Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[outhouse]

I use to be a fundamental Baptist, so I am very aware of what goes on, and it isn't nearly as much deliberate brain washing as you might think. But considering all the reasons that people are religious, of which the demographic area is a very large one, many people are only religious because it's what everyone else does, and they are presented with what the church gives them, which in a fundamental environment does often include many incidents of a "leading scientist" attacking religion, which from their perspective only proves that theories such as evolution come from the devil because he is obviously controlling these scientist. But if religion where left largely alone and unmentioned, then they wouldn't have nearly as much fuel to further their agenda. Actually the best thing that could have a significant impact on the number of people who accept evolution in the United States would be if Christian scientist were to publish massive amounts of literature on it, and how it is fully compatible with the Genesis creation story (given that many Christians already have the understanding that "day one" isn't a literal 24 hour day, and how the Bible does report a gradual appearance of various species.), and then explain how the theory actually works and it is still possible to hold the thought that humans are God's special creation.

I understand your point and you may be right.

I personaly dont think you should fight pseudoscience with pseudoscience because your giving something credibility where there is none.

 

[outhouse]

which from their perspective only proves that theories such as evolution come from the devil because he is obviously controlling these scientist.

this was the original point i was trying to address but did so poorly

 

[Badran]

all people are guilty of this ,,, I see your point. in the context I was speaking though was generalized at religious people blocking logic and reason when it comes to science that states differently then their religion. They lock up so to speak and their minds are not always open.

I understand that, however i can see the statement carrying another meaning along with it. That non-religious people do that less than religious people (not applying logic and reason i mean). If thats not what you meant, i have no problem.

definatly not always. But they dont "generally" let belief put up a barrier that closes minds.

Not necessarily beliefs that they recognize, or admit. However, they let all their biases affect their opinions just the same. And some of them hold unsupported opinions without realizing (which also happens with some religious people, the ones who consider their beliefs reality, or don't recognize that their beliefs are not confirmed in some way).

now that all depends on what statement your referring to, does it not?

as an example

saying you only believe what you do because of the geographic location you were born, for me seems to be fairly accurate.

And because its so for you does not make it anyway near reality, neither does Hawking seeing things that way makes it reality.

Id like to add, i should have put in my opinion to my original statement. It did come out wrong, but I believe you understand what im getting at

I'm not sure, there are two parts:

1) If you don't mean that non-religious people are better at applying logic and reason or apply it more, then i have no problem.

2) If you don't mean that Hawing's statement is reality, then again i have no problem.

Right now, its seems to me you're saying that Hawking's statement is reality.

 

[lunamoth]

I personaly dont think you should fight pseudoscience with pseudoscience because your giving something credibility where there is none.

I agree, although it's not Pseudoscience, but new mythmaking. I think part of the solution is not to reinterpret the myth, but to point out that the story/myth and the science are simply not addressing the same things.

 

[Raskolnikov]

...they are presented with what the church gives them, which in a fundamental environment does often include many incidents of a "leading scientist" attacking religion, which from their perspective only proves that theories such as evolution come from the devil because he is obviously controlling these scientist. But if religion where left largely alone and unmentioned, then they wouldn't have nearly as much fuel to further their agenda.

To clarify, are you saying that science should leave religious claims alone because, if they don't, religious groups will use any comments scientists make to further their agenda?

 

[outhouse]

1) If you don't mean that non-religious people are better at applying logic and reason or apply it more, then i have no problem.

I dont mean that

2) If you don't mean that Hawing's statement is reality, then again i have no problem.

again im saying it depends on which statement we would be reffering to. we never really picked one out othere then a example I provided.

 

[outhouse]

hawkins reality I was speaking of has to do with the facts surrounding evolution

is what I should have added to make myself more clear

 

[Badran]

Thanks for the clarification

 

[outhouse]

again sorry, I realized I stepped in it to late

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there weren't so many scientist that are too eager to demonize religion, then the religious leaders would have a harder time demonizing science.

Yes... they'd simply ignore science. Not much of an improvement, IMO.

As for the issue of evolution and creationism in public schools, you can go about the issue without blatant hostility. Sure you can't be too nice, but given that it has been consistently upheld that creationism and ID have no place in the science room when challenged shows that all that is needed is presenting the facts.

I'm not sure what you mean. Frankly, I'd be hard-pressed to find a Dawkins quote that's truly hostile. In anything I've ever read or heard from him, he's presented his points politely. Could you give an example of the sort of statement that's causing you concern?

I use to be a fundamental Baptist, so I am very aware of what goes on, and it isn't nearly as much deliberate brain washing as you might think. But considering all the reasons that people are religious, of which the demographic area is a very large one, many people are only religious because it's what everyone else does, and they are presented with what the church gives them, which in a fundamental environment does often include many incidents of a "leading scientist" attacking religion, which from their perspective only proves that theories such as evolution come from the devil because he is obviously controlling these scientist. But if religion where left largely alone and unmentioned, then they wouldn't have nearly as much fuel to further their agenda.

But they'd also have free reign to do whatever they want.

It seems to me that your solution is to simply not put limits on religions. I think this is unacceptable.

Actually the best thing that could have a significant impact on the number of people who accept evolution in the United States would be if Christian scientist were to publish massive amounts of literature on it, and how it is fully compatible with the Genesis creation story (given that many Christians already have the understanding that "day one" isn't a literal 24 hour day, and how the Bible does report a gradual appearance of various species.), and then explain how the theory actually works and it is still possible to hold the thought that humans are God's special creation.

I see two main problems with this:

- It's the job of science to explore what's factually true, not to come up with ways for religions to incorporate what's factually true into their religious beliefs.

- It's incorrect to say that evolution is fully compatible with the Genesis creation story. For one thing, it's not science's place to say that the "official" interpretation of Genesis should be that the "days" aren't literal 24-hour days. For another thing, this interpretation still isn't compatible with science even with the interpretation you suggest. What you describe is day-age creationism - while it does address some of the more obvious problems with young earth creationism, simply stretching the timeline out doesn't work, because Genesis gets the order of events wrong.

 

[Quagmire]

My take is it would be more productive if scientist didn't waste effort into trying to use science to disprove religion. Sure many stories have been debunked, but why bother when the same effort can be used for more productive research? It also makes for a more welcoming setting for people to learn about things they are told are wrong if the people presenting them aren't showing hostility towards those who are ignorant of the given subject. Such would be evolution. Without any doubts there are church flyers, pamphlets, and other literature that is filled with quote after quote of Richard Dawkins attacking religion, which works to only keep people from learning about evolution because they are being taught that because people like Dawkins are so anti-religious that his teachings are just as evil.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Quagmire]

Well... the development of germ theory probably did arise from ideas that started with mystics and philosophers, but not in the way you suggest.

Louis Pasteur was studying fermentation and spoiling of food products. As part of this, he tested the assumption of spontaneous generation (which, according to Wikipedia, was first suggested by Aristotle) and found it to be false. This and further experiments led him to conclude that the living agents that cause fermentation and spoil food (which we now know to be bacteria) had to be introduced from outside. This is what led him to hypothesize that a similar mechanism might be at the root of some diseases: that it was being caused by tiny living organisms entering the body.


Yes, I think it was scientific. Pasteur's methods were rigorous and based on valid inferences. You can read more about them here if you're interested: Louis Pasteur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The microscope had already been around for a few centuries by the time Pasteur arrived on the scene so it's a moot point. What I was saying was that before the invention of the microscope, the relationship between unseen, outside influences and disease was pure speculation, and therefore a philosophical theory, not yet a scientific one.

Of put it this way: if we're going to classify it as a scientific hypothesis based on speculation, then we would have to include the idea that disease is caused by "evil spirits" in the same category because it basically says the same thing: that disease is caused by unseen entities that invade the body.

Have they? Hawking apparently hasn't - he just disagrees with them (or the ones that hypothesize Heaven, anyhow).

You're equating religious people with mystics and philosophers. This is a false association.

But I was trying to talk about the other side: it seems to me like the "mystics and philosophers" are trying to get some sort of exemption from scientific inquiry. Even though they're making factual claims, they apparently don't want those claims to be rigorously investigated. Instead, they (or at least some of them) claim that they're somehow "beyond science".

Again: you're talking about religious people, ie., people making claims based on traditional and dogmatic beliefs, as opposed to philosophers: people suggesting possible explanations based on reason and speculation; and mystics: people claiming direct experience of fundamental truths.

(you just go on to talk about religion here---presumably mainstream Christianity specifically ---so, since I wasn't talking about religion per se, there's no reason to address it).

Case in point:
Heh... if we instituted a rule that people couldn't talk on religious subjects unless their opinions were well supported by fact and logic, churches would become very quiet places.

Any factual claim is potentially within the purview of science. If religions don't want to be subject to scientific scrutiny, then all they need to do is to stop making factual claims. OTOH, if they do make factual claims, then they need to realize that they create the potential that science will one day come along and say "you're wrong".

But personally, I have much less of an issue (edit: actually, no issue at all) with a scientist giving his personal opinion about a religious subject than I do with theologians giving pronouncements about morality and ethics as if his knowledge of religion gives him special authority in that area.

So in identical twins, their separate "I"s refer to the same person?

A copy of something is a copy of something, it isn't the thing it's a copy of.

 

[atanu]

for most religious people reason and logic dont always apply.

That is an assumption and a generalisation. I find that many science followers have swung to the opposite end of the belief spectrum. Contrary to the beliefs of many ardent lovers of science, scientists however often speak as below;

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
- Albert Einstein

More specifically, it is impossible for the mind/brain to probe and know beyond itself. Who will know the Knower? Who will see the Seer?

That does not mean that any enquiry has to be abandoned. Enquiry is auspicious.

 

[Quagmire]

First I used the word "often" to be careful and polite, and you pointed it out and criticized the use of the word often, so I was a bit more straightforward and said that to my knowledge, there never has been one, and now you criticize it as a sweeping statement.

I'm not sure what you're looking for there.

You used the word often because it was imprecise and subjective and therefore didn't need to be validated. I criticized your use of the word to get you to say what you really meant, which is that you don't really know. It worked: "To my knowledge".

And I've already granted that it's non-falsifiable. But considering I've seen no evidence put forward to the contrary, why should I consider otherwise?

Because the idea that consciousness is emergent from the brain is an assumption. Most people treat it as a given because it's the handiest explanation, like "the earth is flat" or "the universe is made from solid matter"were the handiest explanations until someone decided to consider alternatives.

This is more than just evidence of a relationship. It's evidence of causality. Doing things to the brain can change, reduce, or temporarily or permanently eliminate our consciousness.

Yes, turning off the brain can eliminate consciousness in the brain. No one is arguing otherwise.

-Eliminate: People can point out that during certain times, due to injury or chemicals, their consciousness was temporarily completely gone. But you've again shifted towards non-falsifiability by suggesting that consciousness existed during that time, but we just can't remember.

Yup, just like people don't always remember their dreams. What's the problem?

-Reduce: Instead of being completely eliminated, consciousness can be reduced by altering the brain. There is a whole spectrum of states between wakefulness and complete unconsciousness. Your defense against this as far as I can tell was to propose that the brain is merely the tool or expression of consciousness, and affecting the brain affected consciousness. But, if consciousness can't be created or destroyed, where is the remaining consciousness when a fully conscious person has their level of consciousness severely reduced? The statement about not-remembering isn't really applicable anymore.

I already suggested that the level of consciousness may be correspondent to the ability of accommodation. In a damaged brain, that level would be reduced. Since the definition of consciousness that you seem to be using is the ability to access and process sensory data and stimuli (for one) it would stand to reason that since the ability to receive signals via the senses is dependent on the brain and nervous system, that damage to the brain would result in a reduced ability to access or process external stimuli.

Same thing with memory: if memory is stored in the brain, it would stand to reason that if those structures in the brain responsible for memory are damaged, the ability to retrieve memory would be hindered.

Actual Awareness may not be effected at all. Awareness of the external world would be because the consciousness, using a damaged brain, would no longer have the access to it that it had previously.

The straightforward causality, combined with absence of evidence for other alternatives despite considerable research of the brain (no known structures to receive external consciousness, nothing known on the molecular or atomic level to produce consciousness), makes a very compelling case. What other valid hypotheses should Hawking or others consider?

Again (and again and again....) there are also no known structures in the brain that have been observed, or even theorized, to produce consciousness.

Furthermore, you said that everything he said is predicated on consciousness being a product of the brain, but this is not precise. Everything he said is predicated on the belief that the mind is a product of the brain. Mind includes a lot more than just consciousness.

Depending on which definition of consciousness we're using. Up til now we've both been using mind and consciousness interchangeably.

Here's what Hawkng actually said:

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven of afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark."

No mention of mind or consciousness by any definition, just the brain. If we want to take his statement literally all he's really saying is that there's no physical immortality or bodily resurrection.

This isn't what we've been arguing about in this thread.

Although definitions sometimes vary, a mind includes consciousness + intellect + memories, and sometimes also personality and emotions.

Which also isn't what we've been debating. All we've been debating is whether or not consciousness, in any form, is dependent on a physical brain.

This doesn't follow the conservation of consciousness you suggested earlier.

How does it not? If consciousness is pure awareness, then the expansion of the medium wouldn't effect the nature of that consciousness, it would just effect it's range. It wouldn't become "more aware" it would just become "aware of more".

Do you intend this to go along with that, or is this a separate hypothesis? This doesn't hold to conservation of consciousness. Rather than the ocean becoming a wave, it's becoming many waves.

Just on the surface.

If each wave contains the whole ocean, consciousness is not being conserved.

But if the ocean contains every wave, it does.

At this point, it sounds to me like you're talking more about the conservation or preservation of personality or identity rather than consciousness.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you clarify?

Are you saying that, like all the cells have DNA for the whole body in them, that each person has information for the whole universe in them?

As a possibility, absolutely.

I'm not expecting too much from just the metaphor- I'm expecting much from the metaphor combined with your explanations.

On one hand, you've basically been suggesting the possibility that the brain is just a tool or physical expression of consciousness, so the reason it's possible to alter consciousness by altering the brain is because, somehow, consciousness is using the brain rather than the brain producing consciousness. And you've suggested that when we sleep, we're not really unconscious, but instead we're in greatly expanded consciousness but just don't remember it because our memories are in our brain.

(emphasis mine)

(when did I say that? the bolded part I mean.)

On the other hand, you're suggesting that after the brain dies, the "I" is greatly expanded.

I'm suggesting that it could be.

I'm suggesting possibilities, I'm not making any claims. If thinking in anything other than black or white terms is so hard for you that you have to keep changing a maybe into a "yes' or a "no" in order to consider it, then by all means, go ahead. I'll keep changing them back before I respond to them.

It's an extra step, but what the hell.

 

[Penumbra]

You used the word often because it was imprecise and subjective and therefore didn't need to be validated. I criticized your use of the word to get you to say what you really meant, which is that you don't really know. It worked: "To my knowledge".

I don't see why I should accept your proposition as to why I used the word. I used the word for the reason I said I used it.

Because the idea that consciousness is emergent from the brain is an assumption. Most people treat it as a given because it's the handiest explanation, like "the earth is flat" or "the universe is made from solid matter"were the handiest explanations until someone decided to consider alternatives.

Yes, turning off the brain can eliminate consciousness in the brain. No one is arguing otherwise.

Yup, just like people don't always remember their dreams. What's the problem?

I already suggested that the level of consciousness may be correspondent to the ability of accommodation. In a damaged brain, that level would be reduced. Since the definition of consciousness that you seem to be using is the ability to access and process sensory data and stimuli (for one) it would stand to reason that since the ability to receive signals via the senses is dependent on the brain and nervous system, that damage to the brain would result in a reduced ability to access or process external stimuli. Same thing with memory: if memory is stored in the brain, it would stand to reason that if those structures in the brain responsible for memory are damaged, the ability to retrieve memory would be hindered.

Actual Awareness may not be effected at all. Awareness of the external world would be because the consciousness, using a damaged brain, would no longer have the access to it that it had previously.

How are you defining awareness here? Is consciousness too specific, so now we need to agree to eliminate even more aspects of it to make the argument work?

Again (and again and again....) there are also no known structures in the brain that have been observed, or even theorized, to produce consciousness.

There are, however, two areas that have been identified as being necessary for consciousness. In addition, the massive complex network of billions of neurons with trillions of connections hasn't even been remotely mapped out. We have enough of an unknown in the physical realm, and yet, despite no solid evidence for, and plenty of solid evidence against, you wish to propose that the idea that consciousness can come from somewhere else is a valid alternative.

Depending on which definition of consciousness we're using. Up til now we've both been using mind and consciousness interchangeably.

Here's what Hawkng actually said:

No mention of mind or consciousness by any definition, just the brain. If we want to take his statement literally all he's really saying is that there's no physical immortality or bodily resurrection.

This isn't what we've been arguing about in this thread.

Which also isn't what we've been debating. All we've been debating is whether or not consciousness, in any form, is dependent on a physical brain.

The debate is more broad than that. It began as a discussion on where the burden of proof lies with afterlife claims and whether the proposition of an afterlife is as probable or valid as the view that there is none. The debate has shifted towards consciousness (and now away from that and towards awareness?), which is basically a shift away from meaningful concepts that are harder to defend and towards vague non-falsifiable concepts. As I've addressed the problems with alternative views compared with the position of all this being dependent on a brain, the remaining pool of alternative positions has been reduced considerably to something that is arguably not even meaningful anymore.

How does it not? If consciousness is pure awareness, then the expansion of the medium wouldn't effect the nature of that consciousness, it would just effect it's range. It wouldn't become "more aware" it would just become "aware of more".

How can it be aware of anything without any sort of structures to sense anything, process anything, or remember anything?

Just on the surface.

But if the ocean contains every wave, it does.

At this point, it sounds to me like you're talking more about the conservation or preservation of personality or identity rather than consciousness.

As a possibility, absolutely.

You're suggesting that consciousness can expand while also putting forth the idea that it is conserved. If it expands somewhere, it must diminish somewhere else, in order to be conserved. If the ocean contains every wave, and a wave expands, something somewhere else must be disappearing. Above, I see you're saying "aware of more" instead of "more aware", but I'll wait and see how you answer the questions above.

(emphasis mine)

(when did I say that? the bolded part I mean.)

My mistake. You said it about unconsciousness in general due to other events, rather than specifically about sleep. Do you propose something different for sleep?

I'm suggesting that it could be.

I'm suggesting possibilities, I'm not making any claims. If thinking in anything other than black or white terms is so hard for you that you have to keep changing a maybe into a "yes' or a "no" in order to consider it, then by all means, go ahead. I'll keep changing them back before I respond to them.

It's an extra step, but what the hell.

I specifically used the word "suggested" and you're still jumping on me about it.

You keep putting ideas out there, and when critiqued, you disclaim them as your own and phrase it as though I'm attacking it in black and white terms. Sticking to purely non-falsifiable concepts (despite non-falsifiability being granted early on), and disclaiming accountability to ideas and positions that you put forth, is a comfortable position but it's not one that can gain very much at all (and so far, your range of options has been shrinking). Basically everything is non-falsifiable; even the assumption that you and the rest of the world actually exists outside of my dreams from my perspective. It doesn't make sense to form a position around non-falsifiability rather than validity when non-falsifiability has already been granted. The debate started out as, and still has been, about why an afterlife should be considered valid enough to not be dismissed.

First the debate concerned everything- personality, intellect, memories, consciousness, etc. And then things like personality and intellect were quickly dropped, because those are clearly dependent on the brain and you wisely avoided trying to defend them. Then a good portion of the debate has concerned consciousness, which is more subtle, but due to specific examples, memories have been dropped, and even the ability to access and process information has been dropped, leading to an even vaguer concept of pure awareness.

Leaving aside for a second that all of this is purely speculative- in what way does this constitute a meaningful afterlife? Without personality, intellect, structures to acquire information, the ability to process information, memories, and even higher-level consciousness, what is left? Does awareness even remain a meaningful concept at this point? Without memories, awareness can't even be subjectively experienced as continuous. I'd question if awareness is even existent without continuity. And without higher level consciousness and the ability to acquire or process information, it's more about dispersal than expansion.

For the purposes of this debate, is that an "afterlife" or "heaven"? A non-continuous, non-sentient, non-intelligent, awareness that cannot even acquire or process information (and therefore questioning whether awareness is even meaningful or existent at that point)?

Would you like to rephrase or elaborate on anything, or is this basically it?

 

[atanu]

Penumbra

All your arguments stem from the premise that intelligence emerges from the physical brain. Which means that we are intelligent/conscious material product. OK?

Now, tell us, whether you, with your rational senses have seen any conscious physical product or not? ( Kindly leave aside speculations of AI). Life is not just the measurable material -- it is unique and there is no evidence of any 'conscious material product'. Yet you insist that we are 'conscious physical products' and so attempt to apply the concepts of 'material sciences' to that which is evidently not similar to other materials. How rational is that? What rational evidence you can provide for your own premise?

You insist that intelligence with which you measure everything should itself be measurable/visible/graspable. How rational is that? To me it is the height of irrationality. Have you seen any product to unravel its own cause?

You equate correlation between brain structure (physical) to events (physically measured or observed) and translate the corelation as the cause of consciousness, which is evidently non-material. How rational is that? Both the observations of the brain structures and the phenomena are representational and subjective. You are linking two representations as cause and effects without considering the conscious subject. How rational is that?


FURTHER, Just a moment's contemplation on one's "I" reveals that the awareness is not graspable object.:yes: Moreover, that the intelligence is given and that it never ceases to be the underlying factor for the universe to be known is not even acknowledged by so called rationalists.

(If you care to consider this post and reply, I may be able to answer only after 20 days). Best Wishes.

 

[atanu]

Friend atanu,

There is neither any teacher, nor disciple or even that label *Brahman* and no heaven or hell along with, HERE-NOW!!

Love & rgds

To me, here-now is a concept -- a neo concept that is easy to speak about.

 

[zenzero]

friend atanu,

To me, here-now is a concept -- a neo concept that is easy to speak about.
__________________

what is easy to speak about is always new [neo], fresh, here-now! [no concept required, just the understanding]

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

friend atanu,

what is easy to speak about is always new [neo], fresh, here-now! [no concept required, just the understanding]

Love & rgds

Friend Zenzero

Just as the term 'Brahman' can be a mere label, 'here-now' can also be. OTOH, Brahman itself is here-now.

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

There is no dispute that Brahman is HERE-NOW; by being HERE-NOW! the individual consciousness and the universal consciousness merges!

Love & rgds