Anybody read Hawkins' "Brief History of Time"?
Michael Lanham
the existence of god comes up so much in this group, i was curious
to see if many people have read stephen hawkins' "brief history of time--from
the big bang ...(?)" i have read it, twice, and am still having to go back and
re-read some sections again for clarity's sake; i have gotten some interesting
ideas from it though, especially considering a recent thread i saw in here
was addressing the question of what was before the big bang, etc.
it would be nice to see a new thread started up in here. so lets get started.
--
He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave. --- Sir William Drummond
Michael Lanham mjla...@eos.ncsu.edu & jumper@.catt.ncsu.edu
Ron Wigmore
(Michael Lanham) says:
>
>Since the question of science and how it applies to the determination of
>the existence of god comes up so much in this group, i was curious
>to see if many people have read stephen hawkins' "brief history of time--from
>the big bang ...(?)" i have read it, twice, and am still having to go back
>and
>re-read some sections again for clarity's sake; i have gotten some interesting
>ideas from it though, especially considering a recent thread i saw in here
>was addressing the question of what was before the big bang, etc.
Well then, don't tease us (:-)) what are some of the ideas? As you can no
doubt tell, I have not read the book (I'm reading some Piaget stuff right
now) and so I don't know what it says about before the 'big bang'.
>it would be nice to see a new thread started up in here. so lets get started.
Agreed!
Ron,,,
Jeffrey Gordon Erickson
| Since the question of science and how it applies to the determination of
| the existence of god comes up so much in this group, i was curious
| to see if many people have read stephen hawkins' "brief history of time--from
| the big bang ...(?)" i have read it, twice, and am still having to go back
| and re-read some sections again for clarity's sake; i have gotten some
| interesting ideas from it though, especially considering a recent thread i
| saw in here was addressing the question of what was before the big bang, etc.
|
| it would be nice to see a new thread started up in here. so lets get
| started.
I thought Hawking's book was extremely interesting and clear, as long as he
stuck to talking about physics. Whenever he talked about the non-existence
of God, I found his arguments completely circular.
IMHO, this is a problem that several scientists have -- assuming that the
existence or non-existence of God can be proven based on physical
observations. I'm not talking about Occam's razor here. My impression
of Hawking's thesis was "God does not exist because..." and NOT "The
existence of God is not necessary because..." Hawking struck me as an
angry atheist looking for a justification for his beliefs.
Descartes supposedly made the opposite claim. Starting with "Cogito ergo sum."
we somehow manages to prove that God exists.
Physicists should restrict themselves to talking about physics when they
write physics books. Hawking's religious (or ANTI-religious, if you prefer)
discussions tarnished an otherwise enjoyable book.
Two cents, please.
| He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;
| and he who dares not is a slave. --- Sir William Drummond
--
Jeff Erickson -- je...@ics.uci.edu -- UC Irvine ICS Dept.
___________ DISCLAIMER: These may not even be MY opinions.
| _|_ "Think for yourself, or someone else
___|___|___ will be glad to do it for you."
Christopher M. Dicely
[discussion of Hawkings "Brief History of Time:..." deleted]
>Descartes supposedly made the opposite claim. Starting with "Cogito ergo sum."
>we somehow manages to prove that God exists.
Actually, Descartes, using relatively sound logic, proved the statement
"Cogito ergo sum" to be true, and in his next proof, made a valiant but
somewhat flawed (in the opinion of most people I know in the field of
philosophy) argument to prove that God exists. Minor nit...
-Chris Dicely
James Connor
|Since the question of science and how it applies to the determination of
|the existence of god comes up so much in this group, i was curious
|to see if many people have read stephen hawkins' "brief history of time--from
|the big bang ...(?)" i have read it, twice, and am still having to go back
|and re-read some sections again for clarity's sake; i have gotten some
|interesting ideas from it though, especially considering a recent thread i
|saw in here was addressing the question of what was before the big bang, etc.
|it would be nice to see a new thread started up in here. so lets get started.
|--
|Michael Lanham mjla...@eos.ncsu.edu & jumper@.catt.ncsu.edu
Yes I have read Hawking, and also Davies and Parker to boot. But I haven't
been watching this group for a while...what is it you wanted to discuss ?
Dave Jones
> ... i was curious
> to see if many people have read stephen hawkins' "brief history of
I too have read it twice. But I assure you I would not have read it
even once if it had no capital letters in it. (Hint, hint.)
Brian T. Coughlin
In article <1990Nov21....@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
dic...@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Christopher M. Dicely) writes,
in response to Jeffrey Gordon Erickson:
>[discussion of Hawkings "Brief History of Time:..." deleted]
>>Descartes supposedly made the opposite claim. Starting with "Cogito ergo sum."
>>we somehow manages to prove that God exists.
>Actually, Descartes, using relatively sound logic, proved the statement
>"Cogito ergo sum" to be true, and in his next proof, made a valiant but
>somewhat flawed (in the opinion of most people I know in the field of
>philosophy) argument to prove that God exists. Minor nit...
Hi, Chris!
Well... even with "Cogito; ergo sum," there's room for doubt. Subtle
doubt, to be sure, but doubt nonetheless.
First of all: even *given* that Descartes' classic assertion was
correct, that proves only that the thinker exists; it says absolutely
nothing about anyone ELSE'S possible existence (they may be illusions
of the thinker's overworked imagination). A polypsist (sp?) would doubtless
be happy with Descarte's explanation.
Secondly, Descartes' assertion begs a few questions: what does it mean to
"think"? Is existence such a truly obvious corollary to thought that it
needs no further proof?
What is "thought?" Materialists define human thought as a complex set
of electrochemical reactions (in many complex sequences) within the
human brain which fire in equally complex sequences, yielding reactions
from the physical body (mind you, this leaves the question of
consciousness up in the air, as there seems to be no compelling reason
WHY such a process should yield self-awareness). But this definition
was developed through use of sensory input (of data from our surroundings),
which is a bit of a problem. Let me explain:
Assume that Descartes was correct, for a moment: thinking implies
existence. This proves the existence of the observer... period. After
this, the observer tries to observe his/her physical surroundings, and
attempts to make conclusions about it (and about him/herself, as in the
example of the study of the human brain). But therein lies the problem:
the rest of "existence" (i.e. anything OTHER than the observer him/herself)
is unproven; thus, any data gleaned from that "outer existence" would be
at least as dubious as the "outer existence" itself (that is, any data
gleaned from one's surroundings would be unprovable for the duration of
the "uncertainty" of the surroundings... only if someone were to supply a
proof of "non-self"-things would "outside" data be possibly acceptable).
Thus, the materialistic definition of "thought" is thrown into severe doubt
(especially since thought was used to define it), since all input from
the "outside"... i.e. all conclusions, save for the knowledge of one's own
raw existence... is unproven, and therefore doubt-worthy. This then, in
the context of materilaism, shakes the beginning assumption somewhat; we
have assumed thought, but we have no idea how to define it in a materilaist
sense. (I'd also argue that non-physicalists have no idea how to define
"thought"... they accept it as a primitive idea, not in need of
definition. Note that this would NOT square well with materialism.)
That was a bit tangled; let me try to summarize the above mess:
1) I assume that I am thinking.
2) I assume that Descarte's proposal is correct (thinking implies existence).
3) Therefore, I conclude that I exist.
4) I have no further information than the following:
a) I am thinking.
b) I exist.
5) Therefore, any assertions about any "outside world" will remain
unproven until a compelling argument shows the existence of
something other than myself.
6) Thus far, no compelling arguments of the aforementioned type have been
shown.
7) Thus, the materialist assertion that thought is an electrochemical
brain-process is unproven, thus far, as it makes an assertion that
does not deductively follow from the information in (4).
8) I assume that unless one is willing to accept (and somehow be able to
understand) a primitive idea as true, that idea will not be useful
in arguments.
9) If no deduction from MORE basic concepts exists for a concept, that
concept can be called a PRIMITIVE (not explicitly defined) concept.
10) I assume that "thought" is a concept that cannot be yielded by any
other more simple concepts.
11) Thus, I assume that "thought" is a primitive concept.
12) I assume that it is possible for some humans either to reject
(willfully) or to fail to understand the primitive idea of "thought".
13) Thus, I assume that the concept of "thought" will not be useful to
these human beings during arguments.
14) A cognitive skeptic (I just coined that term... :) ) is one who
willfully refuses the idea that "thought" actually happens.
15) The cognitive skeptic will then be unmoved by arguments using thought
as an assumption.
I'll stop this here. But I do wish to make it clear that Descartes'
"proof" is quite circular, and far from airtight. Some skeptic (myself,
for instance) may well come along and deny Descartes' opening assumption.
How, then, would you convince me otherwise? Take the following example:
Me: "I deny the certainty of the existence of thought."
Other: "But you used thought to come to that conclusion!"
Me: "Why do you say that?"
Other: "Because conclusions are defined to be the result of thoughtful
considerations of premises in a logical manner, among other things."
Me: "And what is thought defined as?"
Other: "Thought is a primitive concept; it isn't explicitly definable, but
is regarded as true."
Me: "If I am allowed to assume that, given a dubious premise, any
conclusion which logically follows from that premise will be at least
as dubious, I assert that the existence of thought is dubious (in that
there is no way to prove a primitive concept, and I refuse to accept
primitive concepts simply because of the pressure of other philosophers
on me to conform), and that the conclusion "therefore, I exist" (if that
is indeed a logical deduction from "I think"...and even that is uncertain)
is at least as dubious.
Just a few thoughts to chew on. Happy Thanksgiving!
----
Take care!
Sincerely, Brian Coughlin
ora...@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
Jukka Kohonen
> What is "thought?" Materialists define human thought as a complex set
> of electrochemical reactions (in many complex sequences) within the
> human brain which fire in equally complex sequences, yielding reactions
> from the physical body (mind you, this leaves the question of
> consciousness up in the air, as there seems to be no compelling reason
> WHY such a process should yield self-awareness).
Well, I understand this is just a issue in your posting, but I think
it's worth noting that the question of consciousness is not just "left up
in the air"; it, too, has been often addressed by materialists.
The answers proposed to the question of conciousness will of course
have their problems, like any answers to any philosophical question do,
but you would be wrong to say this is an outstanding flaw in the
materialistic definition of thought. (Not to say you are doing that.)
The problems are on a more subtle level than just "how can / why should
such a process yield self-awareness".
--
Jukka Kohonen, koh...@cs.helsinki.fi / @cc.helsinki.fi
"Saruman, sauvasi on poikki." "Kruts."