Thread: The Law Of Attraction

Originally Posted by really

Originally Posted by NonDualistic :
The individual is from before the beginning, and continues through to after the end.

Where do you get this statement from; can you please explain it?

Consciousness

Inner and Outer

Absolute and Relative

The one expresses through the other

One underlying the other

Both in One View

Two perceptions

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Well, it's fine if you think that abortion and gay marriage have obvious solutions, but the problem is that claiming objective morality implies some sort of authoritative source of morality - what is this?

hmm, not sure. but philosophy and paradoxes aside. don't you just 'know' in your gut what's right, and wrong? maybe we ourselves, are the authority. almost as though right and wrong is innate in us. and if not, our intelligence should be able to work out what's right, and what's not, if we're honest with ourselves. and i don't mean to imply right and wrong is always easy. there are grey areas. some times causing someone discomfort in the moment, is better for them and everyone in the long run. sometimes you have to be angry and aggressive. but it's in the name of love, not fear or control.



Huh. I never thought of it that way. We are a part of the universe, after all... but still, it's not the universe as a whole reacting to the thoughts and wishes, it's only the tiny bits of it that are sentient - my argument is unchanged. There is no real Law of Attraction apart from the effects of simple interactions between human beings.

I see your point. but how els can the universe put anything into action if not thru sentient beings? like, it's not that magic isn't real, it's just that we expect magic to be more than, or something different than what it is.
if that makes any sense. like, we don't think its magic unless the brick stops in mid air moments before cracking our heads open. if a man walks by right before it hits us and catches it, thats not magic, thats coincidence or good luck. why? the end result is the same... your heads intact. maybe magic operates under the laws of physics as well. you know what i'm saying?



I believe in matter over matter, and the human brain is most certainly made of matter. Thoughts are also actually 'physical' things - they're electrical impulses in the brain. I don't doubt that it's possible to convince yourself that you're dying to the point where you die... however, you can't actually freeze to death unless it's cold enough - that's physically impossible. The brain can fake the effects on the cognitive level, but you can't actually freeze the inter cellular fluids and things like that.

the guy wrote a goodbye letter to his family. and they analyzed the handwriting, concluding that the shaking of his hands while writing, were congruent with how someone would shiver while freezing to death.
try as you might, you can't make your muscles shake like that right now. you'd have to actually be freezing... or truly believe you were.

I also read, (on the this board actually) about monks who meditated for warmth in a room set to 40 degrees F. then they placed wet blankets over their shoulders, and shortly after the blankets were steaming and drying out. that requires real heat. thats the mind manifesting something physical, by simply concentrating on it

...........(message was too short due to me typing in your quotes)

don't you just 'know' in your gut what's right, and wrong? maybe we ourselves, are the authority. almost as though right and wrong is innate in us.

Yes, but that's subjective morality - we all have different notions of 'right' and 'wrong'.

I see your point. but how els can the universe put anything into action if not thru sentient beings?

You're begging the question. You can't assume that the universe has 'will'.

maybe magic operates under the laws of physics as well. you know what i'm saying?

No, I don't, because that's not magic. It's just coincidence, by definition.

try as you might, you can't make your muscles shake like that right now. you'd have to actually be freezing... or truly believe you were.

Exactly. He truly believed. So what?

I also read, (on the this board actually) about monks who meditated for warmth in a room set to 40 degrees F. then they placed wet blankets over their shoulders, and shortly after the blankets were steaming and drying out. that requires real heat. thats the mind manifesting something physical, by simply concentrating on it

The "mind" IS physical. It's the brain. The brain regularly regulates (hah) our body temperature. Ever heard of a fever? We have energy stores, and can generate heat if we need to. So that's what they did. That doesn't mean that we can affect inanimate objects in ways which logically mesh with our wishes just by the act of wishing.

Gnome, can you please be bothered answering to my reply post instead of completely ignoring it?

By the way, Mind is not matter. It's a spiritual thing you can't avoid.

Originally Posted by really

A better understanding for personal and universal gain.

That really doesn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by really

Which is sentient and which is not?

Living things are presumably sentient. It's unreasonable to extend this ability to things like rocks or soil.

Originally Posted by really

This is understandable. But what drives the thoughts - what moves movement? Does this go back to "determinism" and lack of "free will"? Things in this world are alive and physical, but I highly doubt for physical reasons. The color you see; the sound you hear are not physical, but they are derived from the physical. What then, is sight and sound to the observer?

Why do you think it's not physical? These things are all driven by natural law. To look for anything else is foolish, you do not understand natural law.

Originally Posted by really

By the way thegnome54, you can take your Christmas hat off now.

Never!
...maybe later.

Originally Posted by really

By the way, Mind is not matter. It's a spiritual thing you can't avoid.

Why do you reject the scientific explanation of neuronal networks? Is this statement coming from any sort of research, or just a 'gut' feeling?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Consciousness

Inner and Outer

Absolute and Relative

The one expresses through the other

One underlying the other

Both in One View

Two perceptions

But the (before the) beginning and (after the) end of what?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

That really doesn't answer my question.

When you realize that having a good morality is something which can benefit naturally you will see that it is more than just a simple viewpoint; hence the authority.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Living things are presumably sentient. It's unreasonable to extend this ability to things like rocks or soil.

I'd have to say living things are the most sentient and intelligent. But all substance is sentient, right down to the very quanta, at the very least. Living things are simply the most obvious of this sentience by their level of intelligence. This is why the Law of Attraction is not limited to our truest desires.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Why do you think it's not physical? These things are all driven by natural law. To look for anything else is foolish, you do not understand natural law.

Well, I don't think the feedback of our five objective senses are physical exactly, but they are felt through physical stimulation and interaction. Light is not physical, but you can feel it, where is this feeling - our sense of being? This is objective consciousness, it is not physical, but that is partly where it is united.

What is natural law?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Why do you reject the scientific explanation of neuronal networks? Is this statement coming from any sort of research, or just a 'gut' feeling?

What's the scientific explanation? I am aware of neurons. But I don't think there are "light" neurons and "sound" neurons and "taste" neurons for example, that's where I conclude: Spirit, feeling, living and being.

Originally Posted by really

But the (before the) beginning and (after the) end of what?

The embodied self, the person that most everyone looks into the mirror and believes themselves to be....


Take a look in the "motion" topic I started and see if there is anything developing there that helps you get a better feel for what or how I am seeing.

Originally Posted by really

When you realize that having a good morality is something which can benefit naturally you will see that it is more than just a simple viewpoint; hence the authority.

In order for something to "benefit" you, you need some sort of goal to be helped towards. In your case, it's survival. However, there is no reason for your survival to be objectively 'better' than your death. In this way, morality is only useful to individual humans, and is objectively irrelevant.

Originally Posted by really

I'd have to say living things are the most sentient and intelligent. But all substance is sentient, right down to the very quanta, at the very least. Living things are simply the most obvious of this sentience by their level of intelligence.

Evidence? Reasoning? This seems pretty unfounded to me, considering we don't even know what the 'quanta' are, much less whether or not they are sentient.

Originally Posted by really

What is natural law?

Physics. Gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force.

Originally Posted by really

What's the scientific explanation? I am aware of neurons. But I don't think there are "light" neurons and "sound" neurons and "taste" neurons for example, that's where I conclude: Spirit, feeling, living and being.

Of course there are!!! Ever heard of taste buds? There are gustatory axons which branch off of the cranial nerves to pick up tastes. As for "light neurons", there's a giant forest of them in the back of your eye - called the retina! There's a hole in the back of your eye for the optic nerve to pass through - this is what causes the blind spots in both eyes. There are bunches of "Sound nerves" making up the spiral ganglions which lead to the auditory nerve.

I don't understand how you can draw conclusions, and be so certain of their verity, when you clearly have no understanding of the mechanisms at work. I'm not trying to say that I understand it perfectly, as no one does, but you should really check your facts before claiming with certainty that you "know" these things.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

The embodied self, the person that most everyone looks into the mirror and believes themselves to be....


Take a look in the "motion" topic I started and see if there is anything developing there that helps you get a better feel for what or how I am seeing.

Yeah I will soon, I'm still not clear on this.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

In order for something to "benefit" you, you need some sort of goal to be helped towards. In your case, it's survival. However, there is no reason for your survival to be objectively 'better' than your death. In this way, morality is only useful to individual humans, and is objectively irrelevant.

I think I see what your saying. Life benefits from no death, death benefits more life. So they're equal.

However, subjectively I guess you'd have to feel this to know; that life and expression is the entire purpose of existence.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Evidence? Reasoning? This seems pretty unfounded to me, considering we don't even know what the 'quanta' are, much less whether or not they are sentient.

Sorry. I'm just referring to anything in existence as moving (sentient), but that's clearly the wrong definition. Everything of substance moves; possesses some characteristic of life, the only difference being how much. That was my talk of sentience.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Physics. Gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force.

Ok thanks. I thought you were referring to one law, but I understand now.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Of course there are!!! Ever heard of taste buds? There are gustatory axons which branch off of the cranial nerves to pick up tastes. As for "light neurons", there's a giant forest of them in the back of your eye - called the retina! There's a hole in the back of your eye for the optic nerve to pass through - this is what causes the blind spots in both eyes. There are bunches of "Sound nerves" making up the spiral ganglions which lead to the auditory nerve.

Yeah, sorry another of my flaws in communication. I'm finding this hard to explain. You're right, yes, but that's not my point. I'm saying that what transmits the information; neurons; nerves; is not the information itself. See:

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Things in this world are alive and physical, but I highly doubt for physical reasons. The color you see; the sound you hear are not physical, but they are derived from the physical. What then, is sight and sound to the observer?

Like, here's another computer analogy, relating neurons with bits. The electrical bits in a computer send all kinds of messages for all kinds of reasons. Let's talk about the monitor. Information is sent to the monitor as bits, and becomes image; from pixels - which have a specific individual color. What I am saying is that while the color is defined by the bits, it is not the bits themselves! How would you take this? Surely we can't be "watching" our retina, because then we'd need two pairs of eyes, so how do we see - do you know? How is this sensory information brought into such meaning and definition (apart from how the information is gathered from the world in the first place)?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I don't understand how you can draw conclusions, and be so certain of their verity, when you clearly have no understanding of the mechanisms at work. I'm not trying to say that I understand it perfectly, as no one does, but you should really check your facts before claiming with certainty that you "know" these things.

This is where my communication is a problem, I understand the mechanisms but I am beginning to understand what is missing, on a greater plane of thought. I'm having trouble explaining it in common terms for those reasons.

Originally Posted by really

What are your thoughts of those Youtube Links mentioned over and over?

Its been a long time since I've logged into dreamviews and I gotta say, I never thought that this thread would go for almost a year! Anyway, that is all. Carry about your buisiness

Originally Posted by Smileyguy597

Its been a long time since I've logged into dreamviews and I gotta say, I never thought that this thread would go for almost a year! Anyway, that is all. Carry about your buisiness

*rips thread away from you like a rabid dog*

No!

I think that the LOA MAY work, but it's not the Universe that attracts your thoughts:

1) When we think about something in a positive way, we will notice when things work. Likewise, when we think negative, we notice when things DON'T work. Eg, 'I can become successful' will make you notice that you are successful. Thinking 'Everything's going wrong' will make you notice everything is going wrong.

2) When we think about something, our subconscious goes to work, trying to make it true. However, the subconscious only understands positives, without the words 'don't' or 'not' etc. Thinking 'I can make myself a fourtune' drives your subconscious to making money. 'I don't need to have debt' will make your subconscious head for debt.