[alegro]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I think that this question is the source of a great deal of misunderstanding and antagonism. If someone argues against LoA, meaning the magical variety, they might get shot down by someone who sees the LoA as working through thought and its influence on action. I have absolutely no problem with the latter explanation (normality), but see a great deal of the former type (superstitious magic).

Thanks for pointing this out. When following this thread, I noticed that most (?) people were very polarized about the LoA - either they are in the "it works" category or in the "it doesn't work" category.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

You sound like a sceptic, and I would agree with this. I do think you perhaps dismiss the middle-ground, however, the people who believe that thought is very influential, perhaps even has a magical power, but they know they still need to take action in the world.

Well, the thing is that I *am* sceptical. But scepticism does not mean dismissing an idea "just because", but asking questions that force people to come up with proof that is undeniable.

Just as I pointed out in my previous thread - many (most?) ideas in modern science have been outright rejected by the established community. But it was often the most devoted critics who came up with crucial ideas to investigate a phenomenon. And only when carefully designed experiments yielded reproducible evidence confirming the idea, everybody was convinced.


Now, I am aware that being sceptical *may* prevent me from testing the LoA by myself since - as has been pointed out by many people in this thread - my subconscious disbelief would manifest its failure.

Now, if someone who "believes" in the LoA can get it to work, *they* might test it. But then - as has also been pointed out - my disbelief may cause the experiment to fail, nonetheless. Which is why the idea of subjective reality has come up. Interestingly, nobody has addressed my other questions about the conflict of history with the hypothesis of LoA and subjective reality. How can the Earth be round if nobody believed it? How can someone discover a new continent if he didn't detach himself from the outcome and wanted to manifest something entirely different? How would - assuming the hypothesis of subjective reality - someone who still beliefs the Earth is flat experience a trip around the Earth?

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I also agree completely with the observation that the pysical, active intermediate cause of 'manifestations' (changes) happen unconsciously - a much greater effect than is commonly known. [...] This is one reason why scientific rigour is so important - the sceptic is as prone to unconsciously fixing the results as the believer, but the scientific method is designed to eliminate these biases as far as possible, and often completely (depending on circumstances).

Interestingly, there have been "scientific" studies posted in this thread. However, the references ALG posted were not "scientific" in the manner an experiment that could convince a devoted critic were. The problem with these "scientific" studies was that they were not proper double-blind experiments on par with the standards required and ALG apparently did not understand the difference between what constitutes a proper scientific study and what does not.

If someone asks for a cat and someone else brings a bird along, claiming that it's a cat, it doesn't help anyone. It just shows that the one poster does not understand the difference between cats and birds. In this case a poster did not understand the difference between a flawed study and one that is not flawed. It is hard to argue in such a case.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I would just say that it could be meaningfully defined to include external action in some way, but I agree with your implication - it won't be possible to tell whether it has anything to get weirded out about, go off to study in a course in miracles to develop, or that can be proven to be any different from normality (oh that boring n-word again, sorry).

Exactly, the problem is that it is unprovable.

Just consider an experiment: One group would think about manifesting something and take action, the other group would think about not manifesting it and take similar action. But this would not distinguish between "programming the unconscious" and the LoA. If the first group does better than the second, it doesn't prove the LoA.

Similarly, I don't imagine any experiment could distinguish the two explanations if it involves taking action. However, if it does not involve taking action, then one could distinguish if one's thoughts have influence on the Universe or not.