Comparative Religion: Godmen

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

His words and his articulate nature speak very clearly for him. People can interpret for themselves.

I find it interesting that you are not sharing your impression of what it means, though.........;)

He could be referring to religion, but, just by reading the quote, you can't conclude that as fact.

Ahnimus

PaperPlates wrote:

Are you sure you're not related to this guy??

http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e5tomase/spock.jpg

Hmm, considering that imagination might equal truth as Angelica implies, and speculating on the possible effect of Quantum entanglement and backwards time propagation. It could be considered intuitively plausible that I am related to an imaginative futuristic Vulcan race.

angelica

angelica wrote:

His words and his articulate nature speak very clearly for him. People can interpret for themselves.

I find it interesting that you are not sharing your impression of what it means, though.........;)

To be fair, though, I don't really blame you that after you quote something not once, but twice, it's an abhorrent thought to realize you might actually be supporting the exact argument you seek to undermine with said quote. Thanks for sharing though!

gue barium wrote:

He is referring to a concept that is not shown in the quote. Unless you can show me the words surrounding the quote, there's no logical way I can conclude that quote means much of anything at all.

Fair enough. What matters to me is that I understand the quote.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

His words and his articulate nature speak very clearly for him. People can interpret for themselves.

I find it interesting that you are not sharing your impression of what it means, though.........;)

Things aren't always as they seem.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

To be fair, though, I don't really blame you that after you quote something not once, but twice, it's an abhorrent thought to realize you might actually be supporting the exact argument you seek to undermine with said quote. Thanks for sharing though!

Fair enough. What matters to me is that I understand the quote.

You're taking something from a quote that isn't there. The English language does serve a purpose, you know.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

You're taking something from a quote that isn't there.

How do you know this?

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

How do you know this?

Because I know how to read.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

Because I know how to read.

So, because you can read, and because you do not understand the quote, that means that I also don't understand it?

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

So, because you can read, and because you do not understand the quote, that means that I also don't understand it?

Angelica, please. Einstein is referring to a concept outside of which is contained in the quote. Now, if you know what that concept is, please share. I don't see it within the quote.
Correct me if I'm wrong. If it is there somehow, you'll have to shed light on my feeble brain in a better way than your original reply.

angelica

I'll try this again:

Let's say the missing variable is a hair dryer.

"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.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

I'll try this again:

Let's say the missing variable is a hair dryer.

"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.

edit: double post

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

I'll try this again:

Let's say the missing variable is a hair dryer.

"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'.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

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.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

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.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

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.

That's the best I can do....

She's all yours Ahnimus.:)

I love you, angelica. Peace.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

So much turmoil over the words of a dead man.

"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.

gue_barium

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.

gue_barium

In other words, Einstein is pondering the concept of Physics.

Ahnimus

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.