tried to make people pop out of existence and, so far, it hasn’t worked.

Re. 2) Only if you supposed the claim was about chairs literally popping in and out of existence. Why does that necessarily follow? For it to necessarily follow, surely one would have to assume the mind was the cause of existence itself.

Re. 3) You could conclude that, but I don’t know why you would. Why would you?

[Fujaro]

Re. 1) Who drew any conclusion even remotely close to chairs popping in and out of existence? I certainly didn’t. I don’t believe this for a second. I have tried to make people pop out of existence and, so far, it hasn’t worked.

OK, you're clear on that one. I have misread you, I apologize. A big relief, really.

Re. 2) Only if you supposed the claim was about chairs literally popping in and out of existence. Why does that necessarily follow? For it to necessarily follow, surely one would have to assume the mind was the cause of existence itself.

Right again. The catch was in the phrase "with the given hypothesis", meaning the hypothesis that the chair needed a mind in order to exist. When the exepriment was restricted to testing this hypothesis only the prediction from it would be that the chair would be gone. Of course in the presence of other more worldly explanations I would suspect a case of severe chair theft.

Re. 3) You could conclude that, but I don’t know why you would. Why would you?

I wouldn't, but a proponent of the mind as a necessary condition for existence could. I reckon you're not one of them.

[Dan Rowden]

Mind is a necessary condition for existence, just not a sufficient one. "Existence" doesn't even make any sense absent of mind. What's your definition of "exist", Fujaro?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I didn't decide that free will wasn't real in the same way that I didn't decide 1+1=2. It's a discovery. Also, I didn't choose to desire to discover truth. As human beings, we desire what pleases us - and what pleases us isn't a choice.

Isn't what pleases you today 'input' for what pleases you tomorrow?

I'm not sure what you're implying. It sounds like your saying that the past influences the future.

Causality, anyone?