[Acting Like Godot]

Personally I do not mind the implication that LOA practitioners are wrong. I do mind the implication that LOA practitioners are illogical.

I am a highly logical person. In my opinion, it's entirely incorrect to suggest that LOA and logical thinking are mutually exclusive. I could elaborate in detail. But the more pertinent point is that when discussing the LOA in these forums (especially threads with a "Is the LOA genuine?" theme) I am careful to present arguments in a way that is very logical, REGARDLESS of whether the reader believes in the LOA or not.

For example, I have often proposed the following kind of logical approach:

1. Either LOA is genuine OR it is not.

2. If it is genuine, it is potentially an extremely powerful tool for improving your life and the lives of those around you.

3. If it is not genuine, then you are entirely free to conduct your life as you did before you ever heard of such a thing as the LOA.

4. Because of the implications of Point 2, it is not sensible to not investigate the LOA.

5. However, if the LOA is not genuine, the process of investigating it is potentially harmful, to the extent that you have wasted time, energy etc on the investigation process, or made bad decisions concerning your health, career, family etc which you otherwise would not have made.

6. Therefore the logical conclusion is that you should investigate the LOA in a way which cannot cause you any loss or harm, even if it turned out that LOA is not genuine.

7. Furthermore, you could investigate the LOA in a way that would potentially yield benefits, even if it turned out that LOA is not genuine. For example, even if LOA is not genuine, it is useful to set your goals; manage your emotions; think creatively etc - all of which are matters which could easily form part of the investigation process.

I think that the approach outlined above is very logical. As for the investigation process itself, I have also often outlined possible experimental structures for readers to follow, whereby one can incorporate safeguards, control measures etc to reduce or eliminate the risks of cognitive biases; magical thinking; and logical errors leading the person to wrong conclusions.

As for this:

I challenged Steve to do it - instead of this wishy washy manifesting a million dollars over who-knows-how-long by whatever method might happen, just manifest one single coin in the palm of your hand, now. Go on, if you're so magickal.

Essentially you are asking for "miracles". And essentially the world has no lack of examples of "miracles". For example, there are numerous accounts of Sai Baba doing exactly the kind of manifestation you just mentioned; there are levitation examples by Yogi Pullavar and Daniel Dunglas Home; there are Russian videos of Nina Kulagina performing telekinesis on small objects; there is matthew manning killing cancer cells in a petri dish by meditating on them; and in China, qigong masters performing paranormal physical feats are a dime a dozen. Furthermore there is a huge range of scientific experiments & theories that concern the effect of consciousness or thoughts on physical reality.

The point is - whatever "miracle" is offered as an example, it is always possible to reject it and say:

1. it is a strange phenomenon, but it has nothing to do with thought
2. there is a rational explanation, it just hasn't been found yet
3. it is fraud

Etc. In other words, whether the "miracle" is performed or explained by Jesus or Albert Einstein, it is still possible for a person to say, "Jesus is lying" or "Einstein is lying". Similarly, whatever "miracle" I may actually be able to perform at your request, you may say, "It's a lie ... It's a coincidence ... It's a mistake ... It's anything, but a miracle."

That is why I have often said that everyone should do their own experiments. You would not lie to yourself, would you. Not deliberately, anyway. And as I have already said, it is possible to design control measures to reduce your own cognitive biases, wishful thinking, logical fallacies etc.

If you knew it was true, you wouldn't bother experimenting.

My original experiment (to determine whether LOA is genuine) commenced in October 2006. I actually ended it on 22 February 2008.

I still conduct experiments, but the purpose is different now. I am now experimenting to find out more about different ways to use the LOA.

Among other things, I am studying magick, witchcraft and occult practices on a cross-cultural basis around the world. I was fortunate to come across an encyclopaedia on the topic, written by an anthropology professor at Cambridge University who happens to be a witch herself. The book serves as a useful starting point.

I am also experimenting with self-hypnosis. You use the term in a way that is synonymous with "self delusion" - that is your understanding, not mine. Hypnosis, and self-hypnosis, has an extremely wide range of applications, some of which could fairly be described as paranormal. This again is of interest to me. I had found this book:

Amazon.co.uk: Hidden Depths: The Story of Hypnosis: Robin Waterfield: Books

.... extremely enlightening.

I believe strongly in mind over matter, where that matter is one's body

Then you might be interested in this:

Wow My Wife Is Pretty Good At This Stuff Too « The Magickal Mind

It concerns a psychic diagnosis performed by my wife on me, with subsequent confirmation from a doctor.

(My wife does her own mind experiments too, although her specific interests in this area are different from mine.).

As usual, it is possible to say that this is yet another coincidence, lucky guess, amplification, magical thinking etc, and how bizarre or unusual is this one incident anyway etc etc? This is the kind of erroneous thinking which dismisses the totality of available evidence.