GENIUS FORUMS

(i am extremely dyslexic, therefore there may be spelling and grammar errors that i did not or perceive at the time of posting, im sorry if this causes you ant difficulty. I am at the library. There is no spell check funtion on these systems, sorry)



I have been studying Albert Einstien for several years of my life. I've studies his personal life as well as his science. Einstien had an understanding of reality in a way that most people with never understand. It is a mistake to assume that his theories were based on physical assumptions and mathematics. In the beginning they werent. The numbers were added later and then modified by further science. his intial equation was not E=mc2.

In order for one to picture his theories in a three dimentional worlds takes an amazing amount of uuinderstanding in the dynamics of the third dimention.

lets say that the is world that is two dimentional (yes i stole this from somewhere but i canr remember the source) that we all live as drawing on a piece of paper. we would only have the ability to front, back, left, right. there is no concept of up or down. albert stick figure spends his life trying to conceive a world where there is another dimention that has not been discovered yet. He postulates a theory that there is indeed a third dimention. He then uses his understanding of reality and his internal imaging abilities to create a mental image of the physical world. In this new world he becomes Albert cube. he publishes his theory. his theory is continually proven to be valid and estbalishes a whole new benchmark for the understanding of our physical universe.

There was much more at work inside his theories than just simple talent at math. If you look at his body of work you will see that most of his work was based on theoretical physics and not pure mathematical equations. He theorized that atoms must exist because particles of dust in water continiously bounce around form beeing bombarded by the moving atoms. this became brownian motion. He didnt provide the math he just provided an understanding of reality that i personally dont think has been achieved ever since.

his statements that he was in awe of the universe and reverant of god while refusing to admit our high and mighty would play dice and allow subatomic particles to operate in random instead of preset definitions, was a result of having such a high understanding of reality that he realized that no one will ever be able to totally comprehend a theory of everything.

this is just my opinion however....

It sounds like you are trying to justify that Einstein was good at science and math, when there's no argument there.

nope. as a matter of fact i was stressing the fact that a lot of the math that is attributed to him is not actually his. i really dont think anyone is going to attempt to understand what i am saying due to the fact that this forum uses einstien as an example of talent instead of genius based on what appears to me to be assumptions about what he really understood about the universe. everything that i have read, which is quite a bit, demonstrates that he had an extremely high understanding of reality and it's ramifications. the most famous quote that is attributed to him 'god does not play dice' is his refusal to believe in the science of quantum physics. there was much more to einstien than math and science.

if it were not for him we would all be mutated and deformed from radiation poisoning when the germans bombed us with thier atomics before got to demonstrate atrocity on japan. it was his awareness of reality that led him to conclusion that his works could used for destruction.

i was really hoping for some intellectual discussion on this topic because declaring who and who is not genius is very subjective, correct? im sure there is an einstien forum that declares his genius while degrading kiehergard(sp?)

i think i understand einstiens work in a way that most people dont. i have discalculia which is an inability to process letter and numbers at the same time so i have a very different visual understanding of his work that relies on no math or science. just sitting and attempting to picture 4 dimentional space or that an objects speed determines it's appearance relative to the viewer is enough to occupy my mind for hours. he presented that we all see the world, literally, in a different way because of our different frame of reference.

Einstein made a few statements that implies he might have had a solid understanding. He said something like "The most interesting thing about the universe is that we can understand it."

It's an overestimation of science to believe that the object of even theoretical physics is reality. Based on the Einstein quotes in this thread so far ("God does not play dice" and "The most interesting thing about the universe is that we can understand it"), Einstein doesn't seem to have said anything more impressive than what first year philosophy students have been saying for generations. His position is one David Hume famously attacked several centuries ago.

I don't know how you could argue that Einstein was even close to as wise as Kierkegaard.

I get the impression, and I could be totally wrong, that Einstein realized the inherent paradox of reason. That reason and causality could not exist without each other. This could be represented by the Ouroboros.

http://lacuevadigital.com/imagenes/Ouroboros.jpg

It is very peculiar that we should be able to understand anything at all. Our understanding being inherently causal, depends on causality. The end result of reason is the ability to understand causality. But then to assert that causality "exists" is a designation; as illustrated by MenOfTheInfinite. This is inherently dependant on reason, itself dependant on causality. I find that very peculiar.

i find it very interesting that einstiens intellect and accomplishments are being viewed entirely on information that you get in the first 10 hits from google. there are hundreds of thousands of pages of information as well his diaries and personal letters to his wife which expand on the things that you are taking completely out of context. there are different types of genius.

keikegaard(sp?) has had what effect on my life? what is not the same? i dont study him therefore i really have the right to even consider his genius. to me personally he is a guy who sat around and thought about things that were apparently fascinating and complex but since i have ony read the first 10 hits on google about him and what has been presented in college history books im not even sure ive reiceved an accurate understand of what he was about.

my idea of a genius is someone who used there intellect to change the world; to change our everyday experience. ummm so i understand structuralism but, really, what effect does metaphysics and word play have on day to day life. we live in the best country to living in with liberties that other countries have (im no right winger but we do have it better than others) because of einstiens work.

there is one strong opnion i do have though regarding something that was said above. it is absolutely silly to me to discredit on field of study (science) to advance another (philosophy) i could argue that phylosophers are just extremely talented at word play and analysis therefore they are not geniuses...

i have been looking through my posts and im becoming very embarassed about my spelling and missing words. i dont see these things but later when i re read i see the mistakes. it's disheartening for me having a barrier to communication that makes me appear to be lazy or unintelligent, im sorry... i have recently become very proactive in seeking help for dyscalculia. im trying.

my idea of a genius is someone who used there intellect to change the world; to change our everyday experience.

You just changed what you're arguing. What happened to defending Einstein as someone who understands reality?

we live in the best country to living in with liberties that other countries have (im no right winger but we do have it better than others) because of einstiens work.

American?

The effect of philosophers is so pervasive that you don't even notice when you need to defend genius on the grounds of nationalism, liberty, and democracy. What of the people who came up with those ideas? It's amazing that all the while, you're tacitly holding philosophy in contempt. I'm of the opinion that people who look for geniuses and only see Einstein don't have very good vision.

If Kierkegaard has not had much of an influence on your life -- if you must measure a genius by how well they can serve you -- then read some of his writings. You might discover that he has covertly had an influence on your life in ways you never even thought of. His "Attack on Christendom" is accessible (anti-clerical, not atheist). It's also quite funny.

Why does work have to be technological or militaristic for it to be genius? And, why does your version of "a genius" sound the same as "a good slave"?

you use incorrect assumptions to prove your point, why?

i dont look for genius and only only see einstien. so your point falls apart at that sentence. it continues. to further unravel, in relation to what i am saying, when you say militaristic or scientific or technological. my point is that einstiens greatest achievement was his awareness of human nature and the inherent darkness that exists in this world. it is completely one hundred percent wrong to think that einstien invented the atomic bomb or worked on the manhatten project. he had no connectiopn whatsover to these things.

his choice to warn the president about the danger inherent in his theory could lead to the destruction of the united states, complete obliteration of the world, total destruction, nuclear winter, dead planet, cancerous survivors, mutated genes. the reality was that his theory, which is not really a theory anymore because it has been proven so many times that its inarguable that his ideas were wrong was dead on, he knew this. he didnt use mathematics or science or technology when he made the personal choice based on his consious understanding of human nature, to make an attempt to save all of us from obliteration. his letter to the president has not one formula or numebr in it, only genuine good hearted concern for the human race. he was right.

we are all alive today because wrote that letter. period.

and again, it really is weak to me to semantically explain away science as an over inflated concept of perception, whatever.

im not claiming to be a genius but i do like to learn everything about a subject that i can before i discount it. im not going to sit there ans explain away a field of knowledge because i can close my eyes and therefore to me it isnt real. thats hokey to me. im not trying to be hurtful but this is how i feel.

marxism is atributed to marx but even marx abandoned his own philosophy when i was hijacked by intellectuals and over examined and interpretted.

and no, it's not about me, which again is just a cop out.

you use incorrect assumptions to prove your point, why?

I aim behind the target, not at it.

my point is that einstiens greatest achievement was his awareness of human nature and the inherent darkness that exists in this world.

When you take away his scientific contributions, Einstein really didn't do much of anything, did he?

we are all alive today because wrote that letter. period.

There's no better way to make people suspicious of your integrity than by trying to end a discussion without discussion. We are all alive today because the Big Bang happened. We are all alive today because the Earth is the ideal distance from the sun. We are all alive today because of the Agricultural Revolution. We are all alive today because medical science prevented HIV from becoming an unstoppable global pandemic. Why favour Einstein?

And why believe that "we are all alive today" is a condition for genius?

and again, it really is weak to me to semantically explain away science as an over inflated concept of perception, whatever.

I aim behind the target. You just miss completely. It might be because you don't answer any sentence I end with a question mark.

nd no, it's not about me, which again is just a cop out

How is defining genius based on their contributions to your civilization not about you? You've yet to give me one reason to think that you are defending Einstein on the grounds that he really is a genius, and not based on something he did for you, so I likewise have no reason to believe you are talking about a genius.

ok, trevor... semantics dont work on me. there are several fascets to genius. i do not have to list all of them everytime i talk about another one. how about this: a permanent asterisk and a legal clause.

* when mr berdyck uses the phrase 'my idea of genius is' the following trait described i.e. intellect, penis size, ratio of skull to brain matter it does NOT discount his earlier determinations of genius. the resulting statements should be viewed as a running list of descriptive traits, characteristics and endowements that a man/woman/hermaphrodite
(ratio of man/woman may vary, man with breast is still a man. woman with testacles however is definitely a hermaphrodite. however women may exhibit "balls" and still retain thier identity as a woman. gonadal content is the measuring stick. ('dude looks like a lady can' be freely used without prejudice(or not with prejudice)))
may possess.

the existance of one trait does not exculde the existance of another.....

i cannot answer your last question because the contribution einstien made was not militaristic. warning people of human nature does not require science, technology, math, speak and spell wiring.

it takes an understanding of humanity and it's inherent flaws...

hey how about you just dismiss my whole existance by closing your eyes and being all 'logicy(term invented by my 12 year old son because dad knows everything) and saying na na na na i cant see you therefore you cant hurt me! that is until i hit you in the head with a chair which will still hurt, even with your eyes closed.

metaphysics is such a cop out sometimes, to me.

it's really like you are just choosing to disregard my point... which is that einstien was not just talented at math or science it was his understanding of reality as a whole (not a hole) that allows someone as simple as i am to understand his work.

i play guitar freakishly well which makes me exremely talented, if you gave my skills to an actual genius he/she/heshe would definitely produce more prolific works. the presence of talent does not automatically discount genius, right? the whole 'genius without talent quote?'...

maybe i am a genius even though my theory of 'equal smoke' has not been addressed by the masses.

maybe you dont like my smoking but i dont like your auto exaust when im walking. there ought to be a limit to the total amount of emmissions to the atmosphere that each individual can release. that way i can smoke, you can drive and we all equally suffer lung damage.

oddbirdman2008 wrote:ok, trevor... semantics dont work on me.

As far as my goals are concerned, they work on everyone.

the existance of one trait does not exculde the existance of another.....

However, you never proved that Einstein understood reality. You just jumped to the second trait. It looked like you gave up on considering Einstein a genius based on his understanding of reality.

warning people of human nature does not require science, technology, math, speak and spell wiring.

What makes Einstein's warning evidence of genius, as opposed to say, the Agricultural Revolution?

hey how about you just dismiss my whole existance by closing your eyes and...

Are you telling me to stop replying to you?

metaphysics is such a cop out sometimes, to me.

Those who don't study metaphysics are doomed to make metaphysical mistakes.

einstien was not just talented at math or science it was his understanding of reality as a whole (not a hole) that allows someone as simple as i am to understand his work.

What is reality as a whole? If he understood it very well, and was able to impart it unto you, then you should at least be able to repeat it.

and no sense of humor to boot!


ok, i dont know how to paste in your words so i'll reply one by one...


1. again, semantics do not work on me... in addition, using semantics to explain away semantics does not work either. if your goal is to evade the question or response im loking for then you are right on target.

2. see asterisk above. see that helps me quite a bit doesnt it? i guess the only thing that you cannot debate is whether einstien himself understood reality, neither of us has ever met the guy and cant know what he was thinking all day long....oooohhhh wait but i have read his personal thoughts in great depth where you havnt. so i would possess the greater authority. from you i would respect anything you say about keikegaard (whatever) since i do know an extensive amount of his work to make a determination by but it seems to me that you dont carry this same policy. have you ever heard the word 'truthiness' basing your beliefs on pure emotion without considering any of the relevent facts...?

3. einstien is a person. are you suggesting that we personify the agricultural revolution and allow the whole movement itself to have genius status. lets ask it if we can borrow some money while we are at it. is the AR male or female? if its a woman i bet she is hot!!!

4. i was making a joke at the expense of metaphysics

5. i guess you are right. trees will continue to fall in the woods. people will continue to wonder if it makes a sound and i will continue to not care about the answer.

6. here are some quotes from einstien

a. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

b. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.


c. ...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought.



see, no math, no science, no technology just pure metaphysical understanding. there are several thousand more of his quotes on these subjects not related to science. there was even a year of his life where he practiced no science whatsoever and only pondered the concept of reality on a metaphysical level. but dont take my word for it, lets hear from einstien himself.

d. One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm...........







3.

Guys, I merged the posts from the "ummmmmmm" thread back into here where they belonged. It may have interfered slightly with the continuity but you'll work it out.

ok, i dont know how to paste in your words so i'll reply one by one...

[ quote ] and [ / quote ], without spaces. Or you can imitate tomas, and give everyone a nickname. The important thing is to be consistent.

if your goal is to evade the question or response im loking for then you are right on target.

That's a method, not a goal.

i guess the only thing that you cannot debate is whether einstien himself understood reality

If I understand reality, I can determine how likely it is that he has an understanding.

einstien is a person. are you suggesting that we personify the agricultural revolution and allow the whole movement itself to have genius status.

I didn't personify the Agricultural Revolution, any more than I personified Einstein's warning. I asked why one is evidence of genius, and the other is not.

i guess you are right. trees will continue to fall in the woods. people will continue to wonder if it makes a sound and i will continue to not care about the answer.

Metaphysics may be boring, but knowing what it is is the only way to avoid it. You probably have answers to questions like "what things exist?" or "is brownness a property?" or "do things persist over time?" that affect how you think. If you want to avoid metaphysical thinking, you'll have to find ways to make these questions meaningless.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought.

Now, take this, and make it a hundredfold more substantial. There: you have philosophy.

(Summary of those three quotes: Man should be both political and rational. He tries to be rational to escape being political.)

there are several thousand more of his quotes on these subjects not related to science. there was even a year of his life where he practiced no science whatsoever and only pondered the concept of reality on a metaphysical level.

Compare a year long sabbatical with people who spend their lives doing it. Thinking about living philosophers who would disagree with every last shred of those quotes, Richard Rorty comes to mind.

The real question is: are the contributions a good indicator of what's inside? This place makes out a genius to be either everyone in their own right or no one at all - take your pick.

oddbirdman2008 wrote:he was in awe of the universe and reverant of god while refusing to admit our high and mighty would play dice and allow subatomic particles to operate in random instead of preset definitions

The chaos of quantum mechanics is the freedom of god. There is no random or whimsy.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

ok, i dont know how to paste in your words so i'll reply one by one...

[ quote ] and [ / quote ], without spaces. Or you can imitate tomas, and give everyone a nickname. The important thing is to be consistent.

Or the easy way. After hitting "reply" and getting the reply box, scroll down until you see the words you want to quote. Highlight them. In the upper right hand corner of the box where you highlighted, hit "quote." If there is another quote within the highlighted space that did not get differentiated, highlight the quoted quote in the reply box, and hit the quote button above the reply box.

If you are quoting a whole post, you can just hit the quote key in the box of the post you want to quote. This also automatically includes both the author and the author of any differentiated quote you are highlighting.