Thread: Using the law of attraction to attract my soulmate?

It's also what mcwillis said. And he posted before you. So you were obviously just copying him. But go ahead and stake out a piece of ownership. In this entire thread I still haven't seen you refute the hypothesis of law of attraction with a legitimate claim. Do you even know the hypothesis?

Actually I'm the first response in this thread, at least get your facts straight before you try so desperately to call someone out. I'm guessing you didn't understand the quote, go reread it and you might figure it out the second time through.

Your ego is more inflated than Lance Armstrong's testicle was.

And I'm still waiting to hear a legitimate refutation of the law of attraction hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Your ego is more inflated than Lance Armstrong's testicle was.

And I'm still waiting to hear a legitimate refutation of the law of attraction hypothesis.

You realize at this point your pursuit of ego enhancement is causing you to disrespect the OP right?

Original Poster, I am sick of your flaggotry. You are often the first to derail a thread by questioning a poster's sincerity or niceness. Learn to ignore it, or at least limit your response to it with a single post (or, better yet, take the whole thing to PMs).

Originally Posted by yondaime109

What you have to lose if you spent just minute of "wishful thinking".

You lose a minute of time which could have been spent actively working towards your goal.

Originally Posted by BossMan

Which is basically what I said in my first post, I was just more blunt and to the point.



What shows true character is being able to remain positive in negative situations and make the best out of it. If the believing in the Theory of Attraction results in this then more power to you.

My sources state otherwise, Hee Hee and a Ho Ho.

Originally Posted by Abra

Original Poster, I am sick of your flaggotry. You are often the first to derail a thread by questioning a poster's sincerity or niceness. Learn to ignore it, or at least limit your response to it with a single post (or, better yet, take the whole thing to PMs).



You lose a minute of time which could have been spent actively working towards your goal.

Not if it's before bed

Originally Posted by yondaime109

My sources state otherwise, Hee Hee and a Ho Ho.

All I've been trying to say is take everything with a grain salt and make sure whatever your believing in is definitive. If you choose to believe in the unknown then let it at least be recognized as such.

At that, I'll leave you to come to your own conclusion.

Originally Posted by BossMan

All I've been trying to say is take everything with a grain salt and make sure whatever your believing in is definitive. If you choose to believe in the unknown then let it at least be recognized as such.

At that, I'll leave you to come to your own conclusion.

Whatever you are trying to say is different from what you've said. You've baselessly ridiculed LoA the entire thread and (shockingly) haven't actually made a legitimate attack on the hypothesis itself.

Also, since definitive is impossible I'd rather invest belief in what I find beneficial. LoA has benefited me. I agree everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Even if it came from the mouth of Neal Degrasse Tyson himself.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Whatever you are trying to say is different from what you've said. You've baselessly ridiculed LoA the entire thread and (shockingly) haven't actually made a legitimate attack on the hypothesis itself.

A hypothesis is testable and falsifiable. Pseudoscience is that which is untestable and unfalsifiable. So give us this hypothesis.

There are several. One of the more popular ones is that the observer affects the observation by creating information and encoding it into the energy pulse it carries. This process is enhanced by the intensity of the emotion created by the thought patterns of the observer. The information is born as thought patterns but turned into a signal by the emotional reaction to the thought patterns. Whether the emotional reaction is positive or negative, the speed and potency of the response is determined by its intensity. The response primarily takes on traits to justify the emotion being broadcast, but because emotions vary between most similar thoughts, the language of the emotional signal is easily translated from thought patterns including words and visualizations.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

There are several. One of the more popular ones is that the observer affects the observation by creating information and encoding it into the energy pulse it carries. This process is enhanced by the intensity of the emotion created by the thought patterns of the observer. The information is born as thought patterns but turned into a signal by the emotional reaction to the thought patterns. Whether the emotional reaction is positive or negative, the speed and potency of the response is determined by its intensity. The response primarily takes on traits to justify the emotion being broadcast, but because emotions vary between most similar thoughts, the language of the emotional signal is easily translated from thought patterns including words and visualizations.

This is my problem with the theory. We've proven over and over again that thought processes are simply patterns of electrical activity, which do have minute waves that carry out; it isn't nearly enough to be able to affect anything substantial other than an FMRI machine or an electrode hat. Honestly, the Law of Attraction can be helpful as it pushes positive meditation and thinking, both of which are great for your self. Pushing it as proven science, however, doesn't get anything accomplished other than getting people to dismiss it as pseudoscience.

On top of that, reading the ideas of how these are manifested is like reading the Flat Earth Society's explanations for everything; you use scientific words and phrases and string them together in something that sounds like a coherent idea, but it really isn't when you look into those, but the LoA is on a MUCH lesser scale.

You're supposed to make things look scientific when presenting a scientific hypothesis. Pseudoscience is claiming scientific legitimacy that hasn't been properly earned, but a hypothesis doesn't have to earn shit and is allowed to sound scientific without being proven. Something doesn't become pseudoscience until someone says "It's been proven..." even though it hasn't been thoroughly verified enough.

You'll also please note that I'm not saying thought patterns alone create the EMF that alters reality. In fact, I'm not sure how well I buy that hypothesis because LOA doesn't work through space-time, your positive energy affects the entire universe instantly. I'm more on the side of quantum entanglement here. But I digress, to clarify, none of the proponents of this hypothesis have argued that the brain is acting alone. Emotions are felt by the entire body, so it's only logical that the entire body is creating the EMF.

What's more important to me for the first generation of experiments is for people to understand how the technique works, when one is working it properly. Whether it works through EMF or quantum entanglement wouldn't matter if the scientists testing it don't understand how you're supposed to do it. That's why I spent more time talking about merging emotions with thought. If you show that there is a phenomenon taking place where the observer affects the observation, then you can move on to figure out how it works.

Also I won't be on much over the next week, just so everyone is aware.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

There are several. One of the more popular ones is that the observer affects the observation by creating information and encoding it into the energy pulse it carries. This process is enhanced by the intensity of the emotion created by the thought patterns of the observer. The information is born as thought patterns but turned into a signal by the emotional reaction to the thought patterns. Whether the emotional reaction is positive or negative, the speed and potency of the response is determined by its intensity. The response primarily takes on traits to justify the emotion being broadcast, but because emotions vary between most similar thoughts, the language of the emotional signal is easily translated from thought patterns including words and visualizations.

And how can we form a test in such a way that proves that an observational outcome was different from the neutral outcome solely by thought patterns?

What constitutes a 'neutral' outcome?
What counts as an 'affected' outcome?
And the big one, how do we know something else did not affect the outcome?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You're supposed to make things look scientific when presenting a scientific hypothesis. Pseudoscience is claiming scientific legitimacy that hasn't been properly earned, but a hypothesis doesn't have to earn shit and is allowed to sound scientific without being proven. Something doesn't become pseudoscience until someone says "It's been proven..." even though it hasn't been thoroughly verified enough.

Pretty sure your mixing up a scientific hypothesis with a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis has to be testable and reworked depending on how much it fails, while a hypothesis does not and is generally just conceptual. Once a hypothesis gathers up enough evidence and data, then you can make it a working hypothesis which would warrant more research to develop a scientific hypothesis that is rigorously tested.

If it can't be reliably tested and does not follow a valid scientific method but is still being presented as scientific, then it is pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

creating information and encoding it into the energy pulse it carries.

Ugh.

'Law of attraction' is bullshit mostly. 'Soul mates' are bullshit mostly.

But yes, focusing on a thing you want will probably give you ideas and motivation and will hopefully make you do what needs to be done. And when things go wrong, the motivation will allow you to try different approaches so that you improve and get better at getting what you want. The "law of attraction" doesn't have to be something magical; it works in the sense that being enthusiastic about a thing will help you achieve or get better at that thing.

So if you're enthusiastic about finding someone you would call a soul mate, the enthusiasm should indeed help you. But not because of brain magic.

Originally Posted by Maeni

'Law of attraction' is bullshit mostly. 'Soul mates' are bullshit mostly.

But yes, focusing on a thing you want will probably give you ideas and motivation and will hopefully make you do what needs to be done. And when things go wrong, the motivation will allow you to try different approaches so that you improve and get better at getting what you want. The "law of attraction" doesn't have to be something magical; it works in the sense that being enthusiastic about a thing will help you achieve or get better at that thing.

So if you're enthusiastic about finding someone you would call a soul mate, the enthusiasm should indeed help you. But not because of brain magic.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally Posted by Abra

And how can we form a test in such a way that proves that an observational outcome was different from the neutral outcome solely by thought patterns?

What constitutes a 'neutral' outcome?
What counts as an 'affected' outcome?
And the big one, how do we know something else did not affect the outcome?

One possible thing we could do is treat someone with an illness by giving them sugar pills and seeing if they get better. We could call it the placebo effect.

While this limits how far Law of Attraction works, it does prove that your beliefs affect your body. This type of experiment could be extended to see if changing beliefs can change reality outside the body. I was considering some sort of vicarious placebo affect, making the loved ones of a sick person believe that person is healed to see if the control group scores above chance. There are honestly many ways to test this that are less questionable than making people think their dying loved one is getting better though. As long as you can establish the experiment to prevent outside influence, the next step is to consider feasible and humane ways to see if changing someone's beliefs changes their reality. It's difficult to rule out confounding factors, though, so it would take a little bit of thinking to figure out the proper experiment. You couldn't make someone think they're being pursued by a beautiful woman in order to see if they get involved in a relationship because you can't tell if that person's beliefs affected reality or if they simply affect behavior positively enough that a relationship became more likely. You would need an experiment that not only contains the irrefutably luck based outcome of a casino but also still changes their belief system so they honestly believe they've already won (or lost).

Originally Posted by Original Poster

One possible thing we could do is treat someone with an illness by giving them sugar pills and seeing if they get better. We could call it the placebo effect.

But we know how the placebo effect works, and it isn't LoA energy beams. You feel happy because you are thinking you will get better, you are less stressed about the illness, and when you are less stressed your immune system works better. It's not energy pulses blasting the viruses, it is your white blood cells.

While this limits how far Law of Attraction works, it does prove that your beliefs affect your body. This type of experiment could be extended to see if changing beliefs can change reality outside the body. I was considering some sort of vicarious placebo affect, making the loved ones of a sick person believe that person is healed to see if the control group scores above chance. There are honestly many ways to test this that are less questionable than making people think their dying loved one is getting better though. As long as you can establish the experiment to prevent outside influence, the next step is to consider feasible and humane ways to see if changing someone's beliefs changes their reality. It's difficult to rule out confounding factors, though, so it would take a little bit of thinking to figure out the proper experiment. You couldn't make someone think they're being pursued by a beautiful woman in order to see if they get involved in a relationship because you can't tell if that person's beliefs affected reality or if they simply affect behavior positively enough that a relationship became more likely. You would need an experiment that not only contains the irrefutably luck based outcome of a casino but also still changes their belief system so they honestly believe they've already won (or lost).

In other words, you can't give me an experiment that rules out other factors which could result in a change. So, it's not science.

Also, I'm pretty sure prayer healing doesn't work (if the person who needs healing doesn't know about it, as well as if they do) and has been tested.

Originally Posted by Abra

But we know how the placebo effect works, and it isn't LoA energy beams. You feel happy because you are thinking you will get better, you are less stressed about the illness, and when you are less stressed your immune system works better. It's not energy pulses blasting the viruses, it is your white blood cells.


In other words, you can't give me an experiment that rules out other factors which could result in a change. So, it's not science.

Also, I'm pretty sure prayer healing doesn't work (if the person who needs healing doesn't know about it, as well as if they do) and has been tested.

For one thing, you're limiting the placebo effect purely to illnesses that involve the immune system. Not all diseases work that way but the placebo effect retains value across the board.

For two, I said it would take work to come up with a proper experiment. Do not jump to conclusions. It's a difficult thing to experiment. But you're disgracing society and the universe by deciding because it's tricky, it's therefore impossible. We both know the requirements for the experiment, why not try brainstorming? There's probably a means of testing this that's just as easy as the placebo effect.

And finally, I have limited computer time but I have read of studies with positive effects. You just have to change your definition of prayer to something which has a real effect on belief system and doesn't focus on lack. People do not know how to pray properly, and like I said, the experimenters themselves stand to confound the experiment with their own attitudes.

You're assuming because the experiments are failing it means the entire concept is false. With this attitude you may as well believe cell-phones don't cause cancer because what they actually do is disrupt the body's melatonin distribution which manages free radicals which cause cancer. The experiment did not test for this, so the results were that cell phones don't cause cancer. The same is true regarding the experiments that test if prayer has an affect. The experiment cannot support the theory if the hypothesis overlooks what's actually happening. Prayer can only have an affect if the beliefs are changed, and I have seen studies that support this idea, while none of the studies that disprove prayer take this into account.

Let's stop being rude asshats in this thread .-. it's not for arguments.
Moved to inner sanctum.

Epic post OP 6,666