Automaton

Notice how all his "references" are to his own material? A true sign of iron-clad research.

The argument claims that a conceptual model of a subject's psychological state can be made and involves four dimensions (Extroversion, Neuroticism, Psychoticism and Intelligence), where the former three correlate to x,y,z axes on a psychometric graph, and where Intelligence (or IQ) is supposedly on the time axis, because IQ "is recognized as mental speed." However, intelligence is a physical function of the brain and as any phsycial function it works over time and as anything working over time it can maintain different speeds. Simply because it is completely different from the other three dimensional aspects as it is a function, does not warrant it taking up a time dimension at all. A time dimension would actually indicate the evolution of the various levels of extroversion, neuroticism and psychoticism. And besides, psychometry involves a conceptual model, it is certainly NOT a physical model at all, it's just a way to display a balance between three psychological elements and it is certainly not inclusive (what about introversion?). Adding intelligence does not make sense either, because what about the brain's other functions, such as perception, etc.? And even the standard psychometric model is not well accepted at all, and is part of Freud's now much rejected (but still pondered) theories.

Okay, deep breath, let's just assume for the moment that the author is right and his model is accurate and correlates to a x,y,z,t relativistic spacetime (*snicker*).

Now the argument goes that because the four dimensions of this model look like the four dimensions of spacetime, spacetime must be the cause of this model, without any explanation or reason! How much more of a non-sequitur can you get? Ok, ignoring this non-sequitur and moving on, the author claims that the x,y,z,t model must experience curvature just because it is "like" relative spacetime. Argh! When will these quacks learn?

Another foundation of the "theory" is that noone has reached their full weight, height and intelligence, and that everyone is "stunted" in their growth (when this actually means not reaching to their potential, not them not fulfilling an ideolized goal of the population), but this situation is slowly getting better. He then claims that God is simply man who has acheived his full growth potential. So God is merely a big, strong, obese, real smart guy, but flesh and blood just like the rest of us! (.....Riiiight.) He gives as evidence the trend of greater height, weight and intelligence in mankind that has been experienced in recent history. However this does certainly not prove any sort of teleological goal towards an idealized human figure or Platonic ManGod, this just shows natural evolution based on factors such as increased medicine, technology, industrialization and simple Darwinian adaptation.

Then, without any evidence or proof, he claims that the human brain is only 85% developed, and that 15% is missing (How does he know? What calculations did he do to determine this?) He says the effect of this makes us think that God is a perfect, transcendental being, "looking over us", because that 15% (what happened to it being missing?) is subconscious, and physically above the rest of the brain (evidence?), and so what we perceive as God looking over us is just our potential, which is God, looking over us. (We actually perceive parts of our brain, even subconscious or "ungrown" ones? ....Riiight.) How the hell can anyone actually swallow this pure gibberish?

He then says he has proof for this, and then simply reitterates his above unsubstantiated claims (which I have dealt with), then goes on with his "proof": He claims that the 4x4 matrix (wouldn't it need a 5x5 matrix?) representing the x,y,z,t hypercube of the mind can only have one higher order factor (Is this true? I don't have the right grounding in math for this.) This higher order factor, is according to him, clearly God, the same God of the Bible and the same God perceived by Jesus and the Pope! How does an abstract mathematical symbol have anything to do with our supposed unfulfulled mental potential? What about the "higher order factor" of spacetime itself, which contains all the minds in the universe within it, what would that be? I think this guy's mindhypercube is shifted heavily away from intelligence and heavily towards psychosis.

He then says that since the curvature of spacetime causes gravity, then the curvature of the brainhypercube must cause God. But what happens to th theory when we think about quantum? What curvature? How does it cause God? Total flim flam.

Next up the author explains some supposed implications of his "theory", all the recorded miracles in history (especially those in the Bible) are explained by slight brain growth which causes them to gain fantastic new perception, but still wrongfully attribute this to a "miracles from a higher power". But why does the brain grow, and how does this phenomena occur to whole populations at once? In the story of the Israelites fleeing the Egyptians, their brains apparently grow because of being "spiritually enlightened" (whatever that means) by their freedom! Hard science indeed. And perception is one thing, they are supposedly able to now perceive with greater clarity events that are actually happening, therefore the opening of the red sea must have actually happened for them to perceive it. Argh, there's so much obviously wrong with this ridiculous assertion that I can't even be bothered listing it all.

He also claims that psychometry can "measure God" to two decimal places. What... the... hell...? And then he goes on and about more absolute nonsense, that I also can't be bothered critiquing at this moment. This quack and his delusions (even of an academic conspiracy against him!) can be taken about as seriously as Kent Hovind or Chris Langan.

Origian

Good - judging from these replies my skepticism is justified!

Priapus

Thanks for explaining this jump, I think this is where I got entirely lost. I kept thinking to myself, *I must be missing something, how is he applying this to space/time?* Now after reading it again I guess it is just: 'Hey that kinda looks like the models we draw to conceptualize the four dimensions.'. Gawd

Scottyman

Ever notice how quacks like that spend so much time justifying their arguments instead of offering any proof at all. I could say the same thing about walking out my door in the morning.

"Every day I walk out my door and there is the same rock. The rock is there and somehow has not moved. There are many forces in the universe applied to that rock yet it has not moved. I walk around the rock, I touch the rock but I don't move it because I am compelled not to. Therefore, it must be by divine guidance that I not move the rock!"

There never has been and never will be any proof or evidence of any kind that any supreme being or god or gods exist because they don't pure and simple. All the Theist arguments are based on conjecture and faith nothing more.

B. H. Manners

Good reply Scottyman.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: B. H. Manners ]</p>

Pierre

I have never read such crap in my life. What happend to this guy - is he still around?

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pierre ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pierre ]</p>

Jackalope

There's another problem: the first Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe appear to have been much taller and heavier-boned than modern men. So we were more like God in the past, then became less so? And now we're working our way back?

seebs

Hammond is a grade A kook. For best results, read about him in alt.religion.kibology, the only place where they appreciate him fully.

Whatup?

It's not that good.