On 28 Jul, 14:50, "'foolsrushin.'" wrote:
On 28 Jul, 10:43, "CRxx" wrot
"'foolsrushin.'"
Suppose, now, that from the oldest to the
earliest, the nearest to the farthest, cave paintings were almost
thematically identical. You might be driven to wonder why!
It could be they were created by beings that were rather similar? And
at the
time they could hardly make drawings of the Eiffel tower, for
instance...
Just a thought!
Christine!
More likely they got the Eiffel tower from somewhere else! Sorry, that
is a bit extreme! Nevertheless,have a look at http://
rickstrassman.com/. Again, http://www.grahamhancock.com/. Even
before you go to either, though, let me make one thing clear. Whilst I
beleive that Hancock and Strassman are onto something like an Eiffel
tower arrived at by lots of guys who never saw Paris, or at least
nothing they could have seen in the 'real' world, the crux of the
matter is that entoptic phenomena, for example, seem to be universal
yet with diverse commonalities that cannot be simply or easily
assimilated to local conditions or 'real' experiences. I have belonged
to two special interest groups, one on theory of knowledge, and the
other on the history of anti-science, the only way I can put our
concerns conveniently. I think, therefore, that I am not, shall we
say, likely to conflate a picture of a bison with the creature itself
or given only one bison, assume additional ones, though either might
appear reasonable to an untutored mind. What Hancock and Strassman
have to say is that, perhaps, 60,000 years ago, human beings became
symbol users, with all that entails, and that this, as they would have
it, happened almost overnight. They hypothesise that the consumption
of certain psychtropic substances may have opened the doors to
perception, as it were, and support their claims by means of the
virtually universal occurrence of, say, cave paintings whose theme,
content and character are of such a nature that they can in no way be
ascribed entirely to local experience or transmission of their content
between or across cultures. It is for you to decide whether they have
a claim on your attention. Personally, I find that they make out a
strong and fascinating case!
--
'foolsrushin'.

Strassman's site is of course: http://www.rickstrassman.com/.

CRxx wrote:

"George Hammond"

snip hammondcrap


This does sound worrysome. If you were a relative of mine, I'd wonder if
they could come without staight jackets. But perheps I simply do not
understand you.

Hammond has been promoting his unique mix of
"logic" and belief for a long time, recognized
as a k00k of the first order by all who read a
few of his posts.

"'foolsrushin.'" I find that they make out a
strong and fascinating case!

Personally. I think it is worth some contemplation. But basically, it is so
uncontrollable, it is mind boggling. It can only ever become a theory. I do
no think the idea very likely the possible connection between the emergence
of abstractions and the use of psychotropic substances.

It would mean psychotropic drugs would have been important in development in
language. The Hanconck stuff. Well we all know how seriously flawd it has
been already proven to be. Fantasy. ANd his website seems to aim at that
group.

Stonehenge and the other standing stones, and stone circles, have been a
flash through Ancient European history. Much faster than migration. It is
probably more related to the emergence of trade and the start of the bronze
age.

But as you may have inferred from my words. I did not read the URLs.

Christine!

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:29:30 -0700, "'foolsrushin.'"
wrote:

On 28 Jul, 07:13, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:50:02 -0700, "'foolsrushin.'"
wrote:
On 28 Jul, 03:51, "George Hammond" wrote:
TO:
Professor Frank Tipler
Tulane University
Math Department
New Orleans

FROM:
George Hammond M.S. Physics
Cape Cod MA

SUBJECT:
Your 1994 book:
_The Physics of Immortality_

Dear Frank:

Your 1994 book establishes that a human being could
be "emulated" on a big enough computer and that
this would constitute a "Resurrection" of the body
.... e.g. the computer emulation would be the resurrected
"spiritual body" described by St. Paul in
I Cor 15:35-58.
But in your (1994) book you cite brain speed as 10^15
bits/sec. Since then Penrose-Hameroff have raised that
figure to 10^30 bits/sec because of the discovery of the
processing speed of the vast MICROTUBULE system inside the
neurons.
In view of the fact that the microtubule system remains
viable for at least 30 minutes after death, isn't it more
reasonable that the brain simply "downloads" a lifetime
precomputed "emulation" of the person from the microtubule
system and that this is in fact "Life After Death" so
called..... hence your theory is CORRECT... but in fact we
don't need to construct the mammoth galactic sized computer
you propose because it turns out the brain already possesses
a mammoth enough computer to do the trick in the
microtublule system.
Your "computer emulation" theory is BRILLIANT... but
isn't it time you brought the theory down to earth in view
of the 15 orders of magnitude of newly discovered computing
power in the brain which actually makes a "computer
Resurrection" in the brain a scientific explanation of St.
Paul's "spiritual resurection" much closer to hand rather
than having to build a "Hal" sized computer to do it as you
propose?

With the greatest admiration for your historic publication,

George Hammond, M.S. Physics

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

But, George, suppose we are all just occupying work stations, get
disconnected when we die, etc. What then?
-
'foolsrushin.'

[Hammond]
The point of having an "afterlife" is NOT to live life
over again... you don't need to die to do that... going to
sleep and having a "lucid dream" will accomplish that easily
enough.
The POINT IS that the "afterlife" unlike a lucid dream
is NOT generated by the neuronal brain, it's generated by
the microtubule brain. THIS allows it to compute what the
world would look like if you had a zero growth deficit (saw
the world with zero curvature) which is "true reality" and
has no time dilation or space magnification which is what
makes life a veil of tears, a nightmare of suffering and
evil to begin with.
Flat subjective spacetime (Guv=0) is by DEFINITION a
physical condition of "ETERNAL LIFE", which is the ENTIRE
POINT of having an afterlife. A lucid dream does NOT
provide you with Eternal Life. In the Afterlife dream you
obtain flat spacetime vision (called by the theologians the
"Beatific vision"). It doesn't matter if you get hit by a
truck and die.... if you die in a condition of eternal life
you don't lose anything because you are in possesion of
"100% life" (which we aren't) and it is simply irrelevant
when, where or how you die. A zero growth deficit person is
"deathproof".
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================- Hide quoted text -

[foolsrushin]
George, when you're dead, you're dead!

[Hammond]
Wrong jerko... who told you that, your grandmother?
The microtubule system inside the cells (cf. neurons)
remains functioning up to 30 minutes AFTER the neuronal EEG
"flatlines". Hameroff cites as evidence the fact that brain
remains translucent (light conducting) up to 30 minutes
after flatline when it suddenly goes "opaque". Just like
the hair and nails continue to grow after death, the
microtubule system continues to function for up to half an
hour too. This is PLENTLY of time to "download" a
lifetime-precomputed "life after death dream" which contains
its own internal clock and is actually experience
subjectively as taking, say, 5 years in "Heaven".

[foolsrushin}
Edison tried to make a sort of
telephone to the dead, and I think we heard Mabel or someone piping
up, 'Come into the Garden, Maude', on those old scratchy cylinders,
you know the wax ones!'.

[Hammond]
Edison was an uneducated fool and superstitious shadetree
garage mechanic. You know that as well as I do. Tipler is
an internationally known Phd physicist and professor of
Mathematical Physics at Tulane and a devout Catholic who has
had many direct in person discussions about all this with
Sir Roger Penrose. Penrose doesn't waste his time talking
to neer-do-wells!

[foolsrushin]
Neither Mabel nor Maude has been heard from
since, though does it matter if they are one and the same?
Ontologically, George, Mabel and Maude are scratchy reminiscenes of
what they once were. And that's it: they are gone, man, solid gone!

[Hammond]
This isn't a "pop-psychology" discussion.
Do you have any degrees in Physics for chrissakes?

[foolsrushin]
What the hell is a 'a zero growth deficit person', ****wit! You can


[Hammond]
A "zero growth deficit person" is GOD IN THE FLESH jerko.
Here's a picture of it for you:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...files/img2.gif

You can read all about it he
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:33:22 -0700, gnome
wrote:

On Jul 28, 8:13 am, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:50:02 -0700, "'foolsrushin.'"



wrote:
On 28 Jul, 03:51, "George Hammond" wrote:
TO:
Professor Frank Tipler
Tulane University
Math Department
New Orleans

FROM:
George Hammond M.S. Physics
Cape Cod MA

SUBJECT:
Your 1994 book:
_The Physics of Immortality_

Dear Frank:

Your 1994 book establishes that a human being could
be "emulated" on a big enough computer and that
this would constitute a "Resurrection" of the body
.... e.g. the computer emulation would be the resurrected
"spiritual body" described by St. Paul in
I Cor 15:35-58.
But in your (1994) book you cite brain speed as 10^15
bits/sec. Since then Penrose-Hameroff have raised that
figure to 10^30 bits/sec because of the discovery of the
processing speed of the vast MICROTUBULE system inside the
neurons.
In view of the fact that the microtubule system remains
viable for at least 30 minutes after death, isn't it more
reasonable that the brain simply "downloads" a lifetime
precomputed "emulation" of the person from the microtubule
system and that this is in fact "Life After Death" so
called..... hence your theory is CORRECT... but in fact we
don't need to construct the mammoth galactic sized computer
you propose because it turns out the brain already possesses
a mammoth enough computer to do the trick in the
microtublule system.
Your "computer emulation" theory is BRILLIANT... but
isn't it time you brought the theory down to earth in view
of the 15 orders of magnitude of newly discovered computing
power in the brain which actually makes a "computer
Resurrection" in the brain a scientific explanation of St.
Paul's "spiritual resurection" much closer to hand rather
than having to build a "Hal" sized computer to do it as you
propose?

With the greatest admiration for your historic publication,

George Hammond, M.S. Physics

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

But, George, suppose we are all just occupying work stations, get
disconnected when we die, etc. What then?
-
'foolsrushin.'

[Hammond]
The point of having an "afterlife" is NOT to live life
over again... you don't need to die to do that... going to
sleep and having a "lucid dream" will accomplish that easily
enough.
The POINT IS that the "afterlife" unlike a lucid dream
is NOT generated by the neuronal brain, it's generated by
the microtubule brain. THIS allows it to compute what the
world would look like if you had a zero growth deficit (saw
the world with zero curvature) which is "true reality" and
has no time dilation or space magnification which is what
makes life a veil of tears, a nightmare of suffering and
evil to begin with.
Flat subjective spacetime (Guv=0) is by DEFINITION a
physical condition of "ETERNAL LIFE", which is the ENTIRE
POINT of having an afterlife. A lucid dream does NOT
provide you with Eternal Life. In the Afterlife dream you
obtain flat spacetime vision (called by the theologians the
"Beatific vision"). It doesn't matter if you get hit by a
truck and die.... if you die in a condition of eternal life
you don't lose anything because you are in possesion of
"100% life" (which we aren't) and it is simply irrelevant
when, where or how you die. A zero growth deficit person is
"deathproof".
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

why tha fok are you using dots in stead of commas

[Hammond]
Cuz I dont fokkk sheeeeet!!!!!

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:20:40 -0500, nonsense
wrote:

CRxx wrote:

"George Hammond"

snip hammondcrap


This does sound worrysome. If you were a relative of mine, I'd wonder if
they could come without staight jackets. But perheps I simply do not
understand you.

Hammond has been promoting his unique mix of
"logic" and belief for a long time, recognized
as a k00k of the first order by all who read a
few of his posts.

[Hammond]
Get that greased Coke bottle out of your rectum dufus it'll
strech it out a mile wide. You haven't got any degrees in
Physics jerko, get off this thread.

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

"George Hammond"

[Hammond]
Wrong jerko... who told you that, your grandmother?
The microtubule system inside the cells (cf. neurons)
remains functioning up to 30 minutes AFTER the neuronal EEG
"flatlines". Hameroff cites as evidence the fact that brain
remains translucent (light conducting) up to 30 minutes
after flatline when it suddenly goes "opaque". Just like
the hair and nails continue to grow after death, the
microtubule system continues to function for up to half an
hour too.

Nails and hair do not actually grow after death. Of course cells do function
after death. That even continues longish. It is just they start to function
differently...

This is PLENTLY of time to "download" a
lifetime-precomputed "life after death dream" which contains
its own internal clock and is actually experience
subjectively as taking, say, 5 years in "Heaven".

So 30minutes or thirty milliseconds would not differ?

[Hammond]
Edison was an uneducated fool and superstitious shadetree
garage mechanic. You know that as well as I do. Tipler is
an internationally known Phd physicist and professor of
Mathematical Physics at Tulane and a devout Catholic who has
had many direct in person discussions about all this with
Sir Roger Penrose. Penrose doesn't waste his time talking
to neer-do-wells!

So. Let me get this straight. This Penrose character is someone who you
could talk to to be taken for more than an educated fool and superstitious
shadetree? But is that really relevant?

[Hammond]
This isn't a "pop-psychology" discussion.
Do you have any degrees in Physics for chrissakes?

What the **** has Physics got to do with it? You certainly haven't mentioned
any thing regulated by the laws of physics, except explained opacity in a
rather amateuristic fashion. Besides, people would have know before now if
brains were translucent when alive. Or even during the short period only the
microtubules function.

[foolsrushin]
What the hell is a 'a zero growth deficit person', ****wit! You can


[Hammond]
A "zero growth deficit person" is GOD IN THE FLESH jerko.
Here's a picture of it for you:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...files/img2.gif

That would actually mean that the dutch are the nation who are most godlike!
Interestingly enough, I do have a suspicion that does not heavily correlate
to your ideas...

You can read all about it he
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html

Did you have some problems getting this published?

Christine!

"George Hammond"

[Hammond]
Get that greased Coke bottle out of your rectum dufus it'll
strech it out a mile wide. You haven't got any degrees in
Physics jerko, get off this thread.

I have never heard of tunneling extensive as you describe. He was kind
enough to attempt to explain your peculiar infotainment to me. I really
needed that. So I, for one, am glad with the explanation offered.

When you publish a controversial theory, whether you are right ot wrong, you
should be aware that allthough some controversial theories tend to become
maintream, as a result of the brilliance of the idea in the first place.
This, however, does not happen to the majority of controversial theories.
Most possibly controversial theories, never even see the light, because
people won't get them published. Nowadays with the internet, no theory goes
unpublished. That does not mean they are more prone to enter mainstream
thought.

I guess you must be aware of this principle by now. And I applaud you for
standing firm, as you do. But you should not discredit someone whithout a
degree in physics, because the person does not have a degree in physics. Why
not? Well. Your theory does not comply with the teachings required of people
to get a degree in physics. You go on and publish theories that are against
the normal realm of theories concerning physics, and then rebuke someone
because he isn't schooled in a manner that is likely to oppose you.

Being 3 cm above the average length of women in Holland, I feel like a
godess, after your explanation. However, I do plant my feet usually slightly
on the ground in stead of above it.

Christine!

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:52:27 +0200, "CRxx"
wrote:


"George Hammond"

[Hammond]
Wrong jerko... who told you that, your grandmother?
The microtubule system inside the cells (cf. neurons)
remains functioning up to 30 minutes AFTER the neuronal EEG
"flatlines". Hameroff cites as evidence the fact that brain
remains translucent (light conducting) up to 30 minutes
after flatline when it suddenly goes "opaque". Just like
the hair and nails continue to grow after death, the
microtubule system continues to function for up to half an
hour too.

Nails and hair do not actually grow after death. Of course cells do function
after death.

[Hammond]
My father was an undertaker, it is well known that your
beard grows after your dead. You just contradicted yourself
above.


This is PLENTLY of time to "download" a
lifetime-precomputed "life after death dream" which contains
its own internal clock and is actually experience
subjectively as taking, say, 5 years in "Heaven".

So 30minutes or thirty milliseconds would not differ?

[Hammond]
Exactly.... my guess is that the "Afterlife dream" if we can
call it that is precomputed, day by day, all of your life
and stored in microtubule memory. It could be "downloaded"
in milli-seconds (either microwave-Frolich or optically-Jubu
et al), the same as you can download a 4 hour video movie on
your computer in a matter of seconds.




[Hammond]
Edison was an uneducated fool and superstitious shadetree
garage mechanic. You know that as well as I do. Tipler is
an internationally known Phd physicist and professor of
Mathematical Physics at Tulane and a devout Catholic who has
had many direct in person discussions about all this with
Sir Roger Penrose. Penrose doesn't waste his time talking
to neer-do-wells!

So. Let me get this straight. This Penrose character is someone who you
could talk to to be taken for more than an educated fool and superstitious
shadetree? But is that really relevant?


[Hammond]
Penrose's secretary said he "was too busy to talk to me" the
last time I enquired.... maybe I'll have better luck with
Tipler. I have talked to Eysenck, Hameroff etc. by the way.

[Hammond]
This isn't a "pop-psychology" discussion.
Do you have any degrees in Physics for chrissakes?

What the **** has Physics got to do with it? You certainly haven't mentioned
any thing regulated by the laws of physics,

[Hammond]
I'm discussing tipler's book. He's a Phd physicist and his
book is a theoretical physics theory. Whaddaru talking
about, I'm an M.S. in physicis myself.


except explained opacity in a
rather amateuristic fashion. Besides, people would have know before now if
brains were translucent when alive. Or even during the short period only the
microtubules function.

[foolsrushin]
What the hell is a 'a zero growth deficit person', ****wit! You can


[Hammond]
A "zero growth deficit person" is GOD IN THE FLESH jerko.
Here's a picture of it for you:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...files/img2.gif

That would actually mean that the dutch are the nation who are most godlike!
Interestingly enough, I do have a suspicion that does not heavily correlate
to your ideas...

[Hammond]
Your "suspicions" are of no interest to anyone.
check my website before you go shooting your mouth off.


You can read all about it he
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html

Did you have some problems getting this published?

[Hammond]
You're just full of ad hominem drivel... whaddaru another
psychotic Usenet stalker? You do like to talk apparently.
Do you have any science degrees.... got anything ON-TOPIC to
say about the notion that the Afterlife could be a "computer
emulation" effect that takes place in the microtubule system
of the brain after the nuronal EEG flatlines at death?



Christine!


[Hammond]
Oh christ.... sorry.... I didn't realize you were a
broad.... that makes me a lot more impressed with your
comments.... sorry, I'll try to keep my street-speech
affectations to a minimum.... I do like talking to women
about scientific theories of God since women intrinsically
know more psychology than men... much more!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

CRxx wrote:

"George Hammond"


[Hammond]
Get that greased Coke bottle out of your rectum dufus it'll
strech it out a mile wide. You haven't got any degrees in
Physics jerko, get off this thread.


I have never heard of tunneling extensive as you describe. He was kind
enough to attempt to explain your peculiar infotainment to me. I really
needed that. So I, for one, am glad with the explanation offered.

When you publish a controversial theory, whether you are right ot wrong, you
should be aware that allthough some controversial theories tend to become
maintream, as a result of the brilliance of the idea in the first place.
This, however, does not happen to the majority of controversial theories.
Most possibly controversial theories, never even see the light, because
people won't get them published. Nowadays with the internet, no theory goes
unpublished. That does not mean they are more prone to enter mainstream
thought.

I guess you must be aware of this principle by now. And I applaud you for
standing firm, as you do. But you should not discredit someone whithout a
degree in physics, because the person does not have a degree in physics.

He does this to anyone who disagrees with him, regardless
whether they have a degree i physics or not. I don't reply
to such charges because in the next breath he starts with
how his degree is better than anyone else's degree.

Why
not? Well. Your theory does not comply with the teachings required of people
to get a degree in physics.

Of course. He also considers himself a aster theologian
without a theology degree.

You go on and publish theories that are against
the normal realm of theories concerning physics, and then rebuke someone
because he isn't schooled in a manner that is likely to oppose you.

Being 3 cm above the average length of women in Holland, I feel like a
godess, after your explanation. However, I do plant my feet usually slightly
on the ground in stead of above it.

Christine!