401–410 of 468 posts
Not one negative comment in this whole thread. Everyone is enamoured with Hawking, huh? Ask the women in his life what they thought of him. Ask the scientists, including Peter Higgs, who complained about his undue credibility and attention given to him. Disagree with me? Think I'm speaking negative about the dead? If you call yourself inspired by a scientist, admiring a scientist, then you should seek the truth. Emot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like this might have more to do with modern social media and celebrity culture, especially Twitter culture, than with Tyson himself. It's toxic. It's really hard to move in that realm with out adopting some of its sensibilities and tone. In Tyson's defense, the new Cosmos was damn near perfect and had none of the elitism that I detected. Just a love of knowledge and history.
Tyson is intellectually underwhelming and doesn't seem to understand the limitations of his own knowledge. He's made his fame for speaking with the mannerisms of a preacher; and for remaking (in science a necessity) the Carl Sagan classic. He's already being forgotten by mainstream culture, which is not worse for it.
He does. When he has a decent Scientific guests on his podcast, he is very deferential but when he is alone, he is very elitist.
For a second I just couldn't believe this was real. Stephen Hawking was one of those people that inspired me towards a career in science, as well as a pursuit of discovering what mysteries of the universe I could uncover within my (cosmically short) lifetime. He did this not through some major life-altering speech I heard from him (although his talks and lectures were quite interesting), or through some grand quote t…
I agree completely. Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation? As a society we should work hard to find, celebrate and give a platform to the Stephen Hawking-s and the Carl Sagan-s of tomorrow. The impact of such "celebrity scientists" (I do not use that term pejoratively) is far greater than the measure of the work they have done. It is how they inspire an entire generation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For most of the universe’s history you did exist, but were dead, scattered into atoms all across space. The thing is, after a mere billions of years, you managed to consolidate into a form and became alive. Not a bad deal. But to be dead, is to wait a trillion years for something to happen, only for it to turn out at the end you have to wait a trillion years more, and then you have to continue this forever .
Are we talking about atoms when we are talking about ourselves? I don't think so. I am not the same collection of atoms from moment to moment. There may not be an atom in my entire body that is original to my body; and there are vastly more atoms in my body now than then. When I say "me" I don't really mean my body or even my brain, even if that's where "me" is. We are really talking about our consciousness. It's bee…
So if I cloned you, you would fully consider the other clone as "yourself" and "me"? I doubt it. The metaphysics are really complex here. A better attempt (if any can be made) is that the 'self' is both an evolving bodily mass AND an evolving sense of memories and perceptions. Ultimately there's good rational that self/me is just a non-real tool that allows you to operate in the world. You can not 'not believe' in self as you're human brain requires it, and animals do just fine without thinking of self (driven by nature). A better strategy is to minimize the view of self in order to reduce confusions caused by 'staring too intently in the mirror', but yet it's also useful to evaluate oneself as a separate actor.
Also I think you can have Consciousness without having a notion of defined self though, like a collective consciousness or a dolphin/octopus/crow form of awareness.
I'd recommend this lecture from Shelly Kagan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8&list=PLEA18FAF1A...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree completely. Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation? As a society we should work hard to find, celebrate and give a platform to the Stephen Hawking-s and the Carl Sagan-s of tomorrow. The impact of such "celebrity scientists" (I do not use that term pejoratively) is far greater than the measure of the work they have done. It is how they inspire an entire generation…
I work at CERN, so Brian Cox is an obvious choice as far as I'm concerned. Tangentially, Adam Steltzner (the engineer who lead the Entry Descent and Landing of Curiosity) is another one of those "used to be a rockstar" types.
For a second I just couldn't believe this was real. Stephen Hawking was one of those people that inspired me towards a career in science, as well as a pursuit of discovering what mysteries of the universe I could uncover within my (cosmically short) lifetime. He did this not through some major life-altering speech I heard from him (although his talks and lectures were quite interesting), or through some grand quote t…
I agree completely. Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation? As a society we should work hard to find, celebrate and give a platform to the Stephen Hawking-s and the Carl Sagan-s of tomorrow. The impact of such "celebrity scientists" (I do not use that term pejoratively) is far greater than the measure of the work they have done. It is how they inspire an entire generation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tyson doesn't have the academic credentials that Hawking or someone like Richard Feynman does. The power of Hawking and Feynman is that they both were at the top of their fields, but took the time to make the foundations of their science accessible to the common man. Tyson has done great things, but he's not quite there.
What about Michio Kaku? Google always shows him along side when searching for Tyson.
For a second I just couldn't believe this was real. Stephen Hawking was one of those people that inspired me towards a career in science, as well as a pursuit of discovering what mysteries of the universe I could uncover within my (cosmically short) lifetime. He did this not through some major life-altering speech I heard from him (although his talks and lectures were quite interesting), or through some grand quote t…
I agree completely. Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation? As a society we should work hard to find, celebrate and give a platform to the Stephen Hawking-s and the Carl Sagan-s of tomorrow. The impact of such "celebrity scientists" (I do not use that term pejoratively) is far greater than the measure of the work they have done. It is how they inspire an entire generation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Few have accomplished as much while overcoming so little It's weird; I individually understood both achievements but never thought about their combination that seriously until it was worded like this. Very well put.
Shouldn't it be "while overcoming so much"?