Once Gary Kasparov asked not asked about the political opinions or ideas on how to organize society, or what he thought about the possible extraterrestrial life, or its position towards a hypothetical life beyond death, because he knew a lot of chess, but chess only, in other subjects was a person like any other.
Despite my deep admiration for Stephen Hawking, I think that this could apply the same criteria. His knowledge of cosmology are worthy of being considered, but if you talk about religion or any concept of any particular religion, I think it can make mistakes like any other person, except in those ideas that have been tested or treated for science, which is his field.
regard to the survival of consciousness beyond human life and modestíssima my subjective opinion is that we do not know enough, nor to deny it or to secure it. We do not know enough to fund the operation of the human mind, each day we know more, but there is a dark area that escapes us and which may someday come. Some scientists, as Hameroff and Penrose Popp, have reached to speculate on the possible quantum nature of our consciousness. The quantum no longer a model that we reconcile with a little awkwardly and that explains the behavior of many phenomena, but as a potential theory it is still moment, a kind of potato that does not explain clearly some " to ques; model and therefore is not a theory.
We lack even more knowledge about the nature of consciousness in order to ensure his death with brain death, or to explain its eternity, that the case had. One can guess the end, claiming that everything dies, everything ends ... But someone might say that what we experience from birth is that we are, we always are, and we have no record of the time we were not. One other reason and have their darkness and no longer metaphors, analogies, speculations, hopes ...
His statement follows the logic of immediate use, but released it as an affirmation is a risky exercise, and if done as a scientist is a mistake, we can not assure that we do not know without evidence. While we know that the brain has many similarities with computers, we also know that also has many differences. A computer does not know what it is, do not know what you think, does not realize that there can not get a surprise, perhaps lacks the resonance quantum nature of the Penrose talking, and we do not know if it goes away when the organic origin. And there are other differences, perhaps less important: the brain does not work in base two, not two-state electric potential, has more than two, metaphorically speaking, their "bits" we would say that different values \u200b\u200bto 0 and 1, would be more sensitive to nuances. And there are many other differences, most would probably still undiscovered. Therefore, it is risky to say that when the computer of our brain dies, dies identity and consciousness. For example, I can say that my laptop, which I gave four years ago, is dying, but I've recorded all information contained on a DVD, if my laptop had consciousness, have also recorded their conscience on a DVD, and transfer it to another computer, this awareness would continue to exist. Is it absolutely impossible that nature develops, with my mind, the same process that I take to out with my laptop now when I die?
Despite (in my opinion) bold assertions of Hawking, the still admire, and learn from him every day a little more about the workings of the universe and the causes of existence. We insistently recommend "A Brief History of Time" and even philosophers themselves m'enfadin also recommend "Great design" .
.
.