All of the conditions that actually bring about a result, such as rain, seed, etc, are definitely the cause of the result. In that sense only are conditions the same as causes, i.e., when the conditions definitely contribute to a result.
Namdrol made a clear distinction between what is seen as a cause and a condition. You are ignoring this distinction when it is useful. Conditions do not carry the potential to bring about a result. This is what makes them different of causes. So don't equate them as if they were the same for the purpose of wining an argument.
Yes, except when they have already caused the result, in which case their potential has been realized.
This has no relevance for the debate.
I consider that it is a matter of definition that the substrate or cause of consciousness is "physical", and it is ultimately the physical world (which is the cause of consciousness), which is the physical body.
That is your biased consideration
. Don't mistake a fact for an assumption based on metaphysical predilections.
I agree that there are definitely immaterial realms, and there are no physical bodies in those realms, but the immaterial realms themselves have a cause, and that cause is physical. That's where the physical "body" is. The body is not in the immaterial realm.
This is just speculation. Neither science nor Buddhism defend this position. It's of no consequence to us that you make up your own theories that can't be proven or disproven. In this thread the preferred arguments should come from 1) Buddhadharma, 2) Philosophy and science 3) shared experience. Our own speculations matter little to others.
It's fine to divide things up into "mind" and "body". The problem comes when people imagine that each of these are inherently existent, and imagine that the mind is independent of the body, and unaffected by the body.
It doesn't matter what people imagine. People imagine all sorts of stuff. If we were to discuss them all we wouldn't finish this thread in our lifetime. It matters the Buddhist teachings about this subject and their coherent analysis. No teaching says that mind can't be influenced by physical phenomena. It's way more complex than that. But it seems to me that you are greatly unaware of what is a Buddhist teaching and what isn't.
It's important, Kevin, that you are made aware that this is a public forum in case you didn't notice
. I respect your ideas and you have every right to your own theories, even if you don't recognize their shortcomings (and that is lame, dude). However you must consider the interests of others and not everyone here is worried about your own version
of the Buddhadharma, the spin you
give to the teachings, your
interpretations of what is literal and what isn't and so on. I believe you may find them quite interesting, but not everyone would agree. If you want to debate your own ideas
about the teachings, open a thread for that purpose. I won't allow this one to be hijacked as it has been so far.
Rebirth and karma here may be discussed in common terms to us all, meaning sound logic, general epistemology, epistemology of science, Buddhist teachings, authority of the sages, things we can all relate to and agree upon. If you bring forth a metaphysical predilection based on naturalism, I'll point the flaws it may have. If you make a statement based on faith, I may point its frailty. You get the point, I'm sure. One may defend his ideas knowing that so far there are no positions which are unassailable. If that was the case, we would have a consensus already.
What is inadmissible is someone defending a position ad nauseum in spite of falling prey of all sorts of logical fallacies, self defeating arguments, incoherence, personal speculation you name it. I'm not to blame if you can't see this and I won't accept a parallel conversation about it. We are not to blame for your lack of knowledge.
Someone has to put this thread back on track. It might as well be me.
So Kevin, I find that at this point you are mostly being disruptive and the exchange of ideas you are maintaining with others is no longer being productive, I'm sorry to say. If you want to discuss your personal theories
, open a new thread, please. If you want to discuss rebirth, keep your personal theories out of it unless you can prove them. If not, I've told above how you can approach the subject in a meaningful way for all of us.