cause and effect

Cause and Effect Clue Archive

1. What are Seth's specific claims about this concept? How many times was it mentioned, in which books, and did the wording change over time?

Seth pointed out that humanity regards the phenomena it observes with its own eyes as cause and effect, and on that basis defines them as natural laws of the universe; but these so-called laws are not actually laws, and they vary with one's position in the universe and with the characteristics of the observer himself [unknown-reality-2 §731]. For example, the laws perceived by a tree differ from those perceived by a human; if a tree were to write the laws of the universe, humans would find them utterly alien [unknown-reality-2 §731].

Seth also criticized the use of the word "result" (effect), arguing that it automatically implies the assumption of causation—namely, that a cause precedes its effect—which is an example of the inherent distortion of verbal thought, since language always suggests a single linear description [unknown-reality-2 §731].

Regarding "how many times it was mentioned, and in which books": the two direct discussions visible in the material are both contained within the editorial note to Session 731 of "Unknown" Reality Vol 2—one quoted from Session 18 (the 1964 period), and the other quoted from Session 521 (Chapter 4 of Seth Speaks) [unknown-reality-2 §731]. No substantive discussion of this concept appears in the remaining bibliographic material provided.

Regarding "whether the wording changed over time": the material presents only two quotations. It can be observed that the 1964 formulation emphasizes "the human decision to regard causation as non-law," while the later Session 521 formulation emphasizes "the reinforcement of linearity in causation by language," but the material does not provide sufficient temporal跨度 to confirm a systematic change [unknown-reality-2 §731].

2. What mechanism does he provide?

Seth points out that the usual understanding of causation—namely, that every effect has a cause that temporally precedes it—is a distortion, not an absolute law of the universe [esp-power §9, esp-power §5]. The mechanisms he provides include: time is in its essence nonlinear, no true division of "past, present, future" exists, and causation is merely a post-hoc explanation humans impose after perceiving events in temporal sequence [esp-power §9, esp-power §5]. The cause of an event does not truly precede the effect; rather, the "cause" is identified only after the event has occurred, and the specific details that appear to have caused the event can be altered at any moment [esp-power §9]. Precognition is direct evidence of this mechanism—if causation were absolute, foreseeing the future would be completely impossible [esp-power §5]. Furthermore, the concept of causation originates from the limitations of language and thought; for instance, the word "result" automatically implies a single-line depiction of cause preceding effect, which is a distortion of reality [unknown-reality-2 §731]. Seth also proposes that thoughts themselves possess a precise electromagnetic identity, and their effects are activated by their own electromagnetic characteristics; the body operates within specific electromagnetic patterns and is influenced by them, thereby altering cellular structure—this too is a nonlinear mechanism [dreams-projections §3].

3. Are there observable inferences or explicit predictions (including time, quantity, conditions)?

• The material explicitly states: if causation were an absolute law, then continuity would also have to be an absolute law, and any evidence of clairvoyance or precognition would be completely impossible; but precognitive phenomena do exist, which proves that the law of causation is not absolute [early-sessions-2 §44].

• In one specific precognitive case, an accident was seen clairvoyantly two days before it occurred, constituting an observable precognitive fact [esp-power §9].

• The material gives a specific temporal prediction: a certain woman would experience a severe crisis between that evening and 2 a.m., and her brain tissue would deteriorate rapidly [early-sessions-2 §44].

• The material also gives a general predictive condition: every organism, through its inner senses, possesses subconscious knowledge of personal disasters, death, and similar events; the personality itself decides in advance what constitutes a disaster; the individual will always receive a warning before the disaster, enabling the organism to prepare in advance [early-sessions-2 §44].

• Regarding the "day of death," the material states that it is known, but this knowledge is not given to the ego consciousness; rather, it is held subconsciously by the inner senses [early-sessions-2 §44].

• In the case of the precognitive accident, if Fred (the precognitive individual) had warned John or Mary in advance, and they had acted accordingly, they could in theory have refused to allow the surface cause to occur, thereby altering the surface effect [esp-power §9].

• This reasoning is consistent with the argument that "the cause only appears to be the cause after the event": things are not necessarily fated, and specific events can be altered at any point [esp-power §9].

4. Where did he say the science of his time was wrong, and in what direction should it look?

Science's error regarding causation at the time lay in treating "causation" as a universal natural law of the universe, when in fact such a law is merely a limited projection of human perception. In listing so-called natural laws, humans are in reality treating what they take to be cause and effect as cosmic laws; but these laws are not true laws—they vary not only with one's position in the universe but also with what one is [unknown-reality-2 §731]. The very concept of causation is itself a distortion: the word "result" automatically implies causation—cause preceding effect—which embodies a one-way linear segmentation imposed upon language and thought, for language itself always suggests a single line [unknown-reality-2 §731]. This linear causal framework can "work" only within a limited scope; it appears plausible but will suddenly collapse. For example, when scientists observe outward from the planetary perspective with physical instruments, they conclude they are "looking into the past"; but if this framework were valid, they should also be able to "look into the future" from the same framework—yet they cannot do so [early-sessions-6 §249]. The deeper reason is that time does not exist in the manner of past, present, and future; you cannot stand in a fixed "now" and observe the past or the future—they are one, and you are already within the "spacious present" [early-sessions-6 §249]. Therefore, science should not be fixated on finding a "source" for energy, because energy has no source in the sense you are familiar with [early-sessions-2 §50]; scientists will ultimately need to accept that consciousness precedes matter, and that consciousness evolves its own forms out of itself [early-sessions-2 §50]. The birth of the physical universe is merely the outward manifestation of a mental reality that existed long beforehand—when scientists unravel the physical reality behind the birth of the known universe, they will discover only that it is the outward expression of a living mental reality that already existed [early-sessions-2 §50].

5. What experiments or exercises did he suggest? What did Jane and Rob actually do and observe at the time?

Exercises suggested by Seth

• Seth described the operation of the first inner sense, though not as a rigorous experiment but as a way of knowing the inner senses: "It involves instantaneous cognition through what I can only describe as 'inner vibrational contact'... This sense would enable the individual to feel the basic sensations a tree feels, and his consciousness would expand to include the experience of being a tree" [dreams-projections §2].
• Seth suggested practicing expanded perception through imagination: he told Jane and Rob to "imagine the line-like structure running through all things," and to "imagine these lines as alive" [dreams-projections §1].
• Seth also noted that such practice requires a precondition of inner focus: "Whether you are aware of it or not, subconscious focus must always be achieved first... In those occasions where results were obtained, your thoughts had been focused in these directions for a relatively long time, and your psychic energy had been so focused" [early-sessions-3 §124].

Experiments Jane and Rob actually conducted

• Around Sessions 22 and 23, Rob conducted a simple active experiment based on information from the first inner sense: he "looked at various objects in the living room, such as a vase, a picture on the wall, a plant, and so forth, and tried to let his mind's vision go around these objects so as to clearly delineate their backs." Then, standing by the window looking toward the Walnut Street Bridge, he "imagined himself walking across the bridge, feeling the wooden planks underfoot... feeling himself pass the signal light at the far end of the bridge and continuing along the street," and finally "tried to reach out with his hands to encompass and feel the sensations of the houses and trees on both sides—as if perceiving them with inner touch" [dreams-projections §2].
• While doing housework alone in the kitchen, Jane actively asked inwardly whether Seth would respond to a letter she had received, and immediately experienced a clear inner answer "with rich humor": "'Are you lovers of punishment?'... I gently put down the dish I was washing. Was it Seth, or was Jane playing at being Seth? How could I tell? I said to myself: 'I'm wondering how the book is selling.'" [dreams-projections §2].
• On a non-spontaneous occasion (Session 124), Jane, Rob, and the visitor Bill Macdonnel attempted various small-scale ESP experiments, "trying for physical effects without success," after which Jane decided to summon Seth; they turned off all the lights and waited in the dark, and Jane spoke in a somewhat heavier voice and rose to move about slowly [early-sessions-3 §124].
• Jane and Rob also conducted experiments with a Ouija board, which was their initial means of contact with Seth: Rob suggested Jane attempt experiments in ESP and consciousness expansion, after which "the experiments were astonishingly successful, and through the Ouija board led us to our first contact with Seth" [dreams-projections §1]; they used the Ouija board four times before Seth truly announced himself, and by the eighth use Jane began speaking for Seth [dreams-projections §1].

What Jane and Rob actually observed

• After Rob's first inner sense exercise, a clear and vivid visual image appeared in a spontaneous state: he "saw" the bedroom where his brother Dick had died in a previous life in England, and immediately drew a sketch; in the subsequent Session 21, Seth described the rest of the room that Rob had not seen and provided further details of Dick's English life [dreams-projections §2].
• During Jane's kitchen experience of the inner answer, she felt a "lively, joyful vitality, not my own, yet close and present... I almost immediately went into a trance state" [dreams-projections §2].
• In the darkroom experiment of Session 124, Seth said, "If any effects are to occur, they will appear within three minutes," but Jane, Rob, and Bill failed to observe clear physical effects: Rob saw no aura around Jane; Bill "initially thought he might have seen one, but then negated the impression as too fleeting and vague"; Jane's subsequent reaction was that "she was not as dissociated as usual... she felt 'odd' because, while conveying, she found herself rising and pacing again, having just grown accustomed to speaking while seated" [early-sessions-3 §124].

6. What supplements or contradictions do other concepts in the corpus offer in relation to this concept?

• Causation is regarded as an erroneous and obsolete concept; it is merely the logical consequence of the theory of time as continuity. If time (as humans conceive it) does not exist, then the theory of causation does not hold [early-sessions-2 §54].
• All consciousness exists within the "spacious present," which is spontaneous and enduring; therefore, the apparent contradiction between entities having existed before planetary formation and the continuous formation of new entities resolves itself within the spacious present and does not constitute a genuine contradiction [early-sessions-2 §54].
• Intuition is not bound by so-called logical laws or causation, nor does it regard time as known; it is therefore not limited by continuity, nor by sequential communication through words or thoughts [early-sessions-2 §44].
• Causation has only limited application at the physical level; if it were an absolute law, then continuity would also have to be absolute, and all evidence of clairvoyance or precognition would be utterly impossible. But clairvoyance does exist—which shows that in fundamental reality there is no true causation, only apparent causation, and no past, present, or future [early-sessions-2 §44].
• The illusion of successive moments, along with the resulting concept of causation, is a product of outer-sense observation. It has its practical utility within the physical environment, but is confined to that environment and cannot serve as a yardstick for other realities. Without successive moments and causation, order can still exist, and it does exist within the spontaneity of the spacious present [esp-power §4].
• The concept of causation arises from human induction from observed surface phenomena—humans decide to treat what looks like cause and effect as natural law, but these "laws" vary both with one's position in the universe and with the kind of observer one is [unknown-reality-2 §731].
• Words in language such as "result" automatically imply causation (cause first, effect second), which is one of the inherent distortions of linguistic thought [unknown-reality-2 §731].

7. Questions not yet asked

1. Seth claims precognition is incompatible with the law of causation, but does not provide the physical carrier for the transmission of precognitive information. Could an EEG study be designed for "precognitive dreams," comparing neural activity before and after subjects report precognitive events in dreams, to test whether a nonlinear temporal reverse correlation exists (e.g., a correlation between post-event brain activity and pre-event recordings)?
2. Seth proposes that "the laws perceived by a tree differ from those perceived by a human," which implies the hypothesis that cognitive systems affect causal perception. Could cross-species comparative experiments be designed, using classic causal inference paradigms from animal behavior (e.g., tone-shock conditioning), to test differences in sensitivity to delayed causation across species, and to compare human subjects' performance on the same tasks?
3. Seth believes the word "result" in language reinforces the unidirectionality of causation. Could a psycholinguistic priming paradigm be used to measure differences in reaction time for temporal-order judgments after subjects read sentences containing "result" versus "cause," so as to test whether linguistic structure directly influences linear bias in causal reasoning?
4. Seth points out that "the cause is identified only after the event," which resembles hindsight bias. Could a memory reconstruction experiment be designed: subjects first view an event process (e.g., a collision video), then are told different versions of the outcome, after which their accuracy in recalling details of the antecedents is measured, to test whether post-hoc information systematically distorts causal attribution?
5. Seth claims precognition can be used to alter surface effects—that is, "if warned in advance, the accident can be avoided." Could a decision-making experiment simulating predictive scenarios be designed, in which subjects choose whether to intervene in virtual situations where they receive information about future events, while their satisfaction with outcomes after intervention is measured, to test whether "precognition-alteration" affects subjective causal sense?

Appendix: Claim List (for Phase C)

id	Claim	Type	Source
cause-and-effect-1	Humanity regards the phenomena it observes as cause and effect and defines them as universal laws, but these laws are not true laws; they vary with cosmic position and the characteristics of the observer.	Ontological assertion	unknown-reality-2 §731
cause-and-effect-2	The understanding of causation (cause precedes effect) is a distortion, because time is nonlinear; no true past, present, or future exists, and causation is merely a post-hoc explanation.	Ontological assertion	esp-power §9; esp-power §5
cause-and-effect-3	The cause of an event does not truly precede the effect; it is identified only after the event occurs, and the specific details that appear to cause the event can be altered at any moment.	Ontological assertion	esp-power §9
cause-and-effect-4	The existence of precognition proves that the law of causation is not absolute, because if causation were absolute, then continuity would also be absolute, and precognition of the future would be completely impossible.	Testable prediction	early-sessions-2 §44
cause-and-effect-5	Every organism, through its inner senses, possesses subconscious knowledge of personal disasters and death; the individual will always receive a warning before the disaster.	Ontological assertion	early-sessions-2 §44
cause-and-effect-6	The word "result" in language automatically implies causation (cause first, effect second), which is one of the inherent distortions of linguistic thought.	Ontological assertion	unknown-reality-2 §731
cause-and-effect-7	Science should not be fixated on finding a source for energy; it should accept that consciousness precedes matter and evolves its own forms, and that the physical universe is the outward manifestation of a mental reality that already existed.	Methodological recommendation	early-sessions-2 §50; unknown-reality-2 §731
cause-and-effect-8	Time does not exist in the manner of past, present, and future; you cannot stand in a fixed "now" to observe the past or future—they are one and lie within the "spacious present."	Ontological assertion	early-sessions-6 §249
cause-and-effect-9	The concept of causation is a product of outer-sense observation; it has practical utility within the physical environment but is confined to that environment and cannot measure other realities; without successive moments and causation, order still exists within spontaneity.	Ontological assertion	esp-power §4
cause-and-effect-10	The first inner sense performs instantaneous cognition through "inner vibrational contact," for example enabling one to feel the basic sensations a tree feels, with consciousness expanding to include the experience of being a tree.	Mechanism description	dreams-projections §2
cause-and-effect-11	One can practice expanded perception by imagining the "line-like structure running through all things" and imagining these lines as alive, but subconscious focus must first be achieved.	Methodological recommendation	dreams-projections §1; early-sessions-3 §124
cause-and-effect-12	Jane and Rob first contacted Seth through Ouija board experiments, and in the Session 124 darkroom experiment attempted physical effects without success; Seth stated that if effects were to occur, they would appear within three minutes.	Experimental record	dreams-projections §1; early-sessions-3 §124