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

341–350 of 376 posts

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

#341

Post by seigando »

robbiep wrote: post #339
seigando wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that when you pair a certain perception with a certain experience, it's possible for things to seem one way or the other. Some people are very stuck in their perceptions.

That’s not the point you’re making, in fact you’ve really failed to make any point except a poor attempt to anthropomorphise nature and not provide any examples of how nature ‘caring’ is a universal phenomenon

It's always a red flag when someone thinks they know what point I'm making better than I do.

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

#342

Post by thaumasiotes »

anders_p wrote: post #210
dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to science that empirically demonstrates something coming from absolutely nothing?

Can you point to science that empirically demonstrates that the universe didn't come from absolutely nothing? No, right? So the idea that nothing can come from nothing, is based on an assumption. Which was the entire point of the comment you responded to, if I'm not mistaken.

There is a philosophical point I enjoyed, which doesn't generalize at all but is still interesting, about the idea that the past is a good guide to the future. (For example, "How do you know the sun will come up tomorrow? Well, it always has in the past.")

Someone pointed out that the relevance of the past to the future is a pure assumption. Even the usual argument that an otherwise unmotivated heuristic is valid -- "it's always worked in the past" -- can't legitimately be used for this point, since it assumes the truth of the question under consideration.

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

#343

Post by bytelines »

simondotau wrote: post #334
bytelines wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideas shouldn't be beyond criticism, sure. But if you can't criticize an idea without being unkind, resorting to name calling, and misrepresenting someones view -- at best you aren't haven't a dialog, at worst you don't have any valid criticism to contribute.

How do you suppose that being unkind to an idea is not “dialog” and not “valid”? You are casting ethical judgements upon rhetorical devices. That is nonsense.

Thank you for the great example. You've made your point in two sentences. Adding "That is nonsense" contributes nothing to your argument.

However, by labelling the idea as nonsense, by extension I must be someone whose ideas are nonsense.

This lowers the level of discourse. To what end? What did labelling my idea as nonsense accomplish? Did it help your argument? Or was it to make me feel bad, or to make you feel good?

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

#344

Post by bytelines »

bytelines wrote: post #343
simondotau wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you suppose that being unkind to an idea is not “dialog” and not “valid”? You are casting ethical judgements upon rhetorical devices. That is nonsense.

Thank you for the great example. You've made your point in two sentences. Adding "That is nonsense" contributes nothing to your argument. However, by labelling the idea as nonsense, by extension I must be someone whose ideas are nonsense. This lowers the level of discourse. To what end? What did labelling my idea as nonsense accomplish? Did it help your argument? Or was it to make me feel bad, or to make you feel goo…

Ignoring your last sentence, I do find the idea of ethics on rhetorical devices peculiar. Like - if I were to use a straw man device, would that be unethical? In a sense - maybe. I'd be misleading which is a form of lying.

I certainly wouldn't say labelling an idea as "dumb" would be unethical, though. It's just not productive to having a conversation: name calling begets more name calling. It puts people on the defensive where they are not receptive to new ideas.

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

#345

Post by darkerside »

toolz wrote: post #340
darkerside wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see why you're offended now. It was not my intention. I don't think I can describe it in words. Like I said, our egos stop us from taking the idea too seriously, perhaps out of a survival instinct. There are some drugs that will cause "ego death". The part of your brain that distinguishes between the self and the other literally ceases to function. It sounds metaphysical and silly, but when it happens, you understa…

I've tried basically every ego-death drug that exists (or that I'm aware of) and I've still not felt the need to assert to people that they have a non-functioning part of their brain they aren't using to understand "intimacy" with inanimate objects. I've had intimacy with a lover because the lover is participating in the intimacy. I've never had it with an instrument, I have felt it with a musician. Again, intimacy r…

Oh, I totally believe I might be wrong. I'm just sharing from my experience, as you are. I'm sorry you are taking it as implying some kind of deficiency because I'm truly not trying to.

I play piano for myself sometimes. I used to play because I was supposed to, but now I play because I can make such beautiful sounds, which sounds like bragging but I don't mean it that way. It's me and the piano together, for a moment, making something incredible.

It's ok if you haven't felt that with an inanimate object. It doesn't make you bad or lacking. And in fact, I do agree that this intimacy is a hallucination, borne of a perception that exists only in my own mind, meaningless to anyone else. That doesn't make it any less real to me. It still IMHO is as real and meaningful as a relationship with another human being.

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

#346

Post by simondotau »

bytelines wrote: post #343
simondotau wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you suppose that being unkind to an idea is not “dialog” and not “valid”? You are casting ethical judgements upon rhetorical devices. That is nonsense.

Thank you for the great example. You've made your point in two sentences. Adding "That is nonsense" contributes nothing to your argument. However, by labelling the idea as nonsense, by extension I must be someone whose ideas are nonsense. This lowers the level of discourse. To what end? What did labelling my idea as nonsense accomplish? Did it help your argument? Or was it to make me feel bad, or to make you feel goo…

Words don't exist only to "contribute to the argument" but also to summarise, to express emotions, as rhetorical flourishes, or simply to amuse. In this case, the last sentence is the conclusion of my argument. If you disagree, well, you disagree with my argument.

And with that you've just demonstrated my point. By focusing on an aesthetic component of my rhetoric rather than the substantive, you have chosen to steer this entire discussion away from the underlying topic.

> by extension I must be someone whose ideas are nonsense

That is nonsense. It does not follow.

> What did labelling my idea as nonsense accomplish?

It's my opinion. And while you're welcome to call that idea yours, I only consider it an idea. You shouldn't be so quick to tie your ideas to your identity. Everyone has lots of opinions and a good number of them are certain to be wrong.

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

#347

Post by simondotau »

bytelines wrote: post #344
bytelines wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the great example. You've made your point in two sentences. Adding "That is nonsense" contributes nothing to your argument. However, by labelling the idea as nonsense, by extension I must be someone whose ideas are nonsense. This lowers the level of discourse. To what end? What did labelling my idea as nonsense accomplish? Did it help your argument? Or was it to make me feel bad, or to make you feel goo…

Ignoring your last sentence, I do find the idea of ethics on rhetorical devices peculiar. Like - if I were to use a straw man device, would that be unethical? In a sense - maybe. I'd be misleading which is a form of lying. I certainly wouldn't say labelling an idea as "dumb" would be unethical, though. It's just not productive to having a conversation: name calling begets more name calling. It puts people on the defe…

Straw man arguments are a fallacy, not a "rhetorical device". It's an error we're all prone to doing at some point, unintentionally. I would argue that it's only unethical if it's done intentionally—and while you can guess at someone's intention, knowing is usually impossible. So unless you can literally read minds, only the author can truly know if they were being unethical or not.

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

#348

Post by robbiep »

seigando wrote: post #341
robbiep wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the point you’re making, in fact you’ve really failed to make any point except a poor attempt to anthropomorphise nature and not provide any examples of how nature ‘caring’ is a universal phenomenon

It's always a red flag when someone thinks they know what point I'm making better than I do.

I haven’t assumed you’ve made it, I’ve asked you what it is. That you can’t detect that from my plain language is concerning as to your capacity to parse my sentences.

But if that is what you’ve concluded, why don’t you make your point then, as opposed to jumping around it as though you’ve stated it (which you haven’t) or assuming it’s blindingly obvious (which it isn’t?) it’s a red flag when someone has the arrogance to assume that their view is so universally understood that their dismissive curt replies will suffice for what should ostensibly be an exchange of ideas

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

#349

Post by bytelines »

simondotau wrote: post #347
bytelines wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring your last sentence, I do find the idea of ethics on rhetorical devices peculiar. Like - if I were to use a straw man device, would that be unethical? In a sense - maybe. I'd be misleading which is a form of lying. I certainly wouldn't say labelling an idea as "dumb" would be unethical, though. It's just not productive to having a conversation: name calling begets more name calling. It puts people on the defe…

Straw man arguments are a fallacy, not a "rhetorical device". It's an error we're all prone to doing at some point, unintentionally. I would argue that it's only unethical if it's done intentionally—and while you can guess at someone's intention, knowing is usually impossible. So unless you can literally read minds, only the author can truly know if they were being unethical or not.

> Straw man arguments are a fallacy, not a "rhetorical device"

They're both? But agree with everything else

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

#350

Post by bytelines »

simondotau wrote: post #346
bytelines wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the great example. You've made your point in two sentences. Adding "That is nonsense" contributes nothing to your argument. However, by labelling the idea as nonsense, by extension I must be someone whose ideas are nonsense. This lowers the level of discourse. To what end? What did labelling my idea as nonsense accomplish? Did it help your argument? Or was it to make me feel bad, or to make you feel goo…

Words don't exist only to "contribute to the argument" but also to summarise, to express emotions, as rhetorical flourishes, or simply to amuse. In this case, the last sentence is the conclusion of my argument. If you disagree, well, you disagree with my argument. And with that you've just demonstrated my point. By focusing on an aesthetic component of my rhetoric rather than the substantive, you have chosen to steer…

Your argument is ill conceived, pedantic, and seeks desperately to justify previous positions.

But you are not someone who makes ill conceived, pedantic, or desperate arguments to save face. That would be nonsense. It does not follow. Don't be so quick to tie your identity to the pedantic arguments you've made.

Post reply on HN