George Hammond wrote:
human brain (which causes ENPg). This "Curvature" of subjective spacetime
is a magnification of subjective spacetime w.r.t. objective spacetime caused
by the Secular Trend in human growth, and which simply pushes as much as
20% of reality outside the perceptual bandwidth of the observer, thus making
20% of reality invisible to the average person. This "invisible world" then
is
known as "Heaven" in canonical religion. The invisible man who lives there
then is simply the 20% of the body which is ungrown (according to the well
known Secular Trend) and this (invisible) person is known historically as
"God".


In essense, what you are doing is providing a "wake up call" for the
sleeping billions. Possibly a very dangerous undertaking George. Let
the sleeping masses sleep, there is no need to shake the very
foundations of reality itself.

Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?

A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".

If that is still to anthropomorphic then one could leave the word
intelligence undefined. Then intelligence is not precisely defined but
it still is a property of the universe. That is to say, it is some
universal[natural] law. If intelligence is a law of the universe, it is
of both kinetic and potential form. As we observe intelligent beings in
this corner of the universe, we are witnessing the kinetic form of the
"law of intelligence".

The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to
be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.

On 14 Aug 2005 19:56:04 -0700, "Word Salad"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
human brain (which causes ENPg). This "Curvature" of subjective spacetime
is a magnification of subjective spacetime w.r.t. objective spacetime caused
by the Secular Trend in human growth, and which simply pushes as much as
20% of reality outside the perceptual bandwidth of the observer, thus making
20% of reality invisible to the average person. This "invisible world" then
is
known as "Heaven" in canonical religion. The invisible man who lives there
then is simply the 20% of the body which is ungrown (according to the well
known Secular Trend) and this (invisible) person is known historically as
"God".


In essense, what you are doing is providing a "wake up call" for the
sleeping billions. Possibly a very dangerous undertaking George. Let
the sleeping masses sleep, there is no need to shake the very
foundations of reality itself.

[Hammond]
I appreciate your concern. However, your concerns are
opposite my concerns.


Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?

[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.

In fact the mental speed (in bits/sec) of any individual can
be easily measured. From that we can calculate IQ by:

IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25

(see http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html pg 25 of 26, paragraph 2)

For instance the average mental speed in the adult population is
around 15 bits/sec, plugging that into the formula above gives
IQ=100, which is the average IQ.



A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".

[Hammond]
Bits per second is a lot simpler and more concrete, and is preciesly
measureable.



If that is still to anthropomorphic then one could leave the word
intelligence undefined. Then intelligence is not precisely defined

[Hammond]
Bits/second is PRECISELY DEFINED!




but
it still is a property of the universe.

[Hammond]
As far as I know the universe doesn't have any "intelligence".


That is to say, it is some
universal[natural] law. If intelligence is a law of the universe, it is
of both kinetic and potential form. As we observe intelligent beings in
this corner of the universe, we are witnessing the kinetic form of the
"law of intelligence".


[Hammond]
"Law of intelligence".... sounds pretty woo woo Sci-Fi to me?



The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to
be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.

[Hammond]
Maybe you should be writing poetry instead of writing science?

Personally I prefer Alfred Noyes....:

The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusting trees,
The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas,
The road was a ribbon of moonlight above the purple moor.....



========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George E. Hammond wrote:

Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?

[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.

Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.

George E. Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.

In fact the mental speed (in bits/sec) of any individual can
be easily measured. From that we can calculate IQ by:

IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25

No - ONE other crank, in ONE paper (dismissed by everyone else) thought
that for a while.

(see http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html pg 25 of 26, paragraph 2)

Yep - that would be the ONE crank's ONE dismissed paper.

For instance the average mental speed in the adult population is
around 15 bits/sec, plugging that into the formula above gives
IQ=100, which is the average IQ.

That just doesn't make sense. What is your bit/sec watching a movie or
TV? Even just reading text on a page, it's a multiple of 15 bps. What
your typing (at more than 15 bps) refutes this.

A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".


[Hammond]
Bits per second is a lot simpler and more concrete, and is preciesly
measureable.

and it's not 15 bps.

If that is still to anthropomorphic then one could leave the word
intelligence undefined. Then intelligence is not precisely defined


[Hammond]
Bits/second is PRECISELY DEFINED!

Yes - and so is nose/red. Why is "PRECISELY DEFINED" correct? Any sort
of gibberish can be "PRECISELY DEFINED"! With CAPS!

but
it still is a property of the universe.


[Hammond]
As far as I know the universe doesn't have any "intelligence".

The greatest proof AGAINST the SPOG you've ever typed.

That is to say, it is some
universal[natural] law. If intelligence is a law of the universe, it is
of both kinetic and potential form. As we observe intelligent beings in
this corner of the universe, we are witnessing the kinetic form of the
"law of intelligence".



[Hammond]
"Law of intelligence".... sounds pretty woo woo Sci-Fi to me?

Better to claim that there is an inviable "god", with inviable forces,
taking universal actions, using infinite energy, at infinite speed,
across all times. That makes a lot more sense.

The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to
be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.


[Hammond]
Maybe you should be writing poetry instead of writing science?

Personally I prefer Alfred Noyes....:

Yes...

Search for the foe in thine own soul,
The sloth, the intellectual pride;
The trivial jest that veils the goal
For which our father lived and died;
The lawless dreams, the cynic Art,
That rend thy nobler self apart.

On 14 Aug 2005 21:05:26 -0700, "Word Salad"
wrote:


George E. Hammond wrote:

Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?

[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.



Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.

[Hammond]
I din't say mental speed is a "definition" of intelligence. I said
"mental speed is PROPORTIONAL to intelligence"... meaning it is an
INDICATOR of intelligence.

In fact the official (legal and scientific) definition of intelligence
is your score on an IQ test. If for instance your score is less
than 70 in most states you would be legally classified as
mentally retarded.

Fact is, measured mental speed is an INDICATOR of IQ.. in fact
it has been found that:

IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25

Your mental speed (in bits/sec) can be measured by a myriad
of simple laboratory tests. In fact, since identifying one letter
out of the 26 letter alphabet involves 5 bits of information since
(26 = 2^4.7 = 4.7 bits, rounded off to the next highest bit = 5
bits)... we see that simply reading (out loud or silently) the
following 20 letter string of letters:

L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z

amounts to 100 bits (5x20) of information processing. If you
can do it in, say, 4.8 seconds, then your mental speed is 100/4.8
= 20.8 bits/second. according to the above formula your IQ
would then be:

IQ = 5 (20.8) + 25 = 129


Go ahead... use your digital watch and try it.


And by the way,
a computer has a "high processing speed", but that doesn't
mean it has any intelligence.. because there has never been
a computer built that could take an IQ test... which is the
official legal and scientific) definition of human intelligence.

Yawn....


========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

"George E. Hammond" wrote in message
...
On 14 Aug 2005 19:56:04 -0700, "Word Salad"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
human brain (which causes ENPg). This "Curvature" of subjective
spacetime
is a magnification of subjective spacetime w.r.t. objective spacetime
caused
by the Secular Trend in human growth, and which simply pushes as much as
20% of reality outside the perceptual bandwidth of the observer, thus
making
20% of reality invisible to the average person. This "invisible world"
then
is
known as "Heaven" in canonical religion. The invisible man who lives
there
then is simply the 20% of the body which is ungrown (according to the
well
known Secular Trend) and this (invisible) person is known historically
as
"God".


In essense, what you are doing is providing a "wake up call" for the
sleeping billions. Possibly a very dangerous undertaking George. Let
the sleeping masses sleep, there is no need to shake the very
foundations of reality itself.

Posting as a different user, and patting yourself on the back again -
George?



[Hammond]
I appreciate your concern. However, your concerns are
opposite my concerns.


Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?

[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.

First of all,. that's nothingmore than your bull ****.....
second - it is not even a definition of intelligence.

Your lack of reading comprehention skills (not to mention your deranged
pshychosis) are apparent.



In fact the mental speed (in bits/sec) of any individual can
be easily measured. From that we can calculate IQ by:

IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25

(see http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html pg 25 of 26, paragraph 2)

For instance the average mental speed in the adult population is
around 15 bits/sec, plugging that into the formula above gives
IQ=100, which is the average IQ.



A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".

[Hammond]
Bits per second is a lot simpler and more concrete, and is preciesly
measureable.

You forgot to mention that it is ionly YOUR insane invention - and has
nothingn to do with REAL science, real psychology - or, as a matter of fact,
ANYTHING in reality.


(snip remainder of Hammondcrap)

"George E. Hammond" wrote in message
...
On 14 Aug 2005 21:05:26 -0700, "Word Salad"
wrote:


George E. Hammond wrote:

Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?

[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.



Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.

[Hammond]
I din't say mental speed is a "definition" of intelligence. I said
"mental speed is PROPORTIONAL to intelligence"... meaning it is an
INDICATOR of intelligence.

IOW - you didn't answer the question, but used it as an opportunity to
regurgitate your crap!



In fact the official (legal and scientific) definition of intelligence
is your score on an IQ test. If for instance your score is less
than 70 in most states you would be legally classified as
mentally retarded.

Or if their name is George Hammond!

(Flush Hammondcrap!)

"George E. Hammond" wrote in message
...
On 14 Aug 2005 21:05:26 -0700, "Word Salad"
wrote:


George E. Hammond wrote:

Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?

[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.



Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.

[Hammond]
I din't say mental speed is a "definition" of intelligence. I said
"mental speed is PROPORTIONAL to intelligence"... meaning it is an
INDICATOR of intelligence.

In fact the official (legal and scientific) definition of intelligence
is your score on an IQ test. If for instance your score is less
than 70 in most states you would be legally classified as
mentally retarded.

Fact is, measured mental speed is an INDICATOR of IQ.. in fact
it has been found that:

IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25

Your mental speed (in bits/sec) can be measured by a myriad
of simple laboratory tests. In fact, since identifying one letter
out of the 26 letter alphabet involves 5 bits of information since
(26 = 2^4.7 = 4.7 bits, rounded off to the next highest bit = 5
bits)... we see that simply reading (out loud or silently) the
following 20 letter string of letters:

L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z

amounts to 100 bits (5x20) of information processing. If you
can do it in, say, 4.8 seconds, then your mental speed is 100/4.8
= 20.8 bits/second. according to the above formula your IQ
would then be:

IQ = 5 (20.8) + 25 = 129


Go ahead... use your digital watch and try it.


And by the way,
a computer has a "high processing speed", but that doesn't
mean it has any intelligence.. because there has never been
a computer built that could take an IQ test... which is the
official legal and scientific) definition of human intelligence.

Yawn....
===========================

What an idiot. Just like you shouldn't let the inmates run the asylum,
we should never accept the premises of [Hammond]. With his tortured
logic you can "prove" anything. In the first place he perverts the sense
of a "bit". It is the smallest increment of data (like a monochrome pixel).
It is irrelevant that 20 characters can be represented in 5 bits. To
recognize a character involves orders of magnitude more information
than a few bits. If it were that simple, computers would easily recognize
text.

In the second place, it is also irrelevant that a list of 20 characters are
involved. It is the number of symbols in the universe, not in the
artificially
restricted set, which determines the amount of processing involved to
identify a character. If humans processed information at the bit rate
[Hammond] claims, the we would be slower than the most primitive amoeba.

Third, his claim totally ignores the fact that there is a substantial amount
of
parallel processing going on at the same time as the character recognition.

Fourth, he ignores the the fact that visual recognition is an unreliable
indicator. People with various degrees of dyslexia would have poor
performance in his little pop quiz, but that doesn't make them any less
intelligent than people with normal vision.

This claim is just another [Hammond] fabrication in support of his
specious SPOG, which is neither scientific nor proof.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:12:02 GMT, "Tom Capizzi"
wrote:


"George E. Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On 14 Aug 2005 21:05:26 -0700, "Word Salad"
wrote:


George E. Hammond wrote:

Can we formulate a non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence?

[Hammond]
Sure... information processing in bits/second is directly proportional
to human intelligence.



Computation speed is not exactly a definition of intelligence. No
computers have ever won the Nobel prize.

[Hammond]
I din't say mental speed is a "definition" of intelligence. I said
"mental speed is PROPORTIONAL to intelligence"... meaning it is an
INDICATOR of intelligence.

In fact the official (legal and scientific) definition of intelligence
is your score on an IQ test. If for instance your score is less
than 70 in most states you would be legally classified as
mentally retarded.

Fact is, measured mental speed is an INDICATOR of IQ.. in fact
it has been found that:

IQ = 5 x (mental speed in bits/sec) + 25

Your mental speed (in bits/sec) can be measured by a myriad
of simple laboratory tests. In fact, since identifying one letter
out of the 26 letter alphabet involves 5 bits of information since
(26 = 2^4.7 = 4.7 bits, rounded off to the next highest bit = 5
bits)... we see that simply reading (out loud or silently) the
following 20 letter string of letters:

L P H M O T V F R G S X E B A K M I D Z

amounts to 100 bits (5x20) of information processing. If you
can do it in, say, 4.8 seconds, then your mental speed is 100/4.8
= 20.8 bits/second. according to the above formula your IQ
would then be:

IQ = 5 (20.8) + 25 = 129


Go ahead... use your digital watch and try it.


And by the way,
a computer has a "high processing speed", but that doesn't
mean it has any intelligence.. because there has never been
a computer built that could take an IQ test... which is the
official legal and scientific) definition of human intelligence.

Yawn....
===========================

What an idiot. Just like you shouldn't let the inmates run the asylum,
we should never accept the premises of [Hammond]. With his tortured
logic you can "prove" anything. In the first place he perverts the sense
of a "bit". It is the smallest increment of data (like a monochrome pixel).
It is irrelevant that 20 characters can be represented in 5 bits. To
recognize a character involves orders of magnitude more information
than a few bits. If it were that simple, computers would easily recognize
text.

In the second place, it is also irrelevant that a list of 20 characters are
involved. It is the number of symbols in the universe, not in the
artificially
restricted set, which determines the amount of processing involved to
identify a character. If humans processed information at the bit rate
[Hammond] claims, the we would be slower than the most primitive amoeba.

Third, his claim totally ignores the fact that there is a substantial amount
of
parallel processing going on at the same time as the character recognition.


[Hammond]
This line of irrelevant spute shows how worthless bigmouth amateurs
like you actually are.
Of course it takes more bits to recognize Times Roman from a Gothic
type face, or to tell the color of the print, than it does to tell an
A from a B or a C.
Fact is, it is a proven working fact of everyday research that
recognizing a single letter from the alphabet requires 2^4.7 = 5 bits,
and DECADES or published research data have used and confirmed
that fact... all of which YOU are unaware of.
You're stupid... an IQ test is not changed because your sensory
system is telling you you have to take a ****, or that there is a
scent of roses in the air, or your ass itches. Higher level cognitive
functions operate independently of such myriads of sensory input..
such as what typeface the IQ test is written in, or what color ink...
or the fact that the test appears to be printed on 30# bond
watermarked paper.
Did you ever stop to figure out asshole, why the FUSION fRAME
RATE of a movie film is equal to the maximum bits/sec of the
observer.... what an asshole... the fact
that thousands of bits of information are contained in the film
has NO EFFECT on the PFF..... for the same reason the thousands
of visual bits on an IQ test has nothing to do with the speed with
which you can identify which one of the 26 letters appears in the
parenthesis (Z)... namely Z. Fact is, it takes 5 bits of information
processing.... and decades of research by thousands of
researchers have CONFIRMED as a practical fact, that that
decision time can be easily isolated, and measured.... despite
the fact that 1,000 bits of sensory itching information is coming in
telling you that the broad you slept with last weekend probably gave
you the crabs. Fact is, the Picture Fusion Frequency, is one of
the world's most DRAMATIC PROOFS of that fact... even though
the film may be of a P-51 Mustang firing 1,000 rounds per
minute at 300 mph flying over thousands of trees... the fact is
that the PFF is only 15 frames/sec for the average person,
can be easily measured, and is a reliable predictor of the
person's IQ !
That happens to be an experimental fact confirmed by 100 years
of testing.



Fourth, he ignores the the fact that visual recognition is an unreliable
indicator. People with various degrees of dyslexia would have poor
performance in his little pop quiz, but that doesn't make them any less
intelligent than people with normal vision.

[Hammmond]
Also.. you're such an arrogant asshole you presume the PhD's and MD's
conducting these tests wouldn't be aware of such obvious things, and
you are also unaware that they spend half their lives testing dyslexic
and mentally impared people......... simply because you are a boring
loudmouth asshole.

Finally, I'm tired of seeing your spute on my threads, so I'm adding
your name to my killfile list:

killfile, news/mail: "Tom Capizzi"

I've already killfiled Wake, TMG, and ZenIsWhen... more will follow
as they show up and post boring, ignormant, worthless, ****.



========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George E. Hammond wrote:

Of course it takes more bits to recognize Times Roman from a Gothic
type face, or to tell the color of the print, than it does to tell an
A from a B or a C.
Fact is, it is a proven working fact of everyday research that
recognizing a single letter from the alphabet requires 2^4.7 = 5 bits,
and DECADES or published research data have used and confirmed
that fact... all of which YOU are unaware of.
You're stupid... an IQ test is not changed because your sensory
system is telling you you have to take a ****, or that there is a
scent of roses in the air, or your ass itches. Higher level cognitive
functions operate independently of such myriads of sensory input..
such as what typeface the IQ test is written in, or what color ink...
or the fact that the test appears to be printed on 30# bond
watermarked paper.
Did you ever stop to figure out asshole, why the FUSION fRAME
RATE of a movie film is equal to the maximum bits/sec of the
observer.... what an asshole... the fact
that thousands of bits of information are contained in the film
has NO EFFECT on the PFF..... for the same reason the thousands
of visual bits on an IQ test has nothing to do with the speed with
which you can identify which one of the 26 letters appears in the
parenthesis (Z)... namely Z. Fact is, it takes 5 bits of information
processing.... and decades of research by thousands of
researchers have CONFIRMED as a practical fact, that that
decision time can be easily isolated, and measured.... despite
the fact that 1,000 bits of sensory itching information is coming in
telling you that the broad you slept with last weekend probably gave
you the crabs. Fact is, the Picture Fusion Frequency, is one of
the world's most DRAMATIC PROOFS of that fact... even though
the film may be of a P-51 Mustang firing 1,000 rounds per
minute at 300 mph flying over thousands of trees... the fact is
that the PFF is only 15 frames/sec for the average person,
can be easily measured, and is a reliable predictor of the
person's IQ !
That happens to be an experimental fact confirmed by 100 years
of testing.


Hey, George - I love your phantasy! If we have a look at what you posted
in http://schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/0100b.htm and have a look at your
_only_ source of information http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html, it
is astonishing how many theories you developed out of that tiny piece of
text.

BTW - you still ignore that I have falsified your theory experimentally.
Please read http://schornak.de/aspog/peer-4pg/0100.htm once again, PFF
is discussed there on a basic level. Even _you_ should be able to follow
the thoughts and get the insight that "PFF" is something invented by the
incredible [Hammond].

What about the peer-review of my Anti-SPoG? There's 800 MB free webspace
waiting for your rebuttal...


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak