"Golden Age of Knowledge" (LoL) was a scam to further fleece the $cilon herd. Went something like this "All the shit that you've spent thousands on was wrong, now buy 99% of the same thing for twice as much money."
Punchline: They bought it! Buncha fuckin' rubes! That's the real reason that $ci.stat = fail because, PT Barnum or no, not enough sucker are born dumb enough to swallow the horseshit...
@KidVolcano Muh-ha-ha...but I only bought it ONCE, because i fuking rule! Seriously tho, I c what u mean. It looks suspect, at first glance, sure. But the whole 'Golden Age' pack seems like a huge improvement. I will agree with u if they change it again, in a few years time, & expect them to buy everything again for the THIRD time! (or 4 me to buy it for a 2nd time) If that happens, it will b unbelievable. But I doubt it...
@TheNewAeon2012 Don't brag about giving the Co$ your money. Doing so just shows that you are gulllible. You are boasting about getting fucked in the ass by Miscavige.
@PiotrThePrimate ok, we'll c who's gullible in about 10 years, when ppl like u will be the "minority" at that point. u'll see it happen. i can c it happening as clearly as i saw thru u from reading yr first comment. btw, what i was saying in the comment was that i wasn't one of those that bought the same thing all over again because i was "told to". i very much doubt i would've done that. anyway, the point is the stuff is worth its weight in gold.
@TheNewAeon2012 I don't think you can see anything regarding the CoS clearly. You were entirely wrong about my background so I can't see in what manner you saw "thru" me. Observe that you haven't actually offered anything substantive in defense of Dianetics and other CoS "tech". Your position comes down to two things: (1) report of first-person subjective experience; (2) a hope that sometime in the future there will exist objective evidence of the validity of CoS "tech".
...In other words you don't have anything of evidentiary value to bring to the table. Nothing. Item (2) implicitly concedes that you have absolutely no evidence nor even a sound theoretical justification. You literally have nothing other than a hope that in around 10 years something magical will happen. CoS has been around for almost 50 years and no confirmational evidence regarding has appeared so what do you expect to happen in 10 years? Is that when Hubbard will return triumphant?....
The evidence that has been gathered in neuroscience since CoS was founded actually contradicts Hubbards conception of the human mind. There is no such organ that has the properties of the "reactive mind". There is no organ that has an indelible memory of all things since conception. Memory is pre-linguistic until well after birth and at no stage in development does a human acquire a cognitive organ that records all memories. Refer to Dennet's TED lecture on consciousness.
@PiotrThePrimate Correction: "at no stage in development does a human acquire a cognitive organ that records all experiences".
Refer to Dennett's TED lectures for an accessible account of human cognition and percerption. Hubbard is completely wrong regarding the "reactive mind" -- there is no such organ or function. Humans don't have an indelible record of all experience extending back to conception. Humans don't even have an indelible and complete record of all experiences in the last 60s.
@TheNewAeon2012 'what i was saying in the comment was that i wasn't one of those that bought the same thing all over again because i was "told to". ' So you are saying that you are bringing "the same thing all over again" of your own volition? If you had even a cursory understanding of 20th century cognitive psychology and neuroscience you would know that the Hubbards conception of the mind is entirely wrong. There is at least 50 years of results that directly contradict the core ideas of Di.
Fuck, this is really depressing. The idea that many of my fellow men pay to imbibe this pseudoscientific, pseudophilosophical bullshit is utterly demoralising. LRH failed calculus at university and flunked out of his degree. He has a miserable military record. He had paranoid schizophrenia and his corpse was replete with a cocktail of narcotics. "Lets gather the insane rantings of a mad man and treat them like holy writ". Great idea.
@PiotrThePrimate Ok F*ckface...what IS it exactly that u can't understand about all this?! Fine, u mite have a point with some of the criticisms (whatever...) but the thing is that this shit delivers what it promises & the story ends there. Period. As for "exteriorizing"...well, sorry to burst your bubble pal, but it IS possible. It's not Hubbard's "invention" (even though the word, itself, is his own made up one). Another term for it is Astral Travelling and it can be done and has been done.
@TheNewAeon2012 What a ridiculous and presumptuous question. To the extent that nonsense can be understood I understand Hubbard and likely know more of his writings than you do because I've read all of the writings associated with each of the OT levels (that have been made public). Merely asserting "this shit delivers what it promises" doesn't amount to any sort of argument or evidence -- its just a naked assertion. If you have something more than pantomime argument to offer please present.
@PiotrThePrimate Ok pal, I think u have some very fixed ideas about certain things. Pantomime my foot! U don't know me from a bar of soap. I don't DO pantomime. Im NOT a member of the church if u must know. I'm not just a robotic "Hubbard repeater". However, it happens that I have yet to find a more effective new Age system. If ur telling me that reading the stuff that's been leaked on the net is meant 2b a comprehensive "study" of the subject, then even this reply has been a waste of my time
@TheNewAeon2012 Again, all you are able to offer is self-referential, first-person subjective experience which is one of the worst methods (if not the worst) for learning about the physical universe (i.e. the stuff that persists when you stop thinking about it/the objective world/reality). In epistemic terms it is irrelevant what you have found "effective". Also, more than the OT documents have been leaked. Many Hubbard books and even COS courses have been leaked -- look on bit torrent.
@PiotrThePrimate Ok, I've been thru "debates" like this b4 & they never end. It's not like i'm "wimping out" or anything. There's just no point. On 1 hand: I know all the new age stuff (including Scio) works! On the othr hand: u INSIST it's "subjective" (yet, amazingly, and paradoxically, u refuse to try it out first), so we will end up posting 20 replies back & forth 4 nothing. I don't need bit torrent btw. I own the entire Basics pack (with the lectures) & it's the best info I've ever studied
@TheNewAeon2012 Again, you fail to grasp that if I try Scientology tech all I will have is subjective experience. It 1 million people have a probe inserted into there temporal lobe and report a vision of an angel it doesn't in any way demonstrate that angels do in fact exist and that these people were actually visited upon by an angel. No amount of purely subjective experience can establish the objective existence of a thing. Again, your opinion regarding the "best info" is irrelevant.
@PiotrThePrimate Ok...so wtf do u want, at the end of the day?? What is it exactly that ur expecting: 1) from a youtube comment and 2) from a course of philosophical/spiritual study? I'm sorry to have to tell u that (whether good or bad) ALL experience is subjective, if we really want 2b honest about life. The only variable here is whether or not OTHER ppl agree with our subjective reality. The more ppl agree, the more that reality becomes "consensus". That's how "experience" works, sorry...
@TheNewAeon2012 Yes indeed all conscious experience is subjective but (a) subjectivity can be investigated objectively; (b) it does not imply that there is no objective existence; and (c) it doesn't imply that no distinction can be made between objective reality and subjective experience. You appear totally confused on (a), (b) and (c). You are also confusing inter-subjective experience (i.e. subjective experience shared by more than one person) and objective reality.
"The more ppl agree, the more that reality becomes "consensus". That's how "experience" works, sorry..."
That is how inter-subjective experience workks but that doesn't say anything about an underlying objective reality that is indifferent to subjective experience. I would argue that there is simething beyond subjectivity and inter-subjectivity, viz. objective reality.
@TheNewAeon2012 If your manner of engaing me is also the manner you have engaged your other interlocutors then you haven't actually debated anyone. You engage in pantomime debate. All you do is make unsubstantiated claims and mine your subjective experience for what you believe to be evidence. Introspection is not able to reveal even the smallest of trivialities about neurology -- no amount of subjectivity mining will lead you to neurons and neurotransmitters. Subjectivity is entirely walled
@PiotrThePrimate wow...u said interlocutors! I'm terrified now, I had 2look that shit up (no I didn't really. I have almost 150 IQ & speak/read/write 3 languages, i'm fine). As I said, I spotted u from a mile away: a typical western "scientist". Talking about neurons and neurotransmitters, etc. Believing that Mind = Brain, etc. I hav Greek background, so when I talk about Ancient Greek philosophy I know what im saying...& I say this: those guys back then KNEW about Reincarnation & about Spirit
@TheNewAeon2012 If the CoS measured your IQ then forget about the score -- their tests aren't standardised and they've never been re-normed so the scores are invalid. I'm not a scientist and I have a degree in philosophy so you didn't spot antyhing from even up close. Just because you have a Greek background that doesn't make you an expert on Plato or Aristotle. Are all Greeks -- even the taxi drivers -- experts in Greek philosophy? (continues)
...The Greeks were right about lots of things but they were also wrong about lots of things. Aristotle -- for example -- believed that women have less teeth than men. Galen's anatomical texts contained many errors. These two cases are noteworthy because neither conclusion was based on observation: Aristotle never actually counted the teeth of women and Galen made many drawings without human dissection. No amount of subjective investigation would have help Aristotle or Galen avoid error.
Nothing of Hubbard's "tech" works. Where are all the "clears" with genius IQs and perfect memory? There is absolutely no evidence that "astral travel" is real rather than an apparent and entirely subjective experience. There has recently been a large scale well-structured of OOB in the context of general anaesthesia but its results remain pending. Hubbard has created a castle in thin air and you are paying rent to live in one of the imaginary rooms. You are delusional.
@PiotrThePrimate Correction: "There has recently been a large scale well-structured study of OOB in the context of general anaesthesia but its results remain pending.
@PiotrThePrimate Am I an awesome detective or WHAT? Ha! See, I knew u would say Astral Travelling isn't real, which is precisely why I mentioned it. I wanted to prove my point, which is: the w*nkers that will say Scientology doesn't work and that ppl that think it does are delusional etc, etc, will ALSO (100% of the time) say the same about Astral Travelling, Meditation, etc, etc. So ur just a typical "materialistic wanker", who tries 2 appear smart by using words like pseudophilosophical, etc
@TheNewAeon2012 Can't you see that you are merely making assertions without any argument or evidence? You are entirely self-referential and privileging your subjective experience as if it is capable of revelaing truth about the physical universe when all it can actually reveal is your subjectivity. The reason I say Scientology and astral travel don't work is because there is no evidence that they do and some evidence that they don't work. Also, I believe in non-physical things such as qualia.
@TheNewAeon2012 The statment "Am I an awesome detective or WHAT? Ha! See" is more evidence of your self-referentiality. You have especially privileged your subjectivity to the degree that you seem to believe that your subjective experiences are as real as anything in the physical universe. This self-referentiality, solipsism and privileging of subjectivity appears to be the sustaining cognitive style of CoS automatons.
@TheNewAeon2012 "Fine, u mite have a point with some of the criticisms (whatever...) but the thing is that this shit delivers what it promises & the story ends there. Period. " No, sorry CoS doesn't deliver anything besides exploitation, suffering, grief and sometimes even death. You sound butt hurt because I referenced Hubbard's actual biography rather than the fictional one. Hubbard was a severely mentally ill, unoriginal, misanthropic loser at life. He sucked at everything.
hubbard failed math marco, you sure its a good idea to listen to him when he is trying to sound like he knows what hes talking about when it comes to math?also, hubbard said therewas no such thing as a soul, why the change?
@BoredPerv69 Indeed, but when I keep thinking about it and that people pay thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated with this shit and that they eventually come into bondage with the CoS, genuinely depresses me. People are wasting their lives and their genuine potential on internalising (which is a real word) the paranoid and ugly worldview of an untreated paranoid schizophrenic with a misanthropic bent.
Hubbard loves to use vaguely scientific sounding noises- almost always without actually understanding what they mean! He "developed" techniques that cause psychosis as many videos of the "powerful" OTs on youtube will show!
Philosophy is to science as porn is to sex- cheap, easily available and some people prefer it to the real thing!
@marcotai Hubbard's "philosophy" is the cheapest and most readily available there is and, frequently laughable, deranged and stolen from other sources!
@laserofjustice Please don't besmirch the name of philosophy with Hubbard's insane rantings and bloviations. Hubbard's crap doesn't qualify as philosophy by any accepted definition of the discipline. Dianetics and Scientology are merely patchwork bastards drawn from ideas that were fashionable during Hubbards lifetime and some even old (even ancient ideas) blended with a 1950s B-grade sci-fi aesthetic and a paranoid misanthropic worldview. Hubbard basically ripped off and and made up crap.
No, forming opinions, as you have, without looking "is asinine and unscientific." But for a materialist such as you, looking or even being honest is too much for your obvious cowardice. Pardon me while I go talk to decent people.
He doesn't "explain" what the location is because this is simply a brief overview. You could take an honest look, as he suggests, and satisfy for yourself the existence of these things. The life unit, thetan, spirit, whatever, is not a physical thing. It is a static; that which gives life but has no physical location, energy, mass, or wavelingth. The location he is referring to is the point in space from which you LOOK; the viewpoint.
Claims of exteriorization and of things which can be experienced as well as their SOP are in themselves testable.
This difficulty is that when such are tested empirically they simply fail, but the results are dogmatically denied because LRH's says otherwise. It's like homeopathy, those who believe in it simply ignore all the testing which had been done or the reality of the subject.
By that logic, mentally ill people who claim to be Nepoleon are just as justified. They have personal experiences which are real and factual (to them).
The problem is that it can be empirically shown that his claim fails just as exteriorization fails, but you simply wait for it to be proven.
Personal experience is both faulty and easily fooled, that is why in science nothing it taken purely upon it.
The moon is made of snow, I can see so, I'll wait on the non-disproof of that.
@wolverine467 False! According to NASA guidelines, a comet has to be at least 85% ice in order to be considered an actual comet. and the rest is actually made
of dust, frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and
You just said results are denied because of personal experience, I can just as easily deny the results of science because to my personal experience it is made of snow.
Even if everyone in my religion believes in a personal experience, it does not make it true if there is no empirical evidence for* and much against it.
Denying this and saying "just cuz we cant prove it now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is just a non-scientific cop-out.
@marcotai No Harizi's argument is spot-on. You are basically elevating subjective first-person experience to the same level as objective investigation and measurement and you are doing so without any justification. Also it was never "valid" (i.e. truthful) to state the proposition "The moon is made of snow". In epistemology it is conventional to distinguish between _belief_ and _truth_. You appear to have collapsed the two categories into one.
@marcotai By the same token, something for which there is no objective evidence can NOT be asserted as being real and true with confidence. If the the only argument you have for "exteriorization" is subjective experience and a vague hope that there may be demonstrable objective evidence some time in the future then you have no argument, you have nothing. Exteriorzation and body thetans have the same epistemic status as ghosts, fairies and angels.
@marcotai Clearly you are paying for time share in Hubbards imaginary castle. Subjective report or first-person phenomenology -- which is what your argument rests upon -- doesn't count as evidence. Via drugs, brain trauma, electrical stimulation of brain regions, a multitude of subjective experiences can be induced which will also be accompanied by a phenomenologically rich description. This does not entail that these subjective experiences have any reality. Can you not see this?
@marcotai Phenomenology (i.e. first-person subjective experience) can't be used to establish an ontology. If it could then there would be no difference between the real and the surreal. You are in effect saying that if I have a subjective experience of something then that constututes evidence that that thing exists in someplace other than in my mind. If you are correct then all drug-induced and brain injury/stimulation induced hallucinations are real. i.e. they aren't actually hallucinations.
@marcotai "It may be untestable in a scientific laboratory (yet) but that doesn't mean that it could not be experienced as actually it can be experienced.and in fact there is something to be gained." You can't gain _any_ epistemic confidence on the basis of a hope. I could just as well assert than gnomes are real but it just hasn't been demonstrated yet. Again, all you have to reference is first-person subjective experience which is not a reliable means of obtaining information.
He opens with claiming the precise location of the life-unit or that which makes life....yet never actually explains what that location is. It's like saying he knows where yawns come from but says nothing about the physical lungs.
@marcotai But Hubbard hasn't demonstrated the existence of a "spirit" he merely takes its existence for granted and you are doing the same. This is a question-begging argument.
LRH was a liar and a conman,g00gle XENU to get the facts
OTpowerz 3 months ago 4
"Golden Age of Knowledge" (LoL) was a scam to further fleece the $cilon herd. Went something like this "All the shit that you've spent thousands on was wrong, now buy 99% of the same thing for twice as much money."
Punchline: They bought it! Buncha fuckin' rubes! That's the real reason that $ci.stat = fail because, PT Barnum or no, not enough sucker are born dumb enough to swallow the horseshit...
KidVolcano 5 months ago
@KidVolcano Muh-ha-ha...but I only bought it ONCE, because i fuking rule! Seriously tho, I c what u mean. It looks suspect, at first glance, sure. But the whole 'Golden Age' pack seems like a huge improvement. I will agree with u if they change it again, in a few years time, & expect them to buy everything again for the THIRD time! (or 4 me to buy it for a 2nd time) If that happens, it will b unbelievable. But I doubt it...
TheNewAeon2012 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 Don't brag about giving the Co$ your money. Doing so just shows that you are gulllible. You are boasting about getting fucked in the ass by Miscavige.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate ok, we'll c who's gullible in about 10 years, when ppl like u will be the "minority" at that point. u'll see it happen. i can c it happening as clearly as i saw thru u from reading yr first comment. btw, what i was saying in the comment was that i wasn't one of those that bought the same thing all over again because i was "told to". i very much doubt i would've done that. anyway, the point is the stuff is worth its weight in gold.
TheNewAeon2012 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 I don't think you can see anything regarding the CoS clearly. You were entirely wrong about my background so I can't see in what manner you saw "thru" me. Observe that you haven't actually offered anything substantive in defense of Dianetics and other CoS "tech". Your position comes down to two things: (1) report of first-person subjective experience; (2) a hope that sometime in the future there will exist objective evidence of the validity of CoS "tech".
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
...In other words you don't have anything of evidentiary value to bring to the table. Nothing. Item (2) implicitly concedes that you have absolutely no evidence nor even a sound theoretical justification. You literally have nothing other than a hope that in around 10 years something magical will happen. CoS has been around for almost 50 years and no confirmational evidence regarding has appeared so what do you expect to happen in 10 years? Is that when Hubbard will return triumphant?....
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
The evidence that has been gathered in neuroscience since CoS was founded actually contradicts Hubbards conception of the human mind. There is no such organ that has the properties of the "reactive mind". There is no organ that has an indelible memory of all things since conception. Memory is pre-linguistic until well after birth and at no stage in development does a human acquire a cognitive organ that records all memories. Refer to Dennet's TED lecture on consciousness.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate Correction: "at no stage in development does a human acquire a cognitive organ that records all experiences".
Refer to Dennett's TED lectures for an accessible account of human cognition and percerption. Hubbard is completely wrong regarding the "reactive mind" -- there is no such organ or function. Humans don't have an indelible record of all experience extending back to conception. Humans don't even have an indelible and complete record of all experiences in the last 60s.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 'what i was saying in the comment was that i wasn't one of those that bought the same thing all over again because i was "told to". ' So you are saying that you are bringing "the same thing all over again" of your own volition? If you had even a cursory understanding of 20th century cognitive psychology and neuroscience you would know that the Hubbards conception of the mind is entirely wrong. There is at least 50 years of results that directly contradict the core ideas of Di.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
Hubbard's legacy to his fellow men is paranoia, insanity, exploitation, misanthropy, delusion, lies and hypocrisy.
PiotrThePrimate 6 months ago 9
Fuck, this is really depressing. The idea that many of my fellow men pay to imbibe this pseudoscientific, pseudophilosophical bullshit is utterly demoralising. LRH failed calculus at university and flunked out of his degree. He has a miserable military record. He had paranoid schizophrenia and his corpse was replete with a cocktail of narcotics. "Lets gather the insane rantings of a mad man and treat them like holy writ". Great idea.
PiotrThePrimate 6 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate Ok F*ckface...what IS it exactly that u can't understand about all this?! Fine, u mite have a point with some of the criticisms (whatever...) but the thing is that this shit delivers what it promises & the story ends there. Period. As for "exteriorizing"...well, sorry to burst your bubble pal, but it IS possible. It's not Hubbard's "invention" (even though the word, itself, is his own made up one). Another term for it is Astral Travelling and it can be done and has been done.
TheNewAeon2012 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 What a ridiculous and presumptuous question. To the extent that nonsense can be understood I understand Hubbard and likely know more of his writings than you do because I've read all of the writings associated with each of the OT levels (that have been made public). Merely asserting "this shit delivers what it promises" doesn't amount to any sort of argument or evidence -- its just a naked assertion. If you have something more than pantomime argument to offer please present.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate Ok pal, I think u have some very fixed ideas about certain things. Pantomime my foot! U don't know me from a bar of soap. I don't DO pantomime. Im NOT a member of the church if u must know. I'm not just a robotic "Hubbard repeater". However, it happens that I have yet to find a more effective new Age system. If ur telling me that reading the stuff that's been leaked on the net is meant 2b a comprehensive "study" of the subject, then even this reply has been a waste of my time
TheNewAeon2012 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 Again, all you are able to offer is self-referential, first-person subjective experience which is one of the worst methods (if not the worst) for learning about the physical universe (i.e. the stuff that persists when you stop thinking about it/the objective world/reality). In epistemic terms it is irrelevant what you have found "effective". Also, more than the OT documents have been leaked. Many Hubbard books and even COS courses have been leaked -- look on bit torrent.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate Ok, I've been thru "debates" like this b4 & they never end. It's not like i'm "wimping out" or anything. There's just no point. On 1 hand: I know all the new age stuff (including Scio) works! On the othr hand: u INSIST it's "subjective" (yet, amazingly, and paradoxically, u refuse to try it out first), so we will end up posting 20 replies back & forth 4 nothing. I don't need bit torrent btw. I own the entire Basics pack (with the lectures) & it's the best info I've ever studied
TheNewAeon2012 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 Again, you fail to grasp that if I try Scientology tech all I will have is subjective experience. It 1 million people have a probe inserted into there temporal lobe and report a vision of an angel it doesn't in any way demonstrate that angels do in fact exist and that these people were actually visited upon by an angel. No amount of purely subjective experience can establish the objective existence of a thing. Again, your opinion regarding the "best info" is irrelevant.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate Ok...so wtf do u want, at the end of the day?? What is it exactly that ur expecting: 1) from a youtube comment and 2) from a course of philosophical/spiritual study? I'm sorry to have to tell u that (whether good or bad) ALL experience is subjective, if we really want 2b honest about life. The only variable here is whether or not OTHER ppl agree with our subjective reality. The more ppl agree, the more that reality becomes "consensus". That's how "experience" works, sorry...
TheNewAeon2012 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 Yes indeed all conscious experience is subjective but (a) subjectivity can be investigated objectively; (b) it does not imply that there is no objective existence; and (c) it doesn't imply that no distinction can be made between objective reality and subjective experience. You appear totally confused on (a), (b) and (c). You are also confusing inter-subjective experience (i.e. subjective experience shared by more than one person) and objective reality.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The more ppl agree, the more that reality becomes "consensus". That's how "experience" works, sorry..."
That is how inter-subjective experience workks but that doesn't say anything about an underlying objective reality that is indifferent to subjective experience. I would argue that there is simething beyond subjectivity and inter-subjectivity, viz. objective reality.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 If your manner of engaing me is also the manner you have engaged your other interlocutors then you haven't actually debated anyone. You engage in pantomime debate. All you do is make unsubstantiated claims and mine your subjective experience for what you believe to be evidence. Introspection is not able to reveal even the smallest of trivialities about neurology -- no amount of subjectivity mining will lead you to neurons and neurotransmitters. Subjectivity is entirely walled
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate wow...u said interlocutors! I'm terrified now, I had 2look that shit up (no I didn't really. I have almost 150 IQ & speak/read/write 3 languages, i'm fine). As I said, I spotted u from a mile away: a typical western "scientist". Talking about neurons and neurotransmitters, etc. Believing that Mind = Brain, etc. I hav Greek background, so when I talk about Ancient Greek philosophy I know what im saying...& I say this: those guys back then KNEW about Reincarnation & about Spirit
TheNewAeon2012 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 If the CoS measured your IQ then forget about the score -- their tests aren't standardised and they've never been re-normed so the scores are invalid. I'm not a scientist and I have a degree in philosophy so you didn't spot antyhing from even up close. Just because you have a Greek background that doesn't make you an expert on Plato or Aristotle. Are all Greeks -- even the taxi drivers -- experts in Greek philosophy? (continues)
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
...The Greeks were right about lots of things but they were also wrong about lots of things. Aristotle -- for example -- believed that women have less teeth than men. Galen's anatomical texts contained many errors. These two cases are noteworthy because neither conclusion was based on observation: Aristotle never actually counted the teeth of women and Galen made many drawings without human dissection. No amount of subjective investigation would have help Aristotle or Galen avoid error.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
Nothing of Hubbard's "tech" works. Where are all the "clears" with genius IQs and perfect memory? There is absolutely no evidence that "astral travel" is real rather than an apparent and entirely subjective experience. There has recently been a large scale well-structured of OOB in the context of general anaesthesia but its results remain pending. Hubbard has created a castle in thin air and you are paying rent to live in one of the imaginary rooms. You are delusional.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PiotrThePrimate Correction: "There has recently been a large scale well-structured study of OOB in the context of general anaesthesia but its results remain pending.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@PiotrThePrimate Am I an awesome detective or WHAT? Ha! See, I knew u would say Astral Travelling isn't real, which is precisely why I mentioned it. I wanted to prove my point, which is: the w*nkers that will say Scientology doesn't work and that ppl that think it does are delusional etc, etc, will ALSO (100% of the time) say the same about Astral Travelling, Meditation, etc, etc. So ur just a typical "materialistic wanker", who tries 2 appear smart by using words like pseudophilosophical, etc
TheNewAeon2012 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 Can't you see that you are merely making assertions without any argument or evidence? You are entirely self-referential and privileging your subjective experience as if it is capable of revelaing truth about the physical universe when all it can actually reveal is your subjectivity. The reason I say Scientology and astral travel don't work is because there is no evidence that they do and some evidence that they don't work. Also, I believe in non-physical things such as qualia.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@TheNewAeon2012 The statment "Am I an awesome detective or WHAT? Ha! See" is more evidence of your self-referentiality. You have especially privileged your subjectivity to the degree that you seem to believe that your subjective experiences are as real as anything in the physical universe. This self-referentiality, solipsism and privileging of subjectivity appears to be the sustaining cognitive style of CoS automatons.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheNewAeon2012 "Fine, u mite have a point with some of the criticisms (whatever...) but the thing is that this shit delivers what it promises & the story ends there. Period. " No, sorry CoS doesn't deliver anything besides exploitation, suffering, grief and sometimes even death. You sound butt hurt because I referenced Hubbard's actual biography rather than the fictional one. Hubbard was a severely mentally ill, unoriginal, misanthropic loser at life. He sucked at everything.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
What load of garbage. A complete sham. Hubbard was a lunatic and Miscavige is the devil.
fzappa007 6 months ago
@laladiel
v
v
v
AnonymousFail2011 is
v
v
TheBornAnnoyed aka JaneTheInsane
enolapayback 6 months ago
Come One, Come All, aboard the train wreck with is Anonymous.
AnonymousFail2011 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrDunedon 6 months ago
hubbard failed math marco, you sure its a good idea to listen to him when he is trying to sound like he knows what hes talking about when it comes to math?also, hubbard said therewas no such thing as a soul, why the change?
laladiel 6 months ago
@laladiel Are you a protest fag?
AnonymousFail2011 6 months ago
Comedy GOLD!! LOLed through the whole video.
BoredPerv69 6 months ago
@BoredPerv69 Indeed, but when I keep thinking about it and that people pay thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated with this shit and that they eventually come into bondage with the CoS, genuinely depresses me. People are wasting their lives and their genuine potential on internalising (which is a real word) the paranoid and ugly worldview of an untreated paranoid schizophrenic with a misanthropic bent.
PiotrThePrimate 6 months ago
Your wallet must be soooo happy!!
DrSAM69 6 months ago
Hubbard loves to use vaguely scientific sounding noises- almost always without actually understanding what they mean! He "developed" techniques that cause psychosis as many videos of the "powerful" OTs on youtube will show!
Philosophy is to science as porn is to sex- cheap, easily available and some people prefer it to the real thing!
laserofjustice 7 months ago
@laserofjustice What a great ignorance you show about philosophy and science.
LOL
.
marcotai 7 months ago
@marcotai Hubbard's "philosophy" is the cheapest and most readily available there is and, frequently laughable, deranged and stolen from other sources!
laserofjustice 7 months ago
@laserofjustice Please don't besmirch the name of philosophy with Hubbard's insane rantings and bloviations. Hubbard's crap doesn't qualify as philosophy by any accepted definition of the discipline. Dianetics and Scientology are merely patchwork bastards drawn from ideas that were fashionable during Hubbards lifetime and some even old (even ancient ideas) blended with a 1950s B-grade sci-fi aesthetic and a paranoid misanthropic worldview. Hubbard basically ripped off and and made up crap.
PiotrThePrimate 6 months ago
@marcotai BTW, the last comment about philosophy and science I quoted from a respected particle physicist with an OBE!
laserofjustice 7 months ago
@ Harizl
No, forming opinions, as you have, without looking "is asinine and unscientific." But for a materialist such as you, looking or even being honest is too much for your obvious cowardice. Pardon me while I go talk to decent people.
vassiton 7 months ago
He doesn't "explain" what the location is because this is simply a brief overview. You could take an honest look, as he suggests, and satisfy for yourself the existence of these things. The life unit, thetan, spirit, whatever, is not a physical thing. It is a static; that which gives life but has no physical location, energy, mass, or wavelingth. The location he is referring to is the point in space from which you LOOK; the viewpoint.
vassiton 7 months ago
@vassiton
There is no evidence for solipsism and nothing to be gained by it being true nor lost if true.
On that assumption, I have* taken a look at what constitutes myself and found all which is non-physical to be unsupported and sheer assumption.
To support the untestable upon else-wise explainable phenomena is asinine and unscientific.
Harizl 7 months ago
@Harizl It may be untestable in a scientific laboratory (yet) but that doesn't mean
that it could not be experienced as actually it can be experienced.and in fact
there is something to be gained. Toward at the end of that video LRH talks about
S.O.P (Standard Operative Procedure) which is a set of processes based on those
assumptions that are able to exteriroize an individual from his body..
marcotai 7 months ago
@marcotai
Claims of exteriorization and of things which can be experienced as well as their SOP are in themselves testable.
This difficulty is that when such are tested empirically they simply fail, but the results are dogmatically denied because LRH's says otherwise. It's like homeopathy, those who believe in it simply ignore all the testing which had been done or the reality of the subject.
Harizl 7 months ago
@Harizl "...but the results are dogmatically denied because LRH's says otherwise"
Not so, empirical results are denied because people with those processes do
exteriorize from the body, their experience (for them) are real and factual.
Again, something that right now can't be empirically proven, doesn't necessarily
mean that it doesn't exist.
marcotai 7 months ago
@marcotai
By that logic, mentally ill people who claim to be Nepoleon are just as justified. They have personal experiences which are real and factual (to them).
The problem is that it can be empirically shown that his claim fails just as exteriorization fails, but you simply wait for it to be proven.
Personal experience is both faulty and easily fooled, that is why in science nothing it taken purely upon it.
The moon is made of snow, I can see so, I'll wait on the non-disproof of that.
Harizl 7 months ago
@Harizl Your argument is too simplistic, it lacks a fundamental logic which is:
the value of a datum is solely determinated by comparing it or associating it
with another datum of the same or similar magnitude.
While exterirization can be achieved by every individual using the same
process, there is no way to make every individual feeling to be Napoleon.
Also your example of the moon is faulty because we already know that the
moon is not made of snow but 500 years ago it would have been valid.
marcotai 7 months ago
And do not forget that comets are indeed made of snow;-)
marcotai 7 months ago
@marcotai no they are not. ice and water are some of the elements contained but rock makes up the majority of most comets.
wolverine467 7 months ago
@wolverine467 False! According to NASA guidelines, a comet has to be at least 85% ice in order to be considered an actual comet. and the rest is actually made
of dust, frozen gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and
ammonia and a small part of rock particles.
marcotai 7 months ago
@wolverine467 What ignorance. aside the fact that I'm a physicist...just
go to look it up in wikipedia, you "expert". LOL
marcotai 7 months ago
@marcotai
My moon example is not faulty.
You just said results are denied because of personal experience, I can just as easily deny the results of science because to my personal experience it is made of snow.
Even if everyone in my religion believes in a personal experience, it does not make it true if there is no empirical evidence for* and much against it.
Denying this and saying "just cuz we cant prove it now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is just a non-scientific cop-out.
Harizl 7 months ago
@marcotai "Exteriorizing"?! So you are using Hubbard's made up words and expect to be taken seriously.
PiotrThePrimate 6 months ago
@marcotai No Harizi's argument is spot-on. You are basically elevating subjective first-person experience to the same level as objective investigation and measurement and you are doing so without any justification. Also it was never "valid" (i.e. truthful) to state the proposition "The moon is made of snow". In epistemology it is conventional to distinguish between _belief_ and _truth_. You appear to have collapsed the two categories into one.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@marcotai yes it does asshole. One CANNOT exteriorize. It cannot be done, I cant do it YOU cant do it NOBODY can do it you fucking MORON !!!!
fzappa007 5 months ago
@marcotai By the same token, something for which there is no objective evidence can NOT be asserted as being real and true with confidence. If the the only argument you have for "exteriorization" is subjective experience and a vague hope that there may be demonstrable objective evidence some time in the future then you have no argument, you have nothing. Exteriorzation and body thetans have the same epistemic status as ghosts, fairies and angels.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@marcotai Clearly you are paying for time share in Hubbards imaginary castle. Subjective report or first-person phenomenology -- which is what your argument rests upon -- doesn't count as evidence. Via drugs, brain trauma, electrical stimulation of brain regions, a multitude of subjective experiences can be induced which will also be accompanied by a phenomenologically rich description. This does not entail that these subjective experiences have any reality. Can you not see this?
PiotrThePrimate 6 months ago
@marcotai Phenomenology (i.e. first-person subjective experience) can't be used to establish an ontology. If it could then there would be no difference between the real and the surreal. You are in effect saying that if I have a subjective experience of something then that constututes evidence that that thing exists in someplace other than in my mind. If you are correct then all drug-induced and brain injury/stimulation induced hallucinations are real. i.e. they aren't actually hallucinations.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
@marcotai "It may be untestable in a scientific laboratory (yet) but that doesn't mean that it could not be experienced as actually it can be experienced.and in fact there is something to be gained." You can't gain _any_ epistemic confidence on the basis of a hope. I could just as well assert than gnomes are real but it just hasn't been demonstrated yet. Again, all you have to reference is first-person subjective experience which is not a reliable means of obtaining information.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago
He opens with claiming the precise location of the life-unit or that which makes life....yet never actually explains what that location is. It's like saying he knows where yawns come from but says nothing about the physical lungs.
It goes nowhere.
Harizl 7 months ago
@Harizl When LRH says that this "unit" has been precisely located. he doesn't
mean "located" in space. In fact this "unit" is the creator of spatial dimensions,
and the point from where you, as a spirit, observe is just a viewpoint.
marcotai 7 months ago
@marcotai
The conclusion is simply the initial assumption.
Making connections without justifying them is just as valid as the claims defining things to be non-physical and non-conceptual but still existing.
Harizl 7 months ago
@marcotai But Hubbard hasn't demonstrated the existence of a "spirit" he merely takes its existence for granted and you are doing the same. This is a question-begging argument.
PiotrThePrimate 4 months ago