"George Hammond"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>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.
Now, the fact that beard hair and stuff like that can continue to appear to
grow, is exactly why this is an idea that does not disappear fast. This type
of information can be classified as a meme. Just like the many words the
inuit have for snow. You can check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair for
confirmation of my statement, or do a little search yourself.
And what I did was write a paradox. That is something that only appears to
be a contradiction. As I said, cells continue to function, but they start to
function differently. Osmotic memranes start to function differently, and so
forth. Basically all cells start to behave all by themselves rather
uncontrolled and start to function as conduits for well...it kinda gets
gross here now, so I'll take it that you understand my meaning, and also,
that I offered a paradox.
>
> [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.
This does however not explain the different way the memory functions when we
get older. While the more accepted view that memory seems to be related to
the shape of the dendrites. The older you get, the shorter the dendrites,
and at the same time more branched out. Some information on this can be
found at
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/10/dendritic-translation-and-memory.php
> [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.
'Excuse me sir" he said with a little voice "can you point me to the
toilet?"
And he did it! He actually talked to them. Oh, this would really look
good...?
It is irrelevant to me who you talked to. It should be to you too.
>
>>What the fuck 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.
And you were not discussing Tiplers book. You were duscussing your own
theory, and you used Tiplers book as an entry point. And of course, just as
it is irrelevant to me who you know, or talked to, is it irrelevant what
school you went to. I do not judge you. I just respond to what I see. What I
see, would, as I said before, worry me, if I saw it in someone dear to me.
> [Hammond]
> Your "suspicions" are of no interest to anyone.
> check my website before you go shooting your mouth off.
I did. It does not look very good. I mean, you obviously possess the basic
skills needed to write the stuff, but somewhere along the way, your mind
seems to have taken a bad turn.
>>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.
Your spelling seems to falter when you try to get personel. I do not deal in
abuse, nor does it adhere to me. I am not psychotic, but I do like to talk.
But phychosis, is indeed a subject I suspect you to be familiar with. I can
only hope you will discover this too. Personally I do not think it is a bad
thing thuough. If it does not bother you, fine!
> 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?
It is irrelevant what kind of degrees I have. On the notion,
1) I can say that when the Afterlife would be just as you describe, it would
not be an Afterlife after all.
2) The computer emulation effect that you describe could not happen, due to
lack of directional forces other than the forces that are affecting the body
at large.
3) There is no need for the notion. It could just as easily be said to occur
during the last moments before the EEG flatlines.
>
> [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!
You make me smile. Are you really this stupid?
Christine!
