The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy

[James R]

I don't have time to waste talking to
opinionated know nothings!

That's obviously false, George, because here you are, talking to the very people you're trying to disparage.

Since you've been pushing your "proof" of God for 20 years and getting nowhere, it seems very likely to me that you have a LOT of spare time to "waste" talking to people who can explain your "theory" better than you can.

 

[James R]

Okay sports fans – this is a rough outline of the
new paper I am writing – I will post it here in a
couple of days.

I hope the final draft will fill in the glaring holes and correct the many errors in this rough outline.

... God is a mental phenomenon that makes the
world appear LARGER and FASTER than it
actually is.

The God you're talking about has nothing to do with the God of the bible, then. And it is not a being with an independent existence from a person's mind. Okay.

... For example when you were a 9-year-old
kid – the world looked TWICE as large and
TWICE as fast as it does now. Ditto for
everyone !

No. Baldeee has helpfully corrected your error.

... And the explanation of that is given by this
CURVE, called the "Human Growth Curve"

Your curve is meaningless.

What measure of "growth" are you using? How does that measure apply to both a "genotype" and a "phenotype"?

I don't think you know what a genotype or a phenotype is. Fortunately, Baldeee has explained it for you, above.

And as you can see, the phenomenon never
goes away – since reaching adulthood
your "phenotype" is still not equal to your
"genotype".

Of course not! Because they can't be directly compared.

I

OW everyone experiences "God" – because
no one is fully grown!

This "God" language you're using to describe a particular mental phenomenon is just a distraction. You should leave "God" out of your final draft of this paper. It just obfuscates the point you appear to be trying to make.

Does this mean that your original claim in this thread that you have "proved God" is really just a claim that you have proved that a mental phenomenon exists regarding how people perceive the passage of time as they age? It seems like there's no reason to use the word "God" there, then.

And we see that a
fully grown man would actually be "God in
the flesh" – and no such person exists.

A man, fully grown or otherwise, can't be a mental phenomenon, George. That's a basic category error. I don't see how your thesis can possibly be salvaged with this level of error.

So the word "God" refers
to an "invisible fully grown man" that lives
(latently) inside us in our "subconscious"
and guides us.

This is a complete departure from how you defined "God" just a few paragraphs earlier. This makes no sense, George. You're rambling.

Fact is THIS CAN BE ACTUALLY proved by
simply using a tape measure for size and
the well known "picture fusion frequency"
to measure perceptual speed.

We can use a tape measure to measure the invisible man inside a person's head? This is bizarre, George, even for you.

Problem is – no one would believe that this
was actually a "scientific proof of God".

It's good that, at some level, you recognise that you're writing nonsense that nobody will accept. Hold that thought.

SMOP is cubic (Eysenck 3, AVA 4,
Big 5, Hexaco 6, K & J 7, Saucier 9
are experimentally proven to be cubic

No. See Baldeee's explanation.

The cubic brain has EXACTLY 13
symmetry axes

What are the 13 symmetry axes of a cube? Please explain.

Cattell actualy found 12 (1973)
but cubically exactly 13 implies they
are"personality types" and therefore
"the gods" (12 Olympian gods}

What do Olympian gods have to do with mental constructs involving the perception of aging?

Also, you seem to be making a random connection between the number 13 and Olympian gods, but the number 13, on its own, doesn't point unambiguously to Olympian gods - or anything else. You have to make the link explicit.

therefore the GFP being the TOP
(higher order) eigenvector of the
13x13 "gods matrix" is proven to be
the "God of the Bible".

Wait! How did we get from your "mental construct" definition of God to the God of the Bible? Are you saying that somebody wrote about his mental construct in the bible and so Christians ended up mistaking that for an actual supernatural being? That seesm to be your implication. You should make this explicit in the final paper.

God is proven to be an
Einsteinian Curvature of
subjectibve spacetime reality

This is the first mention of Einsteinian curvature or of subjective spacetime reality, whatever that is. You need to define your terms, George. Remember that you're pretending to do science here. You need to dress it up to resemble science, at least. Otherwise, nobody publishing a journal will be fooled.

QED there is a REAL GOD

And it's a mental construct. Got it.

PS don't forget to attach a copy
of the picture of me and Eysenck

Why? That adds nothing to your claims.

 

[Baldeee]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
the first statement you made on this thread
was: –

"CREDENTIALS ARE IRRELEVANT"

Unfortunately, as if yet more evidence of your lack of intellectual rigour is required, you can't even get that right.
My first post in this thread was #802.
Your reply to me (#804) said that you "scent academic credentials".
It was my subsequent response (#806) where I stated that "Credentials are irrelevant".
In context I stand by that statement: one can have all the credentials going but if one rights that 2+2=5 then no peice of paper or qualification will make it correct.
As such: credentials are irrelevant - it is what you actually write that matters.
Usually the credentials go some way to helping you understand what it is you are writing about, and will probably give people some confidence that you know what you're writing about.
But the credentials don't mean that what you write is necessarily correct, or that it stands up to scrutiny.
As such, credentials, in this context, are irrelevant compared to what you actually write.

Publishers, reviewers, universities, and
employers, and the general public, entirely
disagree with that opinion.

That's not the context it was stated in.
See above.

... And it is generally agreed that anyone who
holds such an opinion, does so because
HE HAS NO CREDENTIALS .

Whether I have credentials or not is irrelevant: if what you wrote is illogical, unsupported, flawed, or simply incorrect, then no amount of credentials you hold is going to change that.
If I have no credentials, as you are suggesting, then that also does not change what you have written.
A child can point out to you that 2+2 does not equal 5 as much as someone with a PhD in Mathematics.
And even if noone points it out to you, 2+2 still won't equal 5.

Meanwhile every single one of your comments
betrays this fact, that you have no actual
understanding of the theory, no real competence
in psychometry, physics, Mathematics, neurology,
embryology, or biology,

Whether I do or not, the flaws, errors, unsupported assertions, and fallacious logic of what you have written remain.

I'm not here to entertain you with a spoonfed
tutorial on higher education.

I'm not asking you to.
I'm simply pointing out to you that your notion doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and providing some feedback on where those weaknesses / errors seem to be.
Even to me, someone you now hold to be incompetent.
As said: the flaws, errors, unsupported assertions, and fallacious logic of what you have written remain.
You can choose to address even the ones that I, someone you hold to be incompetent, have identified.
You can choose to explain why they are not errors, flaws, fallacious logic etc, by, perhaps, actually explaining and supporting what you write in a logical manner.
Your choice.

It's up to you to
get some scientific competence before you start
attacking someone who has an advanced degree
in physics and has been published in the
PEER-REVIEWED literature.

Your fallacious appeal to authority is noted, as is your reliance upon your assumption of my lack of credentials.
As for attacking you: I did refer to you as a crank (#821), which was probably uncalled for at that time, as I only had 30+ pages of this thread upon which to base such an assessment, and other forums / message boards where you have raised this "proof".
But other than that I have only attacked your "proof", which is what scrutiny and review is all about.
It is up to you do defend it, if you can, or to revise it if you can't.
All you are doing, however, is making an argumentum ad hominem (i.e. asserting that I lack of credentials as reason not to respond in good faith), appealing to authority (re: credentials), and otherwise ignoring everything that has been raised against your "proof".

I don't have time to waste talking to
opinionated know nothings!

I guess that's why you spend time here, then?
To avoid your own company?

Look, George, you have posted what you consider to be a "proof".
It isn't.
For all the reasons even someone as clearly incompetent and uneducated as I have pointed out to you, such are the basic errors you have made.
Unfortunately you seem to think "competent" equates to "agrees with George".


Baldeee [Still more qualifications than you]

 

[Baldeee]

What are the 13 symmetry axes of a cube? Please explain.

As with all pseudoscience, there are the occasional truths.
To wit: a cube does indeed have 13 axes of symmetry, which is shown in the below:

 

[exchemist]

Unfortunately, as if yet more evidence of your lack of intellectual rigour is required, you can't even get that right.
My first post in this thread was #802.
Your reply to me (#804) said that you "scent academic credentials".
It was my subsequent response (#806) where I stated that "Credentials are irrelevant".
In context I stand by that statement: one can have all the credentials going but if one rights that 2+2=5 then no peice of paper or qualification will make it correct.
As such: credentials are irrelevant - it is what you actually write that matters.
Usually the credentials go some way to helping you understand what it is you are writing about, and will probably give people some confidence that you know what you're writing about.
But the credentials don't mean that what you write is necessarily correct, or that it stands up to scrutiny.
As such, credentials, in this context, are irrelevant compared to what you actually write.
That's not the context it was stated in.
See above.
Whether I have credentials or not is irrelevant: if what you wrote is illogical, unsupported, flawed, or simply incorrect, then no amount of credentials you hold is going to change that.
If I have no credentials, as you are suggesting, then that also does not change what you have written.
A child can point out to you that 2+2 does not equal 5 as much as someone with a PhD in Mathematics.
And even if noone points it out to you, 2+2 still won't equal 5.
Whether I do or not, the flaws, errors, unsupported assertions, and fallacious logic of what you have written remain.
I'm not asking you to.
I'm simply pointing out to you that your notion doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and providing some feedback on where those weaknesses / errors seem to be.
Even to me, someone you now hold to be incompetent.
As said: the flaws, errors, unsupported assertions, and fallacious logic of what you have written remain.
You can choose to address even the ones that I, someone you hold to be incompetent, have identified.
You can choose to explain why they are not errors, flaws, fallacious logic etc, by, perhaps, actually explaining and supporting what you write in a logical manner.
Your choice.
Your fallacious appeal to authority is noted, as is your reliance upon your assumption of my lack of credentials.
As for attacking you: I did refer to you as a crank (#821), which was probably uncalled for at that time, as I only had 30+ pages of this thread upon which to base such an assessment, and other forums / message boards where you have raised this "proof".
But other than that I have only attacked your "proof", which is what scrutiny and review is all about.
It is up to you do defend it, if you can, or to revise it if you can't.
All you are doing, however, is making an argumentum ad hominem (i.e. asserting that I lack of credentials as reason not to respond in good faith), appealing to authority (re: credentials), and otherwise ignoring everything that has been raised against your "proof".
I guess that's why you spend time here, then?
To avoid your own company?

Look, George, you have posted what you consider to be a "proof".
It isn't.
For all the reasons even someone as clearly incompetent and uneducated as I have pointed out to you, such are the basic errors you have made.
Unfortunately you seem to think "competent" equates to "agrees with George".


Baldeee [Still more qualifications than you]

Indeed. Past academic credentials are far from guaranteeing that a person will not later go nuts, which is what seems to have happened here. I actually wonder if it was his failure to complete his PhD - perhaps a breakdown of some kind - that set in train this obsession of his with academic credentials. But the fact he has been stuck on this topic without any discernible evolution, for 20 years, must be evidence of some mental condition or other.

I expect he will be content to argue back and forth, pointlessly, here ad infinitum. What he probably wants more than anything is some kind of audience, even a hostile one.

 

[Baldeee]

Indeed. Past academic credentials are far from guaranteeing that a person will not later go nuts, which is what seems to have happened here. I actually wonder if it was his failure to complete his PhD - perhaps a breakdown of some kind - that set in train this obsession of his with academic credentials. But the fact he has been stuck on this topic without any discernible evolution, for 20 years, must be evidence of some mental condition or other.

I have no experience in psychology, so can not comment.

I expect he will be content to argue back and forth, pointlessly, here ad infinitum. What he probably wants more than anything is some kind of audience, even a hostile one.

He is not really arguing, though, is he.
Each time one of his assertions is questioned, or support is asked for, or a flaw identified, he just blusters and then starts repeating the same thing, moving on to someone else.
That's not arguing, that's being a troll.

On another website/message board, for example, he rejected any criticism by a PhD in Physics because they lacked experience in Psychometrics, despite the crticism being raised having nothing to do with Psychometrics.
Here he is showing much the same behaviour: rejecting criticism this time due to a perceived/assumed/wished-for lack of competence, rather than responding to what is actually said.
At no point is he actually addressing those criticisms.


I guess as long as he's not hurting anyone...

 

[George E Hammond]

As with all pseudoscience, there are the occasional truths.
To wit: a cube does indeed have 13 axes of symmetry, which is shown in the below:

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Thanks for the "rotating cube video" Baldeee
– that's really terrific !

James R made a comment that "my research
has been stalled for 20 years" with me making
no headway.

That's NOT true- for 40 years now, every year
there has been a new discovery – just 2 years
ago I discovered that Jeffrey Gray's well known
"SHS" (septo- hippocampal system) which he
proved regulated "Anxiety" actually controls
all 13 of the "cubic personality factors".

I discovered it on this wise: – first I discovered
a "decussation" in the "Papez Loop" that
explained his other well-known dimension
"Impulsivity ":

thus it not only explained BOTH of Gray's dimensions,
it actually unified his 2 dimensions with Eysenck's
2 famous dimensions E and N – and watch this now –
I published that discovery in the PEER REVIEWED
literature in New Ideas in Psychology (Elsevier 1994)

Then – Gray decided to rotate his 2 dimensions out
of the E-N plane and into the 3rd dimension –

so I immediately realized that his SHS controls not
only E,N.A and I – but actually controlled ALL – 13 of
the cubically intercorrelated personality dimensions
of the brain. Unfortunately for the great Jeffrey Gray
he did not live to see his greatest triumph – the
discovery of the neurological basis of the Structural
Model of Personality (SMOP).

That was only a year and a half ago –
so my research history has never been stalled – it
has been constant and ongoing year after year –
decade after decade with CONSTANT DISCOVERY.

Just thought I'd let you know the truth.

George

 

[Beaconator]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Thanks for the "rotating cube video" Baldeee
– that's really terrific !

James R made a comment that "my research
has been stalled for 20 years" with me making
no headway.

That's NOT true- for 40 years now, every year
there has been a new discovery – just 2 years
ago I discovered that Jeffrey Gray's well known
"SHS" (septo- hippocampal system) which he
proved regulated "Anxiety" actually controls
all 13 of the "cubic personality factors".

I discovered it on this wise: – first I discovered
a "decussation" in the "Papez Loop" that
explained his other well-known dimension
"Impulsivity ":
View attachment 4792
thus it not only explained BOTH of Gray's dimensions,
it actually unified his 2 dimensions with Eysenck's
2 famous dimensions E and N – and watch this now –
I published that discovery in the PEER REVIEWED
literature in New Ideas in Psychology (Elsevier 1994)

Then – Gray decided to rotate his 2 dimensions out
of the E-N plane and into the 3rd dimension –
View attachment 4793
so I immediately realized that his SHS controls not
only E,N.A and I – but actually controlled ALL – 13 of
the cubically intercorrelated personality dimensions
of the brain. Unfortunately for the great Jeffrey Gray
he did not live to see his greatest triumph – the
discovery of the neurological basis of the Structural
Model of Personality (SMOP).

That was only a year and a half ago –
so my research history has never been stalled – it
has been constant and ongoing year after year –
decade after decade with CONSTANT DISCOVERY.

Just thought I'd let you know the truth.

George


Nothing short of a man descending from heaven will allow these people to believe in god.

 

[George E Hammond]

Nothing short of a man descending from heaven will
allow these people to believe in god.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Don't be a fool Beaconator – "God descending
from heaven" is a BIBLICAL METAPHOR.

The scientific reality is that the "fully grown man (a.k.a. God)"
is fully mapped in the unconscious mind – and continues to
increasingly manifest himself in the "real phenotypic Man"
hour by hour, day by day, decade by decade all of our lives.

And every adult in the world has noticed it – whether they
know what it is or not !

And this is the real meaning of "God descending from
heaven to earth" – wake up for Xsakes – whaddau
think billions of people have been talking about for
thousands of years?

And now we've got a rigorous detailed hard scientific
proof of it !

George

 

[Michael 345]

– whaddau
think billions of people have been talking about for
thousands of years?

Sex?????

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay, someone asked me if I had a "picture"
of the "CUBIC BRAIN". Here is the closest
I can come to it: –



This is the embryonic CNS (Central nervous system)
where the brain is at the top of the diagram.
Notice the top 2 bulges labeled "telencephalon and
diencephalon", this is later the "cortex" and the
"limbic system". So so far we have "2" lobes – but this
diagram is known to be neurologically "bilaterally
symmetric" (Sperrian lateralization) – therefore we
now have 2x2=4. But then we notice that we are only
looking at the ventral (motor) half of the CNS – the
dorsal (sensory) half has been removed – therefore
we now have 2x2x2=8 (L-R –D-V – cortex/limbic )
FUNCTIONAL BRAIN LOBES. IOW – – an 8
lobed – – "CUBIC BRAIN".

Hope this clarifies what I'm talking about !

George

 

[Michael 345]

Hope this clarifies what I'm talking about !

Nope


alamy

OXO

got it correct

This looks

nothing like a OXO cube

 

[Michael 345]

Stuff up

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay, someone asked me if I had a "picture"
of the "CUBIC BRAIN". Here is the closest
I can come to it: –

View attachment 4795

This is the embryonic CNS (Central nervous system)
where the brain is at the top of the diagram.
Notice the top 2 bulges labeled "telencephalon and
diencephalon", this is later the "cortex" and the
"limbic system". So so far we have "2" lobes – but this
diagram is known to be neurologically "bilaterally
symmetric" (Sperrian lateralization) – therefore we
now have 2x2=4. But then we notice that we are only
looking at the ventral (motor) half of the CNS – the
dorsal (sensory) half has been removed – therefore
we now have 2x2x2=8 (L-R –D-V – cortex/limbic )
FUNCTIONAL BRAIN LOBES. IOW – – an 8
lobed – – "CUBIC BRAIN".

Hope this clarifies what I'm talking about !

George

[GE Hammond MS physics]
I have "generalized, clarified etc." this anatomically/
functionally CUBIC brain structure in the following
diagram: –


And shown below this "idealized cubic brain" are the
empirically measured "cubic psychometry results"
measured and peer-published by 38 scientists over a
period of 40 years –
– – THAT EXPERIMENTALLY PROVE IT !

George

 

[foghorn]

As the great Fog Horn once stated:

gods are just a mind model some use to make sense of their world...
… the workings of the mind and the models it constructs to understand its surrounding?

Hammond just throws his belief in a god into his idea with no reason other than wishful thinking and assigns it to a number.

 

[Baldeee]

– – THAT EXPERIMENTALLY PROVE IT !

No it doesn't!
Only a complete fraud or an ignorant would claim it does!

Oh, look, I can draw something in 3d!
Therefore must be cubic!
Therefore it is PROVEN to be linked to everything else that is considered cubic for the same reason.

Oh, look, there are 13 cards in each suit in a deck of cards!
Therefore these are quite obviously linked to the 12 Olympian gods, and from there, obviously, to the 12 2nd-order personalities "types" that Cattell established.
(Let's ignore the difference between 12 and 13, though!)

Oh, look, a "baker's dozen" has 13 in it, but because it has the word "dozen" in it then it must link to 12!
Therefore 13 = 12!
So anything with 13 in it must equate to everything else which has 12!

Oh, look, there are two words in Biology (that I don't really understand the word of, but that's okay, 'cos surely noone else will either) that are to do with who we biologically are.
Therefore the gap between them must of course be God!

Oh, look, the brain has multiple parts!
Let's take only two of them ('cos, well, taking others wouldn't fit my conclusion) and multiply them twice to get 8.
8! Therefore it must be considered "Cubic"!
And therefore it is yet again EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN to link directly to everything else that is "Cubic".
And therefore it is EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN that my Rubik's Cube has 12 personalities (or is it 13? Or is it God?)!

Oh, and I must be right, as I've got an MS in Physics, was published once back in 1994, and also managed to have my photo taken with a well known person in the field of Psychology.
What more could I possibly tell you before you accept my PROOF!



Seriously, Mr Hammond, what you're posting is garbage, and you're treating this forum, and its members who have taken the time to honestly review what you have offered, with utter disrespect.
I have no doubt you've posted this nonsense in many places over the years, and have no doubt each and every one of them has sent you packing for being the crank you so obviously are.
I look forward to the day that this site does similarly.

 

[George E Hammond]

No

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Okay Baldeee – there's one more thing for you to disagree with. If you actually read post #1 of this
thread, at the end of it you find a short comment
on a "microtubule" theory of life after death.

I have reproduced the full version here – for your
comments. Not only am I claiming 100% certainty
of the existence of God – but I am also claiming a
33% chance of a literally real life after death !
George

A simple “airbag” theory
of Life After Death

Text © George Hammond 2017 Note illustrations are copyright by other scientists

Dreams are simply daydreaming while asleep.
Dreams however are visual hallucinations as
opposed to mere visual recall. This profound
difference is caused by the fact that we are in an
altered state of consciousness while asleep. Life
After Death is the same thing .... microtubule-
dreaming is a far different state of consciousness
than ordinary dreaming … In this case it is a full
blown (all 5-senses) hallucinatory world called
Heaven. The phenomenological similarity between
Dreaming and Life After Death is remarkable ...
and is certainly the original historical argument for
the existence of Life After Death. Quite recently a
"2nd line of argument" has now become the
existence of "microtubule-consciousness" so called
... and it's super phenomenal characteristics which
actually makes such a thing as Life After Death
scientifically plausible! For those not familiar with
microtubules let me brief you. It's been recently
discovered neurons are full of microscopic hollow
tubes called microtubules shown below and light
travels thru them and memory is recorded in them
by light.

TOP = Microtubules inside a neuron

MIDDLE = Magnified 250,000 times

BOTTOM = Light inside a microtubule

Microtubules remain alive for 30 minutes after
death, and I believe that Life After Death is caused
by these optical signals. Light is so fast it can
download a 3 year Afterlife in a split second just
like a computer downloads a 3 hour movie in a few
seconds. Ordinarily memories are "recalled" at the
uT level and played back slowly by the microtubule
system at neuronal speed, but it could play them
back at full microtubule speed, if say the neuronal
system which normally receives them was
discovered to be dead (flatlined)! So this must be
what the microtubule-airbag Life After Death
system does... it plays back 3 years of 100 Hz
neuronal memory at full microtubule optical speed,
1015 Hz, in 10 microseconds... a 10-trillion to 1
speedup, but in this case the neuronal system is no
longer "you, the observer", the microtubule system
IS ! Therefore, the observer‘s "proper time" is the
same for this new "uT observer" ! So while the
bedside observer sees the person die in a few
seconds, the dearly departed would spend 3 years
in Heaven (his wristwatch time) during the same
instant. While this may seem amazing to non-
scientific readers, it is routine to Relativity
physicists who experimentally see it in atomic
physics experiments every day. So what we see is
that Evolutionary Biology apparently discovered
the “airbag survival mechanism” millions of years
before General Motors did! An automobile airbag
inflates in 100-milliseconds and prevents you from
hitting the dashboard, thus saving your life. In this
case an “optical-airbag” goes off in the
microtubules of the brain in 10-microseconds,
10,000 times faster than an airbag, and we
experience Life After Death before our brains can
be destroyed! . So, this microtubule system is so
fast, it can actually beat death! Any kind of death...
even a lightning bolt, just like a car airbag can beat
any type of collision irregardless of how fast it is!
Finally, the all important argument for this theory,
is the notion that while the neuronal system cannot
produce a "glorified body", the microtubule system
can. The reason for this I believe is because the
existing neurons that would have been connected
to the "missing growth deficit body cells" are not
capable of actually "firing" so they never appear in
a dream (the former fact is evidenced by the rare
but well known accidental firing of these
unconnected neurons causing a congenitally
missing phantom limb to suddenly appear, full
sized) . So while we never achieve a glorified body
in a dream, I believe the microtubule system inside
these normally "inactive growth deficit neurons" is
largely functional so that the microtubule system
as a whole, does possess a "glorified body" (a
phantom fully grown body similar to a phantom
limb), but quite obviously the only place it could
appear is in the Afterlife, since it is exclusively a
microtubular phantom. It appears to me then
entirely scientifically plausible, that we do end life
as Angels in a spiritual world! Therefore, I
conclude from this startling new evidence, that Life
After Death, is today scientifically very plausible!

George Hammond, Hyannis, Sept. 30, 2017

 

[George E Hammond]

As the great Fog Horn once stated:
gods are just a mind model some use to make sense of their world...
… the workings of the mind and the models it constructs to understand its surrounding?

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Take your sunglasses off – time to dummy up and
makes sense !

Walt Disney illustrated the modern day pantheon
of gods –
Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Porky pig, Bugs Bunny,
Goofy, Popeye, Olive Oil, – at least 13 major gods,

2500 years ago the Greeks decided that there were
"12 Olympian gods" – (turns out they were off by one)
not bad for sheer guesswork
!
13 GREEK GODS
Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite,
Ares, Hephaestus, Athena, Hermes, Demeter,
Hestia, and Dionysus

THE POINT IS – that the two lists (Disney and Greek)
describe the SAME 13 SYMMETRY AXES OF THE
CUBIC BRAIN – – and therefore are eternal and
will exist as long as Man exists.

For X-sakes is time to dummy up Great Foghorn !

George

 

[origin]

Dreams are simply daydreaming while asleep.
Dreams however are visual hallucinations as
opposed to mere visual recall. This profound
difference is caused by the fact that we are in an
altered state of consciousness while asleep. Life
After Death is the same thing

I wouldn't call death an altered state of consciousness since you're, ya know, dead.

 

[Michael 345]

Life
After Death is

If If If people are alive after dieing why don't they climb out of the coffin?

real life after death !

OK 33% chance of becoming alive after dieing means 67% chance of dieing after dieing. Got it

What determines your odds?

we are in an
altered state of consciousness while asleep

No kidding?

all 5-senses

You are way way behind with humans having 5 senses, senses are much more enumerated (homework time George>

phenomenological similarity between
Dreaming and Life After Death is remarkable .

It would be If If If said similarity of Life After Death and Dreaming occured

apparently

How? Airbags require a accident to occur. When death occurs bit late for microtubules to consider "Ummmm should have a life after death back up system in place"

is certainly the original historical argument for
the existence of Life After Death.

Thought historically life after death myth is / was about being good and not pissing off god, life after death being your reward

. Quite recently a
"2nd line of argument" has now become the
existence of "microtubule-consciousness" so called
... and it's super phenomenal characteristics which
actually makes such a thing as Life After Death
scientifically plausible

Well it HAS to be scientifically plausible to have any chance of being real

Sorry I can't go on. This sillyness is rotting my 3 remaining neurons Huey Dewey and Louie

Disney

Back after coffee