From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: exteriorization
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:53:45 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1992Oct5.181626.3533@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>> The question isn't "what does it contradict" as much as "by what
>> means could it possibly operate". We have (for instance) a supposedly
>> complete list of the things that can interact with photons.
>> Nonphysical eyes are made of none of these, so at the very least,
>> whole new branches of physics are implied. Nor did I use the word
>> "eyes" lightly, because this perception seems to get colors right
>> when used around the home. Eyes perceive certain colors more than
>> others, for chemical reasons. A different viewing sense would have no
>> reason to be color-matched against eye chemistry.
>> 

	Actually,  almost any group of people who have claimed to have
made out-of-body travel repeatable (such as the theosophists,  yogis,
and the ECK people) have noticed that people who are OOB are dyslexic.
Interestingly enough,  people in lucid dreams (and presumably regular
dreams) are also dyslexic.  When I had a spontaneous OOBE,  things in
my room did not seem to have quite the correct spatial relationship,
so it might be that OOBE perception is different than real perception.
Of course,  the hindu-derived people seem to think that people don't
actually visit our plane when OOBE,  but a facilime of our plane on
the astral plane.  This is why you can't sit down in the lab and
have an OOBE and observe things in the next room.  Chances are,  this
demonstrates that the OOBE is an internal experience.  I have been
able to rapidly induce short OOBEs conversationally in people who have
been heavily stoned,  and the approach that I used was based on this
theory.

>   Who says that you have to have photons to see anything.  Certainly,
>bodies need light to see, but I wasn't talking about a body anyway was I?

	Yeah,  but suppose you go some place with your thetan where it
"gets" information (observes something and tells it to people back
here on earth) along a spacelike trajectory,  so one would need to
send info faster than light.  All of the paradoxes of FTL travel then
get involved.

>> I would call awareness an ongoing event or a process. I most
>> certainly can locate an event.
>> 
>
>   You know very well that you can't locate this "event" as you
>call it.  Since you always demand objective evidence, I would love
>to see you locate this "event".

	Well gee,  I can locate myself.

>  
>You write...
>> To paraphrase Philip K. Dick, reality is what is still there after
>> you decide you don't believe in it. This idea - that there is an
>> objective reality - isn't new.
>
>   Your idea that reality is objective is entirely subjective.  You 
>consider that reality is objective, thus reality is objective from your
>point of view.  This still does not change the fact that reality is
>objective to you solely because you consider it to be so.

	Yes,  but the best sensory data that ~I~ can get fits the
hypothesis that there is an objective reality.  If I was imagining it
all,  I don't think that I would imagine Saddam Hussein or inner
cities full of crack heads or rap music,  or the church of scientology
for that matter.

>   The underlying reality of it all is that reality as we know it is
>only the way we consider it to be.  Any scientific experiments, theorys,
>or anything else may make us think that reality is objective and to the
>degree that we consider reality to be objectivce, it is.  But wether
>or not reality is objective or subjective from your point of view depends
>entirely and only on opinion, thus from every point of view reality
>is subjective.
>
>   To put it more simply, what we agree to be real IS real.  This is
>true.  

	Well,   this means that you can go out of body just by believing
that you are someplace else.  Why don't you step outside of yourself
and realize how rediculous this sounds.  It means that you can get hit
by a truck and not get hurt if you believe you don't get hurt.  Would
you be willing to volunteer for such an experiment?  But nah,  all us
suppresive persons will believe that you will get killed and that will
overpower your postulates or something...

>   If reality is objective as you claim, why doesn't "science" as you
>describe it prove it objectively?  It seems that someone somewhere must
>have done this.  On the other hand, L. Ron Hubbard has established that
>theta (thought, life, spirit, etc.) creates Matter, Energy, Space, and
>Time by means of considerations. 

	How did he do this?

>  John Hollifield

	We must have gotten him really mad since he isn't wishing us either
Love or ARC.

--