I enjoy this thread and I enjoy the contrarian stance taken by SWIMfriend because it helps me to clarify and sharpen ideas that would otherwise be vague and poorly expressed. But I must say, it is beginning to get a bit tedious.


Perception and interpretation are related but very distinct concepts. Perceptions are always true and complete. A perception is a dynamic mental process often but not always initiated by interactions with perceived objects. An interpretation is a story we tell ourselves to integrate a perception with our memories of other perceptions and other stories, sometimes but not always in a consistent and coherent way. Scientists call these stories “theories”.



This is true, but accuracy of perception does not ensure veracity of interpretation. Again, it’s the “what” (perception) vs. the “why” (interpretation).

I'm sure Stephen Hawking has asked many questions about the universe, but apparently he has never asked, "who am I?"

A review of a recent book that addresses this issue might be of interest to some.

Here's another interesting (long) article.

One quick quote from it:

...This was truly to be a radical milestone: the world's first ever marathon nude LSD-fuelled psychotherapy session for criminal psychopaths...

No, this is not what I was saying at all. I should have expressed myself better, as the main point I was trying to make was in my second paragraph.

The Buddhist tradition is one of deep introspection and verification, through repetition of knowledge gained via meditation. Thousands, if not millions of individuals have used the tools provided by this philosophy and come to similar conclusions as to the nature of reality.

Then we have near death experiences and past life regression hypnosis. The experiences gleaned from these events is remarkably consistenet across clutures, ages, and beliefs. There is a vast body of recorded data to support the idea that there is something beyond just this current physical existence. Of course it is all subjective, but when say, 10,000 people report the exact same thing from a near death experience, from every corner of the world and across all demographics, it should be given some creedence.

Those reports are more valid in my opinion, than some astrophysicist claming knowledge he cannot possibly know.

hehehe...I had missed this post.

Yes, it does sound very much like something a religious nut would say--except they're usually referring to THEMSELVES or their creed or dogma with the keyword "truth." When I use that word, I'm not referring to anything I've said, but to the IDEA that there is "truth," and that alignment with anything BUT truth (whatever that is) is DELUSION. That is, of course, completely true and accurate: this is only a matter of the simple definition of words.

I know what you meant, and I agree for the most part..it does sound similar to what a preacher would tell people though, thats the fine line between someone being sincere and someone talking bullshit I guess.

I understand both yours and gibrans and others points on this topic SWIMfriend. I think personally that the whole thing here is that various people choose to look at the thing from different angles and naturally they're take on the subject will reflect that angle. I dont think anyone here is really "wrong", only becasue when dealing with such topics as "god" etc we have to first ask what that even means to us? Not everyone is going to have the same definition of god, nor will every persons idea of what constitutes an "afterlife" be identical. I could say that afterlife to me means I will die, my body will rot and turn into earth eventually and become food for other lifeforms. In that case science would back up my own ideas on the afterlife.

I really feel that what Hawking was referring to was specific to christian influenced ideas of a god that is somehow objectivly watching over us and in controll. I dont really think it works that way, I just dont see how there can be some type of objective overseer that isnt involved on a more intimate subjective level. If there is any such thing as a "god" it will end up being somehow the univese itself in my opinion. And again in that case the whole problem here would be one of semantics and not one of conflicting ideologies so much.

^^ I agree. The INSTANT these subjects are brought up, there's a problem, because people have subtly different ideas for each of the key terms--and so people then argue at cross purposes.

MY main feeling about all of this is that there is an IMPORTANT VALUE in people like Stephen Hawking basically coming forth and frankly saying that just because certain concepts have LONG HISTORICAL INERTIA behind them, doesn't mean they MUST be respected, or that they CANNOT be questioned--doubted, or even outright rejected. I think that is an IMPORTANT IDEA that is only now gaining ground in the popular culture.

That's true. But:

1) That doesn't mean (at all) that they're CORRECT in their introspections, verifications, and conclusions. I repeat what I've said earlier: There's MUCH VALUE in a heightened awareness of the human susceptibility for ERROR in such things...and there's utility in evidence-based fact and rational analysis, because these methods are useful for REVEALING ERROR.

2) If they have no ability to OBJECTIVELY COMMUNICATE their knowledge, then their knowledge is only of PERSONAL value. It might be absolutely positively true and correct--but only they can know it (and indeed, this limitation is perfectly aligned with Buddhist philosophy).

It is perfectly rational for anyone to outright reject unsupportable Buddhist claims of "heavens" as much as it is rational to reject ANY unsupported claims--and that is the entire thrust of my point (and Stephen Hawking's). Things people say may surely be TRUE; but if they can offer no EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION supporting the truth of their claims, then they (literally) can offer no REASON for anyone to accept them.

To ANYONE taking SWIMfriend or Stephen Hawking TOO seriously: Consciousness IS still a BIT of a mystery, and SO is THE universe for THAT matter...

"The most savage controversies are about those matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell

HAS anyone HERE ever died? Perhaps they'll know WHAT happens.

My sentiments exactly.....

OMG this thread is still on
stephen hawking has gained a lot of publicity on the nexus with this , it seems soon enough he will appear on the nexus and clarify it all
i just spoke to hawkings , he is extracting some spice and preparing to enter nexus directly from hyperspace , until then

Funny, I was thinking myself what Mr. Hawking would think if he were to take a breakthrough dose himself. Sure, even that doesn't prove anything per se. I bet He would have a lot of unanswered questions though...

Wow, you REALLY like this thread! Can't keep away, can you? Me neither. I just wanted it to be clear that I do realize that sometimes the friction which separates our varied vantage-points is in fact, an advantage for all of us, collectively. We bounce ideas back and forth like ball players in an open playground. Although, this thread is every bit as much a game of chess, as it is a banter about Dr. Hawking's fundamental existential belief system.

It's obvious that we have taken this line of thought to it's eventual confrontation with the illusory conception we label, THE TRUTH. This appears to be valid from both, the subjective perspective of the individual and the objectively verifiable collective consensus, at large.

After all, "No man is an island unto himself." That being said, as gibran2, fractal enchantment, jin, endlessness, joedirt and Saidin have all so earnestly emphasized, this is no longer a discussion about any individuals personal spin on the existence of God or the possibility of life before and/or after material incarnation. Or even their own preferred cosmology, which an individual like Stephen Hawking, arrogantly insists the whole of humanity accept as LAW...

It has made itself into a clearly existential inquiry about reality. :idea:


We agree about the fundamental fact that our own ideas, regardless of their source or continent, are at best speculative. Yes? We also agree that it is the height of insanity to assert that ANY vantage-point about the nature of existence is more than likely to be an artifice fabricated by one's mental faculty or feelings. However we cull our picture of the universe, it is limited to our own perceptions about it. Only the extremist would venture beyond this philosophical threshold.

Don't get me wrong, I admire extremists for their exaggerated convictions. I just hate to see so much passion being put into a mirage of their own construction. At this point, I would have to emphasize that I do accept other human beings vantage points as equally valid to my own. We are all, most likely WRONG, if that is the appropriate word. Still, what humanity desperately needs is far more than any reaffirmations about what has been status quo for hundreds of years (ever since The Age of Reason began). The clash of religion and science was born when fearless minds looked beyond the dogmatic cosmology they were programmed to accept. I suggest that WE don't really need to perpetuate this polarity.

I propose that we need to synthesize the extreme oppositions into a working, cohesive whole. To unite the analytical with the inspirational, the rational with the mystical. As joedirt suggested, we ought to approach the introspection of scientific procedure towards the study and investigation of the Divine. I seconded this notion and fractal enchantment was the first person to present the urgency of such a symbiosis to me, in the first place. Can we each still maintain our core beliefs but we should work towards pragmatic methodologies to look a little deeper into the vast mysteries and potentiality of Spiritual Realization (scientifically).

Frankly, it's nonsense for us to continue playing tug-of-rope about the left-wing and right-wing intellects who habituate the Nexus. Now's the time for harmony and solidarity. Let's face it, some force has tried to shut down our platform. That is the real threat. So why now join together and create a stance of the cosmos and it's innate characteristics, which RESPECTS the differences in viewpoints and also seek to find new ways to bridge the intellectual with the inspirational???

Whether they be gathered through reason and deduction or intuited through transcendental insight... at it's heart, the TRUTH is beyond anyone's frail human grasp. We can , however, glean some light form it's insubstantiality. True enough? Furthermore, in our exchange, we are encouraged to open our view just a little wider. That seems pretty cool to me.



It is equally rational to outright reject unsupported speculation by logicians about areas of mind and levels of consciousness which they have no understanding. Why, it's downright "fallacious"!!! Just sayin'...

Stephen Hawking is a PHYSICIST so he knows and understands very well the laws of the PHYSICAL reality. Why should this bloke know anything about other non-physical worlds, or a.k.a. the spiritworld or whatever you want to call it. You can not use the tools of physics to grasp a reality beyond that. A reality of very different nature.

yes, exactly the point I'm trying to make too.

You stand in line before a closed door. Everyone in line in front of you, when going through the door, says the same thing lies on the other side. But you cannot know for sure what lies on the other side, there is no 'evidence'. So do you get out of line, proclaming that nothing lies on the other side as there is no proof, or do you proclaim you know what lies on the other side because everyone before you claimed it? Or do you walk through the door yourself?

If you choose to walk through the door, once you return you can offer no evidence for your claims of what lies on the other side except for your personal experience, and that of all those who have gone before you and experienced the same thing. The only justifyable reasoning is that one must experience it for themselves to truly know.

This is the path, and not that of Hawking who chose to get out of line because subjective experience offers no proof and therefore 'nothing' lies on the other side of the door, nor the religious dogmatics who also got out of line becasue they took the word of those who went before.

This thread made me ponder this quote again:

"Physicists may one day have found the answers to all physical questions, but not all questions are physical questions." - Gilbert Ryle

I find science very interesting, but I almost feel like i'm zooming into the tree's and forgetting the forest when I get too into it...

yes my friend did and came back and experienced something similar that dmt produces ... met beings on the other site and was being given knowledge but he had no time to get it cos the doctors brought him back to life.

he said that he needed more time to get all the informations but than he was sucked back to his body.

he did not like it he wanted to stay a bit longer

I wonder what would mr.Hawking said to this ?

if he says there is nothing after death than how would he explain OBE's ? you come out of your body and see your body there ... you know its you. so your continuousness is obviously NOT part of your brain. part of your physical body is it ?

I say to mr. hawking have a smoke , travel a bit maybe it would be better for you to enjoy your life instead trying to find out what is after it.

Ahh yes, if only he would.... I'm curious to hear if he would still have the same outlook. I'm sure it would never happen at his age along with his physical health issues. Wold be interesting to hear what he thought if he actually did "break on through to the other side."

The problem that the above doesn't address is that there are LIMITLESS doors offered by others--and all KINDS of "others," the pious, the intelligent, the passionate, the DEMONIC. And the fact is that they must be weighed in some manner before one goes knocking. Sure, one can knock around a bit, and see what's up--or maybe attain some judgment about "advertised goods" on the other side of the door. Still, SOME method must be used.

Would you search for your life-mate by calling all the names in the phone book?