CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Time
Next: "The Einstein Hoax"
From: " SNIP HECKLER>" on 28 Dec 2009 23:58 X-No-Archive: Yes On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:37:03 -0800
From: George Hammond on 29 Dec 2009 04:54 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:14:09 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >news:sfvhj59l91bd174f7elq6pcvtod1ldhhhn(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:07:52 +1300, "Geopelia" >> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> >>>"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >>>news:vqvgj5du2nk0l80np9sn36ca2ih5gjbkt9(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:49:44 +1300, "Geopelia" >>>> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>(Geopelia) >>>>>>>How can you have 13 symmetry axes in a cube? Everything in a cube >>>>>>>seems >>>>>>>to >>>>>>>go in even numbers, six sides etc. >>>>>>>But the proof would be way above my head anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> [Hammond] >>>>>> You don't need any proof, you can draw it with paper and >>>>>> pencil. There are 13 of them all right. You can see a >>>>>> picture of them here taken right out of the Encyclopedia >>>>>> Britannica: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/35500/35520/axes_35520.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> If you count them, you'll find that there are exactly 13. >>>>> >>>>>I make it 6 of a, 8 of p, 12 of d >>>>>Do you count the point in the middle with d to get the 13? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> [Hammond] >>>> Congratulations, you got the right answer, 6+8+12=26. >>>> Only problem is you're counting both ends of each axis. >>>> You need to divide by two, 26/2 = 13. >>>> These are called the "rotational" symmetry axes of the >>>> cube. If you rotate the cube, 90� or 120� are 180� around >>>> these various axes the cube rotates back into itself again, >>>> which is why they are called "symmetry axes". >>> >>>G: Thank you, that explains it. I should have counted the lines, not the >>>ends. >>> >>> >> [Hammond] >> Now you're cookin! I can't tell you how many great men in >> history would have given their eye teeth to know where the >> Egypto-Greco-Roman Dodekatheon (pantheon) came from. >> Cicero wrote a famous treatise called De Natura Rerum (On >> the Nature of the Gods) while Julius Caesar had him >> temporarily out of office. In this famous tract he admits >> to not knowing what the gods were, where they lived, how >> many of them there were or what they did. He apparently was >> totally unaware that the "gods" so-called are simply >> "personality types", nor did he have any idea of course why >> there would be 12 of them (13 actually)... i.e. that they >> come from the cubic cleavage geometry of the human brain. >> If I ever meet up with Cicero in the great beyond, I am >> sure that he will be utterly fascinated to hear the story of >> how modern science discovered what the gods are, exactly how >> many of them there are, and what the correlational >> (geometric) relationship between them actually is. >> Alas poor Cicero sick and aging was set upon by some of >> Pompey's henchmen while being carried in a litter in a >> last-minute halfhearted attempt to escape, and a Roman >> soldier unceremoniously lopped off his head. What a loss to >> literary posterity for he was such a great writer. > >(Geopelia) >I like the version of his death in the TV series "Rome". >They took a few liberties with history, but it made a great series. > >Cicero could talk to you (assuming you had a common language) and you would >be able to understand what he was talking about. >But how could he possibly understand the sort of thing you talk about in >this thread? > > [Hammond] It would be quite easy to explain it to Cicero actually. Because Cicero was a responsible person who would immediately perceive the dire necessity and urgency of understanding it as regards it's crucial importance to human welfare. It's not like talking to a bunch of Internet morons who are mere computer hobbyist riffraff whose lives and opinions are of no relevance to anyone. Besides, you seem to underestimate the sophistication of ancient society. By the time of Cicero they already knew the Earth was round and what its diameter was since some intellectual in Alexandria had measured it by sending a man 500 miles up the Nile to observe a celebrated well where once a year the sun shone directly 100 feet to the bottom and on the same day measure the angle of a flagpole shadow at noon in Alexandria, and by simple trigonometry figured out the earth was 8000 miles in diameter. Also by Cicero's time mathematicians had already calculated the conic sections and found all the solutions to the quadratic equation that describes them. They also knew about the Heliocentric system but realized that their lack of any observation of stellar parallax probably ruled it out; simply not knowing that the stars were hundreds of billions of miles away. Given that level of sophistication, it would not be hard to explain to Cicero that the gods were simply "personality types". And when he would ask why there are different personality types it would be simple to explain that the brain is a cube composed of 8 octantal lobes and that asymmetry in growth causes one octant lobe to be stronger than another and that causes these different personality types and furthermore since there are 13 symmetry axes through these eight lobes of the cubic brain, there are 13 different "personality types" or "GODS" so-called. I don't think Cicero would require more than five minutes flat to understand something as simple as that. It is no more complicated than understanding the difference between a left-handed person in a right-handed person! You have to realize that understanding and comprehension is on a NEED TO KNOW BASIS. The amateurs on USENET don't actually need to know about this. The only reason I'm posting it here is because it is free, it is fast, and it has global circulation. The idea is, that sooner or later a COMPETENT person SOMEWHERE is going to notice it. and of course also, because these messages are permanently archived, it serves as a copyrighted "publication" of my discoveries to protect me against a plagiarism etc. > > > > > I grew up with the gods of Greece and Rome. They were as real to me as the >Old Testament characters. >My generation (in England) usually started off with a child's version of the >Odyssey. >I still talk to Poseidon sometimes at the beach. I like to think of him just >offshore, smelling the drifting smoke from the barbecues and thinking of the >hecatombs of long ago. > >>>>>> Believe it or not, if you take 200 adjectives out of a >>>>>> dictionary that are used to describe human personality, and >>>>>> give them as a checklist to use to describe a given person's >>>>>> personality; rating them on each word from 1 to 10, and then >>>>>> compute a 200 x 200 correlation matrix of the words it turns >>>>>> out that a computer will find that there are ore EXACTLY 13 >>>>>> EIGENVECTORS in that 200 x 200 correlation matrix. >>>>>> Amazingly, the reason for this is that the brain is >>>>>> actually CUBIC which you can see in this diagram here, which >>>>>> was drawn by me: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/5X7C01I.jpg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is exactly where the 12 OLYMPIAN GODS (13 actually) >>>>>> come from! >>>>>> And anyone who does not believe that that is a stunning >>>>>> scientific discovery must have a hole in his head! > > ======================================== 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 =======================================
From: George Hammond on 29 Dec 2009 05:11 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:22:29 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >news:2sthj5lbnjpf09cfgjco83je6a7hfjjh9o(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:44:04 +1300, "Geopelia" >> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> >>>"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >>>news:7asgj5do09o939v2jp54o9j7g5i9e3n4rg(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:48:38 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." >>>> <paul(a)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) >>>Isn't it just wishful thinking? >>> >>> >> [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. > >(Geopelia) >Very likely. What would I know? But eschatological speculations can be >interesting. > [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. ======================================== 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 =======================================
From: Geopelia on 29 Dec 2009 06:20 "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:3qijj5t8vpeid6k73fsft38qv4107glv7c(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:14:09 +1300, "Geopelia" > <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >> >>"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >>news:sfvhj59l91bd174f7elq6pcvtod1ldhhhn(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:07:52 +1300, "Geopelia" >>> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >>>>news:vqvgj5du2nk0l80np9sn36ca2ih5gjbkt9(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:49:44 +1300, "Geopelia" >>>>> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>(Geopelia) >>>>>>>>How can you have 13 symmetry axes in a cube? Everything in a cube >>>>>>>>seems >>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>go in even numbers, six sides etc. >>>>>>>>But the proof would be way above my head anyway. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Hammond] >>>>>>> You don't need any proof, you can draw it with paper and >>>>>>> pencil. There are 13 of them all right. You can see a >>>>>>> picture of them here taken right out of the Encyclopedia >>>>>>> Britannica: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/35500/35520/axes_35520.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you count them, you'll find that there are exactly 13. >>>>>> >>>>>>I make it 6 of a, 8 of p, 12 of d >>>>>>Do you count the point in the middle with d to get the 13? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> [Hammond] >>>>> Congratulations, you got the right answer, 6+8+12=26. >>>>> Only problem is you're counting both ends of each axis. >>>>> You need to divide by two, 26/2 = 13. >>>>> These are called the "rotational" symmetry axes of the >>>>> cube. If you rotate the cube, 90� or 120� are 180� around >>>>> these various axes the cube rotates back into itself again, >>>>> which is why they are called "symmetry axes". >>>> >>>>G: Thank you, that explains it. I should have counted the lines, not >>>>the >>>>ends. >>>> >>>> >>> [Hammond] >>> Now you're cookin! I can't tell you how many great men in >>> history would have given their eye teeth to know where the >>> Egypto-Greco-Roman Dodekatheon (pantheon) came from. >>> Cicero wrote a famous treatise called De Natura Rerum (On >>> the Nature of the Gods) while Julius Caesar had him >>> temporarily out of office. In this famous tract he admits >>> to not knowing what the gods were, where they lived, how >>> many of them there were or what they did. He apparently was >>> totally unaware that the "gods" so-called are simply >>> "personality types", nor did he have any idea of course why >>> there would be 12 of them (13 actually)... i.e. that they >>> come from the cubic cleavage geometry of the human brain. >>> If I ever meet up with Cicero in the great beyond, I am >>> sure that he will be utterly fascinated to hear the story of >>> how modern science discovered what the gods are, exactly how >>> many of them there are, and what the correlational >>> (geometric) relationship between them actually is. >>> Alas poor Cicero sick and aging was set upon by some of >>> Pompey's henchmen while being carried in a litter in a >>> last-minute halfhearted attempt to escape, and a Roman >>> soldier unceremoniously lopped off his head. What a loss to >>> literary posterity for he was such a great writer. >> >>(Geopelia) >>I like the version of his death in the TV series "Rome". >>They took a few liberties with history, but it made a great series. >> >>Cicero could talk to you (assuming you had a common language) and you >>would >>be able to understand what he was talking about. >>But how could he possibly understand the sort of thing you talk about in >>this thread? >> >> > [Hammond] > It would be quite easy to explain it to Cicero actually. > Because Cicero was a responsible person who would > immediately perceive the dire necessity and urgency of > understanding it as regards it's crucial importance to human > welfare. It's not like talking to a bunch of Internet > morons who are mere computer hobbyist riffraff whose lives > and opinions are of no relevance to anyone. (Geopelia) I suppose that's me. But I've been called a lot worse than that. I came to rec.org.mensa to talk to people more intelligent than myself, and learn things I don't know. If I don't agree with what is said here I say so, then kind people put me on the right track. The internet is a lifeline to the brains of the world, to mix a metaphor. > Besides, you seem to underestimate the sophistication of > ancient society. By the time of Cicero they already knew > the Earth was round and what its diameter was since some > intellectual in Alexandria had measured it by sending a man > 500 miles up the Nile to observe a celebrated well where > once a year the sun shone directly 100 feet to the bottom > and on the same day measure the angle of a flagpole shadow > at noon in Alexandria, and by simple trigonometry figured > out the earth was 8000 miles in diameter. > Also by Cicero's time mathematicians had already > calculated the conic sections and found all the solutions to > the quadratic equation that describes them. > They also knew about the Heliocentric system but realized > that their lack of any observation of stellar parallax > probably ruled it out; simply not knowing that the stars > were hundreds of billions of miles away. > Given that level of sophistication, it would not be hard > to explain to Cicero that the gods were simply "personality > types". And when he would ask why there are different > personality types it would be simple to explain that the > brain is a cube composed of 8 octantal lobes and that > asymmetry in growth causes one octant lobe to be stronger > than another and that causes these different personality > types and furthermore since there are 13 symmetry axes > through these eight lobes of the cubic brain, there are 13 > different "personality types" or "GODS" so-called. > I don't think Cicero would require more than five minutes > flat to understand something as simple as that. It is no > more complicated than understanding the difference between a > left-handed person in a right-handed person! (Geopelia) I wonder how much a Roman of his time would know about the workings of the human brain. Wise people would follow the state religion outwardly, just as until recently most English people were nominally Christian, whether they believed or not. It was what one did to get on in society ( preferably as members of the Church of England) in my day. > You have to realize that understanding and comprehension > is on a NEED TO KNOW BASIS. The amateurs on USENET don't > actually need to know about this. The only reason I'm > posting it here is because it is free, it is fast, and it > has global circulation. The idea is, that sooner or later a > COMPETENT person SOMEWHERE is going to notice it. and of > course also, because these messages are permanently > archived, it serves as a copyrighted "publication" of my > discoveries to protect me against a plagiarism etc. (Geopelia) It's certainly an interesting theory. >> >> >> >> >> I grew up with the gods of Greece and Rome. They were as real to me as >> the >>Old Testament characters. >>My generation (in England) usually started off with a child's version of >>the >>Odyssey. >>I still talk to Poseidon sometimes at the beach. I like to think of him >>just >>offshore, smelling the drifting smoke from the barbecues and thinking of >>the >>hecatombs of long ago. >> >>>>>>> Believe it or not, if you take 200 adjectives out of a >>>>>>> dictionary that are used to describe human personality, and >>>>>>> give them as a checklist to use to describe a given person's >>>>>>> personality; rating them on each word from 1 to 10, and then >>>>>>> compute a 200 x 200 correlation matrix of the words it turns >>>>>>> out that a computer will find that there are ore EXACTLY 13 >>>>>>> EIGENVECTORS in that 200 x 200 correlation matrix. >>>>>>> Amazingly, the reason for this is that the brain is >>>>>>> actually CUBIC which you can see in this diagram here, which >>>>>>> was drawn by me: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/5X7C01I.jpg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is exactly where the 12 OLYMPIAN GODS (13 actually) >>>>>>> come from! >>>>>>> And anyone who does not believe that that is a stunning >>>>>>> scientific discovery must have a hole in his head! >> >> (Geopelia) But some of us prefer gods like ourselves but greater, who go about the world interacting with mortals. Others believe in angels and long dead saints. If they don't really exist so what? The idea is a nice one.
From: Geopelia on 29 Dec 2009 06:26
"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:sfkjj5ta49pds7h98h3i26fdk15g9og4ah(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:22:29 +1300, "Geopelia" > <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >> >>"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >>news:2sthj5lbnjpf09cfgjco83je6a7hfjjh9o(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:44:04 +1300, "Geopelia" >>> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >>>>news:7asgj5do09o939v2jp54o9j7g5i9e3n4rg(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:48:38 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." >>>>> <paul(a)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) >>>>Isn't it just wishful thinking? >>>> >>>> >>> [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. >> >>(Geopelia) >>Very likely. What would I know? But eschatological speculations can be >>interesting. >> > [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. (Geopelia) You are certainly an amazing person. Are you teaching anywhere? |