CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Physics]
|
Prev: geothermal energy
Next: First time: Haversian canal/blood vessels of meteorite magnified to 4000X
From: Don Stockbauer on 4 Jan 2010 12:10 On Jan 4, 10:45 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 02:23:09 +1300, "Geopelia" > > > > <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >"George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote in message > >news:97l3k5d7hisq8ve509501qqgbq2ggm5l3n(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:55:31 +1300, "Geopelia" > >> <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >>>> [Hammond] > >>>> Anybody your age who considers themselves an "agnostic" > >>>> ought to be flogged or put in jail quite frankly. You're > >>>> old enough to know better. > > >>>(Geopelia) > >>>When we are kids we believe what our elders tell us. In our late teens and > >>>twenties we think we know everything. That's the time for taking up > >>>various > >>>religions. > > >>>But at my age, I realise not only that I know very little, but that it is > >>>impossible for a human mind to know everything. > >>>There may be a God, but if so it is something that can't be understood at > >>>our present level of evolution. > >>>I look at the pictures from the Hubble telescope, some of the space clouds > >>>etc are light years across, and wonder if some kind of intelligent being > >>>could create all that. Is there a mind behind it or not? > > >>>But if you are right, perhaps we find out just after we die. > > >> [Hammond] > >> I am of the opinion that it is never too late to teach an > >> old dog new tricks. I believe this because old dogs have a > >> very long history of Encyclopedia information, and the > >> problem is that they simply have failed to interpret it all. > >> At your age you must be aware that the most common topic > >> of conversation is gossip about other people, mainly about > >> the psychology of personality. thousands of expressions and > >> anecdotes have been invented to describe other people's > >> personalities and what makes them tick, and certainly you > >> must be familiar with Miles and miles of the stuff at your > >> age. > >> When you have failed to realize is that this > >> populardiscussion is all about God. God is not something > >> that you look for in outer space, God is something that you > >> look for in other people, and frankly a person of your age > >> and social experience should've figured this out by now. > >> When you hear people make remarks like George bush is > >> called "Dubblya'", or Ronald Reagan fell on his "keester", > >> or common nicknames like "MoJo", "Kitty", "Lefty", or common > >> expressions like "enough to make a fox bark", "between the > >> devil and the deep blue sea".... these are all COMMON > >> EXPRESSIONS DESCRIBING THE PHENOMENON OF GOD. > >> The reason there is so is because GOD IS A MAN, not a FORCE > >> FIELD IN OUTER SPACE. > >> How on earth you ever get to the age of 80 with our > >> realizing this is beyond my imagination since the ENTIRE > >> WORLD does nothing but jabber about it all day long 365 days > >> a year. television sitcoms are ALL about it... in fact they > >> actually have no plot, they are nothing but metaphorical > >> descriptions of God and the human condition. > >> So please try to wake up and stop talking about juvenile > >> rubbish like looking for God in outer space through a > >> telescope....... it does nothing but make you the butt of > >> jokes. and realize that even in your old age there is still > >> a fast revelation for you to uncover........ and that is the > >> fact that the entire human race has been talking about God > >> in metaphorical terms right in front of your face for last > >> 80 years.... and you've never realized it. when she > >> realized that, you'll realize what real humility is..... and > >> not the tongue-in-cheek variety of humility that you think > >> it is! > > >> Per usual, if you find any odd words in this post, be > >> reminded that I am using voice recognition software and > >> occasionally in this identifies the word, and I don't have > >> time to proofread everything. > > >New Zealand is a secular country. People can believe anything they like, or > >nothing at all. > > [Hammond] > So is the US, by constitutional law. > > >I doubt if many people think much about God, unless some crank starts a > >weird cult. > > [Hammond] > All gall is divided into three parts (no that is not a > misquote, it is an original statement by me). it means that > all of human society is divided into three classes depending > on their understanding of God. > > THE FIRST WORLD: > Actually knows what God is and has for thousands of > years. they know that God is a perfect man who has no > growth deficit and that no such person has ever walked the > face of the Earth, so therefore he is the invisible man > within us. all of the peculiarities, foibles and > idiosyncrasies in people are caused by the 20% of us that is > missing, particularly of our brain. the nobility, the > aristocracy, the elite and the leadership of world history > have always known this andhave transmitted it from > generation to generation for thousands of years. The first > class talks almost exclusively in metaphorical terms about > people, politics, society and history. in other words they > talk almost exclusively about "God". > > THE SECOND WORLD: > Consists of professionals, bureaucrats, business people, > and most of the middle class; are generally aware of the > shortcomings of human awareness due to the vicissitudes of > human growth. however they are not explicitly aware that > this phenomenon is what people are talking about when they > say "God'. the second class talks almost exclusively about > "ideas", plans, schemes and activities. > > THE THIRD WORLD: > Consists of people who almost exclusively talk about > "facts"... dates, names, events, amounts, prices, times and > places etc. > These people have an almost totally naïve idea about God, > believing perhaps that is an invisible man living in the sky > floating on a cloud etc. > > As for you Geopelia, you are somewhere in the Second World, > as are all people who refer to themselves as "agnostics" or > "atheists" or say that they believe in an unknown "higher > power" and have literally no realistic comprehension of what > the phenomenon of God actually is. > > >But do you seriously think that a rather advanced ape (us!) on one little > >planet of a very small star could possibly be the God that created > >everything? > > [Hammond] > This is the kind of question typically asked by people > hovering between the second and third worlds. a person > belonging to the first world considers such a question > ludicrously pathetic. only a person belonging to the Third > World would think the question is deep and intellectual. a > person like yourself in the Second World of course thinks > the question is "erudite" and "profound". > ======================================== > GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE God and the Universe are identical entities.
From: BruceS on 4 Jan 2010 12:32 On Jan 3, 6:26 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jan 2, 3:07 pm, BruceS <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 1, 9:21 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > BruceS <bruce...(a)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. Aren't you describing schizophrenia? Not being well versed in psychology, I may be way off base. > Hammond has even written his Nobel Acceptance Speech. No, I'm not > kidding: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0db5caa1d17... > > 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=e.... > > ================================================================== > > > > 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. No real disagreement here, but note that kooks are often more entertaining than non-kooks, which explains their reply rate. Few would pay to see an ordinary goat, but if it has an obvious abnormality, people line up. For my part, I usually avoid replying to the kook and instead try to talk to the person who is replying to him. In this thread, I was mainly talking to geo, who seems an interesting, sane, and intelligent person. OTOH, sometimes I'm just an adolescent poking a dead rat with a stick, and while that's hardly admirable, I don't exactly apologize for it either. I'm still young enough (and male enough) to play the little boy. > 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. I remember in the '90s seeing a good mix of posters here, but even then we had kooks and cranks. Anything with "Mensa" in the name will attract some mentally unbalanced people who think they can somehow be important by talking to "smart" people. The fact that they didn't need to pass any sort of IQ (or sanity) test to talk here doesn't seem to dissuade them. I bet mtm is nowhere near as busy or interesting as rom.
From: " SNIP HECKLER>" on 4 Jan 2010 12:37 X-No-Archive: Yes On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:10:27 -0800
From: " SNIP HECKLER>" on 4 Jan 2010 12:38 X-No-Archive: Yes On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:32:47 -0800
From: Occidental on 4 Jan 2010 15:14
Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > [Hammond's] 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. BruceS <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Aren't you describing schizophrenia? Not being well versed in > psychology, I may be way off base. My point is that kooks of the Hammond variety have a dysfunction of the intellect which leads them to find Great Truths where there are none to be found. They then spend years trying to get their point across to an indifferent or hostile world. The more they are rejected, the more insistent and indignant they become. This will not necessarily impact the rest of their lives; outside their monomania they may be able to function more or less normally (though they may appear eccentric to their peers). Schizophrenia is a far more serious condition: "A person diagnosed with schizophrenia may demonstrate auditory hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized and unusual thinking and speech; this may range from loss of train of thought and subject flow, with sentences only loosely connected in meaning, to incoherence, known as word salad, in severe cases. Social isolation commonly occurs for a variety of reasons. Impairment in social cognition is associated with schizophrenia, as are symptoms of paranoia from delusions and hallucinations, and the negative symptoms of avolition (apathy or lack of motivation). " - wikipedia What interests me about Usenet kooks is that they reveal an area of bizarre psychology that is fundamentally different from the traditional mental disorders, and which has not been systematically studied. To complicate matters, conspiracy theorists (Jewish international finance, Kennedy assassination, 9/11, etc), though obviously kooks, seem to be fundamentally different from theoretical "innovators" like Hammond. The taxonomy could probably be extended further. Any psych PhD candidates out there looking for a research project please take note. > ... kooks are often more > entertaining than non-kooks, which explains their reply rate. Few > would pay to see an ordinary goat, but if it has an obvious > abnormality, people line up. You are comparing Hammond to a mutant goat? > For my part, I usually avoid replying to > the kook and instead try to talk to the person who is replying to > him. In this thread, I was mainly talking to geo, who seems an > interesting, sane, and intelligent person. OTOH, sometimes I'm just > an adolescent poking a dead rat with a stick, Oh, now he's a dead rat. > and while that's hardly > admirable, I don't exactly apologize for it either. I'm still young > enough (and male enough) to play the little boy. |