Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by DeathHamster, May 15, 2011.
You can't have a conversation with a computer virus.
I reiterate my statement of ROFLMAO at your incessant fail, Mr. Butt. You have been owned.
Ok, I wasn't going to warrant this with a response because I really feel like it's pointless to keep on reiterating the same points over and over again, and the sooner I realize this, the better (and the sooner you realize this, the better as well). But alright, I'll take the stupid bait and give it a nibble.
Just to humor you and answer your question, yes, I see a picture of a cat. Wow. My second grade son couldn't have noticed this brain function - Hubbard was a smart man to have been the first to notice that you can visualize images. Next.
Yeah, he "discovered" it, because no one else knew about or had been studying such things. /sarcasm
You can obtain self-control and self-discipline without Dianetics, and these two things are something humans have been practicing for thousands of years. Suppression of instinctual behavior is the first thing that separates humans from other animals.
Since you keep using just images as an example, I'll stick with the theme. You are making the claim here that mental images can only be seen or thought about if they in fact exist as a material object somewhere in a plane of existence, correct?
Hahaha hey guise ScnTroll here is saying that unicorns and dragons are real! Woohooo!!! Hey, I'm picturing a unicorn shitting gold all over my front yard! I'm gonna be RICH!!!
Seriously dude, are you fucking serious? In order to imagine a mental image it first has to be real? How do you explain art? I can make mental images in my head right now of things that clearly don't exist, never have existed, and never will exist. This is just part of Hubbard's brainwashing trying to turn you into drones.
Hubbard might as well be saying: "The imagination doesn't exist. If you see a mental picture, that means it's real. Therefore, if you imagine I'm right, that means I'm right. I couldn't have made up Scientology or OT3 unless it was real."
-Astra Woodcraft, ex-Sea Org member http://exscientologykids.com/astra2.html
This is what is known as circular thinking, and jumping to conclusions based on the assumption that "A" is true, even if it isn't.
Conclusions based on faulty logic (let's say A is actually false): "A is true because it is an unproven hypothesis that some dude said was true, so that means B is also true." (commence circular thinking for positive reinforcement)
Compare to: "A.) Hubbard said the mind is made up of real images from real material objects inside the space-time continuum; therefore B.) If Hubbard imagined these things, that means they are real."
Circular thinking: "A is true because B is true. B is true because A is true. Which means A is true because B is true."
Compare to: "A.) Hubbard said the mind is made up of real image from real material objects inside the space-time continuum; therefore B.) If Hubbard imagined these things, that means they are real; therefore since B is true and they are real, A is true and Hubbard thought of them because they were real." I call it the "ABBA phenomenon": A -> B -> B -> A
Can you explain why there is no mention of the Reactive mind in my psychology books? Is it a conspiracy or something like that?
Shut up before your soul is lost forever.
It's just a stupid term coined by Hubbard to make it look like he discovered something that he didn't discover. Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain, usually caused by outside stimuli, but can also be caused by thinking about or remembering something that causes the brain to make you feel emotion. It's well documented in psychology, just not as "the reactive mind", it's more like "having an emotional reaction to a memory or thought", and these chemical changes have been well studied and documented, even though Hubbard would like to dismiss them and say that you're actually traveling back through space and time and revisiting where the incident actually occurred.
That's why when you store a document that you wrote on your hard drive, the hard drive has to act like a time machine every time you bring that document back up, because storage of information is impossible. It has to actually travel back through the space-time continuum to the plane of existence where you wrote the document, nab it from there, and then bring it back through the ether to the present time. Aren't hard drives amazing?! /sarcasm
Am I going to get pneumonia and die if I get any closer to figuring out what Hubbard was doing?
Learn the difference between science and pseudoscience and you'll begin to see mental pictures of Hubbard being wrong a quack, a fake, a fraud, a moron, a lunatic, a scammer (<- take your pick).
...Why this thread is kept up?
Just toss it into an ENDLESS PIT OF SORROW AND PAIN already, we all know the answers that ScnTo will post.
Or at least change the title to "ScnTo being stupid again,please take a sit and coffee to get bored until you want to slit your hands with the car's door!"
Or let's change subject. I want a coffee right now.
ITT: FREEMAN'S MIND.
Does anyone watch the series? How about Civil Protection? Barney's Mind?
Whee! Fixing stuff for you all over the place.
DOUBLE POST ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE THREAD
YEAH YEAH YEAH
w/e I like the reverse fair game going on.
Dianectics is a pretty eye opening read.
What does it MEAN?!
Science has to be independently verified. The reason it is called "Newtonian Physics" is because his discoveries proved to be scientific laws, which any scientist can apply, and get the same results. This is called peer review. If you draft up an idea, but no one else can make it happen, that means there is something else at work.
This really is the greatest video ever, but if you have seen it before, skip to 2:53 and replace the words 'Cold Fusion" with Dianetics.
though for ScnTo I would recommend watching the whole video.
Ahh wait... I think I can hear your rebuttal:
"But the human mind is to complex to be a precise science of law like Newtonian Physics!! it's more akin to nuclear physics, and the theory of relativity."
Despite the fact that Dianetics says it is on the order of, but simpler than physics... Okay that's possible.
But consider that according to your church, Hubbard took the first ever Nuclear physics class in America. So with that course, shouldn't he have been able to discuss Dianetics on the level of uncertainty? he apparently had training this physics.
awww. we gettin' to you?
Brain function is entirely about structure and plasticity.
The brain is not a computer and it does not "store" things like a hard drive. There is no part of the brain where pain is stored. The memory of pain consists of many components each handled by different structures within the brain. Brain function follows structure.
Proving that mental images -or "imagination"- exists is like saying the sky is blue. True, but irrelevant to the conversation and it doesn't prove the existence of a reactive mind.
irrelevant, and quite frankly, retarded.
Read this part here
With a sea of information coming at us from all directions, how do we sift out the misinformation and bogus claims, and get to the truth? Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine lays out a "Baloney Detection Kit," ten questions we should ask when encountering a claim.
The 10 Questions:
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2.Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
Respond to anyone's replies with any of the preceding questions that should have been asked to check their claim.
and feel free to spam 10 all the time. that one's a biggie.
I don't think it's actually smart enough to come up with a rebuttal anywhere NEAR what you just imagined there. The rebuttal would be more like: "You're wrong. Hubbard said (insert copy/paste here)"
Oh it won't, that's why I send my replies directly to their inbox. That way there is not comm lag(as you refer to it) or chaff. I just post here as well so everyone can see what I said.
You guys are getting trolled by a real Scilon who has no interest in stopping his belief and in fact is trying to get you all to stop. Please, just stop, both sides are not gonna get anywhere with this.
Hey, more time they spend trying to get us to stop protesting is time they aren't spending saving the world like their fake religion says to. I wonder if anyone pointed that out to them yet.
If a scilon is trying to get you to do something the last thing you want to do is comply. \Al Buttnor getting doxed here is presicely the very definition of TT "getting somewhere"
The brain does store information like a hard drive, and process it like a computer. Computers were modeled after (a crude idea of) how the brain functions. I think you meant to say "emotions are not stored in the brain" - that would be correct. Emotions are chemical reactions, not store-able information like your name or what your dog looks like. You are however able to store the information about what emotions you felt when that memory was created. If you look at your dog and get a "warm, fuzzy feeling", every time you think about your dog you will get roughly the same warm, fuzzy feeling, recreated in some capacity (usually at a lesser degree than the original), because emotions are pretty generic and there are only a handful of them, just at different levels based on the amount of chemicals released at the time the memory was created. It happens because that is your natural reaction to that image, not because anyone thinks emotions are stored (except for Hubbard and his drones).
Problem is, he thinks he is saving the world, just as much as you think you can completely destroy Scientology from the outside. Both aren't going to happen.
that i am officially blind cuz of the yellow text in between the red and the blue text?
"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."
LRH - "Radiation", lecture of 5 November 1956
Not one but two long ass threads: you can believe that somewhere along the line someone has pointed everything out. Whatever ScnTO is, it's not listening and clearly has a machine like ability to stick to an extremely narrow range of response. If replying is still entertaining to you then keep it up, but get a perspective: it's not making any difference.
OK. We should all stop posting in this thread. I'll start stopping...in 3... 2... 1
There are no memory cells and no sectors. There is no structure in the brain that holds memories. A memory is made up of many components, visual, emotional, tactile, olfactory etc. Different parts of the brain process various components of an experience that in total make up a memory. Computers don't work like that. Also, the brain is plastic, a computer is not. The brain can reorganize its structure to cope with things, computers cannot.
An example is a person who has suffered a brain injury who thinks that all his loved ones are actually doppenganers because even tho they recognize the person, part of their memories of them is fucked up. And they are unable to feel the sense of "familiarity" they had before because of the injury. Computers don't work like that.
Hey, Reverend BUTTnor:
Why is it that if your precious scamatology works, you're still sucking cocks in Quebec bathhouses?
Isn't being gay "1.1"?
I think you ought to knock it off. Both the proselytising AND the cocksucking.
Dere Rev. BUTTnor:
I'll bet you'd have sucked dead L. Ron's cock if he'd asked you to.
1. Get protesters to stop protesting
2. Get protesters to become clients of the Scientology corporation
3. Hurt protesters psychologically with Scientology voodoo brainwashing
4. Waste protester's time and keep them busy so they have less time to attack the Scientology corporation
ScnTO's attitude towards protesters:
1. They're evil
2. They're dumber than a 2 year old.
3. If they all died today she'd throw a big party
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!