From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: exteriorization
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:26:18 GMT


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>I have a question for Don.
>I would like to know why, in your opinion, 
>exteriorization and the scientific laws that govern the phenomena
>are contrary to modern physics.

Assume you have exteriorized to the Van Allen Belt, and come back,
with knowledge of what it's like there. How did that knowledge
travel? How did it get back into your body in a way that the body
could interpret? How was it gathered - are there nonphysical eyes
that can see? (In stereo, with depth perception?) Do they do it by
intercepting photons ? [In which case it should be possible to
photograph the shadow of an exteriorized whatever-it-is.] And so on.

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.

>This "awareness of awareness" can't be physically measured because
>it isn't an object.  We call the "awareness of awareness" a thetan, the
>Scientology word for soul or spirit.  Since theta isn't an object,
>you can't locate a thetan in the physical universe.

I would call awareness an ongoing event or a process. I most
certainly can locate an event.

>A thetan creates MEST by considerations and postulates.
>If you were able to change your considerations about MEST, you
>would be able to create your own universe.
>This is real to me.  I have observed for myself that this is true.

Basically, you are saying that reality is not objective. I disagree.

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. I seem to recall that Ampere argued
for this in the 1820's. It has been the prevailing attitude of
science ever since, for the following reasons:

1) Pragmatism. We skipped the philosophical debates and tried to
actually _learn_ about this putative reality. This approach has
been stupendously successful.

2) Independent Consensus. Oddly, independent researches discover
consistent facts. Often.

3) Surprises. If we're creating reality, why do scientists keep
discovering things that blow away the experimenter's cherished
theories?

4) Precison. At least one theory has been experimentally verified
to twelve decimal places. This means that the universe, when it
follows rules, does so with astonishing precision. Almost as if
rules were a fundamental property of reality.

5) Religions. Scientology isn't the only group with such ideas.  Why
haven't others taken steps that suit *their* agendas? I remember a
TM-er who took the Yogic Flying course. He stated publicly that in a
few years, there would be people zipping down the roads under mind
power. Well, it's *been* a few years.  Could he have been fooling
himself? Why are you any different?

6) Evolution. You associate thetans with awareness.  Life on Earth is
billions of years old, and far more wonderful than most people know.
Do animals have thetans? - and if not, then when and why did humans
acquire them? Were they ever half-acquired? And why, in a Real Big
universe, do humans rate at all? If us, why not raccoons too? Do
I detect hubris and aggrandizment?

7) Utter Lack of Contrary Evidence, in the million-plus scientific
articles published annually. Well, in the opinion of the
non-Scientologists, I guess. Feel free to change our minds.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology