LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Fast Lorentz transforms: was Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?
Next: -*MARK*- meet George Re: LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
From: George Hammond on 4 May 2010 17:37 On Tue, 4 May 2010 06:25:32 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 3, 10:46�pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 3 May 2010 02:56:02 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. HotSalt" >> SNIP SNIP >> > >> >[Ferguson] >> > �A few things come to mind. >> >> > �AIUI you defined BGD as the adult *neuronal brain's* fraction of >> >developent short of its full genetic potential. >> >> > �Does the Microtubule-Body, supported by the incompletely developed >> >neuronal brain, consequently have its own BGD? Seems to me it must, >> >hence there's a limit on how "Beatified" one can be. (Do they >> >correlate directly?) >> >> [Hammond] >> � �thanks for that statement Ferguson... you have of course >> hit the nail right on the head as far as a major burr under >> the saddle in my theory. >> � �The microtubule system is inside the cells of the >> neuronal system, so like you say, if there is in the >> neuronal shortage, then you would think there is a >> microtubule shortage!!!! >> � �however, as you further go on to say "they don't >> necessarily correlate"... what this simply means is that >> there may be enough capacity in the microtubule system to do >> the job of life after death, even though it isn't big enough >> to give us full flat space perception ( beatific vision) in >> the real body during life. >> >> � �As they say you have struck the central nerve of the >> theory. �The question being: >> >> .................................................... >> If the brain, because it is not fully grown, is unable to >> give us full (beatific) vision during life-- �then how in >> heck is a possible that it can do so after we are dead? > > [As an aside here I'd like to mention that I think we can have that >vision during life (even though not quite fully), but for very short >periods. In other words I think it is possible to think with the >microtubule system, at least partly. I think that's what's happening >when people successfully meditate, have "religious experiences", >experience "altered states" etc.] > >> � �HOW DOES THE MICROTUBULE SYSTEM >> � �"UNCURVE" THE DEATH DREAM? >> ................................................... >> >> � �Okay, there are two possible answers to this question: >> >> 1. �It is possible that the microtubule system actually >> receives a flat-space version of our reality, and the >> problem is simply that the neuronal system doesn't have >> enough neurons to display it.... therefore we see the >> flat-version after death in the "microtubule-world". > > In other words, the total *possible* information content of the >microtubule system is equal to what a neuronal brain with a BGD of >zero would perceive rather than being dependent on what the neuronal >brain perceived while it lived. > > I am reminded of our conversation regarding the several distinct >gods of humans, horses, and octopi. We agreed they must be species- >specific. > > Obviously that means the structure of the neuronal brain has some >influence on that of the microtubule "brain". > > It seems reasonable that each species, with zero BGD, will perceive >its own version of flat psychological spacetime (God of the SPOG). >Horses for instance probably experience the same emotions as humans >(since the neuronal brain structures that mediate emotions are present >in both species) but horses don't have the neuronal equipment for >among other things calculus, hence their God of the SPOG will be a >"lesser god" in those regards. > > But, its will never ever be able to perceive what the most >profoundly limited human can (think what used to be called severe >retardation), because its microtubule brain is inherently different. >But how? > >> 2. �The other possibility is that the microtubule system >> actually "mathematically-uncurves" these so-called >> death-dream. �This is not as far-fetched as it seems!! �it >> turns out that visual input for instance is stored as a >> "hologram" in the visual cortex memory. �A remarkable series >> of experiments about 10 years ago proved that the memory is >> actually a Fourier transform in both space and time of the >> visual input. �this means that the so-called space and time >> dilation is a relativity are merely "simple frequency >> shifts" in the holographic memory system. �It turns out that >> the brain could EASILY buy a simple analog method "UNCURVE" >> our world into flat-space-time ( a.k.a. Heaven). > > Holography. Of course; how silly of me. That's the key insight. >Thank you, George. > >> � �Now of the above two possibilities, the first is simpler >> than the second, so using Occam's razor I am assuming that >> the first assumption is true rather than the second. �But >> nature is very amazing, and it wouldn't surprise me at all >> if the second proposition turns out to be true! > > It's not one or the other, I now see. You know what you get when you >cut a hologram in two? You get two complete holograms, each with half >the resolution of the original. > > The microtubule system's holographic "image" of the God of the SPOG >will always be of what you term flat psychological spacetime, but the >neuronal system's BGD determines the hologram's resolution. > > So how is a human's hologram different from a horse's? Simple; the >microtubule brain must be a hologram *encoded* by the neuronal brain's >DNA! The level of detail is inversely proportional to the BGD. > > A severely retarded human's God is NOT different from a genius >human's God, just of lower resolution! The former will be able to >experience everything the latter can in his own LAD, but not as >deeply. He has the same DNA-determined holographic image, but a >smaller piece. > >> � �At any rate, I firmly believe that it is well within >> credible off-the-shelf science to believe that the >> microtubule system in the brain is fully capable of >> producing a flat-spacetime version of our world in the >> afterlife.... if indeed there is an afterlife! >> >> > �You said: >> >> >> � �On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that >> >> are not part of a conventional biographical life review in >> >> which you may take different actions and do or accomplish >> >> additional things without logically upsetting your world >> >> history. >> >> > I translate that as to make permutations of experienced events or >> >fragments thereof, but there will be things you *cannot* do *because* >> >they would "logically upset your world history". They'd be events the >> >neuronal brain had *not* processed as sensory inputs before its >> >chemical death, which you said it can't do, and with which I agree. >> >> [Hammond] >> � Yes we agree on that and as Frank Tipler puts it: �"Even >> God can't do something that is logically impossible", which >> is a statement that I thoroughly agree with. >> >> > �That's a huge blind spot, a kind of "event horizon". That means >> >perception-space curvature, which inevitably means *perceived* time >> >dilation. >> >> > �It isn't necessarily strongly correlated, but it's definitely >> >nonzero. >> >> > �It will indisputably be able to remember/relive/reshuffle everything >> >the neuronal brain *did* process though, and as perfectly as its BGD >> >allows. >> >> > �But not infinitely fast; yes, we're talking infinitesimal shifts in >> >the probability waves sloshing this way and that in the network of all >> >the microtubules in every neuron but by definition, it takes nonzero >> >time for any nonzero-energy quantum state change. >> >> [Hammond] >> � �I've kind of lost your drift here... but on the subject >> of speed and being "infinitely fast" etc. etc...... let me >> point out that the microtubule system operates at microwave >> to infrared frequencies which are nearly a billion times >> faster than neuronal firing frequency. �By comparison then, >> the microtubule system DOES act almost "instantly" in >> comparison to the neuronal system! > > I was drifting in the wrong direction. It *exists* instantly and >always once the neuronal brain reaches its maximum growth. But >experience is the result of *ignoring* most of the Universe and >focusing on what *changes*; the personality experiencing LAD must >perceive the hologram in *parts*, sequentially. From the outside an >appropriate technology would display something akin to the waves seen >sloshing back and forth over the surface of the neuronal brain as it >processes sensory information. Some of the hologram would "light up", >then other parts, etc. Or, the bits lit up will stay lit up as other >parts are perceived. This would equate to the "process" of >beatification; once achieved, "experience" is no longer possible >because the Totality is experienced only simultaneously. (That may be >the source of "free will", BTW) > > The processing rate is *not* limited to the group velocity of >signals (less than free-space c) in the microtubules; processing is >accomplished by quantum interference between the separate waves. How >fast does that "spooky action at a distance" work? AFAIK nobody thinks >quantum correlations actually happen FTL. Recall that a classical >system must be used to compare entangled states, and classical systems >are limited to c. However, per the below rough calculation, it should >take on the order of nanoseconds to fully download. > >> >> � �So the previous paragraph brings us around to the >> >> question of the scientific explanation of the SOUL . �The >> >> microtubule system in the brain must in fact be the physical >> >> embodiment of the SOUL ! >> >> > �Yup. >> >> [Hammond] >> � �YUP......and �I'll be a sonofabitch.... they're right, >> their apparently actually is a real "soul". >> >> >> � �So it turns out the Greeks were correct, the Soul is >> >> IMMORTAL, and now we know WHY! >> >> > � Subjectively immortal, possibly, but not objectively. >> >> [Hammond] >> � �Yeah but you say that so lightly... as if the distinction >> between subjective and objective is merely an academic >> distinction! �ITS NOT ... in fact the distinction is a >> matter of LIFE VERSUS DEATH �!! >> � �I think what you fail to realize is that only in academic >> textbooks is "objective reality"more important than >> "subjective reality" > > I'm not suggesting one is more "important" than the other in any >sense, just that they are different. > > We're also talking about two different levels of subjectivity here; >what the neuronal brain experiences and what the microtubule brain >experiences. > >> � �in real life, "subjective reality" is far more vital and >> important then "objective reality". �And the reason for >> this, is that no one's actual human sensory system is >> capable of seeing "objective reality"... all anyone's >> sensory system is capable of seeing and experiencing is in >> fact "subjective reality". > > Yes. > >> � �This is why the theoretical physics is a study of the >> laws of objective reality, while religion and God is a study >> of the laws of subjective reality. >> � �Turns out the latter is more difficult than the former. > > I would have said that the latter is a subset of the former, but >that doesn't mean I think it's necessarily *simpler*. > >> Any high school student can learn the laws of physics, but >> it takes a learned and highly experienced public authority >> to learn the laws of religion! > > Worse, religious figures believe we are not capable of learning >them. ;>) > >> > The >> >wavefunctions supported by the microtubules must decay as the >> >cytoskeleta of the brain decay and connectivity erodes. >> >> [Hammond] >> � �whoa professor.... the downloading of the afterlife dream >> from the cytoskeleton only takes a fraction of a second, >> I'll repeat that, a FRACTION ON A SECOND. �The cytoskeleton >> of the brain on the other hand is known to remain viable for >> minutes... as long as 30 minutes in fact. �Death and decay >> is far too slow to have any effect whatsoever on the >> afterlife. �In fact a speeding bullet is too slow to have >> any effect on the afterlife. �In fact, by my calculations, >> even an atomic bomb blast is too slow to prevent the >> afterlife! > > Naively, processing speed in the microtubule "brain" is limited to >the group velocity of the propagated microwave/IR signals. This means >that for the whole "dream" to download the system must survive for at >least as long as it takes light to cross the neuronal brain; t=l/c >where l is the longest dimension of the brain and c is the speed of >light. The human brain averages 140 mm long: > >http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html > > and taking c as 300,000 km/sec I get .14/300,000,000= 4.6 x 10^-11 >seconds. > > The cytoskeletal network not being a straight line between optical >and prefrontal cortexes, I'd guess the minimum time required is more >likely a couple orders of magnitude larger, but as you say not long. > >> > �The "Soul" may not notice; it's horizon could just shrink and >> >eventually collapse with the destruction of the last tubules, but >> >it'll be able to *perfectly* remember etc. what it can, while it can. >> >> [Hammond] >> � �you have to realize that the term "eternal life" does not >> denote an infinite LENGTH of time, it did notes VANISHING >> DILATION of time. �Because of the brain growth deficit we >> experienced a 10, 20 or 30% time dilation in this life. This >> causes all the ills and suffering of his life. >> � In the afterlife there is a zero time dilation... which is >> a de facto "condition" of eternal life. �Yes, and it's true >> that some time after you achieve a state of "eternal life" >> you will die... a car might hit you, you might fall off a >> cliff, you could drown, you could die of AIDS.... but the >> point is, if you are in a "condition" of eternal life when >> it happens.... it is absolutely IRRELEVANT... it is >> meaningless... as the Christians put it.... "death is >> swallowed up in victory".... and believe me as a physicist I >> happen to know what they're talking about an absolutely true >> scientific fact! > > I now think that as the cytoskeletal structure decays, the "dream" >will only lose resolution, not scope. > >> > �Unless you have in mind another possible mode of support for what is >> >basically not a structure, but a pattern? >> >> [Hammond] >> � �well, as they say, I am not totally sure whether option >> 1) or option 2) above is correct. �But in either case we are >> talking about physical structure... i.e. the physical >> structure of the microwave readout of the "death dream" from >> the microtubule cytoskeleton.> > > Right. > >> [Hammond] >> � �thanks Mark.......... always a pleasure to talk to you... >> you're one of the few people I know who actually has his >> head screwed on straight! > > I wouldn't go *that* far, but the fact that I don't have a religious >position to defend helps. > >> � �by the way, I apologize for the lack of capitalization at >> the beginning of sentences in this post, I am dictating >> directly into Forte Agent which is not one of Dragon-10's >> approved dictation programs... it seems to work okay... the >> only thing is that it does not capitalize the first word of >> the sentences....#$%##..... George. > > No plan is perfekt. > > I'd have gotten back to you sooner but I do have to work for a >living, and it takes a while for some of these concepts to fit >themselves together in my mind. Also, I'm doing other things that take >up neuronal brain processing time. If only I could think with the >microtubule brain at will... > > > Mark L. Fergerson > >PS the "Dr." is a Doctorate in Kibology, awarded more or less by Kibo >himself. > > > > > > [Hammond] Hi Mark Ferguson, I have printed out your last post and will study it for a few days before replying. I think we have identified the scientific nexus of the LAD problem.... and that is figuring out exactly how the microtubule system is able to see flat-spacetime (beatific vision) wheras the neuronal system cannot. A compelling scientific explanation of that appears to be the sine qua non of the cytoskeleton-microtubule LAD theory. PS....I deem that convincing MYSELF of a plausible scientific explanation will be harder than convincing others....! I will post my next reply to you in ARK and SPR plus a few others NG's... but will probably drop alt.atheism as I have yet to hear anything intelligent or enlightened from them and the heckling is wasting bandwidth. Look for a post from me in 2 or 3 days... GH ======================================== 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 4 May 2010 18:44 On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:37:34 -0400, George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote: > > >[Hammond] > Hi Mark Ferguson, > I have printed out your last post and will study it for a >few days before replying. > [Hammond] P.S. In view of my posting reputation you may be wondering why I am suddenly studying your reply for a couple of days before answering. The reason is that prior to this I was only discussing the discovery of the Structural Model of Personality (SMOP) and the discovery of the world's first Scientific Proof of God (SPOG) which is a direct consequence of the SMOP. Both of these discoveries have been published in the peer-reviewed literature and are absolutely airtight cut and dried science. Therefore there has been little reason for me to pay attention to skeptics. However, I am now embarked on a scientific investigation of the existence or nonexistence of Life After Death (LAD). But the fact is, I DON'T KNOW if there IS or ISN'T such a thing as LAD !!! Therefore, I am suddenly VERY interested in what responsible intellectuals have to say. So, I will study your last post for two or three days and then make a reply on ARK and SPR. Look for me then...... George Hammond ======================================== 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: David DeLaney on 4 May 2010 22:31 madge <deletethisbit.itsreallyhere(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >raven1 <quoththeraven(a)nevermore.com> wrote: >> George Hammond <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote: >>> Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies >> >> For a start, you're assuming your conclusion that there's life after >> death in the first place. > >May I mention Conan O'Brien at this point! Not to mention Cher! Dave "in this line 10/6" DeLaney -- \/David DeLaney posting from dbd(a)vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
From: bigfletch8 on 4 May 2010 22:43 On May 4, 12:23 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 3 May 2010 02:14:03 -0700 (PDT), > Classic example of intellectual bullying. When you thought I was a science professor, and I paid you a compliment, you were all 'gushy'. Now you know Im not, you become insulting. Mistaken identity all right....your own. Is there life after death? If you want the correct answer, you have to ask the right question. Does your identity live beyond the life of your physical body, is more appropriate. To ask 'is there life after death', is very childish (as is the bullying to which I refer). The answer to yours is obvious. Your great grand parents are dead, and you are alive. Try these variations, and you may possibly see what I mean. Is there no time after time? Is there dark after light? Is there up after down? Life 'is' George(not was)! It doesnt have an after or a befor. You have a body that dies in total every ten years. 90% of your biological structure is non human in origin.By the 'time' you brain has registered an event, it has already happened, so your senses (including those trained in science)can only experience the past....and yet you are known as a 'be'-ing. The reason for your frustration, is you are blocking your own awareness. BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 4 May 2010 23:31
On May 5, 6:44 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:37:34 -0400, George Hammond<Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > I dont mind using my name OR posting my picture. And you? The 'shadow' :-) Mr Ferguson may well be a decent individual with good insights, but he has told you he is a 'doctor of kibology'. Doesnt take much research to discover what they are about (good fun), and we all know how important qualification is to you. Because they get independent funding, and are not tied to any pharma.or religious interests, the guys at Harvard spent a lot of time studying the subject of life after death, so why not make contact there? You come across to me as a very lonely person, and we all need meaningful communication about subjects we are passionate about. One thing to take into account. Anything happening at the biological level can be discovered. With the latest mri technology, we can trace every activity within the brain, as you would obviously know, but regardless of how sophisticated the technology becomes, there can only ever be, at the scientific level, speculation regarding consciousness. Other than reflext actions, the brain records and responds only stimulous. Have you contemplated for instance, that light and sound are only a brian functions, outside of which, is vibrating energy? For instance, if a concept of heaven is 'suggested' (in the clinical sence), the brain process can be observed when that suggestion becomes 'auto suggestion', but there cannot be a biological explanation for why this happens, no more than the observation of what happens to a radio receiver can indicate the source of the signal. The worlds greates scientists, artists or engineers can have their brain monitored while in 'full flight'(or having 'heavenly experiences), but why it happens HAS to be the subject of philosophy at the least (although even philosophy usually only deals with questions, not answers). I may be wasting my time writing this to you , but I still admire your tenacity. BOfL |