whichphilosophy

Did it say "lifetime" or life.

fließendes

True. It's like a Buddhist paradox: "Life is motionless".

One image that statement suggests to me is everything revolving around an individual life that is motionless at its center. That seems compatible with what I know of the Scientology approach, which puts enormous emphasis on the individual and their own path. Seems rather ego-centric.

As one who does not believe in the insolubility of the individual, this idea of a "static" life sounds to me like part of the elaborate scaffold all religions who subscribe to the belief of the eternal soul need to prop that idea up. As the physical sciences don't.

GoodLittleAtheist

Yes, very. In fact, I was about to say, if my life is static why does it keep following this heap of cells around?

If my life is the center of it all and everything else is moving around me why do I perceive other lives moving independently? Surely they shouldn't change position with respect to me, they're static too.

Unless none of you exist... Hmmm. Well, Goodnight, nobodies. I must summon my bed to position itself under me.

IsItJustMe

I imagine you're right, but it's still difficult to divine what THAT means.

As self-evident as QM, for instance?

I think, given the whole cigarrette smoke/bacteria nonsense, it's not quite clear. In any case, it is left to guesswork and interpretation, when it might have been made very clear quite easily.

fließendes

I assume QM is quantum mechanics?

As one who has very little post-highschool science training, I can't really answer that fully. I know that QM uses probability, but that's it.

However, I do know that a "law" of the physcial sciences startes out as a hypothesis, becomes a theory after an experiement supports it, and only becomes a widely accepted theory (e.g. evolution) after it's been supported by empirical evidence again and again and again.

To be a "Law" or an "axiom" (as Hubbard appears to define the word) it needs to be as widely accepted as Newton's Law of Gravity. Which is why Hubbard's axioms can't be "in the same rank as" the "laws of the physical sciences" to anyone except the Scientology faithful. Correct me if I'm wrong.I'm afraid I don't know anything about that experiment and my own paucity of scientific knowledge would probably prevent me from having anything significant to say about it. You'll have to argue that one out with the other scientists. However, I have little doubt that LRH made declarations on subjects of which he had little understanding, as he appears to believe that he re-invented all the rules.

whichphilosophy

The cigarette smoke is another thread so I will try not to go off track.
What has been established as I quoted RevDahlia, is

Bacteria react to Stimuli
They do get attracted to certain things (even going through a wall of something that normally repels them to get at it).

Thus if this is the case they could conceivably avoid something they don't like and I am sure this has been done (Stimulus response etc).

The only twist in this is as follows:

First smoke is blown and the bacteria are seen to retreat.
Then Steam is blown onto the bacteria and they do the same.

The question would be, "Why did L Ron Hubbard do the above.

The writer (critical) didn't know so he must be an imbecile if he says he checked out Scn and is supposed to be doing a critique.

Perhaps Biobeing could comment, on the stimulus response actions of bacteria, as this may be in his field.

Clue. The book Dianetics will give the answer.

Regards,

whichphilosophy

Pretty much everything in the experiment has been validated by experiments, except this one. I posted references to RevDahlia

The only one that is not clear to the reader could be why tobacco smoke was used first and then just steam was used and the bacteria reacted in the same manner.

Regards,

fließendes

WP, I'm not much interested in the bacteria/smoke experiment, unless someone can explain to me how it relates to a discussion of axiom 1.

Generally speaking, people interest me more than bacteria.

Most people. :wave:

IsItJustMe

Yeah. Sorry. That marks me as a nerd, I suppose.

Exactly. It's not self-evident. It's a hypothesis that has been tested often enough that people are sure it fits the facts. That was my point about quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the most incredibly counter-intuitive thing that there is. If you find it self-evident you need to be on anti-psychotics.

fließendes

So "self-evident" is equivalent to "intuitive"?

So Newton's Law of Gravity, even though it's superceded by Einstein's physics at either the galaxy or atomic level, would be considered self-evident? What goes up, must come down.

Whereas axiom 1, "Life is basically a static", would require support from multiple experiments to be considered an accepted theory, much less "in the same rank as" a Law?

What I wonder is why did LRH have to bring science into at all, unless he's using his own definition for "physical science"? But if he were doing that, he wouldn't say "on the order of the physical sciences [plural]" which is an apparent reference to the established sciences.

Science, as most of us conceive of it, requires consensus, does it not?

Of course the science in the word Scientology simply means knowing from it's etymological root. (Scientology = "the study of knowing").

So you see how hairy this can get?