"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
we get: "considered logically the concept of the hair dryer is not identical with the totality of sense impression referred to; but is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
When we consider anything--take the hair dryer, for example--considering it logically is not identical to the totality of sense impressions. Instead it's a creation of the human mind.
"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
we get: "considered logically the concept of the hair dryer is not identical with the totality of sense impression referred to; but is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
When we consider anything--take the hair dryer, for example--considering it logically is not identical to the totality of sense impressions. Instead it's a creation of the human mind.
I think you're making a leap and a giant leap at that, to assume that Einstein meant "this concept" to mean 'anything at all'.
I think you're making a leap and a giant leap at that, to assume that Einstein meant "this concept" to mean 'anything at all'.
People use quotes all the time, in support of what argument they are putting forth. They rely on the aspects of the quote that is self-evident, rather than relying on the context the quote was spoken in.
Ahnimus sure thought that quote meant something when he posted it in this thread. Not once, but twice. Given the "Spirit" of the argument, my guess is that he thought it referred to God/religion or whatever, and that Einstein was using logic to say the concept is arbitrary. It doesn't really matter--what does matter is that he was willing to use it out of it's true context and felt it stood and spoke loud and clear all on it's own as posted here.
I didn't get the quote, or the concept it referred to. So I analyzed it until I realized the self-evidence of what it refers to. What is contained in the quote speaks very loudly about logic being a creation of arbitrariness. You're just as entitled to disagree as I am to my own interpretation. If you can show me any convincing evidence to the contrary of my view, I'll be the first person to admit that I am inaccurate. Until then, I appreciate that Ahnimus has provided me with evidence that Einstein supports the full view beyond logic--which is well-known, anyway. My guess is that Ahnimus is hiding the full context of that quote somewhere, because it does in fact allude to religion and spirituality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think you're making a leap and a giant leap at that, to assume that Einstein meant "this concept" to mean 'anything at all'.
I don't at all think Einstein meant this concept to refer to anything. What I'm saying is despite the missing variable, the self-evidence of what IS said speaks clearly. I deliberately used a ludicrous example to show how at "worst" the self-evident part contained in the quote is consistent with what I'm saying. And in reality, again, my suspicion is that Einstein alluded to a God-concept, and I also suspect that Ahnimus well knows this. I'll love to find either validation or proof of inaccuracy. But again, self-evident is, well, self-evident. It's the best logic that exists. It proves itself.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't at all think Einstein meant this concept to refer to anything. What I'm saying is despite the missing variable, the self-evidence of what IS said speaks clearly. I deliberately used a ludicrous example to show how at "worst" the self-evident part contained in the quote is consistent with what I'm saying. And in reality, again, my suspicion is that Einstein alluded to a God-concept, and I also suspect that Ahnimus well knows this. I'll love to find either validation or proof of inaccuracy. But again, self-evident is, well, self-evident. It's the best logic that exists. It proves itself.
I'm with you on that it may have to do with religion/god, but I can't out-and-out make the assumption that this it what Einstein was talking about. That would be out of place.
I'm with you on that it may have to do with religion/god, but I can't out-and-out make the assumption that this it what Einstein was talking about. That would be out of place.
That's the best I can do....
She's all yours Ahnimus.:)
I love you, angelica. Peace.
....Ahnimus didn't mind making that assumption.;) Well, unless he knew it was about the spirituality that he used the quote directly in context to.
Peace and Love, gue.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Figure that quote out. I'll give you a hint, Shakespeare was a determinist and all his plays are deterministic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
hey! I found some context. It is in regard to the role of physicists.
"We are accustomed to regarding as
real those sense perceptions which are
common to different individuals, and which
therefore are, in a measure, impersonal.
The natural sciences, and in particular,
the most fundamental of them, physics,
deal with such sense perception."
And here:
"I believe that the first step in the setting of a real external
world is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of
bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense
experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly
occurring complexes of sense impression (partly in conjunction with
sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense
experiences of others), and we attribute to them a meaning the
meaning of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is
not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but
it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the
other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification
exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we
associate with it."
-Albert Einstein
So, maybe Angelica, you weren't so far off. Then again, you aren't a physicist.
Sounds like he is saying the "meaning" is a construct of the human mind. Not that the totality of sense impressions does not describe the object. But that the "Meaning" arbitrarily inferred by the mind does not describe the object.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
hey! I found some context. It is in regard to the role of physicists.
"We are accustomed to regarding as
real those sense perceptions which are
common to different individuals, and which
therefore are, in a measure, impersonal.
The natural sciences, and in particular,
the most fundamental of them, physics,
deal with such sense perception."
And here:
"I believe that the first step in the setting of a real external
world is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of
bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense
experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly
occurring complexes of sense impression (partly in conjunction with
sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense
experiences of others), and we attribute to them a meaning the
meaning of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is
not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but
it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the
other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification
exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we
associate with it."
-Albert Einstein
So, maybe Angelica, you weren't so far off. Then again, you aren't a physicist.
Great work, gue! I really tried finding the context before I ever responded about it. Thanks for solving that puzzle! The truth of the self-evident wins the day!
And it's awesome that he says "...the concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impression which we associate with it." Logical assessment owes it's meaning and justification to the totality of sense impression.
This is also evident in our everyday activities, despite any logical assertions to the contrary. Logic is but one part of our ability to perceive. And to cut what we perceive down to merely a logical perspective obviously removes truth from what we perceive. Self-evident.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Great work, gue! I really tried finding the context before I ever responded about it. Thanks for solving that puzzle! The truth of the self-evident wins the day!
And it's awesome that he says "...the concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impression which we associate with it." Logical assessment owes it's meaning and justification to the totality of sense impression.
This is also evident in our everyday activities, despite any logical assertions to the contrary. Logic is but one part of our ability to perceive. And to cut what we perceive down to merely a logical perspective obviously removes truth from what we perceive. Self-evident.
I'm glad I could help!
It was bugging me.
The thing to remember though, in this, is "the concept" is physics.
Before you urinate yourself with excitement, let's take apart the quote.
What is the concept?
"concept of bodily objects"
So the "concept" is "bodily objects"
What is wrong with that concept?
"we attribute to them a meaning, the
meaning of the bodily object"
Oh I see, so "this concept" is really the attribution of meaning to bodily objects which we perceive through sense impressions that are potentially fallacious
"Considered logically this concept is
not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but
it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
The concept of applying meaning to sense impressions.
"On the other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification
exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we
associate with it."
There is no other choice. But we could be wrong about the meaning of sense impressions as related to bodily objects.
When all is said and done... water is still H20. It is fluid, but that does not mean that our sense impressions of water are relevant to it's meaning.
It could just be water. I'm sure Bruce Lee is cursing me in his grave.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Before you urinate yourself with excitement, let's take apart the quote.
What is the concept?
"concept of bodily objects"
So the "concept" is "bodily objects"
What is wrong with that concept?
"we attribute to them a meaning, the
meaning of the bodily object"
Oh I see, so "this concept" is really the attribution of meaning to bodily objects which we perceive through sense impressions that are potentially fallacious
"Considered logically this concept is
not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but
it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
The concept of applying meaning to sense impressions.
"On the other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification
exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we
associate with it."
There is no other choice. But we could be wrong about the meaning of sense impressions as related to bodily objects.
When all is said and done... water is still H20. It is fluid, but that does not mean that our sense impressions of water are relevant to it's meaning.
It could just be water. I'm sure Bruce Lee is cursing me in his grave.
But, physics, and all sciences in general, progress through hypothesis. Einstein, in this, is simply giving some generalities about the groundwork to the character of his chosen field.
But, physics, and all sciences in general, progress through hypothesis. Einstein, in this, is simply giving some generalities about the groundwork to the character of his chosen field.
It doesn't sound anything like Bruce Lee.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Okay, here's Einstein's article, according to this site. Slight differences in wording make more sense in this version:
GENERAL CONSIDERATION CONCERNING THE METHOD OF SCIENCE
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why, then, should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt cannot reach them; but, it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.
Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection ; but even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions.
Now we must first remark that the differentiation between sense impressions and images is not possible ; or, at least it is not possible with absolute certainty. With the discussion of this problem, which affects also the notion of reality, we will not concern ourselves but we shall take the existence of sense experiences as given, that is to say, as psychic experiences of a special kind.
I believe that the first step in the setting of a "real external world" is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring complexes of sense impressions (partly in conjunction with sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense experiences of others), and we correlate to them a concept - the concept of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to ; but it is a free creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the other hand, this concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we associate with it.
The second step is to be found in the fact that, in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection.
Okay, here's Einstein's article, according to this site. Slight differences in wording make more sense in this version:
GENERAL CONSIDERATION CONCERNING THE METHOD OF SCIENCE
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why, then, should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt cannot reach them; but, it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.
Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection ; but even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions.
Now we must first remark that the differentiation between sense impressions and images is not possible ; or, at least it is not possible with absolute certainty. With the discussion of this problem, which affects also the notion of reality, we will not concern ourselves but we shall take the existence of sense experiences as given, that is to say, as psychic experiences of a special kind.
I believe that the first step in the setting of a "real external world" is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring complexes of sense impressions (partly in conjunction with sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense experiences of others), and we correlate to them a concept - the concept of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to ; but it is a free creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the other hand, this concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we associate with it.
The second step is to be found in the fact that, in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection.
Editor's Note: There is probably no modem scientist as famous as Albert Einstein. Born in Germany in 1879 and educated in physics and mathematics at the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, he was at first unable to find a teaching post, working instead as a technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office from 1901 until 1908.
Early in 1905, Einstein published "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions," a paper that earned him a Ph.D. from the University of Zurich. More papers followed, and Einstein returned to teaching, in Zurich, in Prague, and eventually in Berlin, where an appointment in 1914 to the Prussian Academy of Sciences allowed him to concentrate on research.
In November of 1919, the Royal Society of London announced that a scientific expedition had photographed a solar eclipse and completed calculations that, verified the predictions that Einstein had made in a paper published three years before on the general theory of relativity. Virtually overnight, Einstein was hailed as the world's greatest genius, instantly recognizable, thanks to "his great mane of crispy, frizzled and very black hair, sprinkled with gray and rising high from a lofty brow" (as Romain Rolland described in his diary).
In the essay excerpted here, and first published in 1936, Einstein demonstrates his substantial interest in philosophy as well as science. He is pragmatic, in insisting that the only test of concepts is their usefulness in describing the physical world, yet also idealistic, in aiming for the minimum number of concepts to achieve that description.
Now we must first remark that the differentiation between sense impressions and images is not possible ; or, at least it is not possible with absolute certainty. With the discussion of this problem, which affects also the notion of reality, we will not concern ourselves but we shall take the existence of sense experiences as given, that is to say, as psychic experiences of a special kind.
I actually see naitivity in Einstein's thinking on this. He had a good idea, and others didn't, is what this comes down to.
I believe that the first step in the setting of a "real external world" is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring complexes of sense impressions (partly in conjunction with sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense experiences of others), and we correlate to them a concept - the concept of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to ; but it is a free creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the other hand, this concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we associate with it.
He's trying to give basis to the birth of his idea in his theory of relativity. It is a tough sell. He's preserving the neo-physics he had introduced years before, but mainly, other than that, it is BS.
Yea, dude made a lot of shit up out of nowhere it seems.
He says he spent a lot of time alone pondering. Solitude can make a person insane.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
He says: "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking." How the physicist thinks determines what he sees. He is not a passive observer looking at the objective world, but is looking at it through his own lenses.
Then he says: "The second step is to be found in the fact that, in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection."
He says our thinking determines our expection. Exactly. We attribute a bodily object a significance HIGHLY INDEPENDENT of the sensory impressions that gave rise to it! We attribute it a "real existence"--separate from it actually having one....we consider them "more real" than individual sense perception, as if individual sense perception can be an illusion or hallucination. Paradoxically, we overlook that these very perceptions stem from those same sense perceptions.
This is very close to the illusions I speak of, or the illusions of signifiers representing something. And we take that representation to be true. We are comfortable with our knowledge of what is "real" and really, it's a fallacy. The representation is NOT what is real. It's merely what we've attributed value to by our expectations.
I'm comfortable seeing what a small portion of people do in this world, even though mediocrity wants to disdain and belittle this view. I don't expect mediocrity to understand. I am thrilled however, to know there are some wonderful and brilliant minds who perceive this stuff as well.
Gue, earlier you alluded to the fact that I believe I have unattainable information that exists. What I have is awareness of the illusions that are attainable for anyone and that numerous studied people also know of and about, some through experience. i.e. Fins alluded to an understanding of signifiers and the paradoxical nature of what we know. The unattainable of the beyond--of what God/Spirit or our Source is--the very mystery, itself--I do not know that. I speak to what I've been shown. I do not presume to define the undefineable. There are a certain and distinct group of individuals who have demystified the very basics of perception, however.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
He says: "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking." How the physicist thinks determines what he sees. He is not a passive observer looking at the objective world, but is looking at it through his own lenses.
Then he says: "The second step is to be found in the fact that, in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection."
He says our thinking determines our expection. Exactly. We attribute a bodily object a significance HIGHLY INDEPENDENT of the sensory impressions that gave rise to it! We attribute it a "real existence"--separate from it actually having one....we consider them "more real" than individual sense perception, as if individual sense perception can be an illusion or hallucination. Paradoxically, we overlook that these very perceptions stem from those same sense perceptions.
This is very close to the illusions I speak of, or the illusions of signifiers representing something. And we take that representation to be true. We are comfortable with our knowledge of what is "real" and really, it's a fallacy. The representation is NOT what is real. It's merely what we've attributed value to by our expectations.
I'm comfortable seeing what a small portion of people do in this world, even though mediocrity wants to disdain and belittle this view. I don't expect mediocrity to understand. I am thrilled however, to know there are some wonderful and brilliant minds who perceive this stuff as well.
Gue, earlier you alluded to the fact that I believe I have unattainable information that exists. What I have is awareness of the illusions that are attainable for anyone and that numerous studied people also know of and about, some through experience. i.e. Fins alluded to an understanding of signifiers and the paradoxical nature of what we know. The unattainable of the beyond--of what God/Spirit or our Source is--the very mystery, itself--I do not know that. I speak to what I've been shown. I do not presume to define the undefineable. There are a certain and distinct group of individuals who have demystified the very basics of perception, however.
I agree with most of that. I just don't get all jubilent about any of it, you know? It isn't like there is somehow this alternative universe we've all been missing and now we have to tell everyone, pronto. It isn't all that earth-shattering.
I'm relatively certain what Einstein said was that unless your psychotic what you are seeing, feeling, smelling, touching or tasting probably does exist in the real world, but not entirely as we perceive it. People attach values to things which do not actually have those values. For example, a heart shape means love. In reality it doesn't.
Einstein picked up on an idea of Benedict Baruch Spinoza and used it as a way of thinking to tackle the hard problems he did. Spinoza and Einstein were both Jews, but Spinoza was excommunicated for his philosophy about "God" and Einstein gave up Judaism for Spinoza's God. The idea of Spinoza's "God" is an entirely deterministic universe that is a closed-system. Spinoza's "God" is the entirety of existence, including human beings, who do not have independent wills. This is the philosophy from which Einstein worked. Even over-zealously to the point he postulated the "Cosmological Constant" to reconcile his work. The new physics of quantum mechanics seemingly shattered Einstein's theories. However, in 2006, Dark Matter was observed, giving credence to Hawking's calculations, Einstein's work and Spinoza's God.
Spinoza and Einstein didn't believe in their "God" because they were rebelling against Judaism. It makes the most sense. It's a far cry from a Quantum Mind theory or any of this new age non-sense. New age stuff stemmed from the theories of quantum mechanics, in my opinion. But again, maybe there is dark quantum matter, we don't know because we can't measure it. We have no idea what is happening in quantum mechanics, and likely won't in our lifetimes.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree with most of that. I just don't get all jubilent about any of it, you know? It isn't like there is somehow this alternative universe we've all been missing and now we have to tell everyone, pronto. It isn't all that earth-shattering.
I agree. It is what it is.
I've been saying all along how normal it all is. People think I'm describing some heaven with clouds and angels, etc.....but that's the straw man people want to attribute to this stuff in order to knock it down when they are not ready, or willing to proceed. It's all about perception. I've also said numerous times that the amount of people on the MT who have the equipment to perceive outside the bounds of "normal" and who regularly do are very proportionately large, compared to the "regular" population. Truly, though, perceiving truths that others do not is a gift. Unfortunately it also entails a curse aspect that many of us here have also and do also regularly experience. The reason I speak to people here is because there are a ton of people who are a level of perception away from self-actualized. Unfortunately, at that distance, things look awfully bleak--because we have no one to believe in anymore--we are the potential front-runners for society and the status quo leaders in society are at more "normal" levels of awareness. I fully accept people living how they see fit. However it's my purpose to put these possibilities out there.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm relatively certain what Einstein said was that unless your psychotic what you are seeing, feeling, smelling, touching or tasting probably does exist in the real world, but not entirely as we perceive it. People attach values to things which do not actually have those values. For example, a heart shape means love. In reality it doesn't.
Einstein picked up on an idea of Benedict Baruch Spinoza and used it as a way of thinking to tackle the hard problems he did. Spinoza and Einstein were both Jews, but Spinoza was excommunicated for his philosophy about "God" and Einstein gave up Judaism for Spinoza's God. The idea of Spinoza's "God" is an entirely deterministic universe that is a closed-system. Spinoza's "God" is the entirety of existence, including human beings, who do not have independent wills. This is the philosophy from which Einstein worked. Even over-zealously to the point he postulated the "Cosmological Constant" to reconcile his work. The new physics of quantum mechanics seemingly shattered Einstein's theories. However, in 2006, Dark Matter was observed, giving credence to Hawking's calculations, Einstein's work and Spinoza's God.
Spinoza and Einstein didn't believe in their "God" because they were rebelling against Judaism. It makes the most sense. It's a far cry from a Quantum Mind theory or any of this new age non-sense. New age stuff stemmed from the theories of quantum mechanics, in my opinion. But again, maybe there is dark quantum matter, we don't know because we can't measure it. We have no idea what is happening in quantum mechanics, and likely won't in our lifetimes.
well, jeez, man...
let's judge einstein on his work.
He interested us all in physics. You have to give him that.
Comments
edit: double post
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think you're making a leap and a giant leap at that, to assume that Einstein meant "this concept" to mean 'anything at all'.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ahnimus sure thought that quote meant something when he posted it in this thread. Not once, but twice. Given the "Spirit" of the argument, my guess is that he thought it referred to God/religion or whatever, and that Einstein was using logic to say the concept is arbitrary. It doesn't really matter--what does matter is that he was willing to use it out of it's true context and felt it stood and spoke loud and clear all on it's own as posted here.
I didn't get the quote, or the concept it referred to. So I analyzed it until I realized the self-evidence of what it refers to. What is contained in the quote speaks very loudly about logic being a creation of arbitrariness. You're just as entitled to disagree as I am to my own interpretation. If you can show me any convincing evidence to the contrary of my view, I'll be the first person to admit that I am inaccurate. Until then, I appreciate that Ahnimus has provided me with evidence that Einstein supports the full view beyond logic--which is well-known, anyway. My guess is that Ahnimus is hiding the full context of that quote somewhere, because it does in fact allude to religion and spirituality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's the best I can do....
She's all yours Ahnimus.:)
I love you, angelica. Peace.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
....Ahnimus didn't mind making that assumption.;) Well, unless he knew it was about the spirituality that he used the quote directly in context to.
Peace and Love, gue.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"To be or not to be, that is the question"
Figure that quote out. I'll give you a hint, Shakespeare was a determinist and all his plays are deterministic.
"We are accustomed to regarding as
real those sense perceptions which are
common to different individuals, and which
therefore are, in a measure, impersonal.
The natural sciences, and in particular,
the most fundamental of them, physics,
deal with such sense perception."
And here:
"I believe that the first step in the setting of a real external
world is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of
bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense
experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly
occurring complexes of sense impression (partly in conjunction with
sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense
experiences of others), and we attribute to them a meaning the
meaning of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is
not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but
it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the
other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification
exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we
associate with it."
-Albert Einstein
So, maybe Angelica, you weren't so far off. Then again, you aren't a physicist.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
And it's awesome that he says "...the concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impression which we associate with it." Logical assessment owes it's meaning and justification to the totality of sense impression.
This is also evident in our everyday activities, despite any logical assertions to the contrary. Logic is but one part of our ability to perceive. And to cut what we perceive down to merely a logical perspective obviously removes truth from what we perceive. Self-evident.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm glad I could help!
It was bugging me.
The thing to remember though, in this, is "the concept" is physics.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Okay, okay. Lol.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What is the concept?
"concept of bodily objects"
So the "concept" is "bodily objects"
What is wrong with that concept?
"we attribute to them a meaning, the
meaning of the bodily object"
Oh I see, so "this concept" is really the attribution of meaning to bodily objects which we perceive through sense impressions that are potentially fallacious
"Considered logically this concept is
not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but
it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."
The concept of applying meaning to sense impressions.
"On the other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification
exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we
associate with it."
There is no other choice. But we could be wrong about the meaning of sense impressions as related to bodily objects.
When all is said and done... water is still H20. It is fluid, but that does not mean that our sense impressions of water are relevant to it's meaning.
It could just be water. I'm sure Bruce Lee is cursing me in his grave.
But, physics, and all sciences in general, progress through hypothesis. Einstein, in this, is simply giving some generalities about the groundwork to the character of his chosen field.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It doesn't sound anything like Bruce Lee.
I don't have any Karate sounds available to me at the moment.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
GENERAL CONSIDERATION CONCERNING THE METHOD OF SCIENCE
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why, then, should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt cannot reach them; but, it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.
Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection ; but even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions.
Now we must first remark that the differentiation between sense impressions and images is not possible ; or, at least it is not possible with absolute certainty. With the discussion of this problem, which affects also the notion of reality, we will not concern ourselves but we shall take the existence of sense experiences as given, that is to say, as psychic experiences of a special kind.
I believe that the first step in the setting of a "real external world" is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring complexes of sense impressions (partly in conjunction with sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense experiences of others), and we correlate to them a concept - the concept of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to ; but it is a free creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the other hand, this concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we associate with it.
The second step is to be found in the fact that, in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_200310/ai_n9308281
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What year?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
nevermind.
1936.
Editor's Note: There is probably no modem scientist as famous as Albert Einstein. Born in Germany in 1879 and educated in physics and mathematics at the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, he was at first unable to find a teaching post, working instead as a technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office from 1901 until 1908.
Early in 1905, Einstein published "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions," a paper that earned him a Ph.D. from the University of Zurich. More papers followed, and Einstein returned to teaching, in Zurich, in Prague, and eventually in Berlin, where an appointment in 1914 to the Prussian Academy of Sciences allowed him to concentrate on research.
In November of 1919, the Royal Society of London announced that a scientific expedition had photographed a solar eclipse and completed calculations that, verified the predictions that Einstein had made in a paper published three years before on the general theory of relativity. Virtually overnight, Einstein was hailed as the world's greatest genius, instantly recognizable, thanks to "his great mane of crispy, frizzled and very black hair, sprinkled with gray and rising high from a lofty brow" (as Romain Rolland described in his diary).
In the essay excerpted here, and first published in 1936, Einstein demonstrates his substantial interest in philosophy as well as science. He is pragmatic, in insisting that the only test of concepts is their usefulness in describing the physical world, yet also idealistic, in aiming for the minimum number of concepts to achieve that description.
I don't know about that (in the bold).
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
He's trying to give basis to the birth of his idea in his theory of relativity. It is a tough sell. He's preserving the neo-physics he had introduced years before, but mainly, other than that, it is BS.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
He says he spent a lot of time alone pondering. Solitude can make a person insane.
Then he says: "The second step is to be found in the fact that, in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection."
He says our thinking determines our expection. Exactly. We attribute a bodily object a significance HIGHLY INDEPENDENT of the sensory impressions that gave rise to it! We attribute it a "real existence"--separate from it actually having one....we consider them "more real" than individual sense perception, as if individual sense perception can be an illusion or hallucination. Paradoxically, we overlook that these very perceptions stem from those same sense perceptions.
This is very close to the illusions I speak of, or the illusions of signifiers representing something. And we take that representation to be true. We are comfortable with our knowledge of what is "real" and really, it's a fallacy. The representation is NOT what is real. It's merely what we've attributed value to by our expectations.
I'm comfortable seeing what a small portion of people do in this world, even though mediocrity wants to disdain and belittle this view. I don't expect mediocrity to understand. I am thrilled however, to know there are some wonderful and brilliant minds who perceive this stuff as well.
Gue, earlier you alluded to the fact that I believe I have unattainable information that exists. What I have is awareness of the illusions that are attainable for anyone and that numerous studied people also know of and about, some through experience. i.e. Fins alluded to an understanding of signifiers and the paradoxical nature of what we know. The unattainable of the beyond--of what God/Spirit or our Source is--the very mystery, itself--I do not know that. I speak to what I've been shown. I do not presume to define the undefineable. There are a certain and distinct group of individuals who have demystified the very basics of perception, however.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Einstein can't explain his luck, any more than Eddie can explain his.
They both give it a go. I mean, as long as you're in the spotlight, why not?
I think of the above article from Einstein as equivalent to PJ's VH1's Storytellers.
Lol.
Thanks for finding that, Angelica. I mean that.
I still haven't seen PJ's storyteller's, though.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I agree with most of that. I just don't get all jubilent about any of it, you know? It isn't like there is somehow this alternative universe we've all been missing and now we have to tell everyone, pronto. It isn't all that earth-shattering.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Einstein picked up on an idea of Benedict Baruch Spinoza and used it as a way of thinking to tackle the hard problems he did. Spinoza and Einstein were both Jews, but Spinoza was excommunicated for his philosophy about "God" and Einstein gave up Judaism for Spinoza's God. The idea of Spinoza's "God" is an entirely deterministic universe that is a closed-system. Spinoza's "God" is the entirety of existence, including human beings, who do not have independent wills. This is the philosophy from which Einstein worked. Even over-zealously to the point he postulated the "Cosmological Constant" to reconcile his work. The new physics of quantum mechanics seemingly shattered Einstein's theories. However, in 2006, Dark Matter was observed, giving credence to Hawking's calculations, Einstein's work and Spinoza's God.
Spinoza and Einstein didn't believe in their "God" because they were rebelling against Judaism. It makes the most sense. It's a far cry from a Quantum Mind theory or any of this new age non-sense. New age stuff stemmed from the theories of quantum mechanics, in my opinion. But again, maybe there is dark quantum matter, we don't know because we can't measure it. We have no idea what is happening in quantum mechanics, and likely won't in our lifetimes.
I've been saying all along how normal it all is. People think I'm describing some heaven with clouds and angels, etc.....but that's the straw man people want to attribute to this stuff in order to knock it down when they are not ready, or willing to proceed. It's all about perception. I've also said numerous times that the amount of people on the MT who have the equipment to perceive outside the bounds of "normal" and who regularly do are very proportionately large, compared to the "regular" population. Truly, though, perceiving truths that others do not is a gift. Unfortunately it also entails a curse aspect that many of us here have also and do also regularly experience. The reason I speak to people here is because there are a ton of people who are a level of perception away from self-actualized. Unfortunately, at that distance, things look awfully bleak--because we have no one to believe in anymore--we are the potential front-runners for society and the status quo leaders in society are at more "normal" levels of awareness. I fully accept people living how they see fit. However it's my purpose to put these possibilities out there.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well, jeez, man...
let's judge einstein on his work.
He interested us all in physics. You have to give him that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.