Physicist Stephen Hawking denounced for believing...

I read the OP and quickly glanced through a few pages of responses, so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned.


Bottom line: The human body is a complex machine. However, like any other machine, it needs an operator - thus the soul/consciousness/spirit - however you choose to describe it.

If we were to run simply on biological functions, we would be zombie like I suppose. With the soul/consciousness/spirit we can utilize our intelligence.

Think of it like your computer - the physical hardware (the body), and the operating system, the software, which allows complex functions (the soul/consciousness/spirit).

And that's all I have to say about that.

I thought that the purpose of this site was to deny ignorance, not promote it? To follow religion is to revel in ignorance itself. Religion was originally a way for ancient man, without access to science, to explain his world. It became however, and is today, a way for a few elites to retain power and make people believe in a fictional dependency on their institutions and the elites in order to "save themselves". There are a few brave people, like Hawking, like Hitchens, like Dawkins, who are finally raising their voice against this controlling force and speaking the hard, cold truth to people.

I don't believe in god, I don't have faith, I don't have a soul, I don't think anyone has a soul, it all sounds like children's games to me, I personally don't see how god can exist, and everyone has their own beliefs so why is he being denounced for not believing in God, if everyone knew how many people don't believe in anything than they wouldn't do this. just what I think. (I'm pretty sure we are talking about how he doesn't believe in god, from what I remember from the post that's what it was, if not ill edit this.)

Dudes,

People have went through this debate for like over a century now.

There's no end.

It's more philosophical than scientific.

Funny how we all can only see what we are prepared to percieve. Hawkings obviously has a great logical mind trapped in an unfortunate body. It's no surprise that he would view reality the way he does. My currently favored concept of life, the universe and everything holds that he has the story completely reversed. I would venture that consciousness is the very essence of the universe, and that the thing we call reality (matter, energy, etc.) are, in a way, manifestations of one fractal spiral arm of that consciousness. That's the only way I can make sense out of all the things I see in nature. It's probably way too simplistic, but it's the best I can do at the level in which I currently reside!

I'll keep trying to look deeper, though. I think it's sad when people get to a certain level and refuse to further explore the depths of their consciousness and perceptions. That is the road to all the various forms of fundamentalism, where all further inquiries are forbidden, and all questions have been "answered." It's even quite plausible to me that the depths of reality are as deep (and deeper) as what we are able to percieve at a given time. Indeed, this has been proven time and again throughout history. Putting limits on it is a game for obstinate, limited minds. How boring!

reply to post by Halzman


yes, but if you think about it, the complex functions would not be the soul, the operating system would be the soul, but in my opinion there is no soul, as said in my earlier post, but i don't think there is a soul and because of that I don't believe alot of what people tell me, as what I had been taught in school was things about God in heaven, which was told to be everywhere, and the main point I like to argue is.... Did Hitler go to hell? most christians will say yes, and I will say, "then riddle me this.... if God forgives everyone for everything, then why could hell exist, and if homosexuality is such a sin, then how does God love everyone for who they are, and we are supposed to be created in his image, and born how we are, but yet if that is true then how isn't God homosexual, I mean the way everyone is different, it just makes no sense to me how God could exist at all.... and to me, there is no purpose to why we are here, it just kind of happened, you know, like Kaboom, we happened, nothing else to it.
thank you for reading that and I hope you understand that I don't think people all have to believe the same thing, but i just think people should believe something more logical without so many loopholes, like the theories of how Native Americans came here, which alot I think sound pretty stupid, (I don't believe Beringia Theories) just like the ways people say we came here, but I got to sleep, I'm pretty tired, maybe if you message me we can talk about this a bit more. (oh god this sounds like a PM but it's not, when i said maybe you can message me i was talking to everyone.)

reply to post by Camperguy


We are discussing the subjective nature of Hawkings and how it affects the outcomes of his theories. This is the only way to understanding the message he is conveying, which he may not even understand himself. It is hard to objectively sit down and understand the message you are receiving to yourself and discover the right words to put it in.

Originally posted by Insipid2000
reply to post by Somehumanbeing

 

Me viewing this post. And even bothering to reply to your comment is an example of free will.

Ask yourself, is it really free will? What lead up to the point of you getting here? What made you even 'bother' to reply?

If one rewinds their life, does the butterfly effect seem relevant? Your very first breath lead up to this point. Free-will isn't free. The choices available to you are only made possible because of past choices. The choices you make now will determine your future choices. If you can call them choices. It's hard for me to put into words, but a person's free-will voids their free will, if that makes sense.

Look at where your free-will got you and the limited number of choices you have to continue onto the next experience of choices, you can thank your free-will for your predetermined destiny.

I ask these questions as a devil's advocate, and is not directed at disproving or proving anything, merely getting people to think again about what they say.

Hawking claims that human beings are merely "biological machines" with no consciousness, no souls, no spirit, no mind and nothing but a collection of organized chemicals that run physical brains in a deterministic machine-like way

Does that describe Hawking himself?

Hawking has it right

All we are are complex biological computers, for want of a better term. Any esoteric, religious, supernatural spirtitual # you might be experiencing is just your brain doing it's thing. It isnt real, any more than things like itunes swirly music visualisation programs or elaborate randomizing screensavers.

Dreams are the dead give away that point to this cold hard fact. Reality can not only be distorted, it can be completely invented. By your own funky self.

There's no God. There is only lots of really advanced biological machinery trying to explain it's own existance.

Most of us have figured it out in this day and age.

Wake up!


and for future reference, I dont think its proper denouncing when the denouncer is an obvious whack job or equivalent religious lunatic.

I don't think that "what human beings are" is a settled question, even in the circles that Hawking moves in, although there is a definite materialistic bias in those circles. It should be pointed out however that unbridled materialism is responsible for at least as much suffering as religion has caused over the centuries, particularly in places like China and the former Soviet Union.

It should be pointed out that the politics of religion are not the religion itself. Certainly any human organization can be hijacked by the unscrupulous, even an organization based on a completely materialistic basis like the Communist or Republican parties for instance.

Religion is certainly not the one thing that evil cannot do without.

It is entirely possible that we lack free will in the traditional sense. It is entirely possible that we do not possess what is considered a soul, or even consciousness in the traditional sense. I too am frightened and disturbed by these possibilities, but the more I learn, the more I am forced to accept them as at least possible, if not probable. If you look at my profile you will find a topic discussing free will and the current state of thinking on the issue. Generative psychology, neurology, and physics continually seem to indicate that we may indeed be nothing more than incredibly complex automatons experiencing reality - whatever it may actually be - subjectively through a complex series of interactions and tricks of timing and perception.

Free will may be an illusion. No, I don't like it. No, I'm not 100% persuaded that it is true. But to discount even the possibility is, in my opinion, to ignore what appear to be the facts.

Is the reasoning behind this faulty?

If we imagine a universe with 2 particles and each of their states is undefined.
The very act of observing them would set their states.

Does this destroy deterministic model of the universe?
There has to be a conscious observation to decide the state of these particles?

The scientific materialism of today has its roots in Marxist philosohy-Dialectical materialism. One can find this ideology right on the homepage of a Marxist organization.
www.marxist.com...
consider the words of author Rob Sewell

Dialectical materialism is the philosophy of Marxism, which provides us with a scientific and comprehensive world outlook. It is the philosophical bedrock - the method - on which the whole of Marxist doctrine is founded.

Philosophical materialism is the outlook which explains that there is only one material world. There is no Heaven or Hell. The universe, which has always existed and is not the creation of any supernatural being, is in the process of constant flux. Human beings are a part of nature, and evolved from lower forms of life, whose origins sprung from a lifeless planet some 3.6 billion or so years ago. With the evolution of life, at a certain stage, came the development of animals with a nervous system, and eventually human beings with a large brain. With humans emerged human thought and consciousness. The human brain alone is capable of producing general ideas, i.e., thinking. Therefore matter, which existed eternally, existed and still exists independently of the mind and human beings. Things existed long before any awareness of them arose or could have arisen on the part of living organisms.

For materialists there is no consciousness apart from the living brain, which is part of a material body. A mind without a body is an absurdity. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is the highest product of matter. Ideas are simply a reflection of the independent material world that surrounds us. Things reflected in a mirror do not depend on this reflection for their existence. "All ideas are taken from experience, are reflections - true or distorted - of reality," states Engels. Or to use the words of Marx, "Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life."

I personally do not subscribe to Marxist dialectical materialism, or scientific socialism, as they call it. I posted this just to show the roots of this thinking in the scientific community and apparently in Stephen Hawkings own thinking process.

"We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering." - Carl Sagan

But I guess Mr Hawkings has it all figured out

This free will debate has been going on since the enlightenment, I think it was Laplace who first posited that if all the universe obeys physical laws then if we know the position and momentum of all particles then we can predict any future state. Quantum mechanics put a big dent in that philosophy, allowing for indeterminacy at the most basic level, BUT this doesn't mean that this indeterminacy manifests itself in human thought and actions. I suppose it all comes down to what we mean by free will, and how we relate it to God.

The reason why religious people are so concerned with Free will is because if all our actions are determined strictly by the principles of physics, then we don't really have free will, as they define it. If we don't have free will then we act by necessity, if we act by necessity then there is no moral responsibility to any of our actions (all of our actions have been forced by the physics of the universe)

Free will could still be rescued, though, allowing for both physical necessity and quantum indeterminacy.

I could be missing something completely obvious, but I'm not quite sure what the point of your thread is? Seeing as all you did was post a quote from the link you provided.

All I'm saying is who really cares what somebody else said about another person. What does that have to do with anything worth discussing? People are entitled to their own opinions. Unless you're one of those people that is hoping a creationist comes by so you can get your fill of religious debate.

Either way, I'm still not too clear on the point of this thread...

reply to post by Somehumanbeing

If you know basic chemistry, basic biology, basic physics and basic neurology, you'll see that all of our actions, thoughts and perceptions are influenced primarily by electrical signals in our brain, of which external/internal factors such as genetics, environment, and experiences are a catalyst for. There is no "magical" free will, and IF let's say there is "magical"free-will, it would be so weak in effect that in comparison to all the other "driving forces" behind our actions, it could be considered insignificant.

So you really don't believe humans have consciousness or free-will? You believe that if you know every single thing/variable about a human, then you can predict what that biological machine is going to do next? Given multiple choices, do you believe your choice is always completely deterministic?

I do not believe in a "creator", but this "clock-work human" idea is even more absurd than the clock-world Universe model, which is now completely obsolete due to the nature of reality. We live in a quantum/probabilistic and fractal universe where nothing is completely predictable. I guess the question really goes beyond predictability then, and becomes a question of self-awareness/consciousness. And there's a simple answer to that: I think, therefore I am.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by Nikola014

 

If you know basic chemistry, basic biology, basic physics and basic neurology, you'll see that all of our actions, thoughts and perceptions are influenced primarily by electrical signals in our brain, of which external/internal factors such as genetics, environment, and experiences are a catalyst for. There is no "magical" free will, and IF let's say there is "magical"free-will, it would be so weak in effect that in comparison to all the other "driving forces" behind our actions, it could be considered insignificant.

edit on 12-6-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

I think the free will is more associated with decision making than free will associated with bodily functions and reactions. Although even the smallest human reaction can be manipulated, I once saw a video of a man who could withstand extremely cold water temperature by just willpower and practice. I think scientists often underestimate the body and the complexity of the world which we live in... except quantum physicists.

Imagine if you will that your life is like a line and every decision sprouts another line or several others. These new lines would be like an alternate reality and this model suggests free will. If you believe in predestination you believe the human life is like a straight line with every decision being predetermined. Oddly enough I am surprised a scientist believes in predestination (which is often associated with protestant christians like myself) because this model suggests there is a plan for ever cause and effect, a higher power if you will.

I actually believe in a combination of both, I believe there is a general plan for ones life and the freedom to choose certain choices. God to me is like a gardener who prunes his trees. He allows the tree to grow freely but if it is not the shape or size he wants he simply directs the tree to grow in the direction he wishes.

God works in mysterious ways. Wait till the Power of God Zaps Stephen and converts him.
In the meantime let us all Pray for Stephen's Healing in Jesus Name