Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'

Originally posted by AngryOne
To say that death is the end is to basically say that existence is literally meaningless. Personally, I find that philosophy extremely difficult to swallow.

Actually, to say that death is the end can bring someone to the realization that existance is very meaningful...its all we have, every single breath is something truely profoundly great and unique...every other lifeform you see around you is also experiencing this once in a eternity experience together. Its magical in a way, a activation and self realisation of what is in essence, animated thinking mud.

Makes you want to do something while your here...explore what you can, laugh, cry, do it all and remain free so you can make the most out of the short existance in the vast void of infinity.

Now, I enjoy entertaining the thought of continuing on...however, before I was alive, in the infinity of void before my life, I suppose if it is just lights out, I will be equally as concerned about that after I die...aka, I won't, as I won't exist.

So, suddenly, this life has all the meaning in the universe for me however I want to play it.

I wish everyone thought like this...imagine a world united to make the most out of lifes joys.

Its to bad that you cannot see what it is you have been given.

Its to bad that you haven't had the wonderful experience of the power of the observations of the mind.

Originally posted by onequestion
Its to bad that you cannot see what it is you have been given.

Its to bad that you haven't had the wonderful experience of the power of the observations of the mind.

Who are you addressing?

Hit the "reply to" button when addressing someone's post, else everyone will suspect your talking to them, or alternatively everyone will ignore you, thinking your talking to someone else.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I think psychic phenomena can be explained with further exploration of the nature of consciousness and space-time. There are some interesting studies suggesting that our perception isn't necessarily bound to the traditional concept of time.

dbem.ws...

the long and short of it is that there is a computer that shows random images, some of which should elicit no reaction from the view, some of which are arousing or violent in nature. The viewer is hooked up to a series of machines mapping his brain function. Curiously enough, people tend to have a physical reaction to the picture seconds before the computer has even determined which picture will be displayed. The same test and similar has be replicated with the same results.

Additionally, if you look at your foot as you tap it on the ground, you see and feel it hit the ground at the same time. Scientifically speaking, the light from your foot is recognized noticeably quicker by the brain than the nerve signals being transmitted from the foot. Based on what we understand of our physiology, we should see the foot hit the ground before we feel it, but somehow our consciousness meshes two events, distinctly different in time, into one smooth experience.

As far as Steve, he made a fopah. he stated matter of factly they don't exist, or even an afterlife. The way he stated it means he has proof...which is why I (on page 2) rallied against him. His statement was rediculous, and now he needs to either retract it, or show absolute proof to his claims (see, he claimed something...he didn't state his belief, he stated a point of fact...and facts need to be backed up with proof)

reply to post by SaturnFX


This statement I absolutely agree with.

My point is simple, there is no proof that God does or does not exsist. So it is impossible to believe what Mr Hawking has suggested as fact.

Faith is strong to the believer. And there are things that people have witnessed that go beyond what science can explain. To refute those phenomenon by means of science or religion is to refute them, niether practice is the last word, science admits periodically it has made a mistake, and re-writes itself. Faith remains unfaltering.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You don't understand whats happening.

Your brain synopses is creating an experience for you to observe. The synopses isn't inside the world, it is vice versa. The world is experienced through your brain synopses. Without this medium, there is no world to be observed.

Is your brain synopses the result of a reaction to an action had in a physical universe, or is the universe the result of your network?

reply to post by space cadet


Faith remains unfaltering? How many countless iterations of religion have grown from previous concepts of faith being proven wrong by our experience with and growing understanding of the physical world?

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n


I remember reading about that picture test. interesting results.
more evidence, no proof...like spotting a damned ufo. heh.

As far as personal psychic experiences, well I have a ton of em...all wild, just endless coincidences...endless, every day about 5-6 different experiences (including today).
This ranges from synchronicity, singing a song and flipping on the radio to have it play a second later (I rarely sing, so its not just like, bound to eventually happen), etc..I could go on, but meh.

I often wonder what all thats about, but I don't read much into it. I am not "special" or "in tune", and what I experience may happen to everyone else, I am just noticing it alot

However, I also don't believe the universe is chaotic...and if its not chaotic, it is ordered and everything is pre-determined...in which case, it may be possible to subconsciously know part of the pattern being played out...not sure

Aka, I seen this movie before.

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n


Without your brain, (graphic interface), there is nothing for you to observe.

My computer is useless without a screen, you know what i mean?

reply to post by onequestion


Firstly, I'm assuming this is in response to me. To which I ironically say you don't understand what is going on to a far greater extend than I. And they are called synapses.

Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader in advance of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London

I knew he was part of the NWO!! lol. perfect! at the Google Zeitgeist meeting.... Anyone who still things the Zeitgeist 'movement' is anti NWO then think again. I was fooled too for about the time it took me to watch the online films until i realized if it really were some independent anti-NWO movement 'exposing' the NWO like it does, then the real members of the elite/NWO would have had it ripped from the internet so fast it would never have seen the light of day.

Plus if it was really by a 'real' person then where the hell did they get all their research from?(I am not refuting it, it probably contains a whole wack of credible info, however such info is not available is such large quantities for the little people like you and me to make multiple 2/3 hour internet documentaries).

Plus the cities purposed....? All interconected, with self sustainability producing their own water, energy, food, and recycling all their own waste..... come on! You cannot tell me those aren't an exact layout for underground cities/bunkers lol. Take a second look now that I mentioned it, and it will be completely obvious they are bunkers.

Ho hum, it was a nice little 'movement' idea while it lasted. Anyhow Stephen Hawking + Google + Zeitgeist (and even London=1984) = NWO. Next.....

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n

My statement of 'faith remains unfaltering' means those who have the experience of faith, their belief in that is unfaltering, I didn't say religion doesn't have the ability to change. It is the faith of those who believe that doesn't change.

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n


Who cares what its called.
I am actually speaking about a very specific science that literally explains to you the truth. Through science, and not religion, of what we have discovered for ourselves.

reply to post by onequestion


I do, but the brain is making two distinct observations at two distinctly disparate points in time-- I'm not saying its some miraculous thing, but it is certainly scientifically anomalous, and the subject of a bit of discussion regarding the nature of consciousness.

reply to post by onequestion


Regardless, the fact that you don't know how to spell something so basic as that leads me to believe that you probably aren't as well read on the subject as I am, and therefore I am inclined to dismiss your opinion as I'm pretty sure you don't really grasp the point that you seem to have written off as pontification.

Originally posted by space cadet
My point is simple, there is no proof that God does or does not exsist. So it is impossible to believe what Mr Hawking has suggested as fact.

Faith is strong to the believer. And there are things that people have witnessed that go beyond what science can explain. To refute those phenomenon by means of science or religion is to refute them, niether practice is the last word, science admits periodically it has made a mistake, and re-writes itself. Faith remains unfaltering.

Science is a tool to explore things...it starts out that things are wrong and tries to investigate to get them right, or at least closer to an understanding.
science periodically makes mistakes...yes, and its scientists that uncover it, because thats what the point of science is...to keep pushing towards understanding...to review and revise over and over until a picture emerges.

Faith remains unfaltered because it never tries to correct itself, its entire foundation relies on never questioning it and trying to seek out a deeper truth...just add on to the initial point. That is basically the anti-science approach.

We live in a scientific universe. What has faith ever provided civilization? Cripple people are still cripple, yet the imperfect faithless science often cures the cripples.

Faith does not make gardens grow, but faithless science can help crops grow (come to find out, plants want water and sunlight more than hugs in a dark room.

I am all for faith in something though, but faith is a personal issue that should not be mentioned seriously in the same topic as anything science related...its like talking about different ways of giving hugs in a thread dealing with how to change spark plugs in your engine.

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n

I do,

but the brain is making two distinct observations at two distinctly disparate points in time

-- I'm not saying its some miraculous thing, but it is certainly a scientifically anomalous, and the subject of a bit of discussion regarding the nature of consciousness.

Now we are getting to the meat here.

but the brain is making two distinct observations at two distinctly disparate points in time

So does that mean the brain is uniquely experience what is happening in "reality" versus what may really be happening?

Lets say this is true,

Is this happening based upon the observation of someone else onto another?

If it's not true, what do you mean by disparate point in time?

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n


Spelling is nothing more then semantics. The fact that you even hold something as ridiculous as spelling in such high regards tells me you know nothing. You refuse to discuss ideas based not on the idea, or principle, but on the spelling of that idea.

Doesn't that seem ridiculous?

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You don't understand whats happening.

Your brain synopses is creating an experience for you to observe. The synopses isn't inside the world, it is vice versa. The world is experienced through your brain synopses. Without this medium, there is no world to be observed.

Is your brain synopses the result of a reaction to an action had in a physical universe, or is the universe the result of your network?

Collective measurable agreement creates the understandable reality. if my brain goes screwy and I see suddenly my sofa becomes a monster, that does not make the sofa a monster...and others would confirm then that the sofa is not a monster.

my brain has little to do with objective reality...unless I am somehow the only person in existance and everyone else conforms only to my reality as i create it...but, my ego isn't big enough to think I am the only one alive here

reply to post by SaturnFX


But in this instance... wouldn't your brain also be responsible for the experience of the others confirming for you the identity of the sofa?

So what then does that make the other person and the sofa?