Fundamentalist Independent Scientology quantum mechanical explanation of the engram

Discussion in 'Independent Scientology' started by Anonymous, Jun 2, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Fundamentalist Independent Scientology quantum mechanical explanation of the engram.

    Obviously, with a topic this sophisticated and complicated, a mere excerpt will not suffice. One should refer to the original post in the iScientology Blog.


    • Like Like x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 3
  3. Anonymous Member

    I think they've solved all of physics!

    Quickly, send your paper to the #1 science journal to alert the world to this earth shattering discovery:

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    And if they won't publish this result, you could also try:

    • Like Like x 1
  5. Anonymous Member

    Someone give me a summary. I cant read all that.

    More of Hubbards amazing "discoveries" no doubt. He invented physics too?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

    tl;dr don't bother, it's a waste of time and effort. You will come out of the process dumber than you went in.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. wtf is the point of posting this crap?
  8. Anonymous Member

    For the lulz...

    "We, by the way, have generated atomic fission without the use of uranium. This is not a difficult thing to do. All you do is synthesize a gamma ray and synthesize some other rays and by concentrating them, you can get an atomic explosion."

    ~ L. Ron Hubbard ("Radiation", lecture of 5 November 1956)*

    "The way you make an atomic bomb is very interesting ... You take a piece of plutonium here and a piece of plutonium there and you put a stick between them, you see. You fix the back piece of plutonium so that it'll slide up and hit the front piece of plutonium when the stick hits something, and then you simply throw the stick. When the front piece of plutonium hits the ground, the back piece of plutonium hits the front piece of plutonium and it goes. And that's a bomb. And when it goes it releases a tremendous amount of gamma and many other items much too lengthy to catalogue."

    ~ Lecture "Radiation and the Scientologist", 13 April 1957

    * You'll discover that this technique is the very same one used by Hubbard when he invented music.

    He took Ray Charles, Johnnie Ray, Stevie Ray Vaughn, some other Rays, and by concentrating them, you get the Hit Tunes and the Top 40.
    • Like Like x 4
  9. DeathHamster Member

    If no one else will publish it, try here:

    • Like Like x 2
  10. RightOn Member

    blah blah blah blah blah thetan, engram, beingness, save the planet weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
    their mulligan's are full 'o mush
  11. Anonymous Member

    Good grief, Do they really believe this stuff or do they expect that the average aberrated wog will just swallow it?
    • Like Like x 1
  12. DeathHamster Member

  13. Anonymous Member

    Yeah, I saw those references to Lipton. I'm surprised Logan didn't cite Rupert Sheldrake and his "Morphic Resonance" woo-woo as well. It all seems a bit desperate really, a sort of frantic reaching rather than actual proof. At least he's come up to the 18th century with his grudging acknowledgement of energy being a quality rather than a substance. Then he blows it with his bizarre idea that cells "perceive". Meanwhile, Logan's leaps of logic, reflections of misunderstanding, bald assertions, and overt observer bias have any validity they disprove that engrams can be measured by electrical resistance. Given his "postulate", the only instrument which might measure the hubbardian fiction of engrams would be a geiger counter. Regardless, neither Lipton nor Sheldrake have any "science" which comes close to providing evidence for the Hubturd's engram nonsense. Logan's fundamental flaw is a comparison between pseudosciences which amounts to the apples/oranges fallacy.

    It will be interesting to observe if Logan now goes on to provide his version of the science behind Body Thetans.

  14. Hubbard was just Lee Harvey Oswald with money and an emeter instead of a Mannlicher Carcano. Amazing how he still has followers studying every word of his rambling bullshit.

    "Synthesize" That's a big word Ron. I am now bowled over and impressed because you used that word. It must be true. I think I am going to synthesize me some cosmic rays right after I do lunch at McDonald's where of course I will also synthesize my order and get large fries with that Big Mac.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. DeathHamster Member

    Such exactitudity!
  16. Anonymous Member

    Reading this shit always makes me depressed. It isn’t that it doesn’t make any sense, but rather that the author is simply too clueless to realise that the terminology used isn’t compatible with the concepts being espoused.

    It is like trying to decipher this: “Sentence a this words it in some random is with.”

    You sort of know what all the words in that sentence mean, but they don’t fit together conceptually. A good example illustrating this is LRH describing thoughts as having a ‘wavelength’, and then trying to use the concept of ‘wavelength’ as it applies to electromagnetic radiation.

    The author is particularly guilty of committing this ‘fallacy of conceptual equivocation’ (I don’t know what else to call it) when referring to engrams. The MIT research referenced by the author uses a concept of engram that is completely incompatible with the definition the author later relies upon (namely “an engram has been defined as a trace on a cell”).

    There are some rather striking examples that illustrate the author’s ignorance regarding the physics concepts involved. Take this example: “What Lipton says is actually operative is the scientific meaning of “energy”, that is, a massless force that does work or brings motion.” There are so many things wrong with this sentence that it is difficult to know where to start:
    - There is no such thing as a force being composed of mass, so the use of the word ‘massless’ to describe a force is nonsensical drivel. This is a glaring example of the author slipping in words to sound scientific without realising just how incompatible the concepts are.
    - Energy isn’t a force. This isn’t a pedantic quibble, but rather an important scientific concept that forms the basis of how scientific field theories are constructed. Given the author goes on to (ab)use quantum fields this type of conceptual precision is pretty crucial.

    Another classic example of the author not having a clue is this: “Lipton also goes on to describe that rather than “random mutation” in the DNA of specific parts of the sequences of genes, that the cell actually adapts the production of proteins, to respond to its environment. It isn’t “random” but is specific to a particular stimulus which is perceived.” This comment is a follow on from an earlier reference to these ideas accounting “for a more accurate theory of actual evolution”. In order to grasp the basic premise of evolutionary theory you only really have to understand two basic concepts (random mutation and natural selection), and here the author demonstrates a complete and utter misunderstanding of what one of those concepts entails (in this case random mutation). That the author thinks these ideas are a more accurate theory of evolution is pure Dunning–Kruger.

    *Special Note for the Author *
    On the off-chance you read this comment and are wondering as to the misunderstanding I refer to above, consider this analogy as an explanation. Imagine I want to choose a random number, and to do I paint a series of numbers in my garden and then proceed to throw a ball. Whatever number the ball comes to rest closest to will be my number. The number chose will be random in the sense that I cannot have predicted where the ball would come to rest. But, in another sense, the number is not random given that the flight of the ball obeys precise laws of physics and could be predicted from its initial velocity, the coefficient of restitution of the garden, the air pressure, wind speed, etc.

    The author makes this grand claim: “The Electro-Magnetic Spectrum is way higher than science has considered, up to now, and was described by L. Ron Hubbard in the work Scientology 8-80, some 60 years ago.” It is hard to describe how wrong this sentiment is, but I will try to do so by illustrating a particularly egregious concept conflict that occurs within the book. The first axiom, per the book, states “A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.” The same book contains only one equation, and here is a screenshot of the relevant portion:
    On page 66 (2007 edition) we have “The basic principle of energy production by a being has been copied in electronics. It is very simple. A difference of potential of two areas can establish an energy flow of themselves.” This allows us to deduce that E, energy potential, is voltage. The SI units for voltage are m^2 Kg s^-3 A^-1 where m is metres, Kg is kilograms, s is seconds and A is amperes.
    I, energy flow, has SI units A since it is straight forward current.
    R, resistance, is measured in ohms with SI units Kg m^2 s^-3 A^-2
    F, frequency, is measured in Hz which in SI is s^-1.
    Putting these together as per the equation, EI(-f)/-R, and cancelling the units gives life the dimensions of A^2/s.

    So, according to the equation above, life has both a current dimension and a time dimension – which doesn’t match very first axiom presented in the book. That such a high contradiction exists shouldn’t be surprising given that the Hubbard had no clue about what those concepts meant nor what they entailed from the perspective of physics – something the author is repeatedly guilty of.

    It is possible to write much more on the article but there really isn’t much point. It would be like trying to debunk a random collection of words splurged on a page. The article is a hodge-podge of different concepts that the author neither understands nor uses correctly, with said concepts being arranged in an attempt to prove ideas fundamentally incompatible with those same ideas.

    The author doesn’t understand either the terminology nor the underlying theoretical framework being the physics referred to in the article. The author’s ignorance of the topic has led to an article full of contradictions, fallacies and portions of pure unadulterated nonsense. The end result is an article devoid of scientific coherency that will actually lower your understanding of science should you read it.
    • Like Like x 6
  17. OTeleventy Member

    BOOM! (But boy do I feel really shtuupid.)
  18. Anonymous Member

    Quick! Get smarter!
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins