Stephen Hawking has died...

[infection]

But now let's look at the contradiction. Hawkings didn't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, invisible, creator being. According to popular mythology that means he's not in a better place, he's been sent to the supernatural torture chamber where his flesh will burn for all time and eternity.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to be scared of the boogeyman you have to accept that people get sent to the boogeyman when they don't follow the invisible sky daddy's rules. Chief among those rules is belief in and obedience to the invisible sky daddy.

Hmm... I personally don’t know anyone who would think that. However, I do know of churches, such as the Westbrook Baptist Church, which have <100 members, that somehow get generalized on the whole of religious belief, who may hold such beliefs. But I also know people who think they’re married to Robert Redford.

 

[Siro]

Hmm... I personally don’t know anyone who would think that. However, I do know of churches, such as the Westbrook Baptist Church, which have <100 members, that somehow get generalized on the whole of religious belief, who may hold such beliefs. But I also know people who think they’re married to Robert Redford.

****ing Westbrook! Is that church based on crazy fashion and aggressive interviews?

 

[Siro]

Of all the contributors in JFC, I would expect you to be the one most intelligent about the implications of my statements, when I am speaking of different ways of "knowing" and different standards of "belief". Being a fairly consistent and logical believer in objective apparitions professing ultimate validity as "facts" or "science", you nevertheless will not waver about machines or AI devices, man-made as they are, being a superior form of "life". And that without regard to the fact that we don't know how to program "conscience', or "love", the ultimate apex of human capacities.

Man. A lot of this stuff is cliche. Our ability to program subjective experience is irrelevant to the question of whether it is possible. It is possible. There is no question about that. We've seen it happen in a million million animals. A molecular blueprint that gathers materials from the environment to create a system able to experience. **** is elementary, babe.

But have your fun. @Red and I and maybe @OneLove are willing to play with reports of near-death experience reports and that despite their possibly anoxic delusional character as some would insist they must be. Dreams have been controversial for thousands of years, and are not suitable for purely objective evaluation.

NDEs... Out of body experiences are the easiest thing in the world to be tested. And yet, here we are. The blind can't see in their dreams. And when I smoke weed, I can't even remember a single dream. Shall we discuss black cats?

Either way. RIP Hawking. I think that's what this was about.

 

[infection]

****ing Westbrook! Is that church based on crazy fashion and aggressive interviews?

Damn. Westbrook Baptist Church must be big enough to warrant an apple giving the autocorrect for. I’ve got to check them out!

 

[babe]

Man. A lot of this stuff is cliche. Our ability to program subjective experience is irrelevant to the question of whether it is possible. It is possible. There is no question about that. We've seen it happen in a million million animals. A molecular blueprint that gathers materials from the environment to create a system able to experience. **** is elementary, babe.



NDEs... Out of body experiences are the easiest thing in the world to be tested. And yet, here we are. The blind can't see in their dreams. And when I smoke weed, I can't even remember a single dream. Shall we discuss black cats?

Either way. RIP Hawking. I think that's what this was about.

Hawking would roll over in his grave if we stopped talking about human cognition and belief.

 

[Red]

Of all the contributors in JFC, I would expect you to be the one most intelligent about the implications of my statements, when I am speaking of different ways of "knowing" and different standards of "belief". Being a fairly consistent and logical believer in objective apparitions professing ultimate validity as "facts" or "science", you nevertheless will not waver about machines or AI devices, man-made as they are, being a superior form of "life". And that without regard to the fact that we don't know how to program "conscience', or "love", the ultimate apex of human capacities.

But have your fun. @Red and I and maybe @OneLove are willing to play with reports of near-death experience reports and that despite their possibly anoxic delusional character as some would insist they must be. Dreams have been controversial for thousands of years, and are not suitable for purely objective evaluation.

So "Science" as it was once put forward as a method for developing human knowledge, attempted to bar bias and predispositions to "see" things that are not, but has become the slave in our time of political agendas, and those who would raise observations or objective evidence contrary to "Established Science" are panned as loons, or outsiders at least.

I have had too much "knowing" stuff on premonition, or maybe good sense.

I merely realize there's a whole world of things beyond proof, and I question the value of proof when employed to secure human conformity or compliance.

Stephen Hawking is a stellar example of human intelligence and capacity to achieve things unimaginable to most of us. Of all the people I am aware of, he is above and beyond inspirational. I would make an example of him for one thing he may not have imagined, but it is imagination that I am cheering for, not "fact", so it doesn't matter whatever he thought about politics or religion in my point.

I can imagine a God who would embrace him whether or not he believed or knew anything about him, because I imagine a God who is in fact his Father.

All the organized religions and all of the developed systems of theology be damned. Whatever God is, that is what He is. I speak boldly of the possible, of what any God I would respect would be.

I love science. The nuns used to tell my parents, "oh, he's gonna be a good scientist some day". I went in a different direction eventually, but never stopped loving the sciences. What I have no time for is scientific materialism. The Richard Dawkins' of the world are fools as far as I'm concerned. I've no patience with Scientism at all. That's somebody else's religion, and they don't even realize it.

I've always been uncomfortable standing in the lines at wakes. What am I gonna tell the bereaved that isn't just rote? "He's in a better place." "At least he's suffering is over". The usual formalistic pieties. Nobody wants to be there, and somehow I have to find something meaningful that will make the bereaved feel a little better, now that they're separated from their loved one.

It seems to me all dong2ha did was offer up a kind thought for Hawking. I doubt Hawking would feel insulted or be ticked off at that thought at all. And if I were in line at Hawking's wake, "I'll bet he's walking and running and kicking up a storm" ain't half bad. I could go with that. Might bring a smile to his loved ones faces even. And I doubt very much that Hawking would hold it against me for making the effort to bring comfort to his loved ones. All dong2ha did was offer up a kind thought.

As for NDE's, nothing wrong with scepticism. "Prove it to me" is natural enough. Especially for the scientific materialists among us. But, at least have an NDE, at least find out what all the fuss is about. Yeah, I know, how do ya do that, lol. Well, just saying, you might whistle a different tune if you did. Would not prove a thing to anyone else, but it will change you forever. Don't see how it couldn't....

 

[One Brow]

So "Science" as it was once put forward as a method for developing human knowledge, attempted to bar bias and predispositions to "see" things that are not, but has become the slave in our time of political agendas, and those who would raise observations or objective evidence contrary to "Established Science" are panned as loons, or outsiders at least.

There is no objective evidence contrary to established science.

Stephen Hawking is a stellar example of human intelligence and capacity to achieve things unimaginable to most of us. Of all the people I am aware of, he is above and beyond inspirational.

Hawking was brilliant, but not uniquely so. There is no reason he should stand out so far above other scientists still working today.

 

[One Brow]

I've always been uncomfortable standing in the lines at wakes. What am I gonna tell the bereaved that isn't just rote? "He's in a better place." "At least he's suffering is over". The usual formalistic pieties.

'He made my life better, and I will miss him too"? Funerals are for the living, after all.

 

[infection]

I've always been uncomfortable standing in the lines at wakes. What am I gonna tell the bereaved that isn't just rote? "He's in a better place." "At least he's suffering is over". The usual formalistic pieties. Nobody wants to be there, and somehow I have to find something meaningful that will make the bereaved feel a little better, now that they're separated from their loved one.

You don’t have to do ****. As humans and as a society, we have this undying need to correct and intervene on any problem we see. It’s not okay to tolerate the slightest bit of discomfort and we must act to make it better, even if our efforts are making things much worse, because it relieves our anxiety and fear of “doing nothing.”

So, no, it’s not your responsibility to make them feel better. Somebody just died, for hell’s sake, let them embrace that sadness. Efforts to avoid that are only pissing them off, and it sounds like it’s pissing you off, too.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I didn't think it was that offensive for a religious person to proclaim that he hopes he enjoys an afterlife, and the sensation of being able to walk again.

I'm of the opinion that you don't need to subscribe to a certain faith in order to make it to heaven-- if there's a heaven, Hawking is first ballot (at least, knowing what i know about his life). If not, may his memory live on, and may he find peace with the end of his life.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I didn't think it was that offensive for a religious person to proclaim that he hopes he enjoys an afterlife, and the sensation of being able to walk again.

I'm of the opinion that you don't need to subscribe to a certain faith in order to make it to heaven-- if there's a heaven, Hawking is first ballot (at least, knowing what i know about his life). If not, may his memory live on, and may he find peace with the end of his life.

Whether or not there is an afterlife, Steven Hawking will live on because his impact on the world cannot be terminated by his death. He will certainly live on in my mind.

 

[Stoked]

You like to see things from your point of view. That's cool, that's how things work.

Do you see how non-believers are being told what to do, say and think when someone asserts that a physically handicapped person is now in a better place because they are dead? Religious people say what they think, I say what I think, then babe comes in telling me I'm ruining the party.

Okay.

But now let's look at the contradiction. Hawkings didn't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, invisible, creator being. According to popular mythology that means he's not in a better place, he's been sent to the supernatural torture chamber where his flesh will burn for all time and eternity.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to be scared of the boogeyman you have to accept that people get sent to the boogeyman when they don't follow the invisible sky daddy's rules. Chief among those rules is belief in and obedience to the invisible sky daddy.

Depends on the particular sky daddy. Not all Sky Daddies make it so cut and dry.

You're not ruining anything, but I do not find it bothersome to hear religious people say things like One Love did. It's like a funeral. Its more for his piece of mind than Hawking. Hawking is dead, he don't care.

 

[babe]

There is no objective evidence contrary to established science.



Hawking was brilliant, but not uniquely so. There is no reason he should stand out so far above other scientists still working today.

sounds like a true believer who doesn't know what his religion is. "Science" is a systematic method. If anyone is acting within the formal claims/demands of the "method", he is using the scientific method. The ultimate validity of any fact or principle generally accepted by scientists is theoretically open for debate, and open for further study. It is therefore an internally inconsistent and even ignorant claim to even talk of "established science" when discussing say evolution or global warming.

Sure there may be tons of objective evidence which if interpreted in the "right" way would support the claims of those and other generally accepted concepts based on a ton of scientific studies. But there are also, in most cases, data or objective evidence that we just can't "fit in" to the principles we generally accept. Gravity at very long distances is one of them.

Hawking was all about being open to better concepts that might prove to be a better fit with the evidence available, overcoming the objections or questions raised by folks with objective observations that don't seem to fit.

Sure Hawking has some peers, more or less. So did Einstein. But lets say I think his accomplishments were stellar, perhaps an order of magnitude or two above and beyond. Part of the reason might have been his inability to develop in other ways. Being all alone inside your mind with nothing to do besides think might give a person a little edge. Well, if you choose to do that thinking.

Hawking was stellar in devoting himself to doing that thinking.

 

[One Brow]

sounds like a true believer who doesn't know what his religion is. "Science" is a systematic method. If anyone is acting within the formal claims/demands of the "method", he is using the scientific method. The ultimate validity of any fact or principle generally accepted by scientists is theoretically open for debate, and open for further study. It is therefore an internally inconsistent and even ignorant claim to even talk of "established science" when discussing say evolution or global warming.

I notice how the conservative denialists never discuss about how established atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, or the theory of sedimentary rock formation is. You always come back to your personal bug-a-bears. You understand that you would sound like an idiot if you claimed we couldn't be sure chickenpox was caused by a virus, but somehow you think you sound less like an idiot claiming populations don't make significant changes over time or that measuring increasing temperatures at individual places does not mean a greater average temperature. I have unfortunate news for you there.

Sure there may be tons of objective evidence which if interpreted in the "right" way would support the claims of those and other generally accepted concepts based on a ton of scientific studies. But there are also, in most cases, data or objective evidence that we just can't "fit in" to the principles we generally accept. Gravity at very long distances is one of them.

What is the objective evidence that does not fit evolutionary theory or global warming, and why do you think it does not fit?

Sure Hawking has some peers, more or less. So did Einstein. But lets say I think his accomplishments were stellar, perhaps an order of magnitude or two above and beyond.

Could you name two of them, without first looking them up online?

Part of the reason might have been his inability to develop in other ways. Being all alone inside your mind with nothing to do besides think might give a person a little edge. Well, if you choose to do that thinking.

Hawking was stellar in devoting himself to doing that thinking.

Ye olde disability superpower. That's ablist rubbish, akin to the magical negro or woman's intuition. Assigning special abilities to disfavored groups is one of the ways favored groups justify their own treatment to themselves. Hawking was as much a part of the physical world as any other human.

 

[gandalfe]

Ye olde disability superpower. That's ablist rubbish, akin to the magical negro or woman's intuition. Assigning special abilities to disfavored groups is one of the ways favored groups justify their own treatment to themselves. Hawking was as much a part of the physical world as any other human.

Also, I believe that he was already pushing the boundaries before he was paralyzed.

 

[babe]

I notice how the conservative denialists never discuss about how established atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, or the theory of sedimentary rock formation is. You always come back to your personal bug-a-bears. You understand that you would sound like an idiot if you claimed we couldn't be sure chickenpox was caused by a virus, but somehow you think you sound less like an idiot claiming populations don't make significant changes over time or that measuring increasing temperatures at individual places does not mean a greater average temperature. I have unfortunate news for you there.



What is the objective evidence that does not fit evolutionary theory or global warming, and why do you think it does not fit?



Could you name two of them, without first looking them up online?



Ye olde disability superpower. That's ablist rubbish, akin to the magical negro or woman's intuition. Assigning special abilities to disfavored groups is one of the ways favored groups justify their own treatment to themselves. Hawking was as much a part of the physical world as any other human.

OB, no one is making a political agenda outta germ theory. Sure there are some who claim fake science on the question of data collection biases, the thumb on the balance so to speak when there are grants to be had for obtaining "politically correct" results.

The hard truth for the global warming folks is that they do in fact put statistical blinders on and lie like hell to get their grants.

political agenda ax grinders like yourself feed on the select "enlightened sources" who share your faith.

The instruments and and methods have changed. Some say improved. We pay a lot more people to do the studies today than ever before. But the bias is really there. The political pressure is really there. NOBODY who cares about a career is gonna buck the system today.

We have huge temperature variations across climatic changes over time that have occurred so far as we could speculate, to explain ice ages and carbon deposits under the Arctic Sea and probably under the ice on Antarctica.

I just don't care to argue about 1.8 degrees over 150 years, or question carbon dioxide and other polyatomic gases for having a heat retaining effect. We have had much more of these gases in earth history, and we did indeed have a rainforest climate at the poles.

But people like yourself and your contemporary chorus of agenda buffs are just too politically charged to discuss the subject rationally, or to be given the power to make drastic changes in our political/economic welfare to solve anything.

I was disappointed Hawking joined the "cause". I am disappointed that Bill Gates, when under legal pressure antitrust lawsuits, cried "uncle" and joined the globalists as well. One of my favorite and most-used meteorological websites, the weatherunderground, had a leading set of scientists who flipped as well when they were bought out by globalists.

The place where you and others like you fail as "scientists" is when you go marching with mere objective data to create your theories of everything, dropping lots of serious facts along the way. How can I say that. We have a number of ice age cycles in the fairly recent geotime, and nobody knows why they happen or how to stop them. And so far we have not exceeded the temps achieved by the other global warming events we used to call "Interglacial warming".

Not even a Hawking can really stand up in today's society without donning the requisite professed cloaks of political correctness.

atomic theory is hotly contested by a few nuclear scientists, as is the cosmological scale of things. Fortunately, these extremes are pretty useless to politicians who so far have not seen a way to swing the voters with some scare or another.

"Atomic structure will collapse if we do not immediately overthrow every noncompliant nationalist".... damn I should not have given you the idea.

The hardest fact you will face if you ever just decide to be impartial, is the impending ice age that will come on us before our carbon tax and save us from the heat.

The folks in science who get the limelight are, rarely, the best in their specialties. Once one breaks through into the news, it can go either way in terms of the praise and medals and status accorded. Most, imo, in todays academia, get the short end of the stick.

Still, I took one class under a nobel prize winner I'd call stellar. I worked for another whom I found out had passed out some Ph.D. degrees on worthless reseach I was tasked to verify, and proved wrong.

stuff as elementary as not recognizing that a conformational change in a molecule was due not to solvent effects but to adhesion to glass.

 

[One Brow]

OB, no one is making a political agenda outta germ theory.

So, you acknowledge your objections are based on your politics, instead of reliability of the science itself? Because, if you were claiming that no one is making public policy based on germ theory, that would be outrageously false. So, I guess it's only the public policies you personally dislike call for elevated scrutiny? Although, that still doesn't explain your rejection of evolutionary theory.

The hard truth for the global warming folks is that they do in fact put statistical blinders on and lie like hell to get their grants.

The hard truth is that such lying would be easy to detect over time, and the liars would find themselves de-funded quickly.

The political pressure is really there. NOBODY who cares about a career is gonna buck the system today.

If there is one thing science is full of, it's people who would love to find the evidence that bucks the system. That's how you get fame.

I was disappointed Hawking joined the "cause". I am disappointed that Bill Gates, when under legal pressure antitrust lawsuits, cried "uncle" and joined the globalists as well. One of my favorite and most-used meteorological websites, the weatherunderground, had a leading set of scientists who flipped as well when they were bought out by globalists.

It couldn't be that you were just wrong; it must be a conspiracy?

We have a number of ice age cycles in the fairly recent geotime, and nobody knows why they happen or how to stop them. And so far we have not exceeded the temps achieved by the other global warming events we used to call "Interglacial warming".

Many of these changes have been accompanied by wide-spread extinctions. Life will continue, but we may not.

atomic theory is hotly contested by a few nuclear scientists,

Name three who contest that matter is made from atoms.

The hardest fact you will face if you ever just decide to be impartial, is the impending ice age that will come on us before our carbon tax and save us from the heat.

What are you basing your claim on?

 

[babe]

So, you acknowledge your objections are based on your politics, instead of reliability of the science itself? Because, if you were claiming that no one is making public policy based on germ theory, that would be outrageously false. So, I guess it's only the public policies you personally dislike call for elevated scrutiny? Although, that still doesn't explain your rejection of evolutionary theory.



The hard truth is that such lying would be easy to detect over time, and the liars would find themselves de-funded quickly.



If there is one thing science is full of, it's people who would love to find the evidence that bucks the system. That's how you get fame.



It couldn't be that you were just wrong; it must be a conspiracy?



Many of these changes have been accompanied by wide-spread extinctions. Life will continue, but we may not.



Name three who contest that matter is made from atoms.



What are you basing your claim on?

So many rabbit trails in these woods. My point here is that the word "science" has a root meaning, related human understanding of the objective material world in it's origins, "knowing". I really didn't know Hawking personally, and I am no qualified advocate for his actual merit. But in the main, he made physics/cosmology interesting and he was a great spokesman for new views of things..... and it struck me that he was still looking for missing pieces in whatever equation he was looking at. So I define "Science" by the use of a method..... the "Scientific Method".... as it was taught over half a century ago. Anyone can be a scientist. You ask a question, look at what others have said about it, and design an experiment of test carefully to address some issue you see. You call it a hypothesis. You propose a test, you decide on materials and instruments to use, and you do something that can be observed or measured. You collect data.... you run the experiment to see how reproducible it is. You report your observations, results, or data. You hope some others will try it out and report if they get something similar. You begin to explain what it means. You hope there are follow up questions. You're glad if there are. You smile when people call you crazy, maybe for fifty years or more. You move on to new questions and testable hypotheses. Sometimes it takes hundreds of years before very many people understand what you did or said.......it's all good. It's "science".

politically useful "established science" hammered at the public with concerted propaganda outbursts, and the use of poisoned terminology like "deniers" is really hateful and despicable.

 

[Miggs]

Wait, which one is write4u?

 

[babe]

Wait, which one is write4u?

good call.

Obtuse and I go way back. I don't think I want to do the show again. I loved Hawking as an superb example of humanity. I speak as one who has been both totally blind and paraplegic, who knows how it can sorta upend a person's life. That Hawking kept going is such a totally awesome, even stellar, example. I got better, and enough better to do real physical work on a ranch, where the air is clear and the water unspoiled. I got significantly better being here.

If you're a Jazz fan, I don't care about your politics or views being different, at least no anymore. Let's get our team to the playoffs once more, and maybe win this year.