Hello my Fellows in the Fractal,

I have, through my insight practice, noticed other types of causality. I wrote about them at the following link: http://www.personalpowermeditation.com/basic-intention-manifestation/#comment-13641

Below is a direct paste from that comment, so bear in mind it is a reply and some sentences will pertain to the man's question that preceded it.
Now, here are the things I would like to discuss with you.

Firstly, have you noticed any other types of causality? I would be fascinated to hear about them.

Secondly, let's assume the "habit causality" I talked about is a real thing that's taking place right now. This would mean that the current Stages of Insight in MCTB are a habit that has occurred, been taught (and spread via "habit causality" at a distance, e.g, to St. John of the Cross and other practitioners). That raises an interesting possibility. I see no reason why we cannot create a new habit of becoming enlightened without suffering the Dark Night and other unpleasantness that occurs and repeats over and over in practitioners of insight. Imagine that -- enlightenment without all that suffering.

My question is: If you could think of a Path of Insight where you could choose your own stages, ending in full enlightenment, what would those stages be? What levels of the computer game would you like to experience before completing the game?

Thanks,

Edd

Hi Edd,

Thanks for your post, it has gotten me out of lurking mode and posting something.

Recently, I've been investigating Bayesan causality graphs. Over the past 30 years, people in computer science have come up with a way to quantify causality. Judah Pearl at UCLA has done the most work in this area and has a book which you can read online here:

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-99/book-toc.html

Pearl defines a causal structure as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) with the nodes in the graph being variables and the links being causal influence. A causal model is a pair consisting of the DAG and a set of parameters. The parameters assign a function from a subset of the variable, the parents or causes, and a set of random disturbances to the effect variables. A probability distribution is assigned to the random distrurbances.

In Chapter 2, Pearl describes some algorithms for recovering the DAG from observed data. These algorithms are used in machine intelligence applications, for example assessing the results of medical tests, or, for causal networks, planning a medical test. A variable X may have causal influence on another variable Y if a third variable Z is involved. If X and Y are dependent (in the probabilistic sense), X and Z are independent too, but Z and Y are dependent then X is a probable cause of Y. Nailing down whether X is an actual cause of Y is a bit more complicated but in principle possible. Note that causality in the sense that Pearl describes it requires a temporal ordering but also a statistical aspect. The statistical aspect expects a complete causal explanation to screen off the various effects by making them conditionally independent, i.e. they only depend on the causes and nothing further.

Now, you might ask: what does all this have to do with dharma? Well, I am not yet sure. One thing I have been thinking about is the relationship between epistic and ontological knowledge and intention. Normal Bayesian graphical networks are strictly epistic. They are formed by making observations and updating probabilities based on the observations. Causal Bayesian networks are ontological, they say something about how the world works, i.e. about a physical mechanism (the function from the parents to the children variables in the above causal model). So on the one hand we have knowledge, on the other we have mechanism. In the middle, stands intention, and intention is actually the key to practice, at least according to the teachers I've had the opportunity to receive teachings from. So how does intention fit into this? Most Bayesian causality models assume that if you set a variable to a value, you "mutilate" the graph by removing other conflicting links and set the probability of the cause to effect link to 1. How about if I have an intention to set the variable to a value? I guess that would introduce another causal variable, in addition to the physical causes. I might for some reason not be able to act on the intention (maybe my child has the flu that day and I can't go into work, etc.). So maybe the intention variable is just epistic, it changes the probability on the epistic Bayesian DAG to make some event more or less probable? But intention is what actually generates karma in dharma practice, so that seems to be more than just knowing something or changing the probability that if A happens B is more likely to happen, and you know that. There seems to be this tension between knowing and acting that intention is right on the cusp of, and which I haven't quite yet figured out. This tension has continually tripped me up when going deep during retreats, and I still am not exactly sure why or how to resolve it.

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly where all this going right now but it sure is interesting. There's a couple other formal approaches to causality, one involving decisions (basically anything you can make a decision about can be a cause) which might be closer to intention but I have the impression it isn't as widely used as Pearl's. Fortunately, this stuff has loads of applications to my day job, so I get to spend a lot of time at work studying it.

Hi svmonk,

Not sure I can follow this, but do wonder about the word "epistic" -- can't find it in dictionaries. Short-hand for "epistemic" or "epistemological"?

Also, the link to Chaper 7 of Pearl's book dead-ends at a 404 err. (The others are all downloadable, albeit from postscript, such that neither the .ps nor derivative .pdf files can be searched, e.g. for "epistic").

Oh well...

re: Edd(2/23/15 3:32 PM)
"… I say there are other types of causality. Here are just two to get you started:…"

Very interesting – the other types. This, and svmonk's summary of Pearl's theory, reminds me of…

I've read (mainly in Maha-Thera Nyanaponika's "Abhidhamma Studies – Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time") that this is the main theme of the last canonical text of the Abhidhamma, the 'Patthāna' – the largest (4 volumes) and not yet completely translated-into-English body of text in that series.

(Volumes I and II are available in English in the PTS series: 'Conditional_Relations_I -- Patthana Vol I'; 1969 526pp, and 'Conditional_Relations_II -- Patthana Vol II'; 1981 597pp -- it's all available, including all 4 volumes in Pali, at http://patthana.net/)

Nyanaponika's fascinating thesis is, briefly, that
1) the first book, the Dhammasangani, outlined the spatial or vertical deconstruction of experience (dhamma-s) into distinguishable processes (aka 'states', ca.82 of them) of mind called 'citta-s', and their component qualities, called 'cetasika-s' (numbering about 52), different combinations and intensities of which make up, make it possible to distinguish the citta-s; and
2) the last book, the Patthāna, details, in the temporal or horizontal dimension, the 24 (exemplary, not exhaustive) types of conditioning, of causality, which can be seen in how any given citta is conditioned by a previous (not necessarily the immediately preceding) citta, and conditions succeeding (not only the next) citta-s. That is, take any given citta ("sensation" may be a good synonym in the DhO context) and observe the various ways that kamma (karma), or other factors, can tweek the intensity of this or that cestasika, add or substract one or more cetasika-s, etc., to result in the next (or some succeeding) resulting citta.

(People here might not agree with my opinion that the abhidhammikers (authors of the Abhidhamma) were in fact the mind-scientists and pragmatists of their time. They noted sensations (citta), their structure (cetasika) and flow, figuring-out which were useful (kusala), and explored how to practice them more effectively.)

So, for anyone REALLY interested, after digesting Judea Pearl's 'CAUSALITY', one might tackle the ~2000 page 'Patthāna' (which is probably considerably less lengthy in the original Pali, if one is REALLY, REALLY motivated).

And, vsmonk, let me get this straight -- you get paid for doing abhidhamma? Sounds a step-up from the begging-bowl alms-round routine.

Right. And, now, can anyone describe a type of causality without using a million big words that require a maths degree to understand? And hopefully a short, one-paragraph example of such causality in action in everyday life?

I appreciate you both writing back, but this was unintelligible to me. The impression I got is that you are both massively entrenched in the "linear causality" of the left brain I described at the start of my post -- and the left brain loooooooves big words.



I recommend you consider the problem after removing the concept of time. So, assume time doesn't exist, then work through it in that context -- taking all the consequences to their ultimate conclusion.

Hi Chris,

I don't get paid to do Abhidharma, I get paid to do Bayesian causal networks.

Thanx for the correction on epistic v.s. epistemological.

As I understand it, there is always an implicit temporal ordering in any causal sequence. And a locality constraint, so a spacial ordering as well (except in quantum mechanics, but that's another story). Actually, there's some work out there in arxiv.org from physics that looks at the other way around, deriving space and time from causality.

But sorry for geeking out. Yes, you shouldn't need a PhD in Math or Buddhist studies to understand causality.

To return to your statement above, if time doesn't exist, then neither do cause and effect, right? Isn't that what emptiness is all about ("no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness, no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind, no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or dharmas")? The problem comes after that, when the world of form is back and you need to deal with cause and effect, and intention. It's there that I always get stuck.

re: Edd (2/23/15 5:32 PM)
"Firstly, have you noticed any other types of causality? I would be fascinated to hear about them…
Secondly, let's assume the "habit causality" I talked about is a real thing that's taking place right now. This would mean that the current Stages of Insight in MCTB are a habit …"

re: Edd (2/24/15 5:41 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"Right. And, now, can anyone describe a type of causality without using a million big words that require a maths degree to understand? …

"I appreciate you both [the other being svmonk] writing back, but this was unintelligible to me. The impression I got is that you are both massively entrenched in the "linear causality" of the left brain I described at the start of my post -- and the left brain loooooooves big words."

Your thread has evoked interesting perspectives.

"Causality" obviously "belongs" to science (starting with Aristotle), and so brings out the big guns (aka "big words") of mathematics, science, etc. I would suggest what you're proposing might have to do more with what's denoted by the term "conditionality". That would fit better the "habit causality" example, as meditative cultivation or development (bhavanga) is more a form of conditioning, or altering conditioning.

"I recommend you consider the problem after removing the concept of time."

For the sake of example, the 24 or so types of conditional relationships among mental states / processes, as described by the Buddhist 'paccaya' does include relationships that are not temporally linear. Perhaps going back to the Buddha's purported basic definition (paraphrased) : "Where this is, that also is; where this is not, that also is not." This, at least in my memory of the phrasing, does not seem to overtly implicate time.

Not that it's definitive, or "true", or that anyone needs to study or understand and accept it, but here follows an enumeration and explanation of the traditional (Theravada) Buddhist types of conditioning, just to show one can find there some notions of conditionality that are not temporally linear:

(from Buddhist Dictionary -- Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines by NYANATILOKA MAHATHERA [this dictionary can be downloaded via a link from Leigh Brasington's website – but runs only in Windows OS])

paccaya:
'condition', is something on which something else, the so-called 'conditioned thing', is dependent, and without which the latter cannot be. Manifold are the ways in which one thing, or one occurrence, may be the condition for some other thing, or occurrence. In the Patthāna, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, these 24 modes of conditionality are enumerated and explained, and then applied to all conceivable mental and physical phenomena and occurrences, and thus their conditioned nature is demonstrated.

The 24 modes of conditionality are:
1. Root condition : hetu paccaya
2. Object " : ārammana"
3. Predominance " : adhipati"
4. Priority " : anantara"
5. Contiguity " : samanantara"
6. Co-nascence " : sahajāta"
7. Mutuality " : aññamañña"
8. Support " : nissaya"
9. Decisive Support " : upanissaya"
10. Pre-nascene " : purejāta"
11. Post-nascene " : pacchājāta"
12. Repitition " : āsevana"
13. Karma " : kamma"
14. Karma-result " : vipāka"
15. Nutriment " : āhāra"
16. Faculty " : indriya"
17. Jhāna " : jhāna"
18. Path " :magga "
19. Associaton " : sampayutta"
20. Dissociation " : vippayutta"
21. Presence " : atthi"
22. Absence " : natthi"
23. Disappearance " : vigata"
24. Non-disappearance " : avigata"

(1) Root-condition (hetu-paccaya) is that condition that resembles the root of a tree. Just as a tree rests on its root, and remains alive only as long as its root is not destroyed, similarly all karmically wholesome and unwholesome mental states are entirely dependent on the simultaneity and presence of their respective roots, i.e, of greed (lobha), hate (dosa), delusion (moha), or greedlessness (alobha), hatelessness (adosa), undeludedness (amoha)...

(2) Object-condition (ārammana-paccaya) is called something which, as object, forms the condition for consciousness and mental phenomena. Thus, the physical object of sight consisting in colour and light ('light-wave'), is the necessary condition and the sine qua non for the arising of eye-consciousness (cakkhu-viññāna), etc.; sound ('sound wave') for ear-consciousness (sotā-viññāna), etc.; further, any object arising in the mind is the condition for mind-consciousness (mano-viññāna). The mind-object may be anything whatever, corporeal or mental, past, present or future, real or imaginary.

(3) Predominance-condition (adhipati-paccaya) is the term for 4 things, on the preponderance and predominance of which are dependent the mental phenomena associated with them, namely: concentrated intention (chanda, q.v.), energy (viriya, q.v.), consciousness (citta)
and investigation (vīmamsā). In one and the same state of consciousness, however, only one of these 4 phenomena can be predominant at a time. "Whenever such phenomena as consciousness and mental concomitants are arising by giving preponderance to one of these 4 things, then this phenomenon is for the other phenomena a condition by way of predominance"

(4-5) Proximity and contiguity (or immediacy)-condition (anantara and samanantara-paccaya) - both being identical - refer to any state of consciousness and mental phenomena associated with them, which are the conditions for the immediately following stage in the process of consciousness. For example, in the visual process, eye-consciousness is for the immediately following mindelement - performing the function of receiving the visible object - a condition by way of contiguity; and so is this mind-element for the next following mind-consciousness element, performing the function of investigating the object, etc.

(6) Co-nascence condjtion (sahajāta-paccaya), i.e. condition by way of simultaneous arising, is a phenomenon that for another one forms, a condition in such a way that, simultaneously with its arising, also the other thing must arise. Thus, for instance, in one and the same moment each of the 4 mental groups (feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) is for the 3 other groups a condition by way of co-nascence or co-arising; or again each of the 4 physical elements (solid, liquid, heat, motion) is such a condition for the other 3 elements. Only at the moment of conception in the mother's womb does corporeality (physical base of mind) serve for the 4 mental groups as a condition by way of conascence.

(7) Condition by way of mutuality (aññāmañña-paccaya). All the just mentioned associated and co-nascent mental phenomena, as well as the 4 physical elements, are, of course, at the same time also conditioned by way of mutuality, "just like three sticks propped up one by another." The 4 mental groups are one for another a condition by way of mutuality. So also are the 4 elements, and also mentality and corporeality at the moment of conception.

(8) Support-condition (nissaya-paccaya). This condition refers either to a pre-nascent (s. 10) or co-nascent (s. 6) phenomenon which is aiding other phenomena in the manner of a foundation or base, just as the trees have the earth as their foundation, or as the oil-painting rests on the canvas. In this way, the 5 sense-organs and the physical base of the mind are for the corresponding 6 kinds of consciousness a prenascent, i.e. previously arisen, condition by way of support. Further all co-nascent (s. 6) phenomena are mutually (s. 7) conditioned by each other by way of support.

(9) Decisive-support (or inducement) condition (upanissaya-paccaya) is threefold, namely (a) by way of object  (ārammanūpanissaya-paccaya), (b) by way of proximity (anantarūpanissaya), (c) natural decisive support (pakatupanissaya). These conditions act as strong inducement or cogent reason.
(a) Anything past, present or future, corporeal or mental, real or imaginary, may, as object of our thinking, become a decisive support, or strong inducement, to moral, immoral or karmically neutral states of mind. Evil things, by wrong thinking about them, become an inducement to immoral life; by right thinking, an inducement to moral life. But good things may be an inducement not only to similarly good things, but also to bad things, such as self-conceit, vanity, envy, etc.
(b) is identical with proximity condition (No. 4).
(c) Faith, virtue, etc., produced in one's own mind, or the influence of climate, food, etc., on one's body and mind, may act as natural and decisive support-conditions. Faith may be a direct and natural inducement to charity, virtue to mental training, etc.; greed to theft, hate to murder; unsuitable food and climate to ill-health; friends to spiritual progress or deterioration.

(10) Pre-nascence-condition (purejāta-paccaya) refers to something previously arisen, which forms a base for something arising later on. For example, the 5 physical sense-organs and the physical base of mind, having already arisen at the time of birth, form the condition for the consciousness arising later, and for the mental phenomena associated therewith.

(11) Post-nascence-condition (pacchā-jāta-paccaya) refers to consciousness and the phenomena therewith associated, because they are - just as is the feeling of hunger- a necessary condition for the preservation of this already arisen body.

(12) Repetition-condition (āsevana-paccaya) refers to the karmical consciousness, in which each time the preceding impulsive moments (javana-citta, q.v.) are for all the succeeding ones a condition by way of repetition and frequency, just as in learning by heart, through constant repetition, the later recitation becomes gradually easier and easier.

(13) Karma-condition (kamma-paccaya). The pre-natal karma (i.e karma-volitions, kamma-cetanā, in a previous birth) is the generating condition (cause) of the 5 sense-organs, the fivefold sense-consciousness, and the other
karma-produced mental and corporeal phenomena in a later birth. - Karmical volition is also a condition by way of karma for the co-nascent mental phenomena associated therewith, but these phenomena are in no way karma-results.

(14) Karma-result-condition (vipāka-paccaya). The karma-resultant 5 kinds of sense-consciousness are a condition by way of karma-result for the co-nascent mental and corporeal phenomena.

(15) Nutriment-condition (āhāra-paccaya). For the 4 nutriments, s. āhāra.

(16) Faculty-condition (indriya-paccaya). This condition applies to 20 faculties (indriya,  q.v.), leaving out No. 7 and 8 from the 22 faculties. Of these 20 faculties, the 5 physical sense-organs (1 - 5), in their capacity as faculties, form a condition only for uncorporeal phenomena (eye-consciousness etc.); physical vitality (6) and all the remaining faculties, for the co-nascent mental and corporeal phenomena.

(17) Jhāna-condition (jhāna-paccaya) is a name for the 7 so-called jhāna-factors, as these form a condition to the co-nascent mental and corporeal phenomena, to wit:
(1) thought-conception (vitakka),
(2) discursive thinking (vicāra),
(3) interest (pīti),
(4) joy (sukha),
(5) sadness (domanassa),
(6)indifference (upekkhā),
(7)concentration (samādhi).

(18) Path-condition (magga-paccaya)  refers to the 12 path-factors, as these are for the karmically wholesome and unwholesome mental phenomena associated with them, a way of escape from this or that mental constitution, namely: (1) knowledge (paññā = sammāditthi, right understanding), (2) (right or wrong) thought-conception (vitakka), (3) right speech (sammā-vācā),  (4) right bodily action (sammā-kammanta),  (5) right livelihood (sammā-ājīva), (6) (right or wrong) energy (viriya), (7) (right or wrong) mindfulness (sati), (8) (right or wrong) concentration (samādhi), (9) wrong views (micchāditthi), (10) wrong speech (micchā-vācā), (11) wrong bodily action (micchā-kammanta), (12) wrong livelihood (micchā-ājīva).

(19) Association-condition (sampayutta-paccaya) refers to the co-nascent (s. 6) and mutually (s. 7) conditioned 4 mental groups (khandha), "as they aid each other by their being associated, by having a common physical base, a common object, and by their arising and disappearing simultaneously"

(20) Dissociation-condition (vippayutta-paccaya) refers to such phenomena as aid other phenomena by not baving the same physical base (eye, etc.) and objects. Thus corporeal phenomena are for mental phenomena, and conversely, a condition by way of dissociation, whether co-nascent or not.

(2l) Presence-condition (atthi-paccaya) refers to a phenomenon - being pre-nascent or co-nascent - which through its presence is a condition for other phenomena. This condition applies to the conditions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11.

(22) Absence-condition (natthi-paccaya) refers to consciousness, etc., which has just passed, and which thus forms the necessary condition for the immediately following stage of consciousness by giving it an opportunity to arise. Cf. No. 4.

(23) Disappearance-condition (vigata-paccaya) is identical with No. 22.

(24) Non-disappearance-condition (avigata-paccaya) is identical with No. 21.

These 24 conditions should be known thoroughly for a detailed understanding of that famous formula of the dependent origination (paticcasamuppāda, q.v.).

re: svmonk(2/23/15 10:07 PM as a reply to Edd.)

"…How about if I have an intention to set the variable to a value? I guess that would introduce another causal variable, in addition to the physical causes. I might for somereason not be able to act on the intention (maybe my child has the flu that day and I can't go into work, etc.). So maybe the intention variable is just epistic, it changes the probability on the epistic Bayesian DAG to make some event more or less probable? But intention is what actually generates karma in dharma practice, so that seems to be more than just knowing something or changing the probability that if A happens B is more likely to happen, and you know that. There seems to be this tension between knowing and acting that intention is right on the cusp of, and which I haven't quite yet figured out. This tension has continually tripped me up when going deep during retreats, and I still am not exactly sure why or how to resolve it."

Here's where your analysis gets interesting. (To a non-mathematician having only a rough idea from scaning thru some of Pearl's writing, your summary, and wikipedia on 'Bayesian network'.) It seems to me that the term "intention" here breaks with the mathematical / scientific model. That is to say, in enters the realm of the phenomenological (which, if Evan Thompson is correct, may, someday, fill-in the gap between science and lived experience).

'Intention' – does it have a rigorous meaning? The only attempt at such I've encountered is Brentano's notion of 'Intentionality', which, btw, formed a cornerstone in Husserl's phenomenology. In my memory, Brentano's meaning was something like that the mind 'in-tends' (Latin stretches into) meaning that makes sense of sensory input. Cetana (volition), as defined below, of would seem in the same ballpark as Brentano's, as it's one of the "seven mental factors (cetasika, q.v.) inseparably bound up with all consciousness", that is, it's present even when not specifically a mental act of 'will'.

As you've entered the realm of dhamma here, and considering the words 'intention' and 'volition', e.g. in the Buddha's (purported) words (see below in the definition of cetana), the suspicion arises that the Pali meanings (or at least the Buddha's usage) might have more strength than the meaning you mention (couldn't act on it due to child's flu). That is, it means something stronger than "I have the thought to do…" in the colloquial sense of planning. The Anguttara quatation would imply just having the thought/will is the (mental) action.

The 'epistic' (epistemic or epistomological) vs 'ontological' appears right-on, as several modern commentators and scholars hold that Buddha dhamma is decidedly epistemological rather than ontological – focus on the knowing what appears in experience rather than on what out there may be underlying substantiality. And that matches up with the hypothesis (shared by Evan Thompson, Dan Lusthaus, and myself) that there's value ininvestigating the similarities between Buddha dhamma and phenomenology.

But clearly I don't have the answers here, but just intend to help scope out the broader context for investigation.

Below are vanilla Therevadan definitions (BPS Dictionary) of 'intention' and 'volition':

intention = c.f. chanda

chanda
intention, desire, will.
1. As an ethically neutral psychological term, in the sense of 'intention', it is one of those general mental factors (cetasika, q.v. Tab. II) taught in the Abhidhamma, the moral quality of which is determined by the character of the volition (cetanā, q.v.) associated therewith. The Com. explains it as 'a wish to do' (kattu-kamyatā-chanda). If intensified, it acts also as a 'predominance condition' (s. paccaya 3).
2. As an evil quality it has the meaning of 'desire', and is frequently coupled with terms for 'sensuality', 'greed', etc., for instance: kāma-cchanda, 'sensuous desire', one of the 5 hindrances (s. nīvarana);chanda-rāga, 'lustful desire' (s. kāma). It is one of the 4 wrong paths (s. agati).
3. As a good quality it is a righteous will or zeal (dhamma-chanda) and occurs, e.g. in the formula of the 4 right efforts (s.  padhāna): "The monk rouses his will (chandam janeti)...." If intensified, it is one of the 4 roads to power (s. iddhipāda).

cetanā
'volition', will, is one of the seven mental factors (cetasika, q.v.) inseparably bound up with all consciousness, namely sensorial or mental impression (phassa), feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), volition (cetanā), concentration (samādhi), vitality (jīvita), advertence (manasikāra). Cf. Tab. II, III.
 
With regard to karmical volition (i.e. wholesome or unwholesome karma) it is said in A. VI, 13: "Volition is action (karma), thus I say, o monks; for as soon as volition arises, one does the action, be it by body, speech or mind." For details, s. paticca-samuppāda (10), karma. [That's spelled out in my previous post.]

I understand that. But I used the word causality as in "pertaining to cause and effect", rather than the field of study. I did provide examples of alternative causality models I had come up with, e.g. "habit causality" and "similarity causality", which I had hoped would make it clear that I was looking for simply-stated rules and relationships rather than huge dissertations which, from a glance, seemed entirely to pertain to what people already think of as causality, i.e. "linear causality" as outlined at the start of the post.

God, look at all that text in correction. You guys are even making ME wordy!

Really, though, I think I'm onto something worth looking at NOT through the well-worn eyes of academia. I have written up my ideas into a more full article: http://www.personalpowermeditation.com/psychology-philosophy-non-dualism/

Thanks a lot for the definitions of "conditionality", though. I will look into them fully now. Maybe I'll learn something. Did the Buddha himself come up with those, do you know?

Thanks,

Edd

svmonk, here's another take --  "Pop Bayesianism: cruder than I thought?"

http://meaningness.com/metablog/bayesianism-updating

Thank you for the link  svmonk.
I am currently studying some probability and will add this book to the list.

The epilogue to the book is an interesting read (no math!) for those who want a brief history of casuality in 'western' philiosophy and science. 
Here is the link: http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/causality2-epilogue.pdf


Metta,
V

Chris,

Pop Bayesianism is kind of like New Age quantum mechanics (remember "The Tao of Physics"?). There's lots of evidence that people tend to ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Conservatives ignoring the overwhelming evidence in favor of climate change caused by carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere is one example, liberals ignoring the evidence that vaccines actually work and don't cause autism despite one discredited study to the contrary is another. Pop Bayesianism wraps some misapplied math around what should be a corrective for the mind to  want to live in an echo chamber. I suppose the Buddha's admonition to not hold to any fixed views is just another way to state it.