Thread: Lucid dreamers are using unproven tech to hack their sleep

Hi again Summerlander, are you able to upload them? It just seems like a waste to hold onto something Einstein wrote as a hard copy and not have it available to share on the net.

I also don't particularly believe a personal god like what is often depicted of a zeus-like male figure resting in the clouds, but I do believe in an unbiased source of creation, or an infinitely vast spirit beyond our measurable reality that permeates through everything. Einstein saying he doesn't believe in a personal god, could be interpreted same as me saying I don't believe in a personal god - I believe in god yes, but not exactly a personal one. Einstein certainly had a way with words, so him saying it like that, could have just been to throw people off and appear more accepted in the scientific community, as science seems to care little about studying anything remotely considered supernatural or paranormal, and often just label it pseudo-science, or call people names for believing in it. Yet, if they spent more time investigating and developing ways to study it, they would make more scientific progress than ever made before in a much shorter amount of time.

Summerlander, FYI
I found this straight after I replied when looking for that quote "I do not believe in a personal god"

Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.

Einstein makes a clear statement that he doesn't believe in a personal God and that any statements to the contrary are misleading. Instead, the mysteries of the universe are enough for him to contemplate.

Having formal philosophical training, some of which in the area of Logic, I think it's important to remember that looking to notable individuals for wisdom and knowledge has value, but should always be seen with a grain of salt.

Attributing validity/soundness to a concept simply because of who said it is to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, or "appealing to authority". In reality, 2+2=4 is just as true coming from a student as it is coming from Einstein -- and so a concept either has merit (or doesn't) of it's own accord, and isn't more or less true depending on who is stating that concept. This is particularly true when it comes to ideas that are large and on the fringe of human understanding.

That said, whether Einstein was or was not an atheist seems irrelevant unless there is something more than a reputation giving it considerably. You'll see this tactic used all over social media -- a statement made using the person quoted as an implied justification of its truthfulness.

For anyone thinking these guys have also gone off topic, keep in mind Daniel opened up the question of whether Psudoscience is worth considering. If anyone wants to discuss the OP that is good, but this stuff seems like an reasonable extension of the thread creators comments.

Well, "worth" is a value statement relative to something else, and can change depending the context of its application.

If that context is strictly scientific or empirical in nature, as seems to be representative of Daniel's stance, then the worth of pseudoscience might not be that much -- perhaps only as much as it can lead to empirical study and discovery.

That said, if the context is spiritual or supernatural in nature, as seems to be representative of Eonnn's stance, the value (or "worth") changes, as it's now relative to something else.

This disagreement seems to be, at least in part, due to two people assuming different contexts, but approaching the discussion as if there is only one context to consider. Happens all the time, but the discussion won't go anywhere so long as the individuals don't calibrate on what the framework of the discussion should be.