Rappoport Interviews a Dead Albert Einstein

I found the following article/mock-interview to be both fascinating and spot on:

Rappoport interviews a dead Albert Einstein

The invention of robot humans

Free will vs. determinism

by Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

OutsideTheRealityMachine

I love it when people tell me philosophy isn’t important. It makes me feel like a shark in a pool of farmed fish.

I’ll put this simply. If a person doesn’t think having his own philosophic stance is important, then he should consider that other people have philosophies, and they are bent on creating reality FOR him…and in doing so, they use that philosophy “thingo” he doesn’t think matters at all.

And one of the great philosophic issues—it flies under the radar—is free will versus determinism. Determinism means: events and lives and reality itself are a parade of happenings entirely devoid of choice. No freedom.

In labs all over the world, brain researchers are pushing this notion, believing that someday they will be able to control the brain to an absolute degree. For them, you see, it really doesn’t matter what they do to that organ in our skulls and how that will affect the global population…because they’re sure people were never free to begin with.

Get it? So nothing much is riding on the question of free will vs. determinism except the future of the human race.

In the next 50, 100 years, will we see billions of fully-programmed, “new-brain” human androids everywhere, or will freedom survive?

Armed with a philosophy of determinism, researchers will try to install whatever programming they want to, “for the good of all.” And they won’t feel even a twitch of guilt.

I was searching through a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with Albert Einstein. I found an interesting quote:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

I’m always shocked but not surprised when I come across statements like this from scientists.

I guess after Einstein escaped from the Nazis in 1933, he eventually came to America because our brand of no-free-will just happened to be better. Or something.

So I decided to pull Einstein back from the past and engage him in conversation.

Every time I do one of these interviews with dead people, somebody thinks it’s real. I don’t know why. So again, for clarification, this is fiction. However, sometimes fiction makes a point more clearly.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Does free will exist?

Q (Rappoport): Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

A (Einstein): If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Certainly.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we analyze the brain into its constituent elements, we find those same tiny particles, which are no different in kind from other sub-atomic particles anywhere in the universe.

A: That’s true. Actually, everything inside the human body is composed of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to avoid that conclusion.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain or what some would call the mind that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

A: I may not like it, but it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you and what your answer will be…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of sub-atomic particles in the brain. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering is not done freely with a range of possible choices. I know that sounds harsh. It may be hard to swallow. But there is no free will.

Q: The notion of considering is, you might say, a cultural or social delusion.

A: I guess that’s so, yes.

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than the products of atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: But the earnestness with which we try to settle the issue of free will versus determinism, the application of feeling and thought and striving—all that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so. Yes.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: That’s hard to say.

Q: Is imagination made up of the same tiny particles that inhabit the whole universe?

A: That’s an odd idea.

Q: Let me broaden it. Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: I see. Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe?

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t. They just are.

Q: And does “they just are” include understanding?

A: No.

Q: Then, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from? Is it just an automatic reflex, a delusion, as “being conscious” is a delusion, as “understanding” is a delusion?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. There would nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?

A: They are facts.

Q: Based on what?

A: …I don’t know.

Q: If we accept your depiction of a universe of particles without free will, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we? We are not truly conscious, we are making sounds, we are “going back and forth,” the outcome is not within our choice, and we don’t understand what we are saying to each other. Again, there is no room for understanding in your universe.

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be.

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious.

A: But that would open the door to all the religions that have fought with each for centuries.

Q: Why? Does “non-material” of necessity translate into “religion?”

A: Well, no, I suppose not. But non-material consciousness would certainly be a mystery.

Q: Is that acceptable?

A: The mystery?

Q: As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that is coming from something other than particles in motion. And freedom would be another quality, a non-material quality that exceeds the “grasp” of particles in motion. In fact, without these non-material qualities, you and I would be gibbering and pretending to understand each other. And both the gibber and the pretense would be no more important than a rock developing a trace of fungus after a thousand years.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the human body and brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to these qualities of understanding and meaning? There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying.

A: Well…

Q: There are many people who would say this conversation is terribly old-fashioned and outmoded—and much newer concepts on the frontier of exploration have relegated what we are talking about to the dustbin of a bygone era.

A: Yes. But I could also say the notion of solid objects is passe, because we know nothing is actually solid. However, as long as I can stub my toe on a rock and break the toe, the notion of solidity is still relevant.

Q: So you believe what we’ve been discussing here is significant.

A: I do.

Q: And you admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—this picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: I’m forced to. Otherwise, this very conversation is absurd to a degree I can’t fathom.

Q: You and I understand each other. What we are saying has meaning.

A: I had not thought it through all the way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles and their processes that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything, and I mean everything, is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. I see the contradiction. The absurdity.

Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.

A: For example, freedom. Yes.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the unimportant pre-determined attempt to substitute one delusion for another, one reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that’s so.

Q: In one way or another, there is a great impulse to deny the non-materiality of the qualities that are inherent to human life. There is a reason for this impulse. Scientists, for example, would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering and discovering in the physical and material realm, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”

A: It would be a naked challenge to their power. You know, I don’t like leaving this mystery hanging in the air.

Q: Which mystery is that?

A: We’ve come to agree that basic qualities of human life—meaning, understanding, consciousness, freedom—would have to be non-material. But where does that leave us? “Where” is the non-materiality?

Q: It’s certainly not going to be in the physical universe. By definition, that would be impossible.

A: I know. I can see that.

Q: Let me suggest that your capacity to understand, your ability to comprehend meaning, your freedom, your consciousness, are wherever YOU ARE.

A: I’ll have to think about that.

Q: I could say, “Well, you see, throughout the universe there are other levels of energy, and they aren’t based on atomic or sub-atomic particles. These other energies are ‘spiritual,’ they are most certainly conscious, and they impart to us our capacity to understand, to comprehend meaning, to have freedom, to imagine, and so on. This other energy is part of our very consciousness, or our consciousness is an aspect of this other energy.”

A: You could say that, yes. But that’s just a convoluted way of asserting that consciousness, meaning, understanding, freedom, ad imagination are beyond the realm of physical causation. It’s a hypothesis that doesn’t open the door to actual research, to science. To me, it’s just a kind of passive, permissive religion.

Q: Not only that, it tends to allow the idea that freedom, free choice are not really our own, and therefore, we don’t have to pay any price for the choices we make. We can become passive and quietly pass the buck to “the universe.” I’ve seen that outcome in many people who take this “cosmic view” of energy.

A: I wouldn’t like that at all. If we’re going to let freedom in the door, then we need to act on it in a dynamic way, and also accept the results of the free choices we make.

—end of interview—

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Einstein disappeared in a puff of wind, and I saw a note he left on my kitchen table. I went over to it and read it:

“If everything in the universe is composed of sub-atomic particles, including us, then this conversation and its outcome are HG^&&%DSE^. Gibberish. If there truly is freedom, consciousness, meaning, and understanding, then each one of us is, at the root, a non-material being.”

I put the note down.

Finally, consider that, for a non-material being operating with a physical form called the body, perhaps his most valuable adjunct, aid, and “assistant” in that partnership is the brain.

Scientists and elite planners believe the brain can be programmed and reprogrammed and surgically altered at will, because freedom has never existed.

They believe they’re simply changing the specifications of a robot, an android.

Actually, they’re interrupting and changing a vital link between the non-material and free and conscious YOU and your brain, in order to make your potential actions simpler and less capable.

The result would be a civilization of androids.

Which says a great deal about the importance of that rejected item called philosophy. (emphasis added)

Jon Rappoport

via Rappoport interviews a dead Albert Einstein « Jon Rappoport's Blog.

Many ‘scientists’, today, have allowed themselves to become “The Mouse that Roared;” these particular ‘scientists’ amount to obnoxious spoiled-brats who believe, in great error, they are intellectual gods, and simply because they received As on a math test.

Most of the knowledge modern science claims to have acquired about the earth, universe, and human-beings, has only been obtained in the last few centuries. So why would any scientist believe he or she has all the answers to the creation that can be seen and the large portion that cannot? After all, according to modern science, the universe is billions of years old, while man has existed for a mere half-million years or so. So maybe you need to get a grip on reality, all you self-ordained priests of the god called science!

There is not one of us, no matter our age, education and intelligence, who has ever had the knowledge and understanding necessary to be capable of coming to this arrogant and philosophically-infantile conclusion:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

Note: “I do not believe in free will…” Not to science based is it? Sounds religious to me!

As Rappoport demonstrates, through logic, something many of us are sorely lacking in today, Einstein had become flawed in his reasoning. Yes, this is a mock interview, but the quote by Einstein is real.

And let us not forget, too, that ‘scientists’ over the last century, have, for the most part, found themselves in the back pockets of the elite powers that be. And in the last half-century in particular, many ‘materialist’ scientists have become sold-out stooges who care little about anything beyond money and fame.

In my opinion, modern science has just begun the process of discovery, it has barely begun to scratch the surface. Or in other words, science is “evolving”, slowly, just like everything else supposedly had.

And so instead of being arrogant, modern scientists should be humble, until they come to truly know and understand what the hell they are pandering as the absolute truth. And this is especially so, when it comes to that which cannot be observed and tested, which is the largest portion of everything that is.

P.S.

Check this post out as well:

Free Will is No Illusion | A Keen Grasp…of the obvious.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Rappoport Interviews a Dead Albert Einstein

  1. I am a determinist. As such I must believe that free will is inevitable, because here I am thinking and choosing. And I know, as much as anyone can know anything for certain, that it is objectively real, and not an illusion. Because it’s not just me. Everyone else seems to be going about making decisions for themselves as well. And it is not merely a subconscious process, either, because several of us met at the Parent Teachers Association and made decisions together about how to handle problems at school. And I’m pretty sure we were all awake at the time.

    It is weird how so many otherwise intelligent minds are so easily trapped by a paradox. A paradox is nothing more than a trick, a “con game”. In the case of the supposed “free will versus determinism” paradox, the puzzler convinces you that, if everything is “inevitable” then it is out of your control. If you buy into this false dilemma then you are forced to choose between “cause and effect” and “free will”, to deny one in order to affirm the other.

    But our choices are actually in our control and the results of our actions will determine what becomes inevitable. The idea that “inevitable” means “beyond our control” is only true of those things which are in fact outside of our influence. I cannot stop the boulder rolling down the mountain toward me, but I can walk out of its way. I may not be able to alter the boulder’s destiny, but I can alter my own.

    So the puzzler attempts to con us again, saying, “it was the boulder that caused you to choose to walk out of the way.” No kidding. I am in fact compelled to react to dangers in the environment if I wish to stay alive. It would be irrational to expect otherwise.

    So the puzzler continues, “it was your genetic motivation to stay alive that compelled you to walk out of the way.” Indeed. But, dude, that’s me. All of the influences upon my choice that are part of me are, well, they are part of me. And it remains my own free will while the compulsion to choose is my own and not someone else’s.

    So the puzzler continues, “but it was cause and effect that made your choice inevitable”. Okay, the boulder coming toward me and my desire to survive did cause me to walk away. But that’s pretty much how everything works. Why should that surprise or bother me?

    After all, without reliable cause and effect I would have no way to move my legs to walk out of the boulder’s path. In fact, without reliable cause and effect, reality would be irrational chaos. Gravity at any moment might push instead of pull. I may reach for an apple and find a pair of slippers in my hand, or a cat, or even on random occasions an apple. The universe and life itself rest upon things working reliably. And this characteristic of the rational universe is called being “deterministic”.

    One of the things that requires a deterministic universe is free will. To be meaningful and relevant, a will must have some means of effecting its intent. Without a deterministic universe, the will is impotent, irrelevant, and meaningless.

    Determinism appears to be a factual characteristic of the real world.
    Free will appears to be an actual phenomenon occurring in the real world.

    Two truths, both undeniable, working hand in hand. Neither having any meaning or relevance without the other.

    The challenge to find which truth we should keep and which we should deny is rather silly. The choice is false. The puzzler creating the paradox is a deceiver.

    Like

  2. It’s too bad Einstein wasn’t this clear.

    There are many deceivers in the world today, and unfortunately, most of them are in a position of power!

    Thanks for the comment.

    Like

  3. I think scientific materialism was a reaction to centuries of oppressive religious dogma, but they took it too far, to the point that they denied something that is fundamental about human beings, that we are spiritual beings and consciousness is non-material. This is something ancient cultures understood, and they had a much deeper understanding of our connection to nature as a result of this understanding. This is a connection we have lost.

    Like

  4. I agree completely. And I think this is what Rappoport is, in the end, trying to communicate.

    I believe they have replaced, to a certain extent, one despotic religious belief with another, since most of what the materialists pander is more than speculative, and yet it is put out there as if it is absolute truth. And that is faith, not science. It’s very much like the religious, faith-based beliefs they have sought to do away with.

    I’ve already had a commenter who refers to himself as a “determinist”. I see little difference between this and referring to one’s self as a Jew, Muslim or Christian. Why does there always have to be a label, and then a doctrine/dogma to keep people divided? We know why, don’t we?

    Divide and rule, just like religion and government! And none of us know, for certain, if we’re even close to being accurate in our beliefs.

    I’m taking the rest of the day off! Have a good one, my friend!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Right, that’s why the “-ism” at the end of determinism. It means “belief”. I believe that every time I drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. I can’t prove this, of course, until I drop every apple that exists. But the belief seems reasonable from my experience and that of others (I haven’t seen any news stories about apples floating off into space).

    Determinism is simply the belief in that the physical universe operates in a reliable way. All of science depends upon the reliability of cause and effect. We seek the causes of disease so that we might find ways to cure or prevent illness.

    I’m pretty sure that everyone who practices science would say that the physical universe is deterministic. Even those who believe in God would agree. They would say that God created the physical laws that hold it all together. And those physical laws are reliable, except when God himself steps in to suspend them for some reason. Those are called miracles.

    Regardless of one’s beliefs, however, one must deal with the empirical world as it is. That’s why people who go to church also go to doctors. Medicine seems to them to be more reliable than prayer. And they say, “God helps those who help themselves”.

    In the end, despite what we may say we believe, we are all functionally pragmatists, dealing with day-to-day challenges in practical ways.

    Which is why I believe we are more united than divided. Any person claiming to be moral is the potential ally of every other person making the same claim. And what is moral is that which potentially benefits or reduces unnecessary harm for all of us.

    Because these are practical matters, like feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and so on, the only arguments are about the means rather than the ends.

    Like

  6. We are in agreement!

    “In the end, despite what we may say we believe, we are all functionally pragmatists, dealing with day-to-day challenges in practical ways.

    Which is why I believe we are more united than divided. Any person claiming to be moral is the potential ally of every other person making the same claim. And what is moral is that which potentially benefits or reduces unnecessary harm for all of us.

    Because these are practical matters, like feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and so on, the only arguments are about the means rather than the ends.”

    Absolutely! This is what we all need to comprehend, and then maybe things would change for the better for all of us!

    Thank you!

    Like

  7. One more thing, if I may. I believe Rappaport was incorrect to suggest that atoms must be able to think in order for living things made of atoms to think. Consider water. Neither the hydrogen atom nor the oxygen atom is wet. But the result of combining them is water.

    I do believe that thinking is going on within the physical structure of the nervous system, especially the brain. If you’ve watched programs like “House, M.D.” on TV, then you’ve probably seen examples where they are doing brain surgery on a conscious patient, and electricity from a probe can trigger a memory or a sensation. I think that locates mind as a neurological function.

    Like

  8. “I think that locates mind as a neurological function.”

    It could be. There are some who believe the mind is separate from the body, or part of a universal consciousness, and evidently Rappoport believes something like this.

    I have no idea either way. But could it be that memory is a function of the brain, as in storage of info, while the mind is separate?

    Like

  9. Yes it is hard to break old habits. The Jury is still out on many of these issues.

    I am no longer a follower of religion. But I still cannot believe the universe came about merely by chance either. It makes no sense to me in any way, and I have been trying to unravel my own thoughts on this issue for over forty years.

    So I just keep going. Why, I don’t know, I just do.

    Like

  10. If you’re fond of the church experience, you might check out the local Unitarian Universalists. I sang in the choir at our church (TJMCUU) for years until my 94 year old mother moved in with me and I had to take her to the local Methodists.

    Like

  11. Thanks, but church of any kind is no longer for me. I am looking elsewhere for the truth, if there be any truth beyond this illusion most folks refer to as reality?

    I was an only child, so by the time my parents were at this age, and the rest of the family was dead (good riddance), I was the sole caretaker. I loved my parents, but it was difficult to be a caretaker and live life at the same time. Not that I would have ever turned my back on them, since they never did with me, and I gave them several good reasons to do so, in my early days.

    My former wife attends a Unitarian Universalist church, as well as being a follower of the Urantia Book. She has finally given up, after all these years, trying to get me to see things her way. When we married I was a bible toting/studying/thumping Christian: “looking for love in all the wrong places”. But then the universe, or my self, woke up and began to make me well again, or as well as I am capable of being;-)

    Like

Comments are closed.