Law of Attraction: Superior Woo

[Akhenaten]

No **** "Again with the false dichotomy". Only this time it is on your own part.

Scientists do not fall on a scale between "general beliefs in grand possibilities" [whatever that means] and "woo-bashers".

The majority (nay, all) of "good science" is done by people who engage in the scientific process. Your mythical "middle" does not exist.

I see your point and agree. I ought to have said that "general beliefs in grand possibilities" [which means nothing to me either ] and "woo-bashing" have nothing to do with good science.

My bad.

 

[StarSeed]

If it's enough for you, that's all it matters.

No one needs to be proven about the existence of the Law Of Attraction, because it's a human concept that can only be experienced individually. No one is ever proven its existence. People choose to believe in it. That's how it's created. If you believe strongly in it, you make it "real" in some kind of way. On the other hand, there are some people don't need to believe that they control external things through some Law of Attraction in order to live prosper, healthy and happy lives. They just live their lives.

In other words, enjoy your thing. We don't need it proven (cause it can't anyway but feel free to prove us wrong).

I wonder how many times throughout history this has been said to many inventors, scientists, philosophers, only to have the ideas proven correct and put into practice centuries later?

Surely you can see the problem with your status-quo perspective. "We don't need any of your outlandish ideas, sir. Kindly crawl back to your hole, for the universe that we understand now is the only universe there is!"

 

[Aepervius]

I wonder how many times throughout history this has been said to many inventors, scientists, philosophers, only to have the ideas proven correct and put into practice centuries later?

An exponentially low number in comparison to the number of many inventor, scientist , philosopher, deluded (etc...) to which it was said the same , and their crackpot idea was never ever proven to be correct.

But even if it was the same number (it isn't) "but....but... other with strange idea were later proved to be correct" is a fallacy : that other were proved to be correct, has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the probability of you and LOA to be correct.

And right now , LOA is simply a bunch of feel-good-thinking. That is it. How you think and feel has no impact whatsoever on, say , the probability of you winning in lotto (or whatever LOA says you can reach by wishing it hard).

Edited to add, if the LOA was true, then roughly 50% of the human population (the male 50%) would be, from the teen-age onward, always surrounded by pretty girl willing to do anything for them, no matter how they themselves look. It does not seem to be the case. The other 50% (female) would have similar wishes.

 

[StarSeed]

I always wondered what would happen if one 'master' (as the OP refers to them) of LOA needed to get somewhere (say for a meeting) in a hurry while another 'master' needed to be at the same place but wanted some road delay in order to complete something for the same meeting. So the first 'master' is saying "no traffic, no traffic, no traffic...." while the other is saying "a lot of traffic, a lot of traffic, a lot of traffic...". They cannot both have their wishes come true but think of the battle of energies going on in the universe as they are both 100% sure their wishes will be fullfilled. Wow, that would make a good science fiction movie.

These scenarios are addressed by Abraham. One example they give is the sports competition example. They say that sporting competition is a way both for players to practice LOA and for spectators to witness who really wants it more, and who is focused enough (paraphrasing).

So, you might ask, if both teams want the trophy equally, then how can LOA deliver it to them both. The answer is that the players have all made a conscious commitment to play within a certain rule set that governs the game. They know, believe, desire and fully expect the rules to be adhered to, the rules which state there can be only one winner, that being the best performing team.

So there is no problem with LOA in that type of situation. Remember that it is not just one single thought that is creating your daily reality. It is the aggregate blending of thoughts of various kinds, lasting various lengths of time, and backed by various emotions of differing magnitude.

Now to your specific example, once again, there are more than two variables in the equation, but only the individual would truly know where they stand with their own thoughts, assuming they are consciously practicing LOA.

Abraham states that LOA will deliver what your thoughts are upon, or the "essence of it". I know, I know, you guys are going to eat that one alive, as it will be viewed as yet another 'out' for failed attempts, but, that is what they state, and that's what I'm working with, and it would allow for two people to generally get what they need or want out of the same situation.

For some other possibilities to solve your traffic dilema, let's break down the actual desires of the two:

1) One person wants to be on time for the meeting. Why? Because if he is late then there may be various negative repercussions, everything from simply looking bad to ones boss and peers, to losing a deal or being fired.

The universe can deliver the essence of the desire by ensuring that even if he is late, there will not be a negative outcome.

2) The other guy, which in this case seems to desire to risk being late in order to finish his work, can get what he wants as well. If his work is not finished for the meeting, then he risks the same negative outcomes as the first. So, even if traffic ensures that he is on time for the meeting, the universe can simply line up other matching solutions that ensure he sees no negative outcome.

How might a positive outcome be achieved for both? One of a thousand would be that the boss gets caught up in traffic, making him late for the meeting, so guy #1 can be late so long as he beats the boss there, and #2 can be on time and simply finish his work at the site.

Another thing: How would the LOA explain that sometimes I'm very passimistic about something and have almost zero positive thought about it, yet it happens anyway?
For example: I needed a plumber to fix my toilet. A day before he came he called my wife and told her that he probably won't be able to come tommorow because of this and that (he's been delaying us for some time). I was very passimistic and frustrated that we'll need to spend another weekend with a broken toilet. But what do you know? The guy came the day after and fixed the toilet.
I didn't attract this even with my thoughts. Could it have been that my phone call to his boss and threatening to sue him has helped me?

The secret says: Ask, Believe, Recieve.
Most of us say: Ask, Believe, Act, Recieve.

First, yes, your phone call could have done the trick, and of course there is thought energy there as well. LOA does not state that physical action has no value. The physical dimension is simply thought energy slowed to a lower vibration.

So what else could have affected that situation in spite of your negative attitude? First, you're cocreating with two others, your wife (what was her attitude? More negative, less negative, did she dwell on it as you may have done?) The plumber is blending his energy as well, which might have been something like, "Holy crap, I'm getting this job done today no matter what it takes, otherwise, I'll be out of a job tomorrow, 'cause the boss is pissed!".

That's an example of one person on a mission, vs. another who is merely skeptical. The energy is balanced in favor of the plumber, in that case.

The blending of energies (which is more of my take on Abraham's descriptions, not necessarily their exact words) determines the outcome, but as I've mentioned before, there are several factors that determine the creational power of the thoughts. One of those is the 'time buffer' of the 3rd dimension, which is what generally prevents the instantaneous proof that we would all like, and also allows for negative thoughts on track for manifestation to be overtaken by more powerful positive thoughts, kind of like a race car overtaking another to win the race.

The time buffer seems bad at first, no instant proof, but the upside is that the extreme negatives don't manifest instantly, as we would certainly destroy ourselves a lot quicker.

 

[blauregen]

Is the cocreating influence in the LOA dependent on spatial position or solely on strength of intent, e.G. would a skeptic in germany be less detrimental to an experiment in wisconsin than one in the same room with the experimenter?

 

[StarSeed]

Well, the OP asked for questions regarding the LOA. I asked but was given an answer that basically said you could test for the LOA effect, but if the results show no effect then that's because of the LOA too. So if a world where LOA functions is indistinguishable from a world where LOA does not function, what's the point?

LOA is testable, but as I said, you're going to have to structure the test to minimise variables, and as general non-believers, you would have to take your cues from the LOA experts for setting up the test.

The psychic guess test (i.e., beating the odds to a point of extreme statistical improbabilitiy) is a starting point. Would that not peak anyone's interest here? If you've got 10 containers, and I guess the correct one 100 times in a row, would you not at least say that that was on the outter edge of random chance? Would it not intice you to conduct an experiment with an even more statistically unlikely outcome?

You guys are missing the very simple boat on this one. It doesn't matter what the idea is, what matters is structuring the test parameters as tight as possible, minimizing as many variables as possible, the same as you would for any experiment.

Now, to be clear, what you would be testing for in these basic experiments would be a 'generic paranormal phenomenon'. Obviously, the LOA is not going to pop out of thin air like a demon and kick you in the groin to let you know that you've been bullheaded all this time!

To actually pin down the more specific claims about how LOA actually works would take perhaps decades of extensive scientific experimentation, but this would be the starting point, afterall, the Million Dollar Challenge isn't concerned with details; they merely want to see ANY proof of ANYTHING, and that would be the starting point here as well.

 

[StarSeed]

....by the way, I'm taking these posts one at a time, combining as appropriate, so be patient, I'll get to you, but my battery is almost dead, so I'll probably be back later in the day.

 

[SezMe]

I see your point and agree. I ought to have said that "general beliefs in grand possibilities" [which means nothing to me either ] and "woo-bashing" have nothing to do with good science.

My bad.

No, with that restatement, your good!

 

[StarSeed]

Laziness is the result of an emotional state combined with a belief???
The fact is, the only thing that's changed in the last nine months is your definition of laziness.

Well, I twisted it around. Lazyness is the result of a belief/thought which produces a negative emotional state. The actual nature of emotions I'll save for later. Btw, how is it that you disagree?

The previous paragarph mentioned a scientific setting. This one addresses the "highest emotional state" of the test subjects. One of these things is not like the other ones; one of these things does not belong.

I'm giving instructions on how to minimzie variables. The emotional state of a person is already a variable, I'm suggesting how to minimize it, not eliminate it.

Remember, this is my belief that you would be testing, based on my claims and parameters. How else would you setup a test without building a test model based on actual claims made? Would you prefer to just 'wing it'?

I currently have several tables in my home. Each has several containers upon it, some with objects inside and others without. In what way am I conducting a tired old psychic test?

I'm referring to a standard probability test. 1/10 containers has an object. Mix 'em up, blindfold the psychic, and see how often he nails it.

Oh bugger! That's the end of it then. Since the Universe doesn't contain infinite possibilities, having people closely involved in your test who believe that it does is going to skew the results somewhat.

A short while ago, the universe did not contain round planets, physics had conclusively proven that mechanical flight was impossible, and skyscrapers were an insult to God.

Science would do well to spend less time patting itself on the back and more time exploring on the 'woo' side of Occam's Razor.

Again with the false dichotomy. I rather think that the majority of good science is done by people who neither "openly admit their general beliefs in grand possibilities" or whom are "well known 'woo-bashers'" Somewhere in the middle seems sensible.

Retranslate the former as this: Those who acknowledge that science has a flawed history, which occassionally allows for spectacular and completely unexpected discoveries that shift the paradigm of modern civilization.

Better?

A string of coincidences will convince you that coincidences don't exist. That's interesting.

I'll address this with a simple question: Given the container test that I've outlined here and in another post, how many sequential hits would it take for you personally to become emotionally excited, and begin to think that there might be something else going on? 100? 1000? 22 million? It's a serious question.

The million dollar challenge would probably cough it up for a few hundred, I'm sure, maybe less.

But never monitored for abject failure. Failure is always swept aside as "having a bad woo day".

Well, I can't argue with that one! It's the nature of the beast.

At the same time, I think it would be nice if science would occassionally apologize for all of the heinously desructive things it has created over the last century, but I suppose they think it's balanced out by all the good things? Either way, science doesn't apologize, but science is never actually wrong.....right? Which is an interesting perspective, because many of those who speak of LOA and new age ideas speak of a universe where there are no rights and wrongs.....

 

[Mr. Scott]

StarSeed, if the LOA were not true, how would one show that?

One difficulty is that the LOA advocates say there is a "time delay" between wishing and receiving.

When you don't get what you wish for, can't you always say you just haven't waited long enough?

Or you didn't wish hard enough?

Or you had negative thoughts you only became aware of, retroactively, after you saw your wish hadn't been granted?

 

[godless dave]

So far, just minor stuff; nothing eye popping. I have gradually raised my emotional state out of constant negativity into one of hopefullness and optimism. My daily affairs, work, interactions with others, have improved.

So by thinking positively, you became less pessimistic and your mood improved. I'm amazed by this radical theory.







^
sarcasm

 

[ExMinister]

This might be of interest: http://www.intentionexperiment.com/

The so-called LOA has been around a long time - the church of religious science is built around such concepts, which is where Louise Hay learned it. Learning to be more positive, optimistic and to stop criticizing yourself is all good and can have amazing results. I take issue with this because it is potentially guilt inducing when it fails to work, and because people like my mother in law use it to justify continuing to smoke. I have no issue with the idea that our minds can affect our own physical bodies to some extent. It's the "magical universe" theory that's the wild card. A friend gave me a series of CDs from an Abraham lecture and one of the audience members basically asks, "How can I get rich without leaving my home? I don't want to have to actually work or do anything! You guys say this stuff works no matter what." That's what a lot of people are getting out of The Secret and Abraham teachings, that we can all just sit around and send out feel good energy and all good things will be magnetized to us effortlessly. Silly.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I wonder how many times throughout history this has been said to many inventors, scientists, philosophers, only to have the ideas proven correct and put into practice centuries later?

Surely you can see the problem with your status-quo perspective. "We don't need any of your outlandish ideas, sir. Kindly crawl back to your hole, for the universe that we understand now is the only universe there is!"

If you refer back to my post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3416500#post3416500
you'll see that the so called Law of Attraction is not new and has been tested. People believed in Émile Coué's Self-mastery through Conscious Autosuggestion. Hundreds of thousands tried it. They found that wishing does not work. If it had, people would being paying great homage to Coué today. They don't because the Universe does not work that way.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

These scenarios are addressed by Abraham.

...
The universe can deliver the essence of the desire by ensuring that even if he is late, there will not be a negative outcome.

2) The other guy, which in this case seems to desire to risk being late in order to finish his work, can get what he wants as well. If his work is not finished for the meeting, then he risks the same negative outcomes as the first. So, even if traffic ensures that he is on time for the meeting, the universe can simply line up other matching solutions that ensure he sees no negative outcome.

(my bolding) I'm sorry, Starseed, but your "the universe can" comments are, quite simply, hilarious.

It seems to me that mention of the million-dollar challenge goes right to the point. I can remember various tests set up for this in which the applicant failed miserably even though they came into the testing with great confidence in their abilities. Read up on , say, the test where an applicant believed she could make a random subject urinate at will. Truly believed.

A common thread of these failed applicants is the bewilderment they express after they realize that they have failed. They are dead certain that they can do whatever it is they are setting out to do, and have all kinds of incentives (a million of them) to succeed. Yet. They. Never. Do. Succeed.

Using a scenario like this it is easy to prove that your "secret" is hogwash. Simply set up a situation where a "Master" is given overwhelming incentive (say, wealth) to convince the "universe" to perform a certain task. Like, say, making a willing subject urinate. Then watch the bitterness, confusion and equivocation when the "Master" fails to produce the desired result.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Starseed, here's a quick and easy test - think positively for as long as you can that one of us here who have responded to your post will see the light and come around to your way of thinking. The simple fact of your OP proves that this is something you desire.

OK, Ready? Begin.

 

[StarSeed]

An exponentially low number in comparison to the number of many inventor, scientist , philosopher, deluded (etc...) to which it was said the same , and their crackpot idea was never ever proven to be correct.

But even if it was the same number (it isn't) "but....but... other with strange idea were later proved to be correct" is a fallacy : that other were proved to be correct, has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the probability of you and LOA to be correct.

I agree that it has no impact on the probability that LOA is correct, however, the point is that because there have been, and always will be a significant number of potent ideas that exist on the other side of Occam's Razor, that we should be actively looking for them, not laughing at them!

Perhaps the reason why LOA hasn't seen much headway, assuming it is real, is that significant science hasn't been conducted in the area. I can understand the reason why on the surface; it does sound like a child's fantasy, but the airplane suffered similar ridicule in its' early stages.

And right now , LOA is simply a bunch of feel-good-thinking. That is it. How you think and feel has no impact whatsoever on, say , the probability of you winning in lotto (or whatever LOA says you can reach by wishing it hard).

But we don't actually know that. At this point, LOA has not been scientifically proven one way or the other. I know that the idea sounds ludicrous, but that doesn't make it false anymore than true.

Edited to add, if the LOA was true, then roughly 50% of the human population (the male 50%) would be, from the teen-age onward, always surrounded by pretty girl willing to do anything for them, no matter how they themselves look. It does not seem to be the case. The other 50% (female) would have similar wishes.

No, not by the guidelines of LOA. This is another misconception, an understandable one, that simply wishing or desiring something will manifest it.

LOA delivers on the 'root value' of your thoughts, composite thoughts, and aggregate collection of your thoughts over time.

It is not as simple as having a passing fantasy about sleeping with every girl in school. Why?

When we break that fantasy down, what do we find? We find a desire (positive) combined with a perception of reality at the moment (negative). This reality, which is absolutely believed, states that no matter how much I desire it, it's not going to happen.

The LOA involves more than just 'wishing yourself success'. You must apply specific methods of mental energy concentration into the areas of desire, while refraining from adding thought energy in subject areas that you do not desire.

Belief and expectation are part of the thought process, although it is more subconscious at first because we are not accustomed to monitoring the intricacies of our thoughts.

The belief, and 'knowing' and expectation that your desire will not, or can not be fulfilled, is enough negative energy to cancel out the positive energy of the desire.

Ftr, the methods of energy application are not really difficult, although they can feel a little clunky at first. It's really just a matter of getting better control over your thoughts and emotions, and maintaining that control throughout the day.

 

[StarSeed]

Is the cocreating influence in the LOA dependent on spatial position or solely on strength of intent, e.G. would a skeptic in germany be less detrimental to an experiment in wisconsin than one in the same room with the experimenter?

I'm not sure about that. Based on other books I've read which covered the nature of energy in more detail and from other perspectives, I'm inclined to believe that it at least would make some difference.

Some describe the physical universe, as well as the dimensions, as having a unique vibrational, or map coordinate, if you will, for every point that exists. Travel through the universe is made possible by one's ability to vibrate to that specific frequency.

So, perhaps it is possible to overcome limitations of distance with a mastery of vibrational control, but I'm just brainstorming.

StarSeed, if the LOA were not true, how would one show that?

First, I admit that there will always be people who won't accept any disproof; I can't do anything about that. As far as disproving it for the rest of us, it would require a massive amount of experimentation. It would, of course, be a heck of a lot easier to prove it true, than false.

One difficulty is that the LOA advocates say there is a "time delay" between wishing and receiving.

When you don't get what you wish for, can't you always say you just haven't waited long enough?

Or you didn't wish hard enough?

Or you had negative thoughts you only became aware of, retroactively, after you saw your wish hadn't been granted?

Yes, all true. Fortunately, the methods are solid enough, and the breakdown and analysis of our thoughts and emotions by Abraham is thorough enough, that an individual can prove it true or false to themselves in a relatively short amount of time.

I am still in this phase, btw. I do believe, yes, but I don't wear a duct tape blindfold either. Once I reach the point where I am sufficiently dedicated on a daily basis, and 3 to 6 months goes by with zero results, or nothing that excites me, I will almost certainly dump it, assuming I can't find another approach that I haven't tried.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I think it would be nice if science would occassionally apologize for all of the heinously desructive things it has created over the last century, but I suppose they think it's balanced out by all the good things?

What science creates is tools. These tools are then used by us in constructive or destructive ways. I'd guess that for every person killed by a nuclear bomb, 10,000 have been cured by nuclear medicine. The point is that the tools science creates actually work. LOA doesn't work. That's the difference. That's why Science has yielded destructive tools -- because it works. LOA hasn't because, of course, it doesn't work. See the difference?

 

[Mr. Scott]

....by the way, I'm taking these posts one at a time, combining as appropriate, so be patient, I'll get to you, but my battery is almost dead, so I'll probably be back later in the day.

Why didn't you use your all-powerful LoA to keep your battery running? Hmmm?

 

[Moochie]

LOA sounds suspiciously like praying, and "the Universe" (Mr. Universe?) suspiciously like a god. Simply put, it's magical thinking I thought most adults would have seen through by now.

M.