Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 376 posts

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

#121

Post by seigando »

tootie wrote: post #119
Barrin92 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

I think concepts like Spinoza's or Deism or people who declare themselves "not religious but spiritual" are just having trouble parting with the comfort of religion even though they know there's nothing there.

Nothing where?

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

#122

Post by notsureaboutpg »

bloopbloop10000 wrote: post #103
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

Is there a name for this line of thought? I’ve run into it a few times and find it compelling.

I mean, it's just theism. Atheism is the rejection of this belief.

I think it's a pretty logical step from this to, if our origin is unknown there are two options: 1) Our origin was an accident (and whatever creative force there was was undirected and intentionless), this logically leads down the road to nihilism. 2) Our origin was purposeful (and the creative force behind us was directed and intentioned), this logically leads to some kind of religion.

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

#123

Post by titzer »

wruza wrote: post #113
titzer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Two thoughts. First, consciousness may exist by itself, e.g. is a book that describes itself in a complex enough way conscious? It wouldn’t even require the flow of time or a reader, but once you read it, it’s clearly self-aware. That’s a hard notion of consciousness. Second, the easy, down to earth answer to “what is conscious” (iow, where do “beings” end) is where a structured perception ends. Your hand is a part o…

This is a very interesting line of reasoning, particularly the "high bandwidth connection" kind of criteria. Our native five senses can be augmented with high-capacity links to all kinds of sensors and actuators. Where is the boundary when we can plug things into our brains with as much bandwidth and precision of control as our native limbs? Cyborgs...

Ok, too much Ghost in the Shell for now. :)

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

#124

Post by toolz »

wruza wrote: post #107
toolz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have intimate relationships with rocks? and if so can you describe what that relationship is like? Does your conscious self acknowledge this relationship or are you just speaking in some metaphysical sense that is completely intangible?

Well, the universe is full of rocks. “Intimate” may not be a great word (too anthropic and intangible), but writing off all these rocks as boring and banal is probably narrow sighted. Birds, sun and vegetation may feel intimate, but try to feel that without a rock right under your feet. They have a point, imo. We tend to ignore “default” things, but it doesn’t make them irrelevant, they are an important part of the s…

> “Intimate” may not be a great word

Intimate was the centerpiece of my curiosity. Sure I can have feelings about the universe and the rocks that exist within this universe, but there is no intimacy.

> isn’t that as close to “intimate” as it can get

No, intimacy isn't a feeling that just happens to you or a circumstance you happen to be in, it's an active relationship where both parties involved do something to foster or maintain the intimacy.

Can someone feel as though rocks were actively fostering or maintaining intimacy with them? I mean, I guess? I'm not sure what that would look or feel like to believe that inanimate objects were actively working to deepen their relationship with you.

Rather it feels like this metaphysical spiritual jargon I read here is just co-opting a word to give more significance to a different kind of relationship someone might feel towards inanimate objects. It's harmless I'm sure, but at the root of it, it feels very selfish and condescending to take a word that has clear meaning and suggest to someone they just aren't using all of their brain if they can't understand intimacy with inanimate objects.

Now, understand I really don't mind misuse of words if it's towards a greater goal of communication, but here it feels like it's towards a lesser goal of demeaning people who use the word only for effective communication.

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

#125

Post by huetius »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #29
garbagetime wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean for consciousness to be an illusion?

It means that consciousness nothing special/supernatural. There is no soul, there is nothing but chemical reactions that manage to create something that is able to claim "I think therefore I am" The illusion is the fact that we claim that we are able to "experience", but I think that its all just layers of GOTO reactions that create something that think its special. Much like how a program isn't considered conscious,…

You seem to have a lot of confidence in the truth of your own meaningless sequence of GOTO reactions.

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

#126

Post by scythe »

bloopbloop10000 wrote: post #103
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

Is there a name for this line of thought? I’ve run into it a few times and find it compelling.

It's generally called pantheism, although there has been dispute [1] that Spinoza's account was truly pantheism. Similar ideas exist in Hindu philosophy, and some argue the analogy is deep [2].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

2: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=454...

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

#127

Post by gmfawcett »

rsj_hn wrote: post #112
gmfawcett wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That the Logos became incarnate does not imply anthropomorphism. The belief that one's deity chose to assume the physical form of a man: isn't that about as anthropomorphic as you can get?

> The belief that one's deity chose to assume the physical form of a man: isn't that about as anthropomorphic as you can get? In my opinion, no. Anthropomorphism (as commonly understood) means to ascribe human characteristics to things not human; we don't talk about anthropomorphizing your grandma, but we do talk about anthropomorphizing a constellation. Now if you believe, like the Rawlsians suggest, that there are…

That's an interesting point of view. Thank you for sharing a well reasoned argument.

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

#128

Post by Retric »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

It’s really interesting how many assumptions get baked into beliefs like this. Existence had a beginning, it was formed by something, that thing didn’t need to be formed by anything, it’s existence doesn’t count as having existed before existence, that thing had the capacity to act, that things actions resulted in the reality we see today etc.

Having convinced yourself of all of these things it then feels natural to think of that first mover as somehow complex for creating the universe rather than some infinitesimal speck that started a cascade. To then think in terms of mystical power rather than say energy. It doesn’t feel like you’re less likely to be correct with every assumption which is kind of silly in one way but also seductive.

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

#129

Post by thaumasiotes »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

> cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe.

How do you know?

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

#130

Post by SapporoChris »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #59

I'll try to state the thought more simply. "God" is a name we assign to the force behind the original, unexplained creation. Presently that would be the force behind the origin of this amazing universe, light, space. Maybe we push that envelope further in the future, but the boundary always exists. In our understanding there always is a 'first'. We have only the vaguest idea in a cosmic sense how that first came to b…

I don't think not having a complete understanding how something (the universe) works is a good reason to attribute it to God.
Post reply on HN