I think the parallel is real, but maybe more in structure than at the level of what’s being modeled.
Buddhist causality feels like a way to navigate experience, not to formally prove cause and effect like Pearl does. So the similarity may not be that they describe the same kind of causality, but that both move beyond correlation into conditionality.
Still interesting that both reject correlation as enough.
That's a really important distinction and i think you're right.
The overlap might be less "they discovered the same thing" and more "they both realized that watching patterns isn't enough." you have to engage with conditions directly.
What i find interesting is that both arrived at the same rejection independently. Correlation isn't enough. That starting point is identical. Where they go from there is completely different and that might be the more honest way to frame the parallel.
Thanks for pushing on this. Still working it out myself.
I think the parallel is real, but maybe more in structure than at the level of what’s being modeled.
Buddhist causality feels like a way to navigate experience, not to formally prove cause and effect like Pearl does. So the similarity may not be that they describe the same kind of causality, but that both move beyond correlation into conditionality.
Still interesting that both reject correlation as enough.
That's a really important distinction and i think you're right.
The overlap might be less "they discovered the same thing" and more "they both realized that watching patterns isn't enough." you have to engage with conditions directly.
What i find interesting is that both arrived at the same rejection independently. Correlation isn't enough. That starting point is identical. Where they go from there is completely different and that might be the more honest way to frame the parallel.
Thanks for pushing on this. Still working it out myself.
I think you're looking at very interesting parallels in your essays. Looking forward to the next one. 😊