Getting Inside Einstein's Head 294
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"
I disagree. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ask Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Better luck with the "cowboy neal" option
Nah (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
Re:I disagree. (Score:2, Interesting)
we comprehend ourself and everything else and that is incomprehensable...
you took a subset uf his premis.
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sorry, was that rhetorical?
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Source [gortbusters.org])
Re:I disagree. (Score:2, Funny)
Well, technically, the only thing we're conscious of is the Matrix. Reality can't be directly experienced, except by a few
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [amazon.com], Dennett's much more detailed and evidenced description of all this.
Re:I disagree. (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, and in fact Dennett and Hofstadter have worked together in some depth. Try The Mind's I [amazon.com] co-authored by Hofstadter and Dennett for a fascinating series of essays on this very subject.
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
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
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
I would urge you to read Dennett. He do
Errrrrrrrr... (Score:2)
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 mechanisti
Re:Errrrrrrrr... (Score:2)
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 un
Re:Errrrrrrrr... (Score:2)
Re:I disagree. (Score:2, Interesting)
In the meantime, I will go read Dennett's book
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
Mapping the self-referential references are left as an exercise for the readers.
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
Re:I disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
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:Damn creationist ... (Score:2)
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
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
Re:I disagree. (Score:2)
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 t
If you're ever in Washington, DC (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If you're ever in Washington, DC (Score:2, Interesting)
i bet he never (Score:3, Funny)
Re:i bet he never (Score:2)
The most incomprehensible thing... (Score:3, Funny)
The guy who wrote this site is no fucking Einstein.
Re:The most incomprehensible thing... (Score:2)
Re:The most incomprehensible thing... (Score:2)
<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>
Inevitable Theist Onslaught (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Though certainly physical abuse is a satisfying alternative if that doesn't help.
Not only does God play dice, he .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not only does God play dice, he .... (Score:2)
*sobs* I have no life...
Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, sometimes you people are your own worst enemies.
Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught (Score:2)
Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught (Score:2)
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
Re:Inevitable Theist Onslaught (Score:2)
"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 (Score:2)
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 un
Handwriting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Handwriting (Score:2)
Re:Handwriting (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [amazon.com] which is a very good book to get started with.
Re:Handwriting (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
This is America. We judge a man by the form of his penmanship rather than the content of his writings.
Re:Handwriting (Score:2)
I conclude that paper was more expensive back then.
Re:Handwriting (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Handwriting (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [skepdic.com] in the Skeptic's Dictionary.
JP
Re:Handwriting (Score:2, Funny)
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 (Score:2)
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!
No pseudoscience here please. (Score:2)
Can't let this one go. (Score:2)
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.)
A More Dignified Einstein? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A More Dignified Einstein? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:2, Interesting)
I Really Need Some Sleep... (Score:3, Funny)
Too bad, I would have loved to grab one on the way home... Bagel, that is...
Perverts.
=)
Re:I Really Need Some Sleep... (Score:2)
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Nah I'm more perverted cause... (Score:2)
At first I thought you'd misinterpreted "getting inside Einstein's head."
I went inside his head.... (Score:5, Funny)
Inside Einstein's Head (Score:2, Informative)
special relativity...wow (Score:5, Funny)
the other archives (Score:5, Informative)
On Physics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On Physics (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:On Physics (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I believe he applied the math. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:On Physics (Score:2)
Re:On Physics (Score:2)
Some recent theories [usnews.com] challenge the latter assumption.
Re:On Physics (Score:2)
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
Re:On Physics (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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
The Meaning Of Relativity (Score:4, Informative)
Text of article incase of Slashdotting (Score:2, Informative)
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
Does it have to be that profound? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would really recommend reading some of his notes and books. He has some excellent tales about truly under
Re:Does it have to be that profound? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 rea
Could This Wait Till Next Week? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm still trying to figure out if there's really a spoon...
The world is simple when one observation is made (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything else can pretty much be derived from that.
Sorry. Pissy mood today. Monday and all that.
Re:The world is simple when one observation is mad (Score:2)
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.
No one writes anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No one writes anymore (Score:3, Funny)
Where are you hiding the fake poop?
-GWB
since the topic has a quote... (Score:2, Interesting)
Einstein never read Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
road trip with Einstein (Score:2)
The Einstein File (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Einstein File (Score:2, Flamebait)
Arghh! (Score:5, Funny)
Best way to get into his head... (Score:4, Funny)
Space the Infinite Universe with Harry Caray... (Score:2)
"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."
Why Einstein (Score:2)
Tick, tock. (Score:2)
"Us intelligent folks" (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hmmm.. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, but what does "on topic" mean again? I think I missed the article that defined that.
Re:well... thats like saying... (Score:2, Funny)