Whole Track Question.

[Mark A. Baker]

A few words to the wise from Terry Pratchett;

“Stories of imagination tend to upset those without one.”

“People think that stories are shaped by people. In fact, it's the other way around.”

“If you don't turn your life into a story, you just become a part of someone else's story.”

I know what you're reading.


Mark A. Baker

 

[paradox]

Yeah, I'm interested in that. The linguisticaly constructed "self" or "I" (which some see as the same and some see as having different referents) vs whatever is really going on. It's interesting what problems people have when they claim their "I" has disappeared. Subjectively it may have for all I know, but how they deal with communicating about that............some of them lack sufficient linguistic skills to talk about it without making hypocrits of themselves. Neo advaitists usually, who can be dogmatic, insisiting there is no "I" or "you" or separateness, yet who must have to know where their body ends and the bus begins in order not to be run over by it. They must have to maintain an "I" and a "you" actively and passively, while giving and receiving instructions, for example if they were part of a team doing a surgical operation, and all sorts of other things. So their dogmatism (IMO) means they cannot really live in the world, with their limited linguistic flexibilty, and remain honest. IMO.

Others (less dogmatic) claim that they have "seen through" the "I" and that they too have a sense of everything being connected, but acknowledge the "conventional I" -which is understood to be a fiction, but there is not such a radical effort to deny it out of existence. More like a reassignment of how it is constituted.

How this all fits in with "whole track"?> Well if "I" is a fiction then there is no real "I" so no need to go chasing down more and more fiction about a character that doesn't exist anyway. I guess.

I think we're on the same page. I don't bother to attempt writing about this sort of thing much anymore since it seems so inadequate and intractable a medium to me, but so is verbal communication albeit I do find verbalization a step closer to being able to articulate it insofar as any symbolic format goes (buddha's finger pointing at the moon analogy). So, I find it easier to talk about it; maybe that's why there was a period where "coffee shop" auditing was so popular amongst the early $cn field and why it and "electrifying" became a term nearly synonymous with squirreling.

But, yeah, as far as materiality and any sentient being experience of it goes, ego does go with the territory. How could it be otherwise? Why in the world would any being want to "kill" or otherwise "transcend" and deny their ego? At the very least it would seem to be a subtle attempt at self-obliteration, self-effacement, or "suicide by enlightenment." I think it may be symptomatic of what I wrote earlier, our cultured indoctrination into patterns of language (which possibly explains why languages such as Sanskrit and [non-Westernized] Chinese may be so difficult to master for "Westerners"; could be incorrect, but I don't believe they have the subject-verb-object language construct). One small illustration (from Alan Watts): " 'It is raining.' What is this 'it' that 'is raining' ."

At times, it is appropriate to have primary focus on individuality, where, naturally, matter can be perceived and function as particulate, bounded physical entities - indeed, very handy for climbing aboard buses and whatnot. And, particularly, for posting to certain threads on esmb.

Other times, it is appropriate to focus on the fact that all particulate matter does share a background that serves as connecting and inter-connective media, a "sea of being" as it were. Particulates do not exist independently of contextual background; just as a body cannot exist without a ground upon which to stand and move about, some sort of relational environment it is intimately connected with whether aware of it or not.

If morphic resonance turns out to have at least a modicum of scientific credulity, then it should be understood that it's quite subtle and, in many instances, at very imperceptible levels with regard to susceptibility to instruments of measure. I do think it may hold a key to such things as collective unconsciousness, individual memory, telepathy, so-called "time tracks", various aspects of synchronicity etc. etc.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I've had some long discussions about this with Mark. He would agree with you.

I don't see it the same way.

Most, if not all, whole track memories contain some or all dub-in. These are symbols (as Mark and I have agreed) of a person's current stressful situation.

The problem as I see it is the symbols, as representations, are not pure. ...

1. And just because something is a symbol doesn't mean it may not also be 'true', at least for a given value of 'true'. Same with imagination. It need not be wholly a work of fiction.

2. There is no such thing as a 'pure symbol'. They are always interconnections and associations with other symbols and relationships.

3. Symbols of some sort appear to be innate to any concept of mind. Arguably, they constitute an inseparable facet of that which we think of as mental phenomena. Analyzing mental phenomena == analyzing symbols.

4. Jung's formal theory of archetypes avoids the interpretation of the archetype symbols as 'content' driven. However, there is a long tradition among some Jungians which has maintained that Jung accepted that reincarnation may have a basis in reality and that the symbolic elements of a person's mind may originate in actual content. This interpretation has some support both in Jung's work as well as in accounts from his family relating Jung's personal beliefs.


FWIW and in response to the op; I kept running an incident back on R3R, way back when, which carried a lot of charge and which incident kept recurring across several different 'chains' until it was finally completed. At the time I called it 'my little ot iii' as it appeared for me to possess the sort of 'significance' as the church claimed there level was. I didn't know anything about the level beyond it's name at the time. When I much later learned what the actual iii level consisted of I laughed. The had similarity, especially in the symbols represented, but the incident I ran out was also noticeably quite different from that of hubbard's narrative. Moreover, it also lacked the meaning that hubbard attached to his story.

My incident was similar in some ways to other stories posted on this thread. (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26081-Whole-Track-Question.&p=652501#post652501 , http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26081-Whole-Track-Question.&p=652677#post652677 )

Whether it was also somehow 'true' is a separate question. But that is not really an essential matter; just a matter of curiosity really. What it was was 'true' for the session. The benefits had from running out the incident in session(s) were certainly real for me. That is what actually matters. And afterall, even if the events addressed in the incident are 'true', it's not like I'm going to be doing much about them now.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Yes.

Whole track memory is NOT the same as real memory. ...

Well if there is such a thing as a 'physical basis' of 'normal memory', one wouldn't necessarily expect it to contain whole track memories. That does not mean they might not also be real, but they would be different.

And then again, if memory doesn't have an actual physical basis in the body, but possibly only a physical locus or medium for accessing that which is actually some sort of transcendental phenomeon, then all bets remain off ....


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gottabrain]

1. And just because something is a symbol doesn't mean it may not also be 'true', at least for a given value of 'true'. Same with imagination. It need not be wholly a work of fiction.

2. There is no such thing as a 'pure symbol'. They are always interconnections and associations with other symbols and relationships.

3. Symbols of some sort appear to be innate to any concept of mind. Arguably, they constitute an inseparable facet of that which we think of as mental phenomena. Analyzing mental phenomena == analyzing symbols.

4. Jung's formal theory of archetypes avoids the interpretation of the archetype symbols as 'content' driven. However, there is a long tradition among some Jungians which has maintained that Jung accepted that reincarnation may have a basis in reality and that the symbolic elements of a person's mind may originate in actual content. This interpretation has some support both in Jung's work as well as in accounts from his family relating Jung's personal beliefs.


FWIW and in response to the op; I kept running an incident back on R3R, way back when, which carried a lot of charge and which incident kept recurring across several different 'chains' until it was finally completed. At the time I called it 'my little ot iii' as it appeared for me to possess the sort of 'significance' as the church claimed there level was. I didn't know anything about the level beyond it's name at the time. When I much later learned what the actual iii level consisted of I laughed. The had similarity, especially in the symbols represented, but the incident I ran out was also noticeably quite different from that of hubbard's narrative. Moreover, it also lacked the meaning that hubbard attached to his story.

My incident was similar in some ways to other stories posted on this thread. (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26081-Whole-Track-Question.&p=652501#post652501 , http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26081-Whole-Track-Question.&p=652677#post652677 )

Whether it was also somehow 'true' is a separate question. But that is not really an essential matter; just a matter of curiosity really. What it was was 'true' for the session. The benefits had from running out the incident in session(s) were certainly real for me. That is what actually matters. And afterall, even if the events addressed in the incident are 'true', it's not like I'm going to be doing much about them now.


Mark A. Baker

I follow you, Mark. Jung's research was early. He used Freudian techniques as well - few use those now. Many have taken Jung's research to much higher levels and uses and refined it since then. But yes, he was open to the idea of reincarnation and his research does not disqualify it as a factor.

Certainly I can see that symbols can be used in therapy. As we discussed on another thread, YOU could have gotten the gains out of just about any other philosophy as well. What we interpret, what we project and what we intend has a lot to do with what comes back to us. But not everything. There are always others involved. There are traps and delusions others create for their selfish purposes. Some use our imaginations in the very building of their traps.

Well if there is such a thing as a 'physical basis' of 'normal memory', one wouldn't necessarily expect it to contain whole track memories. That does not mean they might not also be real, but they would be different.

Yes, memory is a physical (brain) thing. Very young brains are not developed enough for permanent memories or for a lot of other higher brain functions. Another example of this is the famous tall v fat containers of liquid - are they equal? that young children can't comprehend, or their concept of someone or something being permanently gone, because they don't understand the concept of temporary. Whole track memory is something entirely different and misnamed as a memory. I am not saying it cannot exist, just that it is not memory as we know memory, but something else.

And then again, if memory doesn't have an actual physical basis in the body, but possibly only a physical locus or medium for accessing that which is actually some sort of transcendental phenomeon, then all bets remain off ....

Yup. That's exactly what I'm saying. Scn only has a very rough, rudimentary sort of approach to this, but it's still an approach of sorts. But it also accesses imagination and images of other things as well, so it's a big hodge-podge and unreliable. Perhaps because a person is looking for memories and the brain cannot come up with these so all sorts of other things are accessed. It's a real dice roll, but who knows? Maybe some past life stuff is in there, or past images, symbols of these, something.

 

[Dave B.]

I've had a pretty good idea of who and where I've been for the last 4 or 5 lives before I heard about or got involved with Scientology. I had a Navajo Indian friend when I was in 4th grade and we, mostly him, used to talk about his past lives. Years later I researched it and near as I can tell he had quite a bit of attention on Sand Creek in 1864, apparently the US Calvary massacred him and a bunch of other Indians there. When I was a little kid, (mid 60's) I used to play Army with my friends and dramatise portions of my last life, the incidents in WW2 that I was part of, I had my then name and my ANZAC, (Australia-New Zealand Army Corps.) serial number and the entire plot of the action. I believe I came across Sci. initially towards the end of that life, but that's an entire other story. Also when I was 16, (mid 70's) I got sick one time and got a bunch of pic's from way back track, it didn't surprise me too much. I read about that era much later in the Sci. Tech Dict. (The Art Deco 1930's stuff, only supposedly trillions of years ago). No way I read that beforehand even if in the late 50's I couldn't have read it, the Tech Dict. didn't exist then.

In the S.O. during auditing the first time I went backtrack I picked up a lot of stuff from 1910-11 in Arizona but didn't really mention hardly any of it to the auditor. Years later post S.O., post Sci. I called up the AZ historical society and asked the lady for information about a certain incident in 1911 thinking she'd look it up later and mail me the results. She knew what I was talking about and started telling me exactly what I had remembered in that session, and more. She really freaked me out. I think I said, "thanks" and hung up. No doubt.

Also, although I disinvolved myself with Sci. in 1985 for a few years after I used to listen to various Hubbard lectures. The Anatomy of Cause series turned on a boatload of whole track for me. In that lecture series he wasn't mentioning or suggesting incidents to remember as far as I can remember? But just tons of stuff came up for me. Without a meter, just remembering stuff. (I don't know how to use a meter). Some of it funny, some of it prosaic, some of it quite startling. I went into a cold sweat looking at one incident. Have you ever gone into a cold sweat? It's wild! I was having a lot of fun circa 210,000 years ago give or take 5k years either way. The beginning of this latest Marcab thing wasn't THAT bad where I was living then. I was having a good time. Apparently it's kinda screwy now though.

So it's there. At least in my experience. No, I don't think Hubbard somehow suggested what I was supposed to see.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Yes, memory is a physical (brain) thing. Very young brains are not developed enough for permanent memories or for a lot of other higher brain functions. Another example of this is the famous tall v fat containers of liquid - are they equal? that young children can't comprehend, or their concept of someone or something being permanently gone, because they don't understand the concept of temporary. ...

That hasn't been demonstrated as completely true. The presence of physical structures throughout the brain relating to the processing of memory does not itself mean that memory is wholly the result of activity within such, or similar, physical structures. Such correlations are interesting in themselves, as well having potential significance for human health & welfare. But it is a faulty logic to conclude thereby that it must imply the existence of a necessarily wholly physical explanation for what is a clear subjective mental phenomenon.

That could also be true, though.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gottabrain]

That hasn't been demonstrated as completely true. The presence of physical structures throughout the brain relating to the processing of memory does not itself mean that memory is wholly the result of activity within such, or similar, physical structures. Such correlations are interesting in themselves, as well having potential significance for human health & welfare. But it is a faulty logic to conclude thereby that it must imply the existence of a necessarily wholly physical explanation for what is a clear subjective mental phenomenon.

That could also be true, though.


Mark A. Baker

But is HAS been proven. Children below the age of (I believe 1-1/2 yrs is the youngest of any study ever conducted) CANNOT FORM PERMANENT MEMORIES. Tested to bits to see if they could remember things that had just occurred or occurred previously. They cannot.

Try the concept on. Play with this a little, okay? Because this was the whole reason L Ron was scoffed at and it was known in the 60s and it's been reproven thousands of times since. We're in 2012 already.

So consider it. If you do, you can see WHY when you ask an auditing question and the pc gives you an answer like, "I was Jesus Christ in another life", you can see why this was a completely correct and honest, aware answer. The brain did exactly what it was asked as best it could: it came up with a past life it could remember (the person knows for a fact Jesus lived before he was born) and a character with whom the pc could relate, symbolically or otherwise.

If you believe in the State of Clear, then you believe your MIPs are gone. Well I don't believe in Clear but I am quite sure I don't - either as a spirit or as an individual - carry around a bunch of MIPs beyond the actual physical memories my brain has created of this ongoing life that I can call up as needed as memories.

So what IS the emeter accessing?

and better yet - WHY does it come up with all these weird bits when asking for past lives?

Because you don't have "memories" of past lives. Not normal memories. But you have SOMEthing. You might have perceptions, and there might be symbols that reminded you... there might be a dozen things that act as triggers and the brain tries its best to put these together (with imagination, too) in a sensible way when you ask a pc or pre-OT to recall a past life.

Then the pc again tries to interpret it in a way that makes sense and explain it and thus begins to tell a story. Maybe 2% of the story is true. Maybe 90%.

What is true is what it represents to the person.

Try it on as a concept for a day. Play with it.

A great deal of harm can be done by confusing imagination with reality. I don't need to remind you of Rex Fowler.

Why is it important to have to believe these incidents are true, exactly as they are explained? Why believe that 500 or 2000 pcs were Mary Magdalene or Jesus Christ?

Its not only unnecessary to believe these are fully "true", it is destructive. You can get the same results by treating them as imagination or symbols or even possible past lives rather than stating they are or reinforcing this, but you'll end up with a much more grounded person. Keeping the line drawn between reality and imagination or delusion is important to sanity.

 

[Gottabrain]

Mark, the concept is just going over your head, but you're right there, right at the brink of it. Please have a look at this. It has been PROVEN that very young children cannot form permanent memories and cannot recall memories. This is just fact, Mark, like the world isn't flat. Whole track memory is not memory. Any results you are getting are symbolic. The stories are not "true".

Gadfly explains the phenomenon BEAUTIFULLY in another post (thank you, Gadfly):

There is MUCH more going on than the usual "all-is-separate-and-distinct", "all is matter and energy" of Newtonian physics. One need only read a bit about the last 40-50 years of research in relativity, quantum physics, and sub-atomic particle physics. One similarity with mysticism is that quantum physicists often have a VERY HARD time putting into words what they "experience". Another aspect is the end conclusion of really considering that reality conforms and takes a pattern ONLY in the presence of ANY observer, and that there is NO OBJECTIVE REALITY (ref: Theory of Relativity). On the sub-atomic level these "things" don't even have any "substance", they come and go as if appearing out of and disappearing back into some invisible "field", and any observation of any of them CHANGES AND EFFECTS what is observed.

and that is why I say, Mark, that you would have gotten the same results for yourself in any other philosophical or religious tradition.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Emphasis mine

Posted by Dave B

In the S.O. during auditing the first time I went backtrack I picked up a lot of stuff from 1910-11 in Arizona but didn't really mention hardly any of it to the auditor. Years later post S.O., post Sci. I called up the AZ historical society and asked the lady for information about a certain incident in 1911 thinking she'd look it up later and mail me the results. She knew what I was talking about and started telling me exactly what I had remembered in that session, and more. She really freaked me out. I think I said, "thanks" and hung up. No doubt.

Perhaps we each view things as we want them to be ... in the story (bolded) above my first thought would have been 'aha, it's obviously a very well known event so I must have it tucked away in my subconscious' whereas you saw what she said as confirmation that you were there in a past life.

:confused2:

I have enough to interest me in this life at the moment, which doesn't mean I'm totally certain that past lives don't exist ... I just have no interest in them.​

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I never achieved The State of Clear or OT.
I did become a Class V Auditor.
Also, I was declared an SP.

However, I have some friend/s who are Indies
and every time we touch the subject of my disaffection
with the whole thing, sooner or later, I hear "but people
run into the same incidents on the whole track!" supposedly
with no "indoctrination" from Hubbard.

My question is - do they really?

I think it's a good topic.

Please, share/contribute/discuss.

No, but they want to believe this...it's the "I hear" that is the red flag...

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Mark, the concept is just going over your head, but you're right there, right at the brink of it. Please have a look at this. It has been PROVEN that very young children cannot form permanent memories and cannot recall memories. This is just fact, Mark, like the world isn't flat. ...

Despite excellent work done in identifying the role of neural structures in processing memory, or arguably supplemental processing of memory, it is a stretch of the work to conclude that all mental functions involving memory are necessarily physically based. It is tantamount to claiming to have disproved the existence of a non-physical soul by means of a physical measurement.

That works only as a belief, it is not a valid resulting of strict logic.

The most that can be definitively stated relates to the physical aspects of mind for a biological organism. In particular the physical requirement for the establishment of specific levels of physical development to be present in an organism in order for that organism to be able to exhibit specific function.

Strictly speaking, the nature of the individual & the manifest mind that is experienced by that individual remains ambiguous.

The prospect of a 'spirit mind dichotomy' has not been disproved, indeed using the strictly physical measures of empirical science it can not be. It's a concept which specifically transcends the limits of physicallity and It remains the fundamental undetermined question.

If you believe that beings are bodies, then such results seem to suggest that the whole of the matter is 'resolved'. But that is really a matter of belief, not science. The only real proof possible is the subjective experience of existence independently of a physical basis, i.e. bodily organism.

For that ymmv.

The experience of 'whole track' remains a subjective phenomenon of mind which itself may or may not have a basis in 'reality'. Pick your poison, but don't assume someone else may not be 'right' with a different choice.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gottabrain]

Despite excellent work done in identifying the role of neural structures in processing memory, or arguably supplemental processing of memory, it is a stretch of the work to conclude that all mental functions involving memory are necessarily physically based. It is tantamount to claiming to have disproved the existence of a non-physical soul by means of a physical measurement.

...
The experience of 'whole track' remains a subjective phenomenon of mind which itself may or may not have a basis in 'reality'. Pick your poison, but don't assume someone else may not be 'right' with a different choice.


Mark A. Baker

I'm not going for right or wrong here, Mark, just duplication. You're not seeing this all the way and I don't see that it violates your basic ideas, either.

Remember that Hubbard's breakdown of spirit body mind was quite similar to Freud's and just theoretical. To see/duplicate what I am saying here you have to look at it without that hypothetical breakdown.

MEMORY belongs to the physical body, the mind. Yes, that throws out the whole basis of Dianetics and concept of Clear and spirits going around dragging piles of pictures in time sequence, but you had already stated that you don't really go in for that whole idea, anyway.

PERCEPTIONS belong to both the spirit and the body.

If you truly studied Buddhism and Shaivism as you stated, then you should be aware that the hypothetical breakdown is NOT spirit-mind-body like it is in Scn. It is spirit running mind/body, bigger spirit running spirit and biggest spirit outside the whole scope of material things. All are you, all are your viewpoints, none can be assumed at the same time because each can only perceive from where it is located.

You would not have the same perceptions from outside yourself as when you are operating as an integrated person limited to five senses. Nor could you easily translate the experiences from one of your external viewpoints.

So there are triggers, symbols. Not human memories.

God is created in man's image because this is man's reality. It is a poor distortion of the real thing, though.

Please tell me you follow me.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Please tell me you follow me.

I understand the points you are striving to make, G. My remarks are directed to the strict differentiation of the logical possibilities.

However, I would not agree that memory is completely separable as belonging only to the body. I think that is a false dichotomy for a complex mechanism. Bodies certainly have specific physicial mechanisms associated with memory. But there ALSO appears to be a 'perceptive' aspect of memory which is an aspect of mind and not necessarily associated with the physical entity of the body. Buddhist ideas relating to skandharas are similar. I'm more inclined to a view that suggest that things of subtly different character are possibly both being labeled under the same term of 'memory' due to their apparent similarity.

Empirical methods, have demonstrated the organism's dependence on it's biological structures for its proper function. But the organism is NOT NECESSARILY the same as a being itself, although materialists prefer to make that assumption (often to the point they don't recognize it is an assumption ). Nor can it be shown to be through strictly physical measures. The assumption that they must be begs the actual question and constitutes circular reasoning.

If you believe the mind is a byproduct of physical phenomena, then you will believe that is what science demonstrates; and the converse. Because the phenomena with which it deals is innately subjective, this is a question which is not resolvable through reliance on an empirical analysis of physical measurements. The model chosen for describing mental phenomena determines the character of one's conclusions concerning the nature of mind.

What you believe shapes what you think. Subjective phenomena, such as most mental states including the experience of memory, are beyond the limitations of physical empiricism to explain. Empiricism can report on the character of brain function. Such measures are often interpreted as shedding light on subjective experience. But these only indirectly describe anything about the actual mental state.

Brain function may lie within the realm of measurement, but the actual experience of a subjective phenomena such as memory lies outside of the stringent limits of physical measurement to describe fully.

It is in that ambiguity of subjective mental phenomena that considerations about 'whole track' can be reasonably sustained. They can neither be proved by any physical measure, nor can all such be wholly dismissed. They can only be 'proved' through the actual experience of existence sans a physical organism. That experience however does not lend itself to external physical measurement. Although, R2-45 may well prove effective at inducing the phenomena for subjective experience.

My personal approach is to avoid assuming a definite and fixed belief on the exact character of mind. The likelihood is that whatever model is adopted is apt to prove to be incomplete or otherwise flawed. No point in getting 'locked in' to a mental model that is likely to be discarded later based on some new set of experiences. Models are useful for conceptualizing function, but they do well at containing the whole of the 'truth'.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Stat]

I learned from this thread and I thank EVERYONE who commented so far.

I hope more people will share their insights. They are so much better then
"Churches" PR!

I did have some "whole track" in my "auditing experience" (answering to Mr. Div6)

To elaborate:

1. I had a Cog of sorts, F/N, VGI's during one of my first metered rudiments (thanks to E/S, of course), something about me being a bad-ass brick-head, Marine-type, Space Soldier/Captain. Some amazing shit.

2. I F/Ned on being in Qual (as an SO terminal) on Apollo and being an OT III at least then, which I think is Bullshit. Supposedly, I died on Apollo last life time. I really don't think so.

3. F/N may be "comfort", yet not truth.

P.S. I also delivered thousands hours of auditing.
But nothing too advanced. Just NED and everything below.

 

[Gottabrain]

I understand the points you are striving to make, G. My remarks are directed to the strict differentiation of the logical possibilities.

However, I would not agree that memory is completely separable as belonging only to the body....

Okay. This is where we disagree. I think Hubbard makes a lot of unnecessary contradictions and confusions about this when it's just a function of the brain.
Wikipedia gives a good overall summary of the childhood "amnesia" I mention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia

It's worth a read. I thought this was particularly interesting:
"It has been found that as children age, they lose the ability to recall preverbal memories. One explanation for this maintains that after developing linguistic skills, memories that were not encoded verbally get lost within the mind"

This indicates that as we age, our memories become encoded according to language. Those that aren't encoded by language are lost.

Corollary: Memories earlier than infanthood could not be coded according to senses not yet used, i.e., sight, so would be lost.

But the organism is NOT NECESSARILY the same as a being itself, although materialists prefer to make that assumption (often to the point they don't recognize it is an assumption ). Nor can it be shown to be through strictly physical measures. The assumption that they must be begs the actual question and constitutes circular reasoning.

If you believe the mind is a byproduct of physical phenomena, then you will believe that is what science demonstrates; and the converse. Because the phenomena with which it deals is innately subjective, this is a question which is not resolvable through reliance on an empirical analysis of physical measurements. The model chosen for describing mental phenomena determines the character of one's conclusions concerning the nature of mind.

What you believe shapes what you think. Subjective phenomena, such as most mental states including the experience of memory, are beyond the limitations of physical empiricism to explain. Empiricism can report on the character of brain function. Such measures are often interpreted as shedding light on subjective experience. But these only indirectly describe anything about the actual mental state. Brain function may lie within the realm of measurement, but the actual experience of a subjective phenomena such as memory lies outside of the stringent limits of physical measurement to describe fully.

It's not circular, nor subjective to test the recall of actual events during the lifetime of a subject. It is certainly physically measurable and if you'd actually read some of the studies, you would see that.

It is in that ambiguity of subjective mental phenomena that considerations about 'whole track' can be reasonably sustained. They can neither be proved by any physical measure, nor can all such be wholly dismissed. They can only be 'proved' through the actual experience of existence sans a physical organism. That experience however does not lend itself to external physical measurement. Although, R2-45 may well prove effective at inducing the phenomena for subjective experience.

"Ambiguous subjective mental phenomena" is much more accurate than the term "whole track memories". Let's call them Amsubmepha, then. They aren't memories such as the brain produces so I prefer not confusing the two terms or referring to ambiguous subjective mental phenomena as something as accurate or concise as a memory.

My personal approach is to avoid assuming a definite and fixed belief on the exact character of mind. The likelihood is that whatever model is adopted is apt to prove to be incomplete or otherwise flawed. No point in getting 'locked in' to a mental model that is likely to be discarded later based on some new set of experiences.


Mark A. Baker

I agree.

 

[Rene Descartes]

For years I have had a name that might lead one to believe that this was the name of myself prior to my current name.

I scoured the internet for the name as well as cross referincing the name to the location and the events for the time period but nothing came up. Given the circumstances something seems like it should come up but it does not. So perhaps it was just my imagination.

I did not look it up out of obssession but rather out of curiosity.

Maybe there are not enough archives.

As for right now it is a non-issue for me. I have matters here and now to attend to and they take precedence.

Long live all of us for at least as long as we live!

Rd00

 

[DagwoodGum]

It is highly observable and measureable that as a body ages, its memories diminish often to a point of having none whatsoever. I've had plenty of relatives slip into the oblivion of Alzheimer’s so it would not be circular reasoning to observe this as it’s an all too real phenomenon.
What then of a supposed time track? I never encountered one in my years of processing though I've "recalled" plenty of other worldly incidents that could be construed to be past life. I noticed that the e-meter was hooked up to my body and not my thetan so I'm not so sure that could provide me with any conclusive evidence that the incidents recalled were not manufactured by my brain as a conditioned response to the auditing.
I just went though some health issues that put me on morphine for a few months and I've never had such vivid nightmares in my life. I dreaded going to sleep as I never knew what or who I might encounter in my dreams. Did the morphine work on my brain or on me as a being? I think the answer is clear.
But give someone sufficient brain trauma and all memory goes bye bye, end of question.
What time track? That would be one hell of an unnecessary encumbrance to carry around, would it not?

 

[Oneflewover]

See this thread: LINK

Ok. And what about it? I don't see where it addresses the OP's concern about the tether to SCN which remains because of doubts over the reports of whole track incidents being shared by multiple people.

You said ""WHOLE TRACK" is a subset of a psychiatric technique called abreactive therapy. Abreactive means Abnormal Reaction Therapy. It consists of having the subject cook up an incident - from imagination - having the person imagine and create an incident and then experience emotional reaction to the incident."

That's just a statement. Why do you say it's a subset of psychiatric technique? The question is to you. I'm not interested in being directed to a book I have no interest in, nor to another thread which doesn't address this specific question.

You said "The CRIMINALITY of Hubbard is evidenced by his having the unmitigated gall to tell people that those imagined incidents were REAL. while he had a physical copy of William Sargant's "Battle for the Mind" on his bookshelf (note)"

I haven't studied logical fallacies, but that sure seems to be one. How is telling people whole track incidents are real criminal? Then you imply a connection to his having a book on his shelf. What does that prove? There is no evidence of anything simply because a book is on a shelf. And besides, near as I can tell, that book you refer to was written in 1961, while most of Hubbard's whole track research was in 51-52.

You said "They are not real. If they were real, then the last chapter of "Test of Whole Track Recall" would not have been so silly to read . Not only did our COMMODORE find NOTHING from his own supposed whole track...after weeks of literally digging for gold that he had IMAGINED that was hidden while he was supposedly incarnate as Cecil Rhodes..... I do not know of a single $cientologist who has."

Again, is this not the practice of logical fallacy? How does your statement "They are not real", connect to Hubbard's test of his whole track recall? Just because Hubbard and others haven't proven anything, doesn't impinge on what is or isn't real. I don't see how they connect at all. Lots of unproven things are real. They are simply unproven until they are proven, at which point they will be seen to have been "real" all along.

And while on the subject, how are you defining "real" in the context in which you used it? You said "They are not real". How do you know? Can you prove they are unreal?

I'm just not seeing anything credible in your arguments. They don't seem supported in anyway. Anyone can say anything they want. And they do it all the time. No crime there.

I have no problems with anyone detailing how full of shit Hubbard was on his side of the fence, as long as they are not equally full of shit on their side.

My preference is towards the removal of the fence all together. Polarity is a self perpetuating game. You can't be on a side without an opponent on the other side. Isn't that just getting so old and tired by now?

Am I OSA?

 

[A.K. Myers]

A large part of the non Scn population believes in reincarnation.

( Fluffy personally loves to have lots of carnations)

Reintarnation- N The belief that one was a hillbilly in their
previous existence.