can it happen? help plz?
Printable View
can it happen? help plz?
I believe the law of attraction is nonsense. Getting a soul-mate is going to require hard work and effort not some mystical garbage.
Well, We both have reasons to believe in our beliefs. I hope you feel better now for expressing yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
I understand the law of attraction more in metaforical lines of "what goes around, comes around".
As in if you are a happy person, you will attract different kind of people as if you are an angry person.
It was never about making myself feel better (but it does seem like you want to make yourself feel better by validating your beliefs in this thread), but rather responding to your post on a public forum where you posed a question "can it happen? help pweez?" The answer from me is no it cannot happen, take that anyway you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
I also encourage you to read this very informative article and learn from it: Skepticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sure that's a cool way of looking at it but that's not exactly what the law of attraction is. Law of attraction says, if you focus positive thoughts/energy on something then you will have a positive outcome, same for vice-versa in negativity. The law of attraction has absolutely no scientific basis, its like believing you will have bad luck for 7 years for breaking a mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by gab
Yes it can! Firstly if you don't have a soul mate in your life then it may be that you need to do some inner work first before using the law of attraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
Purchase a used copy of '50 Ways to Find True Love' by psychologist Chuck Spezzano on Amazon.com or abe.com
Then, purchase Rishan's Law of Attraction course which I personally recommend from this LINK
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
Why a soul-mate? Why not use the law of attraction of attract an awesome mate?
Soul-mate creates the condition that once you meet everything will work out fairy tale style, there will be no need to compromise and no work in the relationship. If that's not hiw you meant it, fantastic. I just wanted to mention that such a soul mate does not exist.
This quote was written by a man who abandoned Christianity to embrace social Darwinism and survival of the fittest. The irony of using this quote, from this man, to support the "Law of Attraction" (an untestable Law with no scientific background at all) just blows my fucking mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
The investigation done on the Law of Attraction verified an untestable law (making it a theory) except through anecdotal evidence with clear bias :cackle:
The hypothesis for Law of Attraction is sound. The testing cannot be verified because the results are confounded by the attitude of the observers. In other words, critics of law of attraction test the hypothesis with a spirit of challenge and the results reflect this.
Admittedly my own evidence for law of attraction is anecdotal, but because it's beneficial to me and the results have been dependable enough for my purposes, I see no problem with investing some amount of belief into the concept and adjusting my worldview accordingly. When you consider how reality works, there's no reason why the Law of Attraction should not exist. Nothing about the hypothesis is impossible and I've never seen an argument capable of challenging the claim for itself. Most arguments against LoA are in the same line of fallacy as your posts in this thread Bossman. In other words, a waste of the time it takes to read them.
There was once a man who stood up for common sense. The target of his attacks were Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity. He successfully discredited Einstein's new theory on the basis that it makes no sense and also it came from the mind of a jew. Einstein was driven out of Germany and ended up signing a letter urging Roosevelt to develop the atom bomb after Germany split a uranium atom. Had Einstein's views been respected, perhaps Germany would not have lost the war. But Germans were stubborn, proud and in large part too narrow minded to be part of the new paradigm.
This may be an attempt to supplant the burden of proof but I'm not suggesting that Law of Attraction is irrefutable. I'm suggesting you have a baseless contempt for investigation and therefore the burden of proof is in your court. You have to explain why law of attraction doesn't warrant investigation and you have to explain that using a real argument other than because it goes against common sense. Well, I suppose you don't have to. You can continue trolling, instead.
Guess its my turn for a quote:
“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
Really your the one wasting my time Original Poster, and I wasn't trolling just trying to entice a bit of healthy skepticism. Clearly I rustled your jimmies though.
Can't be verified? Then its not a law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Shocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Yeah, The law of attraction is credible. It has something to do with the vibrations our atoms and thoughts being energy and becoming matter. Science Proves The Secret's Law of Attraction | Dr. Joe Vitale's Secret Law of AttractionQuote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
An athiest mind things like these naturally fit into the category of "religion". The only way you could possibly think otherwise is if you tried it yourself, But due to your negative attitude it will probably never work for you.
What's funny is that this type of debate has been replayed since the beginning of time, Everyone in the 1500's thought the world was flat that seem perfectly logical.
I'm going to assume you believe in lucid dreaming, God forbid you do, Lucid dreaming isn't "logical" either.
Being positive and meditating on positive thoughts is good, but you aren't modifying the universe. The only thing you're modifying is your thoughts, and how you perceive reality.
One more thing- a law is a theory that is fundamental of nature. a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over again to be proven true. This should be the hypothesis of attraction or the idea of attraction.
But that's just my two cents, believe what you want if it makes you happier.
lucid dreaming is proven and has been for 30 years. Also... the Greeks believed that the world was spherical since 6th century BC. Most educated people believed that it was... look it up. Every source I find says that that is not true. Unless you are part of the flat earth society. :P
The Flat Earth Society
I'm sorry... I think that the flat earth society is the funniest thing ever.
I would like to point this out as well.
theory that reveals that "reality" must be... ummm... theory... that is not proven. That site just says that if the scientific theory they believe in, then there is a chance that they might be right.Quote:
there are new theories of the brain, as well as of human experience, reveals that “reality” must be a construct that matches whatever we say.
Doesn't sound like proof to me at all. I am not a fan of the law of attraction, because in science today we have a law that states for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You should be able to see how the law contradicts that.
There is something to say about being positive though. If you are good and concentrate on good things all the time, and care about good things. The chances are higher that people will be good to you. Not to say that it is the laws of attraction, but it is the law of "if you are a douche people will be douches to you." But bad things happen to good people as well. Look at natural disasters or wars. The universe has no respect of individuals.
The universe is neutral, It's not good or bad. Thoughts are technically actions and what you manifest through them are reactions, If you're constantly thinking about starving then you'll continue to starve, If you believe you're sick then you'll become sick, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonBoss
Wars are the conflicts between our desires , Instead of working toward a desired goal together we fight to get to that goal individually in the hope we can reap the full benefit of it. Wars are the caused by man, Not the universe. I fully believe that if we humans continue on the path we are on we'll slaughter and murder each-other by the end of this century because we're all selfish, dependent, and ego-driven creatures.
Look I can't convince the Law of attraction exist because that'd require a lot of copying and pasting of numerous links across the bloody internet, But I can ask you vividly visualize holding a yellow sock for like 68, Forget about it and letting the universe bring it into your life,
No one can comprehend the laws of reality, You can only observe and follow them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaxtonHale
I agree, but there are certain aspects of reality that people observe and agree on. Those are called scientific theories, and their data and statistics can show that those are fundamental to all of our realities. The "law of attraction", however, is based off of personal observation and ideas and in my opinion is in the same boat as astral projections and out of body experiences. I'm sure that if believers would be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can actually change the way nature works through positive thinking and changing of vibrational patterns around you, it would be accepted as a law of nature, but it hasn't. So I don't, and so a lot of people don't. I am not saying that is isn't flat out, but I am skeptical because everything I have read that has a scientific basis points toward chaos and randomness. I don't think any amount of positive thinking can change that, but it can change your personality, your perception of reality and how people think of you, and therefore what kind of people you attract.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
You do realize this is a blog right, and the other sections of this blog are as follows; Attract money now!; Healing Music; Hypnotic Gold; Miracle Coaching. I will say though, this guy is an impressive marketer/businessmanQuote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
This "Law" is categorized as pseudoscience, not science. At first my attitude was inquisitive, then it became negative when this theory presented itself as fact, and then humorous when I realized it was just a motivational tool for people.
I did find an interesting picture of people listening to a public speaker, I believe the gathering was for something called "The Secret"
http://images.imagelinky.com/1356409014.jpg
I agree with you. This was at first interesting and 'attractive' if you will, but it as you said was presenting itself as fact. It's like trying to read arguments for the flat earth society, which start their argument with "I think its true, so here's all the ways it could be true except for the obvious way it probably isn't" on a much lesser scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
That being said, I would love to be able to think my way into modifying reality, but then again I am more of a chaos theory kind of guy. I like the idea that we arise naturally from chaos, and that from entropy comes order.
Thinking your way into modifying reality. This is why we lucid dream. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by SaxtonHale
Exactly. However that is our own private reality, and you are not affecting reality on its whole aside from how you're affecting yourself, and by extension your actions. By the way, Snow Patrol is awesome, and that's an awesome set of lyrics. I get that song stuck in my head every time I read your signature.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonBoss
You like chasing cars? If your into the trance scene check out Tiesto's remix of Chasing Cars.
EDIT: I added it for fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H-xZWlub_E
Science is infinite discovery, The the things the we call science today would be called magic in the dark ages. The law of attraction is beyond our comprehension as of now, Seeing as it does work for everyone overtime it will become part of a new branch of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaxtonHale
If my thoughts are so insignificant, Then why the hell do always manifest the things I think about in the random and unexpected thing. I find that when I think about a particular concept, detail, etc. I have experiences related to those for days or weeks. Those are not hallucinations, They are manifestations. What you have to lose if you spent just minute of "wishful thinking".Quote:
Originally Posted by SaxtonHale
We lucid dream because we can modify our reality more rapidly then our "waking" reality, During a dream your mind is relaxed, our conscious mind enters the 4th dimension and in the 4th dimension your thoughts manifest quicker than they normally would due to the higher vibrations and frequencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonBoss
But the existence you're currently in now is denser than that reality, If you think what I'm saying is sheeple/ half breed bs then try astral projection, You're entire view of reality will change. You will either love it or fear it, Crazy shit goes on in the astral plane I never want to go there again. I shit my pants just thinking about it.
If you want to find your soul mate, you have to change your behavior and way of thinking until you become desirable in the eyes of your ideal mate. I can't hook up with my dream girl until I become the type of guy my dream girl would actually want to be with. I can think positively and visualize all I want, but it won't do shit unless I work hard to reach that goal as well.
Use the positive thinking to keep you focused on your goal, and use visualization to come up with ideas on how and where to meet the type of girl you're after (and to figure out what you need to do once you've met her). Run simulations in your head and constantly adjust, filter, and refine these simulations until you've got it down pat. You can learn almost as much about dating and relationships by simply running various simulations in your head, as you can by actually going out and doing so in the "real world."
Which is basically what I said in my first post, I was just more blunt and to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z4IuxAqpEQuote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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).
You lose a minute of time which could have been spent actively working towards your goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
My sources state otherwise, Hee Hee and a Ho Ho.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
Not if it's before bed:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
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.
A hypothesis is testable and falsifiable. Pseudoscience is that which is untestable and unfalsifiable. So give us this hypothesis.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.
Ugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.Quote:
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
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
Randomness tests have been used, AND have provided encouraging results. I find the idea that a person can influence something like the outcome of a coin flip rather interesting. Coupled with other mind blowers like Lucid Dreaming it makes you wonder more about reality. That is what should be discussed, but instead you squabble over hypothesis.
Er... noooo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Scientific evidence doesn't require a mechanism.
You look at the effect that cell phone use has on cancer rates. If the statistics show that the former tends to increase the latter, that is positive evidence that the hypothesis is true, and it can then be further investigated to find a mechanism. You don't need to directly test the mechanism. If there is no significant increase, that is positive evidence that the hypothesis is false.
It's really that simple. If you hypothesise that A leads to B, then by definition, the statistics will show a link between A and B. If they don't show a link, by definition there isn't one.
But that's not how it works in reality. In reality, using cell phones as an example, there was a correlation (or a link) and so the cellular companies themselves funded the study to see if this was causation. The study was purposely set up to fail so no statistically relevant link could be found. This enabled cell-phone companies to continue arguing, with "proof" that there's no link between cell phones and cancer, meanwhile cancer continues to cluster around cell phone towers.
And that's why I'm saying you can't use a few failed experiments regarding the power of prayer to disprove the power of thought. There have also been successful experiments, but so many scientists have a bone to pick with organized religion that they'll continue performing experiments to test the power of prayer where the subjects will use prayer improperly and they'll continue to use this evidence to disprove law of attraction at large even though it does no such thing.
Of course fabricated statistics aren't evidence for anything. I don't see how this is relevant to what I said, which was simply a contradiction of your assertion that "the experiment cannot support the theory if the hypothesis overlooks what's actually happening". This is simply incorrect; statistical methods can indeed provide evidence for a hypothesis without any underlying understanding. Obviously this is contingent on the statistics not being false...Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Can someone just help me get a girlfriend using the law of attraction, If you don't believe in it that's your loss and, Frankly, I don't care for your opinion. Thanks to anyone helping me.
Actually you specifically asked for an opinion, and posted this thread in the wrong section until it was moved.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
Next time be more clear in what you want, and besides mcwillis already answered your vague question.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
You're already doing it. The law of attraction made you come on to a forum and ask for help. The law of attraction might have given you some other ideas as well. Try them.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
The law of attraction is something that happens in your head; I don't get how you want people to tell you "how" to use it. Isn't it all about focusing on a thing you want? You're obviously already doing that since you made this thread dedicated to the problem. Just keep doing that. Keep trying things and use the motivation you have to gain courage. You must have some kind of social circle, and by extension some girls you're interested in. Use the law of attraction to do whatever you feel is appropriate. You've already used it once to make this thread, just remember to evaluate ideas and figure out what's best.
I just think you're asking a very strange question, because when you ask "how can I do [anything you want]", then you're already using the law of attraction, simply by wanting to do it. You don't need advice on how to "use" the law of attraction, you need advice simply with what to do.
I'm not sure I can add to what's already been said, but I feel compelled to throw my 2 cents in anyway.
Yondaime, I'm not really sure why you made this thread. As BossMan pointed out, you asked whether it was possible, and then got defensive when people offered their opinions. If you are certain that it is possible, as it seems you are, then why ask? But moving on... I'll play devil's advocate and say that if it DOES exist, I imagine it's a very individual process. In other words, how you go about this is largely up to you, and I don't think any of us can really help you. Especially since everyone has different ideas of a "soulmate".
That being said... I can't say one way or the other whether it exists at all. What I will say is this. Thought without action is useless. On the other hand, action without thought is at best, inefficient, and at worst, self-destructive. As far as this idea of a Law of Attraction encourages people to actually THINK more, I believe it's a good thing. However, so many people get the idea that thinking is all you have to do, and it frankly drives me nuts. Use the law of attraction or whatever you choose to provide motivation, but don't use it as a crutch. That's my opinion.
This is the most useful post in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity125
I think otherwise, Although I respect your opinion, And everything you've posted I've heard a million times. The way you perceive the world and the way I perceive the world are different because we've had different experiences that led us to our individual perceptions. In the end, Experience and Intuition is lot more reasonable to follow than Logic and other people's experiences and intuitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity125
This post is incredibly arrogant. Are you suggesting that only your experiences matter because you have some kind of misplaced sense of superiority to everyone else? Don't you understand that we all learn based of other peoples experiences?Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
And why is listening only to your own experiences and intuitions more reasonable then listening to others? The structure of academia is based on learning from other peoples experiences, do you understand how ridiculous your statement was?
Its fine if you want to dabble in the unknown and untested, I have a few idea I like to play with that has no scientific basis, but writing off everyone's opinion based on the notion that your experiences and intuition is better than theirs is wrong.
Eh, I'm an Aries we're arrogant folk. I really need to stop with the abstract post.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
In simple terms, I'm saying that I believe that what I've experienced was real and there's nothing you could possibly do to change my mind. I believe in logic, And it's logical for me to believe that the law of attraction exist because it has worked for me in the past (My experiences).
Even though tens of millions of people can attest to the law of attraction working for them (Other people's experiences and intuitions) you still will not believe it exist because you haven't experienced it yourself. Just because something can't be explain by logic now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Believing in something that might not exist is faith.
You seem to be the arrogant one here, You honestly expect to simply erase and forget everything I've experienced because you haven't experienced what I've experienced. Also, You have no way to prove what I've experienced was wrong.
I never suggested anything in saying for you to drop all your experiences and beliefs because others don't believe it, stop making Evel Knievel leaps of conclusion. I was very clear in what I said, you shouldn't write off other peoples opinions because you believe your the only one that's right, this is a closed-minded attitude that gets you nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
I have no intention of proving anything to anyone in this thread, you can all believe whatever you want, all I'm saying is do so with a healthy dose of skepticism.
And by the way, only a fool holds pride in arrogance.
Exactly what is there to be skeptical about? I hate arrogance more than I hate myself.
Lol...:roll: There is nothing to be skeptical about, just forget I said anything. Good luck mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
Let add more detail. The experiment was done to see if people could be sensitive to EM waves produced by cell phone activity. But they fucked up because they asked people what they were feeling, rather than actually testing for a physical effect. They managed to avoid finding a link between cancer and cell phones because most people could not consciously tell they were being affected. Furthermore, they never tested it on people while they were asleep, which is when the EM activity disrupts the brain's melatonin production (which sweeps up free radicals). Independent studies were done but these were majorly ignored by the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
This is what I mean when I say just because evidence for the power of prayer has not been found that doesn't mean that our thoughts have no power, they simply need to be used in a different way than how they were used in the studies on prayer. The people in those studies were not instructed to pray properly. Many studies have propped up revealing that there is an effect from changing someone's beliefs, and so prayer must change your beliefs and attitude, the universe does not respond to wishlists.
Unfortunately when people attempt repeating the studies that were successful, they fail to repeat the results. And again, this is because we're testing the power of attitude, so how are you supposed to receive the right results with a cynical attitude?
And Bossman - If LoA were truly not testable, that's a fault of the scientific method, not a means of invalidated LoA. Science is not a tool for anything if it is not a tool for everything. But I believe that it is testable, as long as its possibility is not given up on too easily.
Do you guys have the data for a LoA test? I would be interested to see. I feel like it doesn't work, but then again I don't feel the earth moving, but I believe it does. :P
Scroll down this link to find the abstract, his page has a large banner.
Journal of Cosmology
That's a good starting point because it analyzes the evidence in an umbrella fashion, but there are more specific experiments which reveal the primacy of consciousness, such as experiments with telepathy. If you look up Rupert Sheldrake's experiments on Google Scholar you'll find a plethora of evidence. Sheldrake's conclusions to this evidence, which you can find on youtube interviews, lead to a different definition on what we call the mind.
Furthermore, they tested the pyramid's ability to heal, which would help validate one of the proposed theories for low manifestation works. (All the links below are for the same experiment, performed first in 1997, then repeated 2003 and 2006)
Biological phenomena within a pyramid model--a preliminary study on wound healing. - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central
Pyramid environment reduces the wound healing suppressant properties of dexamethasone in albino... - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central
NISCAIR ONLINE PERIODICALS REPOSITORY (NOPR) : Enhanced wound contraction and epithelization period in steroid treated rats: Role of pyramid environment
I hope that helps.
thanks I will look at those when I get some free time. The crazy busy life of the holidays is running over into January. I'm way too busy! :(
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.
There have a lot of experiments out there regarding prayer. But most of these prayer experiments aren't really experiments, they didn't account for hundreds of variables and offered virtually no controls. What they got were really bad statistics than actual scientific data.
Most of these experiments don't consider
1. how the prayer is done, are they begging or affirming? did they meditate? did they spend five minutes, five hours, five days? did they feel happy praying or did they feel like the world was falling apart?
2. if the person praying actually BELIEVES their prayer could be answered, or if they have doubt? how do you even measure that?
3. What about the recipient of the prayer? Do they believe the prayer will work? Do they agree with the prayer? Do they know they are being prayed for? Does that prior knowledge make any difference?
5. Other variables include the environment, time of day, location even language barriers. Why would they matter? Who the hell knows until you formulate a theory!
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.
Yes, lets discount the scientific method now, something being used and developed for hundreds of years by a plethora of great minds such as Aristotle, Avicenna, Descartes, Galileo, and Newton; these men had ideas that seemed much more far-fetched then the Theory of Attraction at their time. The only difference is even if they were mocked and ridiculed for their ideas by the scientific community, they still proved its validity in the end with tangible evidence... Not speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
If there was tangible evidence and data on the Theory of Attraction then I promise you it would receive much more attention from scientists and think-tanks world wide to explore its phenomena.
There is a key distinction between real science and junk science, and its about time people noticed it.
The principle of LOA has been practiced by hundreds of millions and it's all worked for them, It'll work for everyone except me. I haven't followed the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
But..there are scientists with phds that are very interested in researching the LOA. Its just once they touch it they automatically get labeled as psuedo-scientists instead. One example would be bruce lipton.
I don't think OP meant that we need to discount the scientific method, only that we should be able to utilize it to do any research
The law of attraction has been logically and Scientifically proven. I can't remember everything I read about, But it stated that everything vibrates and that atoms broken down are just energy. Matter and energy are the same, Energy vibrates and attracts other energies that vibrate similarly. There's way more to it and it definitely proves LOA, But I don't feel like searching for it.
There are also scientists with Phds' researching UFOs so I'm failing to see how this qualifies your statement. All I see when I read about the Theory of Attraction is a misrepresentation of electrical activity in the brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
We can use it to conduct research on anything, but if the research does not produce measurable or empirical data it will never be labeled as 'law' let alone a theory or working hypothesis. OP is arguing that there is such data for the law of attraction and that there are ways for it to be tested, but it requires people to not approach the idea with cynicism. I believe that my approach should not matter, if you have real evidence then it doesn't matter how I look at it. I can approach the Law of Gravity as cynical as can be but it doesn't fucking matter, its proven with real data that greater masses attract smaller masses there is nothing to argue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
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!!!
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.
Science will be angry at him. :PQuote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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. :P
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
That said, I'm still on the fence about this.
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. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by juroara
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
...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.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonBoss
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
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.Quote:
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.
So you admit that you don't dislike LoA because it's pseudoscience, you just don't like it because it's different.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
All you're doing is capitalizing on the ambiguity of science to create shards of legitimacy using science as a template.
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
"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.
Neither you or what I posted are scientific publications, this one is though:Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Really whats the difference? Pseudoscience IS unlikely.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BossMan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
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.
I concede that it's not properly labeled. However I believe a cymatic effect and an aesthetically pleasing effect are the same thing. I base this opinion on the following video
I'm not saying it's conclusive that intentions are beaming joy vibrations at the water. I am merely presenting a hypothesis as to why the results of that experiment scored significantly above chance. I am also not saying it is unnecessary to show the work. I am saying for this particular experiment, the intention was not to figure out how intention affects reality, but merely if there is an effect. Once this effect's very existence can be established, then we at least know there's work to find and be shown at all. Like any other phenomenon, first it must be perceived before it can be dissected.
You guys are still at this? I just wanted fall in love and get laid. Anyway, I believe in the soul for sound reasons, That are too abstract to be taken seriously by most people.
Why are we in the bodies we are in, Why aren't I you and why aren't you me. Ever asked yourself the following questions, "Why is that person born into royal family when I am but a lowly peasant". It's impossible to understand the nature of the soul if you don't contemplate such a question. You could've been anyone, But you're you.
An invention is never created using logic, But it always falls into the structure of logic - Albert Einstein (Or some other smart-ass). How can you debunk the LOA when you don't even know how it works?
Hell, Even Santa's existence could fall into the structure of logic. Everything that you could think of can exist because everything you can think of falls into the structures of 3 dimensional logic.
For example, Think about Cute reindeer with a swollen head raping a cookie monster while breathing fire into a gigantic mouse's butt hole Why'll hang gliding over the grand canyon which is being filled with a giant stoner holigraphic panda's piss.
I seriously believe this is 100% possible. Everything is possible.
You can get laid without falling in love, and I think its probably easier to fall in love if your not worried about getting laid.
That's not satisfying enough.
But why are you waiting, why are you pleading? In my opinion, if there are two things that stop manifestation from working, it's the belief that you need something in particular to get the feeling you want, and the attitude that causes "bargaining" with existence to make you just a little happier than you are now.
Don't be afraid to admit what you really want. A feeling, right? everything we want, we want because we perceive that it'll create a desirable feeling within us. If you can want it, that means you can already imagine the feeling. But then we let reality's little details inhibit us from feeling the satisfaction that's already within our grasp, simply from reveling in the desire itself.
We're are you getting at? Living in the moment takes alot of energy...My unused sexual energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Thread title is boring. I hereby request that it is changed to "Can wizard magic hook me up with a girl?"
This makes absolutely no sense, Why not just visualize a girl who likes you the way you are. If you don't ALREADY believe you are worthy than you aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
NO, You do not have to work hard to get want you want, That's BS. Everyone only says that because they lack the faith in loa and have to take their destiny in their own hands to some degree.
Why else would people be born into wealthy families even though they didn't work for it? I hear stories all the times about how some guy visualized a random girl he liked and forgot about his desire, The next day he effortlessly attracted the girl into his life. This isn't just a single story either, This has happened to many people many times. Also, Why do some people just find 100$ just lying on the ground a few days after visualizing and forgetting about how they wanted it so badly?
The method you're advising could actually kill the manifestation because you're aren't placing enough trust and faith in the universe and instead misplacing it into your own hands. You're also focusing on not having the object of your desire either.
I don't disagree with this method because, Working for your desire can actually be another way of telling universe hat you have faith it. It's just not the only way and if you think so than you're try to harness greater power that beyond your can't control.
Truth is, I don't have a high opinion of myself when it comes to attracting women. I've never had a girlfriend or kissed a girl, I've spent much of my adolescent life (Currently 16) masturbating each friday, saturday, and sunday night when I could out making friends or getting a girlfriend. Socially, I thought I was set because I'm an African-american and I was led to believe that my 6-inch penis and blunt vocabulary would ensure the lost of my virginity by the time I reached 14....But I was wrong....
Everyone I come into contact with hates my guts within 5 minutes of each conversation. I've deduced this to a few reasons:
1. I'm black, Which automatically predisposes me to impulsive and lack any sort of gratification deterrence. This combined with an average black-american IQ of 85 doesn't equate to good combination. A few months ago, The girl at school I had fallen in love with over the 3 year period rejected because of the fact I was black.
Can't blame her, No girl wants a black guy. Not even a black girl.
2. I'm Insane with a few drips and drops psychopathy,The other kids deem me very strange and weird. Mainly because of the way I speak, The rest of my family speaks in ebonics and I'm constantly being called "Whitie-washed muhfugga" because of it. I don't dress like the other kids, And I despise main-stream rap. Sometimes I wonder if they're white maybe I do despise my race and wish to become Asian/ White/ arab, etc....Any race with a civilized culture and evolved mental capacity.
3. My social skills suck, This is a side-effect if being black. I lack the intelligence have an pro-longed intellectual conversation with anyone other than a border-line retard.
I've found 3 solutions to my problem: 1. Artificially increase my intelligence 2. You subliminal messaging to change the way I perceive myself, Perceive others, And perceive the world which will enable to manifest the things I want out of life. 3. I need to stop masturbating (Self-explanatory).
This isn't hairy ass potter, This is real factual catshit proven by science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
No it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
Where did you read that - on an LOA website?Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
Why did you make this thread if what you desire requires no effort?Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
Random things happen, you could call it "luck". The idea you posted about earlier, the "Why am I me, and not you?" question is interesting, but it does not in any way prove destiny or the law of attraction or anything really, it's just an interesting philosophical idea. Everybody wants to find $100 lying on the ground, so if the law of attraction really works, we should all be finding dollar bills constantly. But this doesn't happen. In fact it's pretty damn rare and it would be considered incredibly lucky. Not to mention; the law of attraction would be a real prick to that one guy who dropped the $100?Quote:
Why else would people be born into wealthy families even though they didn't work for it? I hear stories all the times about how some guy visualized a random girl he liked and forgot about his desire, The next day he effortlessly attracted the girl into his life. This isn't just a single story either, This has happened to many people many times. Also, Why do some people just find 100$ just lying on the ground a few days after visualizing and forgetting about how they wanted it so badly?
Aren't you working for it by posting a thread about it?Quote:
I don't disagree with this method because, Working for your desire can actually be another way of telling universe hat you have faith it. It's just not the only way and if you think so than you're try to harness greater power that beyond your can't control.
What you've gotta do is cut the pseudo-science overly complicated unnecessary universe-bending and start trying to do things that make sense. Come down to Earth. The thing is, if you improve your social skills, if you get more confidence and stop thinking of yourself as a strange, insane and unintelligent person, then you'll be well on your way. The ironic thing about this is that in my head, doing whatever you can to improve your situation is the law of attraction. Don't you see that you can do both things at once? Actually working for it will put it in the very front of your mind, the focus will be so much clearer due to there being active goals and things you're working for. So go and do things and if you really must insist you can think to yourself "I might be actually working for it now but I'm still using loa at the same time."
Proper use of LOA includes effort it just reassigns that effort to your attitude more than your actions. Having an attitude where you feel grateful, completely at peace, secure, excited, etc takes effort. You have to wake up every morning and start counting things your grateful for, you have to sing in the shower, you have to eat real food, you have to see through daily frustrations and retain good feelings in spite of the problems surrounding you. Most importantly you have to know what it is you actually want, and most of us don't.
That's a lot of effort, there's no easy way about it. But it's effort put to much better use than working your ass off on actions while carrying a shitty attitude. Joy is the most efficient way to proceed.
That doesn't sound like LOA. It just sounds like trying to be as positive as possible and being grateful. I don't know if I agree with the attitude that it's helpful to just "ignore" problems and being joyous regardlessly, but I do agree that knowing what you want is important. But that isn't really LOA is it? The OP already knows what he wants, he just doesn't want to do anything other than using the LOA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I imagine that there has to be a balance. The attitude you're describing reminds me a bit of my dad's outlook, and there was a time where mine and his perspectives were direct contrasts: He felt, like you (if I understand correctly), that I needed to focus on the good things and try to see through the problems and just ride it out that way, while I felt like the problems had to be in focus in order for them to be fixed; something needed to happen or I needed to do something in order for it to change.
But now I just think we need to balance it out. Ignoring problems is bad and so is spending all your time ruing them. Just go do, try things, and try to be positive but if you feel sad then that's ok too.
For those of you who want scientific proof of LOA:
Natural Laws of Attraction | eHow.com
Does the Law Of Attraction Really Work?
Srinivasan Pillay: Is There Scientific Evidence for the "Law of Attraction"?
Sexual Psychic Seduction
Just you wait fellas, One day I'll use these techniques to be the greatest genius that ever lived!!!
It is actually LOA because LOA basically means circumstances will justify the way you feel. So if you stay positive, circumstances you like will recur more and circumstances you dislike will recur less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
But look at the philosophy behind it, because the philosophy is what I take to heart. One rule of thumb in LOA is that in 5 years your income will be the average of your 5 closest friends. If you surround yourself with people who have what you want, you will begin to obtain what you want. And you don't even need to believe in LOA, all you need to believe is that 90% of your learning is unconscious, you adapt to the habits of the people you see the most, so if you surround yourself with good examples you will slowly learn to do what they do, without even realizing it.
I'm still failing to capture the philosophy, please bear with me. I can identify that the person I was 5 years ago had certain wants and goals, as well as certain fears. All of these things transpired, and I realize that the things weren't what made me happy, the desire for those things did. Because the experiences themselves all had to end, amazing as they were. Even using the LOA to attract possessions, you'll still lose those possessions when you die.
Once you understand impermanence, then you can really start to use LOA to your advantage, because you can realize all your problems will go away 5-10 years down the line. By that time, if you choose to subscribe to the belief in LOA, you can choose to know that you will have gotten everything you want. It's not that difficult to stay positive when you go ahead and remove the pressure of wanting everything right now. You can just know you'll get it, and enjoy the inevitable ride to that place. You can see through your current tribulations knowing that they're temporary and imagining yourself however many years in the future you have to imagine to put yourself in the mindset where all your problems are over.
Then, on top of that, you can know that despite the fact that you'll get everything you wanted eventually, you can't keep any of those things or experiences. But you put up a big fuss right now because you feel the lack of those things. And yet you can't keep them anyways, and it's not like anything will really change after you experience or have them. You won't get to just turn on happy for the rest of your life, at least not if your happiness is dependent on things.
Then you realize the secret to life is to just be happy for no reason. Whether or not you should strive for action, all your actions can do is bring about some temporary satisfaction which will wane eventually. There isn't anything in particular to accomplish to give your life meaning. And that, in a nutshell, is absurdism. No meaning, no point, nothing left to get upset about, nothing left to feel the lack of. Because it's all just a ride and every single person's ride ends the same way. I'm not saying I don't do stuff at all except bask in happiness for the point of itself. It's really taught me to simply pursue things I enjoy doing, and once you get in that mindset suddenly things that should seem like work are not anymore, you can find joy in nearly everything. Even if the task at hand just bitterly sucks, you can still tap into a peaceful state of acceptance rather than add on frustration to an already frustrating predicament.
There are still actions to perform, one does not practice LOA in order to get something without doing anything. If you use LOA to get a girlfriend, you might find lots and lots of girls around that want your dick but you still have to talk to them and you're not saved any of the turbulence that comes from a relationship. If you want a good job, you may get great job offers and opportunities all around you but you still have to turn in the resume and do the duties required by that job. Some jobs require work, and while the LOA can keep the work flowing the work won't do itself.
But keeping a positive attitude makes it so it doesn't seem like work. As they say, do what you love and you won't work a day in your life. This positive attitude works like a snowball, and it builds up until you're excited to get up every morning just to cook breakfast for your shitty kids because it simply feels good to be alive. Things that used to suck no longer do.
And I do agree with your point about the OP's apparent intention. It's not that I don't think you can attract a mate with LOA, but a soulmate? What the fuck do you want a soulmate for? People like soulmates because they remove fear from the relationship. Because if you're soulmates, you're meant to be, so there's no way to fuck things up. But I like fear. It's there for a reason.
I'm currently rereading Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill. The PDF is easy to find online, and I recommend it.
I bought the book a few weeks ago, It's very effective. Especially the sexual transmutation part. I really hate pdf's The have terrific content but you can only read it while on the computer and it's very easy to get distracted on the internetQuote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
If you don't have to will power to read how do you expect to cling to an idea long and hard enough to manifest it?
Why waste my willpower on something that I'm not even passionate about? That's hell. I only dedicate my willpower to my passions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
To each his own. I'm passionate about achieving my passions, so I'm passionate about doing things that increase my ability to achieve my passions.
How will reading a book on obtaining money help me obtain a girlfriend? I'm 16 so money isn't really a big deal for me. It could come in handy though, I do intend to read the book and apply it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
My current problem with loa is that I lack faith and trust in the concept, But I'm starting to finally notice some manifestations. I've been listening to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMN1RGEjHxw
And I've really had some positive results. Today during chemisty I almost "unloaded" myself when a girl wouldn't stop trying to rub against me.
Dude - LOA might GET you a girlfriend, but if you want to keep her, you're gonna need the money.. :shadewink:
Teachability, nigga. You need more of it. That's step one to LOA. You cannot keep thinking the way you've always thought, and you cannot continue acting the way you've always acted. If you desire it, the universe will provide you the lessons, but if you want to be a musician, you still have to learn to play the guitar.Quote:
Originally Posted by yondaime109
EDIT: Also please don't be offended by my use of the word nigga. I was just going for a "diversify yo bonds nigga!" kind of thing.
I don't understand why everyone else who isn't black starts speaking like that to me, I don't even talk like that. You're not establishing any kind of bond with me through the way the you speak. I no longer associate myself with my race, They piss me off with their ignorance and unjustified superiority complex. Should've shipped us all back to Africa when you had the chance. By the time most of you guys change your naive mindsets towards us blacks it will be too late; America will be a third world warzone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Anyway, "muh nigga" You could use the principles of LOA to make yourself a natural at learning the guitar. Know what i be saying "muh nigga, It be all about duh brain power n sheet".
Dude, I was just drunk and said nigga, I didn't even think about the fact that your black and was in no way trying to relate to you at all.
Anyways, I'm going to go out of my way to teach someone who isn't teachable. Since you already know everything, you should have already met your soulmate, shouldn't you?
My failure has nothing to do with guitars, Stop changing the topic. I'm as teachable as a drunk nigga, You just haven't contributed anything to the topic " Using the law of attraction to attract my soul-mate?".
Don't teach me how to play guitar and get money, Teach me about Using the law of attraction to attract my soulmate, Original poster-sensei? That sound better to you?
I have no friends man.
Guitar was a metaphor. LOA is a skill and requires practice and study. Frankly, you have not learned enough about anything until you reach the stage where you are excited to learn more. I don't want to sound like a dick, but maybe something about your personality repulses people. If this is the case, you may have to dramatically change your behavior.
So I'm assuming you understand that you need to live in the state of mind as though you already have a soul-mate, you just haven't met her yet. You need to live in all the gratitude and happiness you imagine the manifestation of your soulmate would bring. (A neat little trick, if you do LOA correctly the actual manifestation of desire becomes irrelevant) Once you have achieved this feeling, you may suddenly find yourself around all sorts of available women who want your dick. Or your life may get a lot more challenging because it will start preparing you to become someone worthy of the love you want and capable of keeping it. And you'll just have to rise to the challenge.
Personality wise, To sum it up, I'm an arrogant lazy selfish D-bag with a heart of gold. I deserve every single response I get and I deserve everything terrible that I have coming to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
There's something I haven't told you though, Remember that girl I was talking about in chemistry class? Well she fits the physical description of everything I wrote on my list (Height, Hair color, eye color, and Looks Eurasian) and she's also a tomboy. What makes this really crazy is that the teacher assigned her to the seat directly behind me. What was even weirder is one of my few friends seemed to know alot about her, Enough for me to plan on how I can attract her.
But I realized that she isn't my type (personality wise) I felt no attraction to her even though she was everything I found attractive in a women. I can't explain. I can only hope that she's a sign for my dream girl's arrival.
The only thing I really need to work on is faith and detachment, This is probably the first time I've ever manifested the thing I want. The more evidence that I get from universe the more faith and assurance I have in it.
Yeah, it's definitely true, but we all get a little doubt at first and have to find the sweet spot, which is essentially as much desire as possible combined with as much confidence in your ability to achieve that desire. Sometimes we have to put off focusing on our biggest dreams until we can get enough small dreams that we're capable of overcoming the doubt of the big ones.
As far as personality goes, keep in mind I'm not telling you anything that I didn't have to learn myself. LOA doesn't complete the entire journey for you. It will, in fact, sometimes make life a total bitch because that's what you have to experience in order to become the person you need to be to achieve your desires. And it's important to see through those trials. I'm still going through them, myself. And it's very humbling, I'll tell you. It has to be humbling because my desire is so strong that I'm willing to get embarrassed and learn, if that's what is necessary. LOA does come with sacrifices, it's not a "have your cake and eat it too" type of deal. You have to be able to prioritize and figure out what you really, actually want from the bottom of your heart, and what you're willing to give up to get it. Otherwise you'll still be using it to bring things into your life that don't make you happier.
I think it also is a matter of distinguishing what feels good or out of goodwill compared to something that's actually beneficial and practical for a person's well-being. Usually if a person wants to find something from the bottom of their heart, it would seem reasonable that they have to learn how to dissociate the scattered brain thoughts through various forms of meditation (self-hypnosis, etc.).
If a person has a sense of love of themselves (but not to the point where it's extreme narcissism and completely egocentric; because again, the endeavor of doing that would refute that person's purpose of attracting another person or making their attraction prevalent to those who may be compatible with them).
There's also the risk of a person feeling as if they're getting a rational explanation of what they want "deep down in their hearts," when in fact it could be an ego-saturated model to imply their learning and practicing aspects of LOA. It's more of psychologically understanding how one thinks, how their thoughts form, what makes them tick and what makes them happy, etc. It involves understanding how one reacts to a certain situation, most likely to sustain a reminder that a certain habit would be a threat to their own well-being.
Even if a person would be able to find what's deep inside of their hearts, practically, it would just be a very diluted concept like "happiness" or "spreading love." It's not much of an impact to that person if they were to find that really is what their hearts desire simply because they're accustomed to the humanistic relation to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
What I'm trying to get at is, usually, the endeavor of finding the "strongest desire of them all" will in fact be a conduit for other desires (meaning it's generalized ultimately). Which means that when a person realizes that their ideologies, preferences, desires, and such are likely to keep growing and branching to other desires, when they have the core (the same conduit) acknowledged, they will feel less worried about what they have to do right or do wrong. Because even if you prioritize what you really want, I doubt people would be able to sustain that mentality for very long, especially if they are prone to being attracted to more things they're being aware of; things that they never thought would exist or could be formatted into their schemata pertaining to understanding LOA and such.
If a person is really trying to practice LOA, it wouldn't be so much of a sacrifice, but more of a motivation or an inspiration to acknowledge that we are likely to change our preferences, etc., and that wanting someone/something/etc. shouldn't make ourselves feel bad.
Which brings me back to your "have your cake and eat it too" type of deal." That same notion implies of course that you can't have it both ways, that it's a trade off. The most plausible association for this is obviously materialism, or having or imposing possessions towards making concepts like LOA/people/etc. like objects. I think that mentality would make one more selfish in seeking closure with someone they think can be there until their time comes.
I wouldn't say that it's just pure tradeoff, because that sets predispositions to it. It's also plausible in a way that I'll mention below,
A person can still mix in both to some extent when they let go of the guilt that they have to "stop having the desire to want more and more." They see that just blocking off parts of it that make it incompatible with the other isn't going to be as bad as taking risks with complete tradeoffs.
They start to realize that it's a never-ending goal (wanting more), that to keep going towards learning LOA or things related to it like happiness, etc. is understanding your potential in constantly finding new ways to know yourself and learning how you reaction to certain things.
If the presumption that a person is set on a tradeoff, it's not really LOA in terms of soulmate, etc., it sort of sets up a resistance or even an authoritative matter, will can lead to being bitter and self-loathing because a person feels they have to do this or they won't "experience" or empathize aspects of LOA.
--------
I think if a person just focuses on learning themselves, not having the desire to desperately seek closure in finding anyone that looks compatible to them, they will realize the actual discovery/finding of that soulmate is to simply sublimate one's love for themselves, and seeing how sharing it with others is more rewarding; they see it as a learning tool in understanding themselves and others around them; they see that part of (not as a whole) of finding yourself in making yourself attractive to others is how you attempt to empathize and try to imagine possible reactions to people acknowledging your presence.
Give it up guys, I've attracted a girl who has all the qualities I wanted in one. All I did was write it down and POOF magic. Screw logic, This shit works.
I'd like to mention I was very specific with what I wanted.
work smart, Not hard. muh fuggas.