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

And you don't need a brain to think about nothing because nothing would be natural state of mind which could be anything.

I wish you the best of luck yondaime109, but even if you achieve your goal I believe it will be as a resultant of your own improved self-confidence that will attract those around you.

I know your assuming I'm atheist, but I'm not, I am a Muslim. So I know the meaning of faith, I just choose not to put it in the Theory of Attraction. I already said this earlier I do like to dabble with certain ideas that involve unknown and untestable variables, but I make sure not to confuse this with science.

You are doing a terrible disservice to science. You seem to be defining the scientific method to denote that your approach to the experience, and your attitude/belief (and the feelings they generate) should not be able to affect the results of a law which says your attitude/beliefs affect reality. So you're basically claiming that LoA is untestable. I disagree, it is testable. I've noticed you have not responded to the data I posted, where you can see the research being done for yourself. There are other experiments I wish to post so you can see those too, but they're harder to find.

When I say the scientific method has no value if it cannot test LoA, I'm telling you that only the definition of the scientific method you appear to hold true has no value. The actual scientific method does have value. It is tricky with LoA though because when experiments are repeated and fail, the publishers of the original claim can state that the attitude/beliefs of the new experimenters confounded the experiment. I'm willing to state that this is a problem, but it still does not mean that LoA cannot be studied scientifically.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You are doing a terrible disservice to science.

Science will be angry at him.

Is that your way of admitting that you're not being logical?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Is that your way of admitting that you're not being logical?

Me? No, that is my way of cooling down the conversation with light jokes that only a crazy person would think is funny. haha.

However, you wholeheartedly believe in this, and he doesn't. No arguing over the ideas of the scientific method being flawed is going to change either one of your minds. Arguing doesn't change people's minds, especially on the internet. I am a Christian, I watch other Christians demean themselves by arguing and getting angry all the time and making all of us look bad. We are not called to argue against every person that doesn't agree with us on every website. You don't have to prove your point to Bossman or me. What Bossman thinks about the LoA shouldn't effect your belief at all. Even if he thinks that you are stupid for believing it, that is his problem, if you think he is stupid for not believing it, that is your problem. It isn't the most crazy idea ever, we are on a website that is devoted to being conscious while we are unconscious, so nothing is really too far out there. You have your belief on the matter, he has his. Leave it at that.

I really see no point to this going on. Both of you should just feel like you won because you convinced yourself that you were right about your opinion, and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by juroara

As far as the law of attraction goes, my advice is simple, its got NOTHING to do with your thoughts. Think hard all you want, but that's not how gurus teach to use it. The LOA requires you to feel it. So the theory goes, if you want to be with the love of your life then you need to feel that love already even as you are single. Easier said than done obviously.

I have heard this angle before. It would certainly explain why they tell you not to use negatives in your affirmations, although their usual rationale is that the subconscious "doesn't understand them" which is BS. It's really because when you say something like "I am not poor" you immediately think of being poor. The subconscious has no issue with negatives, but I think it works better with images and feelings than words. Someone could use that affirmation if they honestly visualized being wealthy while thinking those words, but it tends to be human nature to focus on a (linguistic) negative like that. It's like someone telling you not to think of a pink elephant.

That said, I'm still on the fence about this.

Originally Posted by juroara

But some curious researchers took the subject of healing prayer very seriously. They wanted to set up the best experiment yet. But to set up a legit experiment they first had to theorize how healing prayer could work. Eventually they got the idea that they had to isolate the healer and the recipient in a room that was designed to block out as much EM noise as possible (or something to that effect).

They wanted to know if healing prayer is tangible energy in the electromagnetic field. So after isolating the healer and recipient in a "noise free" room, they turned off the lights and got a camera that NAASA uses to see in the dark. And they did see some interesting things.

I plan to reread the book and when I do I'll post about it if anyone is interested. The book does list the whos, whats, wheres and whens of the research.

Please do. I would like to look into it myself at some point. I will admit I have always wanted to be able to heal others with thought alone. I like to help people.

Originally Posted by yondaime109

He's right, It's a waste of time to prove that LOA works. Believing it is a matter of faith or, In some cases, Logical thought. I'll tell you what, When I attract the girl, And I will, That has every quality that wrote down on a piece of paper then we can finally see who was right and who was wrong. My list was very specific and I do manage to manifest her it'd be absolute proof that loa works even if it doesn't make any logical sense.

Well, I think you have the right idea, but beware of arrogance... I have heard (admittedly, I don't remember where from) that these things generally come only to people with pure intentions. Of course, I can't say whether that's true or BS, but you may as well try to avoid it, right?

Originally Posted by yondaime109

Don't get me wrong, Neither Atheism or Religion has made to sense to me. The idea that we'll to heaven, hell, Valhalla, etc. for all eternity in the afterlife is bogus, But the atheist idea of post-death doesn't make sense either, To be nothing is incomprehensible and how could you possibly comprehend that without a brain.

Nothing could be anything or it can be nothing, And nothing is nothing which must mean it's something. We only think it's nothing because it's something we know nothing of. Atheist think they know "nothing" but really they don't know nothing about something!!!! How can nothing exist after-death if you'd need a brain to know "nothing"? When you're thinking of nothing then you're are thinking of something.

Which logically proves that you have to be something after you die!!!

...you seriously lost me here with this "something" and "nothing" word soup. I'm not sure when we started talking religion anyway. I will say that I would never accuse something of being impossible just because it lies outside of the realm of human understanding. Just because we cannot understand the concept of no longer existing doesn't mean it's therefore impossible for it to happen.

Originally Posted by BrandonBoss

Me? No, that is my way of cooling down the conversation with light jokes that only a crazy person would think is funny. haha.

However, you wholeheartedly believe in this, and he doesn't. No arguing over the ideas of the scientific method being flawed is going to change either one of your minds. Arguing doesn't change people's minds, especially on the internet. I am a Christian, I watch other Christians demean themselves by arguing and getting angry all the time and making all of us look bad. We are not called to argue against every person that doesn't agree with us on every website. You don't have to prove your point to Bossman or me. What Bossman thinks about the LoA shouldn't effect your belief at all. Even if he thinks that you are stupid for believing it, that is his problem, if you think he is stupid for not believing it, that is your problem. It isn't the most crazy idea ever, we are on a website that is devoted to being conscious while we are unconscious, so nothing is really too far out there. You have your belief on the matter, he has his. Leave it at that.

I really see no point to this going on. Both of you should just feel like you won because you convinced yourself that you were right about your opinion, and leave it at that.

I do not necessarily believe in LoA, I simply dislike people hiding behind science in order to brush it aside. I think it has warranted examination and the conclusions to the examinations so far warrant that it be taken more seriously.

No one is hiding, much more qualified professionals already decided it was a waste of time.. not me. I'm not really sure if you realize this, but the ones who believe LoA has scientific basis are the minority, its widely regarded as farce whether you like it or not.

If you believe its conclusions merit further study then fine, but stop pretending like your views are predominantly accepted amongst the scientific community. It is classified as pseudoscience by most regardless of your personal opinions.

Let me explain what pseudoscience is since apparently you don't know.

Pseudoscience is when you claim something has been scientifically proven that has not been proven. Pseudoscience is when you attempt to make your claim sound credible by decorating it with sciency rhetoric without actually proving it. LoA as a theory is not pseudoscience because there actually is scientific data supporting it. At this point pretending there is no data at all is absurd, I've shown it to you in this thread. I am not claiming it is true, or that is has been proven. I am claiming that your arguments against it are fallacious and the way you appear to disdain LoA is as bad as religious zealots calling out blasphemy against heliocentrism. In this last post alone, you have committed the following fallacies: Appeal to authority (You claim much more qualified professionals have brushed it aside, therefore everyone should), appeal to popularity (you claim because most people regard it as a farce, everyone should) and strawman (you claim that I claimed LoA is predominantly accepted, I did not).

So far I have yet to see you criticize LoA from a logical or scientific standpoint. Your arguments more closely reflect the supposed physicists discrediting Special Relativity as Jew Science.

No that's just your definition of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is anything presented as science that does not follow the scientific method and lacks plausibility and supporting data, it does not have to be a "proven" claim.

I don't disdain LoA I just think its silly, stop construing my viewpoints to match your irrational trigger-happy animosity. I think its safe to say no one in this thread is a scientist OP, so you yourself appeal to the authority of those who provide 'evidence' or 'data' on LoA. Its not like you conducted and calculated the experiments yourself.

Because of how LoA is structured you can not approach it with the intention to falsify it, or the results will always come out false, this is enough for me not to bother with it.

Besides your whole approach to this thing is unreasonable from the start, you link a few long complicated articles and demand me to read them and disprove them otherwise I have no basis to say you're data is wrong. How fucking stupid is that?

Here a 15 second google search turned up 'allegedly' empirical and measurable data written as a thesis statement for some university that UFO's exist. Now spend hours reading the whole thing and give me logical and scientific examples as to why this is wrong.

UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life - UFO Evidence

CSETI - Comprehensive Assessment

All you're doing is capitalizing on the ambiguity of science to create shards of legitimacy using science as a template.

By the way its the "Special THEORY of Relativity" because it actually adheres to a scientific process, there is still much work to be done before it can be called Law.

I already linked you this quote but since were going in circles again with this discussion, it has become relevant again.

“So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.” - Richard P. Feynman

Originally Posted by BossMan

No that's just your definition of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is anything presented as science that does not follow the scientific method and lacks plausibility and supporting data, it does not have to be a "proven" claim.

Therefore LoA does not fall into pseudoscience because it contains both plausibility and supporting data. Once again you are baselessly claiming there is no evidence for something there is evidence for. This is getting ridiculous.

I don't disdain LoA I just think its silly, stop construing my viewpoints to match your irrational trigger-happy animosity. I think its safe to say no one in this thread is a scientist OP, so you yourself appeal to the authority of those who provide 'evidence' or 'data' on LoA. Its not like you conducted and calculated the experiments yourself.

No but the articles I posted were published in scholarly journals where they were peer reviewed and underwent all the bells and whistles. I am not appealing to authority because I am not claiming that LoA is true simply because it's been tested. I am refuted your claim that is untestable. Nothing more.

Because of how LoA is structured you can not approach it with the intention to falsify it, or the results will always come out false, this is enough for me not to bother with it.

So you admit that you don't dislike LoA because it's pseudoscience, you just don't like it because it's different.

Besides your whole approach to this thing is unreasonable from the start, you link a few long complicated articles and demand me to read them and disprove them otherwise I have no basis to say you're data is wrong. How fucking stupid is that?

Yes, that is what you are required to do, otherwise you have to withdraw your claim that it's pseudoscience. They're scholarly articles detailing experiments that have been conducted, the results of these experiments which have been repeated are enough to change your view on reality, if you gave them a chance. If you don't like how long and complicated they are, then I can give you non-scholarly summaries of these findings from a popular magazine or a youtube video. But then you'd claim that the sources aren't credible. You can't just shift goal-posts to save yourself from reading.

Here a 15 second google search turned up 'allegedly' empirical and measurable data written as a thesis statement for some university that UFO's exist. Now spend hours reading the whole thing and give me logical and scientific examples as to why this is wrong.

UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life - UFO Evidence

CSETI - Comprehensive Assessment

Those aren't scholarly articles, there's no abstract to confirm a test result. If my articles did not include an abstract, I would allow an attack on the same grounds. I never claimed UFOs weren't real though, or that they were silly, or untestable, or unscientific, or pseudoscience, or any of the other words you used to described LoA. If I really wished to challenge UFOs on a scientific basis, and attack it as science, that would require me to attack the evidence directly.

All you're doing is capitalizing on the ambiguity of science to create shards of legitimacy using science as a template.

What ambiguity of science? It seems pretty straight forward to me. The hypothesis is that attitude affects reality via [blank]. An experiment is conducted to prove this and the experiment comes up with positive results. You're pretending it's complicated to save yourself the trouble of considering its possibility.

I already linked you this quote but since were going in circles again with this discussion, it has become relevant again.

“So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.” - Richard P. Feynman

I'm not claiming you're unscientific for saying it's unlikely that LoA exists. I'm saying you're unscientific for claiming it's pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Therefore LoA does not fall into pseudoscience because it contains both plausibility and supporting data. Once again you are baselessly claiming there is no evidence for something there is evidence for. This is getting ridiculous.

No but the articles I posted were published in scholarly journals where they were peer reviewed and underwent all the bells and whistles. I am not appealing to authority because I am not claiming that LoA is true simply because it's been tested. I am refuted your claim that is untestable. Nothing more.

No you are claiming whatever test results and data presented in these articles is legitimate which you in turn you use to support your argument that LoA cannot be classified as pseudoscience. If you accepted the notion that it is possible for these experiments to be to demonstrating a false scientific process you would also accept its plausibility as pseudoscience. So yes, you are appealing to these people who have endeavored in this topic to support your stance because you were not involved with the experiment, your depending on its legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

So you admit that you don't dislike LoA because it's pseudoscience, you just don't like it because it's different.

You can't write it off as just being different, falsifiability is a key component of a hypothesis and the scientific method, that's an example of how LoA does not adhere to a proper scientific process. It being pseudoscience has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Yes, that is what you are required to do, otherwise you have to withdraw your claim that it's pseudoscience. They're scholarly articles detailing experiments that have been conducted, the results of these experiments which have been repeated are enough to change your view on reality, if you gave them a chance. If you don't like how long and complicated they are, then I can give you non-scholarly summaries of these findings from a popular magazine or a youtube video. But then you'd claim that the sources aren't credible. You can't just shift goal-posts to save yourself from reading.

I have no problem with reading, but this isn't casual reading. It would take time and research for me to properly understand what is going on in this experiment, but I did skim over it a bit to see what it was about. Since you understand it so well I did find a few points confusing, since this is supposedly an example of empirical and measurable data (again required for a proper scientific process) I found these points questionable and lacking in conclusive nature:

"For instance, such was the case in the Scole experiment, in which physical manifestation mediums ostensibly communicated with the deceased. Various markings, including drawings and writing in a variety of languages, were found on unopened rolls of photographic film that had been brought to the sessions by independent investigators (Keen, Ellison, and Fontana, 1999)."

How is this a measurable result of experiment? Where are the pictures of this photographic film roll? are they not documenting their evidence? How do we know these rolls were unopened, is this the part where I just put faith in these scientists? If they have been documenting their evidence have they submitted it to a scientific board for review of authenticity?

"In another case, Ted Owens, whom Jeffrey Mishlove investigated over the course of a decade, successfully produced or predicted anomalous events at least 75 times that had less than one percent probability of occurrence. For example, Owens could apparently direct lightning strikes to locations requested by others (Mishlove, 2000)."

Where did they get this percentage from? Since they were experimenting I'd hope they took video documentation of a man being able to direct lighting strikes with his mind.

"Contextuality refers to the idea that the values measured for observables would differ depending upon which other observables were also being measured (Kochen & Specker, 1967). Quantum theory itself does not appear to determine the selection of observables, so that there is room for human intention to act in choosing which of them is to be measured. Henry Stapp, without reference to the Kochen-Specker theorem, uses this as the insertion point for volition in his quantum mind theory (Stapp, 2004, 2007, 2009). Another strategy has been to suppose that intention affects stochastic processes, thereby, in effect, removing actual randomness. Variations of this can be found in the work of Jean Burns (2002), Evan Harris-Walker (1970, 1977, 2000), and Amit Goswami (Goswami, Reed and Goswami, 1993)."

Why are other questionable theories being used to explain a phenomena that is supposedly law? Even if your intentions/thoughts can manifest at a quantum level how does this rule out the potential of a sporadic or "stochastic" event? It seems like they are just speculating that your intentions/thoughts can be used to divert a sporadic events, where is the empirical data supporting this claim?

"There are, of course, many unanswered questions. One is the relation of the flicker rate to changeable rates of observational acts and the consequent timing of intention. My guess would be that intention, at the level of deep consciousness, persists across iterations of the universe, but that changes in intention could be registered within a single Planck time between instances of manifestation."

Persists across iterations of the universe? "My guess...?" damn straight there are many unanswered questions. This all seems extremely speculative and lacking in any hard evidence or data, which once again, is required for a proper scientific process.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Those aren't scholarly articles, there's no abstract to confirm a test result. If my articles did not include an abstract, I would allow an attack on the same grounds. I never claimed UFOs weren't real though, or that they were silly, or untestable, or unscientific, or pseudoscience, or any of the other words you used to described LoA. If I really wished to challenge UFOs on a scientific basis, and attack it as science, that would require me to attack the evidence directly.

Neither you or what I posted are scientific publications, this one is though:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21101545262861

You can read it for free if you make an account which is also free (as long as you are a current student of a university). I want an article like this one for the Law of Attraction. The only ones I could find that resembled this article are sociological experiments that focus on qualitative data, qualitative data does not redeem it from the title of pseudoscience. I want to add this article is also published by MIT; are there reputable publications like this for the Law of Attraction?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

What ambiguity of science? It seems pretty straight forward to me. The hypothesis is that attitude affects reality via [blank]. An experiment is conducted to prove this and the experiment comes up with positive results. You're pretending it's complicated to save yourself the trouble of considering its possibility.

Science by nature is ambiguous, your the one who seems to be over simplifying it. It is a very complicated process that requires a lot of work and research.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I'm not claiming you're unscientific for saying it's unlikely that LoA exists. I'm saying you're unscientific for claiming it's pseudoscience.

Really whats the difference? Pseudoscience IS unlikely.

Originally Posted by BossMan

No you are claiming whatever test results and data presented in these articles is legitimate which you in turn you use to support your argument that LoA cannot be classified as pseudoscience. If you accepted the notion that it is possible for these experiments to be to demonstrating a false scientific process you would also accept its plausibility as pseudoscience. So yes, you are appealing to these people who have endeavored in this topic to support your stance because you were not involved with the experiment, your depending on its legitimacy.

It's possible for any experiment to demonstrate false data, it happens all the time. They don't call biology pseudoscience just because it's vulnerable to misrepresentation. They call it a bad experiment, not bad science.

You can't write it off as just being different, falsifiability is a key component of a hypothesis and the scientific method, that's an example of how LoA does not adhere to a proper scientific process. It being pseudoscience has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.

But your grounds for falsification are baseless and basically the same as saying you don't like it. Yes, actually LoA does adhere to the scientific process. For fuck's sake, just because you say you should get to have whatever attitude you want, the freedom for the observer to hold whatever attitude he/she wanted is not implied by the scientific method. That's just you being stubborn and contorting the scientific method to support your own bigotry. The fact is, if science did have some sort of implication, that would make science limited in its ability, it would not make LoA impossible.

I have no problem with reading, but this isn't casual reading. It would take time and research for me to properly understand what is going on in this experiment, but I did skim over it a bit to see what it was about. Since you understand it so well I did find a few points confusing, since this is supposedly an example of empirical and measurable data (again required for a proper scientific process) I found these points questionable and lacking in conclusive nature:

"For instance, such was the case in the Scole experiment, in which physical manifestation mediums ostensibly communicated with the deceased. Various markings, including drawings and writing in a variety of languages, were found on unopened rolls of photographic film that had been brought to the sessions by independent investigators (Keen, Ellison, and Fontana, 1999)."

How is this a measurable result of experiment? Where are the pictures of this photographic film roll? are they not documenting their evidence? How do we know these rolls were unopened, is this the part where I just put faith in these scientists? If they have been documenting their evidence have they submitted it to a scientific board for review of authenticity?

"In another case, Ted Owens, whom Jeffrey Mishlove investigated over the course of a decade, successfully produced or predicted anomalous events at least 75 times that had less than one percent probability of occurrence. For example, Owens could apparently direct lightning strikes to locations requested by others (Mishlove, 2000)."

Where did they get this percentage from? Since they were experimenting I'd hope they took video documentation of a man being able to direct lighting strikes with his mind.

"Contextuality refers to the idea that the values measured for observables would differ depending upon which other observables were also being measured (Kochen & Specker, 1967). Quantum theory itself does not appear to determine the selection of observables, so that there is room for human intention to act in choosing which of them is to be measured. Henry Stapp, without reference to the Kochen-Specker theorem, uses this as the insertion point for volition in his quantum mind theory (Stapp, 2004, 2007, 2009). Another strategy has been to suppose that intention affects stochastic processes, thereby, in effect, removing actual randomness. Variations of this can be found in the work of Jean Burns (2002), Evan Harris-Walker (1970, 1977, 2000), and Amit Goswami (Goswami, Reed and Goswami, 1993)."

Why are other questionable theories being used to explain a phenomena that is supposedly law? Even if your intentions/thoughts can manifest at a quantum level how does this rule out the potential of a sporadic or "stochastic" event? It seems like they are just speculating that your intentions/thoughts can be used to divert a sporadic events, where is the empirical data supporting this claim?

"There are, of course, many unanswered questions. One is the relation of the flicker rate to changeable rates of observational acts and the consequent timing of intention. My guess would be that intention, at the level of deep consciousness, persists across iterations of the universe, but that changes in intention could be registered within a single Planck time between instances of manifestation."

Persists across iterations of the universe? "My guess...?" damn straight there are many unanswered questions. This all seems extremely speculative and lacking in any hard evidence or data, which once again, is required for a proper scientific process.

Good job, you have read the speculative introduction so you can understand where people's heads are regarding what is still very a speculative science. I never said LoA was scientifically proven so stop using that strawman, please. I said you refused to debate this topic on a scientific level and this is the first time I've seen you do so. Glad you're starting to think like a scientist though.

Neither you or what I posted are scientific publications, this one is though:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

You can read it for free if you make an account which is also free (as long as you are a current student of a university). I want an article like this one for the Law of Attraction. The only ones I could find that resembled this article are sociological experiments that focus on qualitative data, qualitative data does not redeem it from the title of pseudoscience. I want to add this article is also published by MIT; are there reputable publications like this for the Law of Attraction?

Right now as far as I can find there are related experiments that provide evidence for how LoA functions which are published in scholarly articles. Like I said, do a search in google scholar for Rupert Sheldrake. His experiments have provided a lot of evidence regarding the primacy of consciousness. So far it seems you've only followed up on the link I dug up to introduce you to the examinations and speculations taking place. Sheldrake has tested people and animals for telepathy and has consistently found his test results well above what could be caused by chance alone. Why can't others? Because they test it in order to disprove it. This doesn't mean their attitudes are ruining the results, necessarily, it comes down to little details like Sheldrake tests telepathy between people that know each other, previous research was done between strangers.

One major experiment performed by Sheldrake tested an animal's ability to perceive when their owner was coming home. They filmed the pet and the owner and waited for the owner to have the intention of going home to see if the pet reacted, which they did well above chance. They had the owner change which time they were coming home, as well as their mode of transportation, direction and distance. It was found very consistently that the moment the intention hit the owner's mind, the animals would become excited and wait by the door. If you have criticisms like that the dogs have super senses and can pick up everything, read the publications yourself. Most of these questions have already been addressed by Shleldrake in interviews (which are on youtube)

rupert sheldrake - Google Scholar

Now on to the next piece of data I posted, regarding the experiment done to see if a pyramid had healing properties. You may be asking what telepathy and holistic healing have to do with LoA. It's simple, like I said LoA is still in a speculative phase so right now the major data being collected has to do with the primacy of consciousness theory. There's a lot more research I could possibly dig up eventually which shows how DNA can be modified using radiowaves and other strange studies but that would take some effort, let's start with what I've posted so far and move on from there.

So this is an experiment that's pretty difficult to criticize. I admit the data collected in the introductory link I gave you is dubious, but the results of this experiment are pretty straightforward. Rats were given cuts, a test group was placed in a pyramid the exact proportions of the pyramid of giza and aligned with the magnetic poles the same way as the great pyramid. Wounds healed faster for the test group. Again, they're testing a shape, not an attitude, but if a shape can heal people when it's lined up properly that means resonance may have had an effect and if resonance can effect healing that way then resonance may be how LoA functions. Even if you don't want to get involved with the whole attitude aspect of LoA you could still hypothesize what, exactly, the attitude is affecting and how it's affecting it, then recreate the effect on its own terms.

Originally Posted by BossMan

Because of how LoA is structured you can not approach it with the intention to falsify it, or the results will always come out false, this is enough for me not to bother with it.

Besides your whole approach to this thing is unreasonable from the start, you link a few long complicated articles and demand me to read them and disprove them otherwise I have no basis to say you're data is wrong. How fucking stupid is that?

This seems really backwards to me, I went through the whole four pages but didn't read the last few posts because I got to this and realised that your just walking in circles, what I mean by that is that you Complain that their is no proof but then you complain that even the articles that don't prove but have tested are to long or complicated to read.

And before that you talk about how OP isn't a scientist and hasn't done and scientific experiments on his own, but then you refuse to test it yourself, which would also be the only way to prove it doesn't exist, but somehow I got the feeling your gonna say thats not your goal.

So I must ask you two, what is your goal?

Also I love reading threads where OP is trying to make a point because at some point someone says something along the lines of, "Oh I struck a nerve there OP?" Or "Looks like I ruffled your feathers," Which really just looks silly.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It's possible for any experiment to demonstrate false data, it happens all the time. They don't call biology pseudoscience just because it's vulnerable to misrepresentation. They call it a bad experiment, not bad science.

I didn't say false data, I said a false scientific process, it is not the same thing. If your process is wrong then your experiment holds little merit if any.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

But your grounds for falsification are baseless and basically the same as saying you don't like it. Yes, actually LoA does adhere to the scientific process. For fuck's sake, just because you say you should get to have whatever attitude you want, the freedom for the observer to hold whatever attitude he/she wanted is not implied by the scientific method. That's just you being stubborn and contorting the scientific method to support your own bigotry. The fact is, if science did have some sort of implication, that would make science limited in its ability, it would not make LoA impossible.

This has nothing to do with "my say" or "bigotry," its just how it is. Its known objectivity is important in order to maintain accurate test results, its ideals have been practiced and developed in science since the enlightenment era. I just don't see how you can maintain neutrality while trying to test for LoA. Its a self-defeating process because of the "Law's" framework, from my understanding you need to have intention and bias to produce measurable results.

My earlier argument was approaching LoA with a cynical attitude under its assumption of "Law" What I meant in that post was your approach to scientific "Law" should not matter, it is law. Like I already said, you can approach the Law of Gravity with any attitude you want, it won't change the fact that greater masses attract smaller masses. I was attacking LoA's self-proclaimed title of "Law" which yes I do dislike. You yourself say it is still a speculative science in its starting stages, then how can you call it Law? This may be an irrelevant technicality, but it still bothers me.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Good job, you have read the speculative introduction so you can understand where people's heads are regarding what is still very a speculative science. I never said LoA was scientifically proven so stop using that strawman, please. I said you refused to debate this topic on a scientific level and this is the first time I've seen you do so. Glad you're starting to think like a scientist though.

This isn't even on a scientific level, any half-minded person reading that article should be asking the same exact questions I was asking. I know you're not saying its proven, but you are not the only one reading this thread so I want to make it clear to everyone else that it is not proven.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Right now as far as I can find there are related experiments that provide evidence for how LoA functions which are published in scholarly articles. Like I said, do a search in google scholar for Rupert Sheldrake. His experiments have provided a lot of evidence regarding the primacy of consciousness. So far it seems you've only followed up on the link I dug up to introduce you to the examinations and speculations taking place. Sheldrake has tested people and animals for telepathy and has consistently found his test results well above what could be caused by chance alone. Why can't others? Because they test it in order to disprove it. This doesn't mean their attitudes are ruining the results, necessarily, it comes down to little details like Sheldrake tests telepathy between people that know each other, previous research was done between strangers.

One major experiment performed by Sheldrake tested an animal's ability to perceive when their owner was coming home. They filmed the pet and the owner and waited for the owner to have the intention of going home to see if the pet reacted, which they did well above chance. They had the owner change which time they were coming home, as well as their mode of transportation, direction and distance. It was found very consistently that the moment the intention hit the owner's mind, the animals would become excited and wait by the door. If you have criticisms like that the dogs have super senses and can pick up everything, read the publications yourself. Most of these questions have already been addressed by Shleldrake in interviews (which are on youtube)

rupert sheldrake - Google Scholar

Now on to the next piece of data I posted, regarding the experiment done to see if a pyramid had healing properties. You may be asking what telepathy and holistic healing have to do with LoA. It's simple, like I said LoA is still in a speculative phase so right now the major data being collected has to do with the primacy of consciousness theory. There's a lot more research I could possibly dig up eventually which shows how DNA can be modified using radiowaves and other strange studies but that would take some effort, let's start with what I've posted so far and move on from there.

So this is an experiment that's pretty difficult to criticize. I admit the data collected in the introductory link I gave you is dubious, but the results of this experiment are pretty straightforward. Rats were given cuts, a test group was placed in a pyramid the exact proportions of the pyramid of giza and aligned with the magnetic poles the same way as the great pyramid. Wounds healed faster for the test group. Again, they're testing a shape, not an attitude, but if a shape can heal people when it's lined up properly that means resonance may have had an effect and if resonance can effect healing that way then resonance may be how LoA functions. Even if you don't want to get involved with the whole attitude aspect of LoA you could still hypothesize what, exactly, the attitude is affecting and how it's affecting it, then recreate the effect on its own terms.

I don't have time to check him or the rat experiment out now, but I will later and get back to you by editing this post. I just want to be clear that I will not accept conclusive experimentation if it has not been submitted for review by a reputable scientific board, I have every right not to.

I'm glad you liked the discussion enough to read the entire thread Zeracook, I'm not really sure what my goal is in this thread anymore. I guess at first I was kind of provocative and dismissing, right now I'm just trying to have a fruitful discussion. More specifically, I want to see if there are grounds to call LoA real science... So far I don't see any but it's still up in the air.

There's also this Elsevier

Masaru Emoto's experiment on intention's effect on water.

Here is the same experiment conducted in 2008 by the same people except they took more measures in producing more "blind" results, this experiment also has way more data and pictures for comparison and is explained more thoroughly: http://www.scientificexploration.org...22_4_radin.pdf

Great so were at least getting somewhere, this experiment was cool and it was actually fun to read to see there exact process and knowing that they had already conducted the same experiment in 2006 (your link) means they have experience with this already. I'm also glad they posted their exact results for everything and explained how there data was being interpreted.

Now the problem I have with this experiment is how are they defining beauty? If you read Aesthetic Assessments and Analysis section on page 4 you will see that they gave random users images of specific magnifications to rate on how "beautiful" these images were. Their ratings were a seven-point range from "not" to "very." They go on to even explain that my initial suspicions were not wrong, there are numerous factors that lets each person judge beauty differently. There rating system was not an effective method in gauging which crystal formations were truly more beautiful, because beauty is a subjective matter to begin with. Nevertheless, despite the fact that how they rated these images is debatable they concluded that the water bottles with intention yielded "more beautiful" results by an extremely small "yet significant" margin.

Lets also not forget that there is a degree of bias in this experiment as well. Someone had to pick the pictures to be judged, the different magnifications, and the water bottles, these are all exploratory factors.

To me the pictures reveal basic cymatics. Some pictures created more harmonious patterns. Beauty is subjective but there is something to be said regarding the way patterns form at certain sound frequencies.

Sure but that's not the aim of this experiment. The point is they were using beauty as their variable in determining what effect intention could have on the ice formations.

They took a picture of the water bottles that were suppose to be intention treated and then used it as a visual aid for 3 different groups that would focus their intentions on these photos and thus would result in intention physically altering the water to produce more beautiful crystal formations.

They are not really explaining exactly how your "intention" is doing this or explaining how these groups were using their intention to pull this stunt off. In the end of the day I feel this is an experiment assuming from the beginning that intention could manifest physically and they were testing how it could affect water and ice formations. I'm questioning the very ability of your intention and considering the data in this experiment seems somewhat undefined and unclear I think its fair to say it holds little ground to prove much for the Law of Attraction, it was cool to read though.

Right but what strikes me clearly in these pictures is the cymatic effect occurring. Unlike beauty, cymatics are measurable as well as visible.

You also can't attack the experiment on the grounds that it doesn't show how intention affected the water. A link has been found, it was not the purpose of the experiment to discover how the link worked. THat's for further experiments, once this has been properly verified and more theories can be proposed. However, I would posit that it works through vibration, in some way or another, due to the fact that there is such an obvious cymatic effect occurring. Further experiments could determine if the EM signal produced by the body can change depending on the intention being held by the mind. While it may not work precisely through the body's EM field at least looking for a link between the two could determine for certainty that it doesn't work that way. Granted, we already know there is a link between intention and heart rate, but what that means isn't fully known yet.

This reminds me of when I was in Grade School and my math teachers would tell me I was wrong cause I didn't show the work.

I'm gonna go of what the experiment is testing for and what it is presenting. They were not testing for a cymatic effect in the crystal formations they were testing as to how "beautiful" they were in comparison to non-intention treated samples by using a rating system. There whole idea of an established "link" between your intention and crystal formation is based of user aesthetic ratings of these images not the cymatic effect of your mind beams. The point is, their conclusion is debatable and refutable which is what makes this a proper experiment.

Personally I don't buy it, and the ridiculously small marginal difference between the samples and aesthetic ratings in both the experiments don't really rule out chance in my opinion. Also like I said earlier there is still a degree of bias, the pictures elected for a rating still had to be chosen by someone, this plays a role in the data.

Either way you proved your point, there are experiments that go beyond directing lighting strikes with your mind and finding obscure writings from the undead on film rolls. But I think to see more experiments like this one with higher caliber equipment and testing methods its going to require high funding and with the nature/reputation of the topic is probably unlikely.

I think after all of this its fair to say the Law of Attraction is no scientific Law. Call it whatever you want, theory, idea, working process, speculative, but it is not Law.

@Zeracook, sorry but science doesn't deal with unjustified bullshit, if you cant show your work then you will get no support from investors, government funding, or other scientists & academics alike.

I was just BSing around before, but if something is shown to work, even though the person doesn't know how its working yet, there should be made more study into it, Also in history Science hasn't found out everything that causes things to work, and sometimes when they don't bad side effects happen, and if they had studied the causes better they would have foreseen the side effects.