From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: e-meter
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:43:25 GMT

sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:


>Quotes are From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
>Date: 15 Dec 92 20:41:41 GMT
>Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

>"If you build a U shaped circuit with three resistors
>and measure resistance across the tips of the U the resistance 
>will be the sum of all three resistances;
>not just the resistance of the one resistor at the
>bottom (which is the only resistor parallel to
>the vector between the tips of the U).

>I respond: I agree with your resistor model of the body and the
>explanation for the irrelevancy of the vector model of resistance.
>But I included the notion of a three dimensional vector description
>for *voltage* and *current* because in the case of these last two
>characteristics, they *do* have 3 different simultaneous components
>in the human body.  The E-Meter only measures resistance, it does
>not even measure impedance.  Why do I keep talking about voltage
>and current then?  Because during the auditing session the 
>characteristics of the needle behavior on the E-Meter are
>most likely to be caused by voltage or current flow according
>to the theory of Scientology.  Here's why.  The purpose of 
>auditing is to get "charge" off.  When you get charge off something
>there is a change in voltage and
>current.  But remember that voltage and current are 3-D vectors
>in the body.  Well in auditing, the size of the needle response
>is used by the auditor to make decisions.  But if the actual
>magnitude of the current vector couldn't be known then how could
>the auditor make the correct decisions about the needle response?

Sofar, there have been very few definitions of Scientology
words that agree with standard english definitions of the same words.

I would be hesitant to treat the Scientology definition of 'charge'
as identical the standard physics definition of 'charge' which is:
	"a definite quantity of electricity;"
	"an excess or deficiency of electrons in a body"
unless I heard from a properly trained scientologist.

If charge means to a Scientologist what it means to a physicist
then we have an objective test of at least one part of
scientology.  We could just measure the net charge on a person
before and after auditing to see if they lost anything.

I'm still not sure by what you mean about "voltage and current being
3-D vectors in the body". The voltage in a body is described by
a scalar field (one value at every point in space) and
current is described by a vector field (three values for every point).
Although I think see what you are getting at regarding the current,
that if you measure the current across a body, you only measure
the component parallel to the vector between the electrodes.
But it doesn't translate into any quanity that could be related
to a persons feelings or thoughts.  There is so much 'stuff'
going on in your body, and all the interesting stuff (too me)
is going on at the molecular scale.  Measuring quantities
like 'resistance', 'current', or 'voltage' are far too gross
to provide insights into what a person is thinking.

The auditor can make the 'correct' decision about the needle
response partially because the auditor has been trained in
a form of psychoanalysis (they have learned how to ask questions), 
which doesn't need the E-meter to be effective, 
and the auditee has trained themselves to react
properly to the auditing.  Auditing produces the same kind of results
as a good talk with a friend, or a trusted psychiatrist/counselor.

The E-meter is a clever and expensive prop; clever because it
makes the whole process *look* different from standard therapy
and *look* more like a "science".

>"This discussion would be better suited to sci.physics."

>I respond: Well if I discussed this in sci.physics no one would
>have understood the Scientology part.

Sure, I guess we are in that fuzzy in-between area of
alt.physics.religion.scientology

>I've just bridged the gap between electrophysiologic measurement
>and how the E-Meter is used in my letters on this subject.  Any one
>who knows how the E-Meter is intended to be used and 
>has knowledge or a resource person in electrophysiologic measurement
>may start thinking about these things too.  Can the E-Meter really
>do what it is intended to do even in theory?  Never mind the
>testing, they're never going to let you do that.

The alternative suggestion is that the E-meter is a placebo.

Let me ask you:

Does psychology/neurobiology/neuromedicine...
have any instruments that provide as much information
about a persons thoughts/feelings/personality as
an E-meter is supposed to?

Maybe because its not possible with todays technology?


Then ask yourself:

Did L. Ron Hubbard use his incredible technical genius to construct a device
out of a few dollars worth of 1950's electronics that can 
almost read a persons mind, or did he use his incredible marketing
genius to construct a device out of a few dollars worth of
1950's electronics that he could sell to suckers at 300 times cost?

.Chris.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology