Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it? • Hacker News Board

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#81

Post by Barrin92 » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

brutusborn wrote: post #24

Barrin92 wrote: post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

Out of interest, what do you beleive in? I agree that pantheism is a misapplied psychological need, but no more so than any relgion or beleif system. I've decided that to fill this need, it is useful to choose a fundamental belief system of some sort. I have choosen Taoism and parts of other Philosophical systems, like Stoicism, where I feel there are gaps.

> Out of interest, what do you beleive in?

not very much, that is to say I'm skeptical of metaphysics altogether. I'm partial to Wittgenstein's attitude, that is to say I think projects like pantheism deflate if you scrutinize them and inquire to what degree they say anything meaningful or well-defined about the world, or if they're really expressions of psychology or linguistics or desire.

I do agree with you that all kinds of belief systems may fulfill legitimate needs, but I think they're just that, personal, subjective and private expressions of the individual's attitude towards the world, not meaningful claims about the world as such.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#82

Post by ImprobableTruth » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #35

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you possibly deny the existence of your subjective experience? This is just utterly incomprehensible to me.

Because, thinking the existing of subjective experience that is any way special is just societal programming that claims that humans are special and important in the universe. If you step away from the bias, there is no reason to think our consciousness is anything special. Who cares about subjective experience, it all disappears into the void when those chemical reactions stop.

Subjective experience can both be something real and also not something special in some magical sense.

If subjective experience were really just an illusion, why would you care about what happens to yourself - hell, why would you even have a concept of 'yourself'?

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#83

Post by NikolaeVarius » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #82

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, thinking the existing of subjective experience that is any way special is just societal programming that claims that humans are special and important in the universe. If you step away from the bias, there is no reason to think our consciousness is anything special. Who cares about subjective experience, it all disappears into the void when those chemical reactions stop.

Subjective experience can both be something real and also not something special in some magical sense. If subjective experience were really just an illusion, why would you care about what happens to yourself - hell, why would you even have a concept of 'yourself'?

I dont care what happens to me. If my consciousness stops its not my problem anymore anyway

The illusion is here might as well go along until it stops

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#84

Post by anthk » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

EMM_386 wrote: post #43

anthk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because apparently that's the way it must be. Bullshit, please. Prove it or GFTO with that nonsense. Science is found on evidence, not on "what if...s" . If you told me that an ARM Cortex A9 is faster than a current i7, and then you put the excuse of "God made it" argument over the table you would look like a lunatic. With the Universe origins is the same. Replace "God" with "Santa" and the argument gets equally rid…

Had a little too much of human religion? Me too. I went through this same phase, at one point I declared myself an atheist, mostly because it was an easy way to give the middle finger to my Catholic childhood indoctrination. But then I decided to dig a little deeper, and there is more to it than thinking "god" is the same as "the Easter bunny". Good luck trying to figure out why something exists and not nothing (and…

Yeah, the universe is weird, still no god needed, because gods' existence is almost as weird as particles popping in and out.

Also, not particles, but fields, actually.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#85

Post by anthk » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

oogabooga123 wrote: post #62

anthk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am extremely scientific and I believe in god I am vegan and I eat steak on weekends.

Do you think that is a valid metaphor? > With the first sip of science one becomes an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you - some mediocre scientist probably nobody has heard of

Fallace of authority.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#86

Post by mynameisash » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

luckyandroid wrote: post #16

mynameisash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it This seems like quite a leap. Parts of the earth are conscious, so is the earth conscious? Parts of the universe are alive, so is the universe alive? Every member of my family is conscious*, but I wouldn't say that "my family" is conscious. *Solipsism notwithstanding

The universe is a system. We a part of that system. So any traits we have are inherently traits that the universe has, even if parts of it don't share it. A human has a hand, the hand is part of the human, but the rest of the human is not necessarily a hand.

> The universe is a system. We a part of that system. So any traits we have are inherently traits that the universe has

I don't know how you can substantiate this. I am left-handed. My wife is right-handed. These are attributes of us as individuals. What is the handedness of the city we live in? I would reject the question outright since I don't think that traits attributed to parts of a system necessarily can be attributed to the system itself.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#87

Post by tick_tock_tick » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #66

EMM_386 wrote: post #4

I am extremely scientific and I believe in god. Not quite Spinoza's, more of a pantheistic view. If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself.

> the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself. Yes, thank you for stating what some might consider a tautology or frivolous fact, but is actually, utterly profound. Generally, people have no trouble believing that they, themselves are conscious. But what part of them is conscious? All of it? Their toes and fingers? Clearly not...they are mechanical, I/O device…

Every time someone brings up consciousness I like to bring up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8. Split brains imply some very interesting ideas around of consciousness.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#88

Post by beaconstudios » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 11:23 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #11

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #3

Every moment of our existence brings about a certain amount of suffering, and a certain amount of joy. Depending on our choices and intentions, the amounts of joy and suffering for both us and other viewpoints varies. I believe that Universe is continuously solving for the maximum sum amount of joy from all the viewpoints combined. Of course, a certain amount of suffering is required to bring about the joy, whether b…

You seem to be espousing tenants similar to 'The Secret'. Which if that's what you believe, more power to you; each to their own. I tend to think the opposite though, I think the universe tends towards death, and suffering. In the absence of concerted effort death and suffering is the result. Only through hard work and effort is the chance for happiness attained. Although I guess my ideas also seem to espouse 'The Se…

Your position is basically that of Camus' absurdism, if you wanted to dig further into the philosophy.

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#89

Post by seigando » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 11:25 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #9

>For one thing, it manages to create a profound metaphysical intimacy with God without denying His transcendence. this kind of thinking which I often see when people express pantheistic views is exactly what turns me away from it. It's just as much of an anthropomorphization as the article accuses traditional conceptions of God of. I guess you can think that the universe is in some vague sense conscious, although I d…

>'nature' does not empathize back

except when it seems like it does

Re: Spinoza’s God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

#90

Post by lhorie » Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 11:31 PM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #8

EMM_386 wrote: post #4

I am extremely scientific and I believe in god. Not quite Spinoza's, more of a pantheistic view. If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself.

> If you think about it, the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it Hell of a leap. I subscribe to the notion the consciousness is a illusion via chemical whatever and the universe doesn't give a damn anyway.

While I can see where this idea comes from, it seems a bit... self-defeating in a way? At least pragmatically speaking, there's an obvious difference between your point of view and that of the universe: if it's all a big illusion, then presumably there's no point in pursuing anything since it's all inconsequential anyways. And yet here we are clacking on keyboards sending electrons into a mesh of wires and circuitry for some reason. The universe may not care about you, but the implication is that you don't necessarily care about what "it" thinks either, but you definitely care about what you as an individual think.

And in a similarly clinical view of the universe, it doesn't even make sense to anthropomorphize it in the first place, since there's no evidence that the universe has the capability or inclination of empathizing with a human. That leaves us with things that actually are anthropomorphic (other people), and I'd posit that societies are a pretty good example of a complex interaction between many things that are presumably on autorun, and yet are able to work together towards some commonly aligned purpose that has collective meaning on some level higher than just chemicals interacting in particular ways.