What's new

The “Reactive Mind”

RSS Feed

RSS Feeder Bot
There is a new post up at the Mike Rinder's Blog

The “Reactive Mind”

L. Ron Hubbard came up with a theory that he explained at great length in his book Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health. He presented is as scientifically proven fact, which it was not. Scientology to this day STILL claims that scientology is where science meets religion — and the most fundamental “science” is […]

Continue reading...
 

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
A sure cure for the reactive mind...

27f9c56065bc013642be005056a9545d
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Do we have reactive brain activities that can affect the prefrontal cortex? Yes.
Does this prove Hubbard's hypothetical model in DMSMH? No.

Do we have reactive brain activities that can affect skin resistance? Yes.
Does this mean that there is "mental mass" impinging on the body? No.
 
Last edited:

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
In proper scientific terms, "mental mass" would be considered "working theory"

And...

As an auditor I found it workable
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
In proper scientific terms, "mental mass" would be considered "working theory"
If the scientific method were actually applied at any point during the past 70+ years then it could have been referred to as a "working hypothesis".

Given that that is NOT the case, it would be inappropriate to characterize it in scientific terms.

Don't worry though about letting the facts get in the way of wearing your auditor apologist hat.
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
I beg your pardon Pitsy, but I am well versed and grounded in scientific method, I am a scientist in my own right and I have applied scientific rigor to my study of Hubbard's work and all my other researches

And...

WOW!!!

Have I come up with an ANOMALY!!!

YIKES!!!

Came up with it two years ago and have been meaning to publish here...
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I beg your pardon Pitsy, but I am well versed and grounded in scientific method, I am a scientist in my own right and I have applied scientific rigor to my study of Hubbard's work and all my other researches
Great! I'd love to see some research notes and/or any peer-reviewed papers from you or Dr. Hubbard.

Please post the link.
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
DMSMH was widely peer reviewed.

I am unpublished and my peers are high school graduates and as such utter nonentities inside the halls of Academe patrolled by hordes of honestly earned PhD's in the hands of boring nerds who are least two leagues short of being the philosopher Ron was Pitsy


And if you think that post was tinfoilly...

Ooooo...

You ain't seen nothin' yet

I mean to say it is a most anomalous anomaly
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
In proper scientific terms, "mental mass" would be considered "working theory"

And...

As an auditor I found it workable
Did you investigate other theories regarding the mind? Did you consider other explanations for the results you witnessed? Did you test the null hypothesis? Did you analyze failures and unexpected results? Or did you just "have faith in Hubbard"?
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
My studies have been far ranging

In fact, i just spent about 45 minutes with the brilliance of George Carlin
 

TomKat

Patron Meritorious
Personal awareness of the so-called reactive mind is a subjective perception, and the idea of subjecting it to the rigors of objective science is a non-starter. If I had that awareness, I would not try to convince someone who doesn't. And people who rely on science to determine their personal truth are beyond reach anyway.

That said, I don't believe in the reactive mind as defined by LRH, though I have experienced the phenomenon of reactivity. So I have no problem with LRH's description of the phenomenon as a METAPHOR. I have a big problem with LRH teaching it as an objective fact and something that can be erased altogether.

My experience along the road of "clearing" is that the clearer one becomes, the deeper the reactivity one becomes aware of. A real thorough clear would experience the emotional awareness/intensity (and reactivity) of a newborn baby, as opposed to the relative numbness of an adult. It's not uncommon for adult males to be almost completely unaware of their own reactivity, hence an over-reliance on "science." What passes for science is mostly a bunch of religious zealots calling themselves scientists due to fear of the unknown (their own minds).
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Personal awareness of the so-called reactive mind is a subjective perception, and the idea of subjecting it to the rigors of objective science is a non-starter. If I had that awareness, I would not try to convince someone who doesn't. And people who rely on science to determine their personal truth are beyond reach anyway.

That said, I don't believe in the reactive mind as defined by LRH, though I have experienced the phenomenon of reactivity. So I have no problem with LRH's description of the phenomenon as a METAPHOR. I have a big problem with LRH teaching it as an objective fact and something that can be erased altogether.

My experience along the road of "clearing" is that the clearer one becomes, the deeper the reactivity one becomes aware of. A real thorough clear would experience the emotional awareness/intensity (and reactivity) of a newborn baby, as opposed to the relative numbness of an adult. It's not uncommon for adult males to be almost completely unaware of their own reactivity, hence an over-reliance on "science." What passes for science is mostly a bunch of religious zealots calling themselves scientists due to fear of the unknown (their own minds).
My criticism is that LRH mischaracterized Dianetics as an "exact science on the order of engineering" and that it is simpler, as exact, and far more useful than physics and chemistry.

LRH and his Co$ made hundreds of millions by fraudulently characterizing Dianetics as an exact science and making other outrageous claims which were complete bullshit.
 
Last edited:

TomKat

Patron Meritorious
Could you be more specific on what you mean by this?

I'll provide one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
Any time a scientist comes across phenomena that can't be subjected to laboratory tests, they fall back on their religion and start inventing explanations, like mass hallucination or swamp gas. Much of science is ultimately government-funded nowadays, so their God is the Authority responsible for them having a paycheck. That's why even objective truth is so hard to find nowadays when 1% of the population owns half of the wealth (a fact they probably owe to 0.1% of the population who spend their days socially engineering the masses).

Sometimes they make things up just for the hell of it, as in the 1960s when they used to teach that nearsightedness was caused by a misshapen, elongated eye!

As to polio, you might want to check into research supporting the idea that it was on the way out by the time the vaccine came along in the early 50s, due to better hygiene, and that the epidemic may have been caused by the introduction of antibiotics which damaged the digestive systems of millions to the point their immune systems could not deal with the virus. Warning: that might violate the tenets of your religion :)
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Any time a scientist comes across phenomena that can't be subjected to laboratory tests, they fall back on their religion and start inventing explanations, like mass hallucination or swamp gas. Much of science is ultimately government-funded nowadays..." <snip>
It's tragic that so much research funded by both government and private corporations is done with an agenda inconsistent with the real purpose of science.

There's also been lots of research fraud, such as the CDC shredding inconvenient documents that don't align with the desired outcome of their research.

That's probably a subject best left to another thread though.
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
I beg your pardon Pitsy, but I am well versed and grounded in scientific method, I am a scientist in my own right and I have applied scientific rigor to my study of Hubbard's work and all my other researches

And...

WOW!!!

Have I come up with an ANOMALY!!!

YIKES!!!

Came up with it two years ago and have been meaning to publish here...
And let me guess, you created 270 clears!
 
Top