Hubbard Talks about Math, Physics, Neural Science.

Discussion in 'L Ron Hubbard' started by Demented LRH, Aug 19, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    Hubbard failed all math- related courses for very simple reason -- he could not grasp mathematical concepts, his Philadelphia Doctorate Course shows that (it is quite ironic that the course is called “Doctorate”)

    This is how “the greatest scientist” describes the difference between Differential and Integral Calculus:

    “As you look through the book, you'll find in the early part of the book on Calculus, "dx" over "dy", a little "dx", and a little "dy" -- and one's above the other on a line -- predominates in the front part of the book, but as you get to the end of the book you find these "dx" and "dy"s preceded by a summation sign, or are equating to a summation sign, and the presence of this shows that we are in the field of Integral Calculus“.

    This sounds like a silly joke, but Hubbard is serious about this because he admits that he could not understand even the simplest mathematical ideas:

    “Now I hope you understand this, because I've never been able to make head nor tail of it. It must be some sort of a Black Magic operation, started out by the Luce cult -- some immoral people who are operating up in New York City, Rockefeller Plaza -- been thoroughly condemned by the whole society. Anyway, their rate-of-change theory -- I've never seen any use for that mathematics”

    Not only Hubbard says that he is incapable of understanding the math, but he also brags about his mathematical handicap. This is exactly what a smart conman would avoid doing -- he does not want his audience to think that he is a complete idiot. But Hubbard does not care about making a fool of himself in front of a gathering of people, which shows mental retardation.

    Finally Hubbard arrives at the most stunning conclusion that I have heard so far -- the math does not work in this universe:

    “Calculus -- if you want to know -- there is room there for a mathematics which is a good mathematics. And it would be the rate of co-change, or the rate of change when something else was changing, so that you could establish existing rates of change in relationship to each other, and for lack of that mathematics, nobody has been able to understand present time -- you just can't sum it up easily -- or let us say, for lack of an understanding of what present time was, nobody could formulate that mathematics. So, actually there's a big hole there that could be filled -- a thing called calculus is trying to fill that hole, right now, and it can't.”

    And who’s to blame for this poor math? Newton, of course!

    “But the rates of change -- it comes closest to it. I think it was one of Newton's practical jokes. Here we have Calculus, and it's trying to measure a rate of change. Well, if we had something that was really workable and simple, it would be formed on this basis. The present time, and gradients of time were gradients of havingness, and as one havingness changed, you could establish a constancy of change for other related havingnesses“.

    In the end Hubbard becomes completely incoherent when he introduces a concept of havingness, which is totally out of this word. Incoherent speech is a clear sign of mental deficiency. Our retard came up with the craziest ideas, as usual.

    http://www.rr.cistron.nl/xenu/quotes.htm

    Regardless of his occupation, a normal person is capable of understanding basic facts about the universe. But this observation does not apply to Hubbard -- our idiot’s “understanding” of the universe is a gross misunderstanding of simple empirical data.

    Hubbard’s term is the MEST (mass, energy, space, time) universe. But all high school students know that there are only three independent variables in physics - length (space), time and mass. Energy is not independent variable, and so are not temperature, density, velocity, etc. Hubbard could have called his creation MTST (mass, temperature, space, time) universe, MDST (mass, density, space, time) universe, etc -- any combination of independent and dependent variables goes. The right term would be MST (mass, space, time) universe. But Hubbard was so incredibly stupid that he cannot distinguish dependent variables from independent ones.

    In his sci-fi novel, Volume I of Mission Earth, Hubbard describes black holes as sources of energy. But nowadays even a 5-th grader knows that black holes absorb energy without emitting it. Hubbard’s stupidity prevented him from giving correct description of a black hole.

    A Hubbard supporter might say that Hubbard never claimed that events described in Mission Earth are real, so his definition of the black hole is not an indicator of stupidity. However, it is known to all sci-fi readers that the writers follow physics concepts very strictly without trying to alter or twist them. Hubbard saw scientific descriptions of black holes but was unable to understand them, which shows that he was a complete idiot incapable to grasp even the simplest scientific ideas.

    Below is a correct definition of the space:
    “Space: the volume in which all celestial bodies, including earth, move”
    McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms.

    This is how Hubbard defines space:
    “The definition of space is 'a viewpoint of dimension “

    viewtopic.php?f=9&t=33541&start=45

    Space consists of three dimensions (lengths), therefore it is logically incorrect to define “space” via “dimensions” that constitute space -- this logical fallacy called vicious circle. Properly interpreted, Hubbard’s definition of space is equivalent to this definition, “space is how one sees space”, which is gibberish. Only a person with extremely low intelligence could give such obtuse definition of space.

    Hubbard the Neurological Scientist wrote the following “masterpiece”:
    “It is clear that the object is often of interest to us for some special characteristics of immediate usefulness or value. If we enquire as to the neurological processes involved in registering the object, we find that the nervous system has abstracted, from the infinite numbers of sub-microscopic characteristics of the event, a large but finite number of macroscopic characteristics. In purchasing a 'pencil' we usually are not interested in its smell or taste. But if we were interested in these abstractions, we would have to find the smell and the taste of our object by experiment“.

    First of all, the number of all characteristics is not infinite but finite because the number of variables used to describe a physical object is finite; these variables include size, weight (mass), density, valence, temperature, wavelength (color), etc. Measurement of infinite number of characteristics would require infinite time, as every scientist knows. Therefore, it is commonly accepted that the number of characteristics used to describe an object is finite.

    A nervous system cannot abstract anything from sub-microscopic characteristics because it cannot perceive objects on sub-microscopic level; it cannot register objects even on molecular level, as everyone, except for Hubbard, knows. Of course, if someone sees objects on sub-microscopic level in his hallucinations the way Hubbard saw his body cells (see one of my previous posts) then he would accept Hubbard’s description of the workings of nervous system.

    Hubbard’s inability to understand simple scientific concepts shows profound mental retardation. Yes, my friends, Hubbard was a cretin!
     
  2. Ho Tai

    Ho Tai Patron Meritorious

    Forget calculus - the guy didn't even understand zero. From Dianetics 55!:
    The definition of a static disclosed something else of interest. There was a missing definition in the field of mathematics and that was the definition of zero. The mathematician for ages has been using, in all of his formulas, a wild variable without suspecting it was there. He did not really encounter it until he got into the higher fields of nuclear physics. At this time he encountered it so forcefully and knew it so little that he had to alter most of his mathematical conceptions in order to work with nuclear physics at all.
     
  3. Ogsonofgroo

    Ogsonofgroo Crusader

    Yarr, the old windbag could scuttle around a topic he had no comprehension of, like a thief in the night, he knew that if he could confound a person/group he could make all sorts of claims that made no sense in the context of reality. Once he had folks suckling his foul nipples then the flood-gates opened and the sewage spewed unrelentlessly. Such was the world of LRon.

    I've listened to far too many of his 'lectures' to see it any other way than the giant fraudulant con-artist he truly was.

    From one of my favorite sites~
    (scientific method VS scientology method)

    Source Page~ http://www.ronthenut.org/sci-nut.htm

    :biggrin:
     
  4. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I don't see why you would have a problem with "space is a viewpoint of dimension" unless you are stone blind. I suppose it depends on how you define dimension, but the concept I take away is that what you (the viewpoint) see is dimension ( the universe around you) AKA space. The funny part, is where does space start and stop? Is space being created by the presence of light? Assuming the universe is 14.6 billion years old, and if it started from a single point ( a singularity ) you could say the size of the universe is 14.6 billion years x the speed of light. Could that be yet another definition of space?

    Of course, his definition is subject to the "would a tree make a noise if it fell in the woods and no one was there to hear it" line of thinking, ie. would space exist if no one viewed it?

    Mimsey

     
  5. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    Hubbard's definition of space is a vicious circle -- "space" is defined via "dimensions" which is another word for space. In mathematics and physics the space is a conglomerate of three dimensions or three coordinates (X-coordinate, Y-coordinate and Z-coordinate ). In relativistic dynamics the space is a conglomerate of four dimensions, the fourth dimension being time.
     
  6. at3ist

    at3ist Patron with Honors

    You are making it sound like he was just stupid, and in a way he was just ignorant about a lot of stuff, the thing is, his persona needed to be all knowing and rigth about everything. So he acted as if he was always rigth and people buy it and still do.

    And another thing that i notice and there is even an article by anie lerma in which he talks about the confucion thecnique, in which lrh start talking nonsense and then bring the actual subject and then keeps talking nonsnse, so all you get is what he want you to get. but Im not so sure that he did it on pourpose all the time, cuz he is a natural at talking nonsense. So probably he just used the confution thecnique without realicing it.

    So i dont buy the hubbard was stupid because even in those event in which he was ignorant the subtext was that he was highly educated and source. his idea was im Gonna give them a construct and they will buy it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  7. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Demented LRH, I seriously doubt he was stupid. It is, quite frankly, impossible for a person to have created anything as complex as Scientology, with whatever workability it possesses, and be a cretin or idiot as you characterize him.

    I think his audience was gullible for the reasonable bs he was spinning. But he did think he knew it all, and I think it blocked his ability to observe. Take All About Radiation - it is full of errors, but for the purpose he was after, it only had to sound reasonable. He didn't care a whit for the people who knew it was full of errors, he wanted his paying audience to keep paying, keep believing, keep thinking he was the savior of man, and man's best friend.

    I don't know if you ever studied the org board - at the bottom of each division it would say something like "the purpose of the public division is to drive in more public than the org can waste". Why? Obviously, he was well aware, like any good marketer, many will pass by.

    As an example of his talent - no one since has been able to concoct more OT levels, Super Power etc. Seriously, all DM has to do is cook up some BS processes and call them OT9,10, 11, 12 etc. Why hasn't he? The ground work was laid - we were told Ron had all 15 OT levels written up before he ascended to target II. Hubbard, hate him or love him, had a gift to dream this stuff up, and no one has taken up the reigns.

    While it is interesting to read your points, they are missing the mark. That being, accuracy, veracity, scientific validation isn't needed for the con to work.

    Mimsey
     
  8. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

    You are a snob.

     
  9. Infinite

    Infinite Crusader

    How can space be a view point of anything?
     
  10. GoNuclear

    GoNuclear Gold Meritorious Patron

    I encountered some of this shit early on, when I first got into Scientology, reading some of the works of the HubTurd. It reminded me of listening to my crazy old uncle Jimmy. Now Jimmy, upon first meeting, sounded like an absolute genius. You could get caught up listening to the guy's ramblings. And then the more you listened the less credible he sounded. Finally, doink! there it was ... the realization that Jimmy was not only full of shit, but actually believed what he was spouting, and therefore he was a bit flipped out.

    The difference ... with the HubTurd, you didn't dare look too closely, you accepted, went along, etc... because he was offering the grand prize of becoming oatee! Perhaps you didn't quite get what he was saying. And, of course, there really WERE oatees, look at all the people at the org who attested, and it's not like they would be busy lying to themselves now, would they. So on the one hand, there was the dangling carrot of oatee and on the other hand, the HubTurd was another uncle Jimmy ... but he developed the oatee levels ... this does not compute ... conflicting data ... catatonic brainfart!

    The lesson to be learned here for aspiring cult guru's ... if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

    Pete
     
  11. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    One could argue that Hubbard was not stupid, all crazy things that he said are based on some kind of logic, he liked to see the audience accepting his every word, etc.

    But if he were really smart, he would have known that all his nonsense will be used against him in such way that it would diminish the cult's recruiting efforts.

    I do not have statistical data showing how many people decided not to join the cult after seeing this and similar data, but I am sure that many changed their opinion about Scientology after being confronted with Hubbard's crazy ideas about natural sciences and psychology.

    If Hubbard were smart, he would not have written a letter to VA in which he said that he has suicidal thoughts and other symptoms of mental illnesses. Even if all these things were true, he should have kept this data to himself.

    What about his letter to Attorney General? In that letter Hubbard alleged that the communists attacked him in his own bed, pierced his heart with a needle and subjected his body to electric shock.

    This letter was not intended for his Scientology followers, it was intended for the outside world. Only a retard would expect the Attorney General to believe in such outrageous accusations.
     
  12. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Whatever. I don't think smartness or being retarded has anything to do with it. I have a cousin who is smart as a whip and can't hold down a job to save his life. I think he was suffering from a mental condition, perhaps narcissism, and it warped his values, his moral compass. He had plenty of opportunity in his life to "do the right thing" and didn't. That, to me, is a mental condition, not a lack of intelligence.

    Mimsey
     
  13. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    A very intelligent individual could have mental illness, I agree with that. But this is not Hubbard's case.

    Hubbard tried very hard to earn BS in Civil Engineering; apparently, he thought that an undegraduate degree would help advance his military career. He was right about that, the lack of an engineering degree was a clear impediment to his promotion, as the data from his Navy files shows.

    A degree from a reputable college would have provided more credence to his "scientific" works. But he failed to earn a coveted college diploma because he was thrown out of the college. Below are his college grades:

    History -- C (first semester) B (second semester)
    General Chemistry-- D (first semester) D (second semester)
    Mechanical Drawings -- B (first semester) C (second semester)
    Plain analytical geometry - F (first semester)
    Physical education -- C (first semester) A (second semester)
    First year German -- E (first semester) F (second semester)
    Differential calculus -- F (second semester)
    Materials of construction --Incomplete (first semester) Incomplete (second semester)
    Dynamics, sound and light -- E (first semester)
    Integral calculus-- Incomplete (first semester) D (second semester)
    The short story -- B (first semester) B (second semester)
    Electricity and magnetism -- D (second semester)
    Modern physical phenomena - F (first semester)

    PLACED ON PROBATION FOR DEFICIENCY IN SCHOLARSHIP, September 1931

    Hubbard was told that he is not fit for the study after completion of the fourth semester.
     
  14. Helena Handbasket

    Helena Handbasket Gold Meritorious Patron

    I've never understood "space is a viewpoint of dimension", and when those who claim to understand it try to explain it to me, I understand it even less (including those who posted their explanations in this thread). The best I can say is that such gibberish induces a state of cognitive dissonance which renders the devotee more suggestible. As in, I don't understand it, but if he says so, it must be true, therefore [insert whatever illogical conclusion you care to here].

    And no one has taken up the reins? Oh, please. Robert DuCharme, Ken Ogger, Bill Robertson, Clear Bird, and many others have contributed processes -- in some cases, processes that have solved previously unsolvable cases. It's only in the Church of Scientology that a new source of tech hasn't appeared -- mostly due to the belief that only tech from LRH is valid.

    And what is the universe made of? As science marches on, the essential components of matter are dissected ever more. The Dalton theory of atoms; the Bohr theory of electrons, protons, and neutrons; quarks; Quantum Mechanics; Superstring theory; M-theory; and LaViolette's Sub-Quantum Kinetics. I predict the next level will be Phi theory but that's a story for another time.

    Helena
     
  15. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    To me looking at space and looking at dimension are much the same thing as looking (having a viewpoint of dimension) at the universe around one. I dunno, his definition makes sense to me.

    Yes, I am talking about within the church, not the researchers outside the church. My point is that if a good marketer were running the show, that would be a priority, the creation of new levels. They astutely paved the way, but didn't follow up on it, what with the IAS and ideal org scams.

    While I understand the liability of delivering a level is whether it delivers a result or not, and the possibility of refunds for no results, DM's programs, the IAS and Ideal org scams have no delivery, thus no failures to refund, I think without the constant inflow of new public, the constant creation of new services, Scientology will peter out.

    Mimsey
     
  16. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    This is how I understand how people make sense of Hubbard's nonsense.

    I studied a great deal of other practices before (and after) Scientology. I noticed that most people, after they FIRST ASSUME that a writer must know what he or she is talking about, DUB IN and FILL IN THE BLANKS so that just about ANYTHING can "make sense".

    I saw it in the subject of alchemy. The biggest journey in almost any of these occult-related subjects is figuring out what it all "means", but in the end, if you ever get to the end, you realize that YOU CREATED all the meanings that you were "finding" in the often VERY unclear and vague subject materials.

    The main thing participation with the occult gets any person to do is IMAGINE things. It "tricks" you into practicing and exercising your imagination. Most people do make the mistake of assuming that the various things and scenarios they are reading about are "real". That seems necesary for most people - most won't take something seriously if they don't think it is "real".

    It is impossible to work with the Chakras (Kundalini energy centers) without IMAGINING. ALL of the "inner work" is done via the imagination. The big question is whether these energy centers ever would have existed if you didn't first agree with the concepts and then "imagine them into existence". Interestingly, the act of doing so "gets results". But, I realized that almost ANY scenario could be conceived (made up, fabricated, fictionalized), and if one were to invest time and energy using ones imagination, "things" would "happen".

    I suspect Hubbard KNEW all about such things, and he also knowingly and intentionally aimed to trick people using what he knew. He NEVER talks of the imagination, not as the imagination, yet he gets Scientology members to trap themselves via its use in many ways.

    I think that is why Hubbard spent so much time getting the idea firmly fixed in Scientology that "somehow Hubbard figured out all the greatest secrets of the universe". He works HARD to get THAT idea firmly established in the minds of the followers. He really implants this idea in followers via KSW #1.

    Ron came from another planet to help Earth . . .

    Ron was Buddha . . . .

    "We will not speculate here on why this was or how I came to rise above the bank".

    Ron has been on this track to solve the problems of Man for a long time . . .


    Blah-blah-blah.

    Hubbard sets the stage with the FIRM VIEW that ALL HIS DATA is CORRECT. He simply CLAIMS that, over and over and over. And some accept these claims. In fact, to be a member of the Church of Scientology, you MUST accept these claims. Over and over, you will read such ideas, word clear such ideas, demo such ideas, write essays on such ideas, and coach OTHERS to agree with such ideas. And if you don't, it will be "qual correction", Sec Checks, and auditing until you do. And, ethics and justice if you don't. Agreement with these ideas is mandatory.

    "So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again."

    Hubbard says that sort of thing OVER and OVER. He repeats it like an implanted mantra - applying the behavioral manipulation tech of "number of times over material equals certainty".

    Then, no matter WHAT he says, the true believer forever after twists, bends and takes giant leaps of logic to have whatever Hubbard says "make sense".

    Hubbard stated that you can get just about anybody to accept and believe what you say if you do it with certainty and authority. He was right - and he USED that fact as part of his scam.

    That is the beauty of building a system of thought on unclear and vague ideas. Each person can ADD TO THE IDEA in ones own unique way to have it "make sense". When the idea is also added, which exists severely in Scientology, that none are allowed to TALK ABOUT any of the "data", because it is a High Crime (Verbal Data), then the stage is set for many people to move along with DIFFERENT IDEAS about a great many things - but they never know that because they aren't allowed to EVER "discuss" Scientology objectively.

    I am quite sure that different Scientologists have very DIFFERENT notions about what "viewpoint of dimension" means, or from KSW, what "self-abnegation has filled the Southeast Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses" means. This difference of personal meaning and understanding of Scientology ideas goes on and on. As long as you F/N, and "feel good about it", you can have ANY sort of "understanding" of the materials. And as long as you support the group with time, energy and money, NOBODY CARES.

    Sure one is allowed to endlessly rave about the wonders of the "data", but NONE are EVER permitted to actually discuss Scientology ideas outside of a courseroom, qual or an auditing room. I mean, some do, I did. I knew others who did (though most eventually got declared . . . . ).

    If you have a preconceived notion (belief, conviction, certainty) that EVERYTHING by some author is TRUE, you will make the mistake of having all sorts of absurdities "make sense".

    Scientology - the art of making nonsense make sense.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  17. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Easy to say in the age of the Internet. But in the 1940s and 50s?

    Even today, would you think that a private letter *you* are writing to the VA would be splattered all over the Internet, available to anyone that typed your name etc. into Google?

    Paul
     
  18. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    From its inception the cult were paranoid about the journalists who might uncover the truth about Scientology and the Hubbard persona, and include the damaging data into their books and article. Hubbard, if he were smart, would have taken steps to prevent that. He would have realized that there is always a possibility that The Freedom of Information Act would be used to gain access to his correspondence (this did happen in 1990s prior to the Internet becoming a major source of anti-Scientology information).

    Hubbard's screenplay, Revolt in the Stars, is based on the OT data. The screenplay is not confidential data; he tried to sell it to a movie producer, but failed. He wrote that he made this data public because he wanted to cause a shock among the population, so the ordinary citizens would be more susceptible to the OT ideas. Frankly, I wish he were successful in finding a production company willing to make a film based on the screenplay.

    Hubbard's books, The History of Man, and, Have You Lived Before, did more damage to Scientology than any other anti-Scientology material. Was he stupid enough to think that the general population will believe that that these books describe real events? Yes, he was! If he were not a retard, he would have known that the best way to deal with these "discoveries" is to keep them confidential along with the OT data.
     
  19. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    This question is relevant to Hubbard's mental illness -- is it possible to determine person's IQ after his death? The answer is YES, posthumous IQ determination does exist, it was done for the first time by American psychologist, Catherine Cox.
    Prof. Cox' findings are reflected in her book.
    A copy of the book Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses by C. Cox could be bought at Amazon.com
    ==================

    My cousin, who is a clinical psychologist, was using Dr. Cox' methodology to determine Hubbard's IQ. According to her estimate, Hubbard's IQ is approximately 68, which puts it in the range of mild mental retardation (the range is from 55 to 70). The average IQ score on that test is 100, the highest score is 200.

    People whose IQ ranges from 60 to 70 can have productive lives, and do not need constant supervision, although occassional supervision might help. They can read and write, and can hold certain types of jobs (mail delivery, dish washing, etc). The upper level patients with the Down syndrome fall into this category (low level Down syndrome patients are kept in the nursing homes).

    I met a Down syndrome carrier who was working in a mail delivery room of Polytechnic Institute of NYU. His IQ is in Hubbard's range, which made him an object of my study (people like him can be identified by their facial features).

    He has no problems with his job, he likes to read mystery books, he also writes short stories about small animals because he loves them. Unlike Hubbard, he is not a cruel person.
     
  20. Once I had the idea that all the "standard tech" rules and the lenghty explations about what is a static, a thetan, about havingness or beingness, ARC, etc.. name you one ... are simply a cup that gives water a shape. Any shape.

    The water is our subjective ideas about life and all the spiritual/psicological mumbo jumbo rules are simply one of the 1000000000000000 ways to encapsulate it in a shape. So does not matters what the shape is but does matter that THAT cup shape at the end of the day contains OUR OWN ideas "restyled". The guru provides the cup and shapes its shape (!), you fill the water in. It's YOUR water into HIS cup ... so you are in part creator of the thing.

    This make you more trusting of that final creation and the mixed ideas stick in your mind for long time.

    Unfortunaistely I had this cognition only years after leaving scientology !!!!

    As for "space is a viewpoint of dimension" I had it as a subjective psichological definition ... nothing about physics.

    To me it means that MYspace is as big as far as I can stick out my ancorage points, and that's it.

    I don't know if this was Hubbard's intended meaning, but this is the way I understood it.