CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
George Hammond
Copyright: George Hammond 2009
As I've said many times before my best estimate of the
probability of life after death is only about 30%. In
short, it is more likely that there is no such thing as a
literal afterlife. I have to keep constantly reminding
myself of that as I forge ahead into microtubule research.
In the first place I am now well aware that a man can
visually discover, that is make significant penetration into
the invisible world. For instance take the matter of "sin".
To someone who is not accustomed to looking into the
invisible world from long experience and can only approach
the matter of sin from a logical standpoint; sin appears to
be an extreme logical dilemma.
Fact of the matter is you cannot understand what sin is
until you can actually see it with the naked eye. By that I
mean that you have to be able to see through the mask of a
psychotic and see the real person who is hiding behind it.
Not only is that true of highly abnormal psychotic
personalities it also holds true for quite ordinary
run-of-the-mill personalities. Actors, entertainers,
impersonators and so forth. While you are dazzled by these
amazing people when you are quite young by the time you
reaches middle or old age you have discovered by direct
visual perception what exactly it is that is so fascinating
about them. Simply put, they are not who they look like.
The most amazing, awesome, fascinating and entertaining and
in some cases the most frightening personalities in society
are people who are able to mask themselves and appear to be
someone they are not. This of course immediately makes them
sound interesting, fascinating, alluring, exceptional, even
intelligent, high-class or beautiful, or even seductive.
There is a great art to all this and the the commonly known
varieties such as the "baby faced thug" or the "high-class
English accent" is only the tip of the iceberg of the
borderline or quasi-sychotic personality.
The fact of the matter is that the entire body of
middle-class society in the entire world is almost
universally wearing a mask to some degree or another. This
situation has come about through long centuries of terrific
and often times dire and treacherous social confrontation
over wealth.....yes, money, land, property, income, jobs,
political power etc. Now unless you are part of the system
you are virtually unaware of it, in fact even people who are
part of the system are not entirely aware of it, they simply
think it's a natural human condition. But as thousands of
years of history has long noticed and discovered it has
become an epidemic social syndrome of now epic proportions
and it is this situation that Religion refers to as "sin".
This is what they mean when they say that the world is
sinful or evil, and it is this situation that they are
referring to when they call for people to "repent" or advise
them to go to "confession". This hypocritical and now epic
social situation precisely that they are talking about.
Now if you are one of the have-nots and are not a member
of the privy elite then odds are that you are in fact are
victim of it. You are not able to see it at all, in fact
you don't even know that it exists or how massive it is. You
have next to no idea what "sin", "evil" or "repentance" is
all about and certainly the average sunday message must
appear a total and unfathomable mystery to you. But be
advised, that the elite and privileged class of society who
actually run things, know exactly what the Church is talking
about. So if you're a disenfranchised no account innocent
bystander, or say a very young person, you are well advised
to keep your head down and read this message and keep it
under your hat until you come to understand the situation
better later on.
But finally, it turns out that people who are victims of
this psycho-social reality from birth right up through youth
and even middle-aged CAN actually visually discover and
finally visually recognize what this near universal social
syndrome is and who the players are. This of course is a
miracle in itself, and it is this miracle that was long ago
recognized to be aptly described by the euphemistic
expression "life after death". It is life after death
because it is an utter liberation from a lifetime of bondage
for the person who first discovers that he actually has been
in bodage all his life and has never been aware of it. And
finally, what I want to note in this cautionary message is
that in fact what we may be dealing with in our search of
Life After Death is actually nothing more than a EUPHEMISTIC
METAPHOR and NOT a literal reality. We must be always and
constantly reminded that this may be the true explanation of
the term "life after death" and there may in fact BE NO SUCH
THING as a real, "literal" life after death. Finally of
course there is the possibility that it may be BOTH a
metaphor AND a literal reality.
Okay, having said that and being fully aware of that
cautionary hedge to our bets, it still appears to me that
the discovery of the cytoskeleton-microtubule high frequency
information processing system in the brain, the so-called
"microtubule computer" can only be classified as a "colossal
coincidence" if in fact it is not involved in the long
touted cyber-resurrection of the body to a state of virtual
reality upon death. So therefore, I still find it necessary
to push forward through to the frontiers of cytoskeleton
research vis-�-vis Hameroff-Penrose et al. until I have
turned over every single rock in an exhaustive effort to
find out how probable this possibility is given the current
state of scientific knowlege.
Geo. Hammond, Hyannis, Xmas Eve 2009
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
chazwin
> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
>
> Copyright: George Hammond 2009
>
> As I've said many times before my best estimate of the
> probability of life after death is only about 30%.
You fucking idiot!!
Why don't you just top yourself and answer the question once and for
all.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
The entire world has been trying to answer the question
for 5,000 years without success. Whaddau want from me for
chrissakes, a miracle?
Uncle Al
>
> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/jessy.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Look into the light.
Only an idiot believes in post-mortem escrow closing with full advance
payment in the here and now.
Yahweh is singularly disinterested in human suffering other than to
inflict it. In the whole of human history across the entire planet
not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission.
Let God establish His dominion of poverty, hunger, disease, filth,
death, and silk-clad priests with whips and yer screwed.
Can God make a collection plate so vast that even He cannot fill it?
Sure! ALL OF THEM. "Non tamen solam intendit interiorem, immo
interior nulla est, nisi foris operetur varias carnis
mortificationes." HA HA HA.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
bigfl...@gmail.com
> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
>
> Copyright: George Hammond 2009
>
Afterlife is the ultimate oxymoron.
Life is life. A caterpillar is alive, as is a butterfly, so is one of
Hammonds organs.
Try putting your attention on consciousness. Thats where you will get
your evidence. Once you do, the only people you will be able to prove
it to, are those who have also become conscious of that reality,
which, logically, need no proof.
BOfL
George Hammond
>On Dec 24, 11:28�pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>> � � �CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
>>
>> Copyright: �George Hammond 2009
>>
>Copy wrong.
>
>Afterlife is the ultimate oxymoron.
>
[Hammond]
That's what you think. A PhD in Physics is more likely an
oxymoron.
>
>BOfL
tj Frazir
Evry carbon atom on earth has 100 % chance of falling into THAT back
hole.
That means evry carbon atom you have recorded on will change states in
a black hole where ou will live in an internet of reality.
God gets your world when its all there .
God gets my ship and I get his sea.
You are your own wittness and will find me in that internet of reality
sailing around the newworld where the streets of gold are as clear as
Glass.
5 billion years will pass in 1 second.
No waiting to get to heven.
Gods plan is simple and Gods active force is time. The only words no
bible could change is gods few words. Your cat and dog nderstand there
is a god. They know your living life to build gods new world.
tj Frazir
Its beond what any billionaire can use.
Its got shit no one but god will be able to remeber how to use.
This is biult for evryone that wants a ship in heaven ..i biult it for
YOU and GOD.
Itsmy pyrimid and i live in gods ship.
He just put the tools in my hands an said work these tools i give you
with all your might.
Holographic life forms record all they know on evry carbon atom and the
carbon soul will be in heaven.
tj Frazir
They ALL pray and idol thier culture.
They all have a god the serves thier culture .
No head lopping ,,no robes ,,no cookies ,,
no trees ,,no bibles ,, no culture influences .
No buda..
The law was built in you.
You feal right or you feal wrong and you know right from wrong . No one
neads any book church or a culture to understand when your wrong.
Gods law was built in you and if you dont obay it you will do nothing
but fight your self.
ALL holographic life will be there.
The new world is 300 billion times bigger.
Your holographic carbon soul will fall into heaven .
The expading sun cant erace you from any carbon atom your have recorded
all you know on.
God laid some heavy physics on us.
its allmost too simple to comrehend.
Harbinger
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:59:19 -0800 (PST),
>
> >On Dec 24, 11:28 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
> >> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
>
> >> Copyright: George Hammond 2009
>
> >Copy wrong.
>
> >Afterlife is the ultimate oxymoron.
>
> [Hammond]
> That's what you think. A PhD in Physics is more likely an
> oxymoron.
>
> >BOfL
>
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
The main difficulty with the thesis is lack of evidence. OBE's happen,
though, so I keep an open mind. My late friend, John Turner, a genuis
if ever there were one, engaged in research into LCD systems, had an
OBE whilst walking two Amsterdam Phillips collegues to the canteen for
lunch, across a bleak quad in an ugly part of London - Croydon. Ugh!
For maybe five or six seconds, he found himself looking down upon all
three, yet was conscious of engaging in conversation with the other
two in a chatty manner. He said, ''The experience changed my life,
John!'
--
Yrs,
John.
Geopelia
"Harbinger" <jhngui...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:511dae67-507b-45f2...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
--------------
That often happens to me. I see my hands moving and hear my voice speaking,
but it doesn't seem to have much to do with me.
I look down at myself, too. And my fingers type odd stuff on the keyboard.
Like a Ouija board, I suppose.
I don't think there is anything supernatural about it, just the brain having
a bit of a hiccup.
Perhaps it's those pesky microtubules.
George Hammond
<jhngui...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 24 Dec, 23:09, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:59:19 -0800 (PST),
>>
>> "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 24, 11:28�pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>> >> � � �CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
>>
>> >> Copyright: �George Hammond 2009
>>
>> >Copy wrong.
>>
>> >Afterlife is the ultimate oxymoron.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> That's what you think. �A PhD in Physics is more likely an
>> oxymoron.
>>
>> >BOfL
>>
>> =======================================
>
>
>[Geopelia]
>The main difficulty with the thesis is lack of evidence.
>
>
[Hammond]
I'll be the judge of that thank you. In the first place
you're not a qualified physicist. In the second place your
knowledge of psychology and theology is pretty slim. I
happened to be a qualified professional expert in all three
fields.
>
>[Geopelia]
> OBE's happen,
>though, so I keep an open mind. My late friend, John Turner, a genuis
>if ever there were one, engaged in research into LCD systems, had an
>OBE whilst walking two Amsterdam Phillips collegues to the canteen for
>lunch, across a bleak quad in an ugly part of London - Croydon. Ugh!
>For maybe five or six seconds, he found himself looking down upon all
>three, yet was conscious of engaging in conversation with the other
>two in a chatty manner. He said, ''The experience changed my life,
>John!'
>
>
[Hammond]
Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
No I think what we need is a qualified physicist who has
spent 20 years studying psychology and theology to take a
serious look into the problem and the first thing he should
do is investigate whether or not the newly discovered
microtubule-computer in the brain is capable of
cyber-resurrecting a person into virtual reality at death.
And that is just exactly what I am doing. so far the
world's leading expert in microtubule structure in the
cytoskeleton, Prof. Stuart Hameroff has told me personally
in an e-mail message that he judges the hypothesis to be
"possible" and then I would think is enough to indicate that
the theory is a competent and credible hypothesis.
Autymn D. C.
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:25:01 -0800 (PST), Harbinger
> <jhnguiney...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >[Geopelia]
> >The main difficulty with the thesis is lack of evidence.
>
> [Hammond]
> I'll be the judge of that thank you. In the first place
> you're not a qualified physicist. In the second place your
> knowledge of psychology and theology is pretty slim. I
> happened to be a qualified professional expert in all three
> fields.
Harbinger, dumbshit.
> >[Geopelia]
> > OBE's happen,
> >though, so I keep an open mind. My late friend, John Turner, a genuis
> >if ever there were one, engaged in research into LCD systems, had an
> >OBE whilst walking two Amsterdam Phillips collegues to the canteen for
> >lunch, across a bleak quad in an ugly part of London - Croydon. Ugh!
> >For maybe five or six seconds, he found himself looking down upon all
> >three, yet was conscious of engaging in conversation with the other
> >two in a chatty manner. He said, ''The experience changed my life,
> >John!'
Harbinger, dumbshit. Geopelia, thank parietal lobe.
> [Hammond]
> Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
> Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
> No I think what we need is a qualified physicist who has
> spent 20 years studying psychology and theology to take a
> serious look into the problem and the first thing he should
> do is investigate whether or not the newly discovered
already told you, dolt: whether or not = whether or not whether,
ocsýmòrònic
Autymn D. C.
> The odds your a holographic life form is 100 %.
> Evry carbon atom on earth has 100 % chance of falling into THAT back
> hole.
> That means evry carbon atom you have recorded on will change states in
> a black hole where ou will live in an internet of reality.
> God gets your world when its all there .
no holes; no Gods
Geopelia
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:8ub9j5lemmlrdj4hu...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:25:01 -0800 (PST), Harbinger
> <jhngui...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Dec, 23:09, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:59:19 -0800 (PST),
>>>
>>> "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Dec 24, 11:28 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>> >> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
>>>
>>> >> Copyright: George Hammond 2009
>>>
>>> >Copy wrong.
>>>
>>> >Afterlife is the ultimate oxymoron.
>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> That's what you think. A PhD in Physics is more likely an
>>> oxymoron.
>>>
>>> >BOfL
>>>
>
>>> =======================================
>>
>>
>>[Geopelia]
>>The main difficulty with the thesis is lack of evidence.
It wasn't me who said that. Geopelia.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> I'll be the judge of that thank you. In the first place
> you're not a qualified physicist. In the second place your
> knowledge of psychology and theology is pretty slim. I
> happened to be a qualified professional expert in all three
> fields.
Are you talking to me? Of course I don't know much. I just ask the ignorant
questions.
But I think you are replying to somebody else.
Computers!
Geopelia
>>
>>[Geopelia] >> OBE's happen,
>>though, so I keep an open mind. My late friend, John Turner, a genuis
>>if ever there were one, engaged in research into LCD systems, had an
>>OBE whilst walking two Amsterdam Phillips collegues to the canteen for
>>lunch, across a bleak quad in an ugly part of London - Croydon. Ugh!
>>For maybe five or six seconds, he found himself looking down upon all
>>three, yet was conscious of engaging in conversation with the other
>>two in a chatty manner. He said, ''The experience changed my life,
>>John!'
This isn't me either! Geopelia
Geopelia
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:febcb78c-0dc2-4991...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 4:38 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:25:01 -0800 (PST), Harbinger
> <jhnguiney...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >[Geopelia]
> >The main difficulty with the thesis is lack of evidence.
Not me. Geopelia
>
> [Hammond]
> I'll be the judge of that thank you. In the first place
> you're not a qualified physicist. In the second place your
> knowledge of psychology and theology is pretty slim. I
> happened to be a qualified professional expert in all three
> fields.
Harbinger, dumbshit.
> >[Geopelia] Not my post! Geopelia
> > OBE's happen,
> >though, so I keep an open mind. My late friend, John Turner, a genuis
> >if ever there were one, engaged in research into LCD systems, had an
> >OBE whilst walking two Amsterdam Phillips collegues to the canteen for
> >lunch, across a bleak quad in an ugly part of London - Croydon. Ugh!
> >For maybe five or six seconds, he found himself looking down upon all
> >three, yet was conscious of engaging in conversation with the other
> >two in a chatty manner. He said, ''The experience changed my life,
> >John!'
Harbinger, dumbshit. Geopelia, thank parietal lobe.
> [Hammond]
> Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
> Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
> No I think what we need is a qualified physicist who has
> spent 20 years studying psychology and theology to take a
> serious look into the problem and the first thing he should
> do is investigate whether or not the newly discovered
already told you, dolt: whether or not = whether or not whether,
ocs�m�r�nic
What's going on? I didn't say a lot of this. Geopelia
Tiger Would
> [Hammond]
> Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
> Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
I've taken LSD hundreds of times and walked in an alternate reality yet
always returned to my normal boring self. I've been trying to tie God
and Science together all my life.
--
tiger
alie...@gmail.com
I've taken LSD hundreds of times as well, but IMO I never "walked in
an alternate reality". LSD is good for shaking loose the perceptual
filters, altering the connections between cortexes, and doing other
things that, if not taken literally, can help us to perceive how our
brains and minds work from the inside (in a way no psychiatrist ever
can by attempting to analyze behavior), but all that Carlos Castaneda
stuff about accessing actual other realities is AFAICT a load of crap.
Also, I've never had an OBE or hallucinated things that weren't
there when I came down. Shifting shapes, colors, temporal distortions,
echoes in all sensory modalities, yeah, but that's all to do with
"timing errors" and unusual cross-connections in the wetware, not
glimpses into other overlapping realities.
Do I "believe" in so-called spooky stuff? I try not to "believe"
things; I do much better with evidence. I have personal experience
with non-corporeal entities, but I'm not gonna go all ghost/spirit/
demon about it.
One other thing; people who dismiss "anecdotal evidence" as
meaningless have ego issues. There's no other kind of evidence. The
fact that I don't know how to induce identical experiences in someone
else merely indicates how poorly we understand such things, not that
they're totally illusionary. Example, the "God part of the brain"
experiments demonstrating induction of "religious experiences" by
selective brain stimulation.
Mark L. Fergerson
Androcles
"nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a94f38a6-a9a6-4a5c...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 1:41 pm, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:38:12 -0800, George Hammond wrote:
> > [Hammond]
> > Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
> > Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
>
> I've taken LSD hundreds of times and walked in an alternate reality yet
> always returned to my normal boring self. I've been trying to tie God
> and Science together all my life.
I've taken LSD hundreds of times
=========================================
That explains your lunacy, then.
bigfl...@gmail.com
Your point re anecdotal evidence is spot on. The only time evidence is
not anecdotal, is if the recipient is on the 'same page' as the
experiencer/observer, no mater what field they are in.
Anyone who has experienced what Castenada or Cayce has experienced,
need no explaination, other than maybe a curiosity on how it happens.
A common experiment a few decades ago , was the Christos experiment,
where many reported a full 'oob' experience (not a detatched
observation from 'inside' as described earlier).
Drugs of the sort you describe, distort reality no matter what level
of frequency you are tuned into. In old cultures, the taking of such
herbs was only available to those who had een through incredibly tough
initiation.
Would you consider going on an exercise with the SAS unless you were
suitable prepared?. There are far greater hazards in the metaphysical
worlds and many get themselves in a real mess by getting there
artificially.
To GH...you are representative of many who have come befor you, by
trying to diuscect tissue to find life. I think the whole of Zen was
written for people like you....Im not knocking you btw. I have no
doubt in your sincerity.
You told me to tak a hike a while ago, so I did, and experienced some
wonderful breakthroughs !
BOfL
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> I'll be the judge of that thank you. In the first place
>> you're not a qualified physicist. In the second place your
>> knowledge of psychology and theology is pretty slim. I
>> happened to be a qualified professional expert in all three
>> fields.
>
>Are you talking to me? Of course I don't know much. I just ask the ignorant
>questions.
>But I think you are replying to somebody else.
>Computers!
> Geopelia
>
>
[Hammond]
I'm dictating this at 120 words a minute without lifting a
finger using Dragon-10. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother to
respond to it if I had to pound a stone age computer with my
fingers.
As I've suggested before people should at least type their
initials or a least one initial at the beginning of their
posts such as G: For Geopelia or H: for harbinger etc.
All professional level e-mail discussion lists use
brackets such as [Hammond] which is where I picked up the
habit.
Not being able to tell who said what in a conversation is
a pain in the neck and so is trying to figure out >, >>,
>>>, >>>>, >>>>> etc.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Only difference between you and me is I succeeded and you
failed. if you have any logical, analytical or scientific
ability how about posting something on topic? I'm using
voice recognition and I don't have to lift a finger to talk
to you.
George Hammond
<alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 1:41�pm, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:38:12 -0800, George Hammond wrote:
>> > [Hammond]
>> > � �Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
>> > Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
>>
>> I've taken LSD hundreds of times and walked in an alternate reality yet
>> always returned to my normal boring self.
> Mark L. Fergerson
>
>
[Hammond]
Yaah I took all kinds of shit back in the late 60s in
California when it was a hippie and didn't know any better.
You know the amazing thing about LSD is that you're only
talking about ingesting micrograms whereas with most drugs
you're talk about milligrams.
What I now realize is that some of these drugs in very
minute quantities can affect the polymerization and
depolymerization of the microtubules in the neurons of the
brain. Tthank Christ they apparently sort of act like
anesthetics and the action is totally reversible. But I'll
bet there are drugs out there that aren't reversible. Now,
40 years later, I realized how dangerous all that bullshit
was and how lucky we were to have survived it.
Don Stockbauer
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:09:54 -0800 (PST), "n...@bid.nes"
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
Counterpunctus:
God and the Universe are identical concepts.
George Hammond
>
>To GH...you are representative of many who have come befor you, by
>trying to diuscect tissue to find life. I think the whole of Zen was
>written for people like you....Im not knocking you btw. I have no
>doubt in your sincerity.
>
>BOfL
>
>
[Hammond]
Well Boffle, I wish we could spend more time talking about
competence rather than sincerity. Sincerity is cheap,
competences expensive.
If I remember correctly you are either a PhD student in
theoretical physics or post doc or something. Correct me if
I am wrong.
Assuming you are a physics postdoc that probably means
that you don't know a heck of a lot about biology. As an MS
in physics the same goes for me. But as any physicist knows
biology is mainly postage stamp collecting compared to
mathematical physics.
Having said that, have you ever had occasion to actually
go and look at how muscles contract? Do you realize there
are little things called "motor molecules" that actually
have two legs and literally "walk along" these microtubules
were talking about. And in the case of muscles they work in
unison like galley slaves rowing one microtubule pasts
another causing the entire muscle cell to contract. For
Christ sakes Boffle, who would have imagined that such a
thing was possible. These molecules by the way have a
molecular weight in the hundreds of thousands of Daltons!
They are apparently proteins that can "walk" on two legs by
changing their conformation!
And another thing Boffle, as you know there has been an
explosion in scientific manpower in the past 40 years, we
must have 10 times the number of scientists now that we had
40 years ago. This means that when something new is detected
there is an army of scientific manpower ready to leap on it
with both feet.
The latest thing is, that they have discovered that these
microtubules are hollow and the dimers in the walls switch
between two different confirmations at microwave frequencies
(Frohlich's frequency). They now believe that this causes
something called "superradiance" in the interior of the
microtubule and optical signals can be transmitted without
any loss over large distances. By the way you'll never
guess who was the first one to discover and publish a theory
of "superradiace" in water: physicist Robert H. Dicke
himself then at Princeton in 1954!
Anyway, Stuart Hameroff met with Sir Roger Penrose in
1994 and Penrose became convinced along with Hameroff that
these microtubules are switching dimer computers optically
interconnected by massless bosons (e.g. optical photons).
Meanwhile another physics genius, Prof. Frank Tipler at
Tulane Published a celebrated book in1994 in which he
pointed out that a large enough computer could actually
resurrect a person to eternal life in virtual reality
(cyberspace) inside the computer. Of course he pointed out
that it would take an astronomically large computer to do
so.
But meanwhile, Penrose and Hameroff have already
discovered that there is a gigantic microtubule computer
already in the brain and that it has the advantage of having
the whole cytoskeleton of the actual real human body built
right into it, so that the size of the necessary computer
is reduced by a double exponential sized factor!
What I'm telling you as one physicist to another is that
the scientific possibility of an actual literal life after
death in "virtual reality" inside the microtubule computer
is a DISTINCT scientific possibility!
How about a competent comment about that rather than
merely a sincere comment?
Inertial
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:09:54 -0800 (PST), "nu...@bid.nes"
> <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 25, 1:41 pm, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:38:12 -0800, George Hammond wrote:
>>> > [Hammond]
>>> > Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
>>> > Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
>>>
>>> I've taken LSD hundreds of times and walked in an alternate reality yet
>>> always returned to my normal boring self.
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Yaah I took all kinds of shit back in the late 60s in
> California when it was a hippie and didn't know any better.
> You know the amazing thing about LSD is that you're only
> talking about ingesting micrograms whereas with most drugs
> you're talk about milligrams.
> What I now realize is that some of these drugs in very
> minute quantities can affect the polymerization and
> depolymerization of the microtubules in the neurons of the
> brain. Tthank Christ they apparently sort of act like
> anesthetics and the action is totally reversible. But I'll
> bet there are drugs out there that aren't reversible. Now,
> 40 years later, I realized how dangerous all that bullshit
> was and how lucky we were to have survived it.
Shame you lost your sanity along the way
eric gisse
[...]
> What I now realize is that some of these drugs in very
> minute quantities can affect the polymerization and
> depolymerization of the microtubules in the neurons of the
> brain. Tthank Christ they apparently sort of act like
> anesthetics and the action is totally reversible. But I'll
> bet there are drugs out there that aren't reversible. Now,
> 40 years later, I realized how dangerous all that bullshit
> was and how lucky we were to have survived it.
I'm sure your the multiple times you have been institutionalized over the
years is unrelated to your drug use!
[...]
George Hammond
<don.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>God and the Universe are identical concepts.
>
>
[Hammond]
No they are not because God is a three letter word and
Universe is an 8 letter word so obviously they are not
identical.
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
Zinnic
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 18:49:45 -0800 (PST),
>
George, you guys are being "dazzled" by becoming aware of how is 'old-
hat' biological science can be recruited into supporting metaphysical
speculation. The walking (ratcheting) action of muscle proteins has
long been extant in biology text books, whilst conformational changes
and mutual covalent modifications of interacting proteins in
microtubules and other structures has been established for years.
As a biochemist I am delighted that physicist and mystics now marvel
at the 'miracles' of life revealed by research in chemistry and
biology but find it ridiculous that physicists/mystics without
biological expertise now feel competent to extend demonstrated
biological mechanisms into unexplored quantum areas.
It is only a question of time before nuerosciences demonstrate that
mental function is explicable in terms of non-quantum chemistry and
physiology.
Zinnic
alien8er
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:09:54 -0800 (PST), "n...@bid.nes"
>
> <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 1:41 pm, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:38:12 -0800, George Hammond wrote:
> >> > [Hammond]
> >> > Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
> >> > Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
>
> >> I've taken LSD hundreds of times and walked in an alternate reality yet
> >> always returned to my normal boring self.
> > Mark L. Fergerson
>
> [Hammond]
> Yaah I took all kinds of shit back in the late 60s in
> California when it was a hippie and didn't know any better.
I never bothered with the then-popular barbiturates you and I
remember as "reds". I already knew how to sleep. ;>)
I never bothered with "whites" either, as I was already
satisfactorily self-medicating my hyperactivity with coffee and pot.
One experience with "chocolate mescaline" convinced me to avoid it
thereafter; eventually I got to try the real deal, peyote. That was
much better.
> You know the amazing thing about LSD is that you're only
> talking about ingesting micrograms whereas with most drugs
> you're talk about milligrams.
Indeed. OTOH the same is true of its chemical relatives like MDMA
which shouldn't be surprising. Do you have a reference for the total
load in the brain of a given neurotransmitter under "normal"
conditions?
> What I now realize is that some of these drugs in very
> minute quantities can affect the polymerization and
> depolymerization of the microtubules in the neurons of the
> brain.
Yep, see:
http://researchlsd.blogspot.com/search/label/microtubules
"In 1990, A.E. Van Woerkom suggested that hallucinogens disrupt the
cytoskeleton. He noted the similarities between mescaline, LSD, and
the microtubule inhibitors colchicine and vincristine. Colchicine and
vincristine are used in cancer chemotherapy because they disrupt
microtubules, thus weakening the cytoskeleton of cancer cells.
"Like LSD, the microtubule toxin vincristine allegedly causes not-
unpleasant visual hallucinations in humans. Other side-effects of
vincristine include depression, agitation, and insomnia. Very small
doses are needed for the effects of LSD or vincristine, for example,
these drugs are active at concentrations of 4.3E-7 M-1 vincristine and
1.0E-8 M-1 LSD."
The article goes on to thoroughly trash the neurotransmitter
receptor interference theory most seem to accept. I don't mind, I
never liked it anyway.
Yet it seems to me that the direct physical interaction of a few
molecules with a few microtubules can't explain the huge effect on the
entire cytoskeletons of so many cells.
Another article on that page mentions the large ESR signal of
tubulin (due to its semiconductive properties!); IMO it is not
unreasonable that the presence of a very few LSD (or related)
molecules can affect the quantum communications among disparate
elements of the cytoskeleton of one cell, or many cells through
possibly its IR vibrational frequencies interfering with those of
tubulin.
(OTOH it might be as simple as the shape of the molecules making
them preferentially bind to microtubule junctions, thus sharing its
effect among many of them.)
George, you have been ragged as a crackpot for a while without being
dissuaded, so perhaps you can objectively consider this; what are the
possibilities for longer-range interactions between microtubules?
Without going into a lot of detail, I'm considering such as a basis
for a physical explanation of such phenomena as so-called telepathy,
empathy, and the Backster effect. The last is not as nebulous as the
others; it's well documented and otherwise completely without
explanation at this time.
> Tthank Christ they apparently sort of act like
> anesthetics and the action is totally reversible. But I'll
> bet there are drugs out there that aren't reversible. Now,
> 40 years later, I realized how dangerous all that bullshit
> was and how lucky we were to have survived it.
MDMA AKA Ecstasy does have irreversible effects if taken for a long
time; evidently it so strongly blocks serotonin uptake that the type
of neurons that produce serotonin die off and are not replaced:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper3/Frederickson3.html
There are other chemical relatives of LSD out there that have
similar, if not worse deleterious side-effects.
The current generation of casual drug users will not fare as well as
we did, I'm afraid.
Mark L. Fergerson
George Hammond
[Hammond]
I've got news for you, you overprivileged stuffshirt.
Turns out that while we physicists were out on the front
lines killing ourselves looking for the fronteirs of
scientific knowledge, you bunch of horses asses were sitting
in laboratories getting overpaid playing with your
"scientific toys" and failing to recognize them for what
they are. Too busy with your "highly paid titillating hobby"
driving around in $40,000 SUVs and living in million-dollar
homes to recognize the true scientific import of your
"scientific playthings". You, Darwin, and every line
professional biologist who's ever come down the pike...
including especially jackasses like Richard Dawkins. And
I'd throw in biochemists for good measure.
Unfortunately for you true scientist like Froehlich,
Hameroff and others have appeared on the scene and caught
you red-handed idly smug and derelict in your
responsibilities.
Penrose was the one I caught you all with your pants
down. And believe me the entire physics department is now
breathing down your necks.
And were not about to listen to anymore stuffshirt
naysaying from line professional blockheads like you.
>
>
>
>It is only a question of time before nuerosciences demonstrate that
>mental function is explicable in terms of non-quantum chemistry and
>physiology.
>Zinnic
>
>
[Hammond]
That's a bunch of impudent backtalk. Frohlich's
frequency is a quantum phenomenon. Tubulin switching speeds
are in the microwave to optical region which is quantum
territory. One of the world's most famous physicists Robert
H. Dicke of Princeton himself discovered superradiance in
water, in this case the water inside of microtubules. The
world has had enough of smug overpaid naysayers like you in
biology, and guys like Frohlich, Dicke, Penrose and
Hameroff have had enough of bigshot biologists like Darwin
and Dawkins walking around shooting their mouths off while
the entire world balances on the edge of catastrophe.
Guys like you aren't going to stand in the way much
longer. Dawkins is walking around publishing books like the
_ God Delusion_ and making a fortune doing it while Physics
has actually succeeded in publishing the world's first
rigorous scientific proof of the existence of God and can't
even get it published in a leading journal. And now Physics
is hot on the trail of life after death with the discovery
of a plausible scientific mechanism, for Christ sakes.
No we've heard enough smug backtalk from over paid line
professional stuff shirts like you. The party's over for
you, just like it's over for Wall Street, and just like it's
over for the Republican Party... guess what, a dedicated and
long suffering humanity is about to start cleaning house and
you'll be one of the first people they'll be taking a hard
look at unless I miss my guess.
Ace0f_5pades
My original context 4 break silence didn't need your imput.
no did I consider it for your benefit;
I wouldn't even know what is the condition of your grass
George Hammond
<alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>
>> You know the amazing thing about LSD is that you're only
>> talking about ingesting micrograms whereas with most drugs
>> you're talk about milligrams.
>> � �What I now realize is that some of these drugs in very
>> minute quantities can affect the �polymerization and
>> depolymerization of the microtubules in the neurons of the
>> brain.
>
> Yep, see:
>
>http://researchlsd.blogspot.com/search/label/microtubules
>
> "In 1990, A.E. Van Woerkom suggested that hallucinogens disrupt the
>cytoskeleton. He noted the similarities between mescaline, LSD, and
>the microtubule inhibitors colchicine and vincristine. Colchicine and
>vincristine are used in cancer chemotherapy because they disrupt
>microtubules, thus weakening the cytoskeleton of cancer cells.
>
>
[Hammond]
Yeah there is very little doubt about it, I remember when
Timothy Leary discovered LSD the whole West Coast was
convinced that they discovered a direct biological
connection to God.
You know I've read papers written by Timothy Leary when
he was at Harvard on factor analysis in personality
psychometry. he was studying the big five model etc. when
he discovered LSD.
>
>
> Yet it seems to me that the direct physical interaction of a few
>molecules with a few microtubules can't explain the huge effect on the
>entire cytoskeletons of so many cells.
>
>
[Hammond]
According to Hameroff there is very little doubt now that
all of the neurons are connected by microwave/optical "gap
junctions", that indeed the entire brain is probably
microwave waveguide connected by the microtubule system.
>
>
> Another article on that page mentions the large ESR signal of
>tubulin (due to its semiconductive properties!); IMO it is not
>unreasonable that the presence of a very few LSD (or related)
>molecules can affect the quantum communications among disparate
>elements of the cytoskeleton of one cell, or many cells through
>possibly its IR vibrational frequencies interfering with those of
>tubulin.
>
>
[Hammond]
Cripes, I've read hundreds of papers by physics-biology
researchers positing microwave/infrared/optical transmission
using superradiance inside the microtubules.
The powerful direct evidence for this is that gamma-EEG (
coherent 40 Hz) is in fact exactly what phase-coherent (
synchronized) across vast regions of the brain. that simply
CANNOT be accomplished by axonal firing.... it has to be
speed of light transmission inside the microtubules that is
synchronizing it.
>
>
>
> (OTOH it might be as simple as the shape of the molecules making
>them preferentially bind to microtubule junctions, thus sharing its
>effect among many of them.)
>
>
GH: Uh huh!
>
>
> George, you have been ragged as a crackpot for a while without being
>dissuaded,
>
>
[Hammond]
Most of the posters on USENET are crack pots and unless
they're publishing their criticisms in the peer-reviewed
literature is absolutely meaningless.
Naturally all of my stuff has been published in the
peer-reviewed academic literature.
>
>
> so perhaps you can objectively consider this; what are the
>possibilities for longer-range interactions between microtubules?
>Without going into a lot of detail, I'm considering such as a basis
>for a physical explanation of such phenomena as so-called telepathy,
>empathy, and the Backster effect. The last is not as nebulous as the
>others; it's well documented and otherwise completely without
>explanation at this time.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Like I said above, powerful direct evidence for this is
that gamma-EEG ( coherent 40 Hz) is in fact exactly what
phase-coherent ( synchronized) across vast regions of the
brain. that simply CANNOT be accomplished by axonal
firing.... it has to be speed of light transmission inside
the microtubules that is synchronizing it.
>
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
>
>
[Hammond]
If you notice anything relevant or interesting about
microtubule communication in the brain be sure and let me
know.
Tiger Would
> On Dec 25, 1:41�pm, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:38:12 -0800, George Hammond wrote:
>>> [Hammond]
>>> � �Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
>>> Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
>>
>> I've taken LSD hundreds of times and walked in an alternate reality yet
>> always returned to my normal boring self. I've been trying to tie God
>> and Science together all my life.
>
> I've taken LSD hundreds of times as well,
Liar. I can tell by your post that you are
I know from my work at MIT on the Jupiter
speech synthesis engines
--
tiger
Tiger Would
> [Hammond]
> Well Boffle, I wish we could spend more time talking about
> competence rather than sincerity. Sincerity is cheap,
> competences expensive.
Fraudulence doesn't work for me. Conscience,
my favorite science
--
tiger
Tiger Would
> It is only a question of time before nuerosciences demonstrate that
> mental function is explicable in terms of non-quantum chemistry and
> physiology.
> Zinnic
If a beehive is agitated, you'll have a mess on
your hands. You're probably gonna get stung, so
call in the professionals. They dress in white
and methodically approach the hive. Then, they
blow smoke up the bees ass, which calms them down.
Now you can handle the situation. This is how mental
health works.
--
tiger
eric gisse
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:01:28 -0500
Wouldn't it just be easier to ignore people who make fun of you rather than
flip your shit and do this 'snip heckler' nonsense?
Small wonder you've been institutionalized.
Richard Steinfeld
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:41:50 -0500, Tiger Would
> <theoreti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:38:12 -0800, George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
>>> Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
>>
>>I've taken LSD hundreds of times and walked in an alternate reality yet
>>always returned to my normal boring self. I've been trying to tie God
>>and Science together all my life.
>>
> [Hammond]
> Only difference between you and me is I succeeded and you
> failed. if you have any logical, analytical or scientific
> ability how about posting something on topic? I'm using
> voice recognition and I don't have to lift a finger to talk
> to you.
Hey, that means you can play with your dick and post to Usenet.
Waaaaaaay kewl.
*LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL*
alie...@gmail.com
> On Dec 26, 9:54 pm, alien8er <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My original context 4 break silence didn't need your imput.
I replied to "Tiger Would". How many nyms you got, anyway?
> no did I consider it for your benefit;
I cannot imagine a single reason I should take seriously the
opinions of those who believe they "walked in alternate realities"
during acid trips.
> I wouldn't even know what is the condition of your grass
Spectacular non sequitur.
Mark L. Fergerson
spiritual energy
for everyone else and I believe that the people who suffered greatly
or died early in this life deserve another much longer and happier
life, all the scientific evidence we currently have points out that
what makes me "me" and you "you" are just electrical signals in our
brain and when the brain stops firing synapses, it's all really over
for us.
Androcles
"spiritual energy" <solid...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:55dee01e-4b4f-4164...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
are you?
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
>
> Copyright: George Hammond 2009
>
> As I've said many times before my best estimate of the
> probability of life after death is only about 30%.
What sort of measurement or analysis do you base that 30% on?
Why not 3%? Or 3ppm?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Great minds discuss ideas,
average minds discuss events,
small minds discuss people.
George Hammond
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
>>
>> Copyright: George Hammond 2009
>>
>> As I've said many times before my best estimate of the
>> probability of life after death is only about 30%.
>
>What sort of measurement or analysis do you base that 30% on?
>
>Why not 3%? Or 3ppm?
>
>
[Hammond]
Excellent question. Naturally I will immediately answer
any on topic serious and competent inquiry.
Unfortunately, I have to spend most of my time beating
back a horde of nonprofessional and anti-intellectual
hecklers, not to mention not a few atheistic and outraged
scientists.
The answer to your question is that the actual numerical
probability that I have assigned is based upon a balanced
weighing of the various lines of evidence involved.
Bear in mind that I have been studying the matter for
nearly 30 years, full time, and have in fact published a
major discovery in Psychology (the discovery of the
long-sought for Structural Model of Personality) and have
also discovered and published the world's first bona fide
scientific proof of God.
I only mention all that in order to establish my
credentials in the fields of Psychology and Theology. As
far as Physics goes my credentials are established by the
normal Curriculum Vitae which shows that I have a Masters
degree in Physics.
Okay, having established my credentials in the various
fields which bear on the determining of this probability I
can sum up the situation briefly as this:
1. Historically, the theory of life after death is at
least as old as the Pyramids upon whose walls details
of it remain engraved in miles of carefully chiseled
hieroglyphics where they can be seen to this day.
Furthermore, a psychological and theological
investigation of this long history shows unequivocally
that the root origin of the idea is intimately connected
with the universal human experience of the ordinary
nocturnal dream.
In short, the only reason why the theory appears
plausible enough to have survivedfor 5000 years is that
people are strongly persuaded that the phenomenon of
nocturnal dreaming is significant evidence of something
as yet not fully explained.
This latter fact then tells me as an experienced
physicist and now accomplished psychologist and
theologian that the odds-on probability of their
actually being such a thing MUST lie somewhere in the
low double digits percentagewise. And I would finally
note, that this low double digits opinion appears to be
well inline with average public opinion worldwide.
2. From that assessment of 5000 years of recorded
history on the subject we then move forward into the
scientific argument. And here I am referring
specifically to the cytoskeleton-microtubule-computer
hypothesis. Let's call it the cytoskeleton-brain
hypothesis (CB).
2000 years ago the New Testament writers (St. Paul)
using the scientific language of his day advanced a
rather specific description of how life after death
actually works in I Corinthians chapter 15 vs
35-55. And in what can only be classified now as a
colossal coincidence, it turns out that according to
my investigations (and confirmed by Stuart Hameroff
himself), the CB could very "possibly" resurrect the
body to a "living-virtual-reality" inside the CB, just
exactly as St. Paul described it. St. Paul referred
to it as a "Spiritual body" in the New Testament.
3. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the historical
probability, which I assume to be no more than say
15% judging from historical, public and professional
opinion, is now raised by virtue of this
cytoskeleton-computer possibility to something more
like a 30% probability. Simply because the
historical belief which obtained at least a 15%
credibility with world opinion, now has a plausible and
indeed even remarkable scientific explanation. In
short, The probability has just been DOUBLED by virtue
of the discovery of a plausible scientific explanation.
As you can see, it's really a scientific guessing
game at this point, a sort of "you bet your life" kind
of guessing game. And my guess is that the probability
of a real life after death is somewhere around 30%.
Now 30% is a long long ways from 51% and even 51%
is a long ways from a sure thing. On the other hand
given the import of the matter, a quite credible
probability of 30% is something that simply cannot be
ignored!
Hope that goes some ways towards answering your question.
Geopelia
(Geopelia)
Isn't it just wishful thinking?
When humans realised that we all die in the end, wouldn't the idea have
arisen that there must be something afterwards? How can all the learning and
experience of a lifetime just be snuffed out? How can those who love never
meet again?
Just about every culture has some theory about life after death. In the old
days, people prayed and sacrificed to the gods. Today we try to find some
scientific proof.
We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the probability
is nil.
BruceS
> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote in message
Right; dying is the only way to get the answer. I say, live as if
you'll be held accountable for your actions after you die, but don't
count on it, and don't rush the process. I fully expect death to be
the end of me, but am willing to be surprised. Anyway, who needs life
after death when statistics show us that we have a good chance of
immortality?
(1) out of all the people who have ever been born, a substantial
portion (near 1/2? Too lazy to check) are still alive!
(2) If you correlate death rates with birth year, things look even
better. For young people, anyway.
(3) as stock portfolios are always warning, "past performance is no
guarantee of future results" or something like that. Just because
people in the past have had finite lifetimes doesn't mean *we* will.
(4) Richard Bach wrote a whole lot of stuff about living outside the
limits of space and time. Surely he wouldn't have done all that just
for entertainment purposes, now would he?
I better quit before someone takes this the wrong way and starts a
religion or something. I'm too busy planning my perpetual retirement
fund to pose for any frescoes.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
No, and that is precisely the point about the theory of
life after death and why it won't go away.
There is an undeniable 5000-year-old observational
history of a well-defined scientific possibility that it
could be real.
It is easy to dismiss wishful thinking, it is impossible
to dismiss observational facts, and that is why the theory
won't go away.
These observational facts are as follows:
1. There is an invisible world ( a.k.a. part of reality is
invisible. This can now be actually scientifically
measured to three significant figures.
2. This invisible reality is caused by a deficit in human
growth, specifically in the brain. And this deficit
is intimately connected with a well known
hallucinatory reality known as the nocturnal dream.
3. It is now known that there is an enormous
"cytoskeleton-brain" which is optically interconnected
and could easily read out a lifetime of "real-life
virtual reality" in a split second at the moment of
death. And that this would precisely fit the
Christian theory of the resurrection of the body at
death as outlined in the New Testament in I Corinthians
chapter 15, vs 35-55.
4. Any competent scientist can see that the last futile hope
of an ignoramus to try and classify this as "wishful
thinking" must be ruled out of court.
.
.
>When humans realised that we all die in the end, wouldn't the idea have
>arisen that there must be something afterwards? How can all the learning and
>experience of a lifetime just be snuffed out? How can those who love never
>meet again?
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Without the existence of a plausible scientific
explanation such arguments are nothing but idle
"philawswphy" conjectures.
>
>
>Just about every culture has some theory about life after death. In the old
>days, people prayed and sacrificed to the gods. Today we try to find some
>scientific proof.
>
>
[Hammond]
as I said, that is a historical fact, and I have pointed
out the observational rationale for why that historical fact
exists.
>
>
>We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the probability
>is nil.
>
>
[Hammond}
Quite frankly Mdm., your "guesswork" is of very little
relevance to the issue.
George Hammond
>(BruceS)
>Right; dying is the only way to get the answer.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
Who told you that? What makes you think so? modern
science proves the existence of things that they can't see
almost every day. There is no reason to think that life
after death is any different.
>
>
> I say, live as if
>you'll be held accountable for your actions after you die, but don't
>count on it, and don't rush the process.
>
>
[Hammond]
Yeah yeah yeah, that's known to history as "Pascal's
Wager" and were all familiar with it.
>
>
>
> I fully expect death to be
>the end of me, but am willing to be surprised. Anyway, who needs life
>after death when statistics show us that we have a good chance of
>immortality?
>
>
[Hammond]
We have no chance of immortality in this life. All of
history proves that. The only known possibility of
immortality is described in the New Testament, and has now
become a scientific possibility. Which is what we are
talking about.
>
>
>
<snip the usual common knowlege recitation>
Geopelia
(Geopelia)
Very likely. What would I know? But eschatological speculations can be
interesting.
BruceS
As Dara Obrian would say to you, "Get in the f* sack!"
> > I say, live as if
> >you'll be held accountable for your actions after you die, but don't
> >count on it, and don't rush the process.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yeah yeah yeah, that's known to history as "Pascal's
> Wager" and were all familiar with it.
No, it isn't, and you wouldn't say that if you were.
> > I fully expect death to be
> >the end of me, but am willing to be surprised. Anyway, who needs life
> >after death when statistics show us that we have a good chance of
> >immortality?
>
> [Hammond]
> We have no chance of immortality in this life. All of
> history proves that. The only known possibility of
> immortality is described in the New Testament, and has now
> become a scientific possibility. Which is what we are
> talking about.
Your sense of humor appears to be as deficient as your understanding
of science. Shame, that; it would be good if you had *something*
going for you.
<snip ridiculous sig>
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[Hammond]
Well, for the "man who has everything", who has mastered
Physics, Psychology, Theology, and History, there really
isn't much else worthy of serious attention left EXCEPT
eschatology. Please try to bear in mind that you are
talking to the first person in history to discover, prove,
and publish in the peer-reviewed literature a bona fide
scientific proof of God. Just imagine for a moment what you
would have to know to do such a thing! Or who you would
have to be to actually accomplish such a thing! Why
literally no one on the face of the earth would have
anything but a fatuous notion of who you are! In fact, in a
famous 1980s and cyclical the Vatican said:
"We are not opposed to the search for a scientific proof of
God, although we have no idea what such a thing would
consist of or who would discover it."
(Vatican encylical ca. 1980)
That ought to give you some idea of who you're actually
talking to.
marc
news:hhb7it$4a6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the
>>>probability is nil.
The probability of your guess being wrong is virtually nil. Belief in
life-after-death is nothing but a rather sad manifestation of how willingly
and readily some people are prepared to abandon or corrupt intellectual
integrity if so doing feigns a means of providing ego-preservation in
finessing physical death. Such belief is rationalized by treating various
ancient mythologies as empirical fact, the straightforward (but more honest)
bypassing of any attempt at rational justification blindly euphemized as
'faith', or in Hammond's case, a pseudo-scientific concoction of garbled
semantic nonsensical mush, although on the positive side it should be said
that Hammond's stuff does score highly for amusement value and is no doubt
of interest to those looking for case studies of minds that have succumb to
obvious delusional belief.
Marc
Geopelia
(Geopelia)
You are certainly an amazing person. Are you teaching anywhere?
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[Hammond]
Of course not.... academics hate me on site and vice
versa... who do you think the scores of people heckling this
thread are?
Listen lady.... if you weren't living at the end of the
Earth in New Zealand it wouldn't even be safe for you to
talk to me. It's about as dangerous as it was to talk to
Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago! As you can see only
Usenet mental cases, or people living safely at the end of
the Earth like you... or extremely famous public authorities
who are beyond reach such as Hans Eysenck, Chris Isham or
Stuart Hameroff would even dare to talk to me.
"teach"... get real! that reminds me of an anecdote where
Peter turns to Jesus and says, hey why don't you shave off
your beard and see if you can collect unemployment!
Geopelia
(Geopelia)
This isn't the end of the Earth, that's Antarctica, though now and then an
iceberg comes floating by here.
Anyway, with the Internet we are a global village.
Why would it be dangerous to talk to you?
I'm not some University person who might lose my job if I didn't toe the pc
party line among the raving feminists.
And as far as I know it wasn't dangerous to talk to Jesus, especially for
sinners like me.
(Though St Peter thought it was, didn't he? And the cock crew.)
Why should anyone object if you say what you have discovered, and people
want to discuss it? Disagreement doesn't seem dangerous to me.
The Greeks had a good idea, a wise man could collect a little group of
followers and have a kind of class discussion, like Socrates did, but look
what happened to him, in the end.
But here anyway, if you want to start a school you have to stick to the
approved curriculum.
The only free place these days to pass on uncensored unconventional ideas is
the internet.
But for how much longer will that be allowed?
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[Hammond]
Sorry Geopelia, I don't volunteer ad hominem information,
especially to pseudoanonymous Usenet posters. There are
many curiosity seekers following me around but I'm a
physicist and VERY busy with important scientific matters. I
don't need a fan club nor am I interested in off topic
matters. I'm only here to discuss scientific matters, not
pass the time of day with well wishers. I'm sure you can
find someone to banter with elsewhere on Usenet.
alie...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:09:54 -0800 (PST), n...@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 1:41 pm, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:38:12 -0800, George Hammond wrote:
> >>> [Hammond]
> >>> Well that's nothing but anecdotal evidence.
> >>> Hallucinogenic drugs will do exactly the same thing.
>
> >> I've taken LSD hundreds of times and walked in an alternate reality yet
> >> always returned to my normal boring self. I've been trying to tie God
> >> and Science together all my life.
>
>
> Liar.
How many people do you know whose I. Q. must be measured in complex
numbers?
> I can tell by your post that you are
That I are *what*?
> I know from my work at MIT on the Jupiter
> speech synthesis engines
That sentence has no.
Mark L. Fergerson
Geopelia
(Geopelia)
Well it's been interesting talking to you, and thanks for giving me some of
your valuable time.
BruceS
> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote in message
> > [Hammond]
> > Sorry Geopelia, I don't volunteer ad hominem information,
> > especially to pseudoanonymous Usenet posters. There are
> > many curiosity seekers following me around but I'm a
> > physicist and VERY busy with important scientific matters. I
> > don't need a fan club nor am I interested in off topic
> > matters. I'm only here to discuss scientific matters, not
> > pass the time of day with well wishers. I'm sure you can
> > find someone to banter with elsewhere on Usenet.
>
> (Geopelia)
> Well it's been interesting talking to you, and thanks for giving me some of
> your valuable time.
Geo, consider how many posts Hammond makes, and how long they are.
Does this appear to be the occasional contribution of a busy scientist
trying to shed some light, or more like the constant ravings of a
lunatic with delusions of grandeur? At times I wonder if Hammond is
the same person as BURT---they both seem to have a quirky but amusing
mental handicap, and *lots* of time for Usenet. The strongest
counterargument is that either of them posts so much that the combined
volume would beggar reason to have come from one person. Even when
I'm between contracts I don't have the time to post as much as these
guys. If you want to talk with a truly intelligent lunatic, Herc is
around. He seldom descends to vitriol, and can be very interesting if
you can keep him on topic. Years ago, I used say that people were
either weird or boring. Over time, I've found that some manage both.
Better to spend time with the just weird, and leave the boring weird
to mindlessly repeat their lunacy ad infinitum without interaction.
YMMV.
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[Hammond]
Likewise, I'm sure.
George Hammond
<bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 5:12�am, "Geopelia" <phildo...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...@notspam.com> wrote in message
><snip lots>
>> > [Hammond]
>> > � Sorry Geopelia, I don't volunteer ad hominem information,
>> > especially to pseudoanonymous Usenet posters. �There are
>> > many curiosity seekers following me around but I'm a
>> > physicist and VERY busy with important scientific matters. I
>> > don't need a fan club nor am I interested in off topic
>> > matters. �I'm only here to discuss scientific matters, not
>> > pass the time of day with well wishers. �I'm sure you can
>> > find someone to banter with elsewhere on Usenet.
>>
>> (Geopelia)
>> Well it's been interesting talking to you, and thanks for giving me some of
>> your valuable time.
>
>Geo, consider how many posts Hammond makes, and how long they are.
>Does this appear to be the occasional contribution of a busy scientist
>trying to shed some light, or more like the constant ravings of a
>lunatic with delusions of grandeur?
>
>
[Hammond]
Screw, jackass.
I use the latest voice dictation technology and don't
have to lift a finger to post 1,000 words in minutes.
Secondly, my posts are pro bono FYI scientific material
for the benefit of suffering people being abused by fascist
establishment scum like you.
Third and most importantly, posting automatically
copyright protects original scientific discovery so that my
work can't be plagerized. Get outta here jackass, you got
nothing to say except fascist ad hominem spute.
BruceS
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
Geo, could you (or anyone) possibly need more evidence of the diseased
state of Hammond's mind than he provides on his own? I've been called
worse, but I think this is the first time anyone called me
"establishment". I'm all tingly. The amusing irony of his reference
to "ad hominem" is just icing on the cake.
I wonder why his state-of-the-art voice recognition software doesn't
do a better job of spelling. I expect spelling errors when I type,
but would be disappointed in software that misspelled for me.
Side note for those interested in IP law: In the U.S., writing
anything down gives one automatic copyright protection. For better
protection, register a copyright on anything you think is (1) valuable
and (2) likely to be stolen. Contact an attorney for details, and/or
check with the Patent Office. If you're not in the U.S., your
protections may be substantially different.
Geopelia
"BruceS" <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62ce9958-bc95-4334...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
----------
I've wondered about his spelling sometimes, especially 'w ' here and there
where I wouldn't expect it.
So it's his voice program.
But what someone has to say is more important than how he spells it.
I make plenty of typos (sometimes very funny) but the spell checker gets rid
of them if I don't spot them.
Geopelia
Occidental
> Geo, could you (or anyone) possibly need more evidence of the diseased
> state of Hammond's mind
I think you go too far. Hammond does not suffer from any recognized
psychiatric condition, but inhabits the twilight zone between the
clinical and the normal. Among Usenet nutjobs he would have to be
placed at the high-functioning end of the spectrum.
> ..than he provides on his own? I've been called
> worse, but I think this is the first time anyone called me
> "establishment".
Wikipedia has a useful entry on the general characteristics of
crackpots (or "cranks" as it calls them)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Crank_person). Among them:
====================================================
Cranks
1 overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that
of acknowledged experts.
2 seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe
that they are objecting
3 claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret
intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business
interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the
possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely
known
4 appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical
importance.
====================================================
You are perceived by H to be a tool of the establishment because you
dismiss his "insights". This is simply item 3 working in reverse.
> The amusing irony of his reference
> to "ad hominem" is just icing on the cake.
One must ask - if Hammond is all you say he is, why are you so
preoccupied with him?
Geopelia
"Occidental" <Occid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5a280a0d-3984-4516...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I find his theory of life after death very interesting.
But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they have
gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether he
is right?
(Geopelia)
Occidental
> I find [Hammond's] theory of life after death very interesting.
Have you seen the movie "The Matrix"?
> But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they have
> gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether he
> is right?
We can't of course. So it is interesting in the way a fantasy is
interesting, not in the way a scientific theory is interesting.
BruceS
> "BruceS" <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, typos are to be expected when one types (unless one is very
careful). I was pointing out how unlikely it is that Hammond is using
voice recognition software. I've written a lot of software, and don't
believe any good (esp. state-of-the-art) software would create
spelling errors. That was just a lie on his part to cover his lie
that he is very busy. If he were as busy and important as he claims,
he wouldn't have time to post so much. He responds that he can do so
quickly because he has great software to post for him. Hmm, so
posting time for him is mainly typing, very little spent thinking?
That explains a lot. However, if that had not been just another lie
on his part, his software would not have created the spelling errors.
The truth is that Hammond is a mentally damaged person with no
meaningful work to take up his time, so he spends it spewing inanity
and venom on Usenet and pretending to be important. He's a kook, and
not a very imaginative or intelligent one.
BruceS
> BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Geo, could you (or anyone) possibly need more evidence of the diseased
> > state of Hammond's mind
>
> I think you go too far. Hammond does not suffer from any recognized
> psychiatric condition, but inhabits the twilight zone between the
> clinical and the normal. Among Usenet nutjobs he would have to be
> placed at the high-functioning end of the spectrum.
You may be right. The truth is, I haven't spent much time reading his
stuff. Everything I have seen from him points to a deeply damaged and
barely functioning mind, but maybe I'm missing posts where he
demonstrates some value, or at least some ability to function in
society.
> > ..than he provides on his own? I've been called
> > worse, but I think this is the first time anyone called me
> > "establishment".
>
> Wikipedia has a useful entry on the general characteristics of
> crackpots (or "cranks" as it calls them)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Crank_person). Among them:
>
> ====================================================
> Cranks
>
> 1 overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that
> of acknowledged experts.
>
> 2 seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe
> that they are objecting
>
> 3 claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret
> intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business
> interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the
> possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely
> known
>
> 4 appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical
> importance.
> ====================================================
>
> You are perceived by H to be a tool of the establishment because you
> dismiss his "insights". This is simply item 3 working in reverse.
Interesting. Thanks for bringing that one up. I don't know how
anyone like me could suppress ideas that anyone else posts on Usenet,
but a deranged person could well be investing me with abilities I
lack.
> > The amusing irony of his reference
> > to "ad hominem" is just icing on the cake.
>
> One must ask - if Hammond is all you say he is, why are you so
> preoccupied with him?
Hah! Well, I have to say that I'm not preoccupied with him, or with
his fellow travelers. At times, I find his ilk amusing, and I play
along a bit, but mostly I ignore them. I'm much more likely to read
and post when someone I respect seems to be interacting with one of
them. Otherwise, I just don't have the time. Not that I'm doing
anything "important"---I'm just too busy with unimportant things.
When I have time for rom, I start by looking for threads with
interesting subjects, then move on to threads including interesting
posters. I'd list a few names, but wouldn't want to swell anyone's
head, or hurt someone's feelings by inadvertently leaving him out.
When I'm done with those two activities, it's usually time to move on
to non-rom stuff.
Geopelia
The traditional view of Heaven, angels and all, that we were taught as
children is nice.
But fortunately few people now believe in the traditional Hell.
Everybody dies, so why worry about it?
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof".
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>I find his theory of life after death very interesting.
>But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they have
>gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether he
>is right?
>(Geopelia)
>
>
[Hammond]
For some mysterious reason you presume Life After Death is
not subject to the ordinary rules of scientific law and
proof. This appears to be a naive acceptance of the
atheistic line.
Fact of the matter is that Science routinely proves the
existence of phenomena that cannot be directly observed. For
instance:
1. By using fingerprints and DNA we can solve a murder
even though there is no eyewitness corroboration.
2. Dirac discovered the existence of antimatter years
before it was actually observed.
3. Two thirds of the matter in the Universe is not
incandescent and hence can't be seen, yet they can
prove it exists.
The same goes for Life After Death. If it exists it is a
scientifically explainable phenomena just like everything
else that exists, including "God" which has already been
scientifically proven to exist (Hammond 2003, peer reviewed
literature).
Hence, if Life After death exists, we certainly CAN prove
it exists without actually going there and coming back and
making an eyewitness report. An eyewitness report is NOT
NECESSARY to scientifically prove it exists.
And not to worry baby, we're working on it right now!
Geopelia
--------
(Geopelia)
His theory sounds interesting, but I don't know enough about cell biology to
comment much.
Geopelia
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 00:15:50 +1300, "Geopelia"
> <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I find his theory of life after death very interesting.
>>But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they
>>have
>>gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether he
>>is right?
>>(Geopelia)
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> For some mysterious reason you presume Life After Death is
> not subject to the ordinary rules of scientific law and
> proof. This appears to be a naive acceptance of the
> atheistic line.
> Fact of the matter is that Science routinely proves the
> existence of phenomena that cannot be directly observed. For
> instance:
>
> 1. By using fingerprints and DNA we can solve a murder
> even though there is no eyewitness corroboration.
Unless either have been planted to get a conviction.
>
> 2. Dirac discovered the existence of antimatter years
> before it was actually observe.
It's amazing what people can prove with equations etc. But those are way
above my head.
>
> 3. Two thirds of the matter in the Universe is not
> incandescent and hence can't be seen, yet they can
> prove it exists.
By gravity?
>
> The same goes for Life After Death. If it exists it is a
> scientifically explainable phenomena just like everything
> else that exists, including "God" which has already been
> scientifically proven to exist (Hammond 2003, peer reviewed
> literature).
> Hence, if Life After death exists, we certainly CAN prove
> it exists without actually going there and coming back and
> making an eyewitness report. An eyewitness report is NOT
> NECESSARY to scientifically prove it exists.
> And not to worry baby, we're working on it right now!
(Geopelia)
But what's the point knowing it exists, if we can't come back?
It's nice to be called baby, at eighty years old. Made my day!
spiritual energy
physical principle or some sort of a higher fundamental force. Some
may call this higher principle God. Currently there is no evidence for
such a force and there is no evidence for the existence of any God but
since one can never really prove a negative, life after death remains
a possibility because there are still so many things we don't
understand about the fundamental structure of reality.
Androcles
"spiritual energy" <solid...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:27ada4bb-b08c-4e11...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
A windup gramophone record performs the same function as 1 Gbyte
memory stick, only the technology differs. You can play the same
piece of music from either.
Replace every neuron in your brain with a circuit that performs the
identical function the neuron performed, load it with your own memories
and the problem is solved, you'll have eternal life. You can shut down
your flesh and bones body, step into a plastic and steel version with
cameras for eyes, solenoids for muscles, tactile sensors for fingers
etc., and never know the difference. It won't be easy, but it is possible.
The only god needed is you. The "spirit" of your computer is the
software you run on it, and it can run my software and behave in
exactly the same way as my computer. So stop looking for the
mysterious that you'll never understand, start realising you are a
machine that operates on software and the software is you.
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>(Geopelia)
>But what's the point knowing it [heaven] exists, if we can't come back?
>
>
>
[Hammond]
First of all, if there is a heaven there is also a hell.
And people who are sent to hell will not be ALLOWED to
leave. Secondly, heaven is basically this same world we
are in, you will just see it through different eyes and feel
it through a better body.
But don't for a moment underestimate how different this
world would look if you're resurrected body (a.k.a.
"spiritual body") had a zero growth deficit. Words like;
splendor, magnificence, grandeur don't even begin to
describe the experience of "eternal life" which as you
recall is a "bodily condition" not a "time duration".
As far as "coming back to this world" I have no doubt
that should you be elected to go to heaven you will probably
be making many sorties back to the world you knew.
In fact, while we're on the subject, it is interesting to
conjecture just exactly what heaven must be like. In the
first place my research indicates that it is somewhere
between the ordinary "reality" that we are all familiar
with, and a "dream" meaning a nocturnal dream (albeit one
involving all five senses). It is apt to be a mixture of
both and superimposed on it all are transitions in and out
of "pure heaven" (i.e. in and out of the perfect body).
Basically, our ordinary Hollywood movies are probably a
crude caricature of what this experience must be like.
I imagine that the afterlife begins with an unbelievable
assent directly into the full-blown splendor of seeing this
earthly reality through the eyes of "flat subjective
space-time" a.k.a. seeing reality through the "eyes of God"
through a perfect body. This initial phase probably last
for at least 10 or 15 minutes, and in and of itself it
constitutes complete and absolute salvation to eternal life.
This is part of a failsafe mechanism because the body has no
idea how long it is going to last back on Earth once the
neuronal system goes "flat line". In the case of an atomic
bomb blast the entire brain could disappear in 1 ns, and one
nano second dilated by the Frohlich's frequency/neuronal
frequency ratio works out to about 15 minutes in Heaven.
This means God has to provide complete salvation to eternal
life in the first 15 minutes of the afterlife dream.
Now assuming that you didn't get hit by an atomic bomb
blast and in fact died during sleep in your bed, the
afterlife movie will continue with other added attractions.
There may be "fades" and "zooms" and "cuts" and "dissolves"
(to use cinematic jargon) in which a "life review" is
experienced. There may even be a "purgatorial" phase. This
is doubtlessly organized according to some hierarchy of
priorities always with the view that it could end at any
moment because of the earthly condition of the brain
cytoskeleton after death.
At any rate, assuming that nothing drastic happens to the
corpse in the first microsecond after death you would
continue on in heaven basically in a condition of
splendorous exaltation for as long as maybe months or even
years in some cases. If one nano second dilates into 15
minutes, then 1 micro second would dilate into 1.7 years.
which is probably in the ballpark for the average
run-of-the-mill human death.
Every wrong that was ever done you will be righted every
injustice rectified every evil undone. At the same time you
can plan to pay the price for all of those little vicious
insults your indulgent overprivileged habits led you into.
Note: Speech recognition software is only 99% accurate at
best and can drop to 95% if you are dictating into an
obscure program. This means that you'll have to correct one
to five words in every 10 lines manually. That's where the
typos come from and the misspellings. Also, I don't bother
to proofread a lot of this stuff and occasionally the
program simply misidentifies what you said and puts
something nonsensical in........ typically substituting
"and" for "an" or "our" for "are" etc. Yawn...
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You don't know what you are talking about.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
There seems to be a lacuna in your education. Prof.
Frank Tipler (Tulane) has already published that theory in a
celebrated 1994 book entitled _The Physics of Immortality_.
The problem is, as his book points out, you would need an
astronomical sized computer to do the job because what
you're doing is creating a person from scratch.
My theory reduces the size of the computer by a double
exponential sized factor, because the computer in my theory
is the cytoskeleton of the brain, and a complete physical
image of the body is already built into the cytoskeleton so
Nature is not starting from scratch, it's only starting from
slightly below the surface of our actual bodies.
Your theory, and Tiplers theory are science fiction. My
theory is REAL SCIENCE!
eric gisse
[...]
> Your theory, and Tiplers theory are science fiction. My
> theory is REAL SCIENCE!
I agree. REAL SCIENCE! is frequently (cross!)posted to
sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, alt.politics,
rec.org.mensa,alt.philosophy.
Geopelia
(Geopelia)
That sounds good, but there is no way of proving it.
Wasn't Christianity thought to be a religion for slaves in the early days in
Rome?
This could be considered the same sort of thing, couldn't it?
Something for the poor and downtrodden to hope for after death?
purple
As was Judaism in an earlier time.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Says who; you?
The first step is to prove it's "possible". Science has
just done that.
>
>
>Wasn't Christianity thought to be a religion for slaves in the early days in
>Rome?
>
>
[Hammond]
So was Democracy. Now it's the law of the land. What's
your point?
>
>
>This could be considered the same sort of thing, couldn't it?
>Something for the poor and downtrodden to hope for after death?
>
>
[Hammond]
Obviously. What's your point?
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Na. Religion (even monotheism) began with the high
priests and Pharohs of ancient Egypt, which is where Israel
learned it. There is much speculation (Freud and others)
that Moses was half Egyptian.
Religion is as much an occupation of the rich as it is of
the poor. One look at the Vatican will tell you that.
Geopelia
(Geopelia)
Moses was the son of a Hebrew woman. Who knows who his father was?
He was brought up by Pharaoah's daughter like an Egyptian prince.
Abraham came from Ur many years before. He seems to have worshipped one God.
Well that's the Bible version.
It's often said that the treasures of the Vatican should be sold and the
money given to the poor.
But Mark 14: 3 - 9 (the woman with the jar of spikenard) is referred to for
the other view.
And keeping those treasures together ensures that they are protected for
posterity.
Geopelia
(Geopelia)
I suppose, that those who have had a raw deal in this world can hope for
something better after death.
Teach them that, and they may be more contented with their lot and not cause
trouble for their superiors.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Even you should be old enough to see thru that typically
female cover story. More likely the Egyptian princess
herself had an illegitimate son by an Israeli retainer
working for the Pharoh and she concocted the cover story so
she could bring him up in the Pharohs court. Freud was of
the same opinion by the way... see his _Moses and
Monotheism_ 1939. Tradition has it that Moses was a
Levite, meaning that probably his father was a Levite and
his mother was an Egyptian.
>
>
>
>Abraham came from Ur many years before. He seems to have worshipped one God.
>Well that's the Bible version.
>
>
[Hammond]
The "Bible version" wasn't written until 800 BC during
the Babylonian captivity 500 years after the fact and
doublessly is only a fable.
There were bazillions of local gods of small towns and
tribes in the early days. Fact is the Hebrews didn't
discover monotheism until they moved to Egypt and learned
about Akhenaten's monotheistic "Aten" religion. Moses gave
this "Aten" religion to his followers since he was half
Egyptian and raised in Akhenaten 's court.
However, on their way back to the promised land they
passed through Midian and met up with another large group of
Hebrews who were worshiping a Midianite volcano god named
"Yahweh". According to Freud (and others) a tough political
negotiation between Moses and the Midianite priests resulted
in a compromise wherby (Egyptian) monotheism was retained
but they agreed to rename the supreme God "Yahweh" which was
the name of the Midianite volcano god. This event
transpired in a place called Qades in Midian.
Incidentally, the Jews also picked up circumcision in
Egypt, since all Egyptians were circumcised, in fact the
Egyptians invented the procedure early on to try and beat
back VD epidemics.
>
>
>It's often said that the treasures of the Vatican should be sold and the
>money given to the poor.
>
>
[Hammond]
The poor are already own them. The Vatican is the
defender of the faith and therefore the defender of the
poor. The Vatican's vast wealth is a weapon wielded against
tyranny and oppression by millions, indeed billions. of
impoverished followers of the Catholic faith. Your view of
religious history appears to be rather banal.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Even you should be old enough to see thru that typically
female cover story. More likely the Egyptian princess
herself had an illegitimate son by an Israeli retainer
working for the Pharoh and she concocted the cover story so
she could bring him up in the Pharohs court. Freud was of
the same opinion by the way... see his _Moses and
Monotheism_ 1939. Tradition has it that Moses was a
Levite, meaning that probably his father was a Levite and
his mother was an Egyptian.
>
>
>
>Abraham came from Ur many years before. He seems to have worshipped one God.
>Well that's the Bible version.
>
>
[Hammond]
The "Bible version" wasn't written until 800 BC during
the Babylonian captivity 500 years after the fact and
doublessly is only a fable.
There were bazillions of local gods of small towns and
tribes in the early days. Fact is the Hebrews didn't
discover monotheism until they moved to Egypt and learned
about Akhenaten's monotheistic "Aten" religion. Moses gave
this "Aten" religion to his followers since he was half
Egyptian and raised in Akhenaten 's court.
However, on their way back to the promised land they
passed through Midian and met up with another large group of
Hebrews who were worshiping a Midianite volcano god named
"Yahweh". According to Freud (and others) a tough political
negotiation between Moses and the Midianite priests resulted
in a compromise wherby (Egyptian) monotheism was retained
but they agreed to rename the supreme God "Yahweh" which was
the name of the Midianite volcano god. This event
transpired in a place called Qades in Midian during the
Exodus.
Incidentally, the Jews also picked up circumcision in
Egypt, since all Egyptians were circumcised, in fact the
Egyptians invented the procedure early on to try and beat
back VD epidemics.
>
>
>It's often said that the treasures of the Vatican should be sold and the
>money given to the poor.
>
>
[Hammond]
The poor are already own them. The Vatican is the
defender of the faith and therefore the defender of the
poor. The Vatican's vast wealth is a weapon wielded against
tyranny and oppression by millions, indeed billions of
impoverished followers of the Catholic faith. Your view of
religion and history appears to be rather banal.
George Hammond
<phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[Hammond]
Banalities and trite metaphors such as that belong in
Sunday school class jfor children, not in an advanced
scholarly discussion requiring an in depth knowlege of
Religion, History and Science.
Occidental
> On Jan 1, 9:21 pm, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Geo, could you (or anyone) possibly need more evidence of the diseased
> > > state of Hammond's mind
>
> > I think you go too far. Hammond does not suffer from any recognized
> > psychiatric condition, but inhabits the twilight zone between the
> > clinical and the normal. Among Usenet nutjobs he would have to be
> > placed at the high-functioning end of the spectrum.
>
> You may be right. The truth is, I haven't spent much time reading his
> stuff. Everything I have seen from him points to a deeply damaged and
> barely functioning mind
As far as I can see he is simply a garden variety kook. He has
convinced himself that the 3 elements of human personality
(Extraversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism) revealed by Factor
Analysis (a statistical technique for finding a small number of hidden
variables in aggregate data) correspond to the 3 dimensions of space.
("So, " he writes "we have answered the question "why is psychology 3-
dimensional" - the answer is "because space is 3-dimensional". This
then, is the beginning of the connection of Psychology to
Relativity.") But, since General Relativity posits a fourth dimension,
a corresponding 4th personality dimension must exist in the human
mind, i.e. God. Or something like that.
His underlying problem appears to be that he perceives logical or
causal connections abnormally, finding correspondence where none
exists. This IMO is the basic kook pathology. The rest is just normal
grandiosity at being the discoverer of this world-changing idea, and
understandable frustration with a world that ignores him.
Hammond has even written his Nobel Acceptance Speech. No, I'm not
kidding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0db5caa1d1776e44?hl=en&dmode=source
Despite what you may be thinking, this is worth a read; it is well-
written, modest, humane and intelligent, not the product of a "deeply
damaged and barely functioning mind". Why is it intelligent? you ask.
Because, among other things he correctly realizes that a scientific
proof of God will necessarily nullify the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion"). Also, he knows what "ecumenical" means.
Of course, there is no chance of him receiving it, any more than an
American could be awarded a Nobel merely for being elected president.
As I said earlier, kooks lie on a continuum. Here is a case at the
extreme wacko end, with all logical and causal connections shot to
hell, compared with whom GH is almost normal:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d421ec7225ffe02a?hl=en&dmode=source
==================================================================
> > One must ask - if Hammond is all you say he is, why are you so
> > preoccupied with him?
>
> Hah! Well, I have to say that I'm not preoccupied with him, or with
> his fellow travelers. At times, I find his ilk amusing, and I play
> along a bit, but mostly I ignore them. I'm much more likely to read
> and post when someone I respect seems to be interacting with one of
> them.
My complaint about Usenet is that, given the choice between kook and
normal, most posters, however bright and knowledgeable, will respond
to the kook. That is why I challenged you about responding to Hammond.
You cannot make an unreasonable person reasonable by reasoning with
him.
rec.org.mensa has seriously deteriorated over the years; so have other
NGs. There was a time when substantial discussions took place. Not
often, but often enough to make place worth visiting. By slow degrees
the kooks took over, causing the better contributors to disappear one-
by-one. And here we are.
Geopelia
I'm just an ignorant agnostic who asks silly questions, and I don't claim to
be anything else.
But sometimes "out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.........."