How it exists is quantum possibility, and how we perceive "it". "Nothing" could very well be a part of everything and apart from everything at the same time. The important question is the "how", then maybe the "why" for philosophical debate
Once could argue that the thoughts, then, do not matter either - since they will be forgotten as well.
Each of us a minuscule part in an infinitely complex web of cause and effect. The truth is, whether it sounds fair or dreamy or not, that for a large part we are NOT in control of ourselves. Our circumstances, genetic pre-dispositions (hormonal levels, fluctuations, etc), and the chain of thoughts that result from our circumstances, are largely not under out control. Every person is the "best" version of themselves at any given time. Anyone else, if hypothetically, was put in their place, under the same circumstances, same biological predispositions, would have the same thoughts and react in the same way. However irrational and senseless what most people do almost all the time is, it is rational to them at that point - a choice "rational" to them as an echo of their emotional history and present emotional state at the time. Ultimately all souls find their way through this web of cause and effect to sense and liberation. There is little true "choice" or "free will" in the matter - all our choices are emotionally charged, and as a result of our experiences. The retort "ive been through alot of shit and I dont act like some of the criminals whove gone through the same shit" does not truly stand - you did not go through the same shit, just what seemingly was a similar circumstance. Your experiences BEFORE that affect how you experienced that experience at that time and how much it impacted and altered you - your biological and karmic dispositions are not the same. Until one is liberated from ones compulsive thought stream and emotional fluctuations through enlightenment, there no free will - only cause and effect. The term 'free will' itself indicates that the maker of the choice is free - if one is bound by ones sense of identity, beliefs, experiences, thoughts, how can one be truly objectively, presently, free? Cause and effect is the "law" that governs existing phenomenon - including thoughts that "exist". There is an emptiness, a source from which all existing phenomenon came to exist - the space within which they DO exist - the unmanfisted. This unmanifested is behind everything that is manifested, and has no essential nature. For lack of better word, it is empty, although no word can describe it truly. It is not dual nor non-dual, it is not a form nor formless, it has no concept of time, of spaceousness, or lack of spaceousness. It is hence infinite in all its dimensions - again, it doesn't have dimensions either. It is simply an inconceivable, because the manifested, governed, are limited by their dimensions, while the source behind them is not - hence the manifested cannot understand it. Some may call this unmanifested, omnipresent, infinite, inconceivable conceptless 'god'. When ones consciousness is freed of all manifestation - ie., thought, then all that is left is the unmanifested. The consciousness takes on the property of this unmafisted, ungoverned, unlimited non-entity, and is 'liberated' from all things manifested, including the law of cause and effect that governs them. One's consciousness and experience of the universe is now truly 'free', unrestricted, unbound, ungoverned, ungovernable. The only thing now bound by cause and effect is the manifested, material body.
Cause and effect implies some sort of relationship to time; in the grand scheme of things, there is only existence. We cannot find cause and effect without looking for it; but we can see constant change otherwise. Anything that you ever "were", "are", and "will be", you are right now. I agree with you; much in the same way that our mathematics explain the way the physical world works around us, I think there's some mathematical expression that can encompass human emotion. We are, in essence, entirely predictable - but since we have the power to "think", we (as a general society) like to disregard such notions. If, by "same circumstances", you mean all things constant... then that is probable, but not predictable. There is no way for us to prove (or disprove for that matter) any such possibility, because we do not know how to control such an environment... I guess it all boils down to how you feel on the matter of thought-process and biological relationships between the body and the mind Is "rationality" a form of logical justification? "rational" is purely subjective, and its laws and rules only apply for one given situation. And of course, it represents our trains of thought... how deeply we want to think about something and "rationalize" it, is directly proportionate to the amount of knowledge we are willing to accept to prove that a "rational" choice does indeed exist... we are looking for an end, so that we may pave a path to it, rather than trusting uncertainty and discovering where we may head. Exactly, they're not the same - so why the necessity for a comparison? We wish to draw on experiences, but we don't know what to derive, so we look at what others have done. If X occurs, then you feel Y - but why not Z instead? Let's take a hypothetical situation into account here: person A and person B, 100% identical in every way, shape, and form, are in the exact same circumstance; person C is robbing their house (assume these two events are happening simultaneously), and in he walks on the wife of person A/B, sleeping in the bed. C decides to kill the wife; and persons A/B wake up to the sound of a screaming wife and blood everywhere. Quickly going for the gun under the pillow, A/B are left with a choice... a choice that would ultimately be infinitely calculated by quantum probability, and manifested into reality through "reaction" ... person A and person B now have a trillion thoughts going through their head in a matter of a split second, and all of the sudden, the "choice" is made. Person A thinks to himself: "I don't know how I can live with this motherfucker still alive for killing my wife, I'm going to murder him." Bam. He puts a bullet in C's face without thinking twice. Person B, on the other hand, says "I don't know how I can live with this motherfucker still alive for killing my wife... so I will find out." He does not kill C, rather, he forgives the man... he still calls the cops and has the man arrested though, but he does not press charges. The state does, however, and they find him guilty, and sentence him to death row. C dies anyways, regardless of B's "choice"... so what does that tell us about cause, effect, and perception? Yup, so in your earlier case of two people being 100% identical and present in the same circumstance; will they really react the same? If you "are", in absolute, everything you will ever be, wouldn't you then be free-willed as well? I'll respoond to this passage tomorrow, I think you bring up some great points... but it's 1 in the morning here, and for the sake of being able to hold an intelligent conversation, I think I'll postpone on replying for tonight
It doesn't matter nor will it ever matter. Our chief goal in all of existence isn't to question what's beyond the stars or even what they mean; the center of our existence is survival and how we can best fulfill that core need. If our survival were incumbent upon knowing the answer to your question I have not the slightest doubt we would know it. I find myself in deep and comfortable reflection only after my stomach is full, anything before that is canceled out by my single-minded desire to fill my gut.
Cause and effect has nothing to do with time. It is simply an extension of the law of equal and opposite reaction that governs all things in existence - all physical manifestations of energy, as well as more subtle manifestations such as thoughts that we cannot see as manifestations with equal and opposite reaction, but by the fact that they exist the law applies to them as well. If you meditate any amount and practice observing your thoughts, you will discover that it is not we who think - thoughts come and go as they will - we simply identify with them and believe that "we" are thinking, that it is active and that we have a choice in the matter. You say we have a choice to think differently when given a choice and that substantiates free will - these thoughts are not free in nature - they are bound by our experiences, knowledge, and previous thoughts. If the previous experiences and knowledge is that the world is a dark place, the thought will be an extension of it and see darkness even where there is apparent light that a person who does not chronically feel this way about the world can easily see. Our thoughts are bound by cause and effect, and you will find that it is not you who consciously thinks - thoughts come and go on their own accord
We already figured out how to fulfill that need thousands of years ago - survival requires food, water, shelter, and safety from predators. How difficult are those in the modern world? We as humans are in a position where we have transcended needing to give any significant attention to survival. The peak of our evolution is the possibility to transcend our identities and personal consciousnesses and lose our identities and feel the oneness of the superconsciousness.
The point isn't whether we've figured it our yo, it's the fact that the need is still there, the hunger is still there in always gnawing always aching. We can kill things in many ways but the how to of it, the technical part of it isn't as significant as the force that spurs it forward. Even in the "modern world" people are yet dying of hunger and thirst. I don't think it would be so easy to turn off impulses that allowed the human race to survive in inhospitable conditions. A lot went into making us who we are so I seriously doubt such powerful evolutionary forces could be significantly offset by our intellect. I beg to differ on this point brother because I don't think humans have transcended anything. An animal doesn't stop being an animal simply because one decides to put a sweater vest on it. IMHO the trappings of civilization that we've erected all around us are little more than window dressing. Since we're so good at surviving there's alot of us now and we're all trying to delude ourselves into thinking we're not animals, that we aren't apes. I have no idea what the peak of our evolution is, when evolution's basic and most important result is that it produces organisms that can survive. I think there could be a certain harmony in knowing less not more, and cleaving to the virtues that promote family and community. Everyday that we open are eyes is as significant as the big bang to me, because both were miraculous and unexpected. Being alive means everything, metaphorically and literally.
Were apes, yes , theres no denying theres something more in the form of consciousness and intellect that has allowed us to create the world that we have around us - that allows us to even question our own existence, something other animals can't do. The persistence of famine and poverty is due to other factors, not our technological ability to transcend the requirements of survival such that our attention need not be on it all the time. The desires still gnaw at us because while we have transcended the needs for survival, we haven't yet detached ourselves from the instinct for survival that is in all animals at all times. Hence it has become a concrete jungle, the survival instincts are running chaotic because they are not being applied to survival itself, since it was transcended, and to the concrete jungle where it isnt necessary. Which is why humans still behave like animals - they have no control over their own minds, their own instincts, that are now not necessary. In ancient India, there was a term called "Manushya" which meant "man". The term "Manushya" could only be applied to the persons who had full control over themselves, their minds, and their desires, all others were considered animals. We ARE animals, we HAVENT transcended the instincts, most of us. The need for this instinct is mostly dead now, and we CAN transcend the instinct itself.
Matter of opinion, I feel we are. All said and done, everything is relative, subjective, life has been lived in a billion times billion different permutations, who is to say what is right and wrong. All that is certain is bodily death. Every organism, without exception, dies and decomposes. What is the purpose of instinct? To keep one alive as long as possible. Apart from the silliness we inflict on ourselves in the form of medication, drugs, junk food, pollution, and lack of exercise, we unlike any other animal, are capable of, without much hassle at all, living to the maximum number of years possible for this organism. Usually one needs instinct to help find food, avoid danger, find shelter, reproduce, etc - we have intellectually found relatively stable and permanent systems to answer to these things without us worrying much about them at all. What use then, is instinct anymore? Its the instinct that brings rise to the feeling of insufficiency in order for an unintelligent organism to sufficiently feed itself - gives rise to the instinctive response of fear to avoid predatory danger. All our suffering stems from these two emotions - insufficiency and fear. We don't need fear, we can intellectually understand, without fear, how to keep ourselves safe. We don't need the feeling of insufficiency to hunt and forage for food - we have intellectually discovered how to create food and make it come to us - with minimal worry. What use is there then for instinct? If it is transcended, the feelings of insufficiency and fear that come with it and were necessary for survival before we developed as far as we have, will also vanish, and we can live the years liberated and free of fear and insufficiency - free of anger, hatred, worry, and angst.
I agree with you, but it rests in one how perceives "fear" as well... for me, I find that, generally, humans are terrified of not "knowing", so rather than seeking knowledge, they find answers that justify their cause. That, I feel, can either be ignorance or fear, depending solely on the person of course. Can you cause something, say, five years in the future, and experience the effect of your action right at this moment in time? They, in practical observation, must be separated by some sort of medium... I always thought of it to be "time", since there is delay between input and output, be it a second or ten years. Well put, "we" are observers rather than actuators... it is not within our function to create thought, but we like to think that we are responsible for some manifestation of "free-will". Could, then, "cause" and "effect" not be laws... but perceptions of occurrences in the universe? We can not TRULY see cause & effect, since it is not limited by time. I was trying to point out a case in which two people, identical in every way shape and form, would be subject to different, yet identical, outcomes. Person C dies in both situations, whether or not person A/B made the "choice" to kill C. This is "cause" and "effect" in a different reality; it still exists, but in a different quantum space... probabilities are varied, and therefore, the possibility for identical persons to experience different outcomes can exist. Person A "chooses" to kill C, while person B chooses to, say, observe the outcomes of his non-involvement, but in the end, C dies regardless. Could this be that B knew that, no matter if he "chose" one outcome over the other, C would die anyways? In that case, he knew his place in the Universe was not to be the "effect" of the cause; rather, he is an entity experiencing the reality of this "cause" and "effect", which exists as one in itself. So, in principle, I agree with you. I'm just curious as to how you arrive at your conclusions though; can the true nature of "cause" and "effect" be different from what we experience, know, and think? We are conditioned into identifying, believing, and defining certain things, in absolute, rather than relative. For example, if I were to want to believe that cause and effect were real, along with free-will and choice, then would it be feasible to assume that the "cause" would be the result of quantum probability; say, my desire to have an opinion on marijuana legalization. The effect, then, would be the manifestation of that thought into a way I can recognize it... is that not cause, effect, and free-will?
Who's to say indeed? I guess. Word. See this is the problem, we do need to worry about what we've become, because the things you dismissed as "silliness" are insidious cancers that has become worse the more we've ignored them. The world of comfort and ease that we've made comes at a tremendous price to everything else that lives. So then, we might not have to worry but someone does, someone always has to worry bro when one species so utterly dominates a planet. Yes, yes of what use is instinct when we can arbitrarily decide it's unimportant. I beg to differ, of course we need fear and all of the other insufficiencies we entered the modern world with. Simply because we've managed to build this society doesn't mean then have a right to define the world that it's built on. Need, desire, hunger, thirst, fear, and the rest have pushed us forward as a species, and it still nudges us. I don't see the world as you do because I accept it as it is, I don't believe there's anything to be transcended since in my mind, life itself is transcendent. Whether we continue as a species isn't as important as whether life continues in any form. The way our brains work is amazing, but in lieu of some divine revelation, we must understand we are just another organism like so many on this world. In the end all we're trying to do is find a way to live in a universe none of us expected to be born into. How one chooses to deal with that is entirely up to them, enjoy. To be free of fear, anger, hatred, worry, and angst to me is an anathema to the human existence. It's precisely those states of being that have led us to the point where we are now. The human life is characterized by struggle, enhanced by it, and defined by it. Indeed life would be so much simpler sometimes I think if I were personally free from all those emotional turmoil's of life. But if I were to give an honest rendering of the situation, I wouldn't be where I am without them, and doubt that I'd get very much further if they were not my constant companions. We all have to find a way to live, I just hope we're strong enough to accept life for what it is, a once in an eternity chance to behold awe.