Underestimating Einstein's Sanity & Over Estimating Google

[RascalPuff]

It seems there's an inclusion of undercurrent in conveyances that remind the attentive reader that the same river cannot be crossed twice. Viz., there are many approaches to - and crossings of - as many different rivers... The seven year itch, for example, doesn't scratch - or itch - the same way, twice.

Moving right along ('ol man river'?), when Google is referenced to respond to 'the definition for insanity' - the first two responses are quotes from Einstein, saying that he defines insanity as 'a continuance of doing the same thing with the expectation of different results'; paraphrased.

Now, that definition is being derived via Google, an authoritative source, alluding to Einstein; so, 'it must be right', right?

Whereas, it appears Einstein is making a very qualified statement here, which has very little to do with the psychological allusions to 'schizophrenia' or the legal definitions of not being responsible for yourself or others, up to and including being a threat to yourself and/or others - which are definitions for insanity that do not appear first when the question at issue is put to Google interpretations...
The psychological and legal responses to the issued question appear in the wake of Einstein's favored, highly qualified leading statement...

Consider the contention that Einstein is talking about sterile laboratory conditions of attempting to prevent variations in condition while one practices the same activity. It seems that as a scientist, Einstein had a much different setting than the crossing of a river, on his mind, in his offering of the definition for insanity.

This misunderstanding has a life of its own; apparently because the folks who arrange Google figured that an Einstein-quoted response to a question like that would carry a lot of authoritative weight, which of course it certainly does - however qualified.

Evidently Einstein was doing a very good job of making himself understood, and understandable, in scientifically specialized terms. It is, after all, even under the most stringent scientific-laboratory conditions, very challenging to recreate the exact same conditions within which to 'do the same thing'... Whereas, the cited - highly qualified - challenge (of doing - exactly - the same thing), approaches the realm of 'impossibility'... Ergo, Einstein's awareness of that challenge and his vigilance in responding to the question...

In generally realistic terms, one can go through 'the same motions' when one is fishing, playing golf or tennis, or performing innumerable other ritualized activities that amount to 'doing the same thing', and, moreover, in so doing, almost never experiencing the same results; generally speaking, consistently 'doing the same thing' and, more or less consistently getting - often dramatically - different results....

The implications of this principle, when they are ponderously engaged, are, imho, staggering.

Kinda like a guy panning for gold - now there's another example of what appears to be a cycle of doing the same thing, but which, by definition, ritualizes a method of obtaining different results. Same thing fishing, golf, or tennis, etceteras, ad infinitum - right down to neurochemical activities, interactions and impulses of the anthropomorphic nervous systems and electro-conductive ganglionic stuctures; certainly including the elusive dynamics of 'natural selection'. Of course Heraclitus summed this up with something he said about the only thing that remains the same is (spare?) change?

Best regards,
- Kai

[labelwench]

In similar vein (vine), the great attraction of wine to people who appreciate same, is that wines ever vary from year to year, even when the identical methods of processing are applied because of the significant number of variables involved.

Even bottles of the same vintage will change characteristic in the bottle, and once uncorked and exposed to air, the second glass from the same bottle will be subtly different.

Despite the great number of shared properties across any system one cares to examine, there will ever be difference discernible because the default action of existence would appear to be change.

Regards,

LW