Misinterpreting Einstein's Sanity & Misunderstanding Google

[RascalPuff]

Underestimating Einstein's Sanity & Misunderstanding Google

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, due to the ever-changing flow of different water past given points of the river's shores...

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, from a very authoritative source, so, 'it must be right', right?

Whereas, 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 medical and legal 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 - 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,
- RP

[labelwench]

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.

Originally posted by RascalPuff

You have pointed out the simplest explanation for diversity in all things.

The cycles and replication may be nigh unto perfect, yet no moment, once experienced, can ever be replicated precisely because time, like the river, moves on.

The brown eggs from the brown hens, were remarkably similar, yet not exactly alike for shade, shape or shell texture, and that only at the easily discernible level. How much more individual when examined in the minute?

No two days are exactly the same, even when one works at a fairly repetitive task, as all of the ambient details and influences are ever subject to change.

Rather blows the lid off the logic of 'the Scientific method' once one comprehends that it is impossible to EXACTLY replicate a set of circumstances. Still, it is the best method we have for comparing results, and we do much of our learning by comparison, IMO.

Thank you for an interesting thread start, Kai.