CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Time
Next: "The Einstein Hoax"
From: George Hammond on 29 Dec 2009 07:01 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:26:17 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >"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? > [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! ======================================== 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 07:07 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:20:01 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >(Geopelia) >It's certainly an interesting theory. >>> >>> [Hammond] You're the last one to know. The rest of the world has already heard about it by now but is either too envious or scared to say anything. ======================================== 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: nuny on 30 Dec 2009 02:50 On Dec 26, 2:58 pm, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:09:54 -0800 (PST), n...(a)bid.nes wrote: > > On Dec 25, 1:41 pm, Tiger Would <theoreticalfo...(a)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. 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
From: BruceS on 30 Dec 2009 12:08 On Dec 30, 5:12 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)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? 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.
From: George Hammond on 30 Dec 2009 17:32
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:08:04 -0800 (PST), BruceS <bruces42(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 30, 5:12�am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)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. ======================================== 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 ======================================= |