Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[atanu]

does a person have a life at present, that it can have a afterlife???

I like that question. But I will rephrase. What and who owns the present life?

 

[outhouse]

I like that question. But I will rephrase. What and who owns the present life?

the person living it

 

[Penumbra]

But....

... your faith in our scientific and technological capabilities is such that you just assume that if there were something to be found, it would have been by now.

Which isn't the same as saying that if we haven't found evidence for something, this proves it doesn't exist.

Unless you have some idea of how we should go about detecting something like this, than the above statement is merely an article of faith.

This leads back to what I've already said- for basically everything that exists, we can phrase it in a non-falsifiable way, and yet, we're not expected, nor should we be, to continue to entertain every possible proposition of every potential mythical beast, god, or concept. Eventually evidence becomes so stacked on one side, that the other side is dismissed. Precisely where this point is to a certain extent is up to us, and for Hawking, it has apparently been passed.

If there is zero evidence that consciousness is independent of the brain, and there is already considerable established medical and biological knowledge of the brain, why would Hawking be incorrect to dismiss claims that aren't supported? And more than not being supported, they're things that have been rather strongly pursued and yet not found.

If that's really what you think I've been doing, then apparently there's absolutely no way of getting you to consider any of these proposition in terms other than the ones you're familiar with, which means that you're going to continue changing my position for me until they resemble something you already have handy counters for.

If that's what you're intent on doing, I mean if you're so deadset on debating someone whose taking the positive stance on an afterlife, rather than someone who's merely offering alternatives to illustrate the fact that the negative position is just as shaky, then why not pick out one of the people in this thread who are already doing that? Seems like that would be less work and make more sense than trying to force someone whose taking the neutral stance into that position.

I'm not saying you're taking positive stances- I'm showing why one side of the argument is unfounded scientifically compared to the other side.

Part of showing this is to show why various aspects of claims from the other side are either incorrect or completely without evidence.

Because the evidence he does have doesn't lead to the conclusions he's drawing on their own. they require a set of unacknowledged assumptions.

Behaviors are a function of conscious beings. that isn't the same as saying behaviors are consciousness.

A brain is necessary for consciousness in physical beings. this isn't the same as saying that the brain is consiousness.

Thinking, processing information, is also a function of conscious beings. this isn't to say that the thing that's doing the thinking, or using certain structures in the brain to accommodate thinking, is thinking or these structures.

"External" may not be the right word. If, as some theologies suggest, the universe and everything in it, including the cells in our bodies, are created out of consciousness, then consciousness may be inherent already---a sort of psychic zygote---that develops into a fully formed "me" once the structures are in place to accommodate that.

But, in the same way that each and every physical element in our bodies was a part of something else before it became "us", consciousness may be a fundamental element that the body and brain shape into a "me", in the same way that the body forms itself out of physical elements.

In that case, consiousness isn't dependent on the body/brain for it's existence, just for it's form.

At whatever point they become conscious (sorry, I'm not a biologist, so even if I were suggesting that physical biological structures were capable of receiving external etc,rather than merely offering it as one viable alternative amid any number of alternatives to "physical brain = consciousness, consciousness = physical brain" I probably wouldn't be able to give you an informed answer on this).

It may be. It may just be that we haven't figured out how to do that yet.

Like I said: if you don't want to debate this way, pick one or two points and present those. Unless you're saying you'd prefer to be able to make as many points as you like and have most of those go unchallenged(?)

Sorry, but any variables in your equation that look like question marks to me---assumptions, articles of faith, misconceptions or assumptions about my position---would need to be dealt with first. Otherwise your asking me to address a conclusion that's comprised of faulty variables without allowing me to critique those variables.

Sort of like saying "now that we've established that 1 + 153 - 54 x 6 divided by ? = 98534.... "

Until the "?" is addressed, nothing's been established.

As I pointed out, our brain can be affected such that it changes our personality, removes our memories, and reduces our eliminates our consciousness. You used the common signal analogy to provide an explanation of how this can be and yet how the potential for an afterlife can exist.

But if our brain was simply a mechanism for receiving consciousness (despite absolutely no evidence in its structure to suggest that), then why would these things affect our subjective experience of consciousness? Rather than merely blocking or modulating some whole signal that's put in, changes to the brain change how we subjectively think, subjectively remember, and our ability to be conscious. If any of these things were independent of the brain, then damage to the brain should stop our ability to express these things, yet shouldn't stop our ability to experience these things subjectively.

 

[ChristineES]

It is a bit amusing that some people take everything a scientist says as gospel truth, even if it is just an opinion. But I am having fun on this thread, as I doubt it was ever supposed to be taken too seriously.

 

[darkendless]

Only if you choose to make it so. And that is entirely subjective.
In the case of the existence of heaven, our inability to locate it is neither evidence for or against its existence.

Often times, 'evidence' is subjective or subject to interpretation.

But you can't interpret something subjectively that is not there.

Evidence is usually only subjective when there is a lack there of. When nothing exists is it not clear evidence against the existance of something?

 

[atanu]

If there is zero evidence that consciousness is independent of the brain, and there is already considerable established medical and biological knowledge of the brain, why would Hawking be incorrect to dismiss claims that aren't supported? And more than not being supported, they're things that have been rather strongly pursued and yet not found.

Consciousness in and of the universe is not affected by breakdown of a computer brain.

As I pointed out, our brain can be affected such that it changes our personality, removes our memories, and reduces our eliminates our consciousness. You used the common signal analogy to provide an explanation of how this can be and yet how the potential for an afterlife can exist.

Putting a veil over eyes will not allow us to see anything. A scratchy spectacle will distort the vision. Polluted columns in a Gas Chrioomatograph will not resolve the components of a mixture. A broken filament will not allow a light bulb to illuminate. A reflected sun in a poodle will die when the poodle dries up.

The purpose of all religions is to make one aware of distinction between ephemeral appearances and unchanging base of that appearance. Since the ephemeral objects are the objects of cognition of the substratum, the objects cannot make the substratum their objects of cognition -- just as characters in a novel cannot know their authour. Science cannot directly provide any help but it helps to raise questions.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

As far science goes i.e. as far as the human mind can reach surely there is nothing as *heaven*. in that respect Stephen's statement is correct. None can fault it.
However mystics are individuals who have transcended that very mind that is used for studying and by transcending the mind mystics realise that the state of balance where the individual is in tune or in harmony with existence then such a state one can find himself in heaven and when the mind starts thinking and generates a wave the vision gets distorted and one falls from heaven.
So heaven / swarg/ zannat are not places after life but a state which one enjoys when in tune/harmony with existence [God].
Heaven is when is HERE-NOW!!!!!!!

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

the person living it

That was the question.

1.Who owns life? Does a brain-computer own life? Who owns the computers in our universe? Who creates the SW and HW. Who puts them on and off?
2. Does a computer have life at present that it can have an after-life?

Hawking actually answers nothing. Questions remain the same. And it is actually naive to state something that seems to imply that un-broken computers have life at present.

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers;

 

[atanu]

Friends,


As far science goes i.e. as far as the human mind can reach surely there is nothing as *heaven*. in that respect Stephen's statement is correct. None can fault it.
However mystics are individuals who have transcended that very mind that is used for studying and by transcending the mind mystics realise that the state of balance where the individual is in tune or in harmony with existence then such a state one can find himself in heaven and when the mind starts thinking and generates a wave the vision gets distorted and one falls from heaven.
So heaven / swarg/ zannat are not places after life but a state which one enjoys when in tune/harmony with existence [God].
Heaven is when is HERE-NOW!!!!!!!

Love & rgds

Agree.

Deep sleep is very near to heaven, except that it is not a conscious experience. One conscious experience that is near to heaven is orgasm. But that again is ephemeral.

 

[Madhuri]

But you can't interpret something subjectively that is not there.

Evidence is usually only subjective when there is a lack there of. When nothing exists is it not clear evidence against the existance of something?

Sure..
But I'm not sure it is relevant here because most people who believe in heaven accept the idea because it is taught by a person or tradition that they believe in. So with something like the existence of heaven, we have to go further and analyse the validity of the source (ie/ the religion or scripture or spiritual teaching).

Thus, the lack of physical evidence of heaven does not necessarily prove or disprove anything (but can be considered proof or disproof to the subjective individual) because the belief is based on something else.

 

[blackout]

What exactly IS this 'heaven', that is not?

 

[lew0049]

This is similar to Hawkins claim of the multi-universe theory - No scientific evidence to support it.

 

[Madhuri]

This is similar to Hawkins claim of the multi-universe theory - No scientific evidence to support it.

I was under the impression that there is a significant amount of evidence to support it. Do you have evidence to show that there is no evidence?

 

[darkendless]

Sure..
But I'm not sure it is relevant here because most people who believe in heaven accept the idea because it is taught by a person or tradition that they believe in. So with something like the existence of heaven, we have to go further and analyse the validity of the source (ie/ the religion or scripture or spiritual teaching).

Thus, the lack of physical evidence of heaven does not necessarily prove or disprove anything (but can be considered proof or disproof to the subjective individual) because the belief is based on something else.

It is a scientist making a scientific claim which is an analysis of physical evidence (or lack there of). There is no belief. Belief is an inappropriate word for a scientific observation. Its is a demonstration of what is known and can be demonstrated.

Scientific evidence isn't exactly subjective it is what it is. Subjective evidence would be scripture which claims a heaven exists because one has to take a leap of faith beyond physical facts to verify the existance of heaven.

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

One conscious experience that is near to heaven is orgasm. But that again is ephemeral.

Heaven is when the individual form is in bliss which is HERE-NOW, consciously!
Love & rgds

 

[Badran]

If you can't give any evidence for it, then it's just as well to assume it doesn't exist.

But that doesn't necessarily follow. Wasn't their a time when there was no evidence for many things, and they existed just the same?

If you mean it would be irrelevant, i can't see why it has to be. It may be relevant, and it may be not. Depends on each person's view of the thing in question.

Let's take it a step further. Let's say the person claiming to be Brad Pitt was on a dating site trying to pick up women. Now you not only have a complete lack of evidence that he is Brad Pitt and you have a good reason why he might pretend to be Pitt.

Now of course its extremely more likely he's not who he claims he is. Chances that he is are pretty small. Which means whoever chooses to believe he's Brad Pitt is even less justified in his choice, and probably wrong.

Due to the fact that he could've proved he is who he claims he is, its reasonable here to assume that he's not, since for some reason he didn't prove it, although he tried. But even here, we still can't say there is no chance whatsoever that he is Brad Pitt.

To know that something is true, we have to be able to provide evidence for it. Every claim you make about the universe can either be supported by evidence or it can't. If the claim you make isn't supported by any evidence, even when people have searched and searched for it, that would indicate that your claim is probably false.

I almost agree, just not with the probably false part. To know something, you would need evidence. Otherwise it would be making an assumption, or having faith etc...

So, of course i don't know that there is a heaven. But saying that there isn't a heaven, is also doing the same thing, assuming knowing. It could exist and it could not. Saying which probabilities are higher can be appropriate or not depending on each situation.

The lack of evidence here in heaven's case does not necessarily point against the claim, due to the chance of it being untestable, now or always. Or that we just failed to find any evidence for it, so far, which could happen due to the complication of such issue.

What's the difference between an untestable hypothesis and something that doesn't exist?

The second is something proven to not exist. The first i guess is something irrelevant to science right now (but not in general). In the sense that science can not deal with it for more than one possible reason.

I think what he's saying is that, as far as we know there is no material object that continues to exist in an immaterial form after it stops working or is destroyed.

A computer is actually a very good comparison. It works in a similar fashion to our brain. It can malfunction and stop working just like our brain can. And as far as we know, when it does stop working, and is taken apart or destroyed, it doesn't continue to exist.

I see what you're saying. The only problem is that us not observing anything so far or ever to suggest this, doesn't necessarily mean that things are just as they appear. As its not necessary that such thing can be observed right now, or ever.

So while the comparison doesn't accomplish much in this department, it also fails to recognize that we aren't actually close to fully understanding the brain. Unlike computers, which we ourselves created.

I can see the point of using the example for illustration, but i still see it as a shallow one. And like i said with adding the next part of his quote, it makes the whole thing totally unimpressive. Just another mere personal opinion that isn't even worded all that great.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is a bit amusing that some people take everything a scientist says as gospel truth, even if it is just an opinion. But I am having fun on this thread, as I doubt it was ever supposed to be taken too seriously.

The funny thing is that this generally only applies to people who aren't scientifically minded.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I almost agree, just not with the probably false part. To know something, you would need evidence. Otherwise it would be making an assumption, or having faith etc...

So, of course i don't know that there is a heaven. But saying that there isn't a heaven, is also doing the same thing, assuming knowing. It could exist and it could not. Saying which probabilities are higher can be appropriate or not depending on each situation.

The lack of evidence here in heaven's case does not necessarily point against the claim, due to the chance of it being untestable, now or always. Or that we just failed to find any evidence for it, so far, which could happen due to the complication of such issue.

Would you consider it to be speaking against a claim to say that while it's unfalsifiable, there's no good reason to believe it's true?

Because that's what I think is the case when we have an assertion about a factual matter that isn't supported by evidence.

BTW - when confronted with an idea that isn't supported by evidence, what are your criteria for accepting it? I mean, I'm sure you don't accept every unsupported idea, but it seems that you say you accept at least this one, so you must have some way of deciding which ones to accept and which ones not to, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is a bit amusing that some people take everything a scientist says as gospel truth, even if it is just an opinion. But I am having fun on this thread, as I doubt it was ever supposed to be taken too seriously.

I think this is a good point to bring in this comic:

 

[Madhuri]

It is a scientist making a scientific claim which is an analysis of physical evidence (or lack there of). There is no belief. Belief is an inappropriate word for a scientific observation. Its is a demonstration of what is known and can be demonstrated.

Scientific evidence isn't exactly subjective it is what it is. Subjective evidence would be scripture which claims a heaven exists because one has to take a leap of faith beyond physical facts to verify the existance of heaven.

My point is still relevant.

And actually, scientific evidence is often interpretable. That is why when we find new evidence, we have to re-analyse and change our understand of previous conclusions. It happens constantly.

Subjective evidence is just about everything we experience on a day to day basis. That doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, and how the individual interprets their life experience is entirely up to them.

What we must recognise then is that most people have opinions and should state it thus instead of making absolute statements that can neither be proved nor disproved.