Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
PaulsRobot (was Paul's Robot Auditor)
The simple non-Scn version is at http://www.fzglobal.org/robot.htm.
The main menu, for those familiar with the lingo, is at http://fzglobal.org/robot/menu.htm. Apart from the regular core process, there is also a bunch of objectives, including CCHs 1-4, CCH 5, CCH 6, CCH 7, CCH 8, CCH 9, CCH 10, S-C-S on a Body, Opening Procedure of 8-C, and Opening Procedure by Duplication. I'm about 2/3 of the way through TRs 0-4. Of course it is impossible to do all these things like this, but take a good look before you reject it all out of hand. None of it is theroretical--I've been audited by each of these and they each do work.
This is all an easy way for someone to get some auditing to address things they want addressed. On a scale of desirability, it probably ranks thus:
1. Face-to-face with a well-trained auditor;
2. Over the web or phone with a well-trained auditor;
3. Paul's Robot Auditor;
4. Nothing.
I have had maybe 20 people who have used it and told me they appreciated it, and none who have told me they used it and had a bad experience with it. A couple didn't get much out of it. Many "standard tech" people have told me how impossible and terrible it is, without actually trying it, as they know it couldn't possibly work.
Anyway, it's free, it's online 24/7, and anyone is welcome to use it (at their own risk, of course!)
My responses to the main objections are below, taken from the FAQ accessible from that main menu:
This is ridiculous! How can auditing occur without a live being doing it?
The pc is a live being. Self Analysis done solo, just book and pc, often works. Shouting at the wall, punching the sofa, or writing something out in a letter or e-mail or journal is often a sufficient set-up to get charge off. Even praying. Look at your own experience to find an example. The procedure here demands the use of worksheets to write down one's reactions, realizations etc.
There is also the matter of expectation. In a live session, the pc reasonably expects to be audited by a live being, and if the auditor only gives machine-like responses, it is upsetting. But here, the pc fully expects automated responses and so they are not perceived in the same light. Indeed, if they are appropriate, the pc can be very appreciative.
Is this all theoretical?
No, it works in practice too. Have a friend or relative try it out.
Why call it an "Auditor"? This isn't auditing.
Isn't it? Look at all the definitions in the Tech Dictionary. True, a machine isn't going to "listen". But as a pc, does it feel like--and get results that could have come from--a regular auditing session? That would seem to be the acid test.
The processes you use in your "Core Version" are weird. Where do they fit on the standard grade chart?
They are based on ones from the 50s. They are audited off the meter. They could be looked on as Div 6 Intro processes, like the regular ones in the pack of "Introductory and Demonstration Processes and Assists".
Can you explain what you think is going on with your Core Version procedure?
One can approach it with a pre-formed C/S, like "Run the R2-60 items (protected sex etc.). Take each one in turn, stir it up for a few minutes, then see if it runs. If so, run it, and if not drop it and go on to the next one." That has been pretty workable, but only with items that are mostly charged, as the assessment to see if an item is charged takes maybe three minutes. If you have a list of items where only one in ten is charged, the assessment procedure is too long, and the signal/noise ratio in the session results in too much protest. I will probably pilot out a general list of items to check.
The alternate approach, the one built in to the current system, is to start the session with an open mind, and go with a "flash answer" type assessment of what to run, on the premise that the file clerk mechanism will toss up a runnable item. So one gets a flash answer of "mother", or "my auditing with Krinkle", say. As a method of assessment, a way to choose what to run, it seems to work quite well. An analytical interest-based approach, like "Hi! How are you doing? What do you want to run today?" doesn't seem as workable, especially with a totally untrained pc. Finding items by using a trained auditor with a meter would be preferable, but the whole point of Paul's Robot Auditor is that it is free, is available 24/7 anywhere on the planet where's there's Microsoft, can potentially speak any language, and is a close substitute for having a trained auditor there.
The next question in the procedure is another flash answer one, to narrow the target a bit. This is mid-tweak at the time of this writing.
There are four processes that take charge off, and so far they seem to run in the ratios of approximately 1:9:9:1. Charge off is determined only by physical discharge, such as yawns, sighs, tears. I am not going to get into whether this is a valid indicator or not. It seems to work well. Such a method of determining charge off is crucial here, as per the Auditors Code one only runs a process that will release or is releasing charge, and once started one has to continue with it until the releasing of charge flattens out, at which point one stops running the process. Having a robot make those decisions is impossible without some kind of indicator, readily visible to a completely untrained person, like "Yes--there was a yawn/sigh" or "No--there wasn't a yawn/sigh."
1. Itsa. The pc writes down the main persons, events, and included factors such as efforts/emotions/thoughts. A new pc is likely to get more charge off on this step than an old hand who has already had a lot of grades auditing, but as well as prompting immediate itsa/discharge this step functions to restimulate the area thoroughly so it can be addressed with a process that bites deeper than itsa.
2. Objective Havingness. The pc firmly touches things, his body, the chair, table etc. This is mainly done as the remedy for anaten turning on, which will turn on a lot if the procedure is followed correctly. If the pc doesn't urgently run objective hav like this, he can rapidly become too anaten to continue. If he follows the procedure, he will get off yawns and sighs and after two or twenty such discharges he will be able to continue, no longer with that anaten turning on. In other words, he will have successfully taken a bunch of charge off the subject he is running.
3. Mock-up or Creative Processing, "Put it above you" etc. Again, this is run in such a way as to take charge off the subject, as shown by a yawn or sigh etc. I assume that what is mainly happening is that the pc is taking over automaticies, controlling mental image pictures by moving them around in space at will instead of them controlling him below his awareness. LRH cancelled creative processing in HCOB 11 Feb 1960, Create and Confront. Quote: "When a pc over-creates he accumulates the unconfronted debris. All you have to do to restimulate debris (stiffen up the bank) is to run the pc on some version of create process." The very next sentence gives the remedy, namely "Havingness is a confront process and straightens out the create factor." This is what I am using in step 2 above.
In the 23 Feb 65 SHSBC tape, Level VII, LRH says that Creative Processing ran fine on maybe 99 people and didn't run fine on the 100th, so he cancelled it. My standards aren't as high as that. In my opinion, a 99% success rate is very acceptable, especially compared with a 0% success rate if you don't run anything! That tape also goes into the theory of what is happening in creative processing and why it works, in the 99% of cases where it does work.
4. Time-Shifting. This is basically more creative processing. I separated it out as I found it much more difficult to move all the mock-ups together in time than in space, and the procedure takes this into account. It takes off charge that shifting mock-ups in space doesn't.
How does this approach fit into the normal scheme of things?
You could consider it a Div 6 tool, a way to get a result on a new person if you don't have a better one available.
But if I send a prospect/friend/relative here, aren't I taking them off the bridge? Are you just going to run this weird stuff on them forever, maybe channeling them into your own private practice?
The screen after the end-of-session one includes a form for comments. The assumption is that if someone has a win using Paul's Robot Auditor, they will at least make some comment about it. The screen acknowledging the comment says they can come back and use the Robot whenever they want. If they want more data, to contact like-minded people, or to find out what else is available, then they are directed to Google terms like "Freezone" and "Scientology", and/or to e-mail bb (Terril Park).
So why aren't you channeling them all to your private practice?
What am I going to do with a million pcs wanting auditing or training, in English or Russian or Mandarin or Urdu? It would be very short-sighted to be selfish about this.
A MILLION? Surely you're joking?
Why? Think about it. What if it really did work as I am saying?
But if even one percent of a million pcs want to go on to a standard bridge, or get their Int corrected, or their out-list handled from that initial "What subject?" question, or an L1C prefixed "In your Robot auditing...", that is TEN THOUSAND pcs needing to be taken care of?!!
Mmm, yes.
Can I download this onto my own computer? You don't have copyright notices on each page, and you said it's free....
I decided it would be a distraction to have copyright notices on the session pages. You will notice them on the other pages. I can't stop you copying the pages, but I would prefer that you didn't right now. I am upgrading this all the time, and it would be better if you waited for a later version. I will make it available for simple download as a zip file when I consider it ready. Also, by running it from my site at http://www.fzglobal.org/robot, I can see how many people are accessing it. And so can you.
On it being "free", it will be free like shareware, not free like freeware. A fully functional copy will be available at no charge. It won't disable itself after 30 days. I will ask for, but not demand, a fair exchange.
What if they want to do the Bridge in the CofS? What do you think will happen then?
I expect the first ones will be denied auditing by Ethics. After a few dozen are turned away, RTC will reluctantly introduce a "Robot Auditing Repair Program" (C/S 53LF, Questionable Auditor Repair List, Sec Check etc.) based on a hitherto-unknown LRH advice, and then start happily taking their money and feeding them into the hopper. I doubt if the CofS will pay a ten percent FSM Commission to the original auditor.
Isn't it irresponsible to make available a tool like this? What if someone caves in after using it? Or commits suicide? Have you fully tested it?
Like a ten-year study by a reputable institution involving hundreds of people? Yeah, right. Life is dangerous, in some places more than others. You can cave in after an argument, or die crossing the road. Someone who is mentally unstable might commit suicide right after reading the Bible. Should the Bible then be banned, especially in some new electronic version? Yeah, yeah, straw man. The valid question is, Is the world better off overall with this Robot Auditor technology available and in use, or worse off?
Couldn't you have made this Robot Auditor thingy with 2005 processes instead of 1955 ones?
Not really. Self Analysis or Handbook for Preclears could be put into such a form, although not easily. Plus there would be copyright issues. But a Grades/NED Robot Auditor? That would be impossible to my current way of thinking. One reason--among many--is that it would be impossible to be certain about instant reads, such as when clearing a command, or on a pc origination. Book One? The main difficulty with that one, as with any solo Dianetics, is the pc going anaten. Objectives? Impossible to verify that the pc has executed the command unless you change the command to "Click Here". Plus, again, no handling for pc going anaten. [The author had second thoughts about some Objectives]. CC or OT2 with a C-meter and the pc holding solo cans? Probably, since these are solo levels anyway. A robot would just help with the admin, rather than making any decisions. OT3? To some extent, yes. The solo auditor would have to punch in what is happening, and a screen would come up showing the various options, like the five reasons for failure to ..., and the solo auditor could check them, but this would just be a fancy cue card system rather than an "auditor".
How about a simple repair, like an L1C, say? Pc holding solo cans. Robot calls off items, only acts on instant reads from lines given by Robot, not on pc origination. "Recently, has some emotion been rejected?" READ. Robot "looks at pc", i.e. unobtrusively prompts the pc to look for an answer. Pc says aloud into recorder, or writes, the answer, then hits "answered". Robot checks for an F/N, and if none, asks "Is there an e/s _____?" etc., and repeats procedure. It might work in some simple cases, as with any process that only requires calling off items, or reading down a list, and itsa e/s itsa to F/N (assuming the c-meter can recognize and respond appropriately to reads and F/Ns). In a lot of cases it wouldn't work at all. Again, reads on pc originations--major thoughts, not when the pc stops talking--are impossible to handle automatically. I have no intention of putting my time into such a hit-and-miss arrangement.
ARCX assessment? With the pc ARCXen and out of comm? No. Audited NOTs? Probably covered by the remarks above. Any audited level above the very simple is a no-no. Any solo level where the pc properly decides things anyway could have the various choices displayed on a screen, the fancy cue card system, which may be an improvement or it may not.
So why did you choose that particular combination of processes?
Because I had developed that combination when solo auditing, and found it very versatile, and workable. It doesn't require a meter. And it can be used at the bottom of the bridge as well as elsewhere without apparent problem.
Do you think this replaces the standard grade chart?
No.
Paul
The simple non-Scn version is at http://www.fzglobal.org/robot.htm.
The main menu, for those familiar with the lingo, is at http://fzglobal.org/robot/menu.htm. Apart from the regular core process, there is also a bunch of objectives, including CCHs 1-4, CCH 5, CCH 6, CCH 7, CCH 8, CCH 9, CCH 10, S-C-S on a Body, Opening Procedure of 8-C, and Opening Procedure by Duplication. I'm about 2/3 of the way through TRs 0-4. Of course it is impossible to do all these things like this, but take a good look before you reject it all out of hand. None of it is theroretical--I've been audited by each of these and they each do work.
This is all an easy way for someone to get some auditing to address things they want addressed. On a scale of desirability, it probably ranks thus:
1. Face-to-face with a well-trained auditor;
2. Over the web or phone with a well-trained auditor;
3. Paul's Robot Auditor;
4. Nothing.
I have had maybe 20 people who have used it and told me they appreciated it, and none who have told me they used it and had a bad experience with it. A couple didn't get much out of it. Many "standard tech" people have told me how impossible and terrible it is, without actually trying it, as they know it couldn't possibly work.
Anyway, it's free, it's online 24/7, and anyone is welcome to use it (at their own risk, of course!)
My responses to the main objections are below, taken from the FAQ accessible from that main menu:
This is ridiculous! How can auditing occur without a live being doing it?
The pc is a live being. Self Analysis done solo, just book and pc, often works. Shouting at the wall, punching the sofa, or writing something out in a letter or e-mail or journal is often a sufficient set-up to get charge off. Even praying. Look at your own experience to find an example. The procedure here demands the use of worksheets to write down one's reactions, realizations etc.
There is also the matter of expectation. In a live session, the pc reasonably expects to be audited by a live being, and if the auditor only gives machine-like responses, it is upsetting. But here, the pc fully expects automated responses and so they are not perceived in the same light. Indeed, if they are appropriate, the pc can be very appreciative.
Is this all theoretical?
No, it works in practice too. Have a friend or relative try it out.
Why call it an "Auditor"? This isn't auditing.
Isn't it? Look at all the definitions in the Tech Dictionary. True, a machine isn't going to "listen". But as a pc, does it feel like--and get results that could have come from--a regular auditing session? That would seem to be the acid test.
The processes you use in your "Core Version" are weird. Where do they fit on the standard grade chart?
They are based on ones from the 50s. They are audited off the meter. They could be looked on as Div 6 Intro processes, like the regular ones in the pack of "Introductory and Demonstration Processes and Assists".
Can you explain what you think is going on with your Core Version procedure?
One can approach it with a pre-formed C/S, like "Run the R2-60 items (protected sex etc.). Take each one in turn, stir it up for a few minutes, then see if it runs. If so, run it, and if not drop it and go on to the next one." That has been pretty workable, but only with items that are mostly charged, as the assessment to see if an item is charged takes maybe three minutes. If you have a list of items where only one in ten is charged, the assessment procedure is too long, and the signal/noise ratio in the session results in too much protest. I will probably pilot out a general list of items to check.
The alternate approach, the one built in to the current system, is to start the session with an open mind, and go with a "flash answer" type assessment of what to run, on the premise that the file clerk mechanism will toss up a runnable item. So one gets a flash answer of "mother", or "my auditing with Krinkle", say. As a method of assessment, a way to choose what to run, it seems to work quite well. An analytical interest-based approach, like "Hi! How are you doing? What do you want to run today?" doesn't seem as workable, especially with a totally untrained pc. Finding items by using a trained auditor with a meter would be preferable, but the whole point of Paul's Robot Auditor is that it is free, is available 24/7 anywhere on the planet where's there's Microsoft, can potentially speak any language, and is a close substitute for having a trained auditor there.
The next question in the procedure is another flash answer one, to narrow the target a bit. This is mid-tweak at the time of this writing.
There are four processes that take charge off, and so far they seem to run in the ratios of approximately 1:9:9:1. Charge off is determined only by physical discharge, such as yawns, sighs, tears. I am not going to get into whether this is a valid indicator or not. It seems to work well. Such a method of determining charge off is crucial here, as per the Auditors Code one only runs a process that will release or is releasing charge, and once started one has to continue with it until the releasing of charge flattens out, at which point one stops running the process. Having a robot make those decisions is impossible without some kind of indicator, readily visible to a completely untrained person, like "Yes--there was a yawn/sigh" or "No--there wasn't a yawn/sigh."
1. Itsa. The pc writes down the main persons, events, and included factors such as efforts/emotions/thoughts. A new pc is likely to get more charge off on this step than an old hand who has already had a lot of grades auditing, but as well as prompting immediate itsa/discharge this step functions to restimulate the area thoroughly so it can be addressed with a process that bites deeper than itsa.
2. Objective Havingness. The pc firmly touches things, his body, the chair, table etc. This is mainly done as the remedy for anaten turning on, which will turn on a lot if the procedure is followed correctly. If the pc doesn't urgently run objective hav like this, he can rapidly become too anaten to continue. If he follows the procedure, he will get off yawns and sighs and after two or twenty such discharges he will be able to continue, no longer with that anaten turning on. In other words, he will have successfully taken a bunch of charge off the subject he is running.
3. Mock-up or Creative Processing, "Put it above you" etc. Again, this is run in such a way as to take charge off the subject, as shown by a yawn or sigh etc. I assume that what is mainly happening is that the pc is taking over automaticies, controlling mental image pictures by moving them around in space at will instead of them controlling him below his awareness. LRH cancelled creative processing in HCOB 11 Feb 1960, Create and Confront. Quote: "When a pc over-creates he accumulates the unconfronted debris. All you have to do to restimulate debris (stiffen up the bank) is to run the pc on some version of create process." The very next sentence gives the remedy, namely "Havingness is a confront process and straightens out the create factor." This is what I am using in step 2 above.
In the 23 Feb 65 SHSBC tape, Level VII, LRH says that Creative Processing ran fine on maybe 99 people and didn't run fine on the 100th, so he cancelled it. My standards aren't as high as that. In my opinion, a 99% success rate is very acceptable, especially compared with a 0% success rate if you don't run anything! That tape also goes into the theory of what is happening in creative processing and why it works, in the 99% of cases where it does work.
4. Time-Shifting. This is basically more creative processing. I separated it out as I found it much more difficult to move all the mock-ups together in time than in space, and the procedure takes this into account. It takes off charge that shifting mock-ups in space doesn't.
How does this approach fit into the normal scheme of things?
You could consider it a Div 6 tool, a way to get a result on a new person if you don't have a better one available.
But if I send a prospect/friend/relative here, aren't I taking them off the bridge? Are you just going to run this weird stuff on them forever, maybe channeling them into your own private practice?
The screen after the end-of-session one includes a form for comments. The assumption is that if someone has a win using Paul's Robot Auditor, they will at least make some comment about it. The screen acknowledging the comment says they can come back and use the Robot whenever they want. If they want more data, to contact like-minded people, or to find out what else is available, then they are directed to Google terms like "Freezone" and "Scientology", and/or to e-mail bb (Terril Park).
So why aren't you channeling them all to your private practice?
What am I going to do with a million pcs wanting auditing or training, in English or Russian or Mandarin or Urdu? It would be very short-sighted to be selfish about this.
A MILLION? Surely you're joking?
Why? Think about it. What if it really did work as I am saying?
But if even one percent of a million pcs want to go on to a standard bridge, or get their Int corrected, or their out-list handled from that initial "What subject?" question, or an L1C prefixed "In your Robot auditing...", that is TEN THOUSAND pcs needing to be taken care of?!!
Mmm, yes.
Can I download this onto my own computer? You don't have copyright notices on each page, and you said it's free....
I decided it would be a distraction to have copyright notices on the session pages. You will notice them on the other pages. I can't stop you copying the pages, but I would prefer that you didn't right now. I am upgrading this all the time, and it would be better if you waited for a later version. I will make it available for simple download as a zip file when I consider it ready. Also, by running it from my site at http://www.fzglobal.org/robot, I can see how many people are accessing it. And so can you.
On it being "free", it will be free like shareware, not free like freeware. A fully functional copy will be available at no charge. It won't disable itself after 30 days. I will ask for, but not demand, a fair exchange.
What if they want to do the Bridge in the CofS? What do you think will happen then?
I expect the first ones will be denied auditing by Ethics. After a few dozen are turned away, RTC will reluctantly introduce a "Robot Auditing Repair Program" (C/S 53LF, Questionable Auditor Repair List, Sec Check etc.) based on a hitherto-unknown LRH advice, and then start happily taking their money and feeding them into the hopper. I doubt if the CofS will pay a ten percent FSM Commission to the original auditor.
Isn't it irresponsible to make available a tool like this? What if someone caves in after using it? Or commits suicide? Have you fully tested it?
Like a ten-year study by a reputable institution involving hundreds of people? Yeah, right. Life is dangerous, in some places more than others. You can cave in after an argument, or die crossing the road. Someone who is mentally unstable might commit suicide right after reading the Bible. Should the Bible then be banned, especially in some new electronic version? Yeah, yeah, straw man. The valid question is, Is the world better off overall with this Robot Auditor technology available and in use, or worse off?
Couldn't you have made this Robot Auditor thingy with 2005 processes instead of 1955 ones?
Not really. Self Analysis or Handbook for Preclears could be put into such a form, although not easily. Plus there would be copyright issues. But a Grades/NED Robot Auditor? That would be impossible to my current way of thinking. One reason--among many--is that it would be impossible to be certain about instant reads, such as when clearing a command, or on a pc origination. Book One? The main difficulty with that one, as with any solo Dianetics, is the pc going anaten. Objectives? Impossible to verify that the pc has executed the command unless you change the command to "Click Here". Plus, again, no handling for pc going anaten. [The author had second thoughts about some Objectives]. CC or OT2 with a C-meter and the pc holding solo cans? Probably, since these are solo levels anyway. A robot would just help with the admin, rather than making any decisions. OT3? To some extent, yes. The solo auditor would have to punch in what is happening, and a screen would come up showing the various options, like the five reasons for failure to ..., and the solo auditor could check them, but this would just be a fancy cue card system rather than an "auditor".
How about a simple repair, like an L1C, say? Pc holding solo cans. Robot calls off items, only acts on instant reads from lines given by Robot, not on pc origination. "Recently, has some emotion been rejected?" READ. Robot "looks at pc", i.e. unobtrusively prompts the pc to look for an answer. Pc says aloud into recorder, or writes, the answer, then hits "answered". Robot checks for an F/N, and if none, asks "Is there an e/s _____?" etc., and repeats procedure. It might work in some simple cases, as with any process that only requires calling off items, or reading down a list, and itsa e/s itsa to F/N (assuming the c-meter can recognize and respond appropriately to reads and F/Ns). In a lot of cases it wouldn't work at all. Again, reads on pc originations--major thoughts, not when the pc stops talking--are impossible to handle automatically. I have no intention of putting my time into such a hit-and-miss arrangement.
ARCX assessment? With the pc ARCXen and out of comm? No. Audited NOTs? Probably covered by the remarks above. Any audited level above the very simple is a no-no. Any solo level where the pc properly decides things anyway could have the various choices displayed on a screen, the fancy cue card system, which may be an improvement or it may not.
So why did you choose that particular combination of processes?
Because I had developed that combination when solo auditing, and found it very versatile, and workable. It doesn't require a meter. And it can be used at the bottom of the bridge as well as elsewhere without apparent problem.
Do you think this replaces the standard grade chart?
No.
Paul
Last edited:
