QRS?

[troinchard]

What is "QRS" supposed to abbreviate?

[Tomas]

What is "QRS" supposed to abbreviate?

Q - Quinn
R - Rowden
S - Solway

This is David Quinn's forum

Dan Rowden, is the Administrator

Kevin Solway started "it" all :-)

All three are moderators, if you will..

David & Dan were born in Australia, Kevin was born somewhere (some island) off the British Isles proper, but now on the isle of Tasmania.

They are not always here physically, but alway in spirit.


PS - If it weren't for Kevin .. none of us would be here.



.

[Dan Rowden]

A rough but accurate history of QSR:

Kev and Dave started the email list "Genius-l" back in early 1997. That found it's way to the host "Topica", where archives still exist from 12/18/99 onwards (how complete they are I can't say - a more complete history of Genius-l is available via Kev's "Thinking Man's" CD).

In 2001 (roughly) Dave suggested a web based forum - which became Genius Forum. I created one originally at Hostboard, which sucked, then migrated it to Ezboard, where we stayed for some time till a hacking event caused us to consider a new venue, whence Kev then migrated the board to his domain here at "theabsolute".

[Dan Rowden]

What is "QRS" supposed to abbreviate?

Q - Quinn; R - Rowden; S - Solway

Can't fault that.

This is David Quinn's forum

It is not. I have no idea why you or anyone thinks that. It is the web based off-shoot or Genius-l. It is the property of wisdom itself!

Dan Rowden, is the Administrator

We are all equal in our administrative powers and status. Though, I'm the only one likely to tell you to stop digging up old threads.

David & Dan were born in Australia, Kevin was born somewhere (some island) off the British Isles proper, but now on the isle of Tasmania.

None of us were ever born.

They are not always here physically, but alway in spirit.

Just like Jesus.

PS - If it weren't for Kevin .. none of us would be here.

That's true; we'd be elsewhere.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

None of us were ever born.

What?

[Isaac]

Dan,

None of us were ever born.

What?

Dan's Birth

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

None of us were ever born.

What?

There's no precise moment when anyone can say they were born or came into existence. Sure, you can do so arbitrarily, but that just means you were born as many times as the mind can conjure.

[Shahrazad]

I may not be able to say the exact moment that I was born, but I can say for sure that it happened, or I wouldn't be here today. Surely you are not suggesting we have always existed.

[Dan Rowden]

We've always existed in different forms.

[maestro]

We've always existed in different forms.

What is the use of this statement. It has no content, the self is the self referential construct of the mind, therefore it is born somewhere, and thus are you too.

[Isaac]

The color red has always existed in different forms.....

[Dan Rowden]

We've always existed in different forms.

What is the use of this statement. It has no content, the self is the self referential construct of the mind, therefore it is born somewhere, and thus are you too.

Nothing comes into existence other than by way of the moment we grant it identity. One might say that's when we're born. Can you say when you were born? I can't.

[maestro]

Nothing comes into existence other than by way of the moment we grant it identity. One might say that's when we're born. Can you say when you were born? I can't.

I was born when my mind was able to create a model of itself (and in mind I include the body too) as separate from the world, this would have happened in early childhood. Though perhaps a rudimentary self could have existed at birth itself.

Your statement about not being born is true from one perspective, but it does nothing for the self and its travails. This is the problem with eastern philosophy, it dwells in the infinite, while most of humanity's problems are much more mundane and tangible.

[Dan Rowden]

And based in the delusional.

I don't have any issue with our arbitrary judgements and "beginnings" - we need them to function. However, it's important that we understand what they are and not be taken in and controlled by them.

[Jason]

There's no precise moment when anyone can say they were born or came into existence. Sure, you can do so arbitrarily, but that just means you were born as many times as the mind can conjure.

Here we go with the pooh-poohing of the mind again. My mind doesn't create arbitrary things! The products of my mind are as non-arbitrary, real and solid as anything in the whole of existence!

Also, I was born only once - exactly 33 days, 5 hours, 2 mins and 17 seconds after my father's sperm penetrated my mother's ovum. Nothing arbitrary about it. How can you argue with that?

-

Dan, if what appeared to be a thought appeared to you, say it was "I was born 45 years ago", how would you know that this appearance was a product of your mind anyway?

You know the problems with causation that David Hume wrote about? The problem of proving that there is any actual link between a particular cause and a particular effect? Well, what if we were to extend that into the mind-realm? Do you see what I'm saying? So we could argue that we can't prove a link between your mind and any particular thought that appears to you. We can't prove that your mind "conjured" the thought. Where does that potentially leave your argument of arbitrary mind conjurings?

I don't have any issue with our arbitrary judgements and "beginnings" - we need them to function. However, it's important that we understand what they are and not be taken in and controlled by them.

That second sentence seems a fine example of being taken in by an arbitrary judgment!

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

So we could argue that we can't prove a link between your mind and any particular thought that appears to you. We can't prove that your mind "conjured" the thought.

You say that you were "born only once". You would not remember your birth, so all knowledge of you having been born has come from other sources. And you can't know for sure if the information given to you is at all reliable.

It is the same for the idea of "a link" between the mind and thoughts. We can't be sure of the origin of our thoughts, because 'origins' is also a thought.

The products of my mind...

And one of those "products" is 'mind'. All things are like this. Unless you know of some way to step outside your mind?

[Pye]

Sher asks: Surely you are not suggesting we have always existed.

Dan responds: We've always existed in different forms.

You don't need these "different forms" to answer Sher's question. The answer to Sher's question is yes. The eternal is the present. A human being can only ever know itself in the present. It cannot know itself prior-to its birth anymore than it can know itself after its death. It can only know itself in the present. In this sense, it participates forever and always in the eternal. It does not matter what others might know of us, or that they have seen us born or seen us die. They cannot confirm our existence. Only our own existence can confirm this, and it can only be 'confirmed' by the rational mind.

The view that "we" are stardust/neutrinos, etc. or come from a long chain of cause-and-effect, or will continue that chain in the decomposition of death is scientific materialism that claims a "we" in the non-"we." The view that "we" will take different autonomous forms is suppositional reincarnation, also violating this logic that the same "we" exists in these other forms. The view that we will only ever know ourselves as present (hence, eternal) is spiritual. And the spiritual is the highly rational. "Yes" is the only rational answer one can give.

[Jason]

So we could argue that we can't prove a link between your mind and any particular thought that appears to you. We can't prove that your mind "conjured" the thought.

You say that you were "born only once". You would not remember your birth, so all knowledge of you having been born has come from other sources. And you can't know for sure if the information given to you is at all reliable.

Saying that I was born at that specific time and date is merely a device I'm using to initiate a counterargument to Dan's claims. I wasn't being literal.

It is the same for the idea of "a link" between the mind and thoughts. We can't be sure of the origin of our thoughts, because 'origins' is also a thought.

How does it follow that 'origins' being a thought itself means that we can't be sure of the origins of our thoughts?

In any case, are you saying that you believe that we can't be sure of the origins of our thoughts?

The products of my mind...

And one of those "products" is 'mind'.

Hang on, didn't you just say above that we can't be sure of the origins of our thoughts? So how then can you claim that the thought "mind" is a product of mind?

All things are like this.

All things are like what?

Unless you know of some way to step outside your mind?

How about not assuming that one is inside the mind to begin with? I showed in my previous post how thoughts may not be the product of one's mind, that's one possible way of not being inside the mind.

[Dan Rowden]

There's no precise moment when anyone can say they were born or came into existence. Sure, you can do so arbitrarily, but that just means you were born as many times as the mind can conjure.

Here we go with the pooh-poohing of the mind again. My mind doesn't create arbitrary things! The products of my mind are as non-arbitrary, real and solid as anything in the whole of existence!

Also, I was born only once - exactly 33 days, 5 hours, 2 mins and 17 seconds after my father's sperm penetrated my mother's ovum. Nothing arbitrary about it. How can you argue with that?

What does "arbitrary" mean to you?

[Jason]

What does "arbitrary" mean to you?

"Not based on any objective distinction; almost made at random."

"Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle."

What does it mean to you?

[Dan Rowden]

# depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>

# based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number>

I do not include "random" in my idea or application of the term.

[Jason]

Ok. Do you think "subjective" is a valid synonym for your "arbitrary"? Even with our differing definitions I still think the majority of my post is relevant. Are you gonna respond to it further?

[Dan Rowden]

Ok. Do you think "subjective" is a valid synonym for your "arbitrary"?

Close enough, yeah - though "subjective" tends to imply the existence of an objective reality, and there isn't one here.

Even with our differing definitions I still think the majority of my post is relevant. Are you gonna respond to it further?

"Arbitrary" is the right term to use in such contexts. Arbitrary designations, like definitions, are neither valid nor invalid. They are merely useful - or not. But it's important to understand that when it comes to "beginnings", such as the one we're discussing, that all we have is such arbitrary designations, precisely because there is no intrinsic reality to be found.

In short, one might say that when we say we were born is the only time that it can be said - but there's innumerable times that we can say it.

[Jason]

Ok. Do you think "subjective" is a valid synonym for your "arbitrary"?

Close enough, yeah - though "subjective" tends to imply the existence of an objective reality, and there isn't one here.

But how do you prove that any particular thing, thought or otherwise, is subjective to begin with? The argument I presented in my earlier post questions the assertion that the mind is what does the "conjuring" in the first place. How do you prove any link between thoughts of beginnings and the subjective mind? As Hume argued you cannot prove such links. If some or all thoughts are not conjured by the subjective mind to begin with, then are they still subjective?

Even with our differing definitions I still think the majority of my post is relevant. Are you gonna respond to it further?

"Arbitrary" is the right term to use in such contexts. Arbitrary designations, like definitions, are neither valid nor invalid. They are merely useful - or not. But it's important to understand that when it comes to "beginnings", such as the one we're discussing, that all we have is such arbitrary designations, precisely because there is no intrinsic reality to be found.

I understand your intended point Dan. As I explained above, I'm questioning something fundamental about it, do you understand? You are making the claim that there is no intrinsic reality, that things are conjured by subjective consciousness. I am asking how you prove that something is the product of the subjective consciousness to begin with, seeing as particular links between particular things cannot be proven with certainty - as Hume argued.

In short, one might say that when we say we were born is the only time that it can be said - but there's innumerable times that we can say it.

First, you're assuming that birth date is the product of subjective consciousness. Second, you're assuming and predicting that said birth date can be changed innumerable times in the future. Third, you're assuming and predicting that changes in the subjective consciousness can cause changes in the birth date in the future. Being predictions they are liable to the same limits and uncertainties as scientific predictions, and being assumptions adds further uncertainty.

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason,

You asked Dan:

how you prove that something is the product of the subjective consciousness to begin with, seeing as particular links between particular things cannot be proven with certainty - as Hume argued.

How are you interpreting Hume's idea, present within that sentence, that there are "links"?