GENIUS FORUMS

.

I know Causality and Will has been discussed since we first stood upright, philosophically speaking, but I’m compelled to ask if we have actually reached any conclusions? In a manner of speaking, I have, but simply standing by my affirmation and trying to justify it endlessly is not masculinity in my opinion, but self-centered arrogance. Hence I would like to know how and where I’m wrong, for in a confirmation or otherwise, at least I know that I’m not the only Self around. And even if one believes that there is no Self or One Universal Self with no beginning or end, so be it. Think of it as this One or no Self looking for Self-affirmation through Self-confirmation or denial of it. (My English vocabulary is not good so please excuse my choice of words)

Causality and its implications in one way or another is being discussed in many threads as it stands, hence this focused thread. A while back I posted this… In ‘Is our future already determined?’ thread. Nothing much was said for or against it because may be it was considered a rant, except Pye expressing the whole idea in a single sentence. In my opinion a very intellectually and beautifully expressed sentence indeed.

Sapius wrote:Dan, we have never discussed much since both of us speak so very little and that there is pretty not much that we would disagree on, but I’m compelled to say that there is a bit more to this…

This is not a complicated issue. Yes, our futures are determined but we can never know in exactly what way, so we have fate and mystery all rolled into one.

Yes, we can never know for sure, but that does not mean that cause and effect in it self is not free, free to create incalculable diversities, imposed and created by its own nature. It is a very subtle point, but in my opinion the crux of the understanding lies in there.

Cause and effect is so complexly diverse that it can actually “say no” to a given situation, other wise such diversities wouldn’t be possible. If there were no possibilities of diversities, then there would be nothing except one cause producing the same effect over and over again, since the effect would be its own cause, or nothing at all (in other words), which also does not seem probable. Freedom in diversities also proves that there was no time when just a single cause existed. Any speck that exists is not a result of innumerable causes, but is cumulatively innumerable causes itself, since from the perspective of Totality all is a single effect, but we just experience it as effect's (form our perspective), for all that there is, is now, and that just is.

My thinking too is governed by cause and effect, but isn’t my thinking itself cause and effect? And it can cause me, which is no more than a cumulative, say a bundle of cause and effect, to say ‘no’. (Unless one believes that “I” am absolutely nothing whatsoever, not even as a form or appearance, which would be absolutely illogical.); thereby creating yet another situation that leads to diversity without breaking its own rhythm or law as such.

Although governed by cause and effect, the future of no particular thing is actually determined, not more than the immediate cumulative effects, which is actually just a single effect as far as Totality is concerned since there is no future as such for it, although experienced by us as a result of innumerable causes from our perspective.

Unless and until we don’t comprehend this from both the perspectives without any contradictions, since it is all actually only ONE with no without, we can keep discussing free will form either perspective indefinitely.

Just to give a simple example, keeping in mind all the possible and probable uncertainties that I may or may not be aware of, I am also logically aware that I can, and could, and will, not make a single post on this forum for the next 24 hours, and although I am governed by cause and effect, cause and effect can say no although it could do otherwise, that is post within 24 hours. In this, one can see that what it eventually does was not necessarily the only possible result it could achieve, (freedom), showing the capability of its diverse possibilities, but what it did achieve could not have been otherwise, hence not violating its own nature at its core.

If this is not clear enough, it is only my shortcoming at explaining it, but not how I actually comprehend it, without any contradictions. I am never confused as to my responsibilities or morality, cause and effect makes me, responsible and moral, dictated by my logic that is based on cause and effect, and indeed it is that itself.

Cause and effect itself is free by nature, and we are nothing more or less than that.

Your views?

To which Pye responded…

Our futures will be determined, just as with every convergent moment of the present they are determined now. A misapplication/misunderstanding of determinism, from my point of view, is that determinism is somehow already determined, so to speak, when clearly this is not so. Determinism -- like causation -- when fully perceived, leads inevitably to the thought of infinity.

What is determined is determined in every moment of every convergence, and every convergence is living in time, rather than living out its time. And every convergence will never fully equal every other one, ad infinitum.

Our smallest slices of cause/effect awareness also tell us of this infinity, too. Predictability, probability, do not rule it out either. They also point the way.

I think in very simple terms, and that is how I see existence itself to be, simple, and magnificently awesome in its simplicity.

Any comments?

.

Can any conclusions be arrived at? Why?

.

As choice is also being discussed elsewhere, I would add to the frequently confused debate on determinism that the deterministic model does not exclude the phenomenon of human choice, either. Choosing is as much a function belonging to human being as any other function. This is not incommensurate with every choice being conditioned (determined) by everything that in that moment converges.

So when Sue says to suergaz on another thread that:

you are aware that immediacy has nothing to do with philosophy: it being the complete opposite to everything philosophy stands for.

I find it empty rhetoric, not standing for "philosophy" at all.



.

redschmed wrote:Can any conclusions be arrived at? Why?

I say it because some make A GOD out of Causation blinding themselves to the other side of the coin. Blinding themselves to the fact that both arise together, things as well as consciousness. They are inseparable. Yes, ultimately, even choices are bound by causality, but that does not mean that things do not exist in whatsoever form, otherwise what will a thing be conscious of? I consider Consciousness itself to be a thing that is necessarily dependant on other things, and not to be made a GOD of in itself.

End of the day, one thing is necessarily dependant on another, but there have to be things to be dependant on things other than itself, and any particular thing is not anything else but itself in any given moment of casual conditions.

Unless we don't realize both sides of the coin at once, we cannot realize it as a coin. Most probably, when we see one side of the coin, we tend to forget the other side once we turn it over, and talk emphatically from each perspective individually. I don't konw, emotional attachments perhaps?

.

pye wrote:
Choosing is as much a function belonging to human being as any other function.

How does choosing operate?

Examine your own Life.

Is this how it works?

'It felt like a good Idea at the time'

Then

An Intellectual Construct of 'Reasons' and 'Justifications' was put together to explain away what was just felt as a good Idea at the time..

In examining my Life it seems to have gone that way for me...how many times has what 'felt like a good Idea at the time' been revealed as 'a good Idea to get unstuck from' in the passage of time...

Humans think they are choosing...but are they?...when all is said and done...

frank

Humans think they are choosing...but are they?...when all is said and done...

Yes they are, as Pye says, "This is not incommensurate with every choice being conditioned (determined) by everything that in that moment converges."

Yes they are, as Pye says, "This is not incommensurate with every choice being conditioned (determined) by everything that in that moment converges."

Good Work, Pye and Gaz.

frank

Humans think they are choosing...but are they?...when all is said and done...

Frank, when ultimately ALL is said and done, what difference would it make either way?

Now isn’t that funny… :D

.

frank writes:

An Intellectual Construct of 'Reasons' and 'Justifications' was put together to explain away what was just felt as a good Idea at the time..

hi frank, that the human intellect is sometimes ignorant of or in bad faith with itself over the cause of its choices does not annihilate the phenomenon of human choosing. Next time you are in a restaurant, take note of what process you are using to select your meal from the menu. Just because it has a limited number of items on it and you don't know why your organism chooses one thing over another, you will still be choosing. Otherwise, you will be sitting there in a vegetative state for a very long time. Just because conditions are limited and choices are conditioned does not mean that choice is not happening. Along these lines, you would have to tell me you are not really breathing, either.

It's a Christian hangover that demands of willing (or choosing) a completely free and disattached grounding before it shall be considered willing (or choosing) at all. This all-or-nothing thought (for the purpose of coming freely to the christian god) has tripped up comprehension of causality for a very long time.

Too, what is doing the feeling here of the good idea? Even if the mouthpiece (reason) gives the wrong, overembellished explanation for the choice, bodylife is busily choosing to its tastes - its sense of things - all along.

.

sapius wrote:
Frank, when ultimately ALL is said and done, what difference would it make either way?

Now isn’t that funny… :D

I think you're saying what I'm thinking...that when it's over it's over and when it vanishes....well it's vanished...and there's no getting it back. And really nothing happened, except what we made it mean according to how we saw it.

There's no real point in being dramatic about anything is there?
As if that could make a difference?

So it's empty and meaningless THAT it's empty and meaningless.

Except we are caused to try and persist.

So, logically & wisely, we ought to be designing Lifestyles and Societies that have Survival Enhancement properties 'in order to' persist more efficiently...

Plato's idea was a Republic where Philosophers were the Kings who designed the System & Regulated it on parameters that were deemed Wise.

No one took up Plato's Idea so we get self serving Politicians designing policies to get elected at the next vote count.

The only, perhaps real meaning the human race has is to persist...or try..

frank

pye wrote:
that the human intellect is sometimes ignorant of or in bad faith with itself over the cause of its choices does not annihilate the phenomenon of human choosing.

Too, what is doing the feeling here of the good idea? Even if the mouthpiece (reason) gives the wrong, overembellished explanation for the choice, bodylife is busily choosing to its tastes - its sense of things - all along.

I get what you are saying about the act of choosing..that it happens...
But I find that the choosing I do is based on a prior cause of 'being caused to persist'...to try and fit in..
To belong to a Herd then I choose what 'works' best to exist in the Herd...the Herd or Culture dictates the Costume, Activities, even Diet...the Script, if you like...
I might get into a mental construct justifying my choices..but the reality is I'm hangin' on the coattails of the Herd to enhance my survivability.
It's that that's doing the choosing isn't it?

I've got my unique preferences but they're not so unmainstream that I can be crucified.

frank

Frank:

The only, perhaps real meaning the human race has is to persist...or try..

to try what? To persist at? Itself?

If you mean to overcome itself, you're not wrong. The possible consequences of this as I see it are 1. The superhuman or2. Total destruction.

gaz wrote:
to try what? To persist at? Itself?

Just to persist.

If you mean to overcome itself, you're not wrong. The possible consequences of this as I see it are 1. The superhuman or2. Total destruction.

1 or 2.....These are Script outcomes...Triumph or Tragedy...we don't know...but it will require persistence to get to the end to know...

So, our only meaning is to persist or try.

frank

Certainly, we can only persist to the end, and so it makes sense that we will our end and not only meet it.

Our higher meaning then, is not to persist, to endure, to survive, but to overcome ourselves. I suppose I could be banned for this.

Pye,

It's a Christian hangover that demands of willing (or choosing) a completely free and disattached grounding before it shall be considered willing (or choosing) at all. This all-or-nothing thought (for the purpose of coming freely to the christian god) has tripped up comprehension of causality for a very long time.

Not only Christianity, but also all other religions that believe in a judgment day believe that too. Others that don’t believe in a judgment day talk about Karma here and now, in the sense, as you sow, so shall you reap, but the same people say that there isn’t an individual Self, so who sows and who reaps? If all that is happening is C&E, and hence the Self and the sowing and reaping is just an illusion, then so is the thought of it, an illusion, for what would then thought’s be based on other than C&E?

If one says that thoughts itself are illusions, then how can I take this thought itself seriously without thinking over it? However illusory it may be, can I get rid of thoughts? That is the same as saying get rid of consciousness. And if consciousness it all that there is, then at least consciousness is responsible for all right and wrong that arises from it, rather than the process that it is based on. Otherwise, there is no true or false that can be spoken of. Is lightening or C&E, nature, to be held responsible for electrocuting a person? If lucky to be alive, will he avoid lightening or nature? Yes, my experiences cause me to find a protective solution, but there are more than one solutions open to me, and yes, I am cause to pick one of them, but I am also caused to reject the rest. In that Cause and effect has chosen, but which it could not possible do without creating a thing through which it now can. A tree, created through cause and effect cannot possibly take protective measures against a lightening strike, but human consciousness can. What does that say?


And if there is no cause and effect itself, then “I” better lay down and die. You know, in a way, all religions also say the same thing. That God will judge irrelevant of him actually knowing what you will do, and irrelevant of whatever you do since either way it is his will. How is believing in cause and effect in a similar way any different? Only that one will not be judged. At least philosophy makes you your own judge through logic and reasoning, but then again, it also says no judging is happening at all because of C&E. I say it is just that that is happening, down to the minimal degree of consciousness. C&E deciding which option to take while creating innumerable options itself.

I see Reasoning, although based on C&E, plays a big part in the actualization of actions affecting the future since you act accordingly by rejecting the unreasonable which is also based on C&E, but it does make you select one option over others, because it necessarily needs a thinking thing to exercise such selections, which also it creates.

How can there be such a thing as false reasoning, false values, false thoughts, or whatever ‘false’, if there is nothing except cause and effect? Nothing could be considered ‘false’ then, hence the idea of perfection of existence. But where does the thought of all being an illusion or perfect come from then? Is cause and effect thinking? I think not.

One cannot have it both ways by simply accepting the absolute helplessness and then think that he is participating in it anyways. Is the one who thinks he is participating a thing or not? Is he the Reality of all that there is, or does Reality constitute all that there is?

Although all that there is, is based on the principle of C&E, is this the form of me, Sapius, or is it David, or Kevin, or whomever expressing the above? Or is it cause and effect? I do not deny that it is indeed ultimately cause and effect, be it a strife towards enlightenment, philosophy, psychology, or stupidity, but in no way does that make an individual thing or form redundant, through which it can achieve all of that at once. In my opinion it is cause and effect, or nature, achieving all of that at once, through all that there is, which is really so awesome that no words can actually describe, because at the same time, it is utterly empty and meaningless in its self, so what words would one use?

According to me, non-inherency means a thing is non-permanent, non-disconnected, non-forever-existent, but not non-existent in whatsoever form. If that were true, and all that there IS is just C&E, then I would suggest one to go and discuss philosophy with C&E, not the things or forms it creates.

If we attribute strife to C&E, in whichever direction, be it towards enlightenment, philosophy, psychology, or stupidity, then in that light it is really Awesome, but that in no way makes an individual thing redundant through which it can achieve all of that at once. In my opinion it is the achieving of all that at once, through All that there is, that is Awesome. C&E is definitely the doer, but not what it does. The coming and going is C&E, permanent, infinite, not that which comes and goes. And everything comes and goes, including human consciousness, enlightenment, and the cup cake, but that would not mean that things or forms do not come into being at all, not even through casual conditions.

I think I have said enough. :)

.

Frank,

I think you're saying what I'm thinking...that when it's over it's over and when it vanishes....well it's vanished...and there's no getting it back. And really nothing happened, except what we made it mean according to how we saw it.

Yes, I can go along with that.

There's no real point in being dramatic about anything is there?

Of course not.

As if that could make a difference?

Not in the ultimate sense, but very few think in those terms.

So it's empty and meaningless THAT it's empty and meaningless.

Yes, ultimately.

Except we are caused to try and persist.

Not ‘except’; persistence itself is at the heart of C&E, the "blind" strife, and it is C&E which makes us see it so. Including the meaning to 'it's empty and meaningless".

So, logically & wisely, we ought to be designing Lifestyles and Societies that have Survival Enhancement properties 'in order to' persist more efficiently...

Yes, and that cannot stop, for even C&E is not aware of the next moment of casual conditions, it is simply a strife.

Plato's idea was a Republic where Philosophers were the Kings who designed the System & Regulated it on parameters that were deemed Wise.

No one took up Plato's Idea so we get self serving Politicians designing policies to get elected at the next vote count.

However sad that cannot be helped, unless we as a whole would want to persist towards efficiency, but that does not serve the purpose of those few in power. Unfortunately, their self-centeredness, and illiteracy and lethargy of the rest, keeps each one of us where we are.

The only, perhaps real meaning the human race has is to persist...or try..

May be, but no need to apply any meaning to it; human race will persist irrelevant of any meaning being given to it, and so will every jot or a title irrelevant of the human race. And in that persistence, casual choices are made, provided by the complex diversities created by casual conditions, that are ultimately utterly empty and meaningless, and That is Really awesome.

suergaz wrote:Our higher meaning then, is not to persist, to endure, to survive, but to overcome ourselves. I suppose I could be banned for this.

hehehe... why are you so worried about being banned? I don't think the moderators are that intolerant.

Persistence is plain simple strife, irrelevant of the direction, including that of overcoming ourselves, or that of taking over others.

.

Pye, you wrote:

hi frank, that the human intellect is sometimes ignorant of or in bad faith with itself over the cause of its choices does not annihilate the phenomenon of human choosing. Next time you are in a restaurant, take note of what process you are using to select your meal from the menu. Just because it has a limited number of items on it and you don't know why your organism chooses one thing over another, you will still be choosing.

Pye, can you explain this inconsistency I see: if “your organism” chooses one thing over another and you equate that with “you” (something, therefore, separate to “your organism”) having choice, I don’t see any “you” choice, at all. Unless, that is, you define “you” as the same as “your organism.” But then you would be -- and are -- saying that the organism is capable of choice. Is it?

What if it wants a steak and there are only vegetarian restaurants within its reach?

Otherwise, you will be sitting there in a vegetative state for a very long time. Just because conditions are limited and choices are conditioned does not mean that choice is not happening.

Or, as I may extrapolate from what you have said, “you” -- and all "its processes" -- is entirely caused by the “choice/s” of the organism.

Hm.

For whom/what is real choice happening, then?

Along these lines, you would have to tell me you are not really breathing, either.

Well, not until you tell me who “you” is first. :)

suergaz wrote:
Our higher meaning then, is not to persist, to endure, to survive, but to overcome ourselves. I suppose I could be banned for this.

Sapius: hehehe... why are you so worried about being banned? I don't think the moderators are that intolerant.

I'm not, I trust in reason. I'm just teasing. Do you remember when we first met years ago I told you I was twice born? :D

Persistence is plain simple strife, irrelevant of the direction, including that of overcoming ourselves, or that of taking over others.

What makes you so sure? I mean, for some, it is untrammeled delight.


Leyla:

Pye, can you explain this inconsistency I see: if “your organism” chooses one thing over another and you equate that with “you” (something, therefore, separate to “your organism”) having choice, I don’t see any “you” choice, at all. Unless, that is, you define “you” as the same as “your organism.” But then you would be -- and are -- saying that the organism is capable of choice. Is it?

I'm sure Pye is saying that. An organism conscious of itself is capapble of choice. Pye has already addressed the error in assuming that 'choice' must somehow be free of causation to be what it is.

What if it wants a steak and there are only vegetarian restaurants within its reach?

"It" can choose to wait, or make a concession. Attempts to disprove 'will' or 'choice' or 'self' etc. are as futile as attempts to disprove 'causality' 'predisposition' 'fate' etc.

Quote:
Pye: Otherwise, you will be sitting there in a vegetative state for a very long time. Just because conditions are limited and choices are conditioned does not mean that choice is not happening.

LeylaOr, as I may extrapolate from what you have said, “you” -- and all "its processes" -- is entirely caused by the “choice/s” of the organism.

Hm.

For whom/what is real choice happening, then?

The person in question.

Quote:
Pye: Along these lines, you would have to tell me you are not really breathing, either.

Leyla: Well, not until you tell me who “you” is first. :)

Every self is an extension of every other. The only equality to the degrees to which this is so, is the fact that this is so. The ring of recurrence seems to enlighten some, and seemingly devastate others.

Pye, forgive me for responding to what was addressed to you, and Leyla, if you truly believe I have no choice in these things, you'll overlook it, won't you? ;)

zag,

"It" can choose to wait, or make a concession. Attempts to disprove 'will' or 'choice' or 'self' etc. are as futile as attempts to disprove 'causality' 'predisposition' 'fate' etc.

I beg to differ. Perhaps you’d “like” to choose to review the “Ego: the belief in ‘I’” thread. It’s a work in progress, but I have added a few more items to it just now.

…and Leyla, if you truly believe I have no choice in these things, you'll overlook it, won't you? ;)

Only as I’m caused to. I guess you’ll just have to take your chances, oh free person in question.

Zag,

S: Persistence is plain simple strife, irrelevant of the direction, including that of overcoming ourselves, or that of taking over others.

Zag: What makes you so sure? I mean, for some, it is untrammeled delight.

Sure it could be, but that too is included, a strife towards the feeling of unhindered delight, for it needs to be maintained in this continuous flow of changes, through memory, which does the work for us.

Quote: zag:
"It" can choose to wait, or make a concession. Attempts to disprove 'will' or 'choice' or 'self' etc. are as futile as attempts to disprove 'causality' 'predisposition' 'fate' etc.

Leyla: I beg to differ. Perhaps you’d “like” to choose to review the “Ego: the belief in ‘I’” thread. It’s a work in progress, but I have added a few more items to it just now.

There's no need to beg. I'd like to decide to choose to will myself there already, but I am predestined to go through the motions. I'm a go in there and shake my shit soon enough.

zag:…and Leyla, if you truly believe I have no choice in these things, you'll overlook it, won't you? ;)

Leyla: Only as I’m caused to. I guess you’ll just have to take your chances, oh free person in question.

But what will you do with your chances, or since you have an aversion to the word, your unforseen circumstances? Are you determined to make them your own?

Sapius:

Sapius : Persistence is plain simple strife, irrelevant of the direction, including that of overcoming ourselves, or that of taking over others.

Zag: What makes you so sure? I mean, for some, it is untrammeled delight.

Sapius:Sure it could be, but that too is included, a strife towards the feeling of unhindered delight, for it needs to be maintained in this continuous flow of changes, through memory, which does the work for us.

And so it is not necessarily a strife, but a continuity.

S: Not only Christianity, but also all other religions that believe in a judgment day believe that too. Others that don’t believe in a judgment day talk about Karma here and now, in the sense, as you sow, so shall you reap, but the same people say that there isn’t an individual Self, so who sows and who reaps? If all that is happening is C&E, and hence the Self and the sowing and reaping is just an illusion, then so is the thought of it, an illusion, for what would then thought’s be based on other than C&E?

I believe the latter part of that statement is the opinion of the QVC here - that there is no self to receive judgment or karma and all is C&E.

I do not share this view.

While I believe in a Purusha - or Cosmic singular soul or consciousness or Self, the individual self is not an illusion anymore than a table or cat is an illusion. A great deal of time is spent here to convince you that nothing at all is real other than the Totality itself. Yes, the Totality is real, but so are it's fleeting parts. 'Totality' is not a very good name for Nature since Consciousness is not in Nature.

In Nature, these things do actually exist although they are fleeting. To say that it is Maya or illusion is only true from the perspective of Purusha. Nothing to worry about.

All of your psychological profile is kept in the cosmic storage file to reappear again as a new person. Your name and number is only good for this life. You will have no memory of it when you reappear as someone new. In THAT sense there is no personal self. But, THAT person will be born with traits - karma.

zag somehow managed to put his fingers to the keyboard and type:

I'd like to decide to choose to will myself there already...

Man…

How many yous are there, and which you would like to decide to choose to will which to do what and why, exactly?

…but I am predestined to go through the motions.

Which you? The one that would like to will itself to already be somewhere it isn't, but cannot?

The only continuity your “individuality” has is that of being continually subcontinuous.

But what will you do with your chances, or since you have an aversion to the word,…

I have no aversion to the word though, to you, it may seem so since you are beneath continuity and, thus, the ability to consider meaning other than that which applies to your fundy assertions.

I am making a point about the inference “taking your chances” from the idea "'choice' of the person in question." Interesting that you should take it as an aversion to the word “chances.” How shallow and dogmatic can you be in understanding and expression!

The difference between “taking issue (with something)” and “taking your chances“: one is of consciousness and reason; both of which are entirely dependent on their causes just as anything else.

So, to me, your statement that “I will overlook it if I truly believe” you have no choice translates to “be and let be unconscious/ness.” And this you would posit as a demonstration of your understanding/wisdom and enlightenment? Or did you simply assume -- as a consequence of your own ignorance -- that I could not possibly consider such a notion?

I mean, zag, you really don't say anything. What you do do is repeat the sounds of the symbols that make up the words you love to sing. I mean, you're not even creative. Same ol' melody, same ol' rhythm...

zag: What makes you so sure? I mean, for some, it is untrammeled delight.

Sapius:Sure it could be, but that too is included, a strife towards the feeling of unhindered delight, for it needs to be maintained in this continuous flow of changes, through memory, which does the work for us.

zag: And so it is not necessarily a strife, but a continuity.

The persistence of ignorance is indeed bliss, for some -- and a continuity in the minds of those who are not ignorant.