Getting Inside Einstein's Head

su-geek writes "'The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible,' Albert Einstein once remarked. Today many scientific documents and personal papers detailing the thoughts and emotions of our favorite physicist will be available at 3PM EST you can access the Einstein Archives Online. Also, Wired is running an article"

Comments

I disagree.

[crashnbur]

I believe the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that a biological organism can know about itself. How did consciousness develop? Mr. Einstein?

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

How did consciousness develop?

A higher being(architect)...

Re:I disagree.

[Flabby Boohoo]

I beleive that is exactly what he meant, but not limited to humans.

Re:I disagree.

[the_2nd_coming]

hence that the world is comprehensable;-)

we comprehend ourself and everything else and that is incomprehensable...

you took a subset uf his premis.

Re:I disagree.

[Cali Thalen]

Self-awareness is a mechanism that developed through our brain's ability to rationalize. There is a strong biological tendancy for our brain to attempt (usually quite successfully) to make is 'believe' that whatever we're seeing (feeling, etc.) makes perfect sense and can be explained rationally. It's widely believed that this lead to self-awareness through the simple rationalization that...

Oh, I'm sorry, was that rhetorical?

Re:I disagree.

[Gortbusters.org]

Perhaps we don't truely know of our consciousness at all. Check that out, it's a philosophy paper on the unus mundus.

Re:I disagree.

[ambisinistral]

Not much of an answer.

You have the same problem, only worse, because your "higher-being" is more complex than the consciousness you were so worried about in the first place.

Re:I disagree.

[gwernol]

I believe the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that a biological organism can know about itself. How did consciousness develop? Mr. Einstein?

I would not presume to answer for Einstein, but a good theory that has considerable evidence to support it goes something like this:

Early cognitive abilities developed over millions of years in response to complex environmental stimuli. For example, the ability to recognize shapes as various types of animal (predators and prey) and track them has obvious uses for a hunting species like humans.

Once a large enough set of these mid-level cognitive functions has evolved, a central mechanism for making sense of the potentially conflicting interpretations will also evolve. By this point the human brain is complex enough to support a "virtual machine" running a serial narrative interpreter. Basically consciousness is a mechanism for interpreting the world into a coherent story about the decisions that the subconscious mind is making.

This is a (very simplified) description of the philosopher Daniel Dennett's explanation. The work is all Dennett's, any and all mistakes in the summary are mine :-)

I'd strongly recommend Consciousness Explained, Dennett's much more detailed and evidenced description of all this.

Re:I disagree.

[Gortbusters.org]

Our condition is our reality, and on the subjective level, the physicality of our world is taken for granted. Consciousness means experiencing duality. Everything we know must be processed one way or the other. The philosophers who focused on this duality set limits to what we can know, pointing out that we can in no way know "the world" as it actually is, that we can only know our perceptions of "the world". We take these perceptions to be the material world. The psyche mirrors an image, and the image can only be an abstraction being processed by the organism's nervous system. Without psyche, we do not experience matter. Consciousness may require we experience the duality of psyche and matter; but, theoretically uniting matter and psyche brings together the "physical" and "mental". This objective is consistent with Eastern Mysticism, which does not separate the observer from the observed, the subject from the object, etc.

(Source)

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

"a biological organism can know about itself."

How does a river know where to go? How does a flower know when to bloom? How does a snowflake decide its shape.

Two parts of the same system.

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever marked this as a troll obviously did not see The Matrix: Reloaded... =o)

Re:I disagree.

[TummyX]

I like to think of intelligence as the "metadata" of the universe. The self describing part :D.

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not conscious. You only think you are. Consiousness develops when you realize that you are without it. Then, after a lot of work, you may attain it.

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think that consciousness is defined by being aware of a shared reality.

Wrong. A reality is defined by a single consciousness, and in this universe I have direct evidence of only one.

Now if I died tomorrow and discovered I was just a part of someone elses reality, Well, I would be disappointed with the universe indeed.

Re:I disagree.

[eeyoredragon]

that gave me a serious "joe dirt" deja vu moment... "how does a rainbow happen?" .... "it just does!"...

Re:I disagree.

[cpeterso]

Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gödel, Escher, Bach - an Eternal Golden Braid" has some HEAVY examination of (human and machine) consciousness. My favorite metaphor he uses for consciousness is an ant hill. The ant hill has many layers of emergent, recursive properties.

Re:I disagree.

[aerogeek]

I have not read Dennett, but I have seen similar "mechanism" theories for consciousness. My trouble with these explanations is that they concentrate on external, objective descriptions of consciousness while doing little to address its subjective nature. A perfectly crafted theory of consciousness in the context of human behavior or chemical processes in the brain still does not explain the conscious experience, at least not to the satisfaction of a conscious being.

Now I suppose we get into the "how do I know if you are really conscious" debate... Personally, I do not believe humans can ever truly understand human consciousness.

Re:I disagree.

[gwernol]

I have not read Dennett, but I have seen similar "mechanism" theories for consciousness. My trouble with these explanations is that they concentrate on external, objective descriptions of consciousness while doing little to address its subjective nature. A perfectly crafted theory of consciousness in the context of human behavior or chemical processes in the brain still does not explain the conscious experience, at least not to the satisfaction of a conscious being.

I would urge you to read Dennett. He does indeed adress what we experience as consciousness, and how that is a core part of the way the narrative mind works. Its not merely an external, behaviorist philosophy.

In this case the physical explanation does indeed explain the conscious experience, to the satisfaction of several conscious beings, myself included :-) You may or may not be convinced of course.

The fundamental problem that your view puts forward is not the solpsistic "how do I know if you are really conscious" debate. Rather your view that the subjective experience of consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically, requires a metaphysical component. This dualist approach is literally irrational and posits a special status for human beings that I find hard to buy.

Re:I disagree.

[Smallpond]

Well, technically, the only thing we're conscious of is the Matrix. Reality can't be directly experienced, except by a few ... was that a phone ringing?

Re:I disagree.

[Doctor Hu]

I believe the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that a biological organism can know about itself. How did consciousness develop? Mr. Einstein?

Um... to quote the /. lead story...

'The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible,' Albert Einstein once remarked.

Mapping the self-referential references are left as an exercise for the readers.

Re:I disagree.

[gwernol]

Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gödel, Escher, Bach - an Eternal Golden Braid" has some HEAVY examination of (human and machine) consciousness. My favorite metaphor he uses for consciousness is an ant hill. The ant hill has many layers of emergent, recursive properties.

Indeed, and in fact Dennett and Hofstadter have worked together in some depth. Try The Mind's I co-authored by Hofstadter and Dennett for a fascinating series of essays on this very subject.

Re:I disagree.

[de la mettrie]

Basically consciousness is a mechanism for interpreting the world into a coherent story about the decisions that the subconscious mind is making.

I've once read a vaguely similar but IMHO more convincing approach: Territorial animals (and primates are territorial) must evolve a mechanism of modeling their surroundings in order to react appropriately to whatever might happen. It's basically a mental map ("The sleeping tree is over there, and the creek to drink from is a bit to the side from it, and...")

The more complex this mental "map" gets, the more useful it can be to you: You can factor in mobile "landscape features" like enemies, prey, mates... and then you need to model their possible reactions to what you do So you grow some more neurons.

Then at some point your "map" has grown so complex that it is only meaningful when you include yourself, your needs and preferences into its model equations. And then you have... consciousness, or a functional equivalent thereof. The neuronic "map" subsystem has become "self-aware" by referencing its host organism as its focal point, as seems practical from a natural-selection point of view. When this calibration is lost, disorders like schizophrenia ensue.

Add Dawkinian memetics to the mix and you have a reasonable framework to explain the human mind and the culture it has produced. Not bad, huh? :-)

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

>How did consciousness develop?

What a troll! Consciousness SUPERVENES. That's all there is to it. Now, the real question is how did we add the degrees of freedom that make us different from the light-switch.

Einstein did not think of the speed of light past it's 'frozen' limits and in his theories did not account for the transcendental/infinite speed of light..

to make a long story short, _THAT was not an area of his concern, he had enough to do describing how the world we see hands together.

Cheers from the bleedng edge!

Re:I disagree.

[aerogeek]

I don't buy the dualist approach either, but only because I refuse to relegate everthing I cannot explain to the realm of metaphysiscs. I would argue that a rational explanation for the subjective nature of consciousness exists independently of our ability to discover it--and that we may never be able to make that discovery. The question is whether a being can ever fully understand itself, or if an outside observer is required.

In the meantime, I will go read Dennett's book :)

Re:I disagree.

[earthsurfer]

self-awareness & consciousness are not the same thing-if you are interested in how these things came to be and are not willing to waste time on academic philosophies etc. the best jumping off point is Chap.6 "The Mind" of Edward O. Wilson's book "Consilience"

Re:I disagree.

[crashnbur]

Freedom is what makes the consciousness, therefore all you have done is expounded on the definition of consciousness, the origin of which I still seek.

Without the freedom of thought to be aware of one's own consciousness, then can one presume that one is actually conscious? Without the ability to freely contemplate even the simplest of ideas, how is one conscious?

And, um, troll? It was a questioned aimed to stimulate conversation -- and I think I accomplished that quite well. Isn't that the idea of this comment forum?

Re:I disagree.

[crashnbur]

Wow, you completely ignored my question and referred to something with which I directly disagreed in my previous statement. So, again, Mr. Einstein?

Re:I disagree.

[crashnbur]

You seem to think that I think consciousness is defined by being aware of a shared reality.

Wrong. I think reality is defined by a single consciousness, aware of its own ability to contemplate. I agree with your point of view.

Given that point of view, that in this universe you have direct evidence of only one consciousness, you should be careful of the assumptions you make of the others -- even if they may be figments of your potentially powerful imagination.

As for your final thought, as a kid I used to ponder the idea that my entire life was simply someone else's dream, and that when that someone awoke, my existence would terminate, only for another dream to be lived at some later time. I think I was six when that idea scared the bejeezus out of me. Since, I have spent at least part of my time figuring out ways to explain why life is what it is. It keeps me entertained...

Re:I disagree.

[crashnbur]

God, to man: I am your father.
Man: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

This is what happens when man realizes he was born into a prison for his thoughts, for his actions, for his love. Or, perhaps worse, he embraces the thought, in which case he is a proven slave, unbeknownst to himself.

Re:I disagree.

[Servants]

Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gödel, Escher, Bach - an Eternal Golden Braid" has some HEAVY examination of (human and machine) consciousness. My favorite metaphor he uses for consciousness is an ant hill. The ant hill has many layers of emergent, recursive properties.

Careful with this, though. While this is an excellent book, its treatment of mind and consciousness is often a little dubious. (Also, the anthill is more a metaphor for how complexity can arise from simple components rather than consciousness.)

The main point I'd bring up is that there's no particular reason to think that consciousness is related to recursion in any interesting way. It's actually odd how many philosophers define consciousness as "knowing about oneself", as the original poster did. Really, if I know about (have a mental representation of?) my desk, or if I know about you, knowing about me doesn't seem very different.

A better idea about consciousness is one that grows out of what gwernol is talking about: Consciousness is what lets you focus on something, the thing that looks at all the stuff going on in your brain and chooses one item to work on specifically.

Re:I disagree.

[Servants]

Then at some point your "map" has grown so complex that it is only meaningful when you include yourself, your needs and preferences into its model equations. And then you have... consciousness, or a functional equivalent thereof.

Well... it sounds nice, but only if you don't think about it too hard.

The thing is, why should including a model of yourself in the map be so special? It's just another model. You could even argue that it ought to be easier, because the mind has more reliable information about you than about most things it has to model (say, other people).

Consciousness is about awareness, period, not just awareness of the self.

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your interesting posts! I'll surely get some nice reading out of this =)

Re:I disagree.

[glitch23]

How did consciousness develop?

It didn't develop. It was created. If you can understand that simple fundamental issue many other questions are answered. Deny the truth and you will never understand the full story.

Re:I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is what makes the consciousness

Consciousness is usually defined as either awareness, or attention. Neither requires free will. I see a monitor, therefore I am aware. I am focused on the text, therefore I have attention. I don't see where freedom comes in. Perhaps you would care to illustrate a proof to back up your claim?

consciousness, the origin of which I still seek.

Consciousness has an origin? That's news to me. Can you prove that?

Re:I disagree.

[SEWilco]

Tee hee. Wait until you experience the whole Matrix, with all three movies.

I won't spoil by saying what I saw, but you'll want to view the second movie just before the third, so you can experience the story threads which run through to the third movie. (I have no inside information, I merely spotted the story in M.Reloaded. I think the writers had fun creating this thing.)

Re:I disagree.

[SEWilco]

I think reality is defined by a single consciousness, aware of its own ability to contemplate.

Oh, dear. I stopped thinking about crashnbur and now he no longer exists.

Re:I disagree.

[hesiod]

> The thing is, why should including a model of yourself in the map be so special?

If you don't include yourself in your mental model you would not be able to identify potential risks, as having no self-awareness means not being aware of risks to self. That makes for a very quick "natural de-selection."

> mind has more reliable information about you than about most things it has to model

I disagree. The only thing your mind is aware of is itself (consciousness, not body). You can observe further that the thing you are attached to has two sets of two limbs with five digits attached to them that you control. It's got a trunk, and mine has a little dangly thing in the middle. But without a mirror there is no way to see the "full picture" of what you are. On the other hand, you can see the full-sized image of another person. So on a physical (visual) level you can know someone else better than yourself.

Re:I disagree.

[hesiod]

> You are not conscious. You only think you are [...]

You are not correct, you only think you are. One problem with your statement is that it's unprovable, and really it doesn't mean anything. But I guess that's the point.

Re:I disagree.

[Servants]

If you don't include yourself in your mental model you would not be able to identify potential risks, as having no self-awareness means not being aware of risks to self. That makes for a very quick "natural de-selection."

I'm not saying it's not important or useful to have a model of yourself. Clearly it is. (Although your risk example isn't complex enough to show that. An amoeba could have a simple rule that says "If you detect a [member of 'dangerous thing' list] then move away", no nontrivial self-modeling necessary. Where having a model of the self becomes more useful is when you want to take into account your own effects on the world, so you have to calculate what those effects are likely to be.)

But that's beside the point. The point is that having a model of yourself doesn't have to be related to consciousness in any way, and probably isn't. It's easy to give a robot a model of its environment, and equally easy to include a representation of the robot itself in the model. But the robot isn't conscious or aware in the usual sense. Modeling yourself is not noticeably different, consciousness-wise, than modeling somebody else and their effects on the world.

Re:I disagree.

[hesiod]

> I don't see where freedom comes in.

(Warning: I'm not the original poster)
You have the free will to choose to look at the monitor. Although, I don't know how anything, short of a plant, can _not_ choose whether or not to look at it. You either look or you don't.

Re:I disagree.

[hesiod]

> [Consciousness] was created.

If something is created it needs a creator. So if consciousness was created, that means there was none before the first conscious being. How did the non-conscious creator of that being create something he did not possess nor have any knowledge of (because it didn't exist)? Your answer? "Have faith, you'll find out after you die!" Please...

Re:I disagree.

[crashnbur]

Consciousness is usually defined as either awareness, or attention.

Right, but as someone so eloquently put it before, without the ability to recognize consciousness, one is not aware of that attention. It is the recognition of consciousness that defines itself. For instance, a flower is aware of sunlight, but is it aware of its attention to the sunlight? Is it aware of its intentions?

Consciousness, as I have always heard it, is defined as awareness combined with an ability to reason, if only on the simplest levels -- like the mental ability to differentiate between light and dark, sound and silence, etc. A plant can differentiate between these things, but it is not aware or conscious because there is no guiding cognitive process. In other words, consciousness, as I see it, is an extremely complex ability to differentiate.

The confines of a causal or chaotic reality make no difference, for it is within the context of that reality that consciousness exists.

Re:I disagree.

[crashnbur]

Oh, dear. I stopped thinking about crashnbur and now he no longer exists.

Two things. (1) You can not shake from your mind the fact that someone using the handle crashnbur indeed exists, at least inasmuch as you believe the words you are reading now were typed by that same someone. (2) What is my proof that anyone on the other side of the planet, on the other side of this screen, on the other side of the wall here -- how can it be proven that anything exists outside the confines of my "objective" reality. For all practical intents and purposes, nothing exists outside of what I know, though according to what I have learned, I am very much aware that there is probably more to the universe than I can imagine. So, in theory, perhaps things no longer exist when you stop thinking about them, and in your reality, I did disappear when you stopped thinking about crashnbur.

Re:I disagree.

[SEWilco]

Wow.
You, the person reading this, have a good imagination to have thought of us writing this.

Re:I disagree.

[crashnbur]

Hence my belief that I'm not the only one here. Metaphysically provable or not, I am quite convinced that my creative capacity is insufficient to create a universe this complex solely for my own edutainment.

Re:I disagree.

[SEWilco]

Metaphysically provable or not, I am quite convinced that my creative capacity is insufficient to create a universe this complex solely for my own edutainment.

Well, apparently the person reading this does have sufficient creative capacity to have imagined all of us. And to have imagined that you think the universe is more complex than your imagination.

Stupid non-Mozilla websites

[Anonymous Coward]

When will people learn that a significant number of people are trying to *avoid* Internet Explorer?

Re:Stupid non-Mozilla websites

[Realistic_Dragon]

This site works fine for me with Mozilla 1.3 on Linux.

Re:Stupid non-Mozilla websites

[bensgroi]

it sure makes my Opera cry though

Re:Stupid non-Mozilla websites

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, you only *think* you're significant.

If you're ever in Washington, DC

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop by the Albert Einstein Memorial Statue and sit in his lap!

Re:If you're ever in Washington, DC

[trtmrt]

Actually, the statue has a focal point for sound. If you stand in the marked point in front of the statue (I think it's a point on a star map) and speak you can hear this.

Re:If you're ever in Washington, DC

[Anonymous Coward]

Einstein died, when I was born. (Really! Gen X!)

hmmm..

[irokitt]

Is anyone actually going to post ontopic to this story?

Re:hmmm..

[JonnyElvis42]

Is anyone actually going to post ontopic to this story?

I'm sorry, but what does "on topic" mean again? I think I missed the article that defined that.

Re:hmmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but what does "on topic" mean again? I think I missed the article that defined that.

You read the articles???

Re:hmmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I missed the article that defined that.

Don't worry, it'll be posted again in a few hours.

Re:hmmm..

[SEWilco]

I'm sorry, but what does "on topic" mean again? I think I missed the article that defined that.

"Topical" means use on the surface of the skin.
"On topic" means a post which does not get under your skin.

too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

it's all in german.

Re:too bad

[Lane.exe]

Ich lese Deutsch... hast du eine Problem, dumbkopf?

Re:too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the interweb, speak American dammit!

i bet he never

[joeldg]

He did e=mc^2 but I bet he never in his wildest dreams wondered if a site about him would be slashdotted...

Re:i bet he never

[footNipple]

No Kidding! He did postulate the Mass/Energy relationship e=mc^2.
But did he ever stay at a Holiday Inn Select ? I think not.

FN

Re:i bet he never

[Dwedit]

If Einstien was into case mods, I'd bet he'd get slashdotted so fast...

Re:i bet he never

[SEWilco]

If Einstein was into case mods, I'd bet he'd get slashdotted so fast...

He was only into blue case mods. His specialty was compression and expansion, although with a bend.
Besides, being slashdotted is relative.

Re:i bet he never

[hesiod]

> That reminds me, if c is a constant why isn't this just written as e=m?

Because Einstein believed in God and that he, the ultimate programmer, might need to tweak some variables in the future. That way the math still works after Armageddon.

The most incomprehensible thing...

[ashkar]

The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that people still write websites without checking browser compatability.

The guy who wrote this site is no fucking Einstein.

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[crashnbur]

I don't do it without checking. I just don't care about people who refuse to use a decent browser.

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[Jantastic]

Care to give an example? Running 8 browsers here without any problem. Yeah, I know the markup here is horrible and somewhat similar to html3 instead of... xhtml1 compliant.
Just interested in the problems you encountered. PDA user maybe ?)

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[PD]

I'm using Mozilla 1.4a with Javascript turned on. When I drill down into a document and click on the link, nothing comes up. I think it's trying to pop the document up in a new window.

The website is entirely broken. I've got all pop-ups turned off, and a website that relies on them is horribly broken.

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[ashkar]

Specifically, the dynamic lists that lead to various areas of the site. Check here with a mozilla variant (I am using firebird 0.6, but have tested it with mozilla 1.4b), and you will see what I'm talking about. With Opera 7.1, the same menu totally fails. I stand by my claim of browser incompatability.

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using mozilla 1.3 on winxp here and it's broken. Last I checked moz 1.3 was more in line with standards than any version of IE. Ergo, the website is broken.

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never been to FilePlanet? They rely on popups too. The ability to Accept/Refuse popups is an easy thing to understand. Is it that hard for you to choose one or the other? Hmm, maybe it is!

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using the most standards compliant web browser there is, and the site is broken. Perhaps you should look into what a descent browser is. Hint: The church of microsoft will not provide you with the answers.

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[PD]

FilePlanet is completely broken too. I refuse all popups, and I consider it rude if anyone decides to shit all over my desktop by popping up windows all over.

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[Jantastic]

Aah.. I thought you were talking about slashdot :)
...which doesn't give me any troubles.

The einstein site... I agree, relying on clientside scripts, even good ones, is a no go.
And that really shows over there, in my Mozilla too (built 2 weeks ago).

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[crashnbur]

I test on Mozilla, Netscape, IE, KDE/Konqueror, and a couple of lesser-knowns. My site loads in every one that is no more than 18 months old (excluding IE for Macs), which is more than enough time to upgrade.

<sarcasm>As for your Microsoft bashing, you assume far too much. Do you really believe someone as intelligent as me would put all of their eggs into one basket, especially Microsoft's?</sarcasm>

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[SEWilco]

Close your eyes and try browsing by ear. Does that work?

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[hesiod]

> FilePlanet is completely broken too.

Just because you disable a part of your HTML browser doesn't mean a site is broken, it just means you aren't using all of the features. I don't use them either. I'm not going to say Slashdot is broken because I decide to turn off image downloading.

Because you don't like something does not make it "broken."

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[PD]

I disagree. There's the notion that when something fails, it should fail gracefully. To use your example, if I turn off images, then the web page should fail gracefully. I should still be able to navigate it, and I should get an alternate view of the image, probably a text description of the image.

But when I turn off a pop-up, the website fails completely. It becomes impossible to use it without changing my configuration. This is not good design, and any site that uses a pop-up cannot be said to have good design. What the website should do is give me an alternate path that does not require pop-ups.

We're talking about good design here, not what features of a browser are enabled. Good design provides for graceful failure. Bad design just breaks and leaves you stranded.

Re:The most incomprehensible thing...

[hesiod]

> web page should fail gracefully. I should still be able to navigate it
> any site that uses a pop-up cannot be said to have good design

According to your arguments, though, if there was another way to get all of that info without using popups, then it would suddenly not be bad design.

There's a difference between bad design and broken standards.

Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[limekiller4]

The first creationist who takes this opportunity to reply and infer that Einstein's "god does not play dice" comment is tacit proof of god is going to get beat with a dusty 1200 baud modem.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

its much easier to whine about being modded down then to post an intelligent comment!!

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

PROOF!
Einsteins's "god does not play dice" comment is tacit proof of god.

Take them dice and role 'em atheists!!

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[limekiller4]

An AC (aren't they all?) writes:
"its much easier to whine about being modded down then to post an intelligent comment!!"

If you understood my sig, you would understand it to mean that I prefer dialogue over death-by-disagreement. Karma is just a number. You are not your karma score. Get over it.

When you can post your thoughts without considering how it will affect your karma score you will become a benefit to the Slashdot community.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Planesdragon]

The first creationist who takes this opportunity to reply and infer that Einstein's "god does not play dice" comment is tacit proof of god is going to get beat with a dusty 1200 baud modem.

Aw, c'mon. That'd only be proof of Einstein's belief in God.

Einstein's hair--now, THAT's proof of the divine sense of humor. :)

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[JonnyElvis42]

The first creationist who takes this opportunity to reply and infer that Einstein's "god does not play dice" comment is tacit proof of god is going to get beat with a dusty 1200 baud modem.

Damnit! I knew there was a better way to clean off a dusty modem than with a rag. Now why didn't I think of that, and why did you never tell me?
As for "god does not play dice" being tacit proof of God, heck, that's not even tacit proof of dice.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Telastyn]

A better argument than physical abuse would probably be Hawking's "Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen." comment (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html)

Though certainly physical abuse is a satisfying alternative if that doesn't help.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[eeyoredragon]

i like how all believers in god are creationists as opposed to evolutionists...

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider myself a Crea-Evolutionist. A little bit of "Creation" at the start, a lot of "Evolution" after. Big Bang had to happen for some reason...

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

Overrated?? Moderators on crack again.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[eeyoredragon]

exactly my point. if people don't know about others beliefs, they shouldn't post their opinions on them :P (heck, they shouldn't have opinions on them.)

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954

You know, sometimes you people are your own worst enemies.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Saint Nobody]

God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.
-- Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, "Good Omens"

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says Planesdragon is part of "you people" ? (whatever that is supposed to mean.)

It was only inferred that Einstein's mention of God would not be a proof, but instead could only indicate a personal belief. Or it could mean nothing at all, but the point is that it is not a proof just because Einstein said it.

Thank you for your quote to clarify things, but the snide remark at the end was totally unwarranted. Between your comment and the unfair moderation of its parent, I've given up hope for an intellegent /. discussion..

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Thud457]

You insensitive clod!
I don't believe in the existance of dice.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[FroMan]

Hmmm, you seem a bit irrational here. Seeing how there hasn't been a single comment of that nature. Perhaps you are just a bigot?

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

By "you people", I mean Christian fundies. The comment may have been snide, but rest assured that it was more than warranted. "Those people" have been trotting Einstein's dice quote for years, offering it up as evidence that not only did he believe in a personal god, but also that he believed in the Christian god. This despite the fact that most of them are 100% aware that this is a lie, most of them have seen the refutation before, and they keep posting this claim anyway. Normally, I don't give a rats patooty what fundies do, but it is not in my nature to allow intentional dishonesty and outright lying to pass without comment. So snide, yes, but unwarranted, no. IMHO it is less objectionable to be snide than it is to be a liar.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[ddimas]

Boy them fundies got that wrong. If Einstein followed any religious tradition it was the Jewish one. Or did everyone miss the fact that he had to flee the Nazis because he was a Jew? I believe he said that he actually was agnostic.

Anyhow, it's a mistake to look for God in nature. As Jesus said long ago, "No sign shall be given a sinful generation save the sign of Jonah.", meaning his death and Ressurection. So look all you want guys, you won't see any sign of God, even if it's as obvious as the nose on your face. Proof comes after belief, not before.

BTW - I am not a Fundamentalist. I'm an Orthodox Christian.

Since this is the season of Pentacaust I'll sign this:

Christ Is Risen!

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[ddimas]

Didn't St. Cuthbert of England convert the heathens to Christianity with a cudgel? I beleive the conversion went something like this:

St. Cuthbert: "Do you belive in Christ my child?"
Prosective Convert: "No, that stuff is..."
St. Cuthbert: "THWACK!"

After the prospective convert regains consiousness.

St. Cuthbert: "Do you belive in Christ my child?"
Prosective Convert: "Yes Holy Father."

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[limekiller4]

FroMan writes:
"Hmmm, you seem a bit irrational here. Seeing how there hasn't been a single comment of that nature. Perhaps you are just a bigot?"

If you did not understand my comment to be a joke (as apparently 100% of the people who moderated it as "funny" did) then I would strongly suggest that you run -- don't walk, run -- to the nearest brothel and "get some."

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Dirtside]

BTW - I am not a Fundamentalist. I'm an Orthodox Christian.

To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Khomar]

As a Christian, you should recognize the need to promote unity in the Body of Christ and not try to cause division ("Boy them fundies got that wrong"). The issue raised here was not based on any one denomination or theological conviction. The people who spread this myth are merely misinformed (though the original perpetrator may not have had such pure motives), and if they actually knew the truth, would not wish to spread the lie. Being a "fundamentalist" Christian merely means that they believe that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God -- an issue that can generate interesting debate on its own merit but not with the issue at hand. Unfortunately, there are some among our camp (yes, I would be considered a fundamentalist) who are a little too zealous to spread the gospel using examples like Einstein without doing research into their sources.

As one other poster put it, even if this myth were true, all it would prove is that Einstein believed in God. There are plenty of examples of highly intelligent people on both sides of the God debate, but that does little save perhaps make one feel more confident in their position.

Also, your comment about seeing God in nature is not entirely correct. Romans 1:19-21 says

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

According to this passage, the proof that God exists is in fact visible within nature and the minds of man. How else can you truly explain the complexity and perfection of a young world (and it is young... how else can you explain the salt content of the ocean? Given its current input of sediment, a million year old ocean would be even saltier than the Dead Sea.) The evidence has been displayed for all to see, but we chosen to find another way rather than admit that there is a God and therefore someone to hold us accountable for our actions.

Oh, and by the way, it is spelled Pentecost.

He is risen indeed!

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[FroMan]

And some part of you does not believe what you originally said?

Second, I think my wife might have issues with a brothel. Maybe you need one?

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[ddimas]

Wrong. Pre-Catholic.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[ddimas]

Thank you for your interesting but flawed argument. You do understand that the Apostle was talking about those who wilfully refuse to understand. You do understand that all of nature became corrupt with the fall of Adam? You do understand that time is merely a part of nature?

I am not trying to be argumentative. God hides from the ungodly not for His sake, but for theirs. A strong vessel will hold the wine but a cracked one will burst asunder.

I am not arguing that the Bible is in error. I am arguing that the corruption of the world by Satan was more thorough than we know. I am also arguing that the ungodly are blinded to what in nature does point to Our Lord.

If you wish to continue this discussion off the message boards please let me know. Please forgive my spelling errors.

As we say in church:

We Worship His Third Day Ressurection!

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[RobinH]

As Jesus said long ago, ...

I've yet to figure out why something that Jesus said long ago proves anything. Is it because it was said a long time ago that it becomes a fact? Is it because you've already accepted as an axiom that Jesus is the son of God that you take it as a fact? You would have to prove the axiom before I would even consider your argument. As it stands, there are a lot of Jews somewhere out there who would disagree with that assertation.

Proof comes after belief, not before.

I believe that you are insane, and now I have the proof of it.

Seriously, is life so horrific for you that you must ignore all basic logic to wrap yourself in the comfort of a lie?

I've got news for you. A lot of people look at the religious problem like this: if there is a heaven and hell, I want to be on the right side, so I'll do what religion "x" tells me. But guess what... it's quite possible that what your religion is telling you to do is leading you straight to hell! After all, none of you need any proof - you're accepting it all on faith. What if there is a Satan and he really is more charismatic than God? Wouldn't that imply the God you're following could be Satan? How do you know? Thinking something true doesn't make it true. You really could be following the dark one into the midst of eternal hellfire.

Until I see credible evidence one way or the other, I'm just going to stay agnostic. The way I see it, either I go to hell, I go to heaven, or I cease to exist when I'm dead. Given a teaspoon of logic, I'm betting on door number 3. I'll takes my chances.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Khomar]

I am assuming that your response is in regard to the use of the word "perfect" in my previous post... a bad choice of words on my part. What I meant was the way that everything works together in such an orderly fashion even after the fall has corrupted the world.

In regards to time, my argument was merely the fact that our world is not nearly old enough to account for the vast amount of time required for evolution to have occurred. I apologize that I did not state this more clearly. Also, I definitely believe in the fall as is evident from my signature. I am not sure that I agree with your statement about "those who wilfully refuse" in that I am not sure I understand clearly what you are saying. I would be interested in discussing this with you off the boards. You can e-mail me at khomar_07@yahoo.com.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[RobinH]

I consider myself a Crea-Evolutionist. A little bit of "Creation" at the start, a lot of "Evolution" after. Big Bang had to happen for some reason...

Blasphemy! Read yer Bible!

Seriously, though, modern science only says that no "higher being" meddles with the universe after the big bang. It says nothing about the universe BEFORE than point in time (if there was any before...) Science does not preclude the existence of God, but it does try to explain what happens without any Gods' interference in the universe.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

Not every Christian religion reads the Bible literally.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[BushLad]

Hey kids, this IS just Slashdot.

Not something, you know, important.

Take a deep breath. Both of you.

Share your toys.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider myself a Crea-Evolutionist. A little bit of "Creation" at the start, a lot of "Evolution" after. Big Bang had to happen for some reason...

That's called "God plays billiards".

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[SEWilco]

Actually, "God does not play dice" begs the questions of the act of playing, and the existence of God and of dice.

Now let's see how many people reply that don't know what that means.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

Well she clearly isn't giving you any.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[asink]

Yet again, your sig is simply another message to me saying "I really care about karma". All these sigs about karma are really annoying. If you want to take karma so seriously, convert to Hinduism.
To repeat what you said, when you can post your thoughts without considering how it will affect your karma score you will become a benefit to the Slashdot community.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[limekiller4]

asink writes:
" Yet again, your sig is simply another message to me saying "I really care about karma". All these sigs about karma are really annoying."

If you're hell-bent on believing that my sig reallly means thing A when I've said the point is B, I can't very well stop you.

"If you want to take karma so seriously, convert to Hinduism."

It's funny you should say that. I'm Buddhist.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[ddimas]

"I believe that you are insane, and now I have the proof of it.

Seriously, is life so horrific for you that you must ignore all basic logic to wrap yourself in the comfort of a lie?"

Please Robin feel free to interupt and call me insane, or do you feel this is the best way to open a dialog? My statement stands as given.

We are not talking about scientific data here, if you think science can say anything coherent about God then you are seriously mistaken. BTW as an exercise for the student, prove on the same basis as you demand proof of God, the existence of Julius Cesar. (Hint, you cannot prove the existance of either JC scientificly, they left no remains).

The problem you have to face is that the evidence is all historical, and while history can use the implements and techniques of science, the data itself is not scientific. After all, you cannot very well repeat the experiment now can you?

So, do you accept the historical data, or do you call all those witnesses delusional and liars?

Your call...

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

Share your toys.

Oo, shiny! Do I get to see the gays fondle their "toys"? Or even participate? Huh?

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[hesiod]

> When you can post your thoughts without considering how it will affect your karma score you will become a benefit

Hey, I don't give a crap about Karma, but I'm not a benefit to the community! IN YOUR FACE!!! haha! Wait, err.. hmmm.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[hesiod]

> How else can you truly explain the complexity and perfection of a young world

The world is far from perfect. There are tons of design flaws with it which have been listed many times over.

> and it is young... how else can you explain the salt content of the ocean?

This is a rather uninformed statement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-y ea 2.html#proof24

It seems that most "young-earth creationists" really have no idea what they are talking about. Not to call them stupid, by any means; they usually understand well what they are told to believe, but they ignore so much additional data that it makes the argument useless.

Also, the point seems to be to discredit science, which is imperfect. Why, then, would you try to use science to prove your point and not look at all of it? The people you are trying to discredit will almost always know more about the subject. Seems like a mission into folly, but that's what I consider most theist religions.

Something else just occurred to me. What about that Giant Flood we supposedly had about, oh... 10,000 years ago? If you believe that the whole earth was flooded, the salt would be distributed pretty evenly across the earth, and therefore the salt content of the ocean would drop drastically. All that salt would now be deep under lots of rock instead of filling the ocean. Maybe the ocean was 100x saltier at one point.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[mfrank]

Julius Cesar, as far as I know, never violated the known laws of physics by walking on water, raising the dead, or being resurrected. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

According to *your* argument, you can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus. The reason *you* don't get presents from Santa on Christmas is that you've been naughty.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[Anonymous Coward]

known laws of physics? who made those laws? who enforces those laws?

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[RobinH]

The problem you have to face is that the evidence is all historical, and while history can use the implements and techniques of science, the data itself is not scientific. After all, you cannot very well repeat the experiment now can you?

Well, I know a guy named Steve. I, and 50 other people, once saw Steve take an ordinary ball point pen and stick it right through the center of his hand and pull it out the other side, and afterwards, there was no damage to his hand. Steve told me that he's actually half descended from an alien race known as the Pikars, who have discovered the true origin of the universe, and he knows what it is. He told me that Jesus was a real guy, but he was full of sh!t.

I find Steve's argument has no less merit than yours, since it's all based on rumor.

The reason you choose Jesus' story over Steve's is that you WANT Jesus to give you the easy way out, and if you suspend your disbelief long enough, you can make yourself believe the bible's tall tale.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[ddimas]

So, basicly, because some guy pulled a magic trick on you, the anyone who disagrees with you is insane? Interesting logic.

Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught

[RobinH]

So, basicly, because some guy pulled a magic trick on you, the anyone who disagrees with you is insane? Interesting logic.

Oh, come on! You're not seriously that dense, are you? Are you one of those guys who has to have everything explained to them? You completely missed the point of my post. When you get a little older, maybe you'll understand.

Handwriting

[IpsissimusMarr]

Makes me feel as though I may have a chance at this science thing after all. I thought scientists had meticulous handwriting (you know, to differenciate themselves from medical doctors). But seeing Einstein's handwriting is pretty much incomprehensible makes me think my scribble could just make take me into the big time. heh.

Re:Handwriting

[Gortbusters.org]

Pretty soon the only legible things you will be able to write are 1s and 0s!

Re:Handwriting

[jdh-22]

Funny you mention that, but his handwriting does tell something about him, and you. My grandmother has been an handwriting anyalist for almost 40 years now, and I have been learning for a couple.

Einstien's handwriting is very interesting. Notice how he dots his i's and how small his writing is. This means that he has an exceptional eye for detail, and he has an unreal imgination. A quailty many scientists poses.

So your scribble can mean many different things. Might wanna check out The Complete Idiot's Guide to Handwriting Analysis which is a very good book to get started with.

Re:Handwriting

[Idarubicin]

Einstien's handwriting is very interesting. Notice how he dots his i's and how small his writing is. This means that he has an exceptional eye for detail, and he has an unreal imgination.

Hm. Look at his small handwriting and dotted i's, I conclude that he had better than average eyesight, and a primary school teacher who rapped his knuckles with a ruler every time he forgot to dot an i or cross a t.

I conclude that he had an eye for detail and a healthy imagination based on what's in his writing, not how the letters are formed.

Re:Handwriting

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how he dots his i's and how small his writing is. This means that he has an exceptional eye for detail, and he has an unreal imgination.

It also means that he's a scientist. If he dotted his j's in the same way, it would mean that he was an electrical engineer with an "unreal" imagination.

Re:Handwriting

[Thud457]

Idiot.

This is America. We judge a man by the form of his penmanship rather than the content of his writings.

Re:Handwriting

[PD]

Actually, a better reference for handwriting analysis is right here

Re:Handwriting

[jpkunst]

Einstien's handwriting is very interesting. Notice how he dots his i's and how small his writing is. This means that he has an exceptional eye for detail, and he has an unreal imgination.

I don't think anyone would draw this sort of conclusions from his handwriting if they didn't know beforehand that it was Einstein's. Handwriting analysis is about as scientific as astrology if you ask me. See also this article in the Skeptic's Dictionary.

JP

Re:Handwriting

[BigBadBri]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Handwriting Analysis

Isn't the phrase "Complete Idiot's" a little superfluous in this book title?

An analysis of my handwriting once produced a diagnosis of me as a sad, lonely wanker with absolutely no point in life.

Aaaaah - it's just dawned on me...

Re:Handwriting

[outsider007]

I conclude that he had an eye for detail and a healthy imagination based on what's in his writing, not how the letters are formed.

I conclude that paper was more expensive back then.

Re:Handwriting

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how he dots his i's and how small his writing is. This means that he has an exceptional eye for detail, and he has an unreal imgination.

I never understood why this obsesion with dotting i's. Maybe it's because I'm not american, but I've never seen anyone who desn't put dots on top of their i. How else would you tell it apart from an l?. I can know a lot of people who don't pay attention to detail and still all dot their i's. Is this another american thing?

As to the size of his handwriting, the only thing I can think of is that:
-He had very good eyesight
-He was lazy (my small handwriting means I don't move my hand as much)
-He was poor and had to save on paper.

How you might conclude that he was imaginative really escapes me.

Re:Handwriting

[Lord Ender]

Wow, I bet you can tell us something about him based on his astrological sign, too!

In seriousness, in the US handwriting recongnition has been dismissed as useless. It is only countries like France who still use it (where the majority of job applications are examined by handwriting analysis before hiring). I have better than 20/20 and I like to write BIG, so nya!

Re:Handwriting

[SEWilco]

This is America. We judge a man by the form of his penmanship rather than the content of his writings.

Except when the writings refer to
"judgment" (comparison between people is too critical),
"man" (excludes beings who are not men),
"his" (excludes beings who are not men, also implies selfish ownership rather than generous sharing),
"penmanship" (not inclusive of pencils, excludes beings who are not man, excludes transport which are not ships),
and "content" (excludes free verse, excludes proper revolutionary discontent).

Re:Handwriting

[CGP314]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Handwriting Analysis


Yup, that seems about right.

Ask Slashdot?

[dogfart]

While I would applaud adding Dr. Einstein to the illustrious list of "Ask Slashdot" contributors, this is difficult to do for someone who has been dead 48 years

Better luck with the "cowboy neal" option

Re:Ask Slashdot?

[linzeal]

Don't we have the technology to clone a human by now, what is this 2001?

Re:Ask Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Mr. A.C. Dimbulb,
That big *Swoooossshhh* you heard was the sound of the joke giving your hair a new part as it zoomed over your head.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
The Humor Police

A More Dignified Einstein?

[__aagmrb7289]

The Wired article mentions that the site attempts to redirect the "mad scientist" image of poor Mr. Einstein. But geesh, look at the picture on the first page! Seems to me like a exuberant kid trying to "pose for the camera", but is ready to break out laughing at any moment...

Re:A More Dignified Einstein?

[DaveAtFraud]

Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

--Einstein

The man had a real sense of humor.

Re:A More Dignified Einstein?

[dopyko]

Well, they could have picked a less dignified picture ..

Re:A More Dignified Einstein?

[carolinef]

A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. -- AlbertEinstein

The The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive has a good biography if you want more backround on the man and his mathematics.

I Really Need Some Sleep...

[LordYUK]

Because even though I read the title right, my brain decided that it should really be "Getting Head Inside Einsteins" (which for those of you who dont have one, is a bagel shop)...

Too bad, I would have loved to grab one on the way home... Bagel, that is...

Perverts.

=)

Re:I Really Need Some Sleep...

[PHAEDRU5]

Reminds of something from (I think) Groucho Marx:

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

"Us intelligent folks"

[Anonymous Coward]

We.

Inside Einstein's Head

[duct_tape_n_wd40]

Geez, I thought this would be a story about Einstein's brain

Re:Inside Einstein's Head

[jmagar.com]

First thing I thought too. I just finished a great book about Thomas Harvey and how he managed to hold on to the wonderous organ for so long. Check it out:

Possessing Genius.

Re:At what age did Einstein's brain taste BEST?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you have missed its prime age

special relativity...wow

[selderrr]

You gotta give it to the man for taking up challenges : as if this relativity stuff isn't complicated enough, he even wrote it in german !

Re:special relativity...wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing both languages, I'd say it's easier to express complex concepts in German than in English.

Re:special relativity...wow

[SEWilco]

Knowing both languages, I'd say it's easier to express complex concepts in German than in English.

Oh, let's suck more concepts from yet another language in...
Both Languagesknowingexpressioneasier Mesay Conceptscomplex Germanlanguage betterthan AmericanEnglish.

LOL!! Mod Parent Up!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I two-letter response to /. elitism. It doesn't get any better!

F U works too...

Jobs

[IpsissimusMarr]

Please accept first my heartfelt gratitude for the greatest favor you could have bestowed upon such as I. By calling me into your Academy you have put me into a position that allows me to devote myself wholly to scientific studies and frees me from the distractions and tribulations of a practical profession."

Yeap, Physicists never have real jobs. At least not real physicists.

Re:Thank God for Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... so paki's are not muslims now?

Dude, you /.'d Einstein!!

[ClippyHater]

How rude!

the other archives

[AbdullahHaydar]

the other archives

I guess I read that wrong...

[darkmayo]

alot less interesting than I thought it would be...

And...

[frodo from middle ea]

And now for something completly different...
Albert enistein

On Physics

[Mtn_Dewd]

As I continue to inflict masochistic physics damage against myself in my conquest of knowledge, I can't help but pull myself away from my studies and wonder: If this is this difficult for me to even comprehend/grasp (and I'm certain that I'm probably only learning it at a base level), how the hell does one create and come up with this stuff? I'm truly amazed by men like Einstein, and I have such a humbled respect for physicists, who though I can't understand why they do it to themselves, live and think in a different plane than so many people even realize exists.

Re:On Physics

[kfg]

Simply because it's what we do. We don't have much of what you could call "choice" in the matter, and as such it isn't "doing it to ourselves."

Why on earth do some people just code Java all day, and love it? Beats the hell out of me, but it's what makes them tick. More power to them, and they can have it.

And, to me at least, Relativity is obvious, but Java is about as arcane as it gets.

Please note which one is natural law and which is man made.

KFG

Re:On Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

it's like programming lisp or SML
your brains are just turned inside out and you forget your own address

Re:On Physics

[eeyoredragon]

Or better yet, if that's the case, why do they bother even trying to explain it to the rest of us?

Re:On Physics

[kevlar]

Cause and Effect.

Quite simply put, they come up with it by following the Scientific Method. Einstein's genius was that he could think of a scientific experiment, then imagine what the results would be without any physical evidence, just mathematical models. For example, the "what would happen if you were traveling in a train at the speed of light and you turned on a flashlight" experiment. Theres no way to implement this experiment, however using mathematics and his imagination, we was able to come to a probable conclusion.

Re:On Physics

[Mr. McGibby]

Or, why don't they?

The universe is full of strange, wonderful and complex things. But the only way that human knowledge is going to progress is if the "difficult to learn" stuff is made "easy to learn" through innovative explanations, or teaching.

I personally believe that the reason that innovation in science comes is spurts is because older scientist's heads are filled with complex understanding of ideas. When these ideas are explained to a new generation, simpler and simpler ways of looking at things are created to explain the idea. The students thus gain a "simple understanding" of the same ideas. And are thus better able to go beyond those ideas.

I don't think there is very much that is "inherently" difficult to learn. Relativity is becoming easier and easier for people to understand, not because it has become simpler, but because millions of teachers have come up with easy ways to explain it.

Re:On Physics

[johnjay]

If you like that type of stuff you might consider reading David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature (Book 1 is all I've read). Hume methodically, scientifically, and ruthlessly tears down the relation between cause and effect that we human beings are almost hard-wired to believe in. It's a great read for scientists, since they are constantly trying to infer causes from effects.

Also, after nearly creating a cold, disjointed world of skepticism, he ends by saying he's going to pop of to the pub, have a smoke and play some backgammon to reassure himself of the importance of real life. It's a nice human touch after such rigorous brilliance.

And, if you want to feel humble, he wrote this revolutionary book in his early 20s. He made much better use of his 20s than I've made of mine.

Re:On Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully I'm not making an ass of myself, but:

What, most likely, would happen?

Re:On Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

Java is much more obvious than the mess called Perl... yet some people still program Perl all day

Re:On Physics

[Lord Ender]

Well, the only things you need to accept to figure out special relativity are the Pythagorian Theorem (from HS geometry) and that the speed of light is constant. It is not amazing to come up with special relativity, but what it implies IS truly amazing, at least to humans, who evolved moving extremely slowly relative to eachother. If you had a better physics prof perhaps it would be easier.

Re:On Physics

[3waygeek]

Well, the only things you need to accept to figure out special relativity are the Pythagorian Theorem (from HS geometry) and that the speed of light is constant.

Some recent theories challenge the latter assumption.

Re:On Physics

[utopyr]

Funny about that speed of light dogma--have you ever measured it yourself? I have.

It was part of the required coursework in college, and I admit that I was better at the other parts. Still, this one caught my interest when I measured the speed of light, and then, to be on the safe side, I measured it again. Different figures. Wait a minute, Albert.

I ended up measuring it many times through the late afternoon, then many more times in the early morning, and a very clear trend emerged--light is slower in the morning. I pondered the consequences of my discovery.

E=mc^2 is predicated upon the speed of light being a constant--what if it isn't? Well, the equation is dandy, and the work that Einstein and others developed from it is so elegant, I figured that the equality must be preserved. So:

Light slower in the morning means that c decreases. Two possible cases:
a. E decreases proportionally, to preserve the ratio--I have less energy in the morning, I can't get out of bed.
b. m increases proportionally to c's decrease--I'm heavier, I can't get out of bed.

When I finally made it to class the next day, late, as usual, and presented my findings, the tutor was not grateful for my perseverance and contribution to the enlargement of learning. Rather, she suggested sloppy lab work was responsible.

I have read the recent stories as corroboration and vindication. I doubt she remembers me.

Re:On Physics

[Anonymous Coward]

Well technically its impossible to go the speed of light. If you were able to go almost the speed of light, and you turned on a flashlight, it would appear normal to you, but time would actually have slowed significantly since you were travelling at such a fast speed. As a result, to people who were not moving, it'd appear as though you were moving very fast but that you yourself were practically frozen. Its kinda weird actually.

Re:On Physics

[SEWilco]

Light isn't slower in the morning.

In the morning, you're accelerating toward the Sun so you're moving closer to the speed of light so its speed is less than in the late afternoon when you're moving against the Sun's gravitational acceleration and thus slowing away from the speed of light.

(Yes, I understand the original was a shaggy dog story.)

Re:On Physics

[renoX]

>how the hell does one create and come up with this stuff?

Special Relativity was really "in the air" when Einstein made his paper: I bet that if Einstein wasn't here someone else would have made the discovery.

General Relativity on the other hand, is IMHO the real masterpiece of Einstein: he tried to "apply relativity" to gravity and it didn't work then he thought that there is really no difference between acceleration and gravity and he tried to translate this into equations.
If I remember correctly the "translation into equation" phasis took him about 10 years and he had to took math lessons (about tensors).

So the answer to your question is: an imaginative mind and hard work!

Re:On Physics

[squaretorus]

Even in the three years between my own transit through honours Chemistry and a friends the extent of material being covered changed significantly. He studied much of our 4th year material in 3rd year (some in 2nd) and dropped a large part of the earlier syllabus and went straight to the 'meaty' end of the subject.

This was driven partly by a change in teaching staff - more lecturers under 40 - and partly by a more industry led focus on outcomes. No longer was the key objective of the department to create a dozen good PhD candidates - it was to create a hundred employable scientists.

He bitched about some topics being harder than others just as we did.

When it comes to subjects such as GM crops, certain deseases, anything scientific that hits the general public it instantly becomes more understandable through example. Most of my headaches from my final year came from getting to grips with the principles and production of ceramics like those used on the shuttle. Tell a non-chemist about your ceramics at the time and they'd say "what - like plates and jugs?" tell it now and you at least get recognition of the existance of high performance ceramics - and usually some interest.

So yes - there are better ways to explain things - but also theres the context of the learning. If the dopey one in Friends actually covered some physics instead of whining about his lesbian wife I reckon we'd have a much greater chance of the next 30 years producing insights of the calibre and impact of Einsteins simply through that background knowledge giving a more fertile ground for educators to ply their trade.

Re:On Physics

[guybarr]

Or better yet, if that's the case, why do they bother even trying to explain it to the rest of us ?

Because formalizing and explaining something (in the forms of publishing hypothesis, articles, and eventually theories) have prooved to be a most efficient tools for scientific ideas development and verification.

Like Feynman said, you yourself are the easiest person to con.

This is why even a singular genius like Einstein or Gauss gains from explaining his ideas (at least once) to others. Thus, a significant portion of Einstein's work consisted of letters to other physicists.

Re:On Physics

[VanillaCoke420]

Yeah well but Perl is not really a language, now is it? A disorganized bunch of strange characters, sure...

Re:On Physics

[CGP314]

If there is one thing I have learned from studying physics, it is how smart men like Einstein and Newton were. Sure, I knew they were smart guys before, but now they are on a whole new level. I used to think the intelligence difference from them to me was like a high school student sitting in a lecture with a graduate professor. Now I think its more like a dog to a professor. To be able to observe the world around you and say, 'Yeah, I think the velocity of light is always the same' and then work out the mathematical/physical results of that is an ability that I don't imagine shows up in our species very often.

Re:On Physics

[ch-chuck]

Hume methodically, scientifically, and ruthlessly tears down the relation between cause and effect that we human beings are almost hard-wired to believe in.

Oh boy, do I wish MORE people would understand that!! You can see it in operation ALL THE TIME dealing with computer users: something Bad© happens, and they link it with all kinds of weird things they just happened to be doing, especially the upper lvl mgmt that reads PCWorld once a month and fancies themselves 'experts' - "The computer went blue just when I tried to save the file on the server, I think the server has a problem", etc etc etc.

Re:On Physics

[mfrank]

Didn't something happen like that with Maxwell's equations? Originally the equations were in a form that were almost impossible to use, then they became much more simplified?

There's also the Flynn effect, where for as long as IQ tests have been administered, IQ seems to be going up around 3 points per decade (i.e. high school grads in 2000 average about 9 points higher than grads in 1970). More intellectual stimulation's probably the cause, with radio, then TV, then the net giving greater amounts of info to young people.

Re:On Physics

[mfrank]

Well, there was the quandry posed by the results of the Michelson/Morley experiment. That gave him reason to believe the speed of light was constant, no matter the reference frame. Doubt if he could have come up with relativity without knowing about the results of that experiment.

After he came up with the theory, they came up with observations to support them. Fast-moving cosmic rays taking too long to decay, the unexplained deviation in Mercury's orbit, etc.

Re:On Physics

[Art Tatum]

Hey, it's nothing compared to the damage we're doing by trying to fit inside Einstein's head. It's more messy than either phone booths or VW bugs.

I'm Already In Einstein's Head...

[VoyagerRadio]

...being the genius that I am.

The Meaning Of Relativity

[reverseengineer]

I made a beeline for The Stafford Lectures, a series of lectures he gave at Princeton in 1921- which were later collected, translated, and published under the title "The Meaning of Relativity," a copy of which I happen to have. It was fascinating to look at the original notes that eventually would become the text of a book I own. It was even more fascinating that the equations were now the most comprehensible part of the text, as I don't understand much German (pitifully little considering my heritage), and even if I did, Einstein wrote his notes in a messy cursive scrawl with many scratch-outs and replaced passages. Still, it's a very interesting glimpse into Einstein's thought processes.

Re:The Meaning Of Relativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Nur Deutsch wird hier gesprochen!

Re:LOL!! Mod Parent Up!!

[Thinkit3]

But I'm not being elite. By saying ideas exist outside of time, I'm saying that nobody invented them and nobody is the elite.

Text of article incase of Slashdotting

[acposter]

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible," Albert Einstein once remarked.

Perhaps the world is indeed comprehensible to a genius like Einstein. And -- with the launch of a new website on Monday -- at least Einstein himself will be a bit more comprehensible to the world.

In addition to the voluminous collection of Einstein's writings, some never before published and none previously available online, the website will house an extensive database of 40,000 documents, images and research on Einstein's life and work, as well as digitized copies of Einstein's professional and personal correspondence and pages from his notebooks and travel diaries.

The site will include documents refuting popular beliefs about Einstein. He was not a bad student -- the only subject he flunked was French. He didn't work for the U.S. government on top-secret projects like the atom bomb; instead, he was for many years monitored by the FBI as a possible threat to national security. And he was, as his personal letters prove, an unrepentant flirt.

The new website, which goes live Monday at 3 p.m. EST, is the result of a year-long cooperative effort between the Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Einstein Papers Project at the California Institute of Technology.

"It is a beautiful collaboration between two continents," said Diana Kormos Buchwald, director and general editor of the Einstein Papers Project. "We hope it will serve both the general public and researchers equally well."

The site was launched to compliment the day-long symposium on Einstein's life and work being held Monday at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

At the symposium, among other subjects, researchers will discuss 2,000 unpublished pages of calculations recently found in Einstein's files. Kormos Buchwald said the calculations are connected with Einstein's pursuit of a Grand Unified Theory.

Einstein firmly believed he would be able to describe every single law of physics through one simple mathematical equation. Although he devoted 35 years to his quest for the Unified Theory, it's believed he failed to discover that magic calculation.

But Kormos Buchwald said the 2,000 pages of notes, seemingly written shortly before Einstein's death in 1955, have yet to be fully explored.

"We have a lot of wonderful research to do yet, a lot of work ahead of us," Kormos Buchwald said. The calculations eventually will be posted on the website. The Einstein Papers Project plans to publish more than 14,000 Einstein-related documents in a 25-volume series called, aptly enough, "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein."

The eight volumes that are available so far contain Einstein's writings and correspondence from his youth to age 40. They include his major papers on the theory of special relativity, general relativity, the quantum theory of light and matter, as well as a wealth of lesser-known contributions on many aspects of science, education, international reconciliation, Zionism and pacifism.

The website will present records for all items that have been edited and annotated by scholars, and those that have appeared in "The Collected Papers."

Approximately 500 previously unpublished documents, uncovered during the past 25 years from private collections and university archives, also will be available on the website.

Einstein Archives Online was developed in collaboration with the information technology and photo-reprography departments of Hebrew University's Jewish National and University Library, the library's David and Fela Shapell Digitization Project and the Princeton University Press.

Einstein's personal papers were bequeathed to Hebrew University in his last will and testament. The Albert Einstein Archives have been housed at the school since 1982, after being held at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, so U.S. scholars and scientists could review them.

Nah

[threephaseboy]

Its probably a dupe from 48+ years ago.

Does it have to be that profound?

[ianscot]

'The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible,' Albert Einstein once remarked.

Sounds like the sort of thing a director says about her movie, to bullshit her way through the questions at a film festival. Orson Welles had a million of 'em.

Not to be too cynical -- I love these sorts of pithy statements, and they'd sure rate a +5 insightful on slashdot -- but are we required to assume that because he was amazing in one field, his sentiments about life and happiness are necessarily grand Higher Truths? He sure was a good quote, but there's a sort of Mark Twain trying-this-statement-on-for-size quality to Einstein sometimes, isn't there?

Re:Does it have to be that profound?

[Xerithane]

Not to be too cynical -- I love these sorts of pithy statements, and they'd sure rate a +5 insightful on slashdot -- but are we required to assume that because he was amazing in one field, his sentiments about life and happiness are necessarily grand Higher Truths? He sure was a good quote, but there's a sort of Mark Twain trying-this-statement-on-for-size quality to Einstein sometimes, isn't there?

I would really recommend reading some of his notes and books. He has some excellent tales about truly understanding a subject, how life and God interact (even if you are Athiest/Agnostic/Gnostic/Cheese) that is remarkably fascinating. The man is brilliant, and not just in one area, but you have to read what he writes to understand that...

Better than all the idiots trying to claim he was autistic and didn't know how to tie his shoes.

Re:Does it have to be that profound?

[Xerithane]

The man is brilliant,

Er, was. And wrote. 48 years dead, and I still can't get the proper tenses down.

Re:Does it have to be that profound?

[pclminion]

but are we required to assume that because he was amazing in one field, his sentiments about life and happiness are necessarily grand Higher Truths?

Einstein was making a very specific statement about the nature of the universe. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean what he said was metaphysical nonsense.

Einstein was commenting on the weirdness of living in a world which can be precisely described by mathematics. By "comprehensibility," he means from a mathematical/logical standpoint. It really is baffling that we are able to observe the world around us, and develop rigorous mathematical and logical systems which precisely match those observations.

Einstein quite rightly found it amazing that mere human minds, through the application of inductive and deductive reasoning, can understand the physical world. Einstein himself, through simple geometric reasoning, showed that matter and energy are equivalent. The possibility of an atom bomb can be deduced through geometry! This is what Einstein found so incomprehensible.

Could This Wait Till Next Week?

[LordYUK]

I don't have time to ponder relativity...

I'm still trying to figure out if there's really a spoon...

Re:Could This Wait Till Next Week?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still trying to figure out if there's really a spoon...

No, there is not. I'll explain in December.

The best part

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you can flip it around to
"The most comprehensible thing about the world is that it is incomprehensible."

And you'll sound about as profound!

The world is simple when one observation is made

[HarveyBirdman]

People are idiots.

Everything else can pretty much be derived from that.

Sorry. Pissy mood today. Monday and all that.

No one writes anymore

[Vinnie_333]

It's been a long time since I've written anything out by hand. I wonder what a collection like this in the futre about a current well known figure would look like? "The Collected E-Mails of George W Bush"

Re:No one writes anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 98% forwards of things he had forwarded to him and thought funny.

Re:No one writes anymore

[bigbadbuccidaddy]

Dick,
Where are you hiding the fake poop?
-GWB

At least Einstein was original

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Collected E-Mails of George W Bush"

Wow. Another Bush bashing post. Gosh. Haven't seen one of those in ages. Gee. Good for you!

Re:At least Einstein was original

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, A.C., you're not going to bash Clinton to even up the score? What's wrong with you anyway?

since the topic has a quote...

[phaetonic]

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein

Einstein never read Slashdot

[Concerned Onlooker]

I doubt he would have found the world so comprehensible if he had.

Re:Thank God for Einstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. It would have been much better to let the Germans develop it first. The world would be a much better place then. Face it. The A-Bomb saved millions of lives by eliminating the need for an assault on the island of Nippon.

Re:The world is simple when one observation is mad

[Anonymous Coward]

The most amazing thing about your post is that you presented an argument and proved it at the same time.

road trip with Einstein

[envelope]

Here is a book that lets you get real up close and personal with Einstein's brain.

Not only does God play dice, he ....

[burgburgburg]

uses 12 sided dice and now I owe him $15,000 and a Chrysler LeBaron.

Re:Not only does God play dice, he ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you are playing. The average roll on a pair of 6 sided dice is 7 while the average roll on a 12 side die is 6.5.

Re:Not only does God play dice, he ....

[Fesh]

There was some Bob the Angry Flower linkage that I was going to throw in here, but it looks like the server's croaked. Probably a good thing; I'm getting worried at how often I've been finding opportunities to sing the praises of St. Notley lately...

*sobs* I have no life...

Re:Not only does God play dice, he ....

[Anonymous Coward]

uses 12 sided dice

The hard part is figuring out which of the two faces on each side of the hypercube is the one on top.

The Einstein File

[zaneIO]

From 1933 until 1955, the Federal Bureau of Investigation compiled a 2,000-page file on Albert Einstein, hoping to "destroy" his immense stature by linking him to Soviet espionage activities. At one point, not long before the scientist's death, a attempt was made to have him deported. This campaign is responsible in large part for Einstein's exclusion from the Manhattan Project, and is docemented in the book Fred Jerome's The Einstein File. Einstein's .

Re:The Einstein File

[Anonymous Coward]

Picasso and Aaron Copland too had huge FBI files.

Re:The Einstein File

[praksys]

Einstein was a communist, and some communists really did give the Soviets secret information about US nuclear weapons programs, and the Soviets really did want to use those weapons to kill everyone in the US. The FBI was just doing its job.

Re:The Einstein File

[Anonymous Coward]

and one day squirrels will come flying out my butt!

Re:The Einstein File

[hesiod]

I hate mods. Flamebait because they are pissed off that you took the time to find links to back up what you said. We can't have truthfulness here, when we are trying to hold famous dead people up to godly standards. People seem to forget that he was just a man. Same as Ghandi, except Ghandi was a lot more merciless and deserves more insults.

Message to Hemos

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of trying to get inside Einstein's head - you should try to get inside a girl. Hemos - you have no life.

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

if einstein's so smart, why couldn't he come up with a unified field theory?

Einstein Schmeinstein

[bobm17ch]

Is it a coincidence that ninestein's nemesis zelda is actually albert einsten's mother?
I think not.

Nah I'm more perverted cause...

[Anik315]

Because even though I read the title right, my brain decided that it should really be "Getting Head Inside Einsteins

At first I thought you'd misinterpreted "getting inside Einstein's head."

Arghh!

[einstein]

Get Out of My Head!!

In the Matrix Reloaded THE SPOON DIES!

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:I disagree with the disagreement

[hawkfish]

For a rebuttal to Mr. Dennett and a really cool online course try here.

Re:The world is simple when one observation is mad

[FroMan]

Einstein is an idiot?

Bummer for him. Talk about revisionism. :-P

Best way to get into his head...

[EverDense]

The Best way to get into someone's head is with a powerdrill.

Re:Best way to get into his head...

[hesiod]

> The Best way to get into someone's head is with a powerdrill.

Pssh, try thinking. It may be the EASIEST way, but the best way is definitely via a rusty spork. ;P

only flunked French == good student???

[tcm614ce]

The site will include documents refuting popular beliefs about Einstein. He was not a bad student -- the only subject he flunked was French

Ahem....I know a lot of below average students who never flunked anything...

Re:only flunked French == good student???

[glenrm]

You miss the point he is genius for flunking French, it is like poor spelling or bad grammer the marks of genius...

Re:only flunked French == good student???

[edinho]

You must be talking about schools in the good olde USofA then? 8^)

Cheers,
e.

Re:only flunked French == good student???

[hesiod]

> it is like poor spelling or bad grammer the marks of genius...

If only... I almost failed English countless times in primary school, despite the fact that I spoke better English than probably 95% of the students. Doesn't mean I'm a genius... or does it...?

Is it me or is this guy an absolute genious?????

[botzi]

Knowing that my level of intelligence is far above average(proof below), I've tried to get in touch with some of Einstein's theories while reading:
"Die äussere Anlass dieses Bandes ist eine Art Jubiläum"
Well, damn it..... a pretty harsh read......... Anyway.... it was a pleasure and I'm pretty sure that once I learn counting to 10 in German, I'll give it a second try.

<conclusion>
Obviously, the problem with understanding Einstein is that the guy used to write exclusively in German...
</conclusion>

I believe he applied the math.

[MickLinux]

As I remember, there were irregularities in Mercury's orbit. He then adjusted the space-time equations to account for the gravitational field of the Sun, and proposed it as a theorem.

So that would imply to me that he applied the math. But first he had to come up with a model: that the irregularities were in fact regularities of the true space-time system.

He then had to decide what his limits were likely to be, and then come up with the new mathematical model. Finally, he had to check his work.

None of it was easy. None of it is easy today. But I think it was understandable for an incredibly smart person with enough time on his hands. He had both, and so he came up with it.

I think your wonderment is excellent, and you are right to wonder. But I could honestly ask the same about Linus Torvaldas' invention Linux (or semiinvention: I know he didn't do it *all* himself, neither did Einstein who had Newton's calculus to help him).

The bigger question to me is "what made him identify that as a productive field for his efforts?"

Re:I believe he applied the math.

[10am-bedtime]

why does any creative choose any field? in a word: riff.

skilled application of what is known to please your own feedback aesthetics in the guitar world is known as "riffing". it is probably similar to other fields of creative endeavor.

Re:I believe he applied the math.

[mfrank]

I would have thought that the results of the Michelson/Morley experiment, showing that there was no "ether" and that the velocity of light seemed to be the same in all reference frames (or, at least, in winter and summer :) ) was a basis for his theory.

Re:The world is simple when one observation is mad

[Anonymous Coward]

So you actually admit you have a bad "case of the Mondays"?

Errrrrrrrr...

[Tyler Durden]

You're trying to explain the experience of a thing (subjective view) with a mechanical explanation (objective view)? Once you reduce a subjective phenomenon to an objective explanation then what you're describing is no longer a subjective phenomenon and thus you haven't explained anything at all.

I fail to see where the contradiction is in thinking that consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically. It almost it seems that you're saying,"The hypothesis that consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically is irrational because it doesn't work when we try to explain consciousness mechanistically."

Re:Errrrrrrrr...

[gwernol]

You're trying to explain the experience of a thing (subjective view) with a mechanical explanation (objective view)?

Yes :-)

Once you reduce a subjective phenomenon to an objective explanation then what you're describing is no longer a subjective phenomenon and thus you haven't explained anything at all.

I disagree (to recycle the original subject line). There is no reason to believe that subjective phenomena cannot be mechanistic. For example certain low-level image processing phenomena are largely understood at the mechnical level yet also are subjectively experienced. Think about line recognition: I can have the subjective experience of looking at an image and recognizing a line ("oh look, there's a line"). But this can be completely mapped to specific mechanistic processes in the brain. Its certainly plausible to believe that all subjective experiences are explainable by mechnistic processes in this way. Note that I don't claim that we know that is true, just that its at least a plausible model.

So this is an example of a mechanistic process that we experience subjectively. Does that mean it has not subjective experience? Clearly not since we do experience it. Does that mean its not mechanistic? Clearly not since it is measureable mechanistic. So therefore there are at least some subjective experiences that are mechanistic. Maybe they all are?

I fail to see where the contradiction is in thinking that consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically.

I wasn't (trying) to make that claim. I was however saying that consciousness might be a mechanistic process, and that there is in fact evidence that strongly points in that direction. If you want to say that subjective experiences are not mechanistic you are putting forward the dualist argument and I'd ask that you point to some evidence that the world is so.

It almost it seems that you're saying,"The hypothesis that consciousness cannot be explained mechanistically is irrational because it doesn't work when we try to explain consciousness mechanistically."

No, I'm claiming that the dualist view is irrational (using the strict meaning of that word) because you claim there is no rational (aka mechanistic) explanation for subjective phenomena. In other words your claim is that there is a metaphysical explanation for subjectivity. That's irrational. Whether it is true or not is another matter entirely.

Re:Errrrrrrrr...

[Tyler Durden]

There is no reason to believe that subjective phenomena cannot be mechanistic. For example certain low-level image processing phenomena are largely understood at the mechnical level yet also are subjectively experienced. Think about line recognition: I can have the subjective experience of looking at an image and recognizing a line ("oh look, there's a line"). But this can be completely mapped to specific mechanistic processes in the brain. Its certainly plausible to believe that all subjective experiences are explainable by mechnistic processes in this way. Note that I don't claim that we know that is true, just that its at least a plausible model.

I think the question is, though, does a further understanding of some of the mechanistic basis behind the experience of a thing (such as the science behind how our eyes and brain process light phenomenon) get us any closer to grasping what it is to experience the thing (the actual qualia of sight). I could explain how the eye and brain work together to a blind person as long as I want, but he will never get any closer to knowing what it's like to actually see. I feel trying to explain consciousness is similar.

No, I'm claiming that the dualist view is irrational (using the strict meaning of that word) because you claim there is no rational (aka mechanistic) explanation for subjective phenomena. In other words your claim is that there is a metaphysical explanation for subjectivity. That's irrational. Whether it is true or not is another matter entirely.

OK. I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up.

Gosh but we're offtopic. Acutally, if I really wanted to understand consciousness I'd dedicate myself to Zen Buddhism. But that's just me. :)

LMAO

[edinho]

8^)

Re:The world is simple when one observation is mad

[HarveyBirdman]

The most amazing thing about your post is that you presented an argument and proved it at the same time.

Ah, blow me, geek. :-P My evolutionary branch is at least 50,000 years ahead of yours. So there. Ha, I showed him a thing or three.

Space the Infinite Universe with Harry Caray...

[powerlinekid]

From SNL:

"Thats all the time we have. Join us next week with our guest Albert Einstein."
[Man whispers into Caray's ear]

"Well apparently Alber Einstein died 42 years ago. You know what, we'll try to get him anyway. See you next time."

Re:Space the Infinite Universe with Harry Caray...

[powerlinekid]

Crap... should of previewed... I apologize to all you spelling nazis out there.

why not DjVu

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, oh why aren't they using DjVu for the digitized page images?

You stupid stupid fucking retarded asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way was that even remotely a Bush-bashing post? Why would Bush writing emails instead of by hand be in any way an insult to him at all?

You fucking dipshit dittohead cocksucker.

Re:You stupid stupid fucking retarded asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he saw it as an insult to Bush because only unamerican hippies see Bush as stupid -- Bush is very smart, and as we all know, smart people can express themselves creatively in all forms, including handwriting. Note that even stupidity is relative.

Damn creationist ...

[Brigadier]

just couldn't resist could you .. =)

Re:Damn creationist ...

[crashnbur]

You think I'm a creationist?! I think you're the first person ever to call me something even remotely similar to something like that...

"Our favorite physicist?"

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Really?

I agree that Albert Einstein was pretty great, but he seems like such a "vanilla" choice. Do you guys really like him more than Dr. Buckaroo Banzai (physicist/neurosurgeon/rock star), for example?

Einstein made important contributions to Quantum Mechanics, including his quantum-based explanation of the photoelectric effect, which netted him the Nobel Prize. And of course, he developed both Special Relativity and General Relativity. But did he ever save the world from extradimensional guys named John?

Oh well... MY favorite physicist is... I.

--Mark

Anatomy of a failure: What Killed FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It

Why Einstein

[Jagasian]

Why all of the Einstein hype? I mean, Slashdot never even mentioned the release of Turing's Collected Works. Nice books, I highly recommend it.

Tick, tock.

[lostchicken]

You can access it from 3:00 to 3:01, now that it's posted here...

Re:Tick, tock.

[SEWilco]

No, they said it is available at 3.

Darn, I'm too late. I missed it. Maybe they'll make it available at another time.

Can't let this one go.

[MickLinux]

Your sig: Engineers do the work of man; physicists do the work of God.

Correction:

Engineers design the works of man

Natural philosophers (physicists), like all philosophers, *try to understand* the design of the works of God.

Christ did the work of God.

(and for those who say, don't bring religion into this, I didn't. He did.)

Re:Can't let this one go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't attempt to distort the proven basis of Norse creation science. There were many who did the work of the gods.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No pseudoscience here please.

[jotaeleemeese]

We are /.ers.

His writing was better with age

[oliverthered]

Compaire this between 01/01/1896 and 12/31/1900
and
this between 01/01/1955 and 04/18/1955

Even I dot my i's

[oliverthered]

Any you can't tell an 'f' from a 'b' with my handwriting.

Re:well... thats like saying...

[m1chael]

if einstein was so smart why is he dead?

Re:I disagree. (you would)

[Anonymous Coward]

you obviously are not Einstein. what is "knowing about itself"? posit: being aware of the world around said organism, and knowledge of its place within that world. ergo, "knowing about itself" = the world being comprehensible. But maybe if you grow your hair long and fuzzy, you can at least *look* the part.

Physicists *do* do the work of god...

[alienmole]

...since their discoveries change our understanding of the universe. For example, it was physicists (broadly speaking) who made the Earth spherical for us - before that, it was flat. Physicists literally change the world, on a fairly regular basis.

Besides, god is a bit of a slacker, at least when it comes to creation - he spent a week on creating heaven and earth, and doesn't seem to have done much since. Or perhaps he's off working on Universe 2.0. Either way, someone's gotta take over where he left off...

Re:Physicists *do* do the work of god...

[MickLinux]

To those who follow the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit (and thus God) is still very active. And through those people, God does a ton. But it isn't the pointless stuff like putting another man on the moon (very interesting, to be sure) or even feeding more people in India with the same amount of land (very good, and I'm sure God is quite impressed, couldn't have done it without you and all that). But it instead makes differences where it counts: such as healing hearts before they create wars like we have in Zaire, Israel, Iraq/Iran, or Nigeria.

Go back and look at the more recent saints, canonized by Pope John Paul II, and you'll see examples of the Holy Spirit in action.

No, God is quite active. Problem is that man is also very active, and often does not listen to God.

Have you ever had a son or daughter tell you that you're doing it wrong, and that you should build a house *this* way? We're good at that too, but instead of telling our parents, we tell God.

And he patiently waits for us to become convinced that we're wrong, and are willing to listen to him -- even if we have to fall on our face a dozen times before we figure it out that we really were wrong, and He really was right.

You want to see what God in action is like, go read "The Cross and the Switchblade". Then -- though that group is not so much for this time as its own time -- go see Teen Challenge. Check out its truth for yourself.

Re:Physicists *do* do the work of god...

[alienmole]

It would be great if religion really succeeded in healing hearts. Unfortunately, the exact opposite seems to be true, historically and still today. Perhaps you're saying that your particular religion, apparently Christianity, is better in that regard than others such as Judaism or Islam. A debatable, but ultimately irrelevant point.

Religion is a sociobiological mechanism for intragroup cohesion, which at that level is specifically intended to do one of two things: assimilate other groups, or failing that, defend against them or even conquer them. As such, religion has no claim to any moral high ground, except on an internal basis, which I'm afraid is not sufficiently moral for me.

Re:Physicists *do* do the work of god...

[MickLinux]

Mmm hmm... Marx thought so too.

I don't talk about religion. I talk about Christianity and the Holy Spirit. "Religion", per se, is a political institution, as you say.

You want to say that great evil is done in the name of politics, I'd agree. That's called a beast: a great, lumbering, unintelligent composite animal, and there are more than enough beasts to go around.

But Christianity is necessarily personal, as is a relationship with the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with beasts, except insofar as any group of like-minded people does start to take on a political dimension, as does any group of differently minded people.

If I point to the sun, and say "the sun is hot", you can always point at space and say "oh, the sun is just in space, and space is cold. So you're wrong." But I'm not wrong. You simply do not want to look at the hot part.

Which is fine -- nobody's forcing you. But it doesn't make you right.

Re:Physicists *do* do the work of god...

[MickLinux]

If you want to stop talking theory, and look at evidence, go real "The Cross and the Switchblade", as I said. Then go look at Teen Challenge. Then come back, report on the evidence you found, and fit that into your theory.

For when a theory is at odds with evidence, the theory needs to be updated. Evidence is never wrong.

NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind the fact that Jew Einstein was a senior member of almost every single communist group/party. Never mind that FBI had one fat file on him. Never mind the fact that he urged to drop "the Bomb" on Europe. Never mind that the dirty Jew would LAUGH at you shabbaz goys praising him. Never mind that his reltivity work is not original - that which he "discovered," European physics knew for a decade. In fact, it was the Jewish lobby here in good 'ol US that pushed him as a great "scientist". Never mind that he couldn't even solve a linear equation.

Sure - he is a great scientist, my ass.

Is consciousness more than an illusion?

[UpnAtom]

Hmm, what can we agree upon here?

Human beings process information in a variety of ways. One way (the misnamed "conscious mind") is generally dominant, narrow in focus, and keeps reasonable track of time (via explicit/declarative memory).

None of this proves consciousness. I believe that I am conscious... but I merely assume that everyone else is. There is no way of proving that somebody else is any more conscious than a sufficiently advanced robot (or a figment of my imagination for that matter ;)

How do I know that my subconscious doesn't experience my life in a similar way to me? Seems farfetched, since most of what is subconscious can be made conscious.

Is consciousness more than an illusion then?

And if not, what is an illusion, if not an aspect of consciousness?

Just something to stimulate some thought.