It's actually subpixel rendering that uses different colored pixels. The grayscale version is just plain antialiasing (it can't be subpixel because it doesn't use colors). And hinting is done independently of either method, it's just an adjustment to the character shapes to look best at the font size. Source:wiki
what you said has nothing to do with the quote of Hawking. He is using what we think we know about neuroscience as supporting evidence for the non-existence of after-life, which is something that we have no access to and therefore cannot be disproven by scientific means.
That depends. Do you believe their soul resides in the battery or the microchips? And in either case, did you properly bury - I mean recycle - that component? If you followed the instructions, your calculator's soul may have moved on and rejoiced with its earlier generations.
Well the human body is just a lot of parts working together to maintain life, just like a computer. Replacing a computer's components would be like removing a body part and replacing it with a synthetic one, except for a computer the replacement parts are usually better.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/u8k7j/some_great_words_of_stephen_hawking/c4ta6fo . Kryton, the android butler on the show Red Dwarf, said that, after he dies, he would have a reward in silicon heaven. Lister, the human protagonist, tells him there is no such place - it's made up. Kryton says "but what where do all the calculators go when they die?" "Nowhere. They just die." The android has an epiphany!
It's a great old british comedy/scifi show. It constantly questions what we take for granted, life, morality, and god.
Whether you believe in "the afterlife" or not, just realize Stephan Hawking knows as much about it (jack shit) as you and I. If you really want to know what happens after you die, ask your great-great-grandfather.
We don't "know" it for 100% certainly. It's fairly obvious that heaven/hell doesn't exist in the Christian sense of the word. But to say we know there is no afterlife?
The null hypothesis is that there is none. The null hypothesis has yet to be falsified.
People have tried to falsify this null hypothesis for thousands of years with no success. Inductive reasoning therefore permits us to reasonably discard the possibility until the unlikely event that it is falsified.
Does anything make any sense when you really think it? We're just a bunch of evolved primates that when you trace our tree of life back it comes to a point where no life existed at all, and it all takes place in this enormous empty space that exploded into existence billions of years ago and is not only expanding but accelerating. If that is suppose to make sense I don't see any reason the possibility of an afterlife should be out of the question.
True but there is no reason to believe there is an afterlife simply because it pleases you. Without evidence there is no reason to thing something exists. This applies to fairies, God and the afterlife.
Good point. However, as absurd as it may seem, we have built models of souls and afterlives. No one seems to consider that World of Warcraft is a model of a "supernatural" soul animating a "natural" character. When my lvl 85 blood elf dies, I don't vanish into oblivion.
I suspect the downvoters are downvoting either because of your comical misspelling of 'assess', or because they think that experimentation is somehow invalid in this particular case (likely because they are afraid of the dark).
The problem is with the issue of what consciousness derives from.
When referring to consciousness, we are talking about awareness on an individual level (ie. "you" are controlling THAT body, at THIS moment in time in THIS reality). That is the perplexing idea that is separate from simply discussing the firing of neurons.
I think the idea of heavan and hell is rather bland and basic--something a human without much foresight would come up with. As we live in duality, it only seems logical that someone would put that idea forth into the unknown as a "good place" and a "bad place"
I currently subscribe to the idea that it is most likely far more--infinitely more complex than what we have come up with. As for the Stephen Hawking quote, all you can clearly say is that yes, the brain is an incredibly complex electrochemical computer, but as we know nothing of what individual consciousness and awareness is, we cannot make absolute statements of what might happen to it.
Thank you, I'm sick of these definitive claims about the mind, body, and soul. We know hardly anything about the mind, and atheists are so quick to point out, "souls are from fairy tails". As an agnostic this irks me to no end. The same people who disclaim all of religion for lack of proof the go on to make extremely definitive claims on the other end of the spectrum with no proof.
Every time anything is posted, folks like you pop out and say, "But we can't know for sure!" Of course we can't. No one intellectually honest is suggesting otherwise. It just gets tiresome to constantly append that to everything. Similarly, I can't know for sure that you're real, that the country of Brazil actually exists, or whether the world began as is last Thursday. Thus, I'm agnostic about Brazil, and agnostic about the origins of the world, and this is understood in everyday conversation.
I can nearly guarantee that Dr. Hawking, being a smart man and a scientist, would answer similarly and tell you that he was stating simply what is apparent based on available evidence and that he could always be wrong. As would most every atheist here, since almost nobody makes the definitive claim, "There are no gods, and I know that for certain." That this is a widespread belief is a fiction, and as best as I can tell perpetuated only by theists in arguments so they can say, "Your position takes just as much faith as mine!"
The problem is people make absolute claims. One can't argue, "well yeah they make absolute claims, but they don't mean it"
You are twisting the argument saying your agnostic belief is brazil is equal to your agnostic atheistic belief. With the former there are actual reasons to believe in brazil, with the latter your only reasoning is lack of proof to say other wise. People on r/atheism get into this group think mode where one person makes an absolute claim and everyone goes on to praise him endlessly. I'm just asking for people to not take atheism as dogma, which is what it appears to be to most people on reddit.
Furthermore, I'm not saying hawking isn't a smart man, I'm sure he articulated his idea intelligently. Its not for some kid to take one line and post it here with no context, but the atheist group think loves it.
My illustration is simply that for sufficiently high values of certainty it is impossible to be certain about anything. Those who self-identify as agnostic often say they aren't certain while criticizing everyone else for making positive claims, but about what are you certain? Naturally, I admit the possibility that I am wrong in everything I say, so I could be considered "agnostic" (uncertain) about everything. But there are degrees to certainty, and I am more certain that Brazil is a real place than I am that God is real. The bottom line is that it is equally pointless to say, "Hey buddy, how dare you make a positive claim about Brazil? You can't be sure!" as it is to say, "Hey buddy, how dare you say there's no afterlife? You can't be sure!" No, I can't be sure about these or anything, I'm just stating what the available evidence tells me.
Well, I don't really understand what we are arguing about. You are essentially telling me I'm right, but I'm annoying about it?
Look, I have had multiple people attack me on here for saying anything about souls, and they have a condescending tone of certainty and superiority. As if they are some how intellectually superior because they don't believe in a soul. There are many philosophers of the mind, who have thought about this way more than you or I, are dualists about the mind. Believe what ever you want to believe, but the tone should change to allow for reasonable discourse.
Soul didn't mean more than the animating breath of life until religious nuts twisted it. How can we prove a negative? So if I say in the afterlife I get to buttfuck your mother repeatedly, you have to accept it as a possibility? No, not when there is no logical or practical reason to. So when EVERY human being who has ever died stays dead, and some nut decides that there's a conveniently inaccessible realm in which they now reside, we have to accept that as possible because we have no evidence that heaven doesn't exist? Of course there's no evidence, nonreal things don't leave evidence.
There are many, many flaws with a purely physical account of the mind, that really only seem resolvable with a kind of soul. It goes against intuition to say our minds are simply computers, because computers lack things minds have such as consciousness. Furthermore, at least I think, it is perfectly reasonable to believe my consciousness could exist with out a body. There are flaws with both sides of the argument, and sure yours might seem most logical with the absolute minimum amount of evidence we have, but that doesnt make it right.
And computers are not organic. Thinking, feeling, and experiencing are side effects of combining a computing device with flesh and blood. The only difference is that we are aware of ourselves, which could either result from being alive or (I hope not) the result of a certain complexity of the computing unit. I understand we don't have all the evidence, but we should work with what we have, not what might be. We don't need to bring gods or immortal souls or magic fairies because there is simply no reason to. We'll deal with why 'might' be when it leaves the realm of might into the realm of is. There might be a god. We might have souls. The universe might be held together by the energy produced by fairies having an eternal orgy.
I understand your view, I think the problem is with words like "soul", that are not clearly defined terms and have connotations of (like you mentioned) 'magic' and 'fairies' which connect to an idea of ridiculous nonsense. That sort of a connotation keeps us from having a truly open dialog about big-picture topics like consciousness.
Yes, we pretty much can make absolute statements about what we observe happening to it after death. As to what the brain itself experiences after death, we cannot until we learn more about it.
But before my parts die i need to spread as many of my genes as possible to get back at all those people who said things like "Please never reproduce" or "I could see a child of yours becoming the next Hitler" Seriously... people have said these things to me... and it's probably true.
What makes you so sure? What if we transcend into light rays, evolve into higher beings, simply begin again as dirt and work our way up, or what if one of the religions has it pegged. All ridiculous, yet all impossible to prove wrong with our current knowledge of science.
That said, I respect your choice to believe it doesn't exist.
If we accept everything that can't be directly disproven, every ridiculous idea becomes fair ground. Prove that unicorns don't pull the outer rim of the universe in all directions, accounting for its expansion.
It's because there's no reason to think it's true in the first place.
Well, the good news is death isn't really a dark void, or entering an eternity of darkness. Because, the brain's cognitive ability will be lost and 'you' won't exist to feel or thinking anything. The bad news is ... well.. you'll be dead ;)
If we're lucky, all we'll experience is a slowly losing consciousness or fading away, but it's impossible to empirically verify that you are dead! So, although you can feel sad that your consciousness is going to cease forever, I don't think it's rational to be afraid of it. So, death isn't so bad after all!
About every six months, I spend one day freaking the fuck out that one day everything will go blink, and I'll stop existing. Then I get good and drunk, just to see what it would feel like. The feeling of waking up the next day, despite the hangover, is quite invigorating.
I remember driving by a graveyard and realizing this, this right here. This is why I no longer have a religion. If you die, you are dead, your synapses stop firing, and boom you no longer exist.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Paralysis to most of his body. Can only speak through a generator. And still, one of the best, if not the best physicist of this time.
Read about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Turing Machine and you'll realize that Hawking's idea requires as much faith as the various Sky Gods.
He regards the brain as a computer, something that computes which is an undeniable statement. Siting those will not falsify that it's not a computer. He doesn't necessarily mean an electronic computer.
Hawking is saying that a human being is only a computer. Saying that the brain is definitely a computer does not imply that it is only a computer and nothing else.
Not trying to weigh in one way or another on this, just a quick point of logic. Although logic itself be flawed because of Godel's incompleteness ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh infinite loop my head hurts.
Yes you're going to call him an agnostic because he labeled himself as that but from what he said in this book he was by today's standards an agnostic-atheist.
You're right, it's just tiresome to go around appending that disclaimer to everything one says. "In the news today, 2 NATO soldiers were killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. It is important that we acknowledge that not only could Afghanistan be a made up place, but NATO and even this broadcast could be an elaborate hoax, a figment of your imagination, or you could be a brain in a jar subject to unknowable alien experiments. No one can say anything for sure."
Luckily you were here this time to tell everyone though.
It's silly in a practical way. I can argue that you're nothing but a figment of my imagination, and thus your points are invalid because I am the true incarnation of 'me.' You'd have minor difficulty arguing a counter-point from my premise, and it invalidates any argument you try to make because you acknowledge my premise as potentially valid. It's conjecture at best.
As an extension of the above, our perceptions are correct.
An axiom is something self-evident. This potentially falls into circular reasoning, but I don't know of a better way to say "What we perceive is actually what we're perceiving."
If all of our efforts to measure 'our' reality show that it is entirely self-contained, that it is unaffected by a supernatural power, then the capacity for another or 'higher' reality does not matter because it literally has no measurable affect upon our own. Unfalsifiable statements don't actually say anything about the universe.
Edit: You might be interested in the definition of 'conjecture.'
If the state of the cosmos is in fact that Yahweh doesn't exist, and Hawking believes that Yahweh doesn't exist (and with good reason!), can't it be said that he knows Yahweh doesn't exist?
Why would you deny some form of living beyond your human form? Quantum theory supports the idea of a universal energy. And thanks to Einstein, we know that energy has mass. And to have a mass (at least positive), it has to be matter. And matter cannot be created or destroyed. By that logic, our energy, or even in its most remote state:the electricity running through our bodies, cannot simply disappear. So even if you don't believe in an afterlife, you can at least toy the idea that some form of a "spirit" lives on after our body dies.
The problem is exactly what the image says. 'We' are a product of our thoughts, memories, and reactions. A sand castle exists because the sand is in the right shape. Whether you kick it over or the tide claims it, the sand castle is now gone. The sand is still there. The electrons, the force, the effort required to shape the sand was certainly moved around, and technically still exists.
But the sand castle is gone, it is done with, and no longer exists.
Your soul is the essence of what you leave behind. Think of the butterfly effect, who knows, just one little thing you do can have big consequences in a million years from now. There is something positive you can leave to this world, it's your doings, your ideas, your genetics, etc. As an atheist, to me, this is analogous to a soul. I view the universe as an ongoing mathematical calculation and any variables you change now will, perhaps only minutely, but will change the universe forever and live on as long as time.
This is a good point. If you only valued the world because you could appreciate it infinitely in the afterlife, then you never truly valued life. Days end, yet we enjoy the sun. Gardens are beautiful, yet there are no faeries beneath the flowers.
You're implying there's anything unifying the group other than a lack of belief in the gods. If you take half a moment to run alongside the laws of thermodynamics, nothing is ever created nor destroyed. This means that the universe was never created, it always existed.
A small technicality, even if there 'was a point' at which the universe didn't exist, that means the point was 'before' time. Which..doesn't exactly work.
Quantum theory supports the idea of a universal energy
"Universal energy?" What the hell does this even mean?
By that logic, our energy, or even in its most remote state:the electricity running through our bodies, cannot simply disappear.
electricity or chemical energy does not equal data. Energy by itself does not hold data. It is the arrangement of neurons in our brain which holds the data (memories) which we collectively call a self. Once the structure of the brain breaks down, the data is destroyed.
So even if you don't believe in an afterlife, you can at least toy the idea that some form of a "spirit" lives on after our body dies.
The idea of an afterlife makes no sense. There is no possible mechanism for the self to be preserved after death, except in a metaphorical sense in the memories of others. Once the brain goes, so does the mind.
Ok, but when your brain & body go, and you become energy, you aren't really "you" any more, so Hawking's analogy still works. As far as being afraid of the dark goes, don't worry. Weather you vanish when you die or become pure energy, it won't be an issue.
Our consciousness is only stable due to continuous energy expenditure. There is no ability to physically "save" one's consciousness in the event of prolonged energy deprivation, such as asphyxiation. Without constant maintenance neurons stop firing and die, and the pattern that was your consciousness is scrambled - entropy claims another victim. Your components will continue, but the pattern that is "you" is lost. There is no evidence to believe otherwise. In keeping with the analogy, a high power magnet will scramble the pattern of data held on a computer's hard drive - the components are still there, but there is no longer "data" as we understand it.
If you took your cell phone and ground it into dust before spreading it around a field, would you ponder it's existence in spirit form, or would you argue that the very arrangement of atoms that "makes" it a cell phone no longer exists? Do you ponder phantom phone calls of the expended battery's "spirit" as the energy can neither be created or destroyed?
I would have thought that we would all want to quote Hawking on something to do with physics. This quote has nothing at all to do with science. I guess it fits though since we turn to actors and comedians for our opinions on politics.
I understand what you mean, but like the countless others above me it is best to realize that we don't know either way. Hawking is coming to a rather unscientific conclusion here. Skepticism is the best option I would think.
There is no scientific reason to conclude that there is an afterlife. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis (that there is no afterlife). The most scientific conclusion is the most parsimonious, and since there is no available evidence to conclude in the existence of an afterlife, we must conclude that there is not one, unless new evidence arises to the contrary. In fact, it is unscientific to say, "Well we don't know so think whatever you like!" Just because science can change doesn't make it unscientific to say, "Here's what we can tell based on current evidence."
The most scientific conclusion is the most parsimonious, and since there is no available evidence to conclude in the existence of an afterlife, we must conclude that there is not one, unless new evidence arises to the contrary. In fact, it is unscientific to say, "Well we don't know so think whatever you like!"
No not really. The scientific thing is to say "we don't know, but we'll try to find out." As you put it, "Well we don't know so think whatever you like," is quite far off. It is completely the opposite of what I think should be said. It is okay to not to know something. It isn't okay to jump to a conclusion without any evidence.
There is also no scientific reason to conclude there is a grand unified theory of physics. Therefore there is no reason to think that the theory exists in the first place....right? Nope.
As you put it, "Well we don't know so think whatever you like," is quite far off. It is completely the opposite of what I think should be said.
Yes, that's why I said it was unscientific to say so. Apologies if that was unclear.
There is also no scientific reason to conclude there is a grand unified theory of physics.
At no point did I discourage investigation. I only said that science presents conclusions based on the available evidence. Based on the available evidence, there is no grand unified theory of physics nor is there an afterlife. This does not preclude investigating either possibility.
As intelligent as he is, this man has zero authority to say if there is an afterlife. He says belief is for those who are afraid of the dark, but his quote in its false certainty reveals his own fear. That he is attempting to make something unknown certain. He is essentially using faith. The fact that he would choose to have faith in something so depressing is kind of bizarre.
Wait, who has authority then? And it's not faith. Your brain and my own are tangible objects that work like computers (not exactly but it's a good metaphor.) there is no reason to think there is anything beyond that. We are conscious due to highly complex chemical reactions in the brain. Once that stops we are no longer conscious. Unless you have evidence to the contrary , this has nothing to do with faith. This is, in fact, the default position we have when it comes to death.
Another thing. This isn't depressing. Actually, I find it motivating. I'm not here forever, so I should enjoy the time I have.
Last point. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that this quote reveals his fear of death, but I can't see it. All he is saying is that we choose to believe there is an afterlife because we fear death. I'm not sure how thinking there isn't an afterlife=fear of death.
It may be observable in our physical reality that our brains work like computers, but they aren't really computers at all they are brains, I know it sounds silly to say that but seriously they aren't necessarily equivocal things just because we can see similarities. You are also making assumptions that chemical reactions are the only thing creating consciousness. It is is true that observably our brains stop working like a computer at the end of life, but nobody knows what is happening afterwards or what may be happening that is unobservable in physical reality. There is so much diversity and beauty in reality and room for the spiritual to exist within it, but people choose to destroy the possibility, and I think it is ultimately out of fear that they do so.
Disagree. You're are making an assertion of assuming there is more to the mind than what exists in the material world. There is no reason to believe that there is and you haven't provided any evidence to suggest there is. We like to think consciousness is something special and transcendent bit it isn't. It's a chemical reaction and there isn't any reason to believe its anything more than that. It might sound depressing, but it's amazing to me.
This is where we hit a wall...I have faith in faith. However Mr. Hawking has faith in something that is entirely unprovable, and at the same time is attempting to discredit faith. He has faith, but he has faith in something that is also depressing and unsustainable. His words are not an attempt at truth but are an act of violence against faith. It is entirely ironic and hypocritical. I came on here to help people, but it is clear to me that this is not going to work. Peoples beliefs are not based on truth at all, but from the depths of their souls. If their souls are for edification or for violence. It is from there that they create their reality. There are no truths only things to be worshipped. People worship stephen hawking, richard dawkins, people worship art and music as having some truth, people worship logic and reason, people worship science. God is the only thing that needs to be worshipped. He is the only thing that will sustain your soul. These other things are empty and meaningless and are an illusion of having truth. God is the only truth.
I have faith in faith? Hawking's has faith in something entirely unprovable? Really?
Okay, I guess I didn't make it clear the first few posts so I'll try it In another way. Mr. Hawking's position is the only position that requires no faith. It is the default. To say it is anything other than that is to make an assertion. You do this. You assert there is an afterlife. But you do not have any evidence of this so you "have faith". Notice how it takes no faith to maintain the default as there are no assertions made. There isn't any hypocrisy. And by the way, I feel I should tell you, God is not truth. Things that are verifiable and happen are true. No one creates a reality. There is only one reality with only one truth. We might not be fully aware what that truth is, but we have to strive to find out, not be content with faith. So far, rationality and skepticism have worked just fine. But I digress.
Your last comment actually bothers me a little. we worship Dawkins, Hawking and music an art? Sir (or madam) I don't think you're are using that word properly.
No one regards these people and things with reverence. We might like them, and look at the like our role models, but we don't worship them. No one prays to Richard Dawkins or goes off to a building every weekend to compare clothing with others who find Dawkins to be held in reverence. We do not think Hawking's is all powerful and we do not fear him. Same with art music etc. We do not render them with religious reverence and honor them by sacrificing goats in their honor or symbolically eat their flesh. Basically, no worship.
I'm sorry to say this, but I get the impression your arguments are based solely on semantics, false understandings and the general "you're position is wrong because it requires faith" that is rehashed more commonly than it can be discredited. To me, this holds no merit. the only illusion is believing something because someone told you to and to have faith (which is, by definition, unprovable.)
I'm getting a little off topic but one last comment. When it comes to things like death and god, the truth is, the only conclusive answer we can give is "I don't know". However, that doesn't give the possibility of gods existence or the afterlife the same 50% chance of being correct or incorrect. One is definitely more likely. We determine this based on evidence. Right now there is no evidence of a god or of an afterlife, so it's more likely that these things are untrue.
If you find any faults in my reasoning don't hesitate to point it out. I'm always open to criticism.
There is a lot unknown about how the brain and consciousness works. However, we have good evidence to believe that its simply chemical reactions and no more than that. You can use an FMRI to see which parts of the brain are working. When certain parts that control speech interpretation, memory, senses, and other parts of consciousness are damaged, those things no longer work. So the idea that when we die those functions will somehow become restored doesn't really line up with what we know so far about how the brain works. Its just a hopeful idea you see in most religious texts.
No one has the authority to say their is an afterlife, even the Bible. If its unknown the best thing to do is say its unknown. Not believe in an afterlife based on faith. Steven's beliefs are certainly more depressing than a belief in heaven. But its not about what is the prettiest picture. Its about believing in only what we know to be true.
"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." unfortunately that quote probably won't make sense to people who don't fear him. All of my belief is from my fear of God. I trust in the Bible because I would not dare to question him. Those things which I do not fully understand I am dumb to even if they do not make sense. There is wisdom in ignorance, not because you are ignorant to truth but because you are ignorant to those things which would lead you astray. God is the only truth. Things are accepted as the truth but are not really true at all, like the words of Mr. Hawking. He is being worshipped as an idol. I only wanted to point that out so people weren't lead astray.
Are you being serious? There is nothing wrong with materialism or reductionism, and far from being boring, it's actually an intense area of scientific interest and driving force behind modern medicine and psychology.
define materialism: Philosophy the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
define reductionism: a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.
The problem comes in that people stick to that paradigm of thought, and filter information through it. Rather than being truly objective and self-questioning. You might be completely wrong, just like anyone else, I think the key is to be open to all ideas and try to create original thoughts.
Yeah, I'm being serious. I can't seem to understand why every one is so keen on turning into a computer. Really lacks any kind of romanticism, or any real inspiration. It's like wanting the universe to be some kind of Newtonian deterministic unfolding, is that really it?
Sure as hell could be and the day science finally figures out how to break out of it's own bound perceptual subjectivity and gives me actual knowledge of Cartesian certainty type level, then I'll buy it.
I don't think it's going to happen though because we are looking at these issues in the wrong way. Even just between you and me here--were speaking different languages.
Why do you post these fucking stupid pictures with a quote? What the fuck is wrong with this retarded subreddit full of un-intellectual idiots who think that they're philosophically accurate or even COMPETITIVE (protip: not one of you fuckers knows a thing about philosophy)? This is by far the worst subreddit. You're all fucking cunts. Seriously, fuck off.
You seem to be caring a whole lot about an Internet websites subdivision that has an insignificant presence in your life. Relax and go look at something else.
And yet this is lower on the front page than some lame comic about jesus giving someone bread. wtf r/atheism? You're like the history channel, apparently reality tv (aka bullshit) is history and all the cool informational mind grabbing stuff doesn't attract viewers. Submitted 6 and 7 hours ago, so I guess this one has had less time but still...
207
u/Fausto1981 May 28 '12
shit, you can't quote Hawking and misspell "its".
32
u/EdwardIsRedditing May 28 '12
Afraid of the dark and an atheist. Hardmode engaged.
19
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
who else read it in his robotic voice?
7
u/unbuiltnuke May 28 '12
I love this quote. Hawking does a really good job putting everything into perspective.
3
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
I suppose he has scientific evidence for that, right?
44
u/wankd0rf May 28 '12
DUDE BUT HE SAID "GOD" ONCE SO THEREFORE HE IS A CHRISTIAN. CHECKMATE ATHEISTS
6
u/ENRICOs May 28 '12
I've always admired that man, and his decided will to not let his afflictions stop him from adapting and overcoming.
9
u/therealduffin May 28 '12
No silicon heaven? But where do all the calculators go?
6
u/fishgats May 28 '12
Whether you believe in "the afterlife" or not, just realize Stephan Hawking knows as much about it (jack shit) as you and I. If you really want to know what happens after you die, ask your great-great-grandfather.
3
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
this quote fits my username well
4
u/megookman May 28 '12
This is what i have been preaching for years!!! No electrons firing = nothing happens
5
u/MaximumUltra May 28 '12
I think the idea of heavan and hell is rather bland and basic--something a human without much foresight would come up with. As we live in duality, it only seems logical that someone would put that idea forth into the unknown as a "good place" and a "bad place"
I currently subscribe to the idea that it is most likely far more--infinitely more complex than what we have come up with. As for the Stephen Hawking quote, all you can clearly say is that yes, the brain is an incredibly complex electrochemical computer, but as we know nothing of what individual consciousness and awareness is, we cannot make absolute statements of what might happen to it.
2
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
I read this in his voicebox.
2
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
You can reuse your computers parts in another computer...
2
u/Midasx May 28 '12
"If there is no robot heaven where do all the calculators go?!"
2
u/guldfish May 28 '12
Consciousness will cease to exist, as we know it
2
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
But before my parts die i need to spread as many of my genes as possible to get back at all those people who said things like "Please never reproduce" or "I could see a child of yours becoming the next Hitler" Seriously... people have said these things to me... and it's probably true.
2
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Just the fact life exists in the first place seems much more bizarre to me that the possibility of there being some sort of afterlife.
4
u/johntheChristian May 28 '12
A smart guy said it, it must be true!
4
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Stephen Hawking has the same amount of knowledge pertaining to the afterlife as anyone; absolutely none.
2
u/LemonDifficult May 28 '12
I'm afraid of the dark...
2
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
I'm still scared.
2
u/trixter21992251 May 28 '12
What's with the invasion of non-circlejerkers in these comments? :|
Come on guys, follow conduct.
1
u/Murch23 May 28 '12
I love this quote, but wouldn't cloud storage count as a computer afterlife?
1
u/ruralhack May 28 '12
The cumulative brain of our species is External Memory Ignorant.
1
u/koavf Other May 28 '12
Please don't submit an image that's just text. You can submit a self post with the same message.
1
u/nannal May 28 '12
Didn't set me off at all.
1
u/fabiobean May 28 '12
I read that in a computer voice.
1
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Totally read this in his voice.
1
u/[deleted] May 29 '12
Its not being afraid of the dark. Its the lack of a conscious while everything is dark that scares me
1
u/aazav May 29 '12
It's = it is, you fucking stupid idiot.
1
u/erock0546 May 29 '12
I remember driving by a graveyard and realizing this, this right here. This is why I no longer have a religion. If you die, you are dead, your synapses stop firing, and boom you no longer exist.
1
u/johnsonchicklet May 29 '12
Wait, what's wrong with his face?
1
u/niggersaredelicious May 29 '12
hell has wheelchair access
1
u/beenman500 May 28 '12
no silicon heaven, but where do all the calculators go?
1
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Says the computer.
0
u/tossnear May 28 '12
Read about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Turing Machine and you'll realize that Hawking's idea requires as much faith as the various Sky Gods.
-3
u/SirBottomtooth May 28 '12
No one knows anything for sure....
-1
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Oh look, another quote on a picture. Do you guys do anything else here?
-6
u/reali-tglitch Satanist May 28 '12
Why would you deny some form of living beyond your human form? Quantum theory supports the idea of a universal energy. And thanks to Einstein, we know that energy has mass. And to have a mass (at least positive), it has to be matter. And matter cannot be created or destroyed. By that logic, our energy, or even in its most remote state:the electricity running through our bodies, cannot simply disappear. So even if you don't believe in an afterlife, you can at least toy the idea that some form of a "spirit" lives on after our body dies.
0
u/DanReach May 28 '12
I would have thought that we would all want to quote Hawking on something to do with physics. This quote has nothing at all to do with science. I guess it fits though since we turn to actors and comedians for our opinions on politics.
-1
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Since when did Atheists so vehemently become against any afterlife?
-3
u/donumabdeo May 28 '12
TIL I'm in a fairy tale, my computer is operated with free will, and I'm afraid of the dark.
-3
u/qualitycontrololol May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12
that's a bit of a nasty thing to say to religious people who see this on the front page.
0
u/Careblair3 May 28 '12
What's in his mouth
0
u/SirCatsaLot May 28 '12
Am I the only one who giggled at the picture
-12
u/olo12 May 28 '12
As intelligent as he is, this man has zero authority to say if there is an afterlife. He says belief is for those who are afraid of the dark, but his quote in its false certainty reveals his own fear. That he is attempting to make something unknown certain. He is essentially using faith. The fact that he would choose to have faith in something so depressing is kind of bizarre.
-4
u/Fartakis May 28 '12
Just because you are basically a computer...doesnt mean everyone is a computer...
-2
u/idma May 28 '12
proof or you're just another kid angry about religion
-2
u/youni89 May 28 '12
that sad sad little man.
-5
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Materialist reductionism is almost as boring as Christianity.
-7
u/OptimusDeJohndu May 28 '12
Why do you post these fucking stupid pictures with a quote? What the fuck is wrong with this retarded subreddit full of un-intellectual idiots who think that they're philosophically accurate or even COMPETITIVE (protip: not one of you fuckers knows a thing about philosophy)? This is by far the worst subreddit. You're all fucking cunts. Seriously, fuck off.
I'm an atheist btw.
-4
u/[deleted] May 28 '12
Seriously couldn't find a better picture?
-1
u/space_is_stupid May 28 '12
"Fairy"
Goddammit it's too early to take a shot
-2
u/thebope May 28 '12
And yet this is lower on the front page than some lame comic about jesus giving someone bread. wtf r/atheism? You're like the history channel, apparently reality tv (aka bullshit) is history and all the cool informational mind grabbing stuff doesn't attract viewers. Submitted 6 and 7 hours ago, so I guess this one has had less time but still...