DETAILS OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Opaque objects absorb every frequency there is no quantizationfor them
Next: Solving Euler beam differential equation with applied moment as input
From: Bernhard Schornak on 28 Dec 2009 13:19 George Hammond wrote: >> If Galileo hadn't had doubts about the 'untenable' >> official 'truths', we still believed in a Universe >> revolving around Earth. Doubt is the driving force >> behind any scientific evolution. >> > [Hammond] > The Heliocentric system was well known during the time of > Galileo. It was first proposed by Aristarchus Samos in 250 > BC. Several experts report that the reason the ancients > didn't believe it was because no one could observe any > stellar parallax which obviously would have resulted from > any motion of the earth. Fact is they just had no idea how > far away the stars actually were. I talked about doubt being the driving force behind any evolution. Galileo was just an example. Obviously, most people never doubt whatever so called 'experts' say and write. Any scientific evolution was triggered by people who had doubts about the 'official' credo, not by those who took the words of authorities as 'untenable' truth. >> If I remember right, you posted an article, saying >> a human brain is able to reorganise synaptic nodes >> on demand. You should investigate this further, it >> seems to be an interesting aspect of how our brain >> really works. >> > [Hammond] > Brain science already knows all about it, and in fact > this changing of the synaptic strengths on demand is caused > by MICROTUBULE polymerization and depolymerization which can > happen in milliseconds. >> If we knew all about it, we were God... ;) >> You did not answer how blind people match your FFF >> scheme. Some blind people have extraordinary IQs - >> even if they were born blind. Probably there is no >> connection between the optical and data processing >> subsystems, at all. >> > [Hammond] > Oh come on Bernie you're being ridiculous. Not at all. > Double amputees can't fill out a Stanford-Binet IQ test either. They've intact eyes for a PFF test, so they do not need their hands. ;) > That doesn't mean that they don't have an IQ. Don't be absurd. I never mentioned double amputees. Did I? So blind people are out of the frame of PFF testing? As I mentioned: Some of them have a very high IQ at a rate of PFF = zero. They should have an IQ of 25, if the PFF formula is applied. >>> They didn't have to use rocket science to determine that >>> the reason for this is that the PFF involves cognitive >>> comprehension of the pictures being displayed and being able >>> to decide whether the current picture is different from the >>> last one. that requires one bit of information processing, >>> and since the information processing speed of an adult is >>> known to be 16 bits per second we have immediately the >>> scientific explanation of why the PFF for adults is 16 >>> frames per second ( for normal IQ = 100). >> >> What is your definition for 'one bit'? >> > [Hammond] > It's not my definition Bernie, it's the definition of the > established experts that "one bit" is a simple yes-no answer > to a simple binary decision question. in that case of a > motion picture film the question is: "is this frame > different than the last one". that requires one bit of > information processing. turns out the average human being > is only capable of processing that kind of question at 16 > bits per second, which is why the average motion picture > fusion frequency, PFF, is exactly 16 frames per second. > By the way there are half a dozen other ways to measure > human mental speed and it always comes out to be 16 bits per > second for the average human being. These are > well-established scientific facts Bernie and well documented > in the professional literature. Perhaps those 'experts' should use a proper vocabulary? Comparing two pictures is a very complex process, where billions of operations are performed. None of these ops can be reduced to a single bit. The lower the number of simultaneously processed bits, the slower the process - that's why 32 bit processors are faster than 8 bit pro- cessors with identical clock speed. Let's take a recent digital camera with 12 megapixel. Each pixel is one out of 12,000,000 dots in the entire image. *Each* of these pixels provides three (sometimes four) byte with colour information (one byte holds 8 bit). With three byte per pixel, we have to evaluate 72,000,000 byte = 572,000,000 bit stored in both images. A recent PC can do this in about 27.778 milliseconds or about 36 times per second. Apply PFF, and we can assign an IQ of 205 to a recent PC. >> Is '16 bit per second' a parallel (simultaneos) or >> a serial (one after the other) data transfer? >> > [Hammond] > 16 bits per second is the overall top level comprehension > processing speed of the human brain. it correlates directly > with IQ. it can be measured using video screens and > pushbutton micro switches, it can be measured by the PFF, it > can be measured by card counting techniques and half a dozen > other well-known methods, and it ALWAYS comes out to be 16 > bits per second for an adult with a normal average IQ of > 100. Human brains work much better than any man made proces- sor. If they were 'one bit' machines, they weren't able do more than simple on/off tasks. Even a virus has much better computing capabilities than that. > This question has newly arisen because of the recent > discovery of the microtubule-cytoskeleton high-speed > microwave coupled computing system in the brain. Could you provide a link? Sounds interesting! > If you are interested in this please read the original > target post at the start of this thread. Too late - my newsserver holds messages for 7 days. Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
From: George Hammond on 28 Dec 2009 15:39 On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:19:10 +0100, Bernhard Schornak <schornak(a)web.de> wrote: >George Hammond wrote: > >>> If Galileo hadn't had doubts about the 'untenable' >>> official 'truths', we still believed in a Universe >>> revolving around Earth. Doubt is the driving force >>> behind any scientific evolution. >>> >> [Hammond] >> The Heliocentric system was well known during the time of >> Galileo. It was first proposed by Aristarchus Samos in 250 >> BC. Several experts report that the reason the ancients >> didn't believe it was because no one could observe any >> stellar parallax which obviously would have resulted from >> any motion of the earth. Fact is they just had no idea how >> far away the stars actually were. > >I talked about doubt being the driving force behind any >evolution. Galileo was just an example. Obviously, most >people never doubt whatever so called 'experts' say and >write. Any scientific evolution was triggered by people >who had doubts about the 'official' credo, not by those >who took the words of authorities as 'untenable' truth. > >>> If I remember right, you posted an article, saying >>> a human brain is able to reorganise synaptic nodes >>> on demand. You should investigate this further, it >>> seems to be an interesting aspect of how our brain >>> really works. >>> >> [Hammond] >> Brain science already knows all about it, and in fact >> this changing of the synaptic strengths on demand is caused >> by MICROTUBULE polymerization and depolymerization which can >> happen in milliseconds. >>> > >If we knew all about it, we were God... ;) > >>> You did not answer how blind people match your FFF >>> scheme. Some blind people have extraordinary IQs - >>> even if they were born blind. Probably there is no >>> connection between the optical and data processing >>> subsystems, at all. >>> >> [Hammond] >> Oh come on Bernie you're being ridiculous. > >Not at all. > >> Double amputees can't fill out a Stanford-Binet IQ test either. > >They've intact eyes for a PFF test, so they do not need >their hands. ;) > [Hammond] What about dead people, they have zero PFF too, does that mean their IQ was zero while they were alive? What about unconscioous people, or people who are asleep, do they have zero IQ, stop trying to badger me..... I don't have time to respond to nonsense, even if I am using voice dictation equipment at 120 words per minute (Dragon-10) and don't have to lift a finger to do so. There's no point in arguing with obviously incompetwent nonsense. > > > >> That doesn't mean that they don't have an IQ. Don't be absurd. > >I never mentioned double amputees. Did I? > >So blind people are out of the frame of PFF testing? As >I mentioned: Some of them have a very high IQ at a rate >of PFF = zero. They should have an IQ of 25, if the PFF >formula is applied. > > [Hammond] What about someone in a diabetic coma, does that mean they have zero IQ? quick posting stupid stuff, I won't respond to it. > > >>>> They didn't have to use rocket science to determine that >>>> the reason for this is that the PFF involves cognitive >>>> comprehension of the pictures being displayed and being able >>>> to decide whether the current picture is different from the >>>> last one. that requires one bit of information processing, >>>> and since the information processing speed of an adult is >>>> known to be 16 bits per second we have immediately the >>>> scientific explanation of why the PFF for adults is 16 >>>> frames per second ( for normal IQ = 100). >>> >>> What is your definition for 'one bit'? >>> >> [Hammond] >> It's not my definition Bernie, it's the definition of the >> established experts that "one bit" is a simple yes-no answer >> to a simple binary decision question. in that case of a >> motion picture film the question is: "is this frame >> different than the last one". that requires one bit of >> information processing. turns out the average human being >> is only capable of processing that kind of question at 16 >> bits per second, which is why the average motion picture >> fusion frequency, PFF, is exactly 16 frames per second. >> By the way there are half a dozen other ways to measure >> human mental speed and it always comes out to be 16 bits per >> second for the average human being. These are >> well-established scientific facts Bernie and well documented >> in the professional literature. > >Perhaps those 'experts' should use a proper vocabulary? > > > [Hammond] if you're not confident in the vocabulary, then you're not competent to argue with them. sorry, the rest of us have to play by the rules, so do you. > > >Comparing two pictures is a very complex process, where >billions of operations are performed. None of these ops >can be reduced to a single bit. The lower the number of >simultaneously processed bits, the slower the process - >that's why 32 bit processors are faster than 8 bit pro- >cessors with identical clock speed. Let's take a recent >digital camera with 12 megapixel. Each pixel is one out >of 12,000,000 dots in the entire image. *Each* of these >pixels provides three (sometimes four) byte with colour >information (one byte holds 8 bit). With three byte per >pixel, we have to evaluate > > 72,000,000 byte = 572,000,000 bit > >stored in both images. A recent PC can do this in about >27.778 milliseconds or about 36 times per second. Apply >PFF, and we can assign an IQ of 205 to a recent PC. > >>> Is '16 bit per second' a parallel (simultaneos) or >>> a serial (one after the other) data transfer? >>> >> [Hammond] >> 16 bits per second is the overall top level comprehension >> processing speed of the human brain. it correlates directly >> with IQ. it can be measured using video screens and >> pushbutton micro switches, it can be measured by the PFF, it >> can be measured by card counting techniques and half a dozen >> other well-known methods, and it ALWAYS comes out to be 16 >> bits per second for an adult with a normal average IQ of >> 100. > >Human brains work much better than any man made proces- >sor. If they were 'one bit' machines, they weren't able >do more than simple on/off tasks. Even a virus has much >better computing capabilities than that. > > > [Hammond] Cut the malarkey Bernie. Half a dozen different tests over 30 years have shown that human mental speed is 16 bits per second for IQ of 100, and it has been known for 50 years that this is the reason why the minimum frame rate for a movie is 16 frames per second. I have no intention of sitting here arguing a well known and proven fact was an incompetent amateur. you can read all about it here: http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html I don't give private tutorials on textbook material to amateurs, sorry. > > > >> This question has newly arisen because of the recent >> discovery of the microtubule-cytoskeleton high-speed >> microwave coupled computing system in the brain. > >Could you provide a link? Sounds interesting! > > [Hammond] Shure, no problem: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html > > >> If you are interested in this please read the original >> target post at the start of this thread. > >Too late - my newsserver holds messages for 7 days. > [Hammond] You can find it on Google groups. They store everything on USENET. > >Greetings from Augsburg > >Bernhard Schornak ======================================== 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: Bernhard Schornak on 29 Dec 2009 10:40 George Hammond wrote: >>>> You did not answer how blind people match your FFF >>>> scheme. Some blind people have extraordinary IQs - >>>> even if they were born blind. Probably there is no >>>> connection between the optical and data processing >>>> subsystems, at all. >>> >>> [Hammond] >>> No qualified answer... >>> >> So blind people are out of the frame of PFF testing? As >> I mentioned: Some of them have a very high IQ at a rate >> of PFF = zero. They should have an IQ of 25, if the PFF >> formula is applied. > > [Hammond] > No qualified answer... Seems I found a flaw in this theory. Why can't you answer a simple question regarding living, awake, sane and healthy people who just cannot use their optical sense? Just give a qualified answer to this question if you can. >>>> What is your definition for 'one bit'? >>>> >>> [Hammond] >>> No qualified answer... >> >> Perhaps those 'experts' should use a proper vocabulary? >> > [Hammond] > if you're not confident in the vocabulary, then you're > not competent to argue with them. sorry, the rest of us > have to play by the rules, so do you. Maybe you forgot something: I am a programmer, so I should be competent enough to know what a bit or a byte is. I am not responsible for any misuse of these terms in other's writings. Me- thinks Mr. Weiss has no idea what the term bit really means. >> Comparing two pictures is a very complex process, where >> billions of operations are performed. None of these ops >> can be reduced to a single bit. The lower the number of >> simultaneously processed bits, the slower the process - >> that's why 32 bit processors are faster than 8 bit pro- >> cessors with identical clock speed. Let's take a recent >> digital camera with 12 megapixel. Each pixel is one out >> of 12,000,000 dots in the entire image. *Each* of these >> pixels provides three (sometimes four) byte with colour >> information (one byte holds 8 bit). With three byte per >> pixel, we have to evaluate >> >> 72,000,000 byte = 572,000,000 bit >> >> stored in both images. A recent PC can do this in about >> 27.778 milliseconds or about 36 times per second. Apply >> PFF, and we can assign an IQ of 205 to a recent PC. >> > [Hammond] > Cut the malarkey Bernie. Half a dozen different tests > over 30 years have shown that human mental speed is 16 bits > per second for IQ of 100, and it has been known for 50 years > that this is the reason why the minimum frame rate for a > movie is 16 frames per second. I have no intention of > sitting here arguing a well known and proven fact was an > incompetent amateur. you can read all about it here: Please read to what you replied. It explains why the PFF theory can't be valid. If you have qualified ar- guments why my explanation is wrong: Just post them! > http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html Reading through the linked pages, as well. Mr. Weiss overloads terms lent from Computer Sciences with his own psychologic 'language'. It is possible to encode the plain english character set (A-Z) with 5 bits. A is 00000000, B=00000001 up to Z=00011001. But that's not what Mr. Weiss is talking about. He exports com- puter sciences to claim the brain is a 5 bit machine working like an old 8 bit processor. That's not true at all. The human brain doesn't work with 'bits', it works with analog signals. Each line can have an un- limited amount of states (voltages), allowing trans- fer of much more than a simple bit. Such a thing can never be done with digital devices. Only some coarse approximations can be achieved. It's similar to e.g. sampling music, where the *full range* of the analog signal is reduced to the next matching digital state in the range of -32,768 to 32,767. A multi state de- vice cannot be described using terms defined for two state devices! Doing the test shown at <http://www.v-weiss.de/publ9-e.html> I get 100 bit / 2.5 seconds = 40 bit/s. The table is incomplete, it ends with 29 for IQ 146. I know, I am somewhere above that, but not *that* far away. BTW: The guy is working for Elsevier, one of the big players in the pharmaceutical market. If he is, they may pay you for your studies, as well. > I don't give private tutorials on textbook material to > amateurs, sorry. In case of 'bits', I am the professional and you are the amateur... ;) >> Could you provide a link? Sounds interesting! >> > [Hammond] > Shure, no problem: > http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html Thank you. I downloaded the PDF and will have a look when I find some time. Greetings from Augsburg + a happy new year! Bernhard Schornak
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 Jan 2010 13:18 On Dec 28 2009, 12:39 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:19:10 +0100, Bernhard Schornak > <schor...(a)web.de> wrote: > >They've intact eyes for a PFF test, so they do not need > >their hands. ;) > > [Hammond] > What about dead people, they have zero PFF too, does that > mean their IQ was zero while they were alive? What about > unconscioous people, or people who are asleep, do they have > zero IQ, stop trying to badger me..... I don't have time to > respond to nonsense, even if I am using voice dictation > equipment at 120 words per minute (Dragon-10) and don't have > to lift a finger to do so. There's no point in arguing with > obviously incompetwent nonsense. However did you make equipment write "incompetwent"?
From: Geopelia on 5 Jan 2010 21:34
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:61095db1-1acc-4edf-b83d-67c8a1703f74(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Dec 28 2009, 12:39 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:19:10 +0100, Bernhard Schornak > <schor...(a)web.de> wrote: > >They've intact eyes for a PFF test, so they do not need > >their hands. ;) > > [Hammond] > What about dead people, they have zero PFF too, does that > mean their IQ was zero while they were alive? What about > unconscioous people, or people who are asleep, do they have > zero IQ, stop trying to badger me..... I don't have time to > respond to nonsense, even if I am using voice dictation > equipment at 120 words per minute (Dragon-10) and don't have > to lift a finger to do so. There's no point in arguing with > obviously incompetwent nonsense. However did you make equipment write "incompetwent"? ------ Perhaps that is what happened to his income, pet! "My get up and go has got up and went". |