George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George E Hammond MS physics]
The Watutsi (or Tutsi) of Rwanda exhibit many men over 7 feet tall today.
... The God of the Watutsi's could easily be 8 ft tall !
George
The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy
- Thread starter George E Hammond
- Start date
- Status
[George E Hammond MS physics]
The Watutsi (or Tutsi) of Rwanda exhibit many men over 7 feet tall today.
... The God of the Watutsi's could easily be 8 ft tall !
George
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George E Hammond MS physics]
Dummy up Broadband, this isn't Jr. high.
I go back to Dick Clark and DA haircuts.
Cover your ass and watch your language, just because this thread is being held hostage in "pseudoscience" DOES NOT MEAN IT IS !!
George
George believes - or wants us to believe - that he has a scientific proof of God.
Dressing up a claim to look like science when it really isn't is practically the definition of pseudoscience. So this thread is in the appropriate subforum.
The Religion forum tends to be more about what people believe. Questions about what "the truth" or "the Truth" might be could fit in Religion or General Philosophy, I guess.
Here, George is claiming to have an "experimental measurement", which sounds like something objective. He is making a falsifiable claim.
If I'm sufficient bored at some stage, I make take some time to pick it apart. Right now, it doesn't seem worth wading through, from where I'm sitting.
I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you - about either of your claims.
We have some site policies regarding advertising spam. Perhaps we're just encouraging you by putting up with this nonsense.
I don't think they are needed to understand your "work".
You're at the far end of the narcissism spectrum, that's clear. Smarter than Einstein, are you? They all laughed at Einstein, so you're in good company? Is that the kind of point you're trying to make with this posturing?
They all laughed at Bozo the Clown, too, you know.
Dembski? Well, you'd probably be in good company there. He's a nutty Creationist, you know. Do you believe in Noah's flood and the 6000 year old Earth and all that, as well? Anyway, point is: Dembski's hardly somebody you ought to look up to.
Dawkins? I'm confident he'd immediately see through your bluff, like the rest of us have.
And nameless people in the Vatican? I doubt that anybody highly educated and responsible there will buy into your thesis, either.
Probably about the same way that somebody suffering from manic depression would feel during a manic phase, I'm guessing.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
February 28, 2022
TO: James R moderator
FROM: George E Hammond MS physics
Dear James,
... You've given us your off-the-cuff opinions, but opinions are not facts. For instance, in a recent post I cited one of my peer reviewed academic publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory,
in New Ideas In Psychology,
Vol 12(2) 153-167 Elsevier Scientific Ltd..
Online copy of published paper is
posted at: Elsevier Scientific Ltd. 1994
https://tinyurl.com/2wnrjht3
also a full length free research
only copy is located here:
https://tinyurl.com/28tyke6w
And you blithely asked: "how much did you pay Elsevier to publish that"?
But I'll inform you that NIP is a highly respected global journal and Elsevier is the world's largest scientific publisher. They won't accept any amount to publish papers! But they will charge you $75 to buy a copy of the paper from them!
... I didn't pay anything, and academic competition to publish in that journal is ferocious. The paper was reviewed by 3 PhD reviewers plus the editor and they unanimously recommended immediate, and of course free publication because the paper is obviously invaluable to Science. So in that regard you simply don't know what you're talking about.
... And the same is true about all your other "assumptions" about the scientific validity of this discovery. As for the claim of "2 decimal point accuracy" that comes from the well known fact that ALL statistical psychology measurements are carried out to 2 decimal point accuracy (correlation coefficients, scores on personality and IQ tests etc.). Since my SPOG is based on that data and those results, my result is likewise to "2 decimal point accuracy".
... In closing, let me assure you that I am not a "wiseguy" I'm 80 years old which is old enough to "know better".
Sincerely, George Hammond MS physics
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
For the record and without prejudice, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Vatican has a cadre of eminent physicists and other scientists, several of them Nobel Prize winners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Members_of_the_Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences
Among these: Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Berg, Niels Bohr, Manfred Eigen, Steven Hawking, Werner Heisenberg, ...shall I go on..?
This is why finally, on recommendation by the Pontifical Academy, two popes have conceded (with qualification) that evolution is true.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That last sentence is bullshit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church
.....leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church
Isn't that nice of the Catholic church - letting (giving you permission) to have your very own thoughts, well almost
Your thoughts have are a little restriction to
.......within certain parameters established by the Church.
Play by the Catholic rules folks, play by the Catholic rules
Thunks - do I actually know how the Catholic rules work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church
Isn't that nice of the Catholic church - letting (giving you permission) to have your very own thoughts, well almost
Your thoughts have are a little restriction to
.......within certain parameters established by the Church.
Play by the Catholic rules folks, play by the Catholic rules
Thunks - do I actually know how the Catholic rules work
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It is simply that the more reasonable churches don't take positions on questions of science, as it is not in their remit. In the Catholic case, no doubt they are aware of having got burnt in the past by the Galileo fiasco.....leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church
Isn't that nice of the Catholic church - letting (giving you permission) to have your very own thoughts, well almost
Your thoughts have are a little restriction to
.......within certain parameters established by the Church.
Play by the Catholic rules folks, play by the Catholic rules
Thunks - do I actually know how the Catholic rules work
. But the Church of England, the Methodists etc are all much the same. Why pronounce on something that is not your business?
Is the question directed at me? or a comment on the church?
No problem if me
If the comment is to me about reasonable churches don't take positions on questions of science I would agree to stay away from making comment
However most is not all. The few churches which do comment spoil the peace and quiet for the rest
Case here in Darwin within the last 3 months of incorrect COVID-19 info being spread, not by the church as such, but by a very senior member
Forthcoming a more Sen member relieved him of his position
Unfortunately grass fires like this example will continue to pop up
slowing education in general, since time spent putting out the grass fires should have been spent planting crops (knowledge)
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
February 28, 2022
TO: Write4u
FROM: George E Hammond MS physics
SUBJECT: EVOLUTION vs GENESIS
Dear W4u:
... The dispute between Darwin and Genesis is over 100 years old, and belongs to a much, much less educated age!
Today, the intelligentsia of the world knows that astrophysics and Evolution explain the origin of the "real physical world", but they also know that Genesis explains the origin of the "subjective perceptual world of the human brain".
While the real physical world was created 13 billion years ago, the "human subjective perceptual world" is less than 1 million years old (Homo sapiens sapiens).
Genesis in fact, describes what the first Homo sapien sapien actually SAW when he first opened his eyes somewhere in the Levant hundreds of thousands of years ago – – NOT billions of years ago!
The "Big Bang" is the "creation story for dummies"
Genesis is the "creation story for real men".
So, for chrissakes, please don't start an avalanche of "OFF TOPIC" conversation about "Darwin versus Genesis"
George
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Note that I qualified my statement about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; "without prejudice".
This was an observation of fact without a secondary motive.
Yes. Which supports what I wrote about the Vatican. Right?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It was your assumption. I see no supporting evidence. But I tend to agree with you.
But those popes who were persuaded to accept evolution based on scientific evidence, still maintained the belief in a divinely motivated creative agency.
The fact that God cannot be falsified makes theism non-scientific, regardless of how many great minds are associated with the Papal Academy.
Last edited:
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
March 1, 2022
TO: Write4u
FROM: George Hammond MS physics
Dear Write4u,
... The pontifical Academy of sciences is a waste of time. None of those scientists are in the Vatican, they only volunteer and communicate by email worldwide to ponder relevant science–religion subjects, such as birth control, skeptical race theory, and other highly political subjects. I wrote to them several times and never heard a word. The Vatican does know what God is, though they can't scientifically prove it. I'm a swamp Yankee Protestant, maybe they don't like me?
... Meanwhile what I want to talk to you about is my belief that the "future of microtubules" lies in the search for life after death (LAD).
... Microtubule communication is via ultraviolet light (UV) and other high-frequency (Terracycle) electromagnetic signals. Furthermore, the latest evidence is the memory storage takes place through CaMK2 phosphoralization of individual tubulin molecules. I'm sure you've seen this picture:
Meanwhile, I'm sure you seen this picture too:
Notice the cross-lattice (MAP) structures every few tubulins, across the space between the tubulins. This tells me that "memory" is much more densely packed than you seem to think it is! I don't think memory is stored in anything so crude as the "spacial configuration of dendrites", it is actually super-densely stored in the individual tubulin molecules of the microtubules, probably throughout the entire body! And it is highly interconnected at all points by the MAP cross-links.
... Since all of this memory can be "read out" at UV frequency and at the speed of light, we have that I refer to as the "miraculously fast Airbag mechanism" of life after death. It is clear that "years" of the neuronal memory could be read out of the microtubule system "in microseconds", making a "fast Airbag type mechanism" of life after death easily realized.
... And by the way, I ran this idea by Stuart Hameroff himself via email, and asked him if he thought such a mechanism was "possible", and he immediately sent me back an email message which I reproduce here:
So, Stuart Hameroff himself, the world's leading authority on microtubules, has actually gone on record as saying that he "thinks it's possible".
... Now I have a website with all of my collected works posted, and you know that it's a fact that 90% of all of my website visitors immediately read anything connected with a theory of life after death! It seems that's all they're interested in!
... So, I just thought I'd tip you off that it looks to me like the future of microtubules is intimately connected with the long-standing search for a viable quantum biology mechanism of life after death.
Sincerely, George E Hammond MS physics
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I am so sorry George, I agree totally with you on the important role MT play in "data processing" and the consequent emergence of consciousness associated with these processes. But that is a dynamically ongoing process while being alive.
It brings up intriguing questions about subtleties such as "biological quantum data processing" as Roger Penrose proposes.
But my knowledge stops at "microtubule catastrophe" and the loss of memory associated with that dread condition.
If a person loses memory from Alzheimer's while alive, how can they possibly have memory after death?
I have personally experienced seeing my life flash before me at a moment of existential danger. And I have read of people going mad from lack of brain stimulus in deprivation chambers. But these experiences happen while still alive, not after death!
You see, in your hypothesis you assert that the brain can project thought after death.
But AFAIK the medical term "death" is associated with the diagnosis of "absence of brain function" altogether.
I am unable to resolve that paradox.
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George E Hammond MS physics]
...Allow me to resolve that paradox for you. So far, Science cannot determine exactly when the "true moment of death" occurs. EEG "Brain dead" is about as close to a "moment of death" that has been observed.
...But I have a theory that determines PRECISELY when death occurs. According to my "Simple Airbag theory of life after death", see:
A simple “airbag” theory of Life After Death
https://tinyurl.com/y5ls7bgw
There is a widely spread out portion of the brain's neuronal–microtubular system that is dedicated as a "life after death system" (LADS). It is that specific microtubule system that has memorized the "life after death hallucinatory dream". At the so-called "moment of death" ultraviolet light flashes through the LADS microtubules and downloads the afterlife dream (in a matter of microseconds). However the system is triggered in such a way that the UV–readout flash cannot occur and does not occur until this microtubule–LAD system itself has suffered actual physical destruction to the "point of no return" (PONR). When the brain determines that LAD system destruction has reached the PONR, then the person dies and at that absolute instant the microtubule system experiences LAD which only takes a few microseconds of "real time" but because the microtubule system itself is the "conscious observer" of the dream it is subjectively experienced in "proper time", and could subjectively last for years or even decades. But as far as the bedside observer is concerned, the person actually died in a matter of seconds of clock on the wall time!
... And by the way, Alzheimer's disease may cause memory loss, dysfunction, etc. etc., but apparently it is nowhere near the PONR. If it was, the person would be dead !
... And finally, let me mention that I passed this theory by Stuart Hameroff himself via email and asked him if he thought such a thing was "possible", and he sent me back the following email in which he said he thought it "was possible":
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:43:23 -0700
From: Stuart Hameroff, U. Arizona
Subject: Re: (fwd) A Scientifically Competent Religious Question for StuartHameroff
To: George Hammond Cc: Frank Tipler, Tulane U.
Dear George Hammond:
I believe downloading and Afterlife are possible.
Stuart Hameroff
Now you may not think that such a thing is possible, but you are not the world's leading authority on microtubules, and Stuart Hameroff is, so I'm sorry W4u but I simply have to accept Stuart Hameroff's judgment over yours.
George
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I wouldn't dream of judging Hameroff's qualifications. I cite him often as particularly qualified in the area of "consciousness" and his associating microtubules with that apparently "controllable" phenomenon.
However: "I believe downloading and Afterlife are possible", is a somewhat curious answer. What exactly does he mean by the term "downloading"? And what does "Afterlife" mean exactly?
Could it mean it might be possible to download the contents of the brain into another brain (possibly AI) and therefore living an afterlife in another physical form?
I tend to be suspicious of the concept of "downloaded free floating thoughts in spacetime"
In science how is the term "downloading" used other than physically transferring data from one system into another system?
Moreover, does LADS have a living survival purpose? Seems to me that procreation itself "downloads" the genetic data of the organism and is sufficient transfer of data to continue the living family line.
And then the question, given the enormous range of conscious organisms, at what evolutionary level does an organism acquire LADS? I won't accept any extraordinary human status as compared to the rest of life and conscious organisms.
Last edited:
George E Hammond
Registered Senior Member
[George E Hammond MS physics]
...Na, na, na... Here is a copy of the email that I sent him 2 days prior to the email he sent back to me. Clearly from this you can see that he was addressing EXACTLLY my theory as I stated it:
December 3, 2009
Professor Stuart Hameroff
Center for Consciousness Studies
University of Arizona
Dear Professor Stuart Hameroff:
...Prof. Frank Tipler (Physics, Tulane) is an internationally prominent scientist and a best-selling author. He is a personal friend of Roger Penrose and in fact you may even know him personally. In a celebrated 1994 book entitled the _Physics of Immortality_ he advanced the notion that if you could build a large enough compute that it is theoretically possible to "simulate" any given human being. In fact, he proposed that somewhere in the distant future such a computer will be built and used to "resurrect" people to Life After Death...i.e. as a virtual person living in cyberspace inside a gigantic computer. Now, as a physicist myself, I recognize that such a hypothetical idea is trivially true logically, even though of course, it is a practical impossibility. He advances for instance, that you would need an astronomically sized computer to actually do the job. He published the book in 1994 the same year that Roger Penrose published his best-selling book _Shadows of the Mind_ in which he succeeded in putting microtubules on the map of the scientific world. This means that Professor Tipler was totally unaware of the additional 15 orders of magnitude of microtubule computing power that actually exists in the human brain when he wrote his book.
So, my question to you is simply this: If we can accept Tipler's thesis that a big enough computer could resurrect the body in "virtual reality", is it possible that the then unknown microtubule computer already extant in the brain, actually does just exactly that; resurrect the body after death? As you have mentioned many times the cytoskeleton remains viable for up to 30 minutes after death. And a simple numerical calculation shows that comparing Frohlich's frequency to neuronal frequency, a prerecorded year-long" Afterlife dream" could be downloaded from the cytoskeleton in a fraction of a second. The Observer of that dream of course would be the cytoskeleton of the entire brain itself, so that even though the bedside observer would see the person expire in a fraction of a second, the dearly departed would subjectively live on for a year in cyber-paradise despite his Frohlich-speed millisecond demise. So my question to you Professor Hameroff, is simply this: Would you be prepared to say that such a thing is "flat out scientifically impossible"? Note that I am trying to avoid putting you on the spot by not asking you if you think it is possible, but rather asking you if you think it is impossible! In closing, I would invite any other interested readers of this message who have an intuition or comment about this conjecture to please by all means, post any reply that you consider scientifically relevant. My best regards, George Hammond, MS Physics
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:43:23 -0700
From: Stuart Hameroff, U. Arizona
Subject: Re: (fwd) A Scientifically Competent Religious Question for Stuart Hameroff
To: George Hammond Cc: Frank Tipler, Tulane U.
Dear George Hammond:
I believe downloading and Afterlife are possible.
Stuart Hameroff
[George E Hammond MS physics]
So you can see Write4u, but Stuart Hameroff is addressing EXACTLY my theory, and nothing else –period!
... He knew exactly what I was talking about, how I thought the system worked, and all the details – and Stuart Hameroff said that he "thought it was possible".
... Meanwhile, I get back to you later W4u on the wrist of your questions, it's 3 AM here on Cape Cod and I'm gonna hit the sack!
George
- Status